12 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.

[Kenny Noe]

My 0.02¢  (disclaimer this might be long)

 

 

 

1) As my interest mostly lay in the post WWII era my preference is to call the games played by likeminded individuals’ scenarios.  This word has always been etched in my brain for events that have or may have taken place.  This might be simply because I lack imagination or the polish that my English teachers attempted to bestow upon me to use likeminded words such as situations, case, sequence of events, or plans.

 

Historical or imagined situations (Kasserine Pass or Fulda Gap) are played to see if the outcome is as expected historically or if there were decisions that were made or not made influenced the battle.  In historical battles commanders at the time didn't have the luxury of knowing the outcome as gamers often do.  They fought and made decisions with the information given but never knowing the final outcome again as gamers do. So why play these situations if the outcome is already known?  Because the gamers 1) are not the past commanders, and 2) maybe there is a different (better) solution to sway the battle more favorably in one direction vs another.  In "What-If" the same can be said with the minus of knowing a past outcome.  But in both situations the commander (or gamer) work on what they know and have experienced.  This is one reason why situations almost never play the same way twice!  (oops skipped ahead to #4, <grin>)

 

I find that scenarios that are over matched on one side are not fun for the gamers.  Yes, the Spartans vs Persians are usually adjudicated at this time... and if you provide adequate terrain or other combat multiplier then is it really an outnumbered / over matched situation??  I have played many Arab Israeli games where one side or the other is hamstrung (historically) and given this liability I try and make the objectives obtainable.  Again, I'm not looking so much as to recreate the historically accurate battle and outcome but to ensure all gamers have fun and enjoy the precious time, they have given to me to come and play.

 

Last item and then I'll move on...  "Situational rules" or scripted special rules can be applied in a manner that promotes even / fair game play.  I'll concede that these rules should be sparsely made / used as they may limit the gamers ingenuity to overcome a historical (or other) trapping that was made in the past.  However, pushing the gamer toward the final objective sometimes is the only way to advance the game to a conclusion.

 

Example, Don and I were running a game of Mein Zombie (yes, yes historical and all.  LOL).  The objective was to get across the table to a safe location.  The players that showed up learned in the situation and game play briefing that you could get extra stat points by killing zombies.  So, what did they do for 4 hours?!?  Advanced 6 inches on the table top and shot their way through hoards and hordes of zombies.  They amassed a ton of stat points and never moved toward the objective (safe location).  Blew up the entire scenario!!  Should we have a rule forcing the gamer to advance?  Admittedly it was a bit deflating to not see the game play out, but the gamers had a great time and that (to us) was what counted. 

 

One more example, a rule that forced the Israeli player to funnel through a pass vs swing around.  This was a historical situation where the Israelis need to advance through mountain pass into the Dothan Valley chasing Jordanian 40th Armored Brigade.  They were ordered to pursue even though it was a chokepoint.  The historical commanders were able to do accomplish this. But would the gamers have the same outcome?  Play the situation and see what happens!  First time I ran this at a convention the Israeli player stopped at the mouth of the pass and never move forward.  The Jordanians had cover and the high ground and tore up the Israeli tanks.  At the end of the game both sides said it was fun, I knew better.  So, the second convention game I ran this scenario, special rule forced the Jordanians to use their bonus move during each activation to retreat further back into the valley as was done historically vs being "John Wayne" at the stronger pass entrance.  This made the game better and both sides saw opportunities to "win".  Better for all including the game master!

 

 

 

2) Game preferences...  I find this to be more attuned to location and time allowed.  I don't have a place to put and leave up a game table so I multi-day game is out.  Also, I know from experience that "less is more" when playing Mein Panzer.  I mean that the more units on the table the less turns or objectives seized happens.  MP is designed as a tank skirmish game meaning one vehicle = one vehicle.  In the early days of MP playtesting, I failed to understand this a hosted a Chinese invasion of Taiwan game.  Had an Armored Brigade of Chinese vehicles (including support) land on a Taiwan beach against an almost a numerically defending Taiwan National Guards with CAS aircraft flying around.  All in 6mm.  It was a mess and I think by the time the game was called the Chinese were finally on the beach.  Very important lesson learned about the number of units in MP.  If you want to field battalions, brigades, or larger than play something else or make MP house rules where one vehicle represents a platoon or even a company.  Not that I want anyone to play anything other than Mein Panzer (the greatest tabletop game in the World!!)

 

I tend to run at conventions and allocate a 4-hour time slot.  Most gamers there accept the investment in time and want to enjoy themselves.  Six players (three per side) with three or four units. A unit is usually a platoon (west) and a reduced company (east) to try and limit the number of stands to move.  Gamers tend to be slow in their decision making and evaluate each turn before actually moving units.  So, the less stands to move the faster the game.  May not be as appealing visually as a tabletop full of vehicles but the GM objective is to move the game to its conclusion.

 

 

 

3) Historical vs hypothetical?  I like both even as my preferences lean to post WWII.  Historically, the Arab / Israeli wars or Pakistan / India wars or Sino-Soviet skirmishes or US / Iraq wars or Ukraine / Russia war.  These conflicts offer many situations variety during this period.  Hypothetical, the Soviet advance thru the Fulda Gap or full-blown Soviet / Chinese.  The Third World War (Hackett), Red Storm Rising (Clancy) First Clash (Macksey) are great situation builders in this era for hypothetical fights.

 

 

 

4) Playtesting situation are very important.  My experiences have shown that if I playtest before a convention game I find my own errors in design and can give "hints" in the game briefings to help the gamers better understand the desired outcome.  Without this I find that I've made one side unbalanced or just a slugfest leading to a not so fun game for all.  Now do I always playtest?  Honestly, no but I should.  <grin>

 

 

If you made it this far you have my gratitude.

[healey36]

Thanks very much for your $.02, Kenny...trust me, I read all of it (multiple times, lol).

 

I for one, don't have a hang up with historical versus imagined (hypothetical) scenarios. Hypothetical/imagined scenarios would seem much easier to balance (or at least they should be), and they can be written with some basis in fact. One could argue that a high percentage of "historical" scenarios are awash in hypothetical presumptions anyway...who can say with any precision exactly what forces were available/engaged, what the terrain looked like absolutely, what the chronology was, etc. One can generally guess, but there's no absolute certainty that it's correct, just that it was your best guess.

 

Pulling out these old, humongous scenarios we wrote years ago is a fun nostalgia trip, but I wonder how much interest there is in cleaning them up and presenting them to new generations of gamers, especially given their size and complexity. They might be fun to read/contemplate, but likely better to break off chunks of them for play using a reasonable amount of space, models, and time. Six players with three to four units each (15-20 stands) seems a good metric. Maybe a sampling of small/medium/large scenarios would be best.

 

When it comes to the larger scenarios, it's certainly handy to have an independent GM/umpire for keeping things moving. I agree that players can be overly contemplative when completing their turns. I think this is compounded by the ability to see most everything looking down on the table. In my experience, if you design something for four hours, it will require six or more to reach a conclusion.

 

Another thing that's critically important is making sure the players understand the objectives/victory conditions. Players seem to have an inordinate interest in destroying stuff, but sometimes that's not an objective. We wrote many scenarios where the objective was geographic, i.e. occupy/capture a position, advance across the table and exit the table edge at point X, etc. In some cases, it wasn't unusual to have players kill half the opposing army but fail to advance anywhere. Victory conditions need to be tailored to the objective and understood; that can greatly assist with having a good game.

 

I understand playtesting is really important, but damn it is difficult. It is really hard to anticipate the actions/interpretations of others, and things can run amok pretty easily. As a designer, it seems unduly easy to prejudice folks with your own notions/sensibilities, and that can lead to false results. It's also tough to find folks who want to be playtesters. 

 

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts...it is very helpful. 

 

 

[Peter M. Skaar]

Having just come back from Sand Wars on May 2nd-3rd, I will offer my thoughts here shortly.  This is a very interesting topic so far.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Here are a couple pictures from my game at Sand Wars 2026.  I have posted more pictures with AAR in the After Action Reports section.







I did have a bunch of thoughts on the scenarios I have designed under the Sand Wars 2025 heading.  

[healey36]

I will offer my thoughts here shortly.

Thanks, Peter. I look forward to any further comment you might have, especially with concern to scenario size and balancing.

 

Paul R.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Hi Healey.  I will do that.

Sadly, I just completed my first installment but accidentally wiped it out.  I will post it again but need a bit of time to do that.

Here are a couple pictures from my game at Copper Town Games in Jerome.  This is a 2 player game of Cruisin' for a Bruisin'.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Scenario Design - Cruisin' for a Bruisin'

This is probably my go-to beginners scenario.  The vehicles are fairly even in terms of capabilities, the terrain is fairly simple, and it covers the Desert War in the period of the Summer of '42.

1. Forces.  During this period, the Crusader II and Panzer III were the most numerous tanks for the British and Germans respectively.  In Mein Panzer, the stats for the Panzer IIIJ1 (short barrel) and Crusader II are very similar in terms of armor, speed, and armament.

The Germans have limited numbers of Panzer IIIJ2 (long barrel) also know as the Mk III Special by the British.  This tank is just a bit better than the other 2 but not significantly so.  Having the longer, high velocity gun gives it a leg up on the OM1/2 tables and a slightly better chance of a kill unless using APCR which increases the chances signifcantly.

The Panzer II is pretty obsolete but available so I include a platoon in each German Company.

My Companies/Squadrons are a bit reduced for the scenario.  Neither player has a distinct equipment advantage.

If I have enough players, say 5 or 6, I will include the Grants for the 3rd British squadron and the Panzer IVs for the Germans.  The Germans still had large numbers of the short barrelled Mk IVs at this time with more and more long barrel Mk IVs arriving over the summer.  The later Mk IVs have a much better gun but the armor is still not as good and speed is average.  The Grant has 2 main guns but the 75mm should be used at OM1 otherwise it has a hard time hitting.  The armor on the Grant is not too bad but the speed is a bit slower.

2. Terrain.  My terrain for this scenario has 4 hills and a village in the middle.  I have special rules for movement and combat in the village and clearly defined boundaries for the built-up area.
The hills provide automatic defilade for any tanks on the reverse slope.  Any other hull down needs to be found per the rules and a die roll.

Roads are normal except in the village where the narrow and crowded streets reduce the road rate to cross country in the village.

There are no rivers or woods to worry about and buildings cannot be shot at in this scenario.

3. Troop Quality.  Both side are regulars with the Germans having a TQ or 12 while the British have a TQ of 11.  I could easily make the Germans veterans but that would, in my opinion, give the German side a definite advantage.

4. Morale.  No morale rules are used.  Both sides fight to the end unless one of the players gives up.  

5. Scenario Length.  I have this one set for 6-8 turns.  The last one went 7 turns in 2 hours as both players 

6. Objectives - Knock out or brew up enemy tanks and try to control the crossroads in the village.

Other thoughts.

This is a good scenarios to introduce new players.  The tanks are close in ability and the objectives are simple.  This does still have enough challenge for more experienced players as well and I can usually get 4 players at least.  If I ever get 5-6 players, I will add the Grants and Mk IVs.

I try to clearly define the terrain to all the players before the game as to movement and combat.  This helps speed up the game and prevent arguments.

Each player gets their own copies of the scenario instructions, vehicle stats as well as the Mein Panzer charts plus some markers and dice.  This also helps to move the game along as players don't have to share things.

Next. Stemming the Tide and how I designed that scenario.

[healey36]

Thanks for that, Peter; some good points there to make note of. We have a Libya 1940 scenario in development, so very timely.

 

Most of the scenarios we have run over the years are based on some historical engagement. The developers have tried to replicate things as best they can given the info that's available. That can lead to some seemingly lopsided engagements which are compensated for in the victory conditions. Usually the games are fun, but I'll be the first to admit there's been a few clunkers over the years.

 

Just curious, in your Cruisin' for a Bruisin' scenario, how many units per player in the basic Crusader/MkIII version? We have tended to populate to the high side, which then contributes to the necessity for "herding cats" (pushing the players along). It's funny; I was talking to one of the former game group members recently and his recollection is that we never finished a play of a scenario...never...over some 20 years, lol. Can't remember too many that weren't fun, though.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Thank you, Healey!

To answer your last question first, I find that most players can handle a company comfortably and maybe 2 if they have some experience.  Generally, in most of my games, I give each player a company and often a reduced company at that.  

For Cruisin for a Bruisin, I give the British 4 troops of Crusaders with 3 per troop plus a 2 tank HQ element.  For the Germans, they  have a platoon of 3-4 Panzer IIs, 3 platoons of 3 Panzer IIIs each (2 short barrel and 1 long barrel per platoon) and a HQ section of 1 or 2 tanks.

I have found that sometimes, less is more.  I have run Cruisin' for a Bruisin' with 2 players each controlling a company.  These games have been high quality games in that the game goes the full length and a decent conclusion is reached.  The one at Copper Town went a full 7 turns in about 2 hours.  It turned out to be a real knife fight for the town in the end.

If you give each player 2 companies or 6-8 elements(platoons) to control, things naturally take longer as each player is doing double the work load.  Experienced players may be able to handle it but I prefer not to overload a newbie.

