159 Monte Cassino

More
4 years 3 months ago - 1 year 7 months ago #263 by alecrespi
Last edit: 1 year 7 months ago by alecrespi.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago - 1 year 7 months ago #1154 by alecrespi
Replied by alecrespi on topic 159 Monte Cassino
The definition of the objective is a bit dubious.

Allies win if they control the victory hex on map 12B.

Unfortunately there are 2 objective tokens on the map...


And what do you think about the listed terrain feature?

Victory hex is on level 1 terrain and is reachable from the left.

Last edit: 1 year 7 months ago by alecrespi.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #1161 by JVHillegas-Elting
Replied by JVHillegas-Elting on topic 159 Monte Cassino
Good catch on the Victory Objective markers. I would interpret the scenario-as-written as saying that the VO in 12B is what the Allies need to capture to win the scenario, but what the VO in 4B signifies I have no idea.

Interpreting the VO hex on 12B as being the abbey itself, my read--having actually visited the location--is that it should be on a Level 2 Hill hex. One of the shortcomings of officially-published ToI content is that there are very few terrain features that are combined with roads, rivers, bridges, and buildings, and this scenario illustrates this shortcoming.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #1167 by alecrespi
Replied by alecrespi on topic 159 Monte Cassino
  1. If we ignore the VO on map 4B I presume we could narrow the map to 4 boards (removing 2 rightmost boards) and allow the US units to enter the map with an "Advance" or a "Fire and Move" action.
  2. I agree about considering the Abbey on a Lev 2 Hill. In addition to being geographically accurate, gives meaning to the rule describing "access from the left".
  3. How about making the "rough" terrain impassable? Otherwise "10 rounds" seem really too many to me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #1171 by JVHillegas-Elting
Replied by JVHillegas-Elting on topic 159 Monte Cassino
Having not yet played this one myself, I wonder if retaining the two right-most map boards allows the Allies to try some kind of flanking maneuver from that direction, rather than being limited to just the frontal assault? With this in mind, I'm wondering if 10 rounds was the designer's intention to allow the Allies enough time to attempt this type of approach? In the historical battle, it was really only a matter of time before the Allies took Monte Cassino, so from the German side they were just trying to delay it as long as possible for the build-out of the Gustav Line.

Thinking along these lines a bit further, I'm wondering if the VO marker on 4B might be replaced by a Command Objective marker (1 or 2) to entice the Allies to go that direction?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #1180 by alecrespi
Replied by alecrespi on topic 159 Monte Cassino
Agreed about keeping the two right-most map boards (for flanking maneuver).

But if we replace the VO marker on 4B might with a Command Objective marker (value 1 ore 2) perhaps we risk giving too much advantage to the Americans (on CP side).
All other CP are neutral and Germans could only use available CP on Initiative (As they don't have Strategy decks assigned).

On the other hand US player have 3 Strategy decks!

Where can American reinforcements enter from? (they can enter with cards from American Reinforcements 1 deck)
There are no "R" hexes indicated on the map.
I guess the road hex on the far right of the map?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.121 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum