Scenario Design

[Mayonaise]

Not sure how everyone else feels, but I'm a little disappointed in the realism of the scenario scoring. It is not only possible, but likely, to overwhelmingly mop up the field and suffer a defeat. The scoring system seems to require gamey tactics like charing batteries in the McPhearsons hill scenario in order to get enough points to qualify as a major win. Of course, in reality they could never have any such thing.

In a recent battle, i scored ~400 points. The major victory threshold was 3,000+. Of course, not a single reb remained on the field because i had routed them all.

Not really a big deal, I'm more focused on playing the scenarios out as I think a real commander would and not what my score is... but I would have liked to have seen some mechanism for encouraging conservation of forces. (score points for having less than a set # of casualties?)

[Little Powell]

Scenario scoring was probably the hardest thing we (the testers) had to come up with for this game. Mostly because of the unpredictable AI, which is a good thing, but also the many variants for each scenario. You'll play a scenario one time and really kick some butt, play it again and you're routed in the first few minutes...

There were also some fixes in the AI recently that we suspect has effected the scoring (this being the case in the Round Tops scenario). All we could do during testing was have everyone play them as many times as they could, log the scores, and we got an average from that. Some scenario's, the scores were all over the place so it was impossible to come up with a valid average..

The bad thing is, we can't modify the scores much since everyone has already been playing them. So it is what it is.. But if we find anymore gross examples like the Round Tops scenario, we will have to adjust.