Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

What makes a good scenario?

Dec 4, 2014
Linkoping, Sweden
Which attributes values makes a good scenario? Which scenarios will I replay in the future?

I have played against the AI and replayed all the scenarios in the battlepacks Normandy I and II, Battles to the Rhine, In Defiance, Pacific I and II, Nam I, II and III, Bitter End I and II, Falkland, Red Star I and II and recorded the playability and difficulty for both sides. Always used the default settings for scenario length and balance and set the Fog of War to Full.

The default settings for the scenario length and balance seems to me be very well done in nearly all scenarios. Playing as the attacking side is in nearly all scenarios the most enjoyable side to play. Playing as the defending side can sometimes be too easy. Since I recorded the difficulty to win, I may change the balance next time I’m playing them as the defending side.

The attributes that I have in mind for a defining the scenario playability are:
  • Terrain
  • Map size
  • Number of scenario turns
  • Size of the ORBAT
The main attribute for a good scenario is in my opinion the variation in the terrain, it makes the planning and execution to an enjoyable challenge.

Another attribute is the size of the map, two sheets seem to be good choice, the best if the long sides are standing, can always flip it with insert-button (cool function). There are also many good scenarios with one sheet.

Most of the highest ranked scenarios have six to nine turns, it looks like eight turns is a good choice.

The number of units should not be too large, too many units may cause the AI to think a lot. The mix of unit’s characteristics have a positive impact on the scenario but is of course dependent of the history behind it in many scenarios.

The features of the battlepacks may also increase the playability, e.g., in Battle to the Rhine is vehicles able to use Smoke grenades and nearly always succeed. Laying smoke by a squad is too risky, 1/3 chance mostly. When I did my duty, during the exercises my squad never failed to lay smoke even if the result not always was the expected. The Pacific battlepacks also have good features.

Some in my opinion very playable scenarios:
  • Normandy I: Combined Cauquigny and Kellam's as Axis
  • Normandy II: Counter-Attack at Carentan as Axis
  • Battles to the Rhine: Blood Stained Bocage as Axis
  • Defiance: Bloody Valley as Allies
  • Pacific I: Nishi as US
  • Pacific II: Bloody Nose Ridge as US
  • Nam I: Assault on Ben Suc as South
  • Nam III: Clearing Route 597 as South
  • Nam III: Last Stop Before Saigon as North
  • Bitter End I: Urban Renewal as Soviet
  • Bitter End II: Armor at Pavlovs House as Germany
  • Falkland: The Burps as UK
  • Red Star I: First Blood as WP
Best Regards and Thanks for a great computer game


Mar 7, 2015
The most important par for me is that both sides should have a chance of winning.
Many scenarios are much harder for one side and in such cases there should be a note inside the description like "German side favored" or something like this.