Ho Hum...

[RobZagnut]

Just got two more scenario packs in the mail. 16 scenarios. Some look really good, some okay, some I'll never play. The packs will go into binders with my 1000+ other scenarios.

Nothing special. Nothing really stands out.

Am I the only one who thinks that after 15 years ASL scenarios could have progressed a little more? Or a LOT more?

Something is missing. I miss the excitement of opening up a scenario pack and saying, "WOW!" ASL scenarios and possibly ASL needs something new and exciting to help scenario designers come up with something new. What is it? Here are a few of mine:

1) Lack of components for designers.

a) When was the last time we saw new mapboards? Two years ago? And not everyone has the pre-released AOO and HP boards (48-52). How old is Action Pack #2? When I look at a scenario I say, "Oh gee, boards 2 and 24 again. Yippee." Lately, I've found myself choosing a scenario not by the way it looks in terms of OB, situation or location, but whether or not it uses boards 48-52 just so I would have new terrain to fight over. Mapboard selection has become stagnant.

HoB has done a good job in this area releasing two scenario packs with two boards and two firefights which use their own boards/overlays. I enjoy these and have played many of them. The problem is that MMP and other TPP do not use these boards or overlays.

b) Is it just me or are you tired of EVERY scenario defender getting an 8-1, 8-0 and 7-0 leader in their OB? Wouldn't it be nice to see a 9-0, 7+1 and 6-1 for a change? Or an 8+1, 7-1 and 6-0?

ASL leadership has turned into one BIG, BORING BLAH. Does anyone even look at the leadership in a scenario any more, except to see if one side or the other might have a -2 leader? I'm yawning just thinking about it.


2) Innovation. When was the last time you looked at a scenario and said, “This is really cool!†The last truly innovative scenario was Dogs of War, which was designed for three players. That was 8 years ago? Before that there was Timischenko's Attack that used three separate boards. Some packs use MG crews (a cool concept). Choosing units or groups of units is an oldie.

Here are a couple of ideas, but I’m not sure if a designer or TPP has the guts to release them. Take them or leave them.

a) Campaign scenarios. Historical modules do a good job of creating Fog of War and make each unit mean something, because you use units from scenario to scenario. When you lose a 9-2 leader or an 8-3-8 squad, it hurts, because you know you won’t get to use that unit in the next scenario. This can be carried over to regular scenarios by creating campaign scenarios.

Campaign scenarios are a group of 3, 4 or 7 scenarios that are tied together. Using Germans and Russians in my example here is a three scenario campaign. These three scenarios are ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘AB’. Victory conditions will be CVP based. CVP for casualties, control, etc. The Germans and Russians each get X number of units. In scenario ‘A’ they see the map (boards 51 & 48) and must choose what units out of X they want to use for the scenario. There will be a minimum and maximum level they can choose. The rest of the units will be used in scenario ‘B’ (boards 3 and 17). The remaining units from scenarios ‘A’ and ‘B’ will be combined to fight on boards 42 and 33) in scenario ‘AB’. The player with the highest CVP after three scenarios is the winner.

A four scenario campaign would be scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘ABC’. Scenario ‘ABC’ is fought with the combined units that are left over from scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

A seven scenario campaign would be scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘AB’, ‘CD’ and ‘ABCD’. Scenario ‘ABCD’ is fought with the units that are left over from scenarios ‘AB’ and ‘CD’.

b) Fog of War scenarios. Create and playtest eight scenarios. Create an Allied scenario card set and an Axis scenario card set which only has their unit information on it and DOES NOT show the units of the other side. Each scenario card still has Victory Conditions, Historical Background, number of Turns, etc.

When you buy the scenario pack (each side is sealed). You and your buddy decide which side they want to play (Axis or Allied). You decide you’re Allied, so you give the Axis scenario cards to your buddy. You never see the eight scenario cards for the Axis until you’re finished playing one of the scenarios!

True Fog of War.

Anyone have any innovative ideas of their own?

 

[Tater]

Am I the only one who thinks that after 15 years ASL scenarios could have progressed a little more? Or a LOT more?

I vote for a LOT more.

One of the reasons I stopped buying 3rd party stuff was because it was mostly cookie cutter scenarios. Out of a pack of 10-12 one might get something interesting...just not worth the cost.

ASL scenarios and possibly ASL needs something new and exciting to help scenario designers come up with something new. What is it? Here are a few of mine:

Oooo...this sounds like fun!

1) Lack of components for designers.

I disagree. With 50+ maps and all the overlays one can make any terrain situation imaginable. Also, a new map won't make a hill of beans if the designer has the same old 2-3 leaders 2-3 platoons captured building 'X' in 6 turns scenario.

Same thing goes for new counters. You can reinvent the wheel but if you put that new wheel on your old Dodge Dart what do you have? It's still an old Dodge Dart.

2) Innovation.

Bingo!!!

This is the real key. Doing things with OB's, entry, VC, and SSR is where the real creativity can come into play.

a) Campaign scenarios.

b) Fog of War scenarios.

Yes..yes...me likey!!!


COMMENT:
I believe part of the problem with recent boring scenario design is the hobby's excessive dedication to historical accuracy and balance. Designers are so fearful of having their products being labeled "non-historical" or a "Dog" that they won't step to far outside the norm. Consider that we have some people who gleefuly refer to their fellow ASL players as "lazy designers" simply because said players might not adhere rigidly to the history of an action. Consider that in today's environment "Hill 621" would never have been published/released. Consider the level of back-up source info that designers MUST submit to MMP to even get their designs considered. In this atmosphere it is no wonder that scenario style is inhibited. It's like there is a Spanish Inquisition of scenario design...blasphemers will be punished!

 

[Corporal Kindel]

Am I the only one who thinks that after 15 years ASL scenarios could have progressed a little more? Or a LOT more?

Something is missing. I miss the excitement of opening up a scenario pack and saying, "WOW!" ASL scenarios and possibly ASL needs something new and exciting to help scenario designers come up with something new. What is it? Here are a few of mine:

1) Lack of components for designers.

a) When was the last time we saw new mapboards? Two years ago? ... Mapboard selection has become stagnant.

I do think there has been some evolution in scenarios over the years, scenarios tend to be shorter, smaller. But, I'd have to agree that there is not much difference in scenarios .. they're mostly CVP or occupy terrain VCs .. I think there is some room here for uniqueness: For example, how about a "capture the V2 {or whatever special} site" scenario, or "Destroy the building and escape" {instead of capture .. destroy involves mandatory kindling attempts and then exiting before you're attacked, kind of like a "hit and run" raid}, or "Capture the Person" {I'm sure there were cases in WWII where nations did commando attacks to kill/capture a specific person .. the Nazi guy in Vienna comes to mind, Heydrich IIRC}, how about a "Capture the Prisoners" scenario, like the great raid in Luzon '45 or a "hold the line" scenario where the defender needs to maintain (or defend) some kind of perimeter, instead of simply Locations/hexes.

I definitely agree there is a lot of unrealized creativity in scenario VCs that have not been touched upon yet.

I just don't see a great need to pump out new boards. I think with 52 boards and hundreds of overlays & a terrain-SSR-capability that there is no terrain feature that can't be represented (or created) from what we have and what can be created from butted boards & overlays. Hell, we can even create arctic tundra with desert boards, deep snow SSR, and drift counters. I don't see any terrain feature that can't be created from anything we don't already have. Anyone that wants to create a "dogwood" forest instead of "pine" forest can just use woods overlays and SSRs to represent whatever differences there are between dogwood and pine trees (not much I might add in ASL terms).

b) Is it just me or are you tired of EVERY scenario defender getting an 8-1, 8-0 and 7-0 leader in their OB? Wouldn't it be nice to see a 9-0, 7+1 and 6-1 for a change? Or an 8+1, 7-1 and 6-0?

ASL leadership has turned into one BIG, BORING BLAH. Does anyone even look at the leadership in a scenario any more, except to see if one side or the other might have a -2 leader? I'm yawning just thinking about it.

Unbelievable!!!
Incredible!!!
You took the words exactly out of my mouth man! In fact, I just submitted an article to MMP last week covering the topic of Alternate Leaders and my suggestion for their implementation. It's my first article, hopefully MMP will publish it (that would be incredibly exciting!). My submission included 12 alternate leaders for the MRS, 4 for the JRS, and 6 for the FRS (Main, Japanese, and Finnish Rank structures). My article/suggestion does not change the rank structure, nor any rules, so it should be fairly simple to implement these new leader types if designers wanted to include scenarios with non-standard leaders. The alternate leader types I suggested just basically operate around the periphery of their rank structures, entering their respective rank structure at some point via BH improvement or ELR reduction.

2) Innovation. When was the last time you looked at a scenario and said, “This is really cool!†The last truly innovative scenario was Dogs of War, which was designed for three players. That was 8 years ago? Before that there was Timischenko's Attack that used three separate boards. Some packs use MG crews (a cool concept). Choosing units or groups of units is an oldie.

Here are a couple of ideas, but I’m not sure if a designer or TPP has the guts to release them. Take them or leave them.

a) Campaign scenarios. Historical modules do a good job of creating Fog of War and make each unit mean something, because you use units from scenario to scenario. When you lose a 9-2 leader or an 8-3-8 squad, it hurts, because you know you won’t get to use that unit in the next scenario. This can be carried over to regular scenarios by creating campaign scenarios.

Campaign scenarios are a group of 3, 4 or 7 scenarios that are tied together. Using Germans and Russians in my example here is a three scenario campaign. These three scenarios are ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘AB’. Victory conditions will be CVP based. CVP for casualties, control, etc. The Germans and Russians each get X number of units. In scenario ‘A’ they see the map (boards 51 & 48) and must choose what units out of X they want to use for the scenario. There will be a minimum and maximum level they can choose. The rest of the units will be used in scenario ‘B’ (boards 3 and 17). The remaining units from scenarios ‘A’ and ‘B’ will be combined to fight on boards 42 and 33) in scenario ‘AB’. The player with the highest CVP after three scenarios is the winner.

A four scenario campaign would be scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘ABC’. Scenario ‘ABC’ is fought with the combined units that are left over from scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

A seven scenario campaign would be scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘AB’, ‘CD’ and ‘ABCD’. Scenario ‘ABCD’ is fought with the units that are left over from scenarios ‘AB’ and ‘CD’.

These are all good ideas for mini-campaign games. I think mini-cgs like the ones Pete Shelling did in a couple of the Journals are good ideas. As you mentioned above, there is much creativity in this area too that can be realized. Personally, I kind of like the idea of choosing between two (or more) groups as part of the OOB. This certainly gives a degree of FOW (does my opponent have Tigers or Mark IIIs?). Of course, any choice between Tigers or Mark IIIs and the player is going to choose Tigers 99.9% of the time, so there must be mitigating factors to make the Mark III choice more appealing .. such as, perhaps, a reduced VC Location (or CVP) count to win .. so not only is the choice of Tigers or Mark IIIs affecting your OOB, but also the Victory conditions as well.

b) Fog of War scenarios. Create and playtest eight scenarios. Create an Allied scenario card set and an Axis scenario card set which only has their unit information on it and DOES NOT show the units of the other side. Each scenario card still has Victory Conditions, Historical Background, number of Turns, etc.

When you buy the scenario pack (each side is sealed). You and your buddy decide which side they want to play (Axis or Allied). You decide you’re Allied, so you give the Axis scenario cards to your buddy. You never see the eight scenario cards for the Axis until you’re finished playing one of the scenarios!

True Fog of War.

Anyone have any innovative ideas of their own?

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're trying to do with this. Do you mean that each of the eight scenarios uses the sides' OOB from one of the other 8 scenarios? sort of interchangeable OOB scenarios? I'm not sure what I think about this, seems you can get away with doing the choice of units thing (mentioned above) and do exactly the same thing, though the interchangeable OOBs you mention would probably give quite a few more options in this regard. I don't exactly see how the FOW is coming into it. After all, both opponents will see all 8 of his opponent's scenario cards, so he will at least know one of eight opponent's possibilities is possible, unless I'm missunderstanding you here. The sealed thing doesn't seem realistic to me because you play it once vs one opponent, and next week go to another opponent and play the same scenario. regardless of whether it's sealed or not you know the OOBs (or have a good idea what they are). One-shot sealed scenarios (if that's what you mean) don't seem very realistic (in a continuual-play sense/use of the term).

One thing that could be done is to create a scenario which gives DYO points to a particualar side (or both sides), but it seems to me that would be pretty much the same thing as DYO, unless the scenario designer limited the spending choices somehow.

 

[Markdv5208]

I disagree...

I am a crack addict, execpt my product isn't crack its ASL....

I can't get enough of it. Have you seen the CH maps for the Bulge they did?

I do NOT have copies of it, but my buddy Jeff DY does and WOW.....

Can't say enough good about HOB. Yes, the recent pack had 'issues' but hey, who is perfect anyways?

And what about those ASL Bunker boys? 2 to 4 NEW scenarios every 6 months?

And this year I played BOTH the SS Campaign that Pete S did (the Kursk mini CG) and the desert one. Lost one, won the other.

So, I disagree politely with you Mr. Wolkey. But I admit, I'm a crack addict.

 

[ChrisBuehler]

I think there are several things that might add "Fog of War":

1. Variable OoB. Several posters have already touched on this but I'll add my own thoughts. A) Offer more than one option to one or both sides where choices must be made prior to set-up. B) Offer each side a "base" force with options for additional forces, either at start or that enter later. C) Offer one or both sides "purchase points" where they could select their force from a pre-selected list of options such as what is currently offered in campaign game re-fit phases. D) Offer one or both sides a base "base" force and purchase points to complete their force.

2. Variable VCs. Wouldn't it be interesting if you did not know what your opponent needed to accomplish? A) In conjunction with the variable OoB, the VCs could also be variable. For example, if one option was for a "large" force the corresponding VCs would be more demanding, i.e., more LVP or CVP. Likewise, selection of a smaller force would have a smaller number of CVP or LVP. B) Have a ranked list of several VCs where the player that accomplishes the highest ranked VC wins.

I believe not knowing what your opponent has or what they need to accomplish will really change the game dynamics. Further, variability allows for more replay value.

Unfortunately, the downside is that I would expect playtesting would be very complex, difficult, and time consuming, much more so than for a scenario with defined OoBs and VCs.

Just some more ideas.

Chris

 

[andy]

Fow...

All of these are great ideas. It's tough to play face-to-face and have true FOW. Sealed scenario packs are one option, but they don't have much replay value once unsealed and seen. I really like the campaign idea: A,B,AB etc.

How's this for FOW? Mind you the big trick is balancing such a thing.

Wait for it...chrome plated blasphemy coming...

Secret die roll(s) for each side's VC from a list of 12. Record hidden to keep everyone honest. VC worth certain numbers of CVP, for instance. Highest CVP at game end wins. Some VC (obviously) might appear on each side's list. Reveal at scenario end, most/all scenarios played to completion. You shouldn't see much kamikaze game end with this in place.

I like the OOB stuff. You should get the VC's from your CO and then have secret force puchase options to make from a list of forces available. Record hidden to keep honest. Then you should campaign style roll for leadership & SW for each purchased group. These rolls can be in plain sight, the opponent doesn't know what group's ldr/SW we are rolling for and therefore what the rolls mean. Record for game end to make sure everyone's honest. Basically DYO with restrictions on what is available.

There should be maybe an intelligence roll after this is done. You might get nothing, you might get "German probe" (based on VC), you might get German probe by understrength inf coy. Or if you get snakes, you might see one of the (RS) German VC or reveal the OOB (not ldr quality) of an enemy group (RS). Another possiblity is identity of force commander (personal leaders). Ah, that's Major Schultz's outfit, and reveal morale and/or ldr mod of the best leader on the opponent's side. Prisoner/civilian interrogration might reveal some of this. Interrogation isn't used often enough in the game as is.

I like the alternative leaders. I think really top dogs like Wittman, Murphy, Pavlov & Upham should be heroic 10-3 or even a 10-4. Maybe we might find a table to represent historical leaders based on medals/commendations.

BTW I keep plugging this, but Frank Haggerty's Burden of Command (BoC) variant breaks a lot new ground.

 

[caa]

I think there are several things that might add "Fog of War":

1. Variable OoB. Several posters have already touched on this but I'll add my own thoughts. A) Offer more than one option to one or both sides where choices must be made prior to set-up. B) Offer each side a "base" force with options for additional forces, either at start or that enter later. C) Offer one or both sides "purchase points" where they could select their force from a pre-selected list of options such as what is currently offered in campaign game re-fit phases. D) Offer one or both sides a base "base" force and purchase points to complete their force.

2. Variable VCs. Wouldn't it be interesting if you did not know what your opponent needed to accomplish? A) In conjunction with the variable OoB, the VCs could also be variable. For example, if one option was for a "large" force the corresponding VCs would be more demanding, i.e., more LVP or CVP. Likewise, selection of a smaller force would have a smaller number of CVP or LVP. B) Have a ranked list of several VCs where the player that accomplishes the highest ranked VC wins.

I believe not knowing what your opponent has or what they need to accomplish will really change the game dynamics. Further, variability allows for more replay value.

Unfortunately, the downside is that I would expect playtesting would be very complex, difficult, and time consuming, much more so than for a scenario with defined OoBs and VCs.

Just some more ideas.

Chris

Each scenario in the 'Broadway to Prokhorovka' mini-Hasl has variable OOBs and VCs.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

How's this for FOW? Mind you the big trick is balancing such a thing.

Wait for it...chrome plated blasphemy coming...

Secret die roll(s) for each side's VC from a list of 12. Record hidden to keep everyone honest. VC worth certain numbers of CVP, for instance. Highest CVP at game end wins. Some VC (obviously) might appear on each side's list. Reveal at scenario end, most/all scenarios played to completion. You shouldn't see much kamikaze game end with this in place.

This is actually a pretty good idea, but instead of having it as secret ("hidden") DRs .. (I've really never been impressed {or liked} honor stuff, or anything that can't be directly verified at some point) .. have it as "choice" DRs. For example, a player is given a "choice" of 12 DRs (ranging from 2 to 12) and he must use (apply) all twelve of these DRs for something. For example a 2DR might be a 10-2 leader, a 12 might be a 7-0 leader (and the player must choose two leaders), a 2 DR for VC might be 'easier' VCs than is a 12 DR choice. All the other DRs result in a range of troops/reinforcements. Insure that all 12 DRs need to be used for something (therefore the full spectrum of good/bad options and all ranges in between) and, wallah, one has a completely non-standard scenario with a huge range of pregame OOB and VC choices. The player must insure he has a balanced force that can cover his choice of VCs (and the opponent must do exactly the same thing) .. one wouldn't want two very good leaders and moderate VCs but only a small force to achieve it, so it's a balancing act on the part of the player where his experience and knowledge of ASL in general plays as much a part as his actual (play) tactics.

But, like you mentioned, it would definitely be much harder to balance such a scenario. Personally, I like this approach better than "Hidden/drs" honor system stuff. Of course, it doesn't have to be 2-12 (twelve choices), it could be 1-6 (six choices) as well for smaller ranges/scenarios.

 

[Flavioers]

When I was a active SL player I create a lot of VC to bring more fun to my games. Like Allied troops have to rescue broken leader xxxx in hex xx and take him out of the map. Engineers squads must sabotage at least XX enemy planes that are parked for repair in hex xxxx. Axis forces have to capture leader XXX, etc, etc...good times...

To hell with "historical background". I can bypass historical accuracy for exotic situatios in favor of the "what if/"fun factor". With a good Ftf partner, chapter H and over 50 maps imagination is the only limit for me...

 

[wrongway149]

I

2. Variable VCs. Wouldn't it be interesting if you did not know what your opponent needed to accomplish? A) In conjunction with the variable OoB, the VCs could also be variable. For example, if one option was for a "large" force the corresponding VCs would be more demanding, i.e., more LVP or CVP. Likewise, selection of a smaller force would have a smaller number of CVP or LVP. B) Have a ranked list of several VCs where the player that accomplishes the highest ranked VC wins.

I believe not knowing what your opponent has or what they need to accomplish will really change the game dynamics. Further, variability allows for more replay value.

Unfortunately, the downside is that I would expect playtesting would be very complex, difficult, and time consuming, much more so than for a scenario with defined OoBs and VCs.

Just some more ideas.

Chris

How about if you don't even know your own VC exactly? I think one of these Journal mini-CGS could be done in 'Serial' style. The first scenario in Journal 9, then the next in Journal 10, and the next in journal 11. Journal 12 would have the exact Victory Conditions for the whole thing. That way , an attacking player might be thinking "Get forces off the far edge while capturing some big buildings" without knowing the exact ratio of building control:EVP required, or even if there is a casualty cap unitil after all scenarios have been played.

Could be very interesting and a good marketing strategy to keep Journals selling. :thumup:

How's that for for-of-war, Rob?

Pete "I could also charge players for 'clues' Shelling

 

[wrongway149]

a) Campaign scenarios. Historical modules do a good job of creating Fog of War and make each unit mean something, because you use units from scenario to scenario. When you lose a 9-2 leader or an 8-3-8 squad, it hurts, because you know you won’t get to use that unit in the next scenario. This can be carried over to regular scenarios by creating campaign scenarios.

Campaign scenarios are a group of 3, 4 or 7 scenarios that are tied together. Using Germans and Russians in my example here is a three scenario campaign. These three scenarios are ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘AB’. Victory conditions will be CVP based. CVP for casualties, control, etc. The Germans and Russians each get X number of units. In scenario ‘A’ they see the map (boards 51 & 48) and must choose what units out of X they want to use for the scenario. There will be a minimum and maximum level they can choose. The rest of the units will be used in scenario ‘B’ (boards 3 and 17). The remaining units from scenarios ‘A’ and ‘B’ will be combined to fight on boards 42 and 33) in scenario ‘AB’. The player with the highest CVP after three scenarios is the winner.

A four scenario campaign would be scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘ABC’. Scenario ‘ABC’ is fought with the combined units that are left over from scenarios ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

Anyone have any innovative ideas of their own?

I've been thinking along similar lines for some Scenario/CG hybrids for Slaughter at Ponyri.


Care to help design this Rob?

 

[Corporal Kindel]

How about if you don't even know your own VC exactly? I think one of these Journal mini-CGS could be done in 'Serial' style. The first scenario in Journal 9, then the next in Journal 10, and the next in journal 11. Journal 12 would have the exact Victory Conditions for the whole thing.

One way to keep the scenario consistently replayable would be to have a VC DR/dr at the end of the last player turn (or second to last) thus forcing the players to cover all possiblilities (or maximize most of them as the case may be). Any scenario VCs limited to a specific journal issue, are going to loose that appeal (become obscolete) once the last issue (J12 in your example) is published. Or MMP can have a "weekly" even "daily" scenario VC DR/dr posted, when "official scenario" VC rolls are posted for everyone on their website ... hell it could even be done on a sticky thread on this forum; the possiblities are endless I guess.

 

[byouse]

Or MMP can have a "weekly" even "daily" scenario VC DR/dr posted, when "official scenario" VC rolls are posted for everyone on their website ... hell it could even be done on a sticky thread on this forum; the possiblities are endless I guess.

I'd love to see something like this tried out. Someone submit a scenario (i'd think it has to be beefy) with some generic "orders" for each side and we'd webhost it. Then on a certain date we'd put up the victory conditions for the attacking side.

It'd be really interesting to see how people play the game.

Anyone want to take a stab at this? We'll help where we can, layout and such, but on design we're really rather swamped at the moment.

Let me know.

Brian

 

[andy]

Let me see if I can't design something small like this..

I think I'll give some of these ideas a shot. I've never designed a scenario before, so I'll start real small. Maybe a single scenario Carentan type thing.

