Matrix Games Forums

I think I asked about this before a few years back, but I was curious if people had any new ideas on this topic.

When you write scenarios, how do you rate the complexity? What makes a scenario a 3 but not a 4? Or a 2 but not a 3? I've never been entirely sure the ratings I give are really very useful to people. I kind of rely on a gut reaction, which is often a combination of how many units are under the player's control and how many mission objectives, hidden surprises, and other special factors there are.

I was curious if other people had systems or guidelines that they use, suggestions, etc.

Thanks in advance.

I micromanage, so the number of units.

Another indication for me is the size of the scenario in kB.

While I'm not a much of a scenario designer, I did come up with a rough idea of a definition for my steam New player guide.

I think Complexity should generally be defined as "How many different tasks you are given and/or how many units or groups you must command".

If you have to do multiple instances of effectively the same task (i.e. sink X number of enemy submarines) I rate that on the lower end of Complexity compared to, say, "Gain Air superiority, Strike this enemy airbase, suppress enemy air defenses, engage and defeat enemy naval vessels"

Difficulty would be defined more directly how difficult it would be to accomplish the given tasks, as well as how challenging it is to complete the most fundamental task of all scenarios: Preserve your forces as much as possible from damage that can be avoided.

This would be determined largely on how capable and alert the OPFOR is, and that capability relative to one's own forces. For instance, a scenario where you command a Carrier Group to conduct strikes against a 3rd world African nation with 2nd or 3rd rate equipment would be on the lower difficulty than would be the same mission profile, but with the addition of that same country being allies with, say, China and the PRC having deployed some defensive equipment like advanced SAM batteries.

Scenario ROE and context can also effect difficulty, such as Cold War I & II scenarios where unfriendly major power forces are intermixed with hostile forces, but ROE prohibits you from taking proactive aggressive acts to neutralize the threat, and you must wait for the major power's forces to fire first before engaging those units, even if that effectively requires putting some of your assets at certain death risk. This sort of variable could also reasonably be categorized under "complexity" as well.

It's arbitrary, but a good way to cut through is to avoid complaints about being "to hard" or "too complex".

If you get those complaints, then your scenarios are not being classified correctly.

I agree w/ TBLackey that the complexity rating is somewhat idiosyncratic - almost certainly more so than difficulty.

The point of view for complexity that I've adopted is as follows:
1. control < 10 units
2. control up to 1 squadron of tactical aircraft OR 1 SAG
3. control up to 1 wing of tactical aircraft OR 1 CSG/ESG OR 2-4 SAGs
4. control up to 2 wings of tactical aircraft OR 2 CSG/ESG OR 5+ SAGs
5. control more than 2 wings of tactical aircraft

There are a few additional things that I view as increasing complexity:
- multiple threat axes (as opposed to threats in multiple domains)
- what I'm going to call "advanced CMO skills" like ECM, AAR, and particularly complicated weaponeering
- political constraints that affect the outcome of the scenario (as opposed to worldbuilding [which is also fine])
- needing to coordinate across or strike multiple airbases

One way of looking at it is how many elements are in play. Is the scenario primarily either an air or a naval scenario or joint? How many major tasks is the player given? If you lay false flags or things you ask the player to do but they don't have the resources - i.e player needs to prioritize tasks. Adding in threats that are not highlighted in the brief (surprises) etc

I suppose the question is - what is complexity? Is it a question of scenario size and number of units, i.e mechanical complexity? Or is it how much the player has to untangle a complex situation, i.e. mental complexity?

B

I agree with Bart. "COMPLEXITY" is basically how many units are involved in the scenario. It should be a relative term pertaining to units, but I don't believe that everyone does so.

"DIFFICULTY", on the other hand, is basically how hard is is to win the scenario given the units that you have to work with. This is my opinion.