WF: Breakout at Benicourt - Balance Issues?

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I have received a few reports that my West Front H2H Approved scenario - "Breakout at Benicourt" "may" have balance issues.

I'm happy to re-examine balance in this scenario... but need a few players to step up and help play test it.

I prefer not to be one of the test players in a potential testing round.

Please respond to this thread if you are willing to help!

Breakout at Benicourt

September 13, 1944

Benicourt, France: [Best Played Versus Human Opponent] [HISB] [GD] At the beginning of September 1944, the American Third Army under Lt. Gen. George Patton, began operations against the German forces defending the territory between the Moselle and the Sarre Rivers. American strategy called for securing bridgeheads across the Moselle River and than a rapid advance east to encircle Nancy, a vital communications and supply hub. The American 80th Division was tasked with securing the towns of Pont-a-Mousson and Dieulouard, on the Moselle River. At midnight on September 11, assault battalions of the American 317 Infantry/80th Division, began attacking across the Moselle River and secured bridgeheads on the west bank. The Germans counter attacked the Dieulouard sector bridgeheads in the early morning hours on September 13 and after a furious battle that lasted until dawn, were driven off by elements of the 702nd Tank Battalion and 167th Engineer Combat Battalion. The CCA, 4th Armored Division than began to cross the bridgehead to cut off the retreating Germans. By 0800 the advance guard had fought its way near Ste. Genevieve and the armor was rolling east. On the morning of August 13, 1944, General Heninrich Knobelsdorff, Commander of 1. Armee, learned that an American armored column had broken through the German forces in the Dieulouard sector and was striking east. He immediately dispatched an infantry battalion, reinforced by assault guns and two batteries of antitank guns, to the Benicourt sector, in hopes of stopping the American tanks on the main paved road leading to Nomeny. A peaceful Sunday morning was about to be shattered as elements of CCA, 4th Armored Division made contact with the German 317th and 318th Infantry battalions. [All: Optional EA: No VV]

[PawelM]

I can fit in a quick game if is not too big.... Up to 20 turns should be manageable to me at this momement ......

Pawel

[Huib Versloot]

Looking at the stats the scn has no balance issues. (60-0-40). You risk harming more than you improve if you change it. Never pay attention to peoples' comments on balance unless the stats say the same thing.

Huib

[Kool Kat]

Looking at the stats the scn has no balance issues. (60-0-40). You risk harming more than you improve if you change it. Never pay attention to peoples' comments on balance unless the stats say the same thing.

Huib

Huib:

Very good! I will defer to your expertise in scenario development... and allow more games to be recorded... before making any decision on re-working this scenario design.

Thanks for weighing in on this thread! :)

Pawel - thanks for the offer to help! :)

[PawelM]

So you don't need testers anymore? Well, if you changed you r mind let me know.

[John Given]

Hi fellas, i just wrapped up a test game of this scenario a few days ago and thought i should weigh in.

Since I usually am able to best Eric (boisforas) when we play (don't hit me Eric ), I had to be extra careful with my review.

My advice is to read BOTH scenario notes (where the player describes his opinion of the scenario itself, under the heading "Complete Player Voting Stats") as well as battle (mini aar) notes (under 'complete gaming records'). It might leave one's impression of the review a bit more well-rounded.

Of course, saying that the scenario has victories on both sides shows that it is at least reasonably balanced is a good argument.

My overall gist of the scenario is really what I was getting at - it is very tank heavy for the allies, but that would be an easy fix. I enjoyed the scenario and so did Eric.

Btw, I have noticed that the vast majority of games played have no notes listed under either category. C'mon, guys! Write out a mini aar for your games - it takes only a minute, and they're an invaluable resource for the scenario designer for balancing, as well as offer a 'snapshot' to other players considering choosing that scenario for play. They're sometimes funny to read as well.

Take care.

[Kool Kat]

Hey John:

I noted that you had recently played my scenario... and was hoping you would join the conversation! Scenario feedback HERE.

So... based on your experience... are you comfortable in stating that it is balanced? You seem to be leaning in that direction?

[John Given]

Hey John:

I noted that you had recently played my scenario... and was hoping you would join the conversation! Scenario feedback HERE.

So... based on your experience... are you comfortable in stating that it is balanced? You seem to be leaning in that direction?

Well, what I meant was that when I play Eric, I generally take the 'disadvantaged' side - and that was why things were a bit more even for us. (It's like a permanent 'shark fin soup' tourney, with me as the shark) Even then, he pretty much had me on the run the entire game. I only won because of the sheer number of infantry ambushes I kept catching him in. Even then, I lost 3/4 of my infantry.

But I hesitate calling it balanced - I didn't see the entire allied oob, but I caught a glimpse of some spa's, a few armored cars, and some rear-area units and a support tank. In addition to the allied infantry (no balance issues there) the only notable balance factor seems to only be the tanks (in my opinion). There seem to be about 8 or 10 platoons of them. Perhaps if they were reduced by 2 to 4 platoons, I would call it balanced. Or, if you switched the tanks to regular M4 shermans, that would probably be *more* balanced, but still a bit strong.

I should mention that artillery on both sides seems fair. Rate and number of axis reinforcements seem ok. Of course, you could add axis tanks to 'even the score' with the shermans, but that would risk changing the whole flavor of the scenario imo.

But yeah, fun little scenario. Allied armor just too strong from my perspective.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Looking at the stats the scn has no balance issues. (60-0-40). You risk harming more than you improve if you change it. Never pay attention to peoples' comments on balance unless the stats say the same thing.

Huib

I don't agree. The stats are saying something here as well as the comments of a couple of the players. :cut wood:
When Tiger88 took the entire American force around his left flank he overwhelmed the German force, including the opt fire and ambushes that were set up along the way.
Yes, Tiger88 is well skilled but, I am no slouch. The game was decided almost half way through.

My comment was that two relatively equal opponents, or the more skilled playing as Allies, will have the Allies wipe the floor with the Germans. That was my experience. Nothing personal.

I'll stick to my opinion. I play tested the first three or four versions and found a couple of them to be more balanced than the last one. I think the errors of balance came with all the various versions through the original play tests in H2H.

Time will tell?



HSL

[Kool Kat]

Looking at the stats the scn has no balance issues. (60-0-40). You risk harming more than you improve if you change it. Never pay attention to peoples' comments on balance unless the stats say the same thing.

Huib

Gents:

I was wrong to look towards "re-balancing" my scenario... at least until more completed games are recorded.

If you review the percentage wins of each player in the 5 completed games... you will find that in all reported games (one exception) the player with the higher win % also won that match.

Seems at this point... that "Breakout at Benicourt" is "balanced" until the statistics point elsewhere?