Journal 4

[syfaulk]

Just this last weekend I finally got Journal 4. I've got to be honest and say I wasn't as impressed as expected I would be. First off, the historical articles and the carrier article, while nicely written, were not exactly my cup o' tea.
As for straight articles I'd have to say the Scen. Analysis of Smashing the 3rd was my favorite. I've played the scenario twice, going .500 with the Russians. Kudos to Shostak for turning it out. Makes me want to play that swirling armor melee one more time.

Okay, the meat and potatoes...the scenarios. Have you guys played any possible classics from this yet? The only one that really caught my eye was "Priests on the Line" and then I hear through the ASLML that it's unbalanced. Most, if not all the other scens in the mag won't make my "gotta play" list. Anybody want to recommend a scenario from this that I just can't miss?

Later,
Scott

[Gunner Scott]

Hi ya-
I dunno what MMP was thinking with J4, but 80% of those scenarios are not very balanced. Then to my amazement, OVHS is the complete opposite, fun well balanced scenarios, go figure.


Scott

[WesN]

I haven't played all of the scenarios in it, but none of them really jumped out at me and said please play me. I still want to play Priests on the Line, but that is about it right now. OVHS looks a lot better to me. Just starting a VASL game of a Few Rounds from OVHS I will see how that goes.

Wes

[mlicari]

I have played J67 The Lawless Roads. This and Priests on the Line are the only two I really saw right away that made it onto my "wanna play" list. We were disappointed with J67. My Brits won handily (with about two turns to spare) with a conservative, straightforward attack that started off very poorly (keeping track of my DRs, I did not roll anything less than a 9 for the first three player turns). In the hands of an aggressive player, I think the Brits would win even more quickly, I think.

Mike

[J. R. Tracy]

J4 is a disappointment for me as well - I love the look of the scenarios (other than finding them too small) but the balance issues are a drag. Priests on the Line and Tired and Unsupported are neat situations undone by balance. Both were playing, by all means, but don't bet any money on the outcome.

On the upside, I like the articles. There seems to be a split on this point but really it's a matter of taste, whereas the scenario issues are pretty clear-cut.

JR

[KevinG]

I've played about 5 of them now and none were very close or will tempt me to play them again. Maybe priests on th eline, but just becuase of the interesting units and the challenge of playing the US. Seemed to me that the the sceanrio designers who have been responsible for many of the classics over the last few years are doing other things. When you take a look at the scenarios in J2 they just dont square.

[J. R. Tracy]

Designers come and go - the designers of the classics of ten years ago, five years ago, two years ago, etc. The problem here was playtesting, I think, rather than design.

The AoO stuff looks pretty good - big burly scenarios, interesting situations, new troops, cool boards. Let's hope the scens in J4 were an aberration, not the new norm.

JR

[KevinG]

true enough.

I would probably argue that even if better balanced many of them would likely not become fan favorites, but I agree it is dissapointing. I dont have my copy of OVHS yet but have heard good things about those sceanrios so hopefully just a once off.

We included at least one J4 sceanrio in each round of WW to give the sceanrio list a fresh look. Unfortunately I doubt many of these will see much play.

[Pitman]

Journal 4 was indeed disappointing, though I was more disappointed by the articles than the scenarios. Re the scenarios, most of the carrier ones are uninteresting to me. Priests on the Line is unbalanced, and I think Unlucky Thirteenth may be unbalanced. My Lonely Valentine is fun but I don't know how replayable. So far the best are two French-Japanese scenarios--Ultimate Treachery and The Army at the Edge of the World.

[Oliver]

"Journal 4 was indeed disappointing, though I was more disappointed by the articles than the scenarios."

What kinds of articles does everyone like? Perhaps you can list your favorites as examples. Aside from the scenarios, how else could've J4 been improved?

I'm interested in this b/c I'm starting to contribute to ASL publications, and I want to write things players will find useful, if not even like.

~Oliver

[syfaulk]

Seems like we are, for the most part, all in agreement when it comes to the scenarios in this thing. Makes me kind of wish I'd saved my spousal spending points (ssp) and picked up Onslaught to Orsha instead. But, that's beside the point.
One thing that did come across was Robert Wolkey's scenario Hall of Fame article. The four scenarios that were "inducted" were Cold Crocs, Hill 621, White Tigers and getting the majority of the vote, Acts of Defiance. All, with the exception of White Tigers are combined arms, cool toys, massive destruction, late war slugfests. While White Tigers stars the two ASL troop types that are most likely to grow hair on your chest (Japanese & Gurkhas).
My point being, that it's quite obvious that the majority of ASL'rs like slugfest, big tank, late war, combined arms scenarios. So why does MMP feature the Norway series last issue and now something weenie like carriers in this issue? For instance, J3's most oft played scenario (according to ROAR stats) is Silesian Interlude. Yet another big tank Ostfront brawl.
Don't get me wrong, I like weiner tanks just as much as the next guy (unless your name is Paul Kenny :wink: ), but when I think classic scenarios, I'm not paging through Doomed Battalions. Just kind of wondering if scenario design is now taking a different direction into esoteric situations using "hard to find in your plano" counters. Where the heck did the Panthers go?

JMHO/FWIW/YMMV,
Scott

[syfaulk]

What kinds of articles does everyone like?

Scenario/CG analysis has to be my favorite, but I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. After that I'd probably like to see more tutorial or "betcha didn't think of that" type game improvement articles.

-Scott

[Chris Milne]

What kind of articles does everyone like?

Well, I want to see two things in a publication like the Journal, article-wise. Variety is one. I may prefer specific kinds of articles, but I'd hate to see just one type, even if it was one I liked.

I have to admit that I enjoy the articles we've had recently, particularly the historical summaries that tie into some of the scenarios (the French in Norway from J3, the French in Indochine from J4 - is there a French monopoly on these things? :) ). I like scenario analyses (again, Matt Shostak is establishing a monopoly here. I'm not complaining, but it would be nice to see some from other authors). And I find articles explaining complex rules areas to be extremely helpful (though I don't regard light mortars as being as complex as, say, Bocage).

In those terms, the last two Journals have fared pretty well.

Now for my two penn'orth on the scenario mix. Those late war slugfests, especially on the Eastern Front, do seem to be damn popular. I like them, and I consider myself to be fond of those early war tin cans. To draw an analogy (risky, I know :) ), I regard them as the ASL equivalent of a good restaurant meal. We like them, we'd like to have more of them, but we can't afford them (read: we don't have enough time). And we might get bored if we were fed an exclusive diet of them...

I want my Journal scenarios to be ones I can play. Example: which got the more play from J3, 3rd RTR in the Rain, or In The Bag? In The Bag might be a great scenario (not played it myself), it might not, but how many people have looked at it and thought to themselves "I'd like to play that, but I don't have the time. Let's go for 3rd RTR or Silesian Interlude instead."? And I think there's the holy grail. Combine slugfest armour action with reasonable time requirements, and you're part way to creating a popular scenario. What was the winner of the poll? Acts of Defiance.

So, again, give me variety. Give me a mix of slugfests like Slaughterhouse and tourney-sized scenarios like My Bloody Valentine (a better name, IMO :) ). Give me scenarios with toys (Inhumaine), give me unusual situations (Men of the Mountains), and give me desert, bocage and jungle to leaven the mix. 'Kay?

[mglouie]

I really liked the point/counterpoint articles that Rob Banozic and Mark Nixon used to write. They were very injoyable. One of my favorite passtimes at ASL Tournaments was sitting around between rounds discussing scenario balance with others. Learned a lot, and I hope they did to.

I'm going to concentrate on what I did like about Journal #4. I enjoyed Ian Daglish's carrier article. It supported the whole package and unified the Journal's theme and was well written.

The best part of the Journal is the scenarios. While I am a late-war heavy metal biased player, I can appreciate all things ASL. I have not played any of the scenarios yet so I will reserve my balance comments for later. Surprisingly though, six of the scenarios are on my "to play" list: J67 The Lawless Roads, J68 Unlucky Thirteenth (even if it does look similar to my own design Green Jackets Bridge), J72 Cahier Carriers, J74 Priests on Line, J75 My Lonely Valentine, and J77 Moses' Blazes.

I recommend this product. I cannot see buying Operation Orsha over this, all players should have them both. When I get finished with playtesting Schwerpunkt Volume #9, I'll post some AARs on the scenairos in my play list.

[Anonymous]

Greetings lads!

I've just registered with this Forum thing and am dropping in to have a look.

Played 4 J4 scenarios at the recent RV.

[rryeates]

As far as what I like in a scenario the time of the war is not as important as a combined arms force. Give me a few vehicles, a couple guns, and some infantry with a splash of OBA/Air support and I'm ready to rock. Mid size. Esoteric stuff is of less interest to me. Give me something with some meat that feels like squad leader.

[Pitman]

What I want from the Journal are articles about the game and its play. I do NOT NOT NOT NOT want "historical" articles, or what passes for them. I do not want fake rules about lightning.

I like replays, articles about game tactics and strategy, scenario analysis, campaign games, reviews, articles about scenario design, etc., etc.

