Letter to the CMs and "The Evolution of a Great Scenario"

[Preon1]

I put this post up in the Big Week general discussion board, but since I think I'm going to start participating much more frequently in special events, I thought I'd post it here too:


<S> All

Below is a letter that I wrote to Nash earlier this week (I'm thinking Tuesday or so).  It's been revised a little since then, but I thought I'd post it for discussion.  Also, below that I've posted a rough sketch on how I would organize the running and revision of scenarios.

Letter to the CMs

I freely admit that I am not a CM and have no experience running Aces High scenarios.  However, I've been on the command staff for two AH scenarios now.  I have also run games that required a VERY large amount of preparation on my part, so I'd like to toss some considerations regarding scenario design up in the air.  These are things the way they would work in Preon's world.

Historic considerations:
I should have put this one last, as it's the most difficult one to deal with.  However, I have no doubt that it's the first one that comes up when a CM writes a scenario.  It's also (unfortunately) the consideration that seems to drive all others (for that reason I'm going to be referring back to it quite a bit).  The CM needs to acknowledge up front (most especially to himself) the level of historical accuracy he wants to attain.  The closer he wants it to parallel history, the harder he's going to have to work, and the tighter the rules. In my opinion, in order to inject any kind of realism into Big Week, the CMs would have had to model more infrastructure.  The historical purpose behind Big Week was an air superiority campaign.  Yet in this scenario, the Allies have been prohibited from attacking bases, petrol, ammo, or anything that would have given them an edge in the next frame.

Human considerations:
You (as a society of CMs) freely admit that no matter what scenario you run, it will have holes in it.  I have to ask, what's wrong with that?  By my way of thinking, once the project is done the design CM(s) should step back, smile, hand it to the COs and say, "Here; now YOU play with it."  That philosophy falls right in line with accepting Clausewitz's concept of the fog and friction of war.  Anybody with any experience in planning knows that perfection flies out the window the moment the first shot is fired. It's my observation that way too many of the CMs had a strong vested interest in seeing a large engagement of 250 planes at high altitude.  I think that moral imperative was so overpowering that this became its primary goal.  I say this based upon the action/reaction relationship I've had with you guys over the last month.
Examples:
-I discussed the possibility of attacking targets that would affect the LW throughout the scenario.  The CMs say that it's too "gamey."
-I discussed the possibility of a low altitude raid.  The CMs respond by saying they'll model 37mm ack (I wouldn't have minded that at ALL and STILL would have done it).  When the CMs fail to do so, they make a rule saying that bombers must drop at 8k.  Please reference the above part where you should have put the COs in charge.
-I discussed the possibility of spreading out my forces in such a way that the enemy doesn't know which force to attack in mass, thus complicating his defensive problem.  The CMs move the targets closer together.
-I discuss the possibility of bombers being used for skirmishers.  The CMs ban the rearm pad from bombers.
-THE ENEMY discusses the possibility of encroaching in to Britain for a preemptive strike on the Allied attack.  The CMs place restrictions on them in such a way that the attack would not be feasible or time effective (yes, I expect freedom of action to work both ways).

The trend that emerges is the CMs simply wanting nothing more than a high altitude "Battle Royale" between 90 bombers and 160 fighters, with lots of flak, explosions and beautiful eye candy.  The human was totally purged in this scenario, so I'd like to make a suggestion.  Have a design team come up with and build the scenario.  Once it's drafted up, leave it there for a few months, then hand it over to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT team of CMs to run.  Then this predisposition to have the scenario follow a particular and narrow course won't be such an overpowering influence.

Fairness Considerations:
Bravo.  Work as hard as you can to keep things equitable until the first shot is fired.  After that, all bets are off.  I'm glad you made changes to history by trying to balance out the forces (though I think the Luftwaffe was a FG or two too big).  It gives the commanders something of a feel for what it is like to have to pick your battles.  I don't remember exactly who, but one of the LW Aces was quoted saying, "The superior pilot supplements superior skill with superior judgment." In Big Week, the only way I was going to win was to avoid the "Battle Royale" was to keep the LW spread out and off guard.  This became harder to do with a bomber alt cap, a rule against NOE attacks, a rule against attacks on bases, a rule against fighters attacking ground targets, and targets that are so close together that half of them are in one sector alone.  This was all done in the name of history, and for the sake of fairness. Allow me to pose a question: When in history did a successful commander send his forces into battle when he was unsure of his advantage?  War isn't fair.  War is very fluid.  "War is the art of obliging your enemy to diddly up." -C1C David Mather.  Going into frames 3 and 4, I will be very limited in my options but I will do everything I can think of to glean SOME kind of an advantage. Fairness doesn't even come to mind when I'm in a planning session.

And finally, game considerations:
This is the point where I have to throw history out the window.  Fairness is just fine, but there are too many things that have to be taken into account for history to survive in a scenario.
-You can't have too many planes in one place because of lag and the 32 plane limit
-Planes don't perform in the game like they would in real life
-Distortions made for distance and time to make game play more convenient seriously alter real life.
-Accurately modeling the detail and intricacies of a war zone is nigh on impossible.

I urge you not to make changes to the rules and blame it on history.  In the end it's a game and nothing more.

In conclusion:
I fear this has sounded more like a rant than a series of valid points, so I'll sum up: It seems that some CMs write scenarios with some specific result in mind, and that result becomes the driving factor in all other decisions. Please, write scenarios to be fun, to be challenging, and to allow for innovation by the COs.  It's hard; there are a lot of considerations that need to be made.  CMs should strive for fairness and equity, but once shots are fired, the outcome of the event should be determined by the COs. I know this was long.  I hope it helps enact some philosophical changes amongst the CM corp.  I very much appreciate the time and effort you all put in to make these events happen.  I just felt the necessity to spark some introspection on how those efforts could better serve the community.

Preon


"The Evolution of a Great Scenario"

First thing's first: A scenario should never be run just once. That would be an insult to all the hard work done by the original design team.  I say that scenarios should be run at least every two or 3 years (depending on how many are on the table).  Doing so allows changes between the scenarios and gives the opportunity for some trial and error that will improve design for future unwritten scenarios.  These are the steps that I would take to make this happen:

• Original design team creates the scenario.  Maps, rules, planeset, arena settings etc.
• Scenario sits there, fully written, on a disk for a couple months.
• Entirely new CM team runs the scenario.  This includes rosters, web pages, and MINOR changes to the scenario to perhaps account for hardware/software changes.
• CM team takes input from COs and pilots and compiles a list of suggested revisions for the scenario.
• These CMs, or a new team perform the revision some time over the next year or two.
• This scenario is run by a new group of CMs other than the revision team.
• This process repeats itself until the changes equilibriate to a scenario which is deemed fun, fair, and very exciting.

I know this is kind of a rough outline. It is most likely harder in practice than in theory and suggests a HUGE time scale, but that's how I'd do it.

Thanks to all who read all this.
<S>
Preon

[Dinger]

I dunno preon.  You've got some good ideas, but I can't concur with everything you say.

First, I'm with you that the design and enforcement teams should probably be separate.

I don't think the time frames you suggested work.
AH is a constantly evolving program.  Scenarios also have the unstated goal of making use of the "new toys".  Bigweek, for example, showcased the P47D11 and the P51B. Moreover, new revisions bring compatibility issues -- will the maps work?
 Therefore, having it "sit on the shelf" for a few months is a good ideal, but probably not practical.
Likewise, recycling a campaign after a set period doesn't work for the same reason.  Two years from now, the map probably won't work, and if it did, we wouldn't want it.  Certainly this isn't the last of the "bomb the crap out of Germany" scenarios we'll be seeing, and any future ones will probably take advantage of the lessons learned here, and the scoring will reflect that.
As it stands I don't quite think they'll ever get enough experience to get an adequate scoring system, or to design the rules for a perfect scenario.

As for the specific complaints you have about the rules, I guess I probably agree in principle but disagree on particulars.

Sure, history can be an inspiration for these things, but these are not historical reenactments.
The other side of it is gameplay, and that's not simply the tactical challenge of executing together to fight for a common cause.  That's what individual scenarios, such as the excellent "Snapshot" series are for.  Certainly, that's an aspect, but not the only one.  The rest is the strategy, intelligence, camaraderie, skullduggery and training that comes from playing according to the same rules across several frames.

Rules can and should be set to encourage an historical atmosphere.  They should also be set up with an eye to gameplay.
I understand your frustration, particularly with the large number of superfluous rules, but I think many were there for gameplay reasons rather than historicity.

I don't want to make this a referendum on your tactics.  I agree there were some dubious things in the design, such as the bulk of targets being within 15 miles and a needlessly complicated scoring schedule on bombing.
Nor do I think the rules changes were necessary.  Even using an initial diversionary raid, you would never have succeeded in rearming the bombers on the pad and hitting targets.