BFP 3: Two Years Later

[Chas]

Gents,
OK, it has now been 2 years since this product was released, so it seems like a good time to review and assess the product, both good and bad. I would like to use this feedback to ensure that BFP can learn from this and continue to improve.

Aside from the obvious, there were a couple of objectives with this project. One was to invigorate enthusiasm for the PTO, and the other was to demonstrate the depth and talent within BFP and set new standards in the ASL community. Just so everyone understands, BFP 3 had some significant inherent risk: most expensive product and not built on a theater that is the most popular.

I cannot quantify the first. However, I have received numerous messages the last couple of years of how B&J got someone into PTO, or they simply just started playing it more. I also think there has been a trend on Gamesquad since the product's release of increased interest in the PTO. This can be argued, but I am proud and confident that BFP was a driving factor in this. In the big picture I feel that BFP has had a positive impact on the ASL community in large in this regard.

The product itself. How is success measured….sales? classic scenarios? Use of boards? Low number of dogs? Value to players?

Scenarios:
At this time I feel that 15 scenarios are undoubtedly successes: Armored Samurai, Chapei Chopblock, Hush Docks, Melee Near the Coast, Chinese Alamo, Slaughter at Nanyaun, 100 Rgts Offensive, Mai Phu, Alligator Tanks, Kwaj Crush, Kachin Rangers, Typhoon of Steel, Frogs in the Pocket, both Fuchin scenarios, Police Action.

At this time I feel that 4 scenarios are failures: Marco Polo Bridge, Grant vs. Stuart, Used and Abused, San Manuel Melee.

The rest fall into the middle somewhere. Grant vs. Stuart is hard to put on this failure list because it is a great design and fun action, but it appears that it strongly favors the Japanese. I playtested San Manuel Melee at least twice and am very surprised this is so unbalanced, but at 6-0 on ROAR believe we had to have missed something.

Boards:
I believe we were successful here. Player comment seems to rate the boards high, and additionally we are able to use these in other projects. DW-1 was used in BFP 4, and I can tell you for a fact that the boards will make an appearance in PiF, Allied Minors, French, and East Front based on designs we have already moved forward with.

What does this come down to? Did players get their money’s worth for this project? I think the answer is yes, especially since you can count on the boards and counters to continue to get used in future products.

What are your thoughts?

Discuss………..

Thanks,
Chas

 

[ASL Maineiac]

I own the product, but so far have only played a few scenarios from it. From that small bit of experience, I think it's a great product with high production value. The magazine has been very helpful for me to grasp the PTO rules (I've only been playing ASL for four years). I would agree that the product was a shot in the arm for the PTO in ASL. Keep up the good work.

 

[Houlie]

I have played 13 BnJ scenarios with only one that really left me scratching my head (and it could just be me). Besides this one, all were excellent fun and close (none were from your "dog" list). BnJ did more than just give us new typical Japanese American scenarios -- it opened up a realm of new nationalities, unique engagements, mixed forces (INA/Japanese against British), combined arms, all infantry, PTO city fights, Japanese paras,...really something for everyone. And perhaps that what sums it up best -- a professional and comprehensive treatment that helped demystify a unique ASL theater and get folks more comfortable with it. And most importantly, to enjoy it.

 

[RobZagnut]

B&J was the most anticipated TPP to date and it lived up to expectations. It is still the 'gold standard' that other TPP packs must be measured. Every item in the pack is first rate.

I wouldn't worry too much about the four scenarios as its still early. I pulled all four to look thru them. Removing Japanese to control all buildings in a particular area is a tough VC, especially with the extra HIP they get. I played Used and Abused twice long ago back around 93 and I don't remember the original having the Japanese radioless restriction lifted. Forcing the second AFV to take a TC and possibly stop if the first one is KIA'ed would surely help the US and keep them from roaming free individually to block rout paths. Makes me want to try them to see how thy play out.

If these four do prove to remain unbalanced after a couple more years would you consider reissuing their scenarios cards with a balanced version and a v2 title in a future BFP pack? It would be a nice touch and you've already set a precedence of nice touches when you gave us grey core counters in CoS. I'm not sure if any TPP has reissued balanced scenarios in future packs as a bonus. I know HOB republished some of their SS scenarios with new balance, but that was during a second release that we needed to buy again. Just giving you food for thought.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

B&J was the most anticipated TPP to date and it lived up to expectations. It is still the 'gold standard' that other TPP packs must be measured. Every item in the pack is first rate.

Just giving you food for thought.

Agree with Rob on this assessment.

 

[Chas]

This is something I have been considering was also thinking about starting a thread on. For example, Factory in Flix from ITR has(had?) great potential, but it is unbalanced. In that situation I can trace back the exact feedback, changes, etc, and know that a previous version during PTing should have been the one to publish. Yes, overtested it. I dont want to get into a situation of multiple versions of products and making people pay for something twice. But it would make sense to include it in something as a bonus like Axis Minors project?? As an example in B and J we PTed the ones, even if they were reprints from long ago. With Used and Abused we obviously made a mistake, and just shows that no matter how much you try perfection is not possible. Some of the other reprints I think we did in fact improve.

Thanks,
Chas

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Well,
I think the Blood and Jungle pack was the pack that established the "standard" that other TPPs must attain for a good sale of their products.

Great Historical information (LFT follow this model when the Kholm pack was made) and very good counter artwork (is LFT workiong with the SAME counter art work producer?) to sell their products.

BFP has created MANY products I am very pleased to purchase.

OFF Sqaud members should endorse BFP on the next products they produce.

 

[Sparafucil3]

This is something I have been considering was also thinking about starting a thread on. For example, Factory in Flix from ITR has(had?) great potential, but it is unbalanced. In that situation I can trace back the exact feedback, changes, etc, and know that a previous version during PTing should have been the one to publish. Yes, overtested it. I dont want to get into a situation of multiple versions of products and making people pay for something twice. But it would make sense to include it in something as a bonus like Axis Minors project?? As an example in B and J we PTed the ones, even if they were reprints from long ago. With Used and Abused we obviously made a mistake, and just shows that no matter how much you try perfection is not possible. Some of the other reprints I think we did in fact improve.

Thanks,
Chas

Don't do that. Put the suggested changes on the BFP web site and call them Chas' Dogs of War. If someone wants to play them straight up they can. If someone wants to play with the fixes, they can look them up. If TD's want to include them, they know where to look for the errata. If you really feel the need to re-issue, then put them up as PDF's for DL. Maybe you aren't comfortable with that model but you should feel no need to reprint just for balance issues. While I appreciate your dedication to excellence, I think sometimes you take it too far (reprinting counters because of a white core issue for instance). JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[RobZagnut]

This is something I have been considering was also thinking about starting a thread on. For example, Factory in Flix from ITR has(had?) great potential, but it is unbalanced. In that situation I can trace back the exact feedback, changes, etc, and know that a previous version during PTing should have been the one to publish. Yes, overtested it. I dont want to get into a situation of multiple versions of products and making people pay for something twice. But it would make sense to include it in something as a bonus like Axis Minors project?? As an example in B and J we PTed the ones, even if they were reprints from long ago. With Used and Abused we obviously made a mistake, and just shows that no matter how much you try perfection is not possible. Some of the other reprints I think we did in fact improve.

Thanks,
Chas

I agree with Factory in Flix as I played this a few years ago. It looks good on paper, but once you see the defender setup you think, "no way possible to win this as the attacker". Maybe M7 and P2, but U2 is way too far back to get to in 7 turns especially after taking a beating while taking M7. I don't think adding two MMG would help. Maybe the two MMG and another squad or two.

If you decide on multiple versions, I would suggest the title of the scenario being a different color other than black. Maybe red, so it stands out. Then also have a v2 or (revised) at the end of the title to prominently let the players know they are looking at a new version.

Just giving suggestions to create discussion.

 

[dlazov]

Was B&J worth the $$$, most defiantly yes.

Did the player get his $$$ worth, freakin-a-yes.

Really next to MMP, BFP is the next pole in the totem. You guys "Rock!"

Great articles, scenarios, maps and counters what more could you ask for? Oh, you gave those to us in COS...man...that is awesome too.

 

[Binko]

Gents,
The rest fall into the middle somewhere. Grant vs. Stuart is hard to put on this failure list because it is a great design and fun action, but it appears that it strongly favors the Japanese. I playtested San Manuel Melee at least twice and am very surprised this is so unbalanced, but at 6-0 on ROAR believe we had to have missed something.

I played the Japanese in Grant vs Stuart and got my butt kicked. Of course I did some dumb things but that comes with the territory when you are a mid-level player.

Balance is a difficult concept. Within the group of people I play I'd say that Grant vs Stuart is well balanced and a great design. A really highly skilled group may perceive an imbalance that we aren't experienced enough to see. And a group of play-testers who've already played it a couple of times may see it in a completely different light.

If there's one thing I'd like to see added to your scenarios it would be the Australian Balance system like that used in Action Packs 6 and 8. I really enjoy the added meta-game of bidding for sides. And it provides a lot of different levels of potential balance. I'm sure this would be a lot of work but I find that most players really like the Aussie Balance system once they try it.
That being said I think the idea of putting out updated versions of scenarios you are not satisfied with is a great one.

