Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability?

[Mike Prucha]

Gent: 

My argument is that flexibility does not equate to balance, but instead leads to more engagement of the player with the game. I contend that a player's mind must be engaged and stimulated to maintain interest in a game.  
 
If historical accuracy and outcomes are paramount in a design, then the results are limited options, programmed movements / actions, and limited player flexibility. I content that such a design may have novelty at the start, but that players after a short time with such a design will not be fully engaged or interested. They quickly work out what must be done (or can be done) and move on to other games. Such designs do not encourage players to think creatively. It is more a historical simulation then a game. 

I am a player who values historical accuracy, but not at the expense of player flexibility and creativity. Scheldt '44 is designed with a specific type of player in mind. A niche market within a niche market. I am quickly discovering that I am not a Scheldt '44 player, but more of a desert or Russian steppes player. And that's ok. Mike - you stated that Scheldt ' 44 is "not everyone's cup of tea." I wish I had come to this conclusion before I purchased Scheldt '44.      

Hi Koolcat,
 
Sounds like Scheldt ’44 is not your thing and that’s quite alright!
 
I entirely agree that the scenarios that you listed provide players with relatively few options and I understand that because of this some players might not find them appealing. In my view, though, this has more to do with the small scale – limited map area, limited time, limited objectives, limited unit roster – and nature of the actions represented  than it does with the presence of some fixed units or a desire on our part to force a historic outcome.
 
I’d like to offer my take on the three scenarios you said you had played or are playing – Antwerp, Moerbrugge, Walcheren. In the Antwerp scenario, there are no fixed Allied units and most German units are released fairly quickly. In PBEM play the scenario is unlikely to end in a historic result because players have freedom to deviate from history – the German player, for instance, could choose to hold the Antwerp forts longer than their historic counterparts or abandon them sooner, he could deploy 719. ID behind the Albert Canal as in history, he could advance it into the city center, or skirt around the eastern side of the city to attempt to attack 11th Armoured’s flanks – all of these have the potential to result in very different outcomes. Admittedly, there are not that many choices, but this is entirely due to the size and nature of the scenario rather than an effort on our part to force a historic outcome. I will say that I think Antwerp is a very strange scenario with an odd assortment of troops and an odd situation with the Belgian partisans in the rear, and it definitely won’t be everyone’s favorite, but I don’t see an intrinsic playability issue with the scenario nor is it in anyway bound to end historically.
 
 At Moerbrugge there are quite a few fixed Canadian and Polish units in the rear. Most of the fixed Canadian units are released on turn 3 (and some will be spotted and released sooner), so I think there is plenty of time to employ them as you wish. You will have to wait longer for one of the Canadian tank battalions to become available and the Polish armor in the rear remains fixed. As explained in the notes, these units were out of fuel and needed time for maintenance. They are not fixed for the purpose of forcing the Allied player to follow history, but to reflect the reality that this scenario comes at the end of the 200ish mile dash from Normandy and that these formations had outrun their service echelons and base of supply and were consequently in bad shape and unavailable for combat operations. The fixed Polish armor in the rear definitely could have been omitted from the scenario as they played no role in the fighting (as explained in the notes, they were placed for historic interest and to help put the operations into context) but I would not view releasing them as a valid option as it would ignore the historic situation and provide the Allies with more units than they historically had available. There is no way for the Allied player to win this scenario, but that is because the situation that is represented is impossible. We could make a hypothetical scenario that explores “what if the Canadians and Poles were better supplied and could devote more resources to the attack” and that would undoubtedly be a more competitive scenario. Another thing we could have done to allow for more flexibility is to cover the runup to the Gent-Brugge Canal – that way the Allied player would have more choice in where he decides to cross, but actions leading up to this scenario are already roughly included in the larger “Herbststurm” scenario.
 
Walcheren does not offer much room for flexibility or creativity from either player, and so I think this is definitely not a scenario that you would enjoy. But I also don’t think that there is much that could have been done from a design standpoint to add room for flexibility or creativity – it is an assault against fixed fortifications on that ring a flooded island after all! Releasing 52nd Lowland sooner would allow the Allied player to put into action sooner (for what it’s worth, the division is fixed because the Allies were initially under the assumption that the Sloe was too sandy for boats and therefore impassible, and a useable rout was only discovered a few days after the operation commenced), but this wouldn’t actually create any new options for the Allied player – he can either attack across Walcheren Causeway or across the Sloe. Perhaps a version of the scenario could have been designed which would allow the Allied player to customize Operation Infatuate with alternate landing sites, etc (which, now that I am thinking about it, sounds like a good idea), but even then, once the scenario is started, the terrain is just as restrictive and there are only so many ways to go about things.
 
I definitely understand why you don’t like these scenarios. Truth be told, Moerbrugge is not my favorite scenario either, though it was fun to research & design and I think that it is significant action that was worth representing. If you don’t like these scenarios, I would say that there are probably a lot of the scenarios in Scheldt ’44 that you won’t like either and agree with your assessment that Scheldt ’44 might not be the game for you.
 
I do value flexibility and want players to exercise creativity, and this was a consideration in every scenario (aside from the "getting started" scenarios), but I also think balance, pacing, and historic context and authenticity are very important as well. All of these are absolutely interrelated, and unfortunately they are often at odds with one another. I always tried to find what I deemed to be a satisfying blend of these elements, but I think there is wide room for disagreement over what exactly the right blend is in any given scenario. I think you and I would prioritize these differently in manycases – and that’s okay! As for the slow pace of many of the scenarios and sometimes restrictive terrain, that’s a historical reality of the time and place covered Scheldt ’44 that can’t be avoided. The slow pace won’t be to everyone’s liking, but that’s okay too – that’s part of why there are 24 (I think) PzC titles and counting! One takeaway that I have from this conversation is that in some future projects it may be desirable to create more alternate or hypothetical versions of scenarios which might appeal to different players' tastes.
 
Lastly, I would really suggest that you at least try either the Herbststurm or Albert Canal scenarios in a PBEM. There’s much more room for maneuver and the pacing is generally quicker than in the typical Scheldt ’44 scenario and, from what I gather, might be a little more to your liking. I won’t guarantee it – maybe you’ll hate them – but I think it would be worth a try. I will also say, without divulging too much information prematurely, that David M and I are working on a new project which is very different from Scheldt ’44 and might be more up your alley.
 
-Mike P