Suggested Scenario Design Standards (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

tanjman -> Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 6:03:54 AM)

The following are some of the standards I plan to use (subject to forum input) in any scenarios I design or modify. I’m posting them here so that others may see and discuss them. Maybe we can come to a consensus as to which are used. Feel free to make comments and suggestions.

BTW the first scenario I plan on is a master OOB (created from scenario 15) with these changes as well as OOB corrections. I plan on using this master OOB scenario as a template for any others I create. I plan on using some of the excellent suggestions made in the ‘Post Map and OOB Comments Here’ thread. I hope to start this project (its just in the planning stages) after the next patch (for the OOB corrections).

Land (Ground) Unit Names:

It was common during WWII for allied ground unit names to have the nationality included. This was done to avoid confusion between two formations with the same or similar names. This is being done for the most part in WitP however the wrong formats (in my opinion) are being used. The proper format would be: I (US) Corps & I (AUS) instead of US I Corps & Aus I Corps; 25th (US) Infantry Division & 25th (IND) Infantry Division instead of 25th USA Division & 25th Indian Division.

Also for alphanumeric sorting purposes the appropriate number of spaces should be put in front of unit names that have numbers in them so that they sort properly in WitP. This would apply to both Japanese and allied ground units.

Ship Names:

I would like to add USS before USN ship names; HMS before RN ship names; etc. . . . but with the ship name field being limited to 20 characters this many not be possible in all cases. This would only apply to allied ships that served in the various navies. Merchant ships would use MV, SS, RMS, etc. . . .

BTW does anyone know what the Dutch navy ships used?

Air Group Names:

For the sake of clarity should the RAF, RCAF and RIAF use the same format as the RAAF and RNZAF? Example: instead of 4 Squadron RCAF it would be No. 4 RCAF Sqdn. Or would it be better to switch the RAAF and RNZAF to the RAF and RCAF format? Example: instead of No. 15 RAAF Sqdn it would be 15 Squadron RAAF. Or should we leave the format the way they are, that is if it is the correct format for each air force.

Personally I prefer to use the proper format for each air force.

Also for alphanumeric sorting purposes the appropriate number of spaces should be put in front of unit names that have numbers in them so that they sort properly in WitP. This would apply to both Japanese and allied air units.

Order of Battle (OOB) and Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E)

Obviously an area that can become contentious. What I suggest is that sources must be listed when posting suggested additions, deletions or modifications to the OOB and TO&E. Hopefully it will keep the debate civil.

Documenting Your Scenario:

I highly recommend creating a text or PDF file listing what is different about this scenario as well as which side should be played or if it is for PBEM only. You should also create and include the following files for the SCEN Folder:
ADetailXXX.txt (Allied Briefing)
AHistoryXXX.txt (Allied History)
JDetailXXX.txt (Japanese Briefing)
JHistoryXXX.txt (Japanese History)
NDetailXXX.txt (Scenario Briefing)
NHistoryXXX.txt (Scenario History)
ScenXXX.txt (Scenario Description)

For the art files used for the scenario history and briefings you could create your own or make copies of the existing ones. The following files are used:
ADetailXXX.bmp (Allied Briefing)
AHistoryXXX.bmp (Allied History)
JDetailXXX.bmp (Japanese Briefing)
JHistoryXXX.bmp (Japanese History)
NDetailXXX.bmp (Scenario Briefing)
NHistoryXXX.bmp (Scenario History)


BTW XXX should be the same number as the slot that the scenario is saved to.

Scenario Testing:

For reasons of game balance I highly recommend asking that the scenario be tested. Another problem that can arise is because there are so many hardwired slots in the database editor that if something is moved it could cause serious problems.

Glad to see they added the new Scenario Design/Game Editor forum. I hope to see a lot of posts here.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 4:44:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tanjman
It was common during WWII for allied ground unit names to have the nationality included.

I would like to add USS before USN ship names; HMS before RN ship names; etc. . . . but with the ship name field being limited to 20 characters this many not be possible in all cases.


