Forums

As I noted elsewhere, Badger and I were playing Scenario 40: Breakout at Klin recently, and 2 games gave us the feeling that this scenario suffers from serious balance problems. This feeling seems to be confirmed by the 83-17% score in favour of the Germans after 94 games as reported by the DoW:M44 battle reports.

Badger and I discussed this at length after our games. We came to the conclusion that the main issue is the number of terrain-objective victory medals the Germans enjoy. What with Golyadi, Nekrasino, and exit VP, the Germans enjoy 4-5 or more potential banners which don't require eliminating Russian units. This just seems too much.

Most important in this respect it seemed to us are the 2 medals for Golyadi. In this section the Germans have a good chance of quickly killing 2 Russian units, then grabbing as many as 2 objective victory medals; ie. half to 2/3 of the total required VP. What Badger and I found ourselves thinking was that perhaps Golyadi and Nekrasino should be worth 1 VP each in total. This could be 1 VP if you hold either of the town hexes; or 1 VP if you hold both of the town hexes. Either way, we felt that 1 VP/hex was a bit much.

Do any other members who've played this scenario agree that it is unbalanced and needs some changes? Do you think that Badger and I have hit upon the significant features? Or anything else for that matter?

[Updated on: Sun, 08 July 2007 03:02]

I understand how M44 scenarios aren't supposed to be balanced, and that you're supposed to be playing them back-to-back. My point here is that this scenario struck Badger and I as perhaps just going a bit too far with this, to the point where it might actually prove to be a dull scenario.

I mean to say, Randwulf is obviously right about the Russian tactics, although they do need the time to fall back properly. In the games we played on Friday, my (German) right flank forces were able to attack and mop up the Russians on that flank in a turn or three. The main thing is that I was able to get moving on turn 1, and keep moving thereafter.

I think Randwulf is mistaken to consider that occupying Golyadi ties down German units. Exactly what else is the German player going to do with those right flank infantry in any case? If he can get them into Golyadi he's quids in: he has VP, and units well-positioned to cover the Russians' flank while he prepares to grind up the centre (any Russian attempt to retake Golyadi would be utterly foolish IMO, even if they haven't lost both their forward infantry units on that flank).

Anyway, all of this is kind of missing the point. Reading the scenario's historical background tells us that Golyadi was a diversion for the main event, which was the breakout to Nekrasino. What worries me is that the large numbers of terrain objective VP means that the decision will all too often be around Golyadi, so that actually breaking through to Nekrasino is irrelevant. In other words it's perhaps as much a matter of poor scenario design as it is of play balance.

So I return to my original thought: are there too many objective VP available? Should there be only 2 terrain-objective VP instead of 4? Should there be a requirement for the Germans to gain at least 1 VP from exiting units? In other words: should something be done to this scenario so that Golyadi is the sideshow it was in the historical operation, and the breakthrough to Nekrasino is the main event?

[Updated on: Mon, 09 July 2007 00:30]

Thanks for that, this makes life a little easier for the Russians

I also recommend a mobile defense on the Russian left (i.e. run away!), hoping to tempt some German units to pursue too far ahead of their comrades, and bring them in range of the Russian armoured units for a well-timed counterstrike.

[Updated on: Mon, 16 July 2007 13:26]