[pryoung]

Each to their own. While I don't disagree with your other preferences, I for one do like the historical articles. I don't expect profoundly academic work in a game magazine, but to me they do provide a nice background to the scenarios. It was history that got me interested in ASL (and other games), not the other way around, and the historical context greatly increases my enjoyment of the game.

Oh yeah, I dig the fake rules too. :)

Pete

[Anonymous]

Wow. Lots of stuff to talk about. Who runs this list, Evan? My thanks for
setting it up.

I'm glad someone liked my article in J4. I also appreciate the comment
about wanting some other voices for scenario analyses besides mine. I'd
like that too. The main reason I write those kinds of articles is because
they're the kind I'd like to read. Does anyone else submit such things to
MMP?

As to what I like in the Journal, I like a mix. Although I can understand
going for a theme Journal, I think the most successful ones will be those
that feature a good variety, with a good solid group of meat-n-taters scenarios
as the main course, and a few others of different types thrown in for
variety. But who knows what MMP gets to choose from?

[WesN]

If you do not login guest we have no idea who you are really. I guess we can narrow it down to people who wrote articles in J4, but other than that we don't know your identity.

Wes

[Matt Shostak]

Sorry, that was me. I thought I had logged in.

Matt

[Roy Connelly]

The thing I have noticed about scenarios the last couple of years is that Pete Shelling has the right idea. Scenarios with choices rock. Even scenarios with variables rock. This was started long ago with scenarios like Timoshenkos Attack, Morgan's Stand etc..... Urban Guerillas is the biggest splash scenario in a very long time, one of our clubbies has played it at least a dozen times. The only variable in it is the Partisans, and they rarely make a huge difference....but they are a random occurence and can make the game different each time.

Now, the Kursk mini campaign (another Shelling offering) gave us real choices. Two years ago at the Austin tourney, these scenarios were the rage, and most conversation centered around the choice of tigers in Dress Rehearsal.

I think Youse is seeing the light regarding these scenarios, his designs in J4 offer one as a variable and the other as a conditional occurance.

These scenarios are the future of our game, players are getting better and some of the old board 1 scens just don't cut it anymore.

And I know Shelling was working on a Desert campaign similar to Kursk, with choices. Not a lot of us play desert, but I bet we'd give those a go. :mrgreen:

[Matt Shostak]

I agree with Roy that giving the players choices really makes a difference
in scenario enjoyment. However, those choices don't always have to be
in which units to use. They could be in the victory conditions. They could
simply be that the tactical situation gives someone several potential approaches
to the problem. If there's only one smart, obvious, way to do something in
a scenario then that's the way everyone will play it. It will get boring and
ultimately left behind.

I suspect that multiple choices make playtesting that much harder.
Then again, in the Kursk thing there are so many different choices that it
would be easy to bid in some way to balance a scenario, or make up for
difference in experience levels between the players. The Kursk thing was
a great idea, but some of the choices were no-brainers, and then those
really aren't choices (although they could be used as handicaps).

[J. R. Tracy]

Has anyone played any of the funky carrier scenarios? They all look interesting to me. Hard choices for the Brit on a couple - set up dismounted, or stay mobile?

JR

[Roy Connelly]

Played Moses Blazes. I had Brits, rode in mounted, stayed in motion, drove off for the win in 3 movement phases. Never stopped, never dismounted, never shot my weapons.

Truly hated it, so did my opponent. :?

[Harold]

Just taking the new forum for a test drive :D . So far I have played J67 and J68 and found both to be quite interesting. Personally these scenarios are the right size for me in counter density, rules and time. If I can't set up, play and take down a scenario in less than 6 hours I really don't want to touch it.
In both cases I had the Germans while my opponent had the Brits. In one he kept the crews in the carriers. In the other they dismounted once he was able to flank. Both were close and went down to the last player turn and although it would have taken a bit of fortune for me to win either one neither was too much of a stretch to not see it to through.

[Anonymous]

Played Moses Blazes. I had Brits, rode in mounted, stayed in motion, drove off for the win in 3 movement phases. Never stopped, never dismounted, never shot my weapons.

Truly hated it, so did my opponent. :?

Yeah, right - you were playing Bud, and as usual, you were both stoned. :wink:

What about that one we played? Came down to the last roll. I think the big problem here is that you're just a big crybaby.

[Mike768]

Played Moses Blazes. I had Brits, rode in mounted, stayed in motion, drove off for the win in 3 movement phases. Never stopped, never dismounted, never shot my weapons.

Truly hated it, so did my opponent. :?

Yeah, right - you were playing Bud, and as usual, you were both stoned. :wink:

What about that one we played? Came down to the last roll. I think the big problem here is that you're just a big crybaby.

