the fact that you can reach 15,000 points without having to take either Bossu wood north, or Quatre Bras keeps it out of the running for most difficult.
Well, Congratulations, you broke that scenario.
Bossu wood north is supposed to be a MUST CAPTURE objective to have the necessary points for a Major Victory. It was structured that way and tested out that way, by some very competent testers, and especially, since I designed it, ME. I did score much higher than the MV bar once, managed to get also some points from Quatre Bras, then withdrew as the Allied hoard amassed. Still, I was confident that Bossu Wood North was key to a Major Victory.
The scenario isn't broken, its fine. As I said, both Quatre Bras scenario's are very well done. You have to understand, no one else plays this game the way I do. No tester is ever going to find the things I find unless they think like I do. And most players don't. They want realism, historical accuracy, and other things like that. They cant push the game to its absolute limit because that becomes about game mechanics, not realism.
Take something like being able to recall skirmishers right as they are about to be charged. Your average tester would probably never even think to try that because from a realism point of view, it makes no sense.
But from a game mechanic point of view, its a devastating tactic because when you recall a skirmisher unit, as far as the game is concerned they are instantly part of the parent unit again and become invalid targets and cant be charged. The attacking unit loses its target and stops to reform, and gets butchered for it. When I discovered this I didn't just say "oh that's interesting" and forget about it. I found every way I could to exploit and abuse it. That's the difference between the way I think and the way other players do.
I did this time and time again and it led to still more discoveries.
Things like the Fortress, horse fort, and the real power of skirmishers weren't known about back when you wrote the scenario. Its not a problem with the scenario, its abuse of the game mechanics, and it couldn't have been forseen that a player like me would come along that doesn't care at all about doing things in a historical way, but just winning. I play this game like a video game, not a simulation. Im not a historian and not even all that knowledgeable about napoleonic warfare. But I am stubborn, and I don't like to lose.
The AI used to kick my ass when I first started playing and I didn't know what I was doing. In fact I learned a lot from the AI. It taught me the foundations of what I needed to know to play. It took me years to discover all the things I learned about how the game works, and how to make it work to my advantage.
Ultimately, humans have advantages in the way our brains are wired that will always, in the end, make us better than computers. We can learn from past mistakes, grow, evolve and adapt. For now, these things are beyond a computers ability.
There are just to many ways to completely neutralize the AI and turn all the games mechanics to your own advantage while denying those same advantages to the AI. The Fortress is probably the ultimate example of this.
That's not to say the AI is bad. In fact I think the AI for this game is incredible. But AI's only can do what they are programed to do. They cant learn from past mistakes. They cant adapt, or evolve, and most importantly, they cant change(well not on their own anyway.) Sooner or later if you put in enough time, a human player will catch up, and eventually surpass.
But again, I spent years with this game. You don't spend years with a game unless its incredible and has a lot of depth and complexity to it, and Scourge of War has them in spades. Ive said before many times in my videos, Scourge of War is hands down the best wargame Ive ever played.
Yes, I broke the game, eventually, but it took me years to do so. That's a testament to the game. The game was worth me putting the time into it to get to that point.
It was 4 years well spent.
