ASL Scandinavian Open 2009 scenario list

M.Koch

Grenadier TD
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
574
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
Re: ASL Scandinavian Open 2009 FINAL RESULTS

The Scandinavian Open Crew would like to thank all the participants for behaving well and (almost) showing up on time for all games...
Apologies for that...i´ve got lost in the streets of Copenhagen :rolleyes:

Thanks to the tournament organizers, Michael and Bo, for an nice ASL weekend full with high and lows... :thumup:

MK
 

bo_siemsen

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
375
Reaction score
201
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Country
llDenmark
Re: ASL Scandinavian Open 2009 FINAL RESULTS

Apologies for that...i´ve got lost in the streets of Copenhagen :rolleyes:

Thanks to the tournament organizers, Michael and Bo, for an nice ASL weekend full with high and lows... :thumup:

MK
Hi Michael,
No problem. I certainly didn't mean to point fingers at you or anyone else ... from our stand-point we just had a few minor problems at the beginning of the tournament and sunday morning.

Thanks for coming. See you in 2010.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,049
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Two talking points from my side:
1) "The Hellenic Expedition" has been proven to be a "broken" scenario, unfortunately. It should get no more tournament play unless fixed.
I join your side on that one. It was like banging his head on a wall. I felt largely powerless for the bulk of the scenario, although I find the OBs, map configuration, and the game generally very pleasant. I suggest two options to fix it:
- limiting the HIP option in non-builiding locations to one squad; or
- shrinking significantly the area where HIP could be set up; there are simply too many attractive locations to set up and cause havoc to the attacking Greeks.

2) ABS increases the risk of atypical tournament play, if there is a "broken" scenario in the scenario list. Instead of scratching the scenario off the list (because you don't want to play the loosing side), you could not bid high for it and win that way. Of course the real problem is only in the scenario, not in the players - but ABS makes it much worse as it can make a "broken" scenario attractive.
I fail to understand this one. ABS in itself did not generate issues. Only scenarios did, hence the need for TDs to carefully select them. A broken scenario could be fixed by ABS. There is still an issue linked to ABS. One should take time to review each scenario and choose the right balance. It gives a undue advantage to those spending time before tournament and/or benefiting from the tips of fellow players. In order to ensure a level playing field, TD should devote time to select only proven scenarios. Having recourse to ABS is only a second best. Participants to tournaments are not replacement playtesters.
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
139
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
I join your side on that one. It was like banging his head on a wall. I felt largely powerless for the bulk of the scenario, although I find the OBs, map configuration, and the game generally very pleasant. I suggest two options to fix it:
- limiting the HIP option in non-builiding locations to one squad; or
- shrinking significantly the area where HIP could be set up; there are simply too many attractive locations to set up and cause havoc to the attacking Greeks.
The "winning" setup as described by Melvin (who convinced the rest of the Stockholm crew, I think) was one where the Germans would keep the all of their infantry OB in the back two (victory) stone buildings. HIP would only be used to hide the Germans' intention and all German infantry would move into the buildings on turn 1. If that is true, limiting German HIP as you suggest would not really affect balance at all. Sure, you will see alreday from the start that the Germans will defend the back buildings in force, but that doesn't have so much value if you already have realized that a backward defense is the best option.

In essence, this is the conclusion I reached during playtest too, although I didn't come up with the brilliant idea of keeping the infantry force that was to defend the buildings HIP. However, my experience is that defending the front building in strength and just keeping a 1.5 squad-equivalent in the back buildings also works pretty well.

The HIP SSR came to life when I realize that a fighting withdrawal was nearly impossible and was an attempt to give the Germans at least a little incentive to stay out of the buildings with at least a part of the OB.

Keeping the bulk of the German OB in ambush-style position outside the buildings will leave the scenario pro-British (or pro-Greek/Canadian, if you will). I've received some complaints about this too - that the Greek/Canadians are too strong.

If you fall into the trap, that is, if you believe the German infantry is hiding in ambush positions and move cautiously forward, when in fact you will be facing nothing until you reach the air field, you are bound to lose. But if you've realize that the above-mentioned defense is in fact the optimal one, I think you still have a decent chance as the Greek/Canadians. I believe Erik followed this Melvin-trademarked setup pattern against Mr Hastrup, and still it was a close game.

I realize that I'm most likely wrong of course, since so many good players (even my fellow FrF designers) think it's a broken dog.
 

bo_siemsen

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
375
Reaction score
201
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Country
llDenmark
The "winning" setup as described by Melvin (who convinced the rest of the Stockholm crew, I think) was one where the Germans would keep the all of their infantry OB in the back two (victory) stone buildings. HIP would only be used to hide the Germans' intention and all German infantry would move into the buildings on turn 1.

If you fall into the trap, that is, if you believe the German infantry is hiding in ambush positions and move cautiously forward, when in fact you will be facing nothing until you reach the air field, you are bound to lose. But if you've realize that the above-mentioned defense is in fact the optimal one, I think you still have a decent chance as the Greek/Canadians. I believe Erik followed this Melvin-trademarked setup pattern against Mr Hastrup, and still it was a close game.

I realize that I'm most likely wrong of course, since so many good players (even my fellow FrF designers) think it's a broken dog.
I dont want to dispute your findings on the scenario. I just want to add a bit of data to the equation. All the Stockholm-players did (to my knowledge) pay the highest price balancing price (3 squads upgraded, a better leader and an armor leader) ... except Melvin who gave his opponent 5 extra squads ... and they all won the game.

Even though one or two of the games may have been reasonably close that (again in my opinion) does not mean that the scenario isnt unbalanced. It may also have something to do with the players involved.

If I recall correctly, the germans were undefeated in the scenario ... even those not using the Melvin Falk-setup and plan.

* * *

As a Tournament Director I am very disappointed that we ended having a scenario that turned out to be this one-sided even with the highest balancing provisions. As a player who had the side of the greeks (and hadn't seen the scenario before) I fell into the trap and ended up feeling I had wasted that afternoon pretty much. I dont think Johan enjoyed it either.

If a scenario gets flagged as broken it would have been nice to know it in advance. Maybe the scenario would be outright removed or altered.
 

larth

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
154
Location
Close to a keyboard
Country
llSweden
ROUND 1:
HP06 The Only Way Out
(1944 Finnish ambush on Germans)

ROUND 2:
HP28 Torment at Tormua
(1940 Double attack at Suomussalmi.)

ROUND 3:
HP33 Father Sunshine
(1944 Captured ISU-152 used against former owners.)
Thank you for hosting the mini and to the players who participated.

Looking forward to next years ASO as always! Thanks!

:yummy:
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
139
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
I'm sorry you did not like it, Bo.

The scenario had 3 German wins and 6 Allied wins on the Friendly Fire tournament, and no-one bid anything more than G1. Not that that proves anything, of course. I bid A1 and lost as the Allies.
 

Toby Pilling

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
172
Reaction score
140
Location
Didcot
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Mattias,
You've learned a valuable lesson. When composing victory conditions, beware the dreaded combination of words: 'buildings' and 'control'.

If you have to have them, either make the buildings ground floor only, or remove the possibility of deployment for the defender. Or both.

Bo and Michael,
Never have a scenario in a tournament that allows the defender to HIP virtually all his OB. It's fun best reserved for friendly play.

Mel,
If you discover a scenario is broken in advance, tell the tournament directors.

I'll see you all next year.
 

skye88

Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
560
Reaction score
22
Location
Netherlands
Country
llNetherlands
Mel,
If you discover a scenario is broken in advance, tell the tournament directors.

I'll see you all next year.

I thought you had retired? ;-)

Indeed a shame about the broken scenario, but maybe even stranger that such a large crowd of veteran players would use the same ABS choice for the same side, and the same setup.. One would think them experienced enough to come up with something good and original of their own.
 

bo_siemsen

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
375
Reaction score
201
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Country
llDenmark
I'm sorry you did not like it, Bo.

The scenario had 3 German wins and 6 Allied wins on the Friendly Fire tournament, and no-one bid anything more than G1. Not that that proves anything, of course. I bid A1 and lost as the Allies.

Dont get me wrong, it looked like an interesting scenario when I saw it. I even asked for the brits. My disappointment was probably mainly due to the one-sided playing and results in the tournament.

I also played pretty much like crap the whole weekend, so that didnt help either :)


Toby - Look forward to seeing you next year !. You make some valid points. Similar suggestions was discussed regarding this specific scenario at ASO ... like making the buildings ground level only or maybe factories (hangars). But that was all pure speculation of course.
 

Jacometti

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,852
Reaction score
1,733
Location
Halifax, NS
Country
llCanada
I'm sorry you did not like it, Bo.

The scenario had 3 German wins and 6 Allied wins on the Friendly Fire tournament, and no-one bid anything more than G1. Not that that proves anything, of course. I bid A1 and lost as the Allies.
Hi Mattias,

I think the "broken" setup option for the defender was not yet known at the time of the Friendly Fire tournament - if played in any other way, it is a great and fun scenario. I have played it and enjoyed it at ASLOK, with a mixed setup.

The setup that breaks the scenario must have been missed as an option (or the "breaking" risk underestimated) during playtesting. That is a valuable lesson to me, which I will take with me in scenario design.

I will look again at each scenario and ask myself: suppose I don't want to have a fun game, but I just want to win only - is there something (boring, unusual, sleezy) I could do to achieve this?

This could involve kindling, keeping all AFV in motion in some no-LOS place, rubbling buildings with tanks, etc. Viewing an otherwise fun scenario from that perspective is a necessary "unpleasant" part of designing a good one, I guess.

I learnt a valuable lesson from it (although I was fortunate not to play this scenario, let alon one of the five Identical Setups in that round).

In response to Toby's point about building control - generally building control VC only work well with factories or single-story houses. Building control of multi-hex multi-location buildings is just not fun and always requires an extra one or two turns of mucking around in stairwells blocked by broken units etc !
 

Toby Pilling

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
172
Reaction score
140
Location
Didcot
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I think Jacometi makes an interesting point earlier about ABS, and I have a tendency to agree with him.

The fact is that if there exists 'secret' knowledge about breaking a scenario (I'm not just talking about crafting a good defence), the owner of that can almost guarantee that they will have the right side, whereas normally it might be around 50-50.

It tends to be the good players who can break them - normally involving the exploitation of the rules, playing by the word not the spirit. Ironically of course, those same players have the least need to resort to such breakage in order to win.

Anyway, imagine I've broken a scenario - I believe it's 99% pro-German, but my opponent only sees it as 60-40. Using normal balance we'll both bid German and I have as much chance as him of getting the side I want. With my 'secret' knowledge though, I bid G3 and guarantee getting them.

Of course, as Georges says, ABS can balance any scenario - but only if the Tournament Directors are aware of the issues.

From my point of view, it's like this:
1. I'm a good enough player to break a scenario, but...
2. I'm also good enough not to have to do so to win, so...
3. I inform the TDs of any I find.

If they ignore my advice - so be it. I ditch it from my selection.

But even if I wasn't a good player, but was 'let in on the secret', would I want to exploit it in order to sneak a win? I'm not so sure.

I think participants in a tourney have certain responsibities.

It sounds like some players travelled up to Copenhagen and got ambushed in this scenario.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
396
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I think participants in a tourney have certain responsibities.

It sounds like some players travelled up to Copenhagen and got ambushed in this scenario.
Must agree with Toby.

Besides having a too unbalanced scenario, not fixed with a reasonable ABS, is a collateral effect of including in the list too many new scenarios just published.

It's the reason why, as TD, I would use a mixed bag of old well known, well tested scenarios at various degrees, and only a few babies just created.

I would also add that FrF 32 is not certainly the worst scenario I have seen in last five years at ASO.
This is not a criticism to the valiant ASO TDs, it's a very hard task find 15 scenarios suitable for a tournament like ASO each year and often the dogs are well disguised.

Thank you Bo and Michael for this GREAT twelfth edition. Will be there also next year.
 
Last edited:

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
139
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Hi Mattias,

I think the "broken" setup option for the defender was not yet known at the time of the Friendly Fire tournament - if played in any other way, it is a great and fun scenario. I have played it and enjoyed it at ASLOK, with a mixed setup.
Two VC-critical multihex stone buildings surrounded by two-three boulevard air field hexes in all directions... I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could not consider a backward defense.
 

Stacks

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
111
Country
llFinland
Believe that there were more broken scenarios in the tournament as it always is each year and in other tournaments aswell [EXC: SAT], but that it should be my responsibility to wave the red flag and call out the scenarios in question is something I might have to reconsider, since the response from your part when calling out the IIFT to be broken and should not be forced upon players not willing to play with it voulentarily has not been positive.
Even suggested that Kindling is NA should be implemented as a T-rule.
That the optional E rules should be deleted (unless in an SSR by the designer).
 

Stacks

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
111
Country
llFinland
In round 3, I was about to play one of the friendly and best Norwegian players around we both had 2-0 so far and he deleted the scenario Let´s Dance (my first choice) while I deleted Hellenic Expedition (his first choice) we then concluded that Apples to Apples was the scenario that we should play (believe it is heavy Pro-American and was ready to bid A3) although he pleaded with me that he didn´t wanted to play that scenario with me, so I offered him to play Let´s Dance but told me straight away that he didn´t like the scenario at all, then I told him that we should play Apples to Apples since the scenario Hellenic Expedition is such a dog and rolling for sides to see who will win is not really my cup of tea, he wondered if it really was such a dog, and he was willing to play the British with the balances, told him to scrap the balances and instead add a 7-0 leader and six 4-5-7 squads to the British OB. After some time we decided that 5 squads would be enough, during my set up he offered to only take 4 squads and the 7-0 leader since he didn´t wanted to win in case we had boosted the British to much, my reply was that 5 squads and the 7-0 leader should be the least the British should have and btw are you going to force me to play with the IIFT? he offered me to choose which table to play with but also reasoned that the Germans would benefit if my choice would be to play with the IIFT – thankyou - and my choice was of course the IFT - the benefits derived of the Inc. chart I could do without. The end result was a friendly game and 14 eliminated Greece squads, 2 leaders and one Sherman while the Germans lost one squad and the Nashorn (propably quite historically:D).

Discussed the scenario afterwards with him and how he could have improved his attack be more reckless by rushing forward especially in the beginning and he agreed that he could have played a little better but his loss was also partly due to the design of it.

Would suggest to play the scenario with five 4-5-7 squads and a 7-0 leader and delete SSR 3 (or replace SSR 3 with an SSR that reads that Building oX17 is a factory).
 

bo_siemsen

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
375
Reaction score
201
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Country
llDenmark
Two VC-critical multihex stone buildings surrounded by two-three boulevard air field hexes in all directions... I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could not consider a backward defense.

I have always been a bit dense, I know - and I certainly wasn't on top of my game this weekend ... but I did not consider that the "everything back" defensive plan was the [only viable option so 'some' precautions were in order.

Like all scenarios this would probably benefit from both players having played and experienced the scenario before.

I am very curious though, how this scenario made it through play-testing. I heard that Mel was part of the play-testing team. But I guess the magic formula hadn't been discovered yet.
 
Top