Type of scenario

[Jason Petho]

A few questions.

1. What are the type of scenarios that you find most challenging?


2. What are the type of scenarios you find least challenging?


3. What is your ideal type of scenario?


Thanks in advance!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[wings7]

Jason,

I enjoy a variety of scenarios, one or two types really don't stand out for me. I'm really looking forward to the Campaign Series, like so many other of us gamers here.
Could you give us a update on the Campaign Series?
Are you involved in the "Battlegrounds" Series? That is another series I'm really looking forward to.

All the best,
Patrick

[RAF]

Jason:

My ideal scenario is this:

I am playing against the computer. (I tend to dislike playing against people because of the gameyness of such games. For example, the use of tactics such as charging a armored car behind enemy lines to take the objective worth 100 points in the last turns of the game.).

The computer is defending, and I am attacking because - let's face it - the computer does a better job of defending and attacks require more player initiative and less mere reaction. I have time to scout the enemy.

My ideal scenario is not any scenario where the computer determines the starting positioin of its units. The computer does such a poor job of this that I cannot tolerate dynamic campaign games or similar scenarios - I will not play them.

I dislike scenarios where, given the objectives and the number of turns, I have no choice but to charge into battle and hope for the best. I want time to send my troops forward, find out some important intelligence, create a plan based on that intelligence, maneuver my forces into position, and then execute the plan.

My ideal scenario would have the computer maneuver units, and not individual pieces. That is to say, if a particular hill seems threatened, the computer will move a company of infantry to reinforce the hill. Enemy units stay near their leaders and there is a certain amount of unit cohesion.

If we are talking about my ideal scenario, this is what I invision: The person who created the scenario not only placed the units on the board in an intelligent manner for defense, but also had the power to 'program' defenses in some way. I invision a program that allows the player to write simple instructions such as, "If Position 1 falls, units at Locations L1 and L2 fall back to Locations L3 and L4 respectively," Or, "Unit U1 will start off at location L5 and move forward to reinforce the first company to lose 40% of its combat strength."

[33sherman]

ORIGINAL: RAF

Jason:

My ideal scenario is this:

I am playing against the computer. (I tend to dislike playing against people because of the gameyness of such games. For example, the use of tactics such as charging a armored car behind enemy lines to take the objective worth 100 points in the last turns of the game.).

The computer is defending, and I am attacking because - let's face it - the computer does a better job of defending and attacks require more player initiative and less mere reaction. I have time to scout the enemy.

My ideal scenario is not any scenario where the computer determines the starting positioin of its units. The computer does such a poor job of this that I cannot tolerate dynamic campaign games or similar scenarios - I will not play them.

I dislike scenarios where, given the objectives and the number of turns, I have no choice but to charge into battle and hope for the best. I want time to send my troops forward, find out some important intelligence, create a plan based on that intelligence, maneuver my forces into position, and then execute the plan.

I agree with all of this. I don't mind scenarios in which the AI 'attacks' so long as the computer has a huge advantage in numbers and strength. I remember enjoying the 'Assault Through The Weeping Woods' scenario in EFII, which was pretty much a hopeless defense.

I really enjoy big scenarios that are campaigns all their own. For instance, the large West Front 'invasion of Malta' and 'invasion of Crete' scenarios were great.

[SurrenderMonkey]

Any scenario that is firmly rooted in history is fun. I can't muster the interest to play something that is hypothetical, with rare esceptions such as the old Sea Lion expansion.

[Temple]

I only play against the computer, I enjoy the mental puzzles. In contrast to SurrenderMonkey I like hypothetical scenarios and campaigns, so it's just not the same old retelling of history. And I especially like it if the scenario cleverly uses rare hardware or units so we get to see some interesting situations.

I don't like purely infantry fights. Yes it's more historical, but it's boring after a while.

I also prefer smaller scenarios, but of longer turn duration so that they aren't just a race to a particular point. Also scenarios where scouting is important.

[awc]

I play against the computer mainly becouse i don't have the time to devote to the e-mail games, however i find the massive multiple objective scenerios like breakthrough or river crossing with many different types of units the most challenging. I find simple meeting engagements and defensive battles the least challenging and scenarios like a paratroop drop to capture an airfield or depot and say blow up some bridges or a capture a town or city from the enemy the best. I would like to see more different formations involved in scenarios like an anti tank battallion or a engineer battallion. thanks.