Official HASLs & CGs in the works

[GeorgeBates]

I love matches in which both side feel they're starting out behind the 8-ball...

 

[Bob Walters]

This maybe a dumb question but is play testing ever done by less experienced players? That way difficulty could be better tested and recorded.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

This maybe a dumb question but is play testing ever done by less experienced players? That way difficulty could be better tested and recorded.

You mean people like me? Absolute-bloody-lutely

 

[Phlegm]

Jackson's a shark. caves, river crossings, night and NOBA. Don't let his Aw shucks country boy from HongKong fool ya.

 

[Michael R]

I have Ortona at this time. Jim McLeod turned Ortona over to MMP at some point before he passed away (he died in 2009), but he included additional map changes as well as a small number of rule changes. In 2014, MMP asked me if I would like to take on incorporating the changes and putting everything through the playtest again. I took on the project. For six months or so, I worked on the map and rules a lot, and did some playtesting with Jean-Pierre Raymond. Then I let myself become too distracted by ASL tournaments and other pleasures of life. I have now returned to this project. Darren Kovacs is also participating.

 

[Philippe D.]

This maybe a dumb question but is play testing ever done by less experienced players? That way difficulty could be better tested and recorded.

This, I believe, is very far from a dumb question. Obviously, playtesting is done at the level of the playtesters - and a scenario may seem balanced to novice players, but unbalanced to experts (or the reverse, obviously). I have never participated in a playtesting effort, but I'd say making a scenario that will be fun and challenging to all player levels should be much, much harder than making it so for just one type (if there is such a thing as a "player type").

As to the MMP roadmap... I had not realized that Red October was to be released after KWASL. Hmm, I may end up buying the Korean module after all... I mean, can I really hope to pass up what should be full of new rules?

 

[Brad M-V]

Speaking to balance, can one conclude that only DRs of between 5-9 (or even 6-8) are used as these put the whole test smack dab in the zone of a balanced play through, and speeding up play testing as well?

 

[jrv]

Speaking to balance, can one conclude that only DRs of between 5-9 (or even 6-8) are used as these put the whole test smack dab in the zone of a balanced play through, and speeding up play testing as well?

In many scenarios you would never roll a SAN. Are you playtesting for ASLSK?

JR

 

[Philippe D.]

I certainly hope not. DRs of 2-4 and 10-12 make up a whole third of probabilities - they really should happend, and rather often. Neutralizing them for playtesting would be a bad move.

(Plus - for JR - SAN4 would become even stronger, as it would not be a 1 in 12 chance, but 1 in 10 - if you remove one sixth of the DRs, the remaining ones become 6/5 as likely. So this would kill any SAN under 4, and make SAN4 stronger)

 

[jrv]

In all my years of playtesting I have hardly ever voided a result. You play the dice where they land.

JR

 

[hongkongwargamer]

This, I believe, is very far from a dumb question. Obviously, playtesting is done at the level of the playtesters - and a scenario may seem balanced to novice players, but unbalanced to experts (or the reverse, obviously). I have never participated in a playtesting effort, but I'd say making a scenario that will be fun and challenging to all player levels should be much, much harder than making it so for just one type (if there is such a thing as a "player type").

No one (before you) associated the word 'dumb' to the question. I am just citing myself as someone who does a lot of playtesting is a very inexperienced (and dumb) player.

Rgds Jack

 

[bprobst]

I'd say making a scenario that will be fun and challenging to all player levels should be much, much harder than making it so for just one type (if there is such a thing as a "player type").

A fun/interesting scenario is a fun/interesting scenario, no matter what your level of experience is. A scenario is either worth playing or it isn't; the "type" of player simply doesn't come into it. (To put it another way, players will make their own determination as to whether a scenario is worth the time investment or not. If you are artificially either "dumbing down" or "sexing up" a scenario simply to make it seem more attractive to a particular type of player, you're probably guaranteeing that absolutely no-one will enjoy it.)

Speaking to balance, can one conclude that only DRs of between 5-9 (or even 6-8) are used as these put the whole test smack dab in the zone of a balanced play through, and speeding up play testing as well?

Uh, no. Playtesting involves playing a scenario and seeing what happens. If you're artificially pre-determining the result, there's no "testing" involved. If you get a seriously weird result, then you play it again, but you don't need a lot of experience to be able to determine when the "weird result" is simply a statistical anomaly. The point of playtesting has nothing to do with dice. Why should it? If you take actions X and Y then it's easy to determine the probable results without setting up a single counter. The point of playtesting is to determine if the scenario has any reasonable chance of working. If an ATTACKER will only succeed if every other DR is a Critical Hit, then the scenario is probably not working. If a DEFENDER can only win by setting up in exactly one way, then the scenario is probably not working. Playtests should shake out the reasonable vs. the unreasonable, not the probable vs. the improbable. That's why blind playtesting is critical -- every scenario designer has a script in his head and most will find it difficult to deviate significantly from that script. When a player creates a new script and develops the situation in a way not previously foreseen, then you can see whether the scenario really has what it takes.

 

[GeorgeBates]

I have Ortona at this time. Jim McLeod turned Ortona over to MMP at some point before he passed away (he died in 2009), but he included additional map changes as well as a small number of rule changes. In 2014, MMP asked me if I would like to take on incorporating the changes and putting everything through the playtest again. I took on the project. For six months or so, I worked on the map and rules a lot, and did some playtesting with Jean-Pierre Raymond. Then I let myself become too distracted by ASL tournaments and other pleasures of life. I have now returned to this project. Darren Kovacs is also participating.

Fantastic news, Michael. Edited the last update to reflect your news. Really miss Jim. Let me know if you and Darren need a hand.

 

[Carln0130]

Speaking to balance, can one conclude that only DRs of between 5-9 (or even 6-8) are used as these put the whole test smack dab in the zone of a balanced play through, and speeding up play testing as well?

No, that's why the designer extrapolates out the results. Can a string of abnormally high or low rolls compromise an individual playing? Sure. That's all part of the designers work-load though. See it, realize it and extrapolate based on the probabilities. You certainly don't constrain people to play with a lessened palette of rolls though. If it can happen in a game, it should be allowed to happen in a playtest, because that is a true test.

 

[Philippe D.]

A fun/interesting scenario is a fun/interesting scenario, no matter what your level of experience is. A scenario is either worth playing or it isn't; the "type" of player simply doesn't come into it. (To put it another way, players will make their own determination as to whether a scenario is worth the time investment or not. If you are artificially either "dumbing down" or "sexing up" a scenario simply to make it seem more attractive to a particular type of player, you're probably guaranteeing that absolutely no-one will enjoy it.)

I am not talking about dumbing down a scenario, but I can see situations where, depending on the level of familiarity with the rules, some players might not see a point which would be "obvious" to more experienced players, and this might make the scenario very tough for one side.

Say one side has a lot of ground to cover with Infantry, mostly unopposed, and lots of tanks. A player who's too unfamiliar with the rules for Riders might miss their usefulness.

Some might miss the usefulness of smoke (from OBA, or from other sources - though SSRs always make it clear that the OBA can fire smoke), and have a much harder time planning their progression.

There's plenty of rules that only rarely come up, and that a novice player may forget about, or just not have read enough to try to use them. A more experienced player will most likely "see" their usefulness in a given situation. And, in some circumstances, this will make a big difference in players' enjoyment of the scenario, because missing a key thing may well make it look like the scenario is horribly unbalanced.

 

[Philippe D.]

No one (before you) associated the word 'dumb' to the question.

Err, yes. I was replying to (and quoting) Bob Walters, and quoting the word "dumb" from him.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Err, yes. I was replying to (and quoting) Bob Walters, and quoting the word "dumb" from him.

Ah right, like I said dumb player --> me. You should all rest easy.

 

[Fort]

I am not talking about dumbing down a scenario, but I can see situations where, depending on the level of familiarity with the rules, some players might not see a point which would be "obvious" to more experienced players, and this might make the scenario very tough for one side.

Say one side has a lot of ground to cover with Infantry, mostly unopposed, and lots of tanks. A player who's too unfamiliar with the rules for Riders might miss their usefulness.

Some might miss the usefulness of smoke (from OBA, or from other sources - though SSRs always make it clear that the OBA can fire smoke), and have a much harder time planning their progression.

There's plenty of rules that only rarely come up, and that a novice player may forget about, or just not have read enough to try to use them. A more experienced player will most likely "see" their usefulness in a given situation. And, in some circumstances, this will make a big difference in players' enjoyment of the scenario, because missing a key thing may well make it look like the scenario is horribly unbalanced.

Philippe is exactly correct.

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.

My philosophy is that a designer and playtester should strive for balance at the highest level of play of which they are capable.
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.

 

[witchbottles]

No, that's why the designer extrapolates out the results. Can a string of abnormally high or low rolls compromise an individual playing? Sure. That's all part of the designers work-load though. See it, realize it and extrapolate based on the probabilities. You certainly don't constrain people to play with a lessened palette of rolls though. If it can happen in a game, it should be allowed to happen in a playtest, because that is a true test.

this....

I can recall only a single instance where an unfortunate series of sheer luck DR/dr caused a game-changing event so obvious to both play testers we stopped for a minute to discuss it. It was a half-board scenario design - the Germans had a Tiger I and a 10-2 AL, a Pak 38 and some infantry vs Russian armored cars leading with T-34/76s and riders behind them. The Germans faced a tank ratio of 5:1 against and a total AFV ratio of 8:2 against if one counts the ATG for an AFV gun tube.

The German set up CE, Russian SAN was 2. First German shot at an armored car with a PF triggers a SAN (kills the AC), the SAN tracks right on top of the CE 10-2 and pops him as the closest eligible target, forcing an immediate recall.

The odds of such an event are quite unlikely, any other direction/distance result would have given the Russian sniper a different target.

Our post game recommendation, explaining what occurred - "This is ASL. Nothing needed to"fix" it. Comes with playing the game." It required rolling a 1,1 followed by a 1, followed by a 3,2 to occur, in that order.No other results would have caused the event. I'll let the math genius' figure out the odds of that total series - but really, as Carl notes above, the scen doesn't need tweaking in such events.

KRL, Jon H

 

[Brad M-V]

No, that's why the designer extrapolates out the results. Can a string of abnormally high or low rolls compromise an individual playing? Sure. That's all part of the designers work-load though. See it, realize it and extrapolate based on the probabilities. You certainly don't constrain people to play with a lessened palette of rolls though. If it can happen in a game, it should be allowed to happen in a playtest, because that is a true test.

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?