DYO SYSTEM

[larry marak]

There have been several partial design you own scenario systems for PG over the years. Original PG came with a point system for purchasing unit counters and morale levels, but not improvements (entrenchments, dug-in status before scenario beginning, minefields). Cassino introduced the next unit purchase system, based on buying formations and delay of introduction into the battle field; this has seen further development in PG campaigns. Then, in a step up from the latter, an improved version of this system was issued for Campaigns and Commanders 1 & 2, which included the first sets of "generic" scenarios for PG.

At this point it should be possible to create a generic order of battle generator incorporating the entire corpus of PG units. Dr. B.'s orientation to the game has always been to follow historical encounters as closely as the system allows. Would you be interested in playing dyo scenarios from a data book, or even generic system games? I suspect at this point a construction system would have to be based on charts done here or on Grognards, or on BGG, though Stafford did evince some possibility that Avalanche might publish such a system if it was practical and straightforward.

With such a dyo system, you could take a published scenario, say EF #1, translate the order of battle, ob artillery, and any defensive terrain modifications (none present in that scenario) into points, and then purchase your own ob based on units and support available in that year.

[Hugmenot]

With over 1,700 scenarios owned but still unplayed, I have absolutely no interest in a generic DYO scenario system.

I've played one campaign - the one in the Panzer Lehr supplement - and did not find any of the battles particularly interesting (none would have deserved more than a "3"). The overall strategy of the campaign was interesting and worth trying out once, but the battles themselves were below average.

Having said that, if anyone is interested in developing such a system, please don't let my negativity stops you.

[joe_oppenheimer]

With over 1,700 scenarios owned but still unplayed, I have absolutely no interest in a generic DYO scenario system.

That's my attitude as well. So many scenarios to play that I don't see putting the time into creating my own.

[plloyd1010]

As a counterpoint to Dan & Joe, I do like the DYO concept. I've dabbled a little with it in PG, but nothing firm. The volume of scenarios is daunting, but only if the object is to play scenarios, as opposed to using them for ideas and such. Wargames for me are often about the experiment. DYO makes it easier to tune the experience.

[rerathbun]

Since I already own more scenarios than I will ever get to play, I don't feel the need for DYO scenarios. On the other hand, I think they'd be valuable for use in a PG tournament.

[Matt W]

DYO scenarios would permit the user to develop more closely balanced scenarios than history provides. Of course, by decoupling them from history you will lose the context of the battle and have to make up your own.

Where DYO will really have value is to develop scenarios for those forces for whom we have plumbed the depths for historical scenarios. These forces include: Hyderabad, Peru, Slovakia, Japanese paratroopers, Ecuador, Guam, Austria (all 3 factions and the Heimwehr), Lithuania and Mars. The pieces are almost too nice to have them packed away once the campaign ribbon is gained so some way to play with the forces after history is over could have some value.

The greater problem is the likely obsolescence of the system as soon as a new country or force type is added to the PG universe. Just look at the number of "requests" that we see for more historical forces and conflicts (my favorite whine is for the Spanish Civil War but I join my voice to those clamoring for China, Sicily, the Balkans, etc.). As odd as it sounds, it may still be too early for such a system. Robin's comment about tournament play is right on target, however.

[Blackcloud6]

ASL has an extensive DYO process. It had it from the beginning. As far as I know, no one uses it to generate games to play. Some do you use the extensive info to design historical scenarios though.

[plloyd1010]

As far as I know, no one uses it to generate games to play.

I recall a weird Italy vs. Japan session a while back. Something about Britain vs. the Russians too. Both at a game club in Boulder.

[t1M0t8yk]

ASL has an extensive DYO process. It had it from the beginning. As far as I know, no one uses it to generate games to play.

The finest tactical game DYO system I have seen is Combat Commander's. We use it all the time. I certainly agree though that APL deals with the problem simply with the sheer volume of published scenarios. It's a major reason, I think, there's little clamoring for DYO PG.

[guyriessen]

ASL has an extensive DYO process. It had it from the beginning. As far as I know, no one uses it to generate games to play.

The finest tactical game DYO system I have seen is Combat Commander's. We use it all the time. I certainly agree though that APL deals with the problem simply with the sheer volume of published scenarios. It's a major reason, I think, there's little clamoring for DYO PG.

Plus I think a squad-based system is slightly more conducive to point-based scenario generator--primarily in terms of suspension of disbelief.