VASLeague 2014 General Discussion

[synicbast]

Daniel Takai (Germans attacking) vs Peter Palmer (Norwegians defending) in DB107, "Stossgruppe Schlicter"

 

[FanaticTW]

Gary Trezza will play Ted Wilcox in RPT 75 Strike the Seventh...

Gary will execute a Japanese night attack vs. Ted's Indian/Commonwealth Troops

 

[Khill]

Gary Trezza will play Ted Wilcox in RPT 75 Strike the Seventh...

Gary will execute a Japanese night attack vs. Ted's Indian/Commonwealth Troops

i'd like to see an AAR of that game

 

[ASL1]

PK Mason (German) vs Rick Carter (Russian) in DB108 "Anchoring The Line."

 

[Gunner Scott]

Played a real piece of s h i t scenario from DFTB called Twin villages, the my SS lost pretty badly. There really is no way for the SS to win this because the Americsans sit on the board 5 road and slow down the tank movement. DFtB u guys suck serious ass


Scott

 

[Stewart]

Cummings is battling Stewart in AP75!

Sides TBD

 

[Stewart]

Played a real piece of s h i t scenario from DFTB called Twin villages, the my SS lost pretty badly. There really is no way for the SS to win this because the Americsans sit on the board 5 road and slow down the tank movement. DFtB u guys suck serious ass


Scott

Maybe you played a playtest game....It's not on ROAR.... Who has stats for this one?

 

[pybarrondo]

Played a real piece of s h i t scenario from DFTB called Twin villages, the my SS lost pretty badly. There really is no way for the SS to win this because the Americsans sit on the board 5 road and slow down the tank movement. DFtB u guys suck serious ass


Scott

I haven't played this one, but you did see the SSR that says American AFV may not enter hexes east of row T?

 

[Smedley]

Robert Loper (defending Russians) will play Ken Knott (Evil SS) in FrF 64 No Time to Bleed.

 

[JR Brackin]

The scenario is from Dispatches from the Bunker - DB106 - the ROAR rating is now German 1 victory with 2 American. It is hard to tell from that.

Since, I was the opponent, I was surprised that Scott gave in. I blew the bridge on the south side, but needed luck to get into position (PB shot from a 75LL tank which battle hardened the leader and the squad passed). I had not played well and believed that he could have made the exit, but the scenario is designed to be a shooting gallery at the end.

For the record, both tanks were well in the back and their only action was to unbutton when the Germans were getting close. I had markers to remind that I could not send infantry behind hexrow T until Turn 6.

Please also note, he was almost half way across with little opposition (although I was keeping them in front of the infantry to buy time) and he still had 6 movement phases. I offered three time to continue.

However, I will take the victory.

JR Brackin

 

[Carln0130]

I will be playing Sandro in ToT 14 Panzer-Teufel Strikes Back. I have the Germans and Sandro the British.

 

[Gunner Scott]

This was a terrible scenario, probably one of the worst I'v played in a long time, The major problem here is that if the bridge gets blown, the SS attack along board 32 gets shut down and forces the SS to turn around or take a chance crossing the frozen stream and possibly falling through the ice. I should have read the VC more closely, I missed the board 5 only part of the VC which is my fault, buit really did not matter. Basically the Armor is stuck on the road and has to try and get past BAZ squads, possibility of streety fighting (allowed by SSR) and a gauntlet of Shermans sitting on board 5 edge.

Very very terrible scenario and I really wished I looked this one over more carefully, I seriously feel I got sharked with an unplaytested piece of s h i t scenario. but you won Jim and thats what counts.

Scott

The scenario is from Dispatches from the Bunker - DB106 - the ROAR rating is now German 1 victory with 2 American. It is hard to tell from that.

Since, I was the opponent, I was surprised that Scott gave in. I blew the bridge on the south side, but needed luck to get into position (PB shot from a 75LL tank which battle hardened the leader and the squad passed). I had not played well and believed that he could have made the exit, but the scenario is designed to be a shooting gallery at the end.

For the record, both tanks were well in the back and their only action was to unbutton when the Germans were getting close. I had markers to remind that I could not send infantry behind hexrow T until Turn 6.

Please also note, he was almost half way across with little opposition (although I was keeping them in front of the infantry to buy time) and he still had 6 movement phases. I offered three time to continue.

However, I will take the victory.

JR Brackin

 

[JR Brackin]

Scott, I resent that you believe that you were sharked. I provided 5 choices, and I offered for you to counter-offer on the scenario choice.

You had 6 turns to maneuver your vehicles around and use the infantry committed to board 5 to move up and take on the two Shemans with panzerfausts. Also, you gave too much credit to the Shermans to knock out your JgPz IV/70's - 76L APCR is a 20 versus your frontal armor of 14, not a guarantee even if they get a hit.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Well I'll tell you what Jim, you take the SS and see if you can win.

Scott

Scott, I resent that you believe that you were sharked. I provided 5 choices, and I offered for you to counter-offer on the scenario choice.

You had 6 turns to maneuver your vehicles around and use the infantry committed to board 5 to move up and take on the two Shemans with panzerfausts. Also, you gave too much credit to the Shermans to knock out your JgPz IV/70's - 76L APCR is a 20 versus your frontal armor of 14, not a guarantee even if they get a hit.

