You are not exactly correct Sorontur. (But all-in-all you are.)
We have had and always will have scenarios at all major battle-events. Maybe they are not as clear cut for players but they are quite rigid for organizers (e.g. when-where-what will be happening and in which way the outcome will matter), otherwise it is impossible to organize anything big.
Still Sorontur is right that the scenarios are usually interwoven with roleplay and we don't bother much if things start to go off in a bit different direction as planned - as long as everybody is having fun - and the general guidelines, set before the event are preserved (when-where-what). Usually the group leaders are included and know the scenarios and that's our main method of controlling the groups to induce scenarios needed.
It tends to add a note of excitement for a common soldier, not knowing what exactly is going on and things "suddenly happening".
We believe in more prolonged campaigns, where strategical movement (movement of troops and supplies off the field of battle) is required besides only tactical. So usually the campaigns last for hours and hours, sometimes even days (night included) - no rest for the wicked...
Usually score is kept by counting the deaths on either side. Warriors resurrect in 1 to 2 hours (depending on the game) but they have to visit the "Valhalla" to do this. There their name and side will be registered and an extremely accurate score can be kept.
There have been many games with classic scenarios like: Capture-The-Flag; Hold-the-fort; Road-Ambush; Group-hunt; Protect-the-King; Hunt-and-seek, etc...
I doubt that we have come up with something new compared to you.
The scenarios just tend to be longer and more elaborate, with lot's of variables: groups changing sides, traitors, spies, surprising new weapons, etc.
---
A whole different world are the weekly battle trainings. There we use very clear cut scenarios that last for 30-60 minutes and are known to everybody.
I think they will be more interesting to you. I'll skip the more obvious like open-field battle, defending a gate, stairs, bridges or other passes etc.
Hold-the-ground
Descripiton
The force is divided into smaller groups of platoon size (9-12). A small area is marked on the battle field (4-5 m2). The goal is to win the scenario by holding the area longest. For every minute a platoon occupies the area a point is given to them. The winner is the platoon with most points. The duration of the scenario is 30 minutes. The groups start off in locations of a similar distance to the are.
Points are scored when the area is dominated. If there is any two members of different groups in the area, no points are given to either. You have to push even the bodies of dead enemies out, to start gaining points.
Common twists
* The area has heavily armored defenders (1-5) so first platoon has to fight or two platoons unite and first kill off the defenders.
* All dead are sent out either as hunters or to garrison the NPC defenders of the area - in every 5 minutes.
* One group is starting in the area and starts gaining points immediately
Common tactics
If a strong group has the opportunity, they will try to rush in and hold the area for 16 minutes (thus winning instantly for no one can hold it longer in the 30 minute timeframe).
A common tactics for weaker groups is then to gang up on a stronger one hoping to deal with their "allies" more easily after that.
Sometimes groups divide up, leaving some of them to keep the area and sending the rest to hunt for other groups.
There are con's an pro's to three major approaches - I'll leave those for you to figure out and just point out the approaches:
1. Wait till everybody else have killed off each other an then dispose of the remainders with your fresh strength and take the area or hold it against all remaining groups.
2. Rush in and try to hold the area long enough for winning.
3. Kill off or maim all other groups and then hold the area at your leasure.
Together-we-run-together-we-fall
Descripiton
Two groups of a platoon (9-12) or a team (1-3 platoons) size are positioned parallel across a field. In straight line on their side some 200-300 meters away their flag is raised or officer positioned. The first part of the scenario is a simple race. The first team to reach the flag will gain a point. BUT a team will lose instantly if the first and the last member of a team have a distance of over 20 meters between them at any time. The teams will have to carry ALL the equipment they wish to use in second part.
The second part is open field combat. The teams line themselves up INSTANTLY after the run (
no time for resting) and charge into each other. No members or equipment can be changed or added. The team who has the last survivor gains a point.
2 points to win, 0 points to lose, 1:1 point for a tie.
Common twists
* Obstacle courses laid out for both teams
* Longer distances to run (so far up to 3000 m has been used)
Common tactics
Teams will have to consider both parts of the race. If they lose either of them, they have no chance of victory, only the possibility of a tie.
So for example if a weak group decides that they have no chance, they'll most likely abandon heavy gear like armor and shields - trying to beat the others on the race and thus force a tie.
On the other hand - if a team sees that they can no way win the race, they'll most likely gear up as heavily as possible and not run but march at a moderate speed, hoping to preserve their strength and to gain upper hand in the second part by their superior weaponry - thus again, forcing a tie.
To win, a team has to strike a balance between speed and heavy gear (as you see and EXCELLENT exercise for a game situation) and move as fast and unanimously as possible. It is a good tactics to put the weakest runners in front (the stronger can easily keep up) so there will be no disqualification because of the unit breaking up. Also usually the stronger take more than they need and carry extra shields and weapons for the weaker (again an excellent teamwork exercise).
An excellent exercise to train speed, unity and sheer carrying-strength.
Break-the-tide
Description
The forces are divided into two sides with a ratio 2:3. The smaller force is set in a narrow passage or a passage is marked on a field. The bigger force leaves all their weapons (not shields and armor) in a heap 10 meters behind the line of defenders in the passage.
The goal is to kill off the other side. To do this the side with no weapons has to rush the defenders, push, crawl, gnaw, their way through to their weapons and then start fighting.
The defenders will have to hold off a superior force in numbers, who is made reckless and extensively aggressive by the fact that they have no chances of survival/winning if they don't break through. e.g. the smaller force has to "break the tide".
An excellent exercise for teaching how to hold or break a line or a phalanx.
Common twists
* None - it is
as it is
Common tactics
* None - it's like watching a zombie movie. Tons of kicking and screaming bodies and four new hands for every hand you hacked off.
Kill-the-woman
(I don't know exactly why it is called like that - maybe at one point somewhere there was a woman involved as a mark and the name stuck. Anyways...)
Descripiton
The forces are divided into platoons. There is an artifact in the center of a field. The artifact is immovable and has 100 hit points (a GM is counting). it has to be killed. The group who kills the artifact is the winner.
Common twists
* More hit points to the artifact
* Artifact has an invincible defender equipped with a shield
Common tactics
Same as Hold-the-Ground, with minor differences - the group has to hold the area for a shorter time. But since there is no time limit for the objective - there might be more lingering or killing off other groups (especially when the artifact has a defender).
...I'll post more when I have the time and mind to it...