So I see that Alan and everyone supporting (i.e., play-testers) are nearing a new milestone for ETO and Update Kit ... so some release is over the horizon. (yeah!)
Graham and I have been doing our own "play-testing" with ETO 042 and the 0.4 Update Kit ... however, I've been following the changes that are posted on social media (CSW, BGG, FB) and find it impossible to keep up with those changes in our game. For example, the Soviet Mech for 4-5-4s and EPs didn't make it past my turn 3 before it changed yet again. But that's okay because it is play-testing.
Now I understand this is because I'm playing PBEM using VASSAL. However, what I don't understand (and not speaking for Graham here) is that each iteration I've been through, the game appears pro-Soviet. Yet the "tweaks" I see every so often appear to support a pro-German play-test result of some form.
So I ask, do any of the play-testers use PBEM, or is it all FTF? Seems like there is more opportunity to mess up as USSR if playing fast and FTF, than at leisure where I can keep adjusting a defense that suits me using PBEM.
Hi Alan, Thanks for some more insight into the whole development process. Just some more thoughts I hope to convey ... not sure it came across.
""That is SO MUCH easier to do for scenarios that last 2 hours than ones that last 20. It's a great idea, but I am not sanguine about its practical application to a mini-monster game...""
All this assumes that the current group of play-testers, and the designers and developers, know exactly what's going on, and what will go on in the future. And that is the trap.
I give you Mark Herman's example again, which is non-ASL related. Mark has designed games that one side wins all the time when released (meaning he and the play-testers didn't get it right) ... and yet years later, as people play more and exploit and learn the system, it flips to the other side winning. So they still got it wrong! Hey man ... this crap is hard to do, obviously. lol. So years later, it still requires some reworking.
You told me you hope to get this done before we all depart this world ... so wouldn't it make sense to make sure this legacy can face those play balance challenges in the future with optional rules you vetted out in the past? Basically to still steer the game from the great beyond.
What you would do then is have the POTENTIAL balance rules act as Optionals. Just list them out. They are not required to play. Go ahead and finalize the rules right now (but I'll bet your favorite beverage it won't stand the test of time). By having them in the rule book, it conveys a degree of legitimacy (as opposed to independently presented by future vocal netizens). That way, years later, it'll still be a complete game.
It doesn't take anything away from the game, and is an insurance policy for the future.
Again, just my 0.02 zlotey.
Brian
Of course, handicapping or not is up to Frank, Alan and Lance. For what it's worth, I basically agree with Sielski, but would limit handicaps to things that do as little damage to the story boarding as possible. A key variable could relate to PP's, for example. I think players could benefit from suggestions about mid-game handicaps, also. The campaigns are sooo long, and some players might appreciate suggested aids at periodic points to try and keep the game competitive IF both players were in agreement at the time of selection. Or, this could be offered unofficially in articles and such. How often does a game of TITE 1 or 2 actually reach late '42+ from June '41, to say nothing of being competitive?
Every scenario has a balance provision ... one for each side. So if the person believes the USSR is stronger, then use the German balance. And vice versa. This also allows for side/balance bidding.
That is SO MUCH easier to do for scenarios that last 2 hours than ones that last 20. It's a great idea, but I am not sanguine about its practical application to a mini-monster game...
No matter how you slice it, you really can't teach players to be at ease with successful panzer operational dogma. We're just to used to walking up to the enemy line, factor-counting, and trying to bludgeon your way to victory. Putting your best units forward into places fraught with counter-attack peril makes players nervous, yet that's how the Axis racked up their great successes.
If that is the case ... then let me propose as an option what we do in ASL.
Every scenario has a balance provision ... one for each side. So if the person believes the USSR is stronger, then use the German balance. And vice versa. This also allows for side/balance bidding.
The balance can be anything Alan/Frank desires. Right now, it seems like it is tough to get a game balanced "naturally" and there are two factions (I fall in the Soviet is overpowered camp).
As an example, a balance provision for Soviets could be ?-5 Mech's can be upgraded to 4-5-4s, etc. Or, you can have a number of different balance provisions that can be decided upon ala carte. Otherwise, use the standard rule.
Realistically, all these play test options can be piled into a Balance Provision section (No RPs to buy IPs, Mech's to 4-5-4, no Large or Medium Events cards following month, certain cards not available or available, etc.). It puts the ONUS on the players to figure it out, and allows the ETO series to develop faster, without all the back and forth tweaking.