Operation Herkules_Alt scenario - Please remove from game database

[Volcano Man]

Gent:

Happy to lay dramatics aside...

(1.) I am using the Alternative Assault Resolution (AAR).
(2.) I have not played the stock scenario.
(3.) Make my own variant and report it? Violation of ROE #16.

All examples cited in my review of this scenario are accurate. Your statement that both the stock and .alt versions of this scenario play the same only reinforces the need to review play balance now in ALL the Operation Herkules scenarios!

I've been both a scenario designer and play tester of CS scenarios including being a former H2H Commander and Blitz Officer. I understand elements of good design and play mechanics versus less then optimal ones. There is also that intangible "does not feel right" elements that detract from a scenario. The Operation Herkules .alt scenario - and from your statement the stock ones too -  just do not play "right." 

Perhaps my "dramatics" were extreme... but when players invest their limited and precious gaming time into PBeM game play... only to find serious play mechanic issues in a scenario... then what's the point of playing that scenario?

Now that I am able to look at the scenario (previously I was away from my main PC), I can hopefully make a more helpful reply.

But some clarifications first...

-To clarify the AAR rule, I mentioned it previously (out of mistake, actually) mainly because I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page as to what rules were being used. As Rick said, the AAR rule is making the assaults versus the bunkers more difficult, and actually that rule is NOT on by default in El Alamein '42, so perhaps you should consider turning it off as it would help with bunker assaults. I am a purist though, and I like using the same rules, and I don't think the scenario is impossible with AAR rule on here, but the optional rules can and should be used to suit your own tastes.

-And I did say that this (HTH) scenario was difficult, but then again I am fine if some scenarios are very difficult - especially for a hypothetical like this or the entire Sea Lion operation, but that is just me. I understand that most people expect a 50/50 shot at winning a head to head scenario though, sure.

-In the previous comment I said that if you feel that the scenario needs to be edited, then edit it and make a variant. This is the normal way of things for the past 20 years -- but it seems no one does this anymore, and now you are making accusations that the scenario is totally broken in the comments of the game results, which is the issue I take here, because I think it is an off the cuff observation, and perhaps you may not fully understand the scenario (and perhaps played the wrong scenario). Making a variant of a scenario that you edited, and then making a new entry in the database for it is normal. I didn't mean anything like editing the scenario, playing it, and reporting games on the standard scenario in the database, no (ROE #16 as you said). That should go without saying.

[An easy variant that I can see would be to fix the Allied units around the island for the first day to represent surprise landings, for example. That would be a good variant to help make things easier (and I would probably edit the Alt scenarios to be like that if I was still active in PzC series).]

-Also, no one is calling your credibility into question here - its just that the comments are perhaps a tad bit exaggerated, (which is understandable if you didn't have a good PBEM experience!), but its best to analyze the situation carefully.

//////////////////////////

Now with those clarifications out of the way, some (hopefully helpful) observations...

The biggest issue here I see is that you should NOT be playing 0622_01 head to head because the VP levels are too high, intended only for vs. AI play (to compensate for the relatively ignorant AI). Naturally if someone played the vs. AI variant as head to head with its victory levels, then they would feel it is totally broken.

The VP levels in the 0622_01a, which is intended to be played against Axis vs. AI, has VP levels at

600 800 1100 1200

...while 0622_01a is intended for head to head with much lower VP levels...

0 150 350 500

To put it in perspective -- In the HTH version victory could be obtained without capturing any of the bunkers that have a supply source, as long as allied units can be trapped and destroyed in various parts of the island (to offset the initial landing casualties). 350 points are NOT protected by bunkers (12,14 and 19,17), and neither is 40 and 50 % supply sources for the Axis. 

I concede though that the initial airborne landings matter, they can either be a disaster, or not so much, and this is random since they have random scatter. I do recall that you have to be careful about which units are coming into what hexes, in the follow-on landings. This is the unknown variable.

That said, I agree with you that the 0622_01 could be removed from the database, simply because it is not intended for HTH play, so it doesn't make sense to play it (and only causes confusion, perhaps what has happened here). But then again, I guess for some reason someone could play the scenario head to head, for some sadistic reason. Also, at the Blitz, we just put all the scenarios in the database so that is not abnormal.

----------------------

But looking at the scenario, it is all coming back now.

I know for a fact that I played this scenario several times solitaire (hot seat) in the Alt version, as I was fascinated with the hypothetical, and it should be winnable as Axis, even with AAR rule on (and I still recommend using that rule all the time actually), but difficult.

I recall that the key is that German airborne have to push NW as soon as possible to secure their LZs, and Italian airborne has to secure 15,20 to secure their LZs. Then they spend the first day securing the area (as much as possible) for the main force that arrives (the 4x Italian Divisions). The four divisions is the main force to go on the attack with, but before that it is mainly defense, while trying to keep the Brits back about 4km from the shore.

Once the main force arrives, its a grind to try to take 19,17, the 50% supply source at Luca Airfield, which is not protected by a bunker. In addition, the Axis are also trying to take 14,13 as quick as possible (the other 40% supply source) at Ta Kali Airfield, which is also NOT protected by bunker.  In the process of the doing the latter, they take the 100 point objective at Rabat, and isolate the bunker there (which doesn't have a supply source) to destroy it over time by disruptions from airstrikes and naval units, followed by assaults. This yields VPs from its stack of occupants, quite a lot usually, if I recall.

At this point they have 350 objective points and can proceed to isolate and destroy the 100 point objective at 8,6, which does not have its own supply source present. Hopefully by now, with the 4x Italian Divisions, the Axis is able to trap pockets of allies around the island to start making up for the initial landing losses.

Now we are talking about trying to get as even as possible in VPs from casualties, and having 300 to 400 points from objectives here.

From here, one more 100 point objective will secure the win easily, but this is the difficult bit - because all three remaining objectives are protected by bunker and have a supply source, and because of the variables involved with destroying enemy pockets.

But here is the catch:

a) The supply level of those Allied bunkers is actually -10% by 23 June, and -25% by 24 June, and Axis supply (from the Luca Airfield) is 75% by 23 June. This means that the Allied B/SS are actually only 50% on 24 June, which is the time in which the Axis can step up the assaults. Also, the LZ area bunkers (that have probably survived with 500 Brits inside each) are now 0% supply by 24 June, two more fat pockets (100+ VPs total) to destroy if that hasn't happened already from the naval support assistance.

b) The VP levels in the HTH version of the scenario are designed (in theory) so that you DO NOT have to take all the bunker/supply source (B/SS) objectives, only being required to take one or two to compensate for the high losses of the landings. This is intentional in the design I recall, because the idea is that if you took the other objectives, then the island capitulates.

c) The result does hinge on how bad those initial airborne landings are. Some landings are disastrous, with high losses, and some are not so bad. I think that on some turns for the follow up landings you have to "hold" some reinforcements if the LZs are not cleared, to avoid unnecessary losses.

d) The effectiveness of the Axis airborne forces depends on how fast they can reorganize and combine into battalions. Once this happens, they can slowly push forward and destroy just about everything in front of them with direct fire.

So, I think the H2H scenario with AAR rule on is OK (after my recollections), but yes, one of the more difficult scenarios to play given the variables, but I don't think it should be considered broken. But who knows, maybe I will play it again at some point and change my mind and suggest an update to the Alt scenario. We'll see. I will try to get back to some PzC goodness at some point. :)

But two optional rules you can consider anyway:

Alternate Assault Resolution OFF (which is actually the default in this title)
Quality Fatigue Modifier ON (which helps higher quality units - in this case the airborne, which is an oft used rule)

I hope that helps!