What Makes a Scenario.

[John Osborne]

What makes a good scenario? And what is needed first to make a scenario? Is it the map, the OOB, or an idea first.

What is the best type of scenarios.
A "What If" types or "History" types of scenarios. And which type of scenarios are better or more fun to play?

Just some ideas to get a discussion going :D

[kbluck]

In my opinion, a good scenario starts with an interesting question. That question might have to do with any of the things you mention. For example:

Map: How will a mechanized force fare in the mountains?
OOB: Can a Stryker battalion stand up against heavy tanks?
History: Could operation Market-Garden have turned out differently if the 1st Paras were landed closer to the bridge?
Idea: What if Arnold Schwarzenegger ate a bad burrito and ordered the California National Guard to attack Mexico?

The nature of the question therefore dictates what elements of the scenario are most important. Of course, what sorts of questions are interesting is usually a matter of personal taste.

--- Kevin

[Scully]

I have to agree with Kbluck here. The question is the most important place to start. What do you want to test? Then you can build everything around answering the question. I think Raging Tiger is a great example. The question is, "what happens if N.Korea attacks." You can build a whole game off that.

Generally, I prefer "what if" scenarios, but it's always an interesting challenge to try to change history.

Great question.

[Deltapooh]

I also agree with kbluck.

Balance is very important in a good scenario. It is also the most difficult ingredient to incorporate. You want the scenario to be challenging, but not discouraging. Different tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by players can make balance very difficult to achieve.

The other ingredient is scripting. Whenever possible, scenario editors should strive to design an interactive AI script. You want players to feel as though the enemy is acting based on their decisions. It's best to plan enemy behavior as though you were the opponent, and script actions to replicate how you might respond to most likely COAs.

Almost any ideal should be interesting if the editor combines ingenuity and the tools available.

[KG_Norad]

What Makes a Good Scenario:

First I have to agree with Kbluck that it really starts with the Hook. It gets your audiences attention and guides the design.

I feel that maps play and important role in wargames. I think they matter both in hex based games like campaign series, and in ATF as well.

Maps for Hex based games make a huge difference in game play due to the different capabilities inherent to terrain tiles, elevations, line of site, fortification etc. There is also a need for aesthetic & artistic design with these game types as well.

ATF/BCT uses for the most part topographic maps of of real locations. Because of this, the part they play, and what can be done with them is somewhat different but no less important. They do a great job of "transporting" you into the game, and help you get into the mindset of the commanders that might have contended for that particular piece of ground in the real world. I think this is a tremendous asset to the ATF
game, that isn't really duplicated in other games.

Realistic OOB's are important but have some flexibility. Fighting forces often have additional assets or are under strength due to losses, malfunctions and the like. Speaking for my self as long as their basic structure is reasonable I am happy. Of course the more detail one
puts into this area, never seems to hurt a scenario. :D

Realistic campaigns can be fun if chosen carefully. I think most modern battles have been so overwhelmingly one sided, that to model them exactly would not necessarily be fun or challenging. I think ATF shines for creating hypothetical scenarios where OPFOR can truly be the blood thirsty fanatical horde that propaganda makes them out to be! So to sum it up I like both. Any well crafted scenario is a great gaming experience!

Finally, as Deltapooh stated earlier, balance and playability are crucial in
bringing it all together. The story must hold ones interest, the forces pitted against each other must be well thought out, and the game play must be challenging with out being too easy or too discouragingly hard!

Michael

[CPangracs]

All of the above thoughts are valid and provoke great discussions. Although my job entails researching, developing, creating, and testing simulation scenarios for use in a military classroom, the major area which melts my butter is the creative process that goes into original scenario creation.

Not every possible battle has been fought, and no amount of hypothetical wargaming will ever bring us to that conclusion. Our minds and our abilities are the only limiting factors in scenario creation, so scenario's are very personal things.

The other area which I enjoy is creating new vehicles with new capabilities based on real or perceived future combat and combat support equipment and/or doctrine.

I try to not only ask "What if...?", but also "What else COULD I do...?".

