Matrix Games Forums

There has been some discussion about scenario creation and balance over the past few weeks. There was also a call for some Designer Notes from us. With the comments going around it may be time to sit down and put some of this all down for posterity concerning the scenarios.

Most of my wargame career has been in making scenarios for both board and computer games. I seem to have the gift where they are concerned. I came over to Matrix originally to do the patch/update for Panzer Command Kharkov. We did so much work on that patch/update that it turned into it's own game. After 3 years of penance on the Eastern Front I was finally allowed back into society. I wanted to play something/anything other than WW2 for awhile.

So I bought Flashpoint Germany (FPG). I wasn't overly impressed with the way the game handled some things and asked if they were going to do an update, because if they were I'd be interested in working on it.

Long story short the module they were working on was one for the Middle East. Which is one of the 2 most challenging places/time periods in world history to do well balanced scenarios. The emphasis of the game changed after a couple of discussions back to a FPG update. When I had agreed to do the scenarios I also agreed to do the maps. At that point the idea was to do 4 maps again like had been released in FPG. It took a bit to convey that I was going to create about 30 scenarios and that each of them would have it's own map.

I already owned HexDraw by that time but I'd not really used it. I had it for another gaming project completely different from FPC:RS. Between the 2 projects, I learned to use HexDraw to the point of creating the first set of maps that so many of you found so overwhelmingly attractive! Not to mention learning to use it to create maps for the other project as well.

First thing I do when I create scenarios is the research on the actual battle so that I can put the gamer in the local leaders boots on the ground. Since WW3 never happened I had to go a different route. One of my other projects involved a WW3 setting so I had done the historic research for all the reasons that it should have/could have happened and went with one of the story lines.

Having the Eastern Front as one of my main interests I am pretty well versed in Soviet combat history and methods in WW2. Using this background I thought the Soviets consistently outmaneuvered the Germans and NATO was using slightly watered down German combat methods in their defense of West Germany, with some slight differences.

With the goal in mind I started researching all the unit garrison locations and looking at what I might do if I were to attack West Germany with just Soviet forces, since we would only include the Soviet forces in the initial game. Then, I opened Google Earth and looked at the Fulda gap. Would the attack on the Fulda Gap be what NATO had always expected and planned for? I didn't think so. Looking at the map it wasn't the Fulda Gap that stood out but the North German Plain. So, the story line developed for the Fulda Gap attack to be a misdirection attack with the attack north of Fulda adding more pressure to the defense until the actual hammer blow fell on the North German Plain. We had gamed this before with the GDW WW3 game series and I was aware of how that could all work out.

From the beginning I determined that the map scale and time frame would have the Soviet doctrine adjusted a bit. The time and scale would need to be shortened. Which worked okay because I knew that we would introduce battlefield nuclear weapons in the game and the Soviets wanted to live too. To live they would use their famous steam roller and pile units forward. Thus shortening the scale and time frame.

Each scenario was marked on Google Earth and I started to write the story line and briefings. Each scenario was designed to showcase a part of the game engine. No two are exactly alike in terrain and equipment. The closest they come is mission selection.

The process did not go from 1 through 20 in a smooth procession. I jumped around giving them scenarios to work out the code to fix whatever issues each scenario would bring to our attention. About a third of the scenarios covered the code base for the issues I wanted to showcase. Once we were done with that the code was then pretty set for features and Rob/Jim worked hard at making all the features mesh with the result that I know of few incidents where this code crashes. It is extremely stable. Once Rob/Jim were put on the path of my wants/needs then Charles literally took it all apart. The code and my scenarios and handed us back the broken pieces. Together we continued polishing it until release.

That would seem to be the end of the story and it is. The part that is giving some people heartburn at the moment is that all the scenarios weren't playtested in every possible facet of the game. I was told that I was the first person to ever do the lion's share of a games scenarios and that they didn't know anyone else that could do that. After releasing this game I can see why that is. Because every single time there is a code change I got to go back and redress 20 individual scenarios and 2 campaigns. There were to have originally been 4 campaigns.

Have any idea what happens when the coders say they are done? The publisher wants to publish it...RIGHT THEN!!! And yet the day that the code is finished is the day that my final polish starts. And if I have things that are out alignment they have to be fixed before we can send the code to the publisher. I'm the last stop on the line. Not the coders. Not a single entity in this entire process appreciates that.

So, what you got was scenarios that are playtested with NO OPTIONS until they would produce a draw for me. I play the game enough to be at least competent at it. Not really good but at least I can win my own scenarios!! Because I tweak them until I can. [:D]

That gives the basic scenarios just enough of a bite to be competitive and yet if gamers want to go with Limited Orders there is enough slack between my mediocre game play and you Panzer Generals out there that it works pretty well. Limited Orders do tighten up game play and make it tougher. The smaller scenarios are really tougher using that option.

That's pretty much how you got the scenarios/campaigns that I created for the original game. All OOB, TO&E, doctrine and playbalance issues are 100% mine. I worked very closely with Jim to check, double check and triple check the OOB and TO&E's. We both have extensive resources for them and to this day we constantly are adding more resources to our list.

The scenarios/campaigns are far from perfect but after more than a year I believe they have stood the test of time and given gamers exactly what they were asked to do from the start. Introduce you to the vast capabilities of the system that Rob and Jim have created.

It goes without saying that I couldn't have created my part without the full support of Rob, Jim and Charles and they gave me invaluable insights. Charles could retire if he had gotten a dollar everytime I called him up and said, "When you were in, how did you do......."

And now we are getting ready to try it all over again! [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

I learned a lot in creating scenarios for the Combat Mission x1 game series. We actually started a scenario development center and did extreme amounts of playtesting for the scenarios brought to the site.

I learned that the gamer doesn't need my idea of what the setup should be. That's why you get your forces lined up on the side of the map. I don't set your forces up for you.

Another thing I learned was that the terrain matters. Do an actual map and you'll find out why battles are fought in a certain place. When I did scenarios for ASL those maps weren't historically based. When I did them for Combat Mission those could be and they were.

I was once told that even a blind monkey could make scenarios. And that is absolutely true. Anyone can and often does make them. To make good scenarios that play hard and make you work to win is another thing entirely. One of the keys to good scenario play is playtesting and those that do it end up with scenarios that are memorable in most cases.

I have found that if you do the research as deep as you can, create a battle map as close to the actual terrain as you can, then playtest it until you, as the designer, are having a tough time getting a draw, you have a chance at creating a scenario that others will find challenging as well.

And you get really lucky, every once in a great while you can design a scenario that others really like and that they keep coming back to over and over again. When you get one of those smile and take a moment to accept the praise, because those are often few and far between. In my case, the ones I think everyone will like really well are considered average for the most part by the gaming community, and some of the ones I thought were just average seem to catch gamers imagination and they go with them. You never know, but if you liked the scenario yourself and you share that with others you can't lose in our hobby.


Good Hunting.

MR

I've playtested a good number of scenarios myself over the years and can't agree more with you. And once the game is published I can't stomach playing them in the final release the game just sits on the computer.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

With the comments going around it may be time to sit down and put some of this all down for prosperity concerning the scenarios...

So, what you got was scenarios that are playtested with NO OPTIONS until they would produce a draw for me...

Limited Orders do tighten up game play and make it tougher. The smaller scenarios are really tougher using that option.

This is understandable and there's not much we can do about it now. The scenarios are fine; they're tough and interesting to play. Players can get what they want out of playing them. And there's no historical combat results to point to for anyone to say how accurate or inaccurate the game results really are. Who knows?

As I've commented before, IMHO the issue is more about where exactly the focus, the point-of-aim, is for the game. Not just the scenarios and their balance, but the whole game itself. The whole "innovative asynchronous turn structure that models the OODA loop" thingy. For NATO versus Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, in Germany/Central Europe, during the 1980's timeframe. THAT is a perfect focus, and implementing C&C rules that highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides - the qualitative advantages regarding technology and more flexible C&C on one hand versus the quantitative advantages of more tanks and artillery but more rigid C&C on the other hand - should be the default standard for both the game design and scenario design.

For that standard, the game should be "balanced." From THAT standard, players should be able to toggle options and other difficulty settings to make the game easier or harder. So, going forward into the v2.1 game design and new scenarios, it would be nice to see a more appropriate focus. We'd prefer to play the "standard" game that really models the OODA loop as realistically as possible and have the sense that the game and scenarios AT THAT POINT are "balanced." Then let us choose to make it easier or harder as desired. I think many of us assumed the focus was already on the limited staff orders as the standard, so it was a bit disconcerting after a year to find out otherwise. Anyways, thank you so far for a good game and good scenarios, and onward to v2.1!

To be honest I thought MR was creating probable "real world" problems. And sometimes a contested battle is the best you can hope for. I don't understand looking for "balance" in a game like this. Do players look for balance gaming Gettysburg or the Battle of the Bulge?

Showing off facets of the game, and the forces, I can understand. This game would be a hard sell without all of the scenarios created by TMR. Tweaking the scenarios through every code change so everyone can win a good sport medal playing at the simplest settings is not the task I would give to the Mad Russian. But I suppose you need those shoppers to keep the lights on.

As far as "designer notes" go, three out of four design manuals have been published. And some of us are looking forward to number four. Hint. Hint. [:'(]

I find the scenario design tools comprehensible. And the support here has been helpful, friendly, and generous when I run into problems despite the fact that I am really slow, and testing the engine in a direction and timeline it was not designed for.

Last time I was actively involved in a game everyone wanted scenario design tools. Now it seems like everyone is waiting to be served? Did I miss something while I was getting old? [>:]

After our initial discussion I made maps for WEEKS!!! All the maps. While Rob and Jim worked on the code, and especially the editor, with what we had discussed that I would like to see that wasn't already in the game.

The first scenario I gave to them was 'A Time To Dance', followed in short order by about 3 more US scenarios. After about a week to 10 days, we are discussing things again and Rob tells me, "Um, Steve, I don't think it's a good idea to have units just appear out of nowhere, on the maps, during the scenarios."

Not really thinking too clearly at the moment I responded, "What are you talking about? I never have units appear in the middle of the map. They always enter from the edge." That's when Jim told me Rob was talking about 'A Time To Dance' and I had to tell him that in that case, yes, they appeared in the middle of the map because you were seeing the units becoming active as they responded to the alert that would activate them and you got control of them as they came online at the base. I didn't put the base on the map because this fight wasn't about the base and it's sole significance was that the Cav was going to come boiling out of that spot.

So, yes, I actually do have a scenario where units appear in the middle of the map out of thin air. What has been quite surprising is the response that scenario has received. If I had to pick the most played scenario in the group we released I would say it would have to be 'A Time To Dance'!

Good Hunting.

MR

A recent question was asked about how the sequence of scenarios took place and what the thought process was used to create them.

I was stationed in West Germany in 1974-1977 with the 23rd Engineer Battalion Combat, 3rd Armored Division. I served in Battalion HQ and as such had access to all of the division's plans since our battalion supported all 3 Brigades. I took the premise of the surprise attack and started at the border and moved toward the Rhine River. Both in locations where the Soviets would push and where NATO would defend. Many of these locations are from actual NATO plans. As many of you have confirmed, those plans apparently stayed active long after I left.

The two main objectives in West Germany are river crossing sites and road networks. You will see those displayed prominently in my selections for objectives. It is hard to depict an overwhelming attack like this one without falling into the trap of depicting the same battle over repeatedly. Outnumbered NATO forces hold, fall back, hold again....rinse and repeat. Which gave me my toughest challenge of creating different terrain to fight over with as large a variety of maps possible with as different a tactical situation as possible. NATO counterattacks were plugged in wherever I thought they would be historically feasible. The Wolves Campaign, for instance, was an actual NATO plan at one time.

War has an ebb and flow to it. Attack, break the line, run for the objective, reserves arrive to slow/stop the advance, restore the line. Time after time. But WHEN...that's the $64K question...WHEN. When do they break the line, when do they advance in the open, when do they counterattack, and most importantly of all the questions - when do they use battlefield nuclear weapons? In writing the story line those were my most pressing questions and answers.

I had to write a storyline that was believable to all of you or this game wouldn't be played very long.

Many of those answers came from WW2 and how the Soviets attacked in the last 6 months of the war and the NATO expectations that I encountered while I was there. I not only served with the US Army but spent time with the Bundeswehr and BAOR. So, I got a pretty good idea of what everybody thought would happen and how.

The biggest surprise was how different the NATO nations played from one to another and who the strongest and weakest ones were. IMO, that is also one of the biggest strengths of the system.


Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
A recent question was asked about how the sequence of scenarios took place and what the thought process was used to create them.

Ah, I'm glad I found this thread. Thank you very much for sharing your insights, MR. I especially appreciate the thought processes and the amount of effort involved in creating late Cold War scenarios, obviously since there is no historical reference. If it weren't for the creativity involved, such Cold War games could easily become no more than vignettes. Of course, having realistic OOBs/TOEs go a long way towards authenticity, but creativity adds flavor and more immersion.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
With the goal in mind I started researching all the unit garrison locations and looking at what I might do if I were to attack West Germany with just Soviet forces, since we would only include the Soviet forces in the initial game. Then, I opened Google Earth and looked at the Fulda gap. Would the attack on the Fulda Gap be what NATO had always expected and planned for? I didn't think so. Looking at the map it wasn't the Fulda Gap that stood out but the North German Plain. So, the story line developed for the Fulda Gap attack to be a misdirection attack with the attack north of Fulda adding more pressure to the defense until the actual hammer blow fell on the North German Plain. We had gamed this before with the GDW WW3 game series and I was aware of how that could all work out.

Interesting. How much misdirection effort do you perceive the Soviets would apply? Enough to take Frankfurt or not? If not, wouldn't that leave the Soviet flank exposed to counter attacks by largely intact V Corp?