Large Scenarios with Challenging PO

[jdavis]

I know a challenging PO in a large scenario is tough thing to accomplish but some of the larger scenarios have a better PO than others. I'm primarily interested in WWII scenarios. Any suggestions on scenarios to look at?

[Silvanski]

Check out Brian Topp's quatro of East Front scenarios, all best played vs the Soviet PO
Operation Barbarossa
Operation Blau
Operation Citadel
Operation Bagration (to Berlin)
lots of units and 20/25 km per hex

edit to add: blowing my own horn here[:D]I've been upgrading some scenarios, check out the TOAW-Redux link (new versions will be released after the new TOAW 3.4 patch is ready)

check out the download section over at GameSquad
http://forums.gamesquad.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=6 (registering required)
where I uploaded previous PO mods

[larryfulkerson]

"Directive 21" is the name of the playtest version of FITE with a Soviet PO.  You can download it from here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?3dyy5tjrg1y

It's been playtested by at least a dozen people including me and it seems ready for prime time if you ask me.

[Curtis Lemay]

The German PO in my "France 1944" (Cobra or D-Day) scenario can be a challenge.

I'd also recommend the Japanese PO in my "Okinawa 1945" scenario.

Some players have a tough time against the British PO in my "Kaiserschalcht 1918" scenario, too.

Best of all is the German PO in my "Germany 1945 (Last Stand)" scenario - but it may not qualify for the "Large" rating.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Operation Bagration (to Berlin)

I'm going to use this example to make a general point about the PO and large scenarios. Admittedly the situation has changed somewhat since COW but the basic problem remains.

I played this one against a Soviet PO with +2 handicap. Now in this situation, the German really has the cards stacked against him. The Russians already have a huge material edge. The scenario (as I recall) gives them 200% shock for the opening phase. And to cap that they get a solid boost from the handicap setting.

So what I did was concentrate force to destroy one stretch of the Soviet line whilst managing a withdrawal on the rest of the front. This left no Soviet formations in play which had that area in their objective track, so they didn't plug the gap with anything. This allowed me to systematically roll up the whole southern half of the Soviet line as far as the Pripyet marshes, taking one section at a time. The Soviets were never able to concentrate against me because they would only ever use their locally available forces on a certain set of objectives.

Such is the reality of the PO: because it is based on a set of static objectives, it can never consider the situation as a whole and so will always be vulnerable to concentration in one small sector. The further one gets away from the scope of a single set of objectives (which admittedly is larger with the changes which Ralph has made to the PO), the worse this problem gets. If you are dealing with multiple discrete fronts, it gets worse. Lower unit densities (for example any scenario on the Eastern Front) will also create problems as it is easier to overwhelm a small section of the front.

So the answer to the question is essentially, if you want a hard fight against the PO in a large scenario, you need to bear in mind the PO's limitations and limit your own play so as not to expose them. But if you want a hard fight in general do PBM.

[jdavis]

Great suggestions! Thanks one and all. Will keep me busy for a while relearning the TOAW system and get me ready for future PBEM.

[largo]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Check out Brian Topp's quatro of East Front scenarios, all best played vs the Soviet PO
Operation Barbarossa
Operation Blau
Operation Citadel
Operation Bagration (to Berlin)
lots of units and 20/25 km per hex

edit to add: blowing my own horn here[:D]I've been upgrading some scenarios, check out the TOAW-Redux link (new versions will be released after the new TOAW 3.4 patch is ready)

check out the download section over at GameSquad
http://forums.gamesquad.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=6 (registering required)
where I uploaded previous PO mods

Why not Stalingrad to Kharkov 1942-1943 ?

That which will choose the axis will have a true challenge!

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: largo


true challenge!

True challenge against PO???

Suppose tennis. Playing PO is like playing balls to the wall. It's nice but suddenly you realise you are always winning the wall.

Like a good fight? Don't be shy. Play a real human.

And then you'll understand TOAW (and tennis...)

[largo]

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: largo


true challenge!

True challenge against PO???

Suppose tennis. Playing PO is like playing balls to the wall. It's nice but suddenly you realise you are always winning the wall.

Like a good fight? Don't be shy. Play a real human.

And then you'll understand TOAW (and tennis...)

Have you already to play with this scenario (PO or PBEM)?
That remains a true challenge....Axis of course ...

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Operation Bagration (to Berlin)

I'm going to use this example to make a general point about the PO and large scenarios. Admittedly the situation has changed somewhat since COW but the basic problem remains.

I played this one against a Soviet PO with +2 handicap. Now in this situation, the German really has the cards stacked against him. The Russians already have a huge material edge. The scenario (as I recall) gives them 200% shock for the opening phase. And to cap that they get a solid boost from the handicap setting.

So what I did was concentrate force to destroy one stretch of the Soviet line whilst managing a withdrawal on the rest of the front. This left no Soviet formations in play which had that area in their objective track, so they didn't plug the gap with anything. This allowed me to systematically roll up the whole southern half of the Soviet line as far as the Pripyet marshes, taking one section at a time. The Soviets were never able to concentrate against me because they would only ever use their locally available forces on a certain set of objectives.

Such is the reality of the PO: because it is based on a set of static objectives, it can never consider the situation as a whole and so will always be vulnerable to concentration in one small sector. The further one gets away from the scope of a single set of objectives (which admittedly is larger with the changes which Ralph has made to the PO), the worse this problem gets. If you are dealing with multiple discrete fronts, it gets worse. Lower unit densities (for example any scenario on the Eastern Front) will also create problems as it is easier to overwhelm a small section of the front.

So the answer to the question is essentially, if you want a hard fight against the PO in a large scenario, you need to bear in mind the PO's limitations and limit your own play so as not to expose them. But if you want a hard fight in general do PBM.

So, the moral of this story is that once a player becomes familiar with what the PO will do in a given scenario, then that scenario loses its flavor, becoming bland and boring.

Playing a scenario for the first time (and without knowing what the PO's objectives are) is the most enjoyable way to play against the PO. Repeated playings of the same scenario results in diminishing returns regarding PO predictability.

[rhinobones]

You pretty much summed it up.

There are, however, a few scenarios which are not infatuated with using the computer opponent to create historical results. By this I mean that there are scenarios which use random formation/unit placements, use all three formation path options, randomize the path options, randomize objectives and have a variety of theater options. These scenarios are designed for the casual player who is interested in having a bit of fun. Ultimately however, even these scenarios fall prey to the in ability of the computer to form a cohesive strategy.

For enjoyable play against the computer, the best bet is to stick to small scenarios (small in total map size) with under 20 turns so that the limitations of the computer opponent do not have time to become overly apparent.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Playing a scenario for the first time (and without knowing what the PO's objectives are) is the most enjoyable way to play against the PO. Repeated playings of the same scenario results in diminishing returns regarding PO predictability.

I agree that the PO has its limitations, every formation's track is hinged -thereby limited- to its given objective hexes and immediate surroundings. Carefully setting objectives and testing is a must.
There are times when the OOB will have to be adjusted in order to have smaller formations which can guard key objectives.

Unpredictability and lower recon level for the human player can make for a tougher challenge.
A nice example is Race To The Sea where subtle formation track changes occur at variable turns. I played this one several times and never had a 100% grasp on the situation

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
So, the moral of this story is that once a player becomes familiar with what the PO will do in a given scenario, then that scenario loses its flavor, becoming bland and boring.

Not exactly. In any scenario, the PO will always have the same vulnerability. Give me a very large, new scenario and there's a reasonable chance I can exploit the PO's weaknesses.