Counter Value Changes & Scenario Balance

[nick.rusch]

Hi All,

Very new to PG and still trying to get up to speed on the system in general.  I've finished my first read thru of the rules and was sitting down to put Eastern Front's first scenario "A Rotten Morning" on the table.  I reviewed the scenario info captured in PG-HQ and noticed there was a number of errata of which the first one provided a correction to the printed scenario which answered a question I had regarding which map boards were supposed to be used.  There are also a number of changes to counter values, e.g. Soviet HMG team had an original direct fire value of 7-4, but has been changed to 4-4 as of the Kursk: Burning Tigers release.  If these new counter values are to be used, how do those changes affect game balance for the particular scenario?  Should I play with the counter values as published in Eastern Front?  Or should I use the "errata" values?  I'm guessing AP didn't go back and retest/re-balance all the scenarios when they updated the direct fire values on specific counters.  So it seems it might be better to play with the counter values as published?  Then again I noticed the recorded wins for many scenarios seem to be very lopsided to one side or another.  Is there a reason why AP didn't try to make the scenarios balanced thereby providing each side an equal opportunity to win?  Thanks in advance for any help you can provide a PG recruit.

Nick

[Shad]

Hi All,

Very new to PG and still trying to get up to speed on the system in general.  I've finished my first read thru of the rules and was sitting down to put Eastern Front's first scenario "A Rotten Morning" on the table.  I reviewed the scenario info captured in PG-HQ and noticed there was a number of errata of which the first one provided a correction to the printed scenario which answered a question I had regarding which map boards were supposed to be used.  There are also a number of changes to counter values, e.g. Soviet HMG team had an original direct fire value of 7-4, but has been changed to 4-4 as of the Kursk: Burning Tigers release.  If these new counter values are to be used, how do those changes affect game balance for the particular scenario?  Should I play with the counter values as published in Eastern Front?  Or should I use the "errata" values?  I'm guessing AP didn't go back and retest/re-balance all the scenarios when they updated the direct fire values on specific counters.  So it seems it might be better to play with the counter values as published?  Then again I noticed the recorded wins for many scenarios seem to be very lopsided to one side or another.  Is there a reason why AP didn't try to make the scenarios balanced thereby providing each side an equal opportunity to win?  Thanks in advance for any help you can provide a PG recruit.

Nick

Welcome aboard, Nick. Good questions all. Let me try to help:

1. Soviet HMG team had an original direct fire value of 7-4, but has been changed to 4-4 as of the Kursk: Burning Tigers release --> I believe you've misread this erratum. The reduced side originally had a value of 3-4 but this was bumped up one in KBT to 4-4. The full strength side has not changed. Please see the unit's page for all the related information: Soviet Union Army (RKKA) HMG

2. I noticed the recorded wins for many scenarios seem to be very lopsided to one side or another.  Is there a reason why AP didn't try to make the scenarios balanced thereby providing each side an equal opportunity to win? --> During the early years of the series AP placed design emphasis on accurately modeling historical battles and gave little attention to creating scenarios with equally winnable victory conditions. Historical blowouts became table-top blowouts. This approach didn't begin to shift, in my opinion, until the arrival of Elsenborn Ridge. Subsequent games have worked hard to create scenarios that are both accurate and competitive - which is also why you'll find more intricate and creative victory conditions in newer games. Taking the silver lining approach, the early games play well solitaire 

[Hugmenot]

Nick.

The Direct Fire value for the Soviet HMG was always 7-4 on its front (full side). For its reverse (reduced) side, it was originally 3-4 but later changed to 4-4. The 1 point difference in value on the reduced side has minimal effect, far less than having a good leader drawn (say a 9-1-1) versus an average one (8-0-0) for example.

[plloyd1010]

The Direct Fire value for the Soviet HMG was always 7-4 on its front (full side). For its reverse (reduced) side, it was originally 3-4 but later changed to 4-4. The 1 point difference in value on the reduced side has minimal effect, far less than having a good leader drawn (say a 9-1-1) versus an average one (8-0-0) for example.

Actually there is a significant difference. That 1 point is a new fire column, whether used individually or in pairs. You could argue that the 4-5 to 5-5 that the Germans got is minimal. And that good doesn't do anything with Soviet HMGs which are already firing together.

[nick.rusch]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the quick response, the correction and the background info.  Very helpful!

Nick

[JayTownsend]

Both the Saipan 1944 & Marianas 1944 needed to be played with the replacement Marine 8-3 counters. To use the 10-3 counters really kills the balance. In fact I wish the WPNs were reduced to 11-5. But at least AP corrected the Marines Infantry values on later releases of this game and the dice-cut counters.