I am very curious.
What sort of scenarios do you like?
I know what I like but since I have been spending so much time and effort trying to design them, I thought I would try to find out.
I'll start this out by saying what I like.
Tough fight either fictional or historic.
Moderate to small size.
Combined arms.
Unusual matchups. Like say, Yugoslav vs British.
Moderate use of landmines unless I get some engineers and enough time to use them.
Interesting maps.
I don't figure I *must* win a battle for it to be good.
Help me figure out what *you* want!
Scenarios You Like
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
generalrichmond
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: richmond, va
- Contact:
well, I can appreciate what you are after. for me:
medium to small encounters - preferably a tank company and a few companies of footdudes. throw in some arty cause it's gotta be a party, you know.
like to have to maneuver for terrain. small villages fights with a few choice firing spots are ideal.
intense maps. named units (even if ahistorical). HQ unit RENAMED! important - mesh of tank types. not ALL panthers, or tigers, or whatever. mix it up!
enjoy ahistorical, semi- and actual. on non-historical I prefer stuff that is at least in the ballpark. rewrite some of prior history, but Germans vs Japs is too weird. challenging technically, but can't imagine it.
medium to small encounters - preferably a tank company and a few companies of footdudes. throw in some arty cause it's gotta be a party, you know.
like to have to maneuver for terrain. small villages fights with a few choice firing spots are ideal.
intense maps. named units (even if ahistorical). HQ unit RENAMED! important - mesh of tank types. not ALL panthers, or tigers, or whatever. mix it up!
enjoy ahistorical, semi- and actual. on non-historical I prefer stuff that is at least in the ballpark. rewrite some of prior history, but Germans vs Japs is too weird. challenging technically, but can't imagine it.
I like medium size scenarios that somehow hghlight the strenghts of the opposing sides ..hard to explain what i mean ..If US then highlight the Arty have FO's but make it maniditory that it be used properly to win .if German and Tigers give them the range to use thier standoff as a key to winning don't just make it that they can rush the Vhexes and get in a knife fight with Heavy tanks .....
If Historical name the units .. if fiction don't bother, but rather try for actual TO&E structures so folks can see what a typical balanced force would look like ..
Maybe Mismatch terrain and mobility to show how having the most / least mobile force can be an advantage ..
If doing a "campaign" maybe do a day long campiagn say 5 scenarios and let the battle evolve from first contact to main force encounter to one side intiative to counteattcack and then breakoff possibly the same map or at least part of the same map in each scenario ?
In short maybe a teaching/learning point to highlight some key tactical element that has to be truely mastered to achieve the points and have the Vhexes pointed and placed accordingly ..
I'm not saying that this isn't already done in some ..maybe most scenarios .. but I like it when I start the game saying cool I got lots of (fill in the blank my favorite stuff) and then discover it is not very useful in the given situation and something i don't use often or well turns out to be the key element ..and i have to rethink my assumptions
If Historical name the units .. if fiction don't bother, but rather try for actual TO&E structures so folks can see what a typical balanced force would look like ..
Maybe Mismatch terrain and mobility to show how having the most / least mobile force can be an advantage ..
If doing a "campaign" maybe do a day long campiagn say 5 scenarios and let the battle evolve from first contact to main force encounter to one side intiative to counteattcack and then breakoff possibly the same map or at least part of the same map in each scenario ?
In short maybe a teaching/learning point to highlight some key tactical element that has to be truely mastered to achieve the points and have the Vhexes pointed and placed accordingly ..
I'm not saying that this isn't already done in some ..maybe most scenarios .. but I like it when I start the game saying cool I got lots of (fill in the blank my favorite stuff) and then discover it is not very useful in the given situation and something i don't use often or well turns out to be the key element ..and i have to rethink my assumptions
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
I like small/medium scenarios... big big scenarios with tons of units end up annoying me for some reason.
I like historical missions, but reasonable hypotheticals are always fun too.
I dont have to win in order to have fun on the mission. (In fact I usually assign myself victory conditions seperate from what the game says... like it or not, a 6:1 margin of victory is a very stringent standard for every mission. I would imagine that in reality different standards would be used based on the situation. For example I was playing a scenario the other day, Mice vs Field Marshall. I lost 10 AFVs and about 20 troops, sweeping the field, taking all victory hexes, and causing about 400 infantry casualties and 50+ AFVs destroyed. For some reason the game thought that I achieved a draw. I just cannot believe that.)
I like maps in historical scenarios to be designed as close to reality as possible (this might be difficult, but I appreciate it)
Oh and the abovementioned idea about a mix of units is a good one. Seeing all of one type of vehicle just doesn't look right. Esp since the germans for example, were famous for using everything they found. Starting out with some captured tanks for example, is a cool touch.
I like historical missions, but reasonable hypotheticals are always fun too.
I dont have to win in order to have fun on the mission. (In fact I usually assign myself victory conditions seperate from what the game says... like it or not, a 6:1 margin of victory is a very stringent standard for every mission. I would imagine that in reality different standards would be used based on the situation. For example I was playing a scenario the other day, Mice vs Field Marshall. I lost 10 AFVs and about 20 troops, sweeping the field, taking all victory hexes, and causing about 400 infantry casualties and 50+ AFVs destroyed. For some reason the game thought that I achieved a draw. I just cannot believe that.)
I like maps in historical scenarios to be designed as close to reality as possible (this might be difficult, but I appreciate it)
Oh and the abovementioned idea about a mix of units is a good one. Seeing all of one type of vehicle just doesn't look right. Esp since the germans for example, were famous for using everything they found. Starting out with some captured tanks for example, is a cool touch.
I am glad I asked for information.
Some good ideas and preferences rolling in. The big learning so far for me is "naming the units". Something that to me is totally meaningless. In fact, when I have to deal with German language abbreviations, they irritate me a lot. So I have "listened" and learned a little all ready.
I also have thought about a 1 day battle as a mini-campaign of 4-5 battles. Haven't done anything about it except think though.
Good points. Thanks. Keep them coming. I am listening and I'll wager that other designers will be checking in also.
Some good ideas and preferences rolling in. The big learning so far for me is "naming the units". Something that to me is totally meaningless. In fact, when I have to deal with German language abbreviations, they irritate me a lot. So I have "listened" and learned a little all ready.
I also have thought about a 1 day battle as a mini-campaign of 4-5 battles. Haven't done anything about it except think though.
Good points. Thanks. Keep them coming. I am listening and I'll wager that other designers will be checking in also.
I like naming units, gives a more authentic feel. When I played Long Campaigns as the Germans I used to rename all my units so I could identify with unit they belonged to without needing to read the B0, B1 numbers etc. It took a long time to do this but it also helped me become familiar with my core forces.
I don't like huge scenarios, prefer small to moderate, anything from 600-4000 is best. Attractive maps with villages and other landmarks named. Good mix of units, not necessarily the best equipment (e.g playing as the germans and having no APnthers, Tigers and maybe being lumbered with just a couple of old PZIII or Marder vehicles). I enjoy scenarios that involve forces that are rarely used like minor axis or Yugoslav etc. I'd love to see a campaign taking control of Forces other than UK, US or German...
I don't like huge scenarios, prefer small to moderate, anything from 600-4000 is best. Attractive maps with villages and other landmarks named. Good mix of units, not necessarily the best equipment (e.g playing as the germans and having no APnthers, Tigers and maybe being lumbered with just a couple of old PZIII or Marder vehicles). I enjoy scenarios that involve forces that are rarely used like minor axis or Yugoslav etc. I'd love to see a campaign taking control of Forces other than UK, US or German...
'Great Sage Equal of Heaven'
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Large scenarios are like the Historical Scenarios for ASL.
Ohhhh they look awesome, man they look great. But damn they are big and hard to manage too.
Small is best because small gets played easily. Medium is ok but large is sometimes getting more than one can handle.
I dont hate large. but small gets you in and playing. The turns dont bog down till you are comparing it to doing your housework.
I remember playing one game Germans vs Russians. I like seeing slow arty. Dang that was a mistake eh. I went to have lunch and the Russian artillery was just finishing when I returned heheh.
