what - perhaps - ASL needs

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
JRV's post of a few days ago gave me the idea to start a new thread about what kind of improvement could be easily done at no cost just changing the scenario design style leaving every other thing untouched.

Well, I'm not going to talk again about scenario balance and the bidding- VCs style I have proposed to cancel once for ever unbalanced scenarios from our tables, I'm talking about the lack of fog of war at least at an higher level. Too often in the middle game everything is onboard and any fog of war is over.
Best ASL players are those that - like in chess - use as early as possible and as long as possible their best resources. So basically the nature of the game automatically causes that the fog of war (if any) vanishes early.

In my opinion this is an area of the game that could be easily improved with a modern scenario design style.
Probably we are already moving in this direction. I find that any scenario where there are important secret choices in the OBs, in the setup, or in the VCs add a new dimension to our carboard wars.
So I wonder if it is possible add new elements that enhance the fog of war, beyond concealement, HIP, secret VCs, and secret parts of the OBs that we already have experimented.
For example the Tactical ASL cards, just to say, have been created to insert new elements in the field of battle out of the control of the players.
Opinions, ideas?
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
You should have a look at the MM 'blind scenarios'. The enemy's entire OB is unknown to you it prints on a different card. The only thing in common is the VC and the basic weather and boards and things like place a wreck in H5.

You get some "intel" report like the "enemy has artillery" or "fortifications and mines".

They are very fun to play. I have played 4-5. Highly recommend.
 
Last edited:

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Are there any scenarios where VC start out variable, and then are specified partway through the scenario? I am imagining something like this:
8-turn scenario, attacker enters turn 1. There are 3 possible victory conditions, A, B, and C, but at the beginning of the scenario, neither side knows which of the three it will be.

On turn 3, the attacker makes a dr, on a 1-2, victory condition A is eliminated (i.e., either victory condition B or C will be used, but the players still don't know which of the two it is), 3-4, B is eliminated, 5-6, C is eliminated.

On turn 5, the attacker makes another dr, eliminating a second victory condition. Now both players know what the victory conditions are.

This might simulate a sort of reconnaissance situation where the attacker is scouting out the enemy, then receives orders from above based on what he finds (i.e., destroy this position, or keep pushing ahead, or withdraw, etc).
 

Sully

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
244
Location
Mpls, MN
Country
llUnited States
I'm experimenting with this in a skunk works project of mine, but there's a catch: I'm assuming it would be VASL only. If you are willing to limit the scope to VASL play the ability to increase the fog-of-war goes up orders of magnitude.

-Sully
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
a good example of a creative use of fog war is in scenario G1 Timoshenko's Attack using three boards and a common OB that must be shared among three separate battles. That scenario has some problems, but the basic idea is great and could be developed.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
a good example of a creative use of fog war is in scenario G1 Timoshenko's Attack using three boards and a common OB that must be shared among three separate battles. That scenario has some problems, but the basic idea is great and could be developed.
No that is not as good as you think it is on that regards. It is pretty predictable (though not totally so) attack-wise what goes where...

But that aside the concept with less scripting by the terrain...would indeed be along the lines you note.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
JRV's post of a few days ago gave me the idea to start a new thread about what kind of improvement could be easily done at no cost just changing the scenario design style leaving every other thing untouched.

Well, I'm not going to talk again about scenario balance and the bidding- VCs style I have proposed to cancel once for ever unbalanced scenarios from our tables, I'm talking about the lack of fog of war at least at an higher level. Too often in the middle game everything is onboard and any fog of war is over.
Best ASL players are those that - like in chess - use as early as possible and as long as possible their best resources. So basically the nature of the game automatically causes that the fog of war (if any) vanishes early.

In my opinion this is an area of the game that could be easily improved with a modern scenario design style.
Probably we are already moving in this direction. I find that any scenario where there are important secret choices in the OBs, in the setup, or in the VCs add a new dimension to our carboard wars.
So I wonder if it is possible add new elements that enhance the fog of war, beyond concealement, HIP, secret VCs, and secret parts of the OBs that we already have experimented.
For example the Tactical ASL cards, just to say, have been created to insert new elements in the field of battle out of the control of the players.
Opinions, ideas?
It's not clear what you mean by "modern scenario design style." If you mean variable order of battle, it is, but how many ASL players want more fog of war?

