Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Memoir '44» Forums » General

Subject: Most Balanced Overlord Scenario? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
sean johnson
United States
Edinburgh
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Of all of the pre-printed Overlord maps, which one do you think is the most balanced? Which do you think is the least balanced? Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil McDonald
England
Staffordshire
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find them all reasonably ok in terms of balance (not exact), except Market Garden, which is tough but winnable for the Germans if played with the official scenario rules. But Market Garden is by far the most fun to play. Always play them from both sides anyway and total the medals so it doesn't really matter about balance.

If scenarios are artificially balanced it removes the historical element which diminishes the enjoyment to me. I believe they got it wrong with Market Garden map because the whole point of the operation for the allies was to capture all of the bridges. Therefore I house rule this scenario that the allies can only win if they capture all the bridges. The Germans win on medal count.

enjoy
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Gibson
United States
San Diego (Scripps Ranch)
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"...except Market Garden, which is tough but winnable for the Germans..."
Phil, the consensus that I've read and experienced is that MG favors the Germans, and that certain published tactics, if applied properly, can improve the Allies odds a bit.
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil McDonald
England
Staffordshire
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bob.Gibson wrote:
"...except Market Garden, which is tough but winnable for the Germans..."
Phil, the consensus that I've read and experienced is that MG favors the Germans, and that certain published tactics, if applied properly, can improve the Allies odds a bit.


We've played it about a dozen times using the official scenario rules and the Germans only won once, with the allies not even needing to TRY and take the final bridge. This was VERY unsatisfying and even more reason to house rule the scenario. It is just as easy to come up with an allied strategy based on limited contact zones to minimise the German access to cards and maintain their own. This will almost always guarantee an allied win if you don't house rule the scenario to force the allies to go for the bridges.

Apart from that, it just makes the scenario pointless to play if the allies win condition isn't the capture of all the bridges.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark selleck
Australia
Alice Springs
NT
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bob.Gibson wrote:
"...except Market Garden, which is tough but winnable for the Germans..."
Phil, the consensus that I've read and experienced is that MG favors the Germans, and that certain published tactics, if applied properly, can improve the Allies odds a bit.


Our gaming group has also played MG many times and have found the Germans tend to win most of the time, though most games have been very close. Personally this is one of my favourites to play. I do agree that it would have been nice to have a more historical victory objective for the allies as well.

By having the allies needing to capture all the bridges it makes the allied FG's all work together more as they need to pass the armour units down through the map to each other.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil McDonald
England
Staffordshire
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jesters_race wrote:
Bob.Gibson wrote:
"...except Market Garden, which is tough but winnable for the Germans..."
Phil, the consensus that I've read and experienced is that MG favors the Germans, and that certain published tactics, if applied properly, can improve the Allies odds a bit.


Our gaming group has also played MG many times and have found the Germans tend to win most of the time, though most games have been very close. Personally this is one of my favourites to play. I do agree that it would have been nice to have a more historical victory objective for the allies as well.

By having the allies needing to capture all the bridges it makes the allied FG's all work together more as they need to pass the armour units down through the map to each other.


If the allies make no aggressive moves on their left and centre and attack german units one at a time with overwhelming force in the right sector, retreating damaged units as they occur, you should be able to win with the allies almost every time. The American airborne units in the centre only emerge from cover once the German left sector has been cleared, and the British Paras on the allied left get into and stay in the woods to make the germans come onto them at a disadvantage. And don't forget the stiff upper lip as an added bonus.

The whole allied strategy is built around preventing and then severely limiting the Germans from getting more cards into their hand, which makes it very difficult for them to do anything constructive. Take German units out in small but overwhelming bite size pieces. ONLY attack with many units, otherwise prepare for an overwhelming attack on the following turn and never leave cheap medals lying around.

Now, this strategy is perfectly legitimate playing by the scenario rules, but I hate it for several reasons.

1. It's too gamey and predictable.
2. It's hard for the allies to win if they don't do this.
3. It sucks historically because the historical operation was based on the allied armour taking the bridges quickly to relieve the paras before they are overwhelmed. The above allied strategy is highly effective but highly unhistorical.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Gibson
United States
San Diego (Scripps Ranch)
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LOL.......well, I think at this point, it's one of those "agree to disagree" moments. Using the official scenario rules, we also use very different strategies. In applying the concentrated effort of moving the British armor first, it usually resulted in many more German victories in the end. On the other hand, when deploying the Americans first (to take and hold the bridges), our group reached the consensus that it greatly improved the odds for the Allied side. Maybe that's why this scenario is so intriguing to me, particularly now that I read very separate and distinct strategies from you guys and in your personal experiences from playing MG.

You also commented that "the British Paras on the allied left get into and stay in the woods to make the germans come onto them". Well, this is true. However, the objective is the town itself, so when the Brits chose this course of action in our past games, the German side was, most often, content to simply hold the town and concentrate their efforts somewhere else as they continue to buy time and collect more cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris May
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Feeling lucky punk? Well, do ya?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The cadets of Samur scenario is balanced and very fun as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil McDonald
England
Staffordshire
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bob.Gibson wrote:
LOL.......well, I think at this point, it's one of those "agree to disagree" moments. Using the official scenario rules, we also use very different strategies. In applying the concentrated effort of moving the British armor first, it usually resulted in many more German victories in the end. On the other hand, when deploying the Americans first (to take and hold the bridges), our group reached the consensus that it greatly improved the odds for the Allied side. Maybe that's why this scenario is so intriguing to me, particularly now that I read very separate and distinct strategies from you guys and in your personal experiences from playing MG.

You also commented that "the British Paras on the allied left get into and stay in the woods to make the germans come onto them". Well, this is true. However, the objective is the town itself, so when the Brits chose this course of action in our past games, the German side was, most often, content to simply hold the town and concentrate their efforts somewhere else as they continue to buy time and collect more cards.


The paras don't NEED to take the town to win, that's the weakness of the scenario as written. In fact, if they attempt to they contribute to the German card count, that's the point.
The whole allied strategy as detailed above revolves around strangling the german access to cards and carefully co-ordinated attacks. It works.. try it.
It only fails if you make small half hearted attacks as the forces gradually come up. You only attack when you have overwhelming force. Attacking piecemeal is a recipe to lose.
The same applies to the American airborne troops. Only use them when the tanks have broken through to the centre section and can co-ordinate their attacks. If you want to use them early, take out the 2 German units on your own baseline between your centre and right sections. Then retire wounded units in that forest but not adjacent to each other and not on your baseline of course.
Use the artillery and infantry to clear the first town, NOT armour unless they attack from maximum range.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jaime D.
Spain
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chrisgmay wrote:
The cadets of Samur scenario is balanced and very fun as well.


Indeed!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.