<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />I think the designers have done a terrific job of achieving play-balance in the historical situations.
MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
The Union Forever! Huzzah!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, I can understand this, given the Yankee sympathist in our midst [8D], but <i>terrific</i> may be just slightly too sweeping a generality to lay to rest our play balance concerns (which in part explains a key difference of opinion as observed at the head of this thread.)
The fact is, there are just so many - perhaps too many - scenarios, "historical" this and 'historical' variant that, coupled to the always ambitious if now more than ever mixed-bag of inscrutable campaign scenario variations that for any one individual, let alone small circle of ardent insider-playtesters to actually conduct equally critical and fair examinations of each and every one of these hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios for "play-balance" really stretches one's imagination.
Issue #1: The emphasis on quantity (scenarios) over quality.
(Tiller's small team of amateur "designers" (because no one here is going to be confused with a Joe Balkowski, Richard Berg, James Dunnigan, etc., etc. - who proved themselves both equal parts skilled, professional "designer" and analog "programmer" - all at the same time, mind you), while demonstrating energy, passion, and almost heroic determination to provide Tiller's program with a host of new scenarios around a single campaign motif, are and always have been wholly confined to <i>design</i> ONLY what Tiller's program allows.)
Issue #2: That being, whether - consciously or unconsciously - is play balance leaning more and more, with each passing game in the series, towards boosting Union tactics and Union strategies (grand-tactics). Like injecting little daily shots of human-growth hormone, perhaps, no one will notice? Are such daily injections really necessary to address "play balance" concerns - while being absolutely faithful to what Tiller's program can and cannot do? [?]
Examples,
<u>Tactical Play Balance Issues</u>
-- USA batteries vs CSA sections / pieces. [?]
-- USA Command Range <i>now</i> equals CSA Command Ranges. [?]
<ul>Did the USA player really need this to 'make his ends meet'? </ul>
-- USA division-level command vs CSA Brigade-level 'control' ("Historical" 1st Manassas scenarios) [?]
<ul>Play balance with a twist?</ul>
-- "Fixing" Cocke's brigade while "releasing" Tyler's division. ("historical" 1st Manassas variant 103 and other) [?]
<ul>A Play Balance 'assist' that doubly twists in the wind?</ul>
<u>Strategic Play Balance Issues</u>
-- Increased USA VP 'incentives' and 'opportunities' - Bill's 1st Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg examples, etc.. [?]
-- Yankee 'Banzai' 1st Manassas "Meeting" Engagement 'setups'. [?]
(USA troops quietly (secretly) enter from the North, North-east, North-west portions of the map, while CSA troops enter from due West and South of the map, having no clue . We began this scenario with tremendous anticipation - thinking the idea of a geneuine, Fog-shrouded Meeting Engagement (ala the kind that really typified Gettysburg's opening day - e.g., without knowing precisely where the enemy was) sounded great - until the CSA perceived he had been given "Sudley Springs-on-Steroids" all over again, reprising the Union flank attack that McDowell envisioned, except, this time without a creek for Beauregard to lean on.
No one, as far as I know, has concluded that "Design" and "Play Balance" issues are consciously being tilted or skewered to favor the Union player, acknowledging the enthusiastic Yankee sympathists even in our presence here - and despite their playing key roles in both scenario creation (design) and playtesting. But there appears to be a growing <i>battery</i> of evidence to suggest that the unconscious may be playing more of a role than might prove desirable to all interests.
I trust a full congressional Sub-Committee of sympathizers and round table insiders will soon convene to have a good and proper hearing, eventually getting to the root of the problem, if only to conclude that a few extra yankee chit-pulls never hurt no one.
Fld. Lt. D. Shoeless, CSA
Secretary of the Cabinet (Ret)
1st Tenn Provisional Army
<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>
|