The Shocking Truth about Le Franc Tireur

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Thanks again for another informative posting on your site! This has been the most detailed inside look that I've come across for LFT #13. I mean I'm planning on buying it anyway, but posts like this 'keep the fire stoked' until I do get it. (Funny remark about Sicilian suggestions. :laugh:)
+1 Enjoyed the write-up, Chis.

Failing to heed Sicilian suggestions = inconceivable! ;D
Thanks guys. I prefer to stay on Enrico's good side. :D
 

p3love

ASL Acolyte
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
926
Reaction score
39
Location
52CC10
Country
ll
The perils of being a cabin boy? :D
well, his name is Roger.....Roger the Cabin boy...good an proper....:laugh: high five!


was looking for the tumbleweed graphic :laugh:
 
Last edited:

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has played FT181 The Bet (from LFT13).

Other than an AAR on the French forums, I have yet to hear what others have thought of this intriguing scenario by Enrico Catanzaro. Each player bids for the VC. The highest bidder takes the Germans, and must take the number of building hexes bid.

Given that the bidding process acts as a balancing mechanism, I think that the balance provisions may be redundant. They also appear to be reversed. Any thoughts on this?

Chris
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has played FT181 The Bet (from LFT13).

Other than an AAR on the French forums, I have yet to hear what others have thought of this intriguing scenario by Enrico Catanzaro. Each player bids for the VC. The highest bidder takes the Germans, and must take the number of building hexes bid.

Given that the bidding process acts as a balancing mechanism, I think that the balance provisions may be redundant. They also appear to be reversed. Any thoughts on this?

Chris
Hi
yes, the balance provisions simply should not exist. I do not know why someone added it to the original design. Sometime happens that an inexplicable change/addition appears at the last moment before the scenario is published. Hopefully a future errata will fix this. I hope you enjoyed the scenario however. The Bet it's my first serious attempt to design a scenario.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
It's so good..it has made the Albany list....good job Enrico.....
thanks Gary, I'm very proud of this.
I think and hope more will follow. But my real goal is that some famous and experienced Designer can adopt the *CBS* technique sometime. I do not claim any copyright!
 

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
What is the CBS balance?

Scott

thanks Gary, I'm very proud of this.
I think and hope more will follow. But my real goal is that some famous and experienced Designer can adopt the *CBS* technique sometime. I do not claim any copyright!
 

Drow

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
665
Reaction score
95
Location
San Bernardino
thanks Gary, I'm very proud of this.
I think and hope more will follow. But my real goal is that some famous and experienced Designer can adopt the *CBS* technique sometime. I do not claim any copyright!
My thanks too, well Nicky and Marys too, That was a great one. Tonight Andy gives it a go.

Bill
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
What is the CBS balance?

Scott
short for Catanzaro Balace System, the bid that assigns sides and sets the tactical objective at the same time. Who bid higher take the attacker. But if a player bids high could assign to himself a victory condition too difficult to achieve; on the contrary if bids low could leave to his opponent the attacker role and an easy objective.
In conclusion who better understands the scenario and predicts its development probably bids better and gains an edge over the opponent. Setting the right bid at first playing It's a matter of skill and general ASL experience that is tested before any die is rolled. This design technique should make obsolete any classic post-game discussion-whining about balance: if your objective is too difficult, or if your opponent has easy VCs YOU are the only responsible for failing the bid.

With experience and very few playings whoever can find his personal optimal bid range.

Also the scenario never gets old. If a rule change or a different tactic that improves the attack or the defense is adopted or discovered anyone who is aware of this can simply adjust the optimal bid.
 
Last edited:

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Hi
yes, the balance provisions simply should not exist. I do not know why someone added it to the original design. Sometime happens that an inexplicable change/addition appears at the last moment before the scenario is published. Hopefully a future errata will fix this. I hope you enjoyed the scenario however. The Bet it's my first serious attempt to design a scenario.
Thanks for clearing that up Enrico.

I think that your first (serious) attempt is a very significant one. That is a novel bidding process that you came up with.

The scenario has already found its way on to a few tourney lists. Hopefully more AARs will follow.

Well done!
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I have one idea about the optimal bid, but probably is fair if I hold it for me ...

The little I can say as Designer is that during the playtest stage we noticed that Germans have the potential to easily conquer "most" of the 13 buildings in map 17, but it has to play very aggressive and the Norvegian setup must be sub-optimal. Smoke rounds and the possible (at 50%) breeze play a decisive role. Placing a HMG in the Level 2 Steeple, although an apparently obvious move for the defender, could turn to an unfortunate option in case of Breeze due the burning wreck in L6. (Norvegian Player rolls for possible Breeze per SSR 1 AFTER the setup). Note also that the higher is the bid, the easier is for the defender concentrate his forces to defend just the few buildings he needs to hold.

But the fun thing with this kind of scenario is that different players find a personal "bid level" according their own style of play. A player very skilled in attacking could bid 10 and be happy to win the German side all the times, while a player good expecially on defense could believe that 7 is reasonable.

Probably you should test it yourself and decide ...
 
Last edited:

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
So I see ROAR has "The Bet" listed as 3/1 German. Any idea what the bids have been on this one?
I have one idea about the optimal bid, but probably is fair if I hold it for me ...

The little I can say as Designer is that during the playtest stage we noticed that Germans have the potential to easily conquer "most" of the 13 buildings in map 17, but it has to play very aggressive and the Norvegian setup must be sub-optimal. Smoke rounds and the possible (at 50%) breeze play a decisive role. Placing a HMG in the Level 2 Steeple, although an apparently obvious move for the defender, could turn to an unfortunate option in case of Breeze due the burning wreck in L6. (Norvegian Player rolls for possible Breeze per SSR 1 AFTER the setup). Note also that the higher is the bid, the easier is for the defender concentrate his forces to defend just the few buildings he needs to hold.

But the fun thing with this kind of scenario is that different players find a personal "bid level" according their own style of play. A player very skilled in attacking could bid 10 and be happy to win the German side all the times, while a player good expecially on defense could believe that 7 is reasonable.

Probably you should test it yourself and decide ...
This is good advice. The stats on ROAR are pretty meaningless give the number of recorded plays. Moreover, this scenario is unique in that the same player can bid low one game, and high the next. Depending on your level of confidence versus a particular opponent, the bid can vary quite a bit between games.

Until you have played it a couple times, you won't really know what your comfort level is. And in many respects, there is no optimum bid because what you bid is dependent upon the skill of your opponent, the consequences of a loss (e.g. during a tourney), and perhaps how you feel on a particular day.

Try it. It plays fast and different each time.
 
Last edited:

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Hi
yes, the balance provisions simply should not exist. I do not know why someone added it to the original design. Sometime happens that an inexplicable change/addition appears at the last moment before the scenario is published. Hopefully a future errata will fix this. I hope you enjoyed the scenario however. The Bet it's my first serious attempt to design a scenario.

Why shouldn't they exist ??
IF they both pick the same amount, the loser should get the balance...its THAT simple.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
The A26.4 Balance provisions in FT181 are NA because SSR 2 has a unique way of determining sides. Under the standard method, players bid for the sides they prefer to play. However, SSR2 compels both players to make a bid for the Germans. Neither player can bid directly for the Norwegians. This is an important point that I will return to shortly.

The number of hexes that the Germans have to Control at game's end is the balance provision. More hexes makes it harder on the Germans, and vice versa.

The elegance of the Catanzaro Balace System (CBS) is that it is, to some extent, "self-balancing" over time. The more play the scenario receives, the more likely the ASL community will come to some agreement on an optimal number of building/rubble hexes that the Germans can Control by game's end. However, this doesn't take into account a particular player's strengths and weaknesses on the attack or the defence. Therefore, it's possible that a player who feels more confident on the attack will "over" bid in order to secure the Germans. Similarily, a player who prefers to defend in "The Bet" may deliberately "under" bid in order to score the Norwegians.

What about tied bids, you ask? Shouldn't the loser of the tiebreaker dr get Balance?

To begin with, Enrico deliberately excluded an A26.4 Balance provision from his design. If we stick with the designer's intent, then the onus is squarely on each player to bid accordingly. Unfortunately, LFT did include A26.4 provisions on the card. But they're nonsensical.

Because both players effectively bid German, the winner of any tiebreaker automatically gets the Germans. So how does replacing an 8-1 with a 9-1 in the German OB, or removing an 8-0 leader from the Norwegian OB, for that matter, help the Defender's cause? Both provisions strengthen the Germans!

----------------
CBS is a clever way to determine sides, because players can bid according to their strengths and weaknesses in a series of gradations, adding or subtracting one hex at a time. IMO, one hex either way is generally less important than the skills which a player brings to the attack or the defence.

To paraphrase a certain PM, "the budget, uh um, the scenario will, uh, balance itself." :)

A26.4 BALANCE:
Each scenario contains a section entitled "Balance" which proposes a variation to the basic scenario format which is advantageous for the stated side. Whenever both players wish to play the same side in a scenario, they decide the matter with a dr and the loser of the dr gets to claim the Balance provision of the scenario for his side as a consolation.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Defender's cause? Both provisions strengthen the Germans!


ROFL yeah....WTF is that all about?
Double Kudos!!!
 
Top