Victory level statistics for each scenario

[Cabido]

Most of the times, after finishing a scenario, I don't have a clue if I did well or not. I used to thrust the victory briefing, but we never know if the designer really tested it to the point of setting a balanced victory level.

Are there statistics, somewhere, for players results for each individual scenario? If not, it would be really useful to provide a space where players could post their results for individual scenarios. After some inputs, we could get a better balanced victory level reference for each scenario. Even a single input could provide a reference victory level to be beaten.

A simple solution would be to provide a sub-forum where threads named after the scenarios would allow players to post their scores.

[TheBug67]

ORIGINAL: Cabido
I don't have a clue if I did well or not.

Did you have fun?

[Silvanski]

I usually compare the frontline with the historical equivalent

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: TheBug67

ORIGINAL: Cabido
I don't have a clue if I did well or not.

Did you have fun?

Sure I can have fun with Budweiser, but I'll have still more fun with Benediktiner. Herr Klink must agree with me, at least on that point.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
I usually compare the frontline with the historical equivalent

This is a good criteria, certainly, if the scenario is balanced. An unbalanced scenario can still be fun to play, but once the historical goals are unattainable or already far behind, it's good to have a performance parameter. Players reports would be an easy way to get a better balanced victory level, at least for unbalanced scenarios.

Additionally, I like the puzzle like aspect of trying to get a better score than the better score reported, mainly for small scenarios. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[r6kunz]

Greetings all,

A question of design philosophy. How to handle a one-sided battle? Are you interested in a game or a lesson in history?

Take, for example, Destruction of Army Group Center, 1944. Historically total defeat for the Germans. But historically the Soviets ran out of gas, figuratively and literally, and came up short of taking their planned objectives.

The accompanying front line at the scenario's end in mid-August in shown in the maps in the accompanying Documentation. The victory points are assigned along this front line. So each side has a reasonable chance of victory...

[larryfulkerson]

How about Dien Bien Pho....can we say that's a one-sided battle? or does
the time scale of the scenario matter?

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Greetings all,

A question of design philosophy. How to handle a one-sided battle? Are you interested in a game or a lesson in history?

Take, for example, Destruction of Army Group Center, 1944. Historically total defeat for the Germans. But historically the Soviets ran out of gas, figuratively and literally, and came up short of taking their planned objectives.

The accompanying front line at the scenario's end in mid-August in shown in the maps in the accompanying Documentation. The victory points are assigned along this front line. So each side has a reasonable chance of victory...

This is a perfect criteria. Setting the victory points at the historical final frontline or at points based on historical schedule. If you do better than historical results, you have a victory, if worst, you have a defeat. That way, there is no one-sided battle in game terms.

This is a game, afterall. We can learn about history, can try to simulate historical lines of advance, but at the end of the day, it is a game. And the most exciting aspect is that, even when fighting battles that were unbalanced in real life, we can reset balance with the above criteria, so that victory doesn't correspond to what would be considered victory in real life, but is just doing better than was done in real life, with all the handicaps considered.

Yet, for this to work well, the scenario must have been playtested and the victory conditions well designed. Toaw has hundreds of scenarios by different designers. Some are good, some are bad and some are good, but with unbalanced victory conditions. Those could be made more exciting by players results references. Not for competition, but there is a puzzle like aspect in trying to make better than the better result reported from which a scenario can benefit if the preset victory conditions are too difficult or too easy.

[Oberst_Klink]

What about... doing Rob 'Hawkeye' Kunz a favour, Cabido? Let's test his scenario - Destruction of HGr Mitte - via PBEM?

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What about... doing Rob 'Hawkeye' Kunz a favour, Cabido? Let's test his scenario - Destruction of HGr Mitte - via PBEM?

Klink, Oberst

Well, I can do it, if you don't mind three little things:

First, I'm finishing a scenario (probably this week) and my work doesn't allow me to play more than one scenario at a time;

Second, I'm not on the level of the veterans here that usually test scenarios. I'm still going through the process of understanding the mechanics of the game and my focus, until now, was on ground units in small scenarios. That's why I never posted about naval or air units. So, I don't think I'm ready to suggest tweaks in a scenario with aspects I yet don't master.

Third, I'm a slow player. Not only because I'm still learning and testing some aspects of the game mechanics, as said, but because I like to reason about the under the hood workings while playing. Perhaps, for that reason, I'm used to deal with small groups of units, but I'm far from having the intuition that veterans seem to have here for setting whole large fronts, as I see in AARs. That's why, until this moment, I've just played against the PO.

I even think about creating scenarios, but I'm not ready for it yet. Creating a scenario just to increase the available scenario list, doesn't excite me.

[Oberst_Klink]

Well... I understand your predicament... I am into the Tutorial '50 creation phase for TOAW IV and CSME at the same time!

Klink, Oberst