A25.33 American OBA Draw Pile for Scarce Ammunition

[Sparafucil3]

Even an eight turn scenario is unlikely to see more than 3 fire missions unless you have an offboard observer. The math works reasonably well for the vast majority of scenarios. For the record, I am happy to use my rule whether I am the OBA player or playing the other side. The biggest thing is that it greatly reduces the chances of zero fire missions and the opponent's knowledge the module is gone forever. That is what really breaks an OBA scenario...
Steve

What Steve said. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Even an eight turn scenario is unlikely to see more than 3 fire missions unless you have an offboard observer. The math works reasonably well for the vast majority of scenarios. For the record, I am happy to use my rule whether I am the OBA player or playing the other side. The biggest thing is that it greatly reduces the chances of zero fire missions and the opponent's knowledge the module is gone forever. That is what really breaks an OBA scenario...
Steve

When was the Pleva rule first formulated and released for the ASL community?

 

[BattleSchool]

I think it's fallen out of favor with FTF players as that's more "busy work"
For VASL all of what you speak can be handled ON the map with labels and HIP status for the weapons/SW .

Even Cloaking is simple...you stack them HIP under the CLoak counter instead of some old school chart.

Yes, and no. Gyros and Sz are not encountered that often in scenarios. However, there are cases where their inclusion is warranted regardless of any added bookkeeping. Mid-war clashes in Italy are a case in point. Bazookas and PIAT can prove less decisive when their SCW strike Sz. But I agree that generally speaking some "chrome" has fallen out of favour, which brings me back to the current topic.

IMO, the Pleva Rule, and creative OBA Draw Piles like those found in Hatten in Flames, have led to a revival of scenarios featuring OBA. The same rule has also breathed new life into older designs that were avoided in the past due to the unpredicatable nature of conventional OBA rules.

 

[BattleSchool]

But no one has answered why the Red Army should be punished and Uncle Sam rewarded. Soviets used artillery concentrations never seen on the Western Front.

The Red Army is not being punished. The Russian OBA Draw Pile reflects the small "t" tactical use of artillery. The Soviets favoured massive artillery concentrations. They were less inclined to give battalion or company commanders control over this asset. IMO, the Draw Pile models this well. Where required, ASL has built-in mechanics that enable a Soviet battery to play a more decisive role in a scenario, be that by providing an Offboard Observer, Pre-Reg hexes, an auto black chit, or a pre-game bombardment. Artillery support is also provided in the form of powerful, self-propelled artillery.

I don't think the Soviets are being shortchanged where artillery is concerned. In any case, a scenario that featured huge fires of Soviet, American, or Commonwealth artillery would not be particularly interesting to game. ASL is at bottom about infantry combat. Everything else is spice.

 

[Actionjick]

Yes, and no. Gyros and Sz are not encountered that often in scenarios. However, there are cases where their inclusion is warranted regardless of any added bookkeeping. Mid-war clashes in Italy are a case in point. Bazookas and PIAT can prove less decisive when their SCW strike Sz. But I agree that generally speaking some "chrome" has fallen out of favour, which brings me back to the current topic.
IMO, the Pleva Rule, and creative OBA Draw Piles like those found in Hatten in Flames, have led to a revival of scenarios featuring OBA. The same rule has also breathed new life into older designs that were avoided in the past due to the unpredicatable nature of convential OBA rules.

The unpredictability of OBA was/is something the owner and recipient just have to deal with and in many ways is historically accurate. We've all seen accounts in the real world where expected artillery support never materialized or did so at the incorrect time or place.

As with other elements of the game the threat is often more valuable than the actual use, as others have previously stated.

 

[BattleSchool]

The unpredictability of OBA was/is something the owner and recipient just have to deal with and in many ways is historically accurate.

True, but fewer players today are willing to risk playing a scenario where OBA fails to have any (or too much) impact on the game. In our younger days "balance" was less of a concern. The dearth of scenarios at the time led many of us to play every "official" scenario at least once, regardless of whether a game could become unhinged by drawing two red chits early on.

Given the huge number of scenarios available for play now, many players opt to ignore those deemed too "dicey" in order to play other offerings. Scenarios featuring one key piece, FT AFV, etc., also fall into this category. Still other players pass on scenarios with too much chrome or bookkeeping. Finally, an historically accurate scenario isn't necessarily that interesting to play.

 

[Actionjick]

True, but fewer players today are willing to risk playing a scenario where OBA fails to have any (or too much) impact on the game. In our younger days "balance" was less of a concern. The dearth of scenarios at the time led many of us to play every "official" scenario at least once, regardless of whether a game could become unhinged by drawing two red chits early on.

