MwT II - Ostfold. The TOP 5

MrP

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
4,866
Reaction score
418
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Country
llNew Zealand
Ladies, gentlemen and assorted furry animals

The results are here! The judges have deliberated, bickered, argued, chortled and generally acted more like a troupe of performing baboons than responsible human beings but in the end after all the votes were kicked and counted, the TOP 5 in descending order can be revealed. (I'll add as we go along)

# 5
Well, we have a tie at 5......
Playing Fossum MwTii13 A 12 turn magnum opus featuring the attack on the Fossum bridge on 3 full boards and 3 half boards.

KK - Large scenario with many infantry… Cool looking but appears to be slanted to the Norwegians at first glance. The map boards displayed do NOT follow the VCs or the Norwegian OoB. Fix the map board issue and this could be a good scenario, or possibly a Team scenario.

DR - Hmmm. 12 turns, 3 full and 3 half boards which equals a very large playing area. Not a scen guys would pick for their weekly one-night game. Maybe a weekender...or two. Way too many SSR's to remember though. Fewer SSR's makes for a cleaner, quicker game IMO. I'd need a PDA handy just so I didn't forget a critical SSR during play. And the 'wegian Set DC? It's in the weegie OoB, but they really can't use it, so, why is it there? This one needs a lot of work if anyone really wanted to "fix" it. "Back to the drawing board" for this one.

IP - Fab title. Nice Norwegian OB and very nice SSRs, just way too many, especially like the wheatfields -> deep snow , hand grenade shortage and OBA cancellation ones.VC’s are very unclear tho – maybe too clever for their own good?

TJ - So, how does "deep" affect a frozen river? VC, while correct strictly speaking, leave questions in one's mind. I won't vote for this just 'cause the scenario is way to big and convoluted.and I really don't want to play it
on VASL under a time constraint. Maybe if I go back to smoking dope and do nothing other than play ASL with my life...

BB - Lots of boards, points for the choices. SBRs..another book full of SBRs.. An exact 1:1 match in the number of squads. VCs seem bizarre and good players will make this a race to detonation. I get the feeling no one will try to play to the other VC option.

JT - Needs some work, but could have legs--- PT could give a hell of a scenario; What does "a clear LOS" mean? Does it include those that are hindered? SSR 5 may need some thinking--- do HS have any bearing? I'm not sure the German player will be enticed to try this approach... as it is a crap shoot to get rid of OBA which is a crap shoot to begin with. Probably a smarter move to kill the observers and get your squads next to the road. Since the hidden Set DC is not in concealment terrain, does it lose HIP as soon as a German has LOS? Or does it only lose HIP due to a successful search or detonation?

SL - 7?! HMGs on the defence, 3 on the attack. These guys go to a surplus store or something? I've got a 9-2 with 4!!! HMGs and no OBA or smoke generation for my opponent? AND you get to put a DC into one of 6 hexes, which have to be searched, the DC located and then eliminated?

TR - Argh. Wish this could be properly shown in VASL; impossible to make the Grainfields turn into Deep Snow. Nice touch, though. Strange VC, encouraging the Norwegian to NOT blow the bridge... can't tell if that's ahistorical or weird or what. Given how the river is frozen and the bridge therefore pretty redundant, the Set DC thing is just an irrelevant side show, no? Interesting randomness of the Norwegian reinforcements, but RG1 is seriously underpowered and hex 32Y10 is seriously far away from the fray. And wouldn't an MMG in there somewhere make for more variety than all the HMG's? I like SSR3, although maybe a non-doubling of PBF, non-tripling of TPBF would make more sense? Nice attempt at color with SSR5, but the Norwegian OBA should be so spotty anyway that it's probably not worth the sacrifice of a German squad. Somewhat worried about the Death Star of German 9-2 plus multiple HMG's showing up in bldg 8C1 on turn 2.. it's a long game and they wi ll get a lot of shots off. Norweian reinforcements should probably start 2 turns earlier, given that they have to cross a lot of ground to make it into the VC area. Cruel to make the Norwegian 9-2 run the Radio; I'm giving it to the Fossum Garrison 6+1 as soon as he can run over to bd 8. Ultimately, man.... I can't tell how this one will go. So much depends on the Norwegian OBA. If it can hold off the Germans until the reinforcements arrive, then the Norgies could try to make a game of it with a late-game Festung around 48Q3. They even have time for Mark Nixon's favorite tactic - digging Foxholes in the VC area.

Impaled!! Mwtii07
5.5 2 half boards covering the actions at Rom.
KK - Scenario MTWII 7: The Aftermath is too long. Truly does not fit the scenario well. Too many SSRs that can confuse anyone during the play of the scenario. The amount of infantry used is GREAT.

DR - #7 Impaled! - I really tried to find something I liked about this one. And there are some interesting points in this design, just not enough for me to say "I likee!". "Untested" German troops? Then why does their OoB have Elite 4-6-8's? 70% of their infantry are Elite or 1st line. "Untested"? If so I would expect to see at least 50% being 4-4-7 2nd line, perhaps even one or two conscripts in there for good measure. And SSR 4 guarantees the OBA will go away IMO. A bit too much "icing" on this cake for me.

IP - #7 Nice OB’s for both sides but weird setup for the Nogs. I like the counter battery fire SSR, SSRs 5 and 6 tip a nod to the CnC rules and look unwieldy. Have to play it to see how it went….. Elite Germans, 10-3, 10-2, 9-2 – big scenario unbalancers?

TJ - That title has gotta be Glennbo's entry. Ask I read it, it's gotta be his.
Looks like an interesting situation. A touch heavy on the SSRs, but not way
out of hand. I'd give it a whirl.

BB - MwTII 7: Impaled! – Impaled on the SBRs and overlays! Seems like a ton of work to remember all the minutiae to play this one when the VCs are uninspired. VPs earned. Okay..sure.. How many CVP do I take setting up all the damn overlays? OOB is really small for what looks like a lot of effort.

JT - All HIP?! SSR's need major work. Is either Glennbo or someone copying his style which looks more likely to me right now. Short scenario with certain infantry only on board for 3 turns. Nuh-uh; some real problems in this one. SSRs way toooooo busy for a 5 turn scenario.

SL - the regular inflow of forces looks interesting, though a German player could lose big time on turn 1. I"d be setting up to blast anything stupid enough to come out of the woods on turn 1. Strangely enough, while its low on my list as I don't like the excess of SSRs and the counter density that will develop, I could see a good argument for playing this one.

TR - This is a pretty dense scenario card for 5.5 turns and two half-boards. And when you get through the sequence of who starts onboard, who comes onboard where, etc, you discover that the Germans are going to get MAULED. Their turn 1 force must hole up in the Wd5 overlay, but that will be pre-registered by the Norwegian OBA (with offboard observer, no less) and bracketed by MG's and ART pieces, THEN attacked on its flank by the Norwegian turn 1 reinforcements who can enter on the North board edge! At that point, it almost doesn't matter what the rest of the German OB is - they're going to be a shambles. Recommend pushing the Norwegian at-start forces back to on/east of hexrow L, letting the Germans enter anywhere on the western edge of bd 10 on turn 1, and giving those turn 1 guys three more squads, an 8-1, and an MMG. THEN we can talk about the rest of the scenario. SSR5 is interesting. Some will hate it as being non-standard ASL. Others will enjoy the q uasi-ASL variety. I tend to thin it's too strong. The game length is way too short, given the distance involved and the number of defenders. Add 2 player turns and it could be good.

#4
Last Command MwTii06
6.5 turns, 3 boards, covering South Hov

DR - #6 Last Command - This one could use some tweeking, but if done right could be the "sleeper" in the bunch. Good mix with 3 boards and 6.5 turns. Seems a tad heavy for weegie SMC's - five leaders for 8 squads, but perhaps they will need
the Rally help.

IP - #6 Way too many leaders for the Nogs. Board 56 is a nice addition. Looks OK otherwise

TJ - Looks way tough on the German. The Germans barely have enough turns to even reach LOS of all of the multi level bldgs with no opposition. In fact, looks too far gone to even try it.

BB - Boring boards, but it is a fast play at only 6 turns, OOB is balanced at first glance. Too many SBRs (#6 SWs may always start DM if otherwise allowed to, why an SBR?)

