Non-historical scenarios

[Jim McLeod]

As mentioned by others, making an exhaustive effort to create a perfectly historically accurate scenario may well result in a yawner of a scenario.

If the framework is sound (in terms of general OB, terrain and events) then the emphasis should be made to create a fun scenario that players will hopefully want to play.

Also, pure historically accurate scenarios often do not translate well into ASL terms. They are unplayable if side A has 8 squads and side B has 20 squads but historically side A wiped out side B after making a mad charge over OG.

Sure, you can SSR something like that but how fun would that be?



=Jim=

 

[Jim McLeod]

Then again, if someone else wants to put out a pack with more "generic" actions, but are great fun to play, I am all for that as well (and I do not think the designers are being lazy btw).

I like 'em all :laugh:

Peace

Roger

Regarding Mark P's comment about scenario designers being "lazy" if their work is not 100% historically accurate; that is so much bunk.

The historical research is the easy part of scenario design, making it all work and be fun in ASL terms is the difficult part.

Having said that, sometimes good scenarios take a remarkably short time to get right, other times, a huge amount of time dedicated to a scenario will result in that scenario still being a yawner.

Scenario design can be formulatic at times but the formula does not always yield good results. Sometimes it takes a little bit of this and a little bit of that to make a scenario fun.

And don't let the first impression of a scenario fool you. I remember poh-poohing a scenario for the longest time (I believe it was TAC51, Last Fight) until I actually played it. IT was great fun even though I thought it to be blandish upon first glance.

What do I know.




=Jim=

 

[thedrake]

Saving Private Ryan scenarios

Remember seeing one titled "Saving Ryan's Privates" online but that was some time ago.Scott Faulk also had a version of the last battle titled "Solid Gold Real Estate" (Maybe he would post/grant permission to post here?)

My version of the last battle from the movie is available as free download here:
http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/asl.htm

Thanks to Scott Faulk and Frank Meyer for their help with this.

MD

 

[Pitman]

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think that historical accuracy is wrong. I appreciate the work you and others are doing on scenarios/historical modules to make them as historical accurate as possible. But that doesn't necessarily make the scenarios/CGs better.

I did not say that scenarios had to be "as historically accurate as possible." So, please, do not put words in my mouth. I did say that designing generic scenarios is lazy. And I stand by that statement.

 

[Pitman]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]One of the best, if somewhat large, 'semi-historical' scenarios is The Mighty Maus by dftb. Including not one but -two- Maus, IS-3s, IS-2ms, King Tigers and enough heavy metal to leave rust on your fingertips, it's just good, crazy ASL action. The historicity or lack thereof played no factor in my enjoyment of this scenario. The point of sitting down to an ASL scenario is the fun factor, not whether or not I consider it to be a mini historical dissertation.

[/QUOTE]

I scan in all my scenarios and print them out in to bind them into comb-binders. I did not even bother to scan in The Mighty Maus. It didn't happen. It couldn't have happened. I have no interest.

 

[Pitman]

As mentioned by others, making an exhaustive effort to create a perfectly historically accurate scenario may well result in a yawner of a scenario.

If the framework is sound (in terms of general OB, terrain and events) then the emphasis should be made to create a fun scenario that players will hopefully want to play.

Also, pure historically accurate scenarios often do not translate well into ASL terms. They are unplayable if side A has 8 squads and side B has 20 squads but historically side A wiped out side B after making a mad charge over OG.

Sure, you can SSR something like that but how fun would that be?
=Jim=

That is a strawman. No one has said anything about "exhaustive efforts" or "perfectly historically accurate scenario."

 

[Pitman]

Regarding Mark P's comment about scenario designers being "lazy" if their work is not 100% historically accurate; that is so much bunk.
=Jim=

Why don't you provide a quotation from me where I said anything resembling that. Stop living a fantasy and respond to what people actually write.

 

[Tater]

Why don't you provide a quotation from me where I said anything resembling that. Stop living a fantasy and respond to what people actually write.

OK, Pitman...then please illuminate us as to what point, IYHO, a designer becomes a lazy SOB? At what point are we allowed to heap derision and insult upon the work of such a misbegotten son of camel?

90% Historical Accuracy?
80%?
50%?
???

 

[Tater]

I did not say that scenarios had to be "as historically accurate as possible." So, please, do not put words in my mouth. I did say that designing generic scenarios is lazy. And I stand by that statement.

Of course you do...why not, I mean issuing such a blanket statement doesn't require any effort or work to back it up. Hmmm...lazy...I wonder...

Not to mention that there is no chance for blowback since no one is sure if you are insulting them or not.

 

[Pitman]

I think this is the first time I have been criticized for not making a blanket statement. Sometimes I wonder if you are really all there.

 

[Tater]

I think this is the first time I have been criticized for not making a blanket statement. Sometimes I wonder if you are really all there.

Oh, OK Pitman...will this be the "that's not what I really said" option or will you be using the classic "blustering equivacation" tactic? Or will this be the much bolder "anyone should understand what I meant so I am not going to explain it to you" strategy?

 

[mkirschenbaum]

I scan in all my scenarios and print them out in to bind them into comb-binders. I did not even bother to scan in The Mighty Maus. It didn't happen. It couldn't have happened. I have no interest.

"It didn't happen. It couldn't have happened." The difference between those two statements is precisely the crux of this debate.

 

[Jim McLeod]

Why don't you provide a quotation from me where I said anything resembling that. Stop living a fantasy and respond to what people actually write.

My apologies Mark.

You are correct regarding the bit about the historical accuracy. There must have been a bit of thread overlap.

However, I did correctly "quote" you on the "lazy" comment.





=Jim=

 

[Pitman]

There are two different debates going on--one re historical scenarios versus allegedly "representational" scenarios. The other is historical scenarios versus counterfactual scenarios.

The first is "it did happen and this scenario to a greater or lesser degree tries to recreate it" versus "it didn't happen but it is kind of like some things that did happen." The second is "it did happen" versus "it didn't happen, but what it if did happen."

I dislike both counterfactual scenarios and allegedly representational scenarios for separate but similar sets of reasons.

 

[Jim McLeod]

OK, Pitman...then please illuminate us as to what point, IYHO, a designer becomes a lazy SOB? At what point are we allowed to heap derision and insult upon the work of such a misbegotten son of camel?

90% Historical Accuracy?
80%?
50%?
???

Tate, IMHO, a scenario is either historically accurate or it is not. Having said that, I will hazard to guess that there has yet to be published a "historically accurate" scenario. The fact that geo-boards are used in the vast majority of scenarios makes this true. Even HASL scenarios are not 100% accurate as not all information will likely ever be known about the actions depicted in ASL.

A designer can get very close to 100% but reaching that pinacle is almost impossible. We must settle for close enough. Apply which ever percentage one wishes to but do not spit on a fun scenario just because it is only "based" on what happened near some Russian village in 1942 and is not a "bullet for bullet recreation" of the actual battle.

Get things as close as one can to what they were and make it fun and replayable should be the overriding guidline in scenario design. This does not mean that we should toss in a FT because FT's are fun to use but in fact not FT was present in the action depicted.

Remember the King Tiger debate in ABTF?

Historically and according to reliable sources, no King Tigers were present during the battle for the Arnhem Bridge that is depicted in the ABTF HASL.

However, we have KT in ABTF, and there it is.



=Jim=

 

[Pitman]

Get things as close as one can to what they were and make it fun and replayable should be the overriding guidline in scenario design. This does not mean that we should toss in a FT because FT's are fun to use but in fact no FT was present in the action depicted.
=Jim=

That is a pretty reasonable statement.

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys

As lost as I am about ASL I have never seen a historical scenario in ASL, I have seen scenarios that was based on false facts and I enjoyed both when well designed in regards to rules and decent play balance.
Since I have seen some of Mark P's scenarios I know they are not historical but still makes me want to play them as they seem to be well designed.
Situations that theoretically could not have happened (in my limited knowledge) I personally have no interest.
Designers, keep up the good work and let me continue enjoying my hobby.

 

[Tater]

That is a pretty reasonable statement.

As compared to "designers that do 'X' are lazy" type statement...

 

[Robin Reeve]

Can one hide behind the fact that no scenario will be perfectly historical, to design badly researched and approximative scenarios?
Some debates occur around the PzVIB presence or not at Arnhem : that is possible, only because ABtF is quite well researched, and the map is quite near to the real thing.
What sort of debates would we have had, if we had had a product based on a global book about WW2?

"Fun" surely is a decisive factor in ASL.
But historical background also - chapter H is one of the "banners" of ASL's reputation, as the quality of its rendering of WW2 tactical combat.
Without becoming "anal" about detail, I don't quite understand players who seem nearly totally uninterested about a historical background.
I personnaly have some pleasure reading the scenario introductory and aftermath texts.
I do like to learn new historical details about WW2 playing ASL.
One could say that Mark's Buckeyes are not absolutely "historical" - as nothing can ever be, after all.
But I found very interesting to follow the 37th ID in its PTO experience - much more than a scenario that just would say : "US Infantry typically attacked Japanese Infantry entrenched on a wooded hill, somewhere on Islands in the Pacific Ocean."
That sort of scenario would be OK for training and learning tactics... but would not give me the same fun as trying to get the "feel" of what the 37th experienced - even approximatively.

Which Napoleonic era afficionado would like a game pitting the French army against the Prussian army in an undetermined "typical" battle? :crosseye:

 

[mkirschenbaum]

Which Napoleonic era afficionado would like a game pitting the French army against the Prussian army in an undetermined "typical" battle? :crosseye:

Again, a straw-man argument. I would have no interest in such a scenario, nor would I in its WWII equivalent, a "typical" German army against a "typical" American corps. However, I would love to see a tactical Napoleonic system that would allow me to fight representative actions involving, say, British light infantry in the Penninsula versus French regulars. In fact, many miniatures systems (since they don't scale up to full battles very well) do just that.

It's not that I have no interest in history. Quite the contrary. It's that I think when you're talking about geomorphic boards and OOBs adjusted for balance and other considerations distinctions of historical versus non-historical are untenable past the background prose written on the card.