Update on PG scenario conversions 6/29/2012

[LoneWulf63]

Hello all,

As many of you know, I have been attempting to convert scenarios from the Panzer Grenadier boardgame series into JTCS format. In the past few weeks I have received a great deal of advice and help from Warhorse, MrRoadRunner, Jason Petho, and Crossroads to name a few on how best to design these scenarios. After taking this advice into serious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that trying to convert the PG scenarios as outlined in that game series and into JTCS format is not the best plan. Therefore, I am scraping my original plan for converting these scenarios. Yes, that means not using the 50+ maps that I have already finished and several orgs as well. I am not deleting these maps or orgs, rather I am not going to use them at this juncture.

NEW PLAN:
1.MAPS. All new maps will be designed using Google Earth and the method outlined in Huib Versloot's tutorial (special thanks to Warhorse for helping me with a major problem I had). I realize that there are many terrain features shown in Google Earth that did not exist during World War II but many, if not all, of the major terrain features (hills, mountains, rivers, streams, oceans, beaches, and even some forested areas) still exist today as they did in World War II.

2. Scenario ORGS. One of the main problems with the PG scenarios is that the designers choose to use the "Elements of such and such unit" approach in the design of their scenarios. This method might work in the PG games but not as well, or at all, in JTCS. It will take more research to get the ORGS historically accurate, but that is what needs to be done.

So, this is my revised plan. Maps will be made of the REAL battlefields, or as close as I can design them. ORGS will be as historically accurate as is possible. Again, if any of you have any advice as to how I should proceed with this new scenario design plan, please feel free to suggest them. To the rest of the JTCS players. This has been a huge learning process for me but I am finally getting the gist of how to do a good scenario, not just a thrown together conversion scenario.

As I have stated in previous threads concerning these scenarios, I want these scenarios to be ones that all JTCS players will enjoy playing. Otherwise, this work is just a waste of time.

Take care all.
Chris

[LoneWulf63]

One other note. I will be using the PG scenario game length but will multiply the number of game turns for a particular scenario x 2.5 to bring it in line with the JTCS time scale. Meaning, that if a PG scenario lasts 30 turns, the JTCS scenario will last 75 turns. This is the only real PG to JTCS conversion that I will make.

Chris.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
2. Scenario ORGS. One of the main problems with the PG scenarios is that the designers choose to use the "Elements of such and such unit" approach in the design of their scenarios. This method might work in the PG games but not as well, or at all, in JTCS. It will take more research to get the ORGS historically accurate, but that is what needs to be done.

So, this is my revised plan. Maps will be made of the REAL battlefields, or as close as I can design them. ORGS will be as historically accurate as is possible. Again, if any of you have any advice as to how I should proceed with this new scenario design plan, please feel free to suggest them.

Sources exist to give you the answer to which units were in each battle. There is nothing wrong with "elements of" being used. Remember the Germans often used "Kampf Gruppen", which were collections of parts of units that were put together to complete a specific operation. Americans and Brits often would take infantry and armor (with elements of SP/AT) to complete specific missions.
Thus you get "elements of". There is a plethora of information on each battle to be found, both on the internet and in hardbound copies.

Don't go too crazy with the details. You may run into a fanatic now and then that will argue over a specific platoon or tree that should not be included in the scenarios you design. You'll meet anal retentive folks that just want perfection. And, along the way those who think that a scenario is terrible if the designer used a little nudge here and there. There are also those that run opposite to the "historicals".
Just don't give the Germans Panthers in 1940, or every production run of a specific vehicle (for a year) in one battle (because you think they are cool), and you will do fine. [;)]

In the long run players will admire balance and fun over all else. [:)]

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
One other note. I will be using the PG scenario game length but will multiply the number of game turns for a particular scenario x 2.5 to bring it in line with the JTCS time scale. Meaning, that if a PG scenario lasts 30 turns, the JTCS scenario will last 75 turns. This is the only real PG to JTCS conversion that I will make.

This is an area where you map making skills will come in. Also, your attention to details of specific units and the support they have. 15 minutes to 6 minutes is not that bad.
There are scenario designers who have made scenarios based on days. If they play like they are within the game's scale I have no problems with them. Try to avoid day and night in one scenario. You will have players jumping through hoops to change night to day and day to night. Variable visibility is not the answer there.

Relax. Have fun in creating designs. Put the customers first. Remember that balance and fun is the key to PBEM. Even those that play against the 'computer only' would like a challenge but, they are a small group within the overall group of players that are keeping CS alive.

RR

[Crossroads]

I would say the sweet spot for number of turns for an average size scenarios is between 20 - 30 turns, and if you go beyond that it should be because you have a clear reason for that.

