Jump to content
CharlieB

What do people want in a scenario???

Recommended Posts

It occured to me that many a man hour is spent developing scripting, testing, rescripting, testing etc etc when pulling together a scenario and the end result might not be what anybody wants!!!

So what are people after?

-Large comapany Gp msns within Battle Group Context.

- Tp level tactics within a Coy Gp Environment.

- Advance to Contact.

- Delay.

- Deliberate Attack.

- Deliberate Defence.

- Hasty Defence.

- Ambush.

- Recce.

- Obstacle crossings.

Once complete should the mission contain the option to select veh types?

Is scoring important? It is a black art!

Ramdomness for playability - great but a pain in the arse when you have to script 3 or more enemy courses of action, test, check, rescript....... you get the idea.

I some times think that some don't appreciate how much time and effort go in to the production of scenarios - which is why constructive feedback is always useful. Hence no body wants to waste hours of their life producing sceanrios which are tactically challenging, doctrinally accurate but not what people want.

Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything! Variety IS the spice of life.

However, anyone who has even attempted to create a mission themselves knows the difficulties involved.

Personally, I don't care much one way or the other for "scoring" the scenarios.

Any battle that you can walk away from is a good one.

I look more at the kills to losses ratio than any score.

I do appreciate all the scenarios that the members of this fine community submit. I make it a point to rate each one that I've played. As far as constructive critisizm goes... that is what the mission editor is for.

You can't make the "perfect scenario". What one person loves, another will hate.

I have yet to download a scenario that I did not enjoy at least some aspects of.

Keep up the great scenario work!:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In a good scenario, a player must have the opportunity to make at least three major decisions."

– Ben Hutchins

That's all I'm interested in, content-wise.

The packaging (large - small scenario, etc ...) doesn't matter to me,

as long as the above principle is applied.

Rgds

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I,m basicly most interested in current urban warfare scenario,s such as the ones fought in iraq with tanks. I like the standart conventional war scenarios as well but i really think these in reality are really a thing of the past. So thats why i,m so interested in tanks in unconventional warfare. But like i sayd before steel beasts has very limited capabilty to model this kind of warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think scoring and even mission end has an important role to play from the point of view of "did I achieve the stated goal?" which is not always going to be based on the number of enemy vehicles rendered as scrap! A number of times in the past I have "completed" a mission, but when exiting heve been told "Major defeat" because either the scoring did not work, or the designer forgot to set it up (in the case of several of my own scenarios, this has been the case also, I am trying to put them right!)

But this is a good thread, as feedback of ny sort is a good impetus to carry on knocking out the .sce's. no feedback, well you can end up thinking, "why bother, the stuff I have done so far does not seem to interest anyone"

So, if you enjoy downloading new scenarios and want more. feed the creators!

Lately I made a new .sce and got some very positive feedback and help from Tacbat on this forum which resulted in a fairly well polished and fun mission, an excellent example of how it can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

realism, realistic maneuver, realistic action, realistic response

im not asking for an arcade shooter like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, i want a military simulator appropriate for a tank simulator. the big thing that pisses me off is when millions of enemies spawn out of thin air, or in otherwise inaccessible areas

thus far, steel beasts has delivered. i say keep it going that way, and uphold realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realism, realistic maneuver, realistic action, realistic response

<snip>...the big thing that pisses me off is when millions of enemies spawn out of thin air, or in otherwise inaccessible areas

YEAH!

.....Um.....oh....maybe you want to talk to the French from WW2 when they KNEW the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable to tanks and then millions of Panzers "spawned out of thin air" behind French lines...Ditto same forest but with Americans getting the suprise this time in 1944. (Battle of the Bulge). Same thing with the Israelis getting suprised by the Egyptians and Syrians coming through "nearly impenatrable" areas (the escarpement and the Suez) with massive tank armies in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Oh and how about the Iraqi's being sure that no American tank could navigate the un-navigable desert and come in from their soft underbelly. (I think you begin to see a pattern from just a few "realistic" examples here.)

One thing to remember CommanderA9, is that even though you have plans for what the enemy will do, he hasn't seen them and would rarely follow your plan even if he had seen them. :)

Also remember Nathan Bedford Forrest's advice to his Cavalry Commanders: "Get there fustest, with the mostest!"

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate when 20 enemy tanks just come rolling down one road even though the first 10 of them are being blown up.

Real manouvers from enemy (flanking, hull down) is a must.

Swordsmandk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hate when 20 enemy tanks just come rolling down one road even though the first 10 of them are being blown up.

Yep, me too - absolutely.

Real manouvers from enemy (flanking, hull down) is a must.

Swordsmandk

But unfortunatly, in some/most cases this requires a LOT of work from the scenariodesigner to get it right:

that is to build enough alternative routes on enough spots,

in case something does not go to plan on that particular spot.

E.g. "too much opposition in place X: OK, now apply plan B"

(and then if necessary, plan C, D, ... )

A solution might be, if more than several persons work together on 1 scenario (to divide the workload).

E.g. one person builds routes & various retreat-routes for coy A.

the 2nd scenariodesigner, builds them for coy B

& maybe another team builds independently the red side ...

A kind of MP in a SP-format.

For those who are not into MP.

Hmm, maybe I might try to organise something like this,

(after my holiday that starts now)

Rgds,

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually one thing that would make the process of mulitple routes and randomizing scenarios would be the ability to "turn on/off" routes so the area wasnt so congested with lines and BPs etcetera.

Maybe changing colors of the lines would also help designers utilize the randomness better.

(I really think a big part of non-randomness is a lack of fortitude to deal with all the route lines you have to make and how confusing they can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately a good Idea BH, I have tried to randomize several routes with red forces and the screen just looks a mess, an option to grey out or even make lines invisible would help a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't this help ? manual p. 49:

In later stages of the design of complex scenarios, there may be several hundred waypoints and associated movement routes cluttering the map.

It may be helpful to de-clutter the map by flipping the Routes switch in the middle of the right control panel to Off or Pick.

Pick displays the selected unit and all routes connected with that unit;

pick additional platoons by using Shift + Click (notice

the Plus sign on the mouse cursor), or deselect from a group by using Ctrl + Click.

Or do you mean something else ?

Rgds

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick works well. In addition I find using the text function to make a note of wich C/S is going to which waypoint useful whilst scripting. You just have to remember to remove them all afterwards!!!!

Another piece of advice is to ensure that the embark if commands are condition of event based rather than on specific callsigns reaching certain waypoints. If that C/S then gets stuck in a river, can't find its way around a building etc etc or simply destroyed then the whole scripting fails. Clearly if planning an attack by red forces requires a certain concentration of combat power then the condition/event should be suitably scripted using the FUP as a zone on the map.

This all helps but what is most helpful is an A4 peice of paper with your conditions and detail scripted so that you have a quick reference. I gets complicated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Manual? What the hell is a manual? :shocked:

DOH! I still like the color the routes idea. You could then use it with the pick selection to figure out your randomized routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to implement some of the suggestions (Thanks Koen!) in this thread in improving an existing scenarion of my own. Pleae check it out and see if it is closer to what is sought after. In particular the deployment and scripting of the red units, which has been done to give a somewhat random aspect to certain units and a beteer defensive behaviour. I have also tried to implement reds ability to re-arm, though whether they get the chance or not remains to be seen.

Blue forces can re-arm, be repaired and crew healed in a shorter time than normal. This is as much for increased gameplay as anything else.

The difficulty level to get a victory I think is pretty hard, the airfield is well defended and although you have an impressive force, it will likely be thinned out some by the time you begin the main assualt, but I guess a really good player could find it easier, I find it is usually a close run thing.

I have renamed the scenario from desert Scenario to Desert Airbase Assault as it differs quite a bit from the original.

Constructiive feedback based on either play or examining the .sce in the editor is welcome.

Just uploading now so will be a little while before it appears.

Next I will work on something a little smaller as mine have mostly been pretty busy.

Edited by Pop Smoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want to find a dozen hidden errors in a scenario, the best way is to think I've tested it then post it up here, within twenty minutes I am regretting it.

The above mentioned .sce was, I thought good to go, but once again the lack of reading the manual cost me time and effort. I had used retreat back orders which I later dioscover do not actually perform the function you might suppose and al the red units were staying firmly put despite taking a pounding.

I then read the manual! (amazing) and changed all the movement orders to a conditioned "embark if", Now it works properly.

Ah well, ya live and learn I suppose. V2 uploading in a minute. My humble apologies to those who have downloaded it and probably flicked the bird at it (deservedly so too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know i'm late to this thread, but just downloaded and played a couple of your missions pop smoke, (and I love that handle name...good one), great missions and much appreciated.

IMO as a no nothing wanna be tanker, I look for missions that are small sized, like platoon level or so... where it's easy to control playing by myself, or where 3 friends can join, each with either a MBT or IFV, to themselfs, working together with real world tactics and teamwork... I want a mission that teaches me armor tactics, and is somewhat real world.

If it's a large scale mission, I like to be just a small part of it. I prefer all the other 1000 units already be scripted in there mission and waypoints. I personally don't have time to sit there and plan, then issue orders to a bunch of units... small scale control for me.

Well thats my 2 cents... and thx again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that although there are some very nice missions, the 'ask' of player controlled forces is often much larger than would be sensible for a force to attempt:

A platoon attempting to overrun a weak battalion dug in on the objective and terrain dominating it with strict time limits...

A Company pushing through a Battalion of dug in infantry, Mech infantry and Tanks, over a frontage of 4km and depth of 15km.

The problem isn't so much at the 'point' but more that there is no combat persistence, no available forces for screening, for a reserve, second echelon and providing mutual support at the front.

As a result they typically end with a few vehicles operating on their own, with most of the remainder either damaged or destroyed, and attempts to bring up repair assets without combat unit support usually result in the loss of many of these as well.

I personally would prefer attacks at unity to 3:1 advantage, but with sensibly managed echeloning of troops, so that as the first echelon runs out of steam the task is taken over by fresh troops and the repair/maintenance/resupply of the first wave can be undertaken. However I would also prefer a much higher preference for force protection, especially of the utility/support assets over the taking of ground, especially if the OPFOR force is being ground down trying to hold it.

Sensible force requirements on objectives:

So to take and secure a village should require as a suggestion roughly a company of troops, even if it is 'unopposed', just because the number of buildings to be searched/cleared/occupied suggests that a section would not be sufficient force. Again this would force preservation of forces/limited objectives, as if 'over half' of your starting force needs to secure the approaches to and clear/occupy the actual objective, it doesn't leave much left after the screen is accounted for to allow for losses.

Reward the preservation of force and completion of objectives, but also reward the recognition that the objective is out of reach when the attack is failing, and the successful defence of the start-line, ground taken and the preservation of sufficient combat power to hold the line after the conclusion of the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Magnum, I appreciate the feedback, and I know just what you mean.

The last few missions I have done have been large battle types where you need to play general rather than Tanker, that is of course what I like doing, and also I like a mission that keeps me occupied for an hour or so.

But, I do see the need for shorter, more compact scenarios where the tactical role has been laid out and all you have to do is shoot straight and quick!

So, I will be making some short, sharp and nasty missions in the near future.

Thanks again for your input, you have no Idea just what a boost to creating stuff some feedback is!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...