Ideas for Scenario Development (WWII and Modern Land)

[Timothy OConnor]

Mk. 1 wrote...

I prefer games where the sides are deliberately not balanced, where neither side knows the other side's forces, and where all units are hidden until spotted. I also like to inject scenario-specific rules that add a touch of complexity to the tasks that the commanders on each side need to deal with. These things add greatly to the tension that the players feel as they struggle with their lack of information about the enemy and issues that limit their own play. It forces them to think and act more like actual military commanders, rather than just having a choice between rules lawyering and minutia of line-of-site and range measurements on one side, versus a dice-rolling contest in the middle of a cloth bowling green on the other.

Mk 1's point was made in another thread but I thought deserved its own thread. The point of this thread is to serve as a collection point for scenario development ideas, sort of like the "show us your stuff" and the "after action report" threads.

While I've tooled around with tourney style point-based systems and "standard" game mechanics such as objective markers and generic deployment zones, I too prefer scenarios, especially those with rich backgrounds.

Even when it comes to scenario play I prefer those with complex and unusual stories instead of the usual "defend the town" or "take the bridge" set-ups.

Re-entering modern microarmor gaming has provided lots of opportunities for comlpex scenarios that, as Mk 1 mentioned, force gamers to think like military commanders. Recently we've played games that involve native insurgents, central government troops, local militia, foreign regulars and civilians, all in the same scenario and based on actual events. These games have also involved booby-traps, attack helicopters, APCs, attacks on infrastructure, and rules of engagement that allow rebels to use cities to mitigate the effects of overwhelming enemy firepower. In all cases I tried to create a backstory, often based on real events, that provided a context for the action and something for the players to engage in beyond "rolling dice" as Mk 1 mentioned.

In one scenario a convoy had been ambushed and scattered across a city as its members tried to flee. The foreign regulars needed to secure the various wreck sites as rapidly as possible and rescue a band of survivors holding out in the city's center. The rebels needed to loot the wreck sites and capture the hold outs. Local, less capable rebels were beginning to move towards the sites while hard core foreign fighters were moving towards the city in anything that would carry them (we had technicals, mini-vans, and even city buses!) The amazing part is that some of the players began role-playing their forces, even when from a purely game perspective it was not the best option. There was even a bit of competition between the local and foreign rebels as to who could capture the most sites.

Mk 1 listed some great ideas for building scenarios. You can view these here:

http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... 2&start=15

So please post your scenario ideas here. These can include actual hisorical scenarios for WWII and Modern land-based games, completely generic set ups usable for WWII and Modern land games, or general scenario mechanics such as ways to track turn limits, the use of event cards, or mechanics for variable force composition. To make it easy to find stuff please write a title at the top of your post (not a new subject line!...just a title at the top of the message text.)

Tim

[Timothy OConnor]

VARIABLE TURN LIMIT MECHANIC

To limit game turns I start my games with 21 Turn Markers. These are little colored stones I bought at a craft shop, but you could use coins, tick marks on a sheet of paper, etc.

My home grown rules are broadly I-GO-U-GO, so one player takes his turn and then the other side goes. The side going first is usually the "attacker". Two player turns make a game turn (in principle anyway...see below!)

At the end of EACH player turn (not game turn!) roll 1d6 and remove Turn Markers based on the folllowing:

1, 2, 3 = remove 1 marker
4, 5 = remove 2 markers
6 = remove 3 markers

When there are no turn markers left as a result of a roll the game is over (it can also end early by breaking an enemy army.)

The result is that the game can end on either player's turn and the pace of turn marker loss can vary from turn to turn.

But the over all result is a game about 3-1/2 to 11 game turns with a strong average of about 7-8 game turns (again, the game can end on either side's turn so there might be "7-1/2" game turns).

And until there's only 1 Turn Marker left you never really know if this is the last player turn available which severly limits "The Last Turn Syndrome" but which also makes for some very interesting gambles (I've often seen players wager that this will or will not be the last turn and act accordingly).

Most importantly the rate of Turn Marker loss has an interesting effect on player decisions. If very low then players become more cautious while if faster they become bolder (often to their own chagrin as the pace changes!). In a way it represents time pressures beyond the scope of the immediate battlefield but which often play a huge part in tactical decision making (eg the approach of an enemy force, pressure from off-board leaders for faster progress, approaching changes in weather, lack of supplies, etc.)

If there's a high turn marker loss you can imagine a commanding general telling the battalion commander to get off his behind and take the objective before the weather closes in! Or if a lower rate maybe he's being told to be careful, weather looks good, and we don't want too many casualties. And if the pace then picks up again, well, anyone who's been a middle manager know just how unfair senior management can be!

This approach also avoids the very dry "game over after 10 turns" or "start rolling for game end after turn 6". And there's extra pressure since there's no guarentee that a given side will have the last opportunity to move. This alone makes for more interesting decisions since a defender can't count on having the last say while the attacker might gamble that his turn will be the last only to have the defender balst him at the very end!

Tim

[1ComOpsCtr]

The system we use for our simulations appears complicated, but in fact it is simple as well as being based upon the actual skills of the players...

Each "turn" has six segments.

Each segment has actions, reactions, or combinations of both...

Depending upon a roll of two dice (various sizes depending on skill levels) players receive an "action line" made up of action points and reaction points. Only players with the same score (dice total) work on the same line. Other players with different totals use different action lines and the players interact based upon the conflict or interaction of their lines (called a movement/interaction map). There is very little confusion about who fired first, who saw what move, etc., using this system. Each player can see the progression of a turn with the player who scored the highest total being allowed to make the decision to begin the sequence or follow at the end.

The turn sequence changes each move based on the dice rolls of the players. There is luck and stamina that is a consumable under the rules pretty much as it is in real life...



This link has additional information about the system...
http://commandoperationscenter.com/serv0111.htm

There is a lot of interaction between players because games are set up to cause that to happen with back stories that will promote it. Usually every player has a goal that may be outside the terms of the scenario, but influences the scenario just the same.

The games are very realistic, and are played in "real time" with our simulations taking about what a real action of the same type would take in real life.

Our games are very popular at conventions and with the military because they really test the combat decision-making skills of the players.

Will

[Extra Crispy]

CHANGE THE TABLE

This requires some preparation/trickery but is a great idea I think...I've got a game I'm using it for (not microarmor) and I can't wait to spring it.

Side A and B square off knowing side B has reinforcements on the way. But nobody - even side B - knows when or where they'll show up. After 1/3 of the scenario length announce the arrival of the reinforcements and "take a break" while the GM gets them organized.

Then, add a table. I use a card table. Put the card table next to your main table, add terrain and announce that the reinforcements arrive at one end of the new table. Suddenly both sides have an entirely new battle to fight! Flanks on the edge of the table are now in the air. Strong positions are now untenable.

[hauptgrate]

I used to write up scenarios as suggested by Tim above. But then I would know the twists and turns while the other players would not...so I came up with a scenario generation system consisting of scenario cards, situation cards, generalships points, etc. My goal was to create a way so I could participate without knowing the enemy's objective, force composition, etc. It is a complex system but rarely fails to deliver a good battle.

[dougeagle]

I happen to catch 'Turning Points of History' on the History Channel (obviously) which was about the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Once it was done, I thought about what if the war continued in the Middle East with even the Soviets moving into Syria with their own men and equipment while mobilizing its forces in Europe. The war in the Middle East would change drastically as now Israel is now having to fight an army that is better trained than the Syrians or Egyptians (I think that they would be anyways).

Next could be that the Russian naval fleet moves to block any attempts to help supply the Israeli's, which results in a naval battle or small skirmishes.
How would NATO react?
Maybe to help slow the Soviets pace into the Middle East, NATO launches a preemptive strike into the Pact countries, which results in a conventional land battle. Now Russia has to react to being on the defensive.
How would the US react?
By sending its Atlantic fleet with supplies to Israel to fight in Israel, feeling that maybe NATO forces can hold off the Soviets long enough to get more supplies in or to even attack at the head of the snake in the Middle East.

Just something that I had thought of.

[jb]

I always like to play using maps. In this way your scenarios generate themselves. Another thing that happens is that TO&Es generate themselves too...