Variants of Official scenarios - how to record..

More
9 years 1 week ago #2541 by Mark-McG
I'm wondering how to treat (on CCNapoleonics.net) re-designs of Official Scenarios.

As an example, 313 EGGMÜHL - DAY 2 FRENCH RIGHT (22 APRIL 1809)
www.ccnapoleonics.net/Maps/Fifth-Coaliti...t-22-april-1809.html

The official scenario has a pretty pro-French bias, but it could be re-designed with essentially the same setup but with changes to the First player and the Victory Conditions to make it more balanced.
So in this example, if the Austrians move first, and the Exit Victory Conditions are 1 banner for each Austrian LN that moves off the exit (since Rosenberg was attempting to withdraw), this might make the scenario more balanced and possibly more historical in objectives.

So what I'm thinking is that such a design could be designated
313A EGGMÜHL - DAY 2 FRENCH RIGHT (22 APRIL 1809)
or
MM10 EGGMÜHL - DAY 2 FRENCH RIGHT (22 APRIL 1809)

essentially these would be fan modifications, not official, yet based on, and as an alternate to the official scenario. There are quite a number of Official scenarios that could use a bit of re-calibration. On this website, they could get their own Map page to record the stats, which I think would be better than simple addendum to the Official scenario page.

Any other ideas?

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
[img][/img]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 6 days ago #2542 by TheMP
Hi Mark (crashed into you today on VASSAL),

Anyway, before such variants are put up and suggested, I think it would be best to do it with scenarios that have had a certain number of plays (a number yet to be decided). As an example, in my short playing time with C&CN (around 20 battles), I have played Rolica.1 five times. Each play has produced quite different storyboards (some vastly so), and has split results of 3 French and 2 British wins. The point I am making is that before scenarios become thought of as unbalanced, let them see a certain amount of plays first. Loving the system.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 6 days ago - 9 years 6 days ago #2543 by Mark-McG
Yes definitely, and in part it is to separate the recording of results that I suggest this.

However, I'd suggest that the number of plays required to declare a scenario hopelessly unbalanced be set pretty low (around 10 plays). Not much fun playing a dog of a scenario over and over just looking for the lucky combo of cards and dice to get a win.

For example;
218 CHAMPAUBERT (10 FEBRUARY 1814)
www.ccnapoleonics.net/Maps/Sixth-Coaliti...0-february-1814.html

The Russians have never won, and my experience is that if it were played 100 times, the Russians might win once or twice. After 12 plays, I think it safe to say it is VERY pro-French.

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
[img][/img]
Last edit: 9 years 6 days ago by Mark-McG.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 6 days ago - 9 years 6 days ago #2546 by Mark-McG
So as an example (and not playtested)

218A Champaubert - 10 February 1814
Historical Background
Napoleon’s 30,000 men were tired and hungry after their defeat at La Rothiere, but Blucher believing the French force to be spent, did not make any attempt to unite his army. On February 10th, Napoleon turned and moved on Olsufiev’s 5,000 isolated Russians. Lacking cavalry, Olsufiev decided to stand and fight instead of trying to run and rejoin the main army. It was a fatal decision.
Maromont’s French infantry slowly advanced forward, while the cavalry sent the Russians into squares that were pounded by the French artillery. After suffering heavy losses, Olsufiev and many of his survivors were taken prisoner. Only a few Russians made good their escape.
The stage is set. The battle lines are drawn and you are in command. Can you change history?



Battle Notes
Russian Army
• Commander: Olsufiev
• 4 Command Cards

French Army
• Commander: Marmont
• 5 Command Cards
• Move First

Victory
5 Banners

Special Rules
• French line infantry are conscripts and do not receive one additional die in melee when attacking an enemy infantry unit.
• Pre-Battle Mother Russia Roll (no restrictions)
• Russians score 1 Victory Banner for each 2 Units (except Cossacks) that exit their board edge.


File Attachment:

File Name: 218AChampaubert.vsav
File Size:17 KB

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
[img][/img]
Attachments:
Last edit: 9 years 6 days ago by Mark-McG.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 6 days ago #2547 by Bayernkini
I believe, this would be not enough here, the french have the superior number of blocks, French 49 : Russian 24!

So this setup need a complete revision in my mind, add some russian units and/or remove some french.

My dice are the hell!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 6 days ago #2548 by TheMP
Mark,

As somebody quite new to the system I have found one thing quite puzzling anyway on the subject of winning and losing using Victory Banners. In nearly all the scenarios I have played they need the same amount.

I would have thought the easiest way to balance scenarios would be to have targets of differing victory banners. So for example in the battle you show (which I have not played so this is all very much FOR EXAMPLE and nothing more) which the Russians have never won so far is rather than have 5 VB's each, go for 7 French VB's for a win and 4 Russian VB's. That is not an actual proposal for that scenario but just a made up showing of variant VB numbers for each side. I confess to being surprised that GMT has not done this. Therefore, victory would be relative to real-life achievemnet. In other words do better than the side you are representing or don't do worse. This would replace VC's of requiring absolute and outright wins on the battlefield.

It may be a simpler way too. Let's say a scenario that was unbalanced received 50 plays of one side winning and not the other. If VB totals were part of the results input, you could see how many each side achieved as an average over the 50 battles. If 6 VB's were required and the French had won all the games, then their VB total would either need to stay the same or actually be increased. If the Russians in those 50 battles had collected 152 VB's, then we know the average is 3.04. So instead of a 6 VB win resolution for both sides it could be something akin to



French 6 Russian 3
French 6 Russian 4
French 7 Russian 4
French 8 Russian 4 or whatever after some study one felt was a fair expression?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 5 days ago #2549 by Mark-McG
I tend to agree with you, and to a certain extent I think it could be done as a flexible bidding system
www.ccnapoleonics.net/index.php?option=c...19&id=1049&Itemid=56

However, a drawback with recording win-loss ratios is that it doesn't record scores. So for instance Champaubert I knew would generally be 5-1 or less. Other scenarios have a greater spread of scores, which makes bidding (or handicapping) a bit of a guess.

And some scenarios Like Champaubert) just seem beyond all redemption.

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
[img][/img]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.707 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

Recently Played

Map NamePlayed onUser
211 Borodino - Village of Borodino (7 September 1812) 2024-03-28 21:19:53 RiverWanderer
107 Alcañiz (23 May 1809) 2024-03-26 11:42:28 Mark-McG
419 Plancenoit (18 June 1815) 2024-03-25 21:51:12 anaxam
BH01 Caldiero (30 October 1805) 2024-03-25 18:13:52 Riclev
301 Wertingen (8 October 1805) 2024-03-24 18:22:32 Pevans
209 Friedland (14 June 1807) 2024-03-24 16:12:28 bartok
315 Aspern-Essling - Day 1 Aspern (21 May 1809) 2024-03-23 22:51:03 Jamon79
EPIC02 Vimeiro (21 August 1808) 2024-03-23 16:40:56 Pevans
004 Corunna (16 January 1809) 2024-03-22 20:53:51 ReadyFreddie
014 Quatre Bras (16 June 1815) 2024-03-21 02:32:45 Jamon79