I Had a total blast and got to experience almost all the best elements of this game. I play a lot of games, but not a lot of this one.
+5 across the board, in every metric.
I know the Axis crybabies posting above me will skip over my wall of text I plan to write. Go ahead skip over it. Skip over training too. Skip over teamwork. Skip tactics as well.
Why +5???
Because : Even when the Axis had far more planes and players, including better aces, the Allies TEAMWORK and TACTICS and TRAINING really paid off.
It is true that in most non-strategy games involving about +/- 15% luck (cards , dice, etc) the winner of a two party game says "I WON BECAUSE OF SKILL" and the loser invariably laments "I LOST BECAUSE OF BAD LUCK". But this is a true baTTLE STRATEGY GAME and no "luck" mechanics forced ARTIFICIALLY on it. Its played over 4 sessions, and multiple hours per session.
I'm all for ""close sports games" with nearly-tied scores... but in this case the victors each time were the statistical UNDERDOGS, and we trained , and trained, and took our designated roles, and followed our orders.
FOR THE TEAM EFFORT and TEAM VICTORY
Man a field gun instead of glory hound ? Sure!
Wait 20 minutes before going in to a perfectly timed weak spot ? Sure!
Play cautious and use ground attack planes to attack GROUND TARGETS at all costs ? Sure !
Practice barack attacks offline at various attack angles, speeds, and study field maps, although tedious ? Sure !
+5 is my true honest assessment of this after learning more about how ineptly the Axis was using its ATTACK PLANES, because the scoring reflects many subtle things the Axis would only know if they had audio of our entire team to reflect upon.
ALLIES won because of strategy and tactics.
--Feign radar signatures to tickle fasle intentions.
--Use specific altitudes to fake out squadron identification on other side.
--use convoluted but specifically timed attacks, sometimes down to tiny windows of opportunity
--use the proper planes for the proper roles
--use sacrificial scouts as needed
STRATEGY is why the allies repeatedly won this very fun VERY MATHEMATICALLY BALANCED AND TUNED SCENARIO.
It was not the token "bomber group aspect" added for flavor.
I read everyone's reviews above me and I noticed a fantastic biased trend ... the Axis losers all erroneously seem to think this historic scenario was not fair or balanced enough... HOW??? Really how??? Thats probably a semi-joke. If every player switched sides (countries) HALFWAY through a slightly asymmetrical scenario (2 weeks allied, 2 weeks axis) The Per-Game SCORES WOULD BE NEALRY THE SAME OUTCOME ! I'd bet on it. Maybe one scenario could be done that way by merely having two two-week phases. But the Axis losers would shockingly lose the same on either side and become atrocious Allied Losers. The heavy bomber guys and gals would enjoy two weeks less. But the sobering FACTS about strategy would really hit home. The sting would be greater.
Because anyone could tell that strategy was key to winning. Not ace-level flight skill.
TACTICS TEAMWORK TRAINING ... and the scores really truly reflect what good leadership can achieve !!!
Ground targets were the scenario... take a look at the logs.... notice a trend... Allies played maturely and properly, and were rewarded for their efforts.
Bravo Brooke! Thanks for letting me feel the recreation of a real battle scenario. Thanks for a fun and exciting Scenario.
--Killyjim
