No replies to this topic

[healey36]

Back when our game group was still a functioning body, we played a fair bit of Mein Panzer on a semi-regular schedule. It wasn’t difficult to convene a group of 6-10 players for some fairly large two-day micro-armor battles (quantities of painted miniatures tended to be more of a limiting factor than how many folks wanted to play). Still, it wouldn’t be unusual to have north of a hundred “units” on a ping-pong size table (5’ x 9’). The thought of fielding a Panther battalion or a Soviet tank regiment with all of its armor and support units was not beyond the pale.

Father Time was not good to us, however, and the number of group members, for various reasons, gradually diminished. With it went the size of the scenarios, as rounding up a half-dozen players became nigh impossible. One thing that did get bigger was the scale of the miniatures, an effort to combat the vagaries of failing eyesight. The era of the operational scenario receded, replaced by the tactical or hyper-tactical engagement.

Recently, with the help of a few mates, we’ve been resurrecting a few of the old scenarios (and writing some new ones). It’s been a bit cathartic, if I’m honest, as we’ve written and rewritten from decades-old notes and AAR’s, both our own and those of other group members and developers no longer “in the game”. We’ve also revisited a few scenarios written for ruleset predecessors of Mein Panzer, adapting along the way. Just looking at this stuff has been great fun.

The exercise has, however, raised numerous questions and observations, especially with regards to folks’ preferences and sensibilities in the current era. Here are a few…if you have any thoughts on the matter, we’d love to hear them.

1.) We prefer to think of scenarios as “situations”, not “games”. This harkens back to the notion that we, for the most part, are modeling historical events. If an engagement had one side outnumbered 3-1, then the scenario reflected that. In our experience, every battle, no matter how numerically one-sided, had achievable objectives for both sides and we tried to reflect that in the “victory conditions”. We never went out of our way to arbitrarily “balance” the historical forces on the table.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that this can occasionally lead to some less-than-fun predicaments, but that’s history. It’s a matter of recognizing/understanding the objectives and the resources at hand. Nine times out of ten, the side graced with what seems like overwhelming advantages has objectives equally challenging.

One additional point – I, for one, don’t like scripted “special rules”. By this I mean scenario rules that force a player to replicate historical actions. If Oberst von Schtupp made the tactical error of knowingly sending his infantry into the teeth of an enemy position, why is a player forced to replicate this mistake? He shouldn’t, unless it’s a basic historical premise of the scenario. Better to provide a player his objective and his resources, then let him/her sort out how to get there.

2.) Most of our favorite scenarios were big, operational affairs, requiring lots of units and multiple players (similar to those that one might find at the game-cons). As such, these engagements require vast amounts of time, both prep and play, not to mention treasure. However, they also, if umpired, can introduce some of the vagaries in levels of command and communication.

What are folks’ preferences these days? Geographically large tables with hundreds of units and multiple players, or smaller “one-hour wargame” type scenarios, easily outfitted and playable without extraordinary effort? How much time does anyone want to commit to playing a scenario?

3.) Any preference for historical versus hypothetical scenarios? To be honest, there are very few drop-dead accurate OOB’s and chronologies out there, even for the odd historical dust-up, so almost everything is chocked full of presumptions. Also, if you’re trying to simulate NATO/Warsaw Pact actions, well, there’s precious few historical events to replicate. Some folks turn their nose up at broad hypothetical premises; my own preferences generally lie in having “historical basis/context”, but I’m certainly not hung up on outright replication of actual events.

4.) Finally, an observation on playtesting; it’s a mixed bag. Scenarios I’ve written (1) almost never play the way I envision them and (2) almost never play the same way twice. Also, playtesting doesn’t always answer the “was it fun” question. It does, however, usually provide a glimpse into the players’ thought process, and that can be valuable. If a flaw in presumptions is discovered, then a few tweaks can be applied, but overall, it tends to leave more questions than answers. This might be the unfortunate result of having surrounded myself with rules-attorneys and amateur historians over the years.

As a long-time subscriber to Ian Dickie’s Miniature Wargames magazine, I read each issue cover-to-cover, finding every scenario and every painting guide on every era fascinating. That said, other than one scenario portraying the death of Panzer ace Michael Wittman, I never actually played any of them. They were more a roadmap to the hobby.

If you have any thoughts on any of this, I’d enjoy hearing them.