TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR'S PACK

[ecz]

ecz9 Culquaber, Ethiopia, November 1941. This time the action moves to the Italian East-African colony where the elite ‘Carabinieri’ fought a hopeless battle against an overwhelmingly superior enemy force on the famous ‘Cliff of the Crags’. In this 7 turn, two boards scenario there are also warbands of natives fighting each other as allies of the Commonwealth and of the Italians. The Italian defense seems static, but when they figures which secret objectives the attacking force has choosen, probably the Carabinieri will leave their trenches...

ecz10 The Capture of Malta, Krendi Airfield, Malta, July 1942. A fictional, ‘what if…’ scenario in which the Italians and Germans jointly launch the mythical ‘Operation Hercules’. We can see German Paratroopers and Italian Marines of the ‘Battaglione San Marco’ fighting together against the Malta garrison in a 6.5 turn scenario on three half boards for the capture of a small airport in the south of the island.

ecz11 Blood and Brine, Calais, France, May 1940. Another scenario created for a design contest on the Game Squad forum. In the dramatic days of the great retreat of the BEF, the battle of Calais was decisive to delay the German advance to Dunkirk. Blood and Brine is a two boards , 6.5 turn scenario featuring a very peculiar SSR about ‘random (German) air attacks’ on the British units tied to the SAN.

ecz12 A Tragic Victory, Vilnius, Poland, July 1944. Another scenario originally coming from a design contest here on GS, now re-writed and updated. The dramatic last battle of the Polish Home Army, winning on the field against the Germans, but doomed to deportation by Soviet hands in the following days. In this 5.5 turn, two boards scenario, with the help of the spearhead of the Belorussian Front, the Polish try to close any escape path for the Germans trapped in Vilnius while the Red Army is approaching.

(more tomorrow)

 

[ecz]

ecz13 Leaving Changsha, South-Central China, October 1939. This urban, 5.5 turns, Sino-Japanese battle on two half boards depicts the attempt of the Japanese 13th Division to break the encirclement and leave Changsha. This was the first great defeat of the IJA.

ecz14 The Streets of Shanghai, Shanghai, August 1937. A large, 7 turns scenario on two full and two half-boards highlighting the major Chinese land offensive to free the city. A mostly infantry scenario with the exception of a few ACs and Chinese light tanks trying to clear their way across rubbles and fortifications.

ecz15 The Best Defence, North of Aachen, October 1944. Facing the encirclement, the Germans try to widen the gap between the two American pincers around Aachen with a local armored counterattack. 6 turns and two boards for this ‘heavy armor’ scenario.

BR11 (ecz 16) Fields of Golden Wheat, Sicily, July 1943. This scenario is the ‘prequel’ to Scenario T9, The Niscemi Biscari Highway. It depicts the events that happened earlier in the same day that led to the capture of the pair of Italian AT guns that were later used by the Paratroopers against the Germans. Here the Paratroopers assault by surprise Reservist elements of Livorno Division not expecting to meet the enemy so early. Two half boards and 5.5 turns for this tournament scenario.

 

[ecz]

On 16 scenarios five scenarios are pure urban combat (one across the RB/RO boards), other three see the presence of a village with buildings to control or some area to clear. None uses Night Rules, but several has some form of LV, including "Sun Blindness" in ecz 3 ( Turf Wars in Mongolia); three has OBA, althought often in a very simplified form resembling the style of the great classic A59 Death on Carenten.
Of course all uses the bid system to assign sides and set the VCs: In two cases on sixteen the higher bidder takes the Defender side ( i.e. the bid is to play the defender).
Two scenarios on sixteen do not have AFVs in the OBs, but Armor has a primary role in only six scenarios while in the others, where present, the armor component is ancillary.
Cavalry is used in two scenarios, one of which is "all Cavalry" .
No scenario is longer than 7 turns. Most are infantry-centric and in at least half of them the reinforcements play a key role.

 

[ecz]

proofread is almost done. In a few days the pack goes to the printer.

 

[ecz]

on sale now... ->here

 

[JoeArthur]

OK - so these were available to play in the Blackpool tourny and you deserve some feedback for all the prizes that you very kindly contributed to the tourny.

You're not going to like it but here goes............

There is a major flaw in these scenarios. You have to bid for sides. What do you do if you have never seen the scenario before? Bounding Fire Blackpool is a blind tourny. We were all stumped.

What one person did (Toby Pilling) was to suggest that both players make the lowest bid and then roll for sides - which is probably not what you intended and defeats the whole idea of your system.

You need to include on your scenarios the recommended bid for good players that are equally balanced. Players can go from there.

I did not play any because at a tourny you are tired - and getting your head round all your SSR's was not possible for me. On the Sunday morning I gave ecz7 Clash of Cans a whirl. My head hurt trying to get the VC's right on that one. In the end it all came down to dice - I got an improbable critical hit on the Nationalists which split a platoon, the remaining tanks failed their TC's to move and were dead.

We spun it around and this time the dice bogged one platoon of my Italian tanks and the Russians drove up and killed them.

Like the Puma Prowls a win / loss comes down to dice. You have even made the dice have more effect by making the tanks take bog rolls - I would remove that requirement.

It was a fun, quick scenario for a Sunday morning.

The people of Advancing Fire are incredibly intelligent - English is not your first language and yet here you are playing a complex game in English and in addition designing stuff. It is clear to see that this scenario pack is a labour of love. You should be commended for trying to improve the game system.

For me, the complexity kills it. I did not consider buying Prokhorovka because I knew a bloke who playtested it. The designer dropped in on one of their games to explain the hillock / slopes rules. Which is fine but is he going to call in on my game to explain the rules?

Having said all that some people - such as Carl Nogueira and Bill Cirillo are going to love your pack (Carl wrote two pages of rules for dynamite sticks in his draft Spanish Civil War pack and Bill ten pages of railway embankment rules for Festung Budapest).

We all get our ASL fun in different ways.................

 

[Carln0130]

'Having said all that some people - such as Carl Nogueira and Bill Cirillo are going to love your pack (Carl wrote two pages of rules for dynamite sticks in his draft Spanish Civil War pack and Bill ten pages of railway embankment rules for Festung Budapest).'

Not for nothing Joe, but easily half the DS rules are the MOL rules, which the DS rules are based on, put back out there so people can see how they work. There are differences sure, but they ape off the MOL rules, so no, it's not that bad. Let the pack come out and then kill it. People complain if you write the original rule out on the page and include the differences and complain if you just list the rule reference and say, "here is how it is different." Given that Vinny, Eddy and I debated that one back and forth for a bit, yeah, a little prickly on that one. Apologies in advance, but you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[sswann]

I am also against "Bidding Scenarios" as a standard for tourney use. Way too many times the opposing players are way apart in ASL skills for bidding. If you are the one being constantly out-weighted in judging a scenario, you could easily become discouraged and leave the ASL fold. We are (for the most part) an aging game group. Discouraging new and inexperience players away from ASL is a poor strategy.

While I really like Carl's draft Spanish Civil War pack rules, I do have one exception.
I also think that the Dynamite rules are excessively intensive with rules. I would think that by changing the FP and effects, the Dynamite could have used the normal Molotov Rules.

 

[MajorDomo]

The "bid for sides" scenarios maybe best suited for a tourney with preparation required, like Albany.

I assume that "conventional wisdom" will establish the normal/ neutral bids for these scenarios. I can appreciate that would be very tough on first glance.

In your game, if a CH takes out one of the platoon (or an AFV bogs), I thought the platoon could continue moving by closing the gap in the next MP and continuing. If the platoon was stopped, then that is much tougher as the TCs are required.

 

[Maurizizio]

There is a major flaw in these scenarios. You have to bid for sides. What do you do if you have never seen the scenario before? Bounding Fire Blackpool is a blind tourny. We were all stumped.
I love the bidding scenarios, and I screw up so frequently that allows me to learn more and quicker.

You need to include on your scenarios the recommended bid for good players that are equally balanced. Players can go from there.
That is indeed a good idea, a kind of “starting point”. Nice.

For me, the complexity kills it. I did not consider buying Prokhorovka because I knew a bloke who playtested it. The designer dropped in on one of their games to explain the hillock / slopes rules. Which is fine but is he going to call in on my game to explain the rules?
I totally agree with you, the system is already complex, adding complexity is not helping new players as much as players with little time to play (“Should I play a scenario with normal rules or look for understanding those new rules to play 20 scenarios?”)

 

[Carln0130]

I am also against "Bidding Scenarios" as a standard for tourney use. Way too many times the opposing players are way apart in ASL skills for bidding. If you are the one being constantly out-weighted in judging a scenario, you could easily become discouraged and leave the ASL fold. We are (for the most part) an aging game group. Discouraging new and inexperience players away from ASL is a poor strategy.

While I really like Carl's draft Spanish Civil War pack rules, I do have one exception.
I also think that the Dynamite rules are excessively intensive with rules. I would think that by changing the FP and effects, the Dynamite could have used the normal Molotov Rules.

They do Steve, except they explode. You have the MOL rules written out, so people don't have to dive to the standard rules and then the new effects of the DS where they deviate from the MOL. The effects of a MOL vs DS in real life are totally different, so that had to be covered. They were heavily used, so you can't ignore them either. I stand by them.

All that said, this thread is getting off track. I am interested in seeing how Enrico's pack fares.

 

[JoeArthur]

Let the pack come out and then kill it

Not my intention to kill anything Carl.

Not my intention to upset anyone either.

Just trying to point out that for some players / designers adding complexity to the system is something that they feel adds to players enjoyment. That is not the case for me. How other people feel - it would be interesting to do one of those surveys where you can vote.

 

[Carln0130]

Not my intention to kill anything Carl.

Not my intention to upset anyone either.

Just trying to point out that for some players / designers adding complexity to the system is something that they feel adds to players enjoyment. That is not the case for me. How other people feel - it would be interesting to do one of those surveys where you can vote.

Agreed opinions definitely vary. However to offer that opinion before the thing is out the door is what got me. Klas hasn't even had a shot at it yet. This going to MMP, he will. Anyway, all good Joe. I shouldn't play online poker and type on Gamesquad at the same time. Enjoy your Holiday Season.

 

[JoeArthur]

However to offer that opinion before the thing is out the door is what got me.

Apologies Carl - I should have mentioned that those rules were in your draft version that I saw a couple of years ago.

Good luck with the project - hope it goes well.

Even better luck with the poker

 

[sswann]

Carl
I go along with JoeArthur above.
I am still eagerly awaiting the SCW pack.

 

[Carln0130]

Carl
I go along with JoeArthur above.
I am still eagerly awaiting the SCW pack.

Thanks fellas. Had 'some' luck in poker. Made the cut, but got bounced before I got to a nice payday. Story of my life.

 

[daveramsey]

I played two of these over the weekend and was happy to be challenged to think about the choice of sides via the bidding mechanism in a greater depth than other scenarios (I often just ask my opponent who they’d like to play and go with it - or simply dice for it).

The bidding definitely works best when both players discuss the scenario parameters - Toby caught the idea that our one looked tough on the Japanese. We both bid to make it easiest on the Japanese and it went by the script. Other playings of the same scenario went differently so who knows!

The only issues I had are that the losing side in a tied bid ‘dice off’ didn’t seem to have any compensation - I’d like to have seen something to address this. In addition, it might well be that through extensive plays the correct bids evolve and become known over time which just shortcuts the bid process as people look online for the ‘answer’.

However, these scenarios bring something different to my collection and I’m excited to try more of them. We don’t get very much innovation in scenarios so experiments like this should be encouraged.

 

[ecz]

OK - so these were available to play in the Blackpool tourny and you deserve some feedback for all the prizes that you very kindly contributed to the tourny.

You're not going to like it but here goes............

There is a major flaw in these scenarios. You have to bid for sides. What do you do if you have never seen the scenario before? Bounding Fire Blackpool is a blind tourny. We were all stumped.

What one person did (Toby Pilling) was to suggest that both players make the lowest bid and then roll for sides - which is probably not what you intended and defeats the whole idea of your system.

You need to include on your scenarios the recommended bid for good players that are equally balanced. Players can go from there.