So if a PG scenario is set for 30 turns I do not see any automatic reason as why it should be anything different in JTCS. And remember if you go beyond say 40 turns I believe it will start to make players think twice before committing to the scenario. 50 turns, and indeedd it is a long commitment to finish the scenario: 5 turns per week: two and a half months!

I definitively second RR in saying: have fun, test your scenarios with test teams you enjoy, get the first couple of scenarios out, see how they play out. Observe the results, listen to the testers, then tweak them as necessary as how the test game went. And do remember to have fun along the way [:)]

[LoneWulf63]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
2. Scenario ORGS. One of the main problems with the PG scenarios is that the designers choose to use the "Elements of such and such unit" approach in the design of their scenarios. This method might work in the PG games but not as well, or at all, in JTCS. It will take more research to get the ORGS historically accurate, but that is what needs to be done.

So, this is my revised plan. Maps will be made of the REAL battlefields, or as close as I can design them. ORGS will be as historically accurate as is possible. Again, if any of you have any advice as to how I should proceed with this new scenario design plan, please feel free to suggest them.

Sources exist to give you the answer to which units were in each battle. There is nothing wrong with "elements of" being used. Remember the Germans often used "Kampf Gruppen", which were collections of parts of units that were put together to complete a specific operation. Americans and Brits often would take infantry and armor (with elements of SP/AT) to complete specific missions.
Thus you get "elements of". There is a plethora of information on each battle to be found, both on the internet and in hardbound copies.

Don't go too crazy with the details. You may run into a fanatic now and then that will argue over a specific platoon or tree that should not be included in the scenarios you design. You'll meet anal retentive folks that just want perfection. And, along the way those who think that a scenario is terrible if the designer used a little nudge here and there. There are also those that run opposite to the "historicals".
Just don't give the Germans Panthers in 1940, or every production run of a specific vehicle (for a year) in one battle (because you think they are cool), and you will do fine. [;)]

In the long run players will admire balance and fun over all else. [:)]

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
One other note. I will be using the PG scenario game length but will multiply the number of game turns for a particular scenario x 2.5 to bring it in line with the JTCS time scale. Meaning, that if a PG scenario lasts 30 turns, the JTCS scenario will last 75 turns. This is the only real PG to JTCS conversion that I will make.

This is an area where you map making skills will come in. Also, your attention to details of specific units and the support they have. 15 minutes to 6 minutes is not that bad.
There are scenario designers who have made scenarios based on days. If they play like they are within the game's scale I have no problems with them. Try to avoid day and night in one scenario. You will have players jumping through hoops to change night to day and day to night. Variable visibility is not the answer there.

Relax. Have fun in creating designs. Put the customers first. Remember that balance and fun is the key to PBEM. Even those that play against the 'computer only' would like a challenge but, they are a small group within the overall group of players that are keeping CS alive.

RR

I understand about the ad-hoc nature of units that fought during World War II to the present. However, in the PG series, almost every scenario is a "Elements Of" ob. Some of the scenarios merit larger unit obs while others can use the "Elements Of" type ob. I have also decided that I will not, at least for a good while, be doing any what-if scenarios even though there are PG supplements covering those types of scenarios. So, no King Tigers in 1939 or Maus' in Finland (that sounds like the title of a movie).

I am trying to keep most of the scenarios within a playable time span, maybe only one or two 50+ scenarios (working on the Arctic Front battles with Petri at the moment.) As you said, the time factor would also be a factor in the map designs. A 60 turn scenario on a map that is only 5 Km x 5 Km would be a bit ridiculous. In some instances, it would also be a factor in the size of the higher echelon unit obs, IMHO.

I can be a bit anal-retentive about the details but not so much as some. I will concentrate on some details but ignore the irrelevant ones. If someone doesn't like a particular scenario, all I have to say is, "If you don't like it, don't play it." I am not doing these scenarios for a select few but the majority of JTCS fans/players.

I am having a great time doing the research needed to make these scenarios. I have already learned how to make the JTCS map overlays (thanks to Warhorse) for Google Earth. Since I don't have any books on the Finnish/Soviet Union scenarios I am designing, I am relying on information I can find on the Internet. Wikipedia has been a good source of info for me but I am always looking for other sources of info.

One other note. I have not forgotten about the German invasion of France in May, 1940. I have just put them aside for a while so I can work on these Finnish/Soviet Union scenarios with Petri. I will return to France in due course but will be moving onto the Pacific after the scenarios for Finland are complete.

At some point I am going to need testers for these scenarios. If interested, please send me an email.

Thanks again for the advice.

Chris.