 

[Doug Kirk]

Don't do that. Put the suggested changes on the BFP web site and call them Chas' Dogs of War. If someone wants to play them straight up they can. If someone wants to play with the fixes, they can look them up. If TD's want to include them, they know where to look for the errata. If you really feel the need to re-issue, then put them up as PDF's for DL. Maybe you aren't comfortable with that model but you should feel no need to reprint just for balance issues. While I appreciate your dedication to excellence, I think sometimes you take it too far (reprinting counters because of a white core issue for instance). JMO, YMMV. -- jim

I agree on the newly balance scenarios. Even if they are thrown in for "free" in a future product, I feel like I am paying for them again. Minor issue really, probably irrelevant in the grand schem of things, but it bugs me...just make'em free on the website.

Other comment regarding Blood and Jungle or BFP in general :
1. Many of the scenarios are too big for me. I am a dedicated "tourney" size scenario player. I may very well be in the minority, so take that for what its worth.
2. Too many counters. I don't need counters for the sake of counters. Again probably in the minority.
3. Everything else is great, love the maps, scenarios, concept in general.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

I agree on the newly balance scenarios. Even if they are thrown in for "free" in a future product, I feel like I am paying for them again. Minor issue really, probably irrelevant in the grand schem of things, but it bugs me...just make'em free on the website.

Other comment regarding Blood and Jungle or BFP in general :
1. Many of the scenarios are too big for me. I am a dedicated "tourney" size scenario player. I may very well be in the minority, so take that for what its worth.
2. Too many counters. I don't need counters for the sake of counters. Again probably in the minority.
3. Everything else is great, love the maps, scenarios, concept in general.

Doug,

I truly appreciate your comments.

BUT...........

We, HERE, enjoy the "More" counters & El Grande (Big fer you guys that "no habla Spanglish") scenarios are what MANY ASlers are looking fer.......

PLEASE continue to support OUR "ASL krak" habit.....

 

[RobZagnut]

I agree on the newly balance scenarios. Even if they are thrown in for "free" in a future product, I feel like I am paying for them again. Minor issue really, probably irrelevant in the grand schem of things, but it bugs me...just make'em free on the website.

Other comment regarding Blood and Jungle or BFP in general :
1. Many of the scenarios are too big for me. I am a dedicated "tourney" size scenario player. I may very well be in the minority, so take that for what its worth.
2. Too many counters. I don't need counters for the sake of counters. Again probably in the minority.
3. Everything else is great, love the maps, scenarios, concept in general.

I agree with Doug concerning the scenario size. BFP addressed this better in COS, but I haven't played as many B&J scenarios as I normally would a pack of that size due to the larger scenarios. I'm also not a counters hound. I punch out the bare minimum of what I need and leave the rest.

I don't agree with Doug where I feel that I'm paying for scenarios again if they're thrown in with a later pack. I didn't feel that way concerning the grey core counters. The extra effort was greatly appreciated.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi

I thought B&J was the best pack you bfp guys did, I played about half of them and each one was pretty awesome, really like Hooshin Docks, that was good times. I do agree with Doug, less counters please, most of the counters were only very slightly different from whats in the allied minor counter mix as is. Also unike CoS, the scenarios all felt different where as CoS I felt at times I was playing the same scenario again.

All in all, B&J was a great pack so kudos to you guys for putting it out.


Scott

 

[ASRomafan]

nice topic!

Gents,
OK, it has now been 2 years since this product was released, so it seems like a good time to review and assess the product, both good and bad. I would like to use this feedback to ensure that BFP can learn from this and continue to improve.

Aside from the obvious, there were a couple of objectives with this project. One was to invigorate enthusiasm for the PTO, and the other was to demonstrate the depth and talent within BFP and set new standards in the ASL community. Just so everyone understands, BFP 3 had some significant inherent risk: most expensive product and not built on a theater that is the most popular.

and one in which you all deserve kudos you got for doubling the risk and designing many of the scenarios around esotoric actions and combatants in the 'least popular' ASL theater.

I cannot quantify the first. However, I have received numerous messages the last couple of years of how B&J got someone into PTO, or they simply just started playing it more. I also think there has been a trend on Gamesquad since the product's release of increased interest in the PTO. This can be argued, but I am proud and confident that BFP was a driving factor in this. In the big picture I feel that BFP has had a positive impact on the ASL community in large in this regard.

yes and no. Among TPP, they make their livings pushing the edge and going all over the map. Where BFP could, but has not yet, had it greatest influence is not on ASL at large but MMP. Which to these eyes lags painfully behind every single TPP in terms of taking risks and doing different things from different theaters. Your greatest contribution has to been to quality, you all set the standard for high quality production in products among TPP. I know it you have the greatest impact on Critical Hit who have increased their quality 100% in the last couple of years (especially the last year). They finally were forced to address that and put more emphasis on quality and I believe it was because of your products.

