What Coriano (a fair scenario btw) is missing is the following:As far as I am aware, Coriano did it first for non-CG scenarios.
It unleashes the potential of block control VC by segmenting the battlefield into smaller ones and offering tactical opportunities, for both sides, to trade-off one area for another in the midst of the battle.To control a block, the Soviets need to control a majority of the buildings in the block. So, if somebody is hiding, not every inch of every building be cleared.
This scenario is the one that made me start refusing to play stuff under a certain size, especially if it includes "power pieces." Flip a coin if you want to flip a coin.
Thanks for the praise.This scenario is the one that made me start refusing to play stuff under a certain size, especially if it includes "power pieces." Flip a coin if you want to flip a coin.
Your AARs are a thing of beauty, though!
Happily, StuGs are not in short supply, so I've never been overly tempted. Also, they thrive when they're not the centerpiece.And when you put a StuG in it ?
It's not even so much about winning and losing, it's that the setup and organization stuff isn't all that much reduced and you're almost guaranteed to have an at-best so-so experience playing. When a scenario can legitimately break on two bad DRs, it's too fragile to be fun. IMO, of course, and almost everybody has a list of things they avoid because they've found they don't enjoy them. My list is basically tiny, giant, purely attrition, too heavily armor, high SANs and Korea.Thanks for the praise.
With regard to small scenarios:
To a certain extent, I am with you. On the other hand if you do not have that competitive streak within you, then you can also think about if what you managed within the given circumstances was all you could do or if there had been points where mistakes were made.
For me, seeing the whole thing in a relaxed way is the best manner to play. Though, of course, I would never claim to be free of frustration. But usually this will show in some sort of short curse rather than a long grudge against a scenario.
My first thought when I read this was that I will play anything. Recent playtesting, however, reminded me of some things that I do not want in a scenario: random reinforcement entry and random OB pieces. I don't like adding more randomness to an already dice driven game.My list is basically tiny, giant, purely attrition, too heavily armor, high SANs and Korea.
This is why I loathe high SANs and tiny scenarios. The exact nature of the random would be deciding for me. There are certainly some goofy things in U-series and such I wouldn't touch.My first thought when I read this was that I will play anything. Recent playtesting, however, reminded me of some things that I do not want in a scenario: random reinforcement entry and random OB pieces. I don't like adding more randomness to an already dice driven game.
They can be a bitch to playtest.
Have toyed around with consequence and actions in such a case when play-testing. [EX: If reinf arrive on such and such a turn, they arrive at location(s)A, if later they arrive at locations A or B, etc.] also perhaps modifying the amount of reinforcements received or perhaps adjusting VP gained/lost etc. I for one, usually do like the randomness of reinforcements, but it takes a good designer to work them in adequately, especially if competitiveness of a "balanced" scenario is ones objective.They can be a bitch to playtest.
A mulligan takes you 5 seconds to resolve without any need to pinpoint any potential weaknesses in a scenario.With literally thousands of scenarios in my collection, why would I bother with any that need that much work to make functional?
My world doesn't fall apart either and I can laugh off dogs no problem. Teensy weensies just seem to need to be adjusted with things like this to not have a high chance of being a lousy experience. I'd just rather play something with more resilience. <shrug>A mulligan takes you 5 seconds to resolve without any need to pinpoint any potential weaknesses in a scenario.
Even if you do own thousands of scenarios, you still don't know which ones will work and which ones won't. If you select one from that number, you still need to think about that, which will take longer than to resolve a mulligan.
Furthermore, many small scenarios or those of a type that you rate unfunctional do just work fine and are a lot of fun if they are not broken by that one DR for the crucial unit. Exactly the circumstance that can be fixed within seconds and not much ado by a mulligan.
That said, I do not demand mulligans as a standard operating procedure. Having a rather relaxed attitude towards ASL & gaming, my word does not fall apart when I lose a scenario due to bad crucial DR. But rather than discarding all (very) short scenarios outright, I'd rather agree with my opponent to set a mulligan into place for those situations.
I've done that too, playtesting. Also done things like "guaranteeing a smoke round." But then those things end up as SSRs if they're really that vital, usually.
KGS has a special rule for mopping up blocks in place of buildings.. IMO another very interesting optionAs this scenario does. To control a block, the Soviets need to control a majority of the buildings in the block. So, if somebody is hiding, not every inch of every building be cleared.
There is one HIP Hungarian squad allowed. In our playing, the 4-4-7 in question took a good shot at an approaching Soviet squad, and was thus revealed.
Softer rules for malfunction is always the best option. Using Pleva ammo and malf variants as a base for specificis SSR is a good solution for those -and IMO all-scenarios.. I prefer it a lot to using a Mulligan
First smoke attempt of scenario: no smoke.