The "Victorious" Tournament

[stevefprice]

dear competition opponent,
When you thisread,

let's finish the interesting fight

2 days of one movement is not enough

thanks
rth

Possibly a tad harsh, we don't know what is happening in other people's lives. You are at the top of the table and it is only a game

[Shards]

Yep, I got stuffed!

Managed to just about stop my opponent taking my second base, but only just...

[omistaja]

Yep, I got stuffed!

Managed to just about stop my opponent taking my second base, but only just...

Thanks for the good game. I was trying to go round of you with the Hobart's bridges. But your "Rommel" attack made me really off balance.

And I was lucky in the other game, your pincer was just one hex short.

[Celeborn]

I think it's a good map, you have to play conservatively with the German side.

conboy

This, I fear, is going to be my downfall... Not exactly one for digging in usually...

Me too, and Celeborn is showing me why

I actually like defending more than attacking as I think it presents more of a challenge. When I saw that this one wasn’t just a two-equal-sides affair I knew I would enjoy it. What surprised me was that contrary to my initial “Stalingrad West” take it is in fact pro -Allies. I learned this the hard way when I tried counterattacking with a PzIV and a Panther then found myself scraping for RP for the rest of the game. :-/

[blondus]

After mamy tournaments, for the first time my opponent is really slow... it's frustrating because I'm doing well and I'm close to the goal...

[stevefprice]

I actually like defending more than attacking as I think it presents more of a challenge. When I saw that this one wasn’t just a two-equal-sides affair I knew I would enjoy it. What surprised me was that contrary to my initial “Stalingrad West” take it is in fact pro -Allies. I learned this the hard way when I tried counterattacking with a PzIV and a Panther then found myself scraping for RP for the rest of the game. :-/

But found enough to hold out for the win as German player

Stats on this one would be interesting as to % of German wins vs Allied. I suspect,on average, any German player that attacked aggressively from the outset lost.

[Erik2]

Cobra question
The VPs hovered around 4-5 for each side. Then the Germans captured St.Lo for a single turn before the US kicked them out.
The Germans were awarded about 100 VPs, seemingly on a permanent basis. Is this wad?
I may have missed something in the briefing since there is no info about this in the objs rewards.
Can the US ever rectify this current 117 vs 4 VPs or is the rest of the battle moot...?

[pupski]

St.Lo is a staging ground as 'explained' in the mission briefing. It is a bit tricky to understand or be prepared for if you never played this specific MP scenario before. You won't get the points back, ever, it cannot be corrected by force. Maybe I use the wrong term staging ground because you cannot place units there directly but in the briefing it is marked as a big VP extra site.

[Erik2]

In other scenarios the staging grounds are (naturally) placed way behind the front-line.
St.Lo is on the frontline (unless I got the location name wrong). It is the gold flag on the east part of the frontline.

[bebro]

Cobra question
The VPs hovered around 4-5 for each side. Then the Germans captured St.Lo for a single turn before the US kicked them out.
The Germans were awarded about 100 VPs, seemingly on a permanent basis. Is this wad?
I may have missed something in the briefing since there is no info about this in the objs rewards.
Can the US ever rectify this current 117 vs 4 VPs or is the rest of the battle moot...?

It's WAD in the sense that you get the 100 pts for taking a staging ground (as pupski said). In theory taking one of the German stagin ground would give you 100 as well (if it's achievable is another q', given that they're more behind).

It's not "designed" to make you lose St.Lo, but giving the German player a certain chance for it seems fair, as the US side gets more stuff.

However, if ppl think it's totally unbalanced and St. Lo cannot be held we could modify the scn to it a normal primary VP (not a 100 pt worth)

[Shards]

I like it because it ensures that the USA has to actually try and push forward from St Lo and not just push into the easier open terrain to the Centre/West. BUT, I also agree that it feels a bit "cheesy" to get so many points from that location.

I'm enjoying Cobra, there's multiple angles of attack and whilst paratroops are a useful option they're not a super power and the CP dedicated to them is notably absent from the breakthrough force.

My recommendation would be to remove the St Lo gold Victory Location. I think it's fine for the USA to just have the one main base in the North. It also reduces the USA victory point income, which should reward a German player who does well on defence.

I'd also recommend turning off deployment to the German Towns in the middle and top-half of the map. As the USA I'm currently avoiding destroying Ger units as I know they'll magically appear in the locations I'm trying to take (and as germans I was happy for a weak unit to be destroyed as I was able to instantly reinforce the opposite flank..)

[stevefprice]

The issue for me is the briefing does not advise it is worth 100 points, nor does it advise you do not get points for retaking it. So if you happen to make it a tempting target to sucker in enemy, then surround them and eliminate then it's a shock to the system to see your clever plan cost just cost you the game.

[Shards]

The briefing has the same language as all the other "Tournament Settings" maps. "A large VP Bonus".

The first objective says "Protect your Supply" and the highlighted hexes include St Lo. Whilst it may have proven operationally beneficial to lure the enemy forwards, you had express instructions from command to protect these hexes, I'm not sure that you should expect to be excused for allowing them to be taken, no matter how temporarily?

None of the order of battle maps will ever allow you to reduce your opponents score. The only way is to drag yourself up...

[blondus]

I've found much easier to conquer german base than st-lo

[stevefprice]

The briefing has the same language as all the other "Tournament Settings" maps. "A large VP Bonus".

Semantics 10 VP compared to 1,2 or 3 is 'large'. 100VP is very or extremely large

The first objective says "Protect your Supply" and the highlighted hexes include St Lo. Whilst it may have proven operationally beneficial to lure the enemy forwards, you had express instructions from command to protect these hexes, I'm not sure that you should expect to be excused for allowing them to be taken, no matter how temporarily?

Granted, it's my issue and I have to deal with it but if it is meant to be punitive why not make it game loss since in all likelihood that is the result anyway?

None of the order of battle maps will ever allow you to reduce your opponents score. The only way is to drag yourself up...

No, I realise that and that wasn't the ask here, but clearly quite a few have been caught out by it so my point was more to support the argument to change the reward for taking St-Lo.

Besides, having just done it back to my opponent it would be churlish to complain

[stevefprice]

It's WAD in the sense that you get the 100 pts for taking a staging ground (as pupski said). In theory taking one of the German stagin ground would give you 100 as well (if it's achievable is another q', given that they're more behind).

Is it always 100 points or prorate subject to turns?

I've just done it to my opponent and score went to 110VP, but I was on way more than 10VP before I took it.

[Shards]

I'd expect pro-rata, but Bebro is the designer on this one.

FWIW, I agree with you that St Lo is probably best not being such a valued target:
"My recommendation would be to remove the St Lo gold Victory Location. I think it's fine for the USA to just have the one main base in the North. It also reduces the USA victory point income, which should reward a German player who does well on defence."

[Celeborn]

The briefing does clearly state that St Lo is worth a "large VP bonus". I lost it to Omistaja because I just didn't think it could be taken by the Germans and once I saw him coming I couldn't deploy reinforcements there even though it is a "staging ground". Had I known it was so vulnerable I think I would have held it been able to defend it so ultimately it is on my failure of imagination and underestimation of my opponent. FWIW I think that if a hex is considered a "staging ground" then all the hexes adjacent ought to be eligible for, well, staging.

On a more general note I really like the scenarios where there is an attacker and a defender vice the many equal-sides-race-for-it type scenarios. This tournament has thus been one of the more enjoyable for me even if I have been humiliated by Omistaja. :-\

[Erik2]

Interesting debate.
I think the 100VP is a flaw (since I'm suffering ). But my main objection is that I kind of lose interest in the scenario (I will play my turns of course).
So either remove/reduce the 100 VPs or let the US player get the 100 VPs back by recapturing St Lo.

[bebro]

Re biefing etc:

I always recommend to not exclusively rely on the briefings that start the scn. The briefings are always more general descriptions of what's going on/to be expected, but they do not provide objective requirements.

The briefings are gone after the start, the objective popup comes up again every turn, so this is a better place to check details, esp. by clicking the blue '?'.


As for "staging ground":

I get the point re "staging" aka deploying The prob is that we have sometimes conflicting things here - once the front comes close it's means the defender can just pop-up new guys right in front of the attacker. But you never get an ideal solution for this I think - since you need to be able deploy *somewhere, and it can't be 30 turns away from the front.