ME - Constructive Feedback.....I hope!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Out of curiosity, I checked what the Scenario database has to say about East Front scenario play balance, per scenario ratings. I'll use the same analysis as Tiger88 did, with 7.5 being the breaking point:

267 scenarios are 7.5 or better (48.5%)
284 scenarios are lower than 7.5 (51.5%)
from a total of 551

West Front:

345 (48.8%)
362 (51.2%)
from a total of 707 scenarios

These are a bit positive, as there were a few scenarios with rating of "0" that I missed because they don't filter properly. But it does not change the big picture.

Compare those then to the analysis in the opening post, with 47% positive and 53% negative (no of scenarios for analysis is of course much less).

All this does not negate the fact that more testing and playtesters the better. But perhaps offers an interesting comparison. Obviously we want to do better than the statistic medium, so yes, do join in for the next Beta Brigade testing effort.

I'm a stats guy.
Is your "pool" of results from the listed H2H PBEM games? Or, did you sample all game reports where the designers said they were designed for H2H play?

What I found impossible to live with in the early ME play were the scenarios purported to be H2H that were so unbalanced it drove me crazy.
We got answers, such as above, that "we" (the unwashed) simply did not play the scenario the way we should have? That was the same excuse as when extreme assault was introduced.

Between the "new" line of sight rules, unbalanced scenarios, and general arrogance of responses I gave my ME away to the first taker. Even paying to ship it to them.

And, slightly off topic, this is what I fear about EF III and what we are going to see there. As above posted the (paraphrase) "you think that ME scenarios are not balanced, wait until you see the ones designed for Barbarossa". Yikes!
We are going to lose the tried and true existing H2H "balanced" scenarios for the ones that are thrown in that are for H2H play. But, when it is discovered that they are totally unbalanced, because "we" do not play them the way they are supposed to be played, it will just be brushed off for those of us who play regularly and expected better.

For those who want realism you do not have to sacrifice H2H play-ability. H2H play is what the club, the ladders, and PBEM is all about?

And, on another side note (concerning the tank with a crew of three) instead of creating new rules, how about using the guides that exist already in the early Russian and French designs that us a 50 or 75 point cost to fire, which reflects that? You either move or fire?

I do hope that the changes will be improvements. But, I honestly did not see that through the process and discussion during the updating of ME.

And, in keeping with the title of this thread, we could use more designers who put play balance first when uploading "for H2H" scenarios. That does not make them "fantasy" and it may take more work but, they will be truly better than what we were given?



HSL