Oops - forgot to login.

Roy and I played J67 The Lawless Roads, if I recall (no J4 handy). This is the one with a buncha hedge overlays - Brits gotta roust the Squareheads outta the bd 12 ville. My 9-2 broke on an NMC and then shot himself in the head trying to rally on about - oh, turn 2, and Roy managed to trash 3 of my AFV's in short order, forcing me to keep the rest of them back, due to an auto victory condition (kill 4 AFV's, win a prize). Superior British firepower saved the day (ahem) as I was able to clear out one side of the town, keep his ATG smoked in and rushed fwd on the last turn to lock 4 of his guys in melee for the win.

Decent scenario. My lads stayed in their carriers, which proved to be a mistake. I think if I had it to do again, I'd jump 'em out, as I could have used an extra 3 HS/LMG's.

Btw, Roy and Bud weren't stoned - I made that up. Parole violation, y'know.

Mike Rose
Southern Ks ASL

[Brian W]

Has anyone played any of the funky carrier scenarios? They all look interesting to me. Hard choices for the Brit on a couple - set up dismounted, or stay mobile?


I played Unlucky 13th with Carl Nogeria(sp?) via VASL. I won very handily, but I think that it is simply a brittle scenario, especially for the british. With only 3.5 squads on board for the first three game turns, almost any bad luck can put them well behind the curve.

However, the VC are tough on the german and those carriers can be hard to deal with. In fact, if there is a problem I would say that it lies with the sleazy possibilities for last minute wins by the carrier crews. I suspect that many british players give up before then, making the scenario seem more unbalanced than it is.

Actually, it kinda felt like an SP scenario, which is a high compliment ;).

[J. R. Tracy]

Played Moses Blazes. I had Brits, rode in mounted, stayed in motion, drove off for the win in 3 movement phases. Never stopped, never dismounted, never shot my weapons.


We tried this last night, and the drive-off strategy sure wasn't going to work - the Germs knocked out three Carriers, including both Wasps. The surviving Carrier Cs and a dismounted Rider HS were able to push the Germans over the CVP cap for the win, though. I think the Brit has an edge here but it doesn't look way out of line. I'd like to give it another shot.

JR

[Anonymous]

I think Army at the Edge of the World (J69) and Just an Illusion (J70) are must plays, may become PTO classics and are welcome tourney additions. The carrier article was very good and it took courage to take a theme such as carriers and develop it in articles and scenarios. I think The Lawless Roads (J67) and Moses' Blazes (J77) will prove to be unbalanced (Brits in both cases).
Nevertheless, it would have been easy to throw in a bunch of Panther/Tiger/T34(85)/JS2 one shot one kill scenarios, but Ill take new themes every time.

[Stevedeth]

Rich said, "and Just an Illusion (J70) are must plays, may become PTO classics and are welcome tourney additions."

I am playing J70 and it is interesting in the fact that with the short board width the fight is more of a Civil War line-abreast. We are just standing up and shooting it out. The thing I do see is that there should be some replay value but I suspect it will show some Pro-French numbers.
I really like it so far.

SD

[Anonymous]

Played Army at the Edge of the World at WO, and loved it even though I lost. Came down to the last turn. Highlight. French 8-0 stacked with squad breaks, so does squad, rolls HOB, Goes berserk, jumps out of foxhole, charges the IJA MG crew that broke them, eliminates said crew in CC, and then returns to foxhoel to recover its postion and stave off more IJA onslaughts.

[LtDan]

I'm planning to play Lawless Roads and Unlucky Thirteenth this weekend. Will post AARs on the board with impressions. They both look interesting and I am a big fan of anything with the British in it.

[Brian W]

I played Ultimate Treachery today and it was over in two turns. I can see how it is supposed to play out, but I do think it favors the French. My problem is that I got one WP smoke round from my mortars without getting any other smoke, and the French HMG had ROF like mad, liquidating anything that moved. I played what I thought was a very conservative game for the Japanese, but I could not budge anything. Finally, I tried for an ambush on a two squad stack (due to CC) the french had. Despite net -3 drm, I failed to ambush and lost two squads, leaving me with

Not my cup of tea. Low firepower troops in stone buildings that cannot afford to go into CC due to CVP cap is not my idea of fun.

[da priest]

Well I've played Ultimate Treachery twice and one was a French blow out, but the other came down to the last turn with the japan-dudes pulling it out.

In the blow out the J-guys came in on a narrow front(for the scenario), and walked into the HMG. The close J-guy win came in on a broad front, found the HMG and avoided it. Did get more smoke than Brian but not much, as the rain started on turn two.

J-guys may need some help, but the balance is too much, maybe one more CVP.