No, I haven't created any scenarios for ATF for general consumption by all you fans, as I am working on Raging Tiger, and I don't think ProSimCo (i.e., Pat Proctor), would appreciate me letting things loose here. I do, however, have scenario's I've made for Decisive Action - not to take anything at all away from ATF. These are "Corps" and "Army" level scenarios, which are a bit different from the TF and below arena of ATF. The first is the Russo-Polish War of 1920, and the second and third are the two fronts of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll send them to you.

Curt Pangracs

[John Osborne]

No, I haven't created any scenarios for ATF for general consumption by all you fans, as I am working on Raging Tiger, and I don't think ProSimCo (i.e., Pat Proctor), would appreciate me letting things loose here. I do, however, have scenario's I've made for Decisive Action - not to take anything at all away from ATF. These are "Corps" and "Army" level scenarios, which are a bit different from the TF and below arena of ATF. The first is the Russo-Polish War of 1920, and the second and third are the two fronts of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll send them to you.
Curt Pangracs

First as the starter of this thread on "What makes a Scenario" I'm pleased on the turn out for it.

How much reserach should a person put in making a scenario? Should the person put in accurate information on a scenario?

And yes please, Curt, if you wont mind. Please send me the Yom Kippur War of 1973 to me. At josbornesprint11@earthlink.net

[John Osborne]

as I am working on Raging Tiger, and I don't think ProSimCo (i.e., Pat Proctor), would appreciate me letting things loose here.

Hi Curt,

Is it possabbly for you to answer this question about Raging Tiger :D

Are the Marines amphibious operations start from the ships, using the LCMs or it starts at the beach they hit.

[kbluck]

As a "professional wargamer", Curt reminds me of another facet of scenario design: politics. Very often in the world of "official" wargame development, for example the DoD, the games they design tend to prove whatever point the powers that be wish to have proven. Games that produce politically unpalatable results frequently seem to end up smothered in the cradle or "improved" until they toe the line. This often isn't even done consciously; after all, every wargame rests on a foundation of assumptions and guesstimates, and even unintentional bias can profoundly color the results.

Not that I'm suggesting Curt is in the spin business, of course, but organizational politics is a reality of life, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he's had to defend his work against such top-down meddling.

(Hey, I keep losing. Impossible! Your game must be wrong. Fix it!)

--- Kevin

[John Osborne]

Have to agree about that one, Kevin :D

I have another question about making scenarios. Its about the ratio to defend, attack, screen and so on. Good guys vs bad guys. Is it suppose to be 3:1 ratio for attacking vs defending? How do you guys figure that in when making a scenario? I have here an Excell spreedsheet that I will be using. I got this from the web page www.S2.com

[CPangracs]

Generally, the ratio for an attack is 3-1, with the attacker on the up side of that ratio. This is mainly for an attack against a dug-in and fortified foe. The force ratio calculator is a pretty good tool, but even it states in a disclaimer that it does NOT represent any sort of guaranteed chance of success in a battle!

Anyway, on to KB's comments about politics and such. In my job, I, and the rest of my associates, are a bit unpopular around here with some of the powers that be for the simple fact that we are trying to utilize off-the-shelf commercial simulations in the classroom to support common-core warfighting concepts and skills. Many don't like that for the simple fact that it means less Contractors running over-complicated simulations in expensive exercises to teach a simple concept.

Our scenarios are designed only to meet certain criteria - order of battle, location, and, if needed, historically representing units in the OB. The rest is up to the instructor to work with. If he/she wants to ensure the "good guys" win, then so be it - it's out of our hands.

Therefore, the politics of simulation wargaming is out of our hands - we teach the instructors and students how to run the appropriate simulation, help them to develop scenarios, then provid "GS" level support during the exercise, fixing things that break and such.

Now, if you want my $.02 on the subject, then I will say this. The whole arena of simulations in the military is being killed by too many different programs that don't talk to, or "stimulate" each other. It is also rife with mismanagement, territorialism, and the desire to intentionally provide faulty simulations or sims "too difficult for the average bear to run". This guarantees the contractor a lock on providing current and future support per an overestimated and vaguely-worded contract.

Can you tell this is a sore spot with me? ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love what I'm doing here, and I thank God every day for my fortune, but it is sad to see the "same-old, same-old" happening here, supposedly on the cutting-edge of military education.

Our shop has found that we can train more people, more efficiently, and with more student/instructor interest and retention of concepts than with any of the "military" developed simulations, only using 2 or 3 commercial sims costing less than $40 each.

Yes, we are despised by many, but a proud and haughty bunch are we!

[CPangracs]

Hi Curt,

Is it possabbly for you to answer this question about Raging Tiger :D

Are the Marines amphibious operations start from the ships, using the LCMs or it starts at the beach they hit.

Hey, John!

Not sure if I'm violating anything here, but my plan is to have the marine units going from land-to-land. If you look at the DMZ, you will see areas on both coasts which lend themselves to this kind of approach. The cool part will be HOW they get there! ;):devious:

[KG_Norad]

To take this one step further...which sims do you find useful and what concepts do you teach with each one?

Michael

[CPangracs]

We use Decisive Action for Division and above, and TacOps Cav for Brigade and below. These two simulations can teach just about any warfighting concept you can imagine from the Army-level on down.

[KG_Norad]

Here is an interesting review from the wargamer comparing Brigade Combat Team, Tacops 3, and Decisive Action. I had run across this article while I was researching my purchase of Tacops 4 and BCT Commander. I have been wondering about Decisive Action for a long time but the lack of action from the game developer has made me wonder if it would be worth the price.

This article however is an entertaining look at all 3 games...
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/modern_battle_compare/
:D

Michael

[kbluck]

Regarding the force ratio, 3-1 attacker/defender is the "classic" answer. The reality, as usual, can be considerably more complicated.

One of the advantages of being the attacker is that you get to choose the time and location of the attack. As the saying goes, he who would defend everywhere is strong nowhere. Even if the attacker is badly outnumbered overall, through superior maneuver the attacker can achieve local superiority and defeat the enemy by massing his firepower against a decisive point. The same goes for the defender. Since you can't, as a practical matter, defend everywhere, you must be able to respond to the actions of the attacker in a timely fashion and concentrate the necessary firepower to repel his assault.

This is the essential advantage of artillery; widely dispersed systems can mass fire against a particular point very rapidly, without having to physically clump together. The history of warfare, particularly in the last 200 years, is a never-ending story of forces that are more and more capable of rapidly massing against the decisive point and then just as quickly dispersing to avoid providing the enemy a lucrative target. In war, its all about "firstest with the mostest", and just about every advance in the technology of war since humans first learned to throw rocks at their enemies has been aimed at the problem of getting more fire on target faster from farther.

In general, forces with greater mobility and/or the ability to deliver effective fires from longer ranges (terrain allowing) will be better able to overcome operational level strength deficits and defeat enemies that would, at first glance, seem to be superior in strength.

So, the point is, you can't just count heads. You have to consider the abilities of each side to achieve the necessary local superiority. This is why helicopters can be so effective; they can relocate and concentrate firepower with phenomenal speed, and just as quickly disperse again. A modern company of Longbow Apaches used to their full effect, maybe a dozen helos, has the capability to demolish an entire motor rifle regiment of over 100 armored vehicles, thanks to their devastating capabilities to concentrate highly effective fire on extremely short notice while maintaining a minimal exposure to return fire.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

Here is an interesting review from the wargamer comparing Brigade Combat Team, Tacops 3, and Decisive Action. I had run across this article while I was researching my purchase of Tacops 4 and BCT Commander. I have been wondering about Decisive Action for a long time but the lack of action from the game developer has made me wonder if it would be worth the price.

This article however is an entertaining look at all 3 games...
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/modern_battle_compare/
:D

Michael

The thing is, Michael, we have versions of these programs no one else does, because we physically sit down with the developer and tell him or her what we want the sim to do for us.

