Broken Windows - A Hofen Ho Down variation

[altipueri]

I'm often bleating about wanting more scenarios or a random scenario generator so I decided to try my own.

I actually used the scenario maker program, loaded Hofen Ho Down, changed it's name to Broken Windows and then proceeded to delete all the objectives except Monschau.

I've now got a scenario with a big scrap for - yes - Monschau. Sure it ain't realistic but I don't care. My next project is to add another objective in the south east corner and see if I can get both armies wheeling around - a bit like First Manassas.

Now the reason I post this is because I'm a computer dimwit, so my being able to make a scenario variation means any of you clever chaps can do better.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

I'm often bleating about wanting more scenarios or a random scenario generator so I decided to try my own.

I actually used the scenario maker program, loaded Hofen Ho Down, changed it's name to Broken Windows and then proceeded to delete all the objectives except Monschau.

I've now got a scenario with a big scrap for - yes - Monschau. Sure it ain't realistic but I don't care. My next project is to add another objective in the south east corner and see if I can get both armies wheeling around - a bit like First Manassas.

Now the reason I post this is because I'm a computer dimwit, so my being able to make a scenario variation means any of you clever chaps can do better.

If you need any help, let us know. In any case, the ScenMaker manual is very good - I find myself going back to it for reference time and again.

[navwarcol]

It is like a new world once you get into the editor in most wargames. To me the idea always has been "what if .... " and the editor lets that happen... 'what if' opens up unlimited possibilities.. beware though, it is addictive.

[Phoenix100]

I have found, in my own tampering with the scenmaker, that the hardest thing - and I still have this problem - is balancing the scenarios I make. Sometimes, I have found that having roughly equal forces means it's too easy to beat the AI when you play through, which has meant that it's much easier to make a scenario that is challenging if you intend it to be only played from one side - then you can balance the points/forces against the human. But then sometimes I've found that the reverse is true - that roughly equal forces allows the AI to get a win. I haven't yet been able to work out which variables cause this.

[Arjuna]

phoenix,

There is nothing wrong with specifying in the scenario briefing that this scenario I best played as allies or axis.

[RangerX3X]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Now the reason I post this is because I'm a computer dimwit, so my being able to make a scenario variation means any of you clever chaps can do better.

I would say the exact opposite - you took the plunge and made use of the tools available to advance a specific game to your tastes - that is not dimwit at all. That is pushing the envelope and is what helps games grow over time.

[rfrizz]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I have found, in my own tampering with the scenmaker, that the hardest thing - and I still have this problem - is balancing the scenarios I make.

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I have found, in my own tampering with the scenmaker, that the hardest thing - and I still have this problem - is balancing the scenarios I make.

Balancing is always the hardest part, IMO. Also my opinion, it is a lot more interesting when a scenario is balanced, but the balancing is done with a method other than equalizing the forces. This is MUCH harder.

I don't know if any of the scenarios have as an objective holding an important tactical location such as high ground with a great view of the battle area.

On an unrelated note, one objection I have to the scoring of a lot of the objectives is giving points for holding them. While situations differ, it just doesn't seem desirable to rate a commander's performance on how long most objectives are held.

As an example, The St. Vith tutorial has 38 possible points for St. Vith with 25 of those points based on time of control. Based on the scenario description, the important thing is to deny it to by holding it. I think it makes more sense to give points based on the situation at the end of the operation rather than events during it.

Of course, there are exceptions. One is slowing an enemy's advance, which would accurately be measured by the amount of time certain areas are held.

[tukker]

rfrizz,

The reason I often assign points for time of control (and did so in the Tutorial scenario) is that it forces a player to try to gain control of an objective as early as possible. If points are only given for controlling an objective at the end of a scenario, a player could wait until the last couple of hours to take it. More often than not, this doesn't simulate the challenges faced by the historical commanders (even in a what-if scenario [;)])

Pieter

[rfrizz]

ORIGINAL: tukker

rfrizz,

The reason I often assign points for time of control (and did so in the Tutorial scenario) is that it forces a player to try to gain control of an objective as early as possible. If points are only given for controlling an objective at the end of a scenario, a player could wait until the last couple of hours to take it. More often than not, this doesn't simulate the challenges faced by the historical commanders (even in a what-if scenario [;)])

Pieter

I see your point, and it may just boil down to having time of possession as a tool to make the inherently abstract as realistic as possible. On the flip side, trying to take a crucial objective late in the game is nuts. Easier to walk in instead of fight in.