View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:08 am




Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Final Revisions? 
Author Message
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4030
Location: Fortress Knox
As I get ready to finalize the Firestorm packet to submit to BF, I'd like to hear suggestions from the players if there are any on recommended changes.

Some changes I'm considering now:

1) Adding more areas on the west edge of the map - We almost had US units backing off the "board."

2) Breaking the city of Bastogne into two areas - 50pts was a BIG chunk of VPs, so big that it almost overrides all else. By breaking it up, it opens up a chance for a split and then the other factors might matter then,

3) Fuel shortage rules for the Germans - Maybe a "6" on a D6 would prevent a German tank/mech unit from moving in a given turn after turn 2 (I assume an initial fuel) load.

Let me know what you think!

Tom


Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:11 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2167
Location: NoVa
For an answer to your point one look at point 2.

This game is all about bastonge. If you own it you win the game. The allies need to do what ever they can to hold it. The germans need to concentrate on capturing it. The allies should never retreat from it and need to pile their forces into it. To split up the points weakens the end goal. Splitting up the points makes it possible to win without capturing Bastonge.


Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:46 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:06 am
Posts: 780
Location: Wiesbaden, DE
I recommend against the Pincer mission as an option especially during Fog rules

Agree on the fuel rules.

Other example based on Battleground Wacht am Rhein... Roll a dice at the beginning of the game or maybe on turn 3. A roll of 1 = vehicle out of fuel. Rolling every turn would be too much additional work.

I would have recommended waiting until December for the campaign. We just finished Market Garden and life is very busy in October. December is when things take a break.

I wouldnt mind seeing the North shoulder of the campaign.

Overall we really enjoyed the campaign. Thanks and need help in the future let us know.

_________________
http://shermon.wordpress.com/

Image Image Image


Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:42 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2167
Location: NoVa
Let me add, the name is FS Bastonge. If you want to rename it as something else and make a larger area of the entire campaign, then you can lessen the points for Bastonge and have more areas to the west.

But them this would be a slightly different game. (aka MG or Lorraine et.al.) For this particular game, leave the points for Bastonge as is and leave the small western area as the US needs to stay or be destroyed at Bastonge. To retreat to the west creates the same result for the US, giving up Bastonge and losing.


Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:26 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4030
Location: Fortress Knox
Bastogne would still be worth a total of 50pts. It would just have two a North sector and a South Sector worth 25pts each. Keeping Bastogne will, still be the #1 VP determination if a side controls BOTH halves, but if the each side controls one of part of the city of Bastogne, the other VPs could become more relevant. Right now it's an all or nothing affair.

The Germans in the actual campaign ultimately did not take Bastogne in a large part because the XLVII decided they had more important things to do. 2nd Pz Div Commander was told to "Forget Bastogne" and drive on to the west. The Germans did bypass it and continue on. So I'm not sure retaining Bastogne is as important as much as the amount of German units and focus it ties up and takes away from the main effort. Even if Bastogne fell, but the XLVII was decimated in the process, then I'd still call it a US win as the XLVII Panzer Korps would be bled out and not be able to achieve the final more important objectives...Meuse River crossings further west. This is why Germans could get VPs by sending units off the map before the last turn.

Kind of like the Alamo...yes it fell, but at what cost in time and blood for Santa Anna?


Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:05 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2167
Location: NoVa
"Right now it's an all or nothing affair." Being called FS Bastonge, I think that is correct. If anything, add some points to the removing of units. That tweak gives both sides the option of concentrating on Bastonge or the action of troop removal.

"The Germans in the actual campaign ultimately did not take Bastogne in a large part because the XLVII decided they had more important things to do." And they lost the battle. Bastonge is at a crucial crossroads. All roads lead to & from there. 20/20 hindsite states that XLVII decision was the wrong one. By not taking it, the timetable was useless as it took more fuel & time to go around it.

" It would just have two a North sector and a South Sector worth 25pts each." I think the way FS is designed, this is a bad idea. This will split the US forces or create a the ability to do a tie. By just taking one sector and the others then a side can win and still not have bastonge. If you split it all it should be split as a circle having an inner and outer circle. That will fit more with the way the roads are.

You asked about peoples views and mine is that the current design is good with the focus on Bastonge.

If you do a FS Bulge, then you can have more territory to the west and Bastonge not be as large of a point objective.


Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:43 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4030
Location: Fortress Knox
I do appreciate the input!

I don't plan to expand this to a full Bulge. My next Fiestorm project will be for Team Yankee.


Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:15 pm
Profile WWW
Private

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 16
Iron-Tom wrote:
As I get ready to finalize the Firestorm packet to submit to BF, I'd like to hear suggestions from the players if there are any on recommended changes.

1) Adding more areas on the west edge of the map - We almost had US units backing off the "board."

2) Breaking the city of Bastogne into two areas - 50pts was a BIG chunk of VPs, so big that it almost overrides all else. By breaking it up, it opens up a chance for a split and then the other factors might matter then,

3) Fuel shortage rules for the Germans - Maybe a "6" on a D6 would prevent a German tank/mech unit from moving in a given turn after turn 2 (I assume an initial fuel) load.

Tom


Hi Tom,

I liked you campaign and enjoyed playing it very much. As a player I don't like to argue much about the rules. I except them and play by them. If I don't like the rules I do not play that game.

Global tactics and decision in this campaign were made by Generals from both sides. For example, German HQ decided to move some units of the board and gain VP points and not using that same units in the attack on Bastogne or other areas. My idea was to push as much forward as possible and to reach the end of the map, blocking the US reserves which could come to relieve Bastogne. Also, having Bastogne completely surrounded could help to take it easier. I think, during the campaign, Germans had a lot of luck, reaching Bastogne on time. The final total war game was won by the Germans with the one last dice roll (Americans didn't counterattacked because they didn't passed the motivation test). Having sent some units off the table, German general did a good job because that points made the difference and the final outcome of the campaign was not a draw.

So, regarding your questions, here are my two cents.

1) Since, as you said, this is Bastogne and not global Ardennes campaign, I think you don need to add more areas behind Bastogne. Germans have 6 turns to reach Bastogne and to try to surround it. If they are fast and lucky they can succeed. If they succeed then they should be rewarded with backing US units off the board.

2) It is all about Bastogne. I don't like the idea breaking the town in two areas because we could have the situation where Germans win the campaign on points, securing only one side of the town. I believe making the map and dividing the ares was not a simple task, and you did a great job!

3) Fuel shortage is a factor of realism, but I think it would dis-balance the campaign. Supplies are not included in FoW and only hard core strategic games have them. A couple of unlucky rolls for the Germans and the campaign would be lost before it starts. Rolling for FS troop is just enough of random factors. Not to mention many moral rolls and re-rolls during the games :)

To conclude, I am sure, even if you don't change anything, army of players will have fun with your campaign. Just explain, in the rules, how and which companies to choose from the books, depending of the turn and the battle area. I also had a difficulties to understand how far some units can move after the battles. Does adjacent enemy units have "zone of control" forbidding to move more than one space while in the contact with the enemy? And advice players how to choose two-three preferred missions for the specific area. For me, mission options were a big factor to decidee which battle to play.

Cheers
Milan

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

35,681,044 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y