Type of scenario

Von Luck · 10-27-2006, 06:18 AM,

As for myself a good Large Scenario where tactics count.I agree with Mike above being historical doesnt mean its good unless its fairly evenly balanced and not by v-points.One example comes to mind Mt Cassino where an inferior in numbers German force held up the Allies for months-how would you design that to be balanced?????????

Von Luck · 10-27-2006, 06:25 AM,

As for my earlier post i think we would all like scenarios historical or not where we could simulate our heroes-Tactics and bluff.Ok wont get it but just my thoughts.

Huib Versloot · 10-27-2006, 08:55 AM,

Von Luck Wrote:As for myself a good Large Scenario where tactics count.I agree with Mike above being historical doesnt mean its good unless its fairly evenly balanced and not by v-points.One example comes to mind Mt Cassino where an inferior in numbers German force held up the Allies for months-how would you design that to be balanced?????????

It all depends on how the designer picks the battles, or parts of them, to make a scenario of.
More often than not the attacking side did not have overwhelming numbers when one looks closer: a good example is the Canadians who where always understrength in Holland or the Germans attacking the southflank of the Bulge; VG divisions only having 2 Batallions per Regiment (Where US Rgts had 3 and more attached units) and with quite a few Regiments held in reserve they didn't have that superiority in numbers I always thought they had. The same goes for Holland in 1940. I always thought that the Germans attacked the Grebbeberg with superior numbers, but when I put the historical oobs on the map it showed that it was the Dutch who had more men in the field, which was how it was although some Dutch are still reluctant to acknowledge that fact.

Steelrain60 · 10-27-2006, 01:08 PM,

1) I prefer a historical scenario, although an intelligently done hypothetical one is good, too. I prefer a mid-size meeting engagement to a giant. The game system does best with regimental- or brigade-sized engagements; some changes need to be made in order for divisional- or corps-sized engagements to become less tedious to play.

2) I dislike scenarios that are billed as for human play, but are inherently imbalanced, such as EFII's "The Last Retreat". I also dislike scenarios in which it is extremely difficult for either side to get anything other than a draw, such as "A Dose of 45" (sorry, Jason). I also dislike scenarios billed for human play in which one side has a lot of fixed units without cause ("Bukrin Bridgehead"). Scenarios in which one side has a weapons system for which the other side has no antidote ("Terror at Borisov", "Advance Towards Trondheim"). EFII scenarios where one side has lots of bunkers/pillboxes and lots of smoke ("Bake to the Rescue"). Any scenario where the outcome, for whatever reason, is virtually pre-determined ("Uhlans on the Moors").

3) Ideal scenario is one requiring a lot of strategic and tactical thought. Good examples: WF - "Strike of the Lehr", "When Big Cats Come to Play", "Still Full of Fight", "Gabr Saleh". EFII - "Tank Graveyard at Minsk", "Giants on the Vistula", "Playing with the Death's Head"; RS - "Struggle for Shoestring". Huib's "A Dutch Verdun", is to me an example of a nearly ideal scenario. Great OOBs + extremely detailed, accurate map = fierce, close-range fighting = stunning scenario!

Rustbelt · 10-27-2006, 01:23 PM,

My favorites: Meeting engagements with well balanced scenarios such as "Surprise for 17th Panzer", "Storm 555", "When Two Attacks Collide", and "Gabr Saleh".

Least favorites: Almost suicide missions such as "Forcing the Wotan Line" or "Kasserine Pass"

Ideal: Well balanced and small to medium scenario with no outcome can be expected until the very end. "Old Friend", "A Small Bridge", "Storm 555", and "Still Full of Fight"

Ivan · 10-27-2006, 07:38 PM,

I'm speaking as someone who normally plays as Allies

(1) Most challenging for me are scenarios where I'm up against Tiger and Panther tanks in EF that are able to shoot at long range because of open terrain. If you can't get close you've had it.

(2) Least challenging are ones with static and fixed infantry lines. There's not much to do other than shoot.

(3) I like large, historical scenarios with combined arms. One I'm playing now is pretty much ideal, 'Sword Beach' by Luca Chei lots of possibilities. Though I am miles behind in points!

Von Earlmann · 10-27-2006, 08:33 PM,

Jason Petho Wrote:A few questions.

1. What are the type of scenarios that you find most challenging?

2. What are the type of scenarios you find least challenging?

3. What is your ideal type of scenario?

Thanks in advance!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

1.Blind scenarios for both sides which I never get to play.I am from now on not releasing any of my .scn files so any future scenarios created by me will be have to be played blind.Unfortunately not by me but I would encourage other designers to at least consider this option.Then I could play blind.Of course most of my opponents already think I play that way now :-)

2.Non blind but better than nothing.I particularly detest a scenario that claims to be historical and isn't.Doesn't have to be perfect but should at least have some basis in reality.If it's a hypothetical that's ok but at least claim it as such.

3.Campaign type scenarios that are continued.There are no arbitrary objective hexs and no stupid last 2 or 3 turn charges to gain victory points.Planning becomes paramount and knowing there is no finite number of turns can really change the way people play the game.Dare I say a bit more realistic...yeah I dare :-). Unfortunately I never get to play any of these either.

Great thread tho Jason......CS is alive and well

von Earlmann