Any suggestion that altering the VC's or other ahistorical game design manipulations to improve balance are an instant turn off for me.
...the eventual outcome never seems to be in doubt.
At the risk of being nit-picky, I don't think altering VC's is necessarily ahistorical. VC's are just a way to make the
game balanced in a sense of an equal chance of either side being declared the winner of the
game, even though the outcome of the
battle is not altered. Things like the number of turns or CVP thresholds do not historically change whether a given side retreated or held its ground, it just sets a metric for how well each player applied the game tactics in a representation of that battle. Apologies if you were already saying that and I'm just agreeing with you!
I think what you and Jazz are saying, which I largely agree with, is that some historical actions are simply not fun to play even if they remain historical and the VCs are successfully set for good balance.
There are plenty of examples of scenarios in which one side will simply be destroyed, but are still an absolute hoot to play, and the "destroyed" side can still achieve "game victory" by having a lone half-squad in melee at the end of the final turn. Often situations in which units are bravely holding out to the last man to hold up an attack and allow their comrades to retreat orderly to fight another day. Everyone knows the outcome - everyone represented by one side is going to die - but it is still a great scenario to play that both sides enjoy regardless of which player wins. The attacker feels like they have a tough nut to crack and are proud to crack it if they win, but at the same time can really appreciate the defender's setup and defense tactics if they lose. It is "fun" even if it represents a fair horror in reality.
And then there are the scenarios, that even if balanced in the game sense, are just unsatisfying regardless of the outcome. If the attacker wins it seems like it was an unfair match to begin with and not much glory was won, and if the defender wins it seems like a hollow "victory" because there weren't enough turns for the attacker or some "gamey" SSR came into play.
What is the fine line that separates those two kinds of scenarios? How does ABTF (at least the original version) fall into the later category (or not)? Interesting questions (at least to me). And your answer makes a good bit of sense to me, something akin to costly heroics are somehow diminished when they are only needed due to ineptitude at the top. Since ASL is largely about historical representation, if the history itself is somehow more depressing than usual it may be hard to make a scenario about it particularly enjoyable no matter how well "balanced".
Again, apologies if I failed to grasp what you were saying and my comments are off target.
