From: Genoa, Italy
Rico, I will gladly abide your rules, even though I believe all of use live in countries that allow the right of free speech.
I would like to point out that the issue can be easily proved by playing almost any scenario, starting from the very first tutorial to the Kursk campaign scenarios. As regards to the latter, I never managed to finish the third one, but the other always ended in a Major Victory for whatever side I played with. When I played "Psel River Bridgehead" with the Russians, I crossed the Bridge and went hunting German artillery (the only surviving German units) with SU-152s just to kill time until the scenario end.
Of course, there are scenarios that you cannot win, no matter how tough a player you are. The issue I pointed out - and that is confirmed by both slaphappypappy's and Big Ivan's posts - is that most times (i.e. not, always, but a significant number of times) you get a Major Victory regardless of the side you play.
I'm sorry you are taking it on a personal level but, as I previously stated, I did not intend to criticise any scenario or author. In my opinion, this is just a game mechanics issue. A big part of the losses the AI takes are due to the demise of broken units due to failure to rout: I understand that having the AI to be able to "think" about doing so is a very difficult - to say the least - undertaking. I do not see, however, the reason why the AI infantry units fire as any single bullet is billed to the soldier firing it.
I get Major victories most of the time. However I have to play some scenarios more than once to get it.
Try Rico's latest, Jackson's Fire, and tell me you get a Major American Victory and I will want details as I have not come close.
Impossible scenario in my mind.
I fully agree with you: some scenarios are tougher than others, and a few are utterly impossible to win for one side.
I have not yet played Rico's latest: I'm going to give it a try just now.
Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport