ASL Scandinavian Open 2009 scenario list

[Stacks]

..............................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.

Playtest all scenarios done by Martin Svärd, as the final playtest filter and at least 2 times and sometimes the scenario is so unbalanced so after the major changes done to the scenario (new VCs, SSRs, set up instructions etc) we normally playtest it 2 to 4 times again).
While for Mattias we don´t have time to playtest each scenario he makes since
we live in different cities and if we playtest it is not as extensive as I wish we had, although he had made some fine scenarios without my involvement at all, Forging Spetnaz comes to mind, that I would recommend as among the top 5 Friendly Fire scenarios ever done.

 

[bo_siemsen]

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).

Unfortunately we can't all be perfect like Stockholm

I certainly want to avoid any kind of IFT discussion, but until further notice the IIFT is the default fire table at ASO. Every year there is also 'some' sort of debate about this, Kindling and other things related to the Tournament among those of us involved in arranging ASO.

I hope that you can accept and respect that not everything has to be strictly according to your preferences though.

Anyway, I believe that talking about issues related to the Tournament rules (such as Kindling and the IFT) is something completely different than pointing out a scenario as being significantly unbalanced. In this case, your own playing of the scenario is a pretty strong indication that it was quite unbalanced. It seems clear to me that the tournament would have been better off without this scenario

If someone contacts us with that kind of information it is certainly something we would look at. Especially coming from an experienced tournament player such as yourself. We can't promise to follow all your suggestions (since, what is unbalanced to you isnt necessarily unbalanced for everyone).

 

[Stacks]

....

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

believe that my opinion on the matter wasn´t valid,
I rather delete such scenarios and while seeing which player play the "right side" in the scenario I´ve deleted it always occur to me that most of the times (80+%) stronger player seem to be playing it.
Sometimes even I will play it but more due to the round has 2 to 3 of these problem-scenarios

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.

The only time I might exploit the weak scenario design is if my opponent force me to play with the IIFT. "Exploit the rules" I don´t really understand maybe an explanation from you could help.

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.

If you believe its 99% then it should be deleted since roughly 95% of the times an ABS of G3 will not help (i.e., make it about 50-50) just making the scenario about 75-25 pro-German. Or you could inform the TDs that it is 99% as you suggests that I should do.

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.

Have you ever given them an advice, and if so what was their response?

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.

Setting up in a scenario as the attacker offb´d for nearly 2 hours after the defender has set up his defence in about 30 minutes, is not taking responsibility, playing Slovak Salvation for 8 hours and 30 min. is not either.

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

We travelled down to Copenhagen in 98´ and we talked about the scenario
In Front of The Storm and my reasoning was that it favored the French slightly and that I would bid F0 or F1, and to our surprise all the Danish player bid G2 and G3 seems like they also had made some assumptions about the scenario. End result was that all Swedes won their respective scenario while playing the French. Your writing seems to suggest that no player should listen to advice - while if you think about it ain´t that what we all do.

See you next year, and maybe we should start to raise our red flags:smoke:

 

[Stacks]

Unfortunately we can't all be perfect like Stockholm

Understand if you don´t have the time to playtest the scenario before the tournament, as I do - why I do it is because I often
see that during tournaments in scenarios that favor on side over the other
it mostly seems to be the more experienced player having control over the
favored side (me included) and thereby he is most of the times given a free ride vs the less experienced player. If the scenario is balanced (to me at least) then the more exoerienced player has an increased chance of losing vs the less experienced player.

 

[hastrup]

I would like to add a comment. Of the 4 scenarios I played at ASO, Hellenic Expedition was the most fun, and the end game was close.
Ok no doubt the scenario is pro German, and Melvin's defence was very well planed.
But what about the attackers, did they have good plan ? how many of the attackers had actually played the scenario before, and knew what was the very best way to win as "Greek" ?
Just another point to think about before shooting this scenario down.

Michael Hastrup

 

[Ronnblom]

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.

I don't think you can hang out Melvin... From what I remember, I don't think he was involved at all in playtesting this scenario.

