From: John Best Subject: Re: Rhino's Campaign to Stalingrad Comments? Jeff Millefoglie wrote: > Nice counters, great map (one of Mark's best), good, clean rules with some >interesting mechanics/ideas (including an in hex city combat procedure); >typical Simonitch excellent effort. Note that the RAW (Rules As Written) are >a liitle tough on the German player. Believe Mark did a coupla waves of >errata to tweak it back towards allowing the Axis a more likely probability >of historical success (found it too easy for the Russians to slow down the >inital surge of Fall Blau with delaying/continuous front tactics, high >attrition on underwhelming panzers, etc.) > I agree with the counters and the map assessments. I did not like the "coupla waves of errata"; this phenomenon gave me the impression that the designer did not have a clear vision of where he wanted the design to go at the time the game was initially released. As Jeff M implies, the fact that the "waves of errata" were deemed necessary also suggests that playtesting did not uncover the fact that the historical result was not achievable within the rules as initially written. I don't write too many reviews of games, but when I do, the first thing I do is to attempt to duplicate the historical outcome, using the historical manuevers (no matter how wrongheaded those moves might look to our current perspective). If the game does not duplicate the historical outcome when this is done, then it is of little use further use to me. I agree that, at one level, the ZOC bonds are a clever way to create a "flankable" ZOC. At another level (unfortunately, the one I'm at most of the time), I don't know what the ZOC bonds are supposed to model. A ZOC bond is impenetrable, but on the flank, there is no effect. If the unit is supposed to be "projecting its power" (whatever) halfway out into all the adjoining hexes, then how come there is no effect on the flank? Shouldn't the unit be projecting its power halfway into those hexes too? We've gone over this ground before (and over and over...), but it's one of those perennial discussions that, well, it's just fun. Second, sometimes I think that with each iteration, we actually make some progress on what a ZOC is supposed to be or do. Despite my criticisms, there were lots of things to like about this game; I have it as a kind of near-miss. Thanks for reading. John Best jlbest@tuscola.net From: John Best Subject: Re: Rhino's Campaign to Stalingrad Comments? Jeff M and I have been talking about the Rhino's East Front game: I wrote: > ><< I did not like the > "coupla waves of errata"; this phenomenon gave me the impression that the > designer did not have a clear vision of where he wanted the design to go at > the time the game was initially released. As Jeff M implies, the fact that > the "waves of errata" were deemed necessary also suggests that playtesting > did not uncover the fact that the historical result was not achievable > within the rules as initially written. >> > and Jeff responded: > Sometimes, the designer does not accept ALL of the playtesters feedback >(his perogative), the playtesters arrive later in the development process or >components have actually been printed long in advance of the game being >published. > > Not sure what point is attempting to be made re the "coupla waves of >errata". If you like the game RAW, then don't use 'em (or make up your own; >the Rhino police won't be breaking down your door anytime soon). If you >don't like the fact that a publisher/designer issues (or has to issue) >errata, then try BoB (& ignore the inconsequential errata Chester had to >finally cop to). > > Re. ZOC bonds, yes, they are different. I personally liked them, for this >game at least... First of all, thanks for responding Jeff. My beef with the game is that in a lot of ways, the "errata" seem more like additions to the game's system or engine, rather than simple rewrites of unclear rules, typos, or inclusions of things that were left out mistakenly. For example, (and I admit, it was a while ago that I studied this game, so I could be wrong), one of the later follow-on rules addenda details an overrun mechanic that is not present in the basic rules, and describes this mechanic as possibly redressing balance issues. My position is that adding overrun mechanics to the rules for balance isn't an "erratum" issue, it's more like (to me) an admission that the basic rules won't produce the historical outcome--a flaw in the basic design. Second, the fact that Mark S. released several "layers" of rules changes over several issues of that Rhino newsletter that he was running meant that it was extremely difficult (again for me) to actually play the game because there was no set of "the" rules--rather there were parts of multiple rule sets in different formats, in different places, and that simply was too cumbersome to organize. I hardly ever play a game with the rules as written--so I appreciate your point about the Rhino police not enforcing any particular interpretation. Here the issue was broader than that--it is hard to spin off a set of rules, when there is no single set of rules to spin off from. My point about the ZOC bonds is that I'm not sure what they are supposed to model. One of the most useful things that might come out of this discussion (imo) is that we might eventually get some clarity about the value of locking ZOCs, ZOC bonds, "delaying ZOCs" (as in Gamers SCS games), or no ZOCs as the appropriate mechanic for depicting the interactions of units given certain scales, and certain historical time periods. Here the specific question would be, "Are ZOC bonds a more accurate way to depict WWII East Front battles/campaigns compared to the other ZOC mechanics we have available to us?" Thanks for reading. John Best cfjbb@eiu.edu From: Jeff Millefoglie Subject: Re: Rhino's Campaign to Stalingrad Comments? In a message dated 97-04-22 15:23:39 EDT, cfjbb@EIU.EDU (John Best) writes: << First of all, thanks for responding Jeff. My beef with the game is that in a lot of ways, the "errata" seem more like additions to the game's system or engine, rather than simple rewrites of unclear rules, typos, or inclusions of things that were left out mistakenly. For example, (and I admit, it was a while ago that I studied this game, so I could be wrong), one of the later follow-on rules addenda details an overrun mechanic that is not present in the basic rules, and describes this mechanic as possibly redressing balance issues. My position is that adding overrun mechanics to the rules for balance isn't an "erratum" issue, it's more like (to me) an admission that the basic rules won't produce the historical outcome--a flaw in the basic design. >> I've playtested board games (as opposed to computer games) for Peoples' Wargames, GDW, GR/D, Clash of Arms, Rhino, Spearhead, Pacific Rim, 3W, etc. Many of the experiences differed greatly, usually based on the designer, company & schedule for release (i.e., how much time is there left for suggesting & implementing changes, fundamental or otherwise). Mark/Rhino was one of the better people/companies to playtest for. My recollection with CtS is that Joe Youst & I (who introduced me to Mark at about this time; I had greatly admired - and still do; my favorite WW II North Africa game - The Legend Begins) had come into the playtesting loop after Mark & Henry Lowood had been playng this quite awhile. Joe, in particular (who probably logged the most hours with the design, at least aside from Mark) was of the opinion (which I strongly shared) that the Soviet rifle divisions were too tough on the steppes against the panzers. I think it took us awhile to convince Mark of this opinion (several games, or at least several replays of the opening stages of the campaign). Since changing the physical counters was not an option at that point, the suggestion was made to add additional armor shifts/bonus for panzer concentrations, enhanced stacking, an overrun rule, a German Tac Air benefit, etc. The decision of which to include at the time of publication was Mark's as designer (& publisher; i.e.; person with a financial stake in the success of the game). As to being put off by Mark or any company supporting a game after publication (& the checks have cleared) with errata, support, even a FREE (!) newsletter, I applaud & encourage the practice (wish it was more of an industry standard thang, though with the advent of on-line & the infrasturcture it provides, this can (& is) be(ing) handled much easier, cheaper & quicker for all concerned). If your problem is with an errata paradigm that fundamentaly changes a game, well, we can agree to disagree. Adding rules, changing rules, tweaking play balance (percieved or otherwise), etc. are fairly common (except by those companies that take the money & run; 3W, Joe's former employer - and I never let him forget it - comes to mind). Check out (at least earlier editions) of the Gamer's house organ, "Operations". We use to jokingly refer to it as "Errata", though everyone out here was pleased (not put off) by the fact that Dean, Dave, et. al. were continuing to care about & support their designs/products (& The Gamers, IMHO, is probably the best overall company going these days) after they had been sent out the door. << Second, the fact that Mark S. released several "layers" of rules changes over several issues of that Rhino newsletter that he was running meant that it was extremely difficult (again for me) to actually play the game because there was no set of "the" rules--rather there were parts of multiple rule sets in different formats, in different places, and that simply was too cumbersome to organize. >> See above. Perhaps if you'd never recieved or read Mark's newsletter (did I mention the FREE part?), you would have been happier, secure in the knowledge that you had bought & were playing a game that was not in need of all those rules suggestions (I still have the newsletters & articles at home, and I believe many of the "errata" you refer to were presented as "optional rules", an important distinction for this discussion). Don't mean to sound sarcastic. Appreciate your posts. Again, we can agree to disagree. I will allow John Desch to handle the ZOC bond boogie (again, I thought it was a novel rule, though not one I would want to see applied in any & all situations, depending on theater, period, system & scale). Perhaps Joe Youst (lurking out there somewhere) will pick up the baton at this point. Note that Mark is working with Ben Knight these days for Avalon Hill and can be reached there if you wish. Jeff