ASL Campaign Games are inherently better than scenarios

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
The reason I prefer CG over scenarios...(besides the items Pitman notes)


  • DICE - In any scenario, from 4 - 40 turns, one or two DR/dr rolls and/or series of DR/dr can turn the whole scenario upside down. In CG, because of of force purchases and RePh's a side can "heal" from those devastating DR/dr (or series of).
  • POSITION - In the limited space/time of a single scenario, once your force is out of position it is almost impossible to recover.
  • NO LOSE - Single scenarios tend to have 1, 2 at most, standard strategies for attack/defense. Very little variation for replay and if one departs from the established standards there is no way to win. While even the most scripted CG has exponentially more replayability than any single scenario.
These are good reasons for CG's

Some downsides are:

The space to leave up game for long periods of time. VASL mitigates this, but some people do not like VASL.

One side usually has to take a beating for a while and that is hard to take for a long period of time, even though you still stand a good chance of winning the CG.

So many units on the board hurt my brain. Sometimes I like to play a small one so I don't have to think so hard...........I'm limited here.
 

Starlancer

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
470
Reaction score
36
Location
Brussels
Country
llBelgium
CG is another face of the diamond of ASL's playing. I prefer to play CG but it's just my opinion. If you have a limited time to play you can still play a CG, it just a question of organization. There is guys who's are playing 1 to 3 scenarios per week but just within 2 to 3 hours max per scenario. I don't understand that they can't play 2 or 3 hours on a CG turn. VASL is more adequate for those who's don't have a place to stand with a big map for a quiet long time. But well I'm not best to tell this one. I've a place to let the map an year or two without disturbing my familly. So sweet...
 

SCK40

Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
471
Reaction score
52
Location
WI
Country
llUnited States
Big scenarios in the older-style like those in the Turning the Tide pack are a nice middle ground.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
CG is another face of the diamond of ASL's playing. I prefer to play CG but it's just my opinion. If you have a limited time to play you can still play a CG, it just a question of organization. There is guys who's are playing 1 to 3 scenarios per week but just within 2 to 3 hours max per scenario. I don't understand that they can't play 2 or 3 hours on a CG turn. VASL is more adequate for those who's don't have a place to stand with a big map for a quiet long time. But well I'm not best to tell this one. I've a place to let the map an year or two without disturbing my familly. So sweet...
For me, that's fine, but I have to take a break from a CG to do something different for a while.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Some downsides are:

The space to leave up game for long periods of time.
Treu...but then if one is a guy who wears the pants in the family this also shouldn't be a problem...the wife and kids can eat off the floor.

VASL mitigates this, but some people do not like VASL.
Then they ain't "people"!

One side usually has to take a beating for a while and that is hard to take for a long period of time, even though you still stand a good chance of winning the CG.
That would make it very attractive for liberals...they like that sort of thing.

So many units on the board hurt my brain. Sometimes I like to play a small one so I don't have to think so hard...........I'm limited here.
Please note, I resisted commenting on this one...even though it was a high fast ball.

:clown:
 

Paul_RS

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
765
Location
Gammonopolis
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I have been playing ASL for quite some time now, and I think one thing is clear: between the two main ways of playing ASL, campaign games and standalone scenarios, campaign games truly are superior.

There are a number of reasons for this. The first and most obvious reason is that the maps are infinitely better--not only are you not playing on a tiny little half geo-board, but you are playing on a map designed to recreate the actual terrain. You can see Arnhem bridge, right there, on the map! It is not represented by a generic river board and 4 cardboard bridge counters.

The second reason is that you actually get to strategize. Campaign games have both breadth and depth that scenarios simply lack. You have to plan over space and you have to plan over time. There is no "how can I win on the last turn" mentality; you have to figure out how to win in the long haul.

A third reason is that you get more choice. You can select parts of your OB; you can enhance your forces to suit your particular strategy.

A fourth reason is that you have far more decision-making; you are forced far less by artificial SSR imposed events or constraints. There is no 3rd turn reinforcement that will always enter on a particular hex just in time to make taking building X more difficult. No--problems don't come up for you unless your opponent is crafty enough to make them come up. He doesn't get to rely on the scenario designer to bail him out.

There are just no two ways about it--campaign games are so superior to regular scenarios that the latter should be played far less. Grow some testes and commit yourself to playing the Man's Version of ASL!
I agree with pretty much all of the above (checks testes...) :crosseye: Again :smoke: phew...

You also need time, a lot. More often than not we get beautiful maps but the size of the OB is not truly historical. Otherwise you would need even more time.

Cheers

Paul
 

peterk1

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
36
Location
Montreal, Canada
Country
llCanada
I love CGs much more than small one off scenarios.

...but...I find the majority of CGs are also somewhat homogenous. Take Pegasus Bridge for instance. Woulldn't it be cool if the fighting in Arromanches was also factored in? how about the paratrooper landings in Ranville? Instead of having offboard reinforcements come into play automatically, make them have to fight their way on from an entirely different map.

Wouldn't it to be cool to have a CG for the majority of Market Garden and not just what happened at Arnhem Bridge? There were 5 bridges with fascinating battles occurring at most of them.

I think there's a wonderful opportunity for some designer to think out of the box regarding CGs and come up with something truly unique ASLwise, something that can encompass more than what can fit on a single map.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Treu...but then if one is a guy who wears the pants in the family this also shouldn't be a problem...the wife and kids can eat off the floor.

Then they ain't "people"!

That would make it very attractive for liberals...they like that sort of thing.

Please note, I resisted commenting on this one...even though it was a high fast ball.

:clown:
I can't believe you failed to swing on this, I'm impressed, but I'm the first to admit I suck at this game.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
CG and scenarios complement each other, I like both, but when you "grok" a campaign it can become somehow repetitive. In addition, a player always eventually takes the upper hand but before his partner realises it, you might have to play CG days with no uncertainty as to who is gonna win the campaign, so these "final" days are far less exciting.
For the time invested, you can play 15/20 varied scenarios, with each time a new puzzle to solve.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Ok, I'll play...

CGs aren't worthy to lick the sweat from beneath my hairy balls.

"Okay, you can play football, but it will take you as long to set-up to play as it does to actually play a game. The score from today's game will carry over to next game, and that score will then carry over to next game, etc, so if you have a bad game today you are truly f#cked. In between games, you can buy new equipment and players, but the only thing worth buying are companies of the crappiest possible players, because they are cheap and because extra bodies win games. There are lots of fun things available to buy - neat toys like remote-controlled footballs and super-heavy shoulderpads - but only dimwitted noobs ever buy them because a company of cheap players is more efficient. So the whole choice is pretty much illusory, and might as well not even exist. Before long there are so many players on the field that you can't even see the yardlines. Executing a single play takes forever because there are so many players. Finally, after investing a huge amount of time and effort in this football game, one player will inevitably give up before the end of the game anyway, because it is so lopsided, making the whole excercise feel like a giant waste of time."
It's a shame the point of this apparently sailed over everyone's head. For what it's worth, I thought it was brilliant. A nice reminder that there is definitely more than one way to look at things, and that the hyper-realism camp may actually be in the minority.
 

peterk1

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
36
Location
Montreal, Canada
Country
llCanada
That football game analogy in the post quoted above is somewhat true for the way CGs have been done SO FAR. But, why not have a CG that consists of lots and lots of smallish battles that are not much bigger than your normal tourny scenario? That way, if you lose one (or two or three), you probably will not be royally screwed. That way you have the feel and continuity of a campaign without the frustration that goes into the monstrous size of a normal CG.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
That football game analogy in the post quoted above is somewhat true for the way CGs have been done SO FAR. But, why not have a CG that consists of lots and lots of smallish battles that are not much bigger than your normal tourny scenario? That way, if you lose one (or two or three), you probably will not be royally screwed. That way you have the feel and continuity of a campaign without the frustration that goes into the monstrous size of a normal CG.
I'm not saying I agree with his point - I'm slightly suspicious, actually, that Faded 8-1 doesn't believe it either. :laugh: It was well-written though; the devil couldn't ask for a better advocate.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Wouldn't it to be cool to have a CG for the majority of Market Garden and not just what happened at Arnhem Bridge? There were 5 bridges with fascinating battles occurring at most of them.
And all inter-related operationally, you mean.

Or the five landing beaches on D-Day. Or perhaps the 3 British beaches and Pegasus Bridge. Something with even more jeopardy attached to losing a CG or vital piece of terrain.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
606
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
That football game analogy in the post quoted above is somewhat true for the way CGs have been done SO FAR. But, why not have a CG that consists of lots and lots of smallish battles that are not much bigger than your normal tourny scenario? That way, if you lose one (or two or three), you probably will not be royally screwed. That way you have the feel and continuity of a campaign without the frustration that goes into the monstrous size of a normal CG.
pete Shelling had some mini CG's consisting of three scenarios with some purchasing. The east front one is J52-J54. I forget which Journal they were in. The Desert one is J79 -81 try them they are fun!

Many times there is a small CG included with the CG's. I really like CG I in VotG and CG II of RB. They are small enough to actually finish, but have plenty of CG excitement.
 

peterk1

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
36
Location
Montreal, Canada
Country
llCanada
And all inter-related operationally, you mean.

Or the five landing beaches on D-Day. Or perhaps the 3 British beaches and Pegasus Bridge. Something with even more jeopardy attached to losing a CG or vital piece of terrain.
You got it. I've been thinking along these lines ever since I tried the old, old Close Combat 2 game a little while ago just to see if it still worked.
Great idea and lots of fun, but the fact that it was Close Combat is the weak point. Slide in ASL or SASL and you're talking. Those maps are not too big either.
Small fights, quick set-up. Campaign game excitement. I don't see why not. Hell, you could even play something like this in teams of 2-4 players on a side with each player getting their own scenario to play.

Supposedly there's an official 82nd Airborne HASL in the works (see the MMP site blog) which will have 4 or 5 maps in it, so it seems I'm not the only one sort of leaning this way right now.

Man, I wish designers would gab a little bit more about what they're doing rather than keeping everything hush hush. :)
 
Last edited:

peterk1

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
36
Location
Montreal, Canada
Country
llCanada
pete Shelling had some mini CG's consisting of three scenarios with some purchasing. The east front one is J52-J54. I forget which Journal they were in. The Desert one is J79 -81 try them they are fun!

Many times there is a small CG included with the CG's. I really like CG I in VotG and CG II of RB. They are small enough to actually finish, but have plenty of CG excitement.
Thanks for the recommend. I have the East Front one but have never really taken a close look at it.
I'm a big fan of VoTG CG 1 as well - that one is even a lot of fun using the SASL rules that Tom came up with.
 

Faded 8-1

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
831
Location
Ohio
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
I'm not saying I agree with his point - I'm slightly suspicious, actually, that Faded 8-1 doesn't believe it either. :laugh:
Most perceptive of you.

Pitman did say he was looking for an argument. Ever the accomodating sort, I was just trying to be of service.

AZSlim said:
pete Shelling had some mini CG's consisting of three scenarios with some purchasing. The east front one is J52-J54. I forget which Journal they were in. The Desert one is J79 -81 try them they are fun!

Many times there is a small CG included with the CG's. I really like CG I in VotG and CG II of RB. They are small enough to actually finish, but have plenty of CG excitement.
Good points both. You had me at 'I shart a lot.'
 

skarper

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
515
Reaction score
133
Location
Vietnam
Country
ll
I've never liked the reality of playing a HASL CG. I like the 'idea' but it's too much effort for the reward. I'd rather they produced the HASL with the scenarios a few months earlier and left the CG as an 'add on' later. It obviously takes ages to adequately playtest a CG, and I think they are never very balanced in the way the best scenarios are.

But that's just my POV. A good scenario on a HASL map beats a GEO BOARD scenario - but a CG? Too much trouble.
 

fwheel73

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
80
Location
Oklahoma
Country
llUnited States
I have been playing ASL for quite some time now, and I think one thing is clear: between the two main ways of playing ASL, campaign games and standalone scenarios, campaign games truly are superior.

[Huge Snip]
There are just no two ways about it--campaign games are so superior to regular scenarios that the latter should be played far less. Grow some testes and commit yourself to playing the Man's Version of ASL!
Mark,
This is an interesting topic.... maybe a new thread might be needed, but I would be interested in understanding the mechanics the scenario designer, you, must go through to design and playtest a scenario vs. a CG game. It seems that the CG would be more forgiving of designer mistakes than the single scenario. As a result the successful scenario designer must be very good at cutting from the historical record the units and terrain that make up the single scenario.

Would that be a reasonable observation? Just wondering...

Best regards,:salute:
John
 
Top