Just tried to post a much more detailed post on this subject, but unfortunately somehow all the text suddenly disappeared from my screen...

Well, the drift of my post was: we feel this scenario is -contrary to the new trend since the Normandy expansion and designers' series- highly imbalanced in the Americans' favour. The reason is that the 6 Shermans can just blst away at the pillboxes and buildings using concussive firepower. Combine a couple of them and the germans are sitting ducks. So basically the only sensible thing for the Germans to do is to NOT set up and/or enter pillboxes and buildings, let alone ones that are supposed to form part of the formidable Siegfried line...:what:

The Germans do get some (armour) reinforcements later on, but that barely helps, because the Americans get 2 additional m10s as well.....

Possible solutions:

* Ignore concussive firepower SA for this scenario

* Place pillboxes mostly in woods hexes for an additional 2 cover

* Start with at least two and possibly 3 fewer Shermans.

Does anyone have the same experience with this particular scenario? ( last one in the 29th campaign booklet)

PS: This is NOT a rant, overall I'm very happy with the game and the quality of the scenarios of late. So perhaps we're just missing something...(although quite frankly I wouldn't know what....)

I agree that some scenarios are unbalanced but there where alot of battles that where unbalanced in WW2 as well. Infact I would say it was very rare to have anything like balance on the real battlefield since commanders would not attck if they did not have superior firepower and a very good chance to win. Sure there where some acts of desperation but as a rule if you planned an attack you made sure the odds where in your favor.

So the question is do you want your game to be gamey or realistic?

I want a game. For the real thing join the army ;-)

Cyscott1 said:

Well, that's exactly my point. The biggest issue for me as far as this particular scenario is concerned is NOT they fact that it may or may not be imbalanced, but rather the fact that the "safest" place for the Germans to be is anywhere BUT in their pillboxes ( due to the concussive firepower SA). That does seem highly unrealistic to me!

I agree with the rest of your points and especially-because this is a CAMPAIGN, I don't really care whether PART of that campaign (=this scenario) may be imbalanced as long as the entire campaign is! ( That all depends on the victory conditions and not so much on the number of troops, if you know what I mean)

I hope I made myself (more) clear this time....

As for the other post; personally I want a GAME that gives you a good idea of what the tactical decisions were the actual combatants and commanders were faced with and somewhat of a resemblance of "real" tactics ( and I don't think that running as far as possible from a pillbox because tanks are shooting at them from long range is one of them....(if the alternative is being out in the open) ( I did read that in fact the Germans evacuated pillboxes against close assaults, sticky bombs, troops blocking the exits etc. so as far asthat's concerned there's something to say for it, but according to my source ( Victory was beyond their grasp by Douglas E. Nash, tanks hardly made a dent in BUNKERS ( I agree NOT pillboxes) even when they were right on top of them......