On Tactics and Turns

[fastphil]

I've been saying for awhile about larger and longer scenarios to add more strategy to the games. Don't get me wrong, they are all great games, IMO. I have an opponant that I am playing 12 different titles, being the same side all the way through started at the top of the scenario list and playing every one no matter balance or anything and both playing blind. The fun part besides having a great opponant is it seems we both are playing to win, but doesn't seem either of us are paying much attention to the victory conditions than we are just playing and letting the points be what they are. We see where the objectives are, but having them doesn't necessarily guarantee victory in any particular scenario, casualties and especially vehicles account for many points.

Anyway, I keep saying since somebody has recreated some scenarios from ASL, why not take a look at some of the Steel Panthers scenarios and try recreating a couple there in different titles and see how they work out. Also, try converting a couple from Campaign Series as well. I know they are different scales, but it can be done. Campaign Series has a unit of Panthers with a strength of 4, then you create a platoon of Panthers with 4 tanks. One inf unit in CS is roughly a platoon, so you just create a platoon of inf in SBs conversion. One hex of open terrain in CS equates to how many hexes in SBs and then you add that many in the area. There are plenty or scenarios in Steel Panthers that could also be tried for AIW, RSoE as well as the ww2 titles. Would also be nice to see some of the early war scenarios make it to the series.

I think it would be great to see a system similar to CS about random generated battles with the actual OOBs for each army each year. Meeting Engagements of up to a division chosen by each opp knowing which div they are facing or not as an option. Each person has the whole division to choose from and bring in as much or as little as they want. One person might bring his whole division on eventually while his opp may choose to only use one bde since he is doing so well. Having the scenarios open ended as far as turns go would make it where one has to concede the battle at some point if he is getting slaughtered. Maybe they get x amount of points to bring in units of their choosing after several turns. Hidden points for different areas on the map that would enable you to get help sooner or just leave it up to each player to bring in what they want, of course when getting a unit, you may or may not have it set that they get them that turn or x amount of turns later.

IMO, winning and losing is less important than the fun in playing is the real victory for us all.

Something to think about.

Go to JT's website-you will see Panzer Battles 'coming soon'. That is supposed to be the bridge between SB and PC.

The length of the SB's scenarios is always discussed during playtesting. I always like to see a few more turns especially when attacking. I'm on the attack in RV and I just know my opponent wishes the game were alot shorter. Usually the games have a mix of long and short scenarios. Rich and the developers always try to get a mix of scenarios just for that reason. If it really bothers you, be selective and only play the long ones as the attacker. ust kidding.