Scenario Designer Prejudices

paulkenny

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
54
Location
USA
I am working on some new scenario designs and realized that I have a few prejudices when it comes to scenarios. I hate LT MTR's for some reason, the 5 PP and low firepower makes them pains in the necks IMHO. So naturally I find myself avoiding including these in OOB (though I attempt to include them, especially early war). and yes I am aware of the nice -1 airburst and nice CH results but for some reason LT MTR's leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Do any of you other designers have such tendancies? ie leader types, fortifications, vehicles etc?
 

sswann

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,911
Reaction score
1,382
Location
Middle of Kansas
First name
Steven
Country
llUnited States
I (in turn) love light MTRs and will include them as much as possible.
I am totally against 10-X SMC in a scenario design and would rather let them enter as HOB.
In the times that I do use a 10-X, I usually do it with some type of penalty or restriction to prevent abuse.
 

paulkenny

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
54
Location
USA
which is funny cause I find my 10 leaders wear a special type of uniform with magnets inside the lining that attract sniper bullets.
 

chris_olden

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
5,288
Reaction score
751
Location
Room 429
Country
llUnited States
I think it's my lack of creativity that gives me any
sort of "design prejudice" I might have.
co
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,406
Reaction score
2,108
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I am working on some new scenario designs and realized that I have a few prejudices when it comes to scenarios. I hate LT MTR's for some reason, the 5 PP and low firepower makes them pains in the necks IMHO. So naturally I find myself avoiding including these in OOB (though I attempt to include them, especially early war). and yes I am aware of the nice -1 airburst and nice CH results but for some reason LT MTR's leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Do any of you other designers have such tendancies? ie leader types, fortifications, vehicles etc?

I like DCs for more than just 'assault-engineer' type squads.
 
Last edited:

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
I like Armor Leaders perhaps a bit too much. I avoid Pillboxes and Mines. :)

In over 50 published designs, I have never used an overlay. :umbrella:

I don't use Starter Kit boards or HASL boards.

I don't design with horrible weather/terrain SSRs like heavy rain or mud.

No night. No Seaborn Landings. No caves. :kotz:
 

trevpr1

ASL Player
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
5,651
Reaction score
680
Location
Preston
Country
llUnited Kingdom
One prejudice I perceive form the new AP (and pardon if someone has pointed out before)... is not having the Russians attack. Twelve scenarios and Ivan only attacks in ONE, and that's vs Romanians or similar.
 
Last edited:

BruceC

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
513
Reaction score
24
Location
Maine
Country
llUnited States
I like the DC for non-AE scenarios. Grenade bundles or an improvised explosive device can be so represented.

Lt. Mtrs...another matter, while I like to use them in certain situations, they can, with that rof and -1airburst/CH ability, ruin an otherwise 'balanced' scenario. Tough to design into a smaller scenario for sure, at least for me.

I've had a longstanding prejudice against small tourney-sized scenarios in general. Recently I have thought on this issue and arrived at the following conclusion.

My issue stemmed from trying to use some of the smaller SPeed scenarios as time filler, quick start scenarios that can be setup and played through in a short time span. The problem with this is that most of these scenarios do actually require a certain amount of time to properly understand what the designers' intent may have been, in regards to setup/tactics etc.. Failure to properly 'get it' usually results in a playing that is outside of the designer's intented parameters, which then results in a lopsided outcome, and a hissy fit that these scenarios have problems...you know.

Looking over some of my older designs, I can see that I expect the players to grok the thing so that they will arrive at a point where the scenario is 'balanced'. Most of these designs give an extra game turn or two to allow a player who may make a mistake in setup/entry to recover and still make a fight of it. This can however go the other way, for instance, when a brilliant player can get it quickly and use the extra time to take advantage of terrain or tactics to make it easier for him to win. This could be seen as unbalancing as well.

So, as opposed to ROAR or other attempts at letting others know about a scenario's perceived 'balance', perhaps more useful to some would be a rating of difficulty, not so much in rules usage per se, but as to time required to consider a proper defense/attack plan etc.. I think this could be best done by a competent designer of said scenarios easily enough. I'd hate to have scripted design notes which take this thought process away from the players, but to have just an idea of what it might take to get to a point where the scenario is balanced would to me be ideal.

Just my take, tough call too. What do you think?
 

BobO

Argentine Dove Hunter
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
77
Location
VA
Country
llUnited States
I'm prejudiced against research.

I think we should just make stuff up.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
384
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
One prejudice I perceive form the new AP (and pardon if someone has pointed out before)... is not having the Russians attack. Twelve scenarios and Ivan only attacks in ONE, and that's vs Romanians or similar.
Well, "Into Vienna Woods" has both sides attacking. Sure, the Russians setup and defend, but then they have to coutner attack to win.
 

MrP

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
4,866
Reaction score
418
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Country
llNew Zealand
I'm prejudiced against research.

I think we should just make stuff up.
That's my kind of advice :)

I dislike 10-x leaders and elite troops. Or even all elite or all first line, mix 'em up a bit.

And OBA.
And slopes.
 

RobZagnut

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
1,378
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Well, "Into Vienna Woods" has both sides attacking. Sure, the Russians setup and defend, but then they have to coutner attack to win.
I was going to mention the same scenario.
 
Top