Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability?

[Saddlesore]

I don’t own the game either. To me the quality and research of the title is excellent and I followed the development notes at WDS, but I don’t plan on buying it because it’s a campaign that doesn’t tickle my fancy, it’s the same reason I don’t own Salerno, just seems too confining.

With regard to playability, I agree with Koolcat, that the flexibility for having a playable battle is important. I’m not questioning the need to keep the campaign historically accurate, but I agree with Koolcat that the player shouldn’t be shackled to a historical outcome.

I understand alternate scenarios or choices for the player giving them better flexibility requires more labor for the developers and longer development time. That annoying opportunity cost thing comes into play. Excellent game, just not my bag.

[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

[Sir John Cope]

Many and sincere thanks to Mike Prucha for these "Design Notes", very much in the spirit of one of the founders of our hobby, Jim Dunnigan.

My own view is that, if the choice is between historicity and a reasonable simulation vs gameplay, I'll always choose the former. I do understand some of the observations above - as I remarked to my present opponent, Bioman, S44 is a rather Zen experience by comparison to my other experiences with PzC games.

But that's all to the good in my opinion: one of the thoughts this game has raised for me is how, for all that we habitually distinguish between WWI and WWII as static vs movement, that's really a function of a focus on certain famous campaigns of the second war. If this game is a fair simulation, then it's apparent the difference between 14-18 and 39-45 was not always so stark.

[Kool Kat]

Gent: 

"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." - Mike Prucha

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.      

[Nico165]

Sometimes I think of these games not only as games, but as some sort of history books. You don't just "play", you learn how it was to be the commander at the time. Sometimes it means you are in hopeless situations where all you can do is trying not to lose too much.

Kind of the same spirit as Graviteam tactics games. Most battles are not fair: either you have a clear advantage or your opponent has it.

What's important is knowing what you want and what's in the game. Not every scenario is good for competitive play. Design notes are very useful to get a better idea what's coming your way.

[All_American]

Scheldt '44 is a superbly researched and delicately crafted game, I am so far thoroughly enjoying my time with it. Not just playing it but also reading the design notes, and following the historical narrative alongside scenarios. Absolutely amazing title.

Implying that it is not worth the money is doing disservice to the amazing work put out by the team. It is not the first time this is happening either, as similar criticisms (by the same people nonetheless) were also directed towards Japan '45-'46 series.

Please take a moment and compare the quality of work WDS puts into each and every single one of its titles to other games on the market, wargame or not. I believe that would (or should, anyway) prompt you to change your tone.

[Kool Kat]

Scheldt '44 is a superbly researched and delicately crafted game, I am so far thoroughly enjoying my time with it. Not just playing it but also reading the design notes, and following the historical narrative alongside scenarios. Absolutely amazing title.

Implying that it is not worth the money is doing disservice to the amazing work put out by the team. It is not the first time this is happening either, as similar criticisms (by the same people nonetheless) were also directed towards Japan '45-'46 series.

Please take a moment and compare the quality of work WDS puts into each and every single one of its titles to other games on the market, wargame or not. I believe that would (or should, anyway) prompt you to change your tone.

Gent:

I contend that there are players who will embrace the game style of Scheldt '44 and there are other players who do not. 

Why do you take that player choice as a condemnation of the development team, WDS work efforts, and game titles that are on the market? I never stated it nor did I imply it.

I am a critic of Japan '45. Cite examples of unsubstantiated criticism of that game. I can start a new Japan '45 thread. 

While you gather examples, perhaps we should all embrace what Mike P. stated that Scheldt '44 is not "everyone's cup of tea?"

[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

[Mr Grumpy]

I agree that this is a great thread and kudos to Mike P for his detailed answers/comments and his willingness to address the constructive criticism of this new title, I know from long experience on these boards that having the designer available to bounce questions off can often help players with their frustrations about aspects of a title that they may not fully understand or appreciate why certain design decisions were taken.

I suspected that the decision to rate a number of CW formations at D rather than C quality might lead to some discussion, not because the decision is wrong, but rather than because D quality units can be tricky to play and require far more careful management, planning and patience when on the offensive than C quality units, it seems only a small step down from C to D but actually the penalties that the game system imposes on D quality troops can really blunt their effectiveness, it took me a lot of practise and some great advice from players like Rick B before I was able to feel that I had a handle on them, I could go on but one simple rule of thumb is that you must keep D quality units in green fatigue, once they go yellow they are near useless and have to be rotated out of the line to rest.

Historical accuracy over realism is a very difficult balance to achieve especially when you have to take the inner workings and the limitations of the game engine into account, then you have to factor into the mix the desire of PBEM players to have a number of balanced scenarios to enjoy, when a number of years ago I edited a few scenarios to improve PBEM play balance I decided that I would sacrifice a little historical accuracy to achieve improved playability, the result........I received an equal amount of feedback praising my edited scenarios as they were so enjoyable to play and criticism for that fact they were not 100% accurate, so I fully understand you cannot please all the people all of the time!! 

The great thing is we have over 20+ PzC titles and three FWWC titles, so no matter what your taste in games there is always something for everyone!

[Green]

Scheldt '44 is a superbly researched and delicately crafted game, I am so far thoroughly enjoying my time with it. Not just playing it but also reading the design notes, and following the historical narrative alongside scenarios. Absolutely amazing title.

Implying that it is not worth the money is doing disservice to the amazing work put out by the team. It is not the first time this is happening either, as similar criticisms (by the same people nonetheless) were also directed towards Japan '45-'46 series.

Please take a moment and compare the quality of work WDS puts into each and every single one of its titles to other games on the market, wargame or not. I believe that would (or should, anyway) prompt you to change your tone.

As a vocal critic of Japan '45, I take exception to your suggestion that I did a disservice to that title. I assume you include me in your generalization about a group that you refer to as 'the same people nonetheless'. Perhaps you could provide a list of names and explain which of the criticisms that these individuals made were baseless. Presumably you are aware that it was accepted that mistakes had been made in this title and that changes were required?

However, you say that these 'same people' have been doing a disservice to Scheldt '44. Apparently the same group has done this by implying the game is not worth the money. Oddly, I cannot find a single example of this let alone multiple examples by a group. Still I look forward to you providing quotations made by the members of the group that back up your statement.

The really important point here is that when people attack the right of others to express opinions it discourages meaningful discussion. Concerns have been raised in this thread and the designer and others have had a chance to respond. This is valuable process and provides useful information for everyone interested in these issues. Long may it continue.

These games are great but they are not perfect and they are not all created equal so I and others have opinions and preferences and should be free to express them. Of course, you are just as free to express your opinions but accusations should be backed by evidence if you want them taken seriously.