Publisher/Date:
Advancing Fire (2022)
Product Type:
Scenario Pack
Country of Origin:
Italy
Contents:
16 scenarios on glossy color paper.
The Tournament Director’s Pack is a large scenario pack with 16 scenarios, the first scenario pack published by Italian third party publisher Advancing Fire. The name of the pack may be a bit confusing–it’s not a pack necessarily aimed at tournament directors, nor are all the scenarios in it tournament-friendly. Rather, it is a pack containing scenarios designed by Enrico Catanzaro, a veteran Italian ASL player and tournament director.
The scenarios come in the “mixed bag” format, i.e., featuring actions from many different campaigns and times, but they all do feature one common theme, which is that the victory conditions for every scenario involve players bidding for sides, using a system developed years ago by the designer and promoted by him as well. One can consider this pack to be another form of such promotion.
This bidding system has been dubbed the Catanzaro Balance System (CBS). It’s been around, at least in concept, for a long time, though it has not been widely used. Catanzaro promoted his system in a comment on this very website back in 2010, writing that:
Catanzaro also promoted the idea in Le Franc Tireur No. 13 in 2013.
Bidding is an old, old concept in ASL, as well as a controversial one, having spawned many arguments over the years as proponents and detractors have clashed. Bidding systems are primarily used to decide which player plays which side in a scenario, assuming they don’t each prefer to take different sides. The most simple bidding system, which has no name, uses the “balance” provisions provided for each scenario. With this system, both players bid either 0A or 0A or 0D or 1D. A bid of 0A or 0D means that a player prefers the attacker (or defender) but does not wish to grant the balance to his or her opponent. A bid of 1A or 1D means that a player prefers the attacker (or defender) and is willing to concede the balance to his or her opponent. The bids are revealed; if each player picked different sides, they simply play the different sides. If one player picked 0A while the other player picked 1A, the 1A player gets to play the attacking side but concedes the balance to his or her opponent (and the same for 0D and 1D). If both players pick the same exact bid/side, then they just roll for it.
Perhaps the most popular bidding system is the so-called Australian Balance System (ABS), which was used in early Australian ASL tournaments and spread to other tournaments, particularly in Europe. This is a much more complicated bidding system in which each player makes a bid from 0A/0D up to 3A/3D. A 0 bid is bidding for a specific side while granting no balance, a 1 bid is bidding for a side and granting a balance (usually the balance on the scenario card) to one’s opponent), and a 2 or 3 bid means bidding for a specific side while granting a super balance (2) or a super-duper balance (3) to one’s opponent. This system, though, requires more than just the scenario card–it requires someone to have created in advance all of the balances for each side. Various ASLers have devised and shared ABS balance levels for a number of ASL scenarios, although only for a small minority of the total number of ASL scenarios out there (for examples of ABS balances for early ASL scenarios, see here). The people who like the ABS system tend to be people who play in a lot of tightly regulated ASL tournaments (as opposed to less strictly-regulated tournaments like the GROFAZ at ASLOK or the ASL tournament at Winter Offensive). The ABS system has even made it into “official” ASL as an optional rule for the scenarios in several Action Packs (like Action Pack #8) designed by Gary Fortenberry, who is an advocate of the system.
Where the CBS is different is that it integrates the bidding with the victory conditions. Rather than having 7 different situations as defined by the ABS, scenarios are designed with victory conditions that themselves can be bid, such as a number of locations to be controlled. For example, the VC from the first scenario in the Tournament Director’s Pack, ecz1 (The Bet), read: “The Germans win at the end of any Game Turn in which they Control a number of board 17 building/rubble hexes ≥ the number bid.” Ties in bids are determined by a die roll. The advantage, compared to ABS, is that someone does not have to design seven different levels of handicap. Victory conditions and sides played are both determined by a bid rather than the scenario card.
The marketing copy for the Tournament Director’s Pack trumpets the CBS as creating a mechanism that “leads each player to play the side they prefer while the VC’s are invariably set at a level that the attacker believes is still acceptable…In the end, if the VC bid was too high or too low, unbalancing the scenario, then the losing player has only himself to blame for not bidding appropriately.” The pack claims that the system is “perfect for highly competitive play” but also “fully usable” for more casual play “by players of any level,” asserting that the system somehow “establishes a middle ground for any of the scenarios, resulting in a challenging game for all players.” The marketing copy also says, “thus anyone can still start to play any scenario immediately with no preliminary study. In any case, after a pair of games, most players will be able to find their ‘ideal’ bid level in tune with their skills and preferences.”
If one accepts the premises of the marketing copy, the system seems almost perfect. However, it’s wise to step back a little and examine the CBS somewhat more objectively. Although the CBS is not identical to the ABS, it does have the same weaknesses that the ABS possesses. The primary weakness of both bidding systems is that they reward 1) more experienced players in general and 2) players who have already played the scenario in question. Ideally, an ASL scenario establishes a relatively level playing ground on which two players can use their skills against each other to achieve the stated victory conditions. Bidding systems can do the same, assuming that players are of equal skill in scenario analysis and in experience with the particular scenario in question. However, if either or both of those are not true, then the player with the advantage(s) will accrue an additional edge in addition to his or her pure play skills. If you are a novice or journeyman player playing a particular scenario for the first time, how accurately do you think you will be able to gauge how many of 11 stone buildings you will be able to capture by the end of turn 6? You might not have a clue. In a traditional scenario, playtesting and development allows the designer and publisher to tell you how many you are expected to capture in order to win. The victory conditions specify that you must capture 7 to win. That is not true, however, with the CBS system. It is totally up to you to figure out what is reasonable and what may not be. And you might end up being wildly off. By that one action of bidding, made before the game even starts, you may have predetermined the outcome of the scenario, no matter what decisions you make and actions you perform during the scenario. That one errant estimate may guarantee you lose. Now, imagine that your opponent is a much more veteran ASLer than you are, or imagine that he or she has played this scenario a couple of times already. They are far more likely to come up with an accurate estimate than you are. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, and the worst aspect of all is that it is totally a “meta” aspect. It takes place prior to the game, outside of the game, yet it can dominate any game-based decisions–which one would think should take priority in determining victory.
This pack’s marketing material says that if you lose when using the CBS, you have only yourself to blame, because you did not bid “appropriately.” In reality, though, it is the fault of the bidding system, which did not establish a level playing ground prior to the start of play. Even the marketing material admits that it may take a “pair of games” for most players to find an “ideal” bidding strategy for themselves. But many ASL players never play a scenario more than once to begin with, much less have the luxury to play a scenario three or more times so that they can finally feel they can make a bid that won’t harm them.
Both the first, unnamed bidding system described above, as well as the ABS, are “add-ons” to a scenario, meaning that players can ignore them and simply play the scenario with the regular victory conditions. They don’t necessarily have to bid. However, the scenarios in this pack don’t offer players that option. Because bidding is made part of the victory conditions, players are forced to bid in every one of these scenarios. There is no other alternative. The pack includes no optional, “Hey, if you don’t like bidding, then use the following list of victory conditions for the scenarios included here.” It’s a “my way or the highway” situation. Whereas MMP offered the ABS as an optional system for several of its Action Packs, Advancing Fire mandates bidding in this pack. It certainly would have been better to offer both bidding and non-bidding VC for the scenarios in this pack, for those players who already know they do not like bidding systems and for those players who try the CBS and feel “burned” by it.
Having said all that, let’s move on and look at the scenarios aside from their VC. The scenarios, it should be noted, are not printed on cardstock, as is fairly standard, but rather on glossy color paper. They are thus considerably flimsier than cardstock scenarios and must be carefully handled and protected. This has been a hallmark of all Advancing Fire products to date, unfortunately. It would be nice if they moved to cardstock. The scenario sheets are attractive, however, with nice full-color map and counter artwork.
The 16 scenarios depict a wide range of actions, including Spain 1937 (Republicans vs. Nationalists), Mongolia 1939 (Mongolians vs. Japanese), China 1937 (Nationalist Chinese vs. Japanese) and 1939 (Nationalist Chinese vs. Japanese), Norway 1940 (Norwegians vs. Germans), France 1940 (British vs. Germans), Ethiopia 1941 (British/Ethiopians vs. Italians), Soviet Union 1941 (Soviets vs. Romanians) and 1942 (Soviets vs. Germans), Malta 1942 (British vs. Germans/Italians; hypothetical), Sicily 1943 (Americans vs. Germans, Americans vs. Italians), France 1944 (Americans vs. Germans), Italy 1944 (Italian partisans vs. Germans/Italian Fascists), Poland 1944 (Polish partisans vs. Germans), and Germany 1944 (Americans vs. Germans).
To play all the scenarios in the pack one needs geoboards 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 33, 36, 38, 43, 45, 49, 51, 56, 57, 62, 70, 75, and 5b, plus ASLSK board z, as well as the Red Barricades and Red October maps.
The scenarios in the Tournament Director’s Pack tend towards the large: 9 of the 16 scenarios are large in size, while 3 are medium-sized and 4 are small. No scenarios use Night or Air Support rules; three scenarios use OBA.
With so many scenarios, it’s not surprising that some of them represent interesting situations. These include ecz1 (The Bet), a Norway 1940 scenario that pits a well-armed German force against a smaller number of Norwegian defenders who happen to include a 10-2 leader and an HMG, as well as ecz3 (Turf Wars in Mongolia), which features Mongolian and Japanese cavalrymen hurling themselves at each other across the Mongolian steppe. The scenario ecz4 (Flash and Thunder) is a tiny scattered-paratroopers-in-Normandy action that has an interesting SSR. The scenario uses three boards (17, 62, 70), but only board 70 is set, as the center board. After the Americans set up on board 70, the German player may choose the position and orientation of the two boards that adjoin board 70. Scenario ecz6 (Diurnal Assault) is a Stalingrad scenario that uses the historical maps from Red October (specifically, it requires both the Red Barricades and Red October map, as it is set where they join). The scenario also has an alternating counter set-up procedure.
Scenario ecz9 (Culqualber) is set during the British liberation of Ethiopia from the Italians. It uses board 9 (the big hill board) and board 7 (the big river board), but board 7 is a dry valley in this action. The British have a force of 2nd-line infantry, buttressed by some light tanks and armored cars, as well as a mounted “Uolloa Warband,” represented by 4-3-6 green British infantry. Scenario ecz10 (The Capture of Malta) is a very rare alt-history scenario depicting a notional action from a hypothetical Italo-German invasion of Malta. Scenario ecz11 (Blood and Brine) is the only scenario from this pack (at the time of this writing) to have received a substantial number of playings; it seems pretty balanced. A France 1940 scenario, it features a substantial German force, including 4 tanks, attacking in an urban setting a group of British defenders that include three tanks of their own.
One scenario, ecz5 (The Good and the Bad), which depicts a joint German and Italian RSI assault on an Italian partisan stronghold, also contains rules for a three-player version of the scenario. In this variation, different players take the Partisan, Italian and German sides. The Italian fascists and Germans are Allied but may not win jointly; only one or the other of them will win. This version also includes a special “Secret Order” rule to determine which of the German or Italian Fascist sides win in the event that the Italian partisans do not achieve their victory conditions. The German player (only) secretly picks one of three “Secret Orders” (i.e., victory conditions) before the start of Axis Player Turn 4; these conditions will determine whether the Germans or Italian Fascists prevail.
The Tournament Director’s Pack has a lot of imagination, but needs to have an optional set of VC for each scenario that would allow players to play without having to bid. Perhaps such VC can be created and uploaded to the Advancing Fire website.
Leave A Reply