Options 1.04

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed believe me I understand and respect your point of view.
However as I know you are aware, there are other points of view too and these people have as much right to expect to get their kind of fun from the game.

As I respect yours. And, I have respected every other point of view, even while, I believe, I was being trashed for mine.

I believe that the vast majority of people who play this game never in fact PBEM and someone has to speak for them.

In that I think you are mistaken. I think that game clubs, such as The Blitz, with an active ladder and solid core of players, was what kept the game going.
I know there are those who play the game only versus the AI, in both scenarios and Campaigns.
It's my opinion that the AI benefits from some of the extreme assault rules, but is still as stupid as it always was. But, that is my opinion. And, I started a Campaign versus the AI. In the time I've played three separate missions, I have played hundreds of game turns against PBEM opponents. I look forward to playing my opponents and have grown bored playing the AI. It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I know that.

I think scenario balance is a very tricky issue indeed, personally I think if there are both types of scenario balance then we go a long way to pleasing the majority.
The well balanced ones for people of similar views to yourself where you can pit yourself against an opponent on equal terms. Some of these of course are also historical in their balance.

Scenario balance is not all that tricky. It is merely a formula.
And, if you think I believe balance is found in equal force mix, you would be incorrect. Most attacks were made where three to one was the accepted "go measuring stick". The Germans attacked throughout the war often with lesser force than the defenders. They also often defended with much smaller force than their attackers.
In scenarios that feature this "lesser force", victory conditions, exit hexes, etc. all come into play to reach "balance". It's not what the make up of the force mix is for each side that determines balance. But, scenario designers cannot abandon balance for the sake of making a really realistic scenario. Old Talonsoft designers would state whether a scenario was for PBEM or versus the AI? New designers got away from that?

The other type of historical scenario for people who for instance wish to know what say the East Front was really like, where there just was no balance the most of the time.

Well, if you want to design a scenario that covers the fate of the poor Italian 8th Army at Stalingrad feel free. I could probably design a scenario that would be historically accurate and get balance, but, it would be a major undertaking.

If all scenarios are all equally balanced, then often the game paints a very false picture of history. Many people buying the game I'm sure don't wish that but may in fact begin to believe it.
Those people wish to pit their skills in historical situations and see if they could in fact do better than the commanding officers at the time did.

Once again, victory conditions can balance an unbalanced fight. And, once the fight begins the "players" will have immediately altered the history and will not see "history repeated"? And, if you play against the AI you are not even getting the benefit of a good player. The AI is a moron in comparison to the historical commanders, or other players who have a working knowledge of the game.

Have fun with the game I'm sure you still do, remember now you've got all those options.

Ah, some of the fun gets sucked out by the game engine takeover during extreme assault. Options? LOL! I do not have options. As I stated the new optional extreme assault rule makes assaults to formulaic and too difficult. The option to use the old just doesn't cut it either. Not after having a taste of what an assault formula could do and knowing that a toned down one would make the game even better.
And, the option for variable visibility was a waste of time and effort. I hope that scenario designers that use if as a factor in their design will let the players know that it is needed and why.

I nearly forgot to mention I'm playing the Budapest one against the AI and it's putting up great opposition at the moment, great game.

I will assume you are the Germans playing against the AI? Let us know if the AI does stupid things like shooting at inappropriate times, or moving into the open to get back a victory hex lost? Or, moving loaded units into place where they can be fired upon? Or, a hidden AT gun that fires upon infantry at range, which then reveals the hex the AT gun is in?
Though, with the change in Opt fire, and the greater effect of indirect artillery versus armor, it might be a little more difficult.
Let us know how you did?
And, if you have the time, or inclination, play the game versus the AI to a finish and then start over with the AI as attacker.
That is how I test my scenario designs. If I can beat the AI from either side I then take them to playing against human opponents.
Against a human and playing the scenario from both sides often points out variables that were not seen playing against the AI. So far it has not made too horrible a scenario for me. :rolleyes:

Just my opinion.



Regards,

Ed