What is a sucessful scenario? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Sandrik -> What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 6:47:03 PM)

Question, just what is a sucessful scenario? I've been hit by a few folks (E-mail) because my Israel's WoT 2006 is ahistorical. Well yes it is and I designed it to be that way. I designed the scenario for folks to explore the possibilities and to consider the limitations the IDF/IAF are under in Lebanon/Syria and with regard to mobilization. To me what is the sense in playing a scenario which is so constraned as to force the players into the historical decisions and events (If they had control over them). It's like that Command Decision TV show that was on and I stopped watching, because in every episode the decision made by the actual commanders was "The correct decision."

So I leave the open question to you all, what is a sucessful scenario?



golden delicious -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 6:57:28 PM)

"Successful" implies an achievement of goals set down beforehand. So if the scenario does what you want it to (answers the question "what if", gets lots of players, crashes your computer) it's successful.



Sandrik -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 7:00:53 PM)

"...crashes your computer?"

Is there an inside joke here that I'm missing?

Al



sstevens06 -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 7:41:21 PM)

Historical accuracy - in both OOB/TO&E as well as ability to re-create historical outcome.

Problem with current criticism of your "Israel's WoT 2006" scenario is that the detailed historical outcome is not yet known. If past Arab-Israeli wars are any indication, historically faithful accounts about this one won't come out for years, if ever.



golden delicious -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 8:31:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandrik

"...crashes your computer?"

Is there an inside joke here that I'm missing?


If that was your objective, and the scenario does that, then it is indeed a successful scenario.

My point was that there is no single answer. It depends entirely on why you designed the scenario in the first place. Scenario design is a hobby, not a commercial enterprise nor a political exercise. So its success depends on the satisfaction you get from it.



*Lava* -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/20/2006 9:03:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandrik
So I leave the open question to you all, what is a sucessful scenario?


That's easy...

One that is fun to play.

Ray (alias Lava)



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 1:15:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historical accuracy - in both OOB/TO&E as well as ability to re-create historical outcome.


This is much too narrow of a definition for success. Think I like Lava’s definition much better.

Regards, RhinoBones



Silvanski -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 1:24:27 AM)

If I would make a scenario and get one (1) positive reaction I'd consider it a succes [:D]



Fidel_Helms -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 1:36:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandrik

Question, just what is a sucessful scenario? I've been hit by a few folks (E-mail) because my Israel's WoT 2006 is ahistorical. Well yes it is and I designed it to be that way.


Given that the conflict is ongoing, it can't help but be ahistorical, can it?

As Ben notes, different strokes for different folks. I think you must bear in mind that this is a subject which inspires no small amount of polemic, and thus people's opinions of what is "historical" and/or "realistic" will vary greatly. Some people are going to want their Israeli supermen, and some are going to want every Hezbollah guerilla to be a ninja.



sstevens06 -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 1:55:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historical accuracy - in both OOB/TO&E as well as ability to re-create historical outcome.


This is much too narrow of a definition for success. Think I like Lava’s definition much better.

Regards, RhinoBones




These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.



Fidel_Helms -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 4:05:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historical accuracy - in both OOB/TO&E as well as ability to re-create historical outcome.


This is much too narrow of a definition for success. Think I like Lava’s definition much better.

Regards, RhinoBones




These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.



Absolutely, although I tend more towards your point of view(as expressed earlier). The main appeal of TOAW(or most any wargame) is the ability to recreate an historical campaign. If you're just looking for a fun game or a purely competitive exercise, there are thousands of better choices than TOAW, like German board games or chess(both of which can be played online).



Captain Cruft -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 4:40:04 AM)

I suspect that from most designers' viewpoint getting any feedback whatsoever on their scenarios would be considered a success. It is truly amazing to me that so much work is done in an almost complete vacuum.




*Lava* -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 4:47:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
I suspect that from most designers' viewpoint getting any feedback whatsoever on their scenarios would be considered a success. It is truly amazing to me that so much work is done in an almost complete vacuum.


Indeed,

A very insightful observation.

Ray (alias Lava)



Sandrik -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 3:48:23 PM)

Well thanks for your insights.  I do try to ensure the historical ooutcome can be reached in any scenario I design, but I also like to (prefer to) explore the what ifs.  In Chinese Farm '73 I tried to allow for the IDF turning north instread of south or seizing the crossing near Ismailia.  In "On the Banks of the Suez" (which was trashed by some when I desigened it for COAW) I tried to allow the Egyptians great latitude in whether to stay under the SAM Umbrella or stike out for the passes, and the IDF great latitude in whether to eliminate the Egyptians from the East Bank or cross the canal as was done historically.  In Yom Kippur: Golan Heights, I wanted the IDF the option of counterattacking in the northern Golan or counterattacking in the south. I could go on and on but to me the wargame shoud make you think and want to explore, not just what did happen but what could have. In fact I've been thinking of Patton's Alternative for the Ardennes, were the Americans and Brits drop back to the Meuse in a fighting withdraw (but no major stand up actions at St. Vith or Bastogne) and then drive up Skyline drive & south from the Rohr Area to trap the Germans in a huge Kessel/Cannae. 

