What scenarios do you prefer?

[BW92]

Hello,
I am just curious to 'take a pulse' so to say about play balancing...how to do it.

In any scenario, it's a given that both players should have an equal chance to 'win'.
That said, what interests forum members most in a scenario:

(1) Winning by defeating your opponent openly by force: (ie.... inflicting more casualties, and thereby obtaining your objectives and victory by dominating the battlefield...specifically when this means play-balancing the scenario by altering the historical force levels available to obtain parity)?

or

(2) Winning an historical encounter by points: (unequal forces, without hope of physically defeating your opponent on the open field... but obtaining victory by equaling or exceeding the results of a real historical situation - played out with historical force levels)?

The two choices above are really about scenarios.
Do you prefer to play historical scenarios regardless of balance of forces (victory being determined by accomplishing your goals with what they had - strictly playing historical)... Or by changing historical force levels so either side can actually dominate the battlefield?

I have always been curious about this....

Thank you
B

 

[Jeffhew]

Well play balance in ASL, by rule, is something that's generally used only when both players want to play the same side, as a bonus for the guy who ends up with the side he didn't want. Some do use it for scenarios they might feel are unbalanced, though. I've never played a scenario where the Balance was used. There are probably somewhere around 7000+ scenarios for ASL, not including the SK's. Of those, probably 99% are based on historical engagements, but almost all can/will play out ahistorically. Understand that ASL is not a "simulation" of historical events. Never has been. It's more a loose approximation.

I honestly don't worry about winning or losing. But in any game, the challenge for me is to outthink and outmaneuver my opponent. Whether that's on points or sheer brute force is really a function of the VC's.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[Carln0130]

Hello,
I am just curious to 'take a pulse' so to say about play balancing...how to do it.

In any scenario, it's a given that both players should have an equal chance to 'win'.
That said, what interests forum members most in a scenario:

(1) Winning by defeating your opponent openly by force: (ie.... inflicting more casualties, and thereby obtaining your objectives and victory by dominating the battlefield...specifically when this means play-balancing the scenario by altering the historical force levels available to obtain parity)?

or

(2) Winning an historical encounter by points: (unequal forces, without hope of physically defeating your opponent on the open field... but obtaining victory by equaling or exceeding the results of a real historical situation - played out with historical force levels)?

The two choices above are really about scenarios.
Do you prefer to play historical scenarios regardless of balance of forces (victory being determined by accomplishing your goals with what they had - strictly playing historical)... Or by changing historical force levels so either side can actually dominate the battlefield?

I have always been curious about this....

Thank you
B

Balancing a scenario frequently requires "tweaking" the forces present, assuming the designer even has perfect knowledge of what was there. Tweaking can be done in several ways. Altering force composition, the less altering the better. Tinkering with VC, time limits, amount that needs to be controlled/exited. Many ways to skin a cat.

ASL scenarios are narratives of the action they are trying to represent, with the result unknown at scenario start. Balancing is done with this is mind. you try not to chnge the story while still giving both sides a good shot at victory.

Hope that helps.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I don't win. So that part is out of the question.

However I do get attracted to scrnarios that seems to have more of a historical slant. I still look for balance although I will jump into scenarios more often than most without checking ROAR.

I play for the "little" moments. Like when playing an Okinawa cave scenario last night I shot at the IJA in a trench. The leader pinned but the squad went berserk! (Voice in my head automatically went : "Hey, where are you guys going? Hey!")

Rgds
Jack

 

[BW92]

I am getting the feeling a good percentage of members like to play within 'historical' parameters regardless ( ...which I find encouraging...I like determining balance by setting conditions - not just parity).
Semi-equal meeting engagements are fun, but I personally get more enjoyment out of re-enacting a moment in history.

I think overall, for the last 30+ odd years, I have enjoyed campaign games like (though not necessarily this in particular) Red Barricades - because it gave you a reason to fight or conserve forces for the 'next round'....it informs your tactics.

Anyway, I'll shut up and let members post.

 

[volgaG68]

I don't win. So that part is out of the question.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I like scenarios with well thought VC, which give approximately equal chances for both players to win ... the scenario.
That is possible even within a situation where forces are not balanced - i.e. you can win the scenario, even though, historically, it would be considered a loss.

 

[chris_olden]

Scenarios are a designer's "artistic" interpretation of a historical situation
using ASL as the medium.
Sort of.

 

[Megaloman]

I like situations where the forces don't have the same immediate VC, so that you have to balance your own actions towards victory with preventing the opponent from winning. CG often create these situation where force preservation becomes a factor.

Battling it out with perfectly even forces seems too much like sports to me, not to mention that historical battles were almost never balanced that way.