Ambush on South Knob: misunderstood or major mutt?

[von Marwitz]

You guys all pray I never become in charge of moderation here

Why? Apparently, there seems no need to be seen to do much moderating. However, I cannot judge the amount of time it take to purge the forum of bots and fake female "Buy these cosmetics!" users.

von Marwitz

 

[John_McDiarmid]

I have only tried playing this out once.

The US can get lots of squads on Turn 1 onto level 1 hill, but nothing but the potentially still broken half squad on Level 2 until their second move.

The Japanese can interdict this second turn movement through their reinforcements from the south (turn 2 run up the hill CX with a leader).

Then it turns into a straight slugfest with 4-4-7 Japanese in zero or +1 TEM vs. 6-6-6 US troops with similar crappy terrain.

The Japanese can win, but the scenario is pretty limited as it turns into a fight for the 3 hex top of a hill.

Not awful, but not super interesting.

 

[Matt Book]

I have only tried playing this out once.

The US can get lots of squads on Turn 1 onto level 1 hill, but nothing but the potentially still broken half squad on Level 2 until their second move.

John, Did you mean Level 3? The Americans with 3 leaders can get 9 squads onto the level 2 areas of the hill at the end of American Turn 1.
Good seeing you at ASLOK

 

[wrongway149]

As pete shelling would say when you play one of his designs, "you gotta bring your A game" which I always thought of as a cop out excuse for poor playtesting or just plain bad design concept.

Funny I don't recall ever saying that. But maybe I have. It is s actually one of the dilemmas a scenario designer faces-- sometimes the best choices are not obvious on the first playing. Do you dumb it back for the average players, or leave it all for the better players to discover?

As far as concept- There wasn't much to work with for excitement besides being an infantry-only attack/counterattack. 'Take the hill' scenarios are old hat for many of us. (And the best terrain on this map is not the hill in the middle, but the peripherals) Sometimes I try to make something fairly basic for the next generation of players moving on from the Starter kit. I think 'South Knob ' accomplishes that goal, even if many PTO groggies find it boring.

For those who want more intricate and challenging situations- the Next ASLOk Action Pack will be the 'Chapter E ' pack you may have heard me mumble about off and on over the past few years.

 

[wrongway149]

He definitely has his own "style".

Scott's normal criticism for one of my designs is:

" This scenario sucks . I should know, I've played it eight times"

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

For those who want more intricate and challenging situations- the Next ASLOk Action Pack will be the 'Chapter E ' pack you may have heard me mumble about off and on over the past few years.

I really want to post the StarCraft "Hell, it's about time" gif, but I suspect this is the wrong crowd.

 

[wrongway149]

My initial gripe with this scenario is the seeming disconnect between the Prologue ('... advanced up the west slope ...') and the actual unit setups. Obviously this doesn't affect balance, but rankles nonetheless.
Enjoy, Joshua

Sorry my bad.

I used to make some effort to have the map direction reflect the historical reality- but this often led to more mistakes in unit setup/entry.

Now I just layout the boards and put north arrow at the top of the page. What I call 'ASL North"

 

[Gunner Scott]

Well, I guess thats why it takes me years to design a few scenarios and you only a few days to design 100's of scenarios. I also try to pick out actions to design that will appeal to everybody, not a limited audience which I think is a huge problem currently in scenario designs, they are a one shot endeavor and thats it. No replayability nor any interest to really revisit such actions again. For example, I played Belgian Tigers, not a bad scenario though a real pain to set up with lots overlays and strange set up instructions, but once set up the scenario does play well. Does this one have replayability? Not really, you attack across a bridge, hope to survive incoming fire and try to take real estate, nothing really special but it works for what it is. Could it have been done better? Probably by using two full boards, adding more VC objectives and so on. Why are designers and playtesters so unwilling to go the extra mile?

With Knob, perhaps using a different board then the current one may have been a better choice. Or just trash it all together just because Bamboo is a real pain to deal with if it is integral to the scenario's VC or outcome. The key here is always avoid making difficult terrain types apart of a VC or the scenarios axis of attack or defense. Bottom line, always aim to design actions that will have some slap and snap to them and appeal to all. Too easy.

Funny I don't recall ever saying that. But maybe I have. It is s actually one of the dilemmas a scenario designer faces-- sometimes the best choices are not obvious on the first playing. Do you dumb it back for the average players, or leave it all for the better players to discover?

As far as concept- There wasn't much to work with for excitement besides being an infantry-only attack/counterattack. 'Take the hill' scenarios are old hat for many of us. (And the best terrain on this map is not the hill in the middle, but the peripherals) Sometimes I try to make something fairly basic for the next generation of players moving on from the Starter kit. I think 'South Knob ' accomplishes that goal, even if many PTO groggies find it boring.

For those who want more intricate and challenging situations- the Next ASLOk Action Pack will be the 'Chapter E ' pack you may have heard me mumble about off and on over the past few years.

 

[wrongway149]

Bottom line, always aim to design actions that will have some slap and snap to them and appeal to all. Too easy.

But what if it turns out all slap and no snap?

 

[Gunner Scott]

I think thats called "Half Assed" designs.

But what if it turns out all slap and no snap?

 

[jrv]

I looked at this in more detail. Still have not played it, but by my eyeball it looks as though both sides get up on the hill but neither side can take a commanding position. The Japanese may have to send a squad or two onto the second level to prevent the Americans from reinforcing the pillbox (if the Americans get a squad in the pillbox it looks like it is all over). These sacrifices will probably be pummeled by firepower, but they will keep G Company off the level three hexes. Meanwhile the Americans and Japanese will fight FP vs good morale and step-reducing. The Americans fade due to breaks and the Japanese will fade due to striping. It then becomes a question of whose dice can hang on longest.

JR

 

[jfardette]

I looked at this in more detail. Still have not played it, but by my eyeball it looks as though both sides get up on the hill but neither side can take a commanding position. The Japanese may have to send a squad or two onto the second level to prevent the Americans from reinforcing the pillbox (if the Americans get a squad in the pillbox it looks like it is all over). These sacrifices will probably be pummeled by firepower, but they will keep G Company off the level three hexes. Meanwhile the Americans and Japanese will fight FP vs good morale and step-reducing. The Americans fade due to breaks and the Japanese will fade due to striping. It then becomes a question of whose dice can hang on longest.

JR

I've played it twice and this was my experience in both games, so maybe the point about replay-ability has some validity. That being said, I am a newbie to the Pacific and appreciate a scenario like this to help ease into things. I had fun and both battles were razor close, so no complaints here.

 

[witchbottles]

You suck as a commenter on Game Squad

As "Marwitz" said, at times Scott Holst can create lucid and beneficial postings on any number of ASL topics. One need look no further than his clarity in focus when he discusses Red Barr CG II, III or " The Last Bid".

As noted, however, whether he chooses to do so, or simply resorts to name calling is entirely spurious.

 

[witchbottles]

Evidently MMP decided to not publish a Holst creation.....<shrug>

Perhaps this had something to do with someone's "Black -SS' counters being sold?

 

[witchbottles]

The text is perhaps based on the US Army official history, https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Rabaul/USA-P-Rabaul-17.html, which uses a nearly identical wording. Based on that history and the history at these sites, http://www.182ndinfantry.org/bougainville-the-battle-for-hill-260-1944/ & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainville_counterattack#Attack_on_the_southern_perimeter_around_Hill_260, it's still hard to get an exact picture of what unit was where and when.

JR

Oh dear. Pitman went off the wall railing at Paul Kenney a few years ago about plagiarism in the introductions of scenario cards. Please say it isn't so, that Pete did not plagiarize wording from the US Army History of World War Two volume

 

[jrv]

Oh dear. Pitman went off the wall railing at Paul Kenney a few years ago about plagiarism in the introductions of scenario cards. Please say it isn't so, that Pete did not plagiarize wording from the US Army History of World War Two volume

US government publications are not copyright. There's no violation of law/rights for using it. In an academic setting it might be frowned upon, but as far as I know no one is giving degrees in ASL.

JR

 

[witchbottles]

US government publications are not copyright. There's no violation of law/rights for using it. In an academic setting it might be frowned upon, but as far as I know no one is giving degrees in ASL.

JR

Totally agree, Let us hope Pete is more sedate and will not huff off in a fit and leave ASL because Pitman finds out he plagiarized and puts something up on his DM website about it. ( )

PS US GPO manuscripts are indeed subject to such things as I.P rights. "...Since the Government Publishing Office serves merely as a printing and distribution agency for Government publications and has no jurisdiction over their content or subject matter, it is advisable to consult with the originating department or agency, or its successor, prior to reprinting any given publication. In those instances in which permission to reprint material from Government publications is granted, customary credit should be given to the Government department or agency which prepared the material. In addition, whenever a work is published consisting predominantly of work of the U.S. Government, the copyright notice (if any) must identify those parts of the work in which copyright is claimed per 17 U.S.C. § 403...."

Simply not being able to claim a copyright over work performed by federal employees in the performance of their official duties is not sufficient to prevent a violation of IP regulations if sections are copied verbatim.

 

[Perry]

Totally agree, Let us hope Pete is more sedate and will not huff off in a fit and leave ASL because Pitman finds out he plagiarized and puts something up on his DM website about it. ( )

PS US GPO manuscripts are indeed subject to such things as I.P rights. "...Since the Government Publishing Office serves merely as a printing and distribution agency for Government publications and has no jurisdiction over their content or subject matter, it is advisable to consult with the originating department or agency, or its successor, prior to reprinting any given publication. In those instances in which permission to reprint material from Government publications is granted, customary credit should be given to the Government department or agency which prepared the material. In addition, whenever a work is published consisting predominantly of work of the U.S. Government, the copyright notice (if any) must identify those parts of the work in which copyright is claimed per 17 U.S.C. § 403...."

Simply not being able to claim a copyright over work performed by federal employees in the performance of their official duties is not sufficient to prevent a violation of IP regulations if sections are copied verbatim.

Since wholesale copying did not occur, this would not be a problem.
And if it were a problem, it would be MMP's problem, not Pete's.

 

[witchbottles]

Since wholesale copying did not occur, this would not be a problem.
And if it were a problem, it would be MMP's problem, not Pete's.

It is so refreshing how many people ignore the emoji placement in order to misunderstand facetiousness targeted at Mark Pitcavage and his treatment of Paul Kenney in quite similar circumstances. Since more formal of an approach seems to be desirable to yourself, and JR it appears as well, so be it, I will clarify:

Mark Pitcavage took Paul Kenney to task in no uncertain, and blazingly uncouth language, both here on Gamesquad, on CWS, and in his DM website webpages, for what Mark perceived as plagiarizing "Wikipedia" entries in order to create the Introductions to scenarios he designed (and published for sale, to be fair). Since Mark is such a huge pompous ass about his own opinions, it is only fair that "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander..." I have not yet seen him take either MMP or Pete to task for such a similarity of circumstances, much less with his typical "gutter" language he prefers to use to do so in such circumstances.

Hopefully, now that all attempts at levity have been removed from the situation, MMP, Perry, and JR will all understand there is a large difference between facetious comments directed at Mark Pitcavage and his pompousness, and any direct or indirect verbal animosity I (did not) direct at MMP or Pete.

KRL, Jon H

 

[jrv]

Since wholesale copying did not occur, this would not be a problem.
And if it were a problem, it would be MMP's problem, not Pete's.

According to this (https://ochsnerjournal.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/copyright-infringement-who-is-responsible-author-or-publisher/) the publisher frequently puts in the contract that the author certifies that the work does not violate anyone else's copyright. If the publisher is found to have violated copyright, the publisher can then (attempt to) recover damages from the author. Depending on your contract it could become Pete's problem if there an infringement were found.

JR