What says the forum ... Is it better to have a scenario that is "epic" in nature - spanning the entire length and breath of a region (i.e., a fight on two-fronts) OR is it better to break things down a bit and examine each front separately? I'm trying to decide on how I should craft one of the upcoming BRICS installments.

There is room for both.

 

Sometimes I want to play a small, focused scenario that has only a few units (on both sides) and is aimed at a single, well defined objective.

 

Other times I am itching for an all out battle that spans thousands of miles and involves hundreds of units of all types, one that pushes my ability to "command" to its limits.

 

If you're writing a scenario that is part of a saga, or series, then maybe the first would be more suitable. Or maybe not.

 

[You could create an actual poll, with votes, if you were so inclined].

I have found that if you want to accurately model a real world situation, small to medium is usually better. I's easier to "make your point", so to speak. Brad's "Karafuto", and "Trophy hunter" are excellent examples of this type. I prefer them "small and hard". Many others prefer the huge ones. They do keep you busier, and it's true that you can have a nail-biter, just because it's so hard to keep track of that much stuff. Hope this helps.

Great info. Forum don't stop ... Keep the responses coming!

Great info. Forum don't stop ... Keep the responses coming!

 

You can create great scenarios at any scale, but I suspect medium and large ones are easier to make satisfying than small or epic ones. Small ones sometimes end up being a lot of waiting and watching and then BAM! it's over. Epic ones can be unwieldy, and it I suspect it is harder to make the AI a challenging opponent unless it has huge advantages in numbers or really simple instructions. If any hard decisions have to be made mid-way through the scenario, such as a major change in tactics, the AI does not seem designed to handle that very well.

 

In other words, the "sweet spot" is probably something between a small task force of ships and/or subs and/or a squadron of aircraft (or the land-based equivalent) on each side and a full carrier battle group, perhaps with a convoy or two or another task force, and its air wing (or the land-based equivalent) on each side. When you start getting into the range of three or four carrier battle groups and several hundred aircraft (or the land-based equivalent) on each side, I suspect it does not work as well. I don't know, of course, because I haven't written anything for H3/ANW on that scale yet. I did write one Classic scenario some years ago that was "epic" ("War Gods in Hell") and that worked out pretty well, I think, but the Red side had very simple instructions--shoot at the Blue guys until they die or decide to run away.

 

I suppose one way to handle an epic scenario would be to "chunk" it into separate scenarios. Instead of three carrier groups facing three huge air bases, make it three scenarios with each carrier group facing one air base (and a few elements from the others, just to keep people guessing) separately.

There is room for both.

Also from my point of view there is room for both.

 

 

Epic ones can be unwieldy, and it I suspect it is harder to make the AI a challenging opponent unless it has huge advantages in numbers or really simple instructions. If any hard decisions have to be made mid-way through the scenario, such as a major change in tactics, the AI does not seem designed to handle that very well.

This speek for scriptable AI. So no way.

 

 

When you start getting into the range of three or four carrier battle groups and several hundred aircraft (or the land-based equivalent) on each side, I suspect it does not work as well.

I like this kind of games with an approach step. So in peace I could regroup the CBG and then approach to the 1'000 A/C.

It is not faire to have a scenario with zero chance of survive for the carrier.

 

 

I suppose one way to handle an epic scenario would be to "chunk" it into separate scenarios. Instead of three carrier groups facing three huge air bases, make it three scenarios with each carrier group facing one air base (and a few elements from the others, just to keep people guessing) separately.

I saw it once with in a epic battle over the atlantic and back. I managed the fist scenario from the US coast to Gibraltar with low losses. But the next scenario at Gibraltar started only with 1/3 A/C!

Thats the point were I like the idea of Tony with the shameless move around the world.

In the end, the scenario is all about telling a story, albeit convincing or plausible one, but that's my style. I like focused scenarios, sometimes it's about showcasing a new weapon system, but more often than not, I try and tell a story about a particular maritime environment - it took me about three months to come up with my last one, the Southern Philippines. I even interviewed some SoF guys who had just rotated from "training" AFP units and were in my area attending NWC, just to get a feel for the place since I had left decades ago.

 

I try not to fall into a rut, but small forces make for more challenging gameplay. The challenge is to make the player "feel" for their forces, not as an emotional attachment (although good commanders have that characteristic), but to encourage the player to make good tactical decisions using the forces they have at hand. The key is to write a plot and have clear, unambiguous objectives. Truly, it all boils down to "X Merchies must survive" AND "convoy on station for 48 hours." Then you give a secondary objective like "X number of enemy a/c attacking the convoy must be destroyed."

 

Those objectives then let you string together a series of scenarios. So the next time, the convoy heads out, not so much air axis threat, but now they face a sub challenge. Continuity is important - I will reuse a map but then start a ledger to figure out who's dead or not and fix the map accordingly, like a stage between acts during a play. That's really hard to do with a huge scenario.

 

Key to that is to write good orders that reflect commander's intent. If you don't want Blue player to destroy themselves pounding away their inadequate aviation assets against AAA-infested island bases in Scenario 1, say so. Zones like in ANW would be useful here. Instead, you'll have to actually beef up the defenses so if they do decide to go off the reservation, they get the message the first time. :-) Also, if the damaged Merchies escorted by healthy gunboats are lost, the AI should recognize that and allow them to go full speed to escape the wrath of air units seeking a platform instead of mission kill. Make it as unambiguous as possible and keep the story straight, simple and plausible. I can't write a BIG scenario that fits that to my satisfaction. It's not a lack of tools, there are ways to do it I'm sure, but I think the story would not be adequate or compelling to me.