#32: Berated at Baranovichi

[lightspeed]

On another note, I was surprised and dismayed by the comments about an entire pack based on a very
limited sample. I was even verging on anger...I've calmed down now. I still feel I need to say the following:

Bounding Fire, imho, puts first rate stuff, and has excellent customer service. To talk about balance
about a scenario after less than 30 playings is really silly and says more about the person making the claims
about the scenario rather than the scenario itself. To talk about balance after even 30 playings might be
misguided.

As Mayers said, one shouldn't blame a scenario for one's inability to use all the tools available.

Having said that, I realize it is far easier to type criticisms and suggest that others do something than it is
to lift a finger and do something yourself.

Sheesh.

In a previous thread, I said that TDs don't deserve criticism, but rather our support and thanks. Similarly,
TPP (like BFP) don't deserve such unwarranted and baseless criticism, but rather our support and thanks.

Thank you Martin, and thank you BFP.

indy

PS: I've contributed to the hijacking of this thread enough. My apologies to Illuminating Rounds.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Joe’s view of the scenario may have been coloured by my reaction to it, since I moaned like buggery all the way through it. Could the Stugs set up HIP if they were in woods ? Whatever, I recall my feedback was to make the last two hexrows unplayable, to get rid of some Stug hiding places. Would be interested to know if that made it into the final scenario. Did Matt get the only Russian win in that round ?

From my very vexed memory I think they may indeed have shortened the board slightly. I could be very wrong. Chas, if you're lurking, drop a comment in on this please.

 

[Toby Pilling]

You played the Toby Big Ju Ju.

Toby Big Ju Ju? I like the sound of that!

Let me just reiterate what Dave Ramsey said - you and Simon do a great job running that tournament. I've played in tournaments all around the world, winning a fair few too and the Bounding First Fire tournament is in my top three, along with Albany and Copenhagen (Arnhem would have been up there also, but sadly no longer exists). That's not bad company.

The whole concept of the tournament is to run unpublished scenarios - that takes courage, as there is no ROAR score to check. It also took courage for you to try a big scenario on the Friday evening. Unfortunately it didn't work because British players tend to be on the slow side - that's fine, but at least you tried. As for the balance - sure, some are harder than others. I wager I could win that Bridgehead scenario though against most players and would have had fun trying to overcome the difficulties of Schmidt's Roadblock, where at least I would have had the published balance. Players require a different mindset when approaching these virgin scenarios in your tournament. That's why I like it so much.

 

[AdrianE]

Does the tank even need to enter the building to force the upstairs broken unit to rout? Would the tank in bypass do the same thing?

That would work but it allows the Germans to claim -1 street fighting DRM in any potential CCRF roll.
Also the range 0 PF shot is a lot more dangerous if in bypass. (10 TH with +2 motion -1 size drm).
I think the ISU gets the +3 stone building tem if it enters the hex.

 

[bendizoid]

That would work but it allows the Germans to claim -1 street fighting DRM in any potential CCRF roll.
Also the range 0 PF shot is a lot more dangerous if in bypass. (10 TH with +2 motion -1 size drm).
I think the ISU gets the +3 stone building tem if it enters the hex.

+3 If it enters the building.
Yes, a AFV in bypass would have been the way to get that DMed guy out of 1st level.

 

[JoeArthur]

Joe’s view of the scenario may have been coloured by my reaction to it, since I moaned like buggery all the way through it.

So what's the difference between that and all the other games we've played Ian

 

[JoeArthur]

To be fair, ("my") Martin has previously said that Desperate Bridgehead was on his list of all time favourite scenarios - I've not played any of them yet but I'm keen to check that one out in particular.

I made a point of playing one of Martin's top five, as he had recommended them. It was G34 The Liberators. Martin recommended it, it was the first scenario to allow you to offer you the chance to choose your OB. It looked interesting.

I did not like it. Purely because of SSR 7 "All vehicles must expend an additional MP for each E3.65 Open Ground hexside crossed/traversed". Which meant my Russian tanks could move six or seven hexes unless they stuck to the roads. Less if they wanted to bypass a building.

The Germans of course had all the roads covered. I gave up on Russian turn 5. ROAR has it:

The Liberators [G34]

German

28

Russian

14

So it looks unbalanced?

With Desperate Brigehead I did not enjoy playing the Russians. Toby's analysis on that one was for the Germans to hide an ATG on a hill in a corner somewhere and keep it hidden. He's very good at breaking scenarios...........

I'm not getting at (your) Martin over this. Maybe it just shows that different people enjoy different parts of the game?

 

[daveramsey]

Joe, it seems you place more emphasis on balanced scenarios than we (Barker & I) do. That's no problems, horses for courses and all that. We might be less competitive than you.

I see ASL, even at tournaments, as a chance to play a fun game with, mostly, people I like who share a common interest. The highlight of the Liberators is its heavy metal, high intensity OoBs and that you'll spend a whole day on the right-hand side of the TK tables, pushing big heavy tanks around, not that it's balanced to an inch of its life.

How about letting us know your top 5 scenarios, so we have an idea of what you enjoy?

 

[JoeArthur]

How about letting us know your top 5 scenarios, so we have an idea of what you enjoy?

Now there's a good question. I don't have a top five Dave.

I enjoy any scenario as long as it is balanced - even the Italian ones Sitting down to a scenario like 3rd RTR In the Rain where you know it is balanced on a knife edge and it is down to you whether you win or loose is enjoyable.

Sitting down for five hours playing a game that you have already lost due to it being unbalanced is not enjoyable for me. I suspect others feel the same otherwise what is the point of ROAR? I would rather sit in the bar and chat for five hours.

Sitting across from an opponent that you know you will crush is no fun either. Sitting across from a better player than you is great because even if you are crushed you will learn something in the process.

Playing a balanced scenario, across from an opponent who is slightly better than you - that is perfection...........

 

[Gamer72]

So what's the difference between that and all the other games we've played Ian

I think I was a bit happier with those surprising Elefants... ?

 

[daveramsey]

Sitting down for five hours playing a game that you have already lost due to it being unbalanced is not enjoyable for me.

But this is hyperbole. A scenario that's 70% pro one side isn't an automatic defeat.

 

[asloser]

ROAR is only a guide, and it is not the only way to assess balance. If something has 28-14 record in ROAR it is saying to me it is doable for both sides and might favour one side- to what degree you'll only know after analysis and possibly play of the scenario

 

[Chas]

Martin,
Schmidt's Roadblock: We did take feedback from the tournament as well as ongoing PTing and modified the scenario.
We did shorten the board.

Desperate Bridgehead: What's not to like. Tough decisions and maneuver for both sides. Multiple ways to win and either side can win. Each side has fun OB stuff to implement.
If someone doesn't like this I would recommend taking up Titley Winks

From my very vexed memory I think they may indeed have shortened the board slightly. I could be very wrong. Chas, if you're lurking, drop a comment in on this please.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Martin,
Schmidt's Roadblock: We did take feedback from the tournament as well as ongoing PTing and modified the scenario.
We did shorten the board.

Desperate Bridgehead: What's not to like. Tough decisions and maneuver for both sides. Multiple ways to win and either side can win. Each side has fun OB stuff to implement.
If someone doesn't like this I would recommend taking up Titley Winks

Martin and I loved it. It was the fact of death coming suddenly from any direction and tanks being obliterated left right and centre. It felt like every vehicle had some kind of Achiles Heel. Every gun, even if pitifully small, was able to find something they could hurt.

A really wonderfully crafted scenario.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Now there's a good question. I don't have a top five Dave.

I enjoy any scenario as long as it is balanced - even the Italian ones Sitting down to a scenario like 3rd RTR In the Rain where you know it is balanced on a knife edge and it is down to you whether you win or loose is enjoyable.

Sitting down for five hours playing a game that you have already lost due to it being unbalanced is not enjoyable for me. I suspect others feel the same otherwise what is the point of ROAR? I would rather sit in the bar and chat for five hours.

Sitting across from an opponent that you know you will crush is no fun either.

Remember when you broke that scenario by setting the pillboxes up facing out to sea so that it wasn't actually possible for my Marines to win?

Balance didn't seem to be an issue for you then !

 

[Eagle4ty]

+3 If it enters the building.
Yes, a AFV in bypass would have been the way to get that DMed guy out of 1st level.

I believe you're correct here Bob, but there is one possible exception. Since "Infantry" cannot remain in bypass of the building the AFV would not really be considered ADJACENT (A.8) to the broken unit at level 1 since Infantry would not be allowed to be there at ground level (A10.5). I'm not sure if this has ever been addressed by a Q&A.