Official HASLs & CGs in the works

[jrv]

I was vague about what rolls I meant, just the FP rolls and the rest normal. Also, keeping the moral check rolls to 50% each side by enforcing mandatory win/loss results will net a very clear and quick picture of force balance. Once that's adjusted, then yeah let all the rolls play out a few times and see how exciting it is. Allowing the lowest and highest three rolls is pointless, you know it's either really good or really bad, so why go there? If it's not balanced with fire power attacks from the middle five DR results, then you must be expecting one side or the other to roll above or below average. How does this make for a balanced design?

If you limit the DR range of FP shots to 5-9, you reduce the chances that a ROF 1 weapon gets ROF by 50%, a ROF 2 weapon by about 41%, and a ROF 3 weapon by about 33%. That's a game changer in most games. You could go with a ROF die but that's a game changer too.

You also reduce the chance that a gun will lose concealment by similar amounts. You also affect special ammo. I have not computed the effects, but I think if the depletion# is under 7 you lose and if it is over 7+ you gain.

Weapons will hardly ever malfunction. That's kind of nice for B11 weapons. I'm taking that sustained shot, you bet.

JR

 

[Brad M-V]

If you limit the DR range of FP shots to 5-9, you reduce the chances that a ROF 1 weapon gets ROF by 50%, a ROF 2 weapon by about 41%, and a ROF 3 weapon by about 33%. That's a game changer in most games. You could go with a ROF die but that's a game changer too.

You also reduce the chance that a gun will lose concealment by similar amounts. You also affect special ammo. I have not computed the effects, but I think if the depletion# is under 7 you lose and if it is over 7+ you gain.

Weapons will hardly ever malfunction. That's kind of nice for B11 weapons. I'm taking that sustained shot, you bet.

JR

Those are things the guy buying the scenario should be stressing over, creating a multitude of decisions for a play tester is not balancing the scenario IMO, it's getting someone else to do what the creator should be doing. Sheesh, who's getting paid for the finished product anyways? Every play tester is also a lost customer! <G>

 

[Philippe D.]

You don't have to expect one side to roll below or above average, but you know it's going to happen pretty frequently; so you have to take this relatively important variance in die rolls into account.

Look at AFV combat: it's pretty frequent that, under most circumstances, AFVs get killed by attacks that have only a low chance of success - either you need a very low (2-3, sometimes 4) DR on the TH or TK DR, or you need both the TH and TK to be relatively good (say 5 DR). Still, when playing a scenario with such AFVs, you have to take these relatively low probability events into account, or, when figting against the AFVs, you have to kill them with these low odds - typically, by multiplying the shots. You need a few lucky shots to succeed - but you can mostly ensure you get them by taking many of them.

 

[Carln0130]

I was vague about what rolls I meant, just the FP rolls and the rest normal. Also, keeping the moral check rolls to 50% each side by enforcing mandatory win/loss results will net a very clear and quick picture of force balance. Once that's adjusted, then yeah let all the rolls play out a few times and see how exciting it is. Allowing the lowest and highest three rolls is pointless, you know it's either really good or really bad, so why go there? If it's not balanced with fire power attacks from the middle five DR results, then you must be expecting one side or the other to roll above or below average. How does this make for a balanced design?

In the course of an ASL game, especially given the enormous number of rolls for even a small scenario, the notion that the dice balance out, doesn't really hold true. Even when the statistics do balance out, tossing your two snake eyes on TC's is not the same as on critical shots. Limiting even some of the DR ends up creating a lab environment inconsistent with real conditions. So you have to extrapolate to have a good design, me thinks.

If all a designer looks at is exactly what happened and not what could have, then you do miss out on finding all the bugs in a design and fixing them. But artificially controlling even some of the rolls, doesn't really get you there. A lot goes into it. I agree balance is of paramount concern, but the designer has to use his instincts and knowledge of the game, coupled with the feedback and results of playtesters to craft a good, balanced scenario.

Fun factor is even more subjective, because one man's cold water bath is another man's hot shower with Kate Upton or babe of your choice.

 

[Brad M-V]

Well said, I definitely don't doubt your abilities of making good scenarios. I'm more fixated on trying to minimize the time required to balance the involved forces.

 

[bprobst]

There is quite a bit of difference in how a scenario plays out between novices and experts. The difference can create a completely different experience.

Yes. And your point is ...? I thought we were talking about how scenarios are designed, not how they are played. How can a designer possibly know who will play the scenario, and what their experience level is? A player who cries because he is not experienced enough to get optimal results from a scenario needs to get more experience, instead of whining about how the designer has excluded him.

If a design is really so abstruse that absolutely no-one is "getting it", than the playtest process should reveal that very quickly and the designer will know he has to go back and try again.

The process does not involve 'sexing up' or 'dumb-down', it involves understanding all the resources available for the scenario in question and how to use them within the framework of the rules and the situation. If there happens to be 'sexy' units, or the scenario is basic in appearance, so be it--as long as the end product gives an enjoyable experience.

I'm pretty sure that's what I already said.

 

[bprobst]

I was vague about what rolls I meant, just the FP rolls and the rest normal. Also, keeping the moral check rolls to 50% each side by enforcing mandatory win/loss results will net a very clear and quick picture of force balance. Once that's adjusted, then yeah let all the rolls play out a few times and see how exciting it is. Allowing the lowest and highest three rolls is pointless, you know it's either really good or really bad, so why go there? If it's not balanced with fire power attacks from the middle five DR results, then you must be expecting one side or the other to roll above or below average. How does this make for a balanced design?

How doesn't it? The DR don't matter. Try reading that a few times until it sinks in: the DR don't matter. You already know what will happen if everyone rolls average dice. It's got nothing to do with designing the scenario. What you need to know is, will the scenario work as a "balanced"/"enjoyable" fight no matter what DR are made. That's all about what counters are positioned where, and what moves those counters make. The dice, average or extreme, will tell you nothing, so why on earth make any effort to try and make them "conform"? Any designer/playtester obsessing on the dice results doesn't know what they are doing.

Not to mention, playtesting can be a tedious experience as it is. Tell your playtesters that their games are not allowed to ever feature berserkers, heroes, critical hits, unexpected rate tears, unlikely MC failures, etc. and you'll find that you have no playtesters.

 

[Carln0130]

Well said, I definitely don't doubt your abilities of making good scenarios. I'm more fixated on trying to minimize the time required to balance the involved forces.

I get it. Didn't take it to heart. If I was anymore laid back I would fall asleep.

 

[Brad M-V]

How doesn't it? The DR don't matter. Try reading that a few times until it sinks in: the DR don't matter. You already know what will happen if everyone rolls average dice. It's got nothing to do with designing the scenario. What you need to know is, will the scenario work as a "balanced"/"enjoyable" fight no matter what DR are made. That's all about what counters are positioned where, and what moves those counters make. The dice, average or extreme, will tell you nothing, so why on earth make any effort to try and make them "conform"? Any designer/playtester obsessing on the dice results doesn't know what they are doing.

Not to mention, playtesting can be a tedious experience as it is. Tell your playtesters that their games are not allowed to ever feature berserkers, heroes, critical hits, unexpected rate tears, unlikely MC failures, etc. and you'll find that you have no playtesters.

To clarify, you believe that the results of a DR, average or extreme, will indicate nothing when playtesting? Knowing if a scenario is balanced and an enjoyable fight can be ascertained regardless of any DR results? The designer/playtester who obsesses on dice results is clueless? Also, because playtesting can be a tedious experience, the designer should not expect anyone testing his design to do so for any particular reason?

Rob, IMO you would make a perfect Union REP for the United Playtester's Union and Association of ASL.

 

[Michael R]

To clarify, you believe that the results of a DR, average or extreme, will indicate nothing when playtesting? Knowing if a scenario is balanced and an enjoyable fight can be ascertained regardless of any DR results? The designer/playtester who obsesses on dice results is clueless? Also, because playtesting can be a tedious experience, the designer should not expect anyone testing his design to do so for any particular reason?

No scenario will be fun when a player is diced.

 

[jrv]

No scenario will be fun when a player is diced.

While I understand the general sentiment, some scenarios are fun even when you get diced. I don't think it's something you can design for, but it happens.

JR

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I think scenarios are fun ESPECIALLY when I get diced. The best thing about ASL is the unpredictable storyline!!

 

[bprobst]

To clarify, you believe that the results of a DR, average or extreme, will indicate nothing when playtesting?

Not so much that they indicate "nothing", more that the results of those DR are already known. You don't need to roll dice to know the probabilities of a particular attack being successful or not. You can play an entire scenario in your head if all you're doing is working off probable results. You don't need playtesters to roll dice. You need playtesters to do the things that the designer didn't think anyone would do, to see if those things break the scenario or not. The DR don't matter. Has that sunk in yet?

Knowing if a scenario is balanced and an enjoyable fight can be ascertained regardless of any DR results?

Obviously. Are you aware of any existing scenario that you would be keen to play if you weren't allowed to roll any dice? It might be an exercise in determining who's the best strategist, and therefore some nice ego-stroking, but I don't think too many ASL players would find it much fun.

The designer/playtester who obsesses on dice results is clueless?

That's not exactly what I said, but close enough. Note that the key word here is "obsess", and the context is "designing/playtesting". The important thing is being able to identify if/when a particular DR (or sequence of DR) makes or breaks the game. Take for example the scenario J22 Oh Joy!. That Soviet OT-34 is a fairly important game piece. The Russian player will have difficulties winning the scenario if he can't get some meaningful use out of it. Nonetheless, it's possible for the piece to be taken out of the fight in the first turn -- because it's got red MP, and you might roll a "12" when you try and start it. I've seen it happen (not in a game that I was playing, thank goodness). If that happened in a playtest, you would not necessarily abandon the playtest result (because other things that happened in the game could still yield important information) but as the designer you would recognise that it's an unusual result and doesn't really impact on the overall scenario balance in any general sense. On the other hand, if the playtest results seemed to unanimously declare that the Soviets absolutely cannot win without that OT-34, then you would maybe want to add an SSR making the Breakdown result impossible on Turn 1, or substitute the OT-34 with another unit, or making some other change. That's what design and playtesting is all about -- identifying what's important, not crying about the actual DR.

Also, because playtesting can be a tedious experience, the designer should not expect anyone testing his design to do so for any particular reason?

What? I have no idea what you are even trying to say. It's certainly nothing that I said.

Rob, IMO you would make a perfect Union REP for the United Playtester's Union and Association of ASL.

Again: what? Who's Rob?

 

[sdennis]

I think scenarios are fun ESPECIALLY when I get diced. The best thing about ASL is the unpredictable storyline!!

Not if by "diced" you mean, they never fail a MC and you never pass one for instance. But if you mean the hilarious random dice results (chained rubble, weird sniper results, etc.) I agree they can be fun even if they happen to me...

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Not if by "diced" you mean, they never fail a MC and you never pass one for instance. But if you mean the hilarious random dice results (chained rubble, weird sniper results, etc.) I agree they can be fun even if they happen to me...

"Never"?

My opponents know I tend to think that it's my bad risk management rather than it being the dice's fault.

When that happens that just means I should try harder and play a better game.

 

[boylermaker]

I think scenarios are fun ESPECIALLY when I get diced. The best thing about ASL is the unpredictable storyline!!

Then I have an excuse! It's great.

 

[Brad M-V]

Very good points you make, Bruce. Thanks for sharing in such detail, your approach of walking through the scenario without making DRs and just envisioning the possible ways you can break the scenario step by step is a really interesting, and I can see now, an effective way to move quickly through the test. Very smart method, I was beinging to thinking you were a f*****g lunatic but then it clicked. So yes, it has finally sunk in! ;-)

 

[clubby]

Take for example the scenario J22 Oh Joy!. That Soviet OT-34 is a fairly important game piece. The Russian player will have difficulties winning the scenario if he can't get some meaningful use out of it. Nonetheless, it's possible for the piece to be taken out of the fight in the first turn -- because it's got red MP, and you might roll a "12" when you try and start it.

To further Bruce's point, I played an early war Russian v Poles PiF scenario recently at a game day where my opponent had 6 red number and radioless AFVs that entered on Turn 2? maybe. He brought them onto the board in 3 platoons of 2 and stopped them in his MPh. In his next MPh, he had to roll to start. He rolled a 12, yahtzeed both of them immobilized, started the next two and then rolled another 12 and immobilized one of them. In the span of one game turn, he immobilized 3 of his own tanks. In DFF, I took out a 4th tank with a captured gun at PB range and he folded up the scenario. So, we broke the scenario with the dice but it wasn't really broken 99 times out of 100.

 

[Fort]

Yes. And your point is ...? I thought we were talking about how scenarios are designed, not how they are played. How can a designer possibly know who will play the scenario, and what their experience level is? .

My point is fairly simple to discern, and was clear to most readers, in the text you omitted.
It doesn't matter to the designer who will play the scenario as the designer should design scenarios to the highest level of skill he is capable of achieving...and nothing less.

Capisci?

 

[echack]

In the course of an ASL game, especially given the enormous number of rolls for even a small scenario, the notion that the dice balance out, doesn't really hold true.

I hope this was sarcasm. The number of DR in an ASL scenario is nowhere near enough to approach the "bell curve" distribution from rolling 2D6. It takes thousands of rolls to approach that with reasonable error bars. Alas, my stat books are in storage and I need them to do the exact calculations.