"senario de" Topic

Do scenarios even need an optimum solution or even any idea what the solution should be, to make it ,entertaining if nor a riveting ,experience?

One of our current advanced multi evening games has no known solution. It involves a typical Russian advance clearing and securing the advance of a multi battalion column. The route of march is in relatively close terrain and is 10 km long. Given the typical screening forces is attempting to delay the column, we have no real understanding of how much delay could be achieved in the real world and no real idea how to do it in the real world and the rules themselves offer no real indication of how to do it.

This to us is the ultimate game and also the ultimate test of a set of rules will it provide an interesting insight on how roughly it could be done in the real world.

I guess the question is, this the sort of thing You would want from your ideal set of rules? Would this be one of your ultimate sorts of game? Do you game often enough to make this even possible, you need the same opponent for 2 to 4 games to execute this sort of narrative game.

Depends on the players. My ideal game is something which has an end in no more than an evening's of a day's play, which has a winner based on the players' decisions, and which either side can win. But there's a serious difference between MY ideal, and THE ideal.

If everyone leaves the table happy, it's a good game.

No.

Scenarios can be whatever you wish. You can even have a scenario where one side comes across at 9 to 1, and the inferior side is rated as by what he does. If he makes a heroic defense and holds the vastly superior side to limited gains or for many turn, that can be as great a victory, or statement to his generalship as you can imagine. On the other hand, if the inferior side bugs out and gets away with much of his material to fight another day, that can be equally noteworthy and praiseworthy.

War is not fair, and if the game is a test of generalship then do what you think is right and see what the GM's say and abide with it.

After all, real battles have no known solution, even AFTER they are over and the post-mortems begin.

Please note that historians from the two opposing sides of real battles quite often both claim victory in the same battle. Sometimes this is merely nationalistic propaganda on the part of the side which really lost, but there are other cases where both sides may justifiably claim to have won. These cases occur when the two sides have quite different objectives and both may have happened to have achieved their particular objective in combat.

Do scenarios even need an optimum solution or even any idea what the solution should be, to make it ,entertaining if nor a riveting ,experience?

No. A scenario doesn't have to do more than set the stage for the game. I prefer background exposition, context, and clear victory conditions, but none of that is mandatory.

In any case a scenario with a "solution" would be nearly impossible in most rules, since wargames aren't usually deterministic enough to make the outcome of any action that predictable. Sometimes Varro kills Hannibal, Napoleon rolls right over Wellington, and Pickett's charge breaks the Union lines. Even more importantly, no matter how many times you playtest a scenario, playing it with strangers (e.g. at a convention) almost guarantees something unpredictable will happen. I just ran the Jutland BC action again last Friday, and the British lost two BCs to a mass torpedo crossfire. I'm not sure I could set that up again if I tried.

- Ix

No. A scenario is not a puzzle to be solved.

A scenario should provide a backdrop, a motivation, a setting for a developing story. How everyone finds their role in the story is up to the players.

Some scenarios already have a preset outcome (i.e. it is certain that a breakthrough will appear, or that the bridge will be blown, or …), and then it's the storyline that makes the games interesting, not the outcome itself.

As for the type of game your propose – such games are better handled with free kriegsspiel-like rules, or matrix mechanisms.

Wargaming rules are good for fighting out a tactical situation with forces more or less already in contact, or at most a few moves from contact. Once you zoom out towards a bigger theatre, most wargaming rules do not handle that very well.

Phil, to me the ability to provide this sort of support to a scenario is key to a set of rules. One of the reasons for the existence of Maneouver Group was to ensure we had an adequate model. If rules can't handle complex scenarios then to me they are not worth the paper they are printed. It is interesting that you talk about players, To play such a scenario as described you need a single controlling mind on each side. The forces by definition are small so multi player would not do even if they were used to work as a team.

Not sure how a matrix game would solve this sort of problem. Deployment to screen depends on geography, and time available and careful use of counter mobility engineering the clearing of which will definitely be combat engineering while under fire from the screening force. This needs the tabletop to allow simple enactment of the plan and defines the timescales.

How would the scenario compare to the advance of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden? Sounds similar.

Badgers, This is a small scale scenario, due to the nature of the terrain the map models a relatievly narrow section of terrain about 600m wide. Again to keep it simple only one side (most of the time) is modelled. Based on the terrain dansity of a main route in the UK.

link

Solid lines indicate additional board edges. the board is roughly 8ft by 6 ft with a ground scale of 1mm=1m and terrain is all based on 1/144 scale models and terrain features.

With regard to Market garden this is not really in the same leauge. No para drop, no massive pre-battle barrage. Much smaller forces.

In the scenario the artillery support is minimal on both sides, a beattery each. The screening troops are one infantry platoon of relatively poor quality but "disposable" and a company of Reece trops that are definitely not expendable. Only limited losses are acceptable. Basicaly the recon platoon is 2 platoons of tanks and a platoon of engineers and some extra stores,who are expected to do some fighting.

The interest in this thread is whether
a) Folk like this sort of game.
b) To they play often enough to make a sensible game out of it. It's no good trying to learn basic fire and maneouver tactics when playing at this level. You need to be able to "ignore" the rules, the implementation being second nature and all effort being on what to put where and when.

If there was some interest I could post up a more detailed scenario to go with the map and maybee some clues at least to how it playued out with us.

I guess also do players want this sort of scenario published (which implies a few dollars of cost) and also the need for considerable amouts of terrain. Perhaps an additional question is it part of a game designers task to provide at least a limited number of illustarive senarios at all levels of play. Our rules provde a couple of learner games but the complex ones we have not produced as they may not have a very wide appeal.

Almost all rulesets make certain assumptions about the type of scenarios you can play with them. Usually this is not stated as such, but it is hidden in the dna of any ruleset.

Almost all rulesets assume that combat and fire will be the main factors in any game. Far less emphasis is placed on manouevre and deployment, or things such as ambushes or delaying actions. Critical factors are the interplay of movement and fire in a single turn, and how units are activated.
If a scenario relies heavily on manouevre, it almost always needs specific rules.

As for your specific scenario you describe, I have to admit I find your description confusing. Is itn ambush scenario, in which a moving column is attacked from all sides? Cfr XXX Corps in Market Garden?

From your map I deduce indeed a moving column on a small front. That would assume hidden enemy, and spotting rules. You also might want to state that the column has to reach certain landmarks within a specific number of turns, as would be the case in a real operation.

Sure, players would be interested in this type of scenario. I have staged such scenarios several times myself …

Phil, clearly your definition of a good wargame and mine are wildly different. Terrain, command and control, Maneouver and fire are critical to any action and as such all must be equally represented. Clearly any game worth its salt must be able to cope with deployment and maneuover or else how would you be able to deploy reserves. A set of rules that cannot cope with this would not be acceptable to me. How would you skirmish with tanks without a good overall model of the system?

To the scenario and the premises of the thread. The premises was that the enemy had broken through into the Forward Edge of Battle with only long range reconnaissance noting their presence. As such the troops defined above are sent to create at least some delay to the column for further more coherent action to be taken to be able to receive the oncoming major force. This is based VERY loosely on the premises in an E armour magazine vignette but massively modified.

No. A scenario is not a puzzle to be solved.

Isn't that what games are: Puzzles to be solved? If true, then so are scenarios. They are tactical/operational problems where a commander/player is looking for a solution--and there may well be several equally effective solutions.

Do scenarios even need an optimum solution or even any idea what the solution should be, to make it ,entertaining if nor a riveting ,experience?

If there is an 'optimum solution', then it really is a puzzle to be solved--with clear victory conditions. I would think whether a scenario is entertaining depends on what the players want from it.

If there are no clear victory conditions, then it becomes at best a fuzzy game experience, with unclear goals for play. Certainly players can have different victory conditions/goals.

UshCha:

You've asked several questions at the start of this thread, not necessarily linked at all.

Do scenarios even need an optimum solution or even any idea what the solution should be, to make it, entertaining if nor a riveting ,experience?

I would think that depends on the purpose of playing the *game*, the victory conditions and what players enjoy about playing. It depends on what the players "need."

One of our current advanced multi evening games has no known solution. It involves a typical Russian advance clearing and securing the advance of a multi battalion column. The route of march is in relatively close terrain and is 10 km long. Given the typical screening forces is attempting to delay the column, we have no real understanding of how much delay could be achieved in the real world and no real idea how to do it in the real world and the rules themselves offer no real indication of how to do it.

1. Are there any historical examples? IF so, how was it done. OR 2. If you can not find any historical examples, then perhaps there is your answer.

Phil, clearly your definition of a good wargame and mine are wildly different. Terrain, command and control, Maneouver and fire are critical to any action and as such all must be equally represented. Clearly any game worth its salt must be able to cope with deployment and maneuover or else how would you be able to deploy reserves. A set of rules that cannot cope with this would not be acceptable to me. How would you skirmish with tanks without a good overall model of the system?

I don't know whether our definition of a good wargame is different. You're obviously using scenarios. That already scores some good points in my book :-)

But, anyway, what I was trying to say was that your scenario is seemingly based much more on recon, manoeuvre, deployment, rather than actual conflict and combat firefights.
As such, not many ruleset do handle that well. The premise of many rulesets are that troops WILL get into contact, and fire each other and blow each other to smithereens. This is – often unknowingly – woven in the fabric of many rules., ranging from how morale is handled to line of sight rules, to the actual movement, to how vistory might be determined, to even the basic assumption that all turns represent an equal slice of time.

