DSII Scenario sources - was Re: points values & balance

Rob and Scott's posts (below) prompted me to dig out my favorite source
of
"not quite balanced" scenarios.

"Programmed Wargames Scenarios" by Charles Stewart Grant has long been a
favorite source of instant scenarios when time to plan the evening's
entertainment  is not available. It provides 18 situations divided
between
Attack & Defence and Confrontation, and 2 mini-campaigns.

Each scenario has several army lists from which to choose running from
roughly reinforced platoon level to reinforced battalion level. The army
lists measure force size in generic terms, platoon, troop, company plus
1
platoon, etc., and can be easily adapted to fit multiple backgrounds.
While
it may not pertain to this list's general readership, the army lists are
also
described in Ancient and Horse & Musket terms.

The map for each situation is randomly assembled from nine parts. In
some
scenarios, the players receive a general description of the terrain, and
must
choose their force and entry points before the actual terrain
determination
is made, creating a fog-of-war effect. 

The "programming" mentioned in the title refers to the fact the
scenarios are
all designed to be played solitaire vs. a robot opponent as well as face
to
face. This has proved handy for me in sharpening my tactics and just
plain
learning rulesets.

The random force and map choices make this book, published by Wargames
Research Group, a scenario source I keep returning to for ideas.

What other sources are people using for DSII and SGII scenarios,
balanced or
otherwise? I've read some great posts on Hammer's Slammers and Jerry
Pournelle's stuff in recent months and look forward to more in the
future. 

Mike Messenger 

>From a message dated 96-06-25 23:44:47 EDT, Tom wrote:
>Rob writes:
>
>>	       A thought or two on the problems of points values,
balance
etc-
>>perhaps more relevant to DSII than FT.  The Wargame Research Group
1925-1950
>>rules (company/battalion level) uses a system of "baseline points
values"
>>for elements, and modifies the "basic points available" to a force
according
>>to quality/enthusiasm etc and according to mission. 

<snip>

>You mean you all don't do this already? Sorry, I guess I just assumed
this
>was common practice. (I _wasn't_ raised on GW!) Now I understand the
>opposition to a points system! 
>
>I agree with Rob; just because you have a points system doesn't mean
you
>always have to fight even battles. We've never had a fixed scale for
how
much
>"surprise" of "rear attack" is worth, we've always just sorta SWAG'ed
it. 
>
>Scott