RO CG2

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,711
Reaction score
1,101
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Really, I checked my PT folders and didn’t find any RO materials...I think I may have proofed some rules, I don’t recall actually playing anything. OTOH, I turn 60 this year so, the gray matter filling cabinet ain’t what it use to be.
You and a friend of yours played a VASL game with me. First two days of the CG.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
555
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Which CG...I remember us playing some VotG...oh well, chalk it up to old age.
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
300
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
Problem about so called balanced scenarios and games...........in real life historical events things are not balanced. I am currently playing RO and RB, have played both solo and against another player..........I do not find them unbalanced, like VOTG there is always a way to win you just have to find it. What makes me laugh is that players give up so easily. In the VOTG CG you have to accept being clobbered, so find defensible spots, and dig in. Just like the RO and RB combined game you have to accept being clobbered as well so find defensible areas and fall back to them.....much like the russians did. That is why I gave upon scenario play and just do campaigns it was the idea that you had to have a timetable in your head and the unrealistic requirement that nothing will happen to change your plan.............
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
555
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
What makes me laugh is that players give up so easily. In the VOTG CG you have to accept being clobbered, so find defensible spots, and dig in. Just like the RO and RB combined game you have to accept being clobbered as well so find defensible areas and fall back to them.....much like the russians did. That is why I gave upon scenario play and just do campaigns it was the idea that you had to have a timetable in your head and the unrealistic requirement that nothing will happen to change your plan.............
I’ve been playing ASL 30 plus years and based on that experience I feel very confident in saying RO CG2 is a dog. Not only that it don’t thing it would be any fun trying to prove Hagar opp PO opinion wrong.

What that CG lacks is a CVP cap for the Germans.
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
300
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
So have I been playing ASL for 30 years, and SL years prior to that, I have two huge bookcase full of ASL, I like the game so we agree to disagree :)
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
555
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
So have I been playing ASL for 30 years, and SL years prior to that, I have two huge bookcase full of ASL, I like the game so we agree to disagree :)
Just to be clear, we disagree in that you don’t think balance matters and I do.

I would point out that designers/producers invest hundreds of hours for playtest and there are entire websites devoted to ASL balance. So, you aren’t just “agreeing to disagree” with me but the majority of the community.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
765
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Problem about so called balanced scenarios and games...........in real life historical events things are not balanced.
The thing is, this is not war, it's a game. A scenario's victory conditions don't have to match the historical objectives, or the historical result - but they define the conditions under which players are expected to compete. If the VCs are such that they are impossible to match for one of the sides, it will most often frustrate the players.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,830
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
My take is that CG2 would be balanced if the Russians lost a company. They are that hard. :p
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,830
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
What does the Martin Oven building have to do with the balance of CG2? I am thinking it is key to the whole CG. The thing is that the Germans really have to surround the whole building - because the Russians can set up HIP in the western tip of it and if the building is not surrounded the Russians can break out and recapture more stone locations.

To surround the building fully will occupy about 3 German coy. The Germans also have to man the whole of the rest of the front line to stop Russians recapturing stone locations. Thereby they will disperse their sizable force. The Russian can afford to HIP at least 30 SE. The German just will not be able to know where they are.

If the Russian places a sacrificial force in the Martin Oven to tie up a large chunk of the German OOB it will take the German at least the whole first scenario to clear them out. By the time the second scenario has started the Russians will have two extra elite coy on board and the Germans will have less time to fulfill their VC.

The Martin Oven building is key to the whole balance of the CG. The Russians cannot afford to leave it unoccupied.
 
Last edited:

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
300
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
Building 4 is the main objective for the entire CG2 Russian should just concentrate on keeping an open route to the river for reserves. and ensure the german pays in blood like the historical records states.
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
300
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
The thing is, this is not war, it's a game. A scenario's victory conditions don't have to match the historical objectives, or the historical result - but they define the conditions under which players are expected to compete. If the VCs are such that they are impossible to match for one of the sides, it will most often frustrate the players.
If you do not follow the historical record and use the forces available, then it is not a historically accurate campaign game. If you balance the forces then you have just lost the meaning of a historical campaign game. I play Death Ride Kursk if you balanced the forces then it would not be Kursk, same as the civil war games, try to balance the forces at Gettysburg. That is why I don't play ASL scenarios, I like the campaigns, they allow the real world planning problems to actually enter the game. To me scenarios seem more like Warhammer 40k......I bring 2000 points and you bring 2000pts. Scenarios turn ASL into a race against the clock game( IE the turns rep the clock) Yes campaign games do have turns, but you can have one bad CG day, then re-plan and win the next day. I have played hundreds of scenarios over the years, and yes they can be exciting but the real thrill is planning, and executing a battle plan only to watch it unravel, or to become successful. One CG day you could dominate the day, then the next your opponent pulls a rabbit put of the hat and take back what you gain, just like real world military problems. A scenario list the OOB for both sides then each plans how to best defeat it. There is no real Fog of War, you just play the game like a chess match. But a campaign requires in depth planning , material control and operational strategy, and a real sense of not knowing what your opponent will throw at you. The later CG days make planning crucial and you do not really know what your opponent has planned.....will he defend today......or will he plan a night attack to remove say a set of antitank guns harassing his flank or will the both of you decide to step back lick your wounds and rebuild and set a new objective. CGs are not meant to be balanced, they are meant to be historical.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,830
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
Building 4 is the main objective for the entire CG2 Russian should just concentrate on keeping an open route to the river for reserves. and ensure the german pays in blood like the historical records states.
Interesting take on the subject. The main problem with building 4 is that there are no clear rout paths. The Russian will die for FTR. Unless he can keep the Germans far enough away to allow rout.
 

Ganjulama

Tuco B.P.J. Maria Ramirez
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,131
Reaction score
770
Location
Wilmington, NC
Country
llUnited States
To surround the building fully will occupy about 3 German coy. The Germans also have to man the whole of the rest of the front line to stop Russians recapturing stone locations. Thereby they will disperse their sizable force. The Russian can afford to HIP at least 30 SE. The German just will not be able to know where they are.
NRBH but I think you can only HIP 10% of your at start force. If the Russian have 300 squads I think they have a chance ;)
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,830
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
NRBH but I think you can only HIP 10% of your at start force. If the Russian have 300 squads I think they have a chance ;)
Just checked and you are correct.
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
724
Reaction score
300
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
Interesting take on the subject. The main problem with building 4 is that there are no clear rout paths. The Russian will die for FTR. Unless he can keep the Germans far enough away to allow rout.
Building 4 is Fanatical terrain..............the Russians die in place : )Russian are hard to dig out, when fanatical then let them do what they do best, die fighting, that is why the tunnel from building 4 to the finger gully is so important.......reserves reserves reserves :)
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
765
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
If you do not follow the historical record and use the forces available, then it is not a historically accurate campaign game

CGs are not meant to be balanced, they are meant to be historical.
This is all nice in theory, but even a CG is still a game. ASL is still not a simulation. Terrain, though more historically accurate, is still abstracted - a lot.

CGs don't list the historical orders for the commander; they define objectives that the players (not commanders - players) will try to achieve. It is the job of the designer to create the objectives so that the players will be led to use their units in a way that looks a little like what a real commander would have done, and so that the players feel a little like real commanders (without the real men dying around them). But, once the designer has done his job (well, hopefully, but that isn't guaranteed), the CG objectives are really all that exists to lead the players.

But really, what I was trying to say was a bit different. It may be that the historical action that is being depicted by the CG (or any scenario, really) was really hopeless for one of the sides. Many scenarios do that; how the designer is supposed to make the scenario interesting to play is by defining objectives for each side that are not the historical objectives, or the historical outcome, but somehow make the job (roughly) equally hard for each side. So, on the losing side, the defender will try to delay the attacker for long enough; on the winning side, the attacker will try to take the objective terrain quickly, or with minimal losses, or both.

I don't see why a CG would follow different guidelines. The real goal is to have a game (a series of games making up a bigger game) that is both balanced and reasonably historical, in that both players (players - not commanders) will have about 50% chance of meeting their game objectives, and both should be naturally led to follow historical tactics.

Of course, different players will look for a different degree of each (balance vs "historicity"). But there is no reason at all why a CG should sacrifice balance completely just because it is played on a more historically accurate map.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,830
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
I checked the play test version of the RO CG2. The at start OB are completely the same except that the Germans do not have the 2x 2nd line inf coy. They only start with 5x inf coy instead of 7. So my guess is that there must be a reason why the 2x 2nd line coy were added to the final version.
 
Top