Scraggy

[fenyan]

This discussion was originally in the Deluxe Pack Status thread but I wanted to open a thread here in the LFT folder to give "Scraggy" proper visibility:

06 Sep 14 Aaron Cleavin: Played "Scraggy" on Saturday. Lovely situation but I don't see a way for the Japanese to win in 5 turns against a moderately clever Gurkha defense. Love to hear other opinions though!

07 Sep 14 Mr T: Removing the 57L ATG would help the attacker.

14 Sep 14 Robzagnut: I was looking thru the scenarios yesterday and Scraggy looks extremely difficult on the Japanese player. Gurkha have 80mm OBA, a 9-2 with HMG, a 76* Mtr, a Pillbox, a 57L that dominates and 6 x Wire. Plus there's Mud, so the Japanese AFVs are channeled, the Japanese have to take the Level 2 Hill hexes on 3 different boards in 5 turns and finally the Gurkha player gets the last turn to take back a hill hex that was lost.

So, I remember you making a comment in a LFT topic, (and after reading all of them in the LFT area) FINALLY found your comment here...

My dogdar sensors are on full for this one and I just don't see the Japanese having a chance. It looks like the best scenario out of the bunch and I'd like to play it. Sine you've played it how would you fix it?

* Increase the length to 5.5 turns?
* Remove the OBA?
* Change the VC to, take the Level 2 Hills on 2 of 3 boards?
* A combination of the 3 above?
* Something else?

14 Sep 14 Aaron Cleavin: 5.5 Turns a must.

6 of the 7 Level 2 Hexes (Important not to force the Pillbox to have to be taken, but this is not quite as generous to the Japanese as 2 of the 3 Hills)

It may need more than this but small increments seem best at first.

 

[fenyan]

My opponent thought Scraggy looked very interesting so we gave it a go. Let me preface my comments by saying my opponent was very skilled (30+ years of ASL) whereas this was my 34th scenario and I think 2nd PTO scenario. For the first two turns I was paired with another ASL grognard on the Japanese attacking side, so I had some help formulating an initial strategy.

The approaches consist mainly of a center hill and a right hill with valleys in between. Lots of light jungle and kunai. With proper channeling this can be a slow go for the Japanese if they are not aggressive enough.

The Gurkhas for the most part set up their wire in a line parallel to the center swamp hexes in the middle hill.

We decided to have most of the squads approach in the center with a smaller force on the right flank. We decided to move the tank platoon along the road on the right due to the mud which Rob noted in his post. The first two tanks bogged in the Wire strung across the road, and one became immobilized. Both tanks fell victim to the 57L which was positioned to cover that choke point.

The OBA caught the right flank infantry squads in the jungle and chewed them up pretty well.

In hindsight I could have used mortar smoke and Banzai charges a lot better. And perhaps move some half-squads up quickly to scout out where the wire was. Among many other details.

It's an interesting scenario and I would try again. However, as a relatively new player I wouldn't mind taking ALL of the suggested balance ideas as the Japanese side

EDIT: Wanted to add that "Playing Uno" (the scenario not the card game) was highly thought of during our Saturday ASL club play session.

 

[bradbebrave]

OK. I don't normally post on the forums but I played this at the weekend. Scenario played well and suprisingly quickly. As people observed, this appears to be very unbalanced with the Japanese on the disadvantaged side. Well, I had that opinion for the first 4 turns and then on the 5th and final turn, it almost looked certain the Japanese would win. It was very close and the British/Indians ended up winning the last two crucial close combats. I still think there is a problem with balance because a gamey and optimal Ghurka defence may be able to make the Japanese victory impossible - i.e wire around the last pillbox on the furthest possible hill and do everything to slow the Japanese. However, it was a crazy, wild banzai with the Japanese having to brave the fire in order to cover the ground. Even if this unbalanced, it was the best asl I've played for while. Captured the flavour of desperate jungle fighting superbly.

 

[volgaG68]

OK. I don't normally post on the forums but I played this at the weekend. Scenario played well and suprisingly quickly. As people observed, this appears to be very unbalanced with the Japanese on the disadvantaged side. Well, I had that opinion for the first 4 turns and then on the 5th and final turn, it almost looked certain the Japanese would win. It was very close and the British/Indians ended up winning the last two crucial close combats. I still think there is a problem with balance because a gamey and optimal Ghurka defence may be able to make the Japanese victory impossible - i.e wire around the last pillbox on the furthest possible hill and do everything to slow the Japanese. However, it was a crazy, wild banzai with the Japanese having to brave the fire in order to cover the ground. Even if this unbalanced, it was the best asl I've played for while. Captured the flavour of desperate jungle fighting superbly.

Thanks for posting this, and please continue to do so.

 

[trevpr1]

I am going to play Scraggy this evening as the Brits. I got the pieces out last night, had a look at it and I feel very confident that the Japanese have no chance with the scenario as it currently stands. I'm far better at defending than attcking so I trust my judgement on this as well as taking into account the comments others have made. I think the scenario is an interesting situation and is too good to discard because of balance issues. I'm still going to play it but I'm going to make the following changes:

5.5 turns;

VC is 6 of 7; and

Delete the British OBA.

 

[RobZagnut]

I am going to play Scraggy this evening as the Brits. I got the pieces out last night, had a look at it and I feel very confident that the Japanese have no chance with the scenario as it currently stands. I'm far better at defending than attcking so I trust my judgement on this as well as taking into account the comments others have made. I think the scenario is an interesting situation and is too good to discard because of balance issues. I'm still going to play it but I'm going to make the following changes:

5.5 turns;

VC is 6 of 7; and

Delete the British OBA.

Last night I was cutting my DASL pack scenarios down to 11 inches, so they would fit into sheet protectors. I revisited Scraggy, because I want to play it. I shared the same thoughts on 5.5 turns and VC changed from 7 to 6. But I wasn't sure about whether to remove the OBA or the pillbox. I think removing the OBA is better and will play it that way.

I will try to play it this Friday with those 3 changes.

 

[rdw5150]

I am convinced that as printed it is not winnable as the Japanese. Maybe *maybe* if the Brits allow some strange entire game Banzai charge, but there is pretty much no way.

I played it at ASLOK and it was not even close. On turn 2 my opponent starts counting movement and says "I wonder if there is a point of playing this out". But his PMC is high so we keep going. He takes one hill. Then I pull out the Brit reinforcements. He looks at me and says. "you get reinforcements?". "We are done".

Peace

Roger

 

[RobZagnut]

I am convinced that as printed it is not winnable as the Japanese. Maybe *maybe* if the Brits allow some strange entire game Banzai charge, but there is pretty much no way.

I played it at ASLOK and it was not even close. On turn 2 my opponent starts counting movement and says "I wonder if there is a point of playing this out". But his PMC is high so we keep going. He takes one hill. Then I pull out the Brit reinforcements. He looks at me and says. "you get reinforcements?". "We are done".

Peace

Roger

Are the three proposed changes enough to balance it? Or does it need further help like the VC changed to "The Japanese win by controlling all level two hexes on 2 of the 3 hills"

Or something else like the 3 proposed changes AND reduce the Brit reinforcements?

 

[rdw5150]

Are the three proposed changes enough to balance it? Or does it need further help like the VC changed to "The Japanese win by controlling all level two hexes on 2 of the 3 hills"

Or something else like the 3 proposed changes AND reduce the Brit reinforcements?

Sorry missed this and you may have already played it. I think it helps a lot. I am not certain if it helps too much. Making it 6 of 7 takes that one little hill out of play which is almost a must. One of its hexsides is a cliff and the others can be surrounded by wire with a Pill Box and more wire on top.

Peace

Roger

 

[trevpr1]

This was quite a departure. I don't recall ever having played any scenario where my opponent and I agreed to play with changes that lay outside the balance. That is after *thousands* of scenarios.


So we played this with

5.5 turns

Delete British OBA

6 of 7 level 2 hill hexes and...

Still a win for the Brits. Japanese gave up after his turn 4 MPh because his leaders had died or were wounded. With the MF boost gone getting to the hills would be impossible even if the remaining Brits were not present. I reckon that it plays closer to "balanced" with this set up but I would always want to be the Brits. I think I might even delete the wire and still take the Brits.

The one hex level 2 hill on the right flank is still key. It can't be ignored given that the rearmost hex on the left flank is bamboo.

It was worth it though. PTO is a natural home for DASL and this scenario is really worth playing. I urge the designers to issue errata along the lines above.

How excellent a scenario this would be also if the PTO were not in effect. All the LOSs would change.

This scenarios is so out of kilter, it actually throws some tarnish on the pack. I don't wish this to be the case as I know many of the designers and hold them in high regard, including the designer of this scenario. But I have also realised that the boards are poorly cut at their ends also. Bit of a shame.

The boards are fab artwork wise and really feel comfy to play on with the one exception that shadow around the woods artwork will only lead to LOS thread argument.

 

[RobZagnut]

This was quite a departure. I don't recall ever having played any scenario where my opponent and I agreed to play with changes that lay outside the balance. That is after *thousands* of scenarios.


So we played this with

5.5 turns

Delete British OBA

6 of 7 level 2 hill hexes and...

Still a win for the Brits. Japanese gave up after his turn 4 MPh because his leaders had died or were wounded. With the MF boost gone getting to the hills would be impossible even if the remaining Brits were not present. I reckon that it plays closer to "balanced" with this set up but I would always want to be the Brits. I think I might even delete the wire and still take the Brits.

The one hex level 2 hill on the right flank is still key. It can't be ignored given that the rearmost hex on the left flank is bamboo.

It was worth it though. PTO is a natural home for DASL and this scenario is really worth playing. I urge the designers to issue errata along the lines above.

How excellent a scenario this would be also if the PTO were not in effect. All the LOSs would change.

This scenarios is so out of kilter, it actually throws some tarnish on the pack. I don't wish this to be the case as I know many of the designers and hold them in high regard, including the designer of this scenario. But I have also realised that the boards are poorly cut at their ends also. Bit of a shame.

The boards are fab artwork wise and really feel comfy to play on with the one exception that shadow around the woods artwork will only lead to LOS thread argument.

Would you play it with the VC changed to "The Japanese win by controlling all level two hexes on 2 of the 3 hills", No OBA, No Wire and 5.5 turns?

 

[daveramsey]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on the scenario - I thought I'd share the design considerations and playtesting feedback we had on this one.

Firstly, clearly there's a problem with this scenario and Martin and I plan to revisit this one next week. It was played by myself, and two playtesting groups and it was playtested with Dense Jungle which we believed was causing the problems given the lack of time for the Japanese.

The feedback from the playtesting groups were that the scenario had looked unwinnable for the Japanese during the game but that on the last turn they were almost able to win (one report was coming down to the last CC roll). Another group reported that it was a tough game for the Japanese but that a more aggressive approach and difficulties with some of the lines of sight due to the dense jungle would have helped. In both groups the OBA wasn't mentioned as a factor.

The final change to the scenario was to remove the dense jungle. We considered adding radios to the tanks, removing the mud clause and enabling only 2 of the 3 hills as win conditions but these felt like they may swing the scenario too much - hindsight and a wider audience now suggests that this would have helped.

Please do continue to update this thread. I'll report back next week and if Xavier is in agreement we'll look at adding some errata to the scenario.

Regards,

Dave

 

[trevpr1]

Would you play it with the VC changed to "The Japanese win by controlling all level two hexes on 2 of the 3 hills", No OBA, No Wire and 5.5 turns?

I think keeping 3 hills in play would mantain the nature and flavour of the scenario; changing the VC to 2 hills would therefore not be my decision. Also, that one hex hilltop on the Brit right flank is likely to remain in play because it dominates that entire side of the battlefield. The Japs may as well take it if they're going to win.

The wire is probably too much. I'm thinking removing it may also be a bit much. How about an SSR that says that wire is revealed as soon as the Japanese get LOS, i.e. the rule saying a fortification in Jungle is HIP until you stumble into it is ignored. It is still a defensive feature but can be avoided.

5.5 turns, no Brit OBA.

 

[trevpr1]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on the scenario - I thought I'd share the design considerations and playtesting feedback we had on this one.

Firstly, clearly there's a problem with this scenario and Martin and I plan to revisit this one next week. It was played by myself, and two playtesting groups and it was playtested with Dense Jungle which we believed was causing the problems given the lack of time for the Japanese.

The feedback from the playtesting groups were that the scenario had looked unwinnable for the Japanese during the game but that on the last turn they were almost able to win (one report was coming down to the last CC roll). Another group reported that it was a tough game for the Japanese but that a more aggressive approach and difficulties with some of the lines of sight due to the dense jungle would have helped. In both groups the OBA wasn't mentioned as a factor.

The final change to the scenario was to remove the dense jungle. We considered adding radios to the tanks, removing the mud clause and enabling only 2 of the 3 hills as win conditions but these felt like they may swing the scenario too much - hindsight and a wider audience now suggests that this would have helped.

Please do continue to update this thread. I'll report back next week and if Xavier is in agreement we'll look at adding some errata to the scenario.

Regards,

Dave

Dave,

Such a good scenario that it is probably well worth the effort.

It does occur to me that this is one time where "experienced" players might give different results in playests than relative neophytes. My defence was, if I say so myself, quite well laid and the Japanese hit four of the six wire hexes.

 

[RobZagnut]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on the scenario - I thought I'd share the design considerations and playtesting feedback we had on this one.

Firstly, clearly there's a problem with this scenario and Martin and I plan to revisit this one next week. It was played by myself, and two playtesting groups and it was playtested with Dense Jungle which we believed was causing the problems given the lack of time for the Japanese.

The feedback from the playtesting groups were that the scenario had looked unwinnable for the Japanese during the game but that on the last turn they were almost able to win (one report was coming down to the last CC roll). Another group reported that it was a tough game for the Japanese but that a more aggressive approach and difficulties with some of the lines of sight due to the dense jungle would have helped. In both groups the OBA wasn't mentioned as a factor.

The final change to the scenario was to remove the dense jungle. We considered adding radios to the tanks, removing the mud clause and enabling only 2 of the 3 hills as win conditions but these felt like they may swing the scenario too much - hindsight and a wider audience now suggests that this would have helped.

Please do continue to update this thread. I'll report back next week and if Xavier is in agreement we'll look at adding some errata to the scenario.

Regards,

Dave

Let us know when you've come up with a fix. This looks like the most interesting in the pack and I'm looking forward to playing. Our group is currently in a PTO phase, so your pack came at a great time.

 

[rdw5150]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on the scenario - I thought I'd share the design considerations and playtesting feedback we had on this one.

Firstly, clearly there's a problem with this scenario and Martin and I plan to revisit this one next week. It was played by myself, and two playtesting groups and it was playtested with Dense Jungle which we believed was causing the problems given the lack of time for the Japanese.

The feedback from the playtesting groups were that the scenario had looked unwinnable for the Japanese during the game but that on the last turn they were almost able to win (one report was coming down to the last CC roll). Another group reported that it was a tough game for the Japanese but that a more aggressive approach and difficulties with some of the lines of sight due to the dense jungle would have helped. In both groups the OBA wasn't mentioned as a factor.

The final change to the scenario was to remove the dense jungle. We considered adding radios to the tanks, removing the mud clause and enabling only 2 of the 3 hills as win conditions but these felt like they may swing the scenario too much - hindsight and a wider audience now suggests that this would have helped.

Please do continue to update this thread. I'll report back next week and if Xavier is in agreement we'll look at adding some errata to the scenario.

Regards,

Dave

Hi!

Just a thought......

In our game we forgot all about the Mud (giving the Japanese the balance by accident) and it still did not matter.

Peace

Roger

 

[rdw5150]

I think keeping 3 hills in play would mantain the nature and flavour of the scenario; changing the VC to 2 hills would therefore not be my decision. Also, that one hex hilltop on the Brit right flank is likely to remain in play because it dominates that entire side of the battlefield. The Japs may as well take it if they're going to win.

The wire is probably too much. I'm thinking removing it may also be a bit much. How about an SSR that says that wire is revealed as soon as the Japanese get LOS, i.e. the rule saying a fortification in Jungle is HIP until you stumble into it is ignored. It is still a defensive feature but can be avoided.

5.5 turns, no Brit OBA.

Leaving the wire in there allows the Brit player to completely surround the one hex hill on their right (one of the hexsides is a cliff).

peace

roger

 

[daveramsey]

Just a quick post before I head out to Bournemouth for Intensive Fire..

Martin and I replayed this scenario last week with the following changes:

5.5 turns. No OBA. 6/7 Level 2 hexes required. 3 Wire (not 6) - and finally no HIP for fortifications or units (this helps utilise the jeep a little more, can funnel the Japanese Armour and helps the Japanese plan the attack to traverse the wire and pillbox issues.)

Importantly we left the reinforcements on (they are definitely needed now) - but we also considered providing the reinforcements in return for an additional victory hex (ie, get the reinforcements but the British must then hold all 7 hexes) - we decided against this for fear of moving too far away from the scenario guise, as it was all about Lt Painter's trips to the British positions, but it could be considered.

The game was won by me as the Japanese but I was lucky with the mud (effectively every hex is a mud possibility, but with low ground pressure the Japanese armour doesn't have to be too concerned) and I was lucky with a close combat early on. The British must slow down the Japanese - even more so with the extra half turn we played and we felt that perhaps in our playing the British were too conservative, allowing a quick flanking maneveur on the Japanese right behind the palm trees which provided perfect cover and allowed the infiltration of the far right hill almost immediately.

I agree with the other comments that this scenario is among the more interesting and challenging ones. Xavier has my comments and replay information, and I believe his team are going to take a look at it too and we'll get out an official update to this scenario, too.

I'd encourage those who have it to take a look at this scenario and play either as we did, or as others have suggested with various tweaks. It's a scenario well worth trying and I hope we can come up with something that works for everyone.

Dave

 

[trevpr1]

When you say "no HIP" I presume the ordnance is still HIP?