I also share your interest in getting the little details right for each name. For that reason, may I also suggest you switch to the correct Japanese names of their planes, instead of using allied codenames? Some Japanese planes didn't have names at the start of the war so those should just be identified by number. Most planes from 1943 on had names, and nice sounding ones too. I think it will add a lot to the flavor to use them instead of the hillbilly names that the allies gave to the Japanese lpane types.



tanjman -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 6:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

I also share your interest in getting the little details right for each name. For that reason, may I also suggest you switch to the correct Japanese names of their planes, instead of using allied codenames? Some Japanese planes didn't have names at the start of the war so those should just be identified by number. Most planes from 1943 on had names, and nice sounding ones too. I think it will add a lot to the flavor to use them instead of the hillbilly names that the allies gave to the Japanese lpane types.


Sounds good to me. Just one of the (many) things I've over looked.

Thanks



PeteG662 -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 7:15:35 PM)

Why not start smaller with maybe a Midway scenario?



tsimmonds -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 7:16:56 PM)

quote:

BTW does anyone know what the Dutch navy ships used?


According to the Encyclopedia at Nationmaster.com:

"The names of the ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy are prefixed with "Hr.Ms." (Her Majesty's or Hare Majesteit's in Dutch)."

Despite this statement, the article goes on to refer to such ships as HNMS De Ruyter, HNMS Tromp and HNMS Jacob van Heemskerk.



tanjman -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 7:38:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

BTW does anyone know what the Dutch navy ships used?


According to the Encyclopedia at Nationmaster.com:

"The names of the ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy are prefixed with "Hr.Ms." (Her Majesty's or Hare Majesteit's in Dutch)."

Despite this statement, the article goes on to refer to such ships as HNMS De Ruyter, HNMS Tromp and HNMS Jacob van Heemskerk.


Thanks irrelevant, I've added the above to my notes.



tanjman -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/20/2004 7:56:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Why not start smaller with maybe a Midway scenario?


Tallyman662,

I feel a Battle of Midway scenario would be too small scaled for WitP. It would only be 3 - 7 days long. If there was a modern version of Carrier Strike (20 minute turns vs 1 day turns) Midway would make sense. Any scenario less than 180 turns long is not worth my effort.

As far a me creating a master OOB to use as a template to design scenarios. Once all the units, bases, ships, air groups etc. . . . have been entered. I can save the master OOB to another slot and put 9999 in the delay/date available data field and none for HQ and loaction data fields and it will no longer be in the scenario. If I deleted units that I what removed from the scenario, then if I made a mistake I would have to recreate everything from scratch.

Example:
Lets say I deleted an air group. OOPS! I need to put it back, so I recreate it, next I have to: reassign the leader (if I can find him); reassign all of the pilots (if I can find them); etc. etc. It is (IMHO) so much easier to use 9999 intstead.



Black Cat -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (7/21/2004 8:19:42 AM)

Tanjman

Check you PM please.[8D]



DBS -> RE: Suggested Scenario Design Standards (8/3/2004 5:01:24 PM)

quote:

For the sake of clarity should the RAF, RCAF and RIAF use the same format as the RAAF and RNZAF? Example: instead of 4 Squadron RCAF it would be No. 4 RCAF Sqdn. Or would it be better to switch the RAAF and RNZAF to the RAF and RCAF format? Example: instead of No. 15 RAAF Sqdn it would be 15 Squadron RAAF. Or should we leave the format the way they are, that is if it is the correct format for each air force.


The correct Commonwealth format would be (number) Sqn (airforce). Note the abbreviation is Sqn not Sqdn. The No. prefix is optional, and probably best left out - it is really only there to remind people that ordinals (ie 27th) are never used for RAF and related units, unlike the USAAF.

Some RAF squadrons also had honorific titles after the number, especially those composed of foreign personnel, or affiliated to particular parts of the Empire or Commonwealth... These are probably best omitted, as less relevant to the Far East than in Europe where there were so many Free Forces squadrons flying within the RAF.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375