Good and Bad Scenarios

[Glint]

Thank you Dave!

That seems a fair deal to me rather than the knife held to my throat before.
I trust others will see that my actions may have been carried out in ignorance
rather than for gain or any other reason?
It's late now, if you will give me a couple of days and I will upload the scenarios.
I trust then I will face no other accusations?

[Scud]

I trust then I will face no other accusations?

Certainly not from me. I don't feel there was any malicious intent and it's opened up a grey area for us that needs some addressing from upper management. So relax, go play..

This matter is closed.

Dave

[Glint]

Thank you Dave, I will !

[Herr Straße Laufer]

One game took a year to play and I don't find any problem/crime committed by reporting the result?

The problem is that the report, and ladder points, are not able to be attained by any other member. You circumvented the process (H2H) where ladder points are issued. Thus the problem?

I will however refuse to be told my scenarios must be put through H2H for playtesting and uploaded for everyone

The fair thing would be everyone else being able to play your scenarios to get points for the ladder and comment on the balance and fun of the scenario?

with the threat of dismissal from the Blitz if I fail to do so and Dave, I've only heard from Antoni, not Darran. It seems my ban won't be over the scenarios but because I dare argue my case with the moderators?

Why do we need to see this? It is between you and the officers of the club?
If you have been found in breach of any rules you should be dealt with under the regulations of the club. Everyone should?
To bring it up here in the public forum is in poor taste, IMO.
The officers did not bring it up, why do you? :(

No matter what some may think, I've spent many years on this site and 'cheating' has never been my way and I vehemently deny any accusations to such.
Anyway, whilst this post remains in view, I would just like to defend my status before I become a shadow player, cos I can't be bothered to waste my time anymore.

You did use a method to gain points that no one else could have gotten? Plus, you thought that you could do so based on your belief and not what has been standard practice in the club?
I've only had issue with you over your posts when they "go after" other members, rather than the posted comments of those specific members.
I did have issue with the fact that you "went around" the H2H process in order to gain points, on the ladder, for "creating a scenario" that are only given ladder points when going through the H2H process.

I wish you well. I hope you do understand what the officers are trying to say to you.



HSL

---

HSL, Thanks OK that's fine and answers my query re uploading of scenario's and as I understand it now they do not then have to go to H2H for playtesting.

Everyone is free to upload a scenario. It could be absolutely crap or genius. As long as it is described as designed for H2H play or against the AI, or an historical scenario that is there only to display the designers work in the area of historicity.

Re scenario's good or bad, I do think there is a place for Historical scenario's however bad they play out in H2H form and the challenge is to try to improve on history with the forces at your disposal. I believe it then becomes a study in military history rather than just a game.

Yes, any scenario can be uploaded. I just think that since we are a gaming ladder in a gaming community some designers might want to think about game design that is historical and able to be played by e-mail. Maybe a snippet in the description that states, "not for ladder play, play only for it's historical significance"? Unless, of course, it was balanced for H2H play?

But of course that's for the individual to choose what course he wishes to take and therefore all types of games should if possible be freely available to all.

Totally agree. I would also like to see designers note in the scenario description what type of scenario that they have brought us. And, if they uploaded the scenario to the dBASE, that they do not believe they deserve ladder points for their creations.



HSL

[Scud]

I don't want the matter between Peter and site officers discussed further, by anyone. It has been resolved.

Thanks,
Dave

[Larry Reese]

My thoughts on this (and unfortunately I've only had time to read the first few posts) are that, for me, the ideal scenario is one in which the units/terrain are as historical as possible (with some tweaks for game playability of course) and the victory conditions properly reflect what one side or the other should be capable of. By this, I mean, if the attacker has overwhelming superiority and will obviously break through even if all he does is drive straight forward, he should be judged by how much better he did than that rote outcome. Did he encircle and destroy the entire enemy force with only minor losses while moving over half his own force off the board, exploiting a major victory? Did the defender lose all of his units, but cause incredible casualties amongst the attackers forces and sufficiently delay any possibility of a timely exploitation? The players performance in his role should be judged, not just whether or not a particular objective is taken, and it should be carefully balanced to reward either side for an exceptional performance. And this, for me, is the hardest thing to do with a scenario.

It is relatively easy to run up an OOB, an okay map, and then experiment with how many units from each side should be put on the map in a given manner in order to give a balanced outcome (saying those not deployed were "unavailable" for whatever reason). And these are generally fun to play. But they are not as satisfying to me as the scenario in which as much accuracy as possible is kept in the order of battle and it is the victory levels that have been finely tuned to accommodate and reward the possible results. Unfortunately, this scenario, at least in my experience, takes incredibly in-depth testing to get right. (The one previously described, again, in my experience, requires testing, but it can be truncated and some short cuts can be used - if someone has a system allowing the second type of scenario to be tested using a truncated or rapid testing program, please let me know!).

Also, a word on goals - lots of players like to have the goal specifically spelled out for them, "take X hill," "hold this position," etc..., and while that is fine for small scale scenarios, ones that try to capture larger actions do not really lend themselves to this simple formula in my opinion. Many of my scenarios offer both sides several paths to victory that the commander must choose between for themselves. Not everyone's cup of tea I know.

Anyway, just my thoughts,

LR

[Crossroads]

You raise some good points, Larry! Being a history buff, I hugely enjoy the historical scenarios. I often play them while reading a book about the battle as it was. I often consider the historical result, then study the map and my forces, and often will try another approach to gain a victory.

And as for "getting a victory", here I agree, getting a historical scenario "right" must be tough, as you mention. I wonder if there really is any short cut to this. Maybe designer's experience can help to set the victory condition balance right, but after that, it is testing testing testing.

And then, if it is a big scenario, that will take time...

By the way, how is your Petsamo-Kirkenes scenario coming out? I know you've been busy with life, but I would love to get a look at it! As you maybe have seen, I have set my own goals towards Lapland and North as well...

I have done just one scenario, and it being a historical scenario, it was a tough job to get the victory conditions right. I am still not quite sure if it is good enough, maybe it is maybe not.

I have another similar size (ie. biggish but by no means huge) historical scenario on the table, but currently feel a bit burdened about it as it will be equally tough to get it right. However, with my Lapland War Mod, I will try to introduce it in "the mid term future". Finnish front is not well known apart perhaps Winter War, and if I would be able to get a couple of scenarios out that feel "historically right" and that hopefully are fun to play would feel I would really have achieved something.

At the same note, I enjoy the smaller scenarios as well, and will try to put out a couple of "category one" scenarios as you describe.

All this, by 2020 perhaps? :(

[Ashcloud]

I think that Larry got it spot on, there are no situations historically that can't be balanced with VP. Hard as it is to get right, victory conditions make all games no matter how historically accurate possible to balance.

[Gordons HQ]

This has been an interesting discussion and my query was because I am in the process of making a small (complexity 4) historical scenario.
What has been discussed here has certainly given me food for thought and perhaps there is a way to make this scenario playable.
By that I mean that both sides may be able to obtain a victory of some sort without distorting the historical content of the scenario.
The positioning of the VP's certainly seem to hold the key to the success of this.
Although the scenario may take a lot more testing now then that is my goal for the future. Patience with the design it appears to be applauded and should make it a better scenario all round in the end one would hope.
Thanks for this useful discussion to all those who have take part.

Gordon

[Hawk Kriegsman]

By that I mean that both sides may be able to obtain a victory of some sort without distorting the historical content of the scenario.
The positioning of the VP's certainly seem to hold the key to the success of this.

Possibly the single best point in the whole thread.

Please make the scenarios as historically acurate as possible. Just give me a chance to win. That is done through VP allocation.

For some good examples of this I would highly recommend you look at Curt Cabbage's RS scenarios dealing with the Dutch East Indies and Burma in 1941-1942.

The KNIL, Brits and Americans routinely get their butts handed to them by the Japanese. The Japanese are superior and will take the bulk of their objectives and cause more damage.

The forces are not balanced at all.

However the Allies can win by holding an objective or two that was historically lost or by making the Japanese pay extra for the objectives they take.

The scenarios are balanced.

Balance is achieved if both sides feel they have a legitimate chance to win, not by have the same amount of units on each side.

Victory points are the key.

And one final point. Glint may be many things, but a cheat he is not. I have battled him via PBEM and he has never been anything but a stand up opponent. I would play him again without reservation if given the chance.

I truly look forward to seeing and playing his scenarios. And rest assured I will judge the scenario, objectively on its merits alone.

Thanx!

Hawk