Modern Series - Need Feedback on a Scenario

[Kool Kat]

Gents:  

I recently acquired both NGP '85 and Danube Front '85!   

Note - I am "tentatively" looking at playing the following Danube Front '85 campaign scenario in the next few months:

850610_02sa War on the Danube Front (161 Turns) 

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/mc-5...io&id=6722

However, "before" plunging headlong into this very large campaign scenario, I need some detailed feedback from Modern Series vets.

(1.) How balanced is the scenario? e.g. Do both NATO and the Warsaw Pact sides (given equal skilled players) have equal chances at either a Major or Minor victory?

Based on the the recorded matches WP (4 wins) - Draw (1) - NATO (2 wins), it "appears" to slightly favor the Warsaw Pact?

(2.) Fun and excitement levels. Is it enjoyable and is there a high level of tension / excitement per turns? Subjective answer I know!

(3.) Things you did NOT enjoy about this scenario. e.g. Country OOBs, terrain, objectives, special units, etc.

(4.) Any items to add or be made aware of?


Note - I need to clear (finish) my current PBeM games underway before I am ready to tackle this BIG campaign scenario... so it will be a few months before I can fire this one up.

That's why I wish to gather feedback / intel on how this scenario plays before a massive time commitment from both myself and a dedicated opponent.

All responses are very much appreciated and welcome! 

[Ricky B]

Hey Mike,

I never played this specific one, so my comments are more general pending those with experience adding something (actually I possibly play tested a variation of it but that was soooo many years ago). From playing the even larger campaigns from Danube Front, that include this part of the front, and reviewing the results, I would say it is likely slightly tilted toward the WP side. But I think it is almost as close to balanced as the vast majority of scenarios ever achieve - I doubt that more than maybe 10% are very tightly balanced. Either side can win though, and the nice thing about the MC scenarios in most cases is that there are so many options for both sides that a unique strategy by one side can win it of not correctly countered.

Specific to this part of the front from the larger campaign variations - it is very open to movement and exploitation once the Danube is crossed. I have seen this result in very difficult situations for the NATO player, but also the change to strike back hard at extended WP columns. I don't know if that is reflected in this smaller scenario though, but that is what I have seen occur as part of the wider canvas. Can be a lot of fun with a lot of movement.

Because in the larger campaigns there are limited forces, there always seem to be gaps, or at least very weak spots, that can be exploited and result in the loss of units. Have to be very careful, and losting a group of units can greatly tilt the balance for the rest of the fight, more so than the parts further north with more unit density.

So that is my summary, but not necessarily all applicable to this scenario. The bigger ones are a blast but almost require teams and one player on a team can make or break a victory, much like a real battle.

Rick

[Kool Kat]

Hey Rick:  

Many thanks for your feedback and insights into the Modern Series battle "environments" and dynamics!  

Most enlightening sir!

[Glenn Saunders]

Hey Rick:  

Many thanks for your feedback and insights into the Modern Series battle "environments" and dynamics!  

Most enlightening sir!

Mike I wouldn't read to much into the number of wins in the Scn history - and if anything, Id suggest 4-1-2 is pretty even. If it was 5-2-0 or 6-1-0 I might read in there could be an issue.

So much can happen in the course of a long scn like this and setting up a matrix to decide balance or not is damn hard to do, harder the longer the scn. When the playtest for this scn was done, it was more to look for screw ups with Units not releasing so problems the scn designer may have accidentally introduced.

Furthermore, because there is no historical precedence to go by (EI - The Germans in Bulge need to cross the Meuse to win) - Victory conditions become a combination of the balance between both sides on both sides and how far the scn designer(s) expected the WP to get.

I guess what I am saying is, with a large, long game like this - play it for the please of it, with an opponent with your similar taste in the topic. Enjoy the ride and not be as concerned by the final result as defined by the points in the victory conditions.  ....if that makes any sense.

Glenn

[Al]

Nice seeing you around again, Glenn.

[Kool Kat]

Hey Rick:  

Many thanks for your feedback and insights into the Modern Series battle "environments" and dynamics!  

Most enlightening sir!

Mike I wouldn't read to much into the number of wins in the Scn history - and if anything, Id suggest 4-1-2 is pretty even. If it was 5-2-0 or 6-1-0 I might read in there could be an issue.

So much can happen in the course of a long scn like this and setting up a matrix to decide balance or not is damn hard to do, harder the longer the scn. When the playtest for this scn was done, it was more to look for screw ups with Units not releasing so problems the scn designer may have accidentally introduced.

Furthermore, because there is no historical precedence to go by (EI - The Germans in Bulge need to cross the Meuse to win) - Victory conditions become a combination of the balance between both sides on both sides and how far the scn designer(s) expected the WP to get.

I guess what I am saying is, with a large, long game like this - play it for the please of it, with an opponent with your similar taste in the topic. Enjoy the ride and not be as concerned by the final result as defined by the points in the victory conditions.  ....if that makes any sense.

Glenn

Hey Glenn:  

I got it! Play this campaign scenario for the fun of it... and enjoy the experience as it unfolds with a like minded opponent.  

Wow, it's fantastic to get a response from one of the scenario designers... who so happens to be the legendary Glenn Saunders!    

You have persuaded me to move forward with playing "War on the Danube Front"

Many thanks to both Glenn and Rick for your responses!   

[Glenn Saunders]

LOL, I wasn't sure if my name was listed as one of the designers on this scn or not to be honest. This whole title was a collaboration of many people.

My point in replying here was more to ensure you did NOT think we had six guys play 161 turn poem several time to set the Vic levels. The scn was likely started manny many times as the master situation evolved. We did our best to apply carefully considered levels. But the play on a large scn like this was likely HTH self play seeing how the scn developed.

As for me, I just got tied up with life. I used to spent a lot of hours every week on games and I just needed a change. Never intended to step away....it just happened. Believe it or not, at 50 something years old, I became a football referee having never played the game in an organized league in my life. Quite a change.

But I've retired now, and the kids have moved away, so I've got a little more time now so I've been lurking around a little.

Glenn

[Mr Grumpy]

Great to have you "lurking around" again Glenn.

BTW your website had loads of useful info, but seems to be offline now, do you think there is any possibility we might gain access to it again?

[Kool Kat]

Gents:


Next discussion points....  

While this campaign scenario "seems" ideal for a team game - either 2 players (Warsaw Pact: Soviets & Czechs) versus 1 player (NATO) or as 2 players versus 2 players match - (Warsaw Pact: Soviets & Czechs) versus (NATO: Americans & West Germans)... I have misgivings. 

I've been involved in a handful of team games... and in each instance (with no exceptions)... either the match collapsed under the sheer weight of too many units / not enough time and / or one or more team mates quit. Just the logistics and inherit delays associated with team game turn exchanges can easily add days / weeks to each turn.    

So... my question... is it possible (or even probable?) for only two players to tackle this campaign scenario?   

Let me outline my thought process here that may make it easier for two players to digest this "elephant" in more chew able (manageable) bite-sized pieces... 

Establish some "gentlemen" agreements up front and before the match begins. 

(1.) Setup three (3) checkpoints at 40, 80, and 120 turn marks respectively.

(2.) At each of these checkpoint turns, both players are required to state either a "Go" or "No Go" to continue the match. If both players state "Go" nothing happens and play continues. However, if one or both players state "No Go" then the following takes place:

(2. a.) Reference the current scenario victory level.

(2.b.) The player who wishes to continue is awarded 500 VPs. These VPs are either added (WP player) or subtracted (NATO player) from the current victory level. The adjusted current victory level is then the FINAL victory level and the match is recorded on the TOC ladder.

(2.c.) If both players state "No Go" then the current scenario victory level is referenced (No bonus points awarded) and the match is recorded on the TOC ladder.

Pros: Encourages players to continue, but provides players a "honorable" way to end the scenario if their forces are hopelessly defeated or a player has lost interest in the match.

Cons: A "crafty" player could decide to end a match during an advantaged time, by forcing a premature end to the match and securing a win.  

I really want to give this campaign scenario a "Go"... but psychologically, I need to approach it in some kind of manageable and incremental fashion.

What do you guys think about this proposal?  

[larsonney]

LOL, I wasn't sure if my name was listed as one of the designers on this scn or not to be honest. This whole title was a collaboration of many people.

My point in replying here was more to ensure you did NOT think we had six guys play 161 turn poem several time to set the Vic levels. The scn was likely started manny many times as the master situation evolved. We did our best to apply carefully considered levels. But the play on a large scn like this was likely HTH self play seeing how the scn developed.

As for me, I just got tied up with life. I used to spent a lot of hours every week on games and I just needed a change. Never intended to step away....it just happened. Believe it or not, at 50 something years old, I became a football referee having never played the game in an organized league in my life. Quite a change.

But I've retired now, and the kids have moved away, so I've got a little more time now so I've been lurking around a little.

Glenn

A football referee!! Very nice...I'm a high school/college football and basketball referee...kudos to you sir, its not a profession for the faint of heart!! 

Cheers, Jon