Linked Scenario #3: Hurt Locker - Unbalance teams?

Playing Settlement Mode agains AI and preparing my next scenario, I have been reading Linked Scenario #3: Hurt Locker.

I have failed the CHA test required for having a 750 caps and I have to play with a 550 caps team, so the teams are:

  • Attacker (Me): 550 caps, Sole Survivor Leader, Dogmeat and Cait
  • Defender (AI): 775 caps: 7 mutant units.

Does it makes sense? Because I see a very unbalanced and hard situation.

You sunk 550 points into just 3 models?

Yes. I have 90 extra points from Settlement mode items and scenario suggest to use Cait (she has a high caps cost).

I may try a different team configuration.

All 3 of your models have high point costs. I would suggest dropping at least one of them and buying some rank and file troops with guns. Supermutants always want to close range and melee, so the more lead/lasers/whatever you can sent down range into them before they close the better. Having only 3 model, one of which is melee only, and Cait having a melee lean as well, is playing to the Supermutant’s strengths.

2 Likes

The linked scenarios seems to be very unbalanced against the survivors. Even more so if you play them vs an actual human instead of the AI. (The first scenario I lost after my opponent’s first turn when he burnt half the crops just by moving once and then standing there. The second scenario is also almost impossible to win vs a human (a mutant hound in the exact centre of the table = getting to the intel is a detection by the supermutants - and Piper has to essentially spend the entire game running from one point to the other in order to get a minor win…)

1 Like

Thanks for the tips.

I finally have changed the team to:

  • Sole Survivor (No Leader)
  • Dogmeat
  • 5 Settlers

So, now we are 7 vs 7.

Having only 3 model, one of which is melee only, and Cait having a melee lean as well, is playing to the Supermutant’s strengths.

Until now, I was making the opposite strategy, trying to use more melee units with melee enemies, but I think your approach makes more sense.

Thanks.