"Realism" vs "Playability"

[Valor]

That "realism" or "simulation" and "playability" would contradict is just an assumption not backed up by examples. My own scenarios on average receive very good ratings so I assume for most people they are fun, yet I hardly compromise the historical situation.

The problem is not that some scenarios are "realistic" while others are not. I fully agree with Hawk, that it's impossible to talk about realism in simulation game. Every simulation is just simulation and every sense of "realism" is just subjective perception...

That "All scenarios" designed prior to 1.04 are now affected in their playability is not more than an assumption as well, not backed up by examples of certain scenarios, that we can try to see if the argument offered could be valid by playing the scenario and see for ourselves.

Just try playing "Ortona: Canadians Stalingrad"! With German spotter units (like some MG Pltns) very difficult to pull back due to assault rules, Axis can call in arty fire which kills Allied loaded infantry longer than designer assumed they would be able to. If you add 3 VP for every truck you will receive the answer. That would be about your examples.

I'm not saying that "every scenario balance" is affected. However there are some which are. And there is enough of them that this issue might be addressed. Just releasing the question by simple "not backed by examples" is a bit too easy riding.

Best regards

Slawek