Well, that is a pretty lame admission.   

After 7+ years of CM, it is a bit difficult to break new ground with scenarios (not that I claim to have broken any new ground with this one!!!  ).   That is why some scenarios I design have "special rules."  The least you can do is offer your opponent a fair game!

Lesson learned from me in the design perspective is to include a new suggestion in briefs (That is if people read them in the first place!) and that is that both players CONFIRM their understanding of any "special rules" during the set up phase.  That way on turn 10 there can be no misunderstanding.  I suggest this to all players of any scenario with any special rules.

I'm working on a two-battle operation now that has "play as they lay" rules and I had this incident in mind when I wrote the brief:

**  Players should confirm with their opponent during the set-up phase that they understand the rules and will follow them.  **

Good luck to all in future games.   

Cheers,
Bannon

Thanks for the comments, all.

Based on the consensus opinion, I will have to agree... "one trick pony."   

Sounds like the heavy building (church) was the deal killer.  Perhaps fighting over the hill itself would be better.  Even rubble would be too much of an advantage.

In terms of design, I guarantee you that both sides have and equal chance of reaching the church at the same time from both starting locations.  I ran several tests to make sure.  Both sides' forces are as even as possible in terms of men and firepower.  I even made sure platoon HQs were evenly equipped with a pistol, SMG, and rifle instead of ending up with two rifles.  A Maxim vs. a German HMG?  I gave the Soviets an extra LMG to compensate (in terms of force-wide considerations; not for every HMG the Germans had).  All forces were "regular" to make the HQ bonuses more prevalent.

For AT assets, someone picked up on it... to make you think you might indeed need them.  Uncertainty.  ATRs also reduce PBs effectively.  In one my H2H tests, the AT gun was employed against the church, so I would not say it is useless.

I truly hate mirrored-forces scenarios myself.  There is no uncertainty about what your opponent has.  Half the fun is gone for me.  I thought making the forces mirrored, but random, would bring back that uncertainty.  Uncertain if you will even get all your men.  Makes it necessary to "soldier on" and get the job done regardless.  More representative of carrying out orders and playing the cards as they are dealt.  In all my tests, I did not experience NOT receiving all the reinforcements (although I am aware it could happen... and did to at least one of you).

Regarding luck... luck has a lot to do with a soldier's life... some prefer to call it destiny.  In World War II, a friend of mine's father walked out of a bunker unharmed that took a hit during the battle of Midway.  Everyone else died or was horribly wounded.  In CM, luck determines if the heavy artillery takes out 12 men and your mortar team... or only the HQ with all the pluses... or nothing at all even if on target.  Luck determines if your 50mm mortar does anything effective.  The designer does not control that.   

In this scenario, luck determined your hand where each player had 10 reinforcement "cards."  Luck determined what forces came in and when.  Each side had the same forces and same chance of receiving them each turn.  All reinforcements were set to the exact same % chance of coming in.  The reinforcements themselves came in small amounts so if you did not receive some it should not have tipped the balance significantly.  It was for the player to make the best of what he received... a MG or a mortar team... a platoon or AT gun.  There is a close level of balance there.  Statistically, most games would be evenly balanced.   But, of course, it is YOUR game that matters.   So you can curse your luck or curse the designer.    People generally do both anyway, random reinforcements or not.   

The trench system ended up being eye candy.  It looked "half done" if I scrimped and didn't make the entire trench system including communication trenches.  It might be interesting to take it up to the battalion level with ample artillery and play "king of the hill" with more toys.

One of my inspirations for this one was "In Deadly Combat" by Bidermann.  Truly a "must read" for CM fans.   There is a photo of a German squad humping it up a rugged barren hill in the Crimea with some sort of building up top.

Again, thanks.  The comments are appreciated. 

Bannon