What Makes a Scenario Fun?

[Golf33]

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on this topic as it goes to the heart of scenario design. Basically the question is: What makes a fun, satisfying scenario?

Please post your thoughts on what you enjoy:

- Game length - several days or a short 1-2 day battle?

- Objectives - a single set of objectives that last the whole scenario, or phased objectives that expire and start at different times? Ie do you want to fight a single battle or a series of them? Do you prefer having losses factored into your objectives (ie "Destroy the enemy")?

- For historical scenarios, do you prefer victory to be gauged against the historical objectives (ie you succeed if you take Arnhem Road Bridge) or against the historical outcome (ie you succeed if you hold out at the bridge for longer than they did historically)?

- Run of play - do you get one chance at it or should play swing back and forth during the game?

- Force size and composition - infantry/armour/artillery mix? Brigades, Divisions, Corps? What about morale/stubborness/aggro - do you prefer to play scenarios with tough units that tend not to rout, or weaker units that need to be more carefully handled, or a mix of both? Does this apply to both sides?

- Density of forces - how big a unit do you want to handle if the main battle area is say 4000 x 4000 m?

- Starting locations - is it good or bad to have forces in contact or close to it at the start of a game? Do you prefer to have a lot of room between your forward units and your main forces to conduct reconnaisance, or would you prefer to get straight into the shooting?

- Reinforcements - do you like to get them? What sort of timing is preferable? How much of the force should start on the map at once? How large a formation should be used in reinforcements (ie should battalions come on individually, or brigades, or whole divisions)? Is there a preference for a type of delivery (ie do you prefer parachute reinforcements or ground arrivals)?

- Randomisation - how big a window for the time reinforcements arrive do you prefer? A couple of hours or a whole day, or somewhere in between? Do you prefer to have a variety of randomly-selected entry points for reinforcements, or only one set? How much intelligence about enemy reinforcements do you like - is something broad like "armour from the East" in the Briefing sufficient?

- Intelligence - how much do you want to know about enemy locations? Do you prefer to know that there is 'something over there' or that there is 'an armoured company at Deelen and an infantry battalion at Galgen'?

- How hard do you want to have to work? Should you be able to achieve a Marginal Victory against the AI with reasonable effort and planning? Should a Decisive Victory require you to make no mistakes at all, or a few mistakes but nothing drastic?

Regards
33

[Arjuna]

As a general rule, I have found the most enjoyment from scenarios where there are a range of concurrent objectives that I must manage. I really like scenarios where there is a swing in fortunes - ie where you may start off defending but can later, with the arrival of reinforcements, go on the offensive. Or where you can defend in one area while going on the attack in another.

For play against another human opponent I find the most enjoyment where both sides get to "club" ( that's wargame speak for going on the attack ).

[W Thorne_MatrixForum]

Game length - several days or a short 1-2 day battle?

I like campaigns mostly.

Force size and composition - infantry/armour/artillery mix? Brigades, Divisions, Corps? What about morale/stubborness/aggro - do you prefer to play scenarios with tough units that tend not to rout, or weaker units that need to be more carefully handled, or a mix of both? Does this apply to both sides?

Mostly infantry and nothing more then battalion size. In AA 1-2 regiments.

Starting locations

I like meeting engagements where I have to search for the enemy or take an objective and then defend.

Reinforcements- Depends on size and length of game. I don't want reinforcements to quickly. I want to experience a little desperation and having to move forward with depleted companies/battalions.

Intelligence - how much do you want to know about enemy locations? Do you prefer to know that there is 'something over there' or that there is 'an armoured company at Deelen and an infantry battalion at Galgen'

I like extreme FOW. Knowing something is okay. I would also like to see campaigns where some of the info posted is wrong.

How hard do you want to have to work? Should you be able to achieve a Marginal Victory against the AI with reasonable effort and planning? Should a Decisive Victory require you to make no mistakes at all, or a few mistakes but nothing drastic

I like tough games. In campaigns you should be able to make a few mistakes but also be able to rebound with smart play and a little luck. AA was one of the few games where the AI almost beat me.

Good post Golf33.

[Golf33]

Originally posted by W Thorne
I like campaigns mostly.

I assume you mean 5-10 day scenarios, is that right? Do you prefer a progression of objectives (ie different objectives active on different days)?

In AA 1-2 regiments.

How about say 502 Para Inf Regt and 325 Glider Inf Regt vs 6 FJ Regt over a 5-7 day period, maybe with 2-3 Bns of the US troops and maybe 1 Bn of the FJ troops arriving half-way through as reinf?

