On Map, Off Map, what is the consensus please?

[Dan Caviness]

Hello Fellow Blitzers:

Recently it came to my attention that one of my scenarios which had been played twice was not reported. The players didn't report the games because of the ON MAP aircraft in the scenario, which they don't like. I mean they really don't like them. They consider it a fatal flaw that ruins a scenario.

I get it, they have issues.

Our goal/My goal is to design scenarios that:

1. We want to research.
2. We want to see modeled.
3. We want to have played.

We/I find out how well we're doing along these lines when:

1. Games are reported.
2. AAR's are filed.
3. Someone emails us to tell us what sucks and what doesn't.

I don't try to please everyone, can't be done, but I do try to create scenarios that are fun to play and generate some traction with those who enjoy the big fights.
PLEEEAASE contact me to help further my efforts along these lines.

I put my email in every READ ME file, and every scenario introduction dialog.

Just trying to feel out the Blitz majority consensus here.
Is the consensus to "ixnay axnay" and put the kibosh on the ON MAP aircraft?
I can understand it if that's where we are.
I won't miss 'em.
Just need to know.

Issues include the "unshootable" American "bullet proof" bomber, players mis-using attack planes as spotters, etc., etc...

Unless I hear different I'm going to avoid adding them to any future scenarios.

Not trying to generate debate, as I don't have a vested interest either way. It's just that it really hurts when you find out that players have played something you worked on and decided to not report it due to this ON MAP feature, or any other reason for that matter and you never even knew.

Thanks for any input/feedback on this issue you wish to provide.


Regards,

Dan