Survey -- your favorite and least favorite scenarios

[Brooke]

The first time I rated the scenarios I gave what I thought the general public feel of the scenario was. I went back and modify it to reflect how I personally felt at the end of the scenarios.

Thanks for the change, then, since this topic is "Survey -- your favorite and least favorite scenarios" and not "Survey -- what you think are other's favorite and least favorite scenarios".

[Babalonian]

DoB '09:  +3 

It was a good scenario, but it seems to of been very uncharted territory for the GV elements.

My honest opinion was that the air units were micromanaged per usual (and they seemed to of had the most success) while the ground units were simply told what to drive, what base to spawn at and what base was their final destination (very MA-horde-like).  Look at what more is put into the air unit's orders and planning than simply "fly this, eventually end up at X" and I think you'll resolve a bit of the GVers frustration.  And maybe the map wasn't right or as friendly for such things to the GVers (Tunisia the map itself, with all those players on it I think was way too big for the specific regions we were all fighting in).  I'd like to see smaller maps for GV-scenarios, where there may be only a handful of bases for each side but significant geographical features are charted and marked along the map.  The end result being a map friendly towards GV missions and orders (IE: Y-battalion will take and hold hill 405, supported by X-battalion on hill 480, and reinforced by Z-battalion coming north between hill 480 and 310.  Once Y-battalion has secured hill 405, X-battalion will advance to V123, supported by Y-battalion on hill 405, and reinforced by Z-battalion moving in from hill 405.).

Just my 2-cents.

[Fianna]

My honest opinion, from an axis point of view, was that the air units were micromanaged per usual (and they seemed to of had the most success) while the ground units were simply told what to drive, what base to spawn at and what base was their final destination (very MA-horde-like).  Look at what more is put into the air unit's orders and planning than simply "fly this, eventually end up at X" and I think you'll resolve a bit of the GVers frustration.  And maybe the map wasn't right or as friendly for such things to the GVers (Tunisia the map itself, with all those players on it I think was way too big for the specific regions we were all fighting in).  I'd like to see smaller maps for GV-scenarios, where there may be only a handful of bases for each side but significant geographical features are charted and marked along the map.  The end result being a map friendly towards GV missions and orders (IE: Y-battalion will take and hold hill 405, supported by X-battalion on hill 480, and reinforced by Z-battalion coming north between hill 480 and 310.  Once Y-battalion has secured hill 405, X-battalion will advance to V123, supported by Y-battalion on hill 405, and reinforced by Z-battalion moving in from hill 405.).

Just my 2-cents.

Fixed it for you.

[OOZ662]

Stalin's Fourth worked very well for GVs. This one really didn't seem to.

[Ponyace]

DoB '09:  +3 

It was a good scenario, but it seems to of been very uncharted territory for the GV elements.

My honest opinion was that the air units were micromanaged per usual (and they seemed to of had the most success) while the ground units were simply told what to drive, what base to spawn at and what base was their final destination (very MA-horde-like).  Look at what more is put into the air unit's orders and planning than simply "fly this, eventually end up at X" and I think you'll resolve a bit of the GVers frustration.  And maybe the map wasn't right or as friendly for such things to the GVers (Tunisia the map itself, with all those players on it I think was way too big for the specific regions we were all fighting in).  I'd like to see smaller maps for GV-scenarios, where there may be only a handful of bases for each side but significant geographical features are charted and marked along the map.  The end result being a map friendly towards GV missions and orders (IE: Y-battalion will take and hold hill 405, supported by X-battalion on hill 480, and reinforced by Z-battalion coming north between hill 480 and 310.  Once Y-battalion has secured hill 405, X-battalion will advance to V123, supported by Y-battalion on hill 405, and reinforced by Z-battalion moving in from hill 405.).

Just my 2-cents.

Just goes to show it depends on who's in charge:
The Allies were very well organized with an excellent GV general in the form of Sloehand. He did an excellent job of using the advantages of our tanks and a well organized defensive battle plan to prevent the Axis from using the superior range of the Tiger. Also, we had excellent maps with all the hills marked and the ridges noted. It was very well done. Also, The Allies had a dedicated CAS in the form of the 47th BG (Well done Alpo and Co.) who worked well with Fencer and his CAS control team on the ground.

Overall, I think was the Allied excellent Chain-of-Command, tactics, and leadership that led to victory. You'll see what I mean when the Allied forums open up.

Although I do agree, the battle was too small and too focused to the Kasserine area.

Just my thoughts, however.

[OOZ662]

The Axis tanks had no organization past the GL level. Our orders were also very general (Take this field. Hold it.). We also had no common interaction with the aircraft. I'd compare us more to chess pieces than part of a larger group, as the commanders had everything planned out for us and yet didn't really let us know what those plans were...unless the plan actually was "Take that base and hold it" in its entirety.

[whiteman]

guess yall will be jealous when you see what the allied GV orders looked like.

[OOZ662]

Not jealous, but wishful I suppose.

[Husky01]

Ooz we did micro manage you guys in frame one and look how it turned out.

