Combat Modelling

I get the point of What-If's, I really do, however it seems like there is probably an even deeper question: how do you even tell if there is a valid premise?

To me that says, combat-modelling. Combat-modelling is providing the files that general plausible results. I used this as the starting point of designing scenarios in Musket and Pike, and I'd probably use it in any design process; in fact I had, I'd put together a scenario around the Battle of the Wabash in Nov 1791.

Now in order to play around with that, it required coming up with a rational command structure for a non-European based force, not least also an order of battle for same, as well as coming up with a viable grouping of effective weapons. Facing facts, indigenous forces rarely broke up their force grouping based upon weapon types, although that, itself, is going to be a scale based consideration -and in keeping things at roughly 125 feet per hex -in effect it became a pretty major consideration.

Now, of course, the point is, this can also be done in a Civil War Battles perspective; in fact I think you need to go there. Now that I have a little experience in playing again, and with the designer's perspective that I developed over the past 8 years, things have gotten a little bit to the stage of, 'I don't think I would have done, this, that, or the other'.  

I'm not a really big fan of the short scenarios, in the sense that most designs leave little recovery room, and then after that point you might as well not play further. Oh sure, I will own making some mistakes in approach - like when you have a heavily mounted force the idea is you have to go deep -and in one recent one I might not have for (-in hindsight) no known reason. But that is another story. 

I'd played another one recently, where the OOB was the Shiloh OOB; the issue was that it had some structural aspects that appeared to have been included specifically to replicate a dispersed, and encamped army that was taken by surprise -the problem being, in the what ifs ... it was representative of an army on the move, in a meeting engagement environment. There is also the tougher problem with regards to some of the US's very heavy artillery that was present at Shiloh  -it felt far too mobile. This was an issue in a different what-if that was more of a river crossing battle (and nevermind the fact that it felt like an odd premise for another meeting engagement- but that was largely because of how the VP's were structured - it basically encouraged setting up a nearly impregnable river crossing with little to no need to actually do battle - if your aim was to hope your opposite number would reconnoiter your position and incur a fair amount of casualties -- more on the accounting side of scenario design at another time (maybe). It's important for design, but maybe fairly dry reading. :) 

Anyways- personally, I prefer bigger battles that require thought and have some suspense -sometimes the suspense is generated from the the thinking about things as much or moreso than the action.  I've got some re-designs in me - so it might eventually end up being stepping back from a lot of the PBEMs, and giving the tournaments a miss so as to focus on another area.