MC 3 Korea 85 Question - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: MC 3 Korea 85 Question (/showthread.php?tid=47807)

MC 3 Korea 85 Question - Zemke - 08-30-2008 I am considering getting this title, and would be interested to know if the map could support a scenario of the 1950-1953 Korean War, or is it just too different. I looked in the data base for custom scenarios on the Korean War, and found none, which does not bold well. RE: MC 3 Korea 85 Question - Mr Grumpy - 08-30-2008 I believe there is a player called Seawolf who is often at Volcano's Mod site who is working on a 50-53 Mod, but i have no idea how it is coming on or if he has come up against any major problems?? :chin: RE: MC 3 Korea 85 Question - Sgt Fury - 08-30-2008 The Map does not go far enough North to represent large portions of the conflict, however. Scenarios on the initial attack and subsequent landings may be possible, but drive for the Yalluw river is way far North. Also, 1950 might be better in PzC scale....this map is 1mi hex, not 1km.... Fury RE: MC 3 Korea 85 Question - CptCav - 08-31-2008 I have a partially completed a 1951 scenario (map and most of the oob). I had stopped working on it. The problem with it is that the Communist Forces are predominately infantry with not that much artillery and even less armor. So, any scenario is not that interesting from a Communist Forces (CF) player stance. One has tons of infantry to throw at the UN Forces (UNF), but that is all really. The other problem with designing a Korean War scenario is the imbalance of forces. The PzC/MC game system does not give any significant advantages to the defender in firepower. So, the CF have to have their firepower ratings greatly reduced to allow the UNF to have the staying power and the UN Forces have to have their firepower ratings greatly increased in order to simulate the advantages of defensive fire in that conflict. The bottomline becomes who would want to play as the CF when they are going to see their forces destroyed in great numbers and have little options except massed infantry assaults while watching their units get mauled. Granted they will have plenty of infantry, but they will have very little artillery and not much else. Meanwhile, the UNF player will have infantry, armor, artillery, airpower, naval forces, etc. to use. That being said, some of the factors I was going to include were: (1) Make the CF infantry with TI capabilities to simulate them doing most of their attacks at night. This would help offset the decreased attack values assigned to them. (2) Changing the ZOC movement costs so that enemy units could move through ZOC (one hex per turn). This would be to simulate the CF inflitration tactics. Regards, CptCav RE: MC 3 Korea 85 Question - Zemke - 08-31-2008 I just remember I loved playing that scenario in Operational Art of War, and for some reason have always loved games that covered the actual Korean War, which was a very near run thing at the start. The Chinese may have had mostly infantry, but the North Koreans had divisions organized along the Russian model armed with T-34/85s, artillery the whole nine yards, which is the part of the war that is most interesting to me, the initial invasion. Mostly because my Dad was there.