TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR'S PACK

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
this was considered and ok you are right, may teorethically happen that 5 means the Japanese wins hands down while at 6 he has no chances, but it is an edge case. It shoud not happen if the scenarios are decent.

Let me explain why we deliberately left out of the card any balance variation.

In ordinary scenarios balance variation exists when players want to play the same side, and one or both believe the scenario is unbalanced. So who loses the dr at least takes the balance as consolation because they consider unsatisfatory the VCs.
On the contrary - at least in my experience - when the scenario is evenly balanced players decide by mutual agreement the sides or roll a die, and balance variation never comes in play. This second case is what should happen here.

In fact in these scenarios the VC are not fixed, so an identhycal bid implies the scenario according the opinion of the players is evenly balanced exactly at the level they bid. Then any further variation appears ultroneus. Unless for some ASLesque reason 5 means one side wins always, and 6 means he loses always. The edge cases...

Just for to be clear, the perfect bid is the one that give you 40-60% to win, not the one that give an higher %.
If both players aim to get super easy victory conditions biddind to be sure to win (assuming they get their favoured side), then the luck of a dr is what they deserve, not certain a balance!
 

JoeArthur

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
950
Location
Broadstairs
Country
llUnited Kingdom
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.
Hey Rich - now you are asking a lot of my memory. Cannot remember if he was stopped or not.

I snake eyed him and then a one for the critical hit in my advancing fire phase - so per D14.22 Gaps "If they have not done so by the end of their movement phase or if this happens during any other phase, they immediately cease using platoon movement".

So I think I was OK asking him to do a TC in his next movement phase.

For my bog roll on the platoon of two random selection was a yahtzee :rolleyes:
 

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
906
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
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.
Maybe there is something I do not understand here… Have not played any of these but still

If I were to bid in a tournament setting I would not bid for balance - I’d bit for an advantage. For casual play one can even discuss with the opponent which level to play and roll for sides if balancing is the goal?

So - is this about making an optimal bid for balance or for an advantage?
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I'll try to answer later in detail. Thanks for the question that lets me to make clear the bidding mechanism.
Short answer:
Yes you bid for an advantage. But if you exaggerate and try to have your preferred side at a super convenient VC level (in the example above Japan 5 to win hands down at 100%) you should get nothing because your opponent could offer Japan 6 and win- for example - at 65% leaving you the "weak side" with just a 35% of chances.
So you bid for the maximum advantage, your opponent bid a bit higher (less advantage) and the net result is that he will get the favoured side at a still convenient VP level while you play with the side with lower chances.
Hence a smart player will not try to offer to win "hands down".
 
Last edited:

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I know that bidding for sides and VC is a new idea in the ASL world but it simple to master once you understand its philosophy.

I'll use the FAQ format to explain in deep these concepts.

I see scenario ecz 2 from the Tournament Pack for the first time. Which bid should I offer?
If you are unable to figure how the scenario could develop and what could happen because you do not want to prepare the scenario any bid around the middle of the fork provided works. For example in scenario ecz 2 (Libertating Bukovina) an offer of 10-11 is reasonable for most players. Playing one side or the other does not change the chance to win. If players do not know the scenario, tactical abilities on the field count more than an offer slightly off balance. So playing the attacker or the defender at that bid level is (should be ) the same.

After the playing of ecz 2 I find that ... (add Russian or Rumanian) are strongly favored, why?
nothing straordinary. The level of VCs you have choosen does not reflect actual abilities of the players. They were too easy or too difficoult. As expected after the first playing you understand much better the scenario and have a clear picture of it. Hence you find the level of the bid simply wrong. But now you can offer accordingly your skills and try to get the side you prefer. Possibly at a level of VCs that aren't out of range. Ordinary scenarios do not give this option.

After several playings /or accurate study I see that in ecz 2 if Rumanian offers 7 (the minimum allowed) he wins at hands down. Is it a good idea offer 7?
Of course no. Because you will get the Rumanians only by luck ( i.e. you win the dr to resolve ties) and if the opponent offers 7 like you. But if he's a little smarter he will offer 8 or pehaps 9. Ok he reduces his chances to win (8 or 9 is harder to achieve than 7) but at least he will play the Rumanians still having good chances to win. Of course if he exaggerates in the opposite direction and offers the maximum allowed 14, then he will still play the Rumanians but at the cost of very hard/near to impossible VCs.

but when I can figure which is the "right" bid to offer?
it depends. Very good players can find at first sight the level that allows to have the best chances in both cases (they win the bid or they lose the bid) But most players need a playing ot two. I needed many playings to decide a reasonable range min-max for the bid, the most difficult stage in the design process.
Also consider that balance is highly subjective. What works for you could not work for others. This is another capital difference with the ordinary scenarios where you can just take or leave. Here You have the luxury to change.


In a tournament is a good choice offer to have a balanced game in both cases (I win the bid or I lose the bid)?
Yes, because you do not know how high or how low your opponent will offer. The smart tournament player must search a bid level that allows to play and win no matter what the opponent offers, because nobody knows if he will play as attacker or as defender. You can always offer to have a super easy VC, but at the risk to lay a red carpet to victory to your opponent!

Why there is no balance variation on the card in the case both want to play the attacker at the same bid level?
because if this happens it implies that players agree that the scenario under these conditions is evenly balanced. The same happens when players agree on sides in any ordinary scenario and believe it is balanced. They roll for sides only, no player asks for the balance. It really does not matter who plays what.
Instead, as noted, a problem arises if a scenario is easy to win for the attacker at a certain bid ( for example 5) but becomes impossible at the next higher bid (6). The bid mechanism fails because players do not have option but to offer the same amount and pray for the dr. While this is teorethically possible, I believe this should not happen in TD'pack scenarios because VCs and range have been chosen accurately.
The subjective perfect balance (50/50) hides somewhere in the fork in all scenarios and is always reachable by bid.
 
Last edited:

asloser

The Head Tuomo of the Finnish ASL Community
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
906
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Klaukkala-Finland
Country
llFinland
I'll try to answer later in detail. Thanks for the question that lets me to make clear the bidding mechanism.
Short answer:
Yes you bid for an advantage. But if you exaggerate and try to have your preferred side at a super convenient VC level (in the example above Japan 5 to win hands down at 100%) you should get nothing because your opponent could offer Japan 6 and win- for example - at 65% leaving you the "weak side" with just a 35% of chances.
So you bid for the maximum advantage, your opponent bid a bit higher (less advantage) and the net result is that he will get the favoured side at a still convenient VP level while you play with the side with lower chances.
Hence a smart player will not try to offer to win "hands down".
Okay thanks - I think I got the idea now.

As said I have not seen these or studied them, but I am willing to give it a go at some point.

The way I see it this probably works the best with two skilled players who have a solid eye on judging a scenario and should add an interesting new dimension to the game- but everyone has to be prepared for this to work in a tournament setting! So I might be wasting my money with my limited ASLability. :p

The bid level can be used as a balancing tool or even as a give the better guy a challenge type of agreement in a casual setting where two players can agree beforehand on the bid level to use.

Competitive play between players with great difference in skill levels makes the better guy win more and faster.

Really cool idea.
 
Reactions: ecz

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
yes, and works also in a non competitive setting when none has seen the scenario before ( any bid around the middle of the range should give a solid playing experience) or if both players have already played the scenario and have developed a clear idea about it.
It's the case that tipically should happen more often.

For example in the scenario above ( Liberating Bukovina) player A after a few playings believes the Rumanian wins with the simple strategy to carry 12 EVP on the trucks leaving the rest of his force to clear the village, while Player B believe that this strategy does not work because Russian can detach a part of the defenders using the wagons to interdict the exit. So he will offer 9 because he believes it's harder for the attacker. The game actually will show who's right.


These scenarios cannot work only if they are improperly used canceling the bid mechanism, using by default the lower offer and rolling for sides.
 

Toby Pilling

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
187
Reaction score
182
Location
Didcot
Country
llUnited Kingdom
One difficulty with the bidding system you use may be getting an accurate assessment of balance via the ROAR database. There is an almighty swing of balance between a maximum and minimum bid and they may be hard to differentiate between. Interesting idea, though.
 
Reactions: ecz

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,421
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
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.
If both bids are the same and >0 the loser of the dr is compensated with the provisions/choices available.

The bid system is a great way to revive fun scenarios of dubious balance.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
If both bids are the same and >0 the loser of the dr is compensated with the provisions/choices available.

The bid system is a great way to revive fun scenarios of dubious balance.
not sure to understand the first sentence.

About the second I fully agree. In fact I dream a pack of old and dead scenarios that can revive cancelling the wrong original VCs and allowing a bid for sides and VCs. Really no reason to manipulate SSRs and OBs changing everything when you have a simple and handy solution.

I just do not know how to proceed to get the permission of the publisher to give a second chance to these scenarios. Adimitting that a sort of permission is needed. Probably it's better open another discussion in another thread.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
One difficulty with the bidding system you use may be getting an accurate assessment of balance via the ROAR database. There is an almighty swing of balance between a maximum and minimum bid and they may be hard to differentiate between. Interesting idea, though.
True, but this cannot stop me from add the scenarios in ROAR. After all The Bet (FT 181) is in ROAR since day 1.

No hints about the bid offered, but studying the data Norvegian 5, German 10 and the average raccomandation of 6.56 (16 players) we can say that:
-the scenario has a positive feedback and works
-the players tend to bid too low, because the attacker (German) wins much more than the defender. So probably people is too cautious with the bid in their first playings facilitating the German control of the number of buildings required.
 
Last edited:

Houlie

CEO of HoulieDice (TM)
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
3,151
Reaction score
1,362
Location
Minnesota, USA
Country
llUnited States
Ordered from Ritterkrieg. I think the pack is innovative and the scenarios appear interesting. I can support that and am looking forward to giving it a try.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
464
Location
California
Country
llRussia
One difficulty with the bidding system you use may be getting an accurate assessment of balance via the ROAR database. There is an almighty swing of balance between a maximum and minimum bid and they may be hard to differentiate between. Interesting idea, though.
I just picked up your Marvel Omnibus
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
464
Location
California
Country
llRussia
True, but this cannot stop me from add the scenarios in ROAR. After all The Bet (FT 181) is in ROAR since day 1.

No hints about the bid offered, but studying the data Norvegian 5, German 10 and the average raccomandation of 6.56 (16 players) we can say that:
-the scenario has a positive feedback and works
-the players tend to bid too low, because the attacker (German) wins much more than the defender. So probably people is too cautious with the bid in their first playings facilitating the German control of the number of buildings required.
So ROAR Records will be useless for balance as we won't know the bids and thus the different VC modifications made to the scenario?
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
581
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
So ROAR Records will be useless for balance as we won't know the bids and thus the different VC modifications made to the scenario?
yes, we won't know who bids what. We just know if the scenario is liked or not ( average raccomandation) and if a side wins significantly more games that could imply that bids are usually too low ( if the attacker wins more games) or too high (if the defender wins more games) . No more than a little hint. Not much different from the ordinary when you have just two % but you do not know who played what nor how played it


But I don't get tired of pointing out that :
  1. any player studying 10-15 minutes the scenario before the bid could figure a proper bid, the fun lays also in this pre-game activity and in the ability to understand the scenario better and quicker than the opponent
  2. any player not studying at all the scenario and offering around the middle of the bid range is not too far from an otimal bid and should have a solid game even at his very first playing
  3. after one game anyone has ( or should have) a clear idea of how the scenario can be played (according his skill and tactical plans), and then he will adjust his bid for the next game.
  4. do not forget that balance is subjective, so what I find right could be wrong for another.
 
Top