"Licked before you start ?" Topic

I just read on another forum how someone walked up with some interest to a 15mm WWII demo game and then noticed that there were more King Tigers on the German side than that there were allied minis (infantry and tanks) combined. They also had plenty of Panthers, Stugs and artillery, allies had to make do with Shermans, bazookas and the odd 57mm gun and no artillery.

A while ago I saw a 28mm game where you had Cromwells, Shermans, Churchills and three Fireflies against mostly Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers …

Have you ever run into a game or even participated in something that would turn into a bloody massacre ? (without it being a specific "last stand" scenario where you can still win by pulling out or lasting longer than their historical counterparts, ie the kind of game where someone clearly has a fetish for one side and makes sure that side can't possibly lose)

Not in demo or display games per se, but definitely in tournament/competitive games.

I have been in and seen such games, and when I asked about the obvious one sided look, I was met with, "Well not all warfare is fought evenly."
The best thing to do in that situation is to not play into their hands.

I have had "balanced" games turn significantly one way or the other.

Most often it is a last-ditch whooping inflicted by someone who has just decided (right or wrong) that they are going to lose based on victory points.

The other common situation is a side will opt for an extremely risky strategy. As one would expect with a very risky strategy, it either goes very well or very poorly for that side.

I think it comes from "I must put all the cool toys on the table" The smaller the level of gaming the more important weapon and skill qaulity is and the less important other factors such as Arty, Air, support troops and supply become.

Yes, some peoples idea of a balanced game, sadly, seems to be one they cannot lose!

Been on both sides of that: in a ww2 game I deployed an armoured company, only to find my opponent had deployed more heavy guns than I had tanks, and they were behind an AT screen of a dozen AT guns (mostly 88s) and a solid wall of infantry platoons packed with panzerfaust or equivelent. . My own support tried to lay down some smoke so I could at least attempt to start picking his defense apart but it all missed, and it was all over…

On the flip side I recall a fantasy game many years ago where I could see nothing but inevitable victory before I'd even moved- his Chaos troops managed to advance in such a way that my elves couldnt help but hit him from all sides at once on my first turn. He was tabled by turn 2…

But it doesnt always go the way you expect: At Gauntlet last year we played a big fantasy ECW game, Swedes V English. The English were horrendously outgunned and outnumbered. A quick headcount at the start suggested that the Swedes had 40 field guns of various sizes on the table. We had 7. And their commander ( a named character from the Pike and Shotte supplement book) allowed all cannons under his command to fire twice a turn. So in Artillery alone we were outgunned 11 to 1! And yet incredibly we won; thanks to the tenatious defence of some farm buildings in the centre by some Royalist units, and the Earl of Essex leading his Battalia straight up the hill to where no fewer than 5 brigades of Swedes were deploying- his attack caught them off guard and pinned them in place for the rest of the battle. The Swedes could still have won- their objective was simply to get units into our deployment area, and due to shortgae of troops we had a 5 foot wide gap in our line that we simply couldnt cover, not so much as a single figure opposed them. All they had to do was advance…

Always have to option to either not play or suggest that you and your opponent swap sides – 'yeah, not all warfare is fought evenly, I'd prefer to be the one with the advantage in a totally unfair game'.

Actually, unless you're playing to a points system it is a useful for one player to set up and the other player chooses which side to play – thus ensuring that the person setting up tries to make it fair.

But certainly agree beforehand what is or is not allowed.

It depends on the scenario.

I set up this game:

I had the tribal warriors, my opponent was the Bloodbound. Right from the start there was no way I was going to kill his army. The scenario conditions were such that I could win though. It ended up being a very close game. I managed to kill about 10 of his guys while he wiped out my whole force, but he only made it to the Realm gate on the last turn and almost didn't make it there.

It depends on the scenario, if the point is to just wipe the enemy out then you can still have fun being overmatched but I wouldn't write a game off just because it looks unbalanced until you know what the scenario is.

A lot of these situations can be resolved by setting up better victory conditions. A force faced witha "hopeless situation" can be given a victory condition of surviving for so many turns or exiting so many units off the table …

The solution to the unbalanced game is to switch sides.

I play every scenario twice. After the game my opponent and I reset and switch sides and play again. This way we can determine which of us had the better strategy by comparing the results of the two games. It's the only really fair way to play it.

If limited on time, apply the rule of dividing a piece of cake. One player gets to setup the game. The other player gets to choose which side he will play.

A long time ago, playing Command Decision 2. I played the US in the proverbial US paratroopers with bazookas and 57 mms attacked by hordes of King Tigers and panzer grenadiers. The umpire said the goal for the Germans was to get across the un-fordable river on the US edge using the only bridge. I called our only airstrike on the bridge on turn 1. For some reason, the ump who had just finished painting up all the late war supertanks was not happy.

+1 for what Joker said.

A LW WW2 British Infantry Company I was in charge of walked right into a German artillery barrage that was exceptionally effective. The survivors routed and left me with only the combat results table to continue the battle. Such is war!

I called our only airstrike on the bridge on turn 1

I hope your forces were on the safe side of the river before you did it!

John, paratroopers are used to being surrounded and cut off. Besides, the American engineers carried a lot more bridging equipment than the Germans.

I'm always astonished by the en masse use of those sexy Jerry cat tanks; usually with no other lighter vehicles around at all. The same problem with ATGs too, mostly just 88's.

Surely if you cherry pick, but I doubt the historical commanders could do much that…

I find I don't need to be facing a clearly superior force, or a scenario stacked totally against me. I can even bevon the clearly suprior side, and through a combination of bad xxx luck and the general hate of the wargaming gods against me, I can lose spectacularly no matter what.

Im a bit ambivalent over the need to balance a game. Certainly in an evenings pick up game when time is short a bit of balance makes things easier, the ability to turn up with a prearranged points value and just have at it is great…but when I run a big game with multiple players and whole miniature collections on the table I don't worry about it so much.

For starters the game tends to be a bit convoluted so even if one side does have an advantage most of the players can't agree which it is! And partly I just want a game with several thousand figures on the table and nice scenery. It looks amazing, regardless of the outcome. And in my experience really big games always seem to end in a draw anyway! The one I mentioned in my previous post was an unexpected exception!

And balance didn't worry us much then:
We turned up at the venue, set up tables and the umpire bossed us around setting up scenery to his liking, and generally being a pain. We were split into teams and the scenario laid out. Then armies were prepared on side tables. At this point the mismatch between the two sides became apparent. There were muffled curses from the English team, a bit of gloating and big grins on the Swedish side, suggestions were made that the Swedes might be compensating for something, and it was asserted that the English should start learning Swedish…The banter that passed to and fro is all part of the fun and it gets a different flavour when balance goes out the window…

Then comes deployment and the reality of the firepower arrayed against the English sank in. It looked hopeless. Then they are gripped by a steely resolve, the determination that no matter the outcome the Swedes are going to be given the fight of their lives! ( you can read the AAR here link )

The best you can do in a balanced game is a little bit better than your opponent. But as the underdog you have the option of fighting like a god of war!

Been in quite a few modern day scenarios like that.

"Okay, one platoon of US marines with air support versus 30 insurgents with 2 RPG's and a rusty RPK. Whoever reaches 15 casualties first wins".

If I set up a scenario, I usually let the other person pick a side.