Breaking out of the Box

[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.