N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error?

[Glenn Saunders]

I think VM is doing the best he can within the constraints of the existing PzC system.

Guys - I promised myself I would stay out of this one but what to hell - may as well jump in.

This is a scn which should have never shipped with the game in the first place. I said that before the game released but the designer, Wig Graves thought it was neat.

Consider it was created when the only PzC on the market had panzers division with only 15 units - btln strength Panzer units with 50 to 85 tanks in a single non-breakdownable counter.

We had two types of fire rules and we didn't even understand the implications on the victory levels if you switched the fire rules.

Since then we've come a long way - added a lot to the game - we can do a lot more things - similate a lot of battles better with tons of new feature. But this is a small tactical battle which lasted a very short period of time and should never have been attempted in an operational scale game.

That it is yet again the subject of debate such as this is too bad.

If you don't like the Values Wig Graves assigned - use Eds. If you don't like Ed, try your own. If you don't have any values you think are better than play one of the other 56(?) scn that shipped with this game.

PzC work pretty damn good at simulating many aspects of operational battle. It can't do everything perfectly and it has a lot of generalities built into them which all taken together tend to even out. You have to consider the bigger picture here.

Glenn