Designer Tips

[Brian W]

When I look at scenarios, I like to see armor matchups where tanks are not sure of getting a kill in the tank vs. tank battle, but still have a reasonable chance--e.g. TK#'s of 5-6. Of course, you have to use what was there historically. Still, matchups like PzIV vs. T34/76 are the most fun IMO.

What are some of the things you like to see when looking at a scenario?

 

[Guest]

I look for that cool 5,6,7 final to-kill DR also. There are cool match ups like that throughout ASL. A lot of players pooh-pooh late war King Tiger vs JsIIm actions as hit + kill but that is not really the case.

At first glance, a basic 3 to 2 match up in squads usually results in a good contest. When you start seeing 2 to 1 odds or greater in scenarios, there starts to be a shift of balance that definitely needs to be assisted by a combat multiplier such as OBA etc.

I tend to shy away from high odds ratio scenarios that have limited resources because they often have questionable balance.

 

[Pitman]

Things that Absolutely Turn Me Off

-Victory Conditions that involve taking/defending a single building/location.
-Victory Conditions that involve one side winning by having a single good order MMC somewhere.
-Scenarios where the defense is entirely static.
-Scenarios involving more than eight vehicles a side (and honestly, I am often turned off by having more than five vehicles a side).

Things that Mildly Turn Me Off

-OBA
-Air Support
-Too Many Overlays
-Too Complicated Victory Conditions
-Too Many SSRs
-Scenarios where a side has five or fewer squads
-Scenarios that are less than five turns
-Scenarios that are more than nine turns
-Scenarios that absolutely depend on one side getting smoke/OBA/something else.
-Scenarios that limit the number of squads one side may move per turn.


Things that Turn Me On:

-Both sides getting to be involved in movement during a scenario
-Less Common Nationalities
-Scenarios where both sides get a chance to attack and defend (either simultaneously--i.e., attack on one end of the map and defend on the other--or sequentially--i.e., first one side attacks, then the other gets to mount a counterattack).
-Scenarios where the players have OB choices to make.
-Scenarios where neither player feels as if he has the resources to complete his task--i.e., both sides are desperate

 

[TankDawg]

the whole thought of Pitcavage getting 'turned on' is disturbing to me.

:shock:

 

[Jazz]

the whole thought of Pitcavage getting 'turned on' is disturbing to me.

:shock:

Well played.....

 

[Anonymous]

To Da Pitman:

1. Why do OBA and air support turn you off? The randomness? The power? The mechanics?

I admit that I'm leery of the balance in a scenario with these assets, but I do like trying to incorporate them into a plan.

2. Less than five turns can be good teaching scenarios. But not for general play.

3. More than nine turns a turn off? What about Hill 621, White Tigers, OP Hill, KP 167 - all pretty highly rated with good press? (But it does appear that sometimes length is added just to bring in a fatigue factor.)

4. Also, about Victory Conditions. I agree that complicated VCs are a turn-off. But I do like VCs with 'either-or' conditions. As long as they as not too complicated. ;-)

So maybe I would add 'Scenarios where the players have VC choices to make'

 

[Chris Milne]

I'm not shy of proffering my opinions:

Things I like to see in a scenario:

• Combined arms for both sides
  Choice in OOBs
  Enough room for both sides to have room to manoeuver

Things I dislike in scenarios:

• Same old boards
  Terrain changes. Overlays I can handle, but I always seem to forget these.
  Too many fortifications
  Overly important OBA, unless 'fixed' by SSR

That's probably not fully inclusive, but they're what spring to mind. One thing I'd really like to see designers do is to present some idea of what the maps cover. Often I'll pass over a scenario at first glance, and not until I see the terrain do I become intrigued. This is particularly true of scenarios with overlays, which are very difficult to visualise.[/list]

 

[rryeates]

What I like

I am a big fan of combined arms with about a company+ of infantry to a side. I like toys too. FTs, DCs, OBA, Air Support, the like. I like my scenarios a little of the beefy side. I am less enamored with scenarios with a lot of defensive overhead (lots of forts, caves, etc), but some are great, especially a few mines and a bit of HIP. I play to win, but my main motivation is to have fun. If a scenario is unbalanced if I don't get the OBA in or my planes don't come in until turn 4 its not a big deal to me as long as at start the situation is pretty balanced. I also like the action to be sharp, a little pussy footing around at start is okay, but I like both sides to have to really go at it before the dust settles and the game is decided. Bug hunts are not really my cup of tea.

I really like CGs on historical maps.

 

[Pitman]

Greg, re air support and OBA: pretty much all of the things you mention.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Some players mentioned they dislike games with 5 or fewer turns or 5 or fewer MMC's per side.

As a newbie, I would welcome several short scenarios to help get me going in the game. The tournament T1, T2, etc scenarios are nice, but there don't seem to be very many of them.

1) More complex scenarios get overly confusing for new players with VASL. I'm enjoying, but am having a bit of a tough time with ASL12 via VASL (my 3rd VASL game, and 5th game to date).
2) More complex scenarios last too long for the new player (or at least myself) when playing VASL.
3) In the beginning, we're (or at least I am) trying to learn how the toys work in general. Decent tactics and fancy rules come later.

 

[Pitman]

Andrew, small does not necessarily mean easy. Some tiny scenarios are extraordinarly complex, either because of the rules or the situation.

There are several reasons why I dislike scenarios with tiny numbers of squads, and these include:

1. They become extraordinarily dicey. One sniper roll can win or lose you the game.

2. They are unforgiving of error. There is often no way to come back from a bad move (and there is no such thing as a "minor" bad move).

3. They are not meaty enough to give either attacker or defender true options in terms of strategy and tactics.

 

[klsmith]

Andrew,

Maybe you should email Rob Wolkey and volunteer for the intro ASL playtest. It has a number of low counter density, simple scenarios, that might fit with what you're looking for.

From my beginner experience, I think the key to "simple" is not so much "low counter density" as it is "low rule density."

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Andrew,

Maybe you should email Rob Wolkey and volunteer for the intro ASL playtest. It has a number of low counter density, simple scenarios, that might fit with what you're looking for.

From my beginner experience, I think the key to "simple" is not so much "low counter density" as it is "low rule density."

That sounds like a good idea. I read about it somewhere on MMP's web site, and it sounds pretty interesting.

EDIT: Yep, mailed him, as I'd rather help out than just squawk about it.

 

[da priest]

Andrew,

Maybe you should email Rob Wolkey and volunteer for the intro ASL playtest. It has a number of low counter density, simple scenarios, that might fit with what you're looking for.

Yeh, i wrote to wolkster many moons ago, my daughter wants to try out ASL and i figured it would be a good test of the intro system. He said playtest stuff wasn't ready then..is it now and should i recontact him.. :?

 

[klsmith]

It's ready. He sent out all the stuff several months ago (like maybe February?).

I haven't corresponded with him in some time, but when last I did, he said the more the merrier in the playtest. Though I have to say, there haven't been any playtest reports (AFAIK) since May (the guy I was playing with has been out of country on business, so I haven't played any either).

If Rob can't lay hands on the stuff for some reason, I can probably round up the batch for you.

Ken

 

[da priest]

Thanks Ken.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Andrew,

Maybe you should email Rob Wolkey and volunteer for the intro ASL playtest. It has a number of low counter density, simple scenarios, that might fit with what you're looking for.

From my beginner experience, I think the key to "simple" is not so much "low counter density" as it is "low rule density."

That sounds like a good idea. I read about it somewhere on MMP's web site, and it sounds pretty interesting.

EDIT: Yep, mailed him, as I'd rather help out than just squawk about it.

Unfortunately, I'm not hearing back from Robert. I'll see if a posting on the ASL ML will shake something up.

 

[SamB]

Wolkey - may - be at ASLOK till the end of the week. I'd give him some time. If you don't hear from him by then, email me... I'll call him.

 

[da priest]

Wolkey - may - be at ASLOK till the end of the week. I'd give him some time. If you don't hear from him by then, email me... I'll call him.

Yep, I volunteered for this also and haven't heard yet.