1. Mystery is important.
What does that mean? It means when I played Kursk with Razz1, I had absolutely no idea what to expect. I made a conscious effort to NOT load the Kursk scenario in single player, turn off fog, and note exactly where all the Soviet units started and what they were. For example, I was constantly worried about my lone Stuka get ambushed and killed, so I always gave it a good escort even if that meant my 109 wasn't being used to strafe a target. In the end, it turns out the Soviet player had 0 air units, and Razz1 never bought one either. Had I known this before hand, it would have changed my play considerably because I know that fighters are extremely expensive, and the danger of my opponent every buying a brand new one(especially if he knows I start with 3 109s) is extremely slim.
On the other hand, I've played Low Countries several times, both as Axis and Allies, and our multiplayer game of Low Countries was a completely forgone conclusion. I knew the Allies had some advantages, but more than that, I knew exactly how many German units there were, where they were, and what they were. I know that if I ever play Low Countries as the Germans(past the knowledge I'm at a severe disadvantage), I have to watch out for 1 Allied tactical bomber, 4 allied fighters, 1 British engineer, 1 British Tank, et cetera.
How do you recreate mystery in a set piece scenario?
My answer is this: When you go to balance your multiplayer scenarios, strip the map of units, give each side only minimal starting forces. At the same time, give both players large starting prestige pools and plenty of room to buy additional core units.
If I play a scenario and know my opponent has 500 prestige, 1 core slots available, 12 infantry, 2 tanks, 4 artillery, 3 AD, 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 recon, the scenario has lost it's mystery. There is only so much 500 prestige can change.
If I play the same scenario where my opponent has 5000 prestige, 10 core slots available, 6 infantry, 1 tank, 2 artillery, 1 AD, 1 fighter, and 0 tactical bombers.... I have no idea what my opponent could wield against me. I won't be able to dump all my prestige into units, because if I do that, my enemy will buy counters to my purchases, and I'll be at a severe disadvantage. So I will buy just enough units to overcome what I know of my enemy, and I will hold a healthy reserve until I see a critical need for a specific unit and I'll buy it.
Or maybe I'll blow all my 5k prestige immediately, and hope to 'blitz' my opponent before he has a chance to react and consider what to buy to counter my forces.
Mystery adds replay value.
2. Historical battles can make good multiplayer foundations.
Kursk. Kursk is a fantastic example of this phenomenon. Except it was reversed. The German player had access to masses of units(my cheap marders, nashorns, and recon cars), while the Soviet player had access to the ultimate unit (A KV-1 which not even a Panther or Tiger could fight toe to toe with and win).
So don't be afraid to make a unit 'overpowered' so long as it has a valid counter. Maybe a Tiger II is going to be an unstoppable and unkillable behemoth, but if it's made to be so outrageously expensive, the player cannot afford to buy too many of them, otherwise you will have what happened in Kursk. A small number of near unkillable units were out maneuvered and surrounded by a numerically superior force of inferior quality units.
3. Multiplayer scenarios (and campaigns hopefully) should be built from the ground up with the express intent of multiplayer play.
Or at the very least, you shouldn't try to use a single player VS AI scenario and attempt to make it work for both single player and multiplayer. I bet I could beat the AI on impossible setting in Low Countries, it wouldn't be fun or easy, but I bet I could do it. I really don't think I'd be able to beat another human being at Low Countries, unless I was given serious prestige advantages or my opponent was, for lack of a better word, a complete and utter moron with no grasp of the mechanics of Panzer Corps. If that was the case though, I wouldn't beat such a player over the head, I would prefer that player have an environment to learn the game before jumping into multiplayer battles. Which brings me to my next point.
4. There needs to be a filter to prevent brand new players from getting absolutely crushed and destroyed by veterans who are only looking for an easy win to inflate their record and ego.
Front Mission Evolved had this problem. The skill curve of that game was gigantic, the difference between a flat footed newbie and a pro was the difference between a PZIA and a King Tiger. However there were no controls, the King Tigers and PZIAs all fought each other, and often against each other as well. What's that? You've never heard of Front Mission Evolved? Exactly my point.
Those are some of the conclusions I've come to, so far. I'm sure there will be more, but I leave you these as food for thought for now.
Do the Soviets really have zero aircraft? I keep expecting to see them eventually, but it seems to be 3 109s and a Stuka vs nothing. The Germans have every advantage in this scenario, healthy starting prestige, strong starting forces(panthers and tigers), apparently complete control of the skies, but I'm probably going to lose.
Why? Because the current KV-1 is an unkillable behemoth that panthers and tigers are useless against, and I think Razz figured that out.
I have almost half of the game turns left, there are only two VHes left to take, and I've killed almost every other Soviet unit with little difficulty, but I'm pretty sure I won't be able to take on those 5 KV-1s and grab that one VH.
If (when) you rebalance the KV-1 defense values to not be near invulnerable to Panthers and Tigers(or up the Tiger/Panther Hard Attack), Kursk will be an absolute steamroll for the German player in it's current form.
EDIT: Wow, this game turned out to be pretty epic. I'm actually really excited to finish it.