But no, there's no magic formula. Oh, wait. Maybe you can include it in ASO, and afterwards you know exactly what the balance is...

 

[bo_siemsen]

I don't think you can hang out Melvin... From what I remember, I don't think he was involved at all in playtesting this scenario.

But no, there's no magic formula. Oh, wait. Maybe you can include it in ASO, and afterwards you know exactly what the balance is...

I certainly didn't intend to hang anyone out. Especially Mel. I was very impressed with the way he dealt with that situation at ASO. And I didnt mean to be a part of dragging your scenario through the mud. So, sorry about that. Honestly. The Friendly Fire pack is one of the best scenario packs around.

I guess I should crawl back under my rock until around the next ASO event ... so you guys can return to your regularly scheduled programming of discussing the IFT-vs-IIFT and other life-and-death issues.


Best Regards
Bo Siemsen

 

[Mister T]

I would like to add a comment. Of the 4 scenarios I played at ASO, Hellenic Expedition was the most fun, and the end game was close.
Ok no doubt the scenario is pro German, and Melvin's defence was very well planed.
But what about the attackers, did they have good plan ? how many of the attackers had actually played the scenario before, and knew what was the very best way to win as "Greek" ?
Just another point to think about before shooting this scenario down.
Michael Hastrup

On this one, I could answer, since I was foolish enough to bid G0 (I did not play the scenario before, so it was all new for me).

My lead elements seized the first VC building on turn 2, expelling a 548 and the 9-1 in the process, so I was not exactly sleeping. But then, one could change the title of the scenario to "waiting for Godot" or more precisely waiting for the German to break all his heavy weapons (Panther, Rhino, HMG, MTR) so that my Greeks could have a non-tiny chance to cross the runway and to make it to the second VC building. Of course, my opponent would have surely won the tournament boxcar award if he had let me such a chance.

I then tried a flanking move with my tanks, only to be frustrated by sneaky HIPs. All four were destroyed by ATM/PF/PSK/captured PIAT (you name it).

Even with a fertile imagination, I can't see how the Greek can have a chance. Also in most plays, German casualities are almost ridiculously low. I killed only 3 squads, including one berserk 548, who for no reason left the comfort of his building to be mowed down by Greek MGs.

 

[Toby Pilling]

Melvin,
At Blackpool a couple of years ago, Derek had selected 'Old Hickory' as one of the scenarios. I'd just come back from Copenhagen where you'd not only kindled, but started pushing guns down the road. I told Derek about the manhandling, and he inserted a tournament SSR to stop it.

I know sometimes I'm a slow player attacking, but I've payed for that in a few adjudicated draws that have knocked me out of tournaments over the years. It's also the reason I don't play any more in tournaments that feature three scenarios in a day - I don't enjoy them. Where scenarios may drag on, at least it's the ones at the end of the night where I'm getting as tired as my opponent. It's not a deliberate ploy on my part - I like a good night's sleep as much as the next man.

If you scratched 'The Hellenic Expedition', then fair play to you. I like you as a person and have always enjoyed our discussions. I also think you are a great player - the most ferocious attacker I know. But you were bang out of order in 'Old Hickory'. I hate the IIFT as much as you do, but we both know that it's the default setting at Copenhagen, and you went overboard in taking out your frustrations on that player - really rubbing his nose in it. I think with reflection you regret what you did now, too.

I suppose a lot of my criticism isn't really of you, but of the other players who hung on your words and bid G3. In truth, these day I keep out of and avoid discussion of scenarios in a tournament with other players - even my friends. The most I tend to say is 'That one looks hard on the Greeks.' That's because I think it's important that players come up with their own ideas and plans. There's a fine line between discussion and advice.

Anyway, I don't want this to become some kind of slanging match. I don't know what your 'Red Flag' is, but I don't think I'm interested. You can always fix your MGs in Prep with me, Mel.
Well, unless you're winning.

Look after yourself,
Toby

 

[Toby Pilling]

To hell with it. It's morning now and I've got to go to work.
It's only a game. Everyone do what they want.
I won't post on this thread anymore.
Adios.

 

[janusz.maxe]

Well, one good thing that could come out of this would be a sticky thread, where the more tournament minded players and TDs could discuss concerns about newly published scenarios. E.g. one could bring up a possible loophole, like trying to rubble a building, and others could chime in and discuss whether this is a feasible tactic or not. Thus TDs and players alike could have an easier time selecting scenarios for their tournament.
Wouldn't work for ASLOK, since most played there are spanking new, right?
Janusz

 

[Flambarde]

I suppose a lot of my criticism isn't really of you, but of the other players who hung on your words and bid G3.

Well Toby. That´s me you speaking about. What was my choises for that round?

To play Apples to Apples and bid A3, to play Let´s Dance and bid G3 or play Hellenic and bid G3?

All balances was in my opinion too little so I took the scenario I liked most: Hellenic Expedition.

You also tell Melvin to inform the scenario directors if unbalanced. How often have you?

What I think is worse is that some players take time as their weapon to beat their opponents. If you set up offboard as the attacker for two hours you should in my opinion be judged as the loser if the game didn´t come to an end in time.

 

[James Taylor]

Well Toby. That´s me you speaking about. What was my choises for that round?

To play Apples to Apples and bid A3, to play Let´s Dance and bid G3 or play Hellenic and bid G3?

All balances was in my opinion too little so I took the scenario I liked most: Hellenic Expedition.

You also tell Melvin to inform the scenario directors if unbalanced. How often have you?

What I think is worse is that some players take time as their weapon to beat their opponents. If you set up offboard as the attacker for two hours you should in my opinion be judged as the loser if the game didn´t come to an end in time.

You want to give me the Germans and 3 levels of balance in Apples to Apples I'll be happy.

You want to give me the Brits and 3 levels of balance in Let's Dance and I'll be happy.

You want to give me the Greeks and 3 levels of balance in Hellenic Expedition... ah... not so much.

HE... is not an unfun scenario... but very very tough on the Greeks.

The other two are much closer balance-wise.

As far as the other stuff--- that's a European issue that I'm staying out of!

JT

 

[B.Lizt]

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).

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).

Hi. I am the Norwegian i question here - loosing Hellenic Expedition with 5 extra squads and a 7-0.

It was not that I would not play Apples to Apples with you, Melvin. That would have been fun, too. Never pleeded not to. Just said I would be even more badly beaten there. So when you offered such a balance in a scenario I liked, well ....

With the extra squads we had a good game - a really good game IMO. You won because you are the better player with a better setup than I would have had. Your tactis were better than mine, and you made no mistakes like I did. All your rate with the MTR and HMG that last round just served to reinforce your point (and historical accuracy :clown - killing of my balance and more.

I learned some good lessons, especially when I rushed the smoked VC building and realized the still HIP mortar would likely be behind me. Overstacking my FT hex at that point did not feel good.

I think few players would have done what you did, here. In a tournament you obviously would like to win, you offer a less experienced player a more than fair balance because you find the scenario favors the Germans too much. You could have won easily with G3, but chose the harder way with "G7".

Great game, and great sportsmanship from you Melvin. Looking foreward to playing you again.

With regards,
Olav

 

[Stacks]

Melvin,
At Blackpool a couple of years ago, Derek had selected SP134'Old Hickory's Path as one of the scenarios. I'd just come back from Copenhagen where you'd not only kindled, but started pushing guns down the road. I told Derek about the manhandling, and he inserted a tournament SSR to stop it.

I know sometimes I'm a slow player attacking, but I've payed for that in a few adjudicated draws that have knocked me out of tournaments over the years..........

The same would apply for your opponet (i.e., also knocked him out).
For your information the TD that has allowed Kindling in any scenario has himself kindled in scenarios to good effect. Maybe the scenario designer should take more responsibilty (maybe he has and kindling is ok in his scenario who knows?).

.........But you were bang out of order in SP 134 'Old Hickory's Path. I hate the IIFT as much as you do, but we both know that it's the default setting at Copenhagen, and you went overboard in taking out your frustrations on that player - really rubbing his nose in it. I think with reflection you regret what you did now, too.

No regrets, the round your are talking about included three
scenarios FrF12 Fields of Black Gold, balanced if you replace the Russian HMG to a MMG. My first choice and my opponent deleted it. The only balanced option out of the window.
SP133 Barracuda (a Howling Dog).
SP134 Old Hickory´s Path (another Howling Dog).
My opponent forced me to play with the IIFT, has no real desire to play him, only to win to be able to play a good opponent in next round, didn´t feel any frustration as you seem to believe.
Rubbing noses I know nothing about, unless you mean that he
spoil the design of the game for me (rub my nose perhaps), and pro-claim on the web that he would never force the IIFT upon another player´s wish, sounded of alright. When challanged with that statement of his, He rather quickly change his statement with an exception, that if he unless was able to force the IIFT by a T-rule then he would do it of course. btw I accept the behaviour and if the opponent is friendly enough (to compensate for his wrong doing I´m rather quickly to forgive) but he was more "in for the kill" - and so
was I even to the extent of taking advantage of poor scenario design and exercise some wrong doing myself (but my first option was to play the balanced scenario).

I suppose a lot of my criticism isn't really of you, but of the other players who hung on your words and bid G3. In truth, these day I keep out of and avoid discussion of scenarios in a tournament with other players - even my friends. The most I tend to say is 'That one looks hard on the Greeks.' That's because I think it's important that players come up with their own ideas and plans. There's a fine line between discussion and advice.

"That one looks hard on the Greeks" sounds like a G3 would you not agree?
We probably enjoy the discussions of tacticts used and best plans to achieve our goals that is one of the greater aspect of this game to be able to talk about it and even convinced that a great majority of players would agree with me on this point,
Your group of players might have other standards (morale?), that you follow but I do wonder what you would talk about if going by train for more than 5 hours?

... I don't know what your 'Red Flag' is, ........
Toby

[/QUOTE]
You wrote

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

Toby your an excellent player, and show that you can play another battle than others and still come out on top of the stuggle, that´s what make this game facinating and give it its depth.

 

[Stacks]

...........
Great game, and great sportsmanship from you Melvin. Looking foreward to playing you again.

With regards,
Olav

Same here, hope we will play something more balanced next time, so far the two times we have played I always been given the favored side, maybe its your turn next time.

 

[Stacks]

Originally Posted by Jacometti View Post
.........The affair at ASO last year with The Hellenic Expedition is not one anyone should refer to, on the issue of "fairness at tournaments". I think Melvin showed good sportsmanship in that round. For the sportsmanship of the other people with the G3 bid and the identical setup, I have less respect.

We travelled down to Copenhagen in 98´ and we talked about the scenario
In Front of The Storm and the reasoning was that it favored the French slightly and that we would bid F0 or F1, and to our surprise all the Danish player bid G2 and G3 and had similar setups they had also made some assumptions about the scenario. End result was that all Swedes won their respective scenario mostly due to the Danes giving away to much balance to us playing the French. Your writing seems to suggest that no player should listen to advice - while if you think about it ain´t that fun part what we all do or you´re maybe a big exception.
Anyhow your lack of respect will probably be noticed by the Swedish, Danish among other ASL players...

 

[Stacks]

Originally Posted by Ronnblom View Post
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.........

The Hellenic Expedition saga lives on.

 

[Stacks]

Bumping this thread since the debate seems to continue...

 

[bo_siemsen]

The Hellenic Expedition saga lives on.
Bumping this thread since the debate seems to continue...

It does ?
nah, I just got the impression that you felt you could and apparantly should speak on behalf of a bunch of Danish players. I wanted to point out that you didn't speak on my behalf. That's all. I hope you don't mind that too much.

The Hellenic reference was merely an example as to what players 'could' potentially do with regards to informing TD's of a potential problematic scenario. Looks like we may have a troublesome scenario in the 2010 ASO Pack as it was pointed out to us. It will be looked at prior to the tourney.