Thank you all.... :)

[Mr Grumpy]

I would like to say a big thank you to all the players who came forward to help test, you are all doing a great service to the whole PzC community :bow:

Sgt Barker wrote....

"Having played for a while now I think I know an answer. Time and taking the job seriously. It just takes time to play a game like this. Figure at minimum 10-20 minutes a turn. More if it’s big and/or I’m taking some notes (is that sad? “I/45th Arty  Ovrigogo” so I don’t forget, again, to get the bloody unit in range, and that sort of thing). Being old, employed, in a family way and with all the rest of life competing, play time is at a premium. And playtesting, done right (which any who volunteer for it in PzC will want to do), is even more time consuming than a regular game. Nobody wants to do it and come up with a simple “Great, loved it.” Or worse, a criticism that is bogus, based on something missed by the tester. To be valuable a playtester wants to contribute, and that takes thought and time.

I praise to the skies those of you who contribute to the game by putting out scenarios. It’s the life blood of a wargame like this. Lack of playtesters is a drag. I blame society."

It is great to get some feedback to help me understand how players view testing and the H2H, i would like to add that while i understand that any potential tester want's to do the best job and putting "scenario was ok" in the report is no great help, we are just looking for good honest feedback on what you liked/disliked about the scenario and (if you have any) suggestions on how it might be improved, you don't need to be a clever person to fill in the report it is very straight forward. :)

In the case of the two scenarios we are testing now, Ed aka Volcano Man is the editer and he will be more than happy to read your comments on his work and he has no problem with constructive criticism, i should know i have sent him enough! LOL :rolleyes:

So if my comments has made any more players want to try a test out, just let me know, i don't bite honest! LOL :smoke:

[Volcano Man]

Yes testing is indeed hard work. Hopefully everyone will remember exactly how much work is done by the designers and testers every time they get a new JT game.

Also, just to clarify, I would like to stress that I am not the "designer" of most of these _Alt scenarios, I am just an "editor". Glenn, Blackie, Wig Graves, Greg Smith and Mike Avanzini are usually the designers in most of the original PzC scenarios and I don't want to steal any of their credit. I just come up with new unit values / ratings and make changes to accomodate and to make it a more balanced PBEM experience with the new values. Of course coming up with the new unit values has taken years of work, but I just kind of plug them in and start balancing from there.

Well, the good news is that I have even modified my own scenarios, having recently released the Korea '85_Alt and Compass '40. In this case I can claim to be the designer and the editor. :) Oh well, this just goes to show that nothing is safe from the _Alt modifications.

[Mr Grumpy]

Thank you Ed for putting that right :) my choice of words was very poor :( in no way do we wish to claim any credit for the original design, most of Ed's work and all of mine is based on existing scenarios produced by the designers he mentioned, we then tweak various aspects of the map/PDT or OOB to balance the scenario for H2H play. :cool:

I tend to use the word "designer" as that is all the H2H system gives me, we don't have a "editer" option! :hissy: