I'd like to use this thread so as to pool resources on people's experience and thoughts playing Chroma's 'Total War' epic scenarios thus far as these are what the Bristol Winter Warmer Tournament will be using in January.

I'll post my own thoughts and findings soon but please use this thread to discuss and share any thoughts you may have had too :-)

For clarity we're only interested in the main scenarios, the Firefights as well as Delta and Omega level rules within those scenarios will not be used: although characterful I'd say that they're not suitable for tournament style play; i'm sure we'll have plenty of time playtesting them once January is over!
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

As promised; my findings thus far

Spearhead
I really like this one, it's quite dynamic and after playing it 3
times it so far it does feel reasonably balanced; two tournament
armies should give each other a run for their money.   If I recall
correctly the defenders have won all 3 times but we get the feeling
that they've overextended both times; a hefty amount of Vanguard
formations usually turn up by turn 2 and prepare to lay the smack down
on any formations that have strayed too close.  We have found that the
initial 'defenders' do get swamped pretty quickly but guess that's
meant to be the idea; guard formations on overwatch make for excellent
flank refuser's!

Thoughts on Objectives
Out of everything i've played I most enjoy (and feel them to be easier
to balance) all the scenario's that use Objectives much akin to the GT
scenario: 'BTS' etc.  Also makes adapting them to UK tournament
scoring really easy!

Ambush
One of the most characterful scenario's but also, we feel, the most
unbalanced.  Ginger and I and others have played it several times and
the defenders usually get wiped pretty easy due to the victory points
conditions (which work well for this) Our suggestion would be to
balance it out by giving the ambushed side the opportunity to escape
off of the board with their initial (target) formations and gaining
full or half VP's for each one that exits the opposite table edge.
Suggest full VP for formations above half strength, half VP for those
below or that exit whilst broken. NO VP for exiting below half
strength and broken.
The one sidedness of it being that the target formations can't escape
and too easily become sitting ducks!
We also need to clear up how the initial 'must road march' rules
work...they need clarifying! We can't decide whether the formations
must make a full 3 moves (march action) with +5cm move one the road or
if, for example, you could just declare that they make a single move
(staying on the road) and but then only moving, say, 1cm! Both are
equally weird! And the first means that the attacker can predict
exactly where formations are going to end up on the first turn!
We presume that in all cases the contingents used in the ambush
scenario are kept secret? It's a lot more characterful that way for
sure!

Thoughts on Contingents
A potentially tricky part of Total War's rules...in some scenarios
(see 'last stand' below) it's really unbalancing (though the ability
to put certain units in your Supreme Commanders contingent goes a long
way in balancing things out)! Our problem is the way that it works by
using the number of formations an army has to decide how things get
split and this can lead to some very unbalanced games points wise; we
would suggest using points values instead
I.e in a Contingents (3) scenario a 3000pt army just splits it's
forces into 3 roughly 1000pt contingents.  Our feeling here is also
that something like a Warlord for example, despite nearly being a 3rd
of most armies anyway, only counts as 2 formations in itself! If you
end up without that much of your army in addition to whatever else is
in that contingent then you're at a real disadvantage.

Cleanse
Nice, simple, balanced; a nice alternative to GT scenario and with a
slightly different challenge. Very chess like we found...not sure if
we'll use it for the Winter Warmer as there are so many others that I
want to get in there!

Last Stand
EdgarSan and I played this the other night, switching forces from
attacker to defender for a second game, we played it instead of 'Hold
at All Costs' as, frankly, it looked more interesting and three
dimensional; i'm not a fan of scenarios where there is really only 1
objective (though ambush is still good)...sorry!
Although a classic idea and a staple in most wargames scenario packs
we do feel Last Stand to be highly favourable to the attacker;
although we did only play it twice (and I feel that there might be a
real nack to being a defender in most scenarios that maybe we haven't
got yet) both times the defenders were swiftly cut down in activations
and failed to be able to respond effectively...losing a third or more
of your armies activations is a massive downside!
We had a few thoughts on how to make it fairer:
      -Entrenchments: rename the Scenario 'Base Attack' (or
something) and give the defender  entrenchments
      -Reinforcements: both armies are Contingents (4) but allow
defenders to bring on their 4th      contingent on turn 3 (if it
consists of move 30 or more units) or on turn 4 if need be.
We did like the fact that the scenario uses objectives though but
would suggest amalgamating 'Process of Elimination' and 'Insert Witty
Name Here' into one objective as they're essentially the same...it
also turns the scenario into a 5 objective game which makes UK tourney
scoring a lot easier!

What to others think?

Best of,
yrs,
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Anyone?!

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

I'll be commenting a little later, was hoping to see comments from other people first.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Not so familiar with the scenarios, but I'm happy to playtest them for real at some point.