Hi All,
Am I the only one or does it seem the Map Maker and Scenario editor are a little challenging for casual use. It would really encourge participation if those tools were more straight forward to use.
Regards John
Maps and Scenarios
Moderator: Arjuna
RE: Maps and Scenarios
z1812,
Have you read the ScenMaker Manual?
What about the MapMaker manual?
What do you find difficult or not straight forward?
What specific changes would you recommend?
Have you read the ScenMaker Manual?
What about the MapMaker manual?
What do you find difficult or not straight forward?
What specific changes would you recommend?
RE: Maps and Scenarios
Hi Arjuna,
I have made scenarios for a few games. SP, Combat Mission and Flashpoint Germany for example. I find their editors very intuitive and easy to use. I did not read the manual for any of them.
The only time I read scenario editor manuals was for Tiller Games, PzC and Sqaud Battles to be exact. They were point by point and not too dense. Oh and the campaign series as well.
I am a casual scenario maker and just browsing over COTA's editors made me feel as if I was at work.
Drag and drop and click and change are what I like. Some hills here, click, click, away I go. These units here, drag and drop and there they are. It looks to me that the editors are too much work. They should be fun.
I shall give them another look as it would be fun to create some maps and scenarios for these games.
Regards John
I have made scenarios for a few games. SP, Combat Mission and Flashpoint Germany for example. I find their editors very intuitive and easy to use. I did not read the manual for any of them.
The only time I read scenario editor manuals was for Tiller Games, PzC and Sqaud Battles to be exact. They were point by point and not too dense. Oh and the campaign series as well.
I am a casual scenario maker and just browsing over COTA's editors made me feel as if I was at work.
Drag and drop and click and change are what I like. Some hills here, click, click, away I go. These units here, drag and drop and there they are. It looks to me that the editors are too much work. They should be fun.
I shall give them another look as it would be fun to create some maps and scenarios for these games.
Regards John
RE: Maps and Scenarios
Hi John - Check out my site below, where I describe making scenarios and maps. It is fun - and the group here is very very helpful if you run into a question.
Dan
Dan
RE: Maps and Scenarios
ORIGINAL: z1812
Drag and drop and click and change are what I like. Some hills here, click, click, away I go. These units here, drag and drop and there they are. It looks to me that the editors are too much work. They should be fun.
I shall give them another look as it would be fun to create some maps and scenarios for these games.
Regards John
John,
Re ScenMaker. It uses drag and drop extensively. Try it out. Open an existing Template scenario. Change to the desired map by clicking the Map button on the side bar and selecting your desired map from the list - too easy. Now drag the forces you want from the force list on the Units tab to the map - too easy. For each side, place one or more objectives by selecting the desired objective tool and clicking on the spot where you want it on the map. ( To change sides, click on one of its units on the map or in the force list - too easy. Open the Victory Schedule window for each side and assign some points to the objective. Save As using a different scenario name. Run the Game and play.
Sure there is a lot more you can do, but you don't have to. Start small and keep it simple, stupid - the KISS principle.
Re MapMaker. First off tou don't need to draw a map. you can simply use one of the existing maps provided and there are over twenty of them. Second, this is not a hex based map but a vector map. You trade off simplicity for fidelity. So while you can't just drag and drop a terrain feature you can simply draw one using the draw tools. If you can click on the map, you can draw a terrain feature. The easiest method is to scan a real map, show the map underlay and trace over it with the tracing tool.
Designing a really detailed map can take quite a while but on the other hand, you can draw a purely hypothetical map from scratch very easily. Just start with a few altitude layers, working from the lowest to the highest. Three or four height differences could suffice. Then draw in some rivers and streams, add a few roads, villages and woods. Save and then load into the ScenMaker to design your scenario.
-
JudgeDredd
- Posts: 8362
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
- Location: Scotland
RE: Maps and Scenarios
The manuals are a must, definitely. But to create a scenario after your first one is not a very big deal....the problem is balancing them...that's the very tricky bit!
BUT I find it fairly easy to use now that I've created one. They are hard work...but I find it very rewarding. Just creating a map was rewarding...then adding troops etc, etc...I found the experience hard work but rewarding and enjoyable and look forward to creating another scenario....I just have to get the balancing in my current one right before moving on...and I'n finding that very difficult.
In fact, Dave, if you or any of the PantherProwlers have any ideas on balancing, I'd appreciate them...I could do with one of your mob looking at my scenario and checking it out from a balancing perspective.
BUT I find it fairly easy to use now that I've created one. They are hard work...but I find it very rewarding. Just creating a map was rewarding...then adding troops etc, etc...I found the experience hard work but rewarding and enjoyable and look forward to creating another scenario....I just have to get the balancing in my current one right before moving on...and I'n finding that very difficult.
In fact, Dave, if you or any of the PantherProwlers have any ideas on balancing, I'd appreciate them...I could do with one of your mob looking at my scenario and checking it out from a balancing perspective.
Alba gu' brath
RE: Maps and Scenarios
Billy,
Re balancing. There are many factors but probably the grossest overall factor is to compare the total APerFP of all forces on each side. If all the forces start on map then it's easy. Just open the scenario in the Game, as the Allies, select all forces ( lassoo ) and note the APerFP value in the sidebar. Repeat for the Axis and compare. If you have reinforcements then clone the scenario, rest all reinf timings to the scenario start - ie so they all appear on map at the start. Run the game and note the values.
As to what those values should be, well that depends on the type of scenario you are creating, the timing of reinforcement arrivals, the relative armour v AArmFP ratio, the terrain and whose going to derive most benefit from it, the amount of air strikes etc. Where both sides are mobile, then aim for a 1:1 ratio or there abouts. Where one is attacking and the other defending then aim for a 2:1 ratio. It may need to be 3:1 if the terrain constricts the attackers options. But remember sequencing can make a big difference. Eg. If the attacker has 3:1 but they arrive in dribs and drabs over ten days then at any one point he may never achieve anything better than 1.5:1. Also you can have an initial attack by one side followed by a riposte by the other ( always fun ). When in doubt aim for a 1:1 ratio for mobile battles and 2:1 for fixed.
No matter what, testing is required.
Another option is to provide different reinforcement schedules for each side such that they get less in the Favour Them and more in the Favour Us categories. That way you can readily adjust to get a balance once you have tested it.
Re balancing. There are many factors but probably the grossest overall factor is to compare the total APerFP of all forces on each side. If all the forces start on map then it's easy. Just open the scenario in the Game, as the Allies, select all forces ( lassoo ) and note the APerFP value in the sidebar. Repeat for the Axis and compare. If you have reinforcements then clone the scenario, rest all reinf timings to the scenario start - ie so they all appear on map at the start. Run the game and note the values.
As to what those values should be, well that depends on the type of scenario you are creating, the timing of reinforcement arrivals, the relative armour v AArmFP ratio, the terrain and whose going to derive most benefit from it, the amount of air strikes etc. Where both sides are mobile, then aim for a 1:1 ratio or there abouts. Where one is attacking and the other defending then aim for a 2:1 ratio. It may need to be 3:1 if the terrain constricts the attackers options. But remember sequencing can make a big difference. Eg. If the attacker has 3:1 but they arrive in dribs and drabs over ten days then at any one point he may never achieve anything better than 1.5:1. Also you can have an initial attack by one side followed by a riposte by the other ( always fun ). When in doubt aim for a 1:1 ratio for mobile battles and 2:1 for fixed.
No matter what, testing is required.
Another option is to provide different reinforcement schedules for each side such that they get less in the Favour Them and more in the Favour Us categories. That way you can readily adjust to get a balance once you have tested it.
RE: Maps and Scenarios
PS Billy, email me your scenario and map files and I'll see if the beta testers can put it through its paces.
-
barbarossa2
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:13 am
RE: Maps and Scenarios
I am confused as to why people who design "historical" scenarios are concerned about "balancing" them.
Unless, one is designing a "chess-like" family game for two.
Why worry about balancing? I doubt the invasion of Crete was "balanced."
[;)]
Meant well. Just brainstorming.
Chris
Unless, one is designing a "chess-like" family game for two.
Why worry about balancing? I doubt the invasion of Crete was "balanced."
[;)]
Meant well. Just brainstorming.
Chris
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
RE: Maps and Scenarios
I designed many scenarios for the CM system as well (they are still being dowloaded from the SDII) and at least as far as creating historical terrain is concerned, the AA Map maker is slightly easier to use IMHO. CM:Mapping Mission helped considerably, but that was a third party application so I don't feel that including it in the comparison would be fair. I agree that a few more layer editing tools in MM would help considerably.
Creating a well-designed scenario in AA takes more thoughtful consideration than CM, as far as placement and timing of reinforcements and victory locations over a wide expansive map, and building a historical OOB for a division (in AA) from scratch is alot more challenging than building a historical battalion (in CM), so the AA SM is more difficult by proxy.
What I liked the most about the AA SM over the CM editor was having the ability to "script" the actions of the AI with carefully timed AI objectives, something that was sorely missing from the CM editor.
Chris, balancing in this respect means simply balancing the victory conditions so that even the historically weaker side will have a chance for decisive victory.
Creating a well-designed scenario in AA takes more thoughtful consideration than CM, as far as placement and timing of reinforcements and victory locations over a wide expansive map, and building a historical OOB for a division (in AA) from scratch is alot more challenging than building a historical battalion (in CM), so the AA SM is more difficult by proxy.
What I liked the most about the AA SM over the CM editor was having the ability to "script" the actions of the AI with carefully timed AI objectives, something that was sorely missing from the CM editor.
ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
I am confused as to why people who design "historical" scenarios are concerned about "balancing" them.
Unless, one is designing a "chess-like" family game for two.
Why worry about balancing? I doubt the invasion of Crete was "balanced."
Chris, balancing in this respect means simply balancing the victory conditions so that even the historically weaker side will have a chance for decisive victory.
simovitch
-
barbarossa2
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:13 am
RE: Maps and Scenarios
Simovitch,
Ah. Gotcha.
Yes. Now THAT makes sense![;)]
Ah. Gotcha.
Yes. Now THAT makes sense![;)]
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
-
JudgeDredd
- Posts: 8362
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
- Location: Scotland
RE: Maps and Scenarios
Will do Dave, thx for the offer.
And Barbarossa, my scenario is not historical [:'(]
And Barbarossa, my scenario is not historical [:'(]
Alba gu' brath
RE: Maps and Scenarios
You hit on another key issue for scenario balancing - objectives. Even if one side is grossly outnumbered, the right mix of objectives can make a big difference. For an example using a historical scenario, take a look at the two missions based around the Allied counterattack at Maleme - Kiwis Fight Back and Stemming The Tide. One uses the historical objective (you have to actually win the counterattack) while the other uses the historical progress (you just have to do better than the historical outcome). This makes a marked difference to the scenario balance.
The same thing applies in fictional scenarios. Balancing the forces so they are of equivalent strengths works OK for a basic meeting engagement / bash'em'up type scenario but for something a bit more interesting use lopsided forces and compensate by giving the stronger side much more challenging objectives. Remember that most armies attack doctrine requires something like a 3:1 advantage before launching an assault (some like the Soviets specified a much greater advantage). COTA reflects the advantages of good defensive terrain quite well so keep this kind of ratio in mind when planning your scenario.
Supply is also something to keep in mind. If one force is stronger but less well-supplied this will make a difference.
When I designed the scenarios I tried to think of particular problems I wanted the commanders on each side to have to solve. For a really basic scenario you can go with just one or two problems (take the position; preserve forces). For more complicated scenarios you add more problems (protect extended supply lines against counterattack; take the position; preserve forces; exit forces while defending against counterattack). Play the scenario through from both sides and see whether any of these problems are insoluble, or if they turn out not to be enough of a challenge. If you can, play against a human opponent as well - the AI is very good but usually not as good as a competent human.
Cheers
Steve
The same thing applies in fictional scenarios. Balancing the forces so they are of equivalent strengths works OK for a basic meeting engagement / bash'em'up type scenario but for something a bit more interesting use lopsided forces and compensate by giving the stronger side much more challenging objectives. Remember that most armies attack doctrine requires something like a 3:1 advantage before launching an assault (some like the Soviets specified a much greater advantage). COTA reflects the advantages of good defensive terrain quite well so keep this kind of ratio in mind when planning your scenario.
Supply is also something to keep in mind. If one force is stronger but less well-supplied this will make a difference.
When I designed the scenarios I tried to think of particular problems I wanted the commanders on each side to have to solve. For a really basic scenario you can go with just one or two problems (take the position; preserve forces). For more complicated scenarios you add more problems (protect extended supply lines against counterattack; take the position; preserve forces; exit forces while defending against counterattack). Play the scenario through from both sides and see whether any of these problems are insoluble, or if they turn out not to be enough of a challenge. If you can, play against a human opponent as well - the AI is very good but usually not as good as a competent human.
Cheers
Steve
Steve Golf33 Long
