| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16563 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Man of kent [ Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t |
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> |
|
| Author: | Man of kent [ Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t |
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> |
|
| Author: | Man of kent [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t |
Anyone?! |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t |
Quote: (Man of kent @ 29 Aug. 2009, 13:07 ) Anyone?! I'll be commenting a little later, was hoping to see comments from other people first. |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | TotalWar Playtesting Discussion t |
Not so familiar with the scenarios, but I'm happy to playtest them for real at some point. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|