 |
|
Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? (/showthread.php?tid=74133) |
RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Strela - 12-08-2020 Hi All, Firstly, I had avoided the impulse to leap into this thread before now and I think Mike Prucha (as usual) has done an admirable job of explaining some of the design decisions that underpinned Scheldt. All I ask is that you understand the history that the game is based upon as that is our guiding light when designing titles. If we didn't focus on the realism you would have pretty much twenty four sandbox games that all played fairly similarly, just with different coloured counters. Not every title will appeal, but you have to understand we have done a lot of research and testing to deliver the product you have in your hands. Do yourself a favour and read the history of the campaign or better still download the free designer notes so you have an inkling of what is being provided in the game. A small anecdote. Glenn Saunders, one half of the prolific Blackie and Saunders Panzer Campaigns teams said they looked at Scheldt 15 years ago and decided it couldn't be done. It was high on Glenn's list (he is a patriotic Canadian after all) to release but they decided that the plodding style of campaign in the mud wouldn't work. We sent Glenn a copy during development and he was suitably impressed with some of the solutions the team came up with. That said, it is a plodding campaign in the mud. It is not panzers crossing the Sedan in 1940. And with that in mind we have to reflect some of that challenge. No, it doesn't appeal to everyone (neither does being the German in Kursk '43) and if you are not certain its best for you, go get those (free) players note, peruse the forums here at the Blitz, read some of the After Action reports and then decide if its the right game for you. If you had read any of the blog posts on the WDS site, we 'warned' people it was a different title and even included our own after action reports. Reading this back, it sounds defensive - nothing is further from the truth. I find Scheldt personally one of the most intriguing titles released to date. I always look for these games to position me as the commander in the field, with the same resources as my historical compatriot and have to decide what would I do. So the Canadians and Poles are out of fuel, remove them from my thinking till turn three. I have D grade men, not my normal B grade infantry, what would I do.? Etc, etc, etc. I am there with the same issues. If everyone is fueled up and B morale, would I have a fun game, yes of course, but would it be Scheldt '44? In name only. One final series of comments regarding Japan '45/'46. Firstly, all discourse is very welcome. I think All_American voiced an opinion on the quality of those titles, while others here dissented. It's fair to say some people were vocal and I thank all for their feedback. We made changes to Japan '45 on the back of some critical feedback and many of those lessons went into ensuring Japan '46 did not had the same issues. Like all JTS/WDS titles we continue to look at what we can improve with each patch cycle. The big issue with Japan '45 is that the designer was insistent on a range of optional rules that were non-standard. There was also some changes to the AI scripting that impacted some reinforcements, dropping them into ocean hexes after we had completed testing. We were rightly castigated for releasing that title with these issues, yet surprisingly many people didn't notice and loved the title. Its easy to see why people were critical while other didn't understand the amount of discourse. We unfortunately saw less units of Japan '46 sold, possibly because of concerns post Japan '45 or more probably because people thought it was the same title. We would have probably been better served selling them as Olympic '45 and Coronet '46. One final point on these titles. We are debating whether we can bring these two titles back to 'standard' optional rules without breaking too much. We are looking to test both games to see if it has a material impact. I would love to hear from anyone who would like to provide us with feedback trying a few of the Japan series scenarios using a more standard series of optional rules. So to wrap up this long post, we will always put history before playability, at least for any scenario marked as historical. We have traditionally added variants where appropriate to up the 'fun factor', but I think Mike & Dave got the right mix in Scheldt '44. We were at the upper limit of the number of scenarios we wanted to release and more variants would have meant more testing, more time in production and no chance of you having the game pre-Xmas. Please do read the players note, post here regularly with your questions and we will try our best to convince you why we have things the way they are. In my eyes, the realism IS the playability - I want the same restriction on me that they had historically - now what would I do...? Thanks, David PS And just to underline what realism junkies we are, see the latest WDS blog post on the effort expended to get the 'history' right in these titles. KV-85 Tanks and Rabbit Holes RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Outlaw Josey Wales - 12-09-2020 Technically, the only historical accuracy is at the start of the game. Everything after that is what you choose to