Operation Herkules_Alt scenario - Please remove from game database

[Kool Kat]

OK, dramatics aside, what exactly do you think that the _Alt scenario changed over the standard version that makes it broken? Have you tried playing the non _Alt (stock) version? If you look at it, both scenarios are the same in regards to bunkers and supply sources if I remember correctly.

And just to be sure, you were using the "Alternative Assault Resolution" (AAR) rule, correct? Without that rule, you won't be able to assault bunkers correctly and the rule should be a default for early war PzCs at least.

Also, although I didn't (obviously) play every single _Alt scenario, I certainly tried to do so, many of them solitaire over the several decades. I am pretty sure I played this one to completion as well. I wouldln't characterize any of them as being totally broken in the way in which you describe in the play results comment.

That said, I do remember the stock version being damn near impossible as well so perhaps there is room for you to create your own variant. From what I recall about that scenario, the Axis had to assault the bunkers with stacks (with AAR rule on of course) and repeated assaults like this would get results. Obviously though it was grind, and I suppose the original scenario designer felt that the bunkers AND supply sources were needed for the Allies to hold against the Axis numbers.

But let's make sure you know that:

a) The scenario itself is actually not much more different than the stock version. Actually I suspect that most of the change is with the PDT data and OOB (consistency), but not much else in the way of serious differences.
b) You are using the Alt Assault Resolution (AAR) optional rule.

From the notes:

Q: Why the addition of the Alternate Assault Resolution rule?

A: The reason is that with the McNamara based db, it was decided that the Alternative Assault Resolution rule was necessary because of the use of many infantry units that now have range 0 hard attack values. This makes the rule vital so that these units can be historically weaker or stronger (depending on their rating) in assaults against armor, pillboxes and bunkers. With this rule disabled (as it was before) the range 0 hard attack values for infantry are not used. [...therefore, assaulting bunkers with infantry is nearly impossible]

------------------------

So let's check that first. If you were playing with AAR optional rule off then I would appreciate if you removed that comment from the scenario/game result page.

And if you did play with AAR rule on, then still I wouldn't say the scenario is broken as harshly as you did there given the similarities with the stock game. Instead, 20 years ago I would just make my own variant that I felt was improved. A simple variant might be vacated bunkers, no bunkers, or lower (or no) supply sources on those locations -- you have a number of options.

Gent:

Happy to lay dramatics aside...

(1.) I am using the Alternative Assault Resolution (AAR).
(2.) I have not played the stock scenario.
(3.) Make my own variant and report it? Violation of ROE #16.

All examples cited in my review of this scenario are accurate. Your statement that both the stock and .alt versions of this scenario play the same only reinforces the need to review play balance now in ALL the Operation Herkules scenarios!

I've been both a scenario designer and play tester of CS scenarios including being a former H2H Commander and Blitz Officer. I understand elements of good design and play mechanics versus less then optimal ones. There is also that intangible "does not feel right" elements that detract from a scenario. The Operation Herkules .alt scenario - and from your statement the stock ones too -  just do not play "right." 

Perhaps my "dramatics" were extreme... but when players invest their limited and precious gaming time into PBeM game play... only to find serious play mechanic issues in a scenario... then what's the point of playing that scenario?