Well said...I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that the Germans will win every time. Personally I think that X-Tag and Oktabyrs Hubertus both require a huge learning curve to play as the Russians. The module has only just been released and players are giving up on it already.I would like to give this one a try as the Russians. I think it would take maxing out all the Russian advantages, coordinated combined arms, and mainly infantry, OBA and fortifications to win as the Russians.
The Red October CG are not unbalanced, if anything both sides are well matched. Problem is scenarios are balanced so everyone thinks CG should be a as well. So far as I see it, the Russians need to defend like a wounded bear, and the Germans must do what they do best attack attack attack even when defending. The key is the OOB for each side, and select the best troops for the required tasks. Militia can hold the factories, a well as first line troops, assault troops are not to be squandered etc. Utilizing the oob is how you win or lose.Well said...I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that the Germans will win every time. Personally I think that X-Tag and Oktabyrs Hubertus both require a huge learning curve to play as the Russians. The module has only just been released and players are giving up on it already.
A Party In Our Streets seems unbalanced too. It might well be...but it will probably be fun to play and try and hold out as the Germans.
These ATP's really are excellent.It was not so much of a tunnel as it was a large culvert/sewer that ran from the Martinhofen to the closest gully to the southeast (most probably where the manhole depiction is in the gully). It was so large 4 men abreast and standing tall could move through the edifice. The "documentary" is not so much of a true documentary as a project put together by the U.S. Army Command & Staff College using current ATPs (Army Training Publications) to assess critical components of that fight as they relate to tactical principals expressed by today's U.S. Army doctrine. That being said, it is a fairly decent presentation and predicated upon the work of COL(?) Glantz about fighting in Stalingrad. If you go to U-Tube and search Stalingrad you'll come up with it. I believe someone else has posted a link to it in either the ASL Chit Chat subforum or the MMP one, just can't remember exactly (too lazy & clueless how to give you a direct link).
[EDIT] Note there is also one on the assault on the Commissar's House (RB) that I thought was well worth the view.
A campaign gives you everything you need to win, or lose.....it depends on how you use it. Scenarios are what I call finite, meaning you have so many turns to accomplish your goal,both players know their opponents OOB and can plan a strategy for it. So if you have 8 turns to complete a game and you have 15 squads, 3 LMG, 1 MMG, and two Pz IV, then that is what you have. The only real variables are time( limited), luck, and very limited resources. One wrong mistake can cost you the game. So it requires a rigid timetable ie) 8 turns, a set objective ex) take that house, so your opponents side has to be designed with that same set of variable, except they may be the attacker or the defender. The scenario must be balanced to provide both sides a reasonable chance to win.But in a campaign setting you cannot achieve balance. Why...............it is called the OOB................like RO you have close to 30-35 RG's this gives you thousands of different combinations to work with regarding force selection, for a given day. Also if you maintain the historical context when a HASL is designed then balance is out the window. I am definitely not a designer , but I know WW2 history. If you have a HASL with say 30 CG days like Red Barricades then you have a huge number of random variables and outcomes. Force selection for each HASL, = the 30 days x the thousands of possible combinations due to the large OOB for each side.Add in who won or lost on a certain CG day, then that creates more variables, one side may get extra purchase points to apply to the next cg if they lost several days in a row., or the number of purchase points may depend on a modified secret roll. So a OOB for a certain CG day may be random or known. So to add another reason why you cannot really balance a HASL is this: the CG day itself. for RB CG3 it is 30 CG days long. That is 30 different outcomes for both players. Currently I am on turn 3 of the first day of RO CG 2 , both sides are beating each other senseless and neither has made remarkable progress, why the Hall 4 is a deathtrap for a attacker and a free fire zone for the defender, which is historically correct. After three turns the Germans have been victim to 24 separate sniper attacks, slowing down the advance , while the germans have half of Hall 4 due to a sweetheart roll for accuracy to place a 100mm.. OBA SR dead on target, the result was a lot of dead russians. so for both sides a success. but turn 4 could be totally different, So the results for this CG day will change the plan for the next., So in short every CG will produce an unknown outcome, which means each player will have to re-adjust their plan for the next CG day. So as in real life, a commander will have to re-adjust their plan according to the success of the previous day. If anything I can tell you is that you can have an elite OOB and still lose due to luck no matter how you plan and execute that plan. Balance in a campaign does not really exist. But where a scenario with 8 turns fails is due to this, you only have 8 turns to meet you objective,you need to be beat your opponent by beating his timetable , or ensuring your timetable is followed , there is no second chance. But a campaign game gives you multiple chances to succeed and multiple chances for your opponent to succeed.I think Shane considers all CGs to be balanced....in the context that they are historical recreations of the actual battle.