What is a sucessful scenario?

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


I'm more than sure that they were not having fun.

A lot of commanders enjoy war. Can't find the damned quotes but the elder Moltke and Roosevelt alike expressed their fondness for it.

Roosevelt's exact quote was 'isn't war magnificent?' He uttered it as he was charging up San Juan Hill (he was addressing a mortally wounded Roughrider.) Similar, if more nuanced sentiments, were expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

As far as great generals go, I think most of them must have liked war in some sense. It's almost impossible to be good at something if you unequivocally hate it.

As far as generals and loving war go, we know that Patton loved it. He lived for it, and he couldn't get enough of it. I wonder what people think.....do you think that his death was an assassination? If so, by whom? There's a bit of conspiracy adn controversy here, considering the attempts made on his life during the war.

As far as scenario design goes, the first thing that I look for is accuracy in the maps. It must be correct for me to consider it a possible good scenario. Case in point, there was one scenario (Bulge 2000, I think) which had a map base that was completely off. The locations of the cities in Germany (as an example) were completely off. An example is:

1). Dresden was southeast of Wiesbaden. In fact, it's northeast
2). Giessen was south of Wiesbaden. It's actually northeast, and north of frankfurt.
3). Gotha was due south of Wiesbaden, whereas it's northeast
4). Wetzlar, Paderborn and Minden are due south of Wiesbdaen, whereas they're in the north of Germany (in the British sector)
5). Bayreuth is northeast of Wiesbaden, whereas it's actually due east of it, north of Wurzburg, and east of Schweinfurt and Bamberg
6). Dusseldorf, Bonn and Koln should be all together in adjoining spots, and not spready out into a triange that runs about 6 hesex in each direction.
7). And the kicker (and last one that I'll hit one here) is that Berlin is northeast of all of these cities that I mentioned. That is absolutely wrong

I mean no disrespect to the designer of this scenario by any of this. I just couldn't play the game after seeing the high inaccuracies of the map.

Again, accuracy in mapping is a "must" with me.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On the other hand, I also like Ben's Poland -- and I have my doubts about how authentic it is. I just doubt the Poles managed to retain the kind of command and control he implies they did.

I realise that the gist of this is a compliment to me, but;
a) you don't have much of a scenario otherwise. Germans attack; Germans win. The end.
b) the Poles did organise a rather large counterattack right when things were going to hell for them. I don't think the supreme command had much to do with it but I believe the "armies" were in control of their subordinate units.
c) in most cases, the player will also wreck the realism of the scenario by actually understanding that he's doomed and can only stage a fighting retreat on the terms laid down by the scenario. No matter what mechanisms you put in place to try to encourage the player to behave realistically, you are ultimately left with a choice between him having the advantage of hindsight or of forcing him to act out the events of the campaign as they happened.

Basically- as I've argued with Holland- I don't think you can have a realistic scenario unless the Poles are controlled by the PO. The option for player control is there if it's desired.

I guess I'd say a failure is a design that fails in its own terms.

"Successful" implies an achievement of goals set down beforehand. So if the scenario does what you want it to (answers the question "what if", gets lots of players, crashes your computer) it's successful.

There you go.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
As far as generals and loving war go, we know that Patton loved it. He lived for it, and he couldn't get enough of it. I wonder what people think.....do you think that his death was an assassination? If so, by whom?

Almost certainly not. Note that the other two passengers were not even injured. Where does this suggestion come from?

Case in point, there was one scenario (Bulge 2000, I think) which had a map base that was completely off.

It's a fictional scenario- not set in the real world at all. It just uses real place names for atmosphere. I'll grant that it does feel very weird.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


...
c) in most cases, the player will also wreck the realism of the scenario by actually understanding that he's doomed and can only stage a fighting retreat on the terms laid down by the scenario. No matter what mechanisms you put in place to try to encourage the player to behave realistically, you are ultimately left with a choice between him having the advantage of hindsight or of forcing him to act out the events of the campaign as they happened.

Basically- as I've argued with Holland- I don't think you can have a realistic scenario unless the Poles are controlled by the PO. The option for player control is there if it's desired.

...

This is a real problem I've had to wrestle with in some of my scenarios. In Sinai 1967 the Israeli player knows he can use his powerful armored units to just roll over the Egyptians, particularly infantry units, with relative impunity. An Israeli player trying the same approach in Suez Canal 1973 will find the results very different - as they were historically. Unfortunately only an extremely foolish (or drunk) Israeli player would ever try that in the 1973 scenario, leading inevitable to a rather different campaign from the historical one, especially with regards the first days of that conflict.

We certainly can't control for players' knowledge of history, and how they apply that knowledge to game-play. We can however make the 'fog of war' more opaque, which should help matters if only a little.

One set of enhancements which would go along way in this direction is discussed in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1536921

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
As far as generals and loving war go, we know that Patton loved it. He lived for it, and he couldn't get enough of it. I wonder what people think.....do you think that his death was an assassination? If so, by whom?

Almost certainly not. Note that the other two passengers were not even injured. Where does this suggestion come from?

Let's consider that this wasn't the first "incident" that happened to Patton when he was walking with Bradley in the Heidelberg area. He was almost hit by a runaway cart a few days earlier. As far as the acciendent, everyone knew that Patton rode sitting forward in the seat, without fail. Also, there was an oddly-placed metal piece sticking out of the ceiling of the car where he was sitting, which is what tore his head open in the accident when he was lerched forward.

I recommend the book "The Patton Papers, 1939-1945." It was put together by Patton's close friend, Martin Blumenson. It contains Patton's diary entries and his letters that he wrote. It was written with, and later given final approval for publishing by, the Patton family.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37Case in point, there was one scenario (Bulge 2000, I think) which had a map base that was completely off.

It's a fictional scenario- not set in the real world at all. It just uses real place names for atmosphere. I'll grant that it does feel very weird.

True, I know it's fictional, but it kills me. I can't play it because I'd be thinking that I have to defend somewhere because a certain "point" is being moved on, yet that isn't true because the map is dorked up. Can't do it.....

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Let's consider that this wasn't the first "incident" that happened to Patton when he was walking with Bradley in the Heidelberg area. He was almost hit by a runaway cart a few days earlier. As far as the acciendent, everyone knew that Patton rode sitting forward in the seat, without fail. Also, there was an oddly-placed metal piece sticking out of the ceiling of the car where he was sitting, which is what tore his head open in the accident when he was lerched forward.

Still- I doubt it. No-one was in the business of murdering four star American generals. I suspect you're letting your passion for the man (this has got to be about the fifth time you've mentioned him in two weeks) get the better of you.

True, I know it's fictional, but it kills me. I can't play it because I'd be thinking that I have to defend somewhere because a certain "point" is being moved on, yet that isn't true because the map is dorked up. Can't do it.....

Well, the advantage of these sorts of scenario is it teaches you to look at terrain on its own merits, rather than on the basis of historical or planned campaigns fought over the same ground.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
.....do you think that his death was an assassination? If so, by whom? There's a bit of conspiracy adn controversy here, considering the attempts made on his life during the war.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Does anyone else find it deeply ironic that someone refuses to play a Fictional scenario on account of its map being too ahistorical and fantasy-like, but is willing to entertain the undeniably absurd notion that Patton was assassinated by some huge conspiracy?

Patton, while a great general, is over rated.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Patton, while a great general, is over rated.

The popular image of "Old Blood and Guts" contrasts with historians' image of a brilliant military leader whose record was marred by insubordination and some periods of apparent instability.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: Trick37
.....do you think that his death was an assassination? If so, by whom? There's a bit of conspiracy adn controversy here, considering the attempts made on his life during the war.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Does anyone else find it deeply ironic that someone refuses to play a Fictional scenario on account of its map being too ahistorical and fantasy-like, but is willing to entertain the undeniably absurd notion that Patton was assassinated by some huge conspiracy?

Patton, while a great general, is over rated.

First of all, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say that I "refused to play" a fictional scenario because of its maps being wrong, I said that I COULDN'T play it because of that reason. I tried doing it, and it's too hard for me to figure out where I am. I've got a photographic memory of maps and stuff (I can see a map or location one time and draw it, or draw detailed directions to that location, from memory months later), and that makes it hard for me to associate where I am. IF there were subtle differences, then I'm okay with it (like some other scenarios), but this one is way TOO far off-based that it's difficult for me. Sorry, but that's the way that it is. (Note that I can still draw traffic accident scenes that I responded to 20 years ago from memory.)

Now, on the subject of the conspiracy---yes, I'm serious. Dead serious, actually. Two possibilities come to mind (and some might find at least one hard to swallow):

1) The Russians. We all know how he Russians were, so why wouldn't they want Patton dead? Considering that he would be probably be the commander that would be sent against them if war between the US and USSR borke out within 10 years of the end of WW2, I wouldn't blame them for it. Hell, I would've wanted Zukhov dead. Patton was the only Allied general that the Russians (and Germans) feared.

2). Ike. He had plans to run for the White House, and although Patton publicly said that he didn't want to run, he was considering it (mainly at the urging of his wife). Knowing the popularity that Patton had with the American public, Ike knew that he would've lost if he went up against Patton in an election....hands-down. Thus, he had to get rid of him..... Funny how Patton really didn't want to go hunting on that fateful day, yet he was convinced to go. And it's also funny how a truck crashed in to his car when it could easily have avoided it...only days after a cart almost ran Patton over.

Like I said, I know it's a hard pill to swallow in itself, and I didn't believe it either, until I started looking in to it. The convincing thing to me was the guy that I know who was a Military Policeman in WW2. He was not only in Patton's 3rd Army, but he was on Patton's staff as one of his guards. He told of Patton being convinced that someone was out to get him---he was there when Patton landed his Piper Cub after being chased and shot at by a Spitfire with British markings on it, and he was there when some other "odd" instanced happened, to where he could've been killed had he not had the luck of the Irish.

Say what you all want, and criticize me if you wish, but I won't change my mind here.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Let's consider that this wasn't the first "incident" that happened to Patton when he was walking with Bradley in the Heidelberg area. He was almost hit by a runaway cart a few days earlier. As far as the acciendent, everyone knew that Patton rode sitting forward in the seat, without fail. Also, there was an oddly-placed metal piece sticking out of the ceiling of the car where he was sitting, which is what tore his head open in the accident when he was lerched forward.

Still- I doubt it. No-one was in the business of murdering four star American generals. I suspect you're letting your passion for the man (this has got to be about the fifth time you've mentioned him in two weeks) get the better of you.

True, I know it's fictional, but it kills me. I can't play it because I'd be thinking that I have to defend somewhere because a certain "point" is being moved on, yet that isn't true because the map is dorked up. Can't do it.....

Well, the advantage of these sorts of scenario is it teaches you to look at terrain on its own merits, rather than on the basis of historical or planned campaigns fought over the same ground.

Please see the above thread for jy response to both.... The only other thing that I'll add here is that I've mentioned Patton before, and I'll continue to do so. As far as over-rated goes, he was better than Monty hands-down. (No offense.) Patton and Rommel were on the same level of tactical, armored and combined arms genious. (I'd even put Zukhov into that field.)

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Let's consider that this wasn't the first "incident" that happened to Patton when he was walking with Bradley in the Heidelberg area. He was almost hit by a runaway cart a few days earlier. As far as the acciendent, everyone knew that Patton rode sitting forward in the seat, without fail. Also, there was an oddly-placed metal piece sticking out of the ceiling of the car where he was sitting, which is what tore his head open in the accident when he was lerched forward.

Still- I doubt it. No-one was in the business of murdering four star American generals. I suspect you're letting your passion for the man (this has got to be about the fifth time you've mentioned him in two weeks) get the better of you.

True, I know it's fictional, but it kills me. I can't play it because I'd be thinking that I have to defend somewhere because a certain "point" is being moved on, yet that isn't true because the map is dorked up. Can't do it.....

Well, the advantage of these sorts of scenario is it teaches you to look at terrain on its own merits, rather than on the basis of historical or planned campaigns fought over the same ground.

Please see the above thread for jy response to both.... The only other thing that I'll add here is that I've mentioned Patton before, and I'll continue to do so. As far as over-rated goes, he was better than Monty hands-down. (No offense.) Patton and Rommel were on the same level of tactical, armored and combined arms genious. (I'd even put Zukhov into that field.)

..

Patton and Rommel were on the same level of tactical, armored and combined arms genius

..

..that i can agree with, Rommel was/is over-rated too..[:)]

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

...Now, on the subject of the conspiracy---yes, I'm serious. Dead serious, actually. Two possibilities come to mind (and some might find at least one hard to swallow):

1) The Russians. ...

...he was there when Patton landed his Piper Cub after being chased and shot at by a Spitfire with British markings on it, ...

Spitfire piloted by a Russian pilot?... [:D]

Seriously though, wouldn't you imagine that the Russians had much bigger fish to fry that hunting down an American general? I know that is deep in Western culture the Communist assassin but, hey, in the event of a US-USSR war in the aftermath of WW2, Patton would be the least of their problems...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
1) The Russians. We all know how he Russians were, so why wouldn't they want Patton dead?

This would make sense- if the Russians were planning to invade Western Europe. They weren't.

Moreover, this would be a blatant act of war. He's too minor a figure to risk that over.

Patton was the only Allied general that the Russians (and Germans) feared.

You've obviously studied the movie of the same name carefully. What the Russians and Germans feared was Allied firepower and logistical resources.

2). Ike.

Absurd. He had neither the authority nor the personality for such an act. Throughout his life, Eisenhower constantly demonstrated that he was not a rash man. In any case, although he later did become President, this ambition was far from clear in 1945 and, because of his temprament I doubt that Patton could ever have stood a chance of becoming President.

Ike knew that he would've lost if he went up against Patton in an election....hands-down.

Patton never would have become a candidate. He was too unreliable, too vociferous and had too many enemies. Neither party would have had him.

He told of Patton being convinced that someone was out to get him

Patton was also convinced that he was the reincarnation of Hannibal Barca. The man just wasn't all there- as is often the case with brilliant men.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
As far as over-rated goes, he was better than Monty hands-down. (No offense.)

Better at pushing forward as quickly as possible against weak opposition- which Montgomery was appalling at, and which was critically important in certain phases of the late war. However Montgomery excelled at training and organising armies, and at managing a set peice battle, such as the one which he oversaw in Normandy.

Patton and Rommel were on the same level of tactical, armored and combined arms genious. (I'd even put Zukhov into that field.)

Patton never faced the same challenges as Rommel (attacking a stronger foe) so we'll never know. Zhukov commanded at a completely different level so isn't directly comparable.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..that i can agree with, Rommel was/is over-rated too..[:)]

Sort of. Probably the best armoured division commander of the war. The problem was he kept on getting promoted.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..that i can agree with, Rommel was/is over-rated too..[:)]

Sort of. Probably the best armoured division commander of the war. The problem was he kept on getting promoted.

..'bout that..[:)]

..and i feel Mongomery was better than given credit for, not exciting but given the situation, the soldier for the job..

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

The problem was he kept on getting promoted.

heh. That whole notion of rewarding success has its limitations.

You don't think he excelled at corps command? Why not?

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..and i feel Mongomery was better than given credit for, not exciting but given the situation, the soldier for the job..

Poor Monty. I agree.

I think his bad rep in the USA is because of the movie "Patton". How's his reputation in the UK Ben?

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Trick37

...Now, on the subject of the conspiracy---yes, I'm serious. Dead serious, actually. Two possibilities come to mind (and some might find at least one hard to swallow):

1) The Russians. ...

...he was there when Patton landed his Piper Cub after being chased and shot at by a Spitfire with British markings on it, ...

Spitfire piloted by a Russian pilot?... [:D]

Seriously though, wouldn't you imagine that the Russians had much bigger fish to fry that hunting down an American general? I know that is deep in Western culture the Communist assassin but, hey, in the event of a US-USSR war in the aftermath of WW2, Patton would be the least of their problems...

It could very well have been a Russian pilot in a Spitfire that fired on him. It doesn't take long to change the markings on an airplane....or at least I would imagine not.

I guess we'll never know if it was the Russians behind it, let alone anyone else. You're right in saying that Patton would eb the least of their problems soon after WW2---they still didn't have the bomb. [:D]

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
1) The Russians. We all know how he Russians were, so why wouldn't they want Patton dead?

This would make sense- if the Russians were planning to invade Western Europe. They weren't.

Moreover, this would be a blatant act of war. He's too minor a figure to risk that over.

We know that the Russians wanted more than just eastern Germany. They felt that they were “owed” that. They also knew that Patton was verbally advocating a fight with Russia, so why not?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
Patton was the only Allied general that the Russians (and Germans) feared.

You've obviously studied the movie of the same name carefully. What the Russians and Germans feared was Allied firepower and logistical resources.

I agree that the Russians and Germans feared allied firepower and stuff. However, I disagree that they didn’t fear Patton himself.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
2). Ike.

Absurd. He had neither the authority nor the personality for such an act. Throughout his life, Eisenhower constantly demonstrated that he was not a rash man. In any case, although he later did become President, this ambition was far from clear in 1945 and, because of his temprament I doubt that Patton could ever have stood a chance of becoming President.

I disagree. Patton could be very charming when he was in the public view, and he could b quite convincing during speeches. Patton also had more press coverage, and more of the “hero” image, than Ike did (despite the slapping incident). I think he stood a good chance of getting elected. That’s not to say that he wouldn’t have had his issues, but…..

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
Ike knew that he would've lost if he went up against Patton in an election....hands-down.

Patton never would have become a candidate. He was too unreliable, too vociferous and had too many enemies. Neither party would have had him.

Again, I disagree here. (Same as above)

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
He told of Patton being convinced that someone was out to get him

Patton was also convinced that he was the reincarnation of Hannibal Barca. The man just wasn't all there- as is often the case with brilliant men.

Patton was a heavy believer in reincarnation, and he believed that he was a warrior in several other times in the past. What’s wrong with it? Although I don’t think I was a warrior or anyone special, I believe in reincarnation, too. It doesn’t make me a nutcase. True, Patton had his issues, but I can’t fault him for believing in reincarnation.

Come to think of it, I think he may have been bi-polar.