Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

General Cope and I just finished a jewel of a battle at Niagra, scenario #46 from FIW. The new Indian fire range of 2 hexes works well, though I didn't have any on my side so Garry might have a different opinion. Indians used correctly as he did, are still a formidable force to recon with, as they can swarm all over you and have to be melee'ed in force to shoo them away. Appropriately, their small but numerous units make them dangerous as flankers.

There was lots of thrust and parry in this game, and nearly every thrust I made was masterfully parried! It was evident to me that about two thirds into the game that we'd have a draw, so more as an experiment than anything else, on the second to last turn I meleed four ship units that Garry had placed next to a land hex. Poof...no more bateaux units, and the unit that did the melee advanced into a water hex. I'm not sure I can fully justify all that, but on my next turn the unit in question could not change formation, could not move out of the water hex, could do nothing but change facing. I tried moving it into an adjacent friendly occupied land hex but got a "can't move over a bridge with blocking unit" type message. I moved the blocking unit and still could not move the unit out of the water, nor to any other adjacent land hex. Good thing it was the second to last turn as it was permanently stuck. Bug?

Also, in this scenario the only victory values that are even remotely obtainable IMO is a British minor defeat and a draw. The other three victory values are totally unreachable. No sour grapes, just an observation and suggestion that they might need adjusting to something a little more reasonable.

Phil,

"Bug?" ....Yes it is. Land units can melee ships in water that are adjacent to the land or a bridge, and then the unit is stuck. It's an engine glitch that only shows up on certain types of maps (hand made ones.) [:)]

Also, if you have an inf/cav unit with a "B" next to its movement factor (meaning it has boats and can enter or exit water hexes) it can successfully 'overrun' a ship of any size. [:(] Players are encouraged to play realistically, and not take out the British Fleet at Louisbourg for example with a single canoe full of Indians. [;)]
----
In my scenarios I deliberately set the Major Victory/Defeat levels far enough out that a player will have to REALLY work at it to earn it, and even then maybe get lucky. I think in history Major Victory/Defeat was rare, and by setting those levels out 'so far', it challenges players (maybe gives them reason) to play them over and over to see if they can get that elusive Major result.
----
Glad you enjoyed scenario.

"In my scenarios I deliberately set the Major Victory/Defeat levels far enough out that a player will have to REALLY work at it to earn it, and even then maybe get lucky."

I don't think I can agree with this design philosophy. It's catagorically impossible for either side to attain a major victory in this scenario, even a minor victory would require perfect play from one side, and very sloppy play from the other, and tons of luck besides. I'd much prefer that FIW be consistant with the other two games in the series in this regard, otherwise we're going to have a vast majority of games ending in draws, and that is NOT enjoyable IMO.

Phil

"It's catagorically impossible for either side to attain a major victory" -Phil

I disagree with the above, but repsect your right to have your own opinion.

As with the other two games in the series, players can freely alter scenarios and send them to Rich Hamilton for him to post at his SDC site.

In the past players have done so to 'address' play balance issues and concerns they had with the canned scenarios. I see this a perfectly suitable way to handle 'differences' in game philosophy.

In this scenario the Brits need 900 points for a major win, with 100 points of objectives available to them. 100 French casualties yields 40 points and there are 1935 Frenchmen. 19.35 times 40 is 774 points, add the 100 objective points and the total is 874. Capturing both objectives and wiping out the French army to a man still doesn't yield a major win. And that's taking into consideration that the Brits don't lose ANY points at all. Minor wins are only slightly more attainable given these figures. It's not much easier for the French either, so I'm not being biased here.

It's not good when both players know without a doubt on turn 16 of a 24 turn game that it will end in a draw, with competent play from both sides, and there's nothing they can do about it. I'm not into building new scenarios, so if any of the victory values in FIW remain unobtainable for either side, I'll mainly stick with '76 and '12.

Phil,

Remember Rich created over 100 scenarios as well. Perhaps, his philosophy is more in line with yours.

Here is my math. First a quick reminder to all about how the points are awarded.

"The Point Values for French and British Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, and Supply are the Victory Points awarded for each strength point loss suffered by that side for that type of unit. For Infantry and Cavalry, this is measured in 25 man increments, for Artillery, in single cannon losses, and for Supply in increments of 10 supply points..."