There are not many rulesets that can handle scenarios in which the premise is that troops will NOT get into contact or try to avoid contact or have a large assymmetry in the opposing forces. That would imply a much more subtle movement and C&C system. Perhaps such systems do exist. But often, such aspects of a scenario are much better handled by a free kriegsspiel approach or matrix gaming.

With regard to Market garden this is not really in the same league.

Perhaps, but you might have the same delaying tactics being used by the Germans against the British columns heading to link up with the paratroopers… and that gives you some 'how long' also.

Mac Laddie,
The fact that we have no idea of how to solve the problem is not an issue. The fun is in finding out. Most of our games are, to steal a phrase "Narative Games" they are a set of boundary conditions and some guidance as to what the opposing generals feel is plausible result though as you can see that geta a bit vauge at times. The game "the Fun" is to tell a story. The fun is in the telling that story "playeing the game" untill the outcome is mutually agreed when the fun is spent. Mopping up to wipe out the opposition is not of tactical interest so we never bother.

So so far much of the aim of the thread has been missed. Is it your sort of game. Do you have time to play it and is it of interest if we publisshe a few such complex scenarios. Should game designers provide scenarios?

So so far much of the aim of the thread has been missed. Is it your sort of game. Do you have time to play it and is it of interest if we publisshe a few such complex scenarios. Should game designers provide scenarios?

Yes, of course people are interested in scenarios. I think they should be included in any ruleset, since intended scenarios are as much part of the design philosophy of the game as the rules themselves. It gives an insight for what sort of game the rules are intended.

When publishing stand-alone scenarios, it should be mentioned what assumptions are made about the rules. E.g. movement distance per turn in relation to the table layout, or typical firing ranges.

Bear in mind though, that a scenario that takes more than 4 hours to play, might be bought and read, but will probably never be played :-)

Isn't that what games are: Puzzles to be solved?

Then we should have a semantic discussion about what is a game, and what is a puzzle :-)

Yes, some games are puzzles and some puzzles are games. But not all puzzles are games and not all games are puzzles.

Specifically in the context of miniature wargaming: focusing on the rules and "solving" a particular tactical situation would diminish the total miniature wargaming experience.

So so far much of the aim of the thread has been missed. Is it your sort of game. Do you have time to play it and is it of interest if we publish a few such complex scenarios. Should game designers provide scenarios?

Yep. I missed that entirely. And no, I generally don't have the time, though I certainly find such scenarios interesting to play.

Then we should have a semantic discussion about what is a game, and what is a puzzle :-)

Actually, it isn't a semantics exercise. Puzzles have solutions. Ralph Koster points this out in his book A Theory of Fun for Game Design. He says game systems are puzzles to be solved. He says games have limitations:

The biggest of them is their very nature. They are exercises for our brain. Games that fail to exercise our brains become boring. This is why tic-tac-toe ends up falling down--it's exercise, but so limited we don't need to spend much time on it. As we learn patterns, more novelty is needed to make a game attractive…

Almost all games fall prey to this. They are limited formal systems. If you keep playing them, you'll eventually grok them. In that sense, games are disposable, and boredom is inevitable.

Phil wrote:

Yes, some games are puzzles and some puzzles are games. But not all puzzles are games and not all games are puzzles.

Scenarios can keep up the variety, but if it is the same game system being used, once optimum play is realized within the system, the puzzle is solved and play is boring. Because of this, games are puzzles with solutions. Again, Koster:

This is an important insight for game designers: The more formally constructed your game is, the more limited it will be. To make games more long-lasting, they need to integrate more variables (and less predictable ones) such as human psychology, physics and so on. These are elements that arise from outside the game's rules and from outside the "magic circle."

And example of that is poker. Simple rules, but the strategies and people reading that goes on outside the rules is one of the things that keeps people playing. The card play is unpredictable to a large extent which also makes for multiple winning solutions and thus the game continues to be played.

Specifically in the context of miniature wargaming: focusing on the rules and "solving" a particular tactical situation would diminish the total miniature wargaming experience.

Really? Then why so many scenarios for a set of rules? I think you mean what Koster means. Once you've solved the tactical puzzle, found the optimum play, the experience is diminished: It becomes boring.

If not, then I'd love to know how you play any game, a set of rules for decisions and actions, without 'focusing' on the rules…or play a scenario without any attempt--or thought to come up with effective tactics within the game system?

To answer the OP, I think it can work both ways.

I think setting up the scenario and forces, then letting the players tackle it with their own ideas is ideal, but in many cases the combination of units available and terrain will create specific problems that have to be solved.

Sometimes this is intentional, like setting up a choke point for an outnumbered force to hold off an attack or forcing one side to manage with very few anti-tank weapons, other times it just kind of works out that way.

It can be quite coincidental too: The defenders machine gun team happens to start near a tall building. Odds are if you replay the scenario, most players will move them into the building and it'll become a focus point for the scenario, even if it was never intended to be.