This folder is dead because...

[Shad]

well?

[armyduck95]

I want to play it badly. Part of it is time. And if it is between playing MW and PzG where I can add an AAR to the database, I'm gonna choose PzG.

[rerathbun]

Same as Army Duck. I want to get into both Modern and Infantry Attacks (especially IA), but I keep putting it off because I'll need to learn the rule changes. Too much to play, too little time. If I could record plays and AARs, that would give me the incentive to make the effort.

[Matt W]

With only 50 scenarios and a fussier rule set MW is limited so far. There simply is limited opportunity for discussion. I would expect the discussion to grow as more products are developed

[vince hughes]

With only 50 scenarios and a fussier rule set MW is limited so far. There simply is limited opportunity for discussion. I would expect the discussion to grow as more products are developed

MW's do not interest me. Neither Korea nor the Middle East will receive my payments. No Shekels from me for David and when it comes to a piece of Pusan I am certainly going to keep my Dong in my pocket!

[tanzerleader]

not enough content yet. only one game so far. i will get the korea game and would love a vietnam one.

[Matt W]

I should also note that Sword is pretty much a one note song. Israelis attack Arabs who are either prepared or unprepared. Arabs get slaughtered. Israelis fight the clock...

Daniel and I often try to take 1 side through an entire campaign but this would be an exercise in futility as the Arab player. This doesn't make the scenarios unbalanced, but it does make playing them, especially the Arab side, as a remarkably repetitive experience.

Given the reality of the campaign it is difficult to see how it could have been designed any other way, so the lack of variety is an artifact of the actual war and not a failure of design.

[armyduck95]

I should also note that Sword is pretty much a one note song. Israelis attack Arabs who are either prepared or unprepared. Arabs get slaughtered. Israelis fight the clock...

Daniel and I often try to take 1 side through an entire campaign but this would be an exercise in futility as the Arab player. This doesn't make the scenarios unbalanced, but it does make playing them, especially the Arab side, as a remarkably repetitive experience.

Given the reality of the campaign it is difficult to see how it could have been designed any other way, so the lack of variety is an artifact of the actual war and not a failure of design.

Matt, just finished my first MW Scenario. Agree. I like the design, the rules nuances I think are good for MW; choice of conflict might not be the most balanced for generating interesting scenarios for the system.

[armyduck95]

I should also note that Sword is pretty much a one note song. Israelis attack Arabs who are either prepared or unprepared. Arabs get slaughtered. Israelis fight the clock...

Daniel and I often try to take 1 side through an entire campaign but this would be an exercise in futility as the Arab player. This doesn't make the scenarios unbalanced, but it does make playing them, especially the Arab side, as a remarkably repetitive experience.

Given the reality of the campaign it is difficult to see how it could have been designed any other way, so the lack of variety is an artifact of the actual war and not a failure of design.

Matt, just finished my first MW Scenario. Agree. I like the design, the rules nuances I think are good for MW; choice of conflict might not be the most balanced for generating interesting scenarios for the system.

[Blackcloud6]

I don't think MW has caught on big so far with only one module. Can you count the games played in your PG-HQ list? If you can't that might stifle some of the players who like to have their games counted. I can honestly say I haven't played Infantry Attacks because of this.