Thursday, June 7, 2012

We've Complained About The Missions, But...

by SandWyrm


Yeah, we're still playing Flames of War just about every week. Though we haven't been blogging about it much. Currently, Farmpunk and I are practicing for the big tourney at the end of the month.


As part of that we've been forcing ourselves to play some of the screwier book missions so that we have some idea what they're about. And you know what? They're actually pretty well balanced.

Loving My New Battlefield In A Box Buildings!

Take this one from last night, for instance, where the defender has to set up in the middle of the table while the attacker comes in from both short table edges. Farmpunk didn't think he had a chance with my Germans all castled up in the center, but it was actually a very close-fought game that came down to a few key rolls at the end. Just like our best 40K battles from a few years ago.


Or this one from a few weeks back where Patrick only got to deploy half of his Brits and had to put the rest in reserve. While Farmpunk got to deploy everything. Patrick, just like Farmpunk and I the first time we played this mission, thought he had no chance. But guess who won? Farmpunk rushed up too early and lost half of his tanks during the first turn. The fighting then shifted to the rear objective (only need to capture one to win in Flames) but the Brits held out.

So, while we're still not fans of a couple of missions where your reserves arrive from random table edges, I have to hand it to Battlefront. The 'odd' missions are actually pretty well balanced.

5 comments:

  1. No, anything with Delayed Reserves sucks, since half of your army may not even begin to arrive until turn 6. Games shouldn't be decided by reserve fail dice, but frequently are.
    Blah.

    Regular Reserves Missions are Ok, but Cauldron is still awful (random deployment).
    Unfortunately, most missions feature one or the other, and they still need more Missions where both players put their entire armies down.

    FoW needs missions that are better than just 'ok.'

    ReplyDelete
  2. On a conceptual level, I agree with you. Random stuff sucks.

    But whenever we've played those scenarios, the results have been pretty darn balanced. That could be a fluke, sure. But it's not as bad as I expected. That counts for something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Not as bad as I expected' is not exactly a glowing review, Sandy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but it's not a "OMG THIS SUCKS" either.

      Delete
  4. At first glance, The missions DO look crazy, out of whack.

    Upon playing the missions, they're not too unbalanced. I'll admit Delayed reserves still sucks, esp. if only one side has them. Delayed reserves also tends to benefit the person who's able to stack more points on the table, through having perhaps 3 HUGE units, and 3 tiny units (to place in reserve).

    I'd like to see great missions, with both fairness, and flavor. I think we can find those in time.

    some of the random elements in Deployment force you as a commander to deal with unfavorable conditions, like if your invasion plan calls for aircover... but it's raining, so no airpower for you.

    or if your troops didn't read their maps, and show up 5 miles down the road.

    Some generals can adapt, and make the best of the situation, some can't.


    I'm pleased with a lot of the missions. Some are harder than others...

    Overall, I'd rather play FoW missions over some of the screwy GW Missions book. or some of the stuff from the 40K BRB.

    ReplyDelete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites