Scenario sizes

Scenario sizes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Supervisor -> Scenario sizes (6/20/2000 6:15:00 AM)
With the upcoming version of SPWAW, it will be possible to create very large brigade to Division size battles. As the primary designer of Eastern front scenarios, I want to get an idea what is preferred,, the small, "Quick play" scenarios on a small map, up to 50 units and up to 10 turns, the normal size scenario up up to 200 units and up to 30 turns or the potentially huge scenarios on a 100 x 240 map. The larger map sizes of up to 100 x 240 is a new feature of SPWAW . The map is twice the size of the current version's "large" map, which is 100 x 120. A scenario of this size and scope would be a 50 turn minimum and with an average of 400 units for each side. The scenarios to be designed for the Eastern Front will be determined based on the survey results. For example, the plans for a campaign about Operation Zitadelle, the battle of Kursk, could be done as 5-6 normal scenarios on medium to large maps, focusing on a particular unit, such as Michael Wittmann's Tiger Company and a few supporting units or 3-5 large scenarios using the largest map and focusing on the kampfgruppe that Wittmann's company was attached to and the rest of the SS Leibstandarte Division as the supporting units. The campaign can also be done as a series of quick-play scenarios uning just Wittmann's platoon of 5 Tigers. Looking forward to your input ------------------ Grenadier SPWAW Beta Team

Moonwolf -> (6/20/2000 7:06:00 AM)
It all depends on the individual sceanrio. If it lends it self to extra-large size, then go for it. But I wouldn't force a sceanrio into extra-large size that plays better smaller. Sure, I think we'd all like some extra-large scenarios -- but a steady diet of them would be too much to handle. Certain battles lend themselves naturally to extra-large map sizes. I'm sure you already have a list of them you had to chop down to size to fit on the normal map sizes, and would love to get them onto a canvas that does them justice. Conversely, there are some actions that play well small. I am a fan of always making large maps even for small battles. A good map can be used over and over. I spend hours tweaking my maps -- and can see that this extra-large map will take up DAYS of my time! I can't wait! ------------------ \| Moonwolf \| ----------------

johnfmonahan -> (6/20/2000 7:50:00 AM)
Small to mid size please. I was never a fan of macro panzerblitz in my youth and wave less time now. Great job, great game !

Wild Bill -> (6/20/2000 12:28:00 PM)
My personal conviction on this matter is to have some of all sizes. Why? Because we are confronted with varying tastes out there among you. Some like smaller; some, larger. Some like a quick battle. Others want a marathon. Why not offer all of them? That way each person can find one he likes. A quick glance at the text file will give you a hint, turns for example. If it has more than 20 turns, you can bet on it being a pretty good sized one. One thing we might have designers do and that I am doing is putting in the title in the scenario listing the word BIG if it is a big scenario. That way you don't even have to read the text file unless you wish to do so. We have three big ones in the works right now. They include the earlier mentioned Battle at Celles (The Bulge), one on the East Front - Stalingrad, from Redleg, and another I am working on..Supercharge in North Africa, the final blow that broke the back of the DAK and the near annihilation of the New Zealand 9th Armored Brigade. These will be available right after the version 2.0 is released and will be posted in the Game Depot. An announcement will be posted here. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Charles22 -> (6/20/2000 8:42:00 PM)
I prefer mid to large. Given this, how will the campaigns run? Can you pick the map size for your battles, if not, what size will they be? Perhaps we could have battle size determined by as large a force as you pick. If that were the case, it think it would be wise to come up with a standard. For example, current Gerry core starting in 9/39 is 1,290 points. I suppose a large battle might be 2,800-3,000 points. Perhaps the user should be asked what size he wishes his map/forces to be, so that he knows small forces mean small maps?

Larry Holt -> (6/21/2000 3:12:00 AM)
Regardless of the force & map sizes I'd like to see the force matched to the map size. If you make some mega-big scenarios, please don't make them so big that the forces take up all the map with no open space for maneuver (unless it was a set-piece assault). Large size scenarios can be fun but if there are so many troops with no place to go, what's the point? ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Wild Bill -> (6/21/2000 10:33:00 AM)
We have that one definitely in mind, Larry. I think you will be pleased. Steel Shield gives you lots of room for maneuver, just don't get lost in the forests [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Supercharge begins large but sooner or later, as Pickett, you'll find yourself converging on an area for penetration. Still you'll have a good 30-50 hexes to play around in at the thickest point of battle. Stalingrad I have not seen yet, but the very nature of the battle calls for concentrated close in city fighting. No way to avoid that one, unless Redleg has worked a miracle. And wait till you see that map! Tractor Factory, the Barrikady, the Rail Stations, wow! That I have seen and that I liked! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

