The Unbalanced Six

Whilst scenarios will never be completely balanced, and there is always some variation around cards and dice, most C&C Napoleonics scenarios offer some chance to both sides. Sometimes it's useful to have terribly one sided scenarios, teaching aides or to provide a challenge between players of different experience.

However, there are 6 official scenarios that I would never play competitively, and whilst there have been some attempts (in one case many attempts) to make the scenarios more balanced, I thought I'd throw it out there to players to suggest some simple changes to the Victory conditions or Special rules that would make the scenario more attractive to play. I think I'll preclude wholesale changes to the Order of Battle or setup, since this starts into the realms of a different scenario (but feel free to design a new version of the action)

Below is a listing of the 6 offenders, taken from the Most Unbalanced List
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...ario-statistics.html
I include a short summary of what I regard as the key unbalancing features of each.

113 Alba de Tormes (28 November 1809)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=166

My experience of this scenario is that the French cavalry obliterate the Spanish Right, killing the Spanish LC, forcing the Spanish to square up twice, at which point the Spanish can not longer form squares and are slaughtered by the cavalry.
This exactly follows the narrative description, so the scenario plays very historically.
My suggestion here is give the Spanish a 4 banner start.

218 Champaubert (10 February 1814)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=222

The Russians are hopelessly outclassed here, and the brittleness of the 3 strength infantry is clear. A French bayonet charge spells Russian doom here.
The clue in the narrative is that the Russians should have retreated, and I'd suggest that the Russians getting an Exit VP for units that exit would be a good thing. If nothing else it would force the French to hurry.

501 Sahagun - Cavalry Action (21 December 1808)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=397

The 4 block French cavalry hit harder than the 3 block British cavalry, especially the Heavy Cavalry. Maybe something as simple as reducing each French cavalry to 3 blocks at start, just to give some parity.

103 Gamonal (10 November 1808)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=155

This scenario has probably had more suggestions for fixing than any other, and the suggestions are varied. The Spanish aren't in a good position, but my experience is they have a fighting chance, but they need a head start, and rather than Guerrillas, they need the Time Pressure Objective Victory Condition.

506 Dohna (9 October 1813)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=403

This is a newish scenario, and whilst it seems pro-Russian, it is early days. I'd consider the Time Pressure Objective to allow the French to gain banners for Scout cards.

413 Blankenfelde (23 August 1813)
www.commandsandcolors.net/napoleonics/ar...&view=article&id=354

The French have few units, and no cavalry. However, the French can win by picking their attack route. I actually wonder if the problem is the 5 banner victory objective, with the Prussians gaining a Banner for no French occupation (essentially a 1 banner start). Also early days on this, but maybe simply removing the first Special Rule.

However, the objective here is to gather some suggestions from other players, since sometimes a good solution just isn't apparent until a fresh set of eyes looks at it.

For what its worth - here are some of my thoughts on this topic (only read the first 3):

113 Alba de Tormes (28 November 1809)
1 Victory banner for every 2 or 3 Infantry units over the bridge. (5 or 3 Victory banners worth) and possibly start with 1 Guerilla counter.

Another suggestion (though not sure how it could affect the game) Give the Spanish player a “Hasty Square” Tactician card as one of or in addition to their 2 Tacticians cards at the start of play. Would be almost similar to giving them an extra command card without negating superior French command.

501 Sahagun – Cavalry Action (21 December 1808)
Couple possibilities here:
1. Reduce French Light Cavalry to 3 blocks each (impressed Hanoverians).

2. To simulate the “disorder” of the 8th Dragoons due to Hanoverian retreat: If a French Light Cavalry unit (Hanoverian) is forced to lose a block because the retreat path is blocked by a Heavy Cavalry unit, the Heavy Cavalry unit also loses a block (or loses a block instead of the Light Cavalry unit).

Mark,

The issue is a simple one as far as I am concerned. When I first got the game I was very surprised that in every scenario, the banners required for each side were exactly the same. That raised a couple of thoughts at the time. The scenarios must be all very evenly balanced due to extensive play-testing. Or, if they were not balanced, why the same banner counts needed for a competitive game?

I would hope that with GMT being the games company it is, there would be lots of play-testing. If that occurred, then there must have been a reasonably educated awareness of what the fairest banner count to each side should be in each scenario to be published.

So in short. If scenarios need balancing. Re-Evalute banner requirements for each side. Anything else becomes to fiddly and filled with "If this happens -do this" etc etc.

I started keeping score with my opponent. After playing each scenario we would switch sides and play the same scenario again. I kept track of who won each scenario and how many victory banners each side won.

What we found through the data is that most of the scenarios are unbalanced. Either we each won as the French, or we each won as the Allies. On a few occasions one or the other of us would win a scenario playing either side.

I started keeping statistics with the expansions, playing each scenario twice. I’m currently replaying my opponent in the same manner using the expansion 5 rules with each boxed set. What we found is that the French win most of the scenarios. Surprisingly my opponent and I, after 40 battles with the Austrians (each scenario twice), we tied exactly at 20 games each even though some scenarios he won from both sides and other scenarios I won from both sides. We tied again with the Expansion #5 set.

Box set: French wins : Individual wins:
British no data no data
Austrian(40) French won 24 to 16 tie, we each won 20 games
Russian(40) French won 25 to 15 I won 24 to 16
Spanish(36) French won 23 to 11 Opponent won 19 to 17
Prussian(40) French won 23 to 17 I won 23 to 17
Expansion 5(36) French won 20 to 16 tie, we each won 18 games
British Ex5 British won 19 to 11 I won 16 to 14
Austrian E5 French won 28 to 12 I won 24 to 16
Russian E5 French won 24 to 16 I won 24 to 16
Spanish E5 currently playing Opponent currently winning 9 to 7

The data shows the French win most of the scenarios. Looking at the specific date (not shown above) it was shown that most of the scenarios were unbalanced. If a scenario was won by the French, then when we switched sides and played again it was still won by the French. Or is the scenario was won by the non-French side, then we switched side and played again and it was still won by the non-French side.

TheMP wrote: Mark,

So in short. If scenarios need balancing. Re-Evalute banner requirements for each side. Anything else becomes to fiddly and filled with "If this happens -do this" etc etc.

whilst I'm totally onboard with different banner counts for victory, and generally I'd suggest a bidding method is he easiest and most competitive, these scenarios are so far out of whack, I think it is a matter of looking at extra methods of scoring VP in these scenarios, be it new geographic VP, Exit or Time Pressure VP, or something else.

My experience with Champaubert for example is if the Russians can kill 1 French unit, then they have done well.