Breaking out of the Box

[Schwerpunkt75]

I know that Huib doesn't hang out here any more, but I just wanted to give kudos to his scenario "The Road to Kozani [Alt]. There aren't many scenarios dealing with the 1941 Greek campaign, and there are even fewer that are designed for H2H play. Huib did a good job converting this one for play by humans and it's a very interesting scenario to play. The combination of mountainous terrain and the short ranges of the tank weaponry on both sides make this scenario unique.

In a larger sense, I think we (and in particular those of us who have a lot of experience with CS) should encourage play of scenarios that don't get a lot of play. There are some scenarios like "When the Big Cats Come to Play" in WF or "Tank Graveyard at Minsk" in EF that are always going to get a ton of play. But we need to expand the corpus of scenarios that are considered suitable for H2H play, and the only way to do that is to take chances, play scenarios that are rarely played and then review them.

Just my 2 cents.

[Scud]

In a larger sense, I think we (and in particular those of us who have a lot of experience with CS) should encourage play of scenarios that don't get a lot of play... we need to expand the corpus of scenarios that are considered suitable for H2H play, and the only way to do that is to take chances, play scenarios that are rarely played and then review them.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes! Absolutely agree.

[RedDevil]

You can catch Huib, on FB in the John Tiller wargames group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/JTSOppGroup/

Dev

[Big Ivan]

Totally agree with what Scud said!!

[Big Ivan]

Its kind of interesting that we sit here and talk about the concept of scenario play and why some scenarios are minimally played or never played.

There is only a few options to test a scenario before its publication for the designer. Since I am a designer, I'll take a stab. Here they are:

Solo:

You as the side that moves first against the other side moving second which is controlled by the A/I.

You as the side that moves second against the other side that moves first which is controlled by the A/I.

You play H2H against yourself with no A/I.

Two-player:

H2H against a human opponent on one computer in the same room.

H2H against a human opponent on your computer connected across a LAN/Virtual network against an opponent on his/her computer, real time.

H2H against an opponent PBEM.

Multi-players:

Team games either real time virtual LAN or otherwise.

Team games PBEM.

No player:

HAL(the A/I) plays itself.

What makes a published scenario being called H2H play or specific side play puzzles me. Where is the testing data that says either way? I believe its a gut feeling with most of JTCS. I don't believe the fore-fathers of the original Campaign Series did more than a couple of play tests on each scenario. That's my opinion. Then again you have to remember with the release of the original game there wasn't a ton of scenarios like there is in the data base(DB) today! Furthermore any of the mods based on the game, I think they even had less play testing IMO.

Basically my take on what I see in the scenario briefing for each scenario, playing as side-whatever or H2H, I don't pay much attention too. I've found PBEM or H2H against myself play of a lot of the one-sided marked scenarios quite enjoyable. But that is in the context of the limited and lousy A/I in the legacy game. I have also found a lot of scenarios marked H2H to be what I call less enjoyable. So here is the quandary I guess.

So I'm not sure what your really driving at here Schwerpunkt75.

[Schwerpunkt75]

Its kind of interesting that we sit here and talk about the concept of scenario play and why some scenarios are minimally played or never played.

There is only a few options to test a scenario before its publication for the designer. Since I am a designer, I'll take a stab. Here they are:

Solo:

You as the side that moves first against the other side moving second which is controlled by the A/I.

You as the side that moves second against the other side that moves first which is controlled by the A/I.

You play H2H against yourself with no A/I.

Two-player:

H2H against a human opponent on one computer in the same room.

H2H against a human opponent on your computer connected across a LAN/Virtual network against an opponent on his/her computer, real time.

H2H against an opponent PBEM.

Multi-players:

Team games either real time virtual LAN or otherwise.

Team games PBEM.

No player:

HAL(the A/I) plays itself.

What makes a published scenario being called H2H play or specific side play puzzles me. Where is the testing data that says either way? I believe its a gut feeling with most of JTCS. I don't believe the fore-fathers of the original Campaign Series did more than a couple of play tests on each scenario. That's my opinion. Then again you have to remember with the release of the original game there wasn't a ton of scenarios like there is in the data base(DB) today! Furthermore any of the mods based on the game, I think they even had less play testing IMO.

Basically my take on what I see in the scenario briefing for each scenario, playing as side-whatever or H2H, I don't pay much attention too. I've found PBEM or H2H against myself play of a lot of the one-sided marked scenarios quite enjoyable. But that is in the context of the limited and lousy A/I in the legacy game. I have also found a lot of scenarios marked H2H to be what I call less enjoyable. So here is the quandary I guess.

So I'm not sure what your really driving at here Schwerpunkt75.

I just played a scenario that was specifically re-designed by Huib to be more suitable for play between human opponents, but that had only four previous plays. I took a chance on and selected a scenario with fewer plays and I found it to be challenging, fun and relatively well-balanced during a game with an evenly matched human opponent.

I want to encourage others to take chances, "get out of the box" of playing only those scenarios that have hundreds of recorded games, and record their experiences so we can start to build up a base of knowledge of which scenarios are particularly good for play between human opponents.

What I'm driving at isn't complicated.

[Scud]

I just played a scenario that was specifically re-designed by Huib to be more suitable for play between human opponents, but that had only four previous plays. I took a chance on and selected a scenario with fewer plays and I found it to be challenging, fun and relatively well-balanced during a game with an evenly matched human opponent.

I want to encourage others to take chances, "get out of the box" of playing only those scenarios that have hundreds of recorded games, and record their experiences so we can start to build up a base of knowledge of which scenarios are particularly good for play between human opponents.

I like playing scenarios no one has played, but fair warning. "Oldbones" and I tried one awhile back that was horrible. A complete waste of time.

It's too bad some of our designers don't take advantage of the CS H2H section to test their scenarios. It's difficult, though, since they have to actively advertise and push for play testers. Play testers receive ladder bonus points as a reward, but the standards are still high for the "H2H Tested" distinction and a lot of designers give up and just add their designs into the database, flaws and all.

Designers interested in H2H testing can learn about it here: https://www.theblitz.club/h2h-productions/b-8.htm

and here:  https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...php?fid=58 

Dave

[Schwerpunkt75]

I just played a scenario that was specifically re-designed by Huib to be more suitable for play between human opponents, but that had only four previous plays. I took a chance on and selected a scenario with fewer plays and I found it to be challenging, fun and relatively well-balanced during a game with an evenly matched human opponent.

I want to encourage others to take chances, "get out of the box" of playing only those scenarios that have hundreds of recorded games, and record their experiences so we can start to build up a base of knowledge of which scenarios are particularly good for play between human opponents.

I like playing scenarios no one has played, but fair warning. "Oldbones" and I tried one awhile back that was horrible. A complete waste of time.

It's too bad some of our designers don't take advantage of the CS H2H section to test their scenarios. It's difficult, though, since they have to actively advertise and push for play testers. Play testers receive ladder bonus points as a reward, but the standards are still high for the "H2H Tested" distinction and a lot of designers give up and just add their designs into the database, flaws and all.

Designers interested in H2H testing can learn about it here: https://www.theblitz.club/h2h-productions/b-8.htm

and here:  https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...php?fid=58 

Dave

I love the concept of the H2H section. But my previous experience suggests that it didn't work very well in reality. Testers would agree to play scenarios and then would disappear or wouldn't finish games. That's why I went ahead and added my scenarios ** Find A Way Through and ** Black Eagle and Barbary Lion to the database without going through the CS H2H process.

[Big Ivan]

I just played a scenario that was specifically re-designed by Huib to be more suitable for play between human opponents, but that had only four previous plays. I took a chance on and selected a scenario with fewer plays and I found it to be challenging, fun and relatively well-balanced during a game with an evenly matched human opponent.

I want to encourage others to take chances, "get out of the box" of playing only those scenarios that have hundreds of recorded games, and record their experiences so we can start to build up a base of knowledge of which scenarios are particularly good for play between human opponents.

I like playing scenarios no one has played, but fair warning. "Oldbones" and I tried one awhile back that was horrible. A complete waste of time.

It's too bad some of our designers don't take advantage of the CS H2H section to test their scenarios. It's difficult, though, since they have to actively advertise and push for play testers. Play testers receive ladder bonus points as a reward, but the standards are still high for the "H2H Tested" distinction and a lot of designers give up and just add their designs into the database, flaws and all.

Designers interested in H2H testing can learn about it here: https://www.theblitz.club/h2h-productions/b-8.htm

and here:  https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...php?fid=58 

Dave

I love the concept of the H2H section. But my previous experience suggests that it didn't work very well in reality. Testers would agree to play scenarios and then would disappear or wouldn't finish games. That's why I went ahead and added my scenarios ** Find A Way Through and ** Black Eagle and Barbary Lion to the database without going through the CS H2H process.

I agree, we need to rethink/ re-make/ redo or come up with something for testing new scenarios going forward above what is in H2H. The new generation of CS is coming on line and young and old designers need to be ready for it. Thanks Schwerpunkt75!

[Ashcloud]

I am always available for testing.