Designers' Response to Desperation Morale Review of "Death To Fascism" scenario pack

Khill

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
607
Location
MAINE
Country
llIceland
I really like the DtF pack a lot. I have played four or five scenarios and enjoyed each one very much. I love designs that add more fog-of-war elements to the game. I like the purchase options: buildup your OB as you like and I think it adds to the re-playability of a scenario

we seem to see more and more designers these days adding SSR's against kindling and AFV crews voluntarily abandoning their vehicles. over the years these two aspects of the system have been found to be a bit 'gamey' that can 'break' many a good scenario and I see no need to impute a designer for including such SSR's as they see fit
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,224
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
... more and more designers these days adding SSR's against kindling and AFV crews voluntarily abandoning their vehicles. over the years these two aspects of the system have been found to be a bit 'gamey' that can 'break' many a good scenario and I see no need to impute a designer for including such SSR's as they see fit
Some weapons systems practically demand it. The SSR in Operation VERITABLE that states the Kangaroos are automatically Recalled after their passengers disembark, for example. It's hardly a 'grudge' but an accurate reflection of the Canadian APC regiment's doctrine, and helps with the balance problems of having a squadron of mobile MG bunkers milling around during an infantry assault when in the actual action being modelled, they didn't do that.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
16,404
Reaction score
2,177
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
In a recent playtest of a BFP scenario I unloaded a truck and then proceeded to overrun a russian tank that was CE. I was hoping to either get him to fire or to burn the truck in the hex allowing my infantry to close up more safely. Gamey? Sure as heck!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,204
Reaction score
4,738
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,757
Reaction score
2,359
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Some weapons systems practically demand it. The SSR in Operation VERITABLE that states the Kangaroos are automatically Recalled after their passengers disembark, for example. It's hardly a 'grudge' but an accurate reflection of the Canadian APC regiment's doctrine, and helps with the balance problems of having a squadron of mobile MG bunkers milling around during an infantry assault when in the actual action being modelled, they didn't do that.
I've thought about just increasing the CVP for those systems to let's say +1CVP per 5PP capacity and/or inherent SW and +1CVP per T# capability (could even modify this based upon capabilities). This could allow the owning player the option of retaining the equipment on-board or withdrawing it off-board with no CVP loss. I just like presenting the player with options while at the same time putting them on the horns of a dilemma rather than having the designer play part of a scenario. (Of course this model would have to include a CVP cap of some sort). Just ideas.
 

RobZagnut

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
1,372
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
That's an amazingly irresponsible response to make as a scenario designer, IMO.

"Grudge SSR", when they occur, are the scenario designer saying one (or possibly several) of the following things:

"I don't like this rule. Therefore it is abolished."
"I don't know what this rule will do to my scenario and I can't be bothered finding out. Therefore it is abolished."
"I've always believed that ASL should have a rule for <thing>. Therefore I have introduced it and you must use it."

In all three cases the scenario designer is not presenting his scenario to the ASL audience; he is presenting his opinions and telling his audience to "suck it, do what I tell you".

When I'm playing your scenario, it has become my game. When I'm playing my game the scenario designer has no right to tell me how I should play, what rules I should or should not employ, nor should I have to put up with his opinions. SSR that set up how the scenario "works" -- that's completely fine and expected. SSR that change how ASL works -- not so fine (usually). I want to play my game with your design. I have no great interest in playing your game. Sell it to someone else.

There are scenarios where, for example, allowing kindling could dramatically alter the balance of that scenario in one player's favour, in a way that doesn't add any enjoyment to the play of the game. In such scenarios, it's completely right and proper to make kindling NA.

The trouble is, I'd be surprised if more than about 10% of scenarios that feature a "kindling NA" SSR would actually be significantly affected by that SSR. Kindling is not easy to accomplish and there's no way (usually) to guarantee that it will do what you need it to do. It's not that often, especially in "modern" tournament-style designs, where either side has the time and resources to spare for that kind of dickery -- there are usually more important things to do. (I've even seen one or two cases where deliberately setting fires was actually an important consideration in the historical action being depicted, but the scenario designer has attached the "kindling NA" SSR as a knee-jerk impulse anyway. What does that say about his research skills?)

There should never, ever be "grudge SSR". There should only be SSR that are important and necessary for that scenario, after the designer (and playtesting) has appropriately determined the necessity. Anything else is negligence, laziness and/or arrogance. I don't want or need your opinions about how ASL "should" be played in my game.
I disagree with everything you’ve written here.

Different strokes. I own and have played enough vanilla scenarios. I want something different. I like buying variable units, I like 10-1, 10-0, 9-0 and 7-1 Leaders in BFP scenarios, I like Forts multiple and diverse Victory Conditions, I like hidden SWs and Leaders, I like SSRs that change how the game is played and I want more of them.

The ASL rules are the canvas. The designers are the artist and they use their skills to paint their interpretation of how they want their scenarios to be played.
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
358
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
I've thought about just increasing the CVP for those systems to let's say +1CVP per 5PP capacity and/or inherent SW and +1CVP per T# capability (could even modify this based upon capabilities). This could allow the owning player the option of retaining the equipment on-board or withdrawing it off-board with no CVP loss. I just like presenting the player with options while at the same time putting them on the horns of a dilemma rather than having the designer play part of a scenario. (Of course this model would have to include a CVP cap of some sort). Just ideas.
This is a good point as sometimes one wants to protray opportunaties missed or use inovative tactics.
 
Top