I also helped playtest this campaign and I got thrashed more than once, which only persuaded me to go back and try again. PT doesn't give the player an easy time, it's true. What he does is give you a real challenge, and (usually) the forces to make beating that challenge a realistic possibility.
Misuse the forces at your disposal and you will likely suffer the consequences. Assume the AI is a dumbo and you'll get the same. But hey, if a player expects to win every time and is going to complain if he doesn't, I can't help but think he's missing the point. This is a wargame/simulation with a strong emphasis on realism. It isn't meant to be particularly easy.
And before anyone complains that the betatesters are ganging up here, no, we're not. I, and other testers, let PT know when we believed a scenario didn't work, for whatever reason. We didn't always agree. PT took our feedback and made adjustments accordingly. And it often happened (as you will probably discover) that the forces that were giving me such a tough time were surprisingly small in comparison to mine, which to me is a measure of how well the scenario is designed and how effective the game AI is overall.
And really, does losing a battle make that battle unenjoyable? I'm currently getting my butt kicked in a PBEM. I'd much prefer it was the other way round, but I'm not complaining. I'm having fun, and learning that some players may have tactics that are more effective than mine. Same goes at times against the AI.
By any standards CMN and CW is a great wargame, and this campaign is a very finely crafted one. It's not unbalanced (with possible exceptions where the designer wanted to stick as closely as possible to historical fact) and, win or lose, provides helluva good entertainment. I can only recommend that anyone who's getting a thumping rethinks their tactics and goes back in and tries again.
handihoc got a reaction from PEB14 in The Scottish Corridor Thread