View Full Version : War in the West Tourny/Sealion 2.1 Flaw
CyberGeneral
06 Nov 03, 19:30
Sealion 2.1 Voluntary rules:
1. The British may not base any ships in the Channel Ports (35.25 through 24,30, inclusive). This would allow British ships to lie at anchor within the Luftwaffe’s attack radius, a highly unrealistic situation.
2. The British may never bombard using a ship/fleet anchored in any Port.
3. The German may not use any Port, other than the aforenamed Channel Ports, to invade or offload troops.
4. Neither player will continue his turn after the first announcement that it has ended; this means that British warships at sea when the turn ends will be potentially subject to Luftwaffe attack.
--------------------------------------------
These are the Voluntary Rules to the 3rd tournament game in the "War in the West". It is the #2 rule "The British may never bombard using a ship/fleet anchored in any Port" that I now have trouble with as I am in the middle of a game and have had this rule put to the test with my opponent.
(unless you've played this game, this will sound meaningless....to those that have played this out....)
......As the Axis army move along the west coast road to take Bristol 20:24, The port in Cardiff 16:24 will be within range of ship/fleet bombardment.
......Should the German Army paradrop to an unoccupied (hex abandend for an all out British reinforcement of the southern line) Northern British reinforcement hex (top of map 25:4), the port at 29:4 will be within British ship/fleet bombardment range.
.......Should the German Army paradrop to the unoccupied (hex abandend for an all out British reinforcement of the southern line) Liverpool hex (map 15:10), the port at 15:11 will be within British
ship/fleet bombardment range.
........As has happened to me, the cry is that the British ships/fleets are entitled to these ports to refuel/bombard (except in the channel ports)......
........I believe the ruling needs to be completly ironed out BEFORE the 3rd game in the War in the West tournament.
Possible consequenses:
1: No port hexes in northern or western sections of England needs to be guarded with British forces as the ships/fleets are entitled to these ports.
2: No Victory point hexes in northern or western sections of England are immune from bombardment as the ships/fleets are entitled to base/ (or unintentially) Bombard from these ports.
3: All British ships can base port to port (except in the channel ports) as needed to bombard any attempts at the northern & western V-hexes.
The confussion WILL be an issue......
______________
Rule #2 should read:
"2. The British may never bombard using a ship/fleet anchored in any "Channel" Port.
OR
"2. The British MAY bombard using a ship/fleet anchored in any Port."
OR
"2. The British may never BASE OR bombard using a ship/fleet anchored in any Port WITHIN range of any emeny unit.
--------------------------
Confusing?........... :crosseye:
unless you've played this game, this will sound meaningless....
Agreed! :laugh: I'd like to get input from the vets that have some experience with this scenario, please.
Agreed! :laugh: I'd like to get input from the vets that have some experience with this scenario, please.
Short version: It sucks, have fun. :p
Longer version: It has some serious flaws. The scale, density and terrain involved will mean a bloody slugging match, more along the lines of WWI trench warfare. But, this is not the worst part.
The designer has made the grave error of placing weak irregular units on each of the airfields of the British to "protect" them. Unfortunately, this has the exact opposite effect as paradrops onto garrisoned airfields invoke the "adjacent ground supporting air unit bug" whereby air units that are on Combat Support missions will evaporate whenever they are adjacent to battles. This effect occurs against any air units, regardless of mission status that are in the airbase under airdrop attack.
Thus, the German player can virtually destroy the bulk of the RAF on the first turn by dropping their paratroops hither and thither throughout the English countryside on the occupied airbases. The potential "fix" of a house rule preventing such paradrops, would be unreasonably prohibitive to the German players operational flexibility.
These same irregular regiments are along the coast "guarding" the anchorages and are virtually useless on the defensive, acting as "overrun movement enhancers" to the Germans on the first turn. On the flip side of this, is after they are released from reserve status, they make perfect suicide soak-off troops for supply drain attacks, given the rather high replacement rate for irregular squads, and their utter uselessness as anything else.
