Most played scenarios in 2005 - ROAR report.

ON TOP ASL

Play J94, J98, J110, J111
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
791
Reaction score
17
Location
Rättvik, Sweden
Country
llSweden
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

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
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)! :)
 
Last edited:

ON TOP ASL

Play J94, J98, J110, J111
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
791
Reaction score
17
Location
Rättvik, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Ahh, hum thanks, :laugh: but On to Florence was not my creation, think it was Richard Weiley?
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
ON TOP ASL said:
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

Play J94, J98, J110, J111
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
791
Reaction score
17
Location
Rättvik, Sweden
Country
llSweden
:D

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.
 
Last edited:

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
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

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
Mark, how did you know I was the Brits!!?? :mad: :mad: :mad: 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:
 
Last edited:

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Glennbo said:
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

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
ON TOP ASL said:
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

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
2,632
Reaction score
346
Location
Hurricane, WV
Country
llUnited States
Pitman said:
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

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Tater said:
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 :p
 

jemb

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Location
Slidell, LA
Country
llUnited States
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

Play J94, J98, J110, J111
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
791
Reaction score
17
Location
Rättvik, Sweden
Country
llSweden
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Jim McLeod said:
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....
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
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

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Glennbo said:
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

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
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

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
10
Location
Lebanon, Mo., turn r
Pitman said:
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:
 
Top