KlausFritsch said:

Hi Bill

Can you shed some light on the set-up in scenario 6?

Grand Stone said:

That's what I'll do as well when I get to play it. Anyway, there were no panthers in 1942, so they shouldn't be in the scenario in the first place.

Sadly without the scenarios to look at,my notes from a year ago are missing,i can't comment about scenario 6's setup.

but i will once i secure a copy

BJaffe01

Dang Bill, they didn't even give you a copy?

Hi, I didn't played the fotb scenarios yet.

but what i found out is, that in most scenarios, the defending fraction has a really big problem, when placing his starting units in a not nearly perfect way.

i had this problem several times. i placed them in a way i thought it was fine. but when my friend started to play i saw that it wasn't the best wayfrom that point on it was nearly impossible to react an his actions in an effectiv way.

maybe this could be changed in future scenarios, to give the defending fraction more opportunities to react -and like said before, give the non-german fraction more opportunities to fight the very powerful german tanks. i had this problem also before fotb. sometimes its just too difficult to even harm them.

klarlack said:

If you find the set-up instructions too restrictive, give the defender more freedom in placing units the next time you play the scenario.

Cyscott1 eventually i'll have a copy but it's more important to have it your hands than mine. besides not having a copy has allowed me time to research more Soviet info.

BJaffe01

In a few scenarios both sides have to attack,play aggresive. The scenarios in designer series are of excelent quality,playing a good scenario realy improves the game.

The general balance between attackerdefender may also be blured by the fact that US typically attacksgerman typically defends. And it seems to be the general trend that the US is slightly more powerfull than the german. But I also agree with you on the fact that the placement of defenders is critticalthere is small room for adjustments as the scenario goes by. So it may be general that its easier to make big mistakes as defender,maybe the mistakes have greater importance.

I think yoursmy definition of Exelent quality differs quite al lot. The designer series just makes me want to beat the playtesters up. Of course the Meat Grinder scenarios makes me wonder if they actualy played it before printing it.

KlausFritsch said:

I've always found it to be just the other way around:

- the defender sets up last in most (all?) scenario's because the side with starting initiative has to deploy first

- units can be placed in op-fire before the turn actually starts

... how much more freedom can you actually get?

Hefsgaard:

Maybe I should have been more precise. 1/3 of the scenarios in designer series are unplayable, (due to typos, unbalance etc. etc.) 1/3 are only realy realy bad, but a handfull of scenarios are excelent? For example, if you try to play 'a ring around achen' you will be disapointed, because there is some unkown typo there which noone yet has replied to. 1) the german cannot place all units on the board (not enough room) 2) the US can easily win round 1 simply by walking into all victory hexes.

Night hunt, To save bastogne and Bloody Lindern are three scenarios which I have played which I know are of excelent quality!

In night hunt you got to realise that there is a typo regarding setup: switch the starting point of US division 1 and division 2 and you'll have a great scenario, where both sides have to play aggresive to win. (since this is a great scenario if the typo is fixed, this is also a question which should have been fixed in a FAQ but it has not)

Thus, if 2 of the 8 scenarios in FoB is excelent, I would not care much that the other 6 are unplayable, cuz I would not play them anyway.

@latro:

the problem is that the attacker has normally more units to place and play with. so loosing one or two of these units isn't nice but won't break your neck. the defender often has only the minimum of units you need to defeat the enemy. loosing one or two units as the defender CAN break your neck. so you can place your units after the attacker did. ok, i agree, this is an advantage. but sometimes you underestimate a situation that MAY appear in the future of this scenario. so you now maybe would have the problem that you cannot react anymore because of the wrong (or not perfect) setup. thats sometimes a little bit frustrating. both played well and chose good strategies but the defender lost because of a mistake he made just before the real game started....

just my opinion

klarlack said:

I find that one of the more interesting aspects of ToI. It just makes me want to play the scenario again with a little different st-up, to find out if can't do better then.

Obvious tactical solutions are boring.

KlausFritsch said:

i agree. but i think thats sometimes just the problem. you have to use a certain setup to have a chance. of course you can play it twice, but some more options also for the defender would be better, or not?

klarlack said:

True, but what you describe is either a player mistake or an imbalance in a specific scenario, not an overall disadvantage for the defender.

(And I do agree that some scenario's could use a bit of finetuning ... )

In a typical attacker versus defender scenario, the initial setup of the forces preaty much defines your strategy for the game, while the attacker can modify it as time passes. And, yes that can be irritating at times, but I guess thats natural for such scenarios. As long as the defender is stationary, it actually hard to change.

I then recommend to search for alternative scenario where both sides have to be play aggressive. They also tend to be more fun. Bloody lindern, night hunt and to save bastogne are my three favorites so far.

I'm with you 100% on your comments regarding typos, playability, game balance, etc.

I wonder about the future of FFG with the quality of product they put out. I mean after all the mistakes in there other products (Designer Series, etc) you would think extra care would be put into the garbae they are selling. I picture the designers sitting around patting themselves on the back and laughing at the illiterate customers who buy there junk.

It is truly sad that TOI has so much potential to be a great game and the scenarios are just crap.

As an example, night hunt in design series has one tiny missprint, which there have been sevral reports questions about. If you dont relize the missprint the scenario would be completly different. However FFG has not bothered to reply. The sad part is that this is one of the excelet scenarios, IF it is played correctly.

Grand Stone said:

I don't get it either that no FFG official bothers to reply officially to questions raised on this board or on BGG for that matter.

Kingtiger said:

Yeah, but how often did an official FFG representative come by to even mention that FotB was delayed??? For months we were left with rumor and speculation. Was it going to be at Origins? GenCon? Christmas??? We waited and waited for leaks and previews. When it comes to communication, FFG would rather spend their time on proofreading and playtesting (<= last statement meant to be 100% sarcasm!).

Grand Stone said:

What is the misprint in question then?

I dont have the game infront of me, but the starting position of US division 1 and division 2 should be switched. Ie, the tanks should set up in the town since this is what has been described in the text prior to the scenario.

This has been commented sevral times. By me and by other at BBG.