Battles in the North - an appraisal

[Scorched Earth]

Hi all, i'm going to stick my neck out (and it's probably going to get chopped off), but i have to say something. As a player, so far, i have been disappointed with the games in this tourney. Could i design something better, probably not. I feel there are flaws in these games, and by comments i have received from others u feel the same. Take the current Trondheim game. I'm betting we will see a rash of Allied victories. I'm losing the current game to a shoot & retire strategy which is fine, but i see it to be near impossible to win as an Axis player. I have many units, but virtually no transport. I have engineers, but with their movement costs, snow & few roads, what chance have they of reaching of an objective hex to make a contribution to the game. It's turn 9 & i estimate they are at least 3-4 turns away from the nearest obj hex. So far, most of my units have just moved up the roads & done nothing. It's impossible to not incur losses moving up open roads. Yet, even with Axis/Allied losses in parity so far, and if i captured all the Obj's, i still could not win. In the first game, blowing one bridge altered the whole game. In the 2nd game, again, distance & no transport. The 3rd game, if u got the Allied side, well, u know the results. How were these games play tested? what were the results?. I admire those who produced these games and the tourney for their efforts, but as a player i have found it's fell well short. Speak out. I have broad shoulders.

[Jeepster777]

[Herr Straße Laufer]

:cool2:
All feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Eddie for your support.

The first scenario and the bridge blowing was an oversight by all playtesters.

I can let you know that of my own designs [one of which has been played] they were both playtested by multiple players. Each had different styles and approaches. Some players were more skilled than others. Most play was mirrored. I've heard some comments about it and at first I was puzzled.
Personally, I played my scenarios five or six times each from both sides against multiple players of varying abilities. Tweaking the victory conditions was a bit much but, seemed the best way to achieve balance and retain "close to historical" OOB's and situations. My second design is more "a-historical" to help balance it out a bit, but, it was thoroughly tested.
In the scenario's our results were surprisingly balanced with wins, draws, and losses being roughly equal from all players [with a slight favoring to the Axis side]. Note, I did say my scenario designs? :rolleyes:
LOL! I guess I should look at my playtester pool? ;)

I know that Slawek tested his extensively with another group of players. We both spent the effort, in design, to ensure that historicity, playablility, fun, and "balance" were top priorities.

I did play a couple of Slawek's designs, and I must admit that I missed the engineer/bridge problem in the first one. But, I found them winnable from either side. :)

I'm sorry if your experience is not to your liking. :(

We do not take heads off here for someone stating an opinion? :chin:

We weren't birthing a baby here. We had an idea for a tournament. We created scenarios roughly based on historical events. We've done the best we could with the tools we had.
My only hope is that the remaining scenarios prove as much or more challenging and playable than the first ones.

[Scorched Earth]

Thank u both for taking the time to reply & explaining your thought processes towards these games. :thumbs_up: What i like about these games are the disparate views we can all have about the same game.;) Vive la difference. I guess i have fallen to better players and look like doing so again. So i'll try harder.

[Big Dawg]

Boy I wish my opponent (Hir Leto as German) had the same problems as you are having.

HE JUST KICKED MY ALLIED A$$!!!!!


He pressed the attack & I had to retreat, retreat, retreat....all the way home. (with my tail humbly between my legs)

It ws ugly indeed.:rolleyes:

As far as the previous game goes I played as the German & Majog played as Allies. He blew a bridge & completely changed my game plan. I praised his brilliant move. I still think it was the best move of the game.

My one complaint is the lack of photos of Swedish women! I have heard so much about them.:smoke:

[Steelrain60]

As far as the Trondheim scenario goes, I respectfully disagree. The Axis player has the advantage in terms of infantry, artillery, MGs and engineers, and there's no decent defensive ground, with the exception of Vist. Also the reinforcements arrive too late, and have way too far to travel. There is quite a bit of open ground to cover for the Germans, but it really doesn't matter, because the Allies don't have enough artillery to make them pay. This is as Pro-Axis a scenario as they come. A draw is as good a result as the Allied player can hope for if the Axis player has even an iota of sense.

[Scorched Earth]

[Abatis]

I feel Trondheim favors the defender/Allies(which I played) -and you have excellent ground to defend! The elevated terrain at the center of the map, and to the east commanding the roads....Perfect ground to fall back in and harry the advance. I took out much of the German support and virtually all of the HQ infrastructure by melting away and then coming back..repeat repeat...this shifted things heavily in my favor by mid game.

My opponent had the game clock to contend with, so he ended up having to advance with very exposed flanks, and a weakened spearhead simply because I didn't let the light defensive screen get destroyed in pitched battle, or beat feet back to the towns. Speaking of which, the towns (not the initial obj town along the shore line to the west..I ceded that imdeiately)have wide fields of fire in openground! You have some key channeling minefields and elevated entrenchments which command more open ground kill zones. This ontop of the German problem of advancing along a mountain road to reach these positions are big pluses on the Allied side IMO. Axis Major D. looks inevitable with one turn left...

[Jumbo]

I believe this scenario can go both ways quite easily. If the defending allies attempt to stand up in pitch fights, they will be overcome by superior German firepower allmost every time. The allied commander must devise a defensive strategy that will work and still allow him to stand guard with enough of his forces left in front of his main objective hex towards the end of the game. The German commander must not allow to many of his forces to be tied up in these defensive firefights his allied opponet will try and lure him into. If so, He will likely not have enough forces to take the main objective hex by the end of the game. My opponet did a fine job in defense which enabled him to hold the main objective hex at the end of the game and even wrestle back the other objective hex I took, when I decided to move some forces from it to help with my drive to the main objective hex. Result - major defeat put on my Germans ... With some games still possibly going on now, I hope my comments are OK

[Valor]

Hello,

Sorry for answering so late but I wasn't hiding, I've just returned back from the business trip.

First of all, thank you for your opinions. It's great to have them.

I can only sign under every word Ed has written. We did our best to build fun and balanced scenarios. I'm not saying that we are the best designers but we did what we could. Each of us on his part of the tourney.

How were the scenarios playtested? But let me rephrase the question. How they should be tested?

Reading carefully all opinions you'll find those saying that scenario is OK, others say that is definitely pro Allies, and others will say that it's pro Axis. For sure the more experienced scenario designer can draw better conclusions then I did. And sorry for that I'm not But I'll try to improve :smoke:

Thank you for your comments

And keep them coming!!!

Regards

Slawek