Monkeys With Typewriters in the new year?

[MrP]

Hmmm. Two schools of thought:

1. A loosy goosy, use a HASL map only, make up (sorry, research) the rest
2. A prescriptive Carpiquet-like exercise where the designers are given a set of ready prepared notes.

My thoughts are that we've done no.2 a couple of times now. MwT1 produced some cracking scenarios, all the top 5 had great promise. MwT2 did the same exercise with a more esoteric subject and the results were less good, maybe a little too prescriptive? MwT3 kind of foundered due to Steve's illness and we never really got to the PT stage and it was called after the out of the box judging.

I'd like to give no.1 a try I think - I can't think of a way to make the parameters narrow enough to satisfy ecz's criteria yet wide enough that we could open things up to a wide variety of boards. I'm very open to suggestions though, someone with a bigger picture of history might do better than me here!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm up for this one as well.

I'd prefer to see any CG map used and maybe some other restriction to bring the theme together. What worked for mempreviously was the fact that all the dsigns melded together well. If we just have "use a CG board" then how will you compare a tight little fire fight in KGP jungle to a divisional water crossing on ABTF?

Exactly. The whole point of the original contest was to compare how different designers approached a similar situation using similar tools. It wasn't about highlighting rare tanks, or maps, nor was it an SSR writing contest. It was an exercise in seeing how, given a basic tactical description, each designer would express it in ASL terms.

MwT1 produced some cracking scenarios, all the top 5 had great promise. MwT2 did the same exercise with a more esoteric subject and the results were less good, maybe a little too prescriptive? MwT3 kind of foundered due to Steve's illness and we never really got to the PT stage and it was called after the out of the box judging.

MwT1 was truest to the concept. MwT2 was, as ecz points out, far more vague in its application. It was not "too prescriptive", quite the opposite. It was difficult to find any meat in the historical tract selected, and what was offered simply wasn't interesting.

If you want to succeed, go back to the roots of the contest. Just about every movie sequel fails because they think they need to be bigger, better, louder, etc. and they almost always never get it right. You're making the same mistake. Drop the gimmicks. Step one - find the best historical account you can find - I still think the Kristische action from SMALL UNIT ACTIONS IN THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIA is not a bad one; Kevin Kenneally has digital copies, as do I, and an article on the battle was also published in S&T magazine - and have your designers do a no-frills scenario based on that battle. You then have a common ground to judge from.

Otherwise, just admit that you're trying to put together an "action pack" and start a yahoo group, and drop the pretense of calling it a contest.

Good luck.

 

[DerBlitzer]

If you go with a situation as the basis for the contest, I think something from the Italian campaign would be great---which has been pretty much ignored by ASL.

 

[paulkenny]

HASL! Great Idea I already have a couple of designs done, Courage of the Protectors, Rojo Factory, Unicorn Bridge, A Bridge Almost Too Far and Berlin: Soviet Revenge

 

[FanaticTW]

HASL! Great Idea I already have a couple of designs done, Courage of the Protectors, Rojo Factory, Unicorn Bridge, A Bridge Almost Too Far and Berlin: Soviet Revenge

What about Booze Run: Tijuana ; )

 

[rottenroller]

Too many rules

I agree.

 

[chris_olden]

What about Booze Run: Tijuana ; )

+1!!:laugh:

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Red Barricades at Tobruk.....

 

[chris_olden]

Exactly. The whole point of the original contest was to compare how different designers approached a similar situation using similar tools. It wasn't about highlighting rare tanks, or maps, nor was it an SSR writing contest. It was an exercise in seeing how, given a basic tactical description, each designer would express it in ASL terms.


- I still think the Kristische action from SMALL UNIT ACTIONS IN THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIA is not a bad one; Kevin Kenneally has digital copies, as do I, and an article on the battle was also published in S&T magazine - and have your designers do a no-frills scenario based on that battle. You then have a common ground to judge from.

Agreed with ya in the first paragraph.
However,
unless the S&T mag has a serious article on the battle, the Kristische action as described
in the Small Unit Actions book just doesn't offer up much.(jmho of course)
:smoke:

 

[Hams]

As a 'wanna be' scenario designer, I'd prefer option 2:

2. A prescriptive Carpiquet-like exercise where the designers are given a set of ready prepared notes.

I can't help but wonder if the almost total control offered by option 1, wouldn't quickly become a problem.

 

[SamB]

Much as I like the idea of using an HASL map... Many new players don't have these maps.

Use maps from the map bundle? At least they will be available soon.

 

[Kihmbar]

I hate to necro this thread, but I was interested in seeing what the MWT contest was going to be this go around. Has all interest died in the last month or are we waiting for more information before proceeding?

To throw my (tardy) two cents into this discussion, I would prefer seeing a given situation and allowing the designers to represent that situation in an ASL scenario.

 

[ASLSARGE]

Ian - a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave as you wish. I do wish this goes forward. It is one of the most unique and positive ideas that ever came outta the forums.

1) You can't possibly use all the suggestions given - sorta like too many cooks spoiling the stew...each one adds his personal favorite spice and the end result tastes horrible.
2) You or whomever you appoint needs to "take charge".
3) Give the new designers a chance to show off their talents. Let them choose the battle to depict. That way they will work on something of interest to them and will render better results. Let them choose the boards or HASL map or create a new one. Keep overlays to a minimum please.
4) Keep the actions to company level or less...no more than three AFV's or guns per side. Optional rules (Chapter E) encouraged.
5) Scenario designers must submit copies of the source materials they used in designing their scenario. If they cannot back up what they've submitted with reliable source data the submission is rejected outright. (photo copies of the pages used would suffice).
6) Put tighter time constraints on both the designers and your panel of judges. Too long a gap in time and interest from all parties will begin to wither. 30 days to research/design/initial playtest by the designers. 30 days for layout and for initial "out of the box" judging. 45 days to get the best five played and judged. Three and 1/2 months total. Any longer and it will end up like MwT II and III.
7) One designer = one scenario submission.

Just my 2 cents' worth

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Much as I like the idea of using an HASL map... Many new players don't have these maps.

They're all available via VASL, though, no?

 

[Bryan Holtby]

They're all available via VASL, though, no?

This is why all HASL maps should be available for use and not just MMP maps. OtO map could be any open ground in any country. A cavalry charge in Poland, Germans approaching Smolensk in 41, any timeline in Russia really and even France.

 

[AZslim]

Ian - a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave as you wish. I do wish this goes forward. It is one of the most unique and positive ideas that ever came outta the forums.

1) You can't possibly use all the suggestions given - sorta like too many cooks spoiling the stew...each one adds his personal favorite spice and the end result tastes horrible.
2) You or whomever you appoint needs to "take charge".
3) Give the new designers a chance to show off their talents. Let them choose the battle to depict. That way they will work on something of interest to them and will render better results. Let them choose the boards or HASL map or create a new one. Keep overlays to a minimum please.
4) Keep the actions to company level or less...no more than three AFV's or guns per side. Optional rules (Chapter E) encouraged.
5) Scenario designers must submit copies of the source materials they used in designing their scenario. If they cannot back up what they've submitted with reliable source data the submission is rejected outright. (photo copies of the pages used would suffice).
6) Put tighter time constraints on both the designers and your panel of judges. Too long a gap in time and interest from all parties will begin to wither. 30 days to research/design/initial playtest by the designers. 30 days for layout and for initial "out of the box" judging. 45 days to get the best five played and judged. Three and 1/2 months total. Any longer and it will end up like MwT II and III.
7) One designer = one scenario submission.

Just my 2 cents' worth

I'm not a designer, but I like the idea of all of them doing the same action. I like to see how different people represent the same thing.

 

[Corwin]

I want to try this again. I am open to both design criteria: a wide open HASL design or a specific action.

All of the maps are on VASL and I think that should be the standard used. I would think that most people on this forum would not be intimidated by using VASL if they are not using VASL for live play already.

Cheers

 

[Hams]

Has it been decided yet, if MwT will happen this year?

 

[chris_olden]

I would think that most people on this forum would not be intimidated by using VASL if they are not using VASL for live play already.

I, sir, am I Luddite and I will not use your "Devil's Technology" to design a scenario
when the good ol' fashioned maps and counters will work just fine.
Say "Hello." to Satan for me, heretic.

:laugh:

 

[JRKrejsa]

VASL and I don't get along either.