Scenarios

[Biasco95]

I`ve played over a 150 games ny thoughts and reviews...

1: For 30 bucks for a year of play BGA is a fantastic bargain well worth the money
2: Whoever is responsible for the calibrating the dice should either go back to computer school or enroll in some form of statistics course
3: The arena is for competitive play yet many of the scenarios are clearly not designed for competitive play. They often come down to literally a good card draw can that end the game in a few turns . A friend who runs the Napoleonic C and C online community addresses this perfectly . Competitive scenarios should be the ones that either side has a near 50/50 chance of winning. More thought should be put into the scenarios used for the arena.

This is not spoiled grapes by any means . Just a critique and suggestions for improvements. Even with all the ridiculous die and turn 2 game ending card draws I am still having a lot of fun.

[Jeronimon]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and review!
I too am enjoying Memoir’44 on BGA immensely. I especially like that I can play turnbased and on tablet and phone also.
And the gameplay took a little getting used too but runs smoothly now. I also like we can contact the developers through bug reports and discuss with them how things should be.

In answer to your points:
In short
1 yes
2 no
3 yes

Longer
1 it’s great that we now have a replacement for the old online that can do more and will be maintained and expanded.
Thanks again and again to al the hard work the developers put in. Vincent, Tisaac and Mumbly!
2 the dice are perfectly fine. But you are not alone in thinking that digital dice are crooked.I however do not agree with you: Yes there are lucky rolls, yes there are unlucky rolls. But the dice on BGA do not behave differently than in real life or on other digital platforms. Read some of the other threads about it. And read about statistics, confirmation bias and loss aversion.
3 I agree that some scenarios are not fit for Arena gameplay. And many other players do. The solution is we tell the developers which scenarios are unfit for Arena gameplay. The system for that on BGA is that gurus suggest and decide on measures for the next arena season.
The “problem” is that we as a community are also individuals that do not agree on which scenarios to exclude or include. There have been several threads about this in the forum. Furthermore the developers have also said about the threads that discuss the Arena scenarios that not enough players are engaged in them to warrant changes. Read some of the threads about this in the forum also.
I have a feeling your friend who runs Napoleonics does a lot of deciding on his own without having to deal with other or pesky democracy


But let’s end on the note that we do enjoy this adaptation of Memoir’44 and that I would like nothing more than to show every opponent that the dice are always in MY favour.

[Duncan TMS]

Totally agree with Jeronimon!

[Biasco95]

All great points and thanks for sharing . Hopefully the developers notice.

[Reaper76]

Regarding point 3 I would say a ggod portion of those that respond agree but except for a few very vocal players that are against nothing will change it seems

[Gryvix]

I remember when I played casual live tournaments, we always played a scenario twice; both sides and compared medals. Then the winning percentage of a scenario doesn't matter.
This game has still a lot of luck involved, with cards and rolls. it is a casual wargame after all. (it's not ASL :p )
I think being on a computer it makes chance harsher somehow(like the 99% hitrate on XCOM and still missing)