Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies?
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Sun, 19 September 2004 01:36
Okay, now that I've had the game for three days, I've played 6 games of M44 as the Axis and only won Omaha Beach (twice easily) and St. Vith - Ardennes (just barely, once). All other scenarios were an easy to moderate win for the Allies, with the Axis having a hard time eliminating more than 2-3 Allied units: Arracourt, Operation: Luttich, Arhem Bridge (although playing this out "to the death" regardless of medals proved a tough but certain doom to the Allies, just like in history). Is this right? I had bad luck with command cards and dice in some, but that was common to both sides... The Axis had good command cards (tactics) in several, but positioning troops to get the most use out of them (thanks to terrain or fear of Allied artillery fire) prevented them from being used either at all or to maximum effect in many cases. When the Axis gets fewer than 5 Command cards, the Axis seems to have a very rough time of it...

Is defeat after defeat common for the Axis player? I'm no slouch when it comes to beer-n-pretzels wargames (like Axis & Allies, Risk 2210 A.D., Shogun, etc.) and can't believe how badly I keep getting trounced in M44! I mean, it may historically accurate and all for the Axis to lose most battles, but that does not equal FUN in my eyes. I already know how the war turned out. Recreating it under the excact same conditions gets old quick (like Axis & Allies).

Most scenarios seem too unbalanced in favor the Allies (esp. if they have artillery or air strikes). Don't get me wrong; I like Memoir '44 a lot, but I don't care about historical accuracy --- all I care about is playability (meaning fun). I would prefer to see more fictional and hypothetical scenarios that had both sides equally balanced and that offered some victory condition other than just collecting medals (such as "Das Nachshublager/The Depot," which you can download at http://memoir44.com under Scenarios From The Front or from BoardGameGeek.com's M44 page).

Does anybody else feel this way or am I just crazy, LOL? I also would be interested in seeing National Advantages added, as well as some new units like Commanders or Generals (maybe with the ability to gain experience points that you could take with you into later scenarios until killed or defeated).
      
wayner2d2
Member

User Pages
Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Sun, 19 September 2004 12:42
the rule book suggests that players switch sides after a scenario is played. I personally do not have a problem with the way m44 scenarios are set up. it seems to me that, in the games i have played, the axis has had its share of victories as well as defeat.
      
Texas gamer
Member

Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 20 September 2004 14:52
Iron Chef - so you won 3 and lost 3 as the Axis? Sounds about even, even if it was "tougher" as the Germans.

How many wins and losses as the Allies?

      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 20 September 2004 22:10
Two victories were Omaha Beach (nearly impossible for the Allies at least newbies) and one a very narrow win at St.Vith - Ardennes. Bad dice rolls, then lack of center cards did in the Allies, but they had multiple opportunities to win, whereas I only had one (once I got a center card at the end).

Never played the Allies; I may get around to it this week. Just played Pegasus Bridge and lost as the Axis --- once again, thanks to the Air Power card. Only killed 2 Allied infantry units, but didn't really expect to win. Was rolling good but got very few good cards to keep up the pressure. Then... Air Power wiped out one unit and halved another behind Pegasus Bridge. That scenario looks impossible for the Axis no matter what, though. Not really a fun "introduction" to the game at all when one player has no chance!

M44 needs more balanced scenarios and scenarios with objectives rather than victory medals as the win factor. Some with Axis superiority (such as from 1939 and 1940) would be only fair to balance the 1944 scenarios; limiting the game to 1944 was a mistake, IMO. Having select battles from each year of the war would have been better. M44 says you should switch off playing each side after every game --- so one player isn't forced to lose all the time is how I interpret that statement.

