06-13-2017, 03:53 AM
Gents: ![[Image: 515f4ea4cacubainsmiley.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/515f4ea4cacubainsmiley.gif)
I've also played a handful of Modern Campaigns scenarios.
Here's my feedback on my PBeM completed MC scenarios.
Rating Scale:
![[Image: 3ccc126c29icon_thelmutsalute.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/uploads/users/3ccc126c29icon_thelmutsalute.gif)
= Poor
= Fair
= Good
= Very good
= Excellent
Here's a cumulative thread. Feel free to discuss! Enjoy!![[Image: biggrin.gif]](https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
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: A 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.
Danube Front '85
850610_08a: Ardennes of the 80s?
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!
Korea '85
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.
I've also played a handful of Modern Campaigns scenarios.
Here's my feedback on my PBeM completed MC scenarios.
Rating Scale:
= Poor = Fair = Good = Very good = ExcellentHere'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: A 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.
Danube Front '85
850610_08a: Ardennes of the 80s?
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!
Korea '85
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.
