Most played scenarios in 2005 - ROAR report.

[ON TOP ASL]

Most played scenarios in 2005 - ROAR report.

I'm very glad to see the following report to what scenarios were played the most in 2005. Both my Journal submission ended in top three.

It's been fun to read 'all' comments and AAR's about scenarios.

Playings from 1/1/2005 to 12/31/2005
Run at: 1/2/2006 2:59:06 AM
------------------------------------
Kempf at Melikhovo [J94] 62
On to Florence [J99] 46
Lend-Lease Attack [J98] 38

 

[Glennbo]

I played "On to Florence" at ASLOK. It was great fun...especially since it was one of the few I won. I "Grokked" it well. Congratulations! ( to me for winning, and you too)!

 

[ON TOP ASL]

Ahh, hum thanks, :laugh: but On to Florence was not my creation, think it was Richard Weiley?

 

[Glennbo]

Ahh, hum thanks, :laugh: but On to Florence was not my creation, think it was Richard Weiley?

So why is it on your signature line...perhaps to help me look foolish? I don't need your help. I do just fine on my own. But still, I admire what you've achieved! More power to you!

 

[ON TOP ASL]

The listed scenarios are the stat for 3 most played during 2005. - not my signature. :smoke:
"Scenario designers want their stuff to be PLAYED." So I'm very happy with all the playings/recordings of my scenarios.

 

[Pitman]

I played "On to Florence" and thought it was pretty tough on the defender. I was playing a skilled opponent, and I did have awful luck (nothing like rolling three 11s in a row for the first three times you fire with your HMG), but we both agreed afterwards that the Brits seemed to have most of the advantages.

 

[Glennbo]

Mark, how did you know I was the Brits!!?? Well, I'll have you know that I played it at ASLOK in a Mini, and the tournament director took away one British MMG for balance. So there! :angry: And this poor guy is getting his thread ruined by this talk about the one scenario he DIDN'T design. :hush:

 

[ON TOP ASL]

Yeah, stop ruin my thread. + :laugh:

 

[Jim McLeod]

Well, I'll have you know that I played it at ASLOK in a Mini, and the tournament director took away one British MMG for balance. So there! :angry: And this poor guy is getting his thread ruined by this talk about the one scenario he DIDN'T design. :hush:

Glenn, just to be clear ... are you saying that you were playing this scenario and the TD came over and took one of the OoB given MMG's?

If so, that doesn't sound right?

JMO.




=Jim=

 

[Tater]

Playings from 1/1/2005 to 12/31/2005
Run at: 1/2/2006 2:59:06 AM
------------------------------------
Kempf at Melikhovo [J94] 62
On to Florence [J99] 46
Lend-Lease Attack [J98] 38

Can any body on the forum comment on the historical accuracy of these three scenarios? Just wondering...

 

[kdalton]

I played "On to Florence" and thought it was pretty tough on the defender. I was playing a skilled opponent, and I did have awful luck (nothing like rolling three 11s in a row for the first three times you fire with your HMG), but we both agreed afterwards that the Brits seemed to have most of the advantages.

I played this and realize I have no bloody idea what to do with A-T mines. :dead:

 

[Ole Boe]

Can any body on the forum comment on the historical accuracy of these three scenarios? Just wondering...

They're just right... about as historical as you or Pitman want it

 

[jemb]

What to do with A-T mines

Keith,

I just played A104 "In front of the storm" with my Miami Beach ASL buddy. I had the defending Germans and was given 4 factors of AT mines and 8 factors of AP mines.

Since the French have H35 tanks that are not very powerful one of the tactics listed in previous AAR's on the socalasl website mentions having them do VBM freeze of units in buildings. I planned to put 2 factors of AT mines in 2 building hexes. Since there was a third building that could be VBM'ed I converted 6 factors of AP mines to another 2 factors of AT mines and covered my front three buildings. Also infantry don't set-off AT mines so they can move out no problem

Sure enough in come the VBM freeze and the AT mines did their magic on two H35 tanks immbobilizing them. I think this tactic helped me win A104 as the Germans.

John

 

[ON TOP ASL]

Here are the sources I (basically) used:

J94 - Kempf At Melikhovo
Mark Healey
Kursk 1943, The tide turns in the east
ISBN: 1-85532-211-0
P.69, 75

J98 - Lend-Lease Attack
Steven Zaloga
Bagration 1944, The destruction of Army Group Centre
P.59
ISBN: 1 85532 478 4

********************************************
Of course it's problematic to represent the Kursk battle by a 4.5 Turns scenario, but I am very proud of the J98 generic ASL board 4 and 19 that layout fit so nicely to historical scene.

About the most spoken of J99 . I don't know! Now stop Hijacking my thread. :whist:


EDIT.
I also looked up the weather situation for the area of "Kempf" action surrounding Kursk and updated SSR to:
1. EC are Wet, with a Mild Breeze from the Northeast at start. Rain (E3.51) is falling.

Unfortunately, the updated SSR1, version glimpsed between me and Brian.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Glenn, just to be clear ... are you saying that you were playing this scenario and the TD came over and took one of the OoB given MMG's?

If so, that doesn't sound right?

JMO.

=Jim=

The TD obviously lacked clear guidelines....

 

[Jim McLeod]

The TD obviously lacked clear guidelines....

That is unfortunate.

I know where he can pick some up.





=Jim=

 

[Glennbo]

My apologies to On Top ASL. "On to Florence" was given as one of three choices, and there was a note stating that a play balance (the MMG loss) had been decided upon by the powers that be. Apparently they thought the British had too much an advantage. The players knew this going in. It didn't matter to me since I knew nothing about the scenario and we diced for sides anyway. As I recall we decided on that scenario because neither of us had the other two. Now as to On Top ASL's scenarios, BRAVO! I intend to play one soon.

 

[Jim McLeod]

My apologies to On Top ASL. "On to Florence" was given as one of three choices, and there was a note stating that a play balance (the MMG loss) had been decided upon by the powers that be. Apparently they thought the British had too much an advantage. The players knew this going in. It didn't matter to me since I knew nothing about the scenario and we diced for sides anyway.

This is just me, but I very much disagree with that practice (the TD arbitrarily removing unit/weapons from one sides OoB in a tournament).

If a scenario is a dog, it is player beware. In a structured event don't select it for the event play list or if the tournament is like ASLOK, don't pick it to play.

That MMG may have done diddley all game or it may have erased half the enemy OoB, who knows.

By the way, besides a sudden urge to go to the ladies room, what should one do if they find themselves paired against the Steve Plevas or Mike McGraths of the ASL playing world?

For 99% of the players out there, any scenario you pick to play against Steve practically becomes a dog by virtue of the fact that you are playing Steve Pleva. This being the case, is the TD entitled to start deleting units/weapons from the OoB of the side Steve is playing in order to make the match a more balanced encounter?

Methinks not.

No sir, I do not like the practice of removing units from a scenario at all. If such a thing _is_ required, there are serious structural faults with the scenario in the first place, faults which should have been caught during the playtest process. If the faults are in fact of such a serious nature that they make the scenario a dog, then there should be "Official" errata issued for the scenario to properly correct the problem.

But until that time, the scenario must be played as published.

JMO.




=Jim=

 

[Pitman]

This is just me, but I very much disagree with that practice (the TD arbitrarily removing unit/weapons from one sides OoB in a tournament).

If a scenario is a dog, it is player beware. In a structured event don't select it for the event play list or if the tournament is like ASLOK, don't pick it to play.

I am rather mind-boggled at this response. It is a common practice for tournament organizers to provide balancing provisions to make certain scenarios suitable for tournament play. There is absolutely no reason for them not to do so.

Incidentally, the question is not whether the scenario is a "dog." There are countless scenarios that are not "dogs," but which may not be balanced enough to be suitable for tournament play. Making sure they are balanced means that the tournament organizers are not limited to those scenarios which are perfectly balanced.

That MMG may have done diddley all game or it may have erased half the enemy OoB, who knows.

As I recall, losing the MMG is the German balance in the scenario. Having played the scenario, I don't think it helps the German player enough. But at least it is a step in the right direction.

By the way, besides a sudden urge to go to the ladies room, what should one do if they find themselves paired against the Steve Plevas or Mike McGraths of the ASL playing world?

For 99% of the players out there, any scenario you pick to play against Steve practically becomes a dog by virtue of the fact that you are playing Steve Pleva. This being the case, is the TD entitled to start deleting units/weapons from the OoB of the side Steve is playing in order to make the match a more balanced encounter?

Methinks not.

That is a silly "observation" that perhaps does not deserve a response, but I will respond anyway. No scenario becomes a dog by virtue of the fact that a skilled player is playing it. A scenario is a playing field, not a team. The goal is to create a level playing field so that one player's skill may be applied against another. You are simply introducing a straw man by bring up the issue of trying to balance between potentially different skill levels.

No sir, I do not like the practice of removing units from a scenario at all. If such a thing _is_ required, there are serious structural faults with the scenario in the first place, faults which should have been caught during the playtest process. If the faults are in fact of such a serious nature that they make the scenario a dog, then there should be "Official" errata issued for the scenario to properly correct the problem.

But until that time, the scenario must be played as published.

That is all just ridiculous. Not being perfectly balanced is not equivalent to having "serious structural faults...which should have been caught during the playtest process." And there is no reason--no reason whatsoever--that a scenario must be played as published. Many tournaments are predicated on this not being the case, including every tournament that has used the Australian balance system, and every tournament that has a process to choose sides which involves giving one player or another the balance. That's in addition to all the tournaments, such as the World Boardgaming Championships, which include balancing provisions for certain scenarios that have come to be known over time to favor one side over another.

 

[da priest]

I am rather mind-boggled at this response. It is a common practice for tournament organizers to provide balancing provisions to make certain scenarios suitable for tournament play. There is absolutely no reason for them not to do so....

Chuckle...if you make up the tourney rules, have a hand in selection of scenarios(picking only ones you've played many times), get to "seed" the players with your own system..and then participate in the "tourney"...the idea of a new and different scenario, that is balanced, can be REAL scary.....hell you might not even place higher than 4th in the tourney!!! :devil: