Matrix Games Forums

Here are some things I have encountered as I design and play battles. Some of these are very important to scenario designers who spend a lot of time and effort. Some literally ruin a scenario.

1. The F4 key which makes the player free to deploy in a multitude of locations. If the scenario is a tightly scripted one in which a historical situation is depicted, it is important that the F4 key be kept in mind. Because the freedom in deployment can radically affect the outcome of the battle. I suggest that as a minimum, the scenario designer indicate whether or not the deployment should be as provided or not.

Testing. the above is essential for testing a scenario if one is to place any value on the outcome of the test.

2. Mods. Is the tester or player using "Standard Issue" units or has he (as I have) been messing with the OOBs? Designers need to keep this in mind when evaluating testing results or difficulty levels. For example, I have made some rather radical changes to my OOBs so that to test any infantry scenarios would be pointless. OTOH, I have left my armor absolutely standard so I can test/play/share outcomes with pure armor battles that are meaningful.

In general, I am quite willing to test smallish scenarios for folks so long as it is a scenario that doesn't bog down my computer and take the fun out of it. But now, I am limited to testing pure armor scenarios until I decided whether or not to install anothe copy of the game that is "pristine".

I only raise these issues because I played a scenario the other day that worked wonderfully using designer provided deployments. But when I was replaying the battle for the third time, I wondered what would happen if I deployed "over there". The answer was that this deployment ruined the playability of the scenario (far too easy to win). If I had done this the first time I played, I may have well thought that the scenario was not worth playing.

It may be useful for the designer to indicate what his desired outcome might be for the battle. Is it to be considered very difficult, what level is it designed for. Is there a "trap" that will ruin the scenario? The other day, I encountered one with a 100mm German gun in the open far, far away. This gun was designated "Elite". It was not possible to move across a ford or bridge and Russian artillery had no smoke rounds. So this single "cute" trick absolutely made this scenario a loser for me. After a few turns, I quit and loaded it into the editor to see what the story was about the "One shot, one kill". My point is that perhaps the designer might mention this or specify that if you do not play the German side, you are doomed. And if you play the German side, you are guaranteed victory.

Some thoughts. I'd like to see if any others have some things to add.

Hi Redleg,

I think your F4 considerations are quite right. The option of using set up zones would eliminate this.

It might also be useful for people to keep 2 sets of files they can switch in and out. One with a stock set of oob's and another for experimentation.

Regards John

ORIGINAL: Redleg

Here are some things I have encountered as I design and play battles. Some of these are very important to scenario designers who spend a lot of time and effort. Some literally ruin a scenario.

1. The F4 key which makes the player free to deploy in a multitude of locations. If the scenario is a tightly scripted one in which a historical situation is depicted, it is important that the F4 key be kept in mind. Because the freedom in deployment can radically affect the outcome of the battle. I suggest that as a minimum, the scenario designer indicate whether or not the deployment should be as provided or not.

............I only raise these issues because I played a scenario the other day that worked wonderfully using designer provided deployments. But when I was replaying the battle for the third time, I wondered what would happen if I deployed "over there". The answer was that this deployment ruined the playability of the scenario (far too easy to win). If I had done this the first time I played, I may have well thought that the scenario was not worth playing.

I'll add that as a standard feature to my briefings. In one I have already done that. But as you say, with historical battles it's pretty imperative that you start where they started or the play balance could easily be skewed.

Testing. the above is essential for testing a scenario if one is to place any value on the outcome of the test.

The only way to tell if a scenario works, and works well, is to PLAYTEST IT...hopefully, and I highly recommend this, by someone other than the designer!!

We are trying to get a playtesting site set up for PC where all the scenarios can go to get some playtesting for those designers that don't have that capability at the moment. To also share ideas about what works in designing for PC and what doesn't.

2. Mods. Is the tester or player using "Standard Issue" units or has he (as I have) been messing with the OOBs? Designers need to keep this in mind when evaluating testing results or difficulty levels. For example, I have made some rather radical changes to my OOBs so that to test any infantry scenarios would be pointless. OTOH, I have left my armor absolutely standard so I can test/play/share outcomes with pure armor battles that are meaningful.

This one gets more iffy. If you are using a non-standard mod then that will create a problem. I have not released some of my scenarios because of that at the moment. Hopefully when you zip the scenario the designer will put the mod in the zip file with it. That way if you want to play it all the parts are there to allow that happen.

It may be useful for the designer to indicate what his desired outcome might be for the battle. Is it to be considered very difficult, what level is it designed for. Is there a "trap" that will ruin the scenario? The other day, I encountered one with a 100mm German gun in the open far, far away. This gun was designated "Elite". It was not possible to move across a ford or bridge and Russian artillery had no smoke rounds. So this single "cute" trick absolutely made this scenario a loser for me. After a few turns, I quit and loaded it into the editor to see what the story was about the "One shot, one kill". My point is that perhaps the designer might mention this or specify that if you do not play the German side, you are doomed. And if you play the German side, you are guaranteed victory.

I put a, "Preferred Method of Play:" line in my scenario briefings now. I'm not good enough with the editor yet to make that stick to which side I think is better but I will get there.

Personally, for me, I will NOT put a warning in my scenarios about what to watch out for.....UNLESS, the actual commander knew of the existence of the "cute trick". Otherwise, the "cute trick" may well be what the entire scenario is about and your ability as the gamer to overcome obstacles to your winning the battle as you encounter them.

All of my scenarios are targeted at being difficult. None of them are at the moment. Hopefully, they will get more difficult as I gain more experience in the editor and with my own gameplay.

Good Hunting.

MR

Some thoughts. I'd like to see if any others have some things to add.

Redleg,

Why don't you JSGME you mods that way you can easily switch them in and out without having to reinstall a pristine copy? Cougar has a tutorial on it.

ORIGINAL: Stridor

Redleg,

Why don't you JSGME you mods that way you can easily switch them in and out without having to reinstall a pristine copy? Cougar has a tutorial on it.

And the guide can be found here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1773663

If you have any questions then don't hesitate to ask! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Redleg
2. Mods. Is the tester or player using "Standard Issue" units or has he (as I have) been messing with the OOBs? Designers need to keep this in mind when evaluating testing results or difficulty levels. For example, I have made some rather radical changes to my OOBs so that to test any infantry scenarios would be pointless. OTOH, I have left my armor absolutely standard so I can test/play/share outcomes with pure armor battles that are meaningful.

I use JSGME for this type of thing too. For example, we're testing a set of full "1:1" scale mods internally, changes a lot of the data files - I just swap them in with JSGME when I want to test them and swap them out when I want to go back to the "stock" game files. You can use JSGME to handle any number of file changes, so it really does make this easier to deal with.

Regards,

- Erik

Let's talk about first things first. The manual is very good at explaining the editor.

Walking down through the steps are very clear. If there are any questions just ask and several of the members here will help you out.

Some tips for making scenarios that I used in making CM scenarios seem to be just as relevant here in PC.

The first thing that will be seen is the briefing.

You can make that as detailed or brief as you like. I'm well known for my "NOT SO BRIEF" briefings. I like alot of historical detail so I put that in my briefings.

I think there are some things that should be in the briefing.

When, where and why. I want to know when this battle took place. Where it was fought. Most importantly why it was fought. All HSG scenarios are models of actions that have actually taken place so for us that part is easy.

Which side the designer recommends. Hopefully after at least some and preferably considerable playtesting.

I want to see the commanders instructions/intelligence reports to be something resembling the orders the actual commander on the ground would see.

The term Russian should be replaced by the term Soviet. The two are miles apart and only the Germans used the slang Russians. That would be appropriate in the German national briefings but not the Soviet ones if you want to get that detailed.

The point balances mean NOTHING in a scenario. What means the most is the balance of forces and how they are used.

PLAYTEST......PLAYTEST........PLAYTEST.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't put enough emphasis on playtesting in case you missed that..........

Now as you put together your forces THINK about what it is you are trying to model.

I know....I know but it's not really that hard.

A Panzer Division doesn't really have 12 different types of tanks in it. They would normally have from 2 to 4 depending on time period. A Soviet Tank Corps really wouldn't have all T-34's in it during most of the war.

There is a well stocked research center here for those interested:

http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/research.html

If you have questions ask.

The timing of reinforcements can be crucial to the feel and accuracy of a scenario. One of the things I seem to run into alot in PCK scenarios is being the German on the attack and getting hit with Soviet artillery/mortars before I even move. While that could and sometimes did happen that's something I would rarely use in a scenario before 1943. The Soviets were busy trying to learn the modern art of war before then.

This may be that I'm playing the same PCK scenario more than once leaving me with that impression or it may be other factors. It's just something that jumps out at me at the moment.

If there is a desire/need to go through the scenario design process it should be easy to get a tutorial done on the actual steps involved instead of just a general overview.

The biggest thing that you can do to playbalance your scenario is PLAYTEST IT!!! Hopefully with someone besides just yourself.

If you have any questions concerning the making or playbalancing of PCK scenarios this is the place to ask them....[8D]

Good Hunting.

MR