Type of scenario

[Steelrain60]

1) I prefer a historical scenario, although an intelligently done hypothetical one is good, too. I prefer a mid-size meeting engagement to a giant. The game system does best with regimental- or brigade-sized engagements; some changes need to be made in order for divisional- or corps-sized engagements to become less tedious to play.

2) I dislike scenarios that are billed as for human play, but are inherently imbalanced, such as EFII's "The Last Retreat". I also dislike scenarios in which it is extremely difficult for either side to get anything other than a draw, such as "A Dose of 45" (sorry, Jason). I also dislike scenarios billed for human play in which one side has a lot of fixed units without cause ("Bukrin Bridgehead"). Scenarios in which one side has a weapons system for which the other side has no antidote ("Terror at Borisov", "Advance Towards Trondheim"). EFII scenarios where one side has lots of bunkers/pillboxes and lots of smoke ("Bake to the Rescue"). Any scenario where the outcome, for whatever reason, is virtually pre-determined ("Uhlans on the Moors").

3) Ideal scenario is one requiring a lot of strategic and tactical thought. Good examples: WF - "Strike of the Lehr", "When Big Cats Come to Play", "Still Full of Fight", "Gabr Saleh". EFII - "Tank Graveyard at Minsk", "Giants on the Vistula", "Playing with the Death's Head"; RS - "Struggle for Shoestring". Huib's "A Dutch Verdun", is to me an example of a nearly ideal scenario. Great OOBs + extremely detailed, accurate map = fierce, close-range fighting = stunning scenario!