Tunisia'43 unbalanced scenarios.

[Dog Soldier]

I've played several Tunisia'43 scenarios and i have to say that i'm a bit disapointed. Almost all the scenarios i've play were unbalanced or heavily unbalanced.

Can you please show me where in any book on the battles in this game title there was a "balanced" fight?

#430214_02a Like Wolves on the Fold [HTH]
OMG:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:
This is the most unbalanced scenario i've ever played... Germans can encircle enouth allied forces to obtain a major victory befor allies can release. The german player can win with fingers in the nose and the allied player can only watch an cry. I played the scenario on both sides so i know exactly what i'm talking about

Do you know the history of this battle? It was not a "balanced" fight at the time. The scenario is historically accurate. If you want to add some fiction to the scenario to "balance" it, that is what the HTH section at the blitz is all about. Open up your editor....

#421125_01a Race for Tunis [HTH]
OMG too...
Allies have to attack but they are weaker than the defending germans... The night fixed units rule is a real nightmare. germans can just encircle allied units during the night and destroy them during the next day. Also played on both sides, both games finished with an early surrender and a decisive axis victory.

Very historical. The Allies did not stand a chance of chasing the Axis out of Africa so easily at this point in the campaign. The scenario text says it all.
"Lt. Gen. Anderson's task force left its base at Algiers hundreds of miles behind as its units pressed eastward along the coast and overland in a 3 pronged assault, which did little but split his forces."
Sounds like a recipe for Allied disaster. In PzC, the player, as overall commander, has way too much coordination over his forces than any on the ground commander in WW2 ever did. It is just a game. The historical simulation for this scenario is spot on, IHMO. Play it for fun, not to notch a ladder score.
I would agree some note about the Allied night FIXES should be added to the scenario description as that can be a rude surprise for the Allied player caught unawares that his units will FIX. Otherwise, the night Fixes are no issue IMO, as the Allied player has to unlearn some bad PzC habits to avoid a night time disaster.

#430219_02a The Debacle at Kasserine Pass [HTH]
This one is not bad. But it also can be improved. It's very hard for allies to obtain a victory but it's almost impossible for germans to have more than a minor victory. If the VH values are changed it could be a very good scenario.

I have not played this one. I did give it a look. the Germans need 1,250 for a major win. There are 1,700 VP in locations. 700 of these are deep in the Allied rear area (as they should be). The other 1,000 are reachable in 32 game turns I would think. Of these locations the furthest two from the front lines are 22 & 26 hexes respectively.
In T43, the Germans can give as good as they get in terms of losses, so if the casualty VP are roughly held equal then the VP locations will determine the winner. IIRC, a lot of blitz members in a recent thread were in favor of scenarios where locations were more important than just turning a flank and rolling up the POW counts.
This scenario is perfect for those wanting such a fight.

430422_01a: The End in Africa [HTH]
Something who should be the biggest attraction of this game, the big 100+ turns scenario, is just a big joke. Germans have absolutly no chances to win.
At the beggining they have something that looks like a strong bunker line. In fact it's just a trap for axis troops. Allies have lot of tanks in armored divisions and lot of good AT guns (between 70 and 100) in foot divisions. The hard range is 2 hexes which mean that the bunkers can be blowed up from a safe distance. And trust me. 80 6pdr-AT guns firing at a bunker can make heavily damages...
Then we have axis compagnies fighting against allied batalions... The result is well know. Axis compagnies are destroyed one by one and allied units just have to recover fatigue from time to time.
Here the question is not can the axis player win but how long can he resist before being destroyed.

Does the title of the scenario not spell it out? Who would expect the Axis to win? Successful fighting withdrawals are difficult to pull off in PzC. Only the very best players seem to have an ability to pull this type of operation off. Consider it an achievement to do so.
The Allies need 12,000 VP for a major win. There are 7,350 VP in all locations in this scenario. A successful Axis defense (preventing a major Allied win) would be to end up in Tunis holding the city's three VP locations for 2,500 VP. Thus the mission for the Axis would be to not lose 7,150 more casualty VP than the Allies and make the Allies crawl to Tunis. With the high terrain movement point values in T43, the answer is to create strong defenses along the roads, mobile flank protection for those strong points, and force the Allies to out flank each successive position to avoid huge BF and casualties in a frontal assault. Wash, rinse, repeat. I know several blitz members who mastered this in an earlier title, Sicily 43. They can make an Allied player pull his hair out!
As for your remark about the bunkers, IIRC this is not the Mareth line in this scenario. Those bunkers are not concrete emplacements. They were strong points intending to slow the Allies to reduce them. It will take the better part of a day to get those 80 AT guns into position to "blow up the bunkers". That estimate is without constant Axis artillery harassment. If you think the Axis can hold the bunker line indefinitely and "stuff" the opening Allied offensive, then you need to go get some books on the campaign and see this was just not possible.

To conduct a successful fighting withdrawal, one needs to know when hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away and know when to run!

Standing up companies to regimental (multiple battalion stack) attacks in a fire fight seems like a newbie mistake to me.

Dog Soldier