Silly Senario's

[dita]

One thing I have noticed, whilst playing around with the editor for the first time and creating a few scenarios (novice affairs that they are!), is how just the slightest tweak in the scenario can change how the whole battle plays out. Just repositioning the startup AI units, or placing a platoon behind the ridge line as opposed to on it can make for a very different battle.

All this is good, and just shows me the flexablity of the editor and how the AI plays. And of course allows the player to change something he doesn`t like

[DRG]

OK, here's what the designer had to say...

".........many of my scenarios do not fit well into the draw / minor victory / major victory etc. categories. For my scenarios, I've always considered it a win if you simply have more points than your opponent. And the more points you win by, the bigger the win........"

Now, I realize that this does not fit into the prevailing "sceanrio orthodoxy" where people demand a "victory" blessing from the computer and I also realize that yes.... that should have been included with the text file introduction but as CB wrote to me as well...

"I have thought about mentioning that in the .txt files but I don't recall anyone complaining about it before..."

and truth be told.... neither have I and that sceanrio has been included in the game for two or three years now. I also know that most of the scenarios ARE "winnable" by the traditional SP Minor or Major Victory criteria so it's not like there are dozens and dozens in the game like this one.

So for that scenario, if you get more points than the AI does.. you win and there are lot's of V hexes to take to give you options and nobody, to my knowledge ever has or ever will take them all but you don't have to take them all to win. You just need one point more than the AI and next time you play maybe you get 100 points more and that's a bigger victory and maybe you come back to it in a year and get 250 points more and that's a bigger vistory still

I know this won't make some of you happy but I learned long ago that's impossible. There are people who think we are jerks for abandoning DOS. If this still leaves a few of you unconvinced there is an editor included with the game. Edit away.

Don

[troopie]

Sometimes simply holding on long enough can be a victory. I'm thinking of the Wake Island scenario in SP1, the Calabar or Port Harcourt scenarios in SP2, (I survived the Calabar one merely because the Nigerian MIGs targeted their own tanks, and Port Harcourt only because a sapper unit blew up a tank on a bridge, sacrificing themselves and stopping the enemy from getting across. According to v-hex points I lost all three, but I survived and bled the enemy badly. Try playing the Iraqis in Desert Storm if you want an impossible challenge.

troopie

[WBWilder]

Yes, some scenarios could be designed that way. I would agree that there are cases where the player knows he has won. If the computer tells him something different, he must decide if that is an accuarate assessment or not.

I guess you could call the computer's statement a "second opninion." So let me say it this way. My personal preference when I do a scenario is to figure out a way for one side or the other to win decisively from the computer's point of view.

Wild Bill

[Pyros]

I will play scenario 20 and then I will tell you my opinion.