"Do you ever replay a scenario changing sides?" Topic

In my mini's gaming group, most seem to refuse to re-play a scenario, changing sides, or even changing commands within a side. I have advocated switching sides, as players of both sides complained a scenario was impossible to win (there is always a winner, but whomever loses, always seems to complain their side was incapable of winning, no matter what). They blame the scenario, they received too few troops, not the needed troop types, etc. In a recent game, both sides' players complained they could never win! Most of the players abandoned the game, unfinished. A few pushed on, with a clear winner, but it was a very close, and difficult game.

So, does your group ever replay a scenario, with players switching sides, to learn from their previous experience in the scenario? To me, this is a great way to try new ideas, new approaches, and, dare I say it, new tactics…

I know that the American war schools, in the 1930's, played USN versus Japan's Imperial Navy, around 350 games, resetting, starting over, and changing commanders (reference: Peter Perla's The Art of Wargaming A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists). In the end, the average outcome of those 350 games, closely matched the real-world outcome, in the 1940's. I know the value of replaying scenarios, and switching sides, from the real-world history of the USA military schools, in the 1930's. It seems glaringly obvious of the value in replaying scenarios. I do not wish to do it often, but when players complain they could never win due to the scenario, troops, etc…

I have a feeling that very few groups ever switch sides and replay a scenario. Most players seem to think that there are too many scenarios to play, to ever "waste" time replaying any scenario… Your thoughts, and comments? Cheers!

I haven't, but suspect it could be interesting.

Also, it would be interesting to play the same scenario(s) using different sets of rules, too.

yes

Yes not often but if the game was close and exciting we switch to see what would happen
Also when one whines the scenario is unwinable we change and show them how to do it using sound tactics and in a friendly way of course

In the past, I suggested a scenario we had been given to play was rather unfair.
When the scenario writer claimed it was a fair scenario, I suggested we change sides and see if he could win!

Needless to say, the scenario got changed pretty pronto…!

As to the replaying of scenarios, I always feel its hard to do due to the players pre-knowledge of how the game plays.

yes

We did a sort of Rorke's Drift scenario, using the colonial rules from Matakishi's Teahouse that played fast. We'd play once, then switch sides to play again. Fred, who brought the game, was trying to make sure it would be a balanced game for the local convention.

Grelber

Yes, especially with relatively fast play rules like dba or armati. I agree it was an interesting way to go,

Yes, as a matter a standard practice when playing C&C Napoleonics.

All the time.

We do it all the time. So much time and effort goes into setting up a game it seems a shame to only play it once.

Yes, quite a bit.

Do it all the time with boardgames. The only miniatures scenario I can remember playing more than once I was Umpire once and a player the second time so not exactly playing both sides.

I can't imagine not doing it.

My quintessential example is the Battle of Puebla, where I will play either side, and any command on the field. The other players in our group do the same.

In general, when we repeat any scenario, people enjoy taking a different command or a different side.

Some scenarios are set up to pseudo-randomly vary the players' objectives, so you automatically get "different" commands. (For example, the Nazis know that the underground are trying to sabotage the HQ (how do you say "duh" in German?), but don't know the relative importance of different potential targets.)

Also, swapping sides on a scenario is well known mechanism to have "fair" tournaments. Even if it's not a tourney, swapping sides would seem to even out the "unfairness" discussed above.

And for scenario design, it is important to have several players play different parts of the scenario. It normalizes the feedback in the same way it "evens out" the odds.

For boardgames or cardgames, it is almost mandatory to not play the role you did last time. SWMBO and DOM are currently deliberately walking through all the possible hero and special ability combinations for a Harry Potter game across all seven scenarios.

Yes to play test the scenario before a con.

I've made the offer many, many times but I can only recall once that they took me up on it. I try to avoid one on one games in part for this reason.

Last weekend just did that…. changed sides. Was playing the FOW V3 Raid scenario on the airfield. SAS and LRDG vs. Germans with their armored cars and panzer-grenadiers. First game the SAS/LRDG just crawled off the battlefield with a minor victory. The second game, with same forces, at night this play, had the Germans overwhelm the British for a crushing British defeat.

Pretty commonly. My regular opponent and I play on a 3x3 table mounted on a card table with a felt in between. If it's a short game, we just spin the table around. If not, swapping sides for the next game is an alternative to writing a new scenario. Good for solo play too, if your AI system is up to it.

Every now and again we do this – usually for a play test

Yes

Played a Franco-Prussian 1870 game with a short scenario twice in one night with a mate. The scenario was based on an advanced attacking force capturing a border telegraph station.

To spice things up we had limited game turns and forced the French to use Prussian tactics of rapid advancement and bringing the gun line up. The Prussians adopted French tactic of dogged defence and hesitant counter attacks, so typical of that conflict.

Scenario 1 French attack – The Prussians held them off long enough to score a victory mainly down to the better artillery battering the advancing columns although the gunners were annihilated by the superior French rifle fire.

Scenario 2 Prussian attack – The Kaiser scores a marginal victory but with a bloody nose due to French dogged defence.

Great fun!

Donnybrook games are usually so quick that we play each game twice swapping sides and depending on tactics and dice rolls we usually get a completely different outcome each time.

Sometimes

We play Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames each week. We always change sides after the first game. This makes for some very interesting games, as different tactics and set ups lead to very different games with the same scenario.

yes

Wow! For this limited sampling, it seems as though my group is one of the few who are loathe to replay a scenario, changing sides…

Thanks for the responses, thus far, with your stories. Much appreciated! Cheers!

While not scenarios specifically, we have changed sides in DBA games & replayed them with same terrain.

Many times

Yes, many times. I find it very amusing to do so.

No. I am in the minority here. I am a solo player at this point in my life. I am always the Austrians for Naps, Union for ACW, French for ironclad naval, and Japanese for WW2 naval. The last two because I like the way their ships look.

I like to play the underdogs and look for alternative outcomes.

Yes to playing a scenario swapping sides. Engenders a learning experience when the other guy plays differently.

Swapping rules, only done it once. Mates rules massive long game with lots of mechanics. Our rules same result, less effort. Never tempted to do it again, I understand enough about rules now not to play ones I know are ill thought out or tedious for no gain.

Yes. I also sometimes use the same scenario in a different historical setting (within reason). For example, I've used Hook's Farm from HG Wells's Little Wars for Napoleonics and ECW.