| Badly Designed & Play-Tested Scenario | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This looked like it might be a decent scenario to try at only 26 game turns and with what looked like a somewhat balanced setup with the combined Australians/British side on offense, and the Italians defending a sector of the Bardia fortress perimeter. We played it out over 4 online sessions without the defense-favoring, fog of war rule, but with the smoke and consolidation rules in effect. I played the Australian/British side. It was a bloody thing with more than 40 Italian steps eliminated, as well as 8 leaders; as against 19 steps lost and 4 leaders eliminated on the Allied side. A hard-won Italian victory was the result as I conceded at the start of the 25th game turn when it became apparent that there was no way for the Allied side to prevail. As published, this one is lucky to get a 2 rating from me, as it was deeply flawed and deserves a 1. However, it was fun to play with the steadfast, Mr. Baumber, so this play-through got a slight better grade and a set of rule suggestions for others to try in future game play. Our play through was a " close run" thing that might have gone my way with a few more turns and better luck. Other reviewers have suggested that Afrika Korps scenario #7 victory conditions are seriously flawed in their AARs. As published, the Australians have to capture and hold at least 13 entrenchments that are held by a regiment-sized Italian force behind a stout line of AT ditches. My distinguished opponent and I have jointly compiled a suggested set of rule and victory condition revisions for this scenario in hopes of making it more fun and less frustrating for future players. Here are the suggested revisions that we came up with: Setup Changes - Italian Force - Delete 1, 47mm AT gun platoon - Add 1, HMG platoon Australian/British Force - Add 1 additional 3-inch Mortar platoon Scenario Special Rules The Australian/British side may use the smoke rule with 3 turns of smoke per individual mortar unit. The 4th Edition Panzer Grenadier Surrender Rules are in effect, but with two additions: 1) Surrender requests may only be made against INDIVIDUAL, DEMORALIZED Italian units in any terrain, by adjacent, undemoralized units with direct fire values that activate to request the surrender. The targeted Italian units may be supported by friendly leaders present in the same hex. Only the targeted unit is affected. 2) Undemoralized and undisrupted Matilda II tank units may request surrenders from INDIVIDUAL Italian units in any terrain, however, they must start adjacent to the Italian force. Only the individual targeted unit is affected. If the surrender request is either refused, or accepted, the Matilda II platoon may then activate to fire or assault.Replacement Victory Condition language The Australian/British player wins a victory by: eliminating 30 or more Italian steps, exiting 12 undemoralized steps of combat units across the south map edge, and occupying at least 6 entrenchments by the end of the scenario’s 26th turn. The Italian side wins if the Australian/British side does not. |
||||||||||||||
| 2 Comments |
| Panzer Grenadier Battles on May 4th: | |
|---|---|
| Panzer Lion #6 - Kalmu - Hill 256 | |
Not that AK is known for balance... or even proofreading... but if you change up the Surrender rule like you are you are fundamentally playing a different scenario than is in the book. The Surrender mechanism paired with the Matildas is how the Allies (already facing an uphill battle) have any semblance of chance. They need to be triggering full Italian stack surrenders to clear the entrenchments basically just by showing up. That holds true for many scenarios in the module.
If the suggested scenario rules make for a more enjoyable play-thorough for others in shared play, then I think it is well worth including them in one's AARs. This is a game after all, not an olympic sport with rules written in stone. Since we each own a copy of this game, if the players wish to alter the rules to allow for more fun, or better play balance, that is their prerogative. Alternately, if they prefer to stick strictly to the rules and scenarios instructions that come with the game, it is once again, a matter of individual choice.
While I am relatively new to online PG play, I have noted: 1) the variation in the way that the game is played by the several individuals that I have had the opportunity to play with, as well as 2) the alternate rule sets that exist in the PG-HQ space.