Hello!

Here's my story: I bought the game and the Afrika korps expansion and was excited to try my first game.

I gathered my friends, we took the first scenario thinking that it would be a nice introduction to the game, divided into two groups of two players and... It was so freaking unbalanced it put me off the game now for over a year (and running). I am now considering trying the game again, but I won't open the box before one of you tells me a) that there are balanced scenarios and b) which ones they are.

As a result of our first game I collected my stuff, closed the lid and never opened it again. It's still up there in the wardrobe. (And I was even missing one or two Axis soldiers from my box!)

Whoever designed the first scenario and whoever decided it should be the first scenario should be forced to play the first scenario of Descent with a team of vanilla Rogues until they collapse of exhaustion - and then revived and forced to start again!

I don't want a US player daydream of "shooting up the Jerries", I want a tight battle between the Axis and the Allies. Can this game provide me with it?

Yes, this is the weakes part of the game, and its kind of sad, cuz its such a great game in other ways.

I have long wanted to write a reivew of all senarios in the design series. I havent actually played many of them, but I can see a few senarios which has serios flaws even without trying them. I also think that the errate is weak. There are still lots of typos etc. which makes a huge difference when trying to play the senarios.

When it comes to your question, I know from first hand knowledge that 'silence the guns' is a balanced senario. And its a nice one, cuz the US can either try to rush for victory before german reinforcements arive, or they can try to go slower. In my game the US just berly took the victory hex before my german reinforcements arive. Luckily my MG gun managed to stop the sherman berly out of reach. Then my reinforcements arrived and the US gave up. Great senario.

I have also read that stavelot express is balanced, but I have also read that its not. I would not have to much hope for the other senarios in the opening boxes. To me this one looks very fun, but maybe it is more difficult to play as the US?

The senarios in days of the fox is generally thought to be better. I have read a few people saying hellfire pass is good and balanced.

Rescue mission I personly find to have poor victory condition, and atleast prior to FAQ I found it realy favoring the germans. However I have read other people saying its great. Which suprices me.

I havent played or seen a review of operation crusader, but my geuss is that it is quit balanced. In total, the german tanks are sligthly more powerfull, but you get one less.

Fall of ToBRUK: good balanced senario. I have seen both English and the german win. The english will get beaten, but will they be beaten within the time frame? The only complain is that the UK may place a minefield using desert tactics deck, which many people find to be stupid and strange. If you give the german troops 'remove mine field' operation card I guess that the problem is solved.

Valey of death is an unbalanced senario favoring the UK and US. With 4 flamers and to tanks, and the fact that the uk&us can focus all forces on one side makes it hard for the german to protect. Assault on kideny ridge I have heared favors the germans slightly. But ofcourse the opening senarios of tide of iron is one of the worst.

Granted, balancing a board game is one of the hardest things to do, but the first scenario is not even remotely balanced - the US keep getting reinforcements from turn 1 even though the Germans are hard-pressed to win even with the starting forces. I was wondering whether I read the rules incorrectly after getting acquainted with the first scenario. It looked so ridiculous from the onset.

Considering that the idea of a board game is to provide a fun challenge for both players and that the first scenario will inevitably be the one that most players will try first - and which will thus act as the greatest advertisement for the game - it's almost criminal that the first scenario is so wildly out of balance.

My only guess is that they wanted the US to win the first game so that the biggest market will get their satisfaction, so they made the first scenario a guaranteed US victory.

I don't know, but such short-sightedness and, well, amateurship in game design makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Thanks for the tips. I think I'll try the game again. After all, it's been over a year since my unfortunate debute.

I suggest Chain of Command from the ToI product page if you want a good, fun, reasonably short and balanced introductory scenario.

Breaking the Line is also Ok.

Forget about most of the scenarios that come with the base game - whoever thought people would enjoy at The Breaking Point as an introductory scenario was nuts.

I have played and enjoyed 4 of the 6 scenarios in Days of the Fox and they are certainly an improvement over the base game.

TeufelHund said:

Agreed!

Check out the support section:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp

as well as the scenario editor section where you can find many custom scenarios created by players.

app.fantasyflightgames.com/tideofiron_scenarios.html

I will tell you balanced scenario's is the hardest thing to do. I know the 4 i did in Days of the Fox should give both sides equal chances to win but it takes quite a few plays to get there

BJaffe01

If you don't like the balance of a scenario make a change to it. It's simple to do. For example I reduced the Shermans in Crossroads from 12 to 10 and that helped balance a lot.

Agreed that the intro scenario did great harm to this games reputation and sales. However in my mind as soon as I played the game the first time I knew it was a good one despite the poor intro scenario.

Whitmire said:

The best part about TOI is it's ability to be customised. It's true that some scenarios could be better, but hey don't put the box away!!! You are missing out on so much!! Being new to the game it's tough to know what to change and by how much but I strongly encourage you to just keep playing. I myself found the downloadable scenario "Tiger Hunt" a very close game every time with both sides winning sometimes on the last throw of the die, so it doesn't get any closer than that!

But no matter what you play- keep in mind that you have the ability to change things about - give the German's a few more squads or change strategy decks - whattever you want to allow yourself the chance to enjoy all this game has to offer.

I have been thinking about this.

Given the time frame of the base game, was it ever balanced given the situation the Germans were in at that point in the war?

WarRealm said:

Probably not at the strategic level. :-)

But at the tactical (ToI) level, there were still some interesting, more or less balanced engagements. But ToI is not Warhammer or Flames of War, where you try to create balance by using a points system to create your force. In ToI, balance should lie in selecting an interesting situation and then measuring player success by comparing their perfomance to their historical counterparts. So, even if you objectively lose a fight, you can still win the game by doing better than your historical counterpart.

The final scenario from Days of the Fox (Kidney Ridge?) is great and also " To save Bastogne " from the Designer series.

Here is my system. Play each scenario with a pad and pen. After each game make notes on +'s and -'s on both sides. After playing several times you can 'adjust" troopers and obstacles and such to balance the scenario, if you see a pattern in one sides' favor. I do this for several games and then in the scenario book, i make notes to change this squads speciallty from medic to flammer or whatever and balance it to suit me.

sgtwaka that's a good idea and one that many should copy.

BJaffe01

Hi

i don`t have all the expansions there is, but compared to MM44 TOI don`t have many scenarios. And many complains about game balance. I don`t mind that some scenarioes are unbalanced, (as many battles fought in WW2 where unbalanced). But maybe the designers should make a rating system, that easily tells if this scenario favours that side or this side. like 3:1 in Allied favours, means that 2 times out of 3 the allies are likely to win that scenario.

I think having unbalanced scenarios is something that should be part of the TOI scenario lines. In that way having unbalanced but rated scenarioes can make it more balanced for a veteran gamer to play with a new player and still be challenged. And think of the satisfaction if you win a battle that was supposed to be very hard for you to win?

just my thoughts....