[Updated on: Mon, 20 September 2004 22:14]

      
Gojira
Senior Member

Posts: 165
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 20 September 2004 23:49
As far as selecting battles from 1944, the game was released to coincide with and commemerate the 60th anniversary of the landings at Normandy so that seems to make sense. It also offers the opportunity to do themed supplements (by year or front) so it makes sense from a business model standpoint also. My personal opinion is that if you want a game that represents in some way actual events, it only seems reasonable that one side should have an advantage as they did in real life. Some battles are more in one side's favor than others. I think many of us do consider it fun to try and overcome tough odds and win a tough game. The scenarios are pretty extensively playtested and Richard makes a point of keeping track of every win/loss during that period and is very open to input considering scenario tweaks. As far as equally balanced or non-historic scenarios go, I think they're great and applaud Days of Wonder for maintaining a site where they can be posted and reviewed by others. Feel free to create some and share the wealth.
      
Iluvatar
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 22
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Wed, 22 September 2004 19:58
Have a look at "the military archives" on the website.
Hundreds of people have already send their battle reports on the scenarios. Some of them are clearly in the advantage of the axis (like Omaha beach, Vassieux, Operation Cobra), others are in the advantage of the allies. But if you add all the average results of the allies together the result is 127. If you add all the average results of the axis, the total result is 126.
I dare to claim that this proofs that the game is well balanced.

Regards, Iluvatar
      
supergaazz
Junior Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
August 2004
  Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 27 September 2004 21:56
I always play Memoir with the same friend, we played all scenario's up to Sword Beach.
Every game we switch sides, so we played every scenario both as Allied or Axis.
I only lost ONE game.
I have a big smile on my face.
A very big smile.
You should see it to believe it. Twisted Evil
Memoir rules!
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Sat, 02 October 2004 12:30
My horrible, humiliating losing streak as the Axis continues: Slam The Door Closed (Cherbourg) and Sabotage!!! were both total massacres where I was lucky to kill even one unit. I have given up being the Axis because it is a pointless exercise in frustration the way the game is set up. I then forced my opponent to be the Axis and played Toulon, where I easily crushed him so he would know what I've suffered.

M44's scenarios are, IMO, so unbalanced as to be no fun at all (unless you're the Allies --- except on a couple scenarios). I'm really unhappy with the game's scenarios. The system itself is simple and fun, but these scenarios are messed-up! I don't care about historical accuracy (the 1944 timeframe is severely limiting the game's potential, IMO); I care about game balance where both sides have an equal shot at winning. In my experience, it is almost always a surefire defeat to play any M44 scenario where you start with less cards than your opponent (6 vs. 4, for example), or substantially less units in the field.

I'm not an idiot either... I have beaten this same M44 opponent multiple times as the Axis in Axis & Allies Revised (4th Edition) and in just about every other strategy game we own (Shogun, Risk 2210, etc). We are both experienced gamers (20 years plus) and tough opponents, but M44 stacks the deck too often in the Allies' favor for it to be much fun to play the Axis. Frankly, I'm thinking of getting rid of M44, which is a shame, because the system itself is good. I don't have time to sit around designing balanced scenarios on my own, and too many of the fan scenarios seem to suffer from the same imbalance as the official ones. So, I'm not really getting my $50 worth of fun out of the game. Isn't anybody else experiencing this?

[Updated on: Sat, 02 October 2004 12:32]

      
Iluvatar
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 22
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 04 October 2004 19:55
Iron-chef, don't be that negative! I'm sure one time you will win! Smile
M44 is a game were you don't need to win the whole battle. It's not at all like A&A. You have to go for the medals, nothing else.
I have noticed that starting with many more troops is not necessarily giving you a bigger advantage. If you play for example a left flank probe card, it doesn't matter too much if you have 5 or 2 troops standing on that flank. You can anyway move only 2! M44 is more a game of choosing very carefully which units you will move. Don't rush too quickly forward on a flank because you have some good cards there, but rather make a plan and try (if possible) stick to it. Sometimes you might even decide to keep an infantary unit with only one figure left, because it still has full firepower.

I played last night 6 games with the allies (from Mont Mouchet to Liberation of Paris), and because I was not able to concentrate well I lost all of them! The other used some pretty good tricks.

Try several more games as axis and allies and you will come to the same conclusion.

Vincent
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 04 October 2004 20:42
On BGG, someone pointed out to me that "match play" is recommended by the game designers, so I can't take fault with the game designers if I don't "buy into" the concept of match play... But if the logic behind match play is faulty, then I certainly can and DO take fault with the game designers. Game balance is more important than historical accuracy because this is a GAME, not real life. After all, I already know how WWII ended. Why bother to replay it if I don't stand a chance to rewrite history as the losing side?

One more "match play" point: Switching sides so you and your buddy can take turns AUTOMATICALLY LOSING is ridiculous! That doesn't balance the game, that artificially balances your victory/loss ratio, which is NOT the same thing and does NOTHING for actual game balance/playability.

I played M44 again last night as the Axis ("Anzio: The Crisis" from Scenarios From The Front) and won with only a little trouble, but this was more due to the incredibly bad luck of the Allied player with dice and cards than with his strategy. 90% of his gambles failed miserably, while Axis counterattacks against then poorly positioned units paid off handsomely 90% of the time. And I had six Tactics cards for at least four rounds in a row, whereas he had only one at a time and these were played rounds apart. The Tactics cards were mostly not that great for the Axis to the dreaded Air Power) proved far more important!

BTW: I can and do enter Battle Reports for every scenario I play (most very detailed, such as for Anzio).

[Updated on: Mon, 04 October 2004 20:43]

      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

User Pages
Posts: 3194
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Mon, 04 October 2004 22:50
Iron Chef,

While we take full responsibility for scenarios in the rulebook (and yes, they are not necessarily balanced, but the scores on the web site will give you a good hint ahead of time of which might best match your criteria), we obviously have no control on end-user designed scenarios such as all the ones you seem to have played recently!

We are (see other thread) working on a separate venue for those end-user designed scenarios, and further classification, which should make it easier for you to find scenarios that match your taste and expectations.

best,
Eric @ DoW
      
Openeye
Junior Member
Oberleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 15
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 05:06
I can understand some of the frustration coming from Iron Chef - due to the way he (assumption) plays the game. However I have never played a scenario where only 1 side is played and never will. We always switch sides and base victory on victories\medals\casulaties (if required). In this way we can get a winning result for the Allies\Axis and determine which player was the stronger for that scenario. Sure, some scenarios may be biased to 1 side, but we love to make the most of those meager opportunities and grind out a better result than our opponent's could manage.

Much tension and suspense can be created by calculating the cost of losing that extra unit or part of a unit, as many of our battles are decided by the casualty count. It also makes the players think carefully about protecting that weakened unit - do I attack and risk the loss of further casualties or should I play more defensive and deny my opponent that medal\extra casulaty.

I too have played games like Risk and Axis & Allies for years. The biggest difference between those games and M44 is that units in those games are fairly expendable. In M44, each loss can be a damaging blow and greater thought needs to be given to each decision.

At the end of the day, Iron Chef is entitled to his opinion and I can't begrudge him that. However games are designed and tested for a purpose. If you choose not to follow the designers advice for playing a game (ie. matchplay) then there is every chance you will find the experience less than satisfying.
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 13:03
I almost always play the Axis in A&A and have little interest in playing the Allies. It is natural for players to prefer one side or another (when given a choice) and want to stick with that side for whatever reason. The problem with M44, IMO, is that you have to be some kind of masochist to play the Axis in the vast majority of official and fan-made scenarios... In the small percentage where the Axis is heavily favored, it is not much fun to play the Allies! Which means it is rather pointless to play M44 scenarios as designed. As I said before, I think Richard Borg's Command and Colors system is quite good; my only issue is with the lopsided scenarios. I have no interest in the commemorative aspect of it or into being "forced" to alternate sides. I only ask that a reasonable level of game balance be preserved for whichever side I choose to play in whichever scenario.

