Chas
Elder Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1,794
- Country
I am writing this based on some of my design style over the years, based on what has happened with Mannerheim Cross. Up front, the references to some advice not always being the best is not meant to be derogatory about those guys, but the opposite. Some of these guys remain some of my best editors/testers, the difference is how I adapted my response to input.
BFP’s history was rooted in being cutting edge, and trying out new and innovative ways of doing things. Hell on Wheels had some non-standard innovative concepts. You may not realize this, but scenarios like Merzenhausen Zoo simply did not exist. The use of CVP, EVP, and Control in the same scenario had not been used before. This may appear like a crazy statement now, but 25 years ago things were different. We were always leading the way. OtO as a Battle Review was fairly ground breaking. Bocage and the boards had not, nor even since then, been done. Actually, MMP had decided to stop doing Action Packs, but we saw these as the way of the future and published BtB and ItR before they got back to APs. Nothing like Blood and Jungle had ever been published before, and we introduced PTO to numerous players.
Enough self-patting on the back. So what happened? Our products have remained good with high quality, but some of the early philosophies disappeared. I think part of the reason was my emphasis on ensuring certain counters, situations, etc were included no matter what. The other big part was input, and this is really my fault, as I subconsciously shifted. Comments would be, “well Pleva in the championship game…” “This or that could happen and give a side too much of an advantage”. “Fun concept but limited replayability.” What started to happen was that the box narrowed. That is, I subconsciously almost went to mathematical formulas and concepts to minimize wild events. This wasn’t always the case, and our designs have still been good, I just didn’t take enough risk with non-standard stuff.
Having realized this, we ensured there were many non-standard type VC/situations used in Mannerheim Cross. I can confidently claim that 25 years ago we did stuff that had not been done. With so many scenarios published that I have not seen, I cannot make a claim that we have done in MC has not been done before. However, I believe we have a number of scenarios in MC that are unique and different at a minimum. And possibly never have been done before. Testers commented about “Leningrad Reds” that they have never seen that VC before and had high praise. Scenarios such as “Vuoski Melee”, “The Anzio of East Karelia”, and “Bloody Withdrawal to Ihantala” are examples of different actions. If someone finds a lone scenario out there that is similar, I haven’t seen. MC has several Motti type actions that have some road clearing type stuff, while others have a mix of different ways to win. Some scenarios can be won by meeting a certain objective early. Once has a different total needed for the win each turn.
One of the things that inspired me to write this were conversations with several people about it. Basically I have felt as a designer that I am back to where I was in the past. A question posed to me was, “Are you saying that MC is better than PiF”. My answer is PiF is good, but yes, MC is better. And it really isn’t even close.
BFP’s history was rooted in being cutting edge, and trying out new and innovative ways of doing things. Hell on Wheels had some non-standard innovative concepts. You may not realize this, but scenarios like Merzenhausen Zoo simply did not exist. The use of CVP, EVP, and Control in the same scenario had not been used before. This may appear like a crazy statement now, but 25 years ago things were different. We were always leading the way. OtO as a Battle Review was fairly ground breaking. Bocage and the boards had not, nor even since then, been done. Actually, MMP had decided to stop doing Action Packs, but we saw these as the way of the future and published BtB and ItR before they got back to APs. Nothing like Blood and Jungle had ever been published before, and we introduced PTO to numerous players.
Enough self-patting on the back. So what happened? Our products have remained good with high quality, but some of the early philosophies disappeared. I think part of the reason was my emphasis on ensuring certain counters, situations, etc were included no matter what. The other big part was input, and this is really my fault, as I subconsciously shifted. Comments would be, “well Pleva in the championship game…” “This or that could happen and give a side too much of an advantage”. “Fun concept but limited replayability.” What started to happen was that the box narrowed. That is, I subconsciously almost went to mathematical formulas and concepts to minimize wild events. This wasn’t always the case, and our designs have still been good, I just didn’t take enough risk with non-standard stuff.
Having realized this, we ensured there were many non-standard type VC/situations used in Mannerheim Cross. I can confidently claim that 25 years ago we did stuff that had not been done. With so many scenarios published that I have not seen, I cannot make a claim that we have done in MC has not been done before. However, I believe we have a number of scenarios in MC that are unique and different at a minimum. And possibly never have been done before. Testers commented about “Leningrad Reds” that they have never seen that VC before and had high praise. Scenarios such as “Vuoski Melee”, “The Anzio of East Karelia”, and “Bloody Withdrawal to Ihantala” are examples of different actions. If someone finds a lone scenario out there that is similar, I haven’t seen. MC has several Motti type actions that have some road clearing type stuff, while others have a mix of different ways to win. Some scenarios can be won by meeting a certain objective early. Once has a different total needed for the win each turn.
One of the things that inspired me to write this were conversations with several people about it. Basically I have felt as a designer that I am back to where I was in the past. A question posed to me was, “Are you saying that MC is better than PiF”. My answer is PiF is good, but yes, MC is better. And it really isn’t even close.