My least favorite part of playing ASL: the Setup

[Bill Kohler]

"The Guards Counterattack" is a great first scenario, not least IMO because it tells you pretty much where each unit goes.

But whenever I sit down to play most other ASL scenarios, I give an inaudible sigh: because now it's time for me to figure out--on my own--where each unit goes. And it's usually a race: I want to make sure I don't botch the entire match for me and my opponent by missing something obvious or by not having a coherent well-thought-out plan, yet at the same time rushing so as not to keep my opponent waiting around too long.

I understand that many players enjoy figuring out the setup of units for themselves, and in no way do I want to take that away from them. But what I personally would love to see is an evolution of the scenario card to where, instead of having two scenarios printed front to back on the card, I get on the back of the card a color picture of the map showing a suggested layout for both players' units, complete with a few arrows and circles and a paragraph or two summarizing a general game plan for both players. By no means am I looking for a "best attack" or a "best defense," but just a "reasonable approach." That way I could look at it, tweak a few things here and there as I wish, or throw it all out and come up with a wholly original plan after seeing what things my opponent may likely be trying.

I know there're VASL setup files available for many scenarios, and articles detailing scenario play-throughs, and tactical advice listing maxims and common strategies--and all of these things are good and welcome. But if the next Journal or Action Pack were to come out with scenario cards that are backed with sample setups, well then I'd be tickled pink! :shy:

 

[jrv]

An interesting idea. One problem is that in many scenarios the defender needs to set up a surprise, e.g. an AT Gun that needs to get a flank hit.

JR

 

[Robin Reeve]

Setting up can be a source of tension, because you can doubt about your capacity of grasping ("grocking" in wargamer slang) the scenario's dynamics.
Am I missing some essential element, not being conscious that my opponent will find a loophole in my defense (or my attack plan) ?
But setting up - and busting one's set up too - is an excellent way to develop one's understanding of the game's mechanics.
With some experience, there often are opportunities for bluff, for setting traps, etc.
Having things all done won't help you improve your planning and operating skills.

 

[Mister T]

In chess, one would follow opening moves for the first 10/20 moves, but actually it's not very interesting as you just follow the 'theory' others have computed.

 

[witchbottles]

"The Guards Counterattack" is a great first scenario, not least IMO because it tells you pretty much where each unit goes.

But whenever I sit down to play most other ASL scenarios, I give an inaudible sigh: because now it's time for me to figure out--on my own--where each unit goes. And it's usually a race: I want to make sure I don't botch the entire match for me and my opponent by missing something obvious or by not having a coherent well-thought-out plan, yet at the same time rushing so as not to keep my opponent waiting around too long.

I understand that many players enjoy figuring out the setup of units for themselves, and in no way do I want to take that away from them. But what I personally would love to see is an evolution of the scenario card to where, instead of having two scenarios printed front to back on the card, I get on the back of the card a color picture of the map showing a suggested layout for both players' units, complete with a few arrows and circles and a paragraph or two summarizing a general game plan for both players. By no means am I looking for a "best attack" or a "best defense," but just a "reasonable approach." That way I could look at it, tweak a few things here and there as I wish, or throw it all out and come up with a wholly original plan after seeing what things my opponent may likely be trying.

I know there're VASL setup files available for many scenarios, and articles detailing scenario play-throughs, and tactical advice listing maxims and common strategies--and all of these things are good and welcome. But if the next Journal or Action Pack were to come out with scenario cards that are backed with sample setups, well then I'd be tickled pink! :shy:

this is precisely why, IMO, the " Crossfire" articels in the old Generals and Annuals were so popular. Discussion of various concepts of setting up and initial actions.

I believe it still remains a popular article format.

KRL, jon H

 

[Bill Kohler]

Having things all done won't help you improve your planning and operating skills.

Absolutely true.

But, scenario cards with pictures of suggested setups could . . .
--Get me into playing a scenario quicker (which is the part I do enjoy). [Many successful wargames come with the initial setup of units being fully specified.]
--Reduce the odds of my opponent getting stuck playing a "blow-out" match.
--Make scenario cards more interesting to read, for the terrain would be shown, and unit layouts, and would let you imagine tactics without having to pull the maps out.
--Help prevent rule mistakes by listing, say, bore-sighted Locations, and not-showing Foxholes or A-P mines in paved roads, etc.
--Increase creativity, allowing me to combine my own "brilliant" ideas with those shown in the sample setup.
--Make it easier to play solitaire, as the opponent is already setup for you.

 

[horseshoe]

this is precisely why, IMO, the " Crossfire" articels in the old Generals and Annuals were so popular. Discussion of various concepts of setting up and initial actions.

I believe it still remains a popular article format.

KRL, jon H

The old SL clinics by Jon Mishcon were some of my favorite articles ever . I never missed reading one.

As to the OP, I find setup as one of the most fun parts of the scenario, trying to set a trap for my brother to fall into, or a cool and unexpected place for AT gun/minefields/etc. I play for fun and not for blood, so a botched setup is not going to make me lose sleep, but to help remember that it didn't work and not make the same mistake again.

 

[esprcorn]

Many of the Third Pary products (Schwerpunkt, Rally Point, Dispatches for the Bunker) will provide very brief designer notes where they give brief tips on set up strategies...

I agree that the setup can be the most nerve wracking part of the game, but it's also the most important part to improve in. That comes with practice... Learning the hard way...

One of the benefits to Play By Email, is that you have a lot more time to plan your setup or attack. I find a mix of those and quick set up live matches in a good balance. And often I find that my carefully designed (agonized over) setup are no better than the one I threw together in 30 minutes...

 

[Bill Kohler]

An interesting idea. One problem is that in many scenarios the defender needs to set up a surprise, e.g. an AT Gun that needs to get a flank hit.

Any player who put his HIP units exactly where the sample setup had them would certainly miss out on the element of surprise. But it'd give him an idea of the kind of places he ought to consider placing them.

 

[horseshoe]

Any player who put his HIP units exactly where the sample setup had them would certainly miss out on the element of surprise. But it'd give him an idea of the kind of places he ought to consider placing them.

Think if you were the attacker, which avenue of advance would you choose, then set your guns accordingly. Of course you could choose wrong, but that's called playing the game.

 

[mgmasl]

IMO setup is an important part of the game.. Is when the true essence of any scenario is discovered.. The game moves to diff routes than expected always, but IMHO without a good pregame analisis no scenario may be enjoyed at full level

 

[Bill Kohler]

I agree that the setup can be the most nerve wracking part of the game, but it's also the most important part to improve in. That comes with practice... Learning the hard way...

My intention isn't to take away any setup options, but rather to give players a "first draft" that they can consider if they wish. In fact I suspect that such a scenario card layout would improve player skills when it comes to setting up, for players could peruse sample setups at their leisure, and ponder the placements of units that others have chosen.

And I like to avoid "learning setup the hard way" where I can, as (in my experience) it tends to be painful for both players.

I'm not an expert ASLer by any means, but I have played 40 or more scenarios, so I'm not a complete novice either. (But I still dislike setting up.)

 

[footsteps]

A "Scenario Gamer's Guide".

 

[Proff3RTR]

I enjoy setting up, it helps build the picture and tension before your cardboard warriors do battle.

 

[Pitman]

My pet peeve about set-ups is time. I would like to see scenario designers occasionally experiment with SSRs that would define maximum set-up times for each side, as in "The German player may take no more than 30 minutes for setup. The American player may take up to 20 minutes for setup." Some people will literally take as much time as you are willing to give them for their setup.

I would also like scenario designers to consider other methods to reduce set-up time, whether by being more precise on setup locations in scenario OBs, having setup occur out of LOS of enemy forces, having more forces enter from off-board during the course of a scenario, or anything else they might think up.

Setup times are a real weakness of the game.

 

[sarfs]

The biggest thing about setting up is planning rout paths. It's bad enough to have your defenders break, but to die for FtR is just the pits. You also need to have your leaders in place to move to the broken guys.

 

[Glennbo]

Players who don't enjoy setting up can choose to play only scenarios that are meeting engagements, where both side enter from off map. There are many, many such scenarios, and they are my favorite kind to play.

With so many different types of scenarios available these days, there is no reason a player should play a situation they don't like (unless coerced by their opponent of course).

 

[mgmasl]

My pet peeve about set-ups is time. I would like to see scenario designers occasionally experiment with SSRs that would define maximum set-up times for each side, as in "The German player may take no more than 30 minutes for setup. The American player may take up to 20 minutes for setup." Some people will literally take as much time as you are willing to give them for their setup.

I would also like scenario designers to consider other methods to reduce set-up time, whether by being more precise on setup locations in scenario OBs, having setup occur out of LOS of enemy forces, having more forces enter from off-board during the course of a scenario, or anything else they might think up.

Setup times are a real weakness of the game.

I think is a problem about players and not about setup..
Anyway, I prefer to concede time enough to my opponent to study the scenario.. I hate to play scenarios once anyone of both players discover the game is lost because missed some important thing about tbe scenario VC, OB or maps

 

[Yuri0352]

But, scenario cards with pictures of suggested setups could . . .
--Get me into playing a scenario quicker (which is the part I do enjoy). [Many successful wargames come with the initial setup of units being fully specified.]
--Reduce the odds of my opponent getting stuck playing a "blow-out" match.
--Make scenario cards more interesting to read, for the terrain would be shown, and unit layouts, and would let you imagine tactics without having to pull the maps out.
--Help prevent rule mistakes by listing, say, bore-sighted Locations, and not-showing Foxholes or A-P mines in paved roads, etc.
--Increase creativity, allowing me to combine my own "brilliant" ideas with those shown in the sample setup.
--Make it easier to play solitaire, as the opponent is already setup for you.

As I recall, a few months back there was a discussion here regarding the feasibility and desire to have color map layouts printed on scenario cards. As much as I would like to see mapboard pictures on scenario cards, several valid points were raised which would indicate that such a feature (desirable yet unnecessary) will probably never appear.

To suggest that MMP or any TPP would print both mapboard pictures and set-up suggestions on scenario cards is very wishfully thinking.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "Not gonna happen".

 

[Yuri0352]

I enjoy setting up, it helps build the picture and tension before your cardboard warriors do battle.

Yes it does!

Always is nice to enjoy those moments of reflecting on your just-completed deployment of your units...before all of your best laid plans are shattered by the deadly combination of fickle dice, more skilled adversaries, misunderstanding of the rules and poor judgement.

If at some point in the future I become annoyed by setting counters on the boards, writing down my minefields/HIP guns, reviewing Chapter H notes or waiting for my opponent to do these things, I'll just go play World Of Tanks.