 

[JR Brackin]

Scott, I would gladly take the SS and give it a go. However, it will not be against you. I have no time for persons who accuse me of sharking them, nor do I want to play someone who was obviously more interested in getting to a RB CG than reviewing their options in a scenario that was only 1/3 complete.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Well at least you won. And thats what counts, who cares if the scenario sucked right? Personally, I would have given you a chance to try something else that was better playtested then what we played but thats just me.

Scott

Scott, I would gladly take the SS and give it a go. However, it will not be against you. I have no time for persons who accuse me of sharking them, nor do I want to play someone who was obviously more interested in getting to a RB CG than reviewing their options in a scenario that was only 1/3 complete.

 

[ecz]

(...) Very very terrible scenario and I really wished I looked this one over more carefully (...)
Scott

yes, happens also to the best players to do not see the obvious and think to play a good scenario that later reveals itself as heavily unbalanced.
I do not know this scenario but I think that is quite possible that it is not the best possible choice among 5000+ scenarios available for play. Of course players are the only responsible for their poor decisions about the scenario to play. The choice of the scenario and of the sides is part of the game since, as everyone know, a scenario perfectly balanced haven't been still designed.
VASLeague leaves to the players the choice of the scenario. Anything is good since players are supposed to be compentent enough to find by theirselves something that fits skill level and expectations of both. In any case, for the future when someone fears a trap or no agreement is possible, I suggest to use the forgotten rule of the VASLeague I report here: 2.2 If no agreement is reached the TD will contact both players and choose the scenario drawing the sides
this way also the less expert player gets the chance to play a fairly balanced scenario

 

[Justiciar]

yes, happens also to the best players to do not see the obvious and think to play a good scenario that later reveals itself as heavily unbalanced.
I do not know this scenario but I think that is quite possible that it is not the best possible choice among 5000+ scenarios available for play. Of course players are the only responsible for their poor decisions about the scenario to play. The choice of the scenario and of the sides is part of the game since, as everyone know, a scenario perfectly balanced haven't been still designed.
VASLeague leaves to the players the choice of the scenario. Anything is good since players are supposed to be compentent enough to find by theirselves something that fits skill level and expectations of both. In any case, for the future when someone fears a trap or no agreement is possible, I suggest to use the forgotten rule of the VASLeague I report here: 2.2 If no agreement is reached the TD will contact both players and choose the scenario drawing the sides
this way also the less expert player gets the chance to play a fairly balanced scenario

I do not believe the scenario is the issue.

I have played it as US and played it against a good OPFOR in Michael Koch. He lost but he had his chance to win, and he knew not to commit one MMC to board 32, he went all in on board 5, and that is how you play it as the Germans.

Reading the posts above, it is clear Scott a) misread the VC to begin with and b) didn't see from the outset the blowing up the bridge was an option and more so that this was a very good option and the armor attack should never had been committed to board 32 to begin with b/c of this!

Furthermore, I have known and played against Jim Brackin for over 20 years, and he is not that type of person to trick some one into playing a scenario or anything like this.

Andy

 

[Carln0130]

Furthermore, I have known Vic and company for many years and seen the playtesting they do. There is NEVER an unplaytested scenario that goes into Dispatches. Do some work out better than others? You bet. Unplaytested? No way.

I do not believe the scenario is the issue.

I have played it as US and played it against a good OPFOR in Michael Koch. He lost but he had his chance to win, and he knew not to commit one MMC to board 32, he went all in on board 5, and that is how you play it as the Germans.

Reading the posts above, it is clear Scott a) misread the VC to begin with and b) didn't see from the outset the blowing up the bridge was an option and more so that this was a very good option and the armor attack should never had been committed to board 32 to begin with b/c of this!

Furthermore, I have known and played against Jim Brackin for over 20 years, and he is not that type of person to trick some one into playing a scenario or anything like this.

Andy

 

[Stewart]

I do not believe the scenario is the issue.

I have played it as US and played it against a good OPFOR in Michael Koch. He lost but he had his chance to win, and he knew not to commit one MMC to board 32, he went all in on board 5, and that is how you play it as the Germans.

Reading the posts above, it is clear Scott a) misread the VC to begin with and b) didn't see from the outset the blowing up the bridge was an option and more so that this was a very good option and the armor attack should never had been committed to board 32 to begin with b/c of this!

So, Scott lost before the game even started... and didn't even have the chance of being diced?

If the attack is committed to board 32, then (I'm assume by virtue of Scott's example), the game can't be won with this option. So, there really is NO choice for the Germans in this scenario. Therefore, why not just eliminate that aspect of the game which, apparently, causes loss with a sour taste in ones mouth. If you open the wrong door, you lose immediately, if you open the correct door, you can play the game..

I'd still play it out to see how far I could've gotten... that way IF I play it again, I know how far a BOTCHED attack reached and that a concerted attack would do much better.

You have to avoid this "trick" to have a chance? Not part of the fun...that's what $1.99 puzzle books are for.

You should have potential to win in either direction, Make the Bridge destruction NA... just how the Kindling NA scenario fix has been incorporated. Sure the PT group figured this out, but I'm sure it took this same type of loss to show this result. They play the game many times...the ASL community is unlikely to play it as often.