Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability?

[Mike Prucha]

Hello all,

Very fun to see this discussion!

I will address a few of the main points.

First, I will say that balancing history vs. gameplay is often tricky, sometimes compromises need to be made, many design decisions will have both positive and negative ramifications that need to be weighed, and sometimes there is no “right” or even “good” answer.

My goal was to re-create, as much as possible, the challenges faced by Allied & German commanders in Autumn ’44, and the pacing and & “feel” of these campaigns. This means that most of the scenarios are intended to be slow and will require players (especially the Allied player) to exercise a patient and methodical approach. Morale values, supply levels, etc. are intended to capture the historic situation and performance of the Commonwealth armies (which, as was noted earlier in this conversation, was not exactly superb in this place at this time) and to encourage a realistic handling of Commonwealth forces. This is going to mean concentrating on a narrow front, frequently rotating infantry units in and out of line, and relying on firepower over maneuver. I enjoy the methodical approach that is required, though I also fully recognize that it might not be everyone’s “cup of tea” and that some may strongly prefer the wide open spaces in North Africa or Russia to the muddy slog that is the Scheldt Campaign. (Though I would note that some of the September-period scenarios do offer much more room for maneuver).

As for fixed units and release times, the goal is almost never to restrict players to only following history, but instead to encourage a historic pacing and make a historic outcome possible. There are more factors at play than “Could Battalion X technically have moved on turn 1?” All scenarios, even the larger scenarios are a sub-set of a larger whole. In a small scenario, a PzC player only has to be responsible for his division or corps for a few days, but his historic counterpart also had to consider what happened previously and would have to ensure that his unit had fighting strength moving forward. One of the ways we can model these considerations is through fixed units and releases. In some cases, a given formation may not have been ready for action on Turn 1 of a scenario, either because it was recovering from a recent action, it had just arrived or was arriving, it was low on supply, etc. Balance is also a consideration, particularly in the smaller scenarios. In some situations, prematurely releasing units could severely unbalance a scenario.

Let’s consider #1006_01_Hoogerheide. This scenario covers the Canadian push north from Antwerp from October 6th-8th. 4th CIB leads the attack, while the Belgians and some elements of 6th CIB cover the right flank. 5th CIB, tired from a week of hard fighting, is in reserve. Most Allied units start fixed but are incrementally released throughout the scenario. Sure, for the first couple of turns the Allied player is pretty restricted – the scenario will start with 4th CIB attacking northward. But as the situation develops and units are released, a range of options will open. The result is very much doubt – there is a strong possibility that it might end with a historic result, but depending on both players choices and the outcome of virtual die rolls, the Allied player very well could exceed history or fall short of history. (As a disclaimer, I think this scenario is much more competitive against a human opponent than against the AI – the AI doesn’t always handle its reinforcements very well)

Now what would happen if every unit were released on Turn 1? The Allied player would have more flexibility from Turn 1, but most all Allied players would commit 6+ battalions very early in the scenario. This would result in 346. I.D. getting steamrolled early and totally ignore the historic consideration that 5th CIB needed time to recover. In this case, I do not believe that added flexibility would translate to more compelling gameplay. You would go from having a scenario that I think is fairly well-balanced (though it is darn scary for the German player in the first day and half or so) and does a pretty good job of capturing the ebb-and-flow of the historic battle to a scenario which always results in an Allied victory and does not even vaguely resemble that battle it is meant to represent. Certainly there could be improvements made to when units are released and I am sure there are some scenarios where perhaps players could or should have been allowed more flexibility. My point is just that more flexibility doesn’t always equal a more balanced game and that more thought was put into this than just trying to force players to recreate history.

There are a few scenarios that are very lop-sided and there is really no possibility of the Allied player winning – Moerbrugge and Vitality I come to mind. In both cases Allied expectations both vastly exceeded what was actually possible and I tend to think that trying to make competitive scenarios out of these actions would be missing the point – you would either have to set the bar incredibly low for the Allied player or deviate dramatically from the historic deployment & capabilities of each side.

Lastly, I just want to say that I really enjoyed reading this thread. I love a good historic or gaming or historic gaming debate, and it is really great to see opinions and feedback, both from the perspective of identifying things that could be improved about a Scheldt ’44 and things that we can think about in future projects.

-Mike P