Perhaps this thread should be allowed to rest in peace, instead of being brought back to life, like some decaying zombie. All it seems to do is stir up bad feelings. However...
Regarding 'Helenic Expedition', I think the scenario is probably 'highly unbalanced' rather than broken - because it does not require any manipulation of the rules (voluntarily disabling MA, bailing out, rubbling buildings to preclude building control, etc) to assure the defender win.
As such, I may not have been so diligent in alerting the TDs to that fact than I was when I learnt about the manhandling gambit in 'Old Hickory', and alerted the TD of Heroes, who promptly issued a tournament SSR preventing it. Also, if I felt the other scenarios in the round were OK balance wise, I'd have realised I could just ditch it anyway. Certainly, unlike Mr T, I feel it is a duty of all players to alert TDs to scenario flaws (though I would not pretend I am particularly good at spotting them) and do what Mel calls 'Red Flagging' where I can. As I said previously, I also try to avoid discussing strategy and tactics on tournament scenarios before they have been played, as I feel it could influence other peoples games - but that is just a personal preference.
On a positive note though, I'm actually quite keen to play 'Helenic Expedition' as the allies to see if I could beat the unbeatable.
As virtually the whole defending OB is HIP, the attacker must take a huge risk on turn one if he thinks the defender has gone for the rearward defence. I'm thinking what is required is a huge charge up the road on the right with Shermans and riders, pumping smoke about, followed by double-timing platoons with leaders. Of course, if the defender has a standard defence, you get peppered! It's the sort of scenario where if you don't guess right, it's all over by turn one.
What are other thoughts on overcoming the 'rearward defence'? I'd wager each will involve quite a gamble.
