Apologies for that...i´ve got lost in the streets of CopenhagenThe Scandinavian Open Crew would like to thank all the participants for behaving well and (almost) showing up on time for all games...
ROUND 1:which HP scenarios were played in the mini?
co
Hi Michael,Apologies for that...i´ve got lost in the streets of Copenhagen
Thanks to the tournament organizers, Michael and Bo, for an nice ASL weekend full with high and lows... :thumup:
MK
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: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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Thank you for hosting the mini and to the players who participated.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.)
Mel,
If you discover a scenario is broken in advance, tell the tournament directors.
I'll see you all next year.
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'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.
Must agree with Toby.I think participants in a tourney have certain responsibities.
It sounds like some players travelled up to Copenhagen and got ambushed in this scenario.
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.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.