For your table I was surprised the Griffin/Firestarter-O combo didn't go after the infantry, that pair could roast the better part of that entire infantry battalion in a few turns.
The players on my table advanced more cautiously; the GM infantry was already inside the dropship by the time they got into range.
Also, woohoo! The boards are back online! :D I can post what I was going to two days ago:
I am very frustrated with how yesterday's game played out. I felt from the get-go that there was no way to win. This is the second time now that I feel the gm force was designed to defeat mine. I reiterate: I FEEL. I'm not saying it was intentional, it just feels that way.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I make these difficult because I didn't think the players wanted walkovers. This time your table had it rough, exacerbated by how few rounds you got in.
THAT is a problem I'm going to have to work on; in the past players had requested the GM forces not have so many high-end, skilled units, but if they continue to bring them on themselves, the choices for the opposition are piles of cheap GM units (leading to too few rounds) or having it seem as if I'm ignoring their pleas. I do think I'm going to make sure that "objective-based" scenarios have low player unit counts.
After seeing which forces were on which table, the gm force should have been edited.
Sorry, no. I'm not changing forces just because some players didn't buy good infantry, despite previous warnings that there would be infantry-required battles at some point. I made it so you could ignore the infantry requirement if you wanted, instead focusing on just getting one mission (you massively out-BV'd the enemy if you ignored their infantry, even factoring in your token infantry forces). Also, in my defense, I bring to your attention the other table, where the inside of the dropship was painted with the blood of GM infantry. It will only fly again after rigorous application of a wet-vac.
I
have changed the rules going forward, removing the "lead time" on new hires/purchases.
Mercenaries do not enter a battle they expect to lose unless the pay warrants the risk. I lost money on this scenario. I think this is another scenario (like the first campaign game) where our employer should compensate for the overwhelming inherent risk in the mission.
As Hellraiser pointed out, you didn't lose anything (other than some infantry that's out for two battles). The rules have been set up so that it's very hard for the players to lose money -- they basically have to lose units
and fail to hold the field (which is why the missions where you do not hold the field have seemed a bit easy, btw). I thought the point of the campaign was to play Battletech in a structured set of battles. If you feel it's only worth your time to play if you're guaranteed an easy win...
I do think Hellraiser's suggestion that I make each victory condition have minor/major rewards is good, and I'll try to do that in the future.
I'd also like to point out that, while no one
wants to enter a battle at a disadvantage, sometimes intel is wrong, or the enemy has managed to get a step on you. Unless we're going to break out the StratOps/InterstellarOps strategic-level rules, you'll have to accept that the GM applies "bad intel" as fiat to make scenarios something other than "your side beats the snot out of the other side, then goes for beer." If I can ever figure out a way for us to get 12+ rounds in, I'd love to run a game where the opfor has 120% of your BV, and I hand you new mission objectives ("Run!") at game time. >:D