JT - Needs some work on the SSRs (3); Delete SSR 6; Remove last line of SSR 9; Looks tough on German

SL - 13 squads to 8. Defence has 2 HMGs, OBA and only needs a single MMC in an area 20 hexes from the German entry area - and a couple of hs can force the Germans out of the trucks early. Nice idea, but poorly executed.

TR - NIIIIICE! Really nothing bad to say about it, other than SSR6 isn't really necessary, and the bit about 18GG2 in SSR2 is REALLY unnecessary. Apart from that, only concern might be that the Germans don't have enough time to really haul across 2 boards and clear the town... another turn (or even two!) would be better. Oh, and that's probably two more leaders than the Norwegians should get.

#3
Defending Norwegian Wood MwTii01

5 turns, 2 half boards, covering the action at Rom

KK - Scenario MTWII 1: Norwegian ELR is too high, maybe a 2 at best.
German OoB; one too many Leaders.
Victory conditions; Germans may never win with these with only 5 game turns available.

DR - - With apologies to John Lennon, two words: "not impressed". SSR3, the gun may not be manhandled. Okay, what if both trucks get whacked or captured which is a very real possibility. Game over, unless weegies can get lucky and obtain 2nd VC which doesn't appear likely from first looks. Has a very "dicey" appearance to it. Dicey, no likee.

IP - #1 Tough on the Germans with not enough FP to do the job? Nice VC’s, before looking at the maps I thought a bughunt was possible, but looks less likely. Nice SSR 3

TJ - Looks tough but possible for the germans. It will take an aggressive german to win. No frills solid ASL. Looks like fun.

BB - MwTII 1: Defending Norwegian Wood – I like that this is a short scenario requiring both sides to be on the move. Sudden VC’s make this a scenario where neither side can just sit and wait on the other to do something. Looks like a good OOB, SBRs are clear. Boards are boring.

JT - VC should say "unbroken" not "non-broken." Is it intended that elements of battery 4 can setup in the same hex?

SL - Asking a lot of the defender, a careful Norwegian setup cold enable them to split the German attack. It all needs to go like clockwork, however. I'd have the trucks come on a turn earlier if it was up to me.

TR - Awesome scenario name. OB's pretty bland, map pretty bland. VC's and SSR's too. So this is a straight-up infantry fight. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it might not score real high in this system. Balance-wise, even though the Guns have to set up reasonably far forward, it might be a bit too hard for the Germans to stop the Norwegians from loading one up and pulling it offboard. My Norwegian strategy would be to make a last stand with the MMG's in foxholes around 33A4; Germans don't have a lot of time and might not be able to stand the raw firepower if they have to root them out. Still, not bad...

#2
The Bet MwTii08

5.5 Turns, 2 boards, North Of Trogstad

KK -No Balance. Overlays mentioned in SSR 3, but not displayed on the map boards. German setup area is undefined on Board 5; Both OoBs look good, but the vagueness of the VCs, setup and SSRs are an issue.

DR - #8 The Bet - Not the greatest title, not the worst. I liked using just two boards and 5.5 turns. That means it is short, to the point, and the very unique "bidding" SSR makes this one a challenge I just had to take. "I can name that tune in one note".....This one almost made my #2, it was very close.

IP - #8 Liked the bidding SSR.. Deathly dull boards, hated the terrain change SSR.

TJ - Neat bidding process and VC. I'm thinkin' in the face of the 10-2, it's tough on the German.but the bidding process gives the german a hand in determining that. I'm not sure how this would work, but it look interesting enough to try. I'd give it a whirl.

BB - #8 MwTII 8: The Bet – I like this scenario. Tight OB, minimal SBRs, very unique method of choosing both the sides played and what the ultimate VCs are.

JT - vc should say onboard not inboard; interesting vc plusses for that; SSR 3 Orchad?

SL - At first glance looks pro-Norwegian. 2nd and 3rd too. The bidding idea is good, but the open ended nature of the option could too easily lead to blowouts. I'd suggest making a minimum VC requirement.

TR - INTERESTING bid system (SSR2). I can see "bidding up the defense" just to make the attacker work harder. HATE the random wind provision of SSR1 - the 81mm MTR can lay a whole lot more smoke with a Mild Breeze. Too unbalancing to leave to chance. I love the use of a building overlay to change the nature of good ol' bd 17, but the Grain-To-Woods SSR just makes it easier for the Germans to isolate and attack each building in detail. Wish the Norwegians had an ATR to help counter the German armor.

