| Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC) https://wargame.ch/board/cc/ |
|
| Balanced Scenarios - Interlocked into a Campaign https://wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5072 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | 927 [ Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Balanced Scenarios - Interlocked into a Campaign |
While I am learning how to make a home-made scenario, I thought it would be helpful to discuss the various ways of building "objectives" into a game - - with the game mechanics we already have. As we can imagine, there are several, but still FINITE number of ways to measure a general's skills on the battlefield: 1) to kill a larger number of the opponent's army than he can of yours. With a balanced scenario, this is an INHERENTLY fair way to determine generalship. 2) to obtain a key piece of geography while denying the same from your opponent. There are any number of historical battles that fit this model -- but frequently this is because of hindsight. For example, historically speaking a general might be just as happy to lure the enemy into a counter-attack, and execute the killing blow well SHORT of some "topographical objective". As I've mentioned in other posts, I find it rather amusing to put my troops into a ridiculous array ... just to achieve the flag/objective by the final move! But a scenario where two armies fly at each other in order to "capture a city" or an "empty fort" can make such "flag/objective" scenarios quite reasonable. 3) and then there is the HEROIC mode, where a unit has to capture a redoubt or artillery or a baggage train "before it's too late".... even if it means his unit will suffer very high losses. The losses are anticipated and justified by the importance of the mission. As hard as I try, I have a difficult time coming up with more than 3 BASIC types of scenarios. Reviewing military history, there are various "modulations" of these three.... but they always seem to me to be derived from one of these 3 models. But I'm rather new here. If someone can propose another type or types.... that would certainly advance the discussion further! Having touched on TYPES of scenarios, I wonder if someone "clever" could come up with an interlocking set of balanced scenarios along these lines: 1) balanced "recon" regiments seek to capture a fort on a hill top. 2) The loser then gets a scenario of DEFENDING a baggage train. 3) The lower of that scenario then gets a scenario of field encounter (whomever has the lowest casualties wins). For just this simple 3 encounter campaign, there would have to be TWO VERSIONS of the baggage train game (one for the British being the loser and the other for the American side being the loser). There would also have to be two versions of the open field encounter. The first scenario (capture the hill top) could simply have one version (the British always having the first move, but a distance away. So, with this simple 3-contest campaign, there would be 5 possible games. And with the OOB's being balanced, I really can't imagine who wouldn't find the battles inherently fair.... no matter what machine rules are in effect. Regards, George Brooks Tampa, FL |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|