Ohhhh they look awesome, man they look great. But damn they are big and hard to manage too.
Small is best because small gets played easily. Medium is ok but large is sometimes getting more than one can handle.
I dont hate large. but small gets you in and playing. The turns dont bog down till you are comparing it to doing your housework.
I remember playing one game Germans vs Russians. I like seeing slow arty. Dang that was a mistake eh. I went to have lunch and the Russian artillery was just finishing when I returned heheh.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
RichardTheFirst
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Algés, Lisbon - Portugal
- Contact:
Well, I do like big scenarios and if they are very big, very challenging and very bloody even better. I guess that's why I like so much amphibious landings like Omaha Beach. (By the way all the beaches at D-Day are represented except Sword - but there is a map for Sword).
Although my personnal preferences are very though and challenging scenarios, I do like a little bit of everything (small or large) as long as it have historical sense - it would make sense an hipotetical americans vs russians in 1945 but not a german vs japanese.
An example of a small though fighting it's Ramelle - Captain Miller have done wonders (is there a way to equip an Airborne unit with a "sticky" bomb? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> ).
"Vini, vidi, vinci" - Iulius Cæsar
Although my personnal preferences are very though and challenging scenarios, I do like a little bit of everything (small or large) as long as it have historical sense - it would make sense an hipotetical americans vs russians in 1945 but not a german vs japanese.
An example of a small though fighting it's Ramelle - Captain Miller have done wonders (is there a way to equip an Airborne unit with a "sticky" bomb? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> ).
"Vini, vidi, vinci" - Iulius Cæsar
-
Gen.Hoepner
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: italy
I love the scenarios where uncommen units are involved,like airbone drops,commandos etc...in uncommon missions,like assaulting a train or taking a bridge.... the meeting engagements are good for pbem but not so much when i play alone,cause the AI doesn't usally has the mobility it should be supposed to have.
I like the descriptive maps:lots of names,bridges,villages,industries and whatever...
the historical scens are good for sure,but i'd like to see more hypotetical scens....i'm trying to figure out a air assaulting by german paras to a brits base at suez channel,but it's almost impossible to get maps of that...any help??
medium scen are the best:not too long,but large enough to enable u to use many units to achieve an objective.I like to see tanks formations with infantry supporting them,some arty and some planes,but with not so much bomb power!!
Redleg:the spanish blue-div scens are probably ones of the best i ever played!!!!very challenging!!!!good work!
I like the descriptive maps:lots of names,bridges,villages,industries and whatever...
the historical scens are good for sure,but i'd like to see more hypotetical scens....i'm trying to figure out a air assaulting by german paras to a brits base at suez channel,but it's almost impossible to get maps of that...any help??
medium scen are the best:not too long,but large enough to enable u to use many units to achieve an objective.I like to see tanks formations with infantry supporting them,some arty and some planes,but with not so much bomb power!!
Redleg:the spanish blue-div scens are probably ones of the best i ever played!!!!very challenging!!!!good work!
I think, I like scenarios which differ from the ones you could easyly create with the
'Battle'-Tool ("Take Hill Somenumber" or "Take the village where Somethousandvictorypoints are")
I like well balanced scenarios with some 'special' thing in it - like 'Lightning Strikes'. Wild
Bill wrote something like 'many strange things happen in this scenario' and even if you don't
like to land some Jus on an airfield in every scenario - sometimes it ist fun.
And I prefer short battles with a reasonable size. To much 'unit-driving' is less fun. Handling
dozens or maybe hundreds of units is no fun and not even a tactical challenge. Above a certain
size a battle becomes contingent. I always wondered, if it is possible to have certain parts of
your force be moved by the AI and that you could only be a part of the whole thing. Maybe it
would be fun to play only one Company in a Scenario, where a whole Batallion is fighting and just
beeing a part of it all.
And it is always good to have Scenario-Information. The historical Info is maybe not vital to
everyone (it is for me), but you should get the an Idea what the whole thing is about in the
info-text. Just to read 'get them' or rubbish like that is of no use.
tarwin.