And at #1, voted #1 by 4 of the judges and deserving of its place
Dorway To Norway MwTii09
6 turns, 2 boards, Rom

KK - This scenario looks good. Infantry is right for both sides, the SSRs are easily understood. German ELR is too high. Maybe a 3. Top 3

DR - #9 Dorway to Norway - Another guy who can't spell. :) :) No complex SSR's, simple VC's, just two boards. One question though - since it appears almost all the action/setups are on board 32 why is board 37 needed again? Window dressing perhaps?

IP - #9 At first glance, the boards look dull, but work with the snow and setup restrictions. Fiddly roads/paths SSR. High on the want to play list

TJ - Looks interesting. Hard to say more without a playing. <shrug> I'd give it a whirl.

BB - MwTII 9: Dorway to Norway – spelling aside, I like the sudden death VC’s, SBRs are clear, OOB is well balanced. Boards are tired and overused but which are not in this year’s selections?

JT - Looks the best of the lot so far…funfactor balance wise, but why are Norweigans entering from WEST?!! Shouldn't that be East? That's the way they withdrew.

SL - While it looks demanding for the Norwegians, who will spend a long time getting to the fight, the VCs will force the Germans to attack, lest a last turn advance gives the Norwegians the game. The auto VC also means some strength has to be held back, making the force match an interesting one.

TR - A Norwegian attack! What ho? No way in the world will the Norwegians win by attacking 32C1/D1, so they need to focus on the road. Such a funky setup area, it's hard to tell what the best terrain is. Some Norwegians set up on bd 37 and some coming in on bd 32 seems best... Norwegians have JUST enough squads to consider splitting their forces.... (delicious when that happens!) Think the Norgies could use a 9-2 vice the 9-1, but it's hard to tell. Maybe just busting the German 9-2 down to a 9-1 would help. Otherwise, yikes! I like the replay value. Oh, and the non-grenade SSR should also hurt the Norwegians in PBF as well.

So that's it, the Out Of The Box rankings are done and the number one is $10 richer (remember we don't know who he is yet......) I'll add the bottom 8 as I get round to them and once again, thanks to all who have participated, all the monkeys, judges, the SAG and members of the peanut gallery. Hopefully we'll have some very playable scenarios at the end of this :)

(Abbreviations used : KK - Kevin Kenneally, DR - Dave Roth, IP - Ian Percy, BB - Brian Blad, SL - Steve Linton, JT - James Taylor, TR - Tom Repetti, TJ - Tom Jazbutis)
 
Last edited:

King Billy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
144
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
They are the top five are they? What are the comments like for the bottom five???

Bill
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Thanks for the input... and for the hard work, judges !:thumup:
So Baboons are judging Chimps...:laugh:
My design did not reach the top.:cry:
But I am looking forward to seeing the whole set of scenarios: I like the fun that I experimented designing my scenario for the contest.:)
 

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
They are the top five are they? What are the comments like for the bottom five???

Bill
Really! I wasn't sure I read the thread title properly after the first few comments. :crosseye:
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
(...) (Abbreviations used : KK - Kevin Kenneally, DR - Dave Roth, IP - Ian Percy, BB - Brian Blad, SL - Steve Linton, JT - James Taylor, TR - Tom Repetti, TJ - Tom Jazbutis) (...)

Just wait! I know mine's in the bottom 8 :(
how is possible you are a designer and also a judge?
I must have missed something...
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Just wait! I know mine's in the bottom 8 :(

what is the next step?
the PDFs will be published now ? Only the top five? only the bottom 8? all together?

Thanks
 

Buck K

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
218
Reaction score
5
Location
DC
Country
llUnited States
how is possible you are a designer and also a judge?
I must have missed something...

We wanted him to be jury too, but thought that would be a conflict of interest!!

MrP said:
Just wait! I know mine's in the bottom 8
Looks like we were wrong, there wouldn't be a conflict!!
 
