The Risk-scenario - Feedback and speculation

Conversation prior to Sotahuuto 2007 and feedback afterwards.
Avatar
meborc
Nostoväki
Viestit: 2
Liittynyt: Tiistai, 03.07.2007 10:09

The Risk-scenario - Feedback and speculation

Viesti Kirjoittaja meborc » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 10:30

Sorry for writing in English, my Finnish is very poor :oops:

This is what I can say about RISK scenario from the Estonian side...

We attacked the "left" flag point not because RÄMÄ was on the other one, but because of the fact that once taken, it was better to hold. So the landscape was the true factor here. The steep rise on the French side and higher altitude made our decision. Too bad the French got there first :)

All that time the English had a lot of time to prepare their defences and to work up their adrenaline ... so there was no point in attacking them in the last wave. They would have been prepared and the victory would have been a hard one. And as we later found out they had also barricaded themselves (as we had thought they would).

We would have gladly fought RÄMÄ as it is only heroic to battle with a good enemy. Unfortunately they were on the wrong side of the map :) may be next time...

I myself hurt my knee in the treasure scenario, and after a bad fall in the 3rd wave, I decided to sit the last one out. Too bad, as I would have liked to taste victory on that hill :lol:

Thanks to all the mercenaries for fighting hard and true. And sorry if any hits were uncounted on our side. If that happened, it was unintentional. Thanks for a great scenario to all.
Avatar
Ugrik
Asemies
Viestit: 19
Liittynyt: Maanantai, 02.07.2007 20:40
Paikkakunta: Estonia, Tartu

Viesti Kirjoittaja Ugrik » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 13:16

Again in English but as i were there noone seemed to have much trouble with it in sotahuuto.

The battle was great ant exhausting - specially because our spawning point was pretty far.

I think the scenario would be more intresting if there were more controllpoints - lets say at least five - so even big armies would need to split up because fortifing one point cant guarantee victory - it would also provide more intresting strategies. Also it probably needs a bit more time.

This time it was inevitable that we had to choose one target (only two controllpoints) and because of terrain and roads it happend to be Hill 27

As for mercs side - we hoped to reach mountain before french by moving swiftly but since we were so far away we had no option but to attack the hill. And after that it was decided - we had to keep going on the french because we hoped that our attack at least weakened their forces and terrain was also familiar.
Beatings will continue until morale improves!
Avatar
AnttiT
Kreivi
Viestit: 384
Liittynyt: Maanantai, 17.07.2006 14:14
Paikkakunta: Espoo

Viesti Kirjoittaja AnttiT » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 15:00

Ugrik kirjoitti:As for mercs side - we hoped to reach mountain before french by moving swiftly but since we were so far away we had no option but to attack the hill. And after that it was decided - we had to keep going on the french because we hoped that our attack at least weakened their forces and terrain was also familiar.
What do you think.. would we french have had any chance to negotiate with you to make combined attack against english? Like what really happened but other way round..
Unis
Kreivi
Viestit: 290
Liittynyt: Tiistai, 10.10.2006 06:26
Paikkakunta: Helsinki
Viesti:

Viesti Kirjoittaja Unis » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 15:36

IMHO the main fault was in the fact that there were two target areas, or in the local terrain and it's tactical setting. The main fault in the scenario was the fact that there were three parties in a war of two parties. Therefore, as with the treasure chest scenario, it was bound to happen that the two "main" sides would compete against each other and the mercs were mainly a tool in this competition. Their victory doesn't matter on the whole (ignoring unit scores for the moment, only on overall victory) so they can be used against the other party.

RISK is a very challenging and interesting scenario, but I think there should only be no more sides than the ones doing the main fighting (in this case, France and England).

I'd like to comment as well that the spawning worked well in this version than that of the previous year. Also the scoring system was better. In my opinion, of course.
Avatar
Ugrik
Asemies
Viestit: 19
Liittynyt: Maanantai, 02.07.2007 20:40
Paikkakunta: Estonia, Tartu

Viesti Kirjoittaja Ugrik » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 16:00

AnttiT kirjoitti:What do you think.. would we french have had any chance to negotiate with you to make combined attack against english? Like what really happened but other way round..
Well you might had a chance in the beginning but as i said - we were very determined to take the hill after so much trouble and effort :) I think first england troops arrived after our third respawn?

As i said - with only two controlpoints for 3 sides the choice of tactics was really limited.

So i think next time there should be more controlpoints and yeah - three sides will complicate things because alliances can be formed to remove one from competition.

Still it was fun fight and i think england side missed a lot of it :D
Beatings will continue until morale improves!
Avatar
saloneju
Keisari
Viestit: 5706
Liittynyt: Keskiviikko, 19.04.2006 23:26
Paikkakunta: Tampere

Viesti Kirjoittaja saloneju » Tiistai, 03.07.2007 16:34

Ugrik kirjoitti:As i said - with only two controlpoints for 3 sides the choice of tactics was really limited.
I heard from the organizers that there was supposed to be 4 control points, but due the lack of time, the amount of points were reduced in a panic-solution to 2. So they decided to give it a try, but unfortunately it didn't work.
Viestiketju Lukittu

Palaa sivulle “Sotahuuto 2007 international”