FTF Opponents: What method do you use?

volgaG68

Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
1,549
Location
La Crosse, KS
First name
Chris
Country
llUnited States
I have not had a physical, across the table opponent (barring a rare tourney) in over 25 years. Back then, we were too high and drunk to care about balance and protocol. In the last ten years, I have had a number of oppos using webcams and boards. Our usual practice has been one guy picks the scenario, the other rolls for sides. Whoever has the defense gets 3-4 days to set one up and transcribe it to the other guy so he can set up a probable line of attack against it. Game day, we were ready to go.

So, with an actual in-person FTF oppo now in the area, my question is this:
  1. Do you do as I described above and pre-pick/pre-setup ahead of time? or...
  2. Do you do it 'tourney style' and simply pick the scenario on game day, roll for sides, allow the Defender 30 minutes or so (average-size scenario) to set up, then allow the Attacker the same latitude, then play?
Method 1 allows for more actual game-time, Method 2 allows for more of an 'off the cuff' style of play; both having their merits. I have read many, many AARs, and can't seem to recall much of any that describe the method used. It's usually just a variation of, "It was Joe's turn to pick and he went with Red Horse Recon."

Curious as to whether the answers weigh more to one side than the other...
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
4,162
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It varies with the opponent/friend/acquaintance. In general, we prefer to do our setups before the gaming session. My gaming sessions tend to be 3.5 to 4.5 hours. I generally alternate pick of scenario with my opponent. Whoever picks the scenario, generally plays the defending side, and tries to have the setup sent to the attacker before the session.

If a scenario ends early during a session, we resort to your Method 2 to get the next one started.
 

Craig Benn

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
637
Reaction score
508
Location
Liverpool
Country
llUnited Kingdom
As a rule of thumb if you pick the scenario, the other guy gets to pick the side.

Although if you're playing a newb or someone who's not that good you let them have the favoured side.

I remember years ago playing Mark Blackmore. We took turns picking scenarios and sides - I'd pick something balanced, and he'd pick the most one sided east front scenarios where he got SS with the best leadership and toys against crap Russians in one sided dogs.

Then he'd come out with nonsense like the game is meant to be fun and it was somehow wrong to worry about balance...but never go the Russians.
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
1,593
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
Me and my regular FtF oplnients normally first pick a scenario and then we'll roll for sides. This can be done in advance.

I also do playtroughs, for example now I am playing all of the Festung Budapest and AP 9 scenarios and we alternate between axis and allies.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Better to give some days to prepare, that usually ensures better games. My opponent chooses the scenario, on a list curated by my side. Side-wise, we alternate attack and defense for a balanced diet.
 

gorkowskij

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
163
Reaction score
504
Country
llUnited States
Quality of game play and long term learning both benefit immensely from preparation.

In NOVA, for FTF matches we usually have the host play defender and he sets up at least one day ahead of time; sometimes the target scenario is known weeks in advance. The visitor (attacker) also has ample time to think through his plan. Both parties can examine relevant rules, especially those that feature in a particular scenario, but rarely come into play. For example, I'm now half way through a scenario with a single lane wooden bridge and tanks - that could collapse said bridge. That does not come into play often, but is crucial to this scenario and therefore deserves some pre-study.

When I rush scenarios without proper prior prep, I usually find I overlooked a key rule or missed some obvious tactical pitfall. Much more fun to actually utilize all your potential. And, no matter how much you prepare, there are always mid-game surprises that require fast action decision making with no preparation. So, there's spontaneous drama no matter what.

I'm happy to let the other guy pick his side. I'm not such a stickler for a particular scenario, but I do like to play a series of some kind in order. Series play gets you out of your comfort zone learning new rules and helps you develop an appreciation for the strengths of different designers.
 

Jude

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
408
Reaction score
468
Location
Colorado Springs
Country
llUnited States
This is actually a topic that I've always been interested in because I've played the same guy (off and on) since we were in high school in the early 80s.

My friend and I don't use either of those methods. We play chronological “mini campaigns” of at least seven scenarios in a particular theater adding more if an interesting looking scenario is a bit further down the way. We usually start them with a historically significant event, such as the invasion of France and the Low Countries for example, and play until we get through at least seven (to see won the “campaign”). We never stop if there are more scenarios on that particular theater date until we've played them all. In the aforementioned case, I had 12 scenarios that started on May 10th so we played all 12. If we end up in a tie, we call it good and move on to the next theater (the Axis invasion of the Balkans in that case).

I know it may seem weird, but we always play the same sides; I’m the Axis and he’s the Allies. We’re both OK with that. A long time ago we we used to switch it up, but now we just like it this way. He likes the Americans and Russians, I don’t. I don’t mind the Italians, he’s not a fan. We both like the British, but I can live with it. He’ll never do a Banzai again, but he does get to do Human Waves.

Since we jump around so much, we get to experience pretty much all ASL has to offer (other than some of the nationalities, obviously). We’ve played in settings such as PTO 1937, Poland, the Winter War, Barbarossa, 1940 North Africa, Stalingrad, Torch, Guadalcanal, Sicily, Italy, Kursk, D-Day, and that's just a partial list. We even skipped ahead (heresy!) when the Korean War module came out because we were years away from that theater. A lot of variety. By staying the same side and staying in the same theater for a while, we really get to understand how to play our sides in that particular environment and situation. Plus, it gives us time to really learn (or relearn) the rules for an environment, correct any mistakes we made, and do a better job in the next scenario (DTO and bocage quickly come to mind).

The downside is that I did suffer from “fortification fatigue” while we did our Kursk campaign. Mines and wire, wire and mines! However, we are now playing through the beginning of Operation Bagration (and BFP’s excellent OtO module) and my friend is now feeling the pain I felt in Kursk. But in both cases, with each scenario, we learned how to better approach the challenges the scenarios presented making each game that much better.

Another downside is that it also takes us a long time before we get to play some of the new stuff that comes out if we already passed it. But since almost all the scenarios we play (and we’ve been playing since SL) we’ve never played anyway (or played so long ago that our tactics are totally different now), everything is basically “new”.

Anyway, that works for us. We know exactly where we’re going and who we’ll be playing as.

Incidentally, we play all the scenarios that fall within our selected dates even if ROAR or the ASL Archives show it’s a dog. I’ve lost plenty of so called unbalanced scenarios that I was "supposed" to win and have enjoyed many that based on the win/loss record we could have skipped. When we see those, we consider it that much more of a challenge. Unfortunately, though, sometimes ROAR and the ASL Archives are right...
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Spontaneous. I think that describes succinctly how I picked scenarios. Whether against Fish or at an event I never really planned playing a scenario. If we were playtesting it would be from those but on the whole no structured plan.

We might concentrate on the newest module or Night but it was all very extemporaneous. 😉
 

Cpl Uhl

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
862
Reaction score
476
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Country
llUnited States
This is actually a topic that I've always been interested in because I've played the same guy (off and on) since we were in high school in the early 80s.

My friend and I don't use either of those methods. We play chronological “mini campaigns” of at least seven scenarios in a particular theater adding more if an interesting looking scenario is a bit further down the way. We usually start them with a historically significant event, such as the invasion of France and the Low Countries for example, and play until we get through at least seven (to see won the “campaign”). We never stop if there are more scenarios on that particular theater date until we've played them all. In the aforementioned case, I had 12 scenarios that started on May 10th so we played all 12. If we end up in a tie, we call it good and move on to the next theater (the Axis invasion of the Balkans in that case).

I know it may seem weird, but we always play the same sides; I’m the Axis and he’s the Allies. We’re both OK with that. A long time ago we we used to switch it up, but now we just like it this way. He likes the Americans and Russians, I don’t. I don’t mind the Italians, he’s not a fan. We both like the British, but I can live with it. He’ll never do a Banzai again, but he does get to do Human Waves.

Since we jump around so much, we get to experience pretty much all ASL has to offer (other than some of the nationalities, obviously). We’ve played in settings such as PTO 1937, Poland, the Winter War, Barbarossa, 1940 North Africa, Stalingrad, Torch, Guadalcanal, Sicily, Italy, Kursk, D-Day, and that's just a partial list. We even skipped ahead (heresy!) when the Korean War module came out because we were years away from that theater. A lot of variety. By staying the same side and staying in the same theater for a while, we really get to understand how to play our sides in that particular environment and situation. Plus, it gives us time to really learn (or relearn) the rules for an environment, correct any mistakes we made, and do a better job in the next scenario (DTO and bocage quickly come to mind).

The downside is that I did suffer from “fortification fatigue” while we did our Kursk campaign. Mines and wire, wire and mines! However, we are now playing through the beginning of Operation Bagration (and BFP’s excellent OtO module) and my friend is now feeling the pain I felt in Kursk. But in both cases, with each scenario, we learned how to better approach the challenges the scenarios presented making each game that much better.

Another downside is that it also takes us a long time before we get to play some of the new stuff that comes out if we already passed it. But since almost all the scenarios we play (and we’ve been playing since SL) we’ve never played anyway (or played so long ago that our tactics are totally different now), everything is basically “new”.

Anyway, that works for us. We know exactly where we’re going and who we’ll be playing as.

Incidentally, we play all the scenarios that fall within our selected dates even if ROAR or the ASL Archives show it’s a dog. I’ve lost plenty of so called unbalanced scenarios that I was "supposed" to win and have enjoyed many that based on the win/loss record we could have skipped. When we see those, we consider it that much more of a challenge. Unfortunately, though, sometimes ROAR and the ASL Archives are right...
Interesting approach. I like the idea of sticking with a side/place for a while to get to better understand the nuances.
 

waltu

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
129
Reaction score
110
Location
New Jersey
Country
llUnited States
For FtF games I prefer to know what scenario, and which side, I'm going to play some days in advance. It gives both opponents time to read the pertinent rules and the special vehicle/gun notes. You can discuss balance ahead of time, etc.. And, as mentioned, it makes the setup time go quicker.

Sometimes it's more of a "Tourney style" situation, where you don't know what or who your playing ahead of time. In those cases, I usually have one or two scenarios lined up where I have some idea of how to play them, and what the special capabilities are for the vehicles and ordnance. That said, I have found that most opponents usually have lined up a scenario or two of their own. So then you negotiate for what scenario to play. After that, you negotiate for sides. This method can be unexpectedly fun, or downright miserable. In those situations I look for the shorter scenarios. That way, if you get stuck with a dog, at least it doesn't last that long.
 

Jude

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
408
Reaction score
468
Location
Colorado Springs
Country
llUnited States
Interesting approach. I like the idea of sticking with a side/place for a while to get to better understand the nuances.
Yeah. It especially helped keep our heads and tactics straight when we were playing scenarios in western North Africa and Sicily, for example, where orchards were usually olive groves or during the Winter War with all the snow/deep snow/extreme winter rules. Playing one after the other saved time rereading and relearning the rules for just one scenario.
 

Old Noob

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
2,330
Country
llUnited States
When I was playing my best friend before he moved to Washington state, I'd pick a scenario closest to the day. He would chose his side.
When I play at Enfilade, my opponent and I agree on which scenario, then roll for sides.
 

fenyan

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
703
Reaction score
1,195
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
At our weekly game days we pick a scenario, roll for sides and let the defender set up. If I bring scenarios, I let my opponent choose scenario and side. I haven't researched the strategy but have made sure I understand the terrain/SSRs to minimize my rules lookup before the game. Time permitting, I also like to enlarge the maps with overlays in place and print them out.
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
674
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
I enjoy taking a themed scenario pack, like the ones CH puts out and my opponent and I chose a side and play through the whole pack in order, each player always playing the same side. You can get a good historical feel of the battle the pack is portraying and you learn how to fight with the army you are playing.

Guy Flummerfelt and I played many packs this way and enjoyed it much. Sadly he died in a car accident last year.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I enjoy taking a themed scenario pack, like the ones CH puts out and my opponent and I chose a side and play through the whole pack in order, each player always playing the same side. You can get a good historical feel of the battle the pack is portraying and you learn how to fight with the army you are playing.

Guy Flummerfelt and I played many packs this way and enjoyed it much. Sadly he died in a car accident last year.
My condolences to his family and to you for the loss of your friend. Too many great gamers have passed recently. 😔
 

olli

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
8,270
Reaction score
1,830
Location
Scotland
Country
llGermany
With my regular FtF players depends on who’s house usually scenarios are suggested and the home player is the defender so that he can set up prior to the other arriving at his house
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,359
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I actually have only one regular FtF opponent, which is M.Koch, the GRENADIER TD. Most of the FtF-playing we do is testing scenarios for the tournament selection to delete those that seem unfit.

Because of practical reasons, so far we have only played at my place. As FtF play always involves more overhead (i.e. driving to/from my place while taking into account working hours, setting up, picking counters, cleaning up, interruptions due to family dinner, etc.), I attempt to prepare as much as possible beforehand:

The scenario selection usually originates from my opponent. As it is likely, that most of the picked scenarios will be approved for the tournament, I do prepare a quality VASL setup file, that some of the GRENADIER participants use later after the publication of the scenario list to prepare their setups. Mostly, we determine sides by preference with a tendency to alternate between Attack and Defense. If playing the Defence, which happens more often for practical reasons, I prepare a defensive setup in VASL, which I send to my opponent beforehand on most occasions to allow him to prepare his offensive setup in turn.

When my opponent arrives at my place, I have the board(s) set up, counters picked for both sides, scenario cards printed, organizational counters at the ready, etc. If playing the Defence, my counters will already be set up on the board. If I have received his defensive setup per VASL beforehand, I will set up my offensive setup before he arrives and place his OoB beside the board (as I do not know the exact disposition of his defensive setup).

So the only thing my opponent needs to do after having arrived is to place his counters on the board according to his setup before we begin.

When the game is concluded, we usually discuss the scenario along with possible tournament balance issues. My opponent helps to pre-sort the counters while I do most of the re-storaging while he is on his way home.

von Marwitz
 
Top