Last edited:

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
how is possible you are a designer and also a judge?
I must have missed something...
Easy. Everyone one knows that MrP so pathetically unintelligent as to recognize his own design and anyway is a poor designer so there shouldn't be a problem. :)
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,537
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
Couple things to note:

1. Notice the lack of general enthusiasm for even these top 5 (6) scenarios. I think the source material didn't give the designers a lot of actions to choose from, and not much sexiness in the historical OB's. Still, the judges generally came away a little underwhelmed. And then we have Glennbo saying "My baby's being mistreated!". A little hard to reconcile those two. As a judge, you appreciate a chance to look at somebody's work for free, and you hope to give good and fair feedback, but what if the free meal doesn't taste all that good? Strange. I want everybody to know how much we appreciated their efforts and tried to do right by them. But if we're being honest...

2. Snow + River = Ice, meaning you don't have to just cross at a bridge. Several designers (including one of the top 5(6)) seemed to miss that.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Couple things to note:

1. Notice the lack of general enthusiasm for even these top 5 (6) scenarios. I think the source material didn't give the designers a lot of actions to choose from, and not much sexiness in the historical OB's. Still, the judges generally came away a little underwhelmed. And then we have Glennbo saying "My baby's being mistreated!". A little hard to reconcile those two. As a judge, you appreciate a chance to look at somebody's work for free, and you hope to give good and fair feedback, but what if the free meal doesn't taste all that good? Strange. I want everybody to know how much we appreciated their efforts and tried to do right by them. But if we're being honest...

2. Snow + River = Ice, meaning you don't have to just cross at a bridge. Several designers (including one of the top 5(6)) seemed to miss that.
Does this really have to turn into a "designers vs. judges" argument?

Maybe we could just stick to positive commentary? (I don't mean with regards to the scenarios themselves - the initial post was excellent - I mean the comments that are following after such as this.) It's unfortunate Brian didn't understand Glenn's sense of humour the way the rest of us do, but hopefully no harm, no foul. I don't see any good coming from the growing sense of acrimony. There are certainly some comments in the judge's notes for each and every scenario listed above that seem off-the-wall, but I don't see the point of creating a battle royale about it, and since they were initially made in camera, I think the designers can take them with grains of salt and hopefully just focus on the good stuff that comes from them. The point of this, so I thought, was to give everyone a peek into how the other side works. At the end of it, we want, I think, to feel free to open up to each other and learn a thing or two, not recoil in defensiveness convinced that the SOBs we dared to expose our work to were simply arrogant morons. That goes for the designers as well as the judges. The realization that no designer, and no judge, is perfect should guide the comments and actions on both sides nicely, I think.

As a judge, you appreciate a chance to look at somebody's work for free,
And hopefully it goes without saying that the designers appreciate the time you all took to look over our work, and especially those judges that actually took time to make detailed notes and observations. It of course means the world to us. And if it doesn't - then thank you on behalf of all of us.

I don't like to single anyone out, but the level of detail you provided in the last contest - and apparently have done so again - is of course most appreciated and your kind of informed commentary is the primary reason I got involved in the contest the second time around. I hope the fellows who made it to the finals get as much value from your input as I did with your Carpiquet critique(s).
 
Last edited:

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,537
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
Does this really have to turn into a "designers vs. judges" argument?

Maybe we could just stick to positive commentary?
You're right. I tried to walk a tightrope in choosing my words carefully, but I can see that it would have been better to refrain from going there. My bad.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
You're right. I tried to walk a tightrope in choosing my words carefully, but I can see that it would have been better to refrain from going there. My bad.
It's all good. Your frustration with the source material was expressed before we even started, and I can sense it here as well. I can't reconcile it personally, other than we all have our own interests, since the source material did seem quite engaging and reading the scenario descriptions has me enthused even if you feel the judges were not. I have fond memories of actually playing Action at Balberkamp many moons ago, and reading a friend's short story submission to the junior high school literary journal which was based on the Norway campaign, so the material wasn't a disappointment to me. I'm sure others would pass all these scenarios by in a heartbeat because there are no King Tigers or flamethrowers in them. That's the great thing about ASL; its got a wide diversity of stuff to appeal to different sectors. What's great about this also is that you were able to give such in-depth commentary despite your lack of interest in the subject - a pro performance in my books. :) I'll look forward to the rest of the pack as we get to them.
 
Last edited:

MrP

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
4,866
Reaction score
418
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Country
llNew Zealand
All in all, I think that the source material forced the designers down a much more constricted alley than the Carpiquet material and the scenarios bear that out - the top two really stood out over the others and the next 8 or 9 were so closely bunched that any of them could have made the top 5.

The comments may seem harsh but it's not meant to be that, all it's meant to be is honest and constructive. I think the lack of "positivism" that comes across is a function of the source material, not the efforts of the designers - there were some pretty innovative designs in there, just innovative with flaws :)

As to how I can design and judge? I look at it as giving everyone else a boost as I don't rank my own - I haven't made top 5 two contests running so there can be no calls of unfairness there ;)
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Couple things to note:

1. Notice the lack of general enthusiasm for even these top 5 (6) scenarios. I think the source material didn't give the designers a lot of actions to choose from, and not much sexiness in the historical OB's.

I think too the source material is not that good. This could explain in part the low level of the submissions.

A lot of pages and infos for the most part useless for scenario design purposes. Perhaps a very good and experienced scenario designer can find there a lot of ideas concealed to my poor amateur designer eyes.
Besides this kind of action, with bridges and rivers, calls for a medium-large sized scenario, adding more difficulties (also to get a decent playtest). Or requires an high degree of fantasy from the author ...

Speaking for myself I would like for the next contest a brief, clear, semi-detailed descripition of a well definite action, with units involved and some words about terrain and the objectives. This also permits to show how different designers see the same identical situation.

After all this is the original objective of the MwT contest, if memory serves.

is now possible a public disclosure of the authors?
 
Last edited:

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
It's all good. Your frustration with the source material was expressed before we even started, and I can sense it here as well. I can't reconcile it personally, other than we all have our own interests, since the source material did seem quite engaging and reading the scenario descriptions has me enthused even if you feel the judges were not. I have fond memories of actually playing Action at Balberkamp many moons ago, and reading a friend's short story submission to the junior high school literary journal which was based on the Norway campaign, so the material wasn't a disappointment to me. I'm sure others would pass all these scenarios by in a heartbeat because there are no King Tigers or flamethrowers in them. That's the great thing about ASL; its got a wide diversity of stuff to appeal to different sectors. What's great about this also is that you were able to give such in-depth commentary despite your lack of interest in the subject - a pro performance in my books. :) I'll look forward to the rest of the pack as we get to them.
Sucking up won't do you any good. All decisions are final. :p
 

sswann

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,911
Reaction score
1,379
Location
Middle of Kansas
First name
Steven
Country
llUnited States
Well, someone caught on!
You are correct... there was a lack of detailed information in this action. In response, the true measure of a quality designer is what kind of scenario can be made from poor material, instead of making an excellent scenario from excellent material.

If, from poor/incomplete material a scenario can be made that is FUN to play, and interesting without a lot of fancy/unusual 'toys'... that is a designer of note.

At least, this is my personal viewpoint.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Well, someone caught on!
You are correct... there was a lack of detailed information in this action. In response, the true measure of a quality designer is what kind of scenario can be made from poor material, instead of making an excellent scenario from excellent material.

If, from poor/incomplete material a scenario can be made that is FUN to play, and interesting without a lot of fancy/unusual 'toys'... that is a designer of note.

At least, this is my personal viewpoint.
Exactly. Less information means more freedom to engage the imagination. It actually makes it harder for the designers, but it can also be liberating. The burden becomes how to make something people want to play without the "crutch" of a unit that got a lot of press (Waffen-SS, US Marines, Grossdeutschland, Royal Marine Commandos, any airborne unit you care to name, etc.) or a battle that has been the subject of infinite media treatments ("D-Day", Kursk, Battle of the Bulge, etc.) or something that is unique solely because of the hardware involved (read: tanks, but could also mean "funny" stuff like MOL projectors, Goliaths, etc. that sees scarce play). In short - a true test of the scenario designer's skill - at putting together boards, pieces, victory conditions and all the ingredients, rather than just public relations and ad copy (L@@K at all these PERSHINGS vs. PANTHERS! And the Cologne Cathedral in the background!)

is now possible a public disclosure of the authors?
Not until the final, winning design has been selected. I suspect we are still several weeks/months away from that point.
 
Top