Even if the scenarios are sorted and made easier to prejudge (which will be a great help), the problem is that very few of them are anywhere near balanced. I can't imagine why this problem was not readily apparent in M44 playtesting prior to release and why more of a fuss isn't being made about a game that is so obviously "broken." Perhaps the "match play" idea was conceived of as a way to sidestep the whole balance issue rather than to correct it. M44 should be fun, not an excercise in frustration... I don't believe "match play" to be a valid balancing tool, nor proper game design. You shouldn't be dictating which side a player chooses and when just so both players have an opportunity to win what would be otherwise unwinnable were they to consistently remain on the opposite side. What's the point of playing unwinnable scenarios?

Nowhere on the game box does it say: "Warning: Memoir '44 is totally unbalanced! To prevent you from constantly being humiliated in defeat, you must switch sides every game." While somewhat harsh, I feel that is a fair statement to make based on my personal experience with the game. Were I to have known that prior to my $45 purchase, I doubt I would have bought it. Yes, I've had some fun with it, but the fun has been outweighed by the frustration, and victories seemed somewhat hollow when they were too easily obtained.

I've had more fun with Pirate's Cove (with a few rules tweaks). Plus, my scurvy pirate voice is much better honed than my German accent (which comes from reruns of Hogan's Heroes). Rolling Eyes
      
RollD6
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 110
Registered:
August 2004
  Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 15:55
Iron Chef,

Abraham Lincoln once said that you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

This statement is true in your case and people that feel as you do. However, IMO the game is fun, worthwhile and I have had great success teaching the game to people and them enjoying it enough to buy their own. I explain the match play concept to them upfront and they understand, enjoy and embrace it. You and people that feel the way you do are in the small minority, based on the overwhelming success of the game (retail sales and industry awards), my personal experience and others here on the forum.

You say you feel the game is not worthwhile, then either trade it at BoardGameGeek or sell it on Ebay. The game is popular, you will get a good trade/price for it. You have been heard and the fact is the game is not going to change to suit you, even with the proposed changes mentioned in earlier posts. Move on, you will be happier for it.

TTFN,

John

[Updated on: Tue, 05 October 2004 20:48]

      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 19:14
RollD6 wrote on Tue, 05 October 2004 09:55

Iron Chef,

Abraham Lincoln once said that you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

This statement is true in your case and people that feel as you do. However, IMO the game is fun, worthwhile and I have had great success teaching the game to people and them enjoying it enough to buy their own. I teach explain the match play concept to them upfront and they understand, enjoy and embrace it. You and people that feel the way you do are in the small minority, based on the overwhelming success of the game (retail sales and industry awards), my personal experience and others here on the forum.

You say you feel the game is not worthwhile, then either trade it at BoardGameGeek or sell it on Ebay. The game is popular, you will get a good trade/price for it. You have been heard and the fact is the game is not going to change to suit you, even with the proposed changes mentioned in earlier posts. Move on, you will be happier for it.

TTFN,

John


John, I didn't realize that asking for balanced scenarios was tantamount to treason. Your complete inability to even consider offering balanced scenarios proves your close-minded contempt and complete hostility towards making the game fun for everyone. I paid $45 just like you and the game's playability was misrepresented. You're lucky you're not a Days of Wonder spokesman, or I'd never buy another game from you again, LOL.

To be clear, I'm not demanding that unbalanced scenarios be eliminated, but that fair and balanced scenarios be made readily available in decent numbers so I and the rest of the "minority" can enjoy the game to our definition of its fullest potential, too. How is making everybody happy wrong? Is my $45 not worth as much as yours? Is my criticism not valid?

Borg's system is great; it's the scenarios that need work. Creating more balanced scenarios seems like a fairly simply thing for DoW and fans with the M44 Editor to do in order to help make the game enjoyable for everyone. Are you saying you would not enjoy playing a balanced scenario now and then as an option?

[Updated on: Tue, 05 October 2004 19:37]

      
Railway Baron
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 2
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 19:48
Iron Chef,

Dood if you dislike the game so much trade it on BGG for something you may like more. Say, Lock N Load I don't know. But to just keep beating this horse that you have killed 4 or 5 posts ago is just getting kinda lame. You obviously don't like Memoir '44, maybe it's not for you, not all games are for all gamers. I don't like ASL but I love Mem '44. Memoir '44 is rated pretty high on the Geek right now so you shouldn't have a problem getting a game you may prefer in exchange for your copy.
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 19:49
I personally find almost all of the scenarios (official) to be enjoyable, which is more imporant than balanced in my opinion.

Balance is subjective. I've played many games where I should have easily won but the cards or the dice just weren't happening. You can have a perfectly 'balanced' scenario ie. same number of units and terrain not favoring either side and still get wiped off of the board.

Now as for enjoyable. There is no greater victory than being the underdog and winning. In my opinion that game is better than any victory won at a 50/50 ratio.

Although this is a game of abstraction it still reflects the sometimes absurdities of war. Being outnumbered, outgunnned out flanked, at the absolute disadvantage and to still prevail. This is what happened, it's not fiction. To beat the odds, to presevere under adverse conditions is what the people in the field did...I don't mind having the odds against me on a board game.

If you want a balanced game, play checkers. If you want a challenging game, play Memoir 44.

      
RollD6
Senior Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 110
Registered:
August 2004
  Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 21:30
Iron Chef,

I never said your opinion was not valid, I said it was in the minority. Nor was I hostile or impolite, in fact I made suggestions on how you could get your money back, since you keep bring the subject up. I do not however take kindly to people putting words in my mouth, such as 'treason'. I will also be less polite and more hostile in this post (be forewarned).

I understand why you want balanced scenarios, but I do not agree with the concept in a historical game setting, which is what Memoir 44 represents. For you to say the 'playability was misrepresented' is a farce. This game is represented as a historical game, not one based on fiction, which is what you desire.

Balanced scenarios are easy and you do not need a map editor or anyone else to tell you how to go about setting one up. Simply put up terrain in a mutually agreed to fashion (mirror the terrain if you cannot agree), place equal amounts of forces on each side, draw the same amount of command cards and play 'rock, paper, scissors' to see who goes first. For a scenario name, come up with any that you like, since it is all fiction anyway.

As far as being a DOW representative, I would be honored to be one, but I am not. Eric is and when he made a very polite suggestion, you threw it in his face. Others on this forum have also added their opinions to the support of the current system. Again, pointing to the fact that your opinion is in the minority. The next question is this, "Is everyone else wrong and you right?"

"How is making everybody happy wrong?" Such a naive question is almost to absurd to ask. You obviously skipped over my quote (and wisdom) from Lincoln. You assume making everybody happy is possible, I believe, like Lincoln, it is not. Your definition of happy and others differ (hence the beating to death of this topic by you). If we assume for a momement that there were plenty of 'fictional' balanced scenarios on this site, loosely based on history, it would make others unhappy. There would be posts stating, "That is not how the Battle of the Buldge was" or "There should only be X number of German forces in this area". When you start to revise history, you walk a slippery slope and stop becoming a game based on history (as represented) and more a fictional fairy tale.

You are a consumer of a good, you have the right to your opinion. However, you do not have the right to harass and perpetually argue a point (to death) that others do not agree with you on.

I suggest you go to www.getaclue.com or if you cannot find what you a looking for there, try www.getaroomwithyourego.com Laughing

TTFN,

John

[Updated on: Tue, 05 October 2004 21:38]

      
Railway Baron
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 2
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 21:57
RollD6;

Well stated. Smile
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Tue, 05 October 2004 23:41
I use the term "making everybody happy" loosely, as everyone knows it is impossible. By "make everybody happy" I refer to players who prefer your type of scenario and those who prefer my type. Why can both groups not be satisfied? Wouldn't that make most of us happy? Near balanced scenarios do exist (both in historical simulations and fan-made scenarios), so it is not impossible, nor it something that is not desired by players (or no near balanced scenarios would exist).

What I found most insulting about your previous post, John, was that you basically said, "if you don't like M44 the way I like it, go away, because the game is not going to change." You do not speak for DoW, and do not know if they are considering changes. I'm not asking for the game itself to change, just for OPTIONAL balanced scenarios to be made available in addition to the regular unbalanced ones. Why that simple concept is so terribly wrong or offensive to you is beyond me. Making balanced scenarios available as an option does nothing to harm you or your enjoyment of the game, so why the hostility to the idea?

I would hope that a balanced (fictional revision) and unbalanced (historically accurate) version of each official scenario could be made, and clearly labeled so players could choose whichever they prefer. Wouldn't that open the game up and make both camps happy?

Fictional scenarios that simulate the movies and offer non-standard victory conditions, like Sabotage and The Depot, should also be readily available. Who wouldn't enjoy playing scenarios inspired by The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, etc., now and again as a diversion? Are you so obsessed with enforcing historical accuracy that you can't stand the fact that not everyone shares your opinion?

Axis & Allies is a historical simulation, but it allows a fair chance for both sides to win. M44 does not, and therein lies the problem.
      
MattiasF
Junior Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Wed, 06 October 2004 19:06
I agree with Iron Chef. Even though I enjoy M44, it is anoyingly unbalanced at times. To the brim of unplayable in some scenarios.

Sometimes I would like to tweak the offical scenarios, but then again, it would not be the official scenarios anymore. One of the first things I would tweak would be inital placements of the forces. Like in Sainte Mère-Eglise, a Air Power card on the first turn makes the game a very booring half hour of no fun. If the Axis started just a bit more spread, and possibly in cover it would be a much more enjoyable half hour.
      
Krieghund
Senior Member

Posts: 147
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Wed, 06 October 2004 19:26
Iron_Chef wrote on Tue, 05 October 2004 17:41

Axis & Allies is a historical simulation, but it allows a fair chance for both sides to win. M44 does not, and therein lies the problem.


I am not attempting to take sides, but Axis & Allies is not a historical simulation. In the words of its creator, it is "a strategy game set against the backdrop of World War II". It was intended to be a balanced strategy game, not a historically accurate simulation of the war.
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 05:53
Krieghund wrote on Wed, 06 October 2004 13:26

Iron_Chef wrote on Tue, 05 October 2004 17:41

Axis & Allies is a historical simulation, but it allows a fair chance for both sides to win. M44 does not, and therein lies the problem.


I am not attempting to take sides, but Axis & Allies is not a historical simulation. In the words of its creator, it is "a strategy game set against the backdrop of World War II". It was intended to be a balanced strategy game, not a historically accurate simulation of the war.


Thanks for pointing that out. I misremembered it. Sorry.
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 05:55
MattiasF wrote on Wed, 06 October 2004 13:06

I agree with Iron Chef. Even though I enjoy M44, it is anoyingly unbalanced at times. To the brim of unplayable in some scenarios.

Sometimes I would like to tweak the offical scenarios, but then again, it would not be the official scenarios anymore. One of the first things I would tweak would be inital placements of the forces. Like in Sainte Mère-Eglise, a Air Power card on the first turn makes the game a very booring half hour of no fun. If the Axis started just a bit more spread, and possibly in cover it would be a much more enjoyable half hour.


Just when I thought all hope was lost! Glad to hear others agree with my position. Hopefully, more members in the "minority" will come forward and let our voices be heard so we can get some positive changes made.

BTW: Are you the same Krieghund from the Axis & Allies board at Avalon Hill? Fancy meeting you here!
      
stuka pilot
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 06:49
This is my assessment as far as the balance issue:

Pegasus Bridge- Allies can come out ahead in most cases. The way they lose is a frontal assault on the west (left) side.

Sainte Mère-Eglise- This one I feel can go either way depending on the drops. But if the Germans get mostly 'center' cards, he/she is screwed.

Sword Beach- Pretty well balanced. Any beach scenario is tough for the allies unless they get a quick start.

Pointe-du-Hoc- Honestly, I only played this scenario once and I didn't care for it. But the allies have a good shot of coming out on top.

Omaha Beach- No doubt in my mind; The Germans have this one in the bag.

Mont Mouchet- The French are fast. An experienced player can pull off an allied victory with little or no loss.

Vassieux, Vercors- This one is an easy Allied victory. Quick troops. Well spread out. The Germans are centered and have lack of cover.

Operation Cobra- I think this is one of the more balanced scenarios although an experienced German player can really play this one in his favor.

Operation Lüttich- At first I thought the Allies have the advantage. But YOU ONLY NEED 4 MEDALS. I just played this one the other day. I was ripping up the German tank columns but I couldn't manage to get some complete unit kills. I lost 4-2.

Toulon- Yep. Allies. When they get the jump on a full scale assault, the German player really needs some lucky rolls to keep up.

Liberation of Paris- I really think the Germans have the advantage here. Yeah, the allies have alot of tanks but tanks are crap against that devestating arty inside the town hexes.

Montélimar- This is a fun one. But I have to give this one to the allies. They have an easier time setting up a strong defense for the avenues of approach.

Arnhem Bridge- As comic book guy from the Simpsons would say: "Worst Scenario Ever". Sorry Richard. No offense. Allies win so easily. They are dug in. They have good arty positions. The German Special Forces (heavy tanks) are channeled and bogged down. Not too fun for a German player.

Arracourt- Allies have a slight advantage. The only reason I say that is because of the constant artillery barrages you can shell out.

St Vith, Ardennes- Another rough one for the Germans. Lack of cover. Tough dug in opposition. Allies just need to sit back and wait and fill in the gaps.

Saverne Gap, Vosges- I give this one a draw. The allies have the numbers but the Germans have the positions. It really boils down to the cards and the rolls.

Summary? Well, yeah, the scenarios somewhat favor the allies. We won the war, didn't we? So what did you expect? Still, I could win any of these scenarios as the Germans provided I got a good hand and some good rolls.

      
GreatDane
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 12:07
MattiasF wrote on Wed, 06 October 2004 13:06


I agree with Iron Chef. Even though I enjoy M44, it is anoyingly unbalanced at times. To the brim of unplayable in some scenarios.

Sometimes I would like to tweak the offical scenarios, but then again, it would not be the official scenarios anymore. One of the first things I would tweak would be inital placements of the forces. Like in Sainte Mère-Eglise, a Air Power card on the first turn makes the game a very booring half hour of no fun. If the Axis started just a bit more spread, and possibly in cover it would be a much more enjoyable half hour.



Iron_Chef wrote on Thu, 07 October 2004 05:55


Just when I thought all hope was lost! Glad to hear others agree with my position. Hopefully, more members in the "minority" will come forward and let our voices be heard so we can get some positive changes made.



I will bew happy tp join you. That's exactly why I have made my own version of the Point-du-Hoc scenario.
Mik
      
Krieghund
Senior Member

Posts: 147
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 14:18
Iron_Chef wrote on Wed, 06 October 2004 23:55

BTW: Are you the same Krieghund from the Axis & Allies board at Avalon Hill? Fancy meeting you here!


Yup, that's me!

The reason I said I don't want to take sides is because I can see both sides of this argument. I personally have no problem with playing both sides of an unbalanced scenario to see who can do the "best" job of losing, but I can see how someone else may not enjoy it. I guess that's why you don't see many games based on the Alamo!
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 19:11
Some of the comments here make me wonder how you are playing the game? Perhaps you are going about it the wrong way...tactics cannot be applied equally to all situations.

