So Then What Does One Do When........

[Ivan]

Ed,

[/quote]

Adam,

If you ever read the old Talonsoft forums, or the ones here (especially those related to the H2H area) PBEM became more and more seen as the strength in keeping this game alive.

[/quote]

I used to read the Talonsoft forums. The difference between then and now is that Matrix and the crew actually want to listen to the people who play the game and welcome feedback.

[/quote]

I'm not sure of how many players think an unbalanced scenario played by e-mail is fun.
Talonsoft, and to some degree most scenario designers, try to taylor their scenarios to be balanced. How they achieve that balance can be debated. But, most would agree that balance was a factor.

[/quote]

I take your point, I do not necessarily disagree.

[/quote]
If you design a scenario against the AI, it will have to be made with a degree of finesse to provide both a challenge and keep it fun enough to play again? I've found some scenarios that were designed to play against the AI are well balanced H2H. But, I think they are the exception to the rule that was used to create them.

If I want simulation to trump a balanced game, I could simply read a history book? Why play a game? Once you start the first turn as a human, unless you have a history book in your lap, the simulation no longer simulates?

And, yes, to the comments of others. I believe that all scenarios will be effected by version 1.04. Many already have.
I do not think it is getting used to the new assault rules either. Delays in attacks change the speed of the game. In the end the result will be different from a fast paced to a slower paced game. It's all scale, mathematics, and the new luck.

For those that design simulations, please keep doing so. Most I have looked at seem like a lot of work was put into them.
I play by e-mail. I play for fun. I probably will not find much use for the simulation scenario but, I am sure that others might. It's worth it!

RR
[/quote]

The point I think I was trying to make is that we have never had a perfectly set of balanced scenarios. Therefore, a change in the assault rules or other changes will not necessarily alter the sum total of balanced scenarios. Some that were unbalanced may become more balanced for example. If I only wanted to play perfectly balanced scenarios I would have a very limited set of scenarios to play from. Sometimes the fun is beating the odds, overcoming a critical situation etc. This might not mean winning all the time, it might mean doing the best with what you have got. It would be quite easy for any player to tweak the victory conditions if their sole concern was balance with a view to a potential victory.

I actually agree with you that some of the results from the new assault rules do not always produce plausible outcomes. I think what we had before was worse in terms of realism and simulation however.

I thought it was really good of Matrix to listen to the concerns and to make the new rules optional.

I am unclear what your concern is now. It seem you are against any sort of change to what you regard as a classic game? Can you accept that there are many people who want to see change and who prepared to put up with teething problems to achieve that change?