Operation Herkules_Alt scenario - Please remove from game database

[Volcano Man]

Yes, it can be very confusing indeed.

But the summary of the important aspect here is this (the PC I am on doesn't have any of the games installed, so please forgive the general description):

The bunker changes the defenders/occupants to a hard target. Since they are a hard target, assaults work a bit differently, and the early war units have a range 0 hard attack value. Range 0 values are special in that they only come into play in assaults, in which case they are used when assaulting hard targets. Without that rule, it would be very difficult to assault bunkers (and you are likely always overrun by tanks with few losses inflicted).

A person with an eye for detail would say that the attackers here have lower values in the Alt scenarios than the stock scenarios, but also the defenders have a similar reduction to their values too, so its about even.

Now I am not saying that with that AAR rule the scenario will be magically balanced - just saying that the AAR rule is necessary or else it will be impossible, which is in line with the original post here (so I suspect that is the issue). As I said, I do recall that that scenario was exceptionally difficult in the stock version, and the Alt doesn't fundamentally change much (its more of a detail and consistency thing, rather than a total overhaul), unlike the Alt scenarios for Kursk, and Normandy (where I recall I did make quite a few changes).

But maybe someone else can explain it better...

[Green]

Yes, it can be very confusing indeed.

But the summary of the important aspect here is this (the PC I am on doesn't have any of the games installed, so please forgive the general description):

The bunker changes the defenders/occupants to a hard target. Since they are a hard target, assaults work a bit differently, and the early war units have a range 0 hard attack value.  Range 0 values are special in that they only come into play in assaults, in which case they are used when assaulting hard targets.  Without that rule, it would be very difficult to assault bunkers (and you are likely always overrun by tanks with few losses inflicted).

A person with an eye for detail would say that the attackers here have lower values in the Alt scenarios than the stock scenarios, but also the defenders have a similar reduction to their values too, so its about even.

Now I am not saying that with that AAR rule the scenario will be magically balanced - just saying that the AAR rule is necessary or else it will be impossible, which is in line with the original post here (so I suspect that is the issue). As I said, I do recall that that scenario was exceptionally difficult in the stock version, and the Alt doesn't fundamentally change much (its more of a detail and consistency thing, rather than a total overhaul), unlike the Alt scenarios for Kursk, and Normandy (where I recall I did make quite a few changes).

But maybe someone else can explain it better...

Thanks for that but I am still just as confused. I suspect I am missing something so obvious that it is only me that does not get it.

I do understand that bunkers change occupants to Hard targets but I thought that unless AAR is used that this does not affect assaults in any way. If AAR is used then in most cases Hard targets are much more difficult to assault as generally units have Assault vales much higher than their Hard attack values. As mentioned in my previous post the Italian Para have an assault value of 14 and a Hard attack of 1, so using the AAR rule reduces there effectiveness by 14 times since the defense value of the unit they are assaulting is the same whether AAR is used or not.  

The issue as I see it is not about Alt versus Stock but simply AAR versus no AAR. In the case of this scenario the Alt versions have AAR as the default and the Stock versions does not. Hence the difference. I am a long-time supporter of the Alt scenarios and the use of the AAR rule in particular as I believe this is far more realistic. It is just that in this scenario, the use of this rule drastically changes the game.

At least, that is how I see it but I would really would like to know if my understanding of the assault process is fundamentally flawed. As you say, hopefully someone will be able to explain exactly how it all works.

[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?

[Ricky B]

...
The bunker changes the defenders/occupants to a hard target. Since they are a hard target, assaults work a bit differently, and the early war units have a range 0 hard attack value.  Range 0 values are special in that they only come into play in assaults, in which case they are used when assaulting hard targets.  Without that rule, it would be very difficult to assault bunkers (and you are likely always overrun by tanks with few losses inflicted).

A person with an eye for detail would say that the attackers here have lower values in the Alt scenarios than the stock scenarios, but also the defenders have a similar reduction to their values too, so its about even.

…

So I did a couple of things to look at this Ed and all. First the rules, assuming they haven't changed - this is what the manuals say:

First, in all rule selections, this applies:
Certain units have a Hard Attack value with a range of 0. This represents short-range anti-tank weapons that the unit may have. When these units assault attack against defending units that have at least one Hard Target unit, or when these units defend against an assault where at least one of the attacking units is a Hard Target unit, then this range 0 Hard Attack value is added to the assault value of the unit.

Then for Alt Assault:
Alternative Assault Resolution – when this rule is selected, the effective Assault value of a unit is calculated as a weighted average of its default Assault value and its Hard Attack value based on the proportion of the other side’s strength that is hard. For example, if all the other side’s strength is made up of Hard Targets, then the effective Assault value of the unit is the same as its Hard Attack value. If none of the other side’s strength is made up of Hard Targets, then the effective Assault value is the same as its default Assault value.

Summary of these rules - with alt assault off, the bunkers will be attacked by the assault plus HA factors combined. With alt assault on, the attack will be by JUST the HA factor. In a test I set up, I could validate that based on both the factors applied, and the results - alt assault off resulted in defender casualties of about double to triple those with the rule on, where the attackers had Assault=14, HA=4/0. I couldn't tell for sure, but I believe the defender still used its Assault value as the attacking units were all infantry.

So in the situation here, the attacker's job will be significantly tougher with Alt Assault than off, I can see that.

Ed, from long time ago discussions, I would swear you wanted Alt Assault to prevent early war infantry from assaulting enemy tanks, which have weak defense factors, and slaughtering them unrealistically using the combined factors as above - but that makes bunkers much tougher.

Mike, we won't remove the scenarios from the DB - as long as they are in the game, people will possibly play them. At least having them in the DB with comments mean people may see the comments ahead of time, without them they won't have a clue.

Rick

[Green]

Hi Rick

I think your assumption that the rules have not changed, may be incorrect.

You say that ;

"First, in all rule selections, this applies:
Certain units have a Hard Attack value with a range of 0. This represents short-range anti-tank weapons that the unit may have. When these units assault attack against defending units that have at least one Hard Target unit, or when these units defend against an assault where at least one of the attacking units is a Hard Target unit, then this range 0 Hard Attack value is added to the assault value of the unit."

In the User manual it says;

"Certain units have a Hard Attack value with a range of 0. This represents short-range anti-tank weapons that the unit may have. When these units are involved in an assault as either defender or attacker and the optional Alternate Assault rule is in effect, then the Hard Attack values of these units is used in that calculation. Otherwise, the Hard Attack value of these units has no effect."

It is a minor point and does not change the conclusions you draw, but I just thought (assuming I am right) that it was worth putting the record straight.

John

[Volcano Man]

Thanks for looking it up Rick, I was going off memory. You are correct, I was remembering it wrong -- the AAR rule helps with early war tanks, to allow them to assault infantry and not be annihilated in the process (otherwise the early war tanks are too fragile).

But I suppose it is optional to turn that rule on or off in Malta scenarios, if someone is so inclined - if it is too difficult here. The default rules are only suggested rules, after all.

[Volcano Man]

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?

Now that I am able to look at the scenario (previously I was away from my main PC), I can hopefully make a more helpful reply.

But some clarifications first...

-To clarify the AAR rule, I mentioned it previously (out of mistake, actually) mainly because I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page as to what rules were being used. As Rick said, the AAR rule is making the assaults versus the bunkers more difficult, and actually that rule is NOT on by default in El Alamein '42, so perhaps you should consider turning it off as it would help with bunker assaults. I am a purist though, and I like using the same rules, and I don't think the scenario is impossible with AAR rule on here, but the optional rules can and should be used to suit your own tastes.

-And I did say that this (HTH) scenario was difficult, but then again I am fine if some scenarios are very difficult - especially for a hypothetical like this or the entire Sea Lion operation, but that is just me. I understand that most people expect a 50/50 shot at winning a head to head scenario though, sure.

-In the previous comment I said that if you feel that the scenario needs to be edited, then edit it and make a variant. This is the normal way of things for the past 20 years -- but it seems no one does this anymore, and now you are making accusations that the scenario is totally broken in the comments of the game results, which is the issue I take here, because I think it is an off the cuff observation, and perhaps you may not fully understand the scenario (and perhaps played the wrong scenario). Making a variant of a scenario that you edited, and then making a new entry in the database for it is normal. I didn't mean anything like editing the scenario, playing it, and reporting games on the standard scenario in the database, no (ROE #16 as you said). That should go without saying.

[An easy variant that I can see would be to fix the Allied units around the island for the first day to represent surprise landings, for example. That would be a good variant to help make things easier (and I would probably edit the Alt scenarios to be like that if I was still active in PzC series).]

-Also, no one is calling your credibility into question here - its just that the comments are perhaps a tad bit exaggerated, (which is understandable if you didn't have a good PBEM experience!), but its best to analyze the situation carefully.

//////////////////////////

Now with those clarifications out of the way, some (hopefully helpful) observations...

The biggest issue here I see is that you should NOT be playing 0622_01 head to head because the VP levels are too high, intended only for vs. AI play (to compensate for the relatively ignorant AI). Naturally if someone played the vs. AI variant as head to head with its victory levels, then they would feel it is totally broken.

The VP levels in the 0622_01a, which is intended to be played against Axis vs. AI, has VP levels at

600 800 1100 1200

...while 0622_01a is intended for head to head with much lower VP levels...

0 150 350 500

To put it in perspective -- In the HTH version victory could be obtained without capturing any of the bunkers that have a supply source, as long as allied units can be trapped and destroyed in various parts of the island (to offset the initial landing casualties). 350 points are NOT protected by bunkers (12,14 and 19,17), and neither is 40 and 50 % supply sources for the Axis. 

I concede though that the initial airborne landings matter, they can either be a disaster, or not so much, and this is random since they have random scatter. I do recall that you have to be careful about which units are coming into what hexes, in the follow-on landings. This is the unknown variable.

That said, I agree with you that the 0622_01 could be removed from the database, simply because it is not intended for HTH play, so it doesn't make sense to play it (and only causes confusion, perhaps what has happened here). But then again, I guess for some reason someone could play the scenario head to head, for some sadistic reason. Also, at the Blitz, we just put all the scenarios in the database so that is not abnormal.

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

But looking at the scenario, it is all coming back now.

I know for a fact that I played this scenario several times solitaire (hot seat) in the Alt version, as I was fascinated with the hypothetical, and it should be winnable as Axis, even with AAR rule on (and I still recommend using that rule all the time actually), but difficult.

I recall that the key is that German airborne have to push NW as soon as possible to secure their LZs, and Italian airborne has to secure 15,20 to secure their LZs. Then they spend the first day securing the area (as much as possible) for the main force that arrives (the 4x Italian Divisions). The four divisions is the main force to go on the attack with, but before that it is mainly defense, while trying to keep the Brits back about 4km from the shore.

Once the main force arrives, its a grind to try to take 19,17, the 50% supply source at Luca Airfield, which is not protected by a bunker. In addition, the Axis are also trying to take 14,13 as quick as possible (the other 40% supply source) at Ta Kali Airfield, which is also NOT protected by bunker.  In the process of the doing the latter, they take the 100 point objective at Rabat, and isolate the bunker there (which doesn't have a supply source) to destroy it over time by disruptions from airstrikes and naval units, followed by assaults. This yields VPs from its stack of occupants, quite a lot usually, if I recall.

At this point they have 350 objective points and can proceed to isolate and destroy the 100 point objective at 8,6, which does not have its own supply source present. Hopefully by now, with the 4x Italian Divisions, the Axis is able to trap pockets of allies around the island to start making up for the initial landing losses.

Now we are talking about trying to get as even as possible in VPs from casualties, and having 300 to 400 points from objectives here.

From here, one more 100 point objective will secure the win easily, but this is the difficult bit - because all three remaining objectives are protected by bunker and have a supply source, and because of the variables involved with destroying enemy pockets.

But here is the catch:

a) The supply level of those Allied bunkers is actually -10% by 23 June, and -25% by 24 June, and Axis supply (from the Luca Airfield) is 75% by 23 June. This means that the Allied B/SS are actually only 50% on 24 June, which is the time in which the Axis can step up the assaults. Also, the LZ area bunkers (that have probably survived with 500 Brits inside each) are now 0% supply by 24 June, two more fat pockets (100+ VPs total) to destroy if that hasn't happened already from the naval support assistance.

b) The VP levels in the HTH version of the scenario are designed (in theory) so that you DO NOT have to take all the bunker/supply source (B/SS) objectives, only being required to take one or two to compensate for the high losses of the landings. This is intentional in the design I recall, because the idea is that if you took the other objectives, then the island capitulates.

c) The result does hinge on how bad those initial airborne landings are. Some landings are disastrous, with high losses, and some are not so bad. I think that on some turns for the follow up landings you have to "hold" some reinforcements if the LZs are not cleared, to avoid unnecessary losses.

d) The effectiveness of the Axis airborne forces depends on how fast they can reorganize and combine into battalions. Once this happens, they can slowly push forward and destroy just about everything in front of them with direct fire.

So, I think the H2H scenario with AAR rule on is OK (after my recollections), but yes, one of the more difficult scenarios to play given the variables, but I don't think it should be considered broken. But who knows, maybe I will play it again at some point and change my mind and suggest an update to the Alt scenario. We'll see. I will try to get back to some PzC goodness at some point. :)

But two optional rules you can consider anyway:

Alternate Assault Resolution OFF (which is actually the default in this title)
Quality Fatigue Modifier ON (which helps higher quality units - in this case the airborne, which is an oft used rule)

I hope that helps!

[Kool Kat]

Hey Ed: 

Thank you very much for your detailed response to me! 

It would be helpful if the 0622.01: Operation Herkules_alt scenario description included the text: "Intended for player versus Allied AI only" so players will not mistakenly play it H2H.

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/pzc-...io&id=6840

[Volcano Man]

Yes, good point.

Also, it may be that I need to go back and look it over again and possibly make some subtle adjustments. I will try to do that soon. I didn't want to make it seems like I think the scenario is perfect, it's just that it has to be thoroughly analyzed first.

When I get a break from my current project then I will play it out solitaire for fun. Looking at it very generally today though, it might be that the initial airborne landings are typically generating too high loss of VP for the Axis to make up for it later (which is something that will vary wildly from game to game), but we'll see.

[Volcano Man]

Actually, the scenario description does have this at the bottom of the text:

"*Designer Note: Victory Levels optimized for Human vs. Human play."

Now whether its also in the scenario database description here too, I haven't checked...