Al 



TOCarroll -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 5:01:17 PM)

I am a big fan of "playability" as a criteria for success, but one should also consider the fact that scenarios like yours allow player's to see various possible outcomes. Indeed, your scenario gave me a much better idea of what a cluster f*** the whole situation is. (Perhaps "quaqmire" would be a more polite adjective).

I also give scenarios like FITE and DNO big points for illustrating how many damn Russians the Germans had to go through to win (or lose). Like an elephant (Germany) attacking zillions of army ants (not my metaphor, came from the Wgermacht GS). (The scenarios) Also give you a good picture of the hugeness of the country and poor communicatins.

So, lots of ways to suceed. Just finishing a working design should be considered a sucess, as much work as is involved.[:D]



sstevens06 -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 6:30:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

...

Just finishing a working design should be considered a sucess, as much work as is involved.[:D]




Amen to that!



bluermonkey -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/21/2006 6:38:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

...

Just finishing a working design should be considered a sucess, as much work as is involved.[:D]




Amen to that!


'Tis true!



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/22/2006 10:59:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: If you're just looking for a fun game or a purely competitive exercise, there are thousands of better choices than TOAW, like German board games or chess(both of which can be played online).


Why are these choices better than TOAW? I thoroughly enjoy playing a fun game of PBM TOAW . . . guess I misunderstood the purpose of TOAW. Not for fun eh! Bummer.

Regards RhinoBones



golden delicious -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/22/2006 11:31:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Why are these choices better than TOAW? I thoroughly enjoy playing a fun game of PBM TOAW . . . guess I misunderstood the purpose of TOAW. Not for fun eh! Bummer.


Well, it depends on your definition of fun. Do you find a good museum fun?



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 3:24:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Well, it depends on your definition of fun. Do you find a good museum fun?


I’m not buying this as a legitimate response. Definition of fun? I provided a definition of fun as it relates to TOAW PBM gamming. And what do museums have to do with any of this? Nonsense!

Really, when it comes down to playing TOAW for fun, does this answer have anything to do with my question about why the choices given by Fidel are better than TOAW? Come on, you’re supposed to be educated. This response is as useless as the quip you provided to the original posting. I know you could do better if you only tried a little bit.

Or, are you attempting to say that there is no fun in TOAW? That TOAW should only be attempted by serious minded people who are qualified to key punch the most accurate of TO&Es? Recreational fun players are not allowed in the club.

Either way, the response makes no sense at all. Please try again.

As for the museum, yes I do find them to be fun. Also find them relaxing, stimulating and educational. If you go with the right person, any museum with dark corners can be a whole lot of fun. I remember one time I took a nice young lady to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Must have been somewhere between the agricultural exhibit and anthropology when she suddenly . . .

Regards, RhinoBones



JAMiAM -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 4:02:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
I remember one time I took a nice young lady to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Must have been somewhere between the agricultural exhibit and anthropology when she suddenly . . .

Yeah...the combination of planting seeds in fertile, deep, and well-irrigated furrows, followed by gazing at primitive, naked and hairy primates usually has that effect on me and my dates, too...[;)]

Anyhow, back to the subject...[:-]...I agree that the primary measure of success of a scenario in a game that we play is how much fun we have playing it. There is nothing wrong, per se, with an...ahem...academic interest in the game, as long as that is how you derive your "fun factor". In the academic's defense though, immersion is often a key aspect of their ability to enjoy the stimulation...err...simulation, and making sure they are all in the right sizes, shapes, numbers and positions is terribly important for some people to really "get in the mood"...[:D]



*Lava* -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 4:18:25 AM)

Hi!

Fun can mean different things to different people.

TOAW caters to just about any wargaming definition of fun.

I'm a casual gamer, so fun for me is normally a well built scenario vs Elmer.

That's why I like it so much.

Ray (alias Lava)



Silvanski -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 4:44:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

I'm a casual gamer, so fun for me is normally a well built scenario vs Elmer.


Ditto... I can't make the commitment to indulge in pbem so a well designed scenario with a PO that puts up a decent challenge makes my day (actually days... weeks LOL)



TOCarroll -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 5:54:20 AM)

I guess I always ask the dumb questions, but.....I play and enjoy chess. Since I am American, I am not sure what German Board Games you mean. The equivalent of Scrabble, or Parchesi? Or more like Advanced Third Reich (in German, of course)?



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/23/2006 6:05:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Yeah...the combination of planting seeds in fertile, deep, and well-irrigated furrows . . .



Nicely put, but lets all keep our heads out of the banjo ditch.

Regards, RhinoBones



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/24/2006 4:09:45 AM)


Just to make things fair, thought I should write down a few of my ideas about what makes a scenario successful.  I think the following are characteristics of good scenarios no matter whether the scenario is a monster, a PBM only scenario or a scenario designed for the beer and pretzel crowd against their favorite AOwPI.


The scenario must perform to the designer’s expectations.  Whether this is what I call a fun scenario, or a serious endeavor to simulate history, the nature of the scenario is immaterial so long as the author is satisfied with the result.
The scenario must challenge the player (and/or players as appropriate).  Ideally, to achieve victory, the player must master the concepts of maneuver, logistics, deployment, strategy, operations and tactics.  Realistically, incorporating just three or four of these concepts should result in some mighty fine scenarios.  Incorporating all six can be a challenge left to the Grand Masters of scenario authorship.
The scenario must be compelling to the point where the player enjoys returning to the battlefield and renewing the engagement.

These are my criterion for success.  Note that there is no mention of time frame, length or historical fidelity.  I do not believe that a scenario is dependent on these factors in order to be judged good or successful.

There are several other elements which I personally like to see in scenarios, however, I would consider them as “enhancements” rather than criterion.  As follows:


The scenario should never be predictable to the point where both sides always know where, when and in what numbers troops are deployed.  This includes off map events which influence the battle.   I believe this completely negates the value of the “Fog of War” setting.
If at all possible, refrain from using static Point Paying Objective Hexes.  Did Rommel view Tobruk as a 50 VP prize or was it an opportunity to increase his supply while decreasing the enemy supply?  Point is, there are more creative ways to reward military success rather than awarding VPs.
Randomize, randomize, randomize.  There are plenty of events to do so.
Make the map larger than the necessary battlefield so that map edges to not form artificial barriers to flanking maneuvers. 

Enough of my ideas.  Obviously the measure of success is a personal matter, and I can accept that many in the community have a different set of scales.  This is how it should be and I think it is an indicator of the success that TOAW has enjoyed as a game system for the public.  The only issue I have is that some feel the need to express that TOAW can, should or is intended to be used  only in the manner dictated by their personal opinion.  I think that there is room for everybody in this pool and that all opinions should be respected.

Regards, RhinoBones



Curtis Lemay -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/24/2006 6:44:05 PM)

I like a wargame to place the players in the shoes of the historical commanders. To do that, it needs to model reality as well as possible. That doesn't mean it recreates the historical result, just the historical circumstances.

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns. But filling their shoes and succeeding under the same circumstances where they failed tends to be fun to wargamers. But that means relishing any circumstance that can happen in war. If you were an actual commander assigned to Anzio, it wouldn't matter that you really wanted to fight manuver tank battles in the desert.

And that means scenarios should really be different, to reflect their reality. Congested and tough going when that was the historical reality, wide open and wild when that was the reality. Unit count, map size, game length, etc. should all be dictated by the situation, not personal preference.



rhinobones -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/25/2006 2:55:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I like a wargame to place the players in the shoes of the historical commanders. To do that, it needs to model reality as well as possible. That doesn't mean it recreates the historical result, just the historical circumstances.


This seems to be a popular view of TOAW, and probably of war games in general. This is good, but I think it places an artifical cap on the possibilities available to the TOAW scenario designer.

quote:

I'm not sure if Haig, Rommel, or Westmoreland were having fun in their historical campaigns.


I'm more than sure that they were not having fun.

quote:

Unit count, map size, game length, etc. should all be dictated by the situation, not personal preference.


Why is this?

Regards, RhinoBones



Ecthelion008 -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/25/2006 5:53:09 AM)

If you read the holy words of Norm as stated in the manual, you'll see that it is all about choosing the right parameters in terms of:

Hex size to Unit Size

Map size to Army size (how many units are there and how much of the map they cover)

Turn length (the old question of realism versus playability i.e. It'd be very realistic to have a 6 hour turn for FitE, but utterly unplayable) 



golden delicious -> RE: What is a sucessful scenario? (8/25/2006 5:50:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

I’m not buying this as a legitimate response. Definition of fun? I provided a definition of fun as it relates to TOAW PBM gamming. And what do museums have to do with any of this? Nonsense!


Well, it's semantics, but I wouldn't call museums fun. TOAW is something similar. As Grant says, if I want fun- and there's nothing wrong with fun- I will go play something else. I won't crack open Seelowe, nor will I head up to the Imperial War Museum. I do those things for other reasons.

quote:

Come on, you’re supposed to be educated. This response is as useless as the quip you provided to the original posting.


Actually I stand by my original point. Designers work for themselves, nobody else. Therefore a scenario is a success if it does what you want. If what you want is for players to like it, fine. If you want it to be a great simulation, fine. If you want the file to work out to exactly 666kb, also fine. I don't see why you're objecting to this.

quote:

If you go with the right person, any museum with dark corners can be a whole lot of fun. I remember one time I took a nice young lady to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Must have been somewhere between the agricultural exhibit and anthropology when she suddenly . . .


Yeah, thanks for that bonesy.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375