Drat drat drat - fanaticism again!

[Kip Watson]

Hi Scenario Designers...

...for those of you who didn't know, fanaticism gives a huge edge to a defending force. It's all very well giving attackers 2:1 or so in points, but if you make the defenders 'all 50% fanatics', then you must mentally recalculate on the basis that these guys now have staying power far in excess of a typical force, depending on the situation, a typical force will require at least 2 or 3 times more firepower to defeat them than it would otherwise.

[Mad Russian]

If the scenario designer will playtest their scenarios, they wlll know if the balance is off and have plenty of time to fix it, before it is released.

Fanaticism plays a big part in the German defenses of 1945. Not to mention, the defenses of some Soviet units, at different time periods in the war as well. Most notably but not limited to Stalingrad.

I think you are right though you need to play the scenario extensively if you include fanaticism to any large degree.

[Kip Watson]

Look, it's cool and it's a great feature (personally I think it's also well suited for use by attacking forces), but it does make the usual points ratios almost meaningless, since fanaticism makes a bigger difference than their experience level.

[Bigduke6]

The best piece of advice I ever received in this hobby came from a grizzled old veteran with decades of experience in Napoleonic miniatures. I, a tyro with but a few very unsuccessful engagements under my belt, was complaining to him how impossible it was to fight against French Imperial Guard Grenadiers.

Scratching fragments of potato chips from his beard he told me "Son, elite troops die from artillery fire just as easily as greens, and it really makes your opponent mad."

The Red Army dealt just fine with fanatic defenses using copious amounts of high explosive. The way I see it, all a designer has to do is give the

"non-fanatic" player a historical helping of firepower.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

Look, it's cool and it's a great feature (personally I think it's also well suited for use by attacking forces), but it does make the usual points ratios almost meaningless, since fanaticism makes a bigger difference than their experience level.

I agree with you.

Since all of my scenarios are historically based I may have less to worry about with the actual points than most designers. When I design a scenario I never even know what the point value of the sides are until I go to upload it to The Proving Grounds for playtesting.

I also specialize in low odds attack scenarios. The HSG Knight's Cross(KC) series has been very successful judging from the feedback I get from players. Which means that the attackers are often outnumbered. So, I live in the land of wildly skewed points ratios.

That is why I said, that the scenario should be extensively playtested. All vices of a scenario can be fixed if they are identified, but that means they must get extensive playtest time. First from the designer then from outside playtesters. I get a bit bent out of shape when a designer wants me to tell him what is wrong with his scenario and he hasn't playtested it himself.

Judging from the high ratings, with the reviews you get on your scenarios, I'd say you do a good job in both playtesting and balance. But I'm assuming, this post, is about your running into a scenario that wasn't necessarily as well playtested or balanced as it might have been.

I would urge ALL scenarario designers to send their scenarios to The Proving Grounds for playtesting. Those guys will tell you how your balance is and even makes suggestions on how to fix it.

Now, if it is 300 turns long, with 100,000 points worth of units, it may take awhile before you see any results. But for the most part it will get attention in a reasonable amount of time.

http://the-proving-grounds.com

[Kip Watson]

I don't want to be self-righteous. I've had a couple of well received scenarios, but more than a couple of duds (I'm a novice in the company of most of you guys.)

I've pulled my hair out while facing a battalion of fanatics as a player (did that show in my original post? Sorry, I'm an emotional guy!), and I've also scr#wed up a scenario by misunderestimating the effect it would have.

But actually this has made me more intrigued by fanaticism (or Rambo-mode as my buddy calls it). It's like chilli - adds spice if handled carefully!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

I don't want to be self-righteous. I've had a couple of well received scenarios, but more than a couple of duds (I'm a novice in the company of most of you guys.)

I've pulled my hair out while facing a battalion of fanatics as a player (did that show in my original post? Sorry, I'm an emotional guy!), and I've also scr#wed up a scenario by misunderestimating the effect it would have.

But actually this has made me more intrigued by fanaticism (or Rambo-mode as my buddy calls it). It's like chilli - adds spice if handled carefully!

ROFL!! Having some successful scenarios along with some duds makes you a veteran designer! That's the way it works.

For me personally, fanaticism works in the same places and in the same way it did in the real world. I only use it for desperate defenses or rarely attacks. Normally at the front end of the Russian Campaign through Stalingrad for the Soviets, and with any German force on German soil.

Then, there are those rare occasions, where a particular force just won't take "no" for an answer.

Like the spices in your chili, you need to be careful how much you add. But once again, playtesting will tell you how your scenario reacts with fanaticism in it.

Like you, as gamers most of us have run into the buzz-saw of a fanatic defense. Where they have to be killed almost to a man. It can make for a very tough fight. As a designer that can sometimes absolutely be the intent.