H2H.. A Way Ahead

[K K Rossokolski]

This a restart of von Luck's post on this subject, which got sidetracked into duscussion on the Norwegian Campaign, including, of all things the brief battlecruiser action off Narvik. I include myself among the offenders.

I have been in the club since 2000 and H2H has been a sore point all that time. Many scens go in, few come out. Early this year(?) was the last big debate on the subject, which, as always on this subject, solved nothing.
I believe the fundamental difficulty remains the question of "balance" whatever that term may mean.
I can only address this matter as it applies to the Campaign Series.

I suggest a completely new approach..less top down more market driven. This will, I believe, allow the club to maintain an appropriate level of QC, while allowing a quick process for that QC

Assumptions: New scenarios are needed to keep the club flourishing
The H2H system as it exists does not work....many new scenarios are posted without any club input at all.
The Club has a right to maintain defined quality standards for scenarios published on its website. These standards need not be complex or demanding. But this right needs some system to enforce it.
" Balance" is a long term source of argument. A designer will try to design a scenario to meet his own ideas of what the term means. The market will decide the playability of a scenario over time.
JTCS developments have changed "balance" factors for all pre-existing scenarios.

Proposal:
For a scenario to be acceptable, it needs to fulfill some simple requirements....
Identified as historical, historically based, or hypothetical* (see below)
The map is a reasonable depiction of the area in question ( if not a hypothetical). No elevation jumps > the ability of the map generator to hafdle (currently 3). No rivers running uphill. That sort of stuff.

The organisation properly tied together in a hierarchical fashion, and in accord with the nature and time frame of scenario subject.
The scenario checked for errors, omissions and anomalies.

The club establish a panel of say 10 or a dozen 100+ active players, who will have the job of vetting new scenarios. Each new scenario should be checked by three panelists, who will agree to accept or suggest changes to the work. Designers will not check their own designs.

That's a picture of my idea...the KISS principle applies.

* My ideas of scenario classifications are
Historical: A scenario depicting as far as possible an actual event, using the map, org and scen files to create a historically correct starting point. How it plays out is another matter.

Hypothetical: Any scenario either wholly imaginative or outside the time frame of actual events eg a Soviet attack on NATO forces in 1948 or an extension of WWII into 1946.

Historically based: A scen examining issues of WWII which were possible but did not occur eg D-Day at pas-de-Calais, the existence of a French armoured army in 1940.

It really doesn't matter whether a scen is "balanced" or not. People will play what they want to play, and as we have seen some scens become "classics"...... because the market has decided this. Other scens will languish without clients.(I won't use the obvious metaphor because of my natural delicacy). All they do is take up a little space.

*I acknowledge the breakdown of the latter two might be awkward.