I did not play any because at a tourny you are tired - and getting your head round all your SSR's was not possible for me. On the Sunday morning I gave ecz7 Clash of Cans a whirl. My head hurt trying to get the VC's right on that one. In the end it all came down to dice - I got an improbable critical hit on the Nationalists which split a platoon, the remaining tanks failed their TC's to move and were dead.

We spun it around and this time the dice bogged one platoon of my Italian tanks and the Russians drove up and killed them.

Like the Puma Prowls a win / loss comes down to dice. You have even made the dice have more effect by making the tanks take bog rolls - I would remove that requirement.

It was a fun, quick scenario for a Sunday morning.

The people of Advancing Fire are incredibly intelligent - English is not your first language and yet here you are playing a complex game in English and in addition designing stuff. It is clear to see that this scenario pack is a labour of love. You should be commended for trying to improve the game system.

For me, the complexity kills it. I did not consider buying Prokhorovka because I knew a bloke who playtested it. The designer dropped in on one of their games to explain the hillock / slopes rules. Which is fine but is he going to call in on my game to explain the rules?

Having said all that some people - such as Carl Nogueira and Bill Cirillo are going to love your pack (Carl wrote two pages of rules for dynamite sticks in his draft Spanish Civil War pack and Bill ten pages of railway embankment rules for Festung Budapest).

We all get our ASL fun in different ways.................

first of all thanks for the report.

I agree with you. The bidding system is NOT designed for causal play or for "blind" tournament use.
It requires preparation. We know there are very few players expert enough that at first sight are able to decide the "perfect" bid level. So You are 100% right when you say many players at their first playing of these scenarios do not have any idea how the game could develop. This is because deliberately strategies are not obvius.
And at the same time you are right when you say that bidding by default for the minimun and then roll for sides "kills" the idea of the scenario and ruins any challenge. I agree, it has not been a good idea.

In fact in the presentation of the pack we suggest to the newbies and to the players that do not want to spend 15 minutes to "study" the scenario before playing, to offer around the middle of the fork to have a fun and balanced scenario. It should work for most players and most scenarios. I'm pretty sure that players of any level can enjoy these scenarios from their very first game using this caution. A pity you did not read this advice being the pack published after the event. But it's not your fault of course.

All in all I'm happy of this report because I was not interested at all to make a product similar to the others.
We have already 8000+ scenarios without a bid! Sixteen using this bid system are a novelty. An the objective was exactly to create something completely different. Your post confirms this.

 

[ecz]

I played two of these over the weekend and was happy to be challenged to think about the choice of sides via the bidding mechanism in a greater depth than other scenarios (I often just ask my opponent who they’d like to play and go with it - or simply dice for it).

The bidding definitely works best when both players discuss the scenario parameters - Toby caught the idea that our one looked tough on the Japanese. We both bid to make it easiest on the Japanese and it went by the script. Other playings of the same scenario went differently so who knows!

The only issues I had are that the losing side in a tied bid ‘dice off’ didn’t seem to have any compensation - I’d like to have seen something to address this. In addition, it might well be that through extensive plays the correct bids evolve and become known over time which just shortcuts the bid process as people look online for the ‘answer’.

However, these scenarios bring something different to my collection and I’m excited to try more of them. We don’t get very much innovation in scenarios so experiments like this should be encouraged.

you hit the point. Innovation an novelty. Thanks

about the lack of compensation for the losing side in case of a tie in the bid, I believe that if both players make the same identical bid it means they both think the scenario is perfectly balanced at that bid level, thus it does not matter who plays what. At least in most cases.

 

[daveramsey]

you hit the point. Innovation an novelty. Thanks

about the lack of compensation for the losing side in case of a tie in the bid, I believe that if both players make the same identical bid it means they both think the scenario is perfectly balanced at that bid level, thus it does not matter who plays what. At least in most cases.

Not sure that’s exactly correct. If both players feel that Japan can get 5 points off but not 6 (for example) they can only bid ‘Japan 5’. In this case the side that gets the Japanese with a roll has his chosen side without giving up compensation.

So - it’s only these edge cases, and I don’t think this is a broken implementation or anything, it’s just a minor point.