I find as the underdog, it's best to make the enemy come to you (there's no time limit). Find your ground and hold up...they need those medals too. This usually affords me time to collect a powerful hand, then when the opponent gets close enough I attack. Sometimes it's risky but usually this is the best tactic in these situations (of course dice rolls can waylay the best laid plans).

It's using tactics like this that has allowed me to win in the 'unbalanced' scenarios, I've wonas the Axis at Arnhem, Pegasus bridge, Arracourt and yes, I have even won once at Pont-du-Hoc (the only scenario I do have serious issue with). In fact, not to toot my own horn but it has been knowing what to do when that has given me a win of 64% out of 61 played scenarios as the Axis.

If you go all out in the underdog scenarios you will have your head handed to you on a plate. Should you however be more wary and get your troops into cover with good coverage of defensive fire I can almost guarantee survival. Try it! You just might find the scenarios aren't as unbalanced as you think.
      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Thu, 07 October 2004 21:59
I don't move towards the Allies right away as the Axis unless I have a clear advantage at the start (I can get in attack range with multiple units at an advantage, which is rarely the case).

Many of my battles have degenerated into boring stalemates where neither side will move forward from advantageous terrain positions to give the enemy any advantage. Eventually, somebody tires of this and moves forward (more often the Allied player, unless I think I can take out a unit all at once by advancing with minimal casualties).

Both players almost always try to send wounded units back out of range of artillery fire and to make as many units as possible unattractive to the Air Power card by not clumping up multiple units adjacent to each other).

Because the Axis won so easily two times in a row at Omaha Beach, the Allied player refuses to play anymore beach scenarios, LOL.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 October 2004 21:59]

      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

User Pages
Posts: 3194
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Fri, 08 October 2004 00:52
For the specific Omaha Beach scenario, I respectfully have to disagree. I have a win ratio of over 40% as the Allies CiC. There is a definitive strategy to win that one (ie most of the Allies wins occur on a break through a very specific exit point, I won't give any spoiler though Very Happy ) as occurred historically.

As for the others, I really think in most instances it is mostly a matter of adapting to the particular strengths or weaknesses of your initial forces in the field.

In my own experience, it is not so much that scenarios are unbalanced in the favor of the Allies, but rather that often the tactics required to win with the Allies are easier/more obvious/more numerous and easier to find and master than the ones for the Axis.

In that sense, the Allies probably make for an easier play initially. That makes the Axis side more interesting for veteran players (and I am _not_ talking of relying on the luck of the draw or dice rolls here, simply of developing repeatable, proven tactics to win).

This being said, you will be happy to know that Richard is continuously working on additional scenarios, some of which will be posted soon and might fit your taste better.

Sincerely,
Eric @ DoW

[Updated on: Fri, 08 October 2004 00:54]

      
Iron_Chef
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 21
Registered:
September 2004
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Fri, 08 October 2004 05:30
eric wrote on Thu, 07 October 2004 18:52

...you will be happy to know that Richard is continuously working on additional scenarios, some of which will be posted soon and might fit your taste better.

Sincerely,
Eric @ DoW



That's great news and very much appreciated, Eric! Glad to see DoW is so responsive to their customer needs. While you're at it, perhaps you could me another favor and see that I get an official answer to my Sail Speed Bonus question on your Pirate's Cove forum? http://www.piratescovegame.com/index.php?t=msg&th=2411&a mp;start=0&rid=30488&S=9f21b90de364499408e2820416fa6 eb7

Thanks!
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

User Pages
Posts: 3194
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Scenarios unbalanced in favor of Allies? Fri, 08 October 2004 06:20
Ooops, missed it! Done.
eric
      
    
Previous Topic:Ticket to Ride - Replacement Cards
Next Topic:An idea for an expansion
Goto Forum: