Small Critique

[byzantine1990]

Loving the game but I had a small critique. When I'm looking for a new scenario to play I have a hard time knowing what kind of scenario I'm getting into at a glance. I know you get the nationalities, number of units and how many hours you have but that doesn't tell me a whole lot. There is more information in the scenario description but it's like 4-5 paragraphs. Believe me, I read through every one because they are well written and immersive but the actual scenario information is hidden like a needle in a haystack.

I would recommend a short description like Combat Mission does (See attached picture). The description should be three sentences max and tell you the following.

*nationalities
*General time of day
*Weather
*How long the scenario is
*Short description of what is being fought over and force structure
*Who is attacking
*Who is favored
*Suitable for H2H? AI only?

Here's an example

"Lesson of War"
*West German vs Soviet
*1200 Hrs
*Sunny, great visibility
*4 Hours
*West German infantry company defends stretch of highway from Soviet battalion forward detachment.
*No side favored
*Suitable for H2H or against AI

"Crossing the Waldnaab"
*West German vs Czechoslovakia
*1000 Hrs
*Sunny, great visibility
*5 Hours
*West German mechanized battalion defends river crossing from Czechoslovakia motor rifle regiment.
*NATO favored
*Suitable for H2H or against AI

Untitled.jpg (102.65 KiB) Viewed 982 times

[CapnDarwin]

I can see your point on some additional info that would be nice at the top of the scenario description. We show the date, start time, location, and forces involved, but we could at least add in who is attacking or meeting engagement (gold area). The duration and map are shown in the info blurb between the selection and the Scenario Description (blue area). Scenarios are, by default, playable from both sides and we don't "favor" any side in the design, so those items would be omitted. The only tough one to add to the text is the weather. In some cases, if the scenario designer has selected a specific type of weather (clear or rainy), it could be noted in the Scenario Description header. I can pass these QOL ideas for the headers on to the team, and we can work on getting information added to make things more clear when looking at scenarios.

Scenario Info 1.png (91.97 KiB) Viewed 935 times

[WABAC]

Maybe the second blue bullet point could be something closer to what the OP suggests:

West German infantry company defends stretch of highway from Soviet battalion forward detachment.

As is, it's kind of inside baseball. I had stop and think what CW meant. Country and Western? No. Cold War.

I guess that also means I'm just skipping over all that info when I load a scenario. Come to think of it, maybe that first blue bullet could be looked at too.

[byzantine1990]

I can see your point on some additional info that would be nice at the top of the scenario description. We show the date, start time, location, and forces involved, but we could at least add in who is attacking or meeting engagement (gold area). The duration and map are shown in the info blurb between the selection and the Scenario Description (blue area). Scenarios are, by default, playable from both sides and we don't "favor" any side in the design, so those items would be omitted. The only tough one to add to the text is the weather. In some cases, if the scenario designer has selected a specific type of weather (clear or rainy), it could be noted in the Scenario Description header. I can pass these QOL ideas for the headers on to the team, and we can work on getting information added to make things more clear when looking at scenarios.
Scenario Info 1.png

Thank you for the response.

[byzantine1990]

I can see your point on some additional info that would be nice at the top of the scenario description. We show the date, start time, location, and forces involved, but we could at least add in who is attacking or meeting engagement (gold area). The duration and map are shown in the info blurb between the selection and the Scenario Description (blue area). Scenarios are, by default, playable from both sides and we don't "favor" any side in the design, so those items would be omitted. The only tough one to add to the text is the weather. In some cases, if the scenario designer has selected a specific type of weather (clear or rainy), it could be noted in the Scenario Description header. I can pass these QOL ideas for the headers on to the team, and we can work on getting information added to make things more clear when looking at scenarios.
Scenario Info 1.png

Just my two cents but unless a scenario is a mirror match up with identical terrain and forces on each side, there will always be one side that is favored. I think we would all get very bored if every scenario was perfectly symmetrical. There is also a lot of fun to be had playing a a scenario where the odds are stacked against you and Victory is measured by how long it took the enemy to defeat you.

I think it would be good to give players an idea of which side has an easier time based on feedback from testers. If I want to try out the Soviets for the first time I might look for a scenario that favors them so I can make more mistakes.

Again, just my two cents.

[CapnDarwin]

I think my aversion to "favors X side" is the subjective nature of the tag. Even in testing, depending on weather, battle plan, player tactics, and sometimes dumb luck can make this difficult to assign. I would not like to say "favors WP" and a new player get hammered because the weather was bad, for instance. We will definitely discuss the matter with the crew, and maybe they have a different take or figure of merit for doing this. In most cases, a scenario would favor NATO for all technological edges. Still, the pendulum can swing the other way if the WP side has enough units and artillery.

Great discussion and idea either way.

[cbelva]

It would be hard to assign a "favors x side" in Flashpoint Campaign because of the potential differences in the Battle Plans. I have seen scenarios that swing the advantage to the other side due to the strengths or weaknesses in the Battle Plan that was chosen. Also, when you go to war, you don't get a breakdown of which side is favored before each battle. You go to war with the assets you have. You try and achieve victory based on what you have. I do look at the final score in a scenario, but I personally score the scenario on how I feel after the battle. I have had some battles where I won but felt like I lost based on how touch it was to achieve the victory. And there has been some scenarios where I felt good about the scenario when the score showed I had a marginal or even a tactical defeat. In the end it is how well I accomplished what I set out to do.

[byzantine1990]

It would be hard to assign a "favors x side" in Flashpoint Campaign because of the potential differences in the Battle Plans. I have seen scenarios that swing the advantage to the other side due to the strengths or weaknesses in the Battle Plan that was chosen. Also, when you go to war, you don't get a breakdown of which side is favored before each battle. You go to war with the assets you have. You try and achieve victory based on what you have. I do look at the final score in a scenario, but I personally score the scenario on how I feel after the battle. I have had some battles where I won but felt like I lost based on how touch it was to achieve the victory. And there has been some scenarios where I felt good about the scenario when the score showed I had a marginal or even a tactical defeat. In the end it is how well I accomplished what I set out to do.

Those are all good points but it still doesn't change the fact that terrain and forces are asymmetric.

[CapnDarwin]

I guess the issue is how you would rate both terrain and forces. Forces, as I noted will always be asymmetric in number for most scenarios, and WP will generally outnumber NATO unit to unit. The game engine scoring does not care if it is 1 vs. 100, 100 vs. 100, or 100 vs. 1, as it will ratio the VPs and score the result. Maybe in addition to stating the total number of units, we could add the breakdown so that in my pic, the 30 units would then also show [12 NATO vs. 18 WP] or something like that, or maybe the starting forces VP totals for each side. Then the player could get a sense of the mass of each side. I think Terrain is a lost cause as it is highly variable if it offers any support or detriment to the players. Maybe having some idea of open versus restricted terrain and relative roughness/smoothness of the map (elevations and amount of elevation changes) could be added as map meta-data at some point and extracted in the blue zone with other scenario meta information. That will take time.

[byzantine1990]

I guess the issue is how you would rate both terrain and forces. Forces, as I noted will always be asymmetric in number for most scenarios, and WP will generally outnumber NATO unit to unit. The game engine scoring does not care if it is 1 vs. 100, 100 vs. 100, or 100 vs. 1, as it will ratio the VPs and score the result. Maybe in addition to stating the total number of units, we could add the breakdown so that in my pic, the 30 units would then also show [12 NATO vs. 18 WP] or something like that, or maybe the starting forces VP totals for each side. Then the player could get a sense of the mass of each side. I think Terrain is a lost cause as it is highly variable if it offers any support or detriment to the players. Maybe having some idea of open versus restricted terrain and relative roughness/smoothness of the map (elevations and amount of elevation changes) could be added as map meta-data at some point and extracted in the blue zone with other scenario meta information. That will take time.

All valid points. Adding a two sentence summary of the scenario is the only hill I'll die on haha. As for favoring one side or the other. I think Combat Mission just asks the testers what they think of the balance on each scenario and put a little blurb. Nothing too in depth.

It's not a perfect system though. There's plenty of people that will scream on the forums that the description said "Blue favored" but they were destroyed handily. Again, not the hill I'm willing to die on.