Huzzar! HTH balance

[sburke]

Looking for some feedback from scenario designers about this particular scenario. I know balance can be very subjective considering the potential differences in skill levels amongst opponents, however I have had discussions with a couple individuals including my own opponent and the consensus seems to be this one is pretty difficult for the American player. Wondering if others have that same feeling and what might be reasonable ways of balancing it if that is the case. I really enjoy the map and the nature of play on it, but there are several factors in it that make it really difficult to provide a challenge to a German opponent.

Lack of any breaching capability for the Americans

Lack of any recon infantry in the beginning which makes the German AT equipped infantry really difficult to counter.

Late arrival of American Infantry forcing the Armor into a recon role as German AT assets take up early position.

Proximity of objectives to German map edge

Relative equality overall in Infantry and Armor with the American being forced into the role of an attacker with at best parity with the German force.

Despite feeling it was just butting your head against the wall as the Americans, I still really like this scenario. I'd like though for replay value to at least have some opportunity to threaten a victory. Do more veteran players agree with this assessment or is it perhaps just a bad use of whatever strengths you believe the Americans have? If you feel this assessment is accurate are there suggestions of what could be done that would not in turn weight it too much in the American favor?

Some of the ideas I have thought of or heard are - breaching capability for the GIs (engineers etc)

Earlier arrival of at least some of the Infantry.

Greater distribution of reinforcements. Crossing the river to threaten the Germans takes a considerable amount of time.

Changing of victory locations so that some of the German objectives are closer to the American map edge.

[George MC]

Looking for some feedback from scenario designers about this particular scenario. I know balance can be very subjective considering the potential differences in skill levels amongst opponents, however I have had discussions with a couple individuals including my own opponent and the consensus seems to be this one is pretty difficult for the American player. Wondering if others have that same feeling and what might be reasonable ways of balancing it if that is the case. I really enjoy the map and the nature of play on it, but there are several factors in it that make it really difficult to provide a challenge to a German opponent.

Lack of any breaching capability for the Americans

Lack of any recon infantry in the beginning which makes the German AT equipped infantry really difficult to counter.

Late arrival of American Infantry forcing the Armor into a recon role as German AT assets take up early position.

Proximity of objectives to German map edge

Relative equality overall in Infantry and Armor with the American being forced into the role of an attacker with at best parity with the German force.

Despite feeling it was just butting your head against the wall as the Americans, I still really like this scenario. I'd like though for replay value to at least have some opportunity to threaten a victory. Do more veteran players agree with this assessment or is it perhaps just a bad use of whatever strengths you believe the Americans have? If you feel this assessment is accurate are there suggestions of what could be done that would not in turn weight it too much in the American favor?

Some of the ideas I have thought of or heard are - breaching capability for the GIs (engineers etc)

Earlier arrival of at least some of the Infantry.

Greater distribution of reinforcements. Crossing the river to threaten the Germans takes a considerable amount of time.

Changing of victory locations so that some of the German objectives are closer to the American map edge.

I’m probably not the best person to comment seeing as I designed it J

First off I appreciate you playing this out and being interested enough in it to comment. Any feedback is great and it's good to see the hours you spend designing these scenarios gives someone a great deal of enjoyment and challenge.

Anyways I’ll give you some background as to why I made the design decisions I did. First off and this one is purely selfish, I tend to design scenarios that I would like to play J I like armoured combined arms actions first and formost.

Secondly there is a fundamental design/play philosophy approach which is key to taking my comments into account. From my POV I’m not all that interested in designing ‘balanced’ scenarios for H2H play. I think if players want truly 'balanced' then I would suggest playing QBs where both sides have the same points and if they want, can play on mirrored maps. What I am interested in is giving a player as true to life tactical challenge as I can within the constraints and limitations of the game engine. Now a great many RL actions were not balanced nor did they included the ideal tools for the job hence a player’s OOB or obejectives may not be ideal. But I like this sense of trying to achieve some sort of win in very challenging circumstances - I do hope though I give the player a glimmer of hope! That sense that if they do one thing or another just right it'll come good. It'll not be easy but then it should not be a puzzle, tricksy or a lost cause from the opening turn. Now whether that happens in the secnarios is of course up for deabte

I’m writing this from work so I’ve not got access to the actual OOB for both sides nor can I recall the exact arrival times for units. So I stand to be corrected on any inaccuracies here.

SPOILER ALERT

#

#

#

#

The following sections could include spoilers so be warned.

The concept behind this scenario is the opening part of the action is Germans have attacked and broken through US lines and are pushing forward . A small German kampfgruppe, the advance guard of the main effort, is tasked to secure several crossing points for the main force. The US scramble together a small force to move up and form a blocking position. This is more a meeting engagement rather than a set piece attack – hence the parity in forces. My top tip is for both players to read their respective briefings thoroughly. That’s key to winning this one I think.

So how this pans out from a design perspective is the opening involves typical recce forces for each side sniffing out likely avenues of approach/attack. German recce units are generally set-up to fight for info and if need be can seize key terrain for a short while. US generally do a bit more Sneaky Pete. So yeah in this opening the US player may well be at a disadvantage. However they do have very good arty support and comms. So the US player has access to a lot of fire support.

The US arrive on map with more stuff quicker than the Germans (if I recall correctly). I staggered the US arrival as the US set-up zones are on lines of march so did not want the player to have a huge cluster of stuff arrive on-map at the same time. If I recall the US force is set-up as advance guard and main body. I was not expecting the US player to attack just using their armour in such confined country but have the armour secure the immediate line of departure, wait for their HT borne infantry to catch up then push forward as a combined arms team.

I also wanted the US force to appear in the same area rather than have stuff split up willy nilly. Read any account of actions and you tend to find the attacker being in convoy using the limited road net. Hence why I set-up the US in this way. Mind, you have over 2 hours for this – there is no rush!

The US player can concentrate their forces and achieve local superiority – they have the advantage in that regard plus lot’s of artillery. Also if I recall correctly I think both sides have different objectives. The US player does not need to get all their objectives to succeed. The German player has to take some of the objectives – guess what I am saying is both sides have very different victory conditions so players can make choices here. Key is the briefing.

Re breaching – well they did not always have breaching teams attached. This is a hasty counter-attack by the US to form a blocking position – it’s actually the German player who is really the attacker hence the parity.

Hope this gives some background – I’m keen to hear other takes on this but in the end reserve the right to stick to my guns

Cheers fur noo

George

[Broadsword56]

Having just finished a Huzzar battle as US (and losing), I follow with great interest.

I support the design philosophy of unbalanced and historical scenarios.

A few questions --

You mention the US having a lot of artillery. But all I ever had up to the final 29 minutes (when I surrendered) was one unit of off-map M7 Priest. On map I just had the few organic 50mm mortars that came with the infantry.

Since this is intended to be a lopsided and desperate battle for the US, then maybe the answer is adjusting the victory conditions in some way, so that the US can have a little more hope for a "win" in game points with just better-than-historical or better-than-average results.

Once the Germans have the crossings and those Panthers assume dominating positions behind them, it doesn't seem to matter how many tanks the US has -- they just get picked off at long range before they can get into a more equalizing range or angle.

I enjoyed the tactical problem. But I just don't know if there's a US solution against a competent HTH Geman player that can win the game.

[George MC]

Having just finished a Huzzar battle as US (and losing), I follow with great interest.

I support the design philosophy of unbalanced and historical scenarios.

A few questions --

You mention the US having a lot of artillery. But all I ever had up to the final 29 minutes (when I surrendered) was one unit of off-map M7 Priest. On map I just had the few organic 50mm mortars that came with the infantry.

Since this is intended to be a lopsided and desperate battle for the US, then maybe the answer is adjusting the victory conditions in some way, so that the US can have a little more hope for a "win" in game points with just better-than-historical or better-than-average results.

Once the Germans have the crossings and those Panthers assume dominating positions behind them, it doesn't seem to matter how many tanks the US has -- they just get picked off at long range before they can get into a more equalizing range or angle.

I enjoyed the tactical problem. But I just don't know if there's a US solution against a competent HTH Geman player that can win the game.

Good points mate - I'm just finishing up work so when I get home I'll check what the arty support and victory points are for the US side. Must admit I had thought the US had more arty - if that's the case all they have is one battery then I think there is a good argument for giving them more (also willc heck the ammo loadout) - I do seem to recall when testing this of me using the arty to take out ID'd Panthers etc.

Ok must dash.

[sburke]

First of all thanks for the very prolific response and a glimpse into your design perspective on this one. Actually you probably are the best person as I assume you played the heck out of it. Question for you, have you played this HTH as the Americans and pulled off a victory? I will definitely revisit the briefing later to see if I am just completely misunderstanding the American goals. It does really help to see your design perspective as I think as the American player I was feeling pressured to react earlier than it seems you intended, that in turn may have led me down a dead end road.

I should explain what I mean by balanced. I don't necessarily feel parity of forces means balance. I was referring more to a situation where my ability to achieve my victory conditions is at least close to my opponents capability to do so. How it came to a discussion of force levels is I found the timing sequence seemed to put me into the position of having to assault my opponents positions as they were able to get into a position defending all the objectives. I now faced a force with some pretty serious firepower in good defensive terrain. For me only the initial recon units were fighting a meeting engagement. After that the Germans were able to assume a defensive posture.

I think what I have to understand is what you mean by a blocking position in a meeting engagement. I had no problem with the victory conditions against the AI. However a lot of that was due to the fact that the AI maneuvers poorly and that in turn allowed me to get US forces near or on the objectives first. As the Americans I was able to win, but the Germans still had forces capable of inflicting some pain (read Panthers). As the Germans I was able to completely annihilate the American force.

My experience in HTH play was that by the time I was able to get my infantry into the fight, the opposition was already set up into a defensive posture with control of all the objective locations to their rear. My opponent even mentioned to me why I was leading with infantry at one point. Perhaps I was simply moving too early from how you perceived the scenario as unraveling, but at that time I still had no infantry and I already had indications that German armor was moving into good defensive positions between my forces and the objectives. My recon was being overrun and I was losing any ability to develop intelligence on German movements. I am assuming from your reply that the American objectives are set up to simply deny German forces passage. In other words contesting control of the objectives would be enough to achieve a draw. That is one I will have to think about and review.

I guess I should look at the reinforcements to see if they are variable for arrival, did I simply have really bad luck on their arrival times?

Anyway regardless of the difficulties, still really like this one. If it is simply a matter of having a better grasp on how to achieve the victory conditions I think I will enjoy it even more. I may have to ask my opponent for a rematch once I have a chance to think this one over again.

[Tarquelne]

First, I'm curious about the state of everyone's game at the end of the "recon phase", before the heavy armor arrives.

In my game the Germans had occupied the victory locations. The Americans may have had an edge in strength, but were considerably outnumbered. And the routes from where the armor would enter to the river lacked effective American opposition. (As did American routes to the river.)

***

"just a bad use of whatever strengths you believe the Americans have?"

I think there's something to that. Though I'd put it "It's much easier to use the German units at full effectiveness." In theory the forces might be equal, but in practice the Americans have a much more difficult task.

I played as the Germans.

In the recon phase I didn't want to take on the American Stuarts and Greyhounds with most of my forces - the MG HTs and infantry - so I used them to occupy the victory locations while the American dutifully explored and skirmished with the German 20mm HTs and 50mm ACs.

That served me well in the next phase of the battle. There wasn't much opposition to the armor occupying great positions defending the victory locations. With armor (and infantry, and esp HTs.) to spare for the other crossing points.

As I did this I was trying to figure out what I'd do as the Americans. Whatever it'd be, I think it'd have to be something clever involving smoke with a combined arms assault. Much trickier than finding good defensive positions for the German armor.

The Panthers especially have some great options - they were destroying American tanks still 300+m from the river, from locations another 200 or so meters away from the river. (And one HT got nailed near the American map edge.)

Some more arty sounds good for the Americans - at least if the main engagement consistently plays out like an American attack. And do the Americans have access to arty at the beginning? If not, perhaps some off-map 81mm mortars?

I'd suggest beefing up the American initial recon forces. (Not necessarily more Stuarts or Greyhounds - maybe more HTs or jeeps.) Though the best thing might be to create an additional American force that comes in well after the game's start but still in advance of all the armor. Perhaps another recon detachment.

They could be used to either delay the German armor, or make an attempt on the victory locations. So rather than a German defense there'd be the possibility of phase two being more like a ME or American defense.

[Holman]

I have to disagree with the suggestion that Huzzar is imbalanced against the Germans, because I just finished a HTH game as German and got my butt kicked.

The German has a weak infantry force supported by StuGs and Panthers. While the Panthers are difficult foes, the close-range bocage terrain cuts down their advantage in range and armor, since even the Sherman's 75mm gun can wreck a Panther's day at short range and/or side angles.

There is one especially good spot (a bare hill beyond the small farm) where Panthers can perch and take advantage of long fields of fire, but these still can't cover much of the map, and the American has options to avoid the zone the Panthers can see.

The Sherman vs. StuG matchup is a real disadvantage for the Germans, since in this terrain the lack of a turret is a very significant handicap.

All in all, this scenario demonstrates how asymmetrical the capabilities of both sides really are, especially in this kind of terrain. I loved playing it.

[sburke]

First, I'm curious about the state of everyone's game at the end of the "recon phase", before the heavy armor arrives.

In my game the Germans had occupied the victory locations. The Americans may have had an edge in strength, but were considerably outnumbered. And the routes from where the armor would enter to the river lacked effective American opposition. (As did American routes to the river.)

My forces on either side of the main bisecting river had somewhat different experiences. On the right side (American perspective) I was able to take out a Puma and PSW and severely degrade the mobility of another PSW, but at the cost of all but one M5. I had dismounted my jeep and ran headlong into German dismounted infantry. Pretty wild shootout which while doing some damage to the german unit ended up with my team wiped out. From that point on the German infantry dominated the area around that farmhouse. I wouldn't have anything to contest it till my infantry arrived much much later. This allowed the Germans to set up a defensive position around this area in depth.

On the left side I was able to get into position on the sunken road close to the bridge crossing and then held that position until I finally had to give it up knowing I was going no further.

Basically the net result was the same as your experience. The German recon was able to take the crossing points and hold them for the follow on forces.

One thing I did find is that Armored cars seem to have a significantly better stealth capability. On several occasions I would have stationary units facing the direction they were coming from and the first indication I would have was 20mm rounds bouncing off my turret. Pretty cool actually but potentially deadly if it had been a Puma. It seemed logical to me that Tanks just wouldn't have the same situational awareness and I really like that those recon units have some better capability other than marking the enemy positions with their flaming hulks.

[slysniper]

I go along with any designer sticking to the design to give the battle a historical feel or a tactical situation they want to create and not giving into changing a scenario for the sake of balence.

But I disagree with balence not being possible, the fact is, I think that every scenario can give players a close to equal chance to win by just adjusting the scoring that has been placed in a scenario.

So what if one side has a great disadvantage, if the score can be adjusted so that a handful of remaining troops can gain 1000 points but the attacker can only gain 1000 points by controling most of the map, then that is balenced if that is the general end result of the battle.

The problem is for the designer, what is the general end result of a scenario they create going to be. They can test play it, make some judgement calls, but no matter what, there is no real answer for that. But a designer should make a effort to decide what that will be. try to set a balenced score set up for that end result, then when the game varies from that, then you have a winner one way or another.

But I know there is plenty of excellent designed scenarios out there, but how they are set up in scoring is a joke. in my book that is the only adjustment needed in almost any scenario.

Written by someone that loves to only play scenarios

[sburke]

The German has a weak infantry force supported by StuGs and Panthers. While the Panthers are difficult foes, the close-range bocage terrain cuts down their advantage in range and armor, since even the Sherman's 75mm gun can wreck a Panther's day at short range and/or side angles.

All in all, this scenario demonstrates how asymmetrical the capabilities of both sides really are, especially in this kind of terrain. I loved playing it.

This was the opposite of my experience (which is good, I really hope it is simply my mis understanding of the objectives that is my problem). My hats off to your opponent for their win. The German force is almost as strong as the American force in Infantry and has the advantage of breaching explosives and very very good AT weapons. The StuGs are at a disadvantage IF they have to fight offensively, but in a defensive situation they can be quite deadly. From ambush they are quite effective as I learned the hard way and Broadsword is finding in our other PBEM. Head to head in close country against a Sherman, I would normally pick the Sherman, but wandering around blindly in hedgerow country when the Germans have infantry and StuGs in defensive posture is not good. The funny thing is I had more success in my game against the Panthers having managed to kill one with a flank shot. My opponent recognizing I think the vulnerabilities of the StuG catered to their needs and may have gotten a bit too relaxed with the Panther.

One factor in all this is subjective. It may not be the scenario at all, I may have simply been outclassed by my opponent. I am more than open to that and asked my opponent honestly if they felt my game play was lacking or was I doing something fundamentally wrong. Their response was the comment about not making use of my infantry. What they didn't know yet was my infantry had just finally arrived. Getting it into position took time particularly if I wanted to contest the right flank farmhouse crossing.

All that being said I am just gonna have to try this one again, it is just far too interesting. I absolutley agree about loving playing it. My regards to you George and I'll be sending you my manicurists bill after I chew my fingernails down to nubs.

[Other Means]

I think what would be a good balancer is giving the US a significant recon edge with more Stuarts and some infantry.

That way they could push forward and have the Germans advancing into reconned terrain.

Then the US could actually gain local superiority because they'd know more.

[George MC]

Just been reading through all the replies - lot's of food for thought there guys. Thanks to all who have posted their comments. Great to see that a scenario has had such an impact.

Where to begin...

I checked the scenario over. Several observations. Again mind possible spoilers coming up....

SPOILER ALERT

#

#

#

#

The US armour and HT infantry arrive within five minutes of each other. So I would think that is not too long to wait given the scenario lasts for over two hours.

The US has the heavy arty although only one battery of Priests (off map). Originally they had more I recall but this skewed the action hence they just have the one. The Germans have no heavy arty support save their organic off-map 81mm mortars. So I'm thinking that I could give the US another battery of 105s?

I checked the victory conditions and looking at them the US player gets just over half their points for taking out German units. On the other hand the German players gets most of their points for seizing bridgeheads.

I can beef up the US recce forces for sure. But I'm a bit wary of doing this as it signifcantly changes the fight. The German player does not have that many infantry assets on-map at the start but enough to seize some objectives. However that either means they split their force or concentrate them. So I'm holding fire on this one just now. Unless there is support from both sides for the US having more infantry on-map at the start.

Given there is a certain amount of division amongst those who have won/lost I'm thinking it's maybe not too far of the mark in terms of balance

Thoughts?

Cheers fur noo

George

[JonS]

given the scenario lasts for over two hours.

Actually: 90 minutes.

The US has the heavy arty although only one battery of Priests (off map).

Actually: only one section of 2 guns. A battery would be 6 guns. (To be fair, CMBN does - wrongly - call 2 guns a battery. Also, 105mm isn't usually considered 'heavy,' although it is a lot heavier than the mortars which the Germans have.)

I checked the victory conditions and looking at them the US player gets just over half their points for taking out German units. On the other hand the German players gets most of their points for seizing bridgeheads.

Ya, but there's a mismatch there. If the US player gets even remotely close to scoring the full 700 points for taking out all German units they'll win catastrophically. A much more likely result in a close-ish battle is - I would think - that they'll get something less than half the available points, or around 300-to-350-ish.

Locations, on the other hand, are all or nothing. As long as the Germans hold the village, they get 600 points. Everytime. Hold the village and the farm, and it's 1000 points. Against ~350. That's a major German victory, not even counting US losses.

The German player does not have that many infantry assets on-map at the start but enough to seize some objectives.

It's still a whole heck of a lot more than the US player has.

There's also a map gotcha, making some of the narrow paths impassable to vehicles.

[LemuelG]

I can't help but agree quite strongly with the general sentiment - I played this hot-seat with my (noob) flatmate and gave him Ami 'cause I thought they'd have more guys and firepower - I almost felt ashamed at the hiding he got, I definately felt like I got dealt all the cards.

The German is basically handed 100% of the objectives from the start; the American is given parity, next-to-no support and asked to assault across the river, in the dark, into the teeth of hull-down Panthers and StuG - it's quite impossible against a competent player. Had I known I certainly would've played US.

I actually thought it was a bit crooked - and then one of my StuGs blew-away a Honey while it (my StuG) was fast-moving across a field, and that was the last straw

[sburke]

Given there is a certain amount of division amongst those who have won/lost I'm thinking it's maybe not too far of the mark in terms of balance

Thoughts?

Cheers fur noo

George

I wouldn't do anything yet. One thing I really do get is play balance is an extremely difficult thing to determine. There are just way too many variables. What I was hoping for and think I got was at least a little confirmation that maybe there is reason to think it could be unbalanced. I really hate saying that to my opponent as it sounds too much like sour grapes and I think he really did do a masterful job with his units regardless of the overall victory conditions.

I am not so hung up on winning, but I felt like I gave him no real challenge once we were past the recon phase. A simple agreement on our part that we are out to kill each others units period and the actual victory conditions on the map aren't relevant might be enough.

We have moved on to Bois de Baugin where I think I can much better assess if I am simply outclassed. If I can at least put up a good fight I will feel a little better saying it wasn't just because I suck. :-P

[simmox]

im at about the 75% mark of the battle,as the Americans

the US forces have seized most of the OBs and eliminated 90% of the german forces

the initial recon stage was quite close,with only 1 M8 and 1 Stuart surviving

these 2 units were able to continue on through the lull and scout all the required locations easily,until german reserves rolled up

2nd phase had the US forces smash the german armor fairly easily

at this stage only 1 panther remains and seems to be out of the fight

US lost 2 tanks in this battle and another to a schreck team

another sherman got bogged crossing the river

at this stage of the battle the american forces has overwhelmed the defence without any significient use of the arty and look to be in a unassailable position

my opponent is battling on

i cant see any reason to change the strength of the US forces,they've got plenty

i crossed the far left side forge with a platoon of shermans and a mech inf platoon

and ran amock in the enemies rear

catching alot of the german forces on the move and out of position,while setting a few firing lanes around the bridges and other areas of interest to catch any german armor trying to reinforce the flank attack

certainly some luck has played my way,but ,its certainly looking like a walk in the park for the US

[slysniper]

One thing I have found in the few scenarios I have done. Balence is a mystical thing.

No way to prove it at all unless you get the results of many battles from head to head play, and then that really only shows the results of that type of play.

I cannot remember how many of mine I did for tournaments , but somewere between 10 to 15 scenarios. My goal for every one of them was to hopefully see close to half of the games being won from either side.

I would say 65% percent of them did that, but many others did not.

But seeing scores return and players comments. you find some interesting things out. Plenty of good players will question the balence if they lose and they do not see a reason because of the other players game play for their loss.

Second, even on scenario's that were not balenced, there was still 15 to 20 percent winning with the weak side. and not just barely winning, but by huge wins at times. So I decided that the game is really being influenced by the skill of the players likely more than the balence provided by the units in play. of course luck and fortune plays a part also.

But bact to my comment, adjusting a scenario does not take unit or map changes unless someone points out things that are bugs or maybe units that should be there for realistic reasons that might have been overlooked.

but any score system can be adjusted to help even out the wins per side4 without impacting you desired design. But until you have plenty of feed back, how would you ever know.

[Other Means]

Even if the German player were to sit at the back of the bridges with him Panthers it would be very difficult for the US player to advance.

I'm getting hammered in my game - but I've played it very badly.

[George MC]

I've just had a quick run through this and worked out that it appears as if the there are four players saying the US are totally outclassed and two players saying they either humped the Germans or were humped by them. So it looks like the US could do with beefing up but the two comments from those who won as the US were that the US force was plenty strong. Hhmmm...

Re the map issue yup I know one of the small tracks is no-go for armour - that's deliberate. I built it to recreate a small cart track that looks like it might be passable but in reality won't be. TBH how much info do you have to give players. I'm loathe to make things to obvious - there are also some sneaky wee fords and other not obvious avenues of approach. If the player does their ground recce well they'll find these small spots.

Anyways I'm happy to amend a version for H2H play and upload it to the repository. I can take a look at the victory conditions and see if I can tweak them to make things a bit easier for the US. Re force OOB what is the concensus. It does look like the recce elemnts could be slightly beefed up with some dismounts and maybe add a few more 105s?

[Other Means]

Swap the Grayhounds for Stuarts and give some HTs full of infantry would do it I reckon.

[JonS]

Re the map issue yup I know one of the small tracks is no-go for armour - that's deliberate.

There are four bits that are impassible.

[George MC]

Jon - you think I should do something about these tracks?

When I built them I knew vehicles would not get down but I thought that was realistic - small track looks passable but ain't. I get the impression you'd like it changed or marked as impassable?

[JonS]

It's a tricky one. It's great you knew it was impassible, and probably my own fault that I didn't. I wasted a lot of time when I was trying to transfer forces from one flank to the other, because I thought it was passible, and it was just my waypoint placement or order selection that was at fault. In the end I decided - wrongly - that the trees across the opening I was trying to use were causing the problem and went looking for another way around.

The issue, I think, is that the German player can easily transfer firepower from one flank to the other. The US player cannot. I don't mind that it's a big map, and I have a long way to go, and it takes a long time to drive there, and all that. But the cart tracks horribly restrict how the US can switch, especially since they only have direct-fire HE as a means of making their own paths (and I'm quite ok with that limitation too, I don't think breaching charges and/or Rhinos are needed).

Incidentally, I don't think the recon phase need to change at all The Germans are already badly outgunned there.

Overall, I think the current US objectives* are very difficult to achieve against a competent opponent. You could either adjust the forces (on both sides) to make the existing ones more achievable, or change the objectives to make them more achievable with the existing force.

Jon

*Oh, another observation; the high-value objectives are essentially the same for both sides, which means that (obviously) only one side can get the points. So the village represents a swing of something like 1000 points if it changes hands from one side to the other.

[sburke]

Thanks George, but I am actually pretty reticent about suggesting you tweak it. Balance being such a difficult item to define I am more interested in just trying it again with a much higher level of awareness of what I need to achieve. Perhaps I'll suggest to my opponent we try a double blind and compare results. If he whoops my butt both times I'll just suggest he go play as the Germans against Simmox while I go look for the kiddie pool.

[George MC]

Cheers for the comments guys

I'm heading out of town for the next week. When I get back I'll see what else (if anything) has been posted. I'm thinking the way forward would be tweaking the victory conditons for both sides. I'm also thinking giving the US a bit more arty - after all the Allies used their arty to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

Cheers fur noo

George