Can we get a scenario list?

[ATATURKSTAR]

The TOAW III is released, is good.

Do not listen to posts of Croatians, they are too much defeated by Ottoman Empire. I am here to play of much TOAW and make of the scenarios which properly show Turkish martial spirit and glory. I wonder, can the TOAW III make the 15th century Ottoman's scenarios which show Turkiye properly kicking Croatians and Serbs?

[scout1]

Can't download ANY of the links for the scenario listing. Can't someone just post it right on the forum ? ..... Please .....

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

..... but I *AM* disappointed with the list.

Why?

a) I can barely list 5-10 scenarios that are new to me, perhaps not even that much.

b) Many scenarios I am afraid will be sub par (and/or same old suboptimal, buggy versions, I know so well)

c) Some of my favorite scenarios, that I know exist, are not included - I don't know why. These include scenarios by Daniel McBride, but also some by Tim McBride (IIRC?), some by Trey Marshall (Ukraine 2006 IIRC?), some excellent scenarios by Peter d'Adamo, at least two excelent versions of Nomonhan (can't remember who made them) + some more.

d) Some shitty pseudo-new scenarios made the list. As you say, there's plenty of space on the disk, so no problem, but taken together with the fact that many good scenarios are left out it just adds the insult to the injury.

Forgive me if I got some names wrong, or forgot them altogether, I am getting old, am quoting from the memory, stuff that I played many years ago [8D].... but you get the idea.

O.

Oleg,

I think that some of your criticisms here are a bit unfair. Before you reply, please do read Daniel's interview over at Armchair General. This will give you a better background on what the Scenario Evaluation Team's responsibilities were, with respect to scenario selection. This should answer to your concerns a) and b).

With respect to c) and d), all I can say is that for well over 6 months, we were actively and publically searching for scenarios and asking for designers to come out of the woodwork. If there are scenarios that you wish had been included, but were not, it's because they either 1) Were not easily located in the public domain, 2) did not "make the cut" in terms of the initial appearance of an example of polished and coherent scenario design, 3) were not explicitly granted permission for inclusion by the original scenario authors. This last point should be dwelt upon for a moment. We made significant efforts to locate scenario designers whose public domain works had obsolete email addresses in their briefings, or none at all. We couldn't very well turn over every rock on the planet looking for these guys, but the simple fact of the matter is, that if they didn't show enough initiative to get back in touch with us, at any time in the 6+ months we were beating the bushes for them, then they had to be pretty disassociated with the TOAW community and under SOME rock.

With particular respect to some of Daniel's scenarios that were not included, you have to understand that this was due to his own request, as he wanted to take the time and effort that he felt necessary to incorporate TOAW III's new features, and enhancements, and to playtest them to his own high standards of quality. I would hope that you would respect his choice and concerns.

Regards,
James

[Oleg Mastruko]

James I've read the interview. Daniel is one of the rare people I consider my Internet friends, and I exchanged longish e-mails with him regarding TOAW (and Universe and Everything) when the work on TOAW 3 was beginning, thus I know the difficulties of scenario selection, including some stories that will never be published, I guess [:'(] He asked me to join the scenario selection team, but I knew I'd get into fight with at least half a dozen scenario "designers" if I accept so I politely turned his offer down.

That's not the point. Point is - I see no selection process, at all. It appears to me, as if every scenario designer that could have been identified and contacted via email, got his scenario on the list. It's as if you picked the easy way out - "hell with it, lets avoid any conflict, lets include *everything* and impress the people with sheer number of scenarios".

I'd say that *any* selection criteria, even the one I'd disagree with, is better than no criteria at all.

Can you provide examples of scenarios that were actually turned *DOWN*, even if their authors wanted them in? If so, why were they turned down, based on what criteria?

End result of your "everything goes" policy is somewhat paradoxical. Designers who do not care about quality of their work, who most probably never playtested their deranged mutant alien zombie scenarios, got their scenarios on the list, simply because they replied to the emails, and no criteria was applied to their work. Designers who *DO* care about things like historicity and playtesting - including, but not limited to, Daniel himself - pulled their work to test and tweak it further, or for some other reason I could only guess about.

I'd say Daniel gets 10 victory points for being responsible scenario designer, but anyone involved in scenario selection process gets minus 20 victory points for conflict-avoiding, anything-goes scenario "selection" (ie no selection at all)

Having said all this...... I do see some advantages to this approach. Some people who missed the TOAW boat first time around (and second... [>:]) will certainly be impressed by sheer number of scenarios and (apparent) complete-ness of the list.

Unfortunatelly, many of us TOAW veterans played too many scenarios of the "Google => edit => don't playtest" 3 day development cycle variety, to be really happy with the list. [:(]

Oleg

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
That's not the point. Point is - I see no selection process, at all. It appears to me, as if every scenario designer that could have been identified and contacted via email, got his scenario on the list. It's as if you picked the easy way out - "hell with it, lets avoid any conflict, lets include *everything* and impress the people with sheer number of scenarios".

I'd say that *any* selection criteria, even the one I'd disagree with, is better than no criteria at all.

Can you provide examples of scenarios that were actually turned *DOWN*, even if their authors wanted them in? If so, why were they turned down, based on what criteria?

We started with over 300 scenarios to evaluate. Through processes that evaluated them on a number of categories, we winnowed them down to just over 130. Just because you weren't present during that lengthy process, doesn't mean that there wasn't work going on, arguments being cast, and decisions being made.

It would be silly, not to mention divisive, to pick any particular author's work as an example of what did not "make the cut" and explain publically why.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
It would be silly, not to mention divisive, to pick any particular author's work as an example of what did not "make the cut" and explain publically why.

I agree 100%. Oleg, hopefully James' replies have answered your questions.

Regards,

- Erik

[watchtower]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


deranged mutant alien zombie scenario

Oleg

I want to play this one - where is it? [8D]

[Okimaw]

I want to play this one - where is it? [8D]

Me too, ya wanna pbem?

[watchtower]

You bet. Although if the scenario is unavailable we might have to settle for 'Mental Metal Chicken Invasion 2010'. I started the design this afternoon in the pub. Any suggestions on design? Units? I got as far as The combined western world are invaded.......by Mental metal chicken monsters in the year 2010.

Thats about it. Will do a bit more thinking later (when I get back from the pub)

[Okimaw]

ORIGINAL: watchtower

You bet. Although if the scenario is unavailable we might have to settle for 'Mental Metal Chicken Invasion 2010'. I started the design this afternoon in the pub. Any suggestions on design? Units? I got as far as The combined western world are invaded.......by Mental metal chicken monsters in the year 2010.

Thats about it. Will do a bit more thinking later (when I get back from the pub)

As far as units I'd say the whole scen will be lacking if you don't include a suitable vampire turkey armored artilley or the requisite number of chocolate bunnies from hell special forces. That's just my unqualified opinion though.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: watchtower
I want to play this one - where is it? [8D]

Plenty of them in the game already [8D][:D]

[watchtower]

Of course Vampyre Turkey Armored artillery - high cost though - not chicken feed.

Chocolate Bunnies from Hell - sweet.

Well, Two excellent suggestions already - suggest I open a new "Mental Metal Invasion of the Chicken Monsters" thread in scenario design. As we seem to have hijacked this one.

[ATATURKSTAR]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

but anyone involved in scenario selection process gets minus 20 victory points for conflict-avoiding, anything-goes scenario "selection" (ie no selection at all)

Yes, game with no battles to play of, IT PERFECT!!! I laugh at this, I no buy game just for to buy, I buy for to battle!

[Real and Simulated Wars]

I'm on the fence regarding this game. Never played the original and I'm very interested in operational level warfare.

However, I would play it mainly against the computer. I know that the best of any wargame comes out from PBEM or whatever, but that just doesn't fit my crazy daily schedule. I read elsewhere that the TOAW computer opponent is strictly a formation level AI, which results in poor operational level awareness. This would result in the human easily turning its flanks (the most typical operational maneuver) and the computer opponent will not know where is best to counterattack that action. That is, a computer opponent very capable tactically, but a poor performer operationally. Also, given that the scenario designer can program certain aspects of the CO, it ends up being as good as the scenario designer's ability to program it well. My point is that it looks like great part of my single player potential enjoyment with this game will be in the hands of the talents of the scenario designers.

As an outsider, Oleg comments regarding the design of scenarios make a lot of sense to me. As an outsider too I wonder, if I ever buy this game, how much of my scarce precious gaming time will I spend separating the wheat from the chaff.

Decisions, decisions ...

[Erik Rutins]

In older versions of TOAW, that was correct. I find the AI in TOAW III to play a much smarter game in terms of watching its flanks and taking advantage of yours.

All the original TOAW series scenarios are included, but there are also a lot of outstanding designs from the last five years. There is not much chaff among the new scenarios at all, as far as I can tell. Some of the original scenarios I was not happy with but those are all kept in for completeness.

Regards,

- Erik

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In older versions of TOAW, that was correct. I find the AI in TOAW III to play a much smarter game in terms of watching its flanks and taking advantage of yours.

Some of the more advanced PO options were an incredible pain to use, as well. I used variable objective paths for "Ecuador 95", and that was a nightmare.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks Erik for your feedback.
Can I ask one more question?
Designer X creates a map, adds the objectives and the units. What is this thing of a "programmed opponent" the designer has to do? A series of waypoints, attacks to do, ...? An scenario whitout a "programmed opponent" will result in a computer opponent that doesn't do anything at all?
Excuse my ignorance.

Cheers,

[Fidel_Helms]

Basically, yeah. If you don't give the PO any objectives(there are other settings you can tweak, but this is the most important) it will just sit on its duff.

[JMS2]

Well, no, waypoints are also objectives, so unless you want the players to fight over nothing the PO will do something, the question being wether it will do something intelligent [;)] Also, the more units the scenario has, the better, but that can be overdone too, so it's all a game of compromises. If you have never played TOAW, the PO will give you a run for your money initially (1 or 2 years) and by then you may have decided to move to PBEM and the PO will have improved (hopefully!) even more.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks Fidel,
That explains why the computer opponent is ussually better attacking than defending (another thing I read).
Are there any scenario creation tutorial?
Your help is appreciated,