Decent scenario ruined by the surrender rule | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This scenario was played as a team event by my gaming group. I act as moderator and facilitator for each game, and I do not participate directly as a player. My listing of “winning” is based on the PG HQ site cannot support a neutral role in AARs. The Italians set up to maximize an assault into S8 and S9, while the Germans set most units up near 1614, hoping to delay Australian reinforcements. There were a couple German units available to assist the Italians. The initial assault went in well, but not without some shaken Italian morale. The Australian reinforcements started their slow crawl forward, with the Germans trying to best interdict them. Then the craziness of the surrender rule raised its head. The Australian infantry in S11 leapt out of their position, ran up to S8, called for the surrender of Italians based on one unit being demoralized in the assault, and took out a significant chunk of the Italian forces. At that point it was very apparent that the Italians had little staying power, the Germans were too far away to protect them, the reinforcements would eventually reach the positions regardless of German efforts (happy to have an Aussie or two in assault with Germans so they cannot pull back to the positions while the hoard of Aussies move on), and even the forces in S10 and S11 were sufficient to deal with demoralizing and collecting the surrender of the Italian army. With no shared command ability on the Axis part it took significant time to shore up the Italian capture of S8 and S9. Surrender rule aside, it played like a pro wrestling match, with the Aussies handing out an early pounding, then the Axis starting to crawl back. A lot of reinforcements were held up by the Germans, but the Germans needed to fall back to support the Italians. Some reinforcements were still getting through. The loss of a couple Italian leaders left the Italian player with insufficient and poor leadership, causing massive Italian collapse. The Australian counterattacks against S8 and S9 went in against a mixed German/Italian defense, but with no Italian leaders the defense continued to crumble. The Australians took a wicked beating, but eventually got the pin. The Germans just didn’t have the numbers to resist the Australian wave when the Italians fled the battle or just plain surrendered. At the outlook this seems a pretty even scenario. Despite the scenario description of “badly outnumbered” Australians, the sides are reasonable even in force structure. The weight of attack lies first with the Axis, then the Australians as reinforcements arrive. While the Axis are slightly better armed overall, the low morale of the Italians makes up for it. The surrender rule is what breaks this scenario, especially coupled with the nationalism rule. The Italians are a paper force waiting for total collapse. I really hated the surrender rule, and saw it as a potential weak spot for a large portion of the boxed set. We all felt very sorry for the Italian player, and agreed that this rule is best left off the table. At least in an otherwise balanced scenario. I decided at this point that the group would not be subjected to another scenario using the surrender rule. The night rules also reduced scenario enjoyment, but that was a quibble compared to the surrender rule. My rating of 2 is based on the surrender rule, and would be a 3 without it. |
||||||||||||||
4 Comments |
D,
See above, we had different results and pleasure experience with this one.
If it helps, after speaking with Doug McNair the developer of South Africa's War a couple of years back, the surrender rule from that should be used rather than the dodgy AK surrender rule. It found itself into the early errata write-ups in the pre-PGHQ paper version. You WILL find it makes a difference for the better. It may also save your future plays with AK. :-)
Vince
Vince,
We really struggled with the surrender rule. After the first couple attempts we actually started requiring the surrender call to be the unit's activation for the turn. That mitigated it somewhat, but was still a killer for the Italian player. We considered changing it to only the demoralized unit(s) surrendering, but four of the five of us decided that not bringing a surrender rule scenario back to the table might be the best way forward. The same four of five felt without that rule this scenario would have been quite good. The fifth player is not known for objectivity, but tends to love any rule that helps him win while not liking those that shift things against him.
Looking over AK, I think the rule might be fine (as modified by SAW) for several of the scenarios in a solitaire or two player situation, but from a team play perspective no one wants to play the role of surrendering Italian units again.
Appreciate the redirect to the SAW version!
D,
Glad to help and hopefully make future plays more pleasurable. The SAW is really a lot different due to the timing of it. You have to make it as you activate. In this way, you can not then march up and call for the surrender. It really does make a whole lot of difference.
I suffered the same fate in ane arly game where the opponent just drove along the line asking for surrender.. it was daft. Now, instead, they have to start the activation adjacent to DEM units and can only ask them. The rule is reasonable, so try it out solo to see what you think then brave the gaming group once more if you are happy.
Anyway, proves your AAR's are being read :-)
Vince,
"Anyway, proves your AAR's are being read :-)"
That alone is worth the price of admission!