First Impressions of J12

[wrongway149]

Why would you say that? I'm just pointing out his scenario sucks that's all. Too much math involved, wacky SSR about HT's and tactics you Have to use which means you do not have a choice. I understand the guy designs 100's of scenarios a year, but for cryin out loud, take some pride in your work.

So have you played it 12 times yet Scott? Usually that is how many times on average you wind up playing the most sucky scenarios

 

[wrongway149]

Yikes!
I just thought I would introduce some "J12" levity. Silly me. What was I thinking?

What I do know is that while I think Jungle Fighters is a cool little scenario, I know that Pete Shelling is a great scenario designer who takes pride in his work and makes MMP look good.

MY job is to make a scenario interesting and fun enough so that playtesters stick with it to final balance and polish. I take pride in the fact that I give that my best shot each and every time.

 

[wrongway149]

From the evidence it doesn't seem to have Burzevo's quality, although I can't say I have played it myself:

Jungle Fighters [J12] British 58 Japanese 54

JR

Evidence? What year is this, 2010?

 

[esprcorn]

Jealousy raising its ugly, green head? Scott, you are a better person than that.

JR

Is he really?

 

[wrongway149]

Really? The problems with G&G are that the scenario felt like I was playing a schwerepunkt scenario than an original MMP design. Your scenario had all the hallmarks of a schwerepunkt scenario, short game time, no real choices for the players IE you HAVE to attack and defend a certain way, there are no options and thus it seriously lacks replayability. The scenario felt gimmicky due to both the HT SSR and allowing the Russians to deploy, now you can have the possibility of 42 Russian HS running amok in this one. The scenario was boring due to the lack of options available to bothsides and thus felt more like blue guys vs brown guys than Russnans vs Germans. But that is pretty much typical of your design style pete.

So did you play the Russians? Which attack did you try? --- a broad front, equal pincers, or hammer and anvil? Did you keep your firepower together or do a half-squad 'shotgun'? Human wave right off the top or wait for a weak spot first?

Or let me guess-- you were the GD (of course) and tried to stuff the Russians up front. Or maybe a 'leapfrog' fall back? Did you pound with HMG and mortar as long as you could, or dismantle and mount up for max points ASAP?

Yeah I guess you're right --just not enough options in this one. Maybe I need some SS dying in the rubble of the Reichstag over and over to have good tactical choices.

 

[esprcorn]

Really? The problems with G&G are that the scenario felt like I was playing a schwerepunkt scenario than an original MMP design. Your scenario had all the hallmarks of a schwerepunkt scenario, short game time, no real choices for the players IE you HAVE to attack and defend a certain way, there are no options and thus it seriously lacks replayability. The scenario felt gimmicky due to both the HT SSR and allowing the Russians to deploy, now you can have the possibility of 42 Russian HS running amok in this one. The scenario was boring due to the lack of options available to bothsides and thus felt more like blue guys vs brown guys than Russnans vs Germans. But that is pretty much typical of your design style pete.

Do you even know that you're being personally insulting, rude, and basically an arse? You can debate the merits of a scenario like a grownup - without personally attacking the designer. If you forget to take your meds, stay off the forums until you get your imbalance under control.

 

[wrongway149]

Do you even know that you're being personally insulting, rude, and basically an arse? You can debate the merits of a scenario like a grownup - without personally attacking the designer. If you forget to take your meds, stay off the forums until you get your imbalance under control.

'
Ehh we all know Scott by now. Tomorrow he will come on here and call Grab and Go one the top 10 best scenarios ever.

 

[Mister T]

There should be a second opus of the scenario, featuring Skorzeny and Mussolini

 

[esprcorn]

note to self, never offer feedback on a pete shelling special, too many fanboyz to contend with.

Lol.. Yeah that.. Or just don't be a douche

 

[Gunner Scott]

Man, If I ever see you in person, please call me that too my face..............a real keyboard warrior you are.

Lol.. Yeah that.. Or just don't be a douche

 

[Perry]

MY job is to make a scenario interesting and fun enough so that playtesters stick with it to final balance and polish.

Grab and Go had no shortage of playtesters thinking it interesting, having fun, and wanting to stick with it.

 

[bprobst]

From the evidence it doesn't seem to have Burzevo's quality, although I can't say I have played it myself:

Jungle Fighters [J12] British 58 Japanese 54

This is one of those examples of the statistics defying the reality. I have played "Jungle Fighters" (the original version), and that's a trauma I never wish to experience again.

I strongly suspect that the majority of the British Commonwealth wins are because their Japanese opponent was unaware of the possibilities inherent in the Japanese units. ROAR doesn't track this, of course, so the numbers can't tell us anything in this case.

I wasn't making any comments, pro or con, regarding any individual scenario designer. They can't all be winners. I'm not aware of any scenario designers with any "significant" body of work that haven't farted out some mistakes.

 

[ecz]

while it's true that not every scenario can be a gem, and no ROAR statistic is a Golden word, I think that in the case of JF we have to consider that many many players (me included) played JF as FIRST scenario with Japanese. JF is specially good as an introduction to PTO because it has the Japaneses without the Jungle, something very unocommon among the AH/MMP scenarios at the time it has been published .
Under this aspect, I think that bprobst says something not wrong when he says that "the majority of the Commonwealth wins are because their Japanese opponent was unaware of the possibilities inherent in the Japanese units". Probably most of them are at their very first scenario with the Japaneses. When I say above "I feel the need to play again JF" I mean I want to check if my first impression more than 15 years ago stands today or the force of the time (and of the hundreds of game played in the meantime) changed my opinion about balance.

that said, and about the "trauma" suffered to play JF, I must add that I would happily change my worst traumas in the everyday life for an unbalanced scenario played from the wrong side... (assuming it is not a VASLeague game of course!)

 

[ecz]

and now, seeing the board and studying the possible first British turn to take the best initial position waiting the Yellow Horde, I still think that a defense, for a competent British player, is doable.

 

[jrv]

I just looked Jungle Fighters over briefly. I think the Aussies have a hard time selecting a place to set up their defense. The Japanese are nipping (no pun intended) at their heels, and with twenty squads the Japanese can take a few casualties if it will give them Aussie casualties in exchange, perhaps even at less than one-to-one. At the same time if the Aussies can find a good stop line and get there before the Japanese, the Japanese could easily end up losing a stack or two. Although I respect Bruce's judgment, I wonder if this is a case where his disappointment of losing with the hometown heroes has clouded his insight.

JR

 

[Gunner Scott]

Maybe he lost to oberst hussar and that's why he is such an angry bird about J12.

I just looked Jungle Fighters over briefly. I think the Aussies have a hard time selecting a place to set up their defense. The Japanese are nipping (no pun intended) at their heels, and with twenty squads the Japanese can take a few casualties if it will give them Aussie casualties in exchange, perhaps even at less than one-to-one. At the same time if the Aussies can find a good stop line and get there before the Japanese, the Japanese could easily end up losing a stack or two. Although I respect Bruce's judgment, I wonder if this is a case where his disappointment of losing with the hometown heroes has clouded his insight.

JR

 

[jrv]

Maybe he lost to oberst hussar and that's why he is such an angry bird about J12.

You, Mr. Pot, may not call Mr. Kettle black.

JR

 

[volgaG68]

Hi ya-

Received both my WO pack and J12 yesterday and I gotta say I am really impressed by the articles in J12.... Advanced Nuggets by Paul S. was another nice article on rules you tend to forget in the heat of play.

I found Paul's article informative as well. A number of those rules I knew, but many I had forgotten or glossed over in the first place. I was reminded of this article by a 'new' rule I discovered yesterday. An AFV wreck/abandoned AFV can provide scrounged Small Arms to an unarmed HS, crew, leader, not just scrounged SW. I had always remembered only two ways of reacquiring Small Arms, by CC or running around randomly trying to roll snake-eyes.

Even having read the entire rulebook a number of times over the years, I don't know how I missed this; or at least I didn't soak it in.

 

[James Taylor]

Occasionally this rule will bite you (ok, rarely, but it does happen) when you want to spend your last point on a sN or sD and remain in motion comfy in your smoke cover. Then you fail the smoke attempt and don't want to stop, or spin, or move to the next open ground hex, but you have to do something.

So Doug, (and Craig), this extra 1 MP is not such a big problem usually....

If you go back to:

"D2.4 MOTION STATUS: Any Mobile vehicle (including a boat or amphibian) which has used its entire printed MP allotment during its MPh, without expending a MP to Stop (2.13) or Delay (2.17) at the end of that MPh, is considered in Motion and covered with a Motion counter. A vehicle may end its MPh in Motion without expending all of its MP only if it has insufficient MP remaining to enter the next hex it wishes to enter." ...​

So... if you are bypassing a hexside of a building with only 1 MP left, and therefore do not have enough to make the turn to the next hexside, you end your MPh in motion in that hex. The extra MP is expended in that hex per D2.1.

I will say that D2.1 does throw a little confusion on the "vehicle must expend all its MP" concept when it opens with, "2.1 A vehicle may expend up to its full MP allotment..."

"may"?

Just another one of those things that makes the ASL Rules so much fun!

JT

 

[Tuomo]

"D2.4 MOTION STATUS: Any Mobile vehicle (including a boat or amphibian) which has used its entire printed MP allotment during its MPh, without expending a MP to Stop (2.13) or Delay (2.17) at the end of that MPh, is considered in Motion and covered with a Motion counter. A vehicle may end its MPh in Motion without expending all of its MP only if it has insufficient MP remaining to enter the next hex it wishes to enter." ...

So I can see the following situation. I have 1 MP left, I'm in Bypass in Motion, and I try for Smoke and fail. Then I point to the rule above and say I'm done with this guy's MPh because he doesn't have enough MP left to continue in bypass. Then my opponent says that I COULD just enter the next hex my vehicle is pointing at for his last MP, so have to do that. Then I say no, I don't wish to enter that hex (even though it's obviously a better choice than continuing in bypass in the hex I'm in), so D2.4, bitch. Then in my next MPh, I decide that, hey, the hex my opponent indicated really IS the next hex I want to move into.

Is that really the discussion we're supposed to have? Because no wonder people have just taken to playing it they way they do. If your vehicle wants to end its MPh, all its remaining MP are spent right where it is, with the attendant risks of being First Fired on with every MP. Is that actually wrong?