View Full Version : Good scenarios from other sites
Guys (& Gals of course),
I know there are a lot of scenarios out there (see www.wargamer.com for example), but it's a lottery finding one that isn't unbalanced and generally poor.
Can anyone give me an early Christmas present by recommending any available from other sites that I may not have yet ?
Major Banned
25 Dec 02, 17:32
Keef and I just finished the Lebanon 82 scenario from TDG's website. Don't get it to play PBEM. The rules to the scenario are too restrictive for PBEM play unless you can get the PLO/Syrian player to agree to not attack you. ******************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************.
Nice map and good OOB, just play it as the Israelis vs. PLO/Syrian P.O. and save yourself some headaches.
[THIS POST EDITED BY WARFARE HQ STAFF]
RhinoBones
26 Dec 02, 12:46
You might look at "No Panzers":
http://travel.to/TOAW
The site specializes in pre 1930's scenarios. As I recall, however, most of the scenarios have not been updated for compatility with ACOW.
Regards, RhinoBones
Don Maddox
26 Dec 02, 13:45
Keep it clean guys. If you don't like the scenario then just say so. There's no need to lay a foul tongue on other people's efforts. :angry:
LOL - I do understand Major Cat's remarks - I am on turn 2 of Lebanon 82 in a PBEM game and have hads loads of grief for violating the rules of engagement despite me carefully reading the scenario briefing. Maybe the designer should have been more emphatic in the briefing?
RhinoBones
27 Dec 02, 01:34
Another page which is of very good interest is Brian Tropp's page at:
http://members.rogers.com/briantopp/scens.htm
Probably all of these scenarios eventually end up on the more popular scenario pages, but you can always be sure to find the latest version on this page.
As for the TDG scenarios . . . everything prior to the Lebanon scenario is, in my opinion, very well made, challenging and quite enjoyable to play.
Now along comes Lebanon . . . as I see it the author is attempting to model a very complex and convoluted military/political situation, and in doing so, has taken on an impossible task. Impossible or not, the author has gone ahead and designed a scenario for the geo-political/military time period. Although the author’s efforts are not what you enjoy (also, I did not particularly like the scenario), we still need to respect the ability of the author to model such a complex period of history.
The Lebanon scenario has been researched, designed, tested and placed in front of the public. This scenario has been play tested and thoroughly examined by the TDG staff. I would not discount the value of the TDG process for evaluating and refining scenarios.
As an author myself, I know the value of peer review and the comments received from players. Comments and suggestions are valued . . . ************************************************** *****************************.
[THIS POST EDITED BY WARFARE HQ STAFF]
Do you have any scenarios to be critiqued?
Best Regards, RhinoBones
Why don't you guys post your criticism at the TDG forum so we can engineer a solution together?
RhinoBones
27 Dec 02, 20:45
Originally posted by JMS
Why don't you guys post your criticism at the TDG forum so we can engineer a solution together?
I really do not see a need to post on more than one board. After all, the membership of the boards is so intermingled that anything written is quickly communicated to the entire community. You are an example of this.
As for the scenario, we both know that criticism is cheap and change is strictly up to the author. I’m quite sure that any useful comments have already been conveyed to the author. There is also a very real possibility that the author likes the scenario exactly as it is and, therefore, no change is necessary. I can respect that . . .
Happy Holidays
Regards, RhinoBones
Not necessarily. In fact I only check here once a while, and it was pure coincidence that I checked this thread. I looked over the blanket slander posted to see if there was some issue that could be addressed, but there are no specifics. If the scenario is unplayable as PBEM, maybe a version can be developed that works better. Insulting a group of people without offering any alternative or constructive criticism is only going to aggravate the differences between both groups and that won't help neither as constructive criticism is needed to get better scenarios. If there is no communication between players and designers don't expect to get better scenarios.
Don Maddox
28 Dec 02, 07:35
To some extent I have to agree with JMS. As the moderator of this forum I have already taken notice of this thread and made it clear that discussion's and criticism need to be kept civil and constructive (see my post above). It's well known that there is a certain degree of friction between a small number of people within the TOAW community. Unfortunately, that is usually the case whenever a large group of people with differing viewpoints and ideas are brought together.
A lot of active people in the TOAW community participate both here and at TDG. Some things have been said on both this forum and the TDG forum that IMHO would have been better left unsaid. I do my best to police this forum and keep the discussion civil. There is no need for anyone - from either webpage - to fan the flames of discord. The majority of members have far more in common than not. For the small number of gamers who have decided they don't like a certain individual, club, or webpage, nothing I say is probably going to make any difference. I'm not asking everyone to like everyone else, I'm simply saying this is a club, and club's have rules.
I speak for Warfare HQ, and I'm saying that this forum will not be used as a means to assassinate anyone's character (especially mine :D), thrash anyone's work, or start useless flame wars. Are there times that there is going to be passionate debate or some friendly trash talk between opposing sides in a tournament? Damn, I hope so! It would be a boring place if there weren't. However, there is a great difference between passionate debate and foolish behavior.
Other webpages will do things as they see fit. At Warfare HQ the forum will be moderated. I have deleted 6 threads (about 60 total posts) within the last month. It would be nice if people would post an apology when they realize they've said something foolish.
Feel free to keep posting in this thread, however, I expect to see a little higher standard from now on. If I don't, I will lock or delete this thread. I can do the same thing to individuals...
Originally posted by Stevo
Do you have any scenarios to be critiqued?
Best Regards, RhinoBones
At the moment I have one submission at TDG: Spain 1938-39 that is undergoing testing and shouldn't be too long (I hope!), plus another one on a german invasion of Spain in 1941, where playtest is pending. Any volunteers?
Hi JMS, If you have anything up for playtesting, I'll help. I am a novice at ACOW, but know all about the perils of scenario design.
Good! But I would need another playtester as I am too busy right now with work and X-mas to take up the commitment.
Thanks.
RhinoBones
29 Dec 02, 23:48
Another excellent site is “Century of Warfare Operations Room” located at:
http://www.toaw.co.uk/
The scenarios are segregated by era for easy reference.
Regards, RhinoBones
PS – Don’t eat at the buffet.
General Staff
30 Dec 02, 19:15
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ...
[THIS POST EDITED BY WARFARE HQ STAFF]
Yeah, I thought Rod's name was spelt wrong...:D
Major Banned
31 Dec 02, 18:14
So basically this is what it comes down to. If you want to trash a movie or some game not supported by WarfareHQ then it is acceptable. If you want to trash a scenario designed by someone from another website that contends that they are the end-all of scenario design (despite the fact that they only offer less than a dozen scenarios, of which only 6 are playable) then you will be censored. Odd, I'll have to bring that up at my next Veteran of Foreign Wars meeting, I don't remember that to be one of the things I put my ass on the line for.
Perhaps it would be advantageous in the future for new members to be informed of the fact that only opinions that suit the management of this website will be allowed to be posted on the forum.
:banana:
Can't forget the banana.
Siberian HEAT
31 Dec 02, 22:57
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
Perhaps it would be advantageous in the future for new members to be informed of the fact that only opinions that suit the management of this website will be allowed to be posted on the forum.
:banana:
Can't forget the banana.
We allow all fair opinions to be heard and shared on the forums, except when they contradict the spirit of cooperation with our fellow TOAW sites (or are just outright insulting). Granted, the relationship of all members of all sites is not going to be perfect, but as the staff of HQ it is our duty to try to keep things civil and constructive.
We choose to have a little more control over our forums as opposed to other sites because we truly want to maintain a high level of professionalism in our community. I feel I represent the vast majority of my fellow players when I say that there is no need to allow insulting criticisms or flame wars on this forum. If the elimination of that small portion of worthless posts is considered "censorship" then so be it. I think most folks will understand and accept this policy.
People who seem to cultivate antagonisms with other sites or between members get special attention from the staff. Just keep criticism constructive and there will be no need for intervention from HQ Staff. Basically common courtesy is requested when posting here on the forums. Pretty simple really. No offense intended to anyone in this thread. Just stating general policy.
:banana: :banana: :banana:
Ssudukh Tlakota
01 Jan 03, 09:21
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
So basically this is what it comes down to. If you want to trash a movie or some game not supported by WarfareHQ then it is acceptable. If you want to trash a scenario designed by someone from another website that contends that they are the end-all of scenario design (despite the fact that they only offer less than a dozen scenarios, of which only 6 are playable) then you will be censored. Odd, I'll have to bring that up at my next Veteran of Foreign Wars meeting, I don't remember that to be one of the things I put my ass on the line for.
Perhaps it would be advantageous in the future for new members to be informed of the fact that only opinions that suit the management of this website will be allowed to be posted on the forum.
Being a "new" member of the Forum, what I am looking for is intelligent reviews of new senarios, not the "trashing" them. If that means that extraneous remarks are edited by the moderator, go for it. I'd just as soon not having to wade through flame wars to find the information I'm looking for.
Don Maddox
01 Jan 03, 13:48
Oh damn!!! I was hoping this whole thing would just die, but I can see it's not going to. I may as well attempt to put this thing to rest before it starts up again.
As a general rule I don't like the idea of editing anyone's posts or removing any thread. I personally have very thick skin and can stand just about anything. However, I have recently had to re-learn the lesson that not everyone is so tolerant of criticism and flames as I am. If these forums degenerate into chaos and name calling then members will go elsewhere and quit the club. It's just that simple. At times it has gotten so bad that staff members have considered moving on. I can't stand by and let that happen and I think most people can understand that.
It's unfortunate that a group of people as educated and intelligent as we have here can act so foolish from time to time. No one wants to act like Big Brother, but damn it, when I'm receiving 20 or so emails a day about this crap I have to do something.
We recently had a glimmer of hope that there might yet be a possibility for a revival of the TOAW system or at least a new patch. That effort was nearly derailed before it even got started because of bad blood. I did my best to calm that issue down and it looked like people had finally relaxed a little bit and decided to let bygones be bygones. Then along comes a post brutally flaming an entire group of TOAW people because the author didn't like their scenario. It didn't take a slide rule to figure out how that was going to end up.
I don't like editing anyone's words and I'm sorry it if hurt anyone's feelings, but in this one case I felt it was the lesser of two evils. Warfare HQ is not in any way shape or form trying to limit the members' ability to post criticism or opinions, even when those criticisms are concerning Warfare HQ itself. Please continue to post what you want. All I'm asking is that you show a little bit of respect for other people's feelings and be tactful. Is that so bad? Other people on other websites are free to do and say what they want. I'm just trying to make sure Warfare HQ is a fun place that people enjoy visiting, and talking with old friends. Let's just let this thread die and move on to something more constructive.
And oh by the way, the Warfare HQ FAQ states the following about the forum:
The Warfare HQ forums are loosely moderated by the staff, however, it is quite rare to see locked threads. This is mainly due to the membership respecting each other's opinions. Spirited debate is encouraged and members should feel free to speak their mind, however, this should be done in a tactful manner. Warfare HQ does not endorse "political correctness," but members should avoid intentionally insulting others members. Blatant hate posts and extreme vulgarity will not be tolerated.
The major reasons that I consider Warfare HQ to be my home site is that it the members conduct themselves as adults and gentlemen (and a few gentlewomen). This site has all the best aspects of a small town--where everyone knows everyone else and treats each other with respect. Members are passionate without being personal. All of this is accomplished with a sense of humor kept intact.
Thanks to all for making this a special place for war gaming and military history mavons of all stripes, locations, and levels of experience and immersion.
Originally posted by Jag Commander
The major reasons that I consider Warfare HQ to be my home site is that it the members conduct themselves as adults and gentlemen (and a few gentlewomen). This site has all the best aspects of a small town--where everyone knows everyone else and treats each other with respect. Members are passionate without being personal. All of this is accomplished with a sense of humor kept intact.
I agree entirely. But then again, let's not forget the
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
a white rabbit
03 Jan 03, 12:55
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
So basically this is what it comes down to. If you want to trash a movie or some game not supported by WarfareHQ then it is acceptable. If you want to trash a scenario designed by someone from another website that contends that they are the end-all of scenario design (despite the fact that they only offer less than a dozen scenarios, of which only 6 are playable) then you will be censored.
..if you don't like the scens at TDG then; a)come there to complain or ; b) post your review but tell us where, i'll put it up on TDG if you won't...i'll assume that we are talking a thought-out critique here and not just a childish rant..if your critique is any good you might just get roped in for the interminable but necessary play-testing..,
..as for only 6 accessible scens , tuff, that's not bad for a year's existance given the amount of pre-publication work that goes on, which i'll briefly list..
..1) initial conception with external input
..2) actual design and many vs PO games to get something concrete
..3) playtest vs another designer (usually with rewrites and restarts)
..4) playtest vs a different designer (rewrites etc inc)
..5) Blind Test by two known-to-be competent player-designers who've never looked at the scen, nor got greatly involved in the discussions..if they say it's ready, it goes up on the board..,
..please note these are minimum conditions to publish, most go round 3 and 4 more than once before getting to 5..,
..i don't know about you, but i for one, have had my fill of wasting my time on poorly designed, badly thought-out, historically laughable scens..,
..i would also like to see, as i suggested back at Talonsoft, a central review site where critiques can be published and accessed by all us poor mortals who've got the toaw bug, * *** ***** ** ** ***** *** ******** ****************** *** ***** ** **** **** ****-****..,-EDITED BY WARFAREHQ STAFF
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe Odd, I'll have to bring that up at my next Veteran of Foreign Wars meeting, I don't remember that to be one of the things I put my ass on the line for.
Perhaps it would be advantageous in the future for new members to be informed of the fact that only opinions that suit the management of this website will be allowed to be posted on the forum.
:banana:
Can't forget the banana.
[/B]
..i fink you're sulking 'cos teacher told you off :rolleyes: ..,
Menschenfresser
03 Jan 03, 14:25
Someone wanna delete all the posts on this thread, mine included, except for the one guy who's actually posting sites at which we'll find scens...And then make this sticky?
Originally posted by Menschenfresser
Someone wanna delete all the posts on this thread, mine included, except for the one guy who's actually posting sites at which we'll find scens...And then make this sticky?
LoL...wouldn't it be easier to just start a new thread?
I'm of the opinion that when we make public spectacles of ourselves, we should leave our foolishness on display to remind ourselves to not be so hasty and obstinate, the next time we are feeling so feisty...:D
I know that I've eaten my fair share of humble pie over the years, served back after posting while angry, or simply misinformed.
As the starter of this thread I just find it amusing what it's developed into ! :confused:
For those who are interested the reference quite a few posts above to Brian Topp's site is an excellent one, as that site gives a number of useful links to other TOAW sites as well.
a white rabbit
05 Jan 03, 10:11
..and despite the censorship, there's still one new and moderately prolific designer that i'd like to post a critique on.. because he's got possibilities, but not if he continues to publish basically unfinished stuff..,
..i'm not flaming, but think back on the absolute tat that got put up at Talonsoft..if 25% were playable it was a miracle..,
Siberian HEAT
05 Jan 03, 11:13
Originally posted by a white rabbit
..and despite the censorship, there's still one new and moderately prolific designer that i'd like to post a critique on.. because he's got possibilities, but not if he continues to publish basically unfinished stuff..,
..i'm not flaming, but think back on the absolute tat that got put up at Talonsoft..if 25% were playable it was a miracle..,
I am sure we would all agree there is no one "above the law" of peer review. However, if you are talking about someone in particular just say so. Your statement in the edited post and this one appear to be backhanded slaps at someone on this site. If you keep things friendly and constructive you can suggest or complain about just about anything here at HQ or anywhere. We really do value varied opinions and HATE editing other people's posts. Keeping it civil will keep the censors at bay :cheeky:
Menschenfresser
05 Jan 03, 11:41
Last night I finished Purgatory 39-40, playing against myself. Scenario can run 30-36 turns and is large I would say. Covers the Karelian Ithmus, Lake Lagoda and a couple hundred kilometers north. Doesn't go up as far as Raata road, the site of a soviet slaughter, but what is there gives a good feel of winter war battle...I think.
I can't say much to play balance, playing against myself, but I enjoyed the scen. Not sure if it has PO capabilities. The real interesting thing I thought, was by the time winter comes, the lines are pretty formed up and myself as the Soviets had pushed the Finns back to the Mannerheim Line. But suddenly all the lakes and rivers are frozen, and from one turn to the next, the tactical options increase as you can attack across them. The Soviets got the jump on this and were able to move up and swing around some really entrenched units, resulting in several pockets of Finnish battalions.
Ended up with an automatic victory at turn 27 in capturing a town at the far edge of the map, and came off with the impression that the Finns would have little chance 8 outta 10 times at stopping the Soviets, but then I checked the Blitz's scen list and the two games played with this list Finnish victories. Go figure.
I did three things wrong as the Finns: the wings of my line on the Ithmus weren't as strong as the center. I failed to continue an ordered retreat once winter came and the lakes froze. And for a few turns the Finns get a shock bonus for an offensive. I went on the offensive and pushed the Soviets back in a few places, regaining several VP hexes. But in the end, fresh Soviet reinforcements drove back now exhausted Finnish units with ease.
Say what will, I had fun.
a white rabbit
06 Jan 03, 05:46
Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
I am sure we would all agree there is no one "above the law" of peer review. However, if you are talking about someone in particular just say so. Your statement in the edited post and this one appear to be backhanded slaps at someone on this site. If you keep things friendly and constructive you can suggest or complain about just about anything here at HQ or anywhere. We really do value varied opinions and HATE editing other people's posts. Keeping it civil will keep the censors at bay :cheeky:
..absolutely no-one here, not that i know anyway, believe me if it was i'd have said so..the prob is that with new/young designers i really feel it would be better done in a zone specifically for critiques, rather than on an open board where it has the appearance of "flaming"..,
Siberian HEAT
06 Jan 03, 14:04
Originally posted by a white rabbit
..absolutely no-one here, not that i know anyway, believe me if it was i'd have said so..the prob is that with new/young designers i really feel it would be better done in a zone specifically for critiques, rather than on an open board where it has the appearance of "flaming"..,
I apologize for misreading your posts...I thought you were talking about someone else :cheeky: Agree on your critique approach, but not sure how best to implement such a thing. One option is to post a short AAR when playing scenarios by that designer and submitting a game report...we have a few of these in the TOAW HQ section although most focus on gameplay rather than design.
I will shoot that around the office to see what we can come up with...
Sorry again Rabbit.
Menschenfresser
06 Jan 03, 15:16
Does anyone frequent Moby games? Sort of a videogame zine site. The reviews are written by members to the site. I like the layout of the reviews: the good, the bad, and the bottom line. Also asks for a tag line, I think.
Like reviews at Amazon or other sites...you can usually gather from the review whether the reviewer can be trusted with his opinions.
Problem with AARs is that even if the bottom line on any given scenario is a thumbs down, the battle description almost always enthralls me and makes me want to play the scenario. But that's just me.
a white rabbit
07 Jan 03, 04:11
Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
I apologize for misreading your posts...I thought you were talking about someone else :cheeky: Agree on your critique approach, but not sure how best to implement such a thing. One option is to post a short AAR when playing scenarios by that designer and submitting a game report...we have a few of these in the TOAW HQ section although most focus on gameplay rather than design.
I will shoot that around the office to see what we can come up with...
Sorry again Rabbit.
..s'ok..it's Norm's fault, toaw gives the problems by being one of the few games with a serious editor, a problem compounded by the arrival of the BioEd..,
Peter_Szabo
09 Jan 03, 09:40
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
Keef and I just finished the Lebanon 82 scenario from TDG's website. Don't get it to play PBEM. The rules to the scenario are too restrictive for PBEM play unless you can get the PLO/Syrian player to agree to not attack you. ******************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************.
Nice map and good OOB, just play it as the Israelis vs. PLO/Syrian P.O. and save yourself some headaches.
[THIS POST EDITED BY WARFARE HQ STAFF]
Major Catastrophe,
I did not check this thread until today, so unfortunately, thanks to Don Maddox, I missed the best parts of the discussion. ;)
I ask you to tell me what was wrong with the scenario, and what you think would be the way to improve it. Given that the scenario is unpopular with a number of players, probably I need to address the problems.
The scenario went up half a year ago, and there are a number of things which I now would do differently. What I gather from the posts here, the main issue is playability: quite possibly the scenario was polished too much and the event engine grew too complex. If this is the case, I should consider simplifying the events significantly.
It's good to see feedback getting noticed by designers, and interest in player's input. Also, kudos for taking it with a sense of humor!
I hope some constructive criticism and honest discussion can help you to make a better design, and I wish more designers would be willing to listen as you are.
Good luck!
Originally posted by Peter_Szabo
I ask you to tell me what was wrong with the scenario, and what you think would be the way to improve it. Given that the scenario is unpopular with a number of players, probably I need to address the problems.
I'm playing a PBEM game of Lebanon 82 as we speak and I think that what M. Catastrophe was so eloquently trying to express was that the political events seem to hinder the Israeli side;
though this was in fact the case historically.
I'm playing the Arab side in the scenario (thank god). My forces are getting absolutely pummeled and yet I'm still in the position of gaining a substantial victory. On the world stage (ie. in a political context), this may actually be the way it should happen, but on the field of battle, I am suffering a massive defeat.
One interesting item of note. So far I've had a total of 4-5 units evaporated by my opponents air interdiction and yet none of the units in question were moving; all of them were dug in. Any explanation for that?
Dan Neely
09 Jan 03, 14:30
interdiction will also hammer a random selection of non moving units.
At the Wargammer I dwnlded Japan invaded and US invaded, try them you will have fun
Best Regards
I'm into my second game of Lebanon 82, and I'm really enjoying it. The only sugestion I'd make is that the Israeli stop lines should be drawn on the actual game map (perhaps as *s on the main roads to prevent too much clutter). I know that you specifically decided against this, but including a possible outbreak of fighting in the Golan Heights could be interesting.
Originally posted by jlbetin
At the Wargammer I dwnlded Japan invaded and US invaded, try them you will have fun
Best Regards
Did you play against a PO?
I'd love to play a campaign style game where the PO can hold up it's end. But no WWII N. Africa, please! Any suggestions?
Sorry is PO acronim for Email oponent ?
If Yes no I never play again an email oponent.
For your information the scenarios I speak of, are placed in 2006, it is an invasion of US and Japan by an Euro Russian coalition.
An other which was fun (but on TOAW I) was the french spain WAR in 1950. It was on Wargamer too.
Best regards
Der wanderer:p
PO = Programed Opponent, or AI, or the Computer. I think Norm Koger himself coined the acronym.
Do you think the computer can give a strong player a good game? Do you have to play a specific side? How did your game work out, did you win?
a white rabbit
11 Jan 03, 03:51
Originally posted by tigersqn
One interesting item of note. So far I've had a total of 4-5 units evaporated by my opponents air interdiction and yet none of the units in question were moving; all of them were dug in. Any explanation for that?
..only 4/5 ?..and i thought the Israelis were good..wait till you face the USAF in CSV, then tell me about interdiction..still twitching..,
I remember playing Iraq in a Desert Storm scenario... OUCH! Unlikely to move a space without getting smoked.
Dear Mantis,
I play 100% PO games,and I don't win always. I practice Wargames since 25 years, 1st with board games, and now with computer. I thing I got a good experience. But many times the AI of the computer empeach me to win.
By instance, I got lot of difficulties in playing operation olympic, play 7 times won only twice.
With TAOW II, I play a sequel of Next war in Europe a scenario downloaded from the wargamer, I was certain to win up TO 3/4 of the game duration but my units became too exhausted and it finish as a draw !!.
So scenarios drive you to the victory as the OOB of the allies or the German proove your initial superiority (overlord or France 40)
concerning France 40 I'm pretty sure that the french units are under estimated. Troops were good tanks correct plane not so bad but it is true that the French High command was very stupid. I read that they refused to use Radio they were prefering the phone !!!!!
Most of Wargamers ignore that the rate of loss of french army during May and June forty was very high if it was maintaind on 1 year it wiil gave 1.7 million death ( more than the whole 1st world war). French troops fight hard but the troops management was "stupid/inaccurate" no words to explain that.
Best Regards
Der Wanderer
Peter_Szabo
13 Jan 03, 04:38
Thanks for all the feedback on my Lebanon 82 scenario. At the moment it looks like Lebanon is a controversial scenario: some people like it and some don't. I would like to get some more feedback from those who don't like it, either here or at the TDG forum, so that I know what needs to be changed.
I can identify one problem with the scenario: the rules of engagement are implemented in such a way that the Israeli player is free to take any action, but ROE violations will result in VP penalties. As the rules are complex, it is very easy for the Israeli player to violate them involuntarily and collect a massive penalty. This problem has surfaced earlier, and I tried to solve it by revising the briefing several times--apparently to no avail. It is now time to concede the rules themselves.
I am considering to revise the scenario in such a way that it would be physically impossible to break the rules of engagement. This means removing much of the historical chrome and concentrating on the critical aspects of the campaign instead. My plan for the revision is the following:
1. An exclusion zone will block the entrance to the Bekaa valley. It will be automatically removed on the AM June 9 turn or, alternatively, the Israeli player may remove it via theater option. The VP cost of the option is prohibitive on turn 1, but will decrease to an affordable level gradually. Unfortunately the exclusion zone would also block some PLO units' escape route, but this is operationally not significant.
The Israeli player is free to attempt to bypass the exclusion zone, or to approach Beirut. However, the amphibious paratroop force will be converted to foot infantry.
2. Air and helicopter units would only appear in the game on the turn after the exclusion zone has been removed. The Israeli player is unable to attack the SAMs before that, and is free to attack them thereafter. However, the penalty for attcking Syrian airfields will remain unchanged.
3. There will be no Israeli VP penalty for attacking the marked cities without prior warning. Yet attacking them will result in several turns of refugee effects, so the Israeli player may want to refrain from attacking the cities until the main forces have bypassed them.
4. UN units and the related events will be removed from the scenario altogether; the effects of their presence were operationally negligible.
I hope that these changes will improve playability for the Israeli side, without unduly compromising historicity. I may as well keep the present version available for those who like it this way.
I will also post the planned changes at the TDG forum to discuss them with the members there.
Thankyou for taking the time to post this, I cam currently playing this one and got severely hit by the limitations on the ROE
Yesterday night (gosh very late)
I begin to play with a screnarion created by B Turner, a member of this site, waoooh, the opening is plenty of promise for the next turns, try it too it's a great one
:D
Der Wanderer
a white rabbit
14 Jan 03, 04:59
Originally posted by jlbetin
Dear Mantis,
I play 100% PO games,and I don't win always. I practice Wargames since 25 years, 1st with board games, and now with computer. I thing I got a good experience. But many times the AI of the computer empeach me to win.
By instance, I got lot of difficulties in playing operation olympic, play 7 times won only twice.
With TAOW II, I play a sequel of Next war in Europe a scenario downloaded from the wargamer, I was certain to win up TO 3/4 of the game duration but my units became too exhausted and it finish as a draw !!.
So scenarios drive you to the victory as the OOB of the allies or the German proove your initial superiority (overlord or France 40)
concerning France 40 I'm pretty sure that the french units are under estimated. Troops were good tanks correct plane not so bad but it is true that the French High command was very stupid. I read that they refused to use Radio they were prefering the phone !!!!!
Most of Wargamers ignore that the rate of loss of french army during May and June forty was very high if it was maintaind on 1 year it wiil gave 1.7 million death ( more than the whole 1st world war). French troops fight hard but the troops management was "stupid/inaccurate" no words to explain that.
Best Regards
Der Wanderer
..don't worry, mai 1940 is on the 'to do and being done' list..but re the French troops, i'm sorry they were very variable, from equivalent to the Germans to bloody appalling ..,
Don Maddox
21 Jan 03, 16:09
Back to the subject at hand...
The map for the Lebanon 82 scenario is excellent. I wonder where the author got topographic maps of sufficient detail to allow a map of the region at 2.5 km/hex? At any rate it's a great map.
I also really like the map from Daniel McBride's IndoPak scenario. Great work as is the map from DnO.
Has anyone found a reliable source of really detailed maps for the Middle East? Some of these maps are less than 10km/hex and finding maps with that level of detail is not easy.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.