Legacy Scenarios and Transport Values

[Otto von Blotto]

I must admit I can't see the problem or the need with the older scenario's either, surely the whole point is not to get your transports shot up in the first place. :smoke:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I must admit that I agree with Huib, MrRR, et all

Re make the scenario from scratch. As one who has played almost all the scenarios size 6 and under I can tell you there are some serious duds.

Also I agree with Otto. If you get your transports shot up on a regular basis you have bigger porblems than the values.

And finally I agree with Rod. If he wants to do it then more power too him. Like any and all scenarios. You do not have to download and play them.

Everyone wins.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Mr. Guberman]

...I must admit...that I agree with Hawk...
cheers

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I must admit that I agree with Huib, MrRR, et all

Re make the scenario from scratch. As one who has played almost all the scenarios size 6 and under I can tell you there are some serious duds.

Also I agree with Otto. If you get your transports shot up on a regular basis you have bigger porblems than the values.

And finally I agree with Rod. If he wants to do it then more power too him. Like any and all scenarios. You do not have to download and play them.

Everyone wins.

Thanx!

Hawk

Agree on all points.
My only hesitation is that I have seen "designers" revisit classic scenarios to "re-balance" them.
Half I believed did not need to be re-balanced as they were quite balanced if properly played. The other half were not improved by the work of the "designer".

That said, if Rod wants to take on the task I have no worries on that. As long as the "re-made" scenarios are clearly identified.



HSL

[Kool Kat]

IMO... If two players believe that a scenario can be "better balanced" by altering transport values and / or releasing fixed units... AND the two players agree to these modifications... why can't they make these modifications themselves... play their match... and then report their game results using the appropriate "Scenario SM1 - SM5" designation?

Keep the modified scenario out of the database... avoiding both a 2x increase in duplicate scenarios and any possible confusion of what "version" resides in the database? :chin:

The "original" scenario remains the "official" scenario of record.

[Von Earlmann]

Of course there is always the infringement rights thingy. These scenarios were written by someone to portray something they envisioned. Rewriting anything because we or someone else deems it unbalanced or no fun would be about equivalent to rewriting someones novel or play for the same reasons. If you don't like a scenario don't play it. It's even ok to say why you don't like it. It's not ok to just arbitrarily change someone elses work unless you happen to be authorized to do so.

I don't like brussel sprouts but there are some that do and I suspect they would be highly offended if you changed the flavor. Just speaking from a designers point of view and one who has written more than a few that people don't like. I would rather they be left as they are.

VE

[Crossroads]

That's a good point VE.

I had an in-depth look at a manual a while ago as I was struggling with the objective hexes. I can't find my Talonsoft manuals anywhere, but this is what the current manual has to say on editing existing scenarios:

13.1
[...]
Note 2: You can even use (import) any of the pre-existing maps or org files in scenarios you create. However, it is imperative that you DO NOT edit any of these files (or any of the scn files), as doing so may result in any scenario using such an altered file not opening properly or an upgrade not installing properly. If you do want to make changes to one of the pre-existing scenario files, be sure to first rename that file using the “Save As” command from the “File” pop-down menu.


I intpret this as Talonsoft / Matrix does not mind anyone editing existing scenarios, just gives a warning as what problems might arise from a technical point of view.

Having said that, I agree that designer's copyright needs be acknowledged, so definitively with any add-on scenarios a proper way to proceed would be to ask the designer's permission to make any changes.

However, as what the manual says, I do not see any issues should Rod wish to create a separate set of modified stock scenarios. I am a glass-always-half-full type of a guy, so I would agree with Hawk that either way, we will benefit from the effort Rod puts in, either on existing stock scenarios, or by creating new ones :)

[Von Earlmann]

That's a good point VE.

I had an in-depth look at a manual a while ago as I was struggling with the objective hexes. I can't find my Talonsoft manuals anywhere, but this is what the current manual has to say on editing existing scenarios:

13.1
[...]
Note 2: You can even use (import) any of the pre-existing maps or org files in scenarios you create. However, it is imperative that you DO NOT edit any of these files (or any of the scn files), as doing so may result in any scenario using such an altered file not opening properly or an upgrade not installing properly. If you do want to make changes to one of the pre-existing scenario files, be sure to first rename that file using the “Save As” command from the “File” pop-down menu.


I intpret this as Talonsoft / Matrix does not mind anyone editing existing scenarios, just gives a warning as what problems might arise from a technical point of view.

Having said that, I agree that designer's copyright needs be acknowledged, so definitively with any add-on scenarios a proper way to proceed would be to ask the designer's permission to make any changes.

However, as what the manual says, I do not see any issues should Rod wish to create a separate set of modified stock scenarios. I am a glass-always-half-full type of a guy, so I would agree with Hawk that either way, we will benefit from the effort Rod puts in, either on existing stock scenarios, or by creating new ones :)

I guess I was just trying to point out that there is a difference between a right and a privilege....no offense intended.........just polite to ask someone before changing a creative effort.........I have no problem with anyone using any f my OOBs and maps to create something new.......in fact I encourage it as using existing stuff saves a huge amount of work.

VE

[K K Rossokolski]

I reiterate several points from my original post.

"I have undertaken, with management agreement, to work through the legacy scens and adjust transport numbers. These will NOT replace the legacy scens as they will have new file names and indications in the title. The originals will remain in the database.

In some cases, as in the example of "Test of Courage" above, I plan to do a bit of tweaking with a view to bringing the sides closer.
The naming then becomes **KKR's Folly [Tr]{ModRC}.....KKR Folly-TR-Mod RC.scn

D. For a transport mod, change only that factor.
E. I do NOT intend to touch the work of current designers.
F. ALL legacy scens will remain in the DB in their original form.
G. I won't be doing any tweaking with the real classics like Kucher's Ragtag Circus. Why draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa?