Memoir '44 D-Day Landings Memoir '44 D-Day Landings

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Scenarios need improving...
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
bitterboy
Junior Member
Kursant

Posts: 15
Registered:
June 2004
  Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 06:38
I find that many of the scenarios in the rulebook are not very balanced (Pointe Du Hoc, Paris Liberation, etc.). Many could be improved by better placement of the units. Has anyone thought of using set up zones and/or letting the defender play order cards first?

      
ekted
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 06:56
I don't think they are intended to be. They are historical. To balance them as they are, play each side 3 times, and add up all medals for the 6 games.
      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 09:11
I have made a more balanced version of Pointe-du-Hoc by moving the cliffs one row backwards. You can find it the scenario section.

While I can sympatize with the idea of making historical scenarios as accurate as possible, I must say that if I wanted a historical simulation of the D-day landings I wouldn't play Memoir '44. To me the game's biggest virtue is its playability as a fun, light game. And playing the Germans in the original scenario #4 is no fun at all.
      
KippRyon
Member

User Pages
Posts: 55
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 09:59
Play-Balance depends on the quality (and quantity) of the groups selected for 'balancing'.

Design it & Post it - if you think you have a better version...

The game is designed for this type of creativity.
If you make it 'historical & challenging' (i.,e; - fun to play for both sides), it will be played.
Just look at all the 'player designed' scenarios for BC.

This is one of the benefits of R. Borg's 'Command & Colours' series.

      
wayner2d2
Member

User Pages
Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 12:23
It is also recomended that you switch sides after playing a scenario. This way both parties involved play from both perspectives.
      
bitterboy
Junior Member
Kursant

Posts: 15
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 15:33
First of all, don't misunderstand me, I think this is a great game. I feel the scenarios aren't as fun as they could be and I was wondering if anybody else feels the same way. I know that it is suggested that you switch sides for all of the scenarios but that's kind of a cop out in my eyes. It says we know these scenarios aren't fun for both sides to play so take turns playing the side that sucks...

      
inquisitor
Member

Posts: 43
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 16:14
How is this a cop out?

This is a wargame, light at that, but a wargame nonetheless. Combat was never equal, you fought with what you had, you could muster up, and you made the best of it. If you want a game that starts everyone with equal position and army strength, one must look at games such as Mechwarrior, risk, Chess and many MB light games such as Mission command, others in this series.

I am being lax, so please don't attempt to get me to debate simulation vs whatever?

In a wargame one wishes to use the units or close to the units that participated in the actual combat to see if they can change the outcome. The sides were not equal in these battles, position of troops, terrain, the morale, and many other variables came into play that allowed one side or the other to overcome and carry the day.

Some of these battles were hard fought and could have gone either way, but that doesn't mean that it would do well in a balanced scenario.

I have enjoyed all of the scenarios as presented in the game and many that have been presented on this forum, and I believe that most all of them are winnable by either side, depending on draw of the cards, throw of the dice, and the carelessness of my opponent.

[Updated on: Sat, 24 July 2004 18:24]

      
*player24511
Member

Posts: 44
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 16:53
I agree with both points of view, and have an easy solution to find middle ground.

I believe scenario based games must be balanced and playable from a "game" point of view. It is not fun for most folks to play a completely hopeless position from set up to the end. Speaking for myself, I play a game to have at least a chance to win. I am talking about one game, not the switch sides and play again double game.Games should be fun, otherwise they will not be played often.

There are strong reasons also to have scenarios reflect to some degree what actually happened. It is very thrilling to replay a battle and have things go differently. Knowing in the original battle that the armour charging up the left was a deadly mistake, I can replay it and have artillary pound the village to make it safe for the armour advance first.

The best way to accomplish both these objectives is different victory conditions. If in the original battle one side was overwhelmed and demolished, in the scenario perhaps this side must take half as many medals, or 2 less, or whatever is needed for play balance. Just be sure to make a note of the reasons for the imbalance in either the historical notes, or the victory conditions so folks understand why.

A balanced scenario is the best way to assure it and the game becomes a classic.

Cheers
Thunder
      
bitterboy
Junior Member
Kursant

Posts: 15
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 19:21
Maybe "cop out" wasn't a good way to say it... I think it is taking the easy way out. I think you need to put a little more work into the victory conditions and unit placements to make the game more fun to play. In several of the scenarios I think you need to have really good luck or just silly tactics by your opponents to do well (Du Hoc, Pegasus Bridge, Omaha Beach, Paris Liberation to name a few). A small cahange in the set up or the victory conditions would make the game both historical and fun. Games are supposed to be fun, right? As I play many (not all) of the scenarios I wish that they were a little more carefully designed "out of the box" so that those that play don't feel they need to fix the scenarios.
      
Gojira
Senior Member

Posts: 165
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 24 July 2004 23:08
This is an interesting thread made even more interesting when compared with some of the other threads. We've had folks saying we need more historical scenarios and less "fantasy" scenarios. We've had folks generating hypothetical scenarios going so far as recreating movies, and now we've got folks saying the historical scenarios should effectively offer both sides an equal chance of winning (which kind of makes them less historical in many aspects). I think one of the great things about the game is that it can work to any of these preferred "flavors". Personally, I like seeing the side that had the advantage historically having the advantage in the scenario. Makes the victory that much sweeter. I've yet to play a scenario that wasn't any fun although some of the games are certainly more challenging than others to be sure. IMHO, I think saying "It says we know these scenarios aren't fun for both sides to play so take turns playing the side that sucks..." is more than a bit of a reach. Many folks like a challenge and recognize few battles would be fought waiting for both sides to be even. But, as many have said, there's room for plenty of opinions and styles of plays and it's just a matter of finding the one that suits you.
As far as balancing the scenarios goes, I know Richard keeps track of every win/loss during playtesting, including medal counts and scenarios go through quite a bit of testing and tweaking before being "carved in stone".

Kind of makes me want to break out Battle Cry and play No Hope , excuse me, New Hope Church. Smile

      
Otto Funk
Member

Posts: 30
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sun, 25 July 2004 01:37
Personally, I, and the people I board game and wargame with, get most out of a win when being the underdog disadvantaged by numbers or terrain.
For example, we regularly play DBM and we almost always now play historical basis scenario games with contemorary opposing sides and army scales/ terrain as close matching the real thing as is reasonable for a game. This is rather than points based or "any opponent" games with dice generated terrain which are now rather predictable or mundane (never mind bizarrely unrealistic when one uses, say, a war of the roses army and the other Hittites or something equally rediculous.)
Overcoming adverse conditions to win is a great satisfaction and develops your gaming abilities.
      
bitterboy
Junior Member
Kursant

Posts: 15
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sun, 25 July 2004 05:50
You guys are right about one of the greatest aspects of the game being it's flexibility. If we don't like it, it is pretty easy to change. Smile I probably was being a bit harsh when I said, "It says we know these scenarios aren't fun for both sides to play so take turns playing the side that sucks." but I still feel that some of scenarios are not balanced (and I know they weren't intended to be) and that makes them less fun to play. When they are less fun to play they don't get played as much and isn't that the point of the game? To each their own however... Smile

BTW, in all this discussion (whiich I have enjoyed) no one has told me what they think of using set up zones in M44. Scenario depending, you could allow each side to set up it's units (all or some the units and fortifications listed in the scenario set up sheet) in the first 3 rows of hexes closest to your side of the map and/or around an objective. Let the defender set up and go first. Any thoughts???

I'll try posting an "improved" ( Razz ) historical scenario soon so you can all tell me how crappy you think my adjustments are! Smile

Cheers!
BB

[Updated on: Sun, 25 July 2004 05:51]

      
skiprydell
Member

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Thu, 29 July 2004 20:29
It is because M44 is more of a game than a simulation that I think the scenarios could be a bit more balanced. The forces and terrain are only distantly related to the historical units and geography. I thoroughly enjoy M44 and embrace it's approach (which I consider to be to provide a "fun" game with a historical "flavor"), so I wish that certain scenarios had been balanced a bit more. I don't mean they should be 50/50. But "Omaha" and "Cobra", for instance, could have some slight modifications that would make them more balanced (and, by the way, more historical at the same time). In "Omaha", I play the scenario with each side getting four cards, and the Americans move first. This makes the game much more exciting for both sides.

Tom
      
komichido
Member
Cadet

Posts: 57
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 07:30
Great thread! I have personally won a few of the scenarios with the obvious underdog and I feel so damn good after a win like that. It is so gratifying to play so well that you overcome the odds, both in the game and historically. Even losing but putting up a great fight is a lot of satisfaction. Its like you sacrificed for the greater picture, but delayed and depleated the enemy substancially. I have not found a need to alter the scenarios to make them more balanced, but the great thing about Mr. Borg's game is that you can! Enjoy,

Joe
      
oivind22
Junior Member

Posts: 27
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 09:38
I just had a look at the AARs for Omaha Beach. Allies won 10 out of 50 times, so it is clearly not balanced. Looking at the results, it seems that if the allies get 4 medals (the scenario goes to 6), they have done well, so you could change the allied victory condition to 4 medals for this scenario. Something like this could be done for all the other scenarios as well. The statistics is there for anyone to use.
      
oivind22
Junior Member

Posts: 27
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 10:00
OK, I did some more research. Based on the AARs, here are some suggested changes, to make the scenarios balanced:

Pointe-du-Hoc: Axis victory condtition 3
Omaha Beach: Allied victory condtion 4
Vassieux: Allied victory condition 2
Operation Cobra: Allied victory condition 4
Liberation of Parix: Axis victory condition 4
Arnhem Bridge: Axis victory condition 4
Arracourt: Axis victory condition 4
Saverne Gap: Axis victory condtion 4

All other victory conditions are unchanged.
      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 11:12
oivind22 wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 09:38

I just had a look at the AARs for Omaha Beach. Allies won 10 out of 50 times, so it is clearly not balanced.


I don't think you should put too much faith in the AAR's.
In Pointe-du-Hoc has the Axis player won a third of all battles (14:33 when this was written), and I don't see how this is possible unless the Allied player rush foolhartedly into the battle.
      
oivind22
Junior Member

Posts: 27
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 12:22
GreatDane wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 11:12


I don't think you should put too much faith in the AAR's.
In Pointe-du-Hoc has the Axis player won a third of all battles (14:33 when this was written), and I don't see how this is possible unless the Allied player rush foolhartedly into the battle.


Well, in that case the axis victory condition should be reduced even further in that scenario. I can't really say, since I haven't played it. The AAR-results for Omaha Beach coincides with my own experience, though.
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Fri, 30 July 2004 18:50
Quote:

In Pointe-du-Hoc has the Axis player won a third of all battles (14:33 when this was written), and I don't see how this is possible unless the Allied player rush foolhartedly into the battle.


I agree with this assesment. I won this one the other night as the Axis but only because my opponent (wife) decided to do something different and try a frontal assault.

As I have written in my latest AAR on this it seems that the part that needs to be balanced is the strategy aspect. It is too easy for the Allies to come in on their left flank and just roll up the Axis forces.
      
hpcthulhu
Junior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 2
Registered:
October 2003
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sat, 31 July 2004 07:19
Good thread so far. I am slightly leaning toward the side that would like to see greater balance. However you can have both closer games and keep historical situations. To do this you create levels of victory for each side. Make it possible for one side to get a marginal victory if they accomplish x and a major victory if they accomplish y . At the same time the other side has its marginal and major victory conditions. The most restrictive part of the victory conditions in MM44 is that most of them involve inflicting casualties. A look at the varying victory conditions in the hundreds of squad leader (AH) scenarios. would be a good place to come up with ideas. some ideas could include: holding ground for x number of turns, or exiting units off the map, or protecting a person, place or thing.

If a scenario has the expected outcome from history, I am not sure this should be a victory it is an "average outcome" You should do better to claim victory.
      
BloodyBucket
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 193
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sun, 01 August 2004 12:52
A question that wargame designers have wrestled with for a long time, this issue of balance vs. history. Not a lot of wargames focus on the German invasion of Poland, for example. The game would by nature be one sided, and few players would relish the thought of winning a moral victory as the Poles by inflicting more than the 45,000 or so historical German casualties, while still getting the inevitable stomping at the hand of the German player.

A lot of this, IMHO, really revolves around "flavor" in a scenario. A proper early Bulge scenario, for example, should have the GI player feeling that he must hold against numerical superiority. This can be balanced with troop quality, superior defensive positions or victory conditions, but for a designer to arbitrarily decide that the situation needs to be evened out by evening out the forces would be very unsatisfying.

One thing that M44 offers that most wargames do not is a very short playing time. This means that the sides can be flipped, but it also means that an unbalanced scenario carries a lower price tag in terms of time invested, so I think it is less of a problem in this game than most.
      
*player6631
Junior Member

Posts: 4
Registered:
October 2003
Re:Scenarios need improving... Sun, 01 August 2004 18:55
Well, I could not wait any longer to jump in. The thread has been one of the most enjoyable "reads" and my vote is for a little more play balance by altering a few of the vocitory conditions. HOWEVER, after stating that I am not too concerned about balance since the creative minds that have filled this site with variants will have me playing Memoirs for some time. I have found that to be a true test of a game is the ability for so many people to participate and judging by this thread I think DOD and Mr. Borg have a winner. So my suggestion, play the scenario on both sides, log on here and rate the scenario and then move on to the next one. Too many scenarios and not enough time to dwell too much on any single battle (IMO) Very Happy
      
    
Previous Topic:OVERLORD scenario's
Next Topic:New Starting Hand variant
Goto Forum: