TME and SCS expectations

['Ol Fezziwig]

(gripe mode <<ON>>)
On another forum, there is discussion of a malheureuse nature regarding TME. The gist of it appears to be questioning the design decisions behind, and rules resultant from these decisions. Particulars include the "defend Paris" rule, OB inclusions/'omissions' and map areas depicted/'omitted'.
While I would not imply one is not entitled to an opinion, I, personally, have issues with 'opinions' not based on either a.) actual play of the game in question (certainly NOT a cursory glossing of the rules!!), b.) input/insight into the design criterium or c.) any sort of apparent familiarity with a particular game system.
Taken in turn:
A. the "Defend Paris" rule
Personally, I have little issue with this rule. While, the reasons the 'reviewer' gives for his distaste have some merit, between players with some personal history (or, even friendship!) what constitutes a "reasonable effort" should be a trivial matter. Questioning the 'historicity' of the rule is somewhat facetious as there is great difficulty in adding Hitleresque rationales to a body of rules in any WW2 game. The designer/developer notes give the rationale for the rule (to prevent a rapid German withdrawal to the eminently more defensible Rhine River line once the Allies are ashore in any strength) which suffice to appease any concerns I may have had.

B. OB inclusions/omissions
Again, little here to irk me- I have full confidence the research (as has been proven many times in prior Gamers offerings) will be top-notch. I find little need to stroke my own ego by parsing the countersheets for divisions included or not, especially when the D/D notes again give ample explanations for the reasons behind the counterset. Myself, seeing the 82nd AB, 101st AB, The Big Red One and Panzer Lehr satisfied my OB concerns. I don't find myself looking for every division that happened to find itself in Normandy (in this particular example) for whatever reason being represented in a game that apparently had a one countersheet target.

C. map issues
More or less explained quite sufficiently in the D/D notes section (again...) again, with an apparent one map constraint in mind. Sure it'd be nice to have more room to 'bounce the Rhine' 'a la Patton, but this isn't _my_ game (in the design sense). What it is, is the designers' (and Deans') vision of what _they_ wanted it to be. I have no problem with that, not having felt led astray by past Gamers visions of what they choose to portray


Perhaps I'm mightily tired of these "First Impressions"-type articles, particularly when they are based on an examination of the components immediately after ripping off the plastic shroud, and not after any substantive time spent with the game itself. These types of articles can indeed be useful, but I fear they may lead the unwary (aka, "The Sheep") away from purchasing a game(s) due to a strongly and critically worded "FI". (In this particular case, one 'sheep' indeed uttered his "misgivings", after reading this spurious "FI", about purchasing TME).
Myself, when I think of SCS games, I think of a quick and engaging time at the game table, not an OCS-level of detail or an OCS-level attention to design. This does not imply a 'free pass' for a game simply because it's an SCS game, but it doesn't pretend to be-nor aspire to be- a definitive treatment of the subject matter-nor do I ask it to be.

The somewhat long-winded (and admittedly, somewhat incoherent-kids/dog/cat see me as the "The Velcro Dad") point being, what do YOU expect from an SCS game, TME in particular? What rankles you about what made it in the box and conversely, what excites YOU that did make it into the box?
What do you think about the flurry of dudes rushing to be the first to 'critique' the latest release, however poorly or sketchy these 'critiques' might be?

or, perhaps, I'm just a crusty old salt with a sour disposition..

 

[ermj1986]

I have a copy of TME. I pretty much pre-order every The Gamers title to do my part for the cause :cheeky:

I have played TME once thus far, solitaire, and tried what I felt was a quasi-historic approach, Normandy landings and paradrops etc. The game turned out very close to the "historic VP's" with Allies scoring a 40.

The Paris rule worked for me. I generally expect abstractions and the like in games such as this. I was not disappointed. I even attempted an Ardennes-type offensive. That works too. I didn't secure an Axis victory, but I don't think that the Axis did either.

OOB was just fine with me. I was also happy to see The Big Red One, 82nd AB etc, etc,etc,etc,

I am looking forward to a FtF TME game soon. As usual, The Gamers, never disappoint me.

 

[sgtono]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig](gripe mode <<ON>>)
On another forum, .......


Perhaps I'm mightily tired of these "First Impressions"-type articles, particularly when they are based on an examination of the components immediately after ripping off the plastic shroud, and not after any substantive time spent with the game itself. These types of articles can indeed be useful, but I fear they may lead the unwary (aka, "The Sheep") away from purchasing a game(s) due to a strongly and critically worded "FI". (In this particular case, one 'sheep' indeed uttered his "misgivings", after reading this spurious "FI", about purchasing TME).
Myself, when I think of SCS games, I think of a quick and engaging time at the game table, not an OCS-level of detail or an OCS-level attention to design. This does not imply a 'free pass' for a game simply because it's an SCS game, but it doesn't pretend to be-nor aspire to be- a definitive treatment of the subject matter-nor do I ask it to be.

..........
What do you think about the flurry of dudes rushing to be the first to 'critique' the latest release, however poorly or sketchy these 'critiques' might be?

or, perhaps, I'm just a crusty old salt with a sour disposition.. [/QUOTE]

I found TME quite enjoyable, as an avid fan of the old AH D-Day, this game is great. Fezziwig, I agree with your post %100. I find especially one of those quick critiques by a well known ASL Forum visitor as pompous and asinine. He read the rules and therefore was "qualified" to write a stinging review. He did not even play the game.

I, too, fear that his unqualified opinions not just on TME but other games will make too much impression on those who do know now his history of blatant generalizations.

Gamers has provided me with many hours of enjoyable historical gaming.

Keith

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I had been waiting impatiently for TME to arrive, especially since the Ike movie on cable has been playing lately (Tom Selleck as Ike) along with The Longest Day. I think it'll bump both Red Steel (Avalanche Press) and the Korean OCS from the queue for my game table; counters are all punched/CLIPPED and I'm starting the Operational planning phase!
One of the things I like about SCS games is while they are of the 'classic' beer and pretzel mold, they also have amazing depth given the (mostly) stark game-specific rules. While not exactly always 'OCS-lite', they do share some commonalities with its' big brother with regards to planning (reserves & exploitation, esp). SCS is just a great system/series of games when a quick fix is needed-

 

[ermj1986]

Dean posted an outstanding response to the TME debate over at csw. It reiterates the potential and underlying nuances that the game seems to have.

 

[LDM]

Personaly I prefer the Eastern Front SCS games and want more of the OCS titles.I am a lurker who is conent to wait for more 'reports' of the ME before I actually buy the game. Some of my friends have/will have the game and I'll get their input first before I believe the articles of a critic.
Is there a 'problem' with the way Dean decided to make his game?Seems to me that at some point some one (Dean) had to 'draw the line' in regards of map size, OrBat, rules etc.Though I may not always agree with the idea behind the call, I must as a gamer respect his RIGHT to do so.
That or make my own game.
Just my opinion
Lee

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Dean posted an outstanding response to the TME debate over at csw. It reiterates the potential and underlying nuances that the game seems to have.

Yeah, I saw that. That's what makes the "quick rules gloss 'review'" particularly irksome. Certainly, we're all entitled to an opinion, I just think the opinion should be an
-informed- one. The depth and nuance of a particular game rarely is scotched by scanning the rules booklet.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

One of the most discouraging things has to be watching the designer/developer being beaten to the ground by a bunch of ignorant SOBs. Will ANY game release not be nit-picked or critiqued or questioned to death in the first few weeks after release? Will the repeat offenders ever learn that we're all sick and g*d damned tired of their farcical and high-minded 'dissertations'? Is it too much to ask of someone to actually have experience with a game before they decide to rip it-and the people who have spent hours on it?
I remember when hobbies were fun, when boards such as this were interesting for their content-not for their petty quarrels. I think too many are too interested in themselves and their over inflated opinions of themselves than they are in partaking of a 'hobby' Maybe that's why I've gone _back_ to solitaire gaming...

 

[ermj1986]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]One of the most discouraging things has to be watching the designer/developer being beaten to the ground by a bunch of ignorant SOBs. Will ANY game release not be nit-picked or critiqued or questioned to death in the first few weeks after release? Will the repeat offenders ever learn that we're all sick and g*d damned tired of their farcical and high-minded 'dissertations'? Is it too much to ask of someone to actually have experience with a game before they decide to rip it-and the people who have spent hours on it?
I remember when hobbies were fun, when boards such as this were interesting for their content-not for their petty quarrels. I think too many are too interested in themselves and their over inflated opinions of themselves than they are in partaking of a 'hobby' Maybe that's why I've gone _back_ to solitaire gaming...[/QUOTE]

I have most of The Gamers titles, and all of the OCS. Dean & Co are among the best people in the business. The only good that comes out of the complaints are the articulate replies from the designer himself, which I promptly print and add to my designers' notes

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Has anyone completed a game of TME, yet. Is it fun? Thoughts, anyone?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I'm in the middle of a solo run, turn 14 or 15 or so.
Initial landings were two in Normandy on turn one with the max three para landings (killed the Germ division defending the beach on a step loss/retreat through EZOC) with a single step loss for the paras and another for the beach assault. Second turn saw another Normandy landing with one in St Tropez to the south of Marseilles.
Cherbourg fell on turn three, but saw a terrible port dr of 6! Le Havre also saw a similiar port dr when it fell on turn 4 (or 5), leaving the Allies with some future attack supply issues. Marseilles, which saw a determined German defense, what with the rugged defensive terrain, fell on turn six, but saw a rapid port turnaround of one. The French were mauled taking Marseilles, only being saved by a 3 division US force breaking through the tough German defenses, taking out an SS panzer division and crumbling the line. A lone panzer division escaped being encircled on a low-odds overrun, eventually escaping to take part in the frontier defense of the Reich, along with a pair of infantry divisions.
The Normandy forces split; Brits and Canadians 'running' up the coast with the US forging towards Paris after clearing out the Norman farmland. The much ballyhooed "Paris rule" turns out to have little effect in this playing due to a measured German withdrawal (read: no battle in the confines of Paris, despite the excellent defensive terrain; it could very well become a Western Front Stalingrad, though much more susceptible to encircling moves by roving US armour elements). The US advance is steady, with both sides taking losses. US forces continually break through the German river line defenses, only to see them fall back to the next line, if somewhat smarting.
The British sector slows to a crawl as German armour pounds British and Canadian armour (panzer overrun and retreat behind the line during exploit phase) before turning to the infantry. The low replacement and reinforcement rate of the Commomwealth/UK forces makes them the weak sister of the Allied forces.
Despite this, they grind forward, taking Boulonge and stand now on the gates to Antwerp. A US corps of 5 to 6 divisions has reinforced the UK forces, breaking through the German flank to Eindhoven (with the aid of a para drop assisting in the demise of another panzer division), threatening the Rhine crossings and the encirclement of the forces defending Holland in the Antwerp region.
US forces, along with the logistically-challenged Med forces, have mopped up the south of France (leaving the Free French to liberate the all-important wine regions of Bordeaux) to the German frontier. The Germans southern bastion lies at Strasbourg, the line running to Liege in the north.
Difficult times ahead for both sides, the Allies will need some decent air support to break through the tough German line ahead of them; something that has NOT been a given thus far!

All in all, a fine game with plenty of options for both sides. Many may well take the 'historical approach' the first time around, but plenty of options worth exploring remain after that first run through, I look forward to exploring them myself. Now, if I can only break through the Siegfried line without gutting my forces in the process!

 

[Damdemdice]

I find especially one of those quick critiques by a well known ASL Forum visitor as pompous and asinine. He read the rules and therefore was "qualified" to write a stinging review. He did not even play the game.

If this is the same 'First Impressions' critique by the well known forum poster I think it is, I think you're giving him way too much credit. Not only had he not played the game, but at the time of his 'review' he had admittedly barely even skimmed the rules.

Yep...'fair' review, huh?

From past comments, I believe the guy obviously has an "anything produced by MMP that's not ASL, or AoO in particular" axe to grind. Huge grain of salt required.

 

[The Purist]

Where can one find this review? I'm well into a second game of TME and except for the 3rd Army HQ ability to exploit I find the game quite a bit of fun.

 

[Damdemdice]

Gerry,

I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. It was more of a 'preview' than anything else. A long winded tirade from someone who had barely had time to take the shrinkwrap off.

While I respect, admire, and appreciate the author's dedication and contribution to the ASL community, this particular 'review' just came across as pre-determined sour grapes.

You have the game and are actually playing it, which is way more than he did or probably (as even he openly admitted) ever will do. As long as you are enjoying it, then I'd say that's all that matters.