I find there is more than one camp. One prefers ASL as a competitive game - defined turn count, razor thin balance, impeccable rules knowledge. Another prefers ASL as a leisure, not bothered about the rules, looking for gimmicks to change things up. People can occupy both camps, of course, but these conversations generally just turn into bickering between them, especially when framed as "this is what everyone needs to do."

Personally, I like variable order of battle and fog of war stuff, but recognize there are lots that just want to play 7 turns and demonstrate their mastery of the rules with a conventional order of battle and perfect knowledge of what the other guy has. Like counting cards in Up Front. There is nothing right or wrong about any of the preferences.
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I noticed that more often happens to see scenarios using variable OOBs and/or a choice about the turn of entry and the composition of the reinforcements. Everything that improves FOW using other than the classical ?/HIP is positive, and I would love to see more added elements in this direction
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
about G1 I think that the same concept, with a few of fixes and changes, makes possible the design of an epic scenario with the same taste of a CG
 

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
599
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I noticed that more often happens to see scenarios using variable OOBs and/or a choice about the turn of entry and the composition of the reinforcements. Everything that improves FOW using other than the classical ?/HIP is positive, and I would love to see more added elements in this direction
just to say, I playtested a scenario where one MA of the two AFV in play is malfunctioning. This information is secret until the moment the functioning MA fires.
Easy things like this adds a little bit of FOW that can only improve the fun.
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,180
Reaction score
5,569
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
just to say, I playtested a scenario where one MA of the two AFV in play is malfunctioning. This information is secret until the moment the functioning MA fires.
Easy things like this adds a little bit of FOW that can only improve the fun.
WCW8 The Last VC in Europe. One of the Sherman’s disabled
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Why not make the VC variable? see 'Rebels Without A Pause" for an example - but this is only a 'toe in the water' of possibilities)
[I don't have Rebel to loom at]

They might have that too, or some might?, it has been a few years since I played them, and I didn't bother checking the cards on the ones I played.

In any case "blind" OB is in some ways more dramatic than variable VC, which are, while not super common, are a thing.
@ "...win at game if they complete X or* immediately upon completing Y."

You set up a game in 1944, say, as the Allies, and you will worry about the Tiger/Panther being out there in a way you never have before...this effect is not limited to 1944 and those vehicles. This is very. very different that looking at an OPFOR menu card, or the OPFOR RG options...your best guess is looking at Chapter H year and month data RF charts to get a grip on the plausible.

Recommend.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
One bummer about fog of war in the cardboard form is that it can often be annoying to the player that isn't supposed to be subject to fog. I'm sure we've all declared that shot from the squad in the stone building only to discover that it was a Dummy and you had the squad in the other building. So probably a +1 to Mr Dorosh's statement that variable OoB and VC is a nice middle ground that also works very well in meatspace and doesn't require game mechanics beyond what already exists between the covers.
 

pensatl1962

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
665
Reaction score
514
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I'll add my support for variable OB as well as variable VC (e.g., Fortenberry and Shelling). To me, this adds plenty of fog of war and ensures that no two playings are necessarily the same. Also reduces the possibility of grokking the "exact" way to play a scenario for tournament settings.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I'll add my support for variable OB as well as variable VC (e.g., Fortenberry and Shelling). To me, this adds plenty of fog of war and ensures that no two playings are necessarily the same. Also reduces the possibility of grokking the "exact" way to play a scenario for tournament settings.
Though looking at some of Fort's VC, they are a challenge to grok by themselves...

Still, variable OoB's and VC's are fine. Probably hell of an effort to playtest on the other hand.

von Marwitz
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
No that is not as good as you think it is on that regards. It is pretty predictable (though not totally so) attack-wise what goes where...

But that aside the concept with less scripting by the terrain...would indeed be along the lines you note.
It was an idea borrowed from GIAoV's "The Duel" which in its original form - and its "GI Dozen" remake, are both excellently balanced and unpredictable scenarios for both the attacker and defender. "Timoshenko's attack simply got the terrain issue to a point where it forced certain choices in order to have the OoB work for the players.
 
Top