Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 07:16:11 -0500 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: Re: AH news I'll believe all this when I see it. The annual news indicates the annual actually took a step _back_ from the rumours at ASLOK. Pttthhbbbbt. ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 08:52:03 -0500 (EST) From: David Elder Subject: Re: What happen on multiple = TK Hi all ... just one small correction ... :-) On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Fred Timm wrote: > > > > > > Situation: A German PzkIVH fires at a British Valentine hitting the > > hull. It's TK roll equals the final TK# (i.e.. immobilization). The > > crew fails the TC and abandons the vehicle. The PzkIVH fires again > > hitting the Valentine's turret. The TK roll equals the final TK# > > (i.e. shock). > > > > Questions: > > > > A) On the Valentine do you: > > 1) place a shock marker > > 2) treat it is a kill > > 3) treat as a no effect > > 3 Since there is no crew in the Valentine it can't be Shocked. > Rules C7.2 to 7.42 C7.42 Effect: .... At the end of the next rally phase the AFV must roll for recuperation, even if already Abandoned before being hit. So abandoned AFV's are affected by shock. Cheers, David David Elder University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies david@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca Fusion Research Group! elder@ecf.toronto.edu ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 11:38:05 EDT Subject: Re: ford level in flooded stream >> Now here is a question for you from our current scenario. Does the flooded >> stream at level 0 form an obstacle for an otherwise clear LOS to a unit >> in a ford location(level -1)? What's your opinion? >B20.44 says that a flooded stream is at level 0. B20.8 says: >"FORDS: A ford represents an area within a stream or gully hex where the >Depression's sides have a gentler slope and the streambed itself is level and >lies near the surface, but the ford is still *at the same elevation as that >stream hex* (emphasis mine)...." My two cents (having seen a few flooded streams...): A ford is a location where vehicles and troops can cross the stream or river without drowning or swimming. I'd think the same movement costs would apply to infantry fording a flooded stream, i.e., advance in as CX or enter as CX. For all intents and purposes, a ford would be at the same level as flooded stream, i.e., level 0. A ford at a lower level would be FLOODED beyond movement capabilities. It's just a shallower location not a different level. jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) Dr. Jeffrey Shields (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 08:59:47 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: BB AND TAC JOINT VENTURE Glad to see that Tactiques may be reaching a wider audience in the States. If anybody gets the chance to do a review of the English translation, please post it. How are the scenarios? Tom ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 10:44:56 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Among the Ruins Guys, The record suggests Among the Ruins is fairly balanced. What do you guys think? Specifically: German - What to do with the AA gun? Set it up forward, or way back to prevent American exit? Dare to use it against tanks? - Set up the MGs on upper levels hoping for good lines of sight, or at ground level for laying firelanes? - How would you use the HIPsters? American - Just how do you carry out a decent attack with such low morale? - Do you spend time searching for HIPsters or not? - Never cross a street without some smoke to shield you? - How would you use the tanks, keeping in mind that their smoke numbers are low? - Broad front attack or schwerepunkt? - Use the FT aggressively or keep it back as a threat? What are your overall impressions of this scenario? Matt Matthew B. Shostak Landmark/Zycor mbs@zycor.lgc.com (512) 292-2357 "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the war room!" ----- From: viktor@mgr.hjf.org (Viktor Kaufmann) Subject: Archive Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:03:33 -0500 (EST) What is the ftp site for the archives, faq, etc.? Thanks, Viktor ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 13:18:33 EDT Subject: Unit compositions I'm curious how the purchase of companies works compares between RB and KGPI. Are the German infantry companies and their SWs identical in numbers/ mechanics between the two modules? What's the breakdown for line companies and SS companies for KGP? (I have RB.) Thanks, Jeff Ps: Aren't those "Message Undeliverable" messages annoying! ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:57:57 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Unit composition > I'm curious how the purchase of companies works compares between RB and > KGPI. Are the German infantry companies and their SWs identical in numbers/ > mechanics between the two modules? What's the breakdown for line > companies and SS companies for KGP? (I have RB.) No. KGPI use platoons & sections > Ps: Aren't those "Message Undeliverable" messages annoying! Yes. Extremely. ----- From: ucca51t Subject: TACTIQUES Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 18:02:13 +0000 I recieved my copy of Tactiques #6 (with english translation) about four days ago and having now has a chance to look through most of it thought I would hand on my impressions. The quality of production is very high. There are many clear two-tone illustrations which could well have graced the General. The translations are of a generally high, though variable, standard, as they have been handled by four or five individuals. The issue contains eleven small full colour bocage overlays and all the main articles focus on the Normandy 'hedgrerow hell'. There are two historical pieces, one a unit history of the US 29th Div. There is then a detailed review of the bocage/wall advantage rules from the ASLRB with many cleary described and illustrated examples. There is then a most useful atricle which is a combination a senario design/develpoment discussion combined with tactical hints for fighting in the bocage. The scenario is one of eight published with this issue of the magazine. Two feature Normandy and use the new overlays while the other cover a wide spectrum ranging from North Africa to Korea 1950! I haven't seen Backblast but I can compare TACTIQUES to ASL NEWS. I think that even with their new format the boys in Belgium are going to work very hard to match the standard of their French neighbour. In conclusion if you don't already subscribe do so now, you won't find a much bettar use for your $35 or 200FF. Derek Tocher London, England ucca51t@ucl.uk.ac ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Unit compositions Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 10:09:23 PST Jeff Shields writes: > I'm curious how the purchase of companies works compares between RB and > KGPI. Are the German infantry companies and their SWs identical in numbers/ > mechanics between the two modules? What's the breakdown for line > companies and SS companies for KGP? (I have RB.) Well, we don't have company breakdowns for KGP; units are bought by platoon there. I believe an SS platoon (assuming full strength) is 3 squads, with an LMG and a PSK and usually a leader. Perhaps they get a 50mm MTR as well; I'm not sure. German "Line" companies don't really make an appearance in KGP; there are a few 2nd line fallschirmjaeger platoons available, but the rest is SS. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: Among the Ruins (fwd) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 13:06:51 EST > The record suggests Among the Ruins is fairly balanced. What do you > guys think? Specifically: > > German > - What to do with the AA gun? Set it up forward, or way back to prevent > American exit? Dare to use it against tanks? I placed it in the middle of the board where it had the best arc of fire (in a building) both times I played the scenario the position made a major impression. The first time I managed to destroy the american left flank, the second time the american tanks smoked it so bad it couldn't do anything useful (still kept those tanks occupied a couple of turns though...) > - Set up the MGs on upper levels hoping for good lines of sight, or at > ground level for laying firelanes? > - How would you use the HIPsters? I placed one leader, squad, and MG on each side of the board, seems like everyone just has to try running down the edge, and if they run into trouble on one side they try to run down the other edge, having hipsters hugging both edges seems to put your opponent on edge. Another good trick is to place a concealment stack in front of the HIP position, opponent gets rid of the concealed position and many times doesn't even consider a hipster could be nearby... > > American I haven't played this as the amis but my second opponent put a load of firepower in the top level of a building and that gave me no end of trouble, as well as using the smoke mortars as an offensive weapon. My first opponent fired WP at my concealed units forcing an MC - very annoying for the defense. If I were to play the americans I would attack one side of the board and not even set anything up on the other because. 1 - If the germans have spread out the defense just watch em scramble to get the units on the other board in position. 2 - If the germans have put all their defense on the other board you get to waltz up the one you chose. 3 - If the germans have put all their defense on your board you still have an overwhelming firepower advantage. 4 - Keeps DM'd squads compacted so they can be rotated back up to the front quicker, my first opponent lost a leader in the wrong spot and his far left flank was shot... I had a blast both times I played it, and would play it again but there are so many other scenarios to try. Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 10:14:14 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Cabucks Thus continues the ensuing battle between cdf1@psu.edu and Grant over: "Re: Canucks" GL> ... A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure. c> Grant, I love your signature routine! It knows just which c> one to pick! :-) I know. It can sometimes be pretty deflating, can't it? Course in this case, where the pretension/manure belongs depends on one's point of view ;^) c> BTW, I've enjoyed reading the notes on the history c> generated by my faux pas. Very interesting. Another c> source of interesting history has been To Lose A Battle, c> France 1940 by Alstair Horne. While a little weak and c> error prone on the German side of things, Mr. Horne spends c> a lot of time describing the political situation in France c> leading up to the war and France's subsequent collapse. That sounds good. I haven't read any mil. hist. from the French perspective. Would make a good Xmas gift for Dolan, as well! -Grant. ... Black holes are where God is dividing by zero. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 10:12:00 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: "PBEM METHODS" JR- I think you have some good ideas here, but none of them would do it for me. I don't ask for concealment files from my opponents. I reckon that if I'm trusting them to roll the dice, I might as well trust them not to hose me by screwing around with what is concealed or hidden. If I shoot at a concealed unit, I either continue with the rest of the fire phase (if the results aren't crucial), or I send a partial move and wait for a reply as to what was in the hex that I revealed. PBEM is fast enough that the extra mailings aren't the concern they would be in pb-snail-mail. I have used a program similar to the one you're talking about (called CIPHER, available on GEnie, I think). The one big problem I had with it was that you had to syncronise your concealment ID letters. With four or more pbems going on at once, this wasn't possible. However, using hex IDs solves this problem, but then you have to include a new concealment file each MPH. j> This proposal isn't implemented yet. I wanted to get j> people's comments on how useful this would be, and ideas j> for improving it. Are there other features that could j> easily be incorporated? Is this likely to be useful to you j> PBEM-ers? Still, it's an interesting idea and I wish you well with it. Another reason I won't be able to use it is it will undoubtably be for MSDOS or UNIX only. (CIPHER was available for MSDOS and AMIGA- I have an Amiga and a Mac). OTOH, if your program proves to be so amazingly useful, I have a DOS emulator that I can fire up on the Amiga. It's slow, but I run a couple of things on it (like Kitchen's DYO proggie). -Grant. ... "That's entertainment," - Vlad the Impaler. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 10:13:35 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Canucks Thus spake Carl: c> I would have expected them to have the same attitude c> as the US in that regard. That's always the first mistake you friends to the south make about Canadians- that you expect us to have the same values, ideas, etc. as you. We may be quiet, but we're _different_ and quiet! -Grant. ... A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Subject: Re: REVIEWERS NEEDED From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 11:38:00 -5 Howdy, Thanks to everyone who has responded so far to my call for reviewers. One thing I noticed: several people mentioned that they were working on or thinking about starting articles on different sections of the rules. One person said he was working on an article on Overrun (uh-oh) for Backblast, and a couple people said they were working on or considering an article on Routing (I will try to put these people in contact with each other privately; BTW, my working title for my rout article is, "Run Away!," a reference from Monty Python; if anyone wanted to steal it, go right ahead), which is something I even began a little bit of work on. This is not the worst thing that could happen to ASL (ok, it's a very, very good sign), but it does mean that there are opportunities for joint work and cooperation. I don't know how this should be managed, but to avoid duplication of effort, I think some attempt should be made. We could do something like Ethernet and shout via the net when we are working on a project, or a database could be kept of current articles and their status. The database might be maintained by someone, or it might just be a publicly-editable text file that people added their names to by themselves (the exact way of making this file publicly editable could be decided later: one way would be to allow people to log into a machine which would probably not be popular with the owner of the machine, but another way might be to have a mail daemon handle mail messages of a certain format by adding or deleting records in the database). So what do you all think? Should we make some effort to make sure that all us authors are not stepping over one another's feet? Are there other ways to do this in addition to the one's I've mentioned above? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: EPGS MEETING 12/17/94 From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 12:29:00 -5 Howdy, Eastern Pennsylvania Gamers Society (EPGS) meets Saturday, December 17, 1994. Plenty of ASL for everyone. Also many other games. Last month there was a giant, multi-player, Naval minatures battle with 20-30 people each with 1-2 ships apiece. See you there! City: Plymouth Meeting, PA (Northwest of Phila.) Contact: JR VanMechelen jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com Other Info: Meets the third Saturday of each month 8:00 AM to Late Inn at Plymouth Meeting Located near the Plymouth Meeting mall. Note: the gaming area is open at 8 am. Most people are there by 9 am. If you need information or directions, contact me via e-mail. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: Radioless vehicle questio From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 10:26:00 -5 Howdy, dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu writes: > A question has come to mind after reading the section on > radioless vehicles. Consider the following situation: a > two-vehicle platoon is happily moving along when one of > them is blown to smithereens by an AT gun. Does the > remaining vehicle have to take an immediate NTC to keep > moving? My guess is no, but I'm not really sure. This came up in a recent game of mine. The section on Platoon Movement says that the NTC is taken at the beginning of the MPh when it starts on board, and there is no reference to a TC taken at any other time [D14.23]. It would be nice to clarify officially, but I think you are right. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 13:21:47 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Re: Among the Ruins (fwd) > From pabl@im.se Thu Dec 8 12:12:48 1994 > From: pabl@im.se > Subject: Among the Ruins (fwd) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (ASL Mailing list) > Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 13:06:51 EST > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > Content-Length: 2310 > > > The record suggests Among the Ruins is fairly balanced. What do you > > guys think? Specifically: > > > > German > > - What to do with the AA gun? Set it up forward, or way back to prevent > > American exit? Dare to use it against tanks? > > I placed it in the middle of the board where it had the best arc of > fire (in a building) both times I played the scenario the position I think the size of the gun makes it unable to set up in a building. This could help the Americans considerably in locating it. > made a major impression. The first time I managed to destroy the > american left flank, the second time the american tanks smoked it > > Paul Blankenship > pabl@im.se > ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 13:58:09 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: sub at Pearl Guys, The New York Times has an article in this morning's paper that says that new analysis of photographs taken during the Pearl Harbor attack suggest that a Japanese sub was in the harbor and shot its torpedoes at the Oklahoma and the West Virginia. I thought you'd be interested. Matt "one third less ASL content than a regular post" ----- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 14:50:07 EST From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: Game Wanted Hi guys, Would anyone be interested in a PBEM ladder game of Chappelle St. Anne? You can pick the side of your choice with no balance in effect. Thanks. blackmj@uga.cc.uga.edu ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 00:29:05 +0100 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: Re: Cherkassy/Korsun/Kanev Pocket Jeff wrote: >I'm designing some more scenarios and I need some information. > >(1) I'm looking for information on the TOE of the Soviet 5th Guard Tank >Corp or 5th Guard Tank Army. I'm specifically interested in early 1944 at >the time of the Cherkassy Pocket. Anybody have any info? Is there a good >general text on the OB or TOE of Soviet forces? It's probably very difficult to find this information since the strenghts of units in combat tended to vary very much. At full strenght (i.e. seldom), a Russian Tank corp model 1944 consisted of: Troops: 12 010 Tank Brigades: 3 Motor Rifle Brigades: 1 T34 x 207 BM13 x 8 SU76 x 21 SU85 x 21 SU152/ISU152 x 21 Source: Soviet tanks and combat vehicles of world war two, Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen. >(2) I'd also like to know if the 1st Panzer Division, SS Liebstandarte >Adolf Hitler, or schwere Panzer Abteilung Baeke (Heavy Tank Regiment Baeke) >possessed JgdPz Tigers (Elefants) in early 1944. The ASLRB states that the >elefants were withdrawn from the Nikopol area in mid 1944. It seems that the Elefant was only to be found in the Pz.Jaeg.Regt. 656, so the answer to your question is no. Source: The Tiger Tanks, Peter Gudgin Hopýthis helps, Robert Maglica ----- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 21:26:36 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: Cherkassy/Korsun/Kanev Pocket > >(1) I'm looking for information on the TOE of the Soviet 5th Guard Tank > >Corp or 5th Guard Tank Army. I'm specifically interested in early 1944 at > >the time of the Cherkassy Pocket. > > At full strenght (i.e. seldom), a Russian Tank corp model 1944 consisted of: > Troops: 12 010 > Tank Brigades: 3 > Motor Rifle Brigades: 1 > T34 x 207 > BM13 x 8 > SU76 x 21 > SU85 x 21 > SU152/ISU152 x 21 > Robert, This is just the thing I'm looking for! I suspect that a Guard unit would have more heavy tanks like the SU152 and perhaps some "field-test" units like early JS 2s or T34-85s. I've settled on a tentative OB for the first scenario in a group of 4 that takes place around Hill 239 in the Cherkassy Pocket. The Soviet 5th Guard Tank Corp defends first against an assault by the 1st Panzer Division with Heavy Panzer Regiment Baeke thrown in. The next battle is a follow up attack by a reinforced Panzer Grenadier Battalion of the SS "LAH." The third assault is a breakout attempt by the SS Armored Recon Battalion and Wallonie Assault Brigade of the Viking Division, and lastly will be a mad scramble by the ragtag elements of 72nd Division in a last ditch attempt to breakout. I hope to playtest the first scenario over the Xmas break. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: 08 Dec 94 23:57:50 EST From: "HERMAN F. FRETTLOHR" <75334.473@compuserve.com> Subject: Please subscribe me I have been playing ASL for about 4 years now and I'm interested in your group. Please send me any information I need. Maybe I'll see some of you guys at AVALONCON '95. ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 02:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Rockett Subject: Aspiring writers Gentlemen, please forgive me if this sounds like an ad but... In early '95 the newly formed Simulations Association will begin publication of a FREE E-mag, Situational Awareness. The subject matter will cover ALL forms of simulations. Currently we are looking for writers/reviewers to participate in the rise of this pub and group. If you would like to participate in the formulation and direction of this endeavor, please contact me. Any and all questions/comments will be answered. Simulations Association is a Non-profit organization dedicated to the discussion and production of quality simulations. R Rockett Rockett@digex.net ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Malfunction & Breakdown Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:48:52 +0100 (MET) Hi, > I made a (hopefully) exhaustive list of rules references > related to weapon malfunction. Let me know what I forgot :-) > > Sustained Fire +2 A9.3 > Ammo Shortage +1 A19.131 > Captured Equipment +2 A21.11 > Non-Qualified use +4 A21.13 > Non-V.Crew Capt. AFV +4 A21.22 > Intensive Fire +2 C5.62 > Low Ammo +1 D3.71 Lowered B# for radios in PTO? Lowered B# for extreme winter conditions? > I don't believe that any combination reduces the X number > to below the original B or B(circle) number. Thus > Captured, sustained fire for a B11 lmg, would be X'd on an > 11 and (+4) B'd on a 7. Well, I think the rules say that the effect of a B#-reduction is that the B# is lowered x steps, and the previous B# becomes a X#. Now, you have a new B# that will be the new X# when you apply the next modifier. The only question about this is what order to apply the penalties in. I'd say that that's up to the firing player. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 94 13:26:25 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Questions > 1) Can the Germans win Serario 5 "In sight of the Volga" or is it > entirely dependant on the number of 6-2-8's that the Russians > recieves. Can't answer from experience, but that SSR giving the Russians a variable amount of reinforcements kind of spoils me on this one; I don't think I'm too skittish about play balance, but this seems to be overboard. Same goes for the scenario (can't remember the name) where the map is 2 or 3 boards LONG and the Russians can exit a certain number of vehicles and roll a die for their re-entry on some road hex further down the line. Just seems too weird to play with. > I just played it (as Russians) and really won big. The german player > is not a complete idiot (we've played ASL about 40 times and I've won > about 50% of 'em). What's the win loss ration on this senario? Latest Record has Russian 9, German 7. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 13:47:50 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Results: What would YOU do? OK, the answers are in and here's your score. > Essay exam question #1 > > It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized > BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. > In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with > morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. > If you said fire the MGs and try and strip concealment, followed by either ATT or ITT, depending on whether concealment was stripped, give yourself 20 points. That was the most popular answer and is the one I choose. If you tried to fire smoke, 0 points. If you tried to move the IMMOBILIZED PzVI, I won't mention any names, but lay off the Tater Mash :-), 0 points. I'm working on Essay exam question #2. :-) Don Hancock > 1. > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) > > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > > a) Fire the MA using Infantry Target Type. > > b) Fire the MA using Area Target Type. > > c) Fire the BMG/CMG together. > > d) Fire the BMG. > > e) Fire the CMG. > > f) None of the above. > ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 14:46:56 -0500 (EST) From: "OLIVER B. LAEYENDECKER" Subject: Questions Hello, I've got a few questions, 1) Can the Germans win Serario 5 "In sight of the Volga" or is it entirely dependant on the number of 6-2-8's that the Russians recieves. I just played it (as Russians) and really won big. The german player is not a complete idiot (we've played ASL about 40 times and I've won about 50% of 'em). What's the win loss ration on this senario? 2) We both have problems as the attacker. The attacking player wins less than 20% of the time in our games. It seems that you can make more blunders as the defender. It may also be that the vc are to be obtained near the end of the gaming session and that always happens at about 2 am and after the consumption of multiple beers. Since we both are married and have jobs, the late beer comprimised state is particularly hazardous to our cardboard soldiers who seem to evaporate in hexes their commanders thought were blind. Now is there an article or two on "how not to be a lunk head while attacking", or sould we just drink fruit juices and start earlier and the attacker will miraculously reach his objectives? 3) Where is the Center of Military History, and can you check out books there? 4) I just read a great book called Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt by Charles MacDonald and Sidney Mathews. Does anyone know of any other volumes of the 'American Forces in Action'? The book I just mentioned is a detailed account on squad level of these battles. Intreviews with german POW fill in what the enemy was doing. I think a campaign game could easly be made around the battle of Schmidt. Are there any serario'sbasedonaction there? Oliver Oliver Laeyendecker olaeyen@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu Senior Lab Technician (w) 410-614-3017 Molecular Microbiology and Immunology fax 410-614-1491 School of Hygiene and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University 615 N. Wolfe St. Baltimore MD 21287-8106 ----- From: kinney@comanche.ATMOS.Ucla.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Re: Malfunction & Breakdown Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 13:33:43 PST Patrik Manlig sez: > In-Reply-To: <9412080105.AA10586@ phx.sectel.mot.com> from "don hancock" at Dec 7, 94 06:05:15 pm > > > > I don't believe that any combination reduces the X number > > to below the original B or B(circle) number. Thus > > Captured, sustained fire for a B11 lmg, would be X'd on an > > 11 and (+4) B'd on a 7. > > The only question about this is what order to apply the penalties > in. I'd say that that's up to the firing player. For the record, I agree with Don, based on the interpretation of "original" to mean "printed." However, this reminds me of a Denver tournament in which one of the scenarios was "Silence That Gun." Amusingly, the VC state that the American must destroy the Gun, so if it breaks "accidentally," they can't win (help me if I'm inaccurate here). Those Germans who agreed with Patrik would give the gun to non-qualified Inexperienced Conscripts and Intensive Fire the Gun every turn, figuring they had the B12 down to an X8. Just close your eyes and repeat after me: "ASL is a game, not a simulation. ASL is a game, not a simulation. ASL is ..." rk ----- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 1994 17:37:13 -0500 (EST) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: breakdown and malf. Sustained Fire +2 A9.3 Ammo Shortage +1 A19.131 Captured Equipment +2 A21.11 Non-Qualified use +4 A21.13 Non-V.Crew Capt. AFV +4 A21.22 Intensive Fire +2 C5.62 Low Ammo +1 D3.71 Lowered B# for radios in PTO? Lowered B# for extreme winter conditions? > I don't believe that any combination reduces the X number > to below the original B or B(circle) number. Thus > Captured, sustained fire for a B11 lmg, would be X'd on an > 11 and (+4) B'd on a 7. >>>>> Section A21 makes no mention of a MG B# being changed into a X#. A captured weapon may not be repaired so any breakdown is pretty much fatal. A B11 russian LMG in the hands of a german squad using sustained fire would simply be a B7 roll. Well, I think the rules say that the effect of a B#-reduction is that the B# is lowered x steps, and the previous B# becomes a X#. >>>>> Where does it say this ?? That sounds like the rules for the low ammo rules if you have a "circle"B#. Now, you have a new B# that will be the new X# when you apply the next modifier. >>>>> I think that if you capture used a "circle B10" weapon a 10+ roll would give a normal breakdown and a 8 or 9 would result in low ammo. After that you'd get a X on 8+ on the dice, and a 7 would be a normal breakdown. The only question about this is what order to apply the penalties in. I'd say that that's up to the firing player. >>>>> I can'd find a single instance where a B# becomes an X# except for the low ammo rules.(and "circle B#" guns/vehicles) An interresting note is that in an SSR of low ammo, MGs just get a lowered B# and guns get treated like they have a "circleB#" of one less than their normal B#. ----- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 1994 17:44:00 -0500 (EST) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: Dash for the Bridge From: IN%"tqr@inel.gov" 9-DEC-1994 16:26:10.26 To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" CC: Subj: RE: Questions Same goes for the scenario (can't remember the name) where the map is 2 or 3 boards LONG and the Russians can exit a certain number of vehicles and roll a die for their re-entry on some road hex further down the line. Just seems too weird to play with. > I just played it (as Russians) and really won big. The german player > is not a complete idiot (we've played ASL about 40 times and I've won > about 50% of 'em). What's the win loss ration on this senario? >>>>> I played it as the russian awhile back and got my head handed to me. I put my infantry on the tanks and tried to get slick by running in bypass behind some buildings. I got ambushed and a whole bunch of infantry got scragged and a couple of tanks. Then I REALY screwed up by not pushing through the ambush but changing direction and running dead smack into another ambush site. Dumb. I have the mobility advantage, and chances are the kraut is spread thin, and once you get through in one spot you can run for the rear. ----- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 1994 17:52:29 -0500 (EST) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: In Sight of the Volga 1) Can the Germans win Serario 5 "In sight of the Volga" or is it entirely dependant on the number of 6-2-8's that the Russians recieves. I just played it (as Russians) and really won big. The german player is not a complete idiot (we've played ASL about 40 times and I've won about 50% of 'em). What's the win loss ration on this senario? >>>>> Sure they can win. They need to see a couple of basic things and then it's winable. 2) We both have problems as the attacker. The attacking player wins less than 20% of the time in our games. It seems that you can make more blunders as the defender. >>>>> In this one the kraut should push for the exit area so he can exit enough squads to cancell out the probable russian reinforcements. If he doesn't do this he is probably going to loose. Once this is accomplished it's a matter of enveloping the factory and erodeing the russians. ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 16:51:53 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Re: breakdown and malf. > > I don't believe that any combination reduces the X number > > to below the original B or B(circle) number. Thus > > Captured, sustained fire for a B11 lmg, would be X'd on an > > 11 and (+4) B'd on a 7. > > >>>>> Section A21 makes no mention of a MG B# being changed > into a X#. A captured weapon may not be repaired so any > breakdown is pretty much fatal. A B11 russian LMG in the > hands of a german squad using sustained fire would simply > be a B7 roll. I should have included it in my list. Check the A. part on the first page of section A. It says firing with lowered B numbers, the original B number becomes an X number. Don ----- From: kinney@comanche.ATMOS.Ucla.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: OBA probabilities Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 16:23:21 PST Hello fellas, I wrote this a while ago, and was just using it to figure out whether it was worthwhile to buy pre-registered hexes for my German OBA in KGP, when it occurred to me that other people might find this handy too, so I'm sending it off. It's a C program to calculate probabilities that a certain number of fire missions will be obtained with a given draw pile. The probabilities are exact; it's not a simulation. If you think you'll use it, enjoy! rk /* ASL Fire Mission calculator Rodney Kinney 1992 Usage: a.out b r where: b = number of black cards in draw pile r = number of red cards in draw pile (r >= 2) Output: Table of n, P(n), and P(>=n) where: n = number of fire missions P(n) = probability of obtaining _exactly_ n fire missions P(>=n) = probability of obtaining n _or_more_ fire missions also gives the expected (mean) number of fire missions */ #include main(argc,argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { float prob, prob0, cumprob, expect=0.0; float fact(); int red, black, total; int i,n; black = atoi(argv[1]); red = atoi(argv[2]); total = red + black; prob0 = red * (red-1) * fact(black) / fact(total); cumprob = 1.0; printf("n \t P(n) \t P(>=n)\n"); printf("_ \t ____ \t ______\n"); for(n=0;n<=black;++n) { prob = prob0 * fact(total-n-2) * (n+1) / fact(black-n); printf("%d \t %4.2f \t %4.2f \n",n,prob,cumprob); cumprob -= prob; expect += prob * n; } printf("Expectation: %4.2f missions\n",expect); } float fact(n) int n; { int i; float nfac = 1.0; for(i=1;i<=n;++i) nfac *= i; return(nfac); } ----- Subject: Questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 94 18:14:00 -5 Howdy, "OLIVER B. LAEYENDECKER" writes: > 2) We both have problems as the attacker. The attacking > player wins less than 20% of the time in our games. It > seems that you can make more blunders as the defender. It > may also be that the vc are to be obtained near the end of > the gaming session and that always happens at about 2 am > and after the consumption of multiple beers. Since we both > are married and have jobs, the late beer comprimised state > is particularly hazardous to our cardboard soldiers who > seem to evaporate in hexes their commanders thought were > blind. Now is there an article or two on "how not to be a > lunk head while attacking", or sould we just drink fruit > juices and start earlier and the attacker will miraculously > reach his objectives? I totaled up the results for all the scenarios from the ASL record and this is what I got: Side: Wins Attacker: 2043 51% Defender: 1962 49% So apparently there is no tendency for the defender to win in general. We have debated before whether new players have more trouble as attacker or defender. I think we decided that it was the attacker that was more difficult, but whatever we decided, I would be surprised if it was an 80/20 difference. A couple of thoughts: First, have you checked whether the scenarios you are playing are unbalanced in the ASL record? It's unlikely that you have systematically chosen scenarios that favor the defender, but it's possible. Second, you may be playing with some essential misunderstanding of the rules or have gotten into some bad tactical habits, especially if you play the same person all the time. I really enjoy playing different people because not everyone plays exactly with the same style or with the same bag of tactical tricks. You might try some games outside your current circle of opponents. Is jhu.edu Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore? If so, you are ideally located to find other players. If there aren't any other players you can play face2face, I might suggest an e-mail game. They're not as fast as face2face, but one might give you some new ideas on tactics. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 17:54:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: Re: In Sight of the Volga On Fri, 9 Dec 1994 MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU wrote: > >>>>> In this one the kraut should push for the exit area so he can exit > enough squads to cancell out the probable russian reinforcements. > If he doesn't do this he is probably going to loose. Once this > is accomplished it's a matter of enveloping the factory and erodeing > the russians. This is absolutely true. I recently played this scenario (as the Russians) and started receiving reinforcements. My opponent had the opportunity (at one point) to run off enough German units to cancel any future Russian reinforcements. I moved a few units to cover any move he may have made...he never made it. Consequently, an avalanche of Russian reinforcements arrived after that and he conceded. Afterwards, he told me that he had read the SSR, but had forgot all about it. That is my best advice: read the SSRs. BCNU -- Neal E. Ulen (nealu@uidaho.edu) ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 03:10:00 UTC Subject: NEW ASL STUFF For the gang, An admitted advertisement - sorry if posted already- Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 634 Thu Dec 08, 1994 J.KNOWLES8 at 02:41 EST FIFTY YEARS AGO THIS DECEMBER, THE GERMAN ARMY LAUNCHED ITS LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO WIN THE WAR IN THE WEST. Kinetic Energy Productions presents the Premiere Issuer of TIME ON TARGET The newsletter of ASL Esoterica with its 50th Anniversary salute to THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE * INCLUDES 12 NEW ASL SCENARIOS! * SCENARIOS PRINTED IN TWO COLOR ON CARD STOCK! * TWO HISTORICAL ASL SCENARIOS ON THE KGP STOUMONT MAP GROUP! * ONE DELUXE ASL SCENARIO! * ORDER NOW! This is the new Advanced Squad Leader newsletter, TIME ON TARGET, which-in its first issue-takes a fresh look at the fighting in the Ardennes in December 1944-January 1945., ASL players everywhere can now experience the tension of the Ardennes fighting again and again through twelve new Battle of the Bulge scenarios. Issue #1 of TIME ON TARGET is available now, and comes with twelve scenarios, printed in two color on high-quality card stock, The newsletter is ten pages of articles on the scenarios, a bibliography, and other ASL-related items, as well as two unique Scenario Special Rules designed specifically for use in these TIME ON TARGET scenarios. TIME ON TARGET Issue #1 is available for $10.00 [EXC: for orders postmarked prior to 1 January 1995, the price is $8.00], and may be ordered by sending a check or money order in U. S. funds to: Kinetic Energy Productions P. O. Box 291580 Hollywood, Ca. 90027 On all orders please include $1.75 for shipping and handling ($3.50 for orders outside continental North America). Advanced Squad Leader and all its modules are registered trademarks of The Avalon Hill Game Company. P. S. Send me a quick E-mail if your interested, Thanks. ------------ ron - from the superhighway side road p.s. i playtested one of the KGP map thingees --good intro to KGP ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Malfunction & Breakdown Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 17:35:42 +0100 (MET) Hi, > For the record, I agree with Don, based on the interpretation > of "original" to mean "printed." Yeah, I saw the quoted text and using the word "original" indeed makes it seem like that would be the correct interpretation. I still don't think that's what's intended, but that's just me. > However, this reminds me of a Denver tournament in which one > of the scenarios was "Silence That Gun." Amusingly, the VC state that > the American must destroy the Gun, so if it breaks "accidentally," > they can't win (help me if I'm inaccurate here). Those Germans who > agreed with Patrik would give the gun to non-qualified Inexperienced > Conscripts and Intensive Fire the Gun every turn, figuring they had > the B12 down to an X8. Well, actually anyone that agrees with the above interpretation of the VC would not at all try to fire it at enemy units but would voluntarily use a fire action to destroy the gun (check A9.73 for this - that's where it should be found according to the updated index). It has little to do with how you interpret the malfunction rules and everything to do with how you interpret the VC. > Just close your eyes and repeat after me: "ASL is a game, not > a simulation. ASL is a game, not a simulation. ASL is ..." Sorry, but I couldn't see what to repeat with my eyes closed... :-) -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: breakdown and malf. Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 17:39:50 +0100 (MET) Hi, > >>>>> Section A21 makes no mention of a MG B# being changed > into a X#. A captured weapon may not be repaired so any > breakdown is pretty much fatal. A B11 russian LMG in the > hands of a german squad using sustained fire would simply > be a B7 roll. Good point about captured weapons not being repairable. > Well, I think the rules say that the effect of a B#-reduction is > that the B# is lowered x steps, and the previous B# becomes a X#. > > >>>>> Where does it say this ?? That sounds like the rules > for the low ammo rules if you have a "circle"B#. Check out A.11 (from the updated index). > >>>>> I can'd find a single instance where a B# becomes an X# except > for the low ammo rules.(and "circle B#" guns/vehicles) See above. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Henrik_B=F8ler_Olafsen?= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 18:21:33 +0100 Subject: Re: PC Advance Squad Leader Hi! Just found this on the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic group. (Sorry if this has already been posted on this list) ---------------------- > >Carl D. Fago (cdf1@psu.edu) wrote: >: In article <3blkku$maq@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, szutao@gn.ecn.purdue.edu >: (Szutao Leung) says: >: >Does anybody know when the Avalon Hill's PC Advance Squad Leader >: >is suppose to come out? Also, is it very similar to the original >: >board game version, where you can buy modules to add on to it? > >: There is no such thing either existing or planned. > >: You may be thinking of Beyond Squad Leader which will be developed by >: Atomic and published by AH. There is no connection between BSL and >: SL/ASL regardless of the attempts by AH to put forward the perception of >: the connection. > > One interesting tidbit I have been told by an AH bigwig - BSL is >intentionally named and marketed to mislead people into thinking it that >there IS some similarity between the two. Atomic has no say in this >issue, it is totally Avalon Hills plan. So if ya want to annoy someone - >complain to AH not atomic. > > This serves as my prelude to the great cooperation I have recieved from > Atomic, which is why I post the following message. > Randy [Snip][This is the next message:] > Hi. I'm Keith Zabalaoui, president of Atomic Games. A few people have > been sending me nasty-grams about our upcoming product, Beyond Squad > Leader. The tone of these letters has been, well, nasty. So, I'm posting > this note in hopes of answering some of your questions and to dispel > incorrect rumors. > > 1) BSL is not now and has never been touted as being computer (A)SL. The > differences are manifold. The biggest difference is that BSL is > (obviously) on the computer. BSL is continuous action - not phased turns. > The basic unit in BSL is the team, which is composed of 4-5 men. In most > cases, the player will direct the team and not single men. There will be > up to 20 teams per side, plus AFVs and other vehicles. BSL features a > campaign mode of play, wherein the player will keep his men and vehicles > from scenario to scenario, if they survive. They will also improve from > scenario to scenario. > > 2) The name of the game is Beyond Squad Leader. It is a name that Avalon > Hill and Atomic agreed upon. The name will not change. We feel it is > completely appropriate for the game since it goes BEYOND Squad Leader and > Advanced Squad Leader in portraying small unit actions during WWII. > > 3) BSL is being developed exclusively by Atomic, with consultation and > support of Avalon Hill. > > 4) At this time (August, 1994), we expect BSL to require a 486 or Pentium, > 68040 or PowerPC, and at least 8mb in your machine. It will be SVGA only < and may very well be CD-ROM only, but this is not yet decided. We plan to > support Chicago and OS/2, but again, this is not yet decided. We also plan > to support multi-machine play, but this is also not yet decided. > > 5) The current target release date is second quarter of '95. The game is > about to enter Alpha (in-house) testing and we plan to begin Beta testing > in December '94. > > > I think that answers all the common questions. I'll be happy to answer > other questions directly, but please do not ask me to repeat the above. > > - Keith > > PS - I do not subscribe to the ASL list (I'm on too many lists as it > is!) So please reply via email. Thanks. (keithz@atomic.com) > > > __ Keith Zabalaoui _______________________________________ Atomic Games __ > _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ > \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ > _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ keithz@atomic.com \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ > \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ > ----- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 94 14:08:52 -0500 From: Brian SPENCER Subject: Re: PC Adbance Squad LEader Did anyone else, on seeing the subject line, think that this message was going to be about Politically Correct ASL? You know, wheel chair accessible battlefields, female squads (with -1 DRM on morale checks, of course), and the banning of the F-word whenever you roll boxcars. Brian Spencer ----- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 18:59:59 -0500 From: Dale150@aol.com Subject: PBEM Issue Hi Lance posted the following message: > I ran across a situation in a PBEM game tonight that surprised me, and I >wanted to get other reactions to it: > My opponent responded to one of my MPh asking for the contents of a >concealed stack, and then indicated that, although the moves hadn't happened >yet, he was going to need to know the contents of the next stack I moved (and >listed off the hex they would be spotted in). > The way I thought PBEM was supposed to work was that you stopped reading a >move at the point game action stops. Have I been been msiing something? Have >I explained myself clearly? Well I'm the person he was playing and I wish to clarify what happened. The desision to stop the move when he ran a unit in my LOS was immediate as in a FTF game. He has the option to redo any part of his move after he reveals the unit. I thought if anything I was giving him information that his next anticipated move was going to be observed. I gave him that information because we would be looking at a very slow game with one "?" non-assault moving at a time. Besides, he was running units in front of at least three stacks that any "unit counter" would realize were not all dummies. He is now claiming that since I revealed that I saw his next move I can not take any action against the 1st unit. BTW Lance....there is a LOS from 24V3 to 24T0. Anyway... PBEM is based on the assumption that your opponent is playing fair. Once that assumption is compromised, it is best to resign which in this case I have giving him the victory. He could use the time to brush up on some of the rules and his LOS. Sorry to waste bandwith....back to the lurker seats I go. Oh BTW, I posted a letter earlier about new stuff in the pipeline from AH. One person seemed like he though it was a gag. Is correct, the Baltimore group was given playtest rules and the maps for for KGP and The Third Bridge (TB) along with the finished unmounted maps #42 and #43. Dale Wetzelberger ----- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: Re: PC Advance Squad Leader > > 4) At this time (August, 1994), we expect BSL to require a 486 or Pentium, > > 68040 or PowerPC, and at least 8mb in your machine. It will be SVGA only > < and may very well be CD-ROM only, but this is not yet decided. We plan to > > support Chicago and OS/2, but again, this is not yet decided. We also plan > > to support multi-machine play, but this is also not yet decided. This is a nice piece of work! C'mon! Everytime a new piece of software comes out I have to think about upgrading my machine. You need all this to play a WWII tactical level wargame? It better blow me away! Let's see, minimum requirements will probably be: 486-66, 8mb RAM, and a 2X CD-ROM. This means the realistic requirements will be: Pentium-66, 16 mb RAM, and a 4X CD-ROM. Count me out. -- Neal E. Ulen (nealu@uidaho.edu) ----- From: bprobst@melbpc.org.au (Bruce Probst) Subject: Re: Conventioning we go .. Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 11:24:32 -1000 In article <1fd7302a.c8321-bjm@rommel.apana.org.au>, bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) wrote thusly about "Re: Conventioning we go ..": >> Hope to see you all back next year! Could anyone forward me details of this event (or at least appropriate contact names and addresses) please? (Or any other ASL-related cons in Australia next year, for that matter.) It would be especially nice if they were in Melbourne, but I'll put up with Adelaide (or Sydney or Canberra) for a sufficiently good reason . Bruce Probst bprobst@melbpc.org.au MelbPC User Group CIS: 100033,3661 Melbourne, Australia ----- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 13:46:31 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: More stupid questions (1) I can't seem to find reference for LOST ROF when firing SMOKE. I've looked in the C Tables, C rules on Ammo Depletion, Area Target Type and aquisition, Infantry Smoke rules, etc. Am I mistaken in understanding that one loses ROF when firing SMOKE with a Gun? but not with a light MRT? (2) Wherein is it written that a MMC with an enemy AFV in the same hex cannot DF, or DFF at targets out of its hex? Under D7 rules for CC Reaction Fire the word "may" is used to indicate that the MMC may attack the OVRing vehicle, not "must." What am I missing? This seems like a sleaze tactic, to move your AFV into a crucial hex to stop the enemy FG from pasting your infantry advance. Sleaze meaning only that the FG can't do anything about it. (3) Mud seems inherently ugly for any AFV combat. A normal ground pressure AFV has a 1/12 chance of bogging every turn when moving on non-city boards during Mud. That means that an AFV has a 75% chance of bogging at least once in an 8 game turn game. Anyone have insight to share re MUD scenarios? I've been working on a tank battle that takes place in mud.... Thanks, and Cheers, Jeff Shields ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: More stupid questions Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 19:58:18 +0100 (MET) Hi, > (1) I can't seem to find reference for LOST ROF when firing SMOKE. I've > looked in the C Tables, C rules on Ammo Depletion, Area Target Type and > aquisition, Infantry Smoke rules, etc. Am I mistaken in understanding > that one loses ROF when firing SMOKE with a Gun? but not with a light MRT? Well, you're not finding it because it isn't there. All that's said about firing smoke is that you have to use the Area Target Type. In the Area Target Type rules, it says that it "consumes all ROF" or somesuch. Sorry, I can't give a better reference than that. > (2) Wherein is it written that a MMC with an enemy AFV in the same hex > cannot DF, or DFF at targets out of its hex? Under D7 rules for CC > Reaction Fire the word "may" is used to indicate that the MMC may attack > the OVRing vehicle, not "must." What am I missing? This seems like a > sleaze tactic, to move your AFV into a crucial hex to stop the enemy FG > from pasting your infantry advance. Sleaze meaning only that the FG > can't do anything about it. This comes from the TPBF rules (A7.21). It has been a lively debate whather a BU AFV is a legal target, but that's where it's coming from. > (3) Mud seems inherently ugly for any AFV combat. A normal ground > pressure AFV has a 1/12 chance of bogging every turn when moving on > non-city boards during Mud. That means that an AFV has a 75% chance of > bogging at least once in an 8 game turn game. Anyone have insight to > share re MUD scenarios? I've been working on a tank battle that takes > place in mud.... Well, it's not quite that bad - you only bog if you move X hexes, where X is a secret dr. Also, being bogged isn't that bad - it only slows you down most of the time. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 94 19:46:11 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Acts of Defiance AAR Acts of Defiance ---------------- Watching Todd Hively and Mike Seningen have such a good time with this scenario, and noting its close balance in the record, I thought it would be a good one to use for Jack and me to renew our rivalry. The Germans get lots of neat toys with which to completely eliminate good order Russian MMC from within a road perimeter, but are pressed for time and must also hold off the Russian relief force, which must cross bridges to get to the fight. We both bid G0, and Jack won the dice roll and got them. I went to work on my defense. I decided to defend my left side lightly because it looked like the Germans had the most cover there and could quickly maul my forces. In a forward stone building on that side I put a 527 in each hex, concealed. Back in the rowhouse I put the 8-1, LMG, 458. I put the 7-0 with the radio HIP upstairs from the 527s. From there he could see most of the initial German attacking points. The rest of the guys went on the right side, with just a couple of squads up front under concealment, the others out of LOS in order to gain concealment. The tanks set up out of LOS, protected by my infantry. The German attack was strong on his right (my left) where I just had a thin covering force. He pushed forward and I held my fire. In the bridge area his engineers maneuvered to get the goliaths onto the bridge hexes. The 7-0, seeing the attack starting, tried to call battalion for that artillery they promised, but couldn't reach them. The initial German shots did little damage, and the Russians did some serious slinking during their half of the turn. The 7-0 managed to get a spotting round on the board, but it landed a good 250 meters away from his targets. The Hitler youth got lost in the sewers for two turns, and when they finally emerged they decided to head for the bridges to try to knock out the Russian armor there. On turn 2 the Germans pushed a little harder, and even moved their StuPz IV in closer to reduce some pesky Russians. Defensive fire from the infantry was not very effective, but the artillery came through, hitting the German right flank. It only managed to pin a couple of squads and break a 9-1 however. The Russians continued slinking on turn 2, and their reinforcements were stuck at the bridges, but they did manage to eliminate both goliaths with small arms fire. The artillery was adjusted again, slightly, and the 120mm shells pounded the Germans hard. The 9-1, who had self-rallied, broke again, along with a few squads. A couple of other squads were pinned. Turn 3 saw the Germans push even harder. The Russian left had been pushed back to their final positions. The large building in the Russian center right was attacked by several squads. The Russians layed down quite a bit of residual, but failed to achieve any result. Luckily, on the left side, a couple of German squads broke and ELRed while trying to move in on the last couple of defenders there near the rowhouse. That plentiful ammo for the OBA came in handy, as it continued to fall, this time corrected to pound the center. Some Russians were stuck in the OBA, but they survived it. Most of the Germans faired well also, except for the 9-2, LMG, 548, MMG, 467, 467 upstairs. They all broke. After the Germans routed, the 7-0 was revealed, in order to eliminate 2.5 broken German squads downstairs in his hex. I figured that he was almost completely bypassed by this point, and the OBA was coming down in a decent place, so if he were eliminated it wouldn't be a bad trade for 2.5 squads. A 9-1 and 467 advanced in to finish him off in CC, but failed, so he held them in melee. The two 628s that had been holding the large building on the center right broke and ran to avoid CC, one of them risking interdiction (and surviving!) to do so. Across the orchard from this building, a 527 still held fast. But now the last Russians were almost completely surrounded, as Jack had maneuvered a 9-1, LMG, DC, 838 from the bridge demo detachment, plus a 338, toward the Russian backside. The Russian tanks, which had earlier bugged out and hid again, would not be able to hide much longer. I thought about abandoning them before they got flamed, in order to get 3 more good order MMC into the perimeter. At this point, the Russians had an 8-1, LMG, 458, and broken 527 in the upper level of the rowhouse, encircled of course. The JgPz IV/70 was parked outside facing them down at point blank range, with the StuPz just behind him. The bulk of the Russian defenses were in the last ditch positions, which consisted of a 3-hex wooden building in front, with a roughly horseshoe shaped 4-hex stone bulding behind it. The T-44s were all basically hiding. One was in the open ground area between the wooden and stone building. Another was behind the stone building while the third was hiding behind the stone building but closer to the right flank board edge. One ISU 122 had gotten across a bridge, but the rest of the reinforcements were still stuck on the other side, and the Hitler Youth were nearby with their panzerschreck. It seemed like the pivotal moment of the fight, so the Russians decided to go for it. Both ISUs fired smoke. One went right on top of the LMG, 838 guarding the right bridge, the other on the Hitler Youth. Four reinforcing 628s then scurried CX over the bridge and survived all fire against them. Three headed to the right flank to try to reach the last ditch positions while the fourth headed for the 838's building to delay them. In the middle, the right flank T-44 started up and circled all the way around to the rear of the German positions, behind the wall, with a nice clear line of sight to the StuPz and the JgPz. The T-44 behind the stone building started up and moved in bypass of one of those stone building hexes and stopped. It turned out he had a line of sight to the JgPz, and since it didn't fire on him, the T-44 tried to take him out with an APCR shot. It was a hit in the rear and the end of the JgPz. The rest of the Russian infantry did some serious slinking. All in all it was not a good half turn for the Germans. On turn 4 the Germans stepped up their assault. The StuPz put smoke down on the T-44 in the German rear. We actually had a wind change roll earlier in the scenario, so by now there was plenty of drifting smoke. The 9-2 had rallied his kill stack and the Russian OBA observer died in the previous HTH CC, so there was no more artillery for the Germans to worry about. They fired on and broke the last Russian holdouts in the upper level of the rowhouse, and then stormed the last Russian defenses, making ample use of infantry smoke from assault engineers and 548s. Defensive fire was largely ineffective in this area, except for one squad which entered the wooden building only to be hit by the T-44 hiding behind it. That squad broke. A 548 that had rallied in the German rear rushed the hull down T-44, but a snake eyes roll from the tank's MA put an end to the squad. The German attack looked promising, although their advancing fire did little damage. One of the 458s broke and routed back to the 9-1 in the stone building. Another 458 in the wooden building had to endure HTH CC with a German 447. Near the bridges the assault engineer squad ambushed the CX 628 that was adjacent and eliminated it. But the other melee went my way, as the German squad was killed with no loss to my own. On the Russian half of turn four, with nowhere else to hide, everyone in the perimeter opened fire, and it was devestating. Many Germans broke. The ISUs, which had last turn succeeded in breaking the Hitler Youth in defensive fire, now moved with haste to the left side of the original perimeter, hoping to eventually take back ground lost earlier. The hull down T-44 had the same idea, but boxcarred on his start up roll and was immobilized. The three 628s in the right rear moved up, and one was KIA'd in defensive fire by the German 338. The other two, however, got up close and broke him in advancing fire. Now they were just across the road from the victory area. When the turn was over there were more good order Russian squads in the perimeter than there were Germans to take them out, and there was the additional threat of the ISU crews abandoning their vehicles and retaking ground to the left. It was over, and the Germans resigned. Overall this was a very good scenario. It was gripping. There were several tense moments, which made things exciting. In addition, there are quite a few neat toys to play with on both sides. I think this was the first scenario that I have played in which OBA played a big role (excluding an RB campaign). I think the philosophy of the Russian defense was sound: defend one side weakly with a delaying force, while defending the other side strongly. Pound the weak side with the OBA. Hide the tanks so they can't be taken out cheaply by the enemy infantry, and try to use your imagination to find ways to make them annoying to the Germans. The reinforcements need to get some serious smoke from their armor and then do the best they can. If they get to the victory area, they can tip the scales. I felt good about the win, but I must point out that I got very lucky in several respects in this game. One was that the OBA actually came down, and more or less where I wanted it. Another was that I got smoke from the ISUs when I needed it, and I was also fortunate on the IFT. Then there was the good fortune of being able to take out 2.5 enemy squads by revealing a HIP SMC. It seemed that all the important things went my way. In general my dice were hotter than I am used to seeing. Still, I'd play this scenario again, with either side. I recommend giving it a try. ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 03:47:00 UTC Subject: TIME ON TARGET For the Euro-ASL'ers I should have some extra copies of the latest ASL publication, Time on Target, that is now being advertised here on the Internet. If you or a friend is coming to Recontre I should have sufficient copies with me by next Friday in LaGleize, Belgium. I will be selling them for about $9 US for local currency as I will no doubt be cash poor. Availability depends on Herr Neukom getting them to me before I leave North Carolina. Raymond Woloszyn ----- From: Pedro Alexandre Simoes dos Santos Subject: 2 more questions Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 9:04:32 MEZ Hello everybody Here go 2 more questions that appeared during the play of the scenario Chappele ste Anne. 1- Can a HT make ESB? (the rule talks about tracked veicules and the HT is, by definition, a halftracked veicule) 2- During my MPh, i managed to enter a hex containing enemy troops with a CE HT with passagers. It is now the AFPh, and i have another unit ADJACENT. Can i shoot with this second unit to the hex where are the enemy units and the HT? If yes are my units afected? Rule A7.4 in the last sentence says "A unit/weapon may _purposely_ attack a friendly unit(s) olny if specifically allowed by the rules governing a particular cirscunstance (e.g. prisioners, melee, OBA)" What is the meaning of the word "purposely" here? if i shoot the hex, my "purpose" is not to shoot my units, but the enemy units. And also what is the logic of being able to fire into a hex with your units there during a melee, when everybody is mixedup, and not when your troops are inside a HT, more protected than the enemy, and separated too? Any help will be welcome. Thanks in advance. Pedro ----- From: gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 09:47:31 +0100 Subject: FT and pin status hi, Can anyone give me a quote from the ASLRB which states whether you can fire a FT or not while under a pin counter? I believe pinned units cannot, but couldn't find it in the rules again. Atchao Guillaume gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr ----- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 07:30:40 -0500 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: Re: 2 more questions At 09:04 AM 12/12/94 MEZ, Pedro Alexandre Simoes dos Santos wrote: >1- Can a HT make ESB? (the rule talks about tracked veicules and the >HT is, by definition, a halftracked veicule) Yes. I've had the same misconception that they couldn't. ESB rules don't say "fully tracked" to exclude halftracks. >2- During my MPh, i managed to enter a hex containing enemy troops >with a CE HT with passagers. It is now the AFPh, and i have another >unit ADJACENT. > >Can i shoot with this second unit to the hex where >are the enemy units and the HT? If yes are my units afected? Yes, no. Since your units moved this player turn, they are not affected by any fire you make into the hex. Since your units won't be affected, A7.4 last sentence doesn't apply. Hope this helps. ----- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 07:51:00 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: FT and pin status Guillaume: The rule you're looking for is in A7.81, "Pinned Infantry...cannot attack with a FT/DC...". Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock On Mon, 12 Dec 1994 gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr wrote: > hi, > > Can anyone give me a quote from the ASLRB which states whether you can fire > a FT or not while under a pin counter? I believe pinned units cannot, but > couldn't find it in the rules again. > > Atchao > Guillaume > > gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr > > ----- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:05:08 -0600 From: kyron@interaccess.com Subject: How big is this list? Just curious how many folks are on this list? Brian ----- From: "Conklin, Ross E." Subject: Beserkers can do that? Date: Sun, 11 Dec 94 11:30:00 PST Question concerning a beserker charge. Consider the following diagram: ___ ___/ B \ / U \___/ \___/ * \ / \___/ \___/ U1\ \___/ The hex marked with the B contains the berserk unit. Hexes U and U1 contain forces fighting the berserker. The hex marked with a * is OG. The berserker has expended 6.5 MF to reach this point. It is charging the hex marked with a U but cannot enter it due to a hedge along the UB hexside. Question: Can/must the unit move into the hex marked with the * and be adjacent to both U and U1 or can/must it stop where it is? Thanks, rc ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Beserkers can do that? Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 19:26:00 +0100 (MET) Hi, > Question concerning a beserker charge. Consider the following diagram: > > ___ > ___/ B \ > / U \___/ > \___/ * \ > / \___/ > \___/ U1\ > \___/ > > The hex marked with the B contains the berserk unit. Hexes U and U1 > contain forces fighting the berserker. The hex marked with a * is OG. The > berserker has expended 6.5 MF to reach this point. It is charging the hex > marked with a U but cannot enter it due to a hedge along the UB hexside. > Question: Can/must the unit move into the hex marked with the * and be > adjacent to both U and U1 or can/must it stop where it is? Without any support from the rules whatsoever (since I don't have 'em handy) I would say that the berserker player can choose whather to enter hex * or not. The berserkers must charge along the shortest route (in MF, I _think_) and the two routes are equally short (or long) therefore the berserker have a choice as to which route to use. If the rules say that the berserkers have to take the shortest route in hexes, the above obviously wouldn't apply and the berserkers would have no choice but to stay where they are. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Subject: Re: 2 more questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 12:05:00 -5 Howdy, cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) writes: >>2- During my MPh, i managed to enter a hex containing enemy troops >>with a CE HT with passagers. It is now the AFPh, and i have another >>unit ADJACENT. >> >>Can i shoot with this second unit to the hex where >>are the enemy units and the HT? If yes are my units afected? >> >>Rule A7.4 in the last sentence says "A unit/weapon may >>_purposely_ attack a friendly unit(s) olny if specifically >>allowed by the rules governing a particular cirscunstance >>(e.g. prisioners, melee, OBA)" >> >>What is the meaning of the word "purposely" here? if i shoot the hex, my >>"purpose" is not to shoot my units, but the enemy units. And also what is >>the logic of being able to fire into a hex with your units there during >>a melee, when everybody is mixedup, and not when your troops are inside a >>HT, more protected than the enemy, and separated too? > >Yes, no. Since your units moved this player turn, they are not affected by >any fire you make into the hex. Since your units won't be affected, A7.4 >last sentence doesn't apply. I'm confused: A7.4 says "Except during Defensive First Fire (A8.1), all the Personnel units/unarmored vehicles/Vulnerable PRC in the same Location are considered targets of fire that does not have to specify a particular target...". A8.1 says Defensive First Fire is Defensive Fire that occurs during the MPh, not during the DFPh. As I read this, moved or not, all units are targets during the AFPh and so the last sentence of A7.4 applies, i.e. no fire allowed from outside. As to what "purposely" was intended to mean here, there being no non-purposeful attacks (Jitter Fire doesn't attack anyone), I can't say. Perhaps it is a reference to the non-purposeful attack of a thrown DC, but I doubt it. Since all units in the Target Location are attacked, you are as much purposely attacking your units as the enemy's. The logic of not allowing attacks on friendly forces is obvious: first friendly units are unlikely to do it, and second, it is a tactic ripe for abuse (Deliberate Immobilize a Recalled vehicle, fire at broken units about to surrender to avoid double VP, etc). I don't know the logic behind allowing fire into a Melee, however. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: FT and pin status From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 12:05:00 -5 Howdy, gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr writes: > Can anyone give me a quote from the ASLRB which states > whether you can fire a FT or not while under a pin counter? > I believe pinned units cannot, but couldn't find it in the > rules again. A7.81 "INFANTRY EFFECTS: Pinned Infantry fires MG/IFE/Canister as Area Fire, cannot attack with a FT/DC, [etc]" So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 16:16:03 EDT Subject: Re: 2 more questions >I don't know the logic behind allowing fire into a Melee, however. If a horde of squads is meleeing your HS and are held in CC and your BIG FG finally has a shot at the melee to stop the horde, what do you do? YOU SHOOT!! I generated a fanatic HS and a Hero and wiped out ALL of my opponent's guys this way! I could only lose a HS to his 3 squads. That was the logic. In terms of realism, perhaps it's called friendly fire. Cheers, Jeff ----- From: David Soucek Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:59:08 MET-1MEST Subject: RB Questions Hi Guys, another flash from the past from your friendly neighborhood Off Board Observer Thom Leedle (formerly leed@duropack.co.at). Unfortunatly still sans direct Net access. I'm still getting my butt kicked as the Germans in RB and loving it! ??? Well, I'm not giving up yet. After about 30% losses on 18/10 (mostly 5-4-8) we desided to take a day off to allow a chance for our ELR to raise from 3 and to get a few new troops on to the field. After saving a little from purchacing an the previous days, it was time to introduce a new nemeciss to the field of honour. Pioniers, with On Board Setup, none depleated. The breath of Death (FTs). Unfortunately the virgin platoon of StuG-IIIB got shot all to hell upon arrival by 2 HIP 76L ART. They were, by the way, set up illeagally in buildings which were not Fortified, so after the fact one was shifted to an adjacent hex with LOS to it's target and the other's hex was Fortified after the fact taking away the Fortified Status from an yet unknown location. Due to extreamly effective OBA from the Russians our losses are already at the limit of that what I was ready to expend throughout the entire Scenario. It is now the 3rd Turn. A comment to the answerers of the Questions I posted last month, thank you very much. I still think that the ELR of 8-3-8s is ALLWAYS 5 unless a specific SSR says otherwise. Somebody said that he had heard form a play trester who explained that altough the ELR is that of the regular Germans, if an 8-3-8 breaks above it's ELR it is still replaced by 2 half squads. However, the ASLRB states that if SSR gives a lower that 5 ELR to an unit with an under lined Moral, it suffers ELR reducions the same as all other units. I don't think that the 8-3-8s were ever ment to be used with an ELR less than 5 in any situation, least of all here. Questions: O11.6134 says that if a FT/DC is removed form play during the preceeding scenario it is retained by it's original owner if the "Original effects DR" which removed it was less than or equalt to 10. Does this only include DRs made by using these weapons or also when the carrier or the weapon itself if attaced? When placing a DC, if the placing unit is Concealed an would not loose it's concealment thru the MF expenditure, would it still loose it's ? by placing the DC? If the DC is placed to breach an Interior Factory Wall, is the TEM of the attack on the Wall that of the Factory (+1) or that of a stone building (+3)? I think it's +3. If the Wall is breached, is the TEM of the effect on the units behind the Wall +1 for Factory or +3 as the TEM of the breach DR? If the attacked units behind the Wall are Concealed, is the effect of breaching the Wall halved twice, ie: only from 30 to 15 as in B23.711 or also halved again to 7.5 as Area Fire? Untill the next Flash from the past, ciau from Thom "Still just an Off Board Observer" Leedle ----- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 16:29:37 -0500 From: jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com (J. R. Tracy) Subject: ASLUG T-Patchers Any folks try the ASLUG scenario T-Patchers? I played it last night and our *early* opinion is that the Americans have a pretty good edge. I played the U.S., giving up A2 on the balance (ABS) and just barely lost...The boys in green get a lot of stuff: 14 667s, 2 347s, 9-2 (given up via balance), 9-1, 2 8-0s, 2 BAZ 43, 2 MMG, 1 .50 cal, 2 60mm MTR, 4 M4A3s. The German force is tough, but there's a lot of lead coming their way. I enjoyed the scenario, because it uses the bitchin' board 41 and is a good combined-arms close-in fight, but am curious what others think of it. Any opinions? Take it easy, JR ----- Subject: Re: Beserkers can do that From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 15:56:00 -5 Howdy, Patrik Manlig writes: >> Question concerning a beserker charge. Consider the following diagram: >> >> ___ >> ___/ B \ >> / U \___/ >> \___/ * \ >> / \___/ >> \___/ U1\ >> \___/ [Further explanation of problem] > Without any support from the rules whatsoever (since I don't have 'em > handy) I would say that the berserker player can choose whather to enter > hex * or not. The berserkers must charge along the shortest route (in > MF, I _think_) and the two routes are equally short (or long) therefore > the berserker have a choice as to which route to use. > If the rules say that the berserkers have to take the shortest route in > hexes, the above obviously wouldn't apply and the berserkers would have > no choice but to stay where they are. The rules say charge toward the nearest unit in hexes using the shortest path in MF. As Patrik points out, if the hexside U/* is not a hedge hexside, the berserk unit may charge into it because that path would be the same length. If it is a hedge hexside, that path is longer in MF and the berserk unit must remain in hex B. However, in anticipation of some "sleeze," note that the rule on berserk units changing goals says that the berserk unit must be _closer_ in hexes in order to switch charge targets. It can't switch to U1 even if the berserker moves into hex * (unless, of course, the units in U move away). So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 14:37:38 -0800 Subject: Taming Tulagi Good morrow, lads. So, has anybody out there in net-land played Taming Tulagi (from BackBlast) yet? I've got the Japanese this Friday, and, although I've already done my setup, I'd be interested in hearing how anyone who has gone before fared. Dade ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:02:20 -5 Subject: Re: 2 more questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) > cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) writes: > > >>2- During my MPh, i managed to enter a hex containing enemy troops > >>with a CE HT with passagers. It is now the AFPh, and i have another > >>unit ADJACENT. > >> > >>Can i shoot with this second unit to the hex where > >>are the enemy units and the HT? If yes are my units afected? > >> > >>Rule A7.4 in the last sentence says "A unit/weapon may > >>_purposely_ attack a friendly unit(s) olny if specifically > >>allowed by the rules governing a particular cirscunstance > >>(e.g. prisioners, melee, OBA)" > >Yes, no. Since your units moved this player turn, they are not affected by > >any fire you make into the hex. Since your units won't be affected, A7.4 > >last sentence doesn't apply. > > I'm confused: A7.4 says "Except during Defensive First Fire > (A8.1), all the Personnel units/unarmored > vehicles/Vulnerable PRC in the same Location are considered > targets of fire that does not have to specify a particular > target...". A8.1 says Defensive First Fire is Defensive Fire > that occurs during the MPh, not during the DFPh. As I read > this, moved or not, all units are targets during the AFPh > and so the last sentence of A7.4 applies, i.e. no fire > allowed from outside. I contend that fire is allowed since only enemy units are affected by the fire attack. Since there is no Melee or OBA attack, yes, the halftrack and contents are "targets" but they will not be affected. Fourth line down, "all those ENEMY (or Melee) units" (my emphasis) are affected. No friendly units are affected, so how cna they be "attacked"? I will grant that this whole paragraph is ambiguous. My personal feeling is that it was designed to show that the enemy stack is affected by the fire attack and that you can't target your AT Gun on a friendly AFV to put down acquisition in hopes of either preventing enemy movement or getting a "free" -2 on the to hit roll. I've seen the tactic of driving into the hex, running infantry up, gunning up the units in the target location and advancing in for the kill. I've used the same, too. Not that it was absolutely correct, but that's what I have seen done. Something else for the Hill. BTW, has anyone received any Q&A back from the Hill in the past 6 to 9 months? +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: 2 more questions Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 8:13:19 CET Hi, Carl Fago asked: > BTW, has anyone received any Q&A back from the Hill in the past 6 to > 9 months? As a matter of fact I received some answers yesterday (i.e. 12-Dec-94) to answers I mailed in June this year. Now if I only would get answers to the questions I mailed the Hill way back in January. As soon as I get the time to type them down I'll mail them to this list, hopefully later this day. Greetings, -- Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 11:49:57 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Spray Fire K/1 Result A K/1 result on a spray fire attack is applied separately to each location, right? Thanks, Don ----- Subject: Re: 2 more questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 12:32:00 -5 Howdy, cdf1@psu.edu writes: >I contend that fire is allowed since only enemy units are affected by >the fire attack. Since there is no Melee or OBA attack, yes, the >halftrack and contents are "targets" but they will not be affected. >Fourth line down, "all those ENEMY (or Melee) units" (my emphasis) >are affected. No friendly units are affected, so how cna they be >"attacked"? Carl, you are right, and I was wrong. From the Q&A: A7.4 If there are both friendly and enemy Infantry/unarmored- vehicles/Vulnerable-PRC in a Location which are not yet in melee, may friendly units fire into that Location? Does such fire affect units of both sides, or only enemy units? A. Yes. Only enemy units. {KN} So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 21:18:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: Denver ASL tournament Announcing the 7th Annual "ASL Firefight" tournament in Denver. It will be held on Saturday, January 14th. It is a one-day tournament consisting of three scenarios. The theme is the Battle of the Bulge, and the three scenarios are: Bucholz Station (Scenario I from the General) Under the Noel Trees (ASL 23) Patton's Prayers (ASLUG23) For details, contact me via e-mail (snow@lyrae.colorado.edu), or else give the Tournament Organizer, Tom, a call at (303) 423-5170. Marty Snow snow@lyrae.colorado.edu ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:40:55 -5 Subject: Re: Spray Fire K/1 Result From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) > A K/1 result on a spray fire attack is applied separately to each > location, right? Correct per A9.5. The result for each location is a separate result, just using the same Original IFT resolution DR. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:38:33 -5 Subject: Hitler's Last Gamble by Dupuy? Has anyone read this book? I saw it on the local bookstore shelves. But I wonder if there is anything substantially new or different than other bulge books, namely Parker's book Battle of the Bulge. Any comments? +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:36:56 -0700 (MST) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Historical Note 55 years ago today, 12/13/39, the Wehrmacht delivered its initial ideas for Operation Sea Lion. OKM (Navy) plans had been discussed before, but this marked the first occassion in which German military thinkers had formally entertained the idea of invading England. (The last, too?) "I came to Casablanca for the waters." "Waters? What waters? Casablanca is in the desert." "I was misinformed." ----- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 16:01:10 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Balancing Tavronitis Bridge Latest Record has the Brits winning Tav Bridge by a 13-4 margin, which may indicate a bit of imbalance. This is grievous because it's an interesting small scenario that automatically gets at least 4 stars in my book because of the Gliders. So what could be done to help the Germans here? The German play balance of only allowing one MMC (+SMC/SW) to set up in the riverbed doesn't seem real helpful; I don't imagine the Brits would set up more there anyway. Increasing game length by one-half or one full turn? Giving the Fallschirmjagers a 75mm RCL? Tom ----- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 16:34:39 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Qs jeff@back.vims.edu shattered our understanding of the universe with this: j> (1) I can't seem to find reference for LOST ROF when firing j> SMOKE. I've looked in the C Tables, C rules on Ammo j> Depletion, Area Target Type and aquisition, Infantry Smoke j> rules, etc. Am I mistaken in understanding that one loses j> ROF when firing SMOKE with a Gun? but not with a light MRT? Firing Smoke is firing on the AREA target type. You cannot retain rate on the Area target type. MTRS always use the Area target type, therefore, they keep rate (or why would they have a rate # otherwise). Sorry for no quotes, but I think that's pretty clear. j> (2) Wherein is it written that a MMC with an enemy AFV in j> the same hex cannot DF, or DFF at targets out of its hex? j> Under D7 rules for CC Reaction Fire the word "may" is used j> to indicate that the MMC may attack the OVRing vehicle, not j> "must." What am I missing? This seems like a sleaze j> tactic, to move your AFV into a crucial hex to stop the j> enemy FG from pasting your infantry advance. Sleaze j> meaning only that the FG can't do anything about it. JRs working on an OVR article. Maybe he has the answer for this puppy. j> (3) Mud seems inherently ugly for any AFV combat. A normal j> ground pressure AFV has a 1/12 chance of bogging every turn j> when moving on non-city boards during Mud. That means that j> an AFV has a 75% chance of bogging at least once in an 8 j> game turn game. Anyone have insight to share re MUD j> scenarios? I've been working on a tank battle that takes j> place in mud.... Keep on the roads ;^) -Grant. ... Blessed are the meek, for they make great scapegoats. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 21:35:22 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Balancing Tavronitis Bridge Hi guys, Tom, whose basketball team just lost to a team that doesn't give athletic scholarships, said: > Latest Record has the Brits winning Tav Bridge by a 13-4 margin, > which may indicate a bit of imbalance. This is grievous because > it's an interesting small scenario that automatically gets at > least 4 stars in my book because of the Gliders. > So what could be done to help the Germans here? The German play > balance of only allowing one MMC (+SMC/SW) to set up in the > riverbed doesn't seem real helpful; I don't imagine the Brits > would set up more there anyway. > Increasing game length by one-half or one full turn? Giving the > Fallschirmjagers a 75mm RCL? Disclaimer: I've never played this scenario. I tried to find somebody to play a paradrop or glider scenario at a couple of tourneys, but nobody would. But, on general principles, I think the new ABS should go something like this: G3: G2 + Hit the German player over the head with a knockwurst for bidding so stupidly. (Use a spud if you can't find a knockwurst.) G2: G1 + Give the British player 17 PIATs. If you run out of PIATs, use malfunctioned LMGs for the remainder. G1: Give the British player a bonus 6+1. B1: Give the Germans a 75mm RCL. B2: B1 + Give the Germans another 75mm RCL. B3: B2 + Give the Germans still another 75mm RCL, and the British player has to talk with a Cockney accent for the entire game. (If playing by email, just break his 'H' key.) (That should force a few people to punch those RCL counters.) Dave Ripton ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 02:01:00 UTC Subject: Time On Target Gentlemen, I now have a copy of "Time on Target" in my hands. To simulate the feel take out your thickest, heaviest ASL Scenario cards and you will know what the TOT Scenario cards feel like. Visually the cards are a feast. They include the now famous Red coloration and the photos of battle action are excellent. The Newsletter has a medium heavy cover and standard pages. The thrust is the Battle of the Bulge and is solely aimed at that. The focus of the letter is the scenarios and a sample of them follows: TOT #1 = "Take Ten" 8+ turns boards 5 and 12. ami half squads vs. 2xs as many German 2nd stringers. Dug-in at nite on the first day 12-16-44. TOT #3 = a DASL scenario on f,h,e --6 turns ami 2nd string with 1st line reinforcements against 5-4-8's and nazi 2nd string. first day with some art'y thrown in. 12-16-44 TOT #7 = board 41, Tiger tank, SS and Kfz 1/20 vs 6 US 1st line in 5 turns. Love the rear shot on the Tiger with a "zukie". 12-19-44 TOT #11 ="Bitter Reply" boards 11,24 and 18. Could swear the dude on the tank is Telly Savalas. 12-23-44. Tanks and more tanks. 6 turns. TOT #4, 5 and 6 are played on the KGP maps and are good down and dirty fun. 12, 6, and 6 turns respectively. Good fun and worth the money I think --but I'm prejudiced -- I playtested one of these suckers. from the side road to the info highway, ron on GEnie ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 03:05:00 UTC Subject: WE MARCH Suffice it to say that I was most fortunate to receive today my copy of "Time on Target" by Mark Neukom and John Knowles. I got a heads up over you other fanatics due to my trip to Europe starting tomorrow which will include a stop at Recontre in LaGleize, Belgium for the KGP Tournament sponsored by "ASL News" (Philippe Leonard). What a way to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the "Bulge" (hopefully no live fire reenactment after they hear my French). Flash Review (hey, I am packing) follows: Twelve "Bulge" scenarios, three on the KGP Stoumont board. Printing quality top quality. For "Bulge" fans the historical and scenario designer notes are a good read. A number of special SSR's for the scenarios with notes. Marc Hanna would turn over in his grave ("A plague on variantism"). Nice pictures within both the next and scenarios and, in particular, in the article on "AFV Supplemental Armor in ASL" (applique, sandbags, Zimmerit, etc.). I thought I was reading a military modeling magazine. A bibliography. I recommend buy; you can't get this type of R&D so cheap. Because "TOT" didn't offer up any warmed-over ASL philosophy, I will offer it now. Obviously, with such labors as we have seen from "Backblast," "Critical Hit" and now "Time on Target" plus the Euro-zines "Tactiques" and "ASL News," reports of ASL's demise maybe premature. However, one wonders what the potential loss of revenue is for AH in that they are not producing similar material. Granted, as a CMA (Certified Managerial Accountant) I would guess that AH would not get much of a return on investment with the incremental revenue gained by pushing out more "Annuals" or ASL material. What is sad is that we are quick to criticize to death AH for a small amount of errors, yet, we ignore those found in the zines. Any Q.E.'s want to check the PPM's for comparison? It is still in our best interest that AH gets our support as they are the ones that can grow the ASL Hobby on a broader base. Otherwise, we are just researching for the same old crowd. Sorry for the long post. Hopefully, I be able to post from the Internet about "Recontre." Happy holidays until next year! Signing off. Raymond "Zadra" Woloszyn, Partisan AK "WIR MARSCHIEREN" - SS Panergrenadier, den 16. Dezember, 1944 ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 03:12:00 UTC Subject: FOR THOSE WHO WANT "TOT" "TIME ON TARGET" from Kintetic Energy Productions, POB 291580, Hollywood, CA 90027. Til 1/1/95 $8 + 1.75 Postage domestic, then $10 plus 1.75 Postage. Foreign, add $3.50 postage. ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 03:35:00 UTC Subject: BAZ45 and WP Hi, I have a question about BAZ45 firing WP ammo. I know that since the BAZ45 is a LATW, it must use its own TH table, and not the AreaTT. However, what I am not sure about is if the BAZ gets the +2 for firing Smoke according to table C4. The reason I question this is because the rules seem to be messed up on this point. If I remember correctly, it states that _Guns_ get this modifier. But what about AFVs, which are *NOT* considered Guns? I have always played that they also get the modifiers and it doesn't make any sense, to me, if they don't get the +2 simply because they are an AFV and not a Gun. Therefore, I figured that the rules were also "messed up" in regards to the BAZ45 seeing as how it is a special case. Does anybody have any information or experience with this? In the situation at hand, the BAZ45 is firing WP at a range of 5 (TH of 4) at units occupying a stone building. One of the units is concealed but the others are unconcealed. What is the final TH for firing WP? Thanks for any help. Warren ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Time On Target Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 22:32:18 PST Ron Mosher describes some scenarios from Time on Target: > TOT #7 = board 41, Tiger tank, SS and Kfz 1/20 vs 6 US 1st line in 5 turns. > Love > the rear shot on the Tiger with a "zukie". 12-19-44 For the record, this sounds suspiciously like "Tiger 222," a scenario from a recent local tournament. If so, I'd have to agree... damn fine scenario. Also for the record, Ron, your Bazooka rear shot on my King Tiger shouldn't have happened; the graveyard isn't concealment terrain so you can't HIP there. Oh well. Probably wouldn't have boosted my standing, since I was rotten in the second round. Is Burn Down the Mission also in Time on Target? -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 08:36:14 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: WE MARCH > Obviously, with such labors as we have seen > from "Backblast," "Critical Hit" and now "Time on Target" plus the > Euro-zines "Tactiques" and "ASL News," reports of ASL's demise > maybe premature. However, one wonders what the potential loss of > revenue is for AH in that they are not producing similar material. And loss of good will from their customers who are getting miffed at their waffling and missed deadlines. However, that probably wouldn't keep our wallets in our pockets if we saw a neat new module or Annual on the shelves. They got us by the short hairs, lads. > What is sad is that we are quick to criticize to death AH for a > small amount of errors, yet, we ignore those found in the zines. Oh, I dunno. Amatuer zines get a lot of good will, at least in the beginning. People commented that BB's print quality could be improved, but generally gave it a thumbs up. Many commented that CH's articles were of uneven quality but appreciated the good ones. I think most people are in it for the scenarios anyway, and whatever good articles come with the mag are icing on the cake. And I'd venture that most people are happy with, say, 3 "winner" scenarios out of the 8 or 10 that the mag prints. > It is still in our best interest that AH gets our support as they are > the ones that can grow the ASL Hobby on a broader base. Otherwise, > we are just researching for the same old crowd. Very true. Toward that end, we look to AH to develop new "standard" and HASL modules, to bring new nationalities into the fold (where's the Fiji tribesmen module?), to foster specialty products like a hypertext rulebook, and to use the Annual to present ASL tactics as taught by the best in the hobby. In addition to doing what the amatuer zines do; print good, exciting scenarios. And that list came after just a few minutes of thought; I don't get paid to think about growing ASL. You'd think that AH could do better than they have done. Tom