Mister Schmidt
Lawmaker
 Posts: 5006
|
|
« on: April 16, 2011, 04:08:25 pm » |
|
Bear in mind I doubt I'll do this again because I got hated so much from the last one.
This is mainly for EIRRMod, but I guess anyone can read it if they like.
This is the briefing I set myself when designing the various scenarios.
SCENARIOS
SCENARIO ONE
Scenario One will be an Allies Attack game mode, and should preferably be a 3v3. I'd prefer a 3v3 because it's easier to balance, and the game is not too big. It also allows for two observer slots, if placed on a 4v4 map.
MAPS
Various maps would suit this scenario, specifically Ardennes Forest/Valley (I forget the name), Monte Cassino, Bastion.
These three were my top three, as they each offer easily defendable positions in the centre of the map, but due to the size, allow for attacks from multiple directions at any time.
Monte Cassino was rejected due to the fail pathing of the map, in conjunction with the large town on the right of the map, which would draw combat away from the centre, which is where I wanted it to be focussed.
Bastion was rejected because of the lopsided nature of the fort. Being at an odd angle, with the northern & southern corners pointing directly towards either spawn, these points would be far too easy to breach, and thus overwhelm any force left to defend the centre.
Ardennes Forest was chosen mainly because I love the map, and it doesn't get played very often. Despite my bias, the map also has many strong points, such as the rounded hill which is both difficult to siege & defend, due to it's spheircal nature, in addition to it's relatively small scale, meaning that blobbing on this map will result in failure. I also liked how it could be thought of as similar to one of the real hill assaults that took place in World War 2, as these were very bloody and intesne, and I thought would make for a great battle.
DOCTRINE & COMPANIES
I'm setting strict rules when choosing the doctrines for each player and thus each company, as I want them to be as evenly balanced as possible, not in terms of company structure, but in terms of how each company may complement the other two. As such:
Each faction MUST have one company that is primarily anti-infantry, with minimal anti-tank.
Each faction MUST have one company that is primarily anti-tank, with minimal anti-infantry.
Each faction MUST have one company that is relatively balanced, and will provide the majority of support weapons, and will effectively play the "middle man"
For Axis:
Anti-Infantry - Scorched Earth.
Due to the nature of Scorched Earth, this one was very easy to choose. Many anti-infantry buffs, as well as a doctrine that I personally know to excel at killing infantry, this was not difficult.
Anti-Tank - Defensive.
I failed a little here. I originally intended for this doctrine to be pretty much purely AT, but I ended up deviating a little and throwing some AI in, simply because Defensive is so good at support.
Balanced - Terror.
Probably the best balanced, with a very good mix of AT & AI, powerful units in both roles. Maybe a little OP.
For Allies:
Anti-Infantry - Infantry.
Rangers. Howitzers. Jumbos. The best choice for anti-infantry, easy decision.
Anti-Tank - Commandos.
Now, I was originally going to give this to AB, but dozens of RR's is plain bullshit. So I settled on letting PIATS & Tetrarchs having to do most of the AT work.
Balanced - Airborne.
Despite not having a doctrine in place yet, I went for AB because of them being able to drop anywhere, and AB being such a versatile platform.
OBJECTIVES
When I set the objectives, I want to have them balanced. I want them to be possible to complete, without being so easy that it offers no challenge whatsoever. Not all of the objectives are that great, but meh, next time I'll make sure they're more intersting. I only really added them as an incentive for people to play, as well as making the match a little more immersive. Also, it gave me something to threaten people with if they cheated in any way during the match.
|
