Matrix Games Forums

Some little suggestion on scenario design which came to my mind while looking through the already available scenarios ...

1) Please include the version number in the description so one can see within the game which version is available ..

2) Carefully consider the victory points awarded for the hexes .. it IMHO seldom makes sense when 2 (of 7) hexes have the same value as all units on one side (OK, in a special "get at all costs" scenario it would be allright, I see...)

3) don't make scenarios too short - we don't play RTS here ... and sometimes the direct "go for the vic.hex) approach isn't (shouldn't be) the best, especially when the scenario description says "stop the enemy" and not "take this or that objective" - in such a case whiping out the enemy forces should do (see 2) about this also), and if that's not enough, there should be some time left to reach these hexes ...

A good (bad?) example for such design is IMHO the first battle of the "Patton in Tunesia" Campaign ...

Arralen

Lets try to answer your suggestions.

1. I'm not sure I understand this one. The only version you should have is the latest anyway. If you are referring to one like Tigers in the Snow which has had various revisions, you have a point.

But how would a version number help you. How would you know by the number if it is the latest version?

2. You've answered that one yourself.

3. The time frame for a scenario is a tool. Let me explain (Patton in Tunisia an example).

When one side vastly outnumbers the other, then something must be done to even the odds or it will be very one-sided.

By squeezing the superior side with a time frame, he is forced to be aggressive, to push hard to get the job done.

Such was the case with TF Benson historically. Patton was pushing General Benson to move, to attack, to advance. He even put one of his aides in the TF to be apprised of Benson't progress.

Now to show that in a scenario, time becomes the enemy.

Given enough time, the superior side could leisurely shoot and kill the enemy with ease.

With the pressure of time, he must take chances.

We've all known of cases where a battalion commander has been told, "You're behind! Get moving! We must take that hill TODAY, at all costs."

This is shown in a scenario with a reduced time frame. Get moving. Get it done.

That is a tool for the scenario designer. And that is life. All of us are pressured by time.

I hope this explains the process for you.

Wild Bill



------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

Originally posted by Wild Bill:
Lets try to answer your suggestions.

1. I'm not sure I understand this one.

2. You've answered that one yourself.

3. The time frame for a scenario is a tool. Let me explain (Patton in Tunisia an example).

Look like I have to make things a bit clearer

1) There are various 1.0, 1.1 and even a 2.5 version available for download - and most likely some scenarios will be updated when the patch comes out.
I think it would be nice if I just open the website and have a look which scenarios have a higher version number than those listed on the game screen.
Reading through "readme"s in some download folder isn't much fun, really, especially when the version isn't mentioned in those eihter

2) Wasn't a question ... I just wanted to mention that a IGO/UGO game isn't RTS, and so you needn't make a habit of putting the player under time constraints to compensate for the lack of tactical/strategical choices


3) But I feel it is too short (to stay with this example), or the vic-hexes too expensive, or both.
I feel that to achieve a victory one has to forsake any tactics and just run headon into the objective hexes - and the enemy as well.
This would only result in heavy casualties, but not necessarily a good game

It should be sufficient to destroy ALL enemy AFV and take the majority of the objectives IMHO.

Arralen

[This message has been edited by Arralen (edited 05-29-2000).]

I understand your point of view, Arrelen, and mine too . We'll have to agree to disagree on some points.

Now anyone who updates his scenario should state it in the file for uploading. I have done that. If you look, you'll see a number of the scenario. If you see a later number than the one you downloaded (the date will tell you too), then you would know that the scenario has been changed.

I think that is what you are referring to by "the website," is that correct?

For example, the latest revision to Ryan is listed as 2.0. THe date is today and in the corner you'll see mentioned 2nd Revision.

Wild Bill


------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

3) don't make scenarios too short - we don't play RTS here ... and sometimes the direct "go for the vic.hex) approach isn't (shouldn't be) the best, especially when the scenario description says "stop the enemy" and not "take this or that objective" - in such a case whiping out the enemy forces should do (see 2) about this also), and if that's not enough, there should be some time left to reach these hexes ...

A good (bad?) example for such design is IMHO the first battle of the "Patton in Tunesia" Campaign ...

3) But I feel it is too short (to stay with this example), or the vic-hexes too expensive, or both.
I feel that to achieve a victory one has to forsake any tactics and just run headon into the objective hexes - and the enemy as well.
This would only result in heavy casualties, but not necessarily a good game

It should be sufficient to destroy ALL enemy AFV and take the majority of the objectives IMHO.


I have played the first battle of the "Patton in Tunesia" Campaign and you have just the right amount of time. If anything I found that scenario to easy. All I lost was just over 30 infantry and 2 Recon units and in regard to destroying all enemy units, in that one I did destroy most of them and it should not be that way. Once you gane the upper hand the game should end. Showing that the forces left have retreated from the battle, hardly any battle ended with one side destroyed.

Making up a scenario for others is a very tough proposition. Lots of design dilemmas must be dealt with as the scenario is built.

Searching for "balance" is like searching for the Holy Grail - believe me.

Some of the factors:
Do I make a scenario for beginners, medium, old-timers?

Will I make it possible to achieve a decisive and be chided for it being too easy. Or will I make it very difficult to win and be criticised for it being impossible.

Shall it be 10 turns; 20 turns; what? Too short; too long someone will say.

I think that is why there are so many different types of scenarios available; to try to include a wide variety of skill levels, interests.

Having played nearly all of the scenarios offered with SPWAW - some more than once, I must say that I think Wild Bill put together a whale of a package. Most of these scenarios were designed by gamers for gamers. A LOT of thought and test playing and critcism went into these.

I have been on both ends of the testing criticising and getting criticised. No scenario escaped scrutiny; no favorites played. And, we tried to call it the way we seen it.

Just be aware that scenarios I like, you may not like and that there are some for most every taste. At least I think so.

Redleg