UshCha | 09 Aug 2018 1:24 p.m. PST |
Two things co-coincided this week the interesting thread on Friction and a scenario I wrote that proved highly interesting but not fit for purpose. This left me considering what folk wanted a scenario to do, at some detailed level. I will try and put the scenario up later this week. Basically it was a test to see if a scenario I designed was simple enough for a war games show. Basically a company of tanks driving down a road isolated during a retreat, facing infantry with a less than perfect weapons set-up in less than perfect terrain. It was also set up as a "test" for certain sections of the rules in an extreme example. Also an interesting chance to understand what underlies efficacy of the "observation over Preservation" approach of tank command. from the infantry side its a chance to try out the typical requirement to Machine gun tanks to get them to button up and to see how their performance is degraded by doing so. The scenario turned out to be much more of a challenge to both sides and way beyond a beginner, so was not fit for purpose but was a very challenging scenario. So, when you design a scenario what are your objectives. Many of my scenarios I write aim at pushing the players with severe challenges in time and space, many look like an exercise aimed at testing the players ability to keep it together under stress and to anticipate what the opposition may do and what he may not be capable of. While it is most certainly not chess, none allow for a quick chat about models the game is all the break in concentration would be a disaster. The rules are simple the game is not. How many models get on the table is academic. The sides are almost always Russian vs German as we only have two armies. After about 10 years of play we are still getting to grips how to fight an army given its advantages and disadvantages in a wide range od settings. So what are your criteria? |
Joe Legan | 09 Aug 2018 3:10 p.m. PST |
UshCha, I am probably in the minority but I don't need stress in my games; it is a hobby for me. As a surgeon I get plenty of stress at work. I like an interesting tactical situation where my decisions have a likely chance of affecting the outcome. Ideally there would be more than "one" right way to skin the cat. Cheers Joe |
Herkybird | 09 Aug 2018 3:44 p.m. PST |
Interesting and FAIR!- I am with Joe thinking there should be more than one 'Magic' way to succeed. |
Legion 4 | 09 Aug 2018 4:01 p.m. PST |
Force Levels Unit/equipment TO&E/OOB/lists Victory Conditions |
Winston Smith | 09 Aug 2018 4:18 p.m. PST |
I'm with Joe Legan. I have enough stress in my everyday life. I have no need to "simulate" it in what should be fun. |
Winston Smith | 09 Aug 2018 4:24 p.m. PST |
What do *I* aim for? I try to set up small AWI battles where the players get to pretend that they are following AWI practice with what i blushingly feel are well painted figures. We have lawyers, accountants who work for the state, prison guards, school teachers, salesmen… We need stress in our recreation? Camaraderie and fellowship are the most important factors. If my scenarios are accurate, good for me. |
Extra Crispy | 09 Aug 2018 5:10 p.m. PST |
When I design a scenario I want it to do a few things: 1) Give the players an interesting tactical problem 2) Give each side multiple viable strategies 3) Give each side a chance to "recover" from a bad decision Bad games are often "line up and bash." Yawn. Or even worse – once you did X on Turn 1 you had no chance to win. Meh. Almost as bad: if you don't seize the bridge first, you lose. |
Saber6 | 09 Aug 2018 5:29 p.m. PST |
I'm with the Mouse on this. Add in "reasonable" forces that are in line with the period and the ground scale |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Aug 2018 7:51 p.m. PST |
Agree with Extra Crispy. Though I think I have to start with a Step 0: 0) The scenario must actually be winnable by both sides. I've played a scenario where it was physically impossible for the convoy player to win because the convoy mathematically could not cross the table in the number of turns available. Something like only having 60" of road movement available but had more than 96" of road to cover. Or rather, played about half that scenario, and got really pissed off when I realized that winning was impossible from the setup. |
UshCha | 10 Aug 2018 3:48 a.m. PST |
Interesting, much is about not getting it fouled up ,like Lion in the Stars, actually having conditions that could be met for both sides. Legion in the Stars, not sure that a scenario actually exists if its missing aims and objectives and forces. You guts must have some real rotten writers. Saber 6 – again I would have assumed that the definition of a scenario required plausible forces and ground scale. Now interestingly winning feature heavily. To us the story is more important, it needs to be plausible. Like the illustrated scenario it is definitely possible to get off the board, technically in about 5 bounds). The victory conditions are more like aims. When we started we had no idea what the balance would be in favor of either side. However finding out iss the fun for us. A challenge can be had just finding out if the scenario objectives are possible. They do need to be plausible at the start. Fouled up like impossible at the start is just bad writing. Often we will have scenarios biased to some area of tactics. A game at the FEB is not the same as one set in an major stopping point. It might be hasty defense in an urban area or in a range of terrains. It may be biased to infantry of amour. a truly mixed infantry and Armour has limitations, by definition infantry battles are at a slower pace so the scale of an infantry engagement needs to be small if armor are to do much other than at the fringes as fire support. Fo do you ha a bias as to the sort of battle you play? would the scenario illuminated above tickle your tactical taste buds. It definitely a niche game but none the worse for that. Perhaps Stress was not the word, perhaps Exciting, making the pulse run fast as you command your troops with too much to do in too little time as the actions swings too and fro. Perhaps utterly engrossing would be a better term. While I play the odd social game where the action is low key I would not rate them as great scenarios, not worth much effort as they are not going to be played with much enthusiasm. More like Musak, just a background noise (play) while chatting. |
Legion 4 | 10 Aug 2018 8:26 a.m. PST |
Legion in the Stars, Who is he ?
You guts must have some real rotten writers. If you mean you "guys" … well generally we don't write scenarios, but we are pretty good at choosing them from existing ones. |
Extra Crispy | 11 Aug 2018 9:11 a.m. PST |
@Lion In the Stars: That almost happened to me! Play tested a naval scenario 2 or 3 times then took it to a con. Did not notice they gave me 8' tables instead of 6'! LOL Luckily I realized it on Turn 2, so we just doubled movement rates until the fleets got in range. |