(10-12-2019, 03:16 AM)Kool Kat Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 11:14 PM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: I am sorry that some of you guys feel you are to the point where you want your money back. However, if you would consider that John Tiller Software is one of the VERY FEW companies that continues to support their games for 20 years well you should keep that in mind. Like David said, we assumed that the PDT file was correct. Its our fault for not looking into it closely. We have done that ....
I still believe that Japan '45 is a fine product. Its more like Sicily '43 than Smolensk '41 or Stalingrad '42. The terrain alone makes for an ordeal by the Allies.
And I point out ... this forum is mainly "in being" to facilitate the game play of its members. I am sorry if anyone here feels that its intent is to become a place for a company to respond to feedback. It simply is not the case. While I would love to see a JTS forum I suppose its not going to happen but you must acknowledge that many of us have done our best to try and respond to your concerns on the forum. For me: well after having suffered a heart attack in May ... i am done with that. I simply cannot handle the anxiety of trying to formulate a response to a heated question. The support email system works best for me from here on out.
I am one of the players who requested and received a refund for Japan '45.
A customer who is not satisfied with a product should be able to receive a refund for his purchase.
I also own and play many PzC and MC John Tiller Software games. I consider these games to be designed and play tested well. I ONLY play John Tiller Software games and I can say that I've enjoyed countless hours pushing my virtual counters around on the map boards.
I don't share your opinion on Japan '45. I base my decision on my experience as a game scenario designer, four years as a PzC / MC player, and my nearly forty years as a war gamer.
Let me correct you on the purpose of this TOC Forum.
Home of the Tiller Operational Series Ladder Community which covers the following HPS/JTS series: Panzer Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, First World War Campaigns and the Total War in Europe series.
This is the TOC Community where players are encouraged to post about TOC games - strategies, tactics, historical aspects, opponents wanted, and yes, feedback on the various scenarios. The Blitz game database is one of the primary tools (the other are these forums), that players can rate their game experience with the TOC scenarios. I know. I was a Blitz Officer, Forum Moderator, H2H Coordinator, CS Scenario Designer, and Blitz Treasurer.
So, no, the Blitz Forums are not mainly "in being" to facilitate game play of its members.
Also, if you as a PzC game designer don't want to monitor and respond to posts in a forum that exists exclusively to discuss John Tiller Software TOC games, that's your decision.
All the best in your future war game design endeavors.
Nowhere do I say you were not due a refund.... glad you were able to get one. Its your right as a customer... I am not happy that in this industry there are companies that do not give one. So good for JTS and good for you that this all came out to your satisfaction.
The forum is used for feedback ... yes .... but it is feedback that helps players make informed decisions on whether to play a scenario. As a designer I have been monitoring the Napoleonic ladder feedback and there are some pros and cons of using it as a basis for adjusting a scenario for an update. I will take some time and explain:
1. You have to know what the skill level was for the players.
2. Its nice to see a game file. In the past I have asked players for game files. Its been helpful. Just keep Rule #1 in mind.
3. The more games played the better. I would like to see 10 games played of a scenario before I pass judgement on whether it needs correction. If I see 6 or more Major Victories then I know I need to make an adjustment. If not, then its probably ok.
4. Did the players look the scenario over before they started up the game? I know many that play a scenario "blind." That is they just start the game up and do not look it over at all. They want the "blind" experience. Hey, great, but not so great when it comes to basing their opinion on play balance.
But the forum is not a place where you can expect a designer to see your comments and respond to them "on the spot" or via a PM. I have done that in the past but I am sure that I have missed comments. So were you intending me to babysit the forum? Even David Freer probably misses a comment or two.
For the products you designed .. how many forums supported them? Were you watching each and every one of those and reading every thread? I doubt it. So there is someone over on a forum in The Wargame Society that is posting something about one of the titles I helped design and I am not seeing it. Even if I was a member there ....
We try our best to put out a great product. The guys that playtest the games spend many hours going over the scenario and their feedback is invaluable. That the HTH outcome is not always as expected is in part due to player skill as well as spending some time studying the layout and all sorts of things like reinforcement schedules and so on. And yes, errors in the design itself. But if over a good amount of game play a scenario is found to come up with the same result then yes, it needs adjustment.
David and I are discussing the points you brought up. Its not like we are just ignoring them. Thanks for your input. It all helps us with future updates. Thanks to all who had good constructive criticism to offer and also those that affirmed that they love the products. Play on, guys!