RD tournament - Midsummer Madness

[lucero1148]

For those of us in the current round of the RD CMBB tournament how do you like/dislike the Midsumer Madness scenario? What's your rating?

As for me at first glance I thought it was one of the oddest scenario I ever had the pleasure to fight on. Actually I hated the idea of rowing across the swamps to my objectives as it would mean a very slow start brfore the action begins. In the end though I found myself actually finding this scenario quite an intellectual challenge. Both sides are equal in capability and no one has any advantage in terrain at the start. The only way to win is speed and tactics. Whoever gets into position first with the mostest has the edge in wiping out his opponnent. In my mirror battles I pushed my troops and got into ambush positions at least 1.5 - 2 turns before my opponent and massacred and panicked my opponents forces. I give this scenario a 8++.

All best

Patrick

[tabpub]

I give it a 6.5-7.0 rating. Interesting, but after the intial melees are over, not much to do but watch the fords and destroyed bridges.

[Broken]

I didn't use the boats. I sent everything down the road as fast as possible, ran over a few screening platoons on the way to the opposing bridges, and blew the bridges. My opponent conceded both games at this point, turn 10, so I didn't get a chance to battle it out for the NKVD headquarters. Nice map, I just didn't get much chance to use it. Overall, a 7.

[lucero1148]

Well that's a novel approach. I didn't realize you could blow up bridges. How is that done, by targeting the bridge with your enginneers? I guess my approach would be considered the conventional approach.

All best

Patrick

[Broken]

Originally posted by lucero1148:

Well that's a novel approach. I didn't realize you could blow up bridges. How is that done, by targeting the bridge with your enginneers? I guess my approach would be considered the conventional approach.

All best

Patrick

Yep, demo charges from the engineers work quite nicely on wooden bridges. One or two usually does the trick. Blow the bridges and the reinforcements are stranded.

[tabpub]

Broken:

As the Russian, did you concede the island flags then, as I did? That seemed the only viable conclusion that I could come to. Fighting across fords seems virtually impossible.

As the Germans I used the demos to get the bridges, but as the Russians, I used AF from the 76's to get them. It was interesting when a Kubel and the 37HT tried to cross at that time!

[Broken]

Originally posted by tabpub:

Broken:

As the Russian, did you concede the island flags then, as I did? That seemed the only viable conclusion that I could come to. Fighting across fords seems virtually impossible.

As the Germans I used the demos to get the bridges, but as the Russians, I used AF from the 76's to get them. It was interesting when a Kubel and the 37HT tried to cross at that time!

As both Russians and Germans, I placed my entire force on the road with the objective of blowing the bridges before the reinforcements arrived. My opponent had only a couple of platoons screening the bridges, which were easily destroyed with my force advantage. Once the bridges were gone and his reinforcements were cut off, he was facing bad odds in his defense of the "NKVD headquarters", so he resigned on turn 10.

Sounds like you had an interesting fight at the bridges as well. I agree with you that the islands were "sucker" VLs.

[Tanaka]

I find it hard no one mentions this, well... it does prove variety is the spice of live.

In my view, the scenario was “fair” but I strongly disliked it.

First of, it was a ME with its "flag fights" wish comes far from my usual attack/defense game type.

However, its biggest handicap was that it enhanced a number of well-known CMBB infantry engine short comes ; does sneak forward “into” the enemy fire rings any bell?

Don’t get me wrong, I know that probably the scenario designer spent his good time producing this “different” and “interesting” scenario, I just think that game engine limitations have to be taken well into account when doing it/them (Carefully choosing the terrain types to use and under what weather conditions the battle will be fought).

All in all, it was a “different” scenario, the last turns were a true “pain” to do and it really felt like saying/asking “please can some one shoot this sick horse?”

Btw one of the games went as far as turn 55 !!! Wish was around 20% more turns then the other… :eek:

[Broken]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

However, its biggest handicap was that it enhanced a number of well-known CMBB infantry engine short comes ; does sneak forward “into” the enemy fire rings any bell?

Which infantry engine shortcomings gave you trouble? The annoying habit of pinned infantry to sneak towards the enemy?

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Originally posted by Broken:

I didn't use the boats. I sent everything down the road as fast as possible, ran over a few screening platoons on the way to the opposing bridges, and blew the bridges. My opponent conceded both games at this point, turn 10, so I didn't get a chance to battle it out for the NKVD headquarters. Nice map, I just didn't get much chance to use it. Overall, a 7.

The challenge when designing scenarios for a ladder tourney is to remember the players are indeed ladder players

Hehehehe.

CDIC

[Broken]

Originally posted by Capitalistdoginchina:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Broken:

I didn't use the boats. I sent everything down the road as fast as possible, ran over a few screening platoons on the way to the opposing bridges, and blew the bridges. My opponent conceded both games at this point, turn 10, so I didn't get a chance to battle it out for the NKVD headquarters. Nice map, I just didn't get much chance to use it. Overall, a 7.

The challenge when designing scenarios for a ladder tourney is to remember the players are indeed ladder players

Hehehehe.

CDIC </font>

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Hi Broken,

Unfortunately i cannot lay any claim for credit for this scenario and i am not sure who the author was because i was in the process of shifting my life in a suitcase from China to Australia and then back to China. But i do know that the Boots & Tracks team put a lot of effort into designing and playtesting these scenarios for you guys. The RD tourney posseses some unique challenges for the team!

As a former RD ladder player myself i had to chuckle when i saw some of the posts above, i think we have all been there.

I did design the first scenario in the RD tourney called "into Russia We Go". The second scenario was designed by Scott Boston, the 3rd i am not sure.

Somehow, we missed playing each other in the ladder either for CMBO or CMBB - I am sure you were avoiding me or was it the other way around?? hehehe.

Good luck in the next round Sir!

CDIC

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Broken:

Which infantry engine shortcomings gave you trouble? The annoying habit of pinned infantry to sneak towards the enemy?

Yes, especially when for instances the fire that is “upsetting” them is being aimed into the “void” 30m away and incoming in a 45º-degree angle. Its very disturbing to see the squad in question just deciding, from all 360º options, to sneak right into from where the fire is coming.

In this scenario, I’ve had a MG42 “under” (read 30m away) area fire for over 6 turns… Every start of the turn, the MG would do a TacAI 5 sec sneak forward and then setup the MG (30sec+) , next turn all was repeated again…

It fired once and it lost 2 man for the “lost bullet syndrome”

I know this TacAI behavior is a compromise resulting from dealing with CM infantry engine limitations…

It happens in these extreme situations where there are no “good” cover terrains (TacAI point of “view”) and the TacAI can’t assert a path to a “good” terrain.

Besides of the “sneak” forward, also observed many times was the “dance of death”…

A panicked squad, without casualties would run into the march then after fire, back into the river, then again after fire back into the march and would repeat this process until complete exhaustion or annihilation.

When a player sees this “dance” can’t stop laughing/crying in desperation trying to imagine the situation in “real live”

Obviously this last situation is a result of poor cover (TacAI point of “view”) mixed with the TacAi inability to deal with the river “block”.

That is why, in my point of view, a scenario designer, although knowing the terrain/scenario in “real live” was very marshy, lots of short shallow brushes (brush terrain) and so on, should “supply” the player and above all the TacAI with more “good” terrains covers.

Yes, for sure it would diminish the “real” factor of the scenario, but would no doubt increase the playability and with it, considerably reduce the “TacAI luck factor”.

[ August 14, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

[Scott B]

I am not certain, but we may be keeping the designers' identity secret until the round is complete; Kingfish would know what the deal is better than I, as he's running this show.

I can say that we take special pride in our tournament scenarios, though. We want people who endure a B&T sponsored tournament to feel like they're really accomplished something.

Scott

[jwxspoon]

Hehe I designed this scenario, and can tell you that when I rpesented it to Kingfish I told him that it was truly 'Evil' and might not be what he was looking for. His answer was that he wanted it as evil as I could make it.

hehe

jw :eek:

[Kingfish]

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they design scenarios"

Blaise Pascal

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is the scenario editor"

Edmund Burke

"He who does not punish evil, designs it"

Leonardo Da Vinci

[Broken]

Originally posted by jwxspoon:

Hehe I designed this scenario, and can tell you that when I rpesented it to Kingfish I told him that it was truly 'Evil' and might not be what he was looking for. His answer was that he wanted it as evil as I could make it.

hehe

jw :eek:

Thank's for the scenarios so far! They have all been quite "off the beaten path".

How can you tell if a scenario is 'truly evil'? What distinguishes it from a scenario which is only 'somewhat evil'?

[Broken]

Originally posted by Capitalistdoginchina:

Somehow, we missed playing each other in the ladder either for CMBO or CMBB - I am sure you were avoiding me or was it the other way around?? hehehe.

Good luck in the next round Sir!

CDIC

Thanks! If you ever decide to be a ladder player again, I'd be happy to "break you in", heheh.

broken

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Originally posted by Broken:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jwxspoon:

Hehe I designed this scenario, and can tell you that when I rpesented it to Kingfish I told him that it was truly 'Evil' and might not be what he was looking for. His answer was that he wanted it as evil as I could make it.

hehe

jw :eek:

Thank's for the scenarios so far! They have all been quite "off the beaten path".

How can you tell if a scenario is 'truly evil'? What distinguishes it from a scenario which is only 'somewhat evil'? </font>

[von Lucke]

I have to agree with Tanaka: I give this scenario an Average rating, and rather disliked playing it.

My reasons:

The map didn't seem quite finished, and for what appeared to be an attempt at a "mirror" set-up, there where a couple of glaring problems:

1. The Germans can walk from their starting zone to all the western island VLs, while there is no overland connection from the Sov starting zone. This forces the Sov player to waste some of his assault boats down there if he wants to contest these VL's. Advantage Axis.

2. There is a ford connecting the area N of the bridges to the main spit of land, while there is none from the S. Advantage Sovs.

3. The only cover on this map (other than the factory and it's out-buildings), is brush and light trees. In thick fog conditions, this equates to no cover at all. Which brings me to my next point:

4. Thick fog multiplies damage / negative morale effects something terrible! Every fire-fight results in almost total anhiliation in something like 5 seconds. Here's a little pic:

That's one squad, out of command, and it wiped out an entire reinforced company without breaking a sweat. Given how this scenario played out, it would have worked just as well if you'd lined up all the forces 10m away from each other, on a pefectly flat and empty map, and pressed "GO".

5. Were the forces supposed to be mirrored (i.e: equal)? Because they're not. A Sov Engineer coy. does not equal a German Engineer coy. The Germans have more squads overall (18 vs 9, which means 36 demo charges to the Sovs 18!), more flamethrowers (9 to the Sov 4 --- and the Germans' have 9 shots ea. to the Sov 4 ea.!). Yes, Sov squads have more men (barely), but almost every German squad has an inherent LMG --- most Sov's don't. Oh, and the BA-10 is a joke (it was taken out by small-arms fire in both my games) compared to the 250/10. Definite advantage Axis.

6. Gratuitous use of assault boats. I hate assault boats! Oooohh, but they suck! (That was indeed evil!)

7. Use of wooden bridges along key reinforcement routes? With a company of engineers per side? As has already been pointed out, that's a scenario breaker right there. Especially in a tournament game.

8. Last, but certainly least: There's a nice chunk of land missing where the northern-most RR bridge crosses over. And the scenario briefing lists the date as July 43 --- yet the GUI gives it as July 42.

By the mid-way point of my games, I was almost begging my opponent for a cease fire, as the pointless slaughter was more than I could stand.

Oh, and by the way, lest you think these are the whingings of a sore loser: I won both my games by a wide margin --- so call me a sore winner. I just prefer more of a tactical challenge.

[ August 19, 2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Broken]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

5. Were the forces supposed to be mirrored (i.e: equal)? Because they're not. A Sov Engineer coy. does not equal a German Engineer coy. The Germans have more squads overall (18 vs 9, which means 36 demo charges to the Sovs 18!), more flamethrowers (9 to the Sov 4 --- and the Germans' have 9 shots ea. to the Sov 4 ea.!). Yes, Sov squads have more men (barely), but almost every German squad has an inherent LMG --- most Sov's don't. Oh, and the BA-10 is a joke (it was taken out by small-arms fire in both my games) compared to the 250/10. Definite advantage Axis.

The scenario seemed fairly balanced to me. The Russian rifle squads have almost 50% more firepower at 40m than the German rifle squads. As you pointed out, the Russian squads are generally bigger. The Russians have a slight edge in getting to the key terrain quickly. All in all, I felt balance was good. The scores posted so far are roughly equal between the two sides.

6. Gratuitous use of assault boats. I hate assault boats! Oooohh, but they suck! (That was indeed evil!)

Nobody made you use them, heheheh

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Thick fog multiplies damage / negative morale effects something terrible! Every fire-fight results in almost total anhiliation in something like 5 seconds. Here's a little pic:

That's one squad, out of command, and it wiped out an entire reinforced company without breaking a sweat. Given how this scenario played out, it would have worked just as well if you'd lined up all the forces 10m away from each other, on a pefectly flat and empty map, and pressed "GO".

I have to ask: where is the recon screen????

I understand the point you are trying to make about night, fog and it's lethal effects, but don't you think that your opponent's losses would have been greatly reduced had he sent a half-squad ahead of the main body to scout the far bank?

[xerxes]

It sounds like a complaint against night/fog games. That's fine if it's not you cup of CM tea but it certainly doesn't (by itself) make a scenario bad.

[lucero1148]

von Lucke

Loved that screenshot as I had similar results wrecking havoc and mayhem against my opponent in both my battles. However in regard to the islands being an advantage for the Germans I managed to row 2 Soviet platoons to the islands set up a reverse slope ambush by the flag nearly 2 turns before my opponent casually walked into my flamethrower. I think the point is everyone sets their strategy differently and if they are careful in the deployment and execution of their movements and orders will have a higher chance to succeed. Of course if your boats get tangled midway in its approach making you lose a turn or two in deploying efficiently you're not going to win the islands in this battle or for that matter takeover the KGB bldg.

Others above have stated their approach to winning the battle by blowing up the bridges and just occupying the peninsula. A really sound and viable tactic and one in which I'm glad I didn't have to fight against. Since I went for a conventional approach if my opponent had chosen to be a bridge burner I think I'd be on the sidelines.

All best

Patrick

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Broken:

The scenario seemed fairly balanced to me. The Russian rifle squads have almost 50% more firepower at 40m than the German rifle squads. As you pointed out, the Russian squads are generally bigger. The Russians have a slight edge in getting to the key terrain quickly. All in all, I felt balance was good. The scores posted so far are roughly equal between the two sides.

Actually, the Recon squads are even at 111, German engineers (with LMG) beat Sov engineers slightly (104 to 100), while Sov infantry have only a 20% advantage over German (180 to 124).

In the event, these numbers are pointless, since the heavy fog conditions mean that one man with a pistol can rout a full platoon, if he gets the drop on them (yes, this happened in one of my games!). The sure way to win in fog is to be the one on the tactical defense. Run like hell to a good position, then sit and wait for the enemy --- as long as his troops are moving in clear (or semi-clear) terrain, he hasn't got a chance.

It comes down to actual number of squads in scenarios like this --- the more targets you have operational, the greater chance you have of surviving.

And I think (last time I checked, anyway), that the Axis player has been pulling slightly higher scores.

6. Gratuitous use of assault boats. I hate assault boats! Oooohh, but they suck! (That was indeed evil!)

Nobody made you use them, heheheh

I would have preferred not to --- but I looked at the map, and thought "gee, what if the other guy is quicker than me, and blows the bridges? Then what?" Better annoyingly safe, then sorry...