H2H.. A Way Ahead

[K K Rossokolski]

This a restart of von Luck's post on this subject, which got sidetracked into duscussion on the Norwegian Campaign, including, of all things the brief battlecruiser action off Narvik. I include myself among the offenders.

I have been in the club since 2000 and H2H has been a sore point all that time. Many scens go in, few come out. Early this year(?) was the last big debate on the subject, which, as always on this subject, solved nothing.
I believe the fundamental difficulty remains the question of "balance" whatever that term may mean.
I can only address this matter as it applies to the Campaign Series.

I suggest a completely new approach..less top down more market driven. This will, I believe, allow the club to maintain an appropriate level of QC, while allowing a quick process for that QC

Assumptions: New scenarios are needed to keep the club flourishing
The H2H system as it exists does not work....many new scenarios are posted without any club input at all.
The Club has a right to maintain defined quality standards for scenarios published on its website. These standards need not be complex or demanding. But this right needs some system to enforce it.
" Balance" is a long term source of argument. A designer will try to design a scenario to meet his own ideas of what the term means. The market will decide the playability of a scenario over time.
JTCS developments have changed "balance" factors for all pre-existing scenarios.

Proposal:
For a scenario to be acceptable, it needs to fulfill some simple requirements....
Identified as historical, historically based, or hypothetical* (see below)
The map is a reasonable depiction of the area in question ( if not a hypothetical). No elevation jumps > the ability of the map generator to hafdle (currently 3). No rivers running uphill. That sort of stuff.

The organisation properly tied together in a hierarchical fashion, and in accord with the nature and time frame of scenario subject.
The scenario checked for errors, omissions and anomalies.

The club establish a panel of say 10 or a dozen 100+ active players, who will have the job of vetting new scenarios. Each new scenario should be checked by three panelists, who will agree to accept or suggest changes to the work. Designers will not check their own designs.

That's a picture of my idea...the KISS principle applies.

* My ideas of scenario classifications are
Historical: A scenario depicting as far as possible an actual event, using the map, org and scen files to create a historically correct starting point. How it plays out is another matter.

Hypothetical: Any scenario either wholly imaginative or outside the time frame of actual events eg a Soviet attack on NATO forces in 1948 or an extension of WWII into 1946.

Historically based: A scen examining issues of WWII which were possible but did not occur eg D-Day at pas-de-Calais, the existence of a French armoured army in 1940.

It really doesn't matter whether a scen is "balanced" or not. People will play what they want to play, and as we have seen some scens become "classics"...... because the market has decided this. Other scens will languish without clients.(I won't use the obvious metaphor because of my natural delicacy). All they do is take up a little space.

*I acknowledge the breakdown of the latter two might be awkward.

[Montana Grizz]

I do like to play historically accurate scenarios just to see if my strategy and tactics may have effected the outcome of a particular battle.

However, I very much enjoy any balanced scenario (hypothetical or not) and will glady play any of them.

I certainly agree with Rod that "new scenarios" are the life-blood of this group and the foundation for it's continued success and anything that can be done to promote "new scenarios" is worth serious consideration.

I can only imagine that the reason we don't have thousands of members is because our game doesn't include some sort of joy-stick:chin:

I use to play a football game I really enjoyed in which you were the coach, not the quarterback. I cannot find anything akin to that today in any major sport:(

Pat

[Panzer VI]

I can only imagine that the reason we don't have thousands of members is because our game doesn't include some sort of joy-stick:chin:

Of course, I must be the only person in the city who knows what JTCS is.

This is the importance of new scenarios.We need to keep the bit of members we do have by keeping the game new with new content.

[Valor]

Hello, Rod

I would not be too harsh in making changes. I believe that H2H in new formula worked quite well when we started it. We had few scenarios passing testing pretty quickly and nearly 30 testers (including 8 or 9 completing five or more tests).

I'm afraid that some too harsh comments from more experienced players/designers, general discouragement caused by difficult transition time to different versions, discouraged people from using it...

I still believe that we can revitalize it pretty easy. I'm working on it with von Luck's permission of course (he is the boss of H2H here )

All the best

Slawek

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

<<I use to play a football game I really enjoyed in which you were the coach, not the quarterback. I cannot find anything akin to that today in any major sport>>

I totally agree. I used to play Staus Pro Baseball and Status Pro Football. Board games with player cards, was pretty good. Football calling the plays and Baseball setting your lineups, deciding when or if the relief pitcher comes in, which one to use, pinch hitting etc etc.

The only thing I have found that seems to do a pretty decent job of it, but could still use some minor improvements is Pure Sim Baseball. It has all the seasons from the beginning thru 2007. I'd love to see a football game do the same with the graohics like you see on the tv commercial with the cell phone. It can be done, but you need people who can and will do it. When it comes to sports games, I'd rather be the coach/manager calling the plays. Jumping from one player to another to me is just a glorified arcade game.

[Jason Petho]

Here is a scenario introduction template we are trying to use for new scenarios.

Scenario Introduction Style Format
For the John Tillers Campaign Series
December 18, 2007
Updated: May 14, 2008
Created by Jason Petho

This document serves as a general guideline for filling out the Scenario Information when creating a new scenario for John Tillers Campaign Series. Hopefully this will provide some consistency in the future introductions.

(Scenario Name)

All MCS scenarios should be prefixed with **

For example; ''** The Last Straw''

(Designer)
Full Name

(DATE)
14 December, 1944

(INTRODUCTION)
[LOCATION]: [PLAY MODE][SCEN TYPE][DESIGNER]: SCENARIO DESCRIPTION [SPECIAL DESIGNER NOTES]


Style:
[LOCATION]
Akimovka, 20km SW of Melitopol
OR
Odessa, Ukraine
OR
Paris, France
OR
Metz, NW France

Style:
[PLAY MODE]
[H2H]-----------------------Defined as Best Played versus Human Opponent
[AXIS] --------------------Defined as Best Played as AXIS
[ALLIED] ------------------Definied as Best Played as ALLIED
[H2H/AXIS] ---------------Definied as Best Played vs Human Opponent OR as AXIS
[H2H/ALLIED] -------------Definied as Best Played vs Human Opponent OR as ALLIED

Style:
[SCN TYPE]
[HIS] ----------------------Historical - Extra effort in map/oob and scenario as close to history as possible
[HISB]---------------------Historically Based - Scenario based on a particular battle; map and oob can be fictional.
[FIC]-----------------------Fictional
[WIF]-----------------------What If situation.

Style:
[DESIGNER]
[CSL]---------------------Campaign Series Legion Designer
[BB]-----------------------Beta Brigade Member Designer
[GD]----------------------Guest Designer
[BZ]-----------------------Blitzkrieg H2H Designer
[TS]-----------------------Talonsoft Original

Style:
[DESIGNER]
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
Provide a detailed introduction the scenario situation. It is here where you have to "sell" your scenario.

Style:
[SPECIAL DESIGNER NOTES]
[NONE]------------------No special notes
[ ]-----------------------Add any note about special rules or thoughts on the making of your scenario.

As a sample:

Huib Versloot
14 May, 1940
[Bergen op Zoom, Holland]: [H2H, Team if desired]: [WIF]:[BB]
From the start of the German Blitzkrieg in the West it was apparent
that Holland could not defend it's southern front alone. The
French 7th Army was sent into Holland, mainly to protect the
approaches to the Scheldt; the water way to Antwerp. In short,
the French operations were no succes whatsoever. Upon sight of
the enemy they more often turned around and ran rather than try
to stand ground, even when superior in men and equipment. What
if the French lead elements in Holland: Group Beauchesne and
Group Lestoquoi had seriously attempted to stop the SS Regiments
"Deutschland" and "Germania" from reaching the mouth of the Scheldt
near Bergen op Zoom and Woensdrecht?[None]


Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

And, there is always the "peck on the cheek" principle where you can go directly to the scenario database and upload a scenario. Hundreds were done that way and have gotten rated along the way?

I do like both the ideas for formatting by Rod and Jason. The more information the designer provides, regarding historical, hypothetical, or historically based the better.

And, for H2H play I prefer "balanced" scenarios. It does not matter if my opponent can kick my a$$ from here to Tuscon as long as I know I had a chance for draw or victory. Winning and losing does not matter as much, as long as the playing field is even for both sides. (And, I do not mean equal forces, I mean equal chances.)
I'm finishing up a scenario now where the first side only wins 30% of the time. Needless to say, I was the first side and my chances of currently winning are nil. I consider the design as "poor", but it kept my interest almost to the end. But, I would turn down playing it from either side because the outcome is almost certain regardless of how it is played. For curiosity sake I may even look at the dBASE and see who has won the match from the first side. ;)

But, that is my personal viewpoint. I think anything that generates more interest and expands the pool of PBEM/H2H will only benefit the game and the club.


RR

[Glint]

Relating to the last debate on this subject, I still think the way to 'build the database' is for people to make scenarios available without the verification of H2H, with all due respect to those involved in it. I have spent all my time playing games, allowing the opponent to choose the game. I have never bothered to check whether it was approved, balanced or whatever, I just accepted games to play and whether I won or lost, didn't really matter. True, I've played a fair few that I didn't enjoy too much, but I put that down to experience. I really think the way to go is to get scenarios made available whatever, people have the choice to play them a second time or reject them, but the library will start stocking itself up quicker and quite a few people might actually enjoy the scenarios?
regards
Peter

[Montana Grizz]

Thanks "Outlaw", I will look at the baseball game.

Pat

[Valor]

Relating to the last debate on this subject, I still think the way to 'build the database' is for people to make scenarios available without the verification of H2H, with all due respect to those involved in it.

Peter,

In my opinion H2H is not the case of building database with or without check-mark from H2H Productions. I believe that's about common platform to meet designers with players.

Regards