Attack/Counter attack scenario

If one side has no recce units, opposite side can deploy own recce units enywhere on table. In this way player can capture all objectives in first turn and win without battle. It is all correct in this scenario?

Well if some one doesn't take any recce and places all the objectives within reach of enemy units...


Then yep.... but they would also not to have any off board artillery firing on to an RTP that could kill a unit before it claims an objective.

Lesson being... take some recce and think about where you place RTP.

You have right but... look what is written in campaign to barbarossa 'If both sides have recently moved into a location, then use a Meeting Engagement scenario. Attack/Counter-Attack, Flanking Force (if both sides have recce forces available to them) and Recce Screen are all suitable...' It looks like scenario Attack/Counter Attack is recommended when only one side has recce units. There is no safe meeting engagement scenario for side without recce units i could use (Germany has 3 recce counters and soviets only 2)

I coluld suggest you two work-arounds for that:

1. At the tactical level: Make some objectives (or all) only controllable by infantry units. That way,, the recce armoured cars could not control some objectives. I always play my games that way. With at least 75% of the objectives only controllable by infantry.
2. At the campaign level: Let ANY force buy at least 3 recce units, independently of having any recce counters. If there are recce counters, then let the force have up to 50% of recce units.

Hope that helps,

Diego

or third solution - nothing change. Why ? Because if any side want advance forward without recce units it make very risky and posibility to lost battle without fight (and lost one counter). From my solo simulation on campaign map i see germans have not easy task and this restriction for soviet to advancing forward can make better balance.

bohun wrote:or third solution - nothing change. Why ? Because if any side want advance forward without recce units it make very  risky and posibility to lost battle without fight (and lost one counter).  From my solo simulation on campaign map i see germans have not easy task and this restriction for soviet to advancing forward can make better balance.

It´s your game. You can customize it to your taste.

I not decide yet. But i have another question - how chance for win have defender if attacker has more points than defender - for example 450 vs 300 (I expect more unbalanced battles in capaign) ?

Why don't you try it and see what happens?

I already played games where the defender had less points than the attacker. Such games where very tense for the defender, but seldom a easy walk in the park for the attacker.

bohun wrote:I not decide yet. But i have another question - how chance for win have defender if attacker has more points than defender - for example 450 vs 300 (I expect more unbalanced battles in capaign) ?

I´ve played that Ostrog campaign in its entirety twice. And have been playing Barbarossa for a long time (50+ games).

All the campaign battles (we had 22 battles combining both campaigns) were fought between equal or almost equal points, and certainly between the same number of unit counters. ONLY exception was the very first game, where the attacker won with ease (3 counters against 2).

After this bitter experience, the side with the less counters will ALWAYS withdraw. The campaign rules are done in a way that favours balanced battles (you cannot withdraw if you are attacked by a force of equal number of unit counters). If one side accepts battle with less counters than it´s enemy, it would suffer accordingly. It can win of course, but is severely handicapped from the start.

Regarding NON-campaign games, I always make unbalanced sides (points-wise). Because what was important is the historical environment or just the fun of it.


Hope that helps,

Regards,

Diego

But even with equal counters can be diffrent points for ex. 3 attacker vs 1 attacker plus 2 reinforcment (900 vs 700 )

bohun wrote:But even with equal counters can be diffrent points for ex. 3 attacker vs 1 attacker plus 2 reinforcment (900 vs 700 )

Now, if you would just stop with all of your theories and play the game, you will find out, that like in war, you can theorise all you want, once the forces meet up, things will always end up differently then what you thought/planned for God knows what reasons.....bad dice, bad planning, bad tactics. And it is not always about winning. You could be fighting a delaying action against a major enemy force. Holding out as long as possible is the goal then.

Focus on playing the game, not theorising it to death. No (toy)soldier ever wants to fight a fair fight....they want to fight to win, so the more advantage they have the better.

Did you read what wrote Powermonger? No coments.

bohun wrote:But even with equal counters can be diffrent points for ex. 3 attacker vs 1 attacker plus 2 reinforcment (900 vs 700 )

That´s exactly what I answered to you: "...were fought between equal or almost equal points..."

I think my answer covered both your doubts. And gives you some insight on how to play or do a work-around it on your two issues (Scouts and Unbalanced points).

I´m not looking for a "thanks". Just to know that your expressed doubts were answered & solved. If you have some more doubts over a different subject I would gladly answer them.   Please create a new thread with them.
This forum is just for that. To help BG players play their games.

Regards,

Diego