[Scenario Changes-3.4 and NTO] No. Matrix doesn't touch the scenarios, it is up to the original designer to make changes, or someone else may ask the original designer for permission to make changes. Either way, the scenario briefing will hold the key as anyone that takes the time to update a scenario will catalogue the changes there.
[New Turn Order] Its absolutely a beneficial improvement - to scenarios designed with it and New Supply. Otherwise, you are putting Fuel Injection on the '67 Camaro, so you better know what you are doing or something could go wrong.
I'm just saying that I've seen some players using these new parameters with older scenarios and then finding some obvious things go wrong. What about what isn't obvious, like player 2 getting full recovery in a scenario that was never playtested like that. Or when one side has significantly reduced supply and the player doesn't realise to switch between New and Old Supply during the game to see if there is any difference. ??
I totally agree with everything you've said (and Mons 14 is a case in point of an old (unchanged) scenario rendered unplayable using NTO), to include the above excerpts. The only thing I'd take issue with is that though new changes are significant, they're largely much softened in smaller scenarios. Given the context of the thread, I'm just wary of scaring off potential new players if they get the impression Matrix- or others- haven't done due diligence before release to ensure scenarios are forward compatible.
There was a major effort to contact designers to permit inclusion and provide an opportunity for upgrade to incorporate game engine changes. Some agreed to inclusion without upgrading, others did (some) upgrading, others gave permission for others to make changes. Most old scenarios, including classics, made it into TOAWIII- and therefore 3.4- with or without changes (mostly without), because to exclude scenarios without changes would have made for a small scenario universe, a major reason for purchase.
I'd suggest the longer and bigger (# units) the scenario, the more pronounced the differences between OTO and NTO, and other 3.4 changes will be. But the differences are virtually impossible to quantify because each game will almost always play out differently, so we'd now be entering the realm of statistics and playtesting each scenario multiple times. To some extent the statistics- at least on win-loss and objective/empirical player perceived balance are out there: http://www.the-strategist.net or http://www.theblitz.org feature ladders with game statistics, and in Rugged Defence's case good search facilities to select scenarios. Both can show you what scenarios have been played and statistical win/lose per side (though these too are now skewed by results from earlier TOAW versions).
But I'd agree with everything said by sPzAbt653, save my caveats. The answer may be in just playing as Menschenfresser says- look at the stats, find a small scenario (scale, turns, # units) and post for an opponent- here or at The Blitz say. Someone will pick up the challenge and help you along. The more you play the more you get a 'feel' for various aspects of the system, what works and what doesn't and when particular scenarios are just 'broken', whether by inept design to start with or cumulative changes to the game engine without corresponding changes to the scenario to take advantage or compensate.
< Message edited by General Staff -- 8/28/2012 4:14:57 PM >
Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
(J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)