I will say that being able to look at a scenario and determine if you want to play it based on forces allotted, mapboards, and VC to be achieved is a critical skill for playing in tournaments. I would further add that most players who want to play a particular scenario will offer a choice of aides, or even offer to take the less balanced side based on ROAR. Or let it be random.
I can't speak for this Dispatches scenario, as I haven't played it, playtesting or otherwise, but I can support Carl's assertion that they get playtested thoroughly, having done multiple rounds with a scenario for Vic in the past.[/QUOTE]
First off I wanted to thank you Carl for the kind words. Next I wanted to clear a few things up.
#1) Dispatches scenarios every last one get played-tested, I know I have play-tested many of them along with the 18 other people who play-tested for issue #36 in which the scenario being discussed was published. Scott you owe Vic Provost and the rest of the play-testers for dispatches a public apology, you can dislike the scenario all you want, criticize the actual strategy needed to win, etc, etc. You really can't call it an "unplay-tested piece of ****". You know full well Dispatches scenarios are play-tested. Sadly, I do not expect an apology from you.
#2) Scott, it is obvious you could not even comprehend the rules before playing, by definition the stream is shallow. (It is not SSRed as any other depth) frozen shallow streams are dry and can be driven thru as if a gully with a bog check. So how can the German tanks "fall thru the ice" as you stated??? Further Vic Provost in his analysis of the scenario gives the German player some sound advice, along with the American side. Gee, an unplay-tested scenario, but Vic takes the time to write up an analysis for it, go figure. Scott we have heard the childish whining BS before from you, you get your ass handed to you because of bad play and poor pre-game prep on your part and it is the scenario's fault or worse you were "sharked". It really is pathetic. Scott, respectful criticism of any scenario is fine, every designer and publisher has released "unbalanced" scenarios and will continue to do so, this includes Dispatches. Your Diatribe on this one is way out of line. Again I expect nothing less from the troll that you are.
#3) Scott, if you bothered to read Vic's intro to the analysis of the scenario you will see that Mark De Vries passed this scenario to Vic for publishing. It was from David Stephenson, Mark's best friend and FtF playing partner, David passed away in 1989, Mark thought it would be a nice show of respect to have it published in Dispatches, Vic agreed and so did every member of the Bunker crew. (Me included) This does not give the scenario free pass on balance, perhaps it is "pro-American" time will tell. However Scott your usual tasteless words take up way to much space on these forums. Learn to play and read the scenario card then come back and offer your opinion on any scenario you wish, until then people will see your whining as the usual unfounded rubbish that it is.
#4) For everyone else reading this, I will call Scott out anytime he bashes a Dispatches scenario like this, Dispatches scenarios have been praised and criticized on these forums, they should be, I have no problem with that, however troll babble and outright lies are not criticism, it is rubbish and I will throw it in the garbage. If you get time play the scenario and judge for yourself.
Regards
Joe
