by Will Townshend, PSC Games
Just to let everyone know - there is a lot of intense testing going on the background.
Martin and the team firmly believe that a little adjustment is all that is needed to bring the point of balance more into line
More detail next week after a weekend of heavy testing..........
It is a very good idea to look at the Manassas Hammer and see how it effects gameplay. It apparently is a factor. Even if it is very challenging, as long as it is not an unbeatable strategy, it would not dampen my enthusiasm for the game. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, there may be ways of either adding some optional cards or military units so that novice players would have a better chance if the strategy is employed by the Confederate player. At the very least, some tips on strategy would be helpful.
All of the early reviews I have seen have been very positive as to the mechanics and the experience of playing the game. I am still very much looking forward to playing this game and I am glad I backed it.
The idea that someone will find a way to beat this "and then" someone will find a way to beat that "and then" ad nauseum is preposterous. This game isnt complex enough for that to happen. Moreover, it sounds like a boring game if it was. No - the game as it stands now is flawed. This update admits that
If the game doesnt have some sort of credible solution before the close of the kickstarter then I too am backing out. I've played a few games where there is one dominant/broken strategy. It's not how the game was designed to be played, but shortcomings made it that way.
This is not the Lincoln game that was proposed at the start of the kickstarter. It's not the game it's supposed to be. Right now it's a beautiful and well produced mistake. It can be fixed. And I hope it is fixed. But to expect a fix in the next few days? ...its unfortunate.
Marco did describe a few rules wrong in his video. Plus I would like some clarification on the reinforcement action since I think Marco played it wrong. This all may be because of misinterpreted wording. Maybe
I have no idea what happened here, of course, but as a veteran playtester with SPI, Victory, TSR, VPG, and GMT and with various excellent designers, I can understand how it could have happened. Someone immersed in a game for a long time can simply become blind to something that a totally new, totally fresh eye, without any assumptions, sees quickly. Not saying this is the case in this instance, just that it's an understandable possibility. It's why you playtest as widely as you can and hopefully with a number of "newbies" and non-gamers who almost invariably will do something an experienced wargamer would never do or think of doing.
Anyway, I'm staying in on this one for another 8 days. If in the last 24 hours, this has not been resolved, I'll wait for the retail version and for the dust to settle.
Not worried. There'll be a Hammer here, and then someone will come up with a perfect strategy for the Union, then there'll be a perfect counter to that strategy, and then... and then... and then... It's taken me years of play, as an experienced gamer, to become even remotely curious about the various official 'fixes' for the 'broken' few acres of snow. I'm reassured, it's in safe hands.
I'm with Rune.
I watched Marco's review and I am curious as to how this was missed during playtesting?
I am also sceptical in regard to the "we know that it should be tough for the Union player to win"-statement. I enjoy playing games where it is tough for both players to win, not just for one of them.
If this results in having to change the design of the game, the timeline might have to be expanded.
Please let us know ASAP thanks...thanks..tony