Question for experienced scenario players...

[Smakman]

Do you like a game that has compartmentalized large battles in which points are awarded, or a more free flowing game in which the generals have a lot of leeway as to command decisions pertaining to squad numbers, numbers to deploy on specific missions and objectives, and which missions or objectives are worth the manpower for the points and which are not?

I give the generals at my games all of the real estate objectives before the game, what they will be worth, and what time those positions must be under their control in order to attain the points. Giving the generals a lot of freedom requires having good ones. Fortunately, I have been very lucky to have some very good team leaders step into those positions. These guys really use their heads. The missions are assigned intermittantly throughout the game and are not known ahead of time by either team as to what they will be. I try to have a little something for everyone. What type of game structure do you prefer?

[Pyrate Jim]

That's kind of a lot to respond to. Even in free-flow games a general sending out missions is restricted to the number of players that just returned in the last recycle.

Having generalled more than my share of games in the past, I can say that you can do little more than influence the team you're given. Even if you know a large point-battle is coming up in the next hour, you can never be sure if enough of your people have the message and will be on the field ~ much less at the designated location. But I must say, Command is a wonderful test of skills and anyone who has the chance should grab it.

As a player, I'm kind've a renegade. I like to recycle and either immediately head back to the fight I was just in (the 'revenge" factor), or come in to find a new mission waiting to be done. Something that involves a bit of subterfuge, sneaking around and causing a bit of havoc. Which I do rather well at times.

So I'd have to say I prefer a free-flow game over a compartmentalized running firefight. I feel it gives me more of a chance to be "one of the team" rather than "one of the numbers".

[Burphel]

As a sneaky bastard type player, I like the idea of flexability in the size of a mission squad. Obviously assault/defend/take&hold type missions will require a certain number of players to put up a good fight. But more stealth-based missions like snipe/recon/patrol missions, it's often easier to accomplish the mission with one or two people than a large group.

What I'd suggest is tending toward small numbers on minimum squad size and make sure your commanders understand that it will often be in their best interests to use as much as double that number. That way if you can only spare 5 players for an assault mission, but those five are experienced, capable, well armed players and have a medic and demo along, you can try a helicopter insert to spare them pot shots on the way there and still get your mission points if they work hard enough and are a little lucky.

Having just completed my first stint as commander, I agree that you often have fewer personnell than you'd like for missions, particularly during the night portion of 24hr games. While most producers will offer force reductions, it would be nice to be able to use one's own judgement as to what you can or can't accomplish with your available resources rather than having to give up on a mission because you simply don't have the warm bodies.

[Desega]

I play scenarios a lot, and have had a lot of experience as a general. i think that it works best for players if you let the game flow, and have occasional missions called in. At the Jesse James Rides Again scenario , We had sandrails (dune buggies) that would come to our base and deliever our next missions in telegraph form. It really added to the scenario. A good example of a well organized game is Will Shatners Splatt Attack II. They have a video out for it.