do. Cdr's didn't get replays to watch. You have an advantage already, if you choose to use it. I don't. The more time I spend on replays, the less time I spend on playing and I would much rather play than watch videos. I got EFII in Dec 94 and haven't watched replays since sometime in 95. Personally, I think replays should be an optional rule. RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - typhoon - 12-09-2020 What a great thread and some great contributions. It's good to see this hobby we all enjoy so much alive and well. I'm not going to wade in except to say I have not been put off just got to wait for Mrs Santa it's certainly top of my list. Which I might add also includes one of the Japanese titles probably 46 just because it's a bigger Campaign and also a couple or if lucky 3 of the Napoleonic's which I'm only now just starting to enjoy. Also I want to add that it's these titles that are responsible for me at least increasing my knowledge ten fold on WW2 I started with Normandy many moons ago because that was the latest title and I had never heard of Smolensk at that time. After Normandy Smolensk soon followed along with a whole heap of books and wow all the Pz titles except the two in the Pacific. I still personally prefer the East Front games just because that part of the conflict always interested me more though Bulge and Normandy are way up there they both play very well. Others would argue for the desert and the only reason the Japanese titles are missing from my collection is the Pacific I'm afraid is rock bottom on my interest list sorry about that it's just the way it is. Sorry I've waffled loads now and gone completely off topic except to say that it's each to their own and every now and then you find something else your really not looking for at that time and then you got to run with it. I'm looking forward to playing the Scheldt 44 Campaign I know only that it was something that was supposed to be done a lot sooner than what it was and became overshadowed by events elsewhere but no doubt there are some great books and I personally will have a lot of fun with it. RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Mr Grumpy - 12-09-2020 Thank you David for your comments/feedback, always appreciated. Also well done for the brave decision to look again at the default optional rules in J45/46, lets hope using more standard selection does not break the titles and will allow that change to be made, good luck with that project. Just goes to show how important the optional rule selection is in any title/scenario should anyone wonder why some of us on these boards make such a noise about optional rules and their effects. 
RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Strela - 12-10-2020 Apologies to all, I seemed to have single handedly closed down this thread with my post. That was not my intention, so please feel free to carry on! RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Kool Kat - 12-11-2020 (12-10-2020, 08:37 PM)Strela Wrote: Apologies to all, I seemed to have single handedly closed down this thread with my post. David:  There were three posts following your last detailed one, so I don't believe this thread is "closed." I appreciate the developers weighing in on this important topic and there has been good discussion. Personally, after being involved in four PBeM Scheldt '44 games, I can definitively state that this game is "not my cup of tea." Thankfully players can choose from a large selection of PzC games covering the Eastern, Western, Mediterranean, and Pacific theaters. Please continue this discussion as you see fit, but I am moving on to other theaters. Good gaming everyone! RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - CountryBoy - 12-11-2020 I think Nico165 said it best early in this thread: each game should be treated like a book, educating and informing you about the battle, the conditions, the troops and a myriad other factors. You may not enjoy slogging through the marshes of the Scheldt estuary, just like the commanders in real life hated it too. How more realistic can you get than that? Well done to all involved. RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Saddlesore - 12-15-2020 In my prior post I said I wouldn't buy Scheldt because I felt it wasn't my bag, I've decided to do a 180 and give it a go. I played three fun and interesting battles in France 40 that were done my Mike Prucha, where I had my butt handed to me by BigDuke66. Even though I lost two out of three, with the other a Draw, they were a real challenge and a real hoot. At the end of the day, I know I've got an excellent product and supporting the developers is important. Have a good one RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Compass Rose - 12-15-2020 What scenarios did you play? RE: Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability? - Saddlesore - 12-16-2020 We played the following in the order shown, I had the Allied (Dutch), while my opponent had the Axis. The results are for the Allied side: 0510_07: No Artillery, No Reserves, No Hope, Minor Defeat 0511_1: The Field Army Defeated, Draw 0510_08: A Bridge Too Far?, Major Defeat Even though I lost two out of three, with a draw in-between they were interesting and challenging scenarios as the Allies. I would recommend them. Of the three, the Field Army Defeated has the least area for maneuver. Have a good one |
){kind=link}