First Scenario Design - Any Tips ?

[AlGrant]

Hi,

I've only had Command for a short while but managed to spend a good amount of time running through a number of scenarios.

I've now started looking at the Editor with thoughts of making my first scenario.
I have an idea in mind (based on a real world engagement with some modifications to add balance) that is small enough get me started without being too ambitious. It is likely to be a small scale surface action with limited air involvement (as was the case in the real world engagement). I'm intending that the scenario is playable from one side only and I want to try using a custom overlay (to show a port area).

I've read through a number of Colier12's articles and also comsubpac's guide to using overlays on Baloogan's site all of which make for interesting reading which I'll try to put to good use.

I've not actually started putting units on the map yet but have made notes on scenario overview, win conditions, Orbats etc .... I've even read the manual (very unusual for me!) and was wondering if any of the scenario designers out there follow a particular 'workflow' when actually putting their scenarios together and if there are any tips on initial play testing to iron out any major flaws.

I have considered getting the AI sorted out first by getting the bad guys on the map and plot out various RP's and zones and even letting the AI run through unopposed just to ensure they will go where needed. Then adding in the player units and tweaking things as I go from there. Or I could just throw everything on the map and see how it all pans out !

When playing through is there anything in the logs I should be looking for that could indicate problems, especially with the AI's missions.

Thanks

[Coiler12]

Well, I'd say just do whatever you're comfortable with. My approach to building scenarios isn't the most consistent (since it depends a lot on the context of what I'm trying to build). The only real step I follow in every case is playtesting to make sure it technically works (regardless of balance or difference or difficulty).

The "make sure they can get from Point A to Point B" sounds like a good idea. Just make sure to have another save beforehand so that you don't accidentally save the scen when the ships are at Point B.

[SeaQueen]

Try to limit the scope of the scenario. I'm working on one right now which started off involving a quarter of the Eastern Hemisphere and thousands of units. The outcome: My laptop overheated and shut down.

Unless you have an AWESOME computer, it's hard to do an entire campaign in Command. I'm not also necessarily sure it's a very useful exercise. It's better to do a small piece of the whole war. Even that can get pretty big fast. The hard part with a game like Command, especially given the enormous range of the sensors and weapons that exist today, a scenario can very quickly become huge.

For example...

I want to create a scenario involving defending an airbase on an island from attack by ballistic and cruise missiles. On the player's side they have aircraft, SAMs, and some ships equipped with anti-ballistic missiles.

On the computer's side there's the bombers carrying cruise missiles, the ground launched cruise missiles, and the ballistic missiles.

I play through a few times and I decide that the player's surface ships are really soaking up the missiles pretty well. Surely there has to be some fly in the ointment for the computer. Ah ha! I'll add in a couple submarines.

Then I think... well... if you have submarines now I need to add in MPA.

I play through this a few times and now the ships aren't so perfect because sometimes one or more of them gets sunk, and there's not enough missiles to shoot everything down. That means the SAMs and the fighters get to play.

Okay... but now there's a new problem...

The fighters are soaking up all the cruise missiles. That's great! Except is that really realistic? Of course not! Nothing is perfect. So now I need to add in some kind of offensive counter air patrols and/or intercept missions on the part of the computer going on concurrently with the strike mission, so that the cruise missiles can get through. The thing is, this airbase has over 50 fighters! So now there's a lot more aircraft in the scenario that sounded SO SIMPLE in the beginning. To support those fighters they need AWACS and SIGINT aircraft. So that's even more airplanes.

It actually ends up being quite involved, and this is just to attack one airbase!

One of the best ways to simplify a scenario is to constrain it geographically with navigation zones. You might, for example, stop players from deciding, "gee the best way to solve this problem is to just go on the offense and start attacking THEIR airbases and SCUD hunting." That's not a bad thought, but if the point of the scenario is to look at your ability to defend, they're talking about another scenario. You might make a second scenario to examine that case later. In the defense case, you can take the possibility of offense off the table by drawing a navigation zone over all the enemy territory, and give them a safe haven. Is that realistic? Maybe maybe not. It all depends. That navigation zone saves you from having to add in all the SAMS and even more fighters you'd need if you were to take into account the possibility of the player going on the offense.

I hope this is helpful.

I've not actually started putting units on the map yet but have made notes on scenario overview, win conditions, Orbats etc .... I've even read the manual (very unusual for me!) and was wondering if any of the scenario designers out there follow a particular 'workflow' when actually putting their scenarios together and if there are any tips on initial play testing to iron out any major flaws.

[AlGrant]

Thanks for the input.
There is always the temptation to get too complicated too soon and this first attempt has been chosen because it should remain quite simple

My planned scenario will be very loosely based on a naval engagement in 2008 off the coast of Abkhazia in the Black Sea, between Russian & Georgian naval forces. There was no direct subsurface of air involvement in the engagement, so it should be easy enough for a first look at the editor. Although I don't rule out including some if needed.

I don't plan on it being anything like an historical scenario, in fact it may well be as close to the real events an the average Hollywood movie!

I have a few links detailing the actual events and there are some variations in the units involved, with some giving the Russians a Slava class cruiser. *Not allowed to post links yet* But a google search of 'Battle off the coast of Abkhazia' brings up a few links.

The Georgian patrol craft were totally outnumbered and out gunned .... especially as one report states they didn't actually have any missiles in the launchers!
What is clear in all versions is that Russia sent an amphibious force to deliver troops and equipment to the Abkhazian port of Ochamchira.

I'm looking at creating a scenario where Georgian missile armed patrol craft attempt to disrupt the Russian amphibious operation by targeting the Ropucha landing craft.
Some neutral shipping in the area should force the units to get closer before launching so as to avoid an international incident through sinking neutral/civilian shipping.
Clearly there will need to be some adjustment to the orbat on both sides, but I plan to at least keep it sensible.


Al

P.S. Same conflict area as 'Give Them Hell, 2008' in the Community Scenario pack

[Tomcat84]

It's important to develop your own flow cause of course everyone works different

But a good idea to get some inspiration so for reference I'll give you some info on my general flow. Note that my scenarios are mostly air only scenarios.

Obviously start with generating an idea haha

Then I usually start by placing the friendly air bases that I want to use. If I want to enforce some airspace restrictions I might build some no nav zones at this point or I do it later if I'm not sure yet at this point.

Next up I usually build either the targets or I start adding friendly air assets. Which comes first depends on for which one I have something particular in mind. If I have a specific number/layout of targets in mind I build that first and then start thinking how many weapons that requires and then back calculate to add an appropriate amount of friendly assets.

Alternately if I have a specific group if friendly assets in mind I add those first and then determine a reasonable amount of targets that they could strike and go from there.

Once target and friendliest are set I start working on enemy defenses, building a system of SAM sites and radars etc as well as airfields and enemy fighters.

After that I start drawing up where I want enemy assets to actually operate (patrol areas, which radars active etc) and thinking of how this needs to be activated etc. so then it's a process of building missions and as appropriate events to activate them etc.

Then a lot of play testing to make sure things work and the objectives are achievable. Finally I write the briefing and description.

Some notes:
- besides actual play testing at the end there's obviously plenty if testing at every stage to see if various things work. My technique is to ALWAYS save and then save as to make a new save game before I hit play. Cause it's happened to me where after testing something I want to go file -> load to get back to editing and accidentally hit file -> save and overwrite my last version.
- I save a lot in general and I often keep adding incremental numbers. I don't just save over 1 thing all the time. That way you can go back a bit if needed if things somehow get messed up.
- if I want to use overlays I generally do a rough hack if I need any for building a target area and then do the polished versions at the end (you can check my tutorial for blending them and reducing size via my sig although I think comsubpac's later tutorial on baloogan that you mentioned covers mostly the same techniques)

Hope this helps you or anyone else reading this.

[AlGrant]

Thanks again,

Hoping to spend a bit of time over the next day or two putting things together and see how it works out.