If you test this way don't test at all

[McIvan]

1. Campaign Series is a GAME not a simulation so by definition you cannot have a historically accurate scenario past the first move, so after that, what's the point? surely to make the "game" interesting to the player, no?
2. If you design a historically accurate scenario, why would you need it play tested, why would you care if it was balanced or interesting for the gamer? so why ask? Get a critique from someone else who knows the minutia of the battle or is willing to study it. Don't ask a gamer and don't release it for general play.

For me it is so we can have the pleasure of seeing how our tactics would work faced with a real life problem. It is often intensely interesting to read up on the real battle and see how it went. Playing a historical scen often gives you a fresh understanding of the real thing.

Historical scenarios can be play balanced from the point of view of:

(a) Victory levels
(b) Victory hex placement
© Amount of VP given to each VP hex.

and play testing is extremely important for this.

[Von Luck]

Test scenarios as far as im aware are to try out new scenarios developed by members.Good bad rotten thats the idea of testing them.Be it historical or one made up its to get a play balance for future members current members etc.Dont get me wrong i apprieate all the effort members are doing to make their scenarios as historical as possible nice touch and welcome.To go to a previous message by Earl after the first turn the players decide on the outcome regardles of what actually happened.Yep i love the histoical maps force setup etc and well done long may you continue to do fine work on this part.No point in playing an historical battle where everything was not at least 80% right.Granted you cant get all info on certain battles etc so you comprimise to make up the difference to make it playable no big deal-IE playtest.Anyway hopefully the scenario designers wont give up and me and Huib have sent mail to each other and all is well.Saturday night my drinking night where i say all.Not drunk so my message is valid.

[Montana Mud]

Here's to you John. Psssssssssssssssssh. That's the sound of watered down bland American beer can being opened. The beer may suck, but the sentiment is there. 30 more to go and I'll be tuned up right.

[Montana Grizz]

I"ve play tested four scenario's and had no idea there was a certain skill requirement necessary before having done so?

This pathetic, but enthusiastic member was unable to provide feed back in terms of how to improve the game other than what I personally liked or disliked about the scenario in general.

At my skill level and the fact that I lost each contest certainly doesn't qualify me to assist the designer in improving the scenario.

I enjoyed each game and said as much. I explained what I liked and didn't like about a scenario and offered what little other opinion I felt qualified to include.

I can't imagine any designer being offended by my comments. Perhaps disappointed by the fact that I bothered to play the scenario, but not offended.

My intention was to be helpful and to also enjoy a new scenario.



Pat (Montana Gizz)

[Huib Versloot]

[Periander]

Forgive me for jumping in here but is there not some form of standardised feedback form (and example) for the use of testers?

Likewise is there no one "staff member" responsible for managing the testing of new scenarios. Surely it must be obvious that if the feedback is being sent directly from testers to the designers without any form of quality assurance feedback will be of a variable quality.

This works just as well for the testers, having a clear idea of what's required/expected of them gives then a goal and guidence helps promote a more professional approach.

Playing a game for fun and playing on to take it apart are two entirely different things.

Apologies if I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Periander aka Chris Wilson