The British "S. Command" formation should be split into at least two subgroups (preferably three) to be more in line with the Korps sized formations that the Germans are using, and to allow some unit breakdowns. There are 24 units in this formation and after 2 or 3 units are broken down (from combat or intentionally) there can be no further breakdowns for this frontline formation.
The houserule prohibiting British Ship Units from being in ports while bombarding, is laughably unfair in not mentioning the German fleet. Both sides should be under the same type of restrictions, as it is rather silly to see the German fleet bombarding London from the safety of an anchorage at Southend, and immune to the British Home Fleet, or RAF, by virtue of being stacked with some ground units.
The recon levels in the scenario are way too high, and there is no UK rail repair capability. Though the Germans shouldn't have any, the UK should have at least a 2 or 3 rail repair capacity. This omission is inexcuseable in a half-weekly turn scenario. Especially with the possibility of paratroops destroying half of the rail lines in the Midlands.
Sorry if I seem harsh, but I'm getting picky in my old age... :whlchr:
CyberGeneral
07 Nov 03, 05:29
Yea!...............And that too!
CyberGeneral
09 Feb 04, 18:44
Sealion 2.1 SHOULD still be scrutinized as a FLAWED scenario with major loopholes that need to be ironed out before the start of Round 3 War in the West Tournament..............If indeed the scenario is to be used, the honor rules need to be completely understood by the players............
CyberGeneral
09 Feb 04, 18:52
........And another thing............The airlift capacity used to airlift the Axis forces to England, then to resupply the forces that landed, can be(unrealistically) reused to parachute these units over and over and over and over again all over the English landscape as just about every hex in England has a Airfield............
No naval unit from any side may bombard while in port. No para unit may drop more than once.
Only twelve of you are going to advance, and for the most part these players will be a good sampling of the 'higher end' in terms of skill level. Be gentlemen; don't exploit the para bug. You obviously want to drop to support your main landing. Do it. But don't go farther with it, taking advantage of the air bug.
I know that's rather nebulous, but what I'm really asking here is for you vets to manage 6 games of this scenario without anyone having to complain about their opponent abusing this all to hades. Let's just try to make it work!
We playtested every scenario, and I went on feedback. (I've never played *any* of these scenarios!) I've since become aware that this scenario is not 'fair', but this information didn't come up until we were *way* past the playtest phase. Also, it really doesn't matter. Keep in mind this tourney is about the points. When you're the German, grab as many as you can, and when you're the Allies, you'll have to live with the kinds of things you just did to the other guy.
Whether the scenario favors one side or not is really a moot point; players play both sides, and that's the great equalizer.
No naval unit from any side may bombard while in port. No para unit may drop more than once.
Only twelve of you are going to advance, and for the most part these players will be a good sampling of the 'higher end' in terms of skill level. Be gentlemen; don't exploit the para bug. You obviously want to drop to support your main landing. Do it. But don't go farther with it, taking advantage of the air bug.
I know that's rather nebulous, but what I'm really asking here is for you vets to manage 6 games of this scenario without anyone having to complain about their opponent abusing this all to hades. Let's just try to make it work!
We playtested every scenario, and I went on feedback. (I've never played *any* of these scenarios!) I've since become aware that this scenario is not 'fair', but this information didn't come up until we were *way* past the playtest phase. Also, it really doesn't matter. Keep in mind this tourney is about the points. When you're the German, grab as many as you can, and when you're the Allies, you'll have to live with the kinds of things you just did to the other guy.
Whether the scenario favors one side or not is really a moot point; players play both sides, and that's the great equalizer.
If I may butt in here...
WTF?
Are you saying that nobody should drop on airbases? Or, only those without stacked ground/air units? Why in the hell would you prohibit a para unit from making a second drop in a subsequent turn? When you say "para bug" in this context there is the confusing implication that there even exists some bug specific to paras that what?...allows them to drop more than once per turn? Doesn't happen.
The whole thing about the naval units too, is still maddingly unclear. Naval units still "bombard" while in port, whether you want them to, or not. Offensively, or defensively. Why the prohibition only against British ships? What about German ships, stacked with German divisions, anchored safely in Southend and passively supporting the German drive on London, immune to the RAF, and RN?
With regard to playbalance, as it can easily tip to either side with devastating quickness especially in the early game, it is rather balanced. It just happens to be a crappy scenario on so many other levels.
You raise more hell for someone that's not even playing, lol! And everything I said there was basically in reply to your own posts!
The houserule prohibiting British Ship Units from being in ports while bombarding, is laughably unfair in not mentioning the German fleet. Both sides should be under the same type of restrictionsNo naval unit from any side may bombard while in port.Why the prohibition only against British ships? What about German shipsI think you misread me on that one.
........And another thing............The airlift capacity used to airlift the Axis forces to England, then to resupply the forces that landed, can be(unrealistically) reused to parachute these units over and over and over and over again all over the English landscape as just about every hex in England has a Airfield............Thus, the German player can virtually destroy the bulk of the RAF on the first turn by dropping their paratroops hither and thither throughout the English countryside on the occupied airbases. The potential "fix" of a house rule preventing such paradrops, would be unreasonably prohibitive to the German players operational flexibility.
Settle for the middleground - we need people to be able to make airdrops to support initial landings; only makes sense. But after that, all players are to be handicapped equally. No more airdrops.
Seriously, folks. I've never played this scenario. I told everyone that up front. I asked for a ziliion volunteers and started playtests half a year prior to starting this tourney. You guys nominated Sealion, and playtested it, and crtitiqued it. I shared the results when I chose the scenarios, based entirely on your feedback. The time for these discussions was then, not now. It's too late for me to do anything about it but take my best guess at what are very reasonable balance issues that you guys are pointing out, and I'm doing my damndest to keep it fair.
But where was all this when I went through the incredibly lengthy process on community chosen scenarios for this tourney?
I hate to fall back on this, but none of it really matters anyways. This isn't about fair and balanced scenarios. It's about everyone having an equal chance when they step up to the keyboard and try to amass tha largest pile of VPs. And in that regard, everyone is balanced (or screwed, depending on your viewpoint), equally.
Getting the right viewpoint helps as well. Is the Germans vs the Brits really fair? No. But that doesn't matter, as half of you aren't Brits and the ofther half Germans. You're both, just like every other player involved. It balances.
(DON!!! Jam's being mean to me on my birthday!)
:laugh:
Uh oh, he's replying... ;)
You raise more hell for someone that's not even playing, lol! And everything I said there was basically in reply to your own posts!
Damned straight! Someone's gotta keep you folks honest, and up front. Mostly upfront... ;)
I think you misread me on that one.
And you're ignoring my point. Naval units will "bombard" passively just like any non-mobile deployed artillery unit, or air unit on GS. Thus, letting them sit in ports when in range of ground combat will result in them bombarding, even if they are not assigned to do so. You skirted the question. What are the tourney rules with respect to naval units in port that will avoid this issue?
Settle for the middleground -
More vague pronouncements...where is the "middleground"? Between the channel and an East-West line through Coventry? Or is it between here and there?. LoL...see what I mean? Take a look at the bloody scenario and run a few turns in hotseat to at least make an informed decision... :p
we need people to be able to make airdrops to support initial landings; only makes sense. But after that, all players are to be handicapped equally. No more airdrops.
What about the glider inf that come on as reinforcements on turn 6? Can they drop? What if some of the paras come over on ships and drop from Britain...say on turn 4? What if some of the split units are dropped and recombined and what then? See how silly the "no further dropping" rule is? Especially since you still have notreally defined what exactly it is. Besides, and this is my main gripe, it further deprives the Germans of operational flexibility in the mid and late game, is completely arbitrary, and ahistorical. Oh...and it serves what purpose?
I asked for a ziliion volunteers and started playtests half a year prior to starting this tourney. You guys nominated Sealion, and playtested it, and crtitiqued it. I shared the results when I chose the scenarios, based entirely on your feedback. The time for these discussions was then, not now. It's too late for me to do anything about it but take my best guess at what are very reasonable balance issues that you guys are pointing out, and I'm doing my damndest to keep it fair.
But where was all this when I went through the incredibly lengthy process on community chosen scenarios for this tourney?
Sorry I couldn't spare the time giving you any input back then, but I was busy several hours a day with playtesting some of Daniel's monsters. Though it may seem like I'm stirring up sh*t now, I'm trying to help you make informed decisions, before you start the next round. One of the reasons that I dropped out, was to be able to give this feedback without any doubt as to my impartiality.
Consider me an equal opportunity annoyer... :devil:
Uh oh, he's replying... ;)
LoL...spying on me? I should have waited an hour, or so, more...to keep you hanging on in suspense...;)
I have a better idea than attempting to rebutt any of that. You are obviously familiar with this scenario. And you're a top notch player. If you have suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them. And I'm sure that the community will not devolve into civil war were I to implement some, any, or all of your suggestions.
So skip the questions, and just present what the major problems are and any solutions you may have. If there are areas where you see something hugely wrong, and have no ideas on corrections, then we'll all decide how to proceed right here in this thread.
I can understand if you were not able to participate back when we were trying to get all these scenarios playtested and ironed out; and I'm sure you can understand that I can't seriously be expected to know all the answers. I don't, that's why I had the playtesting phase.
Don't take me wrong, please; I'm not trying to be adversarial, nor am I implying that you are. I'd just like to channel the conversation so that the next so many posts will contribute to me ending all this mess and getting on with Round 3.
We have to wait a tiny bit for word from people on the incomplete games; this will give us a bit of time to iron out these issues.
James, do you think you could piss with this scenario for a minor amount of time, and 'tweak' it to make it more of a tourney version? Something not time-intensive for you? That's another option we could look at.
I have a better idea than attempting to rebutt any of that...If you have suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them. And I'm sure that the community will not devolve into civil war were I to implement some, any, or all of your suggestions.
So skip the questions, and just present what the major problems are and any solutions you may have. If there are areas where you see something hugely wrong, and have no ideas on corrections, then we'll all decide how to proceed right here in this thread...
If nothing else, then I think that the naval rules, at least need to hammered out. There are two issues here, with a slight overlap. One is the issue of historicity. The other, the anomalies which occur when naval units are stacked with ground units in an anchorage.
With respect to the historical considerations that the scenario's spirit calls for, I would institute the following restrictions:
1) German naval units are not allowed to base in any German controlled, British anchorage hex. They may remain at sea, or base in any of the continental ports (French/Belgian). If driven into an British anchorage by retreating from an British naval attack on the previous turn, they must either immediately move out of the anchorage hex, if a path exists for them to leave, or make an ignore loss attack against at least one hex occupied by a British fleet unit, that is "blockading" the anchorage hex. They must continue to either attempt to move out, or make ignore loss attacks each available tactical phase until they are either destroyed, able to move out, or the turn ends.
2) The German fleet units are further restricted in that they may not move along the East edge of the map, further north than (0,35). They can move into that hex, but no further. They can neither move past the line of hexes that extend NE out of Coventry, through Leichester (sic) to the East map edge. All German naval movement is restricted in this fashion to avoid sea transported units from blocking the retreat route of British naval units that may be in the northern ports, and which could conceivably be driven out by paradrops on the hexes.
3) The British navy is restricted to the use of the following anchorage hexes: Birkenhead, and hex (29,4). If any British naval unit is forced into any anchorage other than those two, it must follow the same procedures as the Germans, in breaking free into the open sea. If in either of these two hexes, the British Navy is NOT under any restrictions in terms of shore bombardment.
4) British naval units are not otherwise restricted and can travel the entire map, and perform all missions, including airbase attacks against any hexes they can reach, with the exception of the three "off-map" airbase areas of Norway, Germany, and Holland.
James, do you think you could piss with this scenario for a minor amount of time, and 'tweak' it to make it more of a tourney version? Something not time-intensive for you? That's another option we could look at.
I can make some needed minor changes, but there are some other serious issues that I can not (do not have time to) take care of. Let me play with it for a couple of days, then I will present a file for everybody's perusal, as well as detailed notes as to what was changed and why. If people want to stick with the original poison instead of my variety, then that's fine. At least I can say that I tried...;)
laszlo.nemedi
10 Feb 04, 07:43
Thanks, Jamiam and CG!
laszlo.nemedi
10 Feb 04, 07:45
Thanks, Jamiam and CG!
Well, my 1000th post was a thank you! So in 1001st post:
Thank you, all, reading my boring things...
CyberGeneral
10 Feb 04, 08:00
Simply put...........(if I may?)..........It's not too late............Couldn't a known true & trusted Western Front scenario without all the gazillion "honor rules" be substituted?..............
Simply put...........(if I may?)..........It's not too late............Couldn't a known true & trusted Western Front scenario without all the gazillion "honor rules" be substituted?..............
Such as? (I agree- I have been dreading this sealion scenario)
laszlo.nemedi
10 Feb 04, 09:41
Such as? (I agree- I have been dreading this sealion scenario)
GiO? :D
Maybe we can look for the statistics of the scenarios here (or other site) and choose the most balanced one (and most played one, and small, and WWII, and ... ) :hush:
CyberRanger
10 Feb 04, 09:44
GiO? :D
Maybe we can look for the statistics of the scenarios here (or other site) and choose the most balanced one (and most played one, and small, and WWII, and ... ) :hush:
This may help ....
TOAW Scenario Statistics (http://www.warfarehq.com/inc/st/toaw-battlereports.cgi?scenario=&la=toaw)
It's not quite polished yet (still need to cleanup the scenario names and add a win/lose summary) but it may be helpful!
laszlo.nemedi
10 Feb 04, 10:12
A road to Rimini, however I never played, but Chuck (the designer) is here somewhere...
WWII, West front, rugged defense statistic is good (but not numerous), the only problem I forget if Chuck is in the tourney or not...
But it is only a quick shot...
James - Thank you for your valuable help and suggestions!
Everyone else - If you can suggest something I'll look into it, but switching to something new at this late date could be even worse. If we can find something that people *know* is well balanced, I'll consider it. But unless something ideal comes up, I'm inclined to use Jam's updated version.
James - I'd like to suggest that you put a bit of text on the map, or '*'s or something that makes it idiot proof in regards to the German naval movement limitations. 'No German navies past here' kind of thing. If everyone has only to remember about the ships in port thing, then that's not too bad.
laszlo.nemedi
10 Feb 04, 10:47
James - Thank you for your valuable help and suggestions!
Everyone else - If you can suggest something I'll look into it, but switching to something new at this late date could be even worse. If we can find something that people *know* is well balanced, I'll consider it. But unless something ideal comes up, I'm inclined to use Jam's updated version.
OK, understand...
CyberGeneral
10 Feb 04, 11:13
James - Thank you for your valuable help and suggestions!
Everyone else - If you can suggest something I'll look into it, but switching to something new at this late date could be even worse. If we can find something that people *know* is well balanced, I'll consider it. But unless something ideal comes up, I'm inclined to use Jam's updated version.
Mantis...........NOTHING could be worse...............I played both sides of Sealion and it is a mess............
Suggestions for fair & balanced:
Cherbourg 44/ Cobra 44/ Dragoon 44/ Falaise Pocket 44/ St Lo 44/
Siberian HEAT
10 Feb 04, 11:41
Mantis...........NOTHING could be worse...............I played both sides of Sealion and it is a mess............
Suggestions for fair & balanced:
Cherbourg 44/ Cobra 44/ Dragoon 44/ Falaise Pocket 44/ St Lo 44/
Falaise is a Slam Dunk for the Allies. Much worse than Market-Garden. I haven't played the others...
Menschenfresser
10 Feb 04, 11:55
I've played a few turns of Sealion and I'm not a fan either.
What about moving Bastogne up to third and giving the powers that be more time to find a replacement or make modifications to Sealion?
CyberGeneral
10 Feb 04, 12:14
I've played a few turns of Sealion and I'm not a fan either.
What about moving Bastogne up to third and giving the powers that be more time to find a replacement or make modifications to Sealion?
I like this idea...............
"What about moving Bastogne up to third and giving the powers that be more time to find a replacement or make modifications to Sealion?"
Menschenfresser
Sounds like a good idea :cool:
"I've played a few turns of Sealion and I'm not a fan either."
Menschenfresser
Nor am I :nuts:
I've played a few turns of Sealion and I'm not a fan either.
What about moving Bastogne up to third and giving the powers that be more time to find a replacement or make modifications to Sealion?
That would be good from my end, as it would give me more time to fine tune it...as much as can be realistically done, without rewriting the whole thing, that is.
As Playtester of Bastogne 44 ( I put my head on the block), I found it very interesting, not to much one side biased.
As German you can win, As US you can at best get a minor victory. The US Air interdiction is a killing criteria but if you move fast as German in the 10 first turns you can put yourself in a winning situation and then just hold
I made 2 AARs about it
http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2745&highlight=bastogne
http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2714&highlight=bastogne
Hope it can give you a good idea about it
Der WanderTester
Ok, we'll do that. Good suggestion.
Bastogne is bumped to round 3's scenario, and we'll work out something good for round 4. Brent, can you please update the page to reflect this? Also - can anyone tell me the latest version of Bastogne? We'll need to make that avilable on the WitW page, as well as the round 3 thread.
Now that we're doing this, let's not abandon the considerations we're giving to Sealion/round 4. Can any of the vets that have played through the other scenarios that were listed give thoughts and opinions? Are any of them a balanced romp? I'd like to have a good one for the final round!
CyberGeneral
10 Feb 04, 17:52
May I be the first to reply...............YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
CyberGeneral
10 Feb 04, 17:57
Can any of the vets that have played through the other scenarios that were listed give thoughts and opinions? Are any of them a balanced romp? I'd like to have a good one for the final round!
St Lo 44 is a great balanced and entertaining scenario...........Simple yet complex..........Small yet encompassing..........Quick yet rich................
St Lo 44 is a great balanced and entertaining scenario...........Simple yet complex..........Small yet encompassing..........Quick yet rich................
Tastes great yet less filling? :drink:
ER_Chaser
10 Feb 04, 19:02
Tastes great yet less filling? :drink:
lol.. it is interesting to see how many posts you put in this thread, buddy :D .... doesn't the old finnish saying fit you? "you talk too much" :devil:
lol.. it is interesting to see how many posts you put in this thread, buddy :D .... doesn't the old finnish saying fit you? "you talk too much" :devil:
LoL...normally, I would deign to answer - at tedious length - the charges brought against me, by my esteemed collegue, however, in the interest of brevity, let me just close with the following remark...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Phltpht! :p
ER_Chaser
10 Feb 04, 21:00
:devil: .... rather that hides my jealousy on your # of posts now far exceeds mine :D
:devil: .... rather that hides my jealousy on your # of posts now far exceeds mine :D
But your Oriental Quallity bypass this Occidental quantity
Der WanderTseuMaoTchouEnLaďEtc........
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.