BTW I have a really funky VC idea for this Dieppe radar station thing. British Commandos must escort a scientist 6+1 into the building and he must conduct a search in the tower to locate the "gear" (treated as a non-functional HIP SW). To get VP the commandos must then seaborne evac the "gear". They lose double VP if the scientist is captured. Is there a German set DC in the tower? Hmmm.

 

[byouse]

Consider the level of back-up source info that designers MUST submit to MMP to even get their designs considered.

I think this is one of those urban myths that just won't go away.

We request that scenarios be historically based (we don't want Tigers in 1940) and if you submit sources great.

We've had people submit 10 pages of xeroxed materials and we've had people say "I got it from this book, <title here>".

Doesn't seem like such a tough requirement to me. If you're upset because you can't just think up a "cool encounter" with no historical basis I guess i'd have to say i'm sorry. It is a historical game after all.

All that said, even reasonable historicalness (?) is fine - witness the Rotterdam mini-HASL - it has a hypothetical "what if they Dutch didn't surrender the city" aspect. There just are not Tiger tanks attacking the city.

 

[Pitman]

Innovation. When was the last time you looked at a scenario and said, “This is really cool!†The last truly innovative scenario was Dogs of War, which was designed for three players. That was 8 years ago? Before that there was Timischenko's Attack that used three separate boards. Some packs use MG crews (a cool concept). Choosing units or groups of units is an oldie.

There have been many truly innovative scenarios designed since Dogs of War. Take "Water Foul," for example, or the Franc Tireur scenario involving combat on a Frozen Lake.

Besides, it doesn't take "innovation" to make a scenario "really cool." Sometimes innovation can screw up a scenario, and sometimes really cool scenarios involve no strange new concept.

 

[Pitman]

I disagree. With 50+ maps and all the overlays one can make any terrain situation imaginable.

As someone who has designed scenarios, I can assure you that your statement has no validity to it.

 

[Pitman]

I just don't see a great need to pump out new boards. I think with 52 boards and hundreds of overlays & a terrain-SSR-capability that there is no terrain feature that can't be represented (or created) from what we have and what can be created from butted boards & overlays. Hell, we can even create arctic tundra with desert boards, deep snow SSR, and drift counters. I don't see any terrain feature that can't be created from anything we don't already have. Anyone that wants to create a "dogwood" forest instead of "pine" forest can just use woods overlays and SSRs to represent whatever differences there are between dogwood and pine trees (not much I might add in ASL terms).

That is just plain not true. There are many scenarios I cannot create because no current configuration of boards and overlays can come close to replicating the terrain in question. In particular, there are serious limitations regarding hills and certain types of towns, as well as a shortage of jungle suitable terrain generally.

 

[gregor1863]

I have many more games to go before I feel I'd get to the point of not finding something interesting to play (case in point, I am just now getting into the Schwerpunkt stuff.)

I'd like to see more products like the Historical Studies from MMP and products like those put out from HoB (just got OtO and can't wait to dig into it, great product guys!!!) The combination of standard/short scenarios, larger scenarios on a historical map, and short campaigns (I don't have time anymore to do the 4 hour single turns) are great.

I can certainly appreciate though that innovation is important to the long term success of any product.

Just my humble $.02

 

[Corporal Kindel]

That is just plain not true. There are many scenarios I cannot create because no current configuration of boards and overlays can come close to replicating the terrain in question. In particular, there are serious limitations regarding hills and certain types of towns, as well as a shortage of jungle suitable terrain generally.

What types of hills and towns can't be represented from the various hill boards, X (building) overlays, and hill overlays from AP2 or AP1 (whichever one it was)? There are over 30 something building overlays now, IIRC, you can create an entire city from scratch, not to mention Mt Everest.

There are a bunch of woods (jungle), brush (bamboo), grain (Kunai), and orchard (palm) tree overlays available (from COB I think). I simply don't see where the problem comes in, as to simply affixing these overlays onto the most appropriate (most closely-matching) mapboard to create the terrain type under question. Hell, you can even place the woods overlays on a hill Location to create a hill-woods/hill-jungle (whichever) Location. The only problem I forsee in this case is defining the crest line, which an SSR should (if the rulebook doesn't already) cover.