The product itself. How is success measured….sales? classic scenarios? Use of boards? Low number of dogs? Value to players?

Scenarios:
At this time I feel that 15 scenarios are undoubtedly successes: Armored Samurai, Chapei Chopblock, Hush Docks, Melee Near the Coast, Chinese Alamo, Slaughter at Nanyaun, 100 Rgts Offensive, Mai Phu, Alligator Tanks, Kwaj Crush, Kachin Rangers, Typhoon of Steel, Frogs in the Pocket, both Fuchin scenarios, Police Action.

At this time I feel that 4 scenarios are failures: Marco Polo Bridge, Grant vs. Stuart, Used and Abused, San Manuel Melee.

The rest fall into the middle somewhere. Grant vs. Stuart is hard to put on this failure list because it is a great design and fun action, but it appears that it strongly favors the Japanese. I playtested San Manuel Melee at least twice and am very surprised this is so unbalanced, but at 6-0 on ROAR believe we had to have missed something.

balance? You worry too much about that, and ROAR might be all you can work with but you can not judge a product based on it. I've been playing 30 years and not logged a single playing on it. Never saw the need or the point. I know many do not. It probably represents the playings of a very few. I think a designer as experienced as you can only do the best you can do, that is all the customer asks, and all that you can expect of yourself.

Boards:
I believe we were successful here. Player comment seems to rate the boards high, and additionally we are able to use these in other projects. DW-1 was used in BFP 4, and I can tell you for a fact that the boards will make an appearance in PiF, Allied Minors, French, and East Front based on designs we have already moved forward with.


What does this come down to? Did players get their money’s worth for this project? I think the answer is yes, especially since you can count on the boards and counters to continue to get used in future products.

It was expensive but worth every dollar. It is my favorite non-HASL product. Extremely well done.

What are your thoughts?

Discuss………..

Thanks,
Chas

 

[ASRomafan]

Hi

I do agree with Doug, less counters please, most of the counters were only very slightly different from whats in the allied minor counter mix as is.


Scott

Hi Scott

I'm sort of torn on the issue of BFP counters, which probably is telling since I am very particular about counters. For me next to maps, counters are the most important element of any board game. Their counters are nice but I have to wonder what kind of reaction they'd get if they'd adopt what CH has done, and what has worked so well for them. Which is recognize there is a lot of demand for new modern looking core combatant counters. Probably much more demand than for minute variations of core counters which might be used in a scenario or two and then do little but take up space until either another producer decides to use them for a product done in the same theater (hardly likely lol) or the producer returns to that theater. More likely but after how many years? Judging by how well CH's counters have been received, I don't doubt BFP would find reception to a similar strategy to be very well received.

 

[Chas]

Hi Scott

I'm sort of torn on the issue of BFP counters, which probably is telling since I am very particular about counters. For me next to maps, counters are the most important element of any board game. Their counters are nice but I have to wonder what kind of reaction they'd get if they'd adopt what CH has done, and what has worked so well for them. Which is recognize there is a lot of demand for new modern looking core combatant counters. Probably much more demand than for minute variations of core counters which might be used in a scenario or two and then do little but take up space until either another producer decides to use them for a product done in the same theater (hardly likely lol) or the producer returns to that theater. More likely but after how many years? Judging by how well CH's counters have been received, I don't doubt BFP would find reception to a similar strategy to be very well received.

Ray,

Too funny, and let's not get into some kind of alternate history here. You copied BFP's counter style and didnt even change the color of the logo. I know you would like to see us stop doing our great products altogether, so let it go. I do not go to the CH folder and try to shape people's opinions.

 

[Chas]

Back on topic.

I would urge you guys to play what you may feel are scenarios that are too big. Yes, some are that big and will take a while to play. However, what I have seen is simple counter counts be assumed to be a long scenario. As an example, the scenario Backs Against the Wall in PiF has about 60 squad equivalents in it. At first glance you would say it is a monster, however, the average time thus far in PTing is about 6hrs 15 minutes.

On any possible scenario reprints. I am not sure this is a big issue, but like the fact we are discussing it. Regardless, we would be talking about a very small number of possible scenarios here, and of course I do not want this to become the norm. Wolkey may be right on the 4 scenarios in BFP 3, need to give more time and see what happens.

Thanks,
Chas

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

For me, I'd call it an unqualified success, primarily because it had such a variety of stuff within the PTO. I feel like most US vs. Japanese PTO scenarios feel about the same and I am pretty "meh" on PTO as a result. B&J had such a wide range of PTO variety (even those not using PTO terrain are in the PTO) that it really shows off what is possible. Your best product to date, IMO.

(even though I would add one to your failed scenarios list)

S