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
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
