This was thoughtful, and reminded me of the kind of deep analysis that you'd come across in old annuals and journals. We could use more of these reflective moments in our hobby, and I wanted to pass along my reaction to a few sections that resonated the most with me:
In particular, I appreciated the comments regarding historical feel. Personally, I view ASL not just as a game but a learning tool that enhances our understanding of the tactical constraints imposed on the combatants, while also allowing space to play out our command innovations and mistakes, which existed in similar form on the battlefield. I've learned a ton of WW2 history from playing this game and its inspired me to head to the library, or Amazon, or the classroom to learn more, which is why I've kept coming back to it year after year since I was 12 or 13. I'm 44 now. The game's ability to educate not only from the scenario card but through the experience of playing at the tactical level, and the kind of narrative and insight that generates, can't be beaten. For me, a hands down mark of quality in a scenario or product is whether or not I get up from the table and I'm motivated to go learn something else.
I also very much appreciated the call for commitment to the "fidelity" of the system- with all the new HASLs, scenario packs, and counters being produced with their attendant rules, I have some trouble keeping track of SSRs and unit abilities across different modules. I do think that "staying true to the game" matters in terms of quality for me, because I'm working in a familiar operating system when I'm playing. I'd like to see designers create new rules and SSRs that fit within the framework rather than outside it:
The article also had me thinking about the impact of scope, which leads back to my initial comments on historicity and, to an extent, fidelity. To me, a good scenario or product conveys that sense of historical atmosphere while at the same time remaining manageable, pulling that historical event and its attendant challenges into a tight focus that enhances a player's understanding of it. Everyone's concept of unwieldy is different of course, but I find myself steering clear of some really interesting scenarios because they approach the quasi-operational and appear to be beyond the reach of a tactical based game system. In an evening or afternoon I want to the drama and historical insights gained from clearing a part of the Breskens Pocket, but I don't have the time to play the 12 board, 34 turn, 144 squad version. As cool as it may look on paper. That very well be someone else's cup of tea though, so I'm not knocking U38 and saying its a crap scenario.
Lastly, and obviously, quality is all in the eye of the beholder and I think that the real value of the article is that its given me food for thought on what I perceive and value as quality (and naturally that may be very, very different from someone else's) which in turn provoked thought on what I love and find most valuable about ASL, which is always good.