Game: Combat Commander: Mediterranean

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

JMcL63 — 2008-10-16T07:54:29+00:00

Two more plays of this scenario a couple of weeks ago generated a couple of Finnish victories, one a landslide, the other which went down to the initiative card because the Russian player (me) made a mistake costing 2 vital VP in the dying moments of the game. I am more convinced than ever that the scenario is unbalanced but not broken, and that Chad should leave it well alone. BGG'ers wishing to read a more detailed analysis should follow these links to my blog:
A Winter War. Unbalanced but not broken?.
Combat Commander scenario 20: a viable Russian strategy and its opacity.

Thread: Re: At the Crossroads - my first victory against Dan

sdiberar — 2008-10-14T19:05:24+00:00

We need to start a Raspler Opponent Anonymous guild. Or not.

Thread: Re: At the Crossroads - my first victory against Dan

chicklewis — 2008-10-14T13:39:46+00:00

AND you beat Dan even while giving him an unfair advantage through his lousy interpretation of the gully rules !

YOU ROCK !

Chick

Thread: Re: At the Crossroads - my first victory against Dan

derk — 2008-10-11T09:39:10+00:00

Wow. wow. I knew I didn't like gullies, but that could fix 'em... wow.

Thread: Re: At the Crossroads - my first victory against Dan

RPardoe — 2008-10-11T07:11:20+00:00

derk wrote:
My last game was the first game with a gully, and I hated it. There's little worse than an opponent that has LOS with you, when you can't see them.

Umm...that's wrong. LOS is always reciprocal in CC. If he can see you, you can see him. (Reference 10.1 - last sentence). So if the Poles could see and fire at you, you can see and fire back at the Poles.

Look at the gully rules (T86) one more time: ...a unit in a Gully cannot be seen except from an adjacent hex or a hex at a higher elevation, and vice versa

That vice versa means a unit in a gully can only see adjacent hexes and hexes at higher elevation also.

Thread: At the Crossroads - my first victory against Dan

derk — 2008-10-10T21:24:50+00:00

For the last two years, my friend Dan has been giving me an education on wargames. By that, I mean he beats me regularly, like a teenage beats his... well, you get the point. I'm used to losing. But my opponent is good; he rarely ever misses the opportunity to utterly kick my butt, and I give him a good target quite often.

So we decided to play this '39 scenario, only I refused to be the Allies. I set up my spartan German forces fairly spread out, with my leader, MG, weapon, and squad in the rough to the left of his advance. The mortar at the back of the orchard and two squads (one with an MG) in houses, to guard against him running across the fields to his right.

The Poles predictably came in via the gully. My last game was the first game with a gully, and I hated it. There's little worse than an opponent that has LOS with you, when you can't see them. I'm still not sure I like gullies. Anyway, so he brings in the Polish Armada and starts 'em moving up the gully. I drew a shit hand and had to recycles as he advanced all his troops to the edge of the gully, aka firing position one.

My uber stack was in theory s'posed to be calling in mortar attacks and such, but instead finds itself gettin' blown up by unseen approaching forces, the squad breaks. I'm realizing that I'm seriously in a bad position, so I decide to pull back. However a fire starts up behind me, so I'm pinned down. Big time. I can't run across the field to get to cover, I'll get lit up. I can't retreat, 'cuz the fire's too close and a single blown rout roll kills me (and of course I can't draw a recover to save my life).

le sigh

Did I mention how often I get beat? So I'm basically dead on turn two and a half. Put this on in the loss column.

War Game Leaderboard:
Dan: 1001 Derk: 0

le sigh

However, all is not lost! You were promised a victorious session report, and you shall have it! The tricksey Poles won the first one, but the Germans have the TIME WARP, baby!

....
liggyloo-diggydoo-piggypoo
....

So I set up my uberstack next to the mortar at the back of the orchard. It seemed like a good position. Far superior to that craptastic position across the field. Seems like a good place to die that, what with all that uncut brush just asking for a hot bullet casing or four... Anyway, the Poles advance up the gully.

Through much of the first 2/3rds of the way through each of our decks, neither of us made much headway. The Polish had taken up the best defensive positions beyond the gully and were concentrated in three places: house on right flank with a squad and a one-leader armed with a mortar; central house(s), where another one-leader was holding; and the end left flank's two-leader squad with an MG, who was doing a decent job of harassing the Germans.

My German forces were doing well. In general, I was using up my hand fairly well. I'd gotten a decent selection of fires and what I needed. I didn't really want to advance at all. I was trying to stay out of range of the gully, since that was clearly his most important position, offensively. I think in retrospect, I should've tried to save my fire cards for op fire, but I got lucky. The Poles didn't seem to be moving (aka, Dan couldn't draw Moves).

I needed to cycle my whole deck as quickly as possible, so that I could get the reinforcements, another uberstack and a half. I took a lot of fairly low percentage shots, but I got lucky again and rolled very well. Often times adding eight or ten... we both cycled cards fairly rapidly. And again, all the luck was going with the Germans: snipers sent the Polish two-leader to the infirmary.. twice; three fires started in the Polish back field; etc.

But the Poles make a move. Literally. A single squad streaks down the left side, and disappears behind the hedge. Literally on the last hex of the map, the lone Polish squad encounters a mine field (rolled a twelve, natch) and gets broken. Event happens the next turn which kills a broken unit, drawing first blood of the game as the would-be escapees get nailed. The Germans lead by eight VPs, and we've got one more time check before reinforcements. It's looking pretty good for the bad guys.

The Poles started to feel frisky, and sent Mr. Two-Leader and his trusty sidekick Squad-Boy, skittering up the left side. The Germans tried to react to the move, but ultimately fell short. Once a group disappeared behind that leafy wall, it was very easy to escape. Even once I moved a one-leader and an MG squad over next to the wall, the brush behind gave really good defensive position. Mr. Two-Leader head feints to the right and then gingerly dances through the mine field unscathed. Suddenly the German VPs are down to TWO.

It's gonna be close!

...

Or not. Once the third time event happened, I was able to bring in another leader to help me manage the front. And positionally speaking, the Germans were doing well. The Poles had fallen back from the central house, and gotten mired in wire. The recently reincarnated Mr. Two-Leader seemed to be a bit more jumpy than the last one, what with all the sniper bullets and fires and routs and such going on.

Time creeps on, as the Poles lose another squad. The Germans are up by four VPs, and seemingly calling the shots on the board. Altho not really advancing, just shoring up the central fire team and using it each turn. Finally time advances again, and it ends exactly on the first time check with a five rolled. Germans win. I win. I finally beat Dan. Nyah, nyah!

War Game Leaderboard:
Dan: 1001 Derk: 1

w00t!

This was the fickle finger of fate telling me it was my time. I could do no wrong in this game. Nearly every event was in my favor (I got a new Mr. Two-Leader and a Hero, and I didn't even mention them in the blow-by-blows). Ah well... Gosh, does playing the French deck suck or what? Only being able to recycle one card? If you drew six Routs or Command Confusions in the first hand, you'd be completely and totally screwed! It's kinda sad my first victory's gotta come against the Poles in '39...

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

Chump — 2008-10-02T06:03:31+00:00

I find close combat in Combat Commander far more fearsome a proposition than in Squad Leader--all those ambush cards out there make me real nervous.

It sounds like we need to lay smoke, and then make a break for it all in the same turn. You can't lay smoke, and then wait until next turn to go for it--your opponent will just get the jump on you.

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

JackFlash — 2008-10-02T02:25:37+00:00

When in doubt, close combat!

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

war_hero — 2008-10-01T19:37:18+00:00

My regular opponent and I also played this scenario recently. He was the British, me the Italians.

His secret objective was to take objective 5, so he opened up with artillery, laying down smoke all around that objective, and quickly moved up and took the two central objectives. My secret objective also added value to all of the objectives, so I knew my job was cut out for me -- I had to eject him from the ground he had taken so rapidly. (Of course, I didn't know his secret objective, but his fast action kind of gave it away.)

Alas for me, the best I could do for a while was to lob smoke into his sniper foxholes (hindrance of 5), which effectively hampered any potshots from that guy, and to fire the mortar at a couple of other units to break them (but they quickly recovered). But time marched on quickly with a flurry of time cards, and rather abruptly the game was half over.

With all the lingering smoke, I attempted to take out his sniper position by moving up a squad, ambush card in hand, but the sniper was able to run away back into smoke, and further reinforce the British central position. Things got worse for me as a British hero materialized, and some of his troops were able to dig in right in their smoke-filled objective.

I finally was able to neutralize his artillery, which had continally hampered me, but then my own mortar broke down. Things were looking pretty desperate for me as the VP count was up to about 7 or 8 for the Brits, with just two turns left.

In an act of desperation, I rallied my troops and made what I thought would be a suicidal last-gasp frontal assault on the British. Much to my surprise, despite a wall of opportunity fire (and thanks to all the smoke), I managed to get four squads and two leaders in striking distance of his forces, and one even became veteran. And an unfortunate roll of 12 for him failed to rally one of his leaders, who had broken in the foxholes from an earlier lucky shot.

As my troops swarmed into hand to hand combat, the game fell down to this one crucial melee, which I won by a hair!

With most of his forces now dead, and VP now in my favor, it took just a couple of final shots to take out the remaining Brits, who made one last desperate, but hopeless, attempt to retake the central objectives. The game ended by reaching the British surrender level, with only one turn remaining.

So in summary: I also was suspicious of this scenario, but it turned out to be a real nail-biter and a ton of fun.

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

JackFlash — 2008-09-30T03:39:19+00:00

I'm not experienced either! I have only played about 5 or 6 times!

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

chicklewis — 2008-09-29T17:04:05+00:00

Excellent Avatar, Chump !

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

Chump — 2008-09-29T07:28:04+00:00

JackFlash wrote:
Good report! I need to try that scenario! Is that the first time that you played it?

Indeed. I'm not a really experienced player (I only have about seven CC games under my belt ... ). Rob, on the other hand, has played this scenario a few times, if I'm not mistaken.

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

JackFlash — 2008-09-29T02:36:08+00:00

Good report! I need to try that scenario! Is that the first time that you played it?

Thread: Re: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

presence — 2008-09-28T04:46:06+00:00

Nice report.

It really is pretty sad that the sniper group doesn't remain hidden until the first attack, so it can't be avoided or have its LOS blocked before the enemy should know where it is.

Thread: Scenario 23 - No-Man's Land

Chump — 2008-09-28T02:54:26+00:00

I’d been bugging Rob Bottos for weeks now to get together for some Combat Commander: Europe action. Last time we played, he handed me a solid thrashing in a scenario from Combat Commander: Battle Pack #2 – Stalingrad, during the Dragonflight gaming convention in Seattle.

I was flipping through Rob’s scenario cards, and noticed one featuring an apparently completely featureless map, so I said, “WTF?” Apparently, the map was not quite featureless—it had a road bisecting the map diagonally. The objectives were simply five points along the road.

Scenario 23, “No-Man’s Land”, from Combat Commander: Mediterranean, pits the British against the ever-cowardly Italians in the Southern Desert, Egypt, in a meeting of patrols situation. The one scenario-determined objective chit gave one point for each of the five objectives along the road. Rob chose a secret one, and I selected an open one: double VPs for exited units.

The Italian forces were weaker but more numerous, and they had a better mortar, and mines. The British troops were superior, and they had a sniper group consisting of an HMG in a foxhole that had the lay of the land. The British also had access to off-board artillery.

I took the Brits and set up a trench as deep in as I could, three hexes in, all the way across the map. Rob’s Italians set up similarly, but set up mines on both ends of his trench. I set the British sniper group up as dictated, mid-field on one side. We both set up our troops in the trenches.

The allies move first in this scenario, and I agonized about what to do. I took a shot with my artillery, to no effect—the trenches simply provide too much cover. I agonized some more, and finally just picked-up a card, ending my turn. Rob seized the initiative, and lobbed some smoke with his mortar just short on his side of the centre of the road, Objective 5. It was a doozy, a “9”. That was it for Rob’s first turn.

I could see what Rob was doing, laying cover for a dash to claim some objectives, but I wasn’t sure why he lobbed the smoke on his side of Objective 5, unless that wasn’t his current target. The smoke there provided more cover for me to try for Objective 5 than for him, so I was really tempted to go for it on my turn. Obviously, I wanted to minimize his opportunity fire, and I agonized again about how best to go about my advance. Luckily, Rob’s a good egg, and he laid it out for me how best to do it, since I’ve always had trouble with this aspect of the game (opportunity fire … ). Nevertheless, I got shot up pretty good. But I had a couple of Recover cards going into this push, and over the next couple of turns, recovered fully, gained veteran status for one of my guys, and captured the middle of the road.

Rob lobbed one or two more smoke bombs to obscure my LOS from my sniper group, and then made a dash for it. He pushed his Italians a little too far, however, and the HMG got off a couple of nice shots, stopping Rob’s Italians in their tracks.

I started moving my veteran up to finish the job in close combat. I hit his leader and lmg squad first, ignoring, for now, the lone squad in the adjacent hex. I knew from previous play with Rob, that he totally HORDES ambush cards, and indeed he pulled one from outta his ACE, but lo and behold, I had THREE! Sorry Rob, better luck next time!

I eventually cleared his squads that had moved up, but my veteran got shot up pretty bad in the process. I even had a hero created for him, but he soon got wasted, too. Eventually, however, my vet managed to rejoin my main force, which now lined up to guard the middle of the road.

By now, the smoke had cleared completely, and my forces were pretty exposed, except for my veteran who dug in right next to Objective 5. Rob softened-up my defending forces a bit, but they easily recovered. “Time” events started coming fast and furious, and I was cycling the cards through my hand as fast as possible to maximize the possibility of even more “Time” events, and eventually, time did run out.

Rob’s secret Objective was a two-pointer for Objective 5, no less, giving me a final VP total of 12. But it felt like 100, finally kicking Bottos, British Columbia Combat Commander Master, to the curb!

Tactical analysis:

Rob’s initial smoke placement actually helped me advance. I found his choice of smoke placement (one hex his side of centre Objective 5) curious—why not on my side of the board? During the scenario, I was a bit at a loss for what to do once I had nailed Objective 5. Instead of hanging around (other than my vet who handily dug-in right next to it), I probably should have retreated a bit out of range of fire, and forced Rob to come to me, as at this point the onus was clearly on him to make a move.

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

JMcL63 — 2008-09-22T20:48:39+00:00

Thanks for your kind words Chad.

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-22T18:26:54+00:00

Thanks for your data point, John.

I followed your link and read all the AARs -- wonderful stuff! I especially liked this line near the end: "if you're going to bite the bullet, you might as well bite it properly."

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

JMcL63 — 2008-09-22T15:08:34+00:00

Chad Jensen wrote:
I was just thinking that it very well may be that in our testing the Finns won about half the time ... but by a landslide; and the Russians won about half the time ... but just barely after a long drawn-out affair. If so, I likely didn't put enough emphasis on HOW the scenario was won when determining overall balance, thus giving us the disparate results we are witnessing post-publication.

With Chad being driven to consider fixing this scenario, I just thought I'd post to report another Russian win, and with 12VP on time 8, I'd say that corresponds to "just barely after a long drawn-out affair" (it certainly felt gruelling if memory serves). The main tactical point I have to add to existing remarks about Exit VP is protect your MG's, because that'll deny the Finns a lot of easy VP of their own.

More generally, I would suggest that this is a scenario where you have to put aside some of what you'll've already learned from previous games of Combat Commander (as you might see from my account of our game here). It might therefore be that unlearning lessons already painfully learned is what makes this scenario particularly difficult for the Russians.

On top of all that, I find myself thinking that the possible balance as suggested by Chad- an even split between Finnish cakewalks and Russian slugathons- has a certain aptness in this scenario. It seems to fit the history and the particular situation. But then, I might be biased because I won as the Russians.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

nyhotep — 2008-09-12T19:45:54+00:00

Which fits nicely with the fact that it's impassable.
But isn't the ATAN of 2/3 60 degrees?
No, maybe you're right (bloody radians)

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-12T18:09:39+00:00

I'd guess one level of elevation in this game is about 10 meters. The hexes are about 30 meters across. So, a "cliff" in the game is a place where you have 2 levels of elevation difference, from one hex to an adjacent hex. That's a rise of 20 meters in a distance of 30 meters, or a slope of about 34 degrees.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

nyhotep — 2008-09-12T08:46:52+00:00

Yeah, sorry for getting your back up over this.

But if someone has a question, it's worth a discussion.

Ok, cliff= steep slope, end of discussion, right? Fine.

Incidently, I really beleive that the combat commander series is actually the best (and probably most realistic) tactical system out there. Of course I am grateful for Chad spending his time here.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

presence — 2008-09-11T22:11:49+00:00

I understand why the original question came up, and I thought that it was pretty clear what the answer to the issue was. Where things get muddy is when the follow on conversations come in.

The game is out and in print. The issue doesn't look like it needs any special consideration, other than perhaps a FAQ on the matter if that. It is truly impossible for every single possibility to be conceived of and then have rules to implement them. Hell, even ASL doesn't do this. How much of an effect does this ruling really have?

So its a cliff, a steep slope, a precipice, a dell, a canyon, a crevasse, a ditch, a hole, a wash, a bluff, a crevasse, a face, a ledge, a scarp, a scar, a wall, a cleve, a crag, or palisades.

Ok, now lets do plains. Then we can follow up with all of the other terrain types. Wow, Im thinking 100 pages more might be a little short.

Chad has given his answer, but its YOUR GAME. If the game is more fun changing the rules around, do it! If you want to replace cliff with steep slope, do that too! Hell write it on the map, or in the scenario, or in the rulebook, or in all three places!

The fact that Chad is even here, and bothers to answer questions at all tells you that he in the background supporting a game that has already been released. How many other game designers do this? Sure, they all SHOULD, but most simply don't. Lets not drag him through the mud on something that is a mere side-issue that really has no significant effect on the entertainment value of the game.

HOLY CRAP GUYS.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-11T21:47:06+00:00

Except that a cliff is defined as....
Good grief. If I've said this once I've said it a hundred times: names of terrain/units/weapons/etc/etc/etc in CC are meant to be EVOCATIVE, not pedantically historical; FLAVORFUL not strict dictionary definitions.

One cannot possibly depict every conceivable piece of relevant terrain present in Europe differently in a game of this size and scope -- some will have to be lumped in with others that are similar in terms of how they affect game play.

Maybe you should have said steep slope.
Maybe I should have.

Though, let's be honest here, it doesn't matter what I call it or what the map artist makes it look like: somebody will eventually take issue with it.

Saying "cliffs block LOS and create a 1 hex blind spot" would hardly need a 100 page document.
You miss the point entirely. Obviously adding that one detail won't increase page count; but if I add the one "Joe" wants, why wouldn't I also add what Tom, Dick, Harry and Lisa want? What makes Joe special?....

But, it's your game.
....Ah, I see; it boils down to what Chad wants. Makes sense since it's my game. Your game may indeed look quite different.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

nyhotep — 2008-09-11T18:54:13+00:00

Just give out climbing gear. Got your pitons?

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-11T14:24:33+00:00

nyhotep wrote:
Except that a cliff is defined as a "steep slope of earth materials, usually a rock face, that is nearly vertical and may be overhanging."

Damn. We're going to have to issue a recall for the game now.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

nyhotep — 2008-09-11T11:15:49+00:00

Chad Jensen wrote:
A cliff is not necessarily a vertical stone face. It more often than not represents an incline that is steeper than a normal hill contour. Further, in light of this clarification, having cliffs block LOS would have had the unintended consequence of also blocking LOS when traced along the hexside -- something altogether unrealistic in and of itself.

Additionally, I wanted to keep things simpler and more playable wherever possible. Not everything in CC will have all-encompassing real world effects -- I might have needed a deeper box to hold the resulting 100+ page rulebook....

There may be other reasons that I just can't recall at the moment.

Except that a cliff is defined as a "steep slope of earth materials, usually a rock face, that is nearly vertical and may be overhanging."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121485/cliff#tab=a...

Maybe you should have said steep slope.
I would have no problem with a cliff blocking LOS along a hexside, every cliff I've seen is full of inlets and sticking-out-bits which make it impossible to see round.

Saying "cliffs block LOS and create a 1 hex blind spot" would hardly need a 100 page document. But, it's your game.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

juheimbu — 2008-09-09T13:50:04+00:00

Thanks, Chad. That helps a lot.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-08T21:17:51+00:00

Is that correct
No.

T88.3.2 says that the LOS must cross crestline before it leaves the higher ORIGINATING hex. LOS from the center dot of F4 to the center dot of H6 does indeed cross a crestline (within hex H4) before it touches a hexside (F4/G5), thus that LOS is clear.

Further, this LOS never crosses an equal or higher elevation (level 2) in an INTERVENING hex, which reinforces the clear LOS.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

juheimbu — 2008-09-08T18:31:07+00:00

My understanding of the grey box at T88.3.2 tells ms that the LOS from F4 to H6 is blocked because, from G5 to G6 (where the LOS falls between F4 and H6) crosses a hexside before it crosses the next crest. I think the cliff would need to be on the hexside of G5 in order for units at F4 to see down into H6.

Is that correct, or have I misunderstood the grey box?

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-08T17:27:11+00:00

A cliff is not necessarily a vertical stone face. It more often than not represents an incline that is steeper than a normal hill contour. Further, in light of this clarification, having cliffs block LOS would have had the unintended consequence of also blocking LOS when traced along the hexside -- something altogether unrealistic in and of itself.

Additionally, I wanted to keep things simpler and more playable wherever possible. Not everything in CC will have all-encompassing real world effects -- I might have needed a deeper box to hold the resulting 100+ page rulebook....

There may be other reasons that I just can't recall at the moment.

Thread: Re: cliffs: why no blockage?

nyhotep — 2008-09-08T15:35:44+00:00

It would make sense to me too for the cliff hexside to produce a blind hex, unless the higher unit was actually at the top of the cliff (ie. in the hex bordered by the cliff).

Maybe Chad can explain.

Thread: cliffs: why no blockage?

entner — 2008-09-08T14:59:26+00:00

I was wondering why cliffs don't block the hex behind them in the same way that obstacles do. For instance, on map 21 (see http://boardgamegeek.com/image/272379, with A1 in the upper left corner), if I'm reading the rules correctly, a unit in F4 can see a unit in H6, even over the cliff on the hex-side between G6 and H6. Intuitively, it seems to me that the LOS should be blocked between F4 and H6 in the same way it would be if G6 were a level 1 hill with an obstacle terrain (e.g. forest or building).

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-04T20:46:11+00:00

time will tell if a tweak or two would balance it out a bit.
Right you are. If in the end it is determined that errata is needed to fix this one than I'll do just that.

I was just thinking that it very well may be that in our testing the Finns won about half the time ... but by a landslide; and the Russians won about half the time ... but just barely after a long drawn-out affair. If so, I likely didn't put enough emphasis on HOW the scenario was won when determining overall balance, thus giving us the disparate results we are witnessing post-publication.

Just a bit more food for thought.

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

war_hero — 2008-09-04T19:35:18+00:00

Thanks for going to all that effort, Chad. Interesting to see how the scenario evolved (albeit slightly).

I think you are right: time will tell if a tweak or two would balance it out a bit.

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-03T18:11:45+00:00

Nope. Scenario 20 was created in September of 2006 and the files handed off to the printers about a year later. It appears the scenario stayed pretty much the same throughout the year's worth of playtesting:

The special rules remained unchanged from inception.

The Finns actually grew by +3 squads, and originally had 5 Satchel Charges instead of the published 8 Molotov Cocktails. Also, the three Light MGs were originally German LMGs, so this was slightly downgraded.

The Russians had a Light Mortar converted into a second Medium MG and had 5 SMG squads converted into Rifle squads #11-15.

Starting Allied VPs was 2 (4 now: upgrade). The Finns had 4 orders at the beginning (3 now: downgrade).

So there was minimal change throughout development. The changes that were made indicate to me that overall there were more Russian wins than Finnish wins. So at this point I just have to scratch my head and wonder if the Russian puzzle just has yet to be solved....

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

Chad Jensen — 2008-09-03T17:38:36+00:00

Or maybe we *did* play something wrong...?
Or it could be that our testers played the Russians very well and/or the Finns very badly. Not being facetious -- we may have blown it at our end.

I myself played this scenario several times during development and if I recall the wins were split rather evenly. However, post-publication accounts seem to indicate that the Finns are nearly unbeatable. If this holds up over time, it will end up being the first "broken" CC scenario. At that point, I'll devise a fix in order to bring things back into contention. I'm inclined to wait a bit longer before doing so, however, as I've personally seen the Russians win more than once....

(A thought just occurred to me: It is possible that something in the published scenario is a typo -- that is, different from what we were playtesting. I'm going to look through my archives for older versions of this scenario and see if it matches up with the published version. Stay tuned....)

Thread: Re: Finns on Skiis.

war_hero — 2008-09-03T13:01:16+00:00

Played this scenario this past weekend as the Finns. My competitor, a very solid player, was obliterated. The game ended by surrender level +1 being reached, and the VP stood at 41 for me. I lost one lone unit.

We had to keep checking the scenario rules to make sure we hadn't missed something to make it so lop-sided.

It seems to me that the Finns can easily set up to prevent the Russians from exiting off the road (as I did) and can severely hamper any attempt to exit through the woods or along that exposed hill. But even if the Russians can exit a few units, with elimination points doubled, how can they possibly win?

I'm tending to think that only a routinely very bad Finn hand and a routinely good Russian deck would allow it.

Or maybe we *did* play something wrong...?

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

HuckmanT — 2008-09-01T01:43:08+00:00

Great thread - very interesting read. We played this scenario today and the advancing Germans won a surrender victory on the Greeks for many similar reasons as stated above. This is a neat scenario, for sure.

Thread: Re: Combat Commander: Mediterranean not listed in Golden Geek Award Nominations

RPardoe — 2008-08-25T00:42:49+00:00

I thought only stand alone games were eligible for nomination. CC:M is not truly stand alone as ownership of CC:E is required for the German counters/deck, markers, and track display.

Thread: Re: Combat Commander: Mediterranean not listed in Golden Geek Award Nominations

noddingoff — 2008-08-25T00:04:58+00:00

I've mentioned it in the thread and am not alone, but it appears no one's paying any attention....

Robin

Thread: Combat Commander: Mediterranean not listed in Golden Geek Award Nominations

Merkles Boner — 2008-08-24T23:45:50+00:00

I noted that CC:M is not on the list for eligible games for nominations for the Golden Geek Award nominations---but nothing has been added.

Not sure how to add it, but perhaps some more e-mails from fans would help (or from Chad).

Love the game!

Thread: Re: Undefeated Italians - fourth game!

chicklewis — 2008-07-28T22:11:42+00:00

Nice game report, thanks for posting it.

In our games including the Axis Minors they have won 6 and lost 2, but that includes one win as the Finns, which I don't think quite counts.

My personal record with the Axis minors is 5 wins 1 loss. I like to command the Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians.

They are PARTICULARLY dangerous when they set up second and go first, as one can create some horrifyingly huge firegroups with so many units and a 2 radius leader.

Chick

Thread: Re: Undefeated Italians - fourth game!

Chad Jensen — 2008-07-28T17:27:27+00:00

if using the DYO, and it turns out there is a defender, do they roll on the material table just as in the Random Scenario Generator?
When you say "DYO" I assume you are referring to the scenario design aid on pages 6 and 7 of the CC:Med playbook, yes? That information wasn't necessarily formatted for one-shot scenarios (like the RSG), but rather as an aid in developing permanent scenarios (such as scenario 13). In other words, it is more a tool for the aspiring scenario designer to build his own pre-made scenario rather than a step-by-step walkthrough for a single session. It's the same set of guidelines I use as a basis for my own CC scenario designs. I included the data in the CC:Med playbook as I thought others might be interested in seeing the process and/or utilizing it for their own creations.

Don't get me wrong; I think it's fascinating that you've taken to using the scenario design hints for single-play sessions. Game on! Just understand that questions such as the one you've asked here can't really be answered as the DYO guidelines were never really intended to work in this fashion.

So my answer is: do whatever you and your opponent feel like doing. And, by all means, if you come up a with an historically viable situation that ends up being a hoot to play, post it for others to enjoy. Or perhaps you would consider submitting such a scenario to C3i magazine, or to John Foley for possible inclusion in an upcoming Battle Pack.

Hope this helps, Steffan.

Thread: Undefeated Italians - fourth game!

sos1 — 2008-07-26T16:29:22+00:00

I've played Italians four times now and haven't lost yet. All right, one game was against the French, so that probably doesn't count, but I've won twice against the British and now, in our latest game, against the Russians. He managed to lose while playing the Italians, so I guess I shouldn't have made the subject "Undefeated Italians" - but they are for me.

We've been using my Excel spreadsheet for Design-Your-Own Scenarios for some time now. This is the first time we've tried a Recon scenario. My friend designed a Russian group and simply sent me the point count: 18.29. Since he's been losing lately, I decided to let him start with the Initiative card, so designed my group at 18.33 points. This means I would get to set up after seeing his set up, but he would start with the Initiative card.

I let him pick the map, and he chose #8. I rolled for starting edge, and decided to go for the narrow game, which put the gully on his side of the map. We agreed a double-point for kills objective would be the open objective.

His group was very mixed. Two leaders (Lt. Ostroumov and Sgt. Rodimstev, both good leaders) and an assortment of troops including Guards SMG, SMG, Rifle, Militia, and Weapons teams. He had 2 light MGs, one .50 Caliber MG, and a Medium mortar.

I took three leaders, all 1s, 16 Blackshirts (Green squads), and two Line Fucilieris. I had 3 medium MGs and a Medium Mortar, plus 3 foxholes and 6 wire. My background story was we were checking on the wire we had placed earlier when we encountered the Russian recon group.

No one had a radio.

The luck was extreme in this game. At first I thought I was toast: he had all the cards. Move, fire, advance - you name it, he had it. I had a lot of Artillery and Command Confusion cards and one Move card. His mortar laid a 9 smoke on my mortar with his opening card, so I couldn't shoot my mortar even if I had a Fire card! He broke a number of my squads and even a leader in the first four turns, but couldn't quite eliminate them.

With my one Move card, I tried a flanking maneuver since I outnumbered him, 18 squads to his 10. But I couldn't draw another move card for ages, and they were standing around in the open, just short of the brush. He fired at them, broke them immediately, and would have eliminated a number of them, but one thing about those Italian Command Confusion cards: the action is Light Wounds. So by turn four I had four broken Green *teams* in the open, some of them suppressed!

And then the luck turned.

He fired 10 firepower at one unit with a morale of 3 (Green team, suppressed, in the open), and couldn't kill it. He finally used a Rout card to try to run it off the board - it stopped on the last space!

I had a leader and two teams, all broken, all suppressed, in the open and he couldn't kill one of them!

So he tried melee - I had just drawn two Ambush cards, and he died.

This was an evening game, and he had to go at 8:00, so we called the game at that time. I was ahead by 10 points, but pointed out that I was very fragile: given the objective of double points for kill, simply killing three squads would put him in the lead. He was very frustrated though, and was happy to call it my victory. I couldn't get the cards to *do* anything, but my dice draws were superb, and I drew Ambushes and a ton of Light Wounds when I needed them.

Fun game, though more fun for me than him. We're a little dubious about the point costs in Design-Your-Own for Britain and Italy. The Brits were slaughtered both times we used them - they're just so expensive. And the Italians haven't lost a game yet, using the DYO rules.

Usually we just make a force in secret and reveal it at play time, so we don't know in advance who will be defender. This time, he told me a point count so I could get close to matching it for a Recon scenario - we enjoyed that part of it.

One thing I'm not clear about: if using the DYO, and it turns out there is a defender, do they roll on the material table just as in the Random Scenario Generator?

Anyway, it was fun watching my broken Italians dance to Russian gunfire. Well, fun for me...

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

DaviddesJ — 2008-07-24T18:53:16+00:00

war_hero wrote:
There are some obvious drawbacks (use of leader bonuses), but I think I'd give this tactic a try next time in this scenario.

The gun doesn't get leader bonuses anyway. I would agree, you don't want it in the same hex with the leader and the MG, especially since you get two bunkers anyway.

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

war_hero — 2008-07-24T15:15:25+00:00

Thanks Chad / David.

Touching on David's concentrated setup idea, another tactic I've been pondering is to do just that, but at the same time, keep stacking to a minimum in the bunker complex.

For example, I had a leader stacked with a squad and a crew and the artillery piece; alas, a single good shot from the Germans broke them all (despite being in a bunker) and without a recover card, things went downhill from there.

By having a leader alone in a hex and a squad or crew on either side (or two hexes away), he could still order them all, and German fire attacks would be diluted.

There are some obvious drawbacks (use of leader bonuses), but I think I'd give this tactic a try next time in this scenario.

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

DaviddesJ — 2008-07-24T05:52:09+00:00

war_hero wrote:
Has anyone played this one placing the wire immediately adjacent to the bunkers or trenches?

Yes. I also think you should concentrate the defenders more than in the setup above, so that you can get maximum firepower out of a single activation. Since your weapons have good range to cover the entire board from the main hill.

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

Chad Jensen — 2008-07-18T18:17:46+00:00

Has anyone played this one placing the wire immediately adjacent to the bunkers or trenches? That would prevent the German from using the flamethrower and satchel charge on those critical defensive hexes.

Bingo! Yes, this is a standard defensive tactic of mine. Another is to put the wire two hexes away from the main line -- in this fashion, enemy movers must stop upon entering, stop upon exiting (adjacent to me), and then still need another Fire/Advance order to get things rolling against my forces. Hopefully by that time I've not let his assault forces live.

Thread: Re: Scenario 19 Metaxas Season

war_hero — 2008-07-18T13:23:39+00:00

I played this scenario a little while ago and lost badly (at surrender level + 1 (elan)) as the Greeks.

The loss got me wondering about wire placement. In our game, I placed the wire similarly to the placement in this report. And although it delayed the German onslaught for a bit, once the flamethrower was adjacent to my bunkers, I was toast.

Has anyone played this one placing the wire immediately adjacent to the bunkers or trenches? That would prevent the German from using the flamethrower and satchel charge on those critical defensive hexes.

And in general, would you say that's a sound tactic in any scenario where the opponent has that type of weaponry?

Thread: Re: Scenario 16: Smoke 'em if you've got 'em

colinkun — 2008-07-14T05:02:41+00:00

Played this one yesterday and was utterly destroyed as the French. I don't think I eliminated a single German, and can't remember if I even got through my deck once! (we had a couple time advancements, but due to Germans).

I setup at both ends of the road, with foxholes in the crossroad hexes. The med. mg was at the back end hoping to take advantage of the open terrain and clear field of fire.

My leader at the forward end (in the building actually), was sniped and then eliminated (despite playing a hidden pillbox) in the first couple of turns. Losing a leader that early in the game is never, and I mean ever, a good thing. It was only a few turns later when the Germans had moved up and started advancing. Another unlucky couple of rolls eliminated the medium mg and it was doom for the French after that. Possibly the worst I have done in a scenario to date.

Tough goings, and I'm not sure how I would have set up differently.

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-02-03T08:51:45+00:00

A game of Combat Commander Mediterranean Scenario 15 Armata Romana

Image

BobRoberts — 2008-02-03T08:50:04+00:00

A game of Combat Commander Mediterranean Scenario 15 Armata Romana

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T21:03:50+00:00

Countersheet 1 back

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T21:02:11+00:00

Countersheet 1 front

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T21:00:46+00:00

Countersheet 2 back

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T20:58:13+00:00

Countersheet 2 front

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T20:56:43+00:00

Countersheet 3 back

Image

centurio68 — 2008-01-25T20:55:08+00:00

Countersheet 3 front

Image

Bostich — 2007-12-06T17:40:28+00:00

Tuckboxes - The complete set

Image

Bostich — 2007-12-06T17:39:49+00:00

Open Tuckboxes (To show they fit the decks sleeved)