#32: Berated at Baranovichi

[daveramsey]

 

[AdrianE]

Interesting replay.

I think there was a way for Jean Yves to get that broken squad.
If he had driven the ISU122 into Z8 and survived (or cellared and got a crew) then the guys upstairs would have been forced to rout and thus die for FTR.
The ISU122 could have also BFF'd on the way in (+5 BFF + 1 BU -2 range -1 AL gives a 5 TH at PB range) which is not bad odds. The squad could have found a PF but desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[skarper]

Personally, never liked how broken units can retain control of their location. But the rules are what they are.

While the player with the Soviets did well in many ways, losing so many tanks so soon and for so little gain made the end game very tight.

This scenario looks slightly pro-Soviet to me, though the two 12 DR MCs on the gun crews may be distorting my impression.

Was fun to watch anyway.

 

[JoeArthur]

With regards to those 10 new OtO scenarios two were played at last years Bounding Fire tourny. You two were not there - the consensus was that they were both very unbalanced.

Many thanks for another episode - these beat anything on TV at the moment

 

[Martin Mayers]

With regards to those 10 new OtO scenarios two were played at last years Bounding Fire tourny. You two were not there - the consensus was that they were both very unbalanced.

Many thanks for another episode - these beat anything on TV at the moment

The consensus amongst some of those who lost was that the scenarios they lost were unbalanced. I think Desperate Bridgehead went 7:2 during the tournament in favour of the Germans. I played it four times prior to the tournament with 3 Russian wins. So, 8:5. Two results on ROAR and two results on the scenario archive with two wins each side make it probably 10:7 in favour of the Germans (ish....). Gotta bear in mind that objectiveness on balance is a very rare thing post-losing a game. Most people are not immune to this bias. The year before I recall one player absolutely slating a scenario's balance....the end split being 5:4. Go figure.

In terms of Schmidt's Roadblock I didn't speak to a single person who used a Russian Human Wave in turn 1 as a means of getting forward. Nor of a single person who even considered the thought of using Russian tanks to outflank the German tanks via the very soft flank where the woods line was... (ie. crashing through the woods to take the Stugs to the sides). It's not Bounding Fire Publications' fault if people don't use the tools in their bag when playing the game. Six Russian tanks versus three Stugs...head on attack. Likely to be only one winner. I'd always be looking for ways around those odds and a head on attack wouldn't be my solution.

You're entitled to an opinion but I'd take slight exception to the idea that there was "a consensus". And I don't think you can judge balance in a scenario if the attacking side tackle a particular scenario in completely the wrong manner. And taking into account my own personal failings of which this is one, no-one should ever comment on a scenario's balance when they've just lost that scenario. It's fatal to an objective opinion. I'm admitting that the phrase "unbalanced dog" is very rarely far from my lips when I've just been whipped in a particular scenario.

 

[JoeArthur]

Martin, that was my memory of attendees reaction to those scenarios. I did not talk to all the attendees.

Why not play Dave as the Russians in that big scenario and the Russians again in Schmidt's Roadblock and show how it should be done?

Dave appears to welcome suggestions for future episodes so over to you Dave

 

[Martin Mayers]

Martin, that was my memory of attendees reaction to those scenarios. I did not talk to all the attendees.

You've gotta forgive me. My memory is of me spending 15 minutes explaining that it's a massive scenario, but that I'd played it four times in under 6 hours each, that I'm not a particularly fast player, that you have to shift gears, that people should play it in the spirit of 'throwing the counters down' 'moving quickly' 'not over-analysing' etc. etc. It was almost Pattonesque in it's delivery..

Then half the room pissing and whining about the length of the scenario when they turned the card over (at which point Simon looked to me and muttered "you were wasting your time"), then taking 3 hours for each player turn before calling it a day after two full turns, played over the space of 8 hours, because "it's too long". Then of course pronouncing it "unbalanced"

Meh.

 

[Tuomo]

Entertaining as always, gents.

I would have tried to rubble the building by entering it with the tank. Poof, upper floor Brokies gone. EDIT - nope, that's not possible. You need to be a wooden building or a single story house (B23.41), so a Rowhouse like this wouldn't have Rubbled. Well, I'd have entered the location anyway, with the stated intent of rubbling it, and then one quick rules lookup later, would have chalked that one up to stupidity

And while Dave is a nice guy and British and all, I find myself rooting against him to win his own damn tournament. I mean, really. Bad Cricket, that

 

[daveramsey]

If he had driven the ISU122 into Z8 and survived (or cellared and got a crew) then the guys upstairs would have been forced to rout and thus die for FTR.

Does the tank even need to enter the building to force the upstairs broken unit to rout? Would the tank in bypass do the same thing?

With regards to those 10 new OtO scenarios two were played at last years Bounding Fire tourny. You two were not there - the consensus was that they were both very unbalanced.

To be fair, ("my") Martin has previously said that Desperate Bridgehead was on his list of all time favourite scenarios - I've not played any of them yet but I'm keen to check that one out in particular.

You've gotta forgive me. (...)

Meh.

Martin - you guys (all the tournament organisers) will never get enough thanks for the effort you all put into running these things. If the worst that happens is that a scenario doesn't go down as well as it was hoped, it's not been a bad day. You can please some of the people, some of the time and all that..

 

[RRschultze]

The consensus amongst some of those who lost was that the scenarios they lost were unbalanced. I think Desperate Bridgehead went 7:2 during the tournament in favour of the Germans. I played it four times prior to the tournament with 3 Russian wins. So, 8:5. Two results on ROAR and two results on the scenario archive with two wins each side make it probably 10:7 in favour of the Germans (ish....). Gotta bear in mind that objectiveness on balance is a very rare thing post-losing a game. Most people are not immune to this bias. The year before I recall one player absolutely slating a scenario's balance....the end split being 5:4. Go figure.

In terms of Schmidt's Roadblock I didn't speak to a single person who used a Russian Human Wave in turn 1 as a means of getting forward. Nor of a single person who even considered the thought of using Russian tanks to outflank the German tanks via the very soft flank where the woods line was... (ie. crashing through the woods to take the Stugs to the sides). It's not Bounding Fire Publications' fault if people don't use the tools in their bag when playing the game. Six Russian tanks versus three Stugs...head on attack. Likely to be only one winner. I'd always be looking for ways around those odds and a head on attack wouldn't be my solution.

You're entitled to an opinion but I'd take slight exception to the idea that there was "a consensus". And I don't think you can judge balance in a scenario if the attacking side tackle a particular scenario in completely the wrong manner. And taking into account my own personal failings of which this is one, no-one should ever comment on a scenario's balance when they've just lost that scenario. It's fatal to an objective opinion. I'm admitting that the phrase "unbalanced dog" is very rarely far from my lips when I've just been whipped in a particular scenario.

I thought Schmidt’s Roadblock was fairly balanced. I played Matt Ellis in this one at last year’s tourney as the Germans and went down to the last turn, in fact last CC phase and lost. Matt used the flanks to good effect.

 

[Martin Mayers]

I thought Schmidt’s Roadblock was fairly balanced. I played Matt Ellis in this one at last year’s tourney as the Germans and went down to the last turn, in fact last CC phase and lost. Matt used the flanks to good effect.

Some players with tanks treat a woods area like the solid white line down the middle of the road over the Snake Pass.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Martin, that was my memory of attendees reaction to those scenarios. I did not talk to all the attendees.

Why not play Dave as the Russians in that big scenario and the Russians again in Schmidt's Roadblock and show how it should be done?

Dave appears to welcome suggestions for future episodes so over to you Dave

I'd love to. But I played those two scenarios 9 times in total as part of my pre-tournament 'work' and am now into the playtesting cycle for the scenarios for this years tournament so I just don't have the time.

Let me return serve at you. How did you tackle Schmidt's Roadblock as the Russians (assume you were the Russian side) ?

 

[lightspeed]

You've gotta forgive me. My memory is of me spending 15 minutes explaining that it's a massive scenario, but that I'd played it four times in under 6 hours each, that I'm not a particularly fast player, that you have to shift gears, that people should play it in the spirit of 'throwing the counters down' 'moving quickly' 'not over-analysing' etc. etc. It was almost Pattonesque in it's delivery..

Then half the room pissing and whining about the length of the scenario when they turned the card over (at which point Simon looked to me and muttered "you were wasting your time"), then taking 3 hours for each player turn before calling it a day after two full turns, played over the space of 8 hours, because "it's too long". Then of course pronouncing it "unbalanced"

Meh.

Mayers,

To be fair, I'm with Simon on this one. I have noticed the style of play in the UK is far more...deliberate...than I like. I wouldn't
characterize you as a fast player, but certainly not slow either. As such, I would say you are a quicker player than many I have
played in the UK. Maybe the scenario was not really too long for the time, but too long for the attendees. And as much as you
tried your best to brief people, your words will not change habits of play that have been built up and reinforced over several
years.

I, for one, prefer the "throw them down" and "move quickly" view.

There are some things you do that others should learn from. For instance, after moving an AFV and firing in Advancing Fire,
you roll the dice and (in most cases), don't worry about modifiers if you didn't roll a double one. I think that Adv Fire
counters are not a good thing and they slow the game down. Especially if one is the kind of person who obsesses about
having just the right counter. You and I have played (smaller) scenarios where we didn't even bother with Prep Fire counters,
or Defensive Fire Counters in Final Fire.

I have played people in the UK who, like, you prefer the throw them down and move view. I have also played people who
spent nearly an hour setting up six squads and a couple of SW. And there are the ones who set up very quickly...but only
because they have spent hours working on a perfect set up (including measuring and writing down LOS).

It is interesting to me when I play someone who is fairly experienced and I realize they really don't know the tables. Not that I
expect anyone to have the tables memorized, but that some players simply don't have a "feel" for the tables. For instance,
my opponent is firing ATT in AdvF with a BU AFV at a concealed target. They roll a 10, and insist on counting all of the
modifiers. Before and after taking the shot. This is an extreme case, to be sure. But it's not an isolated case.

IMHO, slow play only reinforces slow play, and nobody is going to change because we plead with them to do so. They
need to decide their speed of play could be faster, and then take steps to change.

Thanks for your patience.

BTW, good luck with (v)Blackpool!

indy

 

[JoeArthur]

Let me return serve at you. How did you tackle Schmidt's Roadblock as the Russians (assume you were the Russian side) ?

Martin I was playing Ian Morris with him as the Russians on that one.

Ian's sniper went active and at one point the only unbroken infantry I had on the board was one squad with an MMG and two officers who were trying to rally everyone. Amazingly I survived, did the old trick of deploying everyone I could, and in the last turn I had more unbroken infantry units on the board than Ian - he conceded. There was no way he could clear them all.

I remember Toby's comment on that one being there was too much ground for the Russians to cover in the time given. He also thought being able to dig the tanks in was a big advantage. Ian left some feedback on the forms that you provided and I think he agreed with Toby's analysis.

If you have a way to improve on the tourny playings I would certainly view that episode. Mind you I watch them all anyway?

Looking forward to Bounding Fire.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Martin I was playing Ian Morris with him as the Russians on that one.

Ian's sniper went active and at one point the only unbroken infantry I had on the board was one squad with an MMG and two officers who were trying to rally everyone. Amazingly I survived, did the old trick of deploying everyone I could, and in the last turn I had more unbroken infantry units on the board than Ian - he conceded. There was no way he could clear them all.

I remember Toby's comment on that one being there was too much ground for the Russians to cover in the time given. He also thought being able to dig the tanks in was a big advantage. Ian left some feedback on the forms that you provided and I think he agreed with Toby's analysis.

If you have a way to improve on the tourny playings I would certainly view that episode. Mind you I watch them all anyway?

Looking forward to Bounding Fire.

You played the Toby Big Ju Ju.

Everything I said is bollocks. I, Bounding Fire, and the entire Bounding Fire playtest team are utterly useless, doff our caps, and yield.

I apologise for inflicting the scenario on you all.

Joking apart I play tested this with Martin Barker if I recall correctly. And when my three T34s crashed through the woods and took his Stug's from the sides I think he said "digging them in is a bit of a trap". But what do I know about attacking 3 dug in Stugs with 6 Russian tanks? three with crap guns. Meh

Ian Willey on a separate test spotted the flank weakness and did everything he could to defend against it. And beat me despite a turn 1 Russian HW which absolutely crashed into him.

Personally I found it balanced. I think BFP changed the scenario based, specifically on the tournament feedback. I haven't checked the version you played with the final version. I'd be interested to see the difference(s)

 

[JoeArthur]

Joking apart I play tested this with Martin Barker if I recall correctly. And when my three T34s crashed through the woods and took his Stug's from the sides I think he said "digging them in is a bit of a trap". But what do I know about attacking 3 dug in Stugs with 6 Russian tanks, three with crap guns. Meh

A cunning plan......but the bog rolls? I do that and the first tank in tends to end up with a black counter on it?

Being less of a player than Toby I did not dig mine in....................

 

[Martin Mayers]

A cunning plan......but the bog rolls? I do that and the first tank in tends to end up with a black counter on it?

Take a look at the map. A number of places from memory with a single woods hex. Bog in that woods hex, flanking a Stug which cannot turn. You need never move again to win the scenario. Digging the Stugs in = Trap.

Or the Germans take stuff out of the line to defend the flanking manoevre. Then....they're taking stuff out of the line to defend the flanking manoevre.

One things for sure...you can't attack right down the throat of three Stugs with six T34s. You have to 'disrupt' those Stugs somehow. It's obvious.

 

[Martin Mayers]

A cunning plan......but the bog rolls? I do that and the first tank in tends to end up with a black counter on it?

Being less of a player than Toby I did not dig mine in....................

By the way....move adjacent to woods....then next turn move in using ALL MP. The bog modifier is +1 as opposed to +5 if you use half movement. Just saying.

 

[JoeArthur]

By the way....move adjacent to woods....then next turn move in using ALL MP. The bog modifier is +1 as opposed to +5 if you use half movement. Just saying.

Thanks Martin - tips I shall remember

 

[Gamer72]

Martin I was playing Ian Morris with him as the Russians on that one.

Ian's sniper went active and at one point the only unbroken infantry I had on the board was one squad with an MMG and two officers who were trying to rally everyone. Amazingly I survived, did the old trick of deploying everyone I could, and in the last turn I had more unbroken infantry units on the board than Ian - he conceded. There was no way he could clear them all.

I remember Toby's comment on that one being there was too much ground for the Russians to cover in the time given. He also thought being able to dig the tanks in was a big advantage. Ian left some feedback on the forms that you provided and I think he agreed with Toby's analysis.

If you have a way to improve on the tourny playings I would certainly view that episode. Mind you I watch them all anyway?

Looking forward to Bounding Fire.

Joe’s view of the scenario may have been coloured by my reaction to it, since I moaned like buggery all the way through it. Could the Stugs set up HIP if they were in woods ? Whatever, I recall my feedback was to make the last two hexrows unplayable, to get rid of some Stug hiding places. Would be interested to know if that made it into the final scenario. Did Matt get the only Russian win in that round ?