'Battle'-Tool ("Take Hill Somenumber" or "Take the village where Somethousandvictorypoints are")
I like well balanced scenarios with some 'special' thing in it - like 'Lightning Strikes'. Wild
Bill wrote something like 'many strange things happen in this scenario' and even if you don't
like to land some Jus on an airfield in every scenario - sometimes it ist fun.
And I prefer short battles with a reasonable size. To much 'unit-driving' is less fun. Handling
dozens or maybe hundreds of units is no fun and not even a tactical challenge. Above a certain
size a battle becomes contingent. I always wondered, if it is possible to have certain parts of
your force be moved by the AI and that you could only be a part of the whole thing. Maybe it
would be fun to play only one Company in a Scenario, where a whole Batallion is fighting and just
beeing a part of it all.
And it is always good to have Scenario-Information. The historical Info is maybe not vital to
everyone (it is for me), but you should get the an Idea what the whole thing is about in the
info-text. Just to read 'get them' or rubbish like that is of no use.
tarwin.
Still more very helpful info. Keep it coming.
With respect to history... sometimes, it is very difficult to locate information about a battle that is appropriate for SPWAW scale. Seems that most writers focus on higher levels of command.
But I really do try to base almost all on something that really happened or might have happened.
SPWAW versions. As SPWAW has grown and changed over the last couple of years, certain scenarios have been affected so they no longer play the same. Some of the "oldies and moldies" have been updated a time or two. Still others just don't seem to work right any longer.
I just finished an update to a Japanese parachute assault in January, 1942. Recently located more information about that battle and liked it enough that it seemed worth the effort to update. It is a real challenge and being beta tested right now.
It will appear on the Arsenal site for download in a short while. I hope someone out there likes it. "Assault on Langoan Airfield".
Thanks for the input, guys.
With respect to history... sometimes, it is very difficult to locate information about a battle that is appropriate for SPWAW scale. Seems that most writers focus on higher levels of command.
But I really do try to base almost all on something that really happened or might have happened.
SPWAW versions. As SPWAW has grown and changed over the last couple of years, certain scenarios have been affected so they no longer play the same. Some of the "oldies and moldies" have been updated a time or two. Still others just don't seem to work right any longer.
I just finished an update to a Japanese parachute assault in January, 1942. Recently located more information about that battle and liked it enough that it seemed worth the effort to update. It is a real challenge and being beta tested right now.
It will appear on the Arsenal site for download in a short while. I hope someone out there likes it. "Assault on Langoan Airfield".
Thanks for the input, guys.
-
Gallo Rojo
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Argentina
What do I like?
Like others seem to, I prefer medium to small, but that's because I'm a decent Btn Cdr, and not a very good Bde Cdr. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I like to see variety in types, and ones where the VHs make sense.
I don't like always seeing combined arms - as most armies did not pull it off well at all in the war, and is mostly is a post war concept.
I'd like to see more scen's where 2nd line stuff is used - it gets boring to often see nothing but the best gear.
Lastly, I don't like the 'draw' based scens. If I play well, I should *always* get a MV. If I play very well, a DV. But, nothing, to me, is more annoying than playing well and getting a draw. Personally, I hope that the Draw VC is removed from CL. After all, soldiers - and commanders - rarely say 'Wow, we got a draw' after a fight. That decision is made years later, after viewing the war as a whole, by review boards and historians.
Alex
Like others seem to, I prefer medium to small, but that's because I'm a decent Btn Cdr, and not a very good Bde Cdr. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I like to see variety in types, and ones where the VHs make sense.
I don't like always seeing combined arms - as most armies did not pull it off well at all in the war, and is mostly is a post war concept.
I'd like to see more scen's where 2nd line stuff is used - it gets boring to often see nothing but the best gear.
Lastly, I don't like the 'draw' based scens. If I play well, I should *always* get a MV. If I play very well, a DV. But, nothing, to me, is more annoying than playing well and getting a draw. Personally, I hope that the Draw VC is removed from CL. After all, soldiers - and commanders - rarely say 'Wow, we got a draw' after a fight. That decision is made years later, after viewing the war as a whole, by review boards and historians.
Alex
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.