Scenarios Good and Bad

[Herr Straße Laufer]

No, I think actually, your remarks are nothing to do with the original question in my thread and respectfully request that perhaps you open your own thread to discuss what makes a respected scenario designer/ what is a rubbish designer.

This did spark a thought or two and I took Peters advice to start a new thread/discussion on this.

First there are three types of scenarios that need to be understood?

The first is the scenario that is designed for play against the AI. The second would be one designed for H2H play. The third is one where the designer is not making the scenario for either but is highlighting a specific historical event and has not taken balance or computer play into consideration.

I have not designed a scenario for play versus the AI. I know that there are many who like to play scenarios strictly against the computer/HAL. Most do not belong to, or are actively playing on, a gaming "ladder".
A good design versus "HAL" usually contains fixed units and the human playing attacker versus "HAL's" defense.
There are some scenarios listed for computer play that make for good H2H games. But, they are few and far between.

Since we are a gaming "ladder" club, I think scenarios designed for H2H play should be the most important.
A good H2H scenario design gives both players a reasonable chance of victory.
It should give the players more than one way to win (or lose) the scenario.
Balance and fun should be a the top of the designers list, with balance being the most important.
Challenging situations also help the scenario to stay "live" and played over and over.

The third category is hard to discuss. A design that is purely historical is often a thing of beauty. But, being a member of a ladder, not wanting to play versus HAL (aside from a campaign), and playing by e-mail often keeps me from playing them.

What do the members think about what makes a good scenario?
I have more thoughts but would love to hear what you have to say! :smoke:

__________________________
Thought I'd recharge this thread by reintroduction. The other thread devolved into something it was never meant to be.

I did like the thoughts of the members concerning scenarios, both good and bad.

Historical scenarios seemed to come to the forefront. GordonsHQ had a great point that said essentially, "a good historical scenario can be balanced by the placement of the victory points hexes and it should try to reenact the historical event/outcome as best as possible". Correct me if I am wrong Gordon?

Sometimes personal likes and dislikes stand in the way. I often find that designers think that putting even amounts of unit types for both sides might be the way ensure balance and it creates the opposite because of the quality of the units.

I find that hypothetical-historically based-fictional scenarios are just as good as pure historical scenarios. My view is based upon the concept that we are a gaming ladder and most things circle the ladder, and the games played.
Often the more balanced a scenario seems the more it is played. I found the old scenario dBASE easier to use, along with less time to do the research, to find balanced scenarios, so I have no hard data here.

Lets keep the scenario discussion going? If you want to, of course!



HSL