For example, did you know that we also use scanned maps for TacOps? Our version is the most up-to-date out there, and, like I said, these sims are best suited to different levels of gameplay, so comparing them is basically useless. BCT/ATF and TacOps could be put head-to-head, but again, they do different things, and one does some things the others can't.

We use each sim to its strengths, and work with the developers to overcome its weaknesses.

[KG_Norad]

Well of course you do Curt, and I know that comparing Decisive Action to Tacops and BCT is like Duh...:rolleyes:

The main jist of the article points out that each game has its strong points and shortcomings. I am in full agreement with you, that all 3 model different aspects very well. From a civillian point of veiw I have MANY wargames for that same reason...that one thing that each game does well. I have yet to find the perfect game, but I am an optimist, and will continue to search, if I have to buy ever game out there!:D

Just don't let my wife in on my ultimate plan:dead:

Michael

[John Osborne]

For example, did you know that we also use scanned maps for TacOps?

Curt, I would love to get my hands on some of those scan maps that you use for TacOps and DA :nuts:

Kevin, I agree on what you saying. But the ratio is for making sure that when you setup the scenario. You try to get the ratio as correct as you can to make it balance. What you do with the units and equipment is what makes the scenario almost realistic ;)

[KG_Norad]

Curt,

You use specialized versions. Without giving anything sensitive away, how do the over counter versions stack up? Is the public missing out on anything particularly cool?

I realize features that may be good for "Professional Wargames" does not necessarily mean good for a gamer...

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Curt,

TacOpsCav, MC and ANZAC are all currently at the same level as TacOps 4 commerical release. Scanned maps are available - just have to do it yourself :D

I think MajorH is delivering the v5 MC, ANZAC and Cav versions at the end of the year, which will have a lot more user specific stuff.

The main difference is the number of users that can participate in a CPX at once. Commerical TacOps is limited to 20 users. Military TacOps is pretty much limited inly by processing power.

But I've only used ANZAC, and am not a part of the MC testing group :)

I think the scale that the US Army lacks in current simulations is squad based (the same scale AATF will take? ;) ), but I know senior level NCOs have been using HPS' Squad Battles series to run sims. As a former scn deisgner for that series, I have to say that it's a bit light on for that role, and hopefully something a bit more substantial can be procured quickly.

[CPangracs]

Curt, I would love to get my hands on some of those scan maps that you use for TacOps and DA :nuts:

Kevin, I agree on what you saying. But the ratio is for making sure that when you setup the scenario. You try to get the ratio as correct as you can to make it balance. What you do with the units and equipment is what makes the scenario almost realistic ;)

First, Did you get the email I sent with the links to the scenarios you wanted?

As for the maps, any scanned map will do for DA, as long as you know the scale.

Unfortunately, I don't think the OTC version of TacOps will allow you to put in the scanned maps, I'm unsure on that one!

[CPangracs]

Curt,

TacOpsCav, MC and ANZAC are all currently at the same level as TacOps 4 commerical release. Scanned maps are available - just have to do it yourself :D

I think MajorH is delivering the v5 MC, ANZAC and Cav versions at the end of the year, which will have a lot more user specific stuff.

The main difference is the number of users that can participate in a CPX at once. Commerical TacOps is limited to 20 users. Military TacOps is pretty much limited inly by processing power.

But I've only used ANZAC, and am not a part of the MC testing group :)

I think the scale that the US Army lacks in current simulations is squad based (the same scale AATF will take? ;) ), but I know senior level NCOs have been using HPS' Squad Battles series to run sims. As a former scn deisgner for that series, I have to say that it's a bit light on for that role, and hopefully something a bit more substantial can be procured quickly.Actually, there are a number of sims out there that fill the squad-level role nicely, such as JCATS and the new Full-Spectrum Warrior,...however now we're talking about hugely expensive sims with a high CPU overhead and specialized training and equipment to run it.

[CPangracs]

Curt,

You use specialized versions. Without giving anything sensitive away, how do the over counter versions stack up? Is the public missing out on anything particularly cool?

I realize features that may be good for "Professional Wargames" does not necessarily mean good for a gamer...
Not really, Michael. The main thing for DA is the Multiplayer aspect, and the biggest thing for TacOps is the fact that we can, indeed, have as many people on the game that our server and network will handle!

I'm not sure about the commercial release of TacOps,...does it also have the possibility of 8 different factions on the battlefield with ROE for each?

Oh, and one of the biggest things for DA is the COP, or Common Operating Picture. We can setup any machine with any number of "pieces" on the map for view by a specific audience while preventing their interaction with the sim. This is an awesome tool for AAR's and even showing the students the result of, say, only the logistics operations to the ash n' trash commanders.

We have a few other little goodies, but I seriously doubt they would ever be of any use to the gamer-at-large. :devious:

[John Osborne]

First, Did you get the email I sent with the links to the scenarios you wanted?

Yes, I got the scenarios. And post on the decisive action yahoo page if anybody wants to try the scenario Yom Kippur and no reponse back.

So if there is any players who play not only ATF but also DA. Would like to try a PBEM. Please let me know.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Not really, Michael. The main thing for DA is the Multiplayer aspect, and the biggest thing for TacOps is the fact that we can, indeed, have as many people on the game that our server and network will handle!

I'm not sure about the commercial release of TacOps,...does it also have the possibility of 8 different factions on the battlefield with ROE for each?


yep, we use it for CPXs to simulate COBs and indig forces. Useful when studying Ops Citadel and Lavarack and the combined INTERFET force.

the only current difference is number of users.

[CPangracs]

yep, we use it for CPXs to simulate COBs and indig forces. Useful when studying Ops Citadel and Lavarack and the combined INTERFET force.

the only current difference is number of users.

Also, I believe that MAJ Holdridge is developing some more stuff explicitly for the Australian Army,...mainly upgraded logistics functions, but we will all benefit from it. We are waiting for him to complete the Aussie upgrades, then we will try and engage him for our upgrades!:D

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Also, I believe that MAJ Holdridge is developing some more stuff explicitly for the Australian Army,...mainly upgraded logistics functions, but we will all benefit from it. We are waiting for him to complete the Aussie upgrades, then we will try and engage him for our upgrades!:D

Actually I think the Marines version is the one with all the new stuff - Aussie logistics makes for very short reading :D The aussie version should have more AS specific weapons and vehicles, as well as some AS specific scns, and maps :)

AFAIK, TacOpsMC v5 is scheduled to be delivered to the USMC by the end of the year. Assuming ANZAC and Cav will be done at the same time.

[CPangracs]

Speaking of the USMC, I just got done playing Close Combat: Marines. What a cool squad-based game! And it's ensorsed by the USMC!

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Curt: where can you get it from?

also, have you seen/had anything to do with WARSIM 2000? I've only seen Mike Robel mentiona few things about it, but it sounds rather interesting.

[CPangracs]

Not seen WARSIM 2K, but the CC: Marines was given to my boss at a conference last week. The more I play it, the more I like it! Try http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/techdiv/ITK/CCM/CCM.htm

[kbluck]

Kevin, I agree on what you saying. But the ratio is for making sure that when you setup the scenario. You try to get the ratio as correct as you can to make it balance. What you do with the units and equipment is what makes the scenario almost realistic

A number of wargames have various methods to "balance" forces. The usual solution is a point-based or "purchase" model. I personally despise games that allow players to "buy" units, since it nearly always results in ridiculous "super" orders of battle comprised entirely of mega-tanks and whatnot, but used responsibly they can be of great help to a scenario designer.

If it is any help, I've uploaded a sample of such a point system to the downloads area:

http://www.wargames.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215

--- Kevin

[Pat Proctor]

All I know about WARSIM 2000 I know from Mike R as well. It is a DoD sim which is intended to replace the old BCS/Warfighter simulation we have been using for over a decade. It will not have a comercial release.

For more, you would need to talk to Mike R.