MC Scenario Feedback (Various Titles)
07-12-2018, 01:56 AM,
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2018, 03:41 AM by Kool Kat.)
Joined: Aug 2006
MC Scenario Feedback (Various Titles)
I like to give detailed feedback on my PBeM completed Modern Campaigns scenarios.
= Very good
Here's a cumulative thread. Feel free to discuss! Enjoy!
Fulda Gap '85
15_02s: Next Stop Aschaffenburg
Warsaw Pact player must conduct a forced river crossing against an entrenched NATO force equipped with thermal sights. Judicious use of chemical rounds and air support will help offset some of the NATO advantages. Warsaw Pact must probe for weak and less obvious advances through NATO lines while waiting for the bulk of his forces to arrive on the battlefield. Can be a tense and exciting match provided the Warsaw Pact commander carefully harbors his units - especially the large, but somewhat brittle (Morale C) mechanized infantry battalions - until the mid-to-end game period. Recommended Fulda Gap'85 scenario!
S18_01s: Chariots of Iron
Warsaw Pact must attack a NATO entrenched defender equipped with several M1A1 tank companies. NATO defense positions are supplemented with obstacles and mine fields. Difficult to extract M1A1's in trenches. Warsaw Pact forces aided by lots of artillery with some chemical ordnance. Forest terrain and river hex sides will channel Warsaw Pact attack toward VP hexes located in towns. Warsaw Pact forces must push hard and hit the entrenched M1A1's with everything they got. Judicious use of chemical ordnance, artillery and air strikes will help push the Warsaw Pact forces through the NATO defenses. Against equal skilled players, this scenario is balanced. A recommended Fulda Gap '85 scenario!
74_05: Clash of Brothers
Slight NATO advantage provided NATO screens and defends on the west bank of the Main River. The majority of Warsaw Pact reinforcements enter east of the river and must either swim or use engineer bridges to cross the Main River. Interesting strategic choices for both sides. Recommended Fulda Gap '85 scenario.
18_01s: Showdown on the Main
The Warsaw Pact commander must use his numerous artillery and air assets to soften up the NATO defense several turns before committing the armor and mechanized battalions. A viable WP strategy is to concentrate his main advances north of Hanau in the Bad Nauheim sector. This area is good tank country and supports rapid advances with less covered terrain for NATO defenders. It's best to avoid or limit WP operations south of the Main River since much of the terrain is forest, town or city hexes. Here, WP forces risk getting bogged down in costly attrition combat. Warsaw Pact should wait and deploy chemical ordnance against stubborn NATO defending units when the Soviet 7th Guards Tank Division releases and joins the advance north of the Main River. In this 27-turn scenario, the Warsaw Pact has ample time and forces to reach several outlying objective hexes. Frankfurt is most likely out of reach of WP ground forces since the objective hexes are buried deep in the city center region. Soviet helo battalions could try a surgical strike at these objectives, but only a careless NATO commander would leave Frankfurt objectives undefended. Between equal skilled players, Showdown on the Main is a tense and exciting contest that can go either way. A recommended Fulda Gap '85 scenario!
Danube Front '85
850610_08a: Ardennes of the 80's?
Warsaw Pact must push hard to "blitz" his way past the initial screen of NATO recon troops to reach the Danube River. A strong Warsaw Pact thrust NW into the major city of Regensburg with secondary probes looking for intact bridges and ferry crossings south will stretch NATO defenses. Warsaw Pact should hold off deploying his paratroops until the mid-to-end game turns. Recommend that players don't deploy WMD's as chemicals and tactical nuclear weapons will upset any parity between forces and spoil an otherwise exciting game. Forced bridge crossings, ferry operations, paratroops, armored spearheads - this scenario has it all! Between equal skilled players, NATO will have a moderate advantage due to the natural and man-made terrain barriers - Danube River and Regensburg. However, the Warsaw Pact large numbers of armor, mech infantry and artillery units can wear down the small NATO force. Highly recommended Danube Front '85 scenario! I will be playing this one again!
850612_01a: High Road or Low Road? (HTH)
An exciting and balanced scenario with the Warsaw Pact having to make exacting choices on whether to focus their advance north (High Road) through Freising or south (Low Road) to Munich. NATO also has options on where to bring in reinforcements that adds flexibility and unpredictability to the High Road or Low Road scenario. WMD can play a pivotal role with WP use of chemicals countered by NATO's retaliatory tactical nukes. Good replay value. A recommended Danube Front '85 scenario!
North German Plain '85
12_03a: A Hamm Sandwich
I was able to keep my NATO opponent off balance by a 7th Guards Airborne Division drop near the city of Hamm to seize the bridges early in game. This attack allowed my WP ground forces to exploit across the Ruhr River and lay siege to the Hamm 1000 VP hex. A second diversionary air drop near the town of Werl kept much of the NATO relief force occupied and unable to reinforce the Hamm defenders. The last few turns saw the WP 3rd Shock Army vanguard and 7th Guards Airborne forces encircling and annihilating the NATO Hamm forces to carry the day for a WP Major Victory.
0615_08: A Bold Move
A tense, exciting and balanced "phased" scenario. Phase 1 - Initial North Korean para-drops against undefended objectives and incremental entry of ROK and American reinforcements to engage North Korean paratroops. Phase 2 - Arrival of both the retreating Allied and advancing North Korean ground forces in the Han River area. Players must adopt and adjust their tactics and strategies dependent on the specific scenario phase. Lots of action and "clock racing" in this 32-turn game as the North Korean player must rapidly capture and setup bridgehead defenses while the Allied player needs to quickly locate and neutralize the enemy paratroops prior to the main combatant forces entering the battlefield. A highly recommended Korea '85 scenario!
0629_03: Left Hook at Taejon
Frustrating scenario for the North Korean player as one third to one half of his forces suffer from supply shortages each turn. On Turn #15, all NKPA units suffer a 40% supply shortage and are isolated resulting in a two-step Morale reduction! Essentially, all NKPA forces(Majority are C Morale) become E Morale units with devastating consequences! Remainder of game sees the ROK driving forward and smashing the NKPA. Frustrating and demoralizing for the NKPA player to battle against these crippling game mechanics. Not a recommended Korea '85 scenario. I will not be playing this one again.
Middle East '67
'73_1: "Y" Day Onslaught
The Egyptian player must quickly blitz across the Suez Canal and reduce the Israeli strong points before the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) reinforcements make their presence felt on the battlefield. Much of the Egyptian force are D quality units, but the sheer numbers of infantry and armor battalions can overwhelm the better quality and fewer numbers of Israeli ground troops. Between equal skilled players, the Egyptians enjoy a slight advantage. I've played this scenario twice - as the the Israelis and Egyptians. I have yet to discover a winning Israeli strategy. However, based on the reported number of Israeli wins, that strategy does exist! Recommended Middle East '67 scenario!
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)