Guest Germanboy Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 After playing a few of the scenarios that came with the game as double-blind PBEMs, I must say I am a bit disappointed that there was no warning in the briefings that these would not be balanced at all, and therefore not really suitable to a PBEM challenge. And before you assume that I am just frustrated to lose, one of these I have won, and one I have lost. In neither case do I think it was a lot of joy for the loser to suddenly find out that you were basically without a chance to start with. This probably was historically correct, I would not know, but that is not the point. So I would like to see briefings that come with some sort of caution as to the play-balance. And scenarios that are properly tested against the AI and in PBEM. If that has not been the case, the authors should mention that in the briefings. Otherwise I fear there will be a lot of wasted time and frustration. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Many of them do. I know all the ones I designed generally give a best for single play and a recommended side since I don't give a rat's ass about play balance for PBEM or points counting. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: Many of them do. I know all the ones I designed generally give a best for single play and a recommended side since I don't give a rat's ass about play balance for PBEM or points counting. Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, none of the ones I played did. And I don't have a problem with unbalanced scenarios, but I like to have an indication beforehand. Doesn't even have to tell which side, just that it is imbalanced and therefore not or less suitable for PBEM is fine. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 You have a valid point, Andreas. In my own work, I attempted to give each side a fighting chance in my scenario designs, always. To be candid, perfect balance is veritably impossible to attain, my friend. There are too many variables in play and the designer can add more. And some players are better than others. The best that any scenario creator can do is get close. I did not put any such warnings in the ones I did because I seriously attempted to balance them as closely as possible for play from either side. As Los states, not all designers had this in mind when they did their scenarios. I cannot speak for them, only for my own work. This is not a defense, but an explanation. Finally, you have a point. If the designer knows (and he should know if he is worth his beans) that the scenario is not winnable from one side, he should mention that it is best played from the Allied or German side. That warning, if it is there, should be enough for you. Perhaps designs in the future will carry that warning for you. I'll try to do that in the future. In the meantime, if you do find one like that, try varying the strength of the weaker side to give it a more powerful attack or defense for another play. And a good scenario should be worth at least two plays. Occasionally, rarely, you'll find one that you play again and again, because it affords so many options....but that is another theme. ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester/Designer Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts