Scenario Balance - play test results?

[AJ at the Bank]

Can we please get some advice from play testers please?

With no purchase and points value for field defences - the rules effectively separate the number of units fighting from the amount and type of Defensive terrain.

So if we fight a Deliberate Attack small game (say 1000 points - although not clear how many points each side is meant to have - see other post) - then you still get up to 12 pieces of Defensive Terrain .. Versus if you play a game 3 times that size? Really?

With no points value of the Defensive Terrain - it makes a Massive difference in a small points game - and much less in a larger game.
Did this work in testing?
In addition -
Pages 172 and 173 state that Trenches/wire/dragons teeth are all of whatever length required. What??
So a player can have 12 lines of these across the entire table width - and placed in the Opponents 20cm Static deployment zone ?!!
Try attacking through that??

Has someone worked this through please?

Finally -
(1)Dummy minefields now redundant? Why would these be chosen over real minefields?
(2) Why use wire - why not always have Dragons Teeth now? It stops all vehicles until cleared and is causes infantry etc to treat as linear obstacle - and wire is just an obstacle, which can be breached.
A points system makes these work.

[Steve J]

Hi AJ,
as a playtester, all I can say is that my games were done without the scenarios having been sorted at that point. My aim was to try the rules out and pass on any feedback, queries etc to the author. Having just played one of the new scenarios, I agree that there needs to be a bit of clarity on some points, but I think common sense should prevail on selection of defences. Neither I nor my friends would choose 12 minefields and then sit back for a very, very dull game. (Point of note: we did do a historical scenario once with BKCII with Germans attacking a Soviet bridgehead that had quite a few field minefields, barbed wire etc. The Germans never stood a chance and since then we've avoided these sort of scenarios.)

On your specific points, I would suggest:

- 1 piece of trench that can accomodate 1 x infantry unit, or infantry support unit counts as 1 choice.
- From memory Pete Jones clarified that field defences could be placed in an opponents deployment zone, but I stand to be corrected.
- I must admit the dummy minefield situation I really don't have an answer to.

As with other points of discussion raised so far, maybe simply import the points costs from BKCII and add it to the Errata?

[AJ at the Bank]

Thank you - your reply much appreciated

Yes - we can avoid using the rules here and come up with our own on how long/big the defences are - but  - would have hoped this would have been done in testing ..as its pretty fundamental to most games

But - even if we do that ..
Still have the issues of -
The number of pieces of Defence is not linked to the size of the game (points) and therefore impact/game balance
AND- that they are effectively all the same value (I.e 1 trench is the same as 1 fortification or 1 pill box ...oh no, hang on..pill boxes are not listed (!) ..and they are not fortifications per p172).

So answer is to ignore the new rules and go by old rules on a points system? Oh dear

Ps- how do the Battlegroup points work on the Scenarios please - any idea? Same as old rules or now the same for Attacker and Defender?
Thanks
Adam

[Steve J]

Ps- how do the Battlegroup points work on the Scenarios please - any idea? Same as old rules or now the same for Attacker and Defender?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure. All it says on page 55 in the box is agree the points for each player. As mentioned, I simply did not really look at the scenarios nor the army lists, as I thought that they wouldn't change that much. A case of mea culpa on my part? Possibly.