Debate: set up or not???

[British Tommy]

There's an interesting debate ongoing at the Proving Grounds concerning the forces in a scenario.
Do you as the player, prefer the designer to have your forces set up (loaded trucks, platoon of tanks together etc) or would you rather have the forces neatly laid out in platoons so you could decide what goes where.
This is of interest to me as I have almost finished converting the Talonsoft WF scenario, 'still full of fight' to CMAK and it contains quite a few units for each side :)

Wanted to do a poll on this but not sure how to!:conf:
I did tick the poll option and changed the number of options but nothing showed up in the preview :hissy:

[British Tommy]

OOOPS! it did show up after all!:whis:

[ATCS]

I really don't have much of a preference between the two options you provide, as long as I can place my units where I want during setup. I do not care to play scenarios where the designer pre-places the units and locks them into place. There are few of these around, thankfully. If the designer wants to take the extra time to sort units out, fine with me. Either way, I still "+" through all units just to check ammo load, morale, experience, etc.

[Figo]

[British Tommy]

Thank you Gentlemen for your views :)
Just checked the poll and it seems the players go for having the forces laid out in companys/platoons and not loaded up and ready to roll.
Mind you, the poll has only been open a few hours so this might change yet! ;)
Cheers,
Bob

[McIvan]

If a scenario is attempting to be vaguely historical, I would prefer that the designer set up my troops in vaguely historical positions, within a setup zone the wideness of which will depend on the degree of uncertainty. If they know pretty much exactly where the forces were then I'm quite happy with locked deployment or very tight setup zones. It's all part of the fun of scenarios....you never get to edit your deployment in Campaign Series, you reorganise after the battle starts.

If its a non-historical fun scenario then I'm looking for wide lattitude., but again if a designer feels it necessary to restrict deployment for balance reasons then I'm fine with it.

[Kelen]

Agree with McIvan.

Depends on the scenario and whether there's histoircal precedent for the set-up or not.

Personally I would like to see all scenarios with restricted 'historical' or 'balanced' set-up's also released with a non-restricted set up. This makes it interesting for re-play as first you get to see how well you can do restricted, and then how you could do if you were given a free hand to organise you attack/defence.

At the moment I'm playing 1 of each and having as much fun in both, (although I don't know if you would call 'Lobo' kicking you backside exactly fun?!)

[Wild Bill]

I like seeing the designer's setup as it gives me a bit of insight on what he was thinking on how the battle is to develop, and i always have the option to adjust units to my liking if I desire.

[MGK(FGM)]

I like "locked" scenarios because it is easier to start game without setup ;-) - I play chesmaster scenario made by a friend of mine - it is great - based on chessboard but he didn't lock units and I think it spoils the game a little

[Bidermann]

When I design scenarios etc I deploy the forces but not locked.The reason why I deploy them is to help the player. And if playing againts AI
the forces are deployed not thrown around the map which is what the AI does.