In the scenario I awarded 10 points for infantry and 20 for artillery.

Victory Levels are: Fr Mj Vic: -500, Fr Mn Vic: -150 Br Mn Vic: 550 Br Mj Vic: 900

The British have 1,956 men and the cannon do not give victory points (emplaced artillery.) This would yield 1,956/25*10=782.4 points + 200 objective points = 942.4

The French have 1,931 men the cannon and boats do not give victory points (emplaced artillery.) This would yield 1,931/25*10=772.4 + 100 objective points = 872.4

The French can earn a Minor Victory by keeping thier battery (100 points), capturing the fort (200 points) and by eliminating 150/10*25=375 more Britsh than they lose. To earn a Major Victory they must eliminate 500/10*25=1,250 more British than they lose. A daunting task, yes. An impossible one, no.

The British can earn a Minor Victory by holding thier fort (200 points) and eliminating 350/10*25=875 more Frenchmen than they lose, or by holding the fort, capturing the French battery (100 points) and eliminating 250/10*25=625 more Frenchmen than they lose.

The British can earn a Major Victory by holding thier fort (200 points) and eliminating 700/10*25=1,750 Frenchmen, or by holding the fort, capturing the battery (100 points) and eliminating 600/10*25=1,500 Frenchmen. A rout indeed! As it should be.

I disagree with victory levels being set where one only has to kill 3 more men than the other side to 'earn' a major victory.

One more thing to add, this scenario was built for a mini-campaign (On to Ontario), and when played within the context of the campaign the difficulty for the British to win is, perhaps, understandable.

Also, nothing has been said changes won't be made to the victory levels, I just won't make them for one person. I want to see how others see it. Maybe, they will agree with you, maybe not. Time will tell. If, they should agree with me, I reminded you (in my previous post) of a path that you can take to make the games enjoyable for you (one that others have taken to make the '76 & '12 games more enjoyable for them.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />
The British can earn a Major Victory by holding thier fort (200 points) and eliminating 700/10*25=1,750 Frenchmen, or by holding the fort, capturing the battery (100 points) and eliminating 600/10*25=1,500 Frenchmen. A rout indeed! As it should be.

<b>I want to see how others see it</b>. Maybe, they will agree with you, maybe not. Time will tell.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

While I like your design philosophy (a major victory should be difficult to attain) Al, I do think you may have set at least some of the victory thresholds a bit too high for play versus a human opponent.

In your example, I find it hard to believe that even with incredible good luck and bad blunders on the other side that the British could hold and take the two objectives and eliminate 3/4 the French force without suffering losses themselves?

I mentioned the same thing in regards to scenario 59, The Heights of Abraham. Gordon's right was smashed, an entire regiment eliminated to a man, the Louisberg Grenadiers shattered, a gun taken and the 28th was being compressed when time ran out. Elsewhere, we had exchanged even casualties in the center, but his left was in a bad way. Gordon and I both thought that I had one this one, decisively if not a solid minor, but when we finished the game and looked at the result, I was well short of even a minor.

As you say, to each his own, but you asked for opinions.

Regards,

Cox
NJM

Mike,

I do appreciate your and Phil's feedback.

I do not state the scenarios are set in stone, they can be changed.

As Phil mentioned the one scenario is a 'jewel'. I agree. I also see that it can be considered a 'diamond in the rough' that still needs to be polished to bring out its full beauty. The scenario you speak of is another one like that.

As I stated earlier, I deliberately set the Victory Levels higher to create more of a challenge for players. They may very well need adjusting, not outward [;)], but inward. I was an infantry scout in the Guard and when we trained to call in mortar fire we would bracket the target and walk the fire in on it. I think I have bracketed the Victory Levels quite well, now is the time to walk them in.

There is more than one way to achieve this though, and this is where these little 'unpolished jewels' can take different forms. One method would be to simply contract the Victory Levels. The other method would be to add more non-combative victory points ... supply points assigned victory points, or addtional objective hexes, or beef up the existing objective hexes. These two methods would create two different scenarios, for the Niagara scenario, for example.

