Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 08:29:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: DCs and Fortified Hexes I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. The argument was whether DCs can only be used to breach or whether they can be put in a fortified hex with GO units inside. G1.4241 states: If a DC Hero's Designated Target is in a Fortified Building Location he cannot enter (B23.922), while ADJACENT to that Location he may expend 2 MF during his MPh as if attempting to enter it (or one MF if entry would be via a stairwell). If he survives all DFF he may then immediately detonate his DC (1.424 applies) in an attempt to create a _Breach_ as per B23.9221. If a building's Fortified status is unknown to a T-H hero when he attempts to enter it, his building-entry expenditure still qualifies him to detonate his DC in the same manner. The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH Fortified Building Locations. Admittedly, it is still unclear from the rule whether DCs in general can be used to full effect in a non-breached fortified building location. I guess this calls for a House Rule as per Carl Fago's discussion of -dare I continue- Banzai charges! Cheers, Jeff Shields ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:48:25 -0400 From: BJessup@prior.com (Brad Jessup) Subject: Subsequent First Fire This is a test. Instead of making this just a test I thought I would ask a question ( or two ) as well. I am new to ASL and this mailing list ( which is why the test ) and have been plodding thru the rules. Is it just me or does the Scenario Defender (SD) ( note not DEFENDER ) has many more chances to kick butt than the Scenario Attacker (SA)? In the SA's turn, he is usually "on the move" so only gets half FP in the AFPh. The SD gets full FP First Fire, and halp FP Subsequent First Fire ( maybe multiple times, see question below ) and possibly full FP FPF and 3/2 FP TPBF multiple times, not to mention Residual FP as well. In the SD's turn, he is usually "dug-in" and not moving so gets full FP in the PFPh ( or Opportunity Fire ) but the SA only gets full FP Final Fire. Or am I missing something? I guess it does simulate reality. The defender does have the "dug-in" advantage. Anyway, the real question: Let's assume we have a German 467 in open terrain and an Am 747 in a wooden building( with no MG ). The 467 is 5 hexes away and all hexes between them are open terrain. It is the German's turn and let's say the 467 is berserk ( just so that it can get into the 747's hex in the MPh ). 467 moves to 4 hexes away: 747 First Fires w/ 7 FP -2 DRM ( FFMO/FFNAM ) Marked w/ First Fire Counter and leaves 3 Residual FP ( or is it 2, or does it matter? What about IIFT? ) 467 moves to 3 hexes away: 747 Subsequent First Fires w/ 3.5 FP -2?? DRM ( FFMO/FFNAM ) Marked w/ Final Fire Counter and leaves 1 Residual FP. 467 moves to 2 hexes away: Can 747 Subsequent First Fire again?? 467 moves to 1 hex away: 747 FPF w/ 7FP -2?? DRM ( FFMO/FFNAM ) Leaves Residual 3 ( or 2? ) FP. 467 moves to same hex as 747: 747 FPF w/ 10.5 FP +1?? DRM ( FFNAM/Wood Building ) Leaves Residual 5 ( or 4? ) FP. Can 747 FPF again since 2MF were expended? ( Aside: I don't remember off-hand if FFMO or FFNAM apply to Subsequent First Fire and FPF attacks. I also don't remember if you get FPF for each MP expended by the enemy unit within 1 hex of you ). Basically, my main question is: Can a unit Subsequent First Fire at a unit that has just moved at <= Normal range but > 1 hex away with inherent FP ( no MG possessed ) if it has a Final Fire counter on it? A8.3 is rather vague on this point. It talks about multiple attacks if multiple MF expended but doesn't make it clear as to whether this is JUST for Multiple ROF weapons. Well, that it. Thanks in advance, Brad. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Brad Jessup | | | Gallium Software Inc. | "Whose game was empires | | 303 Moodie Drive | and whose stakes were thrones, | | Suite 4000 | whose table earth - whose dice | | Nepean, ON, Canada | were human bones." | | bjessup@gallium.com | - Lord Byron on Napoleon | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 08:34:48 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: f "AH Announcements" c> Craig Taylor has also asked that I inform you that he, c> too, has resigned, giving his two-week notice this Friday Hmm, is this ship sinking? -Grant. ... Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth -- Picasso -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 08:55:00 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: LaddermeistersMatch (fwd) > > Soon Tom will be deluged with offers to play, knowing that he always uses > the Repetti Rules of Engagement! > Say it ain't so Tom! Don't leave yourself open like this! QUICK! SEND > ERRATTA! > Oh no, I don't ALWAYS use these rules. Just MOST of the time. At times, though, it's useful to switch to Plan B, aka... Repetti's Rules of General Nastiness #1. You are known by your enemies as well as your friends. Choose good ones. #2. Toward this end, maintain a short list of people whom you don't have to feel bad about woofing on. #3. When you woof, woof hard, and leave no room for snappy comebacks. #4. Show no weakness; return your opponent's slams with even harder slams of your own. Absolutely NO smileys to mitigate the effect. #5. Get to know your opponent's mental and psychological weaknesses, then exploit them to the hilt. "Lessee, that's an 8(+1) shot, DR = 1,1! Hey, did your wife leave you for that other man yet?" #6. Always remind your opponent that you {will be/are/just finished) crushing him into the ground. Before, during, and after the game. CC to the list for extra points. Course, one can't expect to behave this way with the same opponent on a regular basis, but with over 100 people on the Ladder and 350 people on the List, it'll take a while to be shunned by EVERYBODY :-) Tom "Get a life! Move out of your parents' basements!" - William Shatner, SNL skit ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 10:56:18 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: DonCon Results Russ Gifford posted the following on GEnie the other night, along with other some comments that maybe I should have copied and retransmitted as well. I thought Carl would have reposted this by now, but apparently his absence from the Top 32 was so depressing that he neglected this part of his duty as official GEnie/Mailing-List liason. Brian just misses another Top Ten finish, losing to # 5 and #29. Steve (Sandbagger) Petersen loses to Youse (#12) and # 7. I lose only to #6 and #7, yet finish behind those two. I suppose the fact that none of the people I beat ended up in the Top 32 had something to do with this, but is it my fault that I beat those people so badly that they never recovered? Omar Jeddaoui is from France and won the tournament Fish ran at Origins '91 (opposite the Market-Garden tournament that Chuck Goetz was running for Jon Mischon). Dave Deresinski has a real AREA #, but is either unable or unwilling to memorize it. Bob Bendis would seem to be the upset of the tournament, but maybe he is a well known player to everyone but me. This might have been Rob Wolkey's first big-time finish in a big-time tourney, but he has had name recognition for a good while now. Rich Summers won the windy city wargamers tourney earlier this year. He and Eric Givler have been playing with the big boys for a while now. Rob Barnette was runner-up at ASLOK '92. Yves Tielemans (no wonder Russ couldn't pronounce "Yves"--he couldn't spell it!) and his brother Bruno are from Belgium and will be familiar to readers of ASL News. ....Perry ***************************************************************** From Russ Gifford, on GEnie 8/15/94: The listing of the top 32 follows. 6-0 1. Fortenberry, Gary 23562-01ASL 6-1 2. Jeddaoui, Omar EUFRN-31 3. McGrath, Mike 22020-03ASL 4. Deresinski, Dave 374 5. Bendis, Bob 340 6. Wolkey, Rob 53713-03 7. Summers, Rich 99212-01 8. Tielemans, Yues EUBEL-14 5-2 9. Givler, Eric 17601-30 10. Barnette, Robert 26757-01 11. Conners, Bill 44515-01 12. Youse, Brian 21061-04 13. Peterson, Steven 21061-02(Under 1500 Plaque Winner) 14. Hildebran, Bret 44092-10 15. Cocke, Perry 21207-05 16. Robin, Andrew 13071-01 17. Slizewski, Tom 80005-1(Ed of Sol.of Fortune Mag?) 18. Frettlohr, Herman 92109-11 19. Lee, Gary 11780-10 20. Pleva, Steve 06906-10 21. Baker, Eric 48084-02 (Assitant GM) 22. Provost, Vic 01040-50(Under 1500 Runner-up) 23. Tokarz, Louie 60415-01 4-3 24. Drane, Scott 32561-0? 25. Widder, Dave 01453-50 26. Petry, Phil 57069-11 27. Banozic, Robert 60614-10 28. Tieleman, Bruno EUBEL-13 29. Cross, Pat 22310-07 30. Derocher, John 31. Coyle, Jeff 22033-01 32. Yeates, Randy 18241-01 Remember, the number is MY subjective effort to decide a position within a score group (6-1, 5-2, etc.) , using four criteria: 1) head to head competition, 2) W/L record against the same opponents, 3) cumulative score of people you beat, 4) cumulative score of people you lost to. (This is the same method I've applied every year.) For most purposes, it is actually splitting hairs: all 6-1 tied for second. All 5-2's tied for 9th. All 4-3's tied for 24th. ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:08:20 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) I grumbled some last Friday about "when is the Critical Hit supposed to arrive by mail". It showed up at my house on Monday, August 15. The post mark said August 12. If anyone out there still hasn't gotten one, be patient. I ordered mine about a month back when they first were mentioned here. Tom Huntington ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 12:08:30 EDT From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) Subject: sdkfz251/1 vs HMG251/1 A few days ago it was asked why the AAMG of the 251/1 mg version could be removed as a HMG. If it can, can the AAMG from a regular 251/1 be removed as a dmHMG or is it just because the other version has the extra equipment? I couldn't find anything about it in the chapter H stuff. Thanks! Jeff Kimmel ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu st91nc28@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 12:06:02 EDT From: BLACKMJ@uga.cc.uga.edu Subject: Re: f "AH Announcements" Do rats sink from jumping ships? ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 12:02:17 EDT From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) Subject: CH by mail Hello, I'm not sure when, but someone inquired if anyone had received their copy if CH from the mail order. Well, I got my copy on Tuesday, about 1-1/2 to 2 weeks after I ordered it. Quite impressive, good work to all involved. Jeff Kimme (thats twice today :( Kimmel ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu st91nc28@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:36:21 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: Valid statistical measure ? Did you know that the best ASL scenario is scenario G Hube's Pocket? After combining Darren Gours favourite poll with Will Scarvie's ASL record I found that 83.3% of the games played of Hube's pocket makes this scenario one of the favourite scenarios of one player. Fighting Withdrawal on the other hand is getting only 2.4% favourite polls. Here are the 'best' scenarios, found by dividing the number of favourite votes by the number of games reported: ID Scenario Name # of Votes % of games played === ============= ========== ================= G Hube's Pocket 5 83.3 Notice that ASL 4 The Commisars House, the 'winner' of the favourite poll, did not make it into this top 20 of 'best' scenarios. >>>>> Hmm, divide the number of "favorite votes" by "# of games reported," aware that many more people are on the # of games roster than on the poll. How does this translate into which scenarios are, "best?" This statistic sees to be a measure of those scenarios that arn't played that often as a whole, but which showed up on the favorite list somewhat. Note that the ones that were most favored and were played heavily were pushed right out by the large denominator. Being a Russophile myself, i'd hardly call the one sided scenario Hube's Pocket the "best" any more than a German fanatic would call To The Last Man the best. ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:57:00 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes From: IN%"jeff@back.vims.edu" "Jeff Shields" 17-AUG-1994 10:39:05.76 To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" "Squid Leader" CC: Subj: RE: DCs and Fortified Hexes I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH Fortified Building Locations. >>>>> I can't see this rule being interpreted any other way. I'd flat out refuse to play the RB scenarios or any of the Stalingrad scenarios with someone who would push this stretch of DC use on me. I guess i'll never play in a tournament. ----- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:37:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Tartaglia Subject: Re: Unansered previous Q's On Sun, 14 Aug 1994, Jonathan Vanmechelen wrote: > seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) writes: > > > Also: what about setting up vehicles abandoned w/ w/o > > scounging/removal? > > In the absence of rules allowing such, I would say no. The > way I can justify this is that when you are given the OB, > the vehicle is not abandoned, scrounged, or removed. To > get it into one of those statuses, the action would have to > be performed. These actions are performed during the > owner's MPh, and since there is no MPh in the pre-game and > no rule allows these actions other than in the owner's MPh, > it couldn't be done then. You might try NUTMAIL (a Q&A to > TAHGC) to see if they would be interested in allowing it in > pre-game, but I doubt they would be. > I disagree with JR on this one These actions are allowed "during the normal course of play" and A2.9 says that the crew (a unit in the OB) could be set-up in any hex that it could enter during the normal course of play. It could enter a hex that is different than it's vehicle therefore it can set-up outside its vehicle. Note that although a dm-SW could be assembled "during the normal course of play" the rules forbid it from being set-up assembled. They do not forbid a vehicle from being set-up abandoned. ==Daniel T. ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 06:59:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: DC from offboard? I know we've discussed smoke placement from offboard, but have we already worked out DC placement? I guess it's not allowed because you don't have LOS from the placing hex to the onboard hex, but that's the only thing I can think of. If you're allowed to set up or move to a hex adjacent to an entry area, what punishments can the entering units unleash? This came up in a CH scenario, "Raiders on Butaritari" with the reinforcements. There was a concealed Japanese stack which I suspected might contain a FT, so I set up two HS next to it offboard. The first one ran in and found it to be dummies. But the other one had a DC which I might have tried using. :-) Marty ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 06:44:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: From the SL Mailing List: the state of Avalon Hill with respect to SL (fwd) I thought this may intrest the soap opera watchers among you.... Subject: SL Mailing List: the state of Avalon Hill with respect to SL I recently purchased a copy of GI Anvil of Victory. After looking at the rules, I noticed that there was neither errata nor any nicely organized Questions and Answers as there are in my COI and COD rule booklets. This of course was because I purchased a 1st edition copy of GI. So, I figured I'll give our buddies down at TAHGC a call to see if they ever organized errata and Questions and Answers for GI as they did for the earlier gammettes. To make a long story short, I was told that they never did this for GI since, once it was completed, they moved on to that money pit called ASL. The amusing part of my call was that I had to talk to five people before I got this information. The first four people that I talked to asked me essentially the same question ... "is that a software game?" after indicating to me that they had never heard of GI. When I told them that it is actually a board game (remember those?), each one said ' oh, I'll have to transfer you' (I believe that the fifth person was none other then Don Greenwood himself). Hence, the original SL series is ancient history to most of the AH staff, and I would guess that software games are clearly their big thing now a'days (as I understand Greenwood stated in the last editor's column for the AH General). While this info will in no way alter the enjoyment we derive from this classic game series, I just wanted to pass my story along to you ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 12:55:41 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Valid statistical measure ? > Here are the 'best' scenarios, found by dividing the number of favourite > votes by the number of games reported: > > ID Scenario Name # of Votes % of games played > === ============= ========== ================= > G Hube's Pocket 5 83.3 > > Notice that ASL 4 The Commisars House, the 'winner' of the favourite poll, > did not make it into this top 20 of 'best' scenarios. > > >>>>> Hmm, divide the number of "favorite votes" by "# of games reported," > aware that many more people are on the # of games roster than on the > poll. > > How does this translate into which scenarios are, "best?" > > This statistic sees to be a measure of those scenarios that arn't played > that often as a whole, but which showed up on the favorite list > somewhat. > > Note that the ones that were most favored and were played heavily were > pushed right out by the large denominator. > > Being a Russophile myself, i'd hardly call the one sided scenario > Hube's Pocket the "best" any more than a German fanatic would call > To The Last Man the best. > Yes, yes I know that my statistics wasn't too valid. Actually it was meant most for fun, but I guess I didn't make that clear enough. But still I think this kind of statistics has some meaning, more so than the pure favourite poll. I think a scenario that has gotten 5 favourite votes, and only been reported played 6 times should be ranked higher than a game that got 7 favourite votes, but been reprted played 50 times. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:03:06 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: WP casualties Last week or so, it was questioned whether all units in a hex have to take the NMC due to a WP counter being placed in the hex. The ASLRB says that the units in the _Location_ where the WP counter is placed have to take the NMC, and it was questioned if this really meant only the units at Ground Level. C1.71 strongly implies that Location is right, i.e., that only units in the specific Location have to take the NMC. This rule says that OBA SMOKE is treated like normal SMOKE with the exception that _all_ units in the hex where the WP counter is placed have to take the NMC. BTW, an OBA discussion some weeks ago came to the conclution that if an OBA observer voluntarily breaks, the Fire Mission is immediatley canceled. If so (and it probably is), a quite dirty trick is sometimes possible: Imagine that you have an FFE blasting your enemeis in a Building, and that you need to take this building as soon as possible. Instead of correcting or canceling your fire mission in your PFPh, you may continue to blast the enemy with the FFE and move units adjacent to the blast area. In the RtPh, you voluntarily break your observer and magically the FFE disappears, making it safe for your units to advance in. Not very nice... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:17:11 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Distribution of CH/BB I don't have the adresses to people responsible for BackBlast or Critical Hit!, but I guess sending this to the list is sufficient. Since I live in Norway, ordering copies of this magazines would cost me a lot, at least three or four times the prices in the US. I therefore wish it could be possible to distribute these magazines through normal game distributors. My local game store gets its games from Chessex East, probably the biggest game distributor in the US, and my game store normally sells 15 copies of each new Annual, and it would certainly order BB/CH if Chessex East distributed them. I guess this applies to other quality zines as well. Can this be done, or do I have to just hear about the scenarios and other stuff that you get your hands on in the US? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 20:43:26 EDT Subject: Re: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes >I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether >DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. >The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH >Fortified Building Locations. > >>>>>> I can't see this rule being interpreted any other way. I'd flat > out refuse to play the RB scenarios or any of the Stalingrad scenarios > with someone who would push this stretch of DC use on me. I agree. I think there should be some errata on this. Fortified buildings should provide some "protection" against placed or thrown DCs. That protection should be in the form of DCs only being allowed to _breach_ fortified building hexes while GO enemy units reside inside. Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:56:06 -0400 (EDT) > > I agree. I think there should be some errata on this. Fortified > buildings should provide some "protection" against placed or thrown DCs. > That protection should be in the form of DCs only being allowed to _breach_ > fortified building hexes while GO enemy units reside inside. > I've been trying to follow this discussion and I have to ask 'why'? I know next to nothing about the intricacies of fortified buildings and breaches so forgive if this is a 'stupid' question. Why not just apply the mods to the attack? Someone else mentioned this earlier. It seems realistic to me. Am I just being too naive? ;-) Later, Neal Smith ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 07:15:26 -0700 Subject: Re: Valid statistical measure ? On Aug 17, 5:36pm, MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU wrote: > Subject: Valid statistical measure ? > Being a Russophile myself, i'd hardly call the one sided scenario > Hube's Pocket the "best" any more than a German fanatic would call > To The Last Man the best. One-sided? Hube's Pocket? Sorry, but I beg to differ. This puppy is a nail-biter. The Germans have to assert the Panther and, at the same time, protect it. The Russians have to avoid the Panther, or find a way to destroy it. And, although the Russians do get beat up in the early part of the game, they don't need to get much firepower on those soft vehicles to hose up the whole German convoy. I tend to agree with you about To the Last Man, despite Nixon's article to the contrary in the last General. Dade ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:45:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Distribution of CH/BB In message Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:17:11 +0200, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > Since I live in Norway, ordering copies of this magazines would cost me a > lot, at least three or four times the prices in the US. Why? The Critical Hit! guys have said it costs $8.00 & $3.95 s/h for outside the US/Canada. This is the same cost for those in the US (except the s&h is $1.95). Is it the currency conversion that is driving up the costs? Though, even through a distributor, the currency conversion would be present. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:43:45 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) I was looking through the scenarios in Critical Hit!, and was dismayed that all of them seemed to be pretty darned complicated. I remember the original advertisement described scenarios that ranged from beginner to expert. Personally, I am "Chapter C challenged", and rarely play scenarios with vehicles unless someone more experienced is around to correct my mistakes. Any scenario in Critical Hit! that didn't have tanks seemed to have demo charges, barbed wire, trenches, landing craft, deep snow, or any other off-the-wall rule that for some of us is still a new experience. I just feel that Critical Hit! was NOT written for everyone, and wish it had been. Meanwhile, I'll go read more rules. Tom Huntington ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 23:45:33 EDT Subject: Re: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes >> I think there should be some errata on this. Fortified >> buildings should provide some "protection" against placed or thrown DCs. >> That protection should be in the form of DCs only being allowed to _breach_ >> fortified building hexes while GO enemy units reside inside. Neal Smith writes: > I've been trying to follow this discussion and I have to ask 'why'? >I know next to nothing about the intricacies of fortified buildings and >breaches so forgive if this is a 'stupid' question. The argument as I see it (sans rulebook as it's at home): (1) A unit can only place a DC in a hex in which the unit could move that turn (and spends requisite MF to do it). A unit cannot move into a fort if GO enemy units are present inside. Thus the unit carrying the DC cannot move into the hex in which it wishes to place the DC. Therefore, the DC cannot be placed in the fortified location (except to cause a breach as per ASLRB). Mark Nixon wrote an article that implied that the DC could be placed in the fort and cause either a breach or a full effect blast. Hence the discussion. Below are portions of the traffic on the subject. (Unfortunately, I deleted most of the actual messages.) >From Brent or Ole? >The feeling you got from Mark nixon's article was, as far as I know, >correct: a DC can be placed normally against a Fortified location, >forfeiting the Breach attempt. Also, it can be placed even if the >location contains >=one squad equivalent of Good Order enemy Infantry. Jeff's reply to the above: I have trouble with this interpretation as the unit placing the DC could _not_ enter the fortified hex while GO infantry are present (even if the placing unit were berserk!). The placing unit has to expend MF to enter the hex (i.e., has to be able to enter the location - it is unable to place or throw to a higher level building location) and while it could spend the MF to enter the hex it couldn't physically enter it due to the restrictions on forts. I guess you could say that I grudgingly agree with Nixon's interpretation, I just don't like it. Aren't forts supposed to give some protection from attacks? Additional comments at the time from MSAMUEL... >>>>>> This interpretation (Mark Nixon's) is BS. Just one more attempt > to slam the Russians by germanophiles within TAHGC. > > A squad can not move/advance into a fort hex to do CC yet a single > man or two can run and chuck a DC in on the occupants? > I don't think so. This fails a basic reality check. > This is a pretty clear cut case of rules lawyering and lobbying. Jeff's reply at that time: I agree, this is BS! I could, however, see some Joe Schmoe running up to a pillbox and chucking a DC inside. Extend it to a fort and, voila! Somewhere, somebody screwed up the rule on this one. Another recent reply from me: >I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether >DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. >The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH >Fortified Building Locations. MSAMUELS response: >>>>>> I can't see this rule being interpreted any other way. I'd flat > out refuse to play the RB scenarios or any of the Stalingrad scenarios > with someone who would push this stretch of DC use on me. Respectfully Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: your mail Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:51:52 PDT Tom Huntington writes: > I was looking through the scenarios in Critical Hit!, and was dismayed that > all of them seemed to be pretty darned complicated. I remember the original > advertisement described scenarios that ranged from beginner to expert. > Personally, I am "Chapter C challenged", and rarely play scenarios with > vehicles unless someone more experienced is around to correct my mistakes. > Any scenario in Critical Hit! that didn't have tanks seemed to have demo > charges, barbed wire, trenches, landing craft, deep snow, or any other > off-the-wall rule that for some of us is still a new experience. Well, I haven't seen Critical Hit! yet, but I have a couple comments.... First, some of those things aren't that hard to deal with. Demo charges (current rules debate notwithstanding) and trenches, in particular, are really pretty easy to handle. Barbed wire is a little more complicated, but not that bad, really. I've never tried a scenario in deep snow, but I know there aren't many rules associated with it, so I can't imagine it would be that bad. Okay, so landing craft are a little complicated. B^) They may be new experiences to you, but I think if you just try those scenarios you'll find that most of them aren't bad. As for vehicles, well, I was a bit apprehensive about them at first, and sure, we all make lots of mistakes when we first try a new section of the rules, but don't let the fear of not knowing all the relevant rules keep you from having fun! If you've got someone experienced around to correct your mistakes, great... if not, they just won't matter. Stop worrying and have fun! So you may look back later and realize you did something wrong... so what? > I just feel that Critical Hit! was NOT written for everyone, and wish it had > been. Meanwhile, I'll go read more rules. Well, I can't really comment on that directly, since I haven't seen Critical Hit!, but realize that at least AH considers Chapter C and D (especially C) to be part of the core of the system, I think... just look at the Paratrooper ("introductory") module, where ALL 8 of the scenarios require at least a basic understanding of Chapter C. All you really need to know on a day-to-day basis about Chapter C is the basics of TH and TK rolls and how to read the charts. Just loosen up, take aim, and don't worry too much about forgetting the occasional TH modifier (even the experts miss them from time to time). It happens, and it's just not a big deal. That's why A.2 is there, though it occasionally is given a bad rap because of unscrupulous players. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 03:28:46 EDT Subject: Deserts and broken units At Summer Wars I saw a desert scenario wherein units were eliminated for failure to rout because they were within 6 hexes of an enemy unit. I've read the pertinent rule in Chapter F (F.3?) but I'm still a little confused. Are broken units that are within 6 hexes of a GO enemy unit eliminated if their route path is over any OG (unless positive TEM due to hindrances applies)? What about Low Crawl? Doesn't this shorten desert scenarios? What was the purpose/meaning behind this rule? Cheers Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 16:17:57 -0400 (EDT) From: David Elder Subject: DC and hexes one can't enter :-) Hi all ... here is another question for you :-) Can you place a DC in a hex containing a melee? :-) If there is a vehicle from the other side and infantry from both sides ... can a unit outside the hex, but adjacent, place a DC either in the hex, or specifically target the enemy AFV? Cheers, David P.S. Let's also assume for the moment that the hex is a stone building :-) ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:31:19 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Deserts and broken units > At Summer Wars I saw a desert scenario wherein units were eliminated for > failure to rout because they were within 6 hexes of an enemy unit. I've > read the pertinent rule in Chapter F (F.3?) but I'm still a little > confused. > > Are broken units that are within 6 hexes of a GO enemy unit eliminated > if their route path is over any OG (unless positive TEM due to > hindrances applies)? What about Low Crawl? Doesn't this shorten > desert scenarios? What was the purpose/meaning behind this rule? A10.51 says that any broken unit in OG and in the LOS and normal range of an emeny unit must rout. If it can't rout it the broken unit is eliminated. F.1C says that the enemy unit must also be within 6 hexes. If the enemy unit is further away it may rout, but it does not have to rout. Fred > > Cheers > > Jeffrey Shields > CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science > Gloucester Point, VA 23062 > > jeff@back.vims.edu > ( ) ( ) > (^ ^) (^ ^) > (^) . . (^) > \\ 0 | | 0 // > \\__\\|}{|//__// > \^ ^^ ^/ > <====\^ ( ) ^/====> > <====\^ ^/====> > <====\ /====> > ()===(____)===() > ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:39:07 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: DC and hexes one can't enter :-) > > Hi all ... here is another question for you :-) > > Can you place a DC in a hex containing a melee? :-) If there is a vehicle > from the other side and infantry from both sides ... can a unit outside > the hex, but adjacent, place a DC either in the hex, or specifically > target the enemy AFV? I see no reason that you can't place a DC into a melee and target the AFV. Since there is an enemy AFV you will need to pass a PAATC if the unit must otherwise pass one to advance into the location. Fred > > Cheers, > > David > > P.S. Let's also assume for the moment that the hex is a stone building :-) > > > ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:42:55 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Unansered previous Q's > > > On Sun, 14 Aug 1994, Jonathan Vanmechelen wrote: > > > seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) writes: > > > > > Also: what about setting up vehicles abandoned w/ w/o > > > scounging/removal? > > > > In the absence of rules allowing such, I would say no. The > > way I can justify this is that when you are given the OB, > > the vehicle is not abandoned, scrounged, or removed. To > > get it into one of those statuses, the action would have to > > be performed. These actions are performed during the > > owner's MPh, and since there is no MPh in the pre-game and > > no rule allows these actions other than in the owner's MPh, > > it couldn't be done then. You might try NUTMAIL (a Q&A to > > TAHGC) to see if they would be interested in allowing it in > > pre-game, but I doubt they would be. > > > I disagree with JR on this one These actions are allowed "during the > normal course of play" and A2.9 says that the crew (a unit in the OB) > could be set-up in any hex that it could enter during the normal course > of play. It could enter a hex that is different than it's vehicle > therefore it can set-up outside its vehicle. > > Note that although a dm-SW could be assembled "during the normal course > of play" the rules forbid it from being set-up assembled. They do not > forbid a vehicle from being set-up abandoned. I must agree with JR. In KGP you are specifically allowed to remove (but not scrounge) SW from vehicles with the implication that normally you can't. Fred > > ==Daniel T. > > > > ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 14:46:34 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Setting up unloaded Along the same line as setting up a vehicle abandoned/scrounged, I was wondering if you need to make a point of telling your opponent that you are removing the inherent SW (ATR/Baz/Psk/etc.) when unloading an HT. Or can you just insert the proper counter into the stack as you unload (especially if you are concealed). In one game I played I didn't tell me opponent and he was very surprised when I took a Psk shot at him when I didn't have any Psk in my OB. He forgot/didn't know that the German 37L HT has an ATR/Psk. Fred ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:56:57 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes >I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether >DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. >The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH >Fortified Building Locations. > >>>>>> I can't see this rule being interpreted any other way. I'd flat > out refuse to play the RB scenarios or any of the Stalingrad scenarios > with someone who would push this stretch of DC use on me. I agree that DC's can not be placed in a fortified building unless the placing unit could advance into the location (not enough GO enemy units in the location). The argument using "may" in G1.4241 fails to realize that the word "may" refers to the rule that says a DC hero may detonate a placed DC in the MPh instead of waiting until the AFPh like all other placed DCs. Fred ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Setting up unloaded Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 15:56:14 PDT Fred Timm writes: > Along the same line as setting up a vehicle abandoned/scrounged, I was wondering > if you need to make a point of telling your opponent that you are removing > the inherent SW (ATR/Baz/Psk/etc.) when unloading an HT. Or can you just > insert the proper counter into the stack as you unload (especially if you > are concealed). In one game I played I didn't tell me opponent and he was > very surprised when I took a Psk shot at him when I didn't have any Psk > in my OB. He forgot/didn't know that the German 37L HT has an ATR/Psk. Well, THAT will teach him to read vehicle notes! Seriously, though, I'm not really sure whether something like this needs to be announced. I think it does, but I'm not sure. Now, just to start some flames on counter storage (B^), I'll fill you in on a storage system one of the folks I play reasonably often uses: vehicles and guns are stored in order of vehicle/gun number. This FORCES him to look at the notes before he can get the vehicle or gun counter out.... -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:47:11 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: WP casualties [cut] > BTW, an OBA discussion some weeks ago came to the conclution that if an OBA > observer voluntarily breaks, the Fire Mission is immediatley canceled. If > so (and it probably is), a quite dirty trick is sometimes possible: > Imagine that you have an FFE blasting your enemeis in a Building, and that > you need to take this building as soon as possible. Instead of correcting > or canceling your fire mission in your PFPh, you may continue to blast the > enemy with the FFE and move units adjacent to the blast area. In the RtPh, > you voluntarily break your observer and magically the FFE disappears, > making it safe for your units to advance in. Not very nice... I feel that voluntary loss of Contact can only occur during the PFPh/DFPh and only by not rolling for Contact since Contact makes no difference during other phases. Fred > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If you cut off my head, > what do I say: > Ole Boe > Me and my head > or oleboe@idt.unit.no > Me and my body? > ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 17:22 PDT From: john@data.microtekintl.com (John Mantey) Subject: Re: DCs vs. Fortified Hexes >I forgot most of the thread but for those of you who were debating whether >DCs can be placed in fortified hexes to _full_ effect, check out G1.4241. >The implication of the above rule is that DCs can only be used to BREACH >Fortified Building Locations. Taking this concept a little farther, I think the DC attack should probably be resolved based on precedences in chapter B and O (what is this a railroad?) In chapter B there is the section in Rowhouses (flames to /dev/nul, I don't have me rulebook) you can breach the rowhouse AND attack units on the opposite side at 1/2 FP, same is true of RB interior factory walls. Seems to me fortified buildings should work the same, breach and attack at 1/2 FP. Are there other sections in the rulebook with similar provisions? John Mantey john@microtekintl.com Microtek International ...!uunet!data!john 3300 NW 211th Terrace Hillsboro, OR 97124 The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has it's limits. ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 17:38:29 -0700 From: Scott Jackson Subject: OBA Flow Chart -- PS version I downloaded the postscript version of the OBA flowchart, but when I print it the top part of each page gets chopped off and I can't see the box title or top line. What am I doing wrong? I don't have this problem with any other ps file I print... ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 01:40:00 UTC Subject: OBA voluntary rout > BTW, an OBA discussion some weeks ago came to the conclution that if an > OBA observer voluntarily breaks, the Fire Mission is immediatley > canceled. If so (and it probably is), a quite dirty trick is sometimes > possible: Imagine that you have an FFE blasting your enemeis in a > Building, and that you need to take this building as soon as possible. > Instead of correcting or canceling your fire mission in your PFPh, you > may continue to blast the enemy with the FFE and move units adjacent to > the blast area. In the RtPh, you voluntarily break your observer and > magically the FFE disappears, making it safe for your units to advance > in. Not very nice... By my recollection, this issue was far from decided. It seemed to be about half for immediate loss of OBA and half against. I am still waiting on an answer from the Hill to resolve this situation. :( Warren ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: OBA Flow Chart -- PS version Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 8:40:49 CETDST Hi, ------ Scott Jackson wrote: > > I downloaded the postscript version of the OBA flowchart, but when I > print it the top part of each page gets chopped off and I can't see the > box title or top line. What am I doing wrong? I don't have this problem > with any other ps file I print... > -------------------------- I had some trouble mailing Scott so I mailed to the list instead. The PostScript file that is on the ftp-servers at the moment is done on the A4 format paper. I don't know if this is the cause to Scott's problem. I plan to put new (updated) versions of the OBA flowchart on the ftp- serves soon (I hope). These will be in three formats: 1. Plain text. (obafc.txt) 2. PostScript (A4 format paper) (obafc_a4.ps) 3. PostScript (LETTER format paper) (obafc_ltr.ps) I believe that LETTER is the 'standard' U.S. size paper. -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 08:52:52 +0100 (MET) From: abog@btmv06.god.bel.alcatel.be (Alain Bogaert) Subject: Question: TCA/VCA change in woods Hi All, I'm just starting to learn the vehicles stuff. In order to do that, i'm cuurently involved in a game of "under the noel trees". The US player can set-up his M18 hidden in the woods. My question is: If the M18 fires his gun, and maintains ROF, can he change his TCA and/or VCA for a second shot on an other target? I searched the rules but couldn't find anything which was explicit enough. I know an MG in woods has his CA fixed, but a vehicle? Alain ----- From: RCRUDGE@botzoo.uct.ac.za Date: 19 Aug 94 08:54:41 SAST-2 Subject: RE: Distribution of CH/BB Hi It's not always the price that is expensive, my CH cost $11.95 or 43.00 south african rands but to get the draft/cheque cost me another 25.00 rands - what I think ole would like is can the publishers supply 25 copies to someone and therefore save with only ONE bank draft/cheque not twenty-five. Robin > In message Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:17:11 +0200, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > > > Since I live in Norway, ordering copies of this magazines would cost me a > > lot, at least three or four times the prices in the US. > > Why? The Critical Hit! guys have said it costs $8.00 & $3.95 s/h for > outside the US/Canada. This is the same cost for those in the US (except > the s&h is $1.95). > > Is it the currency conversion that is driving up the costs? Though, even > through a distributor, the currency conversion would be present. > > *-=Carl=-* > ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 06:18:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Question: TCA/VCA change in woods > The US player can set-up his M18 hidden in the woods. My question is: > > If the M18 fires his gun, and maintains ROF, can he change his TCA and/or VCA > for a second shot on an other target? Yes. Howvere, if you change VCA you will automatically lose HIP status. If you change TCA you do not. Possibly maintaining HIP is an absolute bear for the germans. It is quite possible to get as many as 2-3 kills (on average) before the german can even find you to kill you. ----- From: BArcher@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 06:29:24 EDT Subject: Advance from occupied hex QA Well, I sent a Q to the Hill for an A yesterday on the question of can you advance out of a CC hex. Personnally, I will continue playing that you can not advance from CC, like Mac says, the way I think the rules say, and the way the cell I was with playtested Gung Ho. Bill ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Question: TCA/VCA change in woods Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 13:02:54 CETDST Hi, > > > The US player can set-up his M18 hidden in the woods. My question is: > > > > If the M18 fires his gun, and maintains ROF, can he change his TCA and/or VCA > > for a second shot on an other target? > > Yes. Howvere, if you change VCA you will automatically lose HIP status. If > you change TCA you do not. Possibly maintaining HIP is an absolute bear > for the germans. It is quite possible to get as many as 2-3 kills (on > average) before the german can even find you to kill you. > Doesn't the Concealment Loss/Gain table say that changing CA causes concealment loss ? Wouldn't those HIP M18 lose HIP (and concealment ?) when they fire ? -- Klas Malmstrom ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Pre-Registering Rocket OBA Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Hi All, I've been reading the Q&A and came across the following. Forgive me if I've asked this question before, but I didn't have anything written beside it, so I'm asuming I never got an answer or I didn't ask. C1.9 May a rocket OBA module be assigned a PreRegistered hex, in order to halve its Extent-of-Error dr? A. Yes. {93b} In reality, why is this true? In the real world the act of registering artillery involves firing at a spot in order to "zero" in the guns, both on that spot and meteorogically (sp?). This can involve several SRs. Are rocket batteries really capable of this kind of fire mission? Does the inherent inaccuracies associated with rocket artillery preclude getting good registration data? Any FA types out there who may know more about rocket artillery than I do? I only know modern cannon and that's been five years ago! ;-) Thanks, Neal Smith sasrns@unx.sas.com ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:47:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Question: TCA/VCA change in woods > Wouldn't those HIP M18 lose HIP (and concealment ?) when they fire ? Oops, I was too brief. OK, if a Gun fires it loses HIP. But it only loses ? if the red die is > or = to 5 and a GO enemy is within 16 hexes with LOS to the hex. I couldn't find it in a quick parousal of the rules, but I _think_ TCA is treated differently than VCA. (An aside to Jim Shetler: were we doing this wrong _again_ or is my page 29 rules different (oldeer) from yours?) ----- Subject: ASL www-page Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 15:21:28 +0200 From: Asad Rustum Yo Folks! As things most _probably_ will turn out I'll need someone to replace me as the ASL www-page administrator for 6 months starting from the 1st week in September. If anyone is interested please send me a note. The job doesn't need much work. The only thing you'll have to do is update the ladder, record and perhaps a few other things. Of course, you could put down as much work as you wanted by including new areas/ideas etc. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum f90-aru@nada.kth.se atomic@astrakan.hgs.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~f90-aru http://www.astrakan.hgs.se/~atomic Have you visited the ASL HOME PAGE? http://www.nada.kth.se/~f90-aru/ASL.html ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 21:17:43 EDT Subject: Re: Deserts and broken units My question was: Are broken units that are within 6 hexes of a GO enemy unit eliminated if their rout path is over any OG (unless positive TEM due to hindrances applies)? What about Low Crawl? Doesn't this shorten desert scenarios? What was the purpose/meaning behind this rule? Fred Timms response: >A10.51 says that any broken unit in OG and in the LOS and normal range of >an emeny unit must rout. If it can't rout the broken unit is eliminated. >F.1C says that the enemy unit must also be within 6 hexes. If the enemy unit >is further away it may rout, but it does not have to rout. I'm still confused on this. If a broken unit is within 6 hexes of an enemy unit and is surrounded by OG, it dies? What about Low Crawl? If the enemy unit is farther away I take it interdiction still applies. Doesn't this tend to make desert scenarios short? [NB: I've played only 2-3 desert scenarios and we missed this rule.] Cheers, Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Deserts and broken units Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 16:32:51 CETDST Hi, Doing this from memory (no rulebook at hand) so I might be in error. > My question was: > > Are broken units that are within 6 hexes of a GO enemy unit eliminated > if their rout path is over any OG (unless positive TEM due to > hindrances applies)? What about Low Crawl? Doesn't this shorten > desert scenarios? What was the purpose/meaning behind this rule? > > Fred Timms response: > >A10.51 says that any broken unit in OG and in the LOS and normal range of > >an emeny unit must rout. If it can't rout the broken unit is eliminated. > >F.1C says that the enemy unit must also be within 6 hexes. If the enemy unit > >is further away it may rout, but it does not have to rout. > > I'm still confused on this. If a broken unit is within 6 hexes of an enemy > unit and is surrounded by OG, it dies? What about Low Crawl? If the enemy > unit is farther away I take it interdiction still applies. Doesn't this > tend to make desert scenarios short? [NB: I've played only 2-3 desert > scenarios and we missed this rule.] Doesn't the rule in Chapter F (F.1C ?) say that you cannot be eliminated for failure to rout if the unit(s) causing that elimination are not within 6 hexes from your unit ? I don't remember the rule in Chapter F saying that you _don't_ have to rout if no enemy units are within 6 hexes. Of coures, from memory so I could be wrong. Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:38:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Kyle Curle - Athletes in Action Subject: Ladder game wanted I'm now 1-2 on the ladder and looking for a new game. I would like to try a Eastern front scenario this time. I'll try most any scenario and feel like I know the rules pretty well. Kyle ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 00:00:41 +0930 GMT From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: AH Announcements Vale Rex and Craig! It's been fun having you in the industry. Best of wishes, and lets see some new games from you sometime in the future.! -- Brad McMahon <> bjm@rommel.apana.org.au "The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov. ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Pre-Registering Rocket OBA Neal: Our group ran headlong into this during a RB CGIII match when the Germans pre-registered two nebelwerfer batteries with devastating effects (this was before the cited Q & A was available). I, as one of the Germans, had absolutely no problem with allowing pre-registration of rocket OBA other than knowing that I could expect the Russians to respond in kind with their 200 mm rockets (Hit the deck!). We worried about the same thing you did (test shots) and decided to just play the damn game and stop bickering. Here are a few things to consider in favour of rocket pre-registration: 1. If pre-registration in general depicts a battery "acquiring" the target with a few test shells then the pre-registered hexes should be known to your enemy if they set up in LOS of the hex. 2. There's probably more to pre-registration...such as allowing the guns more time to prepare to fire on the pre-registered coordinates rather than having them not know where they will be expected to hit. 3. From a playability stand point, I had serious misgivings as to whether or not to use rockets in RB because the error involved is just too damn much when both sides are facing one-another across the street. I just wasn't prepared to take the risk of setting up my Infantry where they could get pelted by their own rockets. The only exception being Day 1 when there's a fair bit of ground between the two forces. Even then only part of the front is suitable. Pre-registering the rockets makes them much more attractive. Flame away (but still Share & Enjoy)! Brent On Fri, 19 Aug 1994, Neal Smith wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > I've been reading the Q&A and came across the following. Forgive me if I've > asked this question before, but I didn't have anything written beside it, > so I'm asuming I never got an answer or I didn't ask. > > > C1.9 May a rocket OBA module be assigned a PreRegistered hex, in order > to halve its Extent-of-Error dr? > A. Yes. {93b} > > > In reality, why is this true? In the real world the act of registering > artillery involves firing at a spot in order to "zero" in the guns, both > on that spot and meteorogically (sp?). This can involve several SRs. Are > rocket batteries really capable of this kind of fire mission? Does the > inherent inaccuracies associated with rocket artillery preclude getting good > registration data? > > Any FA types out there who may know more about rocket artillery than I > do? I only know modern cannon and that's been five years ago! ;-) > > > Thanks, > Neal Smith > sasrns@unx.sas.com > ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 12:41:23 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: CH Pricing Much to cdf1@psu.edu's surprise, Grant had this to say about "RE: Distribution of CH/BB"... c> Why? The Critical Hit! guys have said it costs $8.00 & c> $3.95 s/h for outside the US/Canada. This is the same cost c> for those in the US (except the s&h is $1.95). c> c> Is it the currency conversion that is driving up the costs? c> Though, even through a distributor, the currency conversion c> would be present. Here in Canada, our dollar is taking a beating with the Quebec election looming. I ordered CH today, and US$9.95 came to $13.88 Canadian. I hope it's as good as everyone says! -Grant. ... Living with a conscience is like driving a car with the brakes on. - Budd Schulberg -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 15:28:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: Pre-Registering Rocket OBA In message Fri, 19 Aug 1994 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Brent Pollock writes: > 1. If pre-registration in general depicts a battery "acquiring" the > target with a few test shells then the pre-registered hexes should be > known to your enemy if they set up in LOS of the hex. > > 2. There's probably more to pre-registration... I think the latter is the key. What is not depicted in the game is general harassing fire. Not the type of stuff that is an alternate use for the OBA, but the general shelling the other guys just to keep them from getting sleep and keeping their heads down. Several shells (rockets?) coming in on one spot in amongst several dozen other shells wouldn't be any more noticable than the others. Comes down to, again, the "reality" arguments can be used both ways. Just gotta play the game. *-=Carl=-* ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Pre-Registering Rocket OBA Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 12:59:46 PDT Brent Pollock writes: > 3. From a playability stand point, I had serious misgivings as to whether > or not to use rockets in RB because the error involved is just too damn > much when both sides are facing one-another across the street. I just > wasn't prepared to take the risk of setting up my Infantry where they > could get pelted by their own rockets. The only exception being Day 1 > when there's a fair bit of ground between the two forces. Even then only > part of the front is suitable. Pre-registering the rockets makes them > much more attractive. Yeah, it does seem difficult to use them effectively, doubly so without pre-registration. I think if there's a decent sized salient somewhere, that can make a fine target. I also think that they're possibly more useful on about turn 2 or 3 of a scenario, when the situation is a little more disordered (more units behind the lines trying to rally, reinforcements arriving, etc.). I can also see the Germans using them early on to try to burn out some of the big factories (especially one with a good roof) to make later Stuka attacks against the factories more effective; this is probably the best use I can think of that doesn't really require the pre-registered hex. The Germans might also get some use out of them if the Russians are using Reserves a lot, but I'm not sure if the chance of killing them is worth waking them up. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Subject: Re: Deserts and broken un From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 13:35:00 -0640 Howdy, "Jeff Shields" writes: [Response abt routing in the desert] > I'm still confused on this. If a broken unit is within 6 > hexes of an enemy unit and is surrounded by OG, it dies? > What about Low Crawl? If the enemy unit is farther away I > take it interdiction still applies. Doesn't this tend to > make desert scenarios short? [NB: I've played only 2-3 > desert scenarios and we missed this rule.] Let's start in europe. If a unit is in OG w/i the normal range & LOS of an enemy unit or IN/ADJACENT to the Location of an unbroken, armed enemy unit, it _must_ rout [A10.5]. The normal range can be anything out to a zillion hexes, depending on the enemy unit. If it were in a situation where it was unable to rout because of units to all sides (or bad terrain, etc), it would be eliminated for failure to rout. In the desert, if it were in a situation that required rout (OG or ADJACENT as above), it would be eliminated for failure to rout only if the unit forcing it to rout were within 6 hexes. Obviously an enemy ADJACENT would be within 6 hexes, so if that is the situation, the routing unit would be eliminated. If one or more of the units in normal range of the OG unit were within 6 hexes then the router would be eliminated, and if they were all at range > 6 hexes, the router would not. Example: a broken German unit is in OG with five broken British units 2 hexes away in directions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, and there is a British unit with an MMG 10 hexes away in direction 6. The German unit is in OG in the normal range of the MMG, and so must rout by A10.5. It can't rout, however, because no matter what direction it goes, it is becoming closer to a Known, enemy unit (that they're broken doesn't matter). In Europe, the German would be eliminated for failure to rout. In North Africa it would not. Note that it is the distance to the unit forcing the rout that is important; five other enemy units which prevent the rout _are_ within 6 hexes, but they are not what forces the unit to rout. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: EPGS MEETING 8/20/94 From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 16:20:00 -0640 Howdy, Walt didn't post this month, so I will. Eastern Pennsylvania Gamers Society (EPGS) meets this Saturday, August 20 1994. Plenty of ASL for everyone. See you there! City: Plymouth Meeting, PA (Northwest of Phila.) Contact: Jim Brackin or Pat Dowde Phone: (215) 443-5315 (215) 948-3118 Other Info: Meets the third Saturday of each month 8:00 AM to Late Inn at Plymouth Meeting Note: the gaming area is open at 8, but it's empty. Everybody's there by 9:30-10am. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: Question: TCA/VCA change From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 13:35:00 -0640 Howdy, abog@btmv06.god.bel.alcatel.be (Alain Bogaert) writes: > If the M18 fires his gun, and maintains ROF, can he change > his TCA and/or VCA for a second shot on an other target? > > I searched the rules but couldn't find anything which was > explicit enough. I know an MG in woods has his CA fixed, > but a vehicle? C5.1 allows ordnance to fire outside its CA. C5.1 says that only a Gun ("any non-vehicular ordnance on a 5/8" counter" [INDEX]) has its CA restricted by fire out of woods. Vehicular ordnance is not restricted. As an aside, by D3.51 the TCA would be restricted if the target were not Known. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 16:30:37 +0200 From: olav.marstokk@kjemi.uio.no Subject: German entry in RB I have a question about german entry in RB. According to the rules are the germans allowed to enter on/between X1 and A9/A21/A45 dependent on the date. But in the same paragraph it says [exc. Entry is allways allowed on/between N0 and A9 as well as any friendly controlled north/west edge hex] What is the meaning of the first part of the exception?. If the german capture edge hexes and looses them to the russian then it's not allowed to enter outside N0/A9? My friend and I couldn't figure out the meaning, so we are just ignoring the first part of the exception. Olav M ----- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 10:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: German entry in RB Olav: > I have a question about german entry in RB. > According to the rules are the germans allowed to > enter on/between X1 and A9/A21/A45 dependent on the date. Yes, the entry is date dependent but... > But in the same paragraph it says [exc. Entry is allways allowed > on/between N0 and A9 as well as any friendly controlled north/west > edge hex] > What is the meaning of the first part of the exception?. The Germans may always use any hex from N0 to A9 for board entry even if the Russians control it. Also, regardless of the date, the Germans may enter any north or west edge hex that they controlled at the start of the date, even if it lies outside of the limits set by the date [stuff deleted] As clear as mud!? Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 23:30:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Micro Armour Scenarios > According to the > blurb, GHQ (the company that TAHGC consorted with for this chunk of > Chapter J) produced ASL packs containing enough vehicles to - this is the > exciting bit - "play the enclosed scenario..."! Has any ever played these > scenarios? Actually, they were never produced as far as I can tell. A few years back I bought some MicroArmour from GHQ and asked about the ASL packs. The bottom line was that they never got off the ground. A real shame too. I would have liked to try them. Now that I have Rex Martin handy, I'll have to ask him what ever became of them. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Micro Armour Scenarios I've had this infernal ASLRB for many, many moons now and I only just got around to actually reading the advert for the Micro Armour stuff on Page J5 and J6 (instead of just looking at the pictures). According to the blurb, GHQ (the company that TAHGC consorted with for this chunk of Chapter J) produced ASL packs containing enough vehicles to - this is the exciting bit - "play the enclosed scenario..."! Has any ever played these scenarios? Are they a unique bunch of scenarios or did they just do it for a few of the previously published ones? If they were a breed apart, did they then get included later (for we cardboard-pushing plebs) in the GENERAL or the ANNUAL? Also, did they have any scenarios involving that ridiculous T-34 variant on the bottom right of page J6 or that other Chapter H orphan, the Sturmmo:rser Tiger? Inquiring minds want to know. Brent P.S. Well of course I noticed this while I was reading the ASLRB in the bathroom...doesn't everybody study large tomes in there?! Cripes, that's where I did most of organic chemistry homework. ----- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 02:48:57 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: Backs to the Sea, and some dice weirdness Played _Backs to the Sea_ with Bob Lyman this afternoon, and the Germans had the situation pretty well in hand by turn 3. NOw some of this was from some very fine shooting by my partner (Scott Gajda, on-line-access-challenged) with his LMGs. Bob's Rangers were set up in stacks of two squads each: with the 8-1 and a 60mm in 16c8, with the 9-1 in 16m3, with the 7-0 somewhere around 16aa2, and the hero and the other 60mm in 16ee2. He had dummy stacks in 16h9 and 16z9. Scott and I sent three squads with an 8-0 and 2 LMGs against the American left, while the rest of the force slammed the right. Once Scott's platoon cleared the dummies in front of them, they took up interdiction positions and performed some incredible long-range fire (read Bob got diced) and kept almost half of the defenders out of the main fight. The main event was 15 squads vs. 4, with only a 60mm for support for the defenders; it didn't last long. Now, we did geez on the SSR which turned the walls and hedges into bocage, though we did read the line before that invoking all those wonderful shellholes; this probably would have changed some things. But we were hard pressed in our post-mortem to find a solid American defense. The only major change I would have made to Bob's setup would be to put the mortars towards the center for mutual support; you also don't get them trapped on the ends that way. I might also only have put a single squad in c8, with maybe another in k9, or maybe l7-m7 to hug the bocage. (Gotta brush up on my bocage rules.) Does anyone know of a viable American setup for this one? On an unrelated note, I decided to play some solitare tonight. I settled on _Silence That Gun_ as something I could finish, and I had played it once (poorly) and wanted to try a different strategy. This brings me to the dice weirdness. On one turn, the American 7-0 and a 7-4-7 were huddling broken in the wooden building at 3s8. A German conscript squad parks itslef across the street in 3q7 to pump a few rounds their way to keep them in DM and out of the fight. They fire, roll 1,2 - the American SAN is still 3. American rolls a 1. Target selection picks - you guessed it - the firing squad. Squad breaks. That's ok, the AMis still have a 1MC or something to pass. 7-0 rolls 1,1. HOB results in a heroic 8-0. Ok, there's still the squad. Ooops, another 1,1. Another hero gets generated and the paratroopers turn Fanatic. HOB in this scenario produced 3 Heros, two fanatics, and two berserkers. must be something in the Normandy air. See ya. John "going to see Cal break Lou's record, whatever season that turns out to be" Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- From: ABillsASL@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 10:13:52 EDT Subject: General 29-3 (Soapbox) I finally got the General after 2 weeks and quickly flipped through the pages looking for the ASL stuff. First found was the scenarios in the middle. What? Two reprints from ASLUG minus the ABS. Question: When I play either of these, do I record it as ASLUG3/4 or G19/20? Next in line were the two articles concerning the scenarios. Both reprints of articles in ASLUG. Absolutely NO NEW MATERIAL! I already paid for the ASLUG stuff and now get it again! If your thinking of buying the issue for ASL stuff, DON'T. It looks like Fort got a good deal. He just reprints the ASLUG material in the General to satisfy the 2 scenario and article requirement impossed on himself. Nothing like double dippin. In his defense, I know he had a ridiculous deadline in order to get it out the door. The true test will be the next issue and what he submits for it. On to something a little lighter. I was reading the letters and ran across a true non-ASLer. The excerpt from his letter that made me roll on the floor: "... Now, what's really neat about easy-to-play games is that the strategies are very complex. Has anyone figured out a winning play for the Germans in Stalingrad, or the British in Afrika Korps, or the Japanese in VITP? Consider the fluidity of chess. An intelligent person can learn moves in perhaps thirty minutes, but they probably will never actually master the game in their lifetime. WHILE A SCENARIO OF ASL WILL USUALLY HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME BECAUSE OF THE RIGIDITY OF THE RULES, a contest of VITP or AFRIKA KORPS will always be different, often radically different." Now I don't know what rock this guy's been under but it shows. If he means all ASL scenarios are not 50-50, meaning one side will win more than the other, I can agree. I have no knowledge of a perfectly balanced scenario. Even The Bushmasters has a few American wins and I suspect more as people learn to deal with the Banzai charge and Japanese. Now we get to the RIGID rules of ASL and their affect on the outcome of a scenario. I can't comprehend how anyone can consider ASL rules rigid and VITP/Afrika Korps not. Now to the different contests stuff. I only know of three outcomes for any game, win/lose/draw (Thats a game isn't it?) What's radically different about that? With attitudes like this existing out there, its no wonder there's an ASL/non-ASL line in the sand. t-t-that's all folks! Alan ----- From: Drosner@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 12:08:39 EDT Subject: Re: Micro Armour Scenarios Actually, I have played a scenario that includes a Sturmmorser Tiger... It was called "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and was created by Mark J. Neukom... he used it (along with the Stmrsr piece he created, it is beautiful)...as one of the three rounds of the ASL tournament he ran at one of our Local L.A. game conventions about 2 years ago... David Rosner ----- From: t.weniger@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 16:02:00 UTC Subject: Acquisition & Assault Move Q's Greetings All, I played the scenario "No Better Spot to Die" yesterday and won as the Americans after wiping out 3 tanks and watching the last tank being recalled. The Germans couldn't get past the roadblock and conceded the game on Turn 7. Some questions were raised during the game: 1) A unit has been acquired by a tank (TCA=VCA). The tank has First Fired at the unit and does not have ROF. The unit continues to move out of the LOS/VCA of the tank. The tank changes TCA and Intensive Fires at the unit. Does the tank maintain acquistion? If so, is it allowed to maintain the acquistion by changing its TCA? Ref: C6.5, C6.51, D3.51 2) A Gun crew was broken and routed adjacent to its Gun which is in a Brush hex. It rallied and then Assault moved back into the Gun's location. Since the crew spent 2MF to Assault move, it is entitled to spend MF to try and Recover the Gun. Would the expenditure of 1MF to Recover be considered part of the Assault Move subject to 3 First Fire shots w/o the FFNAM DRM? If not, would the crew forfeit the Assault Move and be subject to the FFNAM DRM and to 2 First Fire shots w/o the FFNAM DRM and 1 shot with the FFNAM DRM, or 3 shots with the FFNAM DRM? Ref: A4.44, A4.61, A8.1, A8.14 Toxic T.Weniger@genie.geis.com Boxcars: Nature's way of reminding you that ASL is just a game. ----- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 17:29:06 -0400 From: ccooper@hookup.net (Craig Cooper) Subject: Deja Vu ASLBP3 on 'net Hey gang - I've just posted the second exciting intallment (Deja Vu? ASL BP3)in my wife-annoying effort to convert Brent Pollock's Canajan scenarios into fully-rendered form to Carlo and Lysator. I will now collect my prize for world's most incomprehensible sentence. Enjoy - Craig p.s. please direct any kudos or rude remarks to 74537.573@compuserve.com (I'm having trouble retrieving mail at this site). ----- Subject: Acquisition & Assault Mov From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 16:59:00 -0640 Howdy, t.weniger@genie.geis.com writes: >1) A unit has been acquired by a tank (TCA=VCA). The tank has First >Fired at the unit and does not have ROF. The unit continues to move >out of the LOS/VCA of the tank. The tank changes TCA and Intensive >Fires at the unit. Does the tank maintain acquistion? If so, is it >allowed to maintain the acquistion by changing its TCA? > >Ref: C6.5, C6.51, D3.51 There are two different situations here: moving out of LOS and moving out of CA. The VCA (and/or TCA) of a tank does not determine its LOS: its LOS is 360 degrees. Furthermore, the fact that it is a tank and the use of TCA or VCA (or the CA of a Gun) does not matter. Any CA (Gun, TCA, or VCA) can be the CA used for any ordnance. If the target moves out of the CA, any ordnance does not lose acquisition. The list of reasons for losing Acquisition is in C6.5. In fact, the target can spend 6 turns circling the ordnance without the acquisition coming off. If the target moves out of LOS, the acquisition is lost. It remains on the location that the target was in: C6.5 "The target remains acquired until ... the target is no longer in their LOS after entering a new Location/vertex (see C6.15) (although in this case the last in-LOS Location occupied by the target will remain acquired; C6.51)." >2) A Gun crew was broken and routed adjacent to its Gun which is in a >Brush hex. It rallied and then Assault moved back into the Gun's >location. Since the crew spent 2MF to Assault move, it is entitled to >spend MF to try and Recover the Gun. Would the expenditure of 1MF to >Recover be considered part of the Assault Move subject to 3 First Fire >shots w/o the FFNAM DRM? If not, would the crew forfeit the Assault >Move and be subject to the FFNAM DRM and to 2 First Fire shots w/o >the FFNAM DRM and 1 shot with the FFNAM DRM, or 3 shots with the FFNAM >DRM? It may assault move and recover the Gun, so long as it did not equal its MF allotment. For instance, a wounded leader could not assault move and recover the Gun because he has 3 MF. A unit assault moving could be attacked by the same unit three times in its new Location, all without FFNAM. If the Gun were emplaced, because the MF expenditures are separate, the first two shots would be with the TEM of the hex, but for the third could optionally use the TEM of the emplacement. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 22:38:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: Micro Armor scenarios GHQ did in fact produce packs of tanks that could be played with an enclosed ASL scenario. I've seen them in a Denver hobby shop. I don't know whether the scenarios were also released elsewhere, but the pack of tanks&scenario really does exist. Marty ----- From: Michael James Licari Subject: Micro Armor Scenarios Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 18:09:19 -0500 (CDT) These special ASL micro armor packs that were marketed by GHQ were discontinued quite a while ago. They are no longer available, even directly from GHQ in Minneapolis. I think they may have failed because of the lack of the promised ASL scenario that was supposed to be included. Miniature wargamers, including myself, stayed away from them because the packs had "strange" numbers of tanks in them (3 or 4 instead of a normal plt of 5) or were sold with a tank, some infantry, and an AT gun. Great for ASL, but not for building a coherant battalion for miniature gaming. Just thought I'd quit being a lurker on this list and actaully post something. Mike -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Licari | The meek shall inherit the earth: U of Wisc-Milwaukee Political Science | they are too weak to refuse. mlicari@csd.uwm.edu | ----- From: Mike Kreuzer Subject: Rules trivia :-) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 13:27:03 +0930 (CST) Hiya all, A spot of trivia, or somesuch thing. What is the least implemented/useful rule in the mighty ASLRB? My vote goes for the mention of PF/PFk/PSK under backblasts in huts (G5.62). Presumably that's for very lost members of the Afrika Korps. ;-) Mike -- _________________________________________________________________________ "Want to change the world? Mike Kreuzer There's nothing to it .." kreuzer@apanix.apana.org.au Willy Wonka Voice/Fax/Data +61-8-296-4416 ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 01:58:49 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: Right of Inspection Hello Grognards, I read the section on concealment this weekend, and noticed a very interesting rule that I had never seen before. The rule is A12.16 "right of inspection". Read it! The rule basically says that if a stack IS NOT CONCEALED and no opposing GO ground units have a LOS to that stack, then the enemy CANNOT INSPECT THE CONTENTS OF YOUR STACK! Wow, that's something I didn't know, and doesn't that change the nature of the game? How many of you didn't know about this rule? Well, I really agree with the designers on this rule. It helps to keep a little more fog of war in the game, without sacrificing playability. Until you take an action that needs verification, the enemy has to guess at what you've got (unless he does have GO ground units in your LOS). Pretty neat! An aside: I thought that I had read the whole contents of chapters A-B-C-D, but I swear I've never read this rule before. Was this rule in the 1987 (first) edition of the rule book? I bought and read that edition of the rules, then I bought a new rule book recently (1992 edition?), and I loaned my original 1987 edition to a friend, so I cannot verify if this rule was in the 1987 edition. Mike Clay ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:06:24 +0200 From: olav.marstokk@kjemi.uio.no Subject: Re: German entry in RB Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 10:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Olav: > > I have a question about german entry in RB. > > According to the rules are the germans allowed to > > enter on/between X1 and A9/A21/A45 dependent on the date. > Yes, the entry is date dependent but... > > But in the same paragraph it says [exc. Entry is allways allowed > > on/between N0 and A9 as well as any friendly controlled north/west > > edge hex] > > What is the meaning of the first part of the exception?. > The Germans may always use any hex from N0 to A9 for board entry even if > the Russians control it. Also, regardless of the date, the Germans may > enter any north or west edge hex that they controlled at the start of the > date, even if it lies outside of the limits set by the date > [stuff deleted] > As clear as mud!? No! It's not clear. In my campaign it's now the 25th of october. The german controlls hexes L0 to A35, and no german unit has been farther south than A35, but he has lost controll of hexes X1 to M0. The question is where can his reinforcements enter? -According to the date X1 to A45. -According to the exception(in brackets) N0 to A35. If the latter is true when did the german loose his right to enter on/between X1/A45? I have no problem in understanding that if the german capture hexes outside the ones listed, then he can use them for entry. > Brent Pollock Olav M Still confused. ----- Date: 22 Aug 94 05:49:37 EDT From: Bruce Probst <100033.3661@compuserve.com> Subject: Rules trivia >> What is the least implemented/useful rule in the mighty ASLRB? I've always wondered about the rule that says H-to-H Close Combat can only occur in Deluxe ASL, myself. (Not counting Japanese etc., of course.) I mean - why? Is the rule particularly difficult to implement in normal ASL? Nope. Does the rule require the use of the large hexes? Nope. So why was it made a DASL-specific rule, rather than a standard option for CC in any scenario? Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:13:33 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: German entry in RB > > I have a question about german entry in RB. > > According to the rules are the germans allowed to > > enter on/between X1 and A9/A21/A45 dependent on the date. > > Yes, the entry is date dependent but... > > > But in the same paragraph it says [exc. Entry is allways allowed > > on/between N0 and A9 as well as any friendly controlled north/west > > edge hex] > > What is the meaning of the first part of the exception?. > > The Germans may always use any hex from N0 to A9 for board entry even if > the Russians control it. Also, regardless of the date, the Germans may > enter any north or west edge hex that they controlled at the start of the > date, even if it lies outside of the limits set by the date > > [stuff deleted] > > As clear as mud!? > Brent Pollock > I has sent a question to AH about this (actually Klas Malmstrom sent it for me), but what I think is the consencus is the following interpretation; As Brent wrote, the Germans can always enter any north or west (and even south, I believe) hex if they currently control it _and_ controled it at scenario start. They may also always enter between N0 and A9 even if the hex is Russian-controled. In addition to this, they may also enter on/between X1 and A9/A21/A45, but _ONLY THE FIRST DAY MENTIONED FOR EACH OF THESE_, e.g. forget that it says on/after a date, and treat it as meaning on the mentioned date only. This is one interpretation, and may be wrong. You may also choose to ignore the first part of the exception - this gives the Germans an advantage. This interpretation is used in the Annual '91 replay, but I vaguely remember that the first of these was acknowledged by some playtesters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Prisoner Q's Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 12:21:21 CETDST Hi, everybody I have a few question about prisoners that have come up in an ongoing email game. 1. Can a broken Guard abanddon their prisoners before or during their rout ? A20.53 stated the following " . . . Prisoners do not rout while guarded unless their Guard routs - in which case they accompany the Guard. Guards abandon their pri- soners onlt by choice and only by leaving those prisoners behind as they exit a hex. . . ." 2. A20.55 ESCAPE Assume the following situation: A broken half-squad guard and a prisoner leader have routed during the rout phase. During the APh a Good Order squad (of the same side as the broken Guard) enters the same hex. Now assume that the leader wishes to attack its Guard in the CCPh and takes the required NTC to do so. If the leader fails its NTC can the Good Order squad still attack him during Close Combat ? If the leader choses not to attack its Guard (thus doesn't try to pass thre NTC) can the Good Order squad still attack him during Close Combat ? Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:33:28 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: German entry in RB > > As clear as mud!? > > No! It's not clear. > In my campaign it's now the 25th of october. The german controlls > hexes L0 to A35, and no german unit has been farther south than A35, > but he has lost controll of hexes X1 to M0. > > The question is where can his reinforcements enter? > > -According to the date X1 to A45. > -According to the exception(in brackets) N0 to A35. > If the latter is true when did the german loose his right to > enter on/between X1/A45? > > I have no problem in understanding that if the german capture > hexes outside the ones listed, then he can use them for entry. > > > Brent Pollock > > Olav M > Still confused. > Hi again. Semms that I answered to the first question before reading the reply. I don't know if its clear after my last answer, so I'll try again. As mentioned in my former letter, there are to interpretations of the rule. If you choose the first (which I recommend - the second gives the Germans a too big advantage), the following apply: First, do the ASLRB say that you can enter on/between X1-A45 on/after the 25th or an earlier date? The important is that after should be deleted. Let's say that it says on/after the 25th. In that case you may enter between X1 and A45. If you had controlled the north edge east of X1, you could enter there as well. The next day and later on, you are again restricted to the hexes you control and N0 - A9. The important thing is that if the German chooses to be idle the day he's allowed to enter at X1-A45, he looses his right to enter there, and the next day N0-A9 applies. Did this help? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:41:22 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Rules trivia > I've always wondered about the rule that says H-to-H Close Combat can only > occur in Deluxe ASL, myself. (Not counting Japanese etc., of course.) I mean > - why? Is the rule particularly difficult to implement in normal ASL? Nope. > Does the rule require the use of the large hexes? Nope. So why was it made a > DASL-specific rule, rather than a standard option for CC in any scenario? > > Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) > The reason that HtH CC could not occur in normal ASL, was that there didn't exist any counters to mark HtH Melee. In deluxe this is marked by stacking the counters physically, but you always stack the counters in normal ASL. Later there has been released HtH counters, so now HtH is allowed in Stalingrad, by Japanese and by SSR. Notice that even though the rules state that the counters has to be stacked, this doesn't mean that they all must attack together: J2.31 Does the statement in this rule that units engaging in Hand-to- Hand must be stacked together mean that each side's units can attack or defend only as a stack? A. No -- they are stacked together only to indicate their use of Hand- to-Hand (see J2.3), and thus can still make individual CC attacks. {93a} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: Panzers Marsch! Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 13:42:08 +0200 (MET DST) Hi All Carl D. Fago writes: > > Hi Jean Luc, > > I wanted to pass on some information about your scenario. > [stuff deleted] > > One issue that came up was regarding the Russian setup conditions. The > way they are written could be interpreted as allowing the Russians to only > setup on hexrow 10 on both boards. I don't think this is what was desired > though. > > I offer the alternate wording to remove the possible misinterpretation... > > "setup on any hex on board 1 and/or in hexes of coordinate 10 on board 5." > > Thank you. > Carl is right about Russians' setup area. So, since PM seems to have a great (unexpected for me) success, I donwloaded an updated version with the wording proposed by Carl for the Russians' setup area. I put the scenario in the "incoming" folder (it will be moved to the "scenarios" folder when Bas will have time. The file name is "PanzerMarschV1.ps.Z" Thanks Carl for your remark. -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: RE: BAcks to the Sea, (anyone for a swim) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 08:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Ah, but you failed to mention was the superb performance of my dummy counters at holding you up. For those of you who haven't seen the American setup they only get 8 squads, 3 ldrs, 1 hero and 2 mtrs. All of which had been revealed by turn 2, but the Germans still insisted there was something to the 2 unrevealed stacks of counters in their way. Peasant farmers with pointed sticks. -bob "What's this 'Front Towards Ene...'" lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: Right of Inspection Mike Clay wrote concerning the stunning implications of the No Right of Inspection Rule. I personally have always wondered why opponents got to paw through my units looking for the juiciest targets in *any* game. (With some opponents it was more annoying than others, if you get what I mean.) Unless I need to prove that unit A can legally do something, why should my forces be accessible to the enemy? Since I play ASL almost 100% solo, it's not really a big problem, though. :-) Rusty witek@suvax1.stetson.edu ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:42:27 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: Various Qs Hi guys. Just some random questions and gripes. 1) I tried to order some Annuals from AH last week and was told that '90 is out of print. I thought that was strange, since I know '89 is still available. I came up with 2 possibilities. a) In comic-book publishing, the first issue of a series sometimes is overprinted, but they don't sell out, so the publisher cuts back on the print run. THEN the series gets popular, so #2 becomes rarer than #1. (This happened, BTW, with Marvel Comics' G.I. JOE and THE 'NAM). b) There may be something exceptionally neato-keen about the '90 Annual which makes it a MUST-HAVE item for all ASLers, and we G.I. Joe- come-latelies can just gnash our teeth and rue the day. Any substance to either of these hypotheses? 2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night the ELR of an OB is reduced by one from what it would ordinarily be. Also, the SAN is raised by two. If this is true why does the scenario card reduce the ELRs but not raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and applied consistently players would expect that they would be all the time and so we'd get arrogant and too big for our boots, or what? 3) Leadership Modifiers: Several charts (Sniper Check and Concealment come to mind) list plus and minus modifiers. On those, the bad ones usually are "+". But leadership is also listed as "+", even though it states elsewhere (In some cases WAY elsewhere) to remember that the "+" is usually a "-". Why is this superior to, say, having "+/- Leadership" on the charts? 4) A "Taking the Left Tit" SSR states that the German Wire must set up on Hill (umm, I forget. 538?). Does the hill consist of only the Level 2 hexes or does it also include the Level 1 hexes surrounding the Level 2s? Am I told this somewhere in the ASLRB and I can't find it? Rusty (A grumpy English teacher getting ready to go back to work) ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:48 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Re: Silence that Gun, and some dice weirdness John Appel writes: > [much stuff deleted] > .. > HOB in this scenario produced 3 Heros, two fanatics, and two berserkers. > Must be something in the Normandy air. I played this scenario only once and the HOB really killed the Germans. Of course I had the Germans :). I was afraid to shoot after a while, it seemed that every time I did I made my opponent stronger. There were so many eyes being rolled, I think there were three heros, a bunch of fanatics, and a one or two leader creations. Of course we played this around the anniversay of D-day. I felt like I was being diced by heroic ghost from beyond the grave! ------------------ djsullivan@bbn.com ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 11:30:43 AST Subject: Re: Right of Inspection > Mike Clay wrote concerning the stunning implications of the No Right of > Inspection Rule. > > I personally have always wondered why opponents got to paw through my > units looking for the juiciest targets in *any* game. (With some opponents > it was more annoying than others, if you get what I mean.) Unless I need > to prove that unit A can legally do something, why should my forces be > accessible to the enemy? > > Since I play ASL almost 100% solo, it's not really a big problem, though. :-) If you get Altzheimer, you can have fog of war all by yourself. > > Rusty > witek@suvax1.stetson.edu > Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- Subject: Right of Inspection From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 10:12:00 -0640 Howdy, mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes: [Right of Inspection] > An aside: I thought that I had read the whole contents of > chapters A-B-C-D, but I swear I've never read this rule > before. Was this rule in the 1987 (first) edition of the > rule book? I bought and read that edition of the rules, > then I bought a new rule book recently (1992 edition?), and > I loaned my original 1987 edition to a friend, so I cannot > verify if this rule was in the 1987 edition. It's in the original. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 22:21:57 EDT Subject: Re: Various Qs >2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night the ELR of an >OB is reduced by one from what it would ordinarily be. Also, the SAN >is raised by two. If this is true why does the scenario card reduce the >ELRs but not raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and applied >consistently players would expect that they would be all the time and so we'd >get arrogant and too big for our boots, or what? I think that the ELR and SAN changes are specifically for DYO. The printed scenarios have presumably already been changed or are modified to reflect specific cases. 3) Leadership Modifiers: This always bothered me, too, but I figured it was just AHs mentality at the time. Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Various Qs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 16:45:25 CETDST Hi, > 2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night the ELR of an > OB is reduced by one from what it would ordinarily be. Also, the SAN > is raised by two. If this is true why does the scenario card reduce the > ELRs but not raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and applie > consistently players would expect that they would be all the time and so we'd > get arrogant and too big for our boots, or what? I think that one Rule under the Night Rules is written something like this: "At Night the SAN cannot be reduced below the printed value. . ." Of course this could have been written differently if the SAN was raised on the scenarios. -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 08:52:43 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: 80-20 ASL Alan relates somebody's rantings: > Consider the fluidity of chess. An intelligent person can learn moves in > perhaps thirty minutes, but they probably will never actually master the game > in their lifetime. Couple people have mentioned things in recent weeks that obliquely lead into something I've been thinking, and Alan's message put me over the top. Submitted for your approval: The 80-20 rule applies to ASL too. That is, 80% of the game can be played with a firm grasp of 20% of the rules. Being a semi-perfectionist who would hate to lose a game because my opponent wheeled out a rule that I wasn't familiar with, I used to worry too much about knowing as many rules as I could. Now I'm thinking that it's better to know how to use the basic rules to your best advantage. Instead of worrying about how to hold off 4 Shermans by madly spinning your Panther's CA, it might be better to figure out how to use your 5 squads to attack your opponent's 3 squads over a stretch of open ground. Instead of wondering whether there's an advantage to self-breaking my OBA observer during my opponent's Bathroom Break Phase, it might be better to appreciate how powerful it is to eliminate enemy units due to Failure to Rout, or when it would be better to take prisoners. Anybody else think about this? Tom "I didn't ASK for the anal probe" - Passion Fish ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Various Qs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 17:22:47 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, I don't have any clue as to why you can't get a '90 Annual - I bought mine right away :-) I'll try to answer the questions, on the other hand. > 2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night the ELR of an > OB is reduced by one from what it would ordinarily be. Also, the SAN > is raised by two. If this is true why does the scenario card reduce the > ELRs but not raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and applied > consistently players would expect that they would be all the time and so we'd > get arrogant and too big for our boots, or what? The SAN is only increased to a maximum of 7, but it cannot drop below the printed SAN. Thus, a printed SAN of 5 and a printed SAN of 7 will both be SAN 7 at the start of a scenario, but one could be reduced down to 5 while the other couldn't. Still confusing? Just read the above once more, slowly ;-) > 3) Leadership Modifiers: Several charts (Sniper Check and Concealment come > to mind) list plus and minus modifiers. On those, the bad ones usually are > "+". But leadership is also listed as "+", even though it states elsewhere > (In some cases WAY elsewhere) to remember that the "+" is usually a "-". > Why is this superior to, say, having "+/- Leadership" on the charts? That would be +(-X) in most cases. Remember that leadership modifiers already have a sign, + in the case of a 6+1. That means that it is mathe- matically correct to list the modifier as +(leadership). > 4) A "Taking the Left Tit" SSR states that the German Wire must set up > on Hill (umm, I forget. 538?). Does the hill consist of only the Level 2 > hexes or does it also include the Level 1 hexes surrounding the Level 2s? > Am I told this somewhere in the ASLRB and I can't find it? I would say that the hill includes all the level 1 hexes as well, but I don't think this is covered in the ASLRB. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: German entry in RB Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 17:26:27 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, As some already have hinted at, there is an error in the german entry rules. As per a letter I got when I wrote to ask (I don't remember if it was snail- or e-mail) the "/after" should be deleted from that rule. I think it was Pat Jonke that said that, and I hope it is in the Q&A file. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 23:21:03 EDT Subject: Re: Various Qs >2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night the ELR of an >OB is reduced by one from what it would ordinarily be. Also, the SAN >is raised by two. If this is true why does the scenario card reduce the >ELRs but not raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and applied >consistently players would expect that they would be all the time and so we'd >get arrogant and too big for our boots, or what? I think that the ELR and SAN changes are specifically for DYO. The printed scenarios have presumably already been changed or are modified to reflect specific cases. 3) Leadership Modifiers: This always bothered me, too, but I figured it was just AHs mentality at the time. Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 23:24:59 EDT Subject: Re: Right of Inspection >Mike Clay wrote concerning the stunning implications of the No Right of >Inspection Rule. > >I personally have always wondered why opponents got to paw through my >units looking for the juiciest targets in *any* game. (With some opponents >it was more annoying than others, if you get what I mean.) Unless I need >to prove that unit A can legally do something, why should my forces be >accessible to the enemy? In my "friendly" games, my opponents and I don't inspect unless LOS exists, or in some cases, until a stack fires. It seems blatantly unfair to "paw" through stacks if they haven't done anything yet. About as unfair as placing a DC in a fortified location and getting full effect on the blast:-) Cheers, Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 23:27:08 EDT Subject: Re: Top 10 Scenarios On Mon, 8 Aug 94 23:48:55 EDT, Jeff Shields wrote: >THIS IS ANOTHER REMINDER FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SUBMITTED THERE TOP 10 >CHOICES FROM THE BELOW LIST. Pick 10 and send it to me! > >The following people have responded: Bahadir, Cariaga, Hancock, >Hildebrandt, Hundsdorfer, M Black, M Samuel, N Smith, Shostak, Snow, S King. > >(3) The list of Favs is too long. Let's consider it a ballot. >If y'all don't mind the wasted ether, let's revote on the list to >shorten it to the top 10, 20, and 30 scenarios. Mark only 10 >scenarios that are on the list and return it to me for colation. >I'll post the results in a couple of weeks (and after a couple of >reminders). > >jeff@back.vims.edu > >The usual provisos apply to balance, and playability. >* denotes that I didn't have the statistic available. >============================================================= > Initial Balance >ID Scenario Name rank D:A Remark >============================================================= >ASL 4 Commissar's House 1 21:20 most played >E Hill 621 2 2:9 least balanced? >A 25 Cold Crocodiles 3 18:16 most played >ASL 71 Jungle Citadel 5.5 4:5 >CG III The Barrikady 5.5 4:5 >G Hube's Pocket 5.5 2:1 >RB 3 Bread Factory #2 5.5 13:16 most played >A 60 Totsugeki! 9 2:6 >ASL 23 Under The Noel Trees 9 23:19 most played >ASL 8 The Fugitives 9 10:12 >ASL 37 Khamsin 14 7:7 >ASL 54 Bridge To Nowhere 14 4:5 >ASL 65 Red Star, Red Sun 14 5:4 >C Streets Of Stalingrad 14 12:3 >DASL 8 The Schoolhouse 14 4:3 >RB 6 Turned Away 14 10:15 most played >T 2 Puma Prowls 14 7:14 > >A 39 Showdown At Tug Arg Pa 31 4:7 >ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 31 39:31 most played >ASL 11 Defiance On Hill 30 31 17:26 most played >ASL 13 Le Manoir 31 12:13 most played >ASL 21 Among The Ruins 31 10:12 >ASL 22 Kurhaus Clash 31 8:11 >ASL 25 Gavin's Gamble 31 3:3 >ASL 30 Sylvan Death 31 8:10 >ASL 34 A New Kind Of Foe 31 1:2 >ASL 35 Blazin' Chariots 31 14:13 most played >ASL 46 Birds of Prey 31 8:5 >ASL 5 In Sight Of The Volga 31 6:4 >ASL 60 On The Kokoda Trail 31 9:16 most played >ASL 63 The Eastern Gate 31 7:3 >ASL 82 For Honor Alone 31 12:2 least balanced? >ASLUG 14 Morgan's Stand 31 * >Atp 8 Italian Brothers 31 * >DASL 10 The Final Battle 31 2:1 >DASL 7 With Flame And Shell 31 2:4 >F Paw Of The Tiger 31 1:7 >G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 31 12:20 most played >KGP 3 Panthers in the Mist 31 3:3 >KGP I Clash At Stoumont 31 2:0 >RB 2 Blood & Guts 31 5:10 >T 6 Dead Of Winter 31 12:5 >T 7 Hill 253.5 31 4:6 >TT 3 Panzers Marsch! 31 * >A 7 Slamming The Door 2:8 least balanced? >A 8 Agony Of Doom 6:0 >A 19 Cat And Mouse 1:1 >A 20 Counterattack Sidi Bou Zid 1:8 >A 28 The Professionals 4:2 >A 32 Zon With The Wind 20:20 most played >A 34 Lash Out 13:7 >A 37 Dreil Team 11:9 >A 41 OP Hill 4:0 >A 44 Blocking Action At Lipki 9:6 >A 47 White Tigers 7:2 >A 52 Swan Song 3:5 >A 55 The Cat Has Jumped 0:2 >A 58 Munda Mash 6:2 >A 59 Death At Carentan 3:6 >A 64 Chateau de Quesnoy * >A 66 Counterstroke At Stonne 1:1 >B Tractor Works 1:4 >G 1 Timoshenko's Attack 1:5 >G 8 Recon In Force 6:6 >G 14 Tiger, Tiger 3:7 >J The Bitche Salient 2:5 >L Hitdorf On The Rhine 4:3 >M 1st Crisis Army Gr Nort 2:1 >N Soldiers Of Destruction 26:4 most played > least balanced >P The Road To Wiltz 5:2 >Q Land Leviathans 1:3 >T 4 Shklov's Labors Lost 20:26 most played >ASL 6 Red Packets 4:10 >ASL 14 Silence That Gun 30:20 most played >ASL 32 Subterranean Quarry 2:4 >ASL 39 Turning The Tables 1:4 >ASL 42 Point Of No Return 2:4 >ASL 48 Toujours L'Audace 5:9 >ASL 53 A High Price To Pay 5:6 >ASL 57 Battle For Rome 3:3 >ASL 62 Bungle In The Jungle 6:2 >ASL 66 Bushmasters 13:1 least balanced >ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 25:12 most played >ASL 70 KP 167 3:2 >ASL 74 Bloody Red Beach 3:3 >ASL 77 Le Herisson 13:11 >ASL 79 Bridge Of Seven Planets 4:2 >DASL 3 Storming The Factory 7:8 >DASL 5 Little Stalingrad 0:2 >DASL 6 Draconian Measures 2:5 >DASL 9 Preparing The Way 10:4 >DASL 13 Bogged Down 3:2 >DASL 15 Barkmann's Corner 3:5 >DASL 18 King Of The Hill 3:2 >DASL A To The Last Man 1:4 >DASL A6 Breakout 3:5 >HASL A5 Take Two * >RB 1 One Down, Two To Go 7:6 >RB 4 To The Rescue 1:4 >ASLUG 11 Raiders On Butaritari * >NEWS 32 Death and Ruins * >O 50.2 Dora II * >?? One More Hour * >Rout R Brandenburger Bridge * >Rout R Wintergewitter * >TT 1 Take The Chance * >X 13 Acts Of Defiance * >Z 7 Cushman's Pocket * >============================================================= IF YOU GET THIS FAR, THEN SEND IT NOW! Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: Competition for Tom (was: Right of Inspection) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 11:49:34 -0400 (EDT) > > > Since I play ASL almost 100% solo, it's not really a big problem, though. :-) > > If you get Altzheimer, you can have fog of war all by yourself. > Hey Tom! I think you've got some competition! This guy's funny! Later, Neal ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 09:37:48 -0700 Subject: Re: 80-20 ASL Hola! On Aug 22, 8:52am, Tom Repetti wrote: > Instead of worrying about how to > hold off 4 Shermans by madly spinning your Panther's CA, it might be better to > figure out how to use your 5 squads to attack your opponent's 3 squads over a > stretch of open ground. Instead of wondering whether there's an advantage to > self-breaking my OBA observer during my opponent's Bathroom Break Phase, it > might be better to appreciate how powerful it is to eliminate enemy units due to > Failure to Rout, or when it would be better to take prisoners. > > Anybody else think about this? I agree completely. Of course it's important to have SOME degree of familiarity with all the rules, but 9 times out of ten, you're not going to need to remember that, for example, a single SMC can occupy an abandoned vehicle and either fire its weaponry or attempt to move it. Remember Bas' test that dealt with such things? Most games come down to just exactly those things that Tom mentioned: surrounding broken units to cut off their route paths, bringing those big MGs into a position where they can really "put the wood" to the enemy positions, jumping that CX squad in CC with your concealed unit in the adjacent hex, etc. On a vaguely related topic, someone mentioned last week that they thought ASL scenarios typically favored the defender, or that it was easier to defend than attack. I'm afraid I don't agree. For the defender, setup is EVERYTHING. If you put that ATG in a position that doesn't cover a particular attack lane, you risk having it become ineffective at the outset. Also, for the defender, morale is much more important. That is, if a unit breaks, it can open up your defense like cracks in the Grand Cooley Dam. One or two lucky Prep fire shots can leave a defense in shambles. Compare that with the attack: if units break, not that big of a deal. The defender is not usually in a position to surround and destroy your broken units; it just slows you down until they rally. Also, you might, by pure luck, choose the line of attack where your opponent is weakest. (Hint: if your (defending) opponent does a lot of moving on his first turn, there's a good chance you've picked the right path). So what does all this mean? Mainly this: I needed to take a respite from the tedium of the job, and decided to divert myself with some ASL talk. Comments? Dade ----- Subject: Various Qs From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 11:22:00 -0640 Howdy, WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu writes: > 2) Night Rules: If I understand things correctly, at Night > the ELR of an OB is reduced by one from what it would > ordinarily be. Also, the SAN is raised by two. If this > is true why does the scenario card reduce the ELRs but not > raise the SANs? Is it that if the rules were written and > applied consistently players would expect that they would > be all the time and so we'd get arrogant and too big for > our boots, or what? My first response is, why ask why, but in this particular case there is a (fairly minor) reason for doing it this way. The SAN printed on the scenario card has meaning: the SAN can not be reduced below this value (by Sniper checks, attacks by the enemy sniper, etc) [E1.76]. The unreduced ELR has no meaning and so can be forgotten. > 3) Leadership Modifiers: Several charts (Sniper Check and > Concealment come to mind) list plus and minus modifiers. On > those, the bad ones usually are "+". But leadership is > also listed as "+", even though it states elsewhere (In > some cases WAY elsewhere) to remember that the "+" is > usually a "-". Why is this superior to, say, having "+/- > Leadership" on the charts? Technically the leadership modifier is an integer. The "-" on the counter is not a "dash", but a "minus" (as the "+" on a 6+1 is a "plus"). When a rule says "+" the leadership modifier, you add a negative integer to get a lower value. Although I frequently work with mathematical formulas, I agree that it can be momentarily confusing to see "+". However, it is mathematically consistent. If "+/-" were used, it would be ambiguous (in a rules lawyer sense, not to common sense) as to whether a negative number should be subtracted (as in -(-1) = +1) or added. Those who this confuses might just mark their QRCs in a way that makes the intention of the rule clear. > 4) A "Taking the Left Tit" SSR states that the German Wire > must set up on Hill (umm, I forget. 538?). Does the hill > consist of only the Level 2 hexes or does it also include > the Level 1 hexes surrounding the Level 2s? Am I told this > somewhere in the ASLRB and I can't find it? You probably aren't told this anywhere, but it's both Level 1 and 2. I've never heard anyone suggest anything different, but if someone argued this point, I would use B10 to support this, and if he were really adament, I would suggest trying a different scenario or another opponent. >Rusty (A grumpy English teacher getting ready to go back to work) Before spending too much time trying to find logical flaws in the phrasings of the ASLRB, consider that the only way--IMHO--that one could avoid such problems would be to avoid English altogether and switch to a mathematical or logical description of the game. Consequences of the rules could then be deduced or disproved, but what a game to play! I don't deny that there are rules that could be clarified, but trying to find every place that the designers have relied on "common sense" to fill in a gap will prove to be an unending task, and almost barren of any benefit to your enjoyment of the game as a game. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 11:15:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Terry Nonay Subject: Cowering FG Hi all, Time to break free of my lurker status with a simple question: Does a leader of a multilocation firegroup prevent cowering for entire fire group or only for the units in the leaders location? Thanks Terry Nonay ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 01:20:54 EDT Subject: Re: 80-20 ASL >Alan relates somebody's rantings: >> Consider the fluidity of chess. An intelligent person can learn moves in >> perhaps thirty minutes, but they probably will never actually master the game >> in their lifetime. Tom Repetti: >Submitted for your approval: The 80-20 rule applies to ASL too. That is, 80% of >the game can be played with a firm grasp of 20% of the rules. > >Being a semi-perfectionist who would hate to lose a game because my opponent >wheeled out a rule that I wasn't familiar with, I used to worry too much about >knowing as many rules as I could. Now I'm thinking that it's better to know how >to use the basic rules to your best advantage. I once taught a friend to play ASL. He knew about 20% of the rules (never read them just used to go over different ones each time). He certainly would have won more games if he'd learned the rules better, but he'd win 33% of the time. Same is true of chess. You may know how the pieces move, but you don't know the game until you study it. In chess as in ASL there are certain basic rules that must be mastered to progress past the novice level. Rules like: [chess - ASL equivalent] (1) obtain/retain the center - take the high ground. (2) develop your pieces (don't waste time in the opening by moving too many pawns) - get your guns/tanks into places where they'll have the most affect (3) castle relatively early in the game - protect your VCs when defending or protect your valuables while attacking. (4) grab the open files/rows/columns - get the open fire lanes. (5) Line up your rooks on open rows to achieve support and power - mutually supporting attacks kick butt. I could go on, but I won't. I think Tom is basically right. One only needs to _master_ about 20-30% of the rules in order to play, but one needs to have a grasp of the finer points to win consistently. Jeff ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:29:54 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: SSR - boresighting (GOYA) I'm preparing to play GOYA! from a recent General and it has an SSR regarding German boresighting - something like: "All German SW may boresight prior to American Setup..." Now does this mean that the LMG's can boresight as well? or does it really translate to: "All German SW normally capable of boresighting may..." To me all means ALL so I'm inclined to say I can boresight the lights, but maybe that's 'cause I'm the Krauts :-) Being the Germans facing 20 US Paratrooper squads, with all the time in the world (10.5 turns), and me with only a band of 2 ELR 2nd line and conscript troops I think I might need my lights boresighted! Thanks for any opinions, rules quotes or even general tips on GOYA... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 02:03:00 EDT Subject: After Action Report: Panzer Marsch! I played two games of Panzer Marsch! this weekend. I won with the Russians both times. My set up in the first game was much like the one I sent out over the net with the exception of Carl Fago's suggestion of putting one of the T34-85s in 1P4. In the second game I put both of the 6-2-8s in the woods on the Russian right (they tried to entrench on turn 1 but were unsuccessful) with the 8-0 in the one hex stone building behind them. The mortar was exposed in 5GG10(?). The other T34-85 was in the wooden building in 1K7 or 1L7. This tank was decisive in the second game as it shelled and interdicted the infantry (KIA'd 2 squads, broke others) and blew up a Panther. In both games The Deutschies launched their attack through the wooded stream on the Russian left. It takes at least 2-3 turns to develop this attack properly. In the first game the attack was uncoordinated and basically never left crest status. I destroyed a Panther on the bridge on the first game turn! My mortar got waxed early on. My opponent and I blew it with the rules re crest status and SW. MMG can't be fired in crest status. Russian victory with no buildings lost. In the second game, I fell back into the buildings and made the Deutschies pay for crossing the road and using the woods. GET THIS - THE T34-85 IN 1P4 IS VULNERABLE TO LONG RANGE ATTACK FROM A PANTHER IN ONE OF THE FAR RIGHT HEXES. That will take care of the German problem of crossing the bridge (unless the ATG is placed there). My T34-85 high-tailed it out of 1P4 ASAP and got waxed in 1P9. Late in the game, a Panther moved adjacent to my HMG nest but I dusted it with a lucky T34-85 shot (APCR turret hit from 2 hexes needed a 7 to kill)! A last minute gamble with the halftracks netted one building hex at the loss of 1 HT with MMC. That pretty much sealed the game. Russian victory with 4-5 building hexes lost (9 needed for Germans to win). Comments and or whining: Where is a good place to put the mortar? It was exposed in 5GG10. In both games it got off 3 shots before being broken and DM'd for the duration. It did preoccupy the BMG of a Panther in both games. The T34-85 in 1P4 ain't the panacea that it's made out to be. It can be engaged from afar. Has anyone tried a halftrack attack on turn 4 or turn 5? This seems like the only way to win this scenario. I envision the attack coming from the bridge or through the OG stream hexes on the Russian right. Dangerous, sure, but it takes the pressure off the other flank and can cause much concern to the Russkies. Cheers, Jeff (sans crab) ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:55:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Re: 80-20 ASL > > I could go on, but I won't. I think Tom is basically right. One only > needs to _master_ about 20-30% of the rules in order to play, but one needs > to have a grasp of the finer points to win consistently. > > Jeff > Or one just has to play people with less experience and/or less knowledge of the rules than yourself!! :) Or just get lucky a lot... Darren ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 16:02:20 AST Subject: Re: 80-20 ASL > > I agree completely. Of course it's important to have SOME degree of > familiarity with all the rules, but 9 times out of ten, you're not going to > need to remember that, for example, a single SMC can occupy an abandoned > vehicle and either fire its weaponry or attempt to move it. Remember Bas' test > that dealt with such things? > > Most games come down to just exactly those things that Tom mentioned: > surrounding broken units to cut off their route paths, bringing those big MGs > into a position where they can really "put the wood" to the enemy positions, > jumping that CX squad in CC with your concealed unit in the adjacent hex, etc. > > On a vaguely related topic, someone mentioned last week that they thought ASL > scenarios typically favored the defender, or that it was easier to defend than > attack. I'm afraid I don't agree. For the defender, setup is EVERYTHING. If > you put that ATG in a position that doesn't cover a particular attack lane, you > risk having it become ineffective at the outset. Also, for the defender, > morale is much more important. That is, if a unit breaks, it can open up your > defense like cracks in the Grand Cooley Dam. One or two lucky Prep fire shots > can leave a defense in shambles. Hear hear, as a newcomer to ASL, I think it was way easier to defend in the old system. In any case, Scott Clarke is having a grand old time cracking up my poorly set defense and I wonder what (if anything) I'll be able to do to prevent this. So you have a bunch of squads and so send this HS here, and then that HS there ... Maybe the turn is meant to represent 2 minutes of real time but in fact it does represent 2 minutes X the number of units that move to draw fire. And then, all of a sudden, entire stacks move at once. Just like tanks in pre-ASL. send a couple of wimp tanks against the 88, then send a third right on top of it. Crunch. At least rof has slved part of that. > > Compare that with the attack: if units break, not that big of a deal. The > defender is not usually in a position to surround and destroy your broken > units; it just slows you down until they rally. Also, you might, by pure luck, > choose the line of attack where your opponent is weakest. (Hint: if your > (defending) opponent does a lot of moving on his first turn, there's a good > chance you've picked the right path). Watch me move Scott! Vroom Vroom! > So what does all this mean? Mainly this: I needed to take a respite from the > tedium of the job, and decided to divert myself with some ASL talk. > > Comments? > > Dade > Can we have a houserule about rude and/or obscene language here? I'd vote to ban the word "Work". It does have 4 letters you know :). Same with student: more letters, that's all. More work for me, that's the obscene part. Alain Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- Subject: Cowering FG From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 14:35:00 -0640 Howdy, Terry Nonay writes: > Does a leader of a multilocation firegroup prevent cowering > for entire fire group or only for the units in the leaders > location? The attack can't be leader-directed unless all Locations have a leader directing that Location's fire: A7.531 "A leader may use his leadership DRM (A10.7) to modify the IFT DR of any one attacking unit or FG per Player Turn, provided all firing units of the FG are in the same Location. A leadership DRM may be employed with a multi- hex/Location FG only if a leader directing that attack is present in every Location; the leadership DRM in effect is that of the lowest-quality participating leader." For those of you who are rules lawyers, from the Q&A: A7.53-.531 & A10.72 "These seem to imply that leader direction and the application of a leader's DRM can be declared independently of each other. Is this true? A. No - the two are synonymous in all cases. However, if leader direction is used for an attack/action to whose DR/dr "triangle" applies, that leader's DRM/drm cannot apply to that DR/dr. {92}" Either all the Locations aren't affected by cowering or they all are (assuming the units themselves are affected by cowering). You can't have leaders prevent cowering in some Locations and not others. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 14:40:25 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: Right of Inspection I have found that what works best for me when "inspecting" my opponents units is just asking him what is in a particular stack. Not only do I avoid "rummaging around" in his precious units and accidentally discovering a concealed unit lurking in the stack, but I also avoid the likely outcome--given my not-so-nimble fingers--of upsetting a stack or two, probably also concealed. If you are feeling particularly uncharitable, you can request your opponent to tell you what is in a stack even if you are not sure you have a LOS to it. Make him tell you there is no LOS. Of course, if you already know there is no LOS, you are venturing into the land of Gamesmanship, headed down that slippery slope to conveniently forgetting certain rules or modifiers. ....Perry ----- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 17:51:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: Re: 80-20 ASL On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Jeff Shields wrote: >>Herr Laddermeister's comments on 80/20 deleted<< > I once taught a friend to play ASL. Three cheers for Jeff! > Jeff's comments about his friend and comparison to chess deleted < I think the points you bring up are not rules as such, but the principles of tactics and strategy. NO amount of rules-lawyering will make up for a crappy setup or making a piece-meal advance when a tight combined arms assault is called for. (I 'll admit to being guilty of being a stickler for rules accuracy - not completely anal about it, just want to play _correctly_.) It is good to know as much of the rules as possible to avoid stupid mistakes ("You mean grainfields aren't in season yet?"), and to be able to use opportunities they present that may not be obvious to a more casual player (Armored Assault is a good example - I can never remember to use it when appropriate.) John jappel@access.digex.net ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Looking for a PBEM game of Hill 253.5 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 17:11:51 PDT Howdy! I'd like to add another small PBEM game to my schedule, and Hill 253.5 (in General 27.3, if you care) looks like just the ticket... one board, neat toys for both sides, apparently well balanced. I'd prefer it to be a ladder match (I'm now 4-2 if anyone cares). Email me if you're interested. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 00:00:00 UTC Subject: SCENARIOS This is a little unsolicited hindsight on two scenarios recently mentioned here on the mailing list. "Able at Cesaro." Dade, I played this against Guy Chaney at the ASL Open in Dallas this year. We both wanted the Italians so I ended up with the Americans with balance...an extra half turn. Guy used his artillery as harassing fire which when trying to move in the open with 6 morale units managed to break a number of my squads as well as slow me. For my part I used the jeeps to bring the mortar crews in position to pepper his observer leaders and finally broke them. I then used the unloaded jeeps to probe for mine around the woods in front of the major hills. He kept his MMG's hidden till I got hung up in the mine fields in the aforementioned woods (he shot up my "scout" jeeps with carbine fire) where some excellent rolling and ROF devastated my right flank. On the left my 10-2 went heroic and plowed through most of the Italians of the left who had all dug in by the time I got to that part of the board. I fell short by a turn despite my advantage. In conclusion, I wouldn't say it was a walk over for the Americans. "Backs to the Sea." This scenario was always a hose for the Americans. The Chaney/McGrath ABS provisions of giving the American a 9-2 and deleting 2 squads, an 8-0, 2 MMG's, one LMG and one mortar from the German OB would seem to vindicate the conventional wisdom regarding this scenario. I played this very scenario June 6th this year and it was tight with an American win. ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 23:57:00 UTC Subject: Re: German entry in RB I don't understand the confusion regarding the RB entry for German RGs. The CG SR states entry (aside from at already controlled edge hexes and A9 to N0) is date dependent as follows: 17-19 October: A9 to U1 20-22 October: A22 to U1 on/after 23 October: A45 to U1 The last line is no different than saying (for CG I): 23-29 October: A45 to U1 Or (for CG III): 23 October to 15 November: A45 to U1 Is this not so? Regards, Bob Schaaf ----- From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 03:08:00 UTC Subject: laddermeisters For those of you who are intersted in the progress of the game between Tom and I. Turn 7 (akrotiri) is done. I have 2 AA guns left (Tom just blew the crew off one of the guns with a well aimed shot from the 10-2 stack after the AA gun failed to get more than a PTC in the PFPh. His inexorabl;e advance has left me with 4 squads compessed into a tight perimeter and he only needing one more gun and he has two turns to do it. Looks bleak for the GEnie. Phil ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 02:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: AFV/MMC Melee.... OK guys, how do you handle this one... A King Tiger is immobilized, has it's CMG disabled, and rolled a 10 for it's first CC use of it's n9 CC . There is a hero and a 6-2-8 furiously beating away on the King Tiger. Two hexes away sits _another_ King Tiger. Seeing his buddy in trouble, he hoses the Melee hex with 8 factors of MG , then proceeds to fire the 88LL at the Melee hex . Question: Does the King Tiger in Melee undergo any attack from the Ordnance HE attack attempt? ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:59:21 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: AFV/MMC Melee.... Paul F Ferraro writes: > Two hexes away sits _another_ King Tiger. Seeing his buddy in > trouble, he hoses the Melee hex with 8 factors of MG , > then proceeds to fire the 88LL at the Melee hex like to attack the infantry with HE>. > Question: Does the King Tiger in Melee undergo any attack from the > Ordnance HE attack attempt? If it's BU, no. If it's CE (unlikely) the crew suffer a General Collateral Attack. You can't harm an AFV unless you specifically target it (or use the Area Target Type). Bas. ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 02:17:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Re: After Action Report: Panzer Marsch! After reading Jeff's (sans crab) excellent reports on Panzer Marshe! I've come to think that we either must have very different opponents, or he is great as the Russians. I have played this myself four times now, with a fifth still underway by E-mail (Yes Andres, we are still playing, and I will send my move soon!! That goes for you too Adrian...). With apologies out of the way, I'll move to talking about the scenario in question. Jeff mentions an attack over the stream to the Russian right as being both needed, and somewhat dangerous. To me, from experience, I would say that this is the best, least dangerous option. True, there is much open ground to cover, but herein lies the reason for its use. The Russian must set up relatively strongly to protect the most obvious, and hardest for the German, place to attack. Without proper smoke placing ability (just who was that guy who chose the OB, didn't they have any Stugs sitting around) the bridge itself is just too hard to cross with the limited rout paths which exist for the attacking force. The second reason for a strong Russian setup either covering, or near, the bridge is the more limited lines of sight/better oportunites for the defender. Anything which sets up on the Russian right is in for a serious pounding by the combined MG and gun armament of the Panthers. There is just nothing around which can hang out in this enviorment. In the games I have played, three as the German, I have found that I can reveal anything in the trees or wooden buildings within the first 2 prep and one defensive fire phases. With a little luck, one can start on the stone building which includes 1F8 (or 6), I can't quite remember. With all these locations checked, there is no possibility of underbelly shots, the Russian defense is set into motion to counteract the strong German left, and the ability to cross over the gully, and bridge (limited) becomes a hard option for the Russian to defend. He simply cannot meet the Germans head on, for the Panthers can just sit back and toast anything which shows itself. A move to the stone is about all the Russian can counteract with. With this said, the basic setup and 1st movement becomes one of major armored assault. The one Panther and two halftracks use armored assault to get the HMG and two MMGs into the stone building just short of the stream, with the Panther moving down the road a little to get shots over the not really there bridge. The other two hang back a little farther and attempt to take out the tanks with there guns and start razing the bushes for infantry/the gun. The other halftrack comes in one the far left, with infantry in armored assault. This includes a PSK and a couple LMGs. These guys will cross the bridge if the gun doesn't show and the Russians have started the move back to the stone locations. They can also grab that stone building in there initial movement area. The game comes down to the Panthers shooting stuff, no sane Russian will fight the three Panthers and hope for lucky APCR/Turret hits...or is this what is needed by the Russian to win?? The Panthers shoot stuff until it is relatively clear for the crossing. One or two of the halftracks can then cross either on the left, or over the bridge. This is especially useful to create a couple TEMs so the rout situation is not so bad. If they get shot up, so what, if they don't, they stop in the first few hexes over the span, and MG stuff, a create that +1 which will allow Infantry to hand around. With this attack, the measly Russian force will have a hard time defending everything, especially once some of his stuff starts breaking and is helpless to rally due to the crummy leadership situation. Stretch em out, chew em up, then cross nearly uncontested...if he shows himself, he can and will be destroyed. Use the Panthers as overwatch, mobile, nearly indestructible pillboxes. Once you are satisfied that Ivan either has nothing left or has showed the gun elsewhere, cross the stream. You will find that the odds favor not bogging, and you can cross with bypass via the stone firebase and woods hex on the Russian left. Not so hard really... Great scenario though! Darren ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 13:26:32 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: German entry in RB > > I don't understand the confusion regarding the RB entry for German RGs. The > CG SR states entry (aside from at already controlled edge hexes and A9 to > N0) is date dependent as follows: > > 17-19 October: A9 to U1 > 20-22 October: A22 to U1 > on/after 23 October: A45 to U1 > > The last line is no different than saying (for CG I): > > 23-29 October: A45 to U1 > > Or (for CG III): > > 23 October to 15 November: A45 to U1 > > Is this not so? > > Regards, > Bob Schaaf > No, it probably isn't! if the part : > 17-19 October: A9 to U1 > 20-22 October: A22 to U1 > on/after 23 October: A45 to U1 is right, then the exception that you always can enter between A9 and NO is totally redundant since A9-NO is a subset of the three above, and all dates are covered in the three above too. Ther is an unofficial errata changing the three to: > 17 October: A9 to U1 > 20 October: A22 to U1 > 23 October: A45 to U1 > i.e., each of these affects only the specified date. All other dates A9-NO applies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 13:40:44 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Trivia JR writes > >[stuff deleted] > MF. A unit assault moving could be attacked by the same > unit three times in its new Location, all without FFNAM. If > the Gun were emplaced, because the MF expenditures are > separate, the first two shots would be with the TEM of the > hex, but for the third could optionally use the TEM of the > emplacement. > > So long, > > JR > --- > þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo > > I will first thank JR for good answers to the Acquisition and Assault movement questien, but the last part gave me the idea of a new trivia question. JR says that a unit assault moving could be attacked by the same unit three times in its new Location, all without FFNAM, but this is not neccessarily true. Consider this situation: A squad moves to a Location where the MF cost is three MF, (the three MF is spent simultanously), and is fired at three times by the same enemy unit. 1) The first shot is with FFNAM, the second without FFNAM and the third with FFNAM. How? 2) The first shot is without FFNAM, the second with FFNAM and the third without FFNAM. How? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 13:50:15 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Trivia oleboe writes: > A squad moves to a Location where the MF cost is three MF, (the three > MF is spent simultanously), and is fired at three times by the same > enemy unit. > 1) The first shot is with FFNAM, the second without FFNAM and the > third with FFNAM. How? Uses non-assault movement, first shot pins the unit, second shot breaks it. > 2) The first shot is without FFNAM, the second with FFNAM and the > third without FFNAM. How? Uses assault movement, first shot breaks the unit, second shot "unbreaks" the unit by battle hardening it. Bas. ----- From: steve.cocks@duesenberg.se Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 14:49:41 Subject: ON MY HONOUR Hi A while back I asked if anybody had the address of the chap who wrote the "On my honour" PBEM system and stated that I wanted to get in touch with him with regards uploading his excellent system to CompuServe. One of you chaps responded but I have since lost the guys details. Could the person who uploaded the address please do so again. Cheers Steve ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 08:17:58 CDT From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: critical hit woes Guys, Am I the only guy who hasn't received his copy of Critical Hit yet? What makes this especially fun is that another player in town (hi Jack) has already received his, over a week ago. Now, has anybody looked at the balance provisions for The Green Hell from Critical Hit yet? I had a chance to start this scenario last night (since I borrowed Jack's copy) and the ABS provisions look way out of whack. Cheers, Matt "not only annoying but paranoid" Shostak ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 10:43:22 AST Subject: Maps and scenarios Guys, Would some charitable soul please tell in detail how I can print those maps that I downloaded from Bas's treasure trove. Assume I am as thick as I sound. I use a mac so don't bother telling me all that crank starting stuff that DOS/Windows/Whatchmacallit users delight in: user-cuddliness is the only way to go on this man's desktop. Alain PS same goes for the scenarios. Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: New OBA Flowchart Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 16:51:40 CETDST Hi, everyone I have just downloaded the new version (V2.0) of the OBA flowchart to the ftp- servers: ftp.lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.153) carlo.phys.uva.nl (145.18.218.21) There are now three files: obafc.txt (Plain text) obafc_a4.ps (PostScript A4-format paper) obafc_ltr.ps (PostScript LETTER-format paper). Since I don't have access to a printer that takes LETTER paper this version has not been checked as to how it looks on paper. -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 09:36:40 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: German pronunciation... Somewhat off topic, but I haven't had enough coffee yet today :) > A King Tiger is immobilized, has it's CMG disabled, and rolled a 10 for > it's first CC use of it's n9 CC . Referring to the Nahverteidigungswaffe: nah-fehr-TIE-de-goongs-VAH-fuh I think this is right. Cheers, Dave. ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:01:05 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Critical Hit ABS Problems Annoying Matt said: >Now, has anybody looked at the balance provisions for The Green Hell >from Critical Hit yet? I had a chance to start this scenario last night >(since I borrowed Jack's copy) and the ABS provisions look way >out of whack. Yep. For all aspiring scenario designers who want to use Australian Balancing, please make it so that level 2 includes level 1 and level 3 includes levels 1 and 2. Always. Why? Because sometimes it appears to me that level 1 balance is stronger than level 2 balance, and this is the only way to guarantee with mathematical certainty that this won't happen. I think the ASLUG scenarios all did ABS the right way, but several CH scenarios have non-inclusive level 2 and level 3 balance. Yuck. Anyway, one of the balancing provisions in Green Hell changes the scenario length to seven turns. But it's already a seven-turn scenario. Oops. Another one increases a CVP limit from 20 to 24, but for the wrong side. It _helps_ the Yanks to be able to lose more CVP, so that should be a Japanese handicap entry, not an American one. Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on one page like all the others except... (very minor trivia question) Dave Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 09:59:39 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: "Rules trivia" c> I've always wondered about the rule that says H-to-H Close c> Combat can only occur in Deluxe ASL, myself. (Not counting c> Japanese etc., of course.) I mean - why? Is the rule c> particularly difficult to implement in normal ASL? Nope. c> Does the rule require the use of the large hexes? Nope. c> So why was it made a DASL-specific rule, rather than a c> standard option for CC in any scenario? I agree with Bruce. What does hex size have to do with anything. Germans vs. Russians in regular hexes have to use regular CC, but on the deluxe boards, its, "Oh, that's better. Now we have room to really go at each other hand to hand". Doesn't make nay sense at all. -Grant. ... Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Subject: Re:Trivia From: "RIAGUAS GUEDAN, ANDRES" Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 18:20:57 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 13:40:44 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Trivia JR writes > >[stuff deleted] > MF. A unit assault moving could be attacked by the same > unit three times in its new Location, all without FFNAM. If > the Gun were emplaced, because the MF expenditures are > separate, the first two shots would be with the TEM of the > hex, but for the third could optionally use the TEM of the > emplacement. > > So long, > > JR > --- > 1st 1.11 #2895 Foo > > I will first thank JR for good answers to the Acquisition and Assault movement questien, but the last part gave me the idea of a new trivia question. JR says that a unit assault moving could be attacked by the same unit three times in its new Location, all without FFNAM, but this is not neccessarily true. Consider this situation: A squad moves to a Location where the MF cost is three MF, (the three MF is spent simultanously), and is fired at three times by the same enemy unit. 1) The first shot is with FFNAM, the second without FFNAM and the third with FFNAM. How? 2) The first shot is without FFNAM, the second with FFNAM and the third without FFNAM. How? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: 23 Aug 94 12:22:43 EDT From: craig cooper <74537.573@compuserve.com> Subject: Micro Armor Scenarios there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the GHQ micro-armour for ASL. I bought three or four packs a few years ago when they were available. There were no scenarios enclosed. Rather, the packs were designed to provide enough vehicles of that type for one particular DASL scenario. For intance, enough Elefants for playing The Schoolhouse. You would have to buy the KV's etcetera separately. But there were NO enclosed scenarios. Craig Cooper p.s. The packs were numbered according to the scenario number: "4" for DASL 4, etc. ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: AFV/MMC Melee.... Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 9:26:54 PDT Paul Ferraro writes: > OK guys, how do you handle this one... > > A King Tiger is immobilized, has it's CMG disabled, and rolled a 10 for > it's first CC use of it's n9 CC . Just for reference (I can't tell whether you know this or not, but it seems to be a common rule mistake), smoke generators don't deplete the same way special ammo does. They just fail to be used properly if a number greater than the usage number is rolled; the first King Tiger can still fire its sN later (assuming it gets the chance...). > There is a hero and a 6-2-8 furiously beating away on the King Tiger. > > Two hexes away sits _another_ King Tiger. Seeing his buddy in trouble, he > hoses the Melee hex with 8 factors of MG , then proceeds to > fire the 88LL at the Melee hex infantry with HE>. > > Question: Does the King Tiger in Melee undergo any attack from the > Ordnance HE attack attempt? As long as he's firing on the Infantry target type, no (unless the King Tiger is CE). If he's firing on the AREA target type, the King Tiger can be affected. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Critical Hit ABS Problems Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 9:52:47 PDT Dave Ripton writes: > Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on one page like > all the others except... (very minor trivia question) Sowchos 79? B^) I guess you mean an OFFICIAL one? The Last Bid, then. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Drosner@aol.com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 13:17:07 EDT Subject: Devilish Defenses... Just curious about how the mechanics of this defense would work: Assume Red Barricades, I am the Russian, I have an HIP Squad in a (unbeknownst to the German player) fortified and MINED exterior factory hex... German squad decides,"gee there's an empty hex that looks like a good place to break into the factory with" and moves (or even assaults into it...) does he take the minefield attack if I don't reveal the HIP unit to throw him back?? and what if he does take the attack and suffers a PIN?? regardless, if I do reveal, I am gonna hose his butt with FFMO/FFNAM pointblank fire... any thoughts?? Dave Rosner in L.A.... ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 13:30:03 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: Critical Hit ABS Problems >If only the CH scenarios fit on one page like all the others >except... (very minor trivia question) >Dave Ripton The Last Bid. ....Perry ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 02:49:31 EDT Subject: Re: After Action Report: Panzer Marsch! Darren, I hadn't actually intended a full scale attack on the German left but after reading your report I think it could be very successful. I just have a couple of points: The halftracks will get eaten alive by the ATG. What do you do about it? Doesn't the mortar in 5GG10 (board edge) threaten your advance? With my original Ruskie set up I had only 2 squads, mrt, and ATR, plus the ATG defending that side (but another squad with lmg could see some hexes). If the brunt of the German attack falls there, these forces could cause some serious delays. I see that you could potential use the stone house and meager woods for some cover. My opponent chose to attack through the wooded stream hexes on the German right. But I think those hexes are just too difficult to move through. Do you put a leader, squad and HMG or MMG in the woods in 5Y4? This seems necessary to interdict potential Russian infiltration to the Russian right. I'll have to try this scenario as the Germans.... Cheers, Jeff (sans crab, again) ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 03:26:38 EDT Subject: Re:Trivia OK. I'll try this one: >A squad moves to a Location where the MF cost is three MF, (the three >MF is spent simultanously), and is fired at three times by the same >enemy unit. > >1) The first shot is with FFNAM, the second without FFNAM and the > third with FFNAM. How? The squad assault moves. First MF it is shot at and breaks. Second shot no longer uses FFNAM, but squad HOBs and continues its assault move when it is fired upon a third time (3 MF). >2) The first shot is without FFNAM, the second with FFNAM and the > third without FFNAM. How? Squad moves. First MF it is shot and is pinned. Second shot uses FFNAM vs. pinned unit. Second shot breaks the squad. Third shot doesn't use FFNAM because squad is broken. ----- From: Kenneth Kai Chi Li Subject: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:39:20 -0600 (MDT) I am still learning the game and this is my first game soltiure, using the 8 step to ASL method, lesson 1, scenario A in General. (If people don't know about that, just treat below as a rule question.) Since I am not using a lot of rules, many do not apply. Also I have checked the Q&A and get cleared about some of the rules. But question still arises... Here is the situation: German: a 8-0 Leader maning a LMG stacking with 2 4-6-7 and a broken HS in a stone building hex. one 4-6-7 has also a LMG. Both unbroken squard already has a first fire counter on. During the same movement phase, a Russian 9-1 leader and a 4-4-7 squard moved into an ADJ stone building hex within the same building. Now the stack decide to use subsequent First Fire (please note both LMG don't have any first fire counters on). Now come the question: 1) As from the Q&A, Both LMG should be using sustained Fire, How about the FP calculation?? both 4-6-7 should be half and then double due to Point blank Fire. Should both LMG be halfed in this case?? Or as below: 4 + 4 / 2 * 2 = 8 + 3 * 2 + 3 / 2 * 2 (one SMC using LMG) = 17 FP?? 2) Since the Russian stack is not using assault Move and attacking within buildings don't have any TEM. Should it consider Open Ground for FFMO?? That is a total of -2 for both. I used only the FFNA thus only a -1. Which way is correct?? Any help will be appreciated. Boy I wish I will be more familiar with the rules... Also the first turn by myself took forever. Several hours, looking through the rules, and thinking how to move on both side... Will the game be quicker if I get used to the rules?? I am rusty on the rules since it is a while since I played SL... Thanks in advance... --- Kenneth --- ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 17:04:13 CDT From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: double page scenarios The last bid and: Rouge Sce's Scheldt Fortress South (r219) Clearing the Breskins Pocket (r220) Climax at Nijmegen Bridge (#34) Sweep for Bordj Toum Bridge (#39) Has anyone ever played r220 - you only need two copies of boards 7, 8, 9, 10, 6, and 4... Andrew ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 16:28:52 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... Kenneth, > From kkl@bert.cs.byu.edu Tue Aug 23 15:13 MDT 1994 > > > I am still learning the game and this is my first game soltiure, using > the 8 step to ASL method, lesson 1, scenario A in General. (If people > don't know about that, just treat below as a rule question.) Since I am > not using a lot of rules, many do not apply. Also I have checked the Q&A > and get cleared about some of the rules. But question still arises... > > Here is the situation: > > German: a 8-0 Leader maning a LMG stacking with 2 4-6-7 and a broken HS > in a stone building hex. one 4-6-7 has also a LMG. Both unbroken squard > already has a first fire counter on. During the same movement phase, a > Russian 9-1 leader and a 4-4-7 squard moved into an ADJ stone building > hex within the same building. Now the stack decide to use subsequent > First Fire (please note both LMG don't have any first fire counters on). > > Now come the question: > > 1) As from the Q&A, Both LMG should be using sustained Fire, How about > the FP calculation?? both 4-6-7 should be half and then double due to > Point blank Fire. Should both LMG be halfed in this case?? Or as below: > > 4 + 4 / 2 * 2 = 8 + 3 * 2 + 3 / 2 * 2 (one SMC using LMG) = 17 FP?? > I believe that there is a Q&A to answer your question for the LMG possessed by the 4-6-7: A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a MG (that is not marked with any fire counter) and wishes to use Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire counter? A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} For the Lmg possessed by the Leader, it depends on if the Leader is marked First Fire already due to directing a First Fire attack. If it has directed a First Fire attack, it should be marked with First Fire marker, and will suffer the same penalties for SFF as the squad. If the leader did not participate in First Fire, then it can join the fire group with the Subsequent First Firing Lmg/467 and 467, and contributing Full Lmg Firepower, modified by the fact that a single SMC is using it. > 2) Since the Russian stack is not using assault Move and attacking within > buildings don't have any TEM. Should it consider Open Ground for FFMO?? > That is a total of -2 for both. I used only the FFNA thus only a -1. > Which way is correct?? > The moving Russian stack still gets the TEM for the building (or any terrain it happens to enter) while moving, but is still subject to FFNAM. The net DRM is + 2 (+3 Stone Building, -1 FFNAM). > Some side notes: 1) Since the Russian stack has spent 2 movement factors to enter the Stone Building location, the adjacent German units (as well as other non-adjacent units) have potentially 2 chances to fire at them. For the units marked with First Fire markers, the 1st of these opportunities is SFF. Once marked with a Final Fire marker, then only the adjacent units may fire using Final Protective Fire... 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception to this... > Any help will be appreciated. Boy I wish I will be more familiar with > the rules... Also the first turn by myself took forever. Several hours, > looking through the rules, and thinking how to move on both side... Will > the game be quicker if I get used to the rules?? I am rusty on the rules > since it is a while since I played SL... > > Thanks in advance... > > --- Kenneth --- Regards, Mark ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 22:11:00 UTC Subject: Ladder Match I've joined the ladder and am looking for a match. Anyone interested in some PTO madness? Drop me a line with a scenario suggestion (or two or three . . . ). Thanks, Bob S. ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 21:38:00 UTC Subject: Re: CC Advance Sorry if this isn't exactly timely, but I thought I'd hurl my $.02 into the CC advance discussion. JR wrote a while back: >Allowing advance out of an enemy Location after a Banzai >should be considered from many points of view, but I am >going to focus on the impact of that choice on the game >system. Heretofore if you had a line of squads, you could >block movement of the enemy with "bodies." The only way to >"overrun" the enemy was in vehicles. If Banzai participants >are allowed to leapfrog enemy positions, this will change >fundamentally the way Infantry can fight with each other. >First there are problems with scenario design. No longer >can a "solid" line prevent enemy units from running through >to grab victory hexes or exit the board. . . . I've never been very satisfied with the "wall of bodies" defense, myself. Seems like there'd be a a lot of potential for a properly motivated (e.g., ready to die for the Emperor/Motherland) force to infiltrate a 40 meter frontage defended by 10-30 men. IMO, if the infiltrators survive the TPBF (as well as any residual FP) they deserve the opportunity to extract maximum payback. > . . . Second the >Japanese could exploit this in ways that I don't think they >could in real life. They could Banzai, then advance to the >next hex. In their next fire phase they can encircle the >leapfrogged positions. I've never heard of a real Banzai >attack doing anything like that. I'm in the middle of reading one of the books about Lewis "Chesty" Puller. The accounts it gives of some of the Japanese attacks square nicely with what JR has described above. Personally, I'd find it very disconcerting (read: suffering the detrimental effects of encirclement) to find my position being infiltrated and surrounded by fanatic IJA troops. >Two arguments I would like to dismiss if I can. First, >someone argued that it doesn't matter because it's hard to >conduct a successful Banzai. I think the difficulty of >performing a Banzai charge is not relevent. If it can be >conducted at all, it should not produce any anomolies. I don't believe this does produce an anomoly, as I'll discuss below. >Second it was suggested that some are trying to rationalize >their interpretation of the rules with an argument about >reality. I have frequently argued that bringing in >arguments about the real world is a bad practice when one >is trying to decide what an existing rule means. In this >case we are not trying to decide the meaning of a >particular rule, but whether a rule that does not exist (as >least as I read them) ought to be created. In this case it >is absolutely necessary to consider the real world. The rules governing this situation DO exist. Rules allowing units to wind up in the same location prior to the advance phase (bypassing a concealed units hex, human wave, etc) all say something like, "Mark the location with a CC counter to indicate that Melee rules do not yet apply." Let's turn then to the rule defining Melee (A11.15): "If infantry of both sides remain in the same Location after all inital CC attacks have been resolved at the end of the CCPh, they are considered to be locked in Melee and _may_not_leave_that_ _Location_ {emphasis mine} or attack except as part of CC." Therefore, if they're not locked in Melee, then they CAN leave that Location (granted, this is an implicit inference). What about an SMC overrun? The rules specifically state that if the SMC opts to take the CC and both sides survive, the location is immediately (in the MPh) marked with a Melee counter. Here you have a specific example of the ASLRB (again, implicitely) acknowledging the difference between CC and Melee WRT a units options. >In sum, I think that allowing Banzai participants to >advance out of enemy locations will produce situations that >the real thing never did, while dis-allowing it does not >create any anomolies. > >So long, > >JR And I have to say that I find that this situation is clearly allowed by the rules; and is, in fact, not inconsistent with reality, if we MUST drag THAT into the discussion. ;-) Ciao, Bob Schaaf . . . All right, heat up those flamethrowers and let fly . . . ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 18:41:34 -0400 (EDT) From: DPAJNIC@delphi.com Subject: Critical hit woes Paranoid Matt said: > Am I the only guy who hasn't received his copy of Critical Hit yet? > What makes this especially fun is that another player in town (hi Jack) > has already received his, over a week ago. I haven't received my copy either and I sent out a check the first day the address was posted! The cancelled check came back to me long ago though. Anyone else not get theirs yet? Equally paranoid Dave ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 16:03:57 PDT Mark Greenman writes: > 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent > First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or > not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not > marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception > to this... Right; I think the idea is that you can't SFF the squad's inherent FP at one target and the MG at another. I think you're REQUIRED to fire the MG in FPF (if you decide/have to FPF), but I'm not sure (and, unfortunately, my rulebook isn't here). I'll try to remember to look it up tonight.... -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 21:20:15 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: New AGWAV Suggestions? Hi guys, Since Patrik just finished me off in The Agony of Doom, it looks like we should try to get another AGWAV started. That means we need two new players and a scenario, and [optionally] a volunteer to archive things and stir up discussions. I think it would be great to see a PTO scenario with caves and/or beach landings, yet not too much of a counter/overlay morass for the audience to follow along. Or maybe something in the desert. Something different from the usual ETO fare, anyways. Nominations? Volunteers? Suggestions on whether they should be forced to use the [I]IFT? {Duck!} Dave Ripton ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 02:17:00 UTC Subject: CH address For those who have not yet received their Critical Hit and want to check on it, the guy who is distributing these can be contacted on GEnie at: m.tapio@genie.geis.com Take care, Warren ----- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 21:40:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: MBT multi-player PBEM spots All: First off is the mandatory, obligatory ASL stuff: Trivia Phase - how many SMC can dance in the loop of a grenade pin and still retain concealment while firing non-vehicular ordnance at full ROF? How many in DASL? Now for the heretical stuff: Mars needs women..errrrr.....more MBT players! There's still time to get in on the multi-player MBT game (NATO vs. PACT, single vehicle, squad level infantry, 100 metres per hex, tanks that make a Tiger II look like a sardine can with a pea shooter). The game is featured in vol. 26, no. 3 of the GENERAL. Once more - YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE RULES TO PLAY! You will be given a platoon/company command and I'll push the counters and fling the dice. All you need are ASL BOARDS 7, 10, 17 & 19. Better yet is to print out the Postscript versions of the boards and play it with overhead pens. Please state your preference of: NATO or PACT Infantry or Armour Chocolate or Strawberry Salad or Fries Also, please tell me if you own or have played the game. Brent "[insert war deity of choice]" Pollock ----- From: GORD.REID@olimitsbbs.com (GORD REID) Subject: Cowering FG Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 03:25:00 GMT Tn> Does a leader of a multilocation firegroup prevent cowering for entire Tn> fire group or only for the units in the leaders location? Well I don't have the rulebook handy at the keyboard but I'd say that the entire firegroup cowers but let me look that up........ I was right, however you use random selection to determine the unit(s) that become marked with a Prep or Final Fire counter. gord ... 800 messages a day and they call it .QWK?? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ======================================================================== The Outer Limits BBS - 313-692-9065 - USA Today - BoardWatch Mag. 250,000 Files - 15.6 Gigs - Internet - 15 Lines 28.8 - Adult - Fido ======================================================================== ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 08:33:27 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Trivia question Dave Ripton writes: > Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on one page > like all the others except... (very minor trivia question) The obvious one is RB5, but there's another AH issued scenario that doesn't fit on one page... Bas. ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 06:41:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... (fwd) > 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent > First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or > not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not > marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception > to this... Wait a minute! Is this right? So if the Germans send a 2-3-8 charging over open ground at a 6-6-6/.50 cal HMG, and the squad ONLY fires on the 2-3-8 and pelfes it, then that squad cannot fire the HMG without sustained fire penalties (and no rate) at the hord of 4-6-7s that follow. Right? ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... (fwd) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:38:12 CETDST Hi, > > > > 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent > > First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or > > not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not > > marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception > > to this... > > Wait a minute! Is this right? So if the Germans send a 2-3-8 charging > over open ground at a 6-6-6/.50 cal HMG, and the squad ONLY fires on the > 2-3-8 and pelfes it, then that squad cannot fire the HMG without sustained > fire penalties (and no rate) at the hord of 4-6-7s that follow. Right? They can fire the HMG as First Fire without sustained fire penalties. They cannot fire the HMG as First Fire and the inherent FP as Subsequent First Fire together however. If you wish to use the squads inherent FP together with the HMG , then the HMG would also be using Subsequent First Fire. Note also that if a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter (and possess a MG/SW that is not marked by any fire counter, those MGs/SWs would also be marked with a Final Fire counter regardless of if they fired or not. >From the Q&A File: A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a MG \(that is not marked with any fire counter\) and wishes to use Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire counter? A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} A8.31 This rule states that a squad may not split its usable inherent FP from that of its MG during Subsequent First Fire. Does this mean that if a squad has a MG and that MG is marked with a First Fire counter then the squad could not fire that MG alone as Subsequent First Fire? Would it have to fire its inherent FP as First Fire first and then fire its inherent FP together with its MG as Subsequent First Fire? A. Right. No - they could fire together, but the MG would be using sustained fire. {RM} -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 08:28:30 EDT From: BLACKMJ@uga.cc.uga.edu Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... (fwd) Let me say up front that I hate unofficial Q&A. Maybe its the fact that some questions appear to be answered arbitrarily and that occasionally some people get conflicting answers based upon the way the question is phrased. I know I am in the minority, but I feel that the following two answers are inconsistent with the concept of marking weapons and squads individually. I don't believe that an as yet unfired MG should be penalized just because its possessor has a first fire counter. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me? >From the Q&A File: > > A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a > MG \(that is not marked with any fire counter\) and wishes to use > Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG > penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would > its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire > counter? > A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} > > A8.31 This rule states that a squad may not split its usable inherent > FP from that of its MG during Subsequent First Fire. Does this mean > that if a squad has a MG and that MG is marked with a First Fire > counter then the squad could not fire that MG alone as Subsequent > First Fire? Would it have to fire its inherent FP as First Fire first > and then fire its inherent FP together with its MG as Subsequent First > Fire? > A. Right. No - they could fire together, but the MG would be using > sustained fire. {RM} ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 09:58:36 AST Subject: Re: Trivia question > Dave Ripton writes: > > > Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on one page > > like all the others except... (very minor trivia question) > > The obvious one is RB5, but there's another AH issued scenario that > doesn't fit on one page... > > Bas. There was the old Rogue R219 that required more than a page, for those of you old enough to remember life before ASL Alain Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Trivia question Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:00:39 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, Dave writes: > > Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on one page > > like all the others except... (very minor trivia question) Bas answers: > The obvious one is RB5, but there's another AH issued scenario that > doesn't fit on one page... Hmmm... I assume we're still talking about _ASL_ scenarios here? In that case the only candidates I can come up with is "Descent into Hell" and "The streets of Stalingrad" (ASL C). If you thought of one of them I guess you missed the other. Then, there's probably one of RB CG [I, II, III] or KGP CG [I, II, III] that won't fit on a single page :-) -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 14:58:04 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Trivia question I wrote: >> The obvious one is RB5, but there's another AH issued scenario that >> doesn't fit on one page... Alain Chabot writes: > There was the old Rogue R219 that required more than a page, for > those of you old enough to remember life before ASL Patrik Manlig writes: > Hmmm... I assume we're still talking about _ASL_ scenarios here? > In that case the only candidates I can come up with is "Descent > into Hell" and "The streets of Stalingrad" (ASL C). If you thought > of one of them I guess you missed the other. I wasn't referring to any of the above. Bas. ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Marking Units/Weapons (was Rules Question ..) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 15:43:32 CETDST Hi, > Let me say up front that I hate unofficial Q&A. Maybe its the fact that some > questions appear to be answered arbitrarily and that occasionally some > people get conflicting answers based upon the way the question is phrased. First of all I don't have a problem with 'unofficial' Q&A. I have not seen many cases of two unofficial Q&A where the answers conflict. Althought I admit there are some cases. > I know I am in the minority, but I feel that the following two answers are > inconsistent with the concept of marking weapons and squads individually. > I don't believe that an as yet unfired MG should be penalized just because > its possessor has a first fire counter. Is there anyone out there who > agrees with me? > > >From the Q&A File: > > > > A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a > > MG \(that is not marked with any fire counter\) and wishes to use > > Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG > > penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would > > its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire > > counter? > > A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} > > > > A8.31 This rule states that a squad may not split its usable inherent > > FP from that of its MG during Subsequent First Fire. Does this mean > > that if a squad has a MG and that MG is marked with a First Fire > > counter then the squad could not fire that MG alone as Subsequent > > First Fire? Would it have to fire its inherent FP as First Fire first > > and then fire its inherent FP together with its MG as Subsequent First > > Fire? > > A. Right. No - they could fire together, but the MG would be using > > sustained fire. {RM} > As for the 'unofficial' status of the above answers, if I remember correctly they are confirmed in the example under the MG rules (a chapter A page that I think was replaced in Croix de Guerre) in Chapter A. -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 07:52:12 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... > I am still learning the game and this is my first game soltiure, using > the 8 step to ASL method, lesson 1, scenario A in General. An 8 step method to learn ASL, is there a 12 step method to get off of it? ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 09:52:00 -0400 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... (fwd) >> 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent >> First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or >> not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not >> marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception >> to this... > >Wait a minute! Is this right? So if the Germans send a 2-3-8 charging over open ground at a >6-6-6/.50 cal HMG, and the squad ONLY fires on the 2-3-8 and pelfes it, then that squad cannot fire >the HMG without sustained fire penalties (and no rate) at the hord of 4-6-7s that follow. Right? No. I believe you have two choices for that hoard: 1) fire the HMG ONLY as First Fire or 2) fire the squad AND HMG (or not as you choose) as SFF. So you can't find the squad as SFF and the HMG as DFF at the same time. Doug Williamson ----- From: ASL Mail List Subject: New AGWAV SuggestiRe: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 9:23:01 CDT > Since Patrik just finished me off in The Agony of Doom, it looks like > we should try to get another AGWAV started. That means we need two > new players and a scenario, and [optionally] a volunteer to archive > things and stir up discussions. > > I think it would be great to see a PTO scenario with caves and/or > beach landings, yet not too much of a counter/overlay morass for the > audience to follow along. Or maybe something in the desert. Something > different from the usual ETO fare, anyways. I agree, I would setup and follow a match if it had PTO with caves. Ed "Cut his teeth with the more annoying Matt" Carter ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 08:39:20 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie".... > From pferraro+@pitt.edu Wed Aug 24 04:41 MDT 1994 > > > 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision to Subsequent > > First Fire, they must decide whether to use them using Sustained Fire, or > > not use them at all for the remainder of the phase, even if they are not > > marked with a First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception > > to this... > > Wait a minute! Is this right? So if the Germans send a 2-3-8 charging > over open ground at a 6-6-6/.50 cal HMG, and the squad ONLY fires on the > 2-3-8 and pelfes it, then that squad cannot fire the HMG without sustained > fire penalties (and no rate) at the hord of 4-6-7s that follow. Right? > No, but you cannot Subsequent First Fire the squad ONLY, and then later use the HMG... You could use the HMG as First Fire until the RoF runs out. It is (IMHO) important to use the HMG before SFF'ing the squads inherent, if you plan to use the HMG during the fire phase... Regards, Mark ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 17:00:52 +0200 From: Povl AAge Subject: Question: (dis)mantling & moving If a unit (dis)mantles it's MG in the Prep Fire Phase, is it then allowed to move in the Movement Phase of that same Turn? I know it cannot fire the MG in that Prep Fire Phase (since (dis)mantling counts as using that MG), but I can't find anything _specific_ about the unit being marked with a Prep Fire Counter or otherwise not being allowed to Move. When playing my regular opponent, we always agree that the unit _is_ allowed to move - even though the spirit of the rules probably says otherwise - because it encourages movement. Povl Aage ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: New AGWAV Suggestion Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 8:19:13 PDT Ed Carter writes: > Dave Ripton writes: > > Since Patrik just finished me off in The Agony of Doom, it looks like > > we should try to get another AGWAV started. That means we need two > > new players and a scenario, and [optionally] a volunteer to archive > > things and stir up discussions. > > > > I think it would be great to see a PTO scenario with caves and/or > > beach landings, yet not too much of a counter/overlay morass for the > > audience to follow along. Or maybe something in the desert. Something > > different from the usual ETO fare, anyways. > > I agree, I would setup and follow a match if it had PTO with caves. May I suggest Sea of Tranquility, then? I've been interested in seeing how the cave rules work for a while as well, and Sea of Tranquility is relatively small in terms of both board size (two half-boards) and OB (I think ~10 squads per side). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:32:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: scenarios on one page If you think about it, all the RB and KGP scenarios take more than one page. Remember, there's almost a page of SSRs which apply to all those scenarios. On All Fronts was/is particularly bad about spreading their scenarios over more than one page. I think Critical Hit did a very good job. It's only those pseudo-DYO scenarios that require a second page. Marty ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 10:19:48 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: The Visitors I am dreaming about ASL again. I keep looking at one of my games and I'm keep moving units around but I can never decide anything because I'm sleeping, you know? So I keep moving units around. I'm trying to enter the hex of a concealed enemy stack, but every time I do, I hear this DING DONG bell go off and I get bumped back to my own hex. So I try it again DING DONG and again DING DONG DING DONG Whuh? Oh man, dreaming again... not enough to play till 4 in the morning, I gotta dream it too... ZZZzzzzzz DING DONG WHUH? @#&$)%*, it's the stupid doorbell. Crawl out of the sofa and stumble over to the door. Step on the pizza box. Light hurts my eyes. Wanted to sleep till noon. Do I have clothes on? Yes. OK. Open the door. Doesn't work. Unlock the door. Open the door. OK. "Good Morning, Sir!" Two guys on my doorstep. Man it's bright out here. Squint at 'em, get a better look. Clean-cut. White shirts, black suits. Ties. Uh-oh. "I'm Elder Bierman and this is Elder David, and we'd like to talk with you about The Book." Look down and they've both got these leather cases for holding books. Groggy as I am, I am still heartened by the speed at which my automatic defenses kick in. "Look guys, I'm not really interested-" "You want to know how to play the game right, don't you?" "Uh, game?" Never heard these people talk that way. "Advanced Squad Leader, of course." They zip open their leather cases, and damn if they don't take out the ASLRB. New ones. Laminated. "You do play, don't you?" "Uh, yeah, I play, but see, we were up kinda late last night and-" "Oh yes? What scenario are you playing?" Before I know it, Bierman pushes his way through the door, David following, and they're in my living room, or what's left of it after last night. "Uh, Monty's Mess," I say, before noticing the irony. They glance at each other. David sniffs. "Ah. In Contact scenario." "Um, yeah," I say, surreptitiously pushing the pizza box under the couch with my toe. "We're not really here to talk about THOSE kinds of things," Bierman says. "We're more concerned with YOU. Are you getting the most out of the game that you could be?" "Well, like what?" "What Elder Bierman means to say is, are you playing with the right Infantry Fire Table? Are you still using the old IFT? Because there's a better way, you know." Oh shit. What callous whim of fate has cursed me with this travesty? What cruel hoax is being perpetrated on me? What have I done to deserve this? IIFT'ERS AT MY DOOR! Think fast. Don't get nervous. Do something. Gotta get them OUT of here. They're watching you. DO SOMETHING. "Uh, yeah, sure, I use it all the time." They visibly relax and exchange looks that say We're Among Friends. Bierman says, "Oh good. Don't you find that it makes the game more realistic?" I fight the gorge which rises from my stomach. Somehow I manage to say, "Oh yes, now I can fire a LMG at a different target than the rest of my squad, just like they do in real life!" A whopper of a headache starts pounding at my temples. Elder David intones, "And concealment stripping isn't that much of a problem now, is it?" There's something about his eyes that I can't shake. Like they're staring at me from the depths of some nether world. And the light reflecting from his necklace, reflecting back and forth...Stars swim before my eyes. I feel faint. Try to resist... Can't... I'm... slipping. "No... It's... not... much... of... a... problem... at... all." Elder David comes up close to me as I stare into space. I can smell the polish on his leather-bound rulebook. "Using the IIFT makes us happy, doesn't it?" A voice that comes from my mouth but is not mine replies "Yes, Elder David." "And we want EVERYBODY to share that happiness, don't we?" "Yes, Elder David." "Good boy. Now you go lie down on this nice couch and go back to sleep. And remember, the IIFT IS THE ONLY FT FOR ME." "Yessssszzzzzzzzzzzzzz....." ----- Subject: Re: Rules Question for a From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 11:03:00 -0640 Howdy, Paul F Ferraro writes: > > 2) For the units with MG's... When they make the decision > > to Subsequent First Fire, they must decide whether to use > > them using Sustained Fire, or not use them at all for the > > remainder of the phase, even if they are not marked with a > > First Fire marker. I can't remember if FPF is an exception > > to this... > > Wait a minute! Is this right? So if the Germans send a > 2-3-8 charging over open ground at a 6-6-6/.50 cal HMG, and > the squad ONLY fires on the 2-3-8 and pelfes it, then that > squad cannot fire the HMG without sustained fire penalties > (and no rate) at the hord of 4-6-7s that follow. Right? Not quite. If the squad and the HMG fire together in this situation, the squad is firing for the second time, and the HMG is firing for the first time. The pair of them are treated as firing for the second time, per A8.3. If the HMG fires alone, however, it is firing for the first time and is treated as such. If you want to use the extra FP of the squad, you have to treat the MG as sustained firing. The squad and MG firing together as sustained fire would have 14/2 = 7 FP. The HMG firing alone would have 8 FP, with the potential for ROF and no lowered Breakdown #. In this case the decision is clear. If the MG had been a 2 FP LMG, the choice would have been between 8/2 = 4 FP vs 2 FP with normal breakdown & potential rate. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 11:27:23 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: The Visitors > "Good boy. Now you go lie down on this nice couch and go back to sleep. And > remember, the IIFT IS THE ONLY FT FOR ME." > > "Yessssszzzzzzzzzzzzzz....." BRILLIANCE! Pure, 100% USDA unadulterated brilliance! Thanks, Tom, for giving me a chuckle amidst my busy-work of assembling an experiment. What will they find next -- the Dead Sea FT's? Cheers, Dave Hauth ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:45:11 CDT From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: Trite trivial Duh, I cant even spell... subject should be trite trivia.... How about that silly scenario in the general about the time ASL came out. I was scenario 2000 or someting like that and required one to use the Little round top board. Now to repeat my last question: Has anyone ever played this or any of those huge rouge scenarios? Andrew ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:02:49 PDT From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: HIP loss ?'s I'm playing a pbem game of Le Manoir and have a couple questions regarding HIP loss: The germans have set up a squad in a foxhole in otherwise open ground. Both are HIP. When a US unit has LOS (any range) to this hex the foxhole is revealed (case H) but the units within stay hidden (cases A,B,C,D), correct? In the Le_Manoir scenario discussion available on one of the ftp sites there is some talk that seems to disagree with this. What's the straight dope? Assuming the above is true, a unit is firing at a foxhole with no visible units in it. Are hidden units treated just like concealed units? In other words, if the attacker attains a PTC or better do I get to check if there are any HIP units there? Is this attack legal at all? I know a mortar can make this attack but what about normal squad/MG FP? Can you do so using half-FP (area fire)? If these are "stupid" questions, live with it...it's only my third ASL game. :) Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- Subject: Question: (dis)mantling & From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 15:25:00 -0640 Howdy, Povl AAge writes: > If a unit (dis)mantles it's MG in the Prep Fire Phase, is it > then allowed to move in the Movement Phase of that same > Turn? A9.8 says that dm-ing a wapon "counts as use of that SW (including the use of all ROF)." "Use" of a support weapon is a vague term, but in the context of the ASLRB I would say it can only mean firing or attacking with the weapon. >From this most players conclude that the SW can't be dm-ed and moved (or, in general, fired) in the same Player Turn. > I know it cannot fire the MG in that Prep Fire Phase (since > (dis)mantling counts as using that MG), but I can't find > anything _specific_ about the unit being marked with a Prep > Fire Counter or otherwise not being allowed to Move. Note that a SW that retains ROF isn't marked with a Prep Fire marker either, but it still can't move. TRIVIA!!! TRIVIA!!! There is an exception [isn't there always] to the rule about not being able to fire and dm in the same phase. Name it. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 16:47:01 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: Question: (dis)mantling & jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) writes: >TRIVIA!!! TRIVIA!!! >There is an exception [isn't there always] to the rule about >not being able to fire and dm in the same phase. Name it. How about a German dm MMG or HMG which fires as a LMG which retains ROF? Shoot it, get ROF and then assemble it for next time... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:02:26 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Question: (dis)mantling & > From jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com Wed Aug 24 14:54 MDT 1994 > > Howdy, > > TRIVIA!!! TRIVIA!!! > > There is an exception [isn't there always] to the rule about > not being able to fire and dm in the same phase. Name it. > > So long, > > JR > --- > þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo > > Is it the Russian 80mm (81?, 82?) Mtr. I vaugely remember a note to this effect in the Chapter H notes for this weapon, as long as it reduces it's RoF to 1... Am I close? Mark > ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 17:13:19 EDT From: o'haraw@smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil Subject: ASL WWW Page? Did my eyes deceive me, or do I remember a message some time ago about an ASL page being on the World Wibe Web and accesible via Mosaic? Garsh, could somebody please post the info on that again? Thanks! ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:16:49 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: HIP loss ?'s > The germans have set up a squad in a foxhole in otherwise open ground. > Both are HIP. When a US unit has LOS (any range) to this hex the > foxhole is revealed (case H) but the units within stay hidden (cases > A,B,C,D), correct? In the Le_Manoir scenario discussion available on > one of the ftp sites there is some talk that seems to disagree with > this. What's the straight dope? Hmmm.... lacking the ASLRB at my beck, I still seem to recall that HIP units _must_ set up _in concealment terrain_. I *know* this is the case for initial concealment of units.... Dave Hauth ----- From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: Re[2]: HIP loss ?'s Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 14:32:00 -0700 (PDT) >> If these are "stupid" questions, live with it...it's only my >> third ASL game. :) > >You don't need to be defensive. People on this list are always glad to help >newbies. I thought the :) would make it clear that this was purely in jest. Having lurked on this list for some time I am very aware of how helpful people are here ... as helpful as on any other mailing list community that I've been part of (if not more so). It's a good thing, too. People who get hooked on this game definitely need a support group. :) Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 22:38:00 UTC Subject: AGWAV Aslong as you want to do a PTO landing. I'll volunteer to do BRB. Why not go all the way. We can make it a Ladder match (whoever it would be) and you can have choice of side. Phil ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 08:22:42 EDT Subject: Re: Got it Tom Repetti wrote: (Thanks Tom! I really appreciate any comments on any of my scenarios. I'm also working on another one that I hope to playtest this next weekend.) >Thoughts after 10 minutes of perusal: >* Do the Russians REALLY only get to set up east of hexrow B on boards 12, 10, >and 7? That's just 2 hexrows, B and A. Seems, uh, harsh. I made the mistake in proofreading. It should read _WEST_ of hexrow B. >* I'd bump the Russian SAN up a little, to 4 or maybe 5 even. They're the >defenders and they should have a higher SAN than the attackers. >* On the face of it, the Germans look tough to beat. Can't tell from the VC's, >but both their armor and infantry forces looks superior to the Russian >counterparts. Perhaps some more Russian infantry (6 or so 447's) might help? I playtest it this Friday. I'm bothered a bit about the boards. I may end up cutting it down to 3 boards. Don't forget the Russkies get 13 guns (8 tanks, 4 ART, 1 MRT) to the German's 10 (6 AP, 4 HE tanks). Admittedly, the German tigers are ferocious and the German gets up to 3 HMG! But the Russian does have 4 ART pieces that can devastate both tanks and infantry. >* Just one HIP Russian squad seems too low for a board this big - if the Russian >guesses wrong with his placement, the HIP squad won't be a factor. I'd bump it >up to 2, or 3 even, depending on how much help (if any) the Russian infantry >need. > >* Is SSR4 right? GERMAN tanks can set up HD? Not RUSSIAN? The Germans can set up on the 3 level 2 hill hexes. As per the rules on HD on hills, the Deutschies can roll to determine HD status at the start of the game. Russians don't get any hills to set up on. Thanks again, Cheers, Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: ASL Mail List Subject: CH zine msg from GEnie Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 19:39:44 CDT Just thought you guys might like to see this... --------------------------------------------------- Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 328 Wed Aug 24, 1994 M.TAPIO [Trail Break] at 01:25 EDT To people who want to be Critical Hit! readers: Every single CH due ANYONE went in the mail this morning. Just when I am feeling good about my wife not having to do anymore folding or stapling tonight, another 20 orders comes in today's mail. Gotta love it. In the meantime, we are folding, stapling, stuffing, labeling, adding errata sheets, adding to the mailing list, and all the other little things it takes to get the mags out the door as quckly as possible. I never felt so popular (that's a lie, I have always been very popular). Everytime I log on, there's a pile of mail waiting here and on Compuserve. Don't be angry that I can't answer every: "I just sent my check for CH. Please E Mail me when you receive it." In the meantime, we are getting a good 100 orders a week. The bad news is, I got the job of assembling all those mags. So, a little patience and I promise you will get your mag ASAP. They are now finally going out the same week your order is received. Thanks! Ray T. ------------ Ed Carter ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 09:11:35 EDT Subject: OOps The note to Tom and the net were re: Tebbe's Tigers. Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Michael James Licari Subject: asl_gen Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 21:15:33 -0500 (CDT) Hello all, Quite a while ago I got a copy of a nifty little ASL DYO scenario generator. Checking the doc file, I noticed that it was released in 1990. (I did say quite a while ago) It's called ASL_GEN (for IBM compats) and was made/distributed by a Timothy Kitchen in Rochester NY. I really like this program and still use it to quickly generate an interesting scenario for DYO purposes. The problem is that since it is 4 years old, it does not include the COB and GH modules. Since in the docs Timothy mentioned that the edition was readily upgradable for these modules, I was wondering if anyone has heard of a new version of ASL_GEN. If so, how can I get a copy? Hopefully someone can help. Thanks in advance, Mike -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Licari | The meek shall inherit the earth: U of Wisc-Milwaukee Political Science | they are too weak to refuse. mlicari@csd.uwm.edu | ----- Subject: Re: Question: (dis)mantli From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 22:04:00 -0640 Howdy, The answer I had in mind for the trivia question [what weapon can fire and dm/un-dm in the same phase] was the Russian 82 mm MTR. Check out the ordnance note. The rule has something to do with wheels on the gun platform. Several people have suggested that the German MMG/HMG can be dm, fire, retain ROF, and then be assembled. The rule on dm says that assembly/dm uses "all ROF", and I interpret this as preventing assembling the MMG/HMG if it has fired (used some of its ROF). Otherwise, I don't see why only the German MMG/HMG is allowed this particular action and only when dm. There is nothing different in the rule about dm-ing and assembling. If you allow the German MMG/HMG to do this, any weapon that retains ROF should be allowed to dm, and I don't think that is what A9.8 allows (or perhaps, was intended to allow). So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 21:34:05 PDT From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: HIP fortifications Here's a follow up question to the "HIP loss ?'s" post: A fortification can be set up HIP in non-concealment terrain (A12.33) HIP is lost as soon as an enemy unit has LOS to its location. Other units cannot setup HIP in non-concealment terrain. So how do you set up units that are in this fortification (let's use a foxhole as an example). If after the enemy's subsequent setup there are units with LOS to the foxhole then obviously everything is revealed. But what if there are no units with LOS (and thus the units in the foxhole are eligible for concealment)? Do you setup the units with concealment but no foxhole counter and when LOS is gained plop a foxhole on top of them? [For those so inclined try to extrapolate this to reality :) ] Other suggestions? Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- From: NolanCluff@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 05:26:32 EDT Subject: PacifiCon Looking for info on PacifiCon in San Mateo CA on Labor Day weekend. Any ASL going on? Anyone ever been before etc? Nolan (Sorry, no witty Post Script) ----- Date: 24 Aug 1994 16:19:08 GMT From: gee@dominia.wizards.com (Glenn E. Elliott) Subject: game wanted I'm looking for a game if anyone is interested. It should be small (max 3 boards, 1-2 preferred), and my opponent should be patient since my work seems to follow a sine wave (I'm currently at a crest... I hope). Anything goes... PTO, night, seaborne assaults, you name it... I wouldn't mind another stab at Gavin's Gamble since I didn't get to finish it the first time I tried it... Glenn ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 07:48:15 -0400 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl Fago) Subject: Re: game wanted Glenn Elliot wrote: >I'm looking for a game if anyone is interested. > >It should be small (max 3 boards, 1-2 preferred), and my >opponent should be patient since my work seems to follow a >sine wave (I'm currently at a crest... I hope). > >Anything goes... PTO, night, seaborne assaults, you name it... >I wouldn't mind another stab at Gavin's Gamble since I didn't >get to finish it the first time I tried it... > >Glenn and Phil Pomerantz wrote: >Aslong as you want to do a PTO landing. I'll volunteer to do BRB. Why not go >all the way. We can make it a Ladder match (whoever it would be) and you can >have choice of side. > >Phil This sounds like a perfect match! Glenn? *-=Carl=-* Carl D. Fago cdf1@psu.edu ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:36:12 AST Subject: BullShitLurks (BSL) Howdy mates, Get this, Atomic Games is thinking of recommending a minimum system of a 68040 Mac (or PowerPC Mac) with 4 to 8 megs of RAM in order to run their game. On the DOS side, a minimum of a fast 486 with loads of RAM. I dunno, but I don't believe for a minute that the behemoth will deliver anything close to the feel of the real cardboard thing. And in terms of bangs for buck, well ... And why the devil would one want to play against a computer? sounds as exciting as an inflatable doll. In Every dream home a heartache... ... I blew up your body But you blew my mind (Roxy Music, For Your Pleasure album) Alain Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 21:32:06 EDT Subject: Favorite Scenarios I have generated a revised list of FAVORITE SCENARIOS. The scenarios were ranked by votes, then again by their frequency of play. I then multiplied the ranks to generate a new rank of "best" scenarios. [NB: This is something Ole Boe was trying to do, but he should have multiplied instead of divided. I've just done it on ranks instead of actual numbers.] Below, in order, you will find (1) Revised poll of top 11 favorites, (2) list of top 11 most played games, (3) ranked poll of top 11 "best" scenarios, (4) revised poll of top 30 scenarios, and (5) the original list of top 30 scenarios (we voted on a list with over 110). Top Eleven Favorites (vote) (Revised Poll) ================================================================ Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank ================================================================ ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 E Hill 621 10 3 15 23 69 ** ASL 21 Among the Ruins 8 4 26 12 48 ** T 7 Hill 253.5 8 4 16 19 76 ** A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 A 58 Munda Mash 6 8 16 19 152 ** G Hube's Pocket 6 8 6 36 28 ** ** - not in the most played list Top Eleven MOST PLAYED GAMES (from the Record) ================================================================ Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank ================================================================ ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 5 12 83 1 12 ** ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 3 20 41 6 120 ** G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 RB 3 Bread Factory #2 (RB 3) 3 20 37 7 140 ** ASL 77 Le Herisson 4 15 34 9 135 ** B Turned Away 3 20 33 10 200 ** ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 ** - not in the top eleven favorites list Top Eleven Favorites and Most Played (Rank*Rank) "BEST" Scenarios ================================================================ Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank ================================================================ ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 5 12 83 1 12 ** ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 ASL 21 Among the Ruins 8 4 26 12 48 G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 E Hill 621 10 3 15 23 69 T 7 Hill 253.5 8 4 16 19 76 ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 3 20 41 6 120 ** ** - not in the top eleven favorites TOP 30 FAVORITES ================================================================= Code Scenario Vote Rank Play Rank Rank*Rank ================================================================= ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 E Hill 621 10 3 15 23 69 ASL 21 Among the Ruins 8 4 26 12 48 T 7 Hill 253.5 8 4 16 19 76 A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 A 58 Munda Mash 6 8 16 19 152 G Hube's Pocket 6 8 6 36 288 ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 5 12 83 1 12 ASL 37 Khamsin 5 12 19 16 192 DASL 7 With Flame and Shell 5 12 9 31 372 ASL 77 Le Herisson 4 15 34 9 135 ASL 22 Kurhaus Clash 4 15 25 13 195 A 60 Totsugeki! 4 15 22 14 210 DASL 8 The Schoolhouse 4 15 9 31 465 DASL A To The Last Man 4 15 8 33 495 TT 3 Panzers Marsch! 4 15 7 35 525 ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 3 20 41 6 120 RB 3 Bread Factory #2 (RB 3) 3 20 37 7 140 B Turned Away 3 20 33 10 200 ASL 30 Sylvan Death 3 20 22 14 280 C Streets of Stalingrad 3 20 19 16 320 ASL 82 For Honor Alone 3 20 17 18 360 ASL 54 Bridge to Nowhere 3 20 16 19 380 The Bushmasters 3 20 16 19 380 ASL 46 Birds of Prey 3 20 14 24 480 A 59 Death At Carentan 3 20 13 25 500 ASL 63 The Eastern Gate 3 20 13 26 520 A 47 White Tigers 3 20 13 26 520 ASL 71 Jungle Citadel 3 20 11 28 560 P The Road to Wiltz 3 20 11 28 560 A 66 Counterstroke At Stonne 3 20 10 30 600 DASL 6 Draconian Measures 3 20 8 33 660 ASL 25 Gavin's Gamble 3 20 6 36 720 KGP I Clash At Stoumont 3 20 5 38 760 DASL 10 The Final Battle 3 20 3 39 780 Rout R Brandenburger Bridge 3 20 2 40 800 TOP 30 FAVORITES FROM ORIGINAL POLL (courtesy Darren Gour) ============================================== ID Scenario Name rank Remarks ============================================== ASL 4 Commissar's House 1 tops in both polls E Hill 621 2 #3 in latest poll A 25 Cold Crocodiles 3 #2 in latest poll ASL 71 Jungle Citadel 5.5 CG III The Barrikady 5.5 G Hube's Pocket 5.5 top 10 both polls RB 3 Bread Factory #2 5.5 A 60 Totsugeki! 9 ASL 23 Under The Noel Trees 9 top 10 both polls ASL 8 The Fugitives 9 top 10 both polls ASL 37 Khamsin 14 ASL 54 Bridge To Nowhere 14 ASL 65 Red Star, Red Sun 14 C Streets Of Stalingrad 14 DASL 8 The Schoolhouse 14 RB 6 Turned Away 14 T 2 Puma Prowls 14 A 39 Showdown At Tug Arg Pa 31 ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 31 ASL 11 Defiance On Hill 30 31 ASL 13 Le Manoir 31 ASL 21 Among The Ruins 31 ASL 22 Kurhaus Clash 31 ASL 25 Gavin's Gamble 31 ASL 30 Sylvan Death 31 ASL 34 A New Kind Of Foe 31 ASL 35 Blazin' Chariots 31 ASL 46 Birds of Prey 31 ASL 5 In Sight Of The Volga 31 ASL 60 On The Kokoda Trail 31 ASL 63 The Eastern Gate 31 ASL 82 For Honor Alone 31 ASLUG 14 Morgan's Stand 31 Atp 8 Italian Brothers 31 DASL 10 The Final Battle 31 DASL 7 With Flame And Shell 31 F Paw Of The Tiger 31 G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 31 KGP 3 Panthers in the Mist 31 KGP I Clash At Stoumont 31 RB 2 Blood & Guts 31 T 6 Dead Of Winter 31 T 7 Hill 253.5 31 TT 3 Panzers Marsch! 31 ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:05:04 +0000 (GMT) From: TOWEY@statlan.ucd.ie Subject: jeeps Q ? Consider the case where a jeep, say is moving in open ground and is fired on by a MG, is there any modifiers for the jeep being moving? small target? It doesnt seem to be obvious from the flowcharts etc. Thanks for any help. ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:31:07 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: Fanatic ELR Substitution Hi guys! Question: If a unit with underlined Morale is Fanatic, then ELR breaks to half squads, are both 1/2 squads Fanatic? I don't know why they wouldn't be, but I just had an attack of ASL Rules Anxiety, perhaps brought on by: I'm playing my first full PBEM game as the Germans in "Gavin Take." My first Prep Fire resulted in: A Hero Gavin (the 10-3) becoming Heroic a Fanatic 747 one of my lmgs Cowering w/eyes "But Sir! We just put heavy firepower into those woods! Why are the Americans growling?" Thank you for listening to me whine. Rusty PS. How many of you play w/that House Rule mentioned a while back, where eyes don't Cower? ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 16:26:48 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Jeff Shields writes: > I have generated a revised list of FAVORITE SCENARIOS. The > scenarios were ranked by votes, then again by their frequency of > play. I then multiplied the ranks to generate a new rank of "best" > scenarios. [NB: This is something Ole Boe was trying to do, but he > should have multiplied instead of divided. I've just done it on > ranks instead of actual numbers.] You seem to have misunderstood Ole's purpose. You simply take the number of playings as a measure of a scenario's popularity. He was trying to figure out what percentage of the people who played a particular scenario ranked it as one of their favorites. Suppose everyone (say 200 people) have played scenario A and 20 rate it as their favorite. On the other hand, only 10 people have played B, but they all rate it as their favorite. Chances are that scenario B is better because so many of those _who_have_played_it_ like it. Hope this is clear. Bas. ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 08:33:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Randy Nonay Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, Alain Chabot wrote: > Get this, Atomic Games is thinking of recommending a minimum system > of a 68040 Mac (or PowerPC Mac) with 4 to 8 megs of RAM in order to > run their game. On the DOS side, a minimum of a fast 486 with loads > of RAM. > > I dunno, but I don't believe for a minute that the behemoth will > deliver anything close to the feel of the real cardboard thing. And > in terms of bangs for buck, well ... This is one thing I have been complaining to Atomic about for quite a while! You seem to be under the impression that BSL has something to do with ASL. This is entirely false! It will NEVER have the same feel as ASL since it is not even close to what ASL is. Atomic seems quite unwilling to go to any effort to clear up this confusion, probably because they are counting on deceiving ASL/SL fans into buying BSL and thinking 'Hey - Computer ASL...' (Not trying to Flame you or anything, just ticked at Atomic...) Randy ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:23:32 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Fanatic ELR Substitution Rusty asked: >Question: >If a unit with underlined Morale is Fanatic, then ELR breaks to half squads, >are both 1/2 squads Fanatic? Sure. No rules or Q&A to the contrary, right? >I don't know why they wouldn't be, but I just had an attack of ASL Rules >Anxiety, perhaps brought on by: >I'm playing my first full PBEM game as the Germans in "Gavin Take." My first >Prep Fire resulted in: >A Hero Aargh! "We shoot _through_ stone buildings. -4, thank you." >Gavin (the 10-3) becoming Heroic This is _good_ for the Germans. His -3 and -1 aren't cumulative, and now you have a 1/3 chance of killing him if he fails a MC. Think "Japanese leader." >a Fanatic 747 Boy, don't you wish you had a sniper sometimes? >one of my lmgs Cowering w/eyes Oops. You rolled 3 eyes in the same phase. Can I borrow those dice? >"But Sir! We just put heavy firepower into those woods! Why are the >Americans growling?" >Thank you for listening to me whine. No problem. I've listened to Brian whine, and you have a ways to go. >PS. How many of you play w/that House Rule mentioned a while back, where >eyes don't Cower? Dumb, dumb, dumb house rule. You don't want to add further rewards for rolling well, IMO. Eyes already have enough advantages and special rules. Dave Ripton ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/sra_hq1@misx12.mis.stratus.com Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:24:01 -0400 Subject: BullShitLurks (BSL) Item Subject: Message text > Howdy mates, Howdy! > Get this, Atomic Games is thinking of recommending a minimum system > of a 68040 Mac (or PowerPC Mac) with 4 to 8 megs of RAM in order to > run their game. On the DOS side, a minimum of a fast 486 with loads > of RAM. Well, I don't like the sound of '040 or better but 4Mb Ram is pretty much what every current Mac Software recommends (and I don't think you can buy a new Mac with less than 4Mb anymore). Remember that the System is taking 2Mb or better so that makes the game about 2Mb. (Here's a free Mac tip: if you want to get back some RAM for your game you can force-quit [cmd-option-esc] the Finder after you bring up the game. You'll have to either reboot [my preference] or quit all the apps your running to get the Finder back.) Is this a min recommendation or a min requirement? And will it be VM friendly (almost everything is on the Mac)? Can't speak to the Itty-Bitty Minds clones, but I'd suspect that most game software will recommend a 486 with loads of memory. > I dunno, but I don't believe for a minute that the behemoth will > deliver anything close to the feel of the real cardboard thing. And > in terms of bangs for buck, well ... Well, nothing will replace a good ftf game (board, war, card, RPG). I'm not sure that's the goal. I don't see this as competing with ASL (except for my valuable time and money). As for computer opponents I'd be surprised if Atomic doesn't continue their trend of including a play-by-email option (where each turn the game creates a file that can be xfered to your human opponent). I can imagine a BSL Internet list where opponents meet for pbem games. In that way it is superior to ASL since there's no maps not lining up or counters forgotten or typos. But also remember that BSL is not a computer version of ASL. It puts you in the position of a squad leader not a company/platoon leader. -dlw ----- From: steve.katz@opm.gov Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:22:15 Subject: VISITORS/HUTS Kudos to Tom for the great account about the "IIFT's Witnesses". Stuff like that makes this board much more fun. A ways back I saw a trivial rule poser regarding huts and PF/PFk/PSK. It would seem dumb at first, but I suspect that BAZ would be affected just like PSK and so maybe the rule is useful. Speaking of huts, I once played a guy who felt you could do a streetfighting attack against an AFV moving on a road between two huts. I said no way. I was right wasn't I???? Steve ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:41:17 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: VISITORS/HUTS > Speaking > of huts, I once played a guy who felt you could do a streetfighting attack > against an AFV moving on a road between two huts. I said no way. I was right > wasn't I???? I don't know. If two Hut hexes are separated by a road hex, then I think it is possible because the ASLRB states that huts, except where otherwise noted, are to be treated as single-story wood buildings. If you can "streetfight" out of wooden buildings, you can out of huts then (I guess). Maybe this has been addressed in a Q&A somwhere. The big problem would be the existence/nonexistence of a road in the PTO (only exist by ssr). I can see it; huts are pretty closely-spaced and maze-like (I guess...). Cheers, Dave. ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: HIP fortifications Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 10:08:24 PDT Dave Hauth writes: > Only the Japanese have the luxury of gaining HIP status by setting up IN > a fortification, and then only in caves/pillboxes. All other units do > not gain HIP status by setting up in an HIP fortification. Don't the 92 Errata changes to B30 (pillboxes) say that anyone setting up in a HIP pillbox may use HIP as well? -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 10:28:32 PDT Randy Nonay wrote: > This is one thing I have been complaining to Atomic about for quite a > while! You seem to be under the impression that BSL has something to do > with ASL. This is entirely false! It will NEVER have the same feel as ASL > since it is not even close to what ASL is. > Atomic seems quite unwilling to go to any effort to clear up this > confusion, probably because they are counting on deceiving ASL/SL fans > into buying BSL and thinking 'Hey - Computer ASL...' Maybe it's just me, but from the description it sounds like "Squad Leader" is a better description of BSL than it is of ASL. They're not calling it Computer ASL (which, IMHO, WOULD be deceptive), they're calling it *BEYOND* Squad Leader, implying that it is different and better. Anyone who is actually deceived by the title needs a better dictionary (again, IMHO). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 09:14:57 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Crit Hit, etc Much to ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com's surprise, Grant had this to say about "Critical Hit ABS Problems"... r> Yep. For all aspiring scenario designers who want to use r> Australian Balancing, please make it so that level 2 r> includes level 1 and level 3 includes levels 1 and 2. r> Always. Why? Because sometimes it appears to me that I don't neccessarily agree. I would like more that aren't inclusive. However, they have to be move up in strength, no doubt about it. r> Anyway, one of the balancing provisions in Green Hell r> changes the scenario length to seven turns. But it's r> already a seven-turn scenario. Oops. Another one increases r> a CVP limit from 20 to 24, but for the wrong side. It r> _helps_ the Yanks to be able to lose more CVP, so that r> should be a Japanese handicap entry, not an American one. Weren't some CH erratta published on GEnie already? Let me see if it addresses any of this... Nope. They were for Stutz Vierville, a Dan Dolan scenario. Looks like we might be in for some more errata. r> Looks like fun, though. If only the CH scenarios fit on r> one page like all the others except... (very minor trivia r> question) RB5 The Last Bid. -Grant. ... Alzheimer's Club: Meet the same new friend every day. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: Re: Fanatic ELR Substitution Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 13:52:58 EDT > You rolled 3 eyes in the same phase. Can I borrow those dice? > Not so quick, he also rolled boxcars (only once) for the MC of the fanatic paras. Sadly they are MY paras. > >PS. How many of you play w/that House Rule mentioned a while back, where > >eyes don't Cower? > > Dumb, dumb, dumb house rule. You don't want to add further rewards for > rolling well, IMO. Eyes already have enough advantages and special rules. I agree this is a dumb rule, at least untill it could work in my favor... Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se The guy Rusty gave all those nice gifts to. ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 08:15:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Highdee-high! Jeff, thanks for compiling this! Interesting. But "Rocket's Red Glare"? Why would that be a favorite of anyone who's had the misfortune of playing the Germans? IMHO, to quote Mr. Youse: "That scenario's an unbalanced dog!" I could go on a rant about Hill 621 as well, but we've already been through that. I agree heartily with all the others, although Munda Mash might be a stretch (too hard for the Amis). Comments? Dade > > Top Eleven Favorites (vote) (Revised Poll) > ================================================================ > Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank > ================================================================ > ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 > A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 > E Hill 621 10 3 15 23 69 ** > ASL 21 Among the Ruins 8 4 26 12 48 ** > T 7 Hill 253.5 8 4 16 19 76 ** > A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 > ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 > ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 > G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 > A 58 Munda Mash 6 8 16 19 152 ** > G Hube's Pocket 6 8 6 36 28 ** > > ** - not in the most played list > > > Top Eleven MOST PLAYED GAMES (from the Record) > ================================================================ > Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank > ================================================================ > ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawal 5 12 83 1 12 ** > ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 > ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 > A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 > A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 > ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 3 20 41 6 120 ** > G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 > RB 3 Bread Factory #2 (RB 3) 3 20 37 7 140 ** > ASL 77 Le Herisson 4 15 34 9 135 ** > B Turned Away 3 20 33 10 200 ** > ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 14:09:31 -0400 From: Chuck Powers Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) It's my understanding that BSL is nothing like SL or ASL. At Avaloncon, someone told me that in BSL you're a squad leader in charge of 4 or 5 men each with their own abilities and personalities. It's up to you as squad leader to use these men effectively in battle. This sounds nothing like SL or ASL, it actually sounds more like Patton's Best. Chuck ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 09:40:38 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: HIP fortifications To continue this discussion: > A fortification can be set up HIP in non-concealment terrain (A12.33) > HIP is lost as soon as an enemy unit has LOS to its location. Other > units cannot setup HIP in non-concealment terrain. So how do you set up > units that are in this fortification (let's use a foxhole > as an example). Only the Japanese have the luxury of gaining HIP status by setting up IN a fortification, and then only in caves/pillboxes. All other units do not gain HIP status by setting up in an HIP fortification. >If after the enemy's subsequent setup there are units > with LOS to the foxhole then obviously everything is revealed. But > what if there are no units with LOS (and thus the units in the foxhole > are eligible for concealment)? The foxhole is set-up HIP in open terrain and will be revealed as sood as an enemy unit has LOS to the location. Any squads set up in the open gound hex _set up_ unconcealed, but may make a concealment dr to become concealed prior to the start of play. Cheers, Dave Hauth ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 14:10:08 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Another Problem with TAHGC Yet another brilliant move by TAHGC. They design a game which *may* be the best thing since sliced white bread on a computer. Then, they spounge the name off their best board game. Idiotic move, IMO, since no matter how good BASL is, people will flood the email waves with "It ISN"T ASL, IT ISN"T EVEN SL!" messages which will always tie a negative to the game. I hope it sells well enough for AH to pay Fort enough to put original stuff in the General, but it'll always bear the burden of NOT being ASL. She might be a great lay, but a bitch is always a bitch. Ok, not a great analogy but pretty darn close... Brian ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 13:21:41 -0500 From: Robert Richardson Subject: computer asl Does anyone have any info on when the asl computer version is set to hit the market or if it has been shelved? robert richardson rrichard@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 14:18:21 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: ABS Problems Steve Petersen and I were working on Backblast last night when Steve was explaining the ABS to me (I hate variants but we plan on using 'em - at least the ABS - in Bb, I got outvoted. 8( ). He pointed out a problem, it seems, with the variant. Say you and I both agree the Germans are *SLIGHTLY* favored in a scenario. Neither of us wish to give up the G1 handicap, so we both bid G0. I lose the DR and am now stuck playing the Allies, whom I don't like in the scenario, while you get the Germans, the side we *BOTH* think are favored. At least in the "real" system, if both sides picked the Germans the losing DR would get the allies with the balance. Are we doing this wrong? Is this a problem? Any possible solutions we could implement for our mag? Please help, Brian ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:12:38 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) writes: >Jeff, thanks for compiling this! Interesting. But "Rocket's Red Glare"? Why >would that be a favorite of anyone who's had the misfortune of playing the >Germans? IMHO, to quote Mr. Youse: "That scenario's an unbalanced dog!" Well, since I voted for it, I guess I'll defend it. I really like the scenario. Sure it's very pro-US, although to be fair it is listed among the well-balanced scenarios in the record as a 43/57 after 37 playings, but it's a NEAT scenario. Wirblewind - cool. 105 Arty piece - think what that'll do if you hit something! -2 leaders galore - what other small scenario has 3 -2 leaders? (The Amis do have 2 right?) Paras toting 'fausts - gotta' love it. SS - 'nuf said. A US TD with a 90L gun - don't see that many other places. So it has a lot of components that I find appealing and it's a perfect size for a tourney or a quick evening game - another plus for a lot of games I play. I think the Germans can win, particularly if given the balance (an extra SS squad) if they play well and don't make set-up mistakes. Of course last time I played it as the Germans, I failed to break a US squad :-( I'll continue to play it in the future despite its dubious balance if my opponent wishes and will even take the Krauts... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 02:57:27 EDT Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios >Jeff, thanks for compiling this! Interesting. But "Rocket's Red Glare"? Why >would that be a favorite of anyone who's had the misfortune of playing the >Germans? IMHO, to quote Mr. Youse: "That scenario's an unbalanced dog!" >I could go on a rant about Hill 621 as well, but we've already been through >that. Several of the scenarios on the top 30 list were not well balanced (the worst was something like 94/6). I have enjoyed some of the unbalanced scenarios and from the list it's apparent that so do many others. I must now publicly apologize to Ole Boe. He was generating a different index with his #votes/#playings to generate a "best scenario" index. I'm not sure what a "best scenario" index would be. I've thought about adding a couple of additional items for analyses: total # squads, total # AFVs, # game turns, and # SSRs. Add all these up and you may very well have a complexity scale. Would also give an idea as to what makes an outstanding scenario. Other ideas are welcome. ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 03:00:40 EDT Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) >It's my understanding that BSL is nothing like SL or ASL. At Avaloncon, >someone told me that in BSL you're a squad leader in charge of 4 or 5 men each >with their own abilities and personalities. It's up to you as squad leader to >use these men effectively in battle. This sounds nothing like SL or ASL, it >actually sounds more like Patton's Best. It sounds like (1) a ramped version of SPI's "Sniper" or "Patrol," (2) a role playing game set in the mid 20th century, or (3) a cross between the two. Also has vague sounds of something Stewart King and I were discussing in terms of RPG, regimental or lower level campaigns. ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 12:28:27 -0700 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) Randy Nonay Writes: > Atomic seems quite unwilling to go to any effort to clear up this >confusion, probably because they are counting on deceiving ASL/SL fans >into buying BSL and thinking 'Hey - Computer ASL...' This is _entirely_ unfair and inaccurate. I have seen several posts by the folks at Atomic, as well as articles in magazines (including the General and Strategy Plus) which make it very clear what they are doing. They seem to be quite open and honest about what they are trying to do. .szy RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am AppleLink: szy saying here and should not Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving" AOL: Sszy So There. ----- From: "Jay Harms" Subject: ASL'ers in Niagara Falls area? Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:20:41 -500 Hi all, I will be in the Niagara Falls area during the weeks of September 12th and 19th, and was wondering if anyone in the area would be interested in a few ftf ASL games. With Oktoberfest just around the corner, I am hoping to get a warmup game or two under my belt. Jay Harms jharms@techinc.usa.com ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 13:01:24 -0700 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: computer asl There is no "Computer Version of ASL". There is "Beyond Squad Leader" which is a computer simulation of Squad level action in WWII which will borrow some concepts from SL and ASL. It is due next year, but more details on the schedule are not publicly available. .szy RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am AppleLink: szy saying here and should not Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving" AOL: Sszy So There. ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 16:23:04 EDT From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: ASLOK? Is the Octoberfest still going to be at the same place this year? (I recall that Bill was thinking of moving it to a different hotel.) While I'm at it, can someone post the details of ASLOK for us all? Anyone from Eastern Ontario who is thinking of going please drop me a line. Maybe we can coordinate/carpool/whatever. Also I've only got two email games going at the moment so if anyone is interested in starting one please let me know. Adrian ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 12:06:13 PDT Dade Cariaga writes: > I agree heartily with all the others, although Munda Mash might be a stretch > (too hard for the Amis). > > Comments? Well, I just won Munda Mash as the Americans, and although it wasn't easy, I don't think the scenario is THAT hard for them. That Japanese force IS a bit on the brittle side, and it can be whittled down to size. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 14:04:16 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: ASLOK? > Is the Octoberfest still going to be at the same place this year? > (I recall that Bill was thinking of moving it to a different hotel.) > While I'm at it, can someone post the details of ASLOK for us all? No, ASLOK has moved back to Youngstown this year. It runs from Thursday 6 Oct to Sunday 9 Oct. Fees are $13 for the weekend if paid by 1 Oct, $15 afterwards. Add another $9 and you get a T-Shirt. I don't have the rest of the details with me at work, but I'll post them when I do. By the way, Youngstown is not served by any major (or even minor) airlines, so you should plan to fly into Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or Akron. If anyone needs a ride, I'll be flying into Akron and driving over on Thursday. Dave ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 14:06:11 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: ASLOK? Oops, one other thing. Bill Conner's address is Bill Conner PO Box 4114 Youngstown, OH 44515-0114 (216)-797-9009 Call if you have any questions. Dave ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:34:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Mustafa Unlu Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Mustafa Unlu writes: > > Comments? > > > > Top Eleven Favorites (vote) (Revised Poll) > > > ================================================================ > > > Code Scenario vote rank play rank rank*rank > > > ================================================================ > > > ASL 4 The Commissar's House 15 1 52 2 2 > > > A 25 Cold Crocodiles 12 2 44 5 10 > > > E Hill 621 10 3 15 23 69 ** > > > ASL 21 Among the Ruins 8 4 26 12 48 ** > > > T 7 Hill 253.5 8 4 16 19 76 ** > > > A 32 Zon With the Wind 7 6 49 4 24 > > > ASL 8 The Fugitives 7 6 30 11 66 > > > ASL 23 Under the Noel Trees 6 8 51 3 24 > > > G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 6 8 37 7 56 > > > A 58 Munda Mash 6 8 16 19 152 ** > > > G Hube's Pocket 6 8 6 36 28 ** > > > M. Ooops, sent that one without any comments. What I wanted to say was that of those eleven, only four came published in modules and those are divided 50/50 between Beyond Valor and Yanks.. Interesting. M. ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:52:29 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) Last night, while waiting over an hour for the luxury of getting my ten minute oil change, I was reading Critical Hit! in ways I hadn't already. The articl that really got my goat was "St. Joost In My Mind" by Joe Leoce. Normally, such fiction does little for me unless it provides some remarkable insights to the game. I remember "Gunned Up In The Desert" as being one of the best pieces I'd seen written to describe how ASL works. So I read on. It was filled with the expected flotsam of personifying turn phases and such, and listed specifics like what type of chassis a Crommwell bounces on. Then they mentioned the ominous sound of a German MMG. Hmm. Seeing how all German machine guns are based on the same weapon, how would a MMG sound compared to a HMG or even a LMG? The weirdest part of the story was the fact that his fiction carefully followed the ASL turn sequence. Most of the convolutions of the game are trying to represent a dynamic, simultaneous environment in a "your turn, my turn" system. We all realize the world doesn't work this way, but why would a story try to pretend differently? Okay, so such fantasy in a gaming mag has happened before, will happen again, and I may end up reading it if prepared for another long wait in my car. But I would hope that such writing would be viewed with a harsh and sceptical eye by any editor writing a mag for this crowd. And I would hope that only a superior article would make it past the editors. I haven't seen a superior piece of fiction in CH! yet. I have to give this one a thumbs down. Tom Huntington and Ebert ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 18:05:25 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: ABS Problems Brian said: > Steve Petersen and I were working on Backblast last night when > Steve was explaining the ABS to me (I hate variants but we plan on > using 'em - at least the ABS - in Bb, I got outvoted. 8( ). I'm not big on variants, either, but I like ABS. The old system was fatally flawed as written since you couldn't bid null. So if you really wanted the Germans, but the Russian balance provision was overwhelming (think DASL 1 here) you might bid Russian to make sure that you wouldn't have to face a Russian opponent with the balance. Silly. > He pointed out a problem, it seems, with the variant. Say you and > I both agree the Germans are *SLIGHTLY* favored in a scenario. > Neither of us wish to give up the G1 handicap, so we both bid G0. > I lose the DR and am now stuck playing the Allies, whom I don't > like in the scenario, while you get the Germans, the side we > *BOTH* think are favored. Obviously you don't think they're favored by much if you both bid G0. > At least in the "real" system, if both sides picked the Germans the > losing DR would get the allies with the balance. No, this isn't fair to ABS. A 0-level bid isn't like picking a side in the regular system. It's bidding null, in the modified version of the old system that some people used, with a _very slight_ preference. It's saying "I'm not giving up squat to get the Germans, but I'll take 'em if all else is equal." If you bid German in the old system, you're saying "I want 'em and I'll give up the balance to get 'em if necessary." That's equivalent to a level 1-3 German bid in ABS, not a level 0 bid. So, while the system still isn't perfect, it certainly isn't worse than the old one here. If you think the Germans are slightly favored, bid G1. If the G1 balance is too extreme, then that's a problem with the scenario design, not ABS. In the old system with null bids allowed, you're essentially saying "You can pick your choice of side and I'm just not giving up the balance." G0 or A0 simply refine this so that if both players bid this way there's a backup side choice mechanism other than rolling a die (which they'll still do if they pick the same one). > Are we doing this wrong? Is this a problem? Any possible > solutions we could implement for our mag? I really don't see the problem. Worse problems exist with the old system. And if you print ABS provisions, people don't have to use them. They can just say that level 2 ABS is equal to the old balance and use the old bidding system. Or they can agree that the scenario is balanced at J2 or whatever and roll dice for sides. Dave "never been to Australia" Ripton