BA Evans -> (6/21/2000 9:32:00 PM)
Just thought I would throw my opinion into the mix: I generally have two different playing styles. During the 'work' week, I like to play short battles, about 2-4 hours of entertainment. After work I like to be able to relax and be entertained by a battle, without getting 'bogged down' in tons of detail. Playing shorter battles also ensures that I stand a good chance of getting to bed at a reasonable hour. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] On the weekends I really like to break out a large battle that I can sink my teeth into. I don't mind spending a good portion of the weekend getting really immersed into a large, complex battle. Both smaller battles and the larger battles would be appreciated, I play both. I would suggest creating many small and medium sized battles, because I find I play those the most often. The really big battles are much appreciated and very fun to play, but my schedule really limits how much time I can devote to these larger battles. BA Evans

Wild Bill -> (6/21/2000 9:39:00 PM)
That is probably how it will be. Monster or Momo scenarios will come along about once a month or so. They take at least twice the time of a "normal" scenario, plus the testing takes a LOT longer. So at least from our group, the Momo type scenarios won't be that frequent [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] There will be some, but you won't be flooded with them. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Fabs -> (6/21/2000 10:19:00 PM)
I go along with B A Evans. Because of the limitations of the earlier Steel Panthers system, I often found scenarios with big battle titles but very little space and few units. Having read many volumes of British infantry battalions histories, I saw that their engagements varied from Battalion sized assignements such as the taking of a village or feature to bigger battles where the battalion was given a job to do as part of a brigade's scheme, back to smaller, Company or even Platoon size engagements. In the first Steel Panthers it was very difficult to portray anything greater than a Company size engagement because by the time one had put together the company and its supporting units the units roster was pretty much full. In this context it could be argued that the larger map size available was often too big. Steel Panthers WW2 was much better. Engagements comprising two or even three Infantry Companies and their supporting arms were no problem. I would love the opportunity to try out operations such as a brigade's portion of the initial assault at El Alamein, the battle for Centuripe in Sicily, the crossing of the Volturno or Garigliano Rivers, sections of the New Zealander's battles with the Fallschirmjaeger in Cassino Town, the fighting between Canadians and Hitlerjugend Panzergrenadiers immediately Northwest of Caen, the struggle between the 50th Divison and the Panzerlehr around Tilly sur Seulle, the fight between British Commandos and The Hitlerjugend for Rots etc.. These would be battles that I would probably play a few turns at a time, over many weeks. Some of them have been represented before in scenarios but I always felt that they were much cut down versions of the original. I have sometimes attempted to brake them down into different scenarios on a large map, with mostly frustrating results ( the maps were too small). At the same time I would love to see shorter, quick play scenarios dealing with small actions that can be played in an evening, with lots of excitement, such as a Company assault on a farmhouse or small hamlet of some tactical significance, an engagement involving a smallish armored reconnaissance force (perhaps trying to capture a bridge by coup de main), a chance encounter between evenly matched forces in the Western Desert, or an action by an isolated Airborne force. I have frequently designed "throwaway" scenarios like this myself, trying to refer to a broadly historical context but making forces and map up entirely. They can be fun to play but leave you a bit bemused because you wander if somethig like that really did happen. I am really looking forward to exploring the new possibilities that this feature of version 2 will open up. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

Six-pk -> (6/21/2000 11:37:00 PM)
Thxs Grenadier for all your work! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I want all 3 sizes, quick play, normal, and !HUGE! Six

Tombstone -> (6/22/2000 6:14:00 AM)
I've also enjoyed scenarios of all sizes. I prefer large ones (or at least I enjoy them more) because you tend to have more options and need to stay organized to get stuff done. In my opinion big battles test planning and focus, and small one's test fine unit control (which also get's tested in the larger battles but can be replaced with having adequate forces come to the point of need.) What I'd really like is the map size increase in SPWAW and the old scale of SP3.. but I think that's just me. Tomo

Kluckenbill -> (6/22/2000 6:18:00 AM)
I like all sizes, but probably the medium size (Batallion +) the best. My problem with really big battles is the inherent lack of realism in having the Division commander decide the movement and firing of each individual tank. Although come to think of it, I used to have a Division Commander that tried to do exactly that... talk about micro-management at its worst. The other problem I have with really big battles is keeping track of units and their placement on he map, it entails an awful lot of scrolling and zooming. But in the end, big games are still a lot of fun. I too used to play Division sized games of PanzerBlitz.

Sabot Scott -> (6/22/2000 6:29:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Brent: With the upcoming version of SPWAW, it will be possible to create very large brigade to Division size battles. As the primary designer of Eastern front scenarios, I want to get an idea what is preferred... Looking forward to your input Let a thousand flowers bloom. Oops sorry komrads. I prefer campaigns, so large scenarios would be a nice addition for me.Its all good. thanks for all the time you put into the game. Scott

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.546875