I'm not opposed to either option, or others for that matter. I am, and will continue to re-examine the scenarios I made to see how they can be enhanced. I already have these two scenarios ear-marked to be adjusted, if not in time for a patch, then for when the expansion packet is released. I think the latter is more practicable considering non-gaming committments, and it allows more time for others to play the different scenarios and pass on thier thoughts.
---
Mike you also bring up a good point that the Victory Levels do give players who solitaire the scenarios a bit more of a challenge. It is very challenging to create scenarios that can be enjoyable for one on one play and solitaire play, but I am willing to try and make one. [:D]
---
The nice thing with computer games and John's in particular is that changes can be made to the 'canned' scenarios, additional scenarios and multiple variants of the same scenario can be made to fit the different philosophies, likes and ideas of the various gamers.

Please in all sincerity, keep coming back with the feedback, and keeping trying out all the scenarios. When it comes down to it, I want to create a set of scenarios that, in total (meaning most people like most but maybe not all of the scenarios), do please the general gaming community (well our community at least.)

The "jewel" of a game was in reference to the nature of our tactical play in this game. It was a tense and exciting game because it was almost chess-like. I'd make a thrust to Garry's middle, he'd stop and counter it. Garry would make a thrust on my right, I'd counter and make an attack of my own, which Garry would beautifully parry, and so on. The big disappointment was in realizing a little more than half way through that neither of us could come even slightly close to any sort of victory, _even if one side finally broke and ran, and even if all objectives had been captured._ We were long deeply mired in a draw (points-wise) with no chance of any result but that. Our last several turns were played out more symbolically than anything else. The play was great, but any suspense or tension regarding an outcome was totally lacking. That's just the way it was.

And guys, I am enjoying watching Al squirm under your expert observation! Having had to squirm under his for many months I can only say that this experience is ... well most enjoyable!! [:D]

C'mon Al, you probably set the VP levels a bit too high. Give the guys their due. They pointed out that the levels should be decreased a bit. Set it at 700 points for a Major. That makes much more sense.

Bill,

I did give the guys thier due.

As for changing the Victory Level, I haven't decided on a number yet or if I am going to take the other approach ... putting more VPs on the field. [;)]

It is very enjoyable to read the reactions of others to my work. I'm loving it. Hopefully, Rich is enjoying it too, as it is his work as well. [:D][:p][;)] hehehe....

One thing I learned from watching you 'squirm' is not to jump too quickly in making changes. I will watch and wait and learn, then I will make the changes I feel will best improve the scenario(s), possibly even create additonal variants to please a wider audience, but all in due time. There is no need to rush. [8D]

If I can offer my thoughts on a method of correction, adding more objectives or raising their points won't work IMO. Garry and I drew up nice lines and went at it. One or the other of us would cause an occasional breach in the enemy line, but they were quickly and easily patched up. The set up was perfect for an open field encounter.

The funnel type map, army dispositions, relatively low and even numbers of men, and a short 24 turns almost dictates an open field battle, which is fine. But the British-held fort is easily defended, and the French objectives are too. Raw casualties are what caused point loss and gain in our game, and for both sides the objectives were never even close to being threatened, which is ok too, but adding more won't affect anything.

When someone like the venerable Phil Natta brings up such good points ... who needs further council![:)]

And of course you know I think the game is grand.[:D]

Why almost as grand as mine!![:p]

Keep on squirming![;)]

A scenario designer I'm not, and wouldn't make a good one anyway, but I am thankful to those that do put scenarios and campaigns together. I'd just like to see the FIW scenarios that are IMO out of whack get adjusted so that they make for more competitive and interesting stand-alone matches, with a conclusive goal to shoot for.

I think 1812's Detroit scenarios were designed so that British casualties are worth 3 times more points than American casualties for balancing purposes right? Maybe a similar lightly applied approach would work in FIW...I dunno.

Is it possible that the unit stuck in water problem can be patched?

Gents,

The melee/water problem has been resolved and will be included in the first patch.

Feedback is of course welcome...in fact I am going to put up a feedback form and get it linked into the club site...as your feedback is important. I already have a feeling that ammo levels and some victory conditions need to be adjusted in my scenarios, but want to hear from you. I'll make sure Al get's a copy of all forms relating to his scenarios.

And, I don't like to squirm, but I know it's unavoidable [8)] just hard to do after putting so much time into it. But, we'll weather the storm and make a good product an even better one. [^]

Rich