Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

Post Reply
User avatar
Chuck2
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:01 am

Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by Chuck2 »

Looking for someone to playtest a new version of Deep Battle 1930. Scenario is attached below if you want to have a look.
Attachments
deep_battlev3.zip
(93.79 KiB) Downloaded 24 times
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by rhinobones »

I played the original scenario some years ago and found that despite the name, this is actually a stand up fight along national borders. There is little, if any, opportunity to conduct "Deep Battle" operations as envisioned by the Russian strategists. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the scenario, but I think it needs a much larger map and some force "variability" to make the scenario live up to it's name.

Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
User avatar
Chuck2
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:01 am

RE: Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by Chuck2 »

I think you're right, a bigger map space area would be better. I'll remake it from the ground up. That will be an engaging anyway. My main concern has always been not to have too much micromanagement in this particular scenario.

By force variability, do you mean variable arrival times or more variety in the composition of the forces? I added some new units in the latest version, though variable arrival times does sound like it could make the scenario more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback.
User avatar
shunwick
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:20 pm

RE: Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by shunwick »

Chuck,

I have just started playing v3 with my mate but am I right in thinking it is ok for 3.4? The briefing is a little out of date.

I like the sound of variable arrival times for the next version. It adds spice.

Best wishes,
Steve

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...
User avatar
Chuck2
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:01 am

RE: Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by Chuck2 »

The scenario I attached was saved with 3.4. I haven't done much with the new options, except to set beachhead supply points to 50%. Thanks.
User avatar
rhinobones
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Deep Battle v3 Playtest

Post by rhinobones »

By force variability, do you mean variable arrival times or more variety in the composition of the forces? I added some new units in the latest version, though variable arrival times does sound like it could make the scenario more interesting.

In a hypothetical scenario, such as this, some doubt about arrival times always seems to add "replay" value. My thought is that instead of having the same-o-same-o forces and positions every time, which leads to a same-o-same-o battle every time, a little uncertainty is in order. To me this is the beauty of hypothetical scenarios.

In my post I was thinking more along the lines of adding variability to the placement and composition of the forces. The main line units could remain the same, but some variability in the composition and placement of follow on forces could be varied to add that "interesting" bit of uncertainty to the scenario. Make five or six corps or divisions variable where ever they deploy and/or the area. Make this 1 to 5 turns into the scenario and you'll really create a true life military headache for the players.

Another feature that I like is making the starting Force variable. To do this I use events to do:

1. Side 1 Turn 1 opens the scenario. The event immediately cycles to Side 2 Turn 1 so that Side 1 has no opportunity to move.

2. Side 2 Turn 1 has a 50% event to start the game and make the first move.

3. Side 1 Turn 2 plays the turn as either the first to move or the second to move.

I've played the scenario Blitzkrieg a number of times ( this is the excellent remake of the board game) but I've found that the game experiences the "same-o" effect in that forces always end up face to face in the usual places. As a result Blitzkrieg has none of the variability that makes the scenario a "must" to play multiple times.

I've always felt that the true value of TOAW is the ability to model hypothetical situations in all historical eras and require players to solve military problems. With the current crew of designers, even thought the preponderance of scenarios use WW II as the baseline, there is still plenty of room for scenarios other than WW II. There is room for the hypothetical and I recommend that it be used.

I appreciate the work of the WW II scenario writers, but I think it's time to move on. Find something other than "Panzer" and "massive scenario" to turn you on.

As a final thought, if you want to transport this scenario to a large map that provides unlimited boundaries, feel free to use my Revisionist War map. My thought is that Deep Battle should really be played on a map that has no artificial boundaries.

My thoughts, my opinions . . . take it as you will.

Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”