by stuuk
First, before anyone goes off saying I'm slagging the system - I'm not, it's a good system and I like the way the game plays (and I'm damn sure I've spent enough money on it!
) but.. the scenarios seem very poorly designed.
I don't recall which ones we've done in the past but we did #6 just yesterday which is a truly bizarre situation anyway (warpac attack with a variable objective (?!) with a Brit attack coming the other way for the /same/ variable objective).
Now I'm all for interesting scenarios but that is well.. very unlikely shall we say and leave it at that.
In any case, the Brits are attacking or at least must occupy a built up area with tanks (yeah, really) and the pact has the typical mixed tank/BMP mechanised Btn.
So the Brits get their chits and deploy into the objective town & go on overwatch. The Soviets, moving more slowly due to less chits prepare an assault on the now-occupied defence.
A quick look at the board would seem to suggest the Soviets are not likely to do well here, but there are no reinforcements so we go on the attack anyway.
We have no artillery and no smoke. (not sure why we get a recce unit, he goes and has a cup of tea or more sensibly a vodka).
To get to the town we must cross open ground, and a bridge.
NATO gets something like 1.5 chits to every pact chit in the draws, roughly. And there are tornados and jamming too.
Result = Soviets manage to get into the open, before the NATO target practice begins. Many burning Soviet T80 / BMPs.
Even the NATO player was bored with this one as it offered no challenge other than how fast could the Soviet die.
Is it just us or is anyone else experiencing similar things?
I do remember being unsatisfied with previous scenarios out of this box too.
Yeah, I'm a hardcore air & armor, tac air, Fist full of TOWs type so AWAW is for me akin to a short snack but I still hope for vaguely balanced scenarios (not the NATO dream of open fields and impotent Russians, dead at 2500 meters).