Reinforcements- Depends on size and length of game. I don't want reinforcements to quickly. I want to experience a little desperation and having to move forward with depleted companies/battalions.

How about uncertainty as to arrival time - say a Bn expected to arrive anywhere between midday on Day 3 and midday on Day 4?

AA was one of the few games where the AI almost beat me.

I have twice been badly surprised by the AI, in scenarios I was building, no less. It's pretty good if given half a chance

Thanks for your reply - if you can expand on the points above, it will help me crystallise a few ideas

Cheers
33

[JeF]

Okay, my 2 cents follow.

Originally posted by Golf33

- Game length - several days or a short 1-2 day battle?

I tend to prefer shorter battles. I really love the 12 hours scenarios included in AA, especially Drive To Loenen.
But I think the games shines at small engagements over approx. 2 days. Night and rest can play a big role, as well as ammo expediture.
Longer is tedious (for me at least).

- Objectives - a single set of objectives that last the whole scenario, or phased objectives that expire and start at different times?

Having multiple objectives to choose from (a victory could be achieved in multiple ways) is better. The player seems in command. Phased objectives are best of course.
The way it's done on 2nd lift scenario is brilliant.
I tend not to like "Destroy the ennemy" things. Maybe that's because I usually take too many causalties

- For historical scenarios, do you prefer victory to be gauged against the historical objectives or against the historical outcome

Historical objectives.

- Force size and composition - infantry/armour/artillery mix? Brigades, Divisions, Corps? What about morale/stubborness/aggro - do you prefer to play scenarios with tough units that tend not to rout, or weaker units that need to be more carefully handled, or a mix of both? Does this apply to both sides?

As said before, I like small scenario. So, I prefer small forces. One division at most. All mixed, it's more fun. Any type, I like to adapt to the situation. I suck at it, but it's still fun

- Starting locations - is it good or bad to have forces in contact or close to it at the start of a game? Do you prefer to have a lot of room between your forward units and your main forces to conduct reconnaisance, or would you prefer to get straight into the shooting?

I prefer to have room. Especially to be able to maneuver.
As scenario stays small, the map should have some room available.

- Randomisation - how big a window for the time reinforcements arrive do you prefer?

Short. A couple of hours at most.

I hope this helps,

JeF.

[W Thorne_MatrixForum]

Golf33 sorry for the short response. Let me see what I can add.

I mainly play campaigns. The longer the better. 5-10 days in AA would be a good length. I don't care for a lot of different objectives. Too FPS. I would like the objectives realistic. Take a town or airfield and hold it against counterattack. Take a town and then move to a second town etc.

How about say 502 Para Inf Regt and 325 Glider Inf Regt vs 6 FJ Regt over a 5-7 day period, maybe with 2-3 Bns of the US troops and maybe 1 Bn of the FJ troops arriving half-way through as reinf?

Yes. With AA being RTS moving a whole division can be tedious. Two regiments at company and support level would be about 25 different units to move and could be handled.

How about uncertainty as to arrival time - say a Bn expected to arrive anywhere between midday on Day 3 and midday on Day 4?

Yes that would be great. Also, if the quality and size of the battalion varied.

I've made campaigns for some other games so I may have to give AA a try. I always enjoy playing player made campaigns so look forward to giving one of yours a go.

[Arjuna]

Originally posted by W Thorne
Yes. With AA being RTS moving a whole division can be tedious. Two regiments at company and support level would be about 25 different units to move and could be handled.

Actually to move a whole division you only need give orders to one unit, the Div HQ and it will handle everything for you. The order can be as simple as selecting the Move order, clicking on the Div HQ and then on the final objective location. If you like you can specify the formation type, speed, aggro, acceptable losses and rate of fire. You can set waypoints to outline the route or set the route type to avoidance, quickest or safest. But all of these settings are optional.

However, if you want to advance on multiple routes then you would need to give orders to your regiments/brigades. Again these could be a simple as a couple of clicks.

My point here is that AA is a command game. While you CAN micromanage every unit, you DON'T HAVE TO. We've written the AI with the aim that you, the player, should be able to trust an AI controlled subordinate to do a "reasonable" job of carrying out your orders. In this way you can focus on the detail where and when you need to. At other times or places on the battlefield you can rely on just giving an order to a Bde or Bn and know that it will get on with the job and do OK.

This feature is what truly sets AA apart from any other wargame on the market. In removing the laborious chore of having to manage every unit, you are able to do what a real operational level commander should be doing - ie focusing on the future as much as the present, planning how to achieve his objectives, what the enemy is doing and is likely to do, how can I react to that etc.

To give you an idea, in one of the largest new Nijmegen scenarios - the Mook Right Hook - you command a Corps. On the Allied side you have the 82nd Abn Div, the Gds Arm Div, the 43rd Inf Div, the 8th Arm Bde and the Dutch Princess Irene Bde. This is a formidable force comprising some 300 individual company sized units. I spend most of my time issuing orders to the bridgades. At the critical points I may take charge of the battalions as well. Occassionally, I may even give a direct order to a company to set up a blocking position. But all in all I would be giving direct orders to probably no more than 20 units.

I hope this gives you a better feel for the way the game plays.

[W Thorne_MatrixForum]

Arjuna you make some very good points. I mostly play RTS at a smaller scale so I think I have to control everything.

Almost everything you said I knew but still keep falling back on what I am use to doing.

But all in all I would be giving direct orders to probably no more than 20 units.

You and I are controlling about the same number of units. It just looks like I need to think bigger. What you have mentioned is a big reason why I don't play a lot of turn base games. Too many icons to move per turn.

I'll give your way a go.

Thanks for the education.

ps. What does Arjuna stand for?

[Arjuna]

Arjuna is the great warrior hero from the Indian epic, the Mahabharata. He was a renowned archer who rode into battle on a chariot driven by Lord Krishna. His discourse with Krishna on the eve of the climactic battle, that is recorded in the Bhagavadgita, is a famous Indian classic.

Arjuna, ordered to lead his army into battle against those of his cousins, starts to doubt the rightousness of his course. Throughout the Bhagavadgita, Krishna estolls the virtues of which the highest is courage. He empahsises the improtance of dharma - right action or duty - of giving your all but of remaining detached and of being free from enmity. In the end Arjuna's resolve returns, his perspective enlightened and with courage and determination he says "Lord I will do thy bidding".

Needless to say he goes on to win the battle. Great stuff.

[Kevinugly]

Dave, that's cleared up the nickname thing for me too. Do I detect an ego thing in there;) . Mind you, who am I to talk about 'nicknames' and 'handles' - 'Kevinugly' - whatever next.

As regards the nature of my personal preferences to give me the most fun, I like the scale of a full campaign like Arnhem as it allows for plenty of 'ebb and flow' and variations of tactics. Since I am unable to work I find I can normally finish a game in about two days. The shorter scenarios are probably better in multiplay but I generally find them too short and lacking in replayability. I'll be interested to see the new content in HTTR as to whether this will still be the case (I hope not as it won't really be worth acquiring if so!!:) )

[JeF]

Hi guys,

Originally posted by Kevinugly
You and I are controlling about the same number of units. It just looks like I need to think bigger. What you have mentioned is a big reason why I don't play a lot of turn base games. Too many icons to move per turn.

Same here. I don't have a lot of experience. But, spending 1 hour planning the mouvement turn, carefully pushing 100 small units on an hex grid, is a bit too much for my taste.

AA on the other hand is "fast and furious". 1 hour of play is a full day battle, not a 15 minutes turn.

The shorter scenarios are probably better in multiplay but I generally find them too short and lacking in replayability.

To each his own. I spent countless hours playing, re-playing and loosing the "Drive To Loenen" scenario. 12 hours, one para regiment.

Dave, that's cleared up the nickname thing for me too. Do I detect an ego thing in there;) .

This guy owns a firm and is producing computer games for a living ! Tells everything :rolleyes:

Cheers,

JeF.

[Kevinugly]

Yep, Drive on Loenen is a bit of an exception. I still haven't cracked it:( . Actually you've reminded me that I should return to it soon as it is the only scenario that I haven't beaten.

Ah, the 'Arjuna' thing. An interesting choice I thought rather than say 'Montgomery' or 'Giap'. If I come up with one for myself I may start a whole new thread on 'our military heroes' (or similar;) )

[Arjuna]

Kevinugly,

Re: Arjuna. It's always a fine line between the ego running away with itself and having a postive self image. I chose Arjuna for my handle because he was a character I could look up to - a reminder of what I aspire to be.

Equally it's a fine line between taking the micky out of yourself and poor self worth. Now are you really that ugly?;)

[Kevinugly]

Aah yes, the 'ugly' bit. Self pity when I created it a while ago but now I've come to rather like its uniqueness. In any case, it's all a bit of fun, and why not:p .