Scheldt '44 - Realism versus Playability?

[Kool Kat]

Gents: 

My third PBeM Scheldt '44 game is underway. I am reserving judgement on the game, but there are characteristics and themes that are becoming evident.

Lots of fixed units. Limited tactical options. Unit progress measured in inches and few casualties per turn. Poor-to-terrible Allied and German units' morale. Supply / fuel shortages.

It may be historical, but it translates into players having long stretches of game with little-to-nothing to do and few tactical options. 

Is the goal to re-create a historical simulation that does not deviate from history or a game that allows players to make decisions on how to use and deploy their units? 

Certainly, units should be deployed in their historical starting / set-up areas. Large caliber shore batteries / artillery should remain fixed. Naval and air support should be available on their historical availability dates / times. Reinforcements should arrive on their historically scheduled dates / times. Supply and morale levels should be accurate. But, other combat units had the capability to move. Why not allow players to re-deploy or move these units as they see fit? Is it a play balance consideration?

Hopefully Mike P. will weigh in with his thoughts.

Thanks. 

[phoenix]

Which scenarios have frustrated you, Kool Kat, specifically? I'm curious.

I am really enjoying the challenges that the poor quality, low supply units provide. You really have to go slow and manage things carefully. But generally, both sides have seemed to me to be in the same position, which makes it less frustrating for me, for example, than playing many of the scenarios in the EF titles, where typically the Axis would have good quality and less and the Soviets poor and more.

Also, I really love the map and the fact that everything does seem so very historical, that every scenario is so set up that I can read along in the relevant chapters of various books (mainly the Swarts and Didden volumes so far) and the game is very like those chapters, with the subtle variations that the players can provide.

But I really do like my games to be above all historical, which was why I initially raised a query about the Antwerp scenario, because I wasn't sure an historical result was possible, but in fact, it turned out to be very much an historically based scenario, I think.

So far, I'm really enjoying the title. I think it's overall the best title I've played in the series. But maybe I haven't been trying those scenarios that have frustrated you. Which are they?

[Kool Kat]

Which scenarios have frustrated you, Kool Kat, specifically? I'm curious.

I am really enjoying the challenges that the poor quality, low supply units provide. You really have to go slow and manage things carefully. But generally, both sides have seemed to me to be in the same position, which makes it less frustrating for me, for example, than playing many of the scenarios in the EF titles, where typically the Axis would have good quality and less and the Soviets poor and more.

Also, I really love the map and the fact that everything does seem so very historical, that every scenario is so set up that I can read along in the relevant chapters of various books (mainly the Swarts and Didden volumes so far) and the game is very like those chapters, with the subtle variations that the players can provide.

But I really do like my games to be above all historical, which was why I initially raised a query about the Antwerp scenario, because I wasn't sure an historical result was possible, but in fact, it turned out to be very much an historically based scenario, I think.

So far, I'm really enjoying the title. I think it's overall the best title I've played in the series. But maybe I haven't been trying those scenarios that have frustrated you. Which are they?

Gent: 

0908_01_Moerbrugge "A routine affair" - I played the Allies in a PBeM match. Extremely difficult (impossible?) for Allied engineers (Morale D) to remain intact for bridging the Axis canal defense. Allies suffer from fuel shortages, lack sufficient artillery, and no air support. Scenario favors the Axis. I gave up with three turns to finish. Historically, the Allies had no business trying to breach the Axis canal defense. This scenario re-creates that fact quite well. Again, it may be historically accurate, but I argue that the playability and fun factor is not there.

1101_01_Walcheren "Operation Infatuate" - PBeM match underway and again I am playing the Allies. Allies have to wait over several turns and build up their forces on the island before being able to launch successful offensive drives against the heavily fortified Axis defenders. Tactics are limited and straight forward on what has to be done. Personally, I find it boring and rather dull each turn.

Maybe Scheldt '44 is not the title for me? I hope not as I was excited about its prospects and that it was modeling a theater that has not gotten much attention in the war game circles.

I will see.

[ComradeP]

Every PzC title I own has scenarios that are very one-sided affairs.

Though there are certainly things about Scheldt '44 that could be improved, thus far the scenarios represent the fighting quite well.

Considering the state of the Wehrmacht, the performance of the Commonwealth forces in the operations covered by the game were not amongst the best ever conducted by the various Allied nations. Most were average at best. The Commonwealth armies as a whole are average in PzC, and in many other wargames. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the quality of the average Commonwealth soldier, but there were few brilliant Allied successes between September and November 1944 in the Low Countries.

The observation by phoenix that it plays like an Eastern Front game is a good one. In many ways, Commonwealth forces have the same strengths as the Red Army: large tank units and lots of artillery. All Allied armies had serious infantry firepower deficiencies compared to PzG units, but the situation in Scheldt '44 is better than in a game like Battles of Normandy where Commonwealth infantry units tend to be brutally murdered by A and B quality German mobile units with SA values of 11. Just like Soviet forces in the East. In Scheldt '44, the base SA rating is 7 instead of 6 for the Commonwealth forces compared to BoN. Of course, they're D quality in the early campaign aside from Guards Armoured, but they're all motorized.

As someone interested in military history, the question of why the Commonwealth armies didn't improve infantry firepower or at the least improve the firepower in mobile units is something that keeps puzzling me.

Mobile operations, or operational breakthroughs, were not the strongest point of the WWII British Army. Though in the game it can be frustrating to make little progress, I find it quite enjoyable because this represents the fighting well. You have a mediocre force fighting a mediocre to good force. It's no blitzkrieg game,

[Kool Kat]

Gents

My principle question is why there are so many fixed units at the start of scenarios? As the player / commander, why should I not have the option to use these fixed units as I see fit? Move them or redeploy them to other sectors? Yes, it is good to be historically accurate - but let us not forget the playability and the fun factor too. In the end, these historical simulations are also games.

[ComradeP]

They might be Fixed to match historical timing, or to avoid the hassle of teleporting them into the map into their historical assembly area instead of placing them on-map but Fixing them. The scenario descriptions and notes often mention the timing of attacks. For the Germans, units might be Fixed to avoid ahistorical flexibility.

[MichaelT]

One thing that has struck me is the difference in the Market Garden Campaign between the MG44 and Sch44. How could it be so different? For example the Airborne battalions in MG44 are 750 men at morale A. In Sch44 they are around 370 men at morale B.

Also the difference in firepower. Some SS units are more than twice the firepower than the airborne units.

I haven't played the new MG scenario in Sch44 yet. But on the face of it I would much rather be playing the Germans. The Allies look hopelessly outgunned. And 30th Corp. Morale D mostly. I have doubts they can even breach the front lines.

[ComradeP]

Battalion size in terms of men have gone up and down as PzC developed. Sometimes heavy weapons are included, sometimes they're not.

A cap on German battalion size for depleted units like in Moscow '42 to keep them at more historical manpower levels would've been a good addition (currently German battalions might start depleted, but their maximum size is their paper TOE size).

Airborne units are made to secure and hold. I was also surprised by the small paratrooper/parachute battalion size, but thus far it hasn't had much impact on my Market Garden campaign. They're less good at absorbing losses, as they quickly lose % strength due to being small (20 Men lost is an issue for ~400 Men units, but less so for ~600-800 Men battalions) which also requires them to pass more Disruption checks. Though 1st Airborne has lost a substantial number of men in my game thus far, it's still a combat capable unit. Having said that, I don't think there's even the slightest chance 1st Airborne could hold out north of the Rhine until the halfway point, not to mention until September 25th.

The D quality units are tricky to use, but unlike the Soviets they can combine and breakdown so you can rotate companies. One good thing about the British is that battalions are composed of companies A to D, so you can split units into 2 two company units which is efficient for Fatigue management and to distribute firepower.

The main improvement I'd like to see would be cutting defensive benefits from improved positions and trenches down to -10/-20 instead of -20/-40. Both sides have numerous D or even E quality units and the generous terrain firepower reduction benefits are already difficult enough to overcome.

In terms of making progress: it's difficult to break a strong defensive line, but alt assault is your friend. Stacks of Shermans/Cromwells are difficult to stop.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I don't have the game. But, the low quality of the units could be from breaking up some of the recent units to make replacements available for other units. The Brits had troops in France, Italy and to a lesser extent, in the Pacific. They had been in the war longer and reaching the end of available manpower. Just a guess.

[Lowlander]

I don't have the game.  But, the low quality of the units could be from breaking up some of the recent units to make replacements available for other units.  The Brits had troops in France, Italy and to a lesser extent, in the Pacific.  They had been in the war longer and reaching the end of available manpower.  Just a guess.

Correct, Monty was under severe political pressure over the casualties suffered up to this point in the war, that is why the armoured divisions were employed is several well known attacks around Caen as he could afford to lose AFV's.
The Americans say he was a cautious commander.