Because of the setup with the Axis having to defend multiple bases at time while the Allies only had to defend one meant that micromanaging the GV's would (and did in frame 1) result in having tank squadrons sitting on V46 and V105 the whole frame just waiting for the Allies to bomb them out and run a M3 in there.

I made the decision after frame 1 that I would not make my guys sit behind the fight and wait to get bombed out anymore. I had all the tanks on the front line hoping, praying that they would see some action. I was willing to give up V46 or V105 if it meant the tankers got to see some action.

We did the best we could with the setup to try and make it fun for you tankers.

[HB555]

Coral Sea (April, 2005) +5
Fire Over Malta (November, 2005) +4
Stalin's Fourth (April, 2006) +3
Operation Downfall (July, 2006) +3
Battle of Britain 2006 (September, 2006) +4
Operation Husky (June, 2007) +4
Der Grosse Schlag (October, 2007) +4
Rangoon, '42 (2008) (August, 2008) +4
Battle of Britain 2008 (November, 2008)+4
Tunisia, Dawn of Battle (April, 2009) +4

Can't remember back any further than that.
Making my own fun in scenarios since I was a puppy.

[Roscoroo]

Coral Sea (April, 2005) +5
Fire Over Malta (November, 2005) +4
Stalin's Fourth (April, 2006) +3
Operation Downfall (July, 2006) +3
Battle of Britain 2006 (September, 2006) +4
Operation Husky (June, 2007) +4
Der Grosse Schlag (October, 2007) +4
Rangoon, '42 (2008) (August, 2008) +4
Battle of Britain 2008 (November, 2008)+4
Tunisia, Dawn of Battle (April, 2009) +4

Can't remember back any further than that.
Making my own fun in scenarios since I was a puppy.

and He got those Long ears from  the windows being left open in a B-17 ...way way way back during "Big Week" I think...  We had Dog Slobber from nose to tail ..and not on HB 

[Sloehand]

DoB '09:  +3 

It was a good scenario, but it seems to of been very uncharted territory for the GV elements.

My honest opinion was that the air units were micromanaged per usual (and they seemed to of had the most success) while the ground units were simply told what to drive, what base to spawn at and what base was their final destination (very MA-horde-like).  Look at what more is put into the air unit's orders and planning than simply "fly this, eventually end up at X" and I think you'll resolve a bit of the GVers frustration.  And maybe the map wasn't right or as friendly for such things to the GVers (Tunisia the map itself, with all those players on it I think was way too big for the specific regions we were all fighting in).  I'd like to see smaller maps for GV-scenarios, where there may be only a handful of bases for each side but significant geographical features are charted and marked along the map.  The end result being a map friendly towards GV missions and orders (IE: Y-battalion will take and hold hill 405, supported by X-battalion on hill 480, and reinforced by Z-battalion coming north between hill 480 and 310.  Once Y-battalion has secured hill 405, X-battalion will advance to V123, supported by Y-battalion on hill 405, and reinforced by Z-battalion moving in from hill 405.).

Just my 2-cents.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the Allies Armored Forces orders or Battleplans for each frame.  We had mission objectives such has hold H106 or H101, with several mission options depending on the flow of battle and the COA (Course Of Action) of the enemy.  Our "regimental commanders" had to both repond to orders from Command, but also exercise their own judgement on how they executed their missions.

My whole focus and desire was to make the GV side of the scenario less like the MA and more like a real tactical ground battle, at least as much as the Rules, terrain and general gameplay would allow.  IMO too much aerial bombing of GV's, regardless of points or lives lost or not, ruins the experience for tankers and makes just to much like the MA, frustrating when trying to do anything.

Frame One and maybe a little at the end of Frame Four were the only times where the tanks could maneuver and fight it out tank vs. tank.  The rest was just dancing around waiting for the bombers to smear one side or the other.

[moot]

+4, or +3 if I don't ignore the frustration of being stuck with Kasserine Groundhog Day.

[Alpo]

Dawn of Battle 2009 (April, 2009) +4, easily could go higher with minor modifications

Rangoon, '42 (2008) (August, 2008) +0, enjoyed the time I had as an A20 pilot, but the huge pig pile tactics this scenario pushes doesn't work with the game

Der Grosse Schlag (October, 2007) +5, could be better if weather was handled by the game differently

Battle of Britain 2006 (September, 2006) +3, really need the He-111 though

Stalin's Fourth (April, 2006) -4, the swamps   

Coral Sea (April, 2005) +5, liked the initial CV usage, didn't care for the PT silliness at the end at Port Moresby

[Brooke]

Here is how I rate my enjoyment in each:

Tunisia:  Dawn of Battle (April, 2009) +4
Battle of Britain 2008 (November, 2008) +4
Rangoon, '42 (2008) (August, 2008) +4
Der Grosse Schlag (October, 2007) +5
Operation Husky (June, 2007) +3
Battle of Britain 2006 (September, 2006) +4
Operation Downfall (July, 2006) +3
Stalin's Fourth (April, 2006) +5
Fire Over Malta (November, 2005) +4
Coral Sea (April, 2005) +5
Rangoon, '42 (October, 2004) +4
Battle of Britain 2004 (August, 2004) +4