Given the huge number of scenarios available for play now, many players opt to ignore those deemed too "dicey" in order to play other offerings. Scenarios featuring one key piece, FT AFV, etc., also fall into this category. Still other players pass on scenarios with too much chrome or bookkeeping. Finally, an historically accurate scenario isn't necessarily that interesting to play.

Quite agree about balance bitd and was never really concerned about historical accuracy, just looking for a fun scenario.

Funny about today's players not being willing to play a potentially unbalanced or chrome less scenario. What's the matter with kids today??

 

[Actionjick]

True, but fewer players today are willing to risk playing a scenario where OBA fails to have any (or too much) impact on the game. In our younger days "balance" was less of a concern. The dearth of scenarios at the time led many of us to play every "official" scenario at least once, regardless of whether a game could become unhinged by drawing two red chits early on.

Given the huge number of scenarios available for play now, many players opt to ignore those deemed too "dicey" in order to play other offerings. Scenarios featuring one key piece, FT AFV, etc., also fall into this category. Still other players pass on scenarios with too much chrome or bookkeeping. Finally, an historically accurate scenario isn't necessarily that interesting to play.

Would you say this unwillingness is due to the average player only playing one scenario a week or less and so is looking for a more competitive scenario or has the need to win become more of a factor?

 

[von Marwitz]

Would you say this unwillingness is due to the average player only playing one scenario a week or less and so is looking for a more competitive scenario or has the need to win become more of a factor?

Playing one scenario a week would mean 50 scenarios a year, which is quite significantly above average AFAIK (I believe there has been a poll on this not too far ago).

I'd rather guess that in the scarce time most players have for ASL, they want the time "well spent", in other words they want the risk minimized for a scenario "breaking" due to some lucky/unlucky DRs or card draws.

This can happen with the very short ones as the usually don't have many units in them, so a key asset 'breaking' will have a large impact. Furthermore, in very short scenarios, there is usually not enough time to make up for a major freak event which might work in a larger scenario.

They are also often reluctant to spend some of their scarce time to delve into chrome rules, place half a dozen of overlays, etc.

These days, there are sufficient good scenarios around to avoid these things. On the other hand, you might miss some other good designs that way.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

Playing one scenario a week would mean 50 scenarios a year, which is quite significantly above average AFAIK (I believe there has been a poll on this not too far ago).

I'd rather guess that in the scarce time most players have for ASL, they want the time "well spent", in other words they want the risk minimized for a scenario "breaking" due to some lucky DRs.

This can happen with the very short ones as the usually don't have many units in them, so a key asset 'breaking' will have a large impact. Furthermore, in very short scenarios, there is usually not enough time to make up for a major freak event which might work in a larger scenario.

They are also often reluctant to spend some of their scarce time to delve into chrome rules, place half a dozen of overlays, etc.

These days, there are sufficient good scenarios around to avoid these things. On the other hand, you might miss some other good designs that way.

von Marwitz

Yes one scenario a week is above average these days. When I posted that poll I was surprised and disappointed by the results. I had incorrectly assumed as players got older and retired they would have more time to play, especially with VASL.

Are scenarios becoming increasingly generic and bland?

Quite agree about missing some good designs. Always enjoyed the chrome. Who wants spiceless Mexican or Indian food?

 

[Robin Reeve]

I play many games beside ASL, not speaking of other occupations.
One ASL game a week isn't possible for me.

 

[von Marwitz]

Are scenarios becoming increasingly generic and bland?

I wouldn't say that. There are many good scenario designs published each and every year that offer wide variety.

What might have changed is that the average scenario has become shorter than 'back in the days'.

In quite a number of the old scenarios, both sides set up and than moved for a turn or two before they seriously clashed. So part of the game was 'developing one's position' for the attack or the defence. Today, most scenarios offer 'immediate action' following the style which the Schwerpunkt scenarios are known for. This might be in line to concentrate the precious playing time on the most interesting real action. On the other hand, this kind of scenarios has made a good offensive and defensive setup much more important than in the days of old.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

I play many games beside ASL, not speaking of other occupations.
One ASL game a week isn't possible for me.

Well for not concentrating solely on ASL you seem to have a very good understanding of the system.

 

[Actionjick]

I wouldn't say that. There are many good scenario designs published each and every year that offer wide variety.

What might have changed is that the average scenario has become shorter than 'back in the days'.

In quite a number of the old scenarios, both sides set up and than moved for a turn or two before they seriously clashed. So part of the game was 'developing one's position' for the attack or the defence. Today, most scenarios offer 'immediate action' following the style which the Schwerpunkt scenarios are known for. This might be in line to concentrate the precious playing time on the most interesting real action. On the other hand, this kind of scenarios has made a good offensive and defensive setup much more important than in the days of old.

von Marwitz

So less emphasis on foreplay and more wham bam thank you sir?

 

[BattleSchool]

Would you say this unwillingness is due to the average player only playing one scenario a week or less and so is looking for a more competitive scenario or has the need to win become more of a factor?

The desire to win has always been a factor. After all, ASL is an adversarial endeavour. That said, I doubt many feel satisfied winning (or losing) a scenario due to a single event generated either by dice or an OBA Draw Pile. So the desire for a "balanced" or "competitive" scenario is understandable. Granted some, especially HASL players with a greater interest in a kind of historical role playing, are less concerned with balance than historical "accuracy." But I think most want to play a scenario in which both sides have a reasonable chance for victory.

It's no surprise that players with less free time have become more discriminating, both in their tastes and in how they assess the play-worthiness of a scenario. Some will gravitate toward a particular theatre, period, or nationality. Others avoid scenarios with certain VC, overlays, optional rules, and so forth.

IMO the "best" scenarios are those that come down to the last turn, where they could easily go either way. Judging which are the best is subjective, as two people can play the same scenario and come away with divergent views on its relative balance, or its replay and entertainment value. However, certain scenarios seem to deliver the goods more than others do, which is why they tend to get the most play. If you can only manage a dozen scenarios in a year, then selecting from the best-of catalogue makes a lot of sense. Others nevertheless buck this trend and try to explore new territory whenever possible.

In other words, like everything ASL, it depends.

 

[Actionjick]

The desire to win has always been a factor. After all, ASL is an adversarial endeavour. That said, I doubt many feel satisfied winning (or losing) a scenario due to a single event generated either by dice or an OBA Draw Pile. So the desire for a "balanced" or "competitive" scenario is understandable. Granted some, especially HASL players with a greater interest in a kind of historical role playing, are less concerned with balance than historical "accuracy." But I think most want to play a scenario in which both sides have a reasonable chance for victory.

It's no surprise that players with less free time have become more discriminating, both in their tastes and in how they assess the play-worthiness of a scenario. Some will gravitate toward a particular theatre, period, or nationality. Others avoid scenarios with certain VC, overlays, optional rules, and so forth.

IMO the "best" scenarios are those that come down to the last turn, where they could easily go either way. Judging which are the best is subjective, as two people can play the same scenario and come away with divergent views on its relative balance, or its replay and entertainment value. However, certain scenarios seem to deliver the goods more than others do, which is why they tend to get the most play. If you can only manage a dozen scenarios in a year, then selecting from the best-of catalogue makes a lot of sense. Others nevertheless buck this trend and try to explore new territory whenever possible.

In other words, like everything ASL, it depends.

A dozen scenarios a year, sigh?. More used to a dozen in a month. Oh well, seeing as my current total is zero a year I really shouldn't pass judgment.?

A person can also play the same scenario multiple times and have divergent views of it but a feel for it's worthiness.

Quite like your " deliver the goods " description of scenarios that get played a lot. In fact I'll probably steal it as Captain Bacchus and I have been contemplating a thread/poll on what today's players like in a scenario. Thanks! ?

 

[Steven Pleva]

When was the Pleva rule first formulated and released for the ASL community?

2009 was the first release of the Heretical SSRs...
Steve

 

[Actionjick]

2009 was the first release of the Heretical SSRs...
Steve

Thanks Steve. Seems to have been relatively well received.

 

[Actionjick]

2009 was the first release of the Heretical SSRs...
Steve

If at some time you feel like donning the purple robes I would enjoy hearing you pontificate on the inspiration and evolution of your heresies. ???

I'll supply the incense. ?

 

[Sparafucil3]

Are scenarios becoming increasingly generic and bland?

I jokingly say that Schwerpunkt is German for "more of the same" precisely because they all seem to become more and more alike to me. The nationalities change, the boards change but the VC vary between a couple of different types and generally, it's 10 - 15 squads and 3 - 5 AFV's vs. 8 - 12 squads, and a couple of tanks/guns. The more people try to make "tournament scenarios" the more they collapse into the same thing. JMO, YMMV. -- jim