My scenarios are a bit open ended in forces.  I will tailor the game to how many players I have.  If I have more players, I will allow for more stuff on the board.  If less players, then I will adjust things down a bit.

My most recent scenario of Stemming the Tide had 5 players.  In some ways, that is the ideal amount as each of the Russian players had a 10 tank T-34/76 Company to command and the 2 German players had a reduced Panzer III/IV Company.  There were 3 activations on each side during a turn with the HQ section going with one of the other platoons.

All 3 of my Russian players had either no experience with the game or had not played in a while.  I gave my most experienced player, Rick, one of the German Companies and he was paired up with another player who had never played.  This arrangement worked out quite well in that with all things being equal, the Germans have a more challenging time with the tanks they have versus the T-34s the Russian has.

Game length.  I usually set my games for 6-8 turns these days.  That typically equates to 2-4 hours which is about how much time most players can spend at one time.  The Cruisin' for a Bruisin' game at Copper Town went for about 2 hours and we got a good conclusion at 7 turns played.  The Stemming the Tide at Sand Wars went a full 6 turns in about 3 hours with a good conclusion after 6.  Both sides had been heavily attrited at the end of that time.  

I have come to appreciate quality games over quantity of toys on the table over the last several years of doing this.  A few years ago, I had a regular group of guys that used to play together pretty regularly at one of the group's houses.  We could leave the game set up for several sessions so we were not in a hurry to finish.  It also allowed for more complex and larger scenarios in that we used artillery and infantry in our games and used some of the other rules as well.

The problem with this was that sometimes these games were too long.  Having a game over multiple sessions causes player attrition.  Sometimes players are excited for a scenario at the beginning of the game but lose interest or have other things that come up that prevents them from continuing.  A classic example was our Assault on Marnach game we did around 2016.  This was an actual (sort of) historical scenario depicting the 2nd Panzer's opening attack on elements of the 28th Infantry Division at the start of The Ardennes Offensive.  This game was devised by one of my friends, Scott, in whose house we were playing.  Scott is a big Battle of the Bulge fan and has been over to the Ardennes region and has seen the battlefield so to speak.  He created the layout which was roughly based on the actual town of Marnach.  No snow on the ground but the terrain was a bit boggy which was incorporated to the scenario.

We got through several sessions but players started dropping out and then the work load became to great and I determined to end the scenario as I was already commanding 2 units and was about to get a 3rd.  This was causing the game to slow way down and it was becoming more like work and a bit less like fun.

Based on this experience plus a couple of others, I have determined that shorter games work best, especially if bringing new people into Mein Panzer.  If I ever get 3 to 4 regular players with experience then I will look at maybe doing a bigger or longer game but right now I prefer a good quality game that moves along with all the players having fun.

Balance.  I try to make my scenarios reasonably balanced.  Both sides have claimed victory in both of the above scenarios and there have been a few draws.  Stemming the Tide is more asymmetrical in that the Russians have slightly more and overall better tanks.  To give the Germans a leg up, I made them Veterans which gives them an extra shot plus expands their command distance.  I also gave the German      Panzer IIIL/M one round of APCR and the Panzer IIIN unlimited HEAT rounds to help.

Player experience and just plain old luck can affect balance quite a bit.  With that in mind, if I have both experienced and inexperienced players, I try to divide things up so that the inexperienced players are paired up with a more experienced player.  Luck is something we don't have any control over.  The Germans won the game at Copper Town Games but the British had worse than average luck.  With better luck, who knows.

Past and Future scenarios.  I currently have enough Russians to do a variety of scenarios from 1942 to 1944.  I don't currently have much painted older equipment for the Russians yet plus not much German stuff in Panzer Gray for 1941-42.  In a pinch, I can use the North Africa Germans Panzer IIs and IIIs if necessary.  I long to do a Barbarossa scenario or two but need to do more prep work.

France 1944.  I have been adding a fair number of Shermans to my American forces over the last few years.  I have enough Germans to make a decent game.  I am currently working on more buildings for France and Western Europe.  For a scenario, I am looking at an American unit advancing against a German delaying force.  This would be after the Normandy breakout.

Russia 1942.  I have the Russians for this and some Germans.  I have run a scenario a few years ago using the Russian mixed tank brigade structure with T-60s, T-34s, and KV-1s all in one battalion.  This would be good for Kharkov 1942. I also have a full Russian tank brigade modeled on the July 1942 organization.  I may do a scenario based on the battle of Kalach one of these days.

Russia 1944.  I have plans to do a Bagration 1944 scenario one of these days.  A few years ago, we did a "Duel of the Best" scenario set in Poland with a Soviet Guards Tank Brigade up against an SS Panther Company plus a few other additions.

Tunisia 1943.  I do not currently have any Americans painted up for this.  This is a long term project down the road.

Infantry.  I plan to do an infantry game one of these days.  I will probably solitaire this out first to make sure I have a decent game for the players to learn the ropes of the infantry rules with some direct and indirect artillery fire and a few tanks for support.

Players.  Finding good players is great.  I have played before with some contentious players and I try to avoid those situations as much as possible.  Having clear objectives and having terrain that is well defined help to alleviate this.  I have been blessed with some good folks playing my games lately and things are fun.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Here are a few more thoughts regarding how I design scenarios.  

I don't do points based games.  I generally do it by feel and will often do a solitaire playtest of a new scenario before doing it with a bunch of other fellow gamers. I will come up with the basic terrain layout, objectives, and forces involved and then see how things go.

Of course I want all games to be great but I have had one that was perceived by some players as bad at least for one side.  This was several years ago when I ran a Kharkov 1942 scenario at a friend's house.  I had 3 Russian players each commanding a tank battalion or equivalent.  These were mixed battalions of T-60s. T-34s, and KV-1s.  They also had some Ba-10 armored cars and even some KV-2s.

The Germans basically had a line of dug in AT guns including a couple of 88s.  Coming on later would be a couple companies of Panzers.  

My idea for the scenario was for the Russians to rush the AT guns and see how much havoc they could inflict before the arrival of the Panzers.  In essence, the Russians did not play the way I thought they might and although the Germans lost a couple of guns they were not threatened the way I envisaged.  This turned out to be a contentious game as I was hosting as well as playing and was called to rule on whether a shot was a flank shot or not.  I remember it being right on the cusp of front/flank and asked the players to roll a die.  The Russian player wanted me to decide so I did ... in the other player's favor and the flank shot took place on a KV-1.  Ironically, there was no effect after all the brouhaha prior to resolving the die roll.  The Russian was mad at me and things got uncomfortable for a while.  After the game, the other German player left for home and I needed to pick things up.  The other 3 players let me know that they did not like the scenario and that it was not well balanced.  I disagreed and left feeling a bit down about the whole thing.

The basic moral here and things I learned.

1.  The players don't always follow the script.  I don't really have an exact script in my games but I thought the Russian approach would be more outright aggressive that what it was.  You really don't know how players are going to play things.

2. I prefer not to host and play at the same time.  I would rather run the game as a "detached observer/referee" rather than an active player/host.  I like it when players can resolve issues between themselves rather than getting the host involved in every clarification.  I have been more successful in this regard lately. This keeps the game moving along.

3. Make sure everyone understands the objectives at the start of the game.  Also make sure that terrain is well defined for both movement and combat.  I will try to include all of this on the scenario sheets that each player gets.

4. Make sure that geographic objectives are reachable in the time set for the scenario by both sides and have some additional time built in to get there in the face of the enemy.

5. I like to have a game reach a conclusion in 2 to 4 hours with 3 or so being about average.  This goes back to the quality vs. quantity dilemma that we gamers have to deal with.  A game can be too ambitious in that the size of forces, length, complexity and other factors can actually degrade the positive player experience.  With that in mind, I strive to make scenarios that are fun and have a reasonable chance of finishing in the allotted time.  I have played in several games that have gone several sessions and have involved using infantry, artillery, engineering, and more of the add on rules.  If everyone knows the rules the game will go faster.

Multi session games tend to bog down especially if using more rules.  Another big problem is player attrition as someone either drops out or getting all the original players together on a specific date for the remaining sessions gets tough due to other commitments.  If you have 6 players and lose 1 or 2, sometimes you can still play on if the other players are motivated and don't mind handling the extra work load.  If you lose too many, the work load becomes too great and the enjoyment typically goes down as the game slows down.

6. Learning games.  I am okay to host the occasional learning game as opposed to a strictly competitive game.  To learn the infantry, artillery, and some of the other rules in Mein Panzer, it may be necessary to have a learning game.  The objectives should be limited and keep the forces manageable as well.  The goal is to learn and play the rules, not necessarily to reach a conclusion in which one side is victorious.  The game may not even need to be well balanced as the goal is learning the rules.

Let the potential players know before the game that this is mostly a learning game.  Have some objectives laid out but the main objective should be to learn the new rules rather than having a necessarily complete game.  If players know this beforehand they will be more forgiving if things don't flow quite as smoothly.  It does help a lot though if the person hosting is at least a bit familiar with the rules that are being introduced.  This is where doing a solitaire game helps as you can learn as you play and get the bugs out.

7. House rules.  Sometimes I have added a few house rules.  This may involve terrain effects or other factors that I would like to reflect in my games.  I have created a set of unit morale rules that I have used in Mein Panzer when I don't want everyone fighting to the last tank although that can be fun as reflected in my last game.

That is it for now.  I will update here occasionally as new ideas or old ideas come to me.

Thanks! 
 

[healey36]

Thanks for the input, Peter; lots to consider.

 

I've only played a few "small" MP scenarios, most being my own development, and most in an effort to teach myself the various "drop-ins". Playing solo has the advantage of being able to take your time, even repeating turns when you realize you've screwed something up, but there's a big disadvantage - you're leaning into your own interpretation of the rules and missing the input of others. I don't think I've ever played a "small" scenario face-to-face with another person. 

 

The scenarios we've been running through of late were big, multi-day affairs, usually 6-10 players with upward of a couple battalions on the table at one time. Some of them were Kampfgruppe/adhoc-type OOBs, so a lot of variability in what might be seen. We found that players typically could easily handle a couple of companies (acknowledging that most were not first-timers). Most were combined arms type engagements, so pretty much everything was in play. We were usually fortunate to be able to keep the game together well into the second day; it all seemed to peter out once it became kinda obvious who was getting the upper hand.

 

I'm trying to refocus a bit now, aiming for smaller, more manageable, "balanced" games playable in a few hours. When you're working from historical situations, that can be tough. I struggle with the notion of developing a good game versus modeling an interesting situation. Some, if I'm honest, don't always make for a great game (but are terrifically interesting, lol).

 

Contentious player? Who needs that? I'm always up for entertaining a few questions, but I usually try to politely quash debates that threaten to throw the game off schedule or otherwise disrupt orderly progress. Sometimes my session fan club lost a member or two, but at the end of the day, an agreement-to-disagree was acknowledged. Never lost any friends over many sessions.

 

The command rules tend to be the biggest gating factor in these games, that and morale (they tend to go hand-in-hand). Play this a few times and you begin to understand why players keep their units bunched up. Let your tanks get spread out a bit, take a few losses, and you've got tanks wandering about trying to regroup to reestablish command "range". That can really muck things up.

 

We often do use points when laying out victory conditions, but we don't necessarily tell the players how the points are assigned or the weight of the points in assessing success. Players are told their objectives are "sieze and hold the bridge", or "advance off the table edge toward Schebuckeyville", or "occupy and kill all enemy units within xx inches of Hill 40", etc. The ump(s) use the points to figure out how well the players achieved their objectives. 

 

Lastly, we do use some abstract house rules for random events, especially, for example, when it comes to the timing/availability of air support. We've also used them to simulate troop movements on the off-table flanks. Get creative, keep things a little off-balance/in-balance.

 

Thanks again for your input, Peter. I might use this place to run some ideas past you guys occasionally. I'm finding it helpful.

 

 

 

 

[Peter M. Skaar]

Wow!  Getting 6-10 players for a game is great although it does tend to make for a very large game.  Most of mine have somewhere between 2 to 4 players and if I ever get 6 players, I will be running a full battalion per side.

My game at Sand Wars had 5 with 4 of the players having little to no experience.  If I ever get 6 or 7 I can expand the scenario a bit and put some more cool stuff on the table.

I find the Command rules work well in keeping players focused on more historical frontages.  A single Company will typically have a single objective and not several objectives all over the map.

I have not used the morale rules as written, Healey.  Do you find it slows down the game a lot?

Back in 2012 or so, we did a large game with the British advancing against a German delaying force of several ad-hoc units.  We did have some off map movement/flanking moves for the British so they could come in on other parts of the  map.  It was an interesting scenario with infantry, artillery, engineering, morale, and of course some tanks and armored cars.  It was over several sessions and finally we declared the Germans had "won" when they blew the bridge that was a major objective for the British.  There were several turns going by while the Germans wired the bridge for demolition while trying to keep the British at bay.  We also used some hidden units and movement in that one as well.

I do think that keeping some of the information hidden from players is a good idea even though I have not used it very much.

I appreciate all the input here as well.  We are all striving to make better and fun scenarios for our games.