I think I may have asked this before, but just how do you come up with a new scenario? Something fresh that has not been done before?
I just bought a few books on the German police forces in WW2 as well thinking (erroneously) that this would be a great source of untapped ideas only to see the post here on Gamesquad about Police scenarios the other day. Sheesh, lots of interest/activity there so maybe not the best place to look after all? I don't know.
I've been spending hours trawling through some book (on the Border Regiment at Arnhem and elsewhere) looking for a scenario idea to, hopefully, submit another idea to this SECRET scenario project that I have been very kindly invited into. I spent days working through my books and thought I had a perfect scenario. I TOTALLY forgot to check the ASL scenario Archive to see if it had been done already though until my good friend John reminded me. And, yes, guess what? Not only had this particular scenario been done (at least three times I guess, once by TIme On Target back in the nineties, once by Grumble Jones, twice if you count his DELUXE scenario) but it looked like folks had read all the same books as me on the Border Regiment and covered most, if not all, the available scenarios.
I have done a fair bit of work on my scenario idea so I wonder if it would be acceptable to just go ahead with it anyway and try and bring out a NEW VERSION of an old scenario? I'm digging and digging trying to find a NEW scenario wtih the Border Regt that hasn't been covered but it's not turning up much, I am trawling the internet though (debating whether or not to spend £25 in order to get a year's membership/access to the WARTIME MEMORIES PROJECT and their info on Arnhem)
So, yeah, after all those years it seems like most of, if not all (certainly the most obvious/popular battles/units) actions have been covered already, it's really tough trying to find something new
I see the INTERESTING VENUES NOT YET DONE thread further done here and that is very interesting, could be that is the way to go
I just don't know?
Good question!
My Assessment:
So far, responders have stated that they read until they more or less stumble across a historical account of a battle that seems attractive and suited to be covered in ASL. And they state that is is a very time consuming business. This mirrors what a scenario designer of a number of well-liked and well-rated scenarios tells me, with whom I do playtests now and then.
This challenge gets even more pronounced if one is reading in the hope of finding a historical action which has not yet been covered in ASL.
The Main Problem:
In most cases ASL scenario design raises the claim to reflect some historical action, which has really happened. This is documented and proven by the description of the historical situation and the "Aftermath" on the scenario card.
Some TPP producers went as far as requiring documentation of the historical description on which the scenario design was based as a prerequisite of being published under their name (
Friendly Fire did this as far as I know).
While I do not want to fundamentally contest this claim, pretense, aspiration, whatever you may call it, at times it can make scenario designers or the associated publishers stand in their own light.
Even if you find a most suitable historical action to be reflected in an ASL scenario and you took great pains to make sure that the Germans have actually used Pz IVH and not PzIVJ or that they did not use a particular AFV in this action, albeit the unit in question historically had them available and did use them a few kilometers further to the east, does this make the ASL experience any more "historical" while not even thinking of the "historical" impacts of using geo boards?
I think, it all boils down to the question on how you intend to balance "historical accuracy" against design for effect. And in this regard, I believe that design for effect should take precedence.
Even if you did, after long lengths of reading finally stumble about just those lines that you could never hope to find, i.e. found that historical account for the battle "which is missing" in ASL, one should think about this:
Can this - likely single - source really account for "historical accuracy"?
Many times, I have come across scenarios in which the particpating forces are described in a manner resembling the follwing:
Elements of 2. Kompanie, III. Bataillon, 3. Regiment, 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Das Reich" and of 1. Batterie, II. Abteilung, 2. Artillerie-Regiment, 71. Infantrie-Division, XXX. Armee-Korps
Elements of 5th Guards-Tank Army.
First, you will likely agree with me that the historical source for such a scenario design has not been a Russian one. Secondly, you might also agree with me, that whoever authored the historical German source would not have had access to the detailed dispositions of the opponsing enemy units that were present.
I believe that the vast majority of ASL scenarios cannot claim to be based on historical accounts of both sides for a typical given micro-action.
That said, we must conclude that the "historical accuracy" with regard to the military vehicles which were involved on both sides is moot anyway in most cases.
My Conclusion:
If, however, real "historical accuracy" remains elusive in most cases anyway, this is a good argument against putting too much importance on finding a concrete historical account for a micro-action to be reflected in an ASL scenario. Sure it is nice if it happens, but it should not be considered a requirement.
Rather, it should be sufficient to have the ASL action stay within reasonable probabilities of what has happened - or what
could have happened.
And this leads to my point:
If design for effect is given precedence, while historical accuracy, which is elusive in the first place, is relieved of some of its perceived strictures for scenario creation, then this allows a new approach:
To create something "new", something what "has been missing", the focus can be shifted to the system of ASL rather than historic events: What parts of the ASL system have not seen much use yet? Or what combinations of parts of the ASL system appear promising but have not yet been covered in this way before?
If you follow this line of thinking, it appears much easier to me to come closer to the objective of creating something "new" or something which has been "hardly covered".
An Example:
I will try to prove my point by an example:
Prepared Fire Zones (PFZs).
They are quite new to the body of ASL rules, and for this reason alone they have not seen much use in scenario design. At the same time, I believe they have great potential.
I concede that PFZs can be hard to manage in practice, for examples if the battleground involves hills and several levels. In such cases, awful lots of "secret LOS checks" and/or calculations might be required to determine when a particular unit might gain LOS to reveal them. On the other hand, such challenges are not entirely new with some other fortifications.
On the other hand, PFZs provide an awesome tool to alter terrain and add a meaningful element of Fog of War to ASL, which is of benefit in itself. Basically, it can modify how almost any geo board might play in a given scenario without resorting to (known) overlays.
Imagine a PTO battleground without many hills in Jungle/Light Jungle. The Japanese are out there - somewhere. The Americans are after them to root them out. This type of scenario, of course, is not new. Part of the attraction of PTO play results from the sneakiness and tricks the Japanese are capable of in ASL. PFZs can add a lot of flavor to this:
The G.I.s carefully move forward through the jungle with that dark sense of foreboding. We all know this feeling in ASL in PTO play. All of a sudden, they discover that a hex ADJACENT to the Light Jungle they have just entered is a PFZ...
Not even a single shot needs to be fired to make the advancing Americans cringe: If there's a PFZ here, then all of a sudden I might be seen/fired on from places from which I did not expect to be seen/fired on. This
might tear my planned route of advance to shreds in a wink. But the Japanese could use a PFZ also as a ruse: If the Americans come upon a PFZ, they'll without doubt figure that the Japanese have not placed it there for nothing. Altogether, especially in combination with other types of fortifications, PFZs add just a great new tool with the potential to add a lot of flavor to scenario designs.
By the "historical approach" you would now delve deep to find battle accounts of PFZs being discovered in situations suitable for ASL scenarios. For sure, these will be out there - somewhere. I even remember accounts of Germans fighting at the Wolchow front around the "Erika-Schneise" (Schneise = forest aisle / glade), i.e. a historical account where PFZs played a role. But even so, in which of the books I read was this mentioned where? Even with a good clue, I would be challenged to pinpoint the historical reference.
By the "design for effect" approach, I might just know that establishing PFZs were common practice in defensive perimeters. I might deem it sufficient just to
assume that these were established with enough reasonable probability to feature them - even if they are
not mentioned in the historical account of a battle that I am portraying in a scenario design.
The approach I have outlined with regard to PFZs could be used in the same way with regard to certain vehicles or Guns, i.e. units. And maybe some tactical game mechanisms that could make a particular scenario more interesting despite these tactical maneurvers not being mentioned in the historical account.
This is the way, I would tackle the issue as a scenario designer if I attempted to come up with a scenario that has not been done before.
von Marwitz
-- jim
