EA 42 The Gazala Gallop Campaign

HMCS Rosthern · 09-19-2007, 01:50 PM,

Excuse me for asking this question, but why play with "no low fuel"? Isn't that avoiding one of the main problems the Axis player will have to deal with? I guess it would emphasize combat more.

~~Krak~~ · 09-19-2007, 02:22 PM,

Well if you use that rule the allied tanks run out of fuel just as readily as the Axis tanks. So it is no advantage, even worse for the allies as thier tanks are slower. Also the refuel is dependent on range to a HQ, again an advantage to the Axis (better C&C). Also the algorithm that determines which tanks run out of fuel is random and it makes no difference how far a unit has or has not moved (one hex or a 100). As the commander I have no power to ration out fuel to the most needy or important units (that is my spearhead or counter attack). I think a fuel rule that doesn't allow me to prioritise and that also does not take actual mileage into account just causes annoyance and frustration. That is an enemy who moves 500km can still pass the fuel check and my reserve who might just move a few hexes to the front run out! Thus I prefer to play without it. Everyone has gas this way, totally fair. Just my thoughts.

**Mr Grumpy** · 09-19-2007, 04:17 PM,

But that is because you are using the default supply rules, if you used VST then as the Allies are closer to their supply sources they will benefit from much higher levels of supply, were as the Axis supply problems will get worse as they move east and low ammo/fuel become a problem, remember this is the desert war, supply is king! :bow:

The greatest problem with the scenario is that for a reason i cannot think of the Axis have a supply source at ElAdem airfield south of Tobruk which is easy to capture as Axis and the supply problems then are eased. :hissy:
If you want to even this up don't use the "no low fuel" and leave a Allied unit on the Adem supply source, then Rommel will have to capture Tobruk as in the real campaign!

~~Krak~~ · 09-20-2007, 02:14 PM,

I can see where you are coming from but I think if you did that the balance would swing to far to the allies. That is with VST and no road for supply to go down the axis supply levels would go so low as they did thier flank manouver that it would soon become a disaster.

Its such an intersting battle. If I were going to re balance it I think a variable supply level for the Axis would work. That is start with a high level then drop it down over a period of time untill they capture tobruk or open up a route down the coast road.

I am playing a game now against a quite obviously competent opponent so I will see how things develop.

**Mr Grumpy** · 09-20-2007, 04:13 PM,

I played with VST in both games as we felt it might help with balance and believe me it hardly slowed the Axis down at all! :rolleyes:

Enjoy your game :)

jonnymacbrown · 09-21-2007, 05:50 AM,

"That may be the case. I am happy to play allied. I have a plan."

Whatever your plan is, I would advise not moving those Bristish tank brigades about too much. The beakdown rate is VERY high. Think about not moving them at all until you can see the whites of Rommel's eyes. von ege :smoke:

**Mr Grumpy** · 09-21-2007, 06:13 AM,

That is 100% correct :(

~~Krak~~ · 09-21-2007, 08:27 AM,

Spot on about the breakdowns. One A/C unit has lost 3 out of 9 vehicles in two moves!

Its been a very challenging game so far, very early days tho. Its a great scenario. If there is a game worthy of a re balance this must be it.

I am still quietly confident but my opponent is making life quite tough.

**Mr Grumpy** · (This post was last modified: 09-21-2007, 08:52 AM by Mr Grumpy.)

Krak Wrote:Its been a very challenging game so far, very early days tho. Its a great scenario. If there is a game worthy of a re balance this must be it.

The reason i played both sides was to better understand the problems faced by each commander, i have some ideas how to balance this scenario up, but there are three major problems..
1. At 250 turns testing is very difficult,
2. None of the three different supply rules in the game can correctly reflect Rommels supply problems at this time, as we know these problems almost led to his total defeat trapped behind the Gazala line. In this scenario there is no difficulty in the Axis Eng cutting a supply lane through the lightly defended middle of the Gazala line.
3. It will be hard to hold Bir Hacheim for anything like the historical time, low fuel/ammo and being "out of command" are major headaches for the garrison.

Maybe i will look at this again when i have finished my Smolensk H2H scenario.

~~Krak~~ · 09-21-2007, 09:42 AM,

If it can't be balanced within the rules then I would suggest this:

If the the normal result between 2 fairly even players is total victory for the axis then adjust supply as best you can. Like I said above increment the supply down untill Rommel gets Tobruk or opens up the coast road. Beef up supply for places like Bir Hacheim.

This still not being enough to balance it then just raise the points needed by the axis for victory. Add in some time pressure with victory hexes that lose their value after a certain amount of time. Not sure if that is possible within the engine, but if so it would open up a lot of possibilities. Time presure on the axis will produces rash and perhaps misguided decisions.

One thing about TFB that I like is the system of building up victory points. In that system you get points for a hex every turn you hold it. Thus it rewards initative and quick advances, slow methodical advances that just bludgeon their way forward are not going to get you a win. The attacker must take risks to win, thus opportunities for the defender open up. These are the best games. Thats what Gazala needs I think. Whether I win or lose tho its a fun scenario, thats the main thing.