ASL Campaign Games are inherently better than scenarios

[Glennbo]

Campaign games aren't any more "realistic" than scenarios. Even these so-called great maps are still simplistic abstractions. It's all the same game you idiots. You're still using dice and generic counters to represent complex military units and activity, and structured game turns to represent time. You're using the same rules.

Campaign games are simply larger, extended versions of scenarios.

So the map may look a bit more like the specific battlefield and it takes a long time to play out. That's as far as the difference goes. The campaign game isn't less of an abstraction than a scenario.

If playing on a specific map and pretending that your OB is more realistic than a scenario's enhances the delusion that your toy soldiers are really at war, then you have my complete sympathy for your mental handicap.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Campaign games aren't any more "realistic" than scenarios. Even these so-called great maps are still simplistic abstractions... You're still using dice and generic counters to represent complex military units and activity, and structured game turns to represent time. You're using the same rules.

Campaign games are simply larger, extended versions of scenarios.

All true; the decision making is slightly different vis a vis force preservation however, since you have to husband resources over a longer period of time than just one firefight. There's also a "shopping" component - which I'm not arguing is necessarily "realistic", though it is intended to portray a unit commander's resource management in a long-term engagement, and serves well enough as a stand in, even if not a direct simulation of how it is done (i.e. you spend points to "purchase" stuff from a limited list, rather than have your formation commander designate what you will use, and when).

 

[Evan Sherry]

I've decided that the Tampa ASL Group is going to take a break and play a couple of campaign games. As a result of this, Schwerpunkt Volume #17 will be released at ASLOK 2015. See you later!

 

[Psycho]

Campaign games aren't any more "realistic" than scenarios. Even these so-called great maps are still simplistic abstractions. It's all the same game you idiots. You're still using dice and generic counters to represent complex military units and activity, and structured game turns to represent time. You're using the same rules.

Campaign games are simply larger, extended versions of scenarios.

So the map may look a bit more like the specific battlefield and it takes a long time to play out. That's as far as the difference goes. The campaign game isn't less of an abstraction than a scenario.

If playing on a specific map and pretending that your OB is more realistic than a scenario's enhances the delusion that your toy soldiers are really at war, then you have my complete sympathy for your mental handicap.

Ed Zachry! :clap:

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

I've decided that the Tampa ASL Group is going to take a break and play a couple of campaign games. As a result of this, Schwerpunkt Volume #17 will be released at ASLOK 2015. See you later!

Seriously what form might an SP CG take if such a beast ever came to be?

The idea of a linked set of 3-4 scenarios like the Shelling model might be an interesting baby step? (And that way SP #17 could come in 2012)

 

[Jacometti]

of course it's largely subjective.
is better a wonderful well known woman with whom to live together for five-six months or a wide choice of girls of all ages and races for the same amount of time all weekend ?

Spoken like a true Italian !

I am pretty sure mr Berlusconi is not into Campaign Games.....

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Spoken like a true Italian !

I am pretty sure mr Berlusconi is not into Campaign Games.....

Actually I think anything over 3 turns is a struggle, though getting sufficient counter density of SFC has proved a challenge to scenario designers.

 

[Morbii]

Campaign games aren't any more "realistic" than scenarios. Even these so-called great maps are still simplistic abstractions. It's all the same game you idiots. You're still using dice and generic counters to represent complex military units and activity, and structured game turns to represent time. You're using the same rules.

Campaign games are simply larger, extended versions of scenarios.

So the map may look a bit more like the specific battlefield and it takes a long time to play out. That's as far as the difference goes. The campaign game isn't less of an abstraction than a scenario.

If playing on a specific map and pretending that your OB is more realistic than a scenario's enhances the delusion that your toy soldiers are really at war, then you have my complete sympathy for your mental handicap.

Glennbo, stop being such a ***** and make a ****ing CG already. So the real men get to experience your prowess! (er... that came out a bit more perverse than I'd hoped).

 

[Morbii]

BTW, I agree with Pitman. Starting a CG kind of makes scenario play feel like noise mostly. While I eventually started tiring of RB, I think, there are so many really good ones out there that scenarios are basically a wash for me, in general (though, I still have fun when I do play a scenario .

 

[Mr Incredible]

It's horses for courses for me.

CGs are nice to play for the aforementioned reasons (and in my case I can play using VASL and don't have to pack it up) but so are scenarios when you want to play something in a single setting with a real flesh and blood opponent.

My ASL journey has lead me to PTing scenarios for APs and upcoming modules which I have found even more satisfying and challenging than either of the above. I even have a CG on the go using one of the new upcoming modules as its basis.

It's just unfortunate that in the past 12 months I have changed jobs and my spare time has evapourated. The only ASL I get to do is read Journals, read threads on this website and dream about pushing my cardboard precious around.

:ciao:

 

[Roadtogundagai]

... (er... that came out a bit more perverse than I'd hoped).

Nope. That "came out" exactly as perverse as intended, ya FREAK

 

[Morbii]

Nope. That "came out" exactly as perverse as intended, ya FREAK

Whatever, Roadtobungsomeguy

 

[alanp]

Real men mount things--thus the geo boards are manly; SK and HASL maps are for wimps.

Real men go it alone. (ooh, I need someone else, maybe even a 3-way, or *gasp* 4-way -- "you take the tanks, I'll play with the Infantry".)

Ergo: SASL Missions all the way, baby!!!

 

[Pitman]

Campaign games aren't any more "realistic" than scenarios. Even these so-called great maps are still simplistic abstractions. It's all the same game you idiots. You're still using dice and generic counters to represent complex military units and activity, and structured game turns to represent time. You're using the same rules.

Campaign games are simply larger, extended versions of scenarios.

So the map may look a bit more like the specific battlefield and it takes a long time to play out. That's as far as the difference goes. The campaign game isn't less of an abstraction than a scenario.

If playing on a specific map and pretending that your OB is more realistic than a scenario's enhances the delusion that your toy soldiers are really at war, then you have my complete sympathy for your mental handicap.

You are just unhappy with CGs because you actually have to define what a platoon of tanks or a company of infantry might look like and this inhibits your tendency to put some of every single vehicle into your big scenarios! Ach, hamstrung by reality yet again!

 

[Pitman]

I've decided that the Tampa ASL Group is going to take a break and play a couple of campaign games. As a result of this, Schwerpunkt Volume #17 will be released at ASLOK 2015. See you later!

Like you guys even play other people's scenarios, much less CGs! I don't know if the Tampa ASL Group is really an ASL club or merely the world's longest lasting circle jerk!

 

[Pitman]

Actually I think anything over 3 turns is a struggle.

Leonard Shelby, ASL Player!

 

[Nadir_E]

Mark - you are well on your way to getting your "Agitator" Merit Badge!

Both have a place, but I prefer HASL terrain whenever possible.

-N

 

[DaveStory]

I look at it as a ratio of amount of fun-to-hours played. Going strictly by that, I would say scenarios are more bang-for-the-hour. CGs and SASL do have unique aspects to them, though, so I think a strict comparison is too obstinate.

 

[Pitman]

HASL Terrain is the Best! In ASL, getting new terrain added is more difficult than deflowering a hermetically sealed virgin stuck in a floor safe! Can you believe that DEBRIS is not a standard ASL terrain type?

 

[RobZagnut]

Sorry, I like scenarios better than CGs for many, many reasons.

* I like competition. I want to play a variety of different players rather than playing the same guy over and over. I enjoy the company and chatting with different players while playing.

* I want variety. I want to play PTO, then Tunisia, then Russians, then Normandy, etc. I don't want to be stuck playing on the same map forever. I love the variety and number of scenarios that are being released.

* I have no space and only have 4-6 hours to play.

* My favorite products are Action Packs, because of the new maps. I like to play on the different maps and try to figure out the new LOS.

In a nutshell, I like variety. That's why ASL appeals to me. The different scenarios, opponents, nationalities, units, map boards, vehicles and theaters is why I play the game. Its why I buy all the different packs from all the different TPPs. Its why I go to tournaments. Its why I spend a lot of time teaching the game to new players, because each person brings something new to the table. CGs are cool, but they are too restrictive in how and what I want to do with my time.