 |
|
Questionnaire for all WF players - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Questionnaire for all WF players (/showthread.php?tid=44097) Pages:
1
2
|
Questionnaire for all WF players - Von Luck - 02-08-2008 West Front Scenario Questionnaire Scenario designers might create more desirable and higher quality products if they knew what most players desired. This is a survey to find out what characteristics players desire the most in scenario design. Size 1. What is the size of force that you most enjoy in a two-player game? Two Divisions or more One Division Large Task Force (Brigade Sized) Regiment Battalion or less 2. How large of a map do you most enjoy playing? 100x100 hexes or larger Between 70x40 to 100x100 Between 60x30 to 70x40 Between 30x30 and 60x30 Smaller than 30x30 3 How many turns do you prefer? 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 or greater Theatre and Operation Type 4. Which theatre do you most prefer? North Africa Normandy and Northern France Ardennes Italy Germany Netherlands and northern Belgium 5. What operation type do you prefer? Amphibious landings Parachute landings Predominantly infantry Armored attack Heavily fortified defenses Bridgehead Commando raids 6. What kind of terrain is your favorite? Desert Mostly open with some forest and towns Urban Mountain Heavy forests Major river Weapon and Unit Preferences 7. What kind of weapons/forces do you most enjoy playing? Tanks Very good anti-tank weapons, eg. 88mm FlaK Elite infantry Heavy artillery eg. 155mm Howitzers Specialty weapons, such as late-war tank hunter squads Reconnaisance vehicles such as motorcycles or armored cars 8. What type of battle accessories do you prefer most? Smoke Engineers Air Assaults Starshells 9. Would you be less likely to enjoy games with wagon transport? Yes No 10. Which specialty transports would interest you the most? Pack horses Rafts Bicycles Motorcycles 11. Have you strong objections to having some fixed units, with later releases? Yes No Historical Situations 12. What is your preference regarding the scenario’s historical background? Prefer historically accurate scenarios. Rather have playable and balanced scenarios that are less historical. Prefer hypothetical scenarios that explore alternative outcomes from historical. Prefer exciting scenarios with powerful weapons and lots of action. 13. Do you like to have many historical officers in the scenario? Choose one. Few or no officers Historical commanders at battalion level and above. Many officers, including company commanders of key units. (Tank companies.) Officers at all levels to include NCOs and/or historical medal winners. (Panzer Aces) This could also apply to EF.PS The above was suggested by David Galster not me. RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Huib Versloot - 02-08-2008 1. Size. All 2. Map size. Again all 3. Turns 20-30 with but depends on scn. 4. Ardennes, Germany, Netherlands 5. Parachute landings Predominantly infantry Armored attack 6. Mostly open with some forest and towns Urban Heavy Forests Have not come across a good mountain scn yet, perhaps in the Korea game later. 7. Elite infantry (paratroopers) 8. Engineers, especially in ME 9. No 10. Rafts (well the new crewed boats actually) 11. Depends (I hate late releases of units very close to the front) 12. Prefer historically accurate scenarios, question implies a bit that there would be friction with playability with historical scenarios. IMO there is not. 13. Many officers... if their names are historically accurate or they bear the names of Blitz members 
RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Herr Straße Laufer - 02-08-2008 Von Luck Wrote:West Front Scenario Questionnaire Size 1. One Division or smaller (though I lean toward smaller Brigade or higher) 2. Any size that fits the scenario 3. 12 to 25 Von Luck Wrote:Theatre and Operation Type 4. Which theatre do you most prefer? North Africa early and later and East Africa Normandy and Northern France & France '40 Ardennes - both '40 & '44 Italy Germany Netherlands and northern Belgium and Norway I guess I prefer a balanced game regardless of where, or when, it is fought. 5. Depends on the scenario. 6. Any and all Von Luck Wrote:Weapon and Unit Preferences 7. Really does not matter much. Anything that fits a scenario. 8. *see answer for #7 9. *see answer for #7 10. * see answer for #7 11. No Von Luck Wrote:Historical Situations 12. Balance is the key when playing by e-mail. First, Rather have playable and balanced scenarios that are less historical (or close to historical). Than an historical scenario that is unplayable from one side. Second, Prefer hypothetical scenarios that explore alternative outcomes from historical (as long as they are not hysterical). Don't put Tiger II's and JagdPanthers on the Eastern front in July '43 and call it a Kursk scenario.Overall wouldn't the winner gaining a non-historical result already be creating a non-historical outcome? 13. All depends on the scenario design. Von Luck Wrote:This could also apply to EF.PS The above was suggested by David Galster not me. Thanks to both. This should be thought provoking discussion and aid to any WF scenario designer. 
RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Von Luck - 02-08-2008 The reason this was put up and i totally agree with your reply to 12.They dont all have to be purely historical if that was the case then one side would have a distinct advantage all the time unless you altered the victory points.A lot of what if scenarios would be more than welcome. RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Huib Versloot - 02-08-2008 Do not all historical scenarios turn into 'what if' situations as soon as the player moves his units? By historical, my perception is an accurate map, historical order of battle, objectives and positioning at the start of the scenario. There are many ways to balance things out and you have knowledge of the historical outcome to align with. For example force one of the sides to perform better than his historical counterparts to if he is to achieve a victory. Most historical objectives were too ambitious anyway so there is plenty of "room" between those and what really happened to make something balanced. RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Herr Straße Laufer - 02-08-2008 I think we are all on a similar page? :smoke: Though, I appreciate a historically, topographically accurate map, I would not fault a designer who did not have precise maps (if the scenario was both visually appealling and playable from both sides). Setting victory conditions to bring about balance is almost an art form? :chin: But, remember this is what the players would want from new WF designs? I was commenting as a player who has dabbled in scenario design. :cool:
RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Jason Petho - 02-08-2008 Von Luck Wrote:Scenario designers might create more desirable and higher quality products if they knew what most players desired. This is a survey to find out what characteristics players desire the most in scenario design. Good idea! Von Luck Wrote:Size Two Divisions or more. Von Luck Wrote:2. How large of a map do you most enjoy playing? 100 x 100 and bigger Von Luck Wrote:3 How many turns do you prefer? 50 or greater Von Luck Wrote:Theatre and Operation Type Europe Von Luck Wrote:5. What operation type do you prefer? Predominantly infantry Heavily fortified defenses Bridgehead Amphibious landings Parachute landings Armored attack Commando raids In that order. Von Luck Wrote:6. What kind of terrain is your favorite? Historically accurate terrain! Von Luck Wrote:Weapon and Unit Preferences Historically accurate units. Von Luck Wrote:8. What type of battle accessories do you prefer most? No preference Von Luck Wrote:9. Would you be less likely to enjoy games with wagon transport? No Von Luck Wrote:10. Which specialty transports would interest you the most? No preference Von Luck Wrote:11. Have you strong objections to having some fixed units, with later releases? No Von Luck Wrote:Historical Situations Prefer historically accurate scenarios. AND Prefer hypothetical scenarios that explore alternative outcomes from historical. Von Luck Wrote:13. Do you like to have many historical officers in the scenario? Choose one. Officers at all levels to include NCOs and/or historical medal winners. Jason Petho RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Cole - 02-09-2008 I prefer a larger scenario; a la Von Earlmann; as opposed to the smaller ones where a lot depends on the first move or two. A larger scenario one can come back from mistakes, get to know your opponent's play style, and also become more "emotionally" attached to you command. On the flip side smaller scenarios are needed, especially for online play; of which I am a big fan. My two cents. Answers to questions below: Size 1. What is the size of force that you most enjoy in a two-player game? X = Two Divisions or more (for PBEM) X = Regiment or below (for Online play) 2. How large of a map do you most enjoy playing? X = 100x100 hexes or larger (PBEM) x = Between 30x30 and 60x30 (online) 3 How many turns do you prefer? X= 10 to 20 (online) X= 50 or greater (PBEM) Theatre and Operation Type 4. Which theatre do you most prefer? X= Netherlands and northern Belgium (would like to see more scenarios with minor allies; thanks Huib. Norway would be a great campaign). 5. What operation type do you prefer? Armored attack (combined arms) 6. What kind of terrain is your favorite? Mostly open with some forest and towns with Major river Weapon and Unit Preferences 7. What kind of weapons/forces do you most enjoy playing? Tanks 8. What type of battle accessories do you prefer most? Engineers 9. Would you be less likely to enjoy games with wagon transport? No 10. Which specialty transports would interest you the most? Pack horses 11. Have you strong objections to having some fixed units, with later releases? No Historical Situations 12. What is your preference regarding the scenario’s historical background? Prefer historically accurate scenarios. 13. Do you like to have many historical officers in the scenario? Choose one. Historical commanders at battalion level and above. ALONG WITH historical medal winners, Panzer Aces, personalities, etc. RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - Don Fox - 02-09-2008 West Front Scenario Questionnaire Size 1. What is the size of force that you most enjoy in a two-player game? One Division 2. How large of a map do you most enjoy playing? 100x100 hexes or larger 3 How many turns do you prefer? 30 to 40 Theatre and Operation Type 4. Which theatre do you most prefer? Ardennes 5. What operation type do you prefer? Predominantly infantry Armored attack 6. What kind of terrain is your favorite? Mostly open with some forest and towns Weapon and Unit Preferences 7. What kind of weapons/forces do you most enjoy playing? Tanks 8. What type of battle accessories do you prefer most? Engineers 9. Would you be less likely to enjoy games with wagon transport? No 10. Which specialty transports would interest you the most? Rafts 11. Have you strong objections to having some fixed units, with later releases? No Historical Situations 12. What is your preference regarding the scenario’s historical background? Prefer historically accurate scenarios. 13. Do you like to have many historical officers in the scenario? Choose one. Officers at all levels to include NCOs and/or historical medal winners. (Panzer Aces) RE: Questionnaire for all WF players - kellski1 - 02-09-2008 How about taking some of 1 player scenarios and editing them to be more balanced |
){kind=link}