Quality Of The Latest ASL Designs

[Vinnie]

I think they have improved. This was reinforced after playing a few of the older scenarios at heroes.

 

[Delirium]

I'm very fond of a lot of the old scenarios. Not least the ports of the original SL scenarios to ASL versions. There's a nostalgia effect, for sure, but I also think that there was a lot of inventive use of ssrs, board layouts and obs which is sometimes forgotten.

That said, my firm view is that the typical grade of scenario produced in recent years by high quality designers (published by MMP, frf & bfp in particular) are fantastic. There's lots of choice and a huge amount of attention is clearly dedicated to testing and general quality assurance. Perhaps, simply due to the passage of time, there's less room for innovation but I have no complaints.

 

[Carln0130]

"Improved" or not is too subjective, but I think they have definitely evolved, which some may see as an improvement and some may not. This is reflected in the overall reduction of game turns, maturation of SSRs to disqualify 'gamey' moves the designer does not want part of the scenario [kindling is NA being about the only stock one of this nature for years], and most importantly a complete explosion of the VC paradigm from the handful of staid VC formulae of yesteryear.

Although I generally see this evolution as an improvement, I also miss how some of the older scenarios gave each side a couple of turns to enter, fan out, dig foxholes, etc. Now a player's "line in the sand" is often almost predicated, whereas before you had to adjust it depending on how the enemy's troops deployed upon entry.

Overall though, the evolution of design has been a vast improvement IMO.

This.

 

[chris_olden]

...There's a nostalgia effect, for sure, but I also think that there was a lot of inventive use of ssrs, board layouts and obs which is sometimes forgotten.
...Perhaps, simply due to the passage of time, there's less room for innovation but I have no complaints.

Interesting.
I strongly disagree.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think they have improved. This was reinforced after playing a few of the older scenarios at heroes.

Did they improve - or did you?

 

[Mister T]

Improved play -> Improved feedback -> Improved designs

 

[rdw5150]

How can you say this?

CH is now stealing and publishing proven and playtested scenarios from other TPP like Kinetic Energy, so their quality is improving.

I took it as he is discounting them on all levels

Peace

Roger

 

[Phlegm]

I think the proliferation of Campaign Games (both MMP & Third Party Producers) have tended to substitute for the 'extra large' scenarios that were created 'back in the day'.

I think you're fine you're not to be a little bit different. The small of scenarios which there are two maybe three are small. Even their small is relative. Of the 11th scenarios 8 are large with four of those being very large (2 maps).

I think you folks might be underestimating how many people like big scenarios.

 

[von Marwitz]

I think you folks might be underestimating how many people like big scenarios.

It is probably not that people explicitely don't like big scenarios but rather the limitations of time and space that makes them play smaller ones more frequently.

von Marwitz

 

[RobZagnut]

It is probably not that people explicitely don't like big scenarios but rather the limitations of time and space that makes them play smaller ones more frequently.

von Marwitz

Bingo!

When I attend a tournament and have committed 3-4 days of playing ASL, if I lose early and am out of the running, I will find someone to play a large scenario. Love them. But, now days working 8-5 and hiking/snowshoeing weekends I don't have time to spend on a large scenario and nowhere to keep one setup if we try to play a second session to finish it. Which is also why I haven't played a CG in years.

 

[RobZagnut]

Improved play -> Improved feedback -> Improved designs

I disagree.

The high quality of play has always been around and there is plenty of feedback. There are two main differences. (Possibly more, add yours):

1. When there were a limited number of scenarios EVERYONE played them, many players played them multiple times. I remember playing a set of around 15 scenarios at AvalonCon and ASLOK at least 5 times each. A large number of players could discuss tactics about these scenarios and EVERYONE could participate and learn from these discussions, because we all spoke the same language (having played the scenario). Before the tournament Russ Bunsen and I used to hold Tactics session in our hotel room and discuss each of the scenarios on the play list. We would get 12-15 guys talking about every scenario.

Now, there are so many scenarios and so many choices that it's hard to have a discussion about a scenario. Now, we have become selective on what we play and have many many choices to stay within our comfort zone (i.e., I refuse to play Bocage).

When you have played a scenario 5 or 6 times doesn't that lead to improved play in that scenario and increase your ability to leave better feedback? How are you going to leave good feedback when you play a scenario only once and miss a lot of what 'could' happen or what should happen? You only scratch the surface of most scenarios when you play them once, especially when they are playtested and balanced by players who play them 2-3 times.

(Sorry, I have a dentist appt and have to head out the door. Will post #2 later)

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Interesting viewpoint and observation, Rob.

Despite being a solo player I also replayed some scenarios multiple times in my early SL/ASLdays.

While in-depth scenario analysis may be dying, the volume of scenarios means that players may have a similar problem as real life commanders, IE thrust into a situation that is unfamiliar to them So you might end up with players that have better innate tactical sense as opposed to game nous rising to the top.

 

[Martin Mayers]

Agreed, But DftB has usually been very solid with their designs. SP, frf and the Journal are ok but nothing really screams out play me due their generic designs.

Playing a belter of yours at the moment....Counterattack Along the Danube. Very good.

 

[Gunner Scott]

One day I'll release my next scenario pack, been playtesting it for three years lol

Playing a belter of yours at the moment....Counterattack Along the Danube. Very good.

 

[Roy]

Love big scenarios. Love small scenarios. Love to play great scenarios more than once. Always state that i have played a scenario chosen by my opponent if that is the case.

 

[Capt. Batguano]

Love big scenarios. Love small scenarios. Love to play great scenarios more than once.

Bingo. I think the scenarios have improved but I do miss the larger ones. Still, Bloody Red Beach, Texas Flood...they're still being made. For a while I thought that perhaps the trend towards smaller scenarios was based on the idea that a smaller scenario was easier to make balanced? But I have no insight there. Mind you there were those classic large, "horde of Russians vs a few Germans" scenarios like Hill 621, Defense of Luga, The Hedgehogof Piepsk and some others, that were great especially how evenly matched they turned out to be.

 

[kcole4001]

I think it can be harder to evaluate the smaller scenarios, because they're small.
They can be dicier and so it may take more insight and playing to really get the feel.

Maybe not, but if not, that means that scenario designers and playtesters are better today.
Therefore, scenarios should be better today.

I believe that the variety and breadth of material available may allow more people to find their niche in the scenario design world, since the market has grown so much, they may better find a type of scenario they're better at and the freedom to try thinking outside the box.
Variable OOBs are a relatively new thing to catch on, I'm sure some designers are better than others at that particular form.

 

[von Marwitz]

For a while I thought that perhaps the trend towards smaller scenarios was based on the idea that a smaller scenario was easier to make balanced? But I have no insight there.

To a certain degree I believe you are right. But have the feeling that the apex of the 'shorter and quicker' designs has been reached. I find that those 4.5 turn scenarios with a handful of units tend to become increasingly dicey or dull. More dicey, because with few units and hardly any time there is not much room to make up for some loss of a key unit or key bad dice rolls. More dull if there are no interesting units. While this will reduce the risk of a key unit going down breaking the game, it also reduces attraction of the scenairo as a whole for lack of interesting units.

von Marwitz

 

[Roy]

I am of the opinion that the larger the scenario, the more they tend to 'self balance'. Rarely have played an extra large scenario that ended up being totally one sided, unlike the smaller ones.

JMO

 

[Eagle4ty]

One day I'll release my next scenario pack, been playtesting it for three years lol

Maybe you could give me a hand with my proposed "Phony War" Inaction Pack? Been having difficulty getting a good solid Japanese OoB together. Not much movement on this front. :facepalm: