Halfway through your post I had already made up my mind, and coincidently, it is the same as yours.

I love territory gaining scenarios. There are so many ways this can be accomplished, through the way you gain troops, whether you have more than one unit, puzzles and challenges you need to overcome in order to take territories, and things you need to keep track of once you have taken territories.
I think it's because under the bracket of gaining territories there are so many ways to accomplish this for a designer.

However, I also have a soft spot for single unit RPG's - when they are accomplished correctly.
I like a more free-roaming world where you can interact with multiple towns, civlians and do a vast number of minor missions while ignoring the main quest (if you so wish).

I *always* go for the weird, short, and completly fun gameplay. I feel territory based scenarios have been done a lot, so I try to make something out of one of the game's feature that is interesting and completely fun.

Nice idea, Intrepid.

I am also drawn towards attempting to create a gameplay style dissimilar to what has been done by others, in a sense to try 'new' things. For me that is one of the main benefits of an editor; it allows you to be much more flexible with gameplay styles and to expand upon the general style of gameplay you will find in random map games.

For example, in AoK nowadays you only ever see a few different styles of gameplay: you'll see simple FF games with a morale system, a character based RPG or a variant on the build-and-destroy type. I much prefer scenarios where the author tries something different, such as the battle with the Yeri at the end of Ulio, where you have to time and coordinate your attacks with ally reinforcements with precision and can implement varying strategies. I like gameplay styles where you have more freedom to choose how you want to approach the problem over styles which result in you using a tried and tested strategy. I think the geographical features of the map and their potential effect on gameplay style are often ignored; aside from the odd strategic bridge, river or chokepoint, things such as cover in forests or (to an extent) terrain elevation are often neglected.

The danger is that you can let things get too complicated when you try to take the gameplay too far from the norm, and the player can get confused when playing. I once tried a system in AoK for a very small campaign where you had to escape from a city. It had a timer corresponding to the hours of the day that co-ordinated various things to aid your escape such as AI randomizing a set of taunts that could be used to open password protected gates at certain times of the day, reducing and increasing the line-of-sight of the units to simulate day and night and using areas of the map as the inside of buildings that could be entered and used as hiding places, but in the end, after hundreds and hundreds of triggers it was way too complicated and too rigid a system to be worth continuing. It ended up as a waste of time.

I like the territory idea within a dynamic world, and I think it is great when you have to react actively to the computers strategy, whereas normally the computer never tries anything special of its own other than chucking units piecemeal at you, and always reacts to what you do, not the other way around. I also think there is much scope for 'management' style scenarios, where the player can be presented with a complex and interesting diplomatic environment and have to act knowing that everything they do will have a direct consequence elsewhere. The problem with that is you need to provide enough military challenges and enough diversity to avoid it becoming repetitive or like a city building game. In the end, the more you alter the gameplay the more work and time is needed, which presents a bit of a problem for me and others. However SSSI's editor does look promising in this aspect.

[This message has been edited by Luke M (edited 07-21-2005 @ 02:59 PM).]

Quoted from Intrepid:

I don't have a lot of time, but anyways: While I'm a relatively inexperienced designer, I've, through playing other designers' scenarios, realized that there are great risks associated with trying to do just that. Many are, in their quest to deliver something unique, ignorant to the fact that while it can pay off to be innovative and creative, it only does so if the innovative and creative aspects of the scenario have been well enough thought out to be what essentially matters: Fun. Otherwise, you might just end with having created a scenario that's merely interesting. I've found that idealistic and inexperienced designers' naivety can prevent them from accepting the limitations of the tool (which the game and it's editor essentially is) they have in their hands. After all, a saw very, very rarely carries out a hammer's job adequately, and a lot of talent and determination is required for it to happen.

[This message has been edited by Kierkegaard (edited 07-21-2005 @ 03:15 PM).]

Quote:

Yeah, that's true. Often a scenario's story or atmosphere can make up for it having a 'normal' random map style gameplay. Still, for me half the fun is in trying to do something different.

I'd like an island vs island war, but with triggers setting off random storms that will stick a spanner in the works...

Another thing I didn't mention before:
I love puzzles in scenarios. Unique and generally fun puzzles really add, whether it is a particular way to destroy an end-boss or a simple quiz-type part (as I included in my most recent AOM scenario.)

I personally enjoy RPGs. I like starting of with one guy, and exploring the world, and eventually having an army behind my back with which I can conquer the world. I enjoy fixed-force scenarios as well, where you have to solve the problem of how you use the troops at your disposal.

Personally, I don't find the build&destroy scenarios to be much fun. I don't mind building a small base or training some units mid-way through a scenario, but if I'm playing b&d, I'd much rather start of with a good size base which I can expand. As I'm expanding, I want to be attacked and challenged from the off. While it can be nice to build a scenic base, I can do this on a random map. I want action, which generally means movement or fighting with my men.

On AoK I really liked The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields2, and the Shabato series, as these scenarios had you doing a lot, and the action never stopped. Another scenario I enjoyed was a FF scenario which involved the Polish against the Germans, but I've unfortunatly forgotten the name.

I think you're thinking of Marko's Tannenberg. The one with the really long intro?

I've been thinking, and another side to scenario designing that I think is little-used is the naval side; you see very few scenarios (at least in AoK) involving using a fleet. Hopefully Rise and Fall will allow us to try more things out in this area.

Alot of my more recent PoTC based scenarios seem to deal with naval combat. Very interesting, it seems that turn-based combat is more fun on AoK then any other game. Ironic, but interesting all the same.

Do you think pulling off a Mythos (or whatever Xamos called it) will be possible? (from AoM if you dont understand what i am talking about)

Gameplay is the fundamental element for which we play games. For a scenario good gameplay can be achieved with no triggers or a complex array of triggers. Gameplay, its meaning and effect on players can be written about in an entire book, but there are some important aspects about it that designers can keep in mind when creating a scenario.

Theme: When developing a scenario, establish the theme. What kind of experience are you trying to give to the player? In my scenario Antietam for example, I wanted to create a more realistic civil war battle. That was it, and that's all I focused on. I could have added a bunch of things to it that would have detracted from the theme, and therefore the experience. In North vs. South the theme was capturing and holding victory points. It didn't have to be muskets and cannons that you fought over them with, it could have been robots, ants, bacteria, etc...none of that would have detracted from the primary theme. Had I added the need to govern and build cities, that would have detracted from the theme.

Believability: If you have things in your scenario that are unbelievable to the theme, you are pulling the player out of the experiene. Some discretions are worse than others, but they all add up. This can range from eye candy to AI. If you're storming D-Day with 5 guys, or trying to sneak past an AI that never sees you regardless of what you do, it makes the theme less believable and therefore less fun. Things that keep reminding you that you're playing a game also detract from believability. If you're playing a FPS Vietnam game where you're supposed to be in a big jungle but keep running into artificial walls, it takes you out of the experience.

Confusion and Frustration: These could technically be two separate categories. These two are your biggest enemies. If the player is confused and/or frustrated while playing your scenario, 90% of the time it's your fault. Having people playtest your scenario is your best antidote and have them mention any confusing or frustrating moments in your scenario. If it's a common complaint, chances are you need to fix it even if it deviates from your original 'vision'. More times than not you can come up with an alternative that will not confuse or frustrate the player and will still accomplish what you wanted to do.

Meaning: This is one of the key elements to having fun. Giving a player meaning. Take a deck of cards, for example. If someone had never seen cards before they have no meaning. Just a bunch of numbers and pictures. But once you place rules on those numbers and pictures, suddenly they mean something to you. Same with a scenario. If you make a scenario where it's just your army facing an enemy army, there is no meaning to fighting them. If the enemy army is blocking your path on the way to getting a super weapon to conquer the world, suddenly fighting the enemy has meaning and makes it more fun to fight them. Your ability to conquer the world hangs in the balance of that battle.

Quote:

Yeah, thats the one. It would of rocked with just the intro on its own.

The zaniest game play change that I have implemented has to come from the second scenario, The Battle of Winnipeg, in Chapter 1 of 1837-1947. In this particular scenario you only control two things, 4 target reticules and 8 cannon operators. The fort in which you are defending, Fort Winnipeg, is defended by an AI player and is being assaulted with waves of American troops. If the Americans ascend the acropolis in the centre of the fort you lose. Each target reticule represents a cannon and where it is currently aiming. Target reticules are simply shrunken objects with nametags floating above them, telling the player which reticule belongs to what cannon. Cannons can be switched off and on using chat commands. If you want to turn cannon 1 on, you type, “1” in the chat window, if you want to turn 1 off you can again type “1” in the chat window. This works for all four cannons.

At this moment, the scenario seems fairly easy; all you do is move your target reticule to enemy troops. However, there is a twist to the scenario, supplies. Each cannon requires a certain amount of supplies to fire. Cannons can be re supplied two ways, either by brining cannon operators directly to the cannons or by shutting the cannons off. The more cannon operators you have near a cannon the faster the cannon re supplies. The number of cannon operators also controls the accuracy of the cannons, more operators equals greater accuracy.

This might be a good example of game play going a little to far off the wall. People were utterly confused when playing this part of the campaign, as it was so different from the standard Empires game play, despite the fact I gave ample instruction.

The zaniest game play I have seen in another scenario has to come from Grand Inquistor’s Junta multiplayer scenario for Empire Earth. In this particular scenario four would be despots face off to try to gain control of a small Caribbean island so they can fill their pockets with the tax dollars of the inhabitants. The game plays as FFA/Diplomacy, but only one person can control the main city where the tax dollars are. So what results is generally a 3 on 1. The three players that are not in control of the capital fight the one who is. But the second this changes, the alliances quickly break again, and it is another 3 on 1. The scenario is made odder by the fact that the players who are not in control of the capital can incite worker strikes in the capital, creating havoc and lowering the tax income.

EDIT: Gah, I see Intrepid has some of the same points.

You know what's a good thing to have in scenarios? (along with Hank's things) - Surprise.

Giving a user something he completely didn't expect, as in a very smart response by the AI, or an unexpected hidden event, or perhaps a plot twist on your storyline, keeps thing very interesting. On RPG scenarios that's very important because it is easy to get bored of clicking around and doing nothing.

[This message has been edited by Elpea (edited 07-21-2005 @ 05:41 PM).]

I also enjoy set-piece scenario's since they differ from the standard Random skirmish game. Small force MP scenario's are fun and a reward system set-up that gives the player or players bonuses after completing a particular task is nice.

I am looking forward to some scenarios/campaigns that will utilize R&F's naval combat more than anything else. I believe that some incredible games can be created finally with R&F. I have never worked on a scenario with anyone else and look forward to some joint projects with aspiring designers like myself.

IMO nothing beats good ol' RPG scns. All of Punk's, AoM's, and AoK's best scns are RPG.

In a half-ontopic point; I wonder how many LoTR scenarios we'll be having this time.

I had enough of LotR scenarios. They had been reworked in every RTS game with an editor multiple times.

In many games, the plot is very important. Who wants to play "Mr. Evil is taking over the world! Kill him!"? As the others said, surprises, plot twists all contributes to the enjoyability of the game.

What makes many people to play a RPG is the ability to level up. This is why there are legions of gamers out there playing MMORPG. Getting rare items and leveling up is extreamly addicting to gamers.

However, people does not want to walk around an area for hours hitting some stuff over and over again. You need a combination of single player exploring/doing quests, some small party fighting, B&D, and strategic puzzles/tacticals.

I think the best plots are simple, yet should draw you in. The best RPGs have relatively simple plots at the start, and a little is added t them every time you complete something. This shouldn't be too hard for the designer (unless they have NO imagination), and makes for a more interesting game.

If the scenario is an RPG, I prefer to level up in the sense that I suddenly have a town or an army after completing enough quests. Kind of levelling up my "party." On an RTS, adding attack or defense points onto the hero dosen't do much for me.

One thing that makes me enjoy a game more is making sure their is a sense of "awe." If the game world and background story is amazing, it makes me want to explore it. On Tannenberg, the intro at the start was so awe-inspiring, it made me actually care about what happened in the scenario.

A simple game play idea...

Create a game where the player controls key elements of the opposing positions simultaneously.

These key elements to be the known core game-play elements like resource gathering, trade, building, training, combat*, whatever. In other words, the game play everyone is familiar with, or can adapt to easily, and also elements that the AI is very good at controlling (and not controlling) as separate elements (in script).

The amount of positions could equal the number of key elements the player controls (the player could control one or more for each opposing position). Perhaps it could also be kept to only 2 or 3 positions, but I'm thinking of more as I type.

AI to control these key elements for the positions where they are not controlled by the player. Again the AI must be able to control and not control whatever separate key elements are chosen.

Objective would be to keep a level of achievement for each key element that was within a specified range** of what the AI(s) can do, or the player is defeated.

The AI(s) would also have to keep within the specified range for the all the 'key elements,' but the player controlled ones, or the position is defeated.

When a position is defeated the player is free to play without having to control the element of that particular position any more. (reward)

AND/OR: When a position is defeated the player gains control of that key element in the position that backs his military element. (player might receive additional reward/upgrade with this)

The ultimate objective for the player is to defeat each position, or better put; have them defeated without falling below the specified range of achievement for the one key element in their control.

Other objectives and rewards could be time and score based too.

I noted AI as the only aspect controlling the 'key elements' mentioned, but of course it can be augmented with triggers (whatever it takes).

* The combat aspect might also be divided into control over the larger strategy of one position, and control over the micro or tactical decisions of another position. Naval and land based combat might also be something that could be divided. Note: dividing aspects of combat for opposing positions will no doubt require a lot of pre-planning and, complex trigger work, if it can be done at all.

** The 'specified range' for each key element would be determined by tracking the AI(s) personality for each level of difficulty before hand at the design and development stage.

[This message has been edited by AnastasiaKafka (edited 07-23-2005 @ 04:48 AM).]

Quote:

Probably 2 to 3 million.

And one will slightly be playable and interesting

I'm sure I downloaded about 4 "helms deep" scenarios for AoK. Every one was essentially a wall, a castle, archers behind my wall and my "uber" heroes. I generally sat there and watched my hero units kill about 50000000 enemy men.

I'm of the opinion the world would be a better place without the LotR films.

I recently played and reviewed what I thought was an excellent Fellowship of the Ring scenario - it was faithful to the book, was extremely creative in marrying the events in the book with a set piece in the AoK editor, and was very well balanced. Sure, it's probably one in a million, but it shows that if the right person tries a LotR scenario, they can pull it off. With a game like this though, I'll expect historically accurate scenario's to be the norm.