Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 09:40:49 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: How to be Ominous Finally got back into my game of Panzers Marsche with Adrian. First turn, his Panthers rumble onboard and stand off on board 5 rather than dash for the bridge. My T-34/85 in F8 realizes the futility of his position and kicks into motion, hoping to rearrange himself to somewhere better in my half of the turn. Here's Adrian's response to the Russian tank's move: > > > >MPh > >1. Tank in F8 moves. When last we left him, he was in motion in F8, > > VCA=G7, TCA=H8. > >a. F7, TCA=E9 - 1 MP > >b. VCA:H7, TCA:E9 - 2 > >c. G7 - 3 > > Panther in DD5 fires at him > LOS is clear > +1Bu +2 motion +2 only 1MP in LOS base TH =9 > TH DR= 3,4 miss > I guess he gets away :-( > > FOR NOW > "FOR NOW"? Yikes. Shiver. For you new players, this is a highly effective technique. Learn to be Ominous and it'll pay dividends. BTW, did you know that FOR NOW backwards is ROF WON? Tom ----- 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 ----- 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 ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 13:26:52 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Bridges Steve, pretty good first at bat. Welcome to the Show. Now all you have to do is find a better quality of opponent. I have heard slimier reasoning before, but never in seriousness. Definitely 0 TEM. >Now a question of my own: >In "One Log Bridge", the bridge is defined by SSR as a foot bridge. B6.44 >defines a foot bridge as a 1/2" pontoon bridge counter. Pontoon bridges >have no TEM. However, B6.31 says that non-pontoon bridges have a +1 TEM. >My opponent argued that his unit on the foot bridge is not subject to FFMO >since the bridge was only "represented" by a pontoon counter. I argued the >opposite, since the pontoon counter that "represents" the foot bridge says >"0 TEM" (its a one-log bridge, fer cryin' out loud!). We played it my way >and he won), but anyone have an opinion? When is a Bridge NOT a separate location? When it is a foot bridge. (If memory serves, a foot bridge is a stream level.) Chrome of the Day: You can overstack on foot bridges (normal stacking limit one squad equivalent), but each time a unit overstacks that Location, you have to make a dr. On a Final dr of 6 or more (leader NA), the foot bridge collapses and all occupants end up TI in the drink. +1 drm for each overstacked half-squad equivalent. ....Perry ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 14:05:46 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re[2]: Terrain Mod'd for Rally (was BAZ45 and WP) >>Isn't there a -1 DRM for rallying in woods, buildings, pillboxs and >>(something else). >Yep. The "something else" is trenches, plus rubble when you're >playing Red Barricades. Rubble is Ambush terrain in RB, but still not Rally terrain. ....Perry ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 14:34:11 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: THANKS AGAIN Guys, Again, I was reminded how easy to use and convenient the postscript map programs are. Thanks to everyone involved in that project, it is a valuable utility for all internetted ASL players. Brian ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:53:15 -0600 (CST) From: JEFF ROBERTS Subject: Peiper's Prelude To all: I've been lurking on this list for several weeks now, and have thoroughly enjoyed keeping up with the discussions. Here, both as a way of saying Merry Christmas and thanks (as well as trying my hand at scenario design) is a new scenario. It simu- lates the attack of Kampfgruppe Peiper on December 18, 1944 (the day before KGP-I begins). On that day, Peiper's force drove its way past scattered American resistance near the villages of Krinkelt and Richrath. I have titled it "Peiper's Prelude," though any suggestion for a catchier title would be welcome. I think it offers some interesting ideas: Using the Pacific boards in a European scenario, coupled with the "might-as-well-be-Pacific" board 32 and increasingly popular board 41 seems to provide a way to accurately portray the early fighting in the Ardennes. Woods, hills and streams will channel the German advance enough to give the small American force a chance to sufficiently delay the overwhelmingly powerful attacker. Pulling off the delaying action requires considerable skill, but then so does breaking through to reach the exit area. I have tried to take into account the sensibilities of the list in designing this scenario. This is not the slugfest that is KGP, nor should it evoke the "unbalanced dog" screams of The Road to Wiltz, because unlike the latter the American force here is hardly the equal of the German one. The American player simply must delay the German in the board 32/39 woods for an extended period. There are plenty of surprises he can have waiting for the Germans. At the same time, he needs to withdraw with sufficient force to delay the Germans elsewhere (most likely the board 41 village), and eventually help the engineers make a final stand. The Germans must get through the woods quickly without incurring undue losses. Utmost care is required in crossing bridges throughout the game. One of his great challenges is keeping enough infantry abreast of the tanks during the advance. Sending the tanks charging ahead unsupported can be a real disaster. The endgame offers all kinds of possibilities as the Germans close in on the final bridges. The German has to worry about the American engineers blowing them (as was the case historically), especially the one on board 41. (Despite what the rulebook says about nasty people who destroy bridges, I can assure you that it is a rather exhilirating feeling to send one sky-high in your opponent's face. That is, until he shifts his schwerepunkt to another one or risks bog and comes splashing across in force ....) Whatever the case, I hope at least some of you will enjoy it. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. Since this is my first "published" effort at scenario design, I fully expect to be lambasted. Fire away. It will make for better scenarios in the future. P.S. Kudos to anyone who can figure out the scenario from another game which gave me the idea for this "translation." PEIPER'S PRELUDE 18 December 1944 11 1/2 Game Turns American Sets-Up First German Moves First Victory Conditions: The German player must exit 80 victory points off any west edge hex of boards 41/36. ____________________________________________________________ 41 | 39 | | | ^ | | / \ | | | | | / \ N ____________________________________________________________ 36 | 32 | | | | | | | | | ____________________________________________________________ American Forces: Scattered elements of the 99th Infantry Division and the 774th Tank Destroyer Battalion. SAN - 4. ELR - 3. Set up anywhere on Board 39 or on Board 32 west of the W1-K10 stream. 6-6-7 (x3), 3-4-7, 6-6-6 (x3), 3-4-6 9-2, 9-1 MMG, HMG (50 cal.), 60mm MTR, BAZ '45 (x2) 40mm Bofors AA Gun 57mm M1 ATG 2-2-7 (x2) M-10 TD (x2) 8-1 armor leader Jeep (unarmed) M3 Halftrack 2 1/2 ton truck (x5) "?" (x9) Elements of Company C, 51st Engineer Battalion Set up on Board 36 or 41, west of hexrow Q. 7-4-7 (x3) 8-0, 6+1 DC (x3) 57mm M1 ATG (x2) 2-2-7 (x2) 1 1/2 ton truck (x3) "?" (x6) German Player: Elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper. SAN - 3. ELR - 5. Enter on hex 32 Q1. Panther G (x6) PzIV H (x6) King Tiger (x2) 10-2 armor leader Wirblewind Sdkfz 7/1 aaht. 6-5-8 (x9), 8-3-8 (x3) 9-1, 8-1 (x2), 8-0 (x2) LMG (x5), PSK (x3), DC (x2), FT Sdkfz 251/1 ht (x6) SPW 251/smg, SPW 251/2, SPW 251/9 Opel Blitz (x5) 88mm ATG (x2) 2-2-8 (x2) Sdkfz 7 (x2) Special rules: The streams on Board 32 and 41 are deep. On board 36, they are shallow. Weather is overcast, with no wind (or mist) at start. EC are wet. All half-orchard/half-open map border hexes are treated as orchard. All PzIV H's are equipped with Schurzen. At the start of the American rally phase, if any good order American unit has an LOS to a German unit within 16 hexes of any bridge, the American player can make a DR. If that DR is less than (19-X), where X is the distance from the German unit to the bridge, the American player may thereafter attempt to destroy that bridge. The American player may make only one DR per bridge, per phase, regardless of the number of nearby German units. (if more than one bridge is threatened he can make one DR for each). The American player may not attempt to set, place or throw a DC on that particular bridge until this occurs. Examples: If the closest spotted German unit is 14 hexes away from the bridge, the American player needs to roll a "4" or less to be eligible to destroy it. If the German is 8 hexes away, the American needs a 10 or less. Anytime a known German unit comes within 5 hexes of any bridge, the American player is automatically allowed to attempt to destroy it in all subsequent phases. (As a designer's note, the above rule is an attempt at compromise. To allow the American to set his DC's at the start would be unreal- istic. To disallow this tactic altogether or force him to wait until the German is atop him is equally unfair. Setting an arbitrary line at, say, 12 hexes away makes for odd tactics as the German collects his forces at 13/14 hexes before making a massive charge. Thus the above rule ...) Balance. A1. One squad-equivalent and all leaders/sw with it may use HIP A2. Add a BAZ 45 to the engineers and a 60mm MTR to the other force. A3. Delete one Panther and one PzIV H from the German OB. G1. The stream on Board 32 is shallow. G2. Delete one 57mm ATG and crew from the American engineers. G3. Add two 6-5-8's, an LMG and an Opel Blitz. ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 19:53:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Airborne in the Bulge Greetings, all, on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. I'm sitting here at home, maroon beret cocked jauntily upon my head, recalling a poster which every American paratrooper for fifty years has seen. I recount it's text from memory: "December, 1944. The Battle of the Bulge was raging. An entire American armored division was in retreat. One sergeant, looking out from the hatch of his tank, noticed a lone GI digging a foxhole in the snow. The GI, PFC Vernon L. Haught of the 325th Glider Infatry Regiment, looked up at the tanker and said, "Hey, buddy, are you looking for a safe place?" "Sure," the tanker replied. "That's OK,", Haught replied, "just pull your tank in behind me - I'M THE EIGHTY-SECOND AIRBORNE, AND THIS IS AS FAR AS THE BASTARDS ARE GOING." All the Way! Happy holidays, and roll low. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com Advanced Squad Leader WWW home page: http://access.digex.net/~jappel/ASL.html ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 02:03:00 UTC Subject: TOT >From the TOT guys: ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( GEmail Item 0388847 94/12/15 01:26 From: J.KNOWLES8 John M. Knowles To: R.MOSHER2 Ron Mosher Sub: TOT Ron, I need you to do me a favor: I've been trying to get on Inet but all my correspondence rejects-I've called Genie but I'm still waiting for their tech guy to call back. Please post the following on the ASL/Inet board: ANOTHER TIME ON TARGET ANNOUNCEMENT We would like to thank the many people who have responded to our initial announcement and please don't hesitate to drop a quick note if your interested. One question that has cropped up from your responses is, who are we? Well, the creator of TIME ON TARGET is Mark Neukom and here is just a list of some of his ASL credits: 1) Scenario: The Dreadnaught of Rasyeinyia 2) Modern ASL Scenario: Grounding of Noriega, which I believe was published via ASLUG 3) Scenario: Twilight's Last Gleaming, ASLUG #10 which provided, I believe, a paste-on SturmTiger counter. 4) Scenario: Beyond the Pakfronts, ASLUG #1 5) Scenario: Sword Play, ASLUG #9 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! 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 (payable Kinetic Engery Productions) 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). FOR INET PURPOSES, feel free to send inquiries to me at the following address: J.KNOWLES8@GENIE.GEIS.COM@INET# I am grateful that Ron Mosher has been fielding this medium for us. FOR DOUG LOSS, Please resend your post so I can verify your Inet address. And yes, we are interested. Regards, John M. Knowles ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( some repeat stuff deleted to save bandwith I was going to reply to some of carl's stuff but......why waste the band width :).............carl is well carl. ron from the sideroad ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 17:59:14 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: SSRs Much to dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM's surprise, Grant had this to say about "Re: Actions in Norway"... d> I don't know, Tom. The example you point out isn't that d> bad, but one of my pet peeves is a scenario with SSR d> terrain modifications: d> d> 1) All buildings on hill hexes are really brush hexes. d> All grain is marsh. d> All marsh is grain. Islands do not exist. All d> gully-woods are rubble. I totally agree. I'm always forgetting about these modifications at inopportune times. Having one mod ("All buildings are stone") at a time isn't too bad, but some scenarios have 3 or 4. I always screw it up, especially in PBEM games where you are constantly reacquainting yourself with the scenario. -Grant. ... Brevity is the soul of lingerie. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 19:40:59 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: RB Questions David: I've yet to see any responses to these questions so... [stuff deleted] > 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 a FT/DC is removed by random weapon destruction it is removed by a dr, not a DR. However, given the recent Q&A posted by Klas Malmstrom (FT/DC are retained even if removed by a dr during 11.6135), it would appear that they can only be permanently removed by a usage DR >10. > 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? Yes, because it is not listed in the EXC for case C on the Chapter A divider Table A12.121. > 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. Probably +3, but it might be "0" (see below). > 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? The EX listed after O5.331 suggests that Factory Interior Walls have no TEM so the unit would receive the Factory TEM when attacked by the breaching DC. > 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? Halved again (6FP - note that B23.711 specifically states "...Area Fire (12 FP)...") because it isn't specifically mentioned that "?"/HIP have no effect Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Subject: PLAYMATE OF THE MONTH From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 22:44:00 -5 Howdy, "Jeff Shields" writes: >Our feature Playmate for December is none other than Tom Repetti! [More and more intimate, intriguing details, but then...] >Turn offs: Overpowering 10-3s, Deserts, Night Rules "(sorry JR, don't know > 'im yet)," high unit density, long games. Sorry. If they don't know the night moves, I drops 'em like a hot potato. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 06:46:48 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: Peiper's Prelude My comments regard the order of battle. Was the 99th Infantry division a combat experienced unit? My guess is no. My feeling is that this was a completely green unit. If my guess is correct, then I would suggest using a mix of 666's and green american squads with an ELR of 2. Also, the engineers are represented by 747's. Was this unit a combat engineer unit, or was it a construction engineer unit? If combat engineers,, then I think 747's would be okay. If construction engineers, I wouldn't have represented them by elite squads, especially since they are on the defensive and acting as infantry, something I'm sure construction engineers weren't very keen about. Mike Clay analytical chemist, ASL and computer wargamer ----- From: Michael James Licari Subject: Balance system Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 13:24:02 -0600 (CST) Hi all, Making a step from lurker status to active participant here... I was wondering if someone could explain to me how the ballance bidding system works. There are a number of scenarios that I'd like to play that use it. Also, I have a scenario that I'll probably post sooner or later, and I'd like to include the ballance stuff. BTW, who came up with it? Thanks, Mike -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Licari | The meek shall inherit the earth: U of Wisc-Milwaukee Political Science | they are too weak to refuse. mlicari@csd.uwm.edu | ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 23:24:00 UTC Subject: Re: PTO terrain in BB7 >Is PTO terrain in effect for BB7 "The Pinnacle"? It's not mentioned in >the SSR, so I guess it's not in effect. But is this an oversight? There's >an important patch of brush/bamboo near the victory hexes, so it would >make a big difference. > >Marty No, this is not an oversight. PTO Terrain is not in effect for "The Pinnacle." "[Ie Shima] is spotted with small clumps of scrub trees, sparse areas of knee-high grass, and a few cultivated fields and patches of sugar cane." --_Okinawa: The Last Battle_, Roy E. Appleman. Steve Head Scenario Guy _Backblast_ P.S.: Hey Brian, how come my sig doesn't look as cool as yours? :) ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 23:25:00 UTC Subject: Re[3]: Terrain Mod'd for Rally >>>Isn't there a -1 DRM for rallying in woods, buildings, pillboxs and >>>(something else). >>Yep. The "something else" is trenches, plus rubble when you're >>playing Red Barricades. >Rubble is Ambush terrain in RB, but still not Rally terrain. >....Perry And let's not forget that rubble is also Street Fightin' Terrain in RB. I'm surprised that no one mentioned that caves and cave complexes are Rally Bonus Terrain too. Steve ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 23:24:00 UTC Subject: Castello Fatato Errata >I'm a bit confused about the SSR in this scenario. There's a Blaze at >scenario start, but it will only spread "on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12". >Since it's Extreme Winter & Deep Snow, isn't there an EC DRM of -3? >Doesn't >that make a final DR of 12 impossible? Even with the wind in the right >direction it would only be +2 for a net -1 DRM. Am I missing something? >As far as I can tell, the EC DRM does apply in this case. According to B25.5 EC DRM are NA for Spreading Fire DR when spreading to a building. This SSR was added to lessen the likelihood of the victory building going up in flames. Looking at it now, I see that this SSR still isn't exactly what we want. So, official errata for BB8 Castello Fatato: In SSR 3, add "(and all Blazes created from it)" between "this Blaze" and "will only". This will change the SSR to read, "...;this Blaze (and all Blazes created from it) will only spread on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12." Historically the cathedral did catch fire, but it wouldn't be any fun for the Italians in this scenario if the victory building kept burning down before they had a chance to fight their way into it. :) Also, here's one more errata for this scenario in case you missed it the first time we posted it here: Replace the 8-0 with an 8-1 in the Italian OB. Steve Head Scenario Guy _Backblast_ ----- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:33:46 -0800 From: cossack@ix.netcom.com (Chris Laudermilk) Subject: PERL mapping script question. I have gotten a copy of the map2.pl script from the ASL archive & after searching, a copy of ghostscript & PERL (4.019 & BIGPERL) for MS-DOS. Has anyone gotten this script to work? With the 4.019 PERL, I get an "out of memory" error (with 8mb ram?!) & BIGPERL is trying to open something it can't find (about 4 file not found errors & can't find the map file *in the same directory*). Any help with this would be appreciated. Chris ----- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 10:46:26 -0500 From: be051@freenet.carleton.ca (Vic Lewington) Subject: Swan Song VC Howdy, Just dove into "Swan Song", and came up with a question regarding the VC. Victory for French depends on control of a majority of the level 2 building locations; prior to setup each side is allowed to place one rubble counter in any building hex. One of the multihex (ie level 2) buildings on board 12 only has one staircase. If the German rubbles that staircase hex prior to play, the remaining level-2 locations are inaccessible (French can't scale). So: Does control remain in German hands, making a French win harder? Does control pass to the French a la deliberate fire-setting, making a French win easier? Are the affected hexes ignored for victory purposes, making a French win easier? What if the French place the rubble? [When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of the scene in the movie "Where the Buffalo Roam", where Hunter Thompson (a wacko journalist for Rolling Stone magazine) stuffs a newspaper (or menu or something) into his fax machine, and mutters "here, chew on this gibberish," in response to his editor's demands for material.] -- Vic Lewington: "Mom rides a broom, dad has hooves, and you be051@freenet.carleton.ca people wonder why I have an attitude..." _Interviews_ (from the Elvish) ----- From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) Subject: Scenario Card Q. Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 12:47:48 -0800 (PST) Hi guys, (head hung in shame), I can't figure out what the red numbers in the upper left corner of all the 5/8" counters in "Blazin' Chariots" (ASL #35) are supposed to mean. any help or hints would be appreciated! -Nadir ----- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 22:52:44 +0100 From: olin@CMD.UU.SE (Peter Olin) Subject: PBeM/PBM formal grammar/protocol for moves, placement etc. A friend and I are thinking of constructing a computerized aid for PBeM ASL. A part of that tool would be a formal grammar and protocol for the information transferred between the combatants. I'm wondering if someone on this list has done any work in that direction? I'm sure there must be heaps of implementations of similar things for computer wargames, and there's no point redoing things that has already been done. Of course, ASL PBeM is bound to have it's differences from other games, but I think there must be similarities as well. Pointers anyone? If not, would some of you be interested in reviewing a suggestion for a specification if we come up with one? I know a lot of you guys have played quite a few games by PBeM, and have far better knowledge than us about all the special situations that may appear in a game. I'm convinced that with some people cooperating to create a PBeM (ASL)-protocol we could establish a good foundation for others (and us) to create clients for different machines to help us with the construction/displaying of the moves to send to our opponents. My preliminary thoughts about an "ASL-PBeM Protocol v1" are: * Based on the formats people use today in their manual play. * It should be easy to type/interpret manually * It should be concise, but allow for flexibility if an extraordinary situation not covered by the protocol need to be described. * It should be easy to create very simple programs that interprets the input. Anyone care to have some input on this subject? What would you like to see in the protocol? /Peter "Life is for more than using time to make money" - Thich Nhat Hanh ----- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 14:05:47 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Scenario Card Q. Nadir: > Hi guys, > (head hung in shame), I can't figure out what the red numbers in > the upper left corner of all the 5/8" counters in "Blazin' Chariots" (ASL > #35) are supposed to mean. > > any help or hints would be appreciated! Appreciated?! Okay, just so long as it isn't lousy Christmas fruitcake. Those red numbers are the unit's DVP as noted in F.3 on page 1 one Chapter F. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 19:36:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: Scenario Card Q. > (head hung in shame), I can't figure out what the red numbers in > the upper left corner of all the 5/8" counters in "Blazin' Chariots" (ASL > #35) are supposed to mean. > I believe they're desert victory points, DVP, which are different from casualty victory points, CVP. BTW, for aspiring writers, an article about desert warfare would be useful. Especially one that dealt with those blasted hillocks. Is the ASLRB example for hillocks correct? Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 20:41:24 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: Scenario Card Q. On Sun, 18 Dec 1994, Nadir A. El Farra wrote: > Hi guys, > (head hung in shame), I can't figure out what the red numbers in > the upper left corner of all the 5/8" counters in "Blazin' Chariots" (ASL > #35) are supposed to mean. > > any help or hints would be appreciated! > > -Nadir > F.3 Desert VP. To reflect the increased importance of vehicles in the desert campaign, any scenario that specifies Desert VP (DVP) uses the following method of calculating VP for guns and vehicles eliminated/ captured/exited as per A26.2-.22: Gun: a Gun's DVP value equals 10% (FRU) of its printed BPV (even if dm/malfunctioned); Vehicle: a vehicle's DVP value equals 10% (FRU) of its printed BPV (even if its MA is malfunctioned/disabled) [EXC: see F.3A]. For ease of use, each gun's/vehicle's DVP is printed in red in the upper left hand corner of its depiction on the scenario card. This number does not include the point value of whatever PRC the vehicle contains at scenario start. The point value of units/equipment other than guns and vehicles are not changed by the use of DVP. Those are the red numbers then. You've picked a good scenario as an introduction to desert warfare. Mark Nixon did a review of all of the WOA scenarios in "The General", and has some advice to offer you and/or your opponent as to how to play this scenario. When I played this scenario, I took the Brits and won, but it was a very close game. The german would have won if one of my tanks which had been shocked did not recuperate to good order and instead had been destroyed. It is very possible that in your playing the difference between victory and defeat may come down to a single tank or even a single crew being destroyed for your opponent first before he does it to you. The Brits can absorb hugh casulties and still win, the germans less so. Expect a real slugfest, and a blast of a scenario for an introduction to desert warfare. This is a good scenario for those who want to "test the waters" of desert warfare, without getting too many new rules and terrain types to have to deal with. Send me an after action report if you like. Mike Clay ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 00:38:02 -0500 (EST) From: David Elder Subject: Re: Bridges Hi all, I hate to disagree :-) ... but looking at the rule on Foot bridges - the counter depicted in the rules is the 1S pontoon bridge on the back of the Wall Advan counters and not the 0 TEM ones. The book also says that a foot bridge is a " 1/2 inch pontoon bridge counter." not that it is treated as pontoon bridge and finally B6.31 specifically says that targets on a non-pontoon bridge gain +1 and a foot bridge is not defined as a pontoon bridge - only that it's counter is. None of this proves anything - but you could make a definite case that a +1 should apply and that is probably the way I'd play it. (barring errata or a specific Q&A). :-) Cheers, David ----- From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: New QA from The Hill (long) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:57:57 +0100 (MET) Klas Malmstrom finally got some questions back from the Hill. Among these questions were questions that he included for me (thank you Klas). Some of these I'd like to comment as I am very surprised by some of the answers. A few weeks ago I resent these questions along with some new ones to the Hill, some of them with a different wording, so it should be interesting to see if I get the same answers. Most of the night questions was included after reading JR's exellent night article. Mostly the answers seem to make sense, but I guess JR is the right person to comment them. > ADJACENT Shoudn't this rule state LOCATION rather than hex when defining > if two units are ADJACENT ? > A. No. I can't believe this! This means that a unit on Ground level is ADJACENT to a unit on second level in an adjacent hex. This has severe effects on Fire Groups, Rout, DC placement etc. I thought that this was just another place where they wrote hex but meant Location, I still believe that. With the rule as printed, a unit on Ground Level can place a DC on second level of an adjacent building hex without moving (by expending 4 MF). > A10.51 This rule states that a broken unit can continue to rout after > it has reached a woods/building hex if it can directly enter another > building/woods hex in its next entered hex. Shouldn't it be that it can > continue to rout if it can directly enter another building/woods > LOCATION rather than hex ? > A. No. When you have reached a Building, you can rout out of it to an adjacent Building, but you cannot rout up or down to the cellar (if RB). I hardly believe this either. > A12.153 When a side successfully secures a Building by Mopping Up, does > it immediately gain Control of all hexes of that building ? Does it > immediatley gain Control of all Locations in that Building ? > A. Yes. In KGP we have used Mopping Up to gain control of a building's Locations although the ASLRB actually didn't say that you could. But now you can... > A12.34 May the > crew of an Emplaced Gun always use HIP when the Gun sets up HIP ? > A. Yes. Until this answer came, when setting up a HIP emplaced Gun in Concealment terrain, the manning crew had to set up revealed, but this QA finally says that the crew can set up HIP as well. (What! Have you always played this way? :-) > A26.11 & B6.1 To gain Control of a bridge-gully hex, do you have to > occupy the Gully Location, the Bridge Loction, or both Locations to > gain Control of the hex ? > A. Either, unless one side controls the other with a GO MMC. This solves the problem of scenario A21. > A26.16 Assume that one side deliberately Kindles the terrain in a hex it > Controls: > (a) Does the kindling side forfeit the Control of the hex when an > Upper Level Location is kindled ? > A. Just the Location. > > (b) Does Control change (to the non-kindling side) when a flame > counter is placed ?, or when a Blaze couner is placed ? > A. When a Blaze counter is placed. > > (c) If the kindled hex is Building hex, does the kindling side > forfeit Control of the Building as well as the hex ? > A. Only the hex. > > (d) When Control of a hex is lost, does the kindling side > automatically lose Control of every Location of that hex ?, or does > the Control of these Locations change individually when a Flame/Blaze > counter is placed in the Location ? > A. The latter. > > (e) When may the kindling side regain Control of the Hex/Locations > (important when playing campaign games) ? > A. After blaze is extinguished and a friendly GO MMC reoccupies. This is important when playing RB. Fortunately all the answers are the same I came up with by using common sense. > B8.42 The Sewer Emergence Chart on page B5 and the one on the Chapter B > Divider differ: The drm causes 2 and 4 specify Known enemy units in the > chart on page B5 which is not specified in the chart on the divider. > Which is correct ? (If the chart on page B5 is correct, how can enemy > units be Known, since the units in the Sewer has no LOS to any outside > units ?) > A. Chapter Divider is correct. This has bothered me for a long time (since using sewers for the first time I guess), since I believed that the rules has preference over the divider, but this answer satisfies me. > B24.74 & B28.44 Assume a Good Order Infantry unit enters a Known > minefield hex (that is also a Building hex) as per B24.74, but fails to > clear the minefield. May the unit then (in a later MPh) exit the hex > through a building hexside as per B28.44 without being attacked by the > minefield ? >A. No. This is a little surprising as the answer actually says that B24.74 takes precedense over B28.44, but I have no problem with accepting the answer, although it cancels something my Russian opponent in RB thought was a _very_ sleazy trick. > C1.33 What are the allowed actions for an OBA observer when he cannot > see the OBA SR, but can see a known unit in a hex adjacent to the SR > (It seems like C1.335 should apply, but according to the rules it doesn't) ? > A. C1.336, C1.337. Another answer I really doesn't like. Why on earth does it matter whether or not there are enemy units in the (hypothetical) Blast Area when the observer has no LOS to the SR/FFE at all? > O11.4 CG9 > (a) May German Infantry/AFV RG enter on between A45 and U1 on 23 Oct > and all later days irrespective of edge hex control (Same question > applies to 17-19 Oct: A9-U1 and 20-22 Oct: A22-U1) ? > A. Yes. > > (b) If No, when does these entrance areas apply ? > (c) If Yes, what does "entry is always allowed on/between A9 and N0" mean ? > A. Delete. At last this question is solved. I don't know how many times this has been discussed on the list. Now we have an (unofficial) errata. > O11.6134 > (a) Are FT/DC retained if they are deliberately eliminated by the enemy ? > (b) Are FT/DC retained if they are captured by the enemy, but > eliminated in step O11.6135 (captured weapon dr) ? > (c) Are FT/DC retained if they are captured by the enemy and then > eliminated by a effects DR conducted by the enemy ? > A. Yes. Yes. Yes. Wow! I iincluded this, but I expected No at least on (a) and (b). It makes most sense with Yes, but the rules doesn't say so. Seems like the intension is that FT/DC are retained _unless_ they are eliminated on a effects DR > 10. > O11.6235 The consequences of the part in paranthesis seems strange, > should it really say that you have to take X more stone locations than > you started with or should this rule just state that you have to take X > stone locations if you don't lose any ? > A. Does not say "take" it says "Control". Big difference. The question I sent to Klas was very long so I understand that he has shortened it, but unfortunately the question became wrong. Anyway, my original question is at the Hill now. CHAPTER P > P8.51 SSR I.3: A HIP U.S. Gun fires at an enemy unit, but the player > rolls >= 3 on its CA determination dr. Does the Gun lose its > Concealment ?, For C3 Case A TH DRM determination, is the Gun > considered to be set up with its newly determined CA ? > A. Yes. Yes. What! If the Gun is considered to be set up with it's newly determined CA (which makes most sense to me) why on earth does it lose Concealment (since the CA is not considered to have changed) ___| |__ If you / \ cut off ||||||| Ole Boe / /| |\ \ my head, / \ Rosenborg gt 7B / / ( ) \ \ | + + | 7014 Trondheim | | / \ | | what do I say: | (_) | Norway / /\ \ \ / ooO / \ Ooo \ +++ / ( )/ \( ) Me and my head \___/ oleboe@idt.unit.no \ (/ \) / or \_) (_/ Me and my body? ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:59:47 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Q&A list update Hi, The Q&A list has been updated with most of the questions Klas Malmstrom sent to this list. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:22:26 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: Re: Peiper's Prelude On Fri, 16 Dec 1994, JEFF ROBERTS wrote: > > P.S. Kudos to anyone who can figure out the scenario from another > game which gave me the idea for this "translation." i would guess that it is from panzer leader, and the scenario is called "Bulge: Thrust". now there are quite a few ardennes scenarios in PL, so i could be a little confused. (but its not like that has never happened before...) have fun, kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:32:28 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: rb 8-3-8 question guys, there was a thread here last week that talked about why/why not german 8-3-8 assault engineers should be replaced by 4-3-6 troops. uh, how can this happen. they cannot be elr replaced, since they would be disrupted, regardless of changes in german elr (A19.something). so, how would this happen? ammo shortage? i guess that is the only thing. am i missing something? kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:42:36 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: New QA from The Hill (long) oleboe writes: >> ADJACENT Shoudn't this rule state LOCATION rather than hex when defining >> if two units are ADJACENT ? >> A. No. > I can't believe this! >> A10.51 This rule states that a broken unit can continue to rout after >> it has reached a woods/building hex if it can directly enter another >> building/woods hex in its next entered hex. Shouldn't it be that it can >> continue to rout if it can directly enter another building/woods >> LOCATION rather than hex ? >> A. No. > I hardly believe this either. My theory (which isn't new) is that any question like "shouldn't the rule really say X instead of Y" is answered by "No", without giving it a thought. The canonical example is a question by Patrik Manlig about the extent of error after an OBA correction. He wondered whether the rule shouldn't say "maximum error" instead of "error" (being one third of the correction). The answer was "No". In a later Annual, the rule was corrected to be what we all that time thought was correct. >> C1.33 What are the allowed actions for an OBA observer when he cannot >> see the OBA SR, but can see a known unit in a hex adjacent to the SR >> (It seems like C1.335 should apply, but according to the rules it doesn't) ? >> A. C1.336, C1.337. > Another answer I really doesn't like. Why on earth does it matter > whether or not there are enemy units in the (hypothetical) Blast > Area when the observer has no LOS to the SR/FFE at all? It's probably the usual "avoid omniscient player syndrome" argument. It would be too easy to correct the FFE on top of the enemy unit, even though in reality you don't know where the FFE is. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:44:51 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: rb 8-3-8 question Kevin Serafini writes: > there was a thread here last week that talked about why/why not > german 8-3-8 assault engineers should be replaced by 4-3-6 > troops. uh, how can this happen. they cannot be elr replaced, since > they would be disrupted, regardless of changes in german elr > (A19.something). so, how would this happen? ammo shortage? i guess > that is the only thing. am i missing something? We are talking about ELR replacement. The rule says that if a SSR specifically gives the assault engineers a lower ELR, then they are replaced by conscripts. The question is whether the RB ELR rule counts as a SSR for this purpose. Bas. ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: TACTIQUES Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:25:26 +0100 (MET) Hill all, I sent the issue #6 to new subscribers 2 or 3 weeks ago. Did you received it ? I afraid it takes a long time to reach the states. If you have ordered/subscribed to Tactiques, drop me a mail when you receive your copy. Thanks -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architectures parallele ( ( LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 10:33:02 EST From: "I'm not bad, just pushing the bounderies of good 19-Dec-1994 0922" Subject: 2 questions Folks, In playing RBC game all Russian units in a factory are fanatic, what happens than to a 4-2-6 conscript that fails its moral check by more than it's elr? -- besides being broke-- and/or a half-squad conscript? Also, it appears I have been playing this wrong but as I was shown in the rules ELR loss doesn't happen to a broken unit? or another wrong interpretation?? Ok, I lied, but one more that we were wondering about. Couldn't find this in the rules but can a tank rotate it's turret and fire in the advance fire phase if it moved in the movement phase? We know it can fire, but we were debating if you could rotate the turret. thanks, and to all Happy Holidays! dale ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 07:49:47 -0800 Subject: Taming Tulagi Hi, Brian and all. Just thought I'd let you know how my game of Taming Tulagi went. Fairly close, but I really don't think either of us had enough cave experience to play it competently. As it turned out, I won as the Japanese, in spite of getting the shit kicked out of me all game. I used one cave complex for all four caves. I had two caves up at the front of the hill (K3 and K4, if memory serves) pointed one to each side. The other two caves were back across the "dip" in the hill, both in hex K6 pointed to cover the path from both directions. I had 2 squads and an MMG/crew/9-0 set up outside the cave complex to cover the slopes outside the CA of the caves. The way this thing played out, all my forces outside the caves got completely annihilated. Further, I hardly put a dent in the Americans as they bowled their way up the hill. My opponent lost a total of 2 squads during the entire action. In a particularly disheartening CCPh, I advanced a full squad into a hex containing a CX American squad and half-squad. I figured I had a very good chance of ambushing him, taking out both units in H2H, and still be around to hinder his movement next turn. Result: American ambush! He wiped out my squad and was all set for a full-fledged assault. What saved me is that I was able to break a big stack of Americans at a crucial juncture, then advance out of a cave with a crew to chase them back down the hill and effectively out of play. Also, although his DC's really caused a lot of casualties among my troops, he never did seal a cave. One thing I've learned about caves: they are the ULTIMATE skulking terrain. Move your units from the caves to the complex during MPh, then advance them (concealed) back in. This is really how I won the game: skulking. My fire attacks were not effective for the most part, and I tried to avoid CC given his numerical advantage. It's really wasn't much fun as the Japanese: it was more a matter of staying out of his way. Anyway, I don't feel like we gave this scenario a very good "workout." Neither of us has much cave experience. But, for what it's worth, that's what happened. Dade ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:18:04 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: Castello Fatato Errata >This will change the SSR to read, "...;this Blaze (and all Blazes >created from it) will only spread on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12." How about Flames? Could the above lead one to think that Flames become Blazes on less than a Final 12? ....Perry ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 11:50:58 EST From: Jim_Doughan@ccmail.prod.susq.com (Jim Doughan) Subject: Set DC First Fire Howdy, Am I correct in assuming that a Set DC may *not* be exploded as first fire during the opponent's MPh? If it may, does it leave residual FP? Season's Greetings, Jim ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:10:00 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Swan Song VC > Howdy, > Just dove into "Swan Song", and came up with a question regarding > the VC. Victory for French depends on control of a majority of the > level 2 building locations; prior to setup each side is allowed to place > one rubble counter in any building hex. > One of the multihex (ie level 2) buildings on board 12 only has > one staircase. If the German rubbles that staircase hex prior to play, > the remaining level-2 locations are inaccessible (French can't scale). > So: > > Does control remain in German hands, making a French win harder? The building can still be mopped-up so the French can control it. Note that the rubbled hex will no longer have a level 2 reducing the number that the French need to take. > > Does control pass to the French a la deliberate fire-setting, > making a French win easier? No. > > Are the affected hexes ignored for victory purposes, making > a French win easier? No. > > What if the French place the rubble? No difference. > > [When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of the scene in the > movie "Where the Buffalo Roam", where Hunter Thompson (a wacko journalist > for Rolling Stone magazine) stuffs a newspaper (or menu or something) > into his fax machine, and mutters "here, chew on this gibberish," in > response to his editor's demands for material.] > > -- > Vic Lewington: "Mom rides a broom, dad has hooves, and you > be051@freenet.carleton.ca people wonder why I have an attitude..." > _Interviews_ > (from the Elvish) > ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: New QA from The Hill (long) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:24:00 PST Ole Boe writes: > > ADJACENT Shoudn't this rule state LOCATION rather than hex when defining > > if two units are ADJACENT ? > > A. No. > > I can't believe this! This means that a unit on Ground level > is ADJACENT to a unit on second level in an adjacent hex. This > has severe effects on Fire Groups, Rout, DC placement etc. I thought > that this was just another place where they wrote hex but meant > Location, I still believe that. With the rule as printed, a unit > on Ground Level can place a DC on second level of an adjacent > building hex without moving (by expending 4 MF). Perhaps by wording your question in those terms, you might get a more sensible answer. (e.g. "Can a unit at level 2 of a building form a fire group with a unit at ground level of an adjacent hex? If not, are they ADJACENT?") > > A12.34 May the > > crew of an Emplaced Gun always use HIP when the Gun sets up HIP ? > > A. Yes. > > Until this answer came, when setting up a HIP emplaced Gun in > Concealment terrain, the manning crew had to set up revealed, but > this QA finally says that the crew can set up HIP as well. > (What! Have you always played this way? :-) I'm not convinced that that was true; a good argument can be made that a Gun and its crew are always treated as a single unit for concealment gain/loss purposes. > > P8.51 SSR I.3: A HIP U.S. Gun fires at an enemy unit, but the player > > rolls >= 3 on its CA determination dr. Does the Gun lose its > > Concealment ?, For C3 Case A TH DRM determination, is the Gun > > considered to be set up with its newly determined CA ? > > A. Yes. Yes. > > What! If the Gun is considered to be set up with it's newly > determined CA (which makes most sense to me) why on earth does > it lose Concealment (since the CA is not considered to have > changed) I'd hazard a guess that the assumption was that it would then immediately change CA to fire on the declared target. In that case it clearly WOULD lose ? status. All the more reason to place it on board and see the results before declaring a shot. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:06:59 -0700 (MST) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Re: Set DC First Fire On 19 Dec 1994, Jim Doughan wrote: > Am I correct in assuming that a Set DC may *not* be exploded as > first fire during the opponent's MPh? If it may, does it leave > residual FP? No! The ASLRB says that a set DC may be detonated during "any friendly fire phase", which, one assumes, would mean as ff as well. (A23.7) Unfortunately, the ASLRB is less clear about what would happen afterward. If you assume that it is handled the same way as a thrown DC, there is still nothing in the rules about RFP. Perhaps a Q&A on this? In my RB campaign, we play it that it leaves no RFP, just rubble :-). At any rate, this way it is more tense (and more rewarding) to wait until FF. > > Season's Greetings, Back at ya'. > > Jim > ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 16:38:56 EDT Subject: Re: 2 questions > In playing RBC game all Russian units in a factory are fanatic, what >happens then to a 4-2-6 conscript that fails its moral check by more than >it's elr? -- besides being broke-- and/or a half-squad conscript? I suspect the 4-2-6 gets broken into two broken half squads. They aren't disrupted because fanatics are immune to disruption. > Also, it appears I have been playing this wrong but as I was shown in >the rules ELR loss doesn't happen to a broken unit? or another wrong >interpretation?? ELR does not affect broken units. Once broken all you have to worry about breaking again and boxcars which still results in casualty reduction. > Ok, I lied, but one more that we were wondering about. Couldn't find this >in the rules but can a tank rotate it's turret and fire in the advance fire >phase if it moved in the movement phase? We know it can fire, but we were >debating if you could rotate the turret. Yes, a tank can rotate it's turret and fire. Also while during movement some people play that turning the turret separately costs 1 MF. I belive this isn't the case. What I've wanted to know is can the tank change its VCA during the AFPh? Jeff ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 16:43:03 CST From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Re: 2 questions > From jeff@back.vims.edu Mon Dec 19 16:35:22 1994 > From: "Jeff Shields" > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 16:38:56 EDT > Reply-To: > X-Popmail-Charset: English > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Re: 2 questions > Content-Length: 1185 > > Yes, a tank can rotate it's turret and fire. Also while during > movement some people play that turning the turret separately costs 1 MF. > I belive this isn't the case. What I've wanted to know is can the tank > change its VCA during the AFPh? > First, you can change TCA at a cost of 1 MF/hexspine, this expenditure can be used in conjunction with some other expenditure -- ie to move 1 hex open ground for 1MF, you can also move your TCA one hexspine -- total cost = 1MF not 2MF. If you would like to change 2 hexspines you would have to spend 2MFs to do so. Yes you should be able to change your VCA in AFPh, but only if you fire(something), and pay the NT costs. > Jeff > ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 16:01:08 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: SFF change needed Something which just bugs the heck out of me is the way the SFF rule restricts SFF to a range less than or equal to the closest (armed) known enemy unit. For all the realism built into the game, this one sentence may result in the most un-real tactics in the entire system. Bothers me when a fodder HS can occupy the attention of the defenders while 40m further away, whole platoons can scurry around with impunity. One suggestion for a workaround is to allow SFF vs targets which are more distant than the closest known armed enemy unit if those targets are bigger in terms of Unit Size. It's tempting to base it on the BPV of the units, but realistically, the defenders shouldn't be able to rightly judge the relative quality of the enemy units. It wouldn't do to allow SFF at a 248 (BPV=5) when there's a closer 247 (BPV=4); to the defenders, the farther HS is less of a threat than the closer HS. Heck, you could even allow SFF at a more distant target even if it's the same size as the closest enemy unit; gives the defenders a little more of an advantage. Of course, there'd be ways to abuse this as well ("soaking off" with a 426 while moving the 838's singly at longer range), but it forces the attacker to pay a higher price for using this tactic, which I think is reasonable given the very high benefit of using it. Note that a squad+leader has a higher Unit Size than a squad, so the attacker would have to commit even more units to the "soakoff", which I also think is reasonable. Comments? Tom ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: KGP II release Looked through a game catalogue at the book/game store that I frequent. Scheduled release date for KGP II: 6/95. Take it for what it's worth. -- Neal E. Ulen (nealu@uidaho.edu) ----- From: Mark Overby Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 15:24:12 TZ Subject: Re: 2 questions >| Yes, a tank can rotate it's turret and fire. Also while during >| movement some people play that turning the turret separately costs 1 MF. >| I belive this isn't the case. What I've wanted to know is can the tank >| change its VCA during the AFPh? I read through the rules and it appears that you can. You would have to pay the case B THM if you didn't move, if you did move during the MpH then you're looking at case C and such. Also, case B specifcally refers to a gun changing CA (I didn't see any prohibitations in the rules for AFV VCA). Mark Overby ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 15:32:02 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: 2 questions > > > > Yes, a tank can rotate it's turret and fire. Also while during > > movement some people play that turning the turret separately costs 1 MF. > > I belive this isn't the case. What I've wanted to know is can the tank > > change its VCA during the AFPh? > > > > First, you can change TCA at a cost of 1 MF/hexspine, this expenditure can be > used in conjunction with some other expenditure -- ie to move 1 hex open ground for 1MF, > you can also move your TCA one hexspine -- total cost = 1MF not 2MF. If you would like to > change 2 hexspines you would have to spend 2MFs to do so. > > Yes you should be able to change your VCA in AFPh, but only if you fire(something), and pay the > NT costs. You don't necessarily pay NT costs, just the normal changing CA costs. Fred > > > Jeff > > > ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 15:34:28 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: 2 questions > > > In playing RBC game all Russian units in a factory are fanatic, what > >happens then to a 4-2-6 conscript that fails its moral check by more than > >it's elr? -- besides being broke-- and/or a half-squad conscript? > > I suspect the 4-2-6 gets broken into two broken half squads. They aren't > disrupted because fanatics are immune to disruption. You only become 2 HS if you have an underlined morale and your ELR is not lowered by SSR. In this case you just become a broken 426. [cut] > > Jeff > ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 17:12:20 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: KGP II release > > > Looked through a game catalogue at the book/game store that I frequent. > Scheduled release date for KGP II: 6/95. I have heard that Fort will restart the playtesting soon which means that next summer is possible. Fred > > Take it for what it's worth. > -- > Neal E. Ulen (nealu@uidaho.edu) > > > > ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 20:11:51 EST From: Jim_Doughan@ccmail.prod.susq.com (Jim Doughan) Subject: Re[2]: Set DC First Fire ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Set DC First Fire Author: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" at Internet Date: 12/19/94 6:04 PM (Snip) On 19 Dec 1994, Jim Doughan wrote: > Am I correct in assuming that a Set DC may *not* be exploded as > first fire during the opponent's MPh? If it may, does it leave > residual FP? On 19 Dec 1994 Tim S. Hundorfer replied: No! The ASLRB says that a set DC may be detonated during "any friendly fire phase", which, one assumes, would mean as ff as well. (A23.7) Unfortunately, the ASLRB is less clear about what would happen afterward. If you assume that it is handled the same way as a thrown DC, there is still nothing in the rules about RFP. Perhaps a Q&A on this? In my RB campaign, we play it that it leaves no RFP, just rubble :-). At any rate, this way it is more tense (and more rewarding) to wait until FF. >> Perhaps I am being to literal with the ASLRB, but First Fire occurs >> during the opponents MPh, *not* a friendly fire phase. To me this >> means you must wait until DFph to explode. This interpretation >> explains the absence of residual fire ramifications in (A23.7) >> A justification would go a little like this -- a set DC targets a >> structure (bridge or building), not an enemy. It's not a bunch of >> claymores (sp?). Therefore it's use during FF is prohibited. If, >> however the enemy chooses to hang around for DFPh, well, that's >> another story. They may find the DC (dud) through numbers, or they >> may get their faces blown off. It seems like a reasonable story >> to me. >> I asked the question because I wasn't sure if phase was defined in >> the ASLRB anywhere or if FF was a phase or not. I know the ASLRB >> can be very conceptual at times. >> Thanks again, >> Jim ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 20:15:48 -5 Subject: Re: 2 questions From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) > First, you can change TCA at a cost of 1 MF/hexspine, Where does it say this? The only thing I can find is that it cost 1 MP to change TCA (2 in woods/building) and that the TCA can change freely. D3.12 Now, D2.11 is specific about the VCA, 1 MP/hexspine but there is no such restriction on the TCA in D3.12. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 20:22:48 -0700 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) Subject: Re: TACTIQUES Hi Jean-Luc, Today I received the money order I mistakenly sent to you instead of the US contact. Thanks for it's timely return! Now if only TACTIQUES would show up! I'm hoping for an ASL Christmas! Tom Huntington ----- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 21:09:18 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: SFF change needed Tom: [intelligent rules change suggestion deleted] *Enter foaming rage mode* CHANGE IT! []P[5988&)*)&p(o":<^%*^(&)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have ANY idea just how friggin' long it took me to learn that rule! Just you wait 'til I find my ACME A-bomb kit and find an atlas that bothers to mention Idaho (it's probably the same one that includes Prince Edward Island)! Years or reading, solo play, rereading, highlighting...and now this... Share & Enjoy! Brent "reading comprehension has always been a weak point" Pollock ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 06:39:29 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: 2 questions > Where does it say this? The only thing I can find is that it cost 1 > MP to change TCA (2 in woods/building) and that the TCA can change > freely. D3.12 I dunno. But check out the example (in section C or D - no book handy) where a 50L AT gun is shooting at a T34/85...it says something about this TCA & 1 MP stuff. Very weird - I was just looking at that the other day and saw it for the "first" time. ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 06:48:42 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: SFF change needed > Tom: > > [intelligent rules change suggestion deleted] > > *Enter foaming rage mode* > > CHANGE IT! []P[5988&)*)&p(o":<^%*^(&)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [unbeblievably gorry and violent expressions directed towards Idaho] > Brent "reading comprehension has always been a weak point" Pollock You must forgive Brent. We've been awfully hard on him via a double blind game of MBT (and BTW Brent: Oh sure, it's OK for you to have nuclear weapons, but when I asked for just one teensy, wheensy atomic 155 round.....). 8^) Paul ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 08:00:00 -0500 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: Re: SFF change needed >Something which just bugs the heck out of me is the way the SFF rule restricts SFF to a range >less than or equal to the closest (armed) known >enemy unit. For all the realism built into the game, this one sentence >may result in the most un-real tactics in the entire system. Bothers me when a fodder HS can >occupy the attention of the defenders while 40m further away, whole platoons can scurry around >with impunity. The way I see it, the Defenders already have an incredible advantage in ASL with ROF, First Fire, SFF, and Final Fire. The SFF rules provide the Attacker with a method of limiting at least some of that firepower. To my way of thinking, that is as realistic as anything else in the ASLRB. I think of it as a Feint: the HS moves forward and assualts the enemy position. While the enemy is occupied with this obvious threat, you move your real assualt around his flank. Now, you find a way to justify the cheesy Defender tactic of moving behind an obstacle then advancing back in after Def. Fire. There is something that really irks me. Doug Williamson ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:48:46 AST Subject: Tom was not himself Hi! You must excuse Tom for his *strange* suggestions :). You see, Boise State lost the Division 1 AA championship game to Youngstown State. I'm sure he swore at his kids and kicked his cat. Then he sat at his computer and came up with that. :) BTW, even if Tom's suggestion was adopted, we'd need amendments to the chart that lists all the nationalities. For example, nationalities with illiterate and under-educated grunts don't get to use it. Presumably, they can't count fast enough to decide if the unit just next hex is smaller, bigger or same size as the one crossing the street 40 m away. Russians always shoot at the closest hex unless with a Commissar: they were actively discouraged from making any decision... Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are social animals. Invite one over for dinner. ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 08:42:08 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Cheezy Tactics Doug writes: > Now, you find a way to justify the cheesy Defender tactic of moving > behind an obstacle then advancing back in after Def. Fire. There is > something that really irks me. I used to get irritated by this too. However, on reflection I have come to the conclusion that the platoon sergeant gave everyone the order to fall back and regroup. In other words, I know I'm going to take fire so let's fall back to safety and wait for our guys to get their shit back together. Then we'll make contact with the enemy again. It doesn't completely solve the problem, but at least by thinking of it that way, and using the tactic myself, I can live with it. What really irks me is the guy whose whole game revolves around using the half-hexes at the edge of the board! Doug ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 16:25:34 +0100 From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: La Gleize, AAR Hi to everybody, I am coming back from THE event of this ASL year : the La Gleize tournament for the 50th Bulge Anniversary playing KGP on the spot! The Rencontre deserves a long AAR but I just cannot find the time for it for now. Suffice it to say that we were around 50 guys, which is not much compared to the 150 of Oktoberfest but wait : there were belgian, french, dutch, german -all from near countries you may say, that is if you know some geography! 8) , but also suiss, portugese, italian, british and americans! All come for the event. Amazing and truly great. If you did not enjoy last ASL News, wait until you see this one : gorgeous! There is one 4 scenarios KGP on the Stoumont map (which we were supposed to play), one scenario on the same map, two short (4 turns) scenarios and one scenario on the Stoumont Railway station (same action as Bastard Tanks and shooting fools, from Time on Target). There aint no railway station on the stoumont map, you may say but .... THEY PROVIDE THE HISTORICAL MAP!! Full color and all... They made it, by changing a little the edges, into a geomorphical map. The scenario is just great even if I got beaten up by Ray Wolozyn (BTW he says hi to everybody). Also, there were playtest maps of Cheneux and La Gleize (the building where we were playing is on it!), a truly nice TShirt, guided tours around the villages and the battlefield (sanatorium, Froidcour Chateau, etc...) : just about all you may dream about. I also got to have CH, ToT, OAF, Rout Report all goodies I have not the privilege to see that often. I came back with around 50 new scenarios almost all carboard printed! The theme was to be the new KGP campaign but people prefered to play scenarios and since nobody was there really to win any plaque we jaut dropped the campaing. I had won the first scenario as the German but that is no big deal, the problem with the Germas start at scenario 2 in the night and I did not play that. 1-0. I tackled then "Bastard Tanks etc" against one of the best Belgian players and got beaten up. I gave up after losing one panther on a turret hit by the 90L (had he hit the hull I would have blew him away...) and rolling a box cars on a CC against a Sherman where I had ATMM! Casualty reduced that s all I got. I got the impression it was very hard for the Germans to win and being outgunned by my opponent who s more more experience/skill did not help. 1-1 I then played against Ray Wolozyn the same action according to AslNews and had the German again and lose again! (The board is Great!). I got my kill stack with a 9-2 aquired in a stone building by his 90L Tank and brought a Panther to help. Did not bound fire though (alas!) and the tank goes boum snake eyes on my guys, rof kept and 1KIA! Rof against the Panther, turret hit boum the Panther! I gave up. Great fun and a most nice fellow as opponent. 1-2. I then played another american and excellent guy, Randi Rossi, in Devils in the Graveyard. I got the wrong side, the Americans. Fortunately he made a big mistake in his approach and I eliminated for failure to rout a 9-2 and 2 9-1 plus 4 658. Right in the turn 1 my turn! You may think that that should do it but the scenario is TOUGH for the US... Randi got to leave and a british guy replaced him. He manage to blow my AT gun with his PzIV which was doomed by rolling snake eyes on a bounding fire and confirming the improbable hit rolling a 2 and ... I got so mad I advance one 666 and a 8-0 to the gun to blast the bastard anyways. Recovery dr 6 fort the squqd and 6 for the 8-0!! Well, things went on and I was wining anyways. It was my turn and the last one. I had more CVPs so I thought everything was over, right? Wait. Defensive fire : he tries ti hit my infantry with a Psk for a +5 shot, roll a 3, well I said go ahead for your 12 even shot, you re gonna break me but who cares. Rolls snake eyes and get 1KIA!! We count all the CVPs and I lose for 1 point!!!!!! All in all an EXCELLENT tournament for which and for KGP I deeply thanks Philippe Leonard and his belgian buddies (with special mention of Pedro Ramis, this most good man to whom I wish good luck in his Stonne Campaign). Happy New Year and Merry Christmas to all of you, -Bruno ----- Date: 20 Dec 1994 10:37:39 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: FTF in Cleveland? Subject: Time:10:49 AM OFFICE MEMO FTF in Cleveland? Date:12/20/94 Seasons Greeting, My family and I will be making the annual Christmas Holiday trek north to Clevland, Ohio and I was hoping to find a FTF game while we're there. Any interested parties can reach me here in Virginia until Thursday late. After that I'll be in Cleveland until January 1. While in Cleveland I can be reached at (216) 321-5425. Hope everyone has a happy Holiday season and receives lots of ASL toys from Santa. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 10:39:25 -0500 (EST) From: David Elder Subject: Re: SFF change needed Hi all :-) Besides - the squad had the choice of NOT firing at the HS in the first place and waiting to see if that big platoon of guys waltz's out of the trees - and blasting them then ... he can always then hit the HS in Final Fire since it is adjacent :-) ... there aren't any range restrictions on First Fire :-) ... only SFF ... after they've focussed their attention on somebody :-) Cheers, David ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 08:49:58 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Re: SFF change needed > >The way I see it, the Defenders already have an incredible advantage in >ASL with ROF, First Fire, SFF, and Final Fire.The SFF rules provide the >Attacker with a method of limiting at least some of that firepower. That's true. I think ROF's of 3 are too high as well. > To my way of thinking, that is as realistic as anything else in the > ASLRB. Just can't agree with that. >I think of it as a Feint: the HS moves forward and assualts the enemy >position. While the enemy is occupied with this obvious threat, youmove >your real assault around his flank. > It's just too unrealistic. Give the defenders more credit than that; the threat they perceive (and thus fire at) is more than a function of range. If the attacker is racing a bunch of assault engineers loaded with DC's toward the Victory Condition bridge, it's bizarre to imagine the defenders to be more concerned with the piddly sapper HS who crawled up adjacent. > Now, you find a way to justify the cheesy Defender tactic of moving > behind an obstacle then advancing back in after Def. Fire. There is > something that really irks me. > That's #2 on the List Of Things To Be Corrected :-) I wouldn't be averse to a kind of residual FP rule. The defender skulks away, the attacker fires at the vacated hex in the DFPh, and if the defender advances back into the hex, he gets hit with RFP. Or declare a special move called a Withdraw (or be honest and call it a Skulk). Defender declares that a unit will Skulk, attacker gets a First Fire shot with the normal TEM of the defender's hex plus 1 or 2 to account for the stealthy nature of the skulk. Kind of a Snap Shot, if you will. In the case of skulking, I think it's clearly an artificial game mechanic that interferes with the realism, and it's therefore OK to create a special rule (the Skulk move) to moderate the use of such a tactic. IMO, SFF incorporates another artificial game mechanic that has a much more damaging effect on the game than does skulking. And the SFF rule needs to be changed. What do you think, sirs? Tom ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 08:52:13 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Cheezy Tactics > What really irks me is the guy whose whole game revolves around using > the half-hexes at the edge of the board! > OK, all board edge half-hexes are Swamp. You guys keep bringin' em up, I keep knockin' em down. Next? Tom ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: Re: (about skulking) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 17:26:08 MET Tom writes: > In the case of skulking, I think it's clearly an artificial game > mechanic that interferes with the realism, and it's therefore OK to > create a special rule (the Skulk move) to moderate the use of such a > tactic. I don t agree with that. If you are in a building or in woods you may well imagine the defender get deeply into the obstacle so as to avoid fire unless the attacker comes to get them. That means that you don t get to be fired at while the attacker is defending (ie your turn) but you do whenever the guys attacking get the initiative. Doesn t look so weird at all, IMO. -Bruno ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 10:58:36 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: cheesy tactics Guys, Tom and others write about cheesy tactics they hate. We have been over this ground before with regard to skulking, and Tom brings up a new (to me) gripe about SFF. First of all, I think most griping about cheesy tactics is way off base. I bet most of it arises when someone gets burned by one. If that happens to me I wonder why I didn't think of that first, rather than claim that the system is broken or unrealistic. I think everyone would be served better by players learning to succeed within the system as it exists rather than try to come up with a more "realistic" variant on a given rule. Nearly all the "cheesy tactics" can be justified in some way, and changing the rules would only break the system or give rise to other "cheesy tactics". Remember that ASL models a simultaneous action in a weakly-nonsimultaneous way. :-) Thus a lot of tactics that look cheesy or gamey at first glance can really be seen as a way to give one player a chance to do something that he would be able to do in a simultaneous situation (the many VCA/TCA change options for a tank during DFF spring to mind as a good example). Tom says "it's bizarre to imagine the defenders to be more concerned with the piddly sapper HS who crawled up adjacent" than a bunch of assault engineers racing toward the victory bridge. Now, if you change the SFF rule to allow them to fire on the engineers, you'll have the whole fog of war faction up in arms. Why should we give the defenders that much credit, Tom? Besides, if they had held their first fire, then they still would be able to hit those assault engineers. So where's the problem? Matt "Skulking. It's the right thing to do, and the right way to do it." ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: Re: SFF change needed Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:50:10 -0500 (EST) > > >I think of it as a Feint: the HS moves forward and assualts the enemy > >position. While the enemy is occupied with this obvious threat, youmove > >your real assault around his flank. > > > > It's just too unrealistic. Give the defenders more credit than that; the > threat they perceive (and thus fire at) is more than a function of > range. If the attacker is racing a bunch of assault engineers loaded > with DC's toward the Victory Condition bridge, it's bizarre to imagine > the defenders to be more concerned with the piddly sapper HS who crawled > up adjacent. This is my argument against not being able to shoot out of a hex if there is an AFV in it with you. In my case it's even wierder because neither of you can or plan to do anything to each other, but that stack of 838's with FTs and DCs sure can do something to you or your buddy! Later, Neal "the other one" Smith ----- From: kinney@comanche.ATMOS.Ucla.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: In Defense of Skulking Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 9:33:40 PST > Now, you find a way to justify the cheesy Defender tactic of moving > behind an obstacle then advancing back in after Def. Fire. There is > something that really irks me. Sure, I'll step up to the plate on that one. The tactic is an artifice of the turn-by-turn game system. It's only because of that artificial mechanic that the attacker even has the option of blasting away "for free" at enemy units. In reality, if you're taking time to fire, that means you're not moving. On a player's own turn, this is well-represented by the familiar "Prep Fire or Move?" decision, but on your opponents turn, there's absolutely no reason not to fire at anything in sight. _That's_ the unrealistic tactic. Skulking at least allows the realism that the defender can slow down the units providing covering fire for the advancing enemy. rk ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 10:38:53 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: cheesy tactics > Tom and others write about cheesy tactics they hate. Well, "hate" is too strong. More like "dislike enough to bring up for discussion when the list is slow." > First of all, I think most griping about cheesy tactics is way off > base. I bet most of it arises when someone gets burned by one. If > that happens to me I wonder why I didn't think of that first, rather > than claim that the system is broken or unrealistic. I think everyone > would be served better by players learning to succeed within the > system as it exists rather than try to come up with a more "realistic" > variant on a given rule. My SFF thing is not whining/griping; believe me, if you ever heard me whine, you'd know the difference. This is more like discussing a minor rules change which might improve things in both the gaming and realism aspects. > Nearly all the "cheesy tactics" can be justified in some way, and > changing the rules would only break the system or give rise to other > "cheesy tactics". > "Nearly all", yes, but hopefully not ALL. I'm holding out for the possibility that one can improve on the ASLRB, or at least make a change that makes certain aspects better while not making other aspects worse. That's why I brought this up. > > Tom says "it's bizarre to imagine the defenders to be more concerned > with the piddly sapper HS who crawled up adjacent" than a bunch of > assault engineers racing toward the victory bridge. Now, if you > change the SFF rule to allow them to fire on the engineers, you'll > have the whole fog of war faction up in arms. You will? Why? I'd say it serves the Fog Of War types better to NOT restrict SFF as it is. > Why should we give the defenders that much credit, Tom? I don't want to argue on the side of realism too heavily; I think it's more realistic to let the defenders SFF at more-distant targets that are more threatening (by virtue of unit size in my original post, but I imagine you could come up with other measures of threat). But like Matt said, you can rationalize anything, so the "threat factor" is not a real strong argument. The better 3/4 of the reason for changing SFF is that the current mechanic is too contrived. Sure, you have to balance game mechanics vs realism and accept the entire game as a hodgepodge of both, but this one sentence in the SFF rules stands out as an area where a small change could result in better realism at no greater cost in playability. > Besides, if they had held their first fire, then they still would be > able to hit those assault engineers. Heh. I could get into the annoying tendency of my own troopers to Jitter Fire even in the daytime, but that's another story. > So where's the problem? See above. It's too unrealistic to base SFF solely on distance to an enemy unit; it leads to tactics that cross the line of realism and don't yield much benefit in playability. One little change in the SFF wording could partially alleviate this. Tom ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 13:10:28 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: whine and cheese > From tqr@inel.gov Tue Dec 20 11:45:42 1994 > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 10:38:53 > From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Re: cheesy tactics > Content-Length: 2992 > > > Tom and others write about cheesy tactics they hate. > > Well, "hate" is too strong. More like "dislike enough to bring up for > discussion when the list is slow." Well, okay. My words were strong in my post to get my point across. > > > First of all, I think most griping about cheesy tactics is way off > > base. I bet most of it arises when someone gets burned by one. If > > that happens to me I wonder why I didn't think of that first, rather > > than claim that the system is broken or unrealistic. I think everyone > > would be served better by players learning to succeed within the > > system as it exists rather than try to come up with a more "realistic" > > variant on a given rule. > > My SFF thing is not whining/griping; believe me, if you ever heard me > whine, you'd know the difference. This is more like discussing a minor > rules change which might improve things in both the gaming and realism > aspects. Okay, I'll buy that. And I wasn't accusing you of whining, Tom. Just suggesting that some of the gripes about rules could trace their origin to a quick gut reaction based on getting burned by them. This wouldn't necessarily be true in all cases. > > > Nearly all the "cheesy tactics" can be justified in some way, and > > changing the rules would only break the system or give rise to other > > "cheesy tactics". > > > > "Nearly all", yes, but hopefully not ALL. I'm holding out for the > possibility that one can improve on the ASLRB, or at least make a change > that makes certain aspects better while not making other aspects worse. > That's why I brought this up. Certainly not all. I only have one off the top of my head that I would change, and that's the voluntary-break-in-order-to-move-forward tactic. > > > > > Tom says "it's bizarre to imagine the defenders to be more concerned > > with the piddly sapper HS who crawled up adjacent" than a bunch of > > assault engineers racing toward the victory bridge. Now, if you > > change the SFF rule to allow them to fire on the engineers, you'll > > have the whole fog of war faction up in arms. > > You will? Why? I'd say it serves the Fog Of War types better to NOT > restrict SFF as it is. > > > Why should we give the defenders that much credit, Tom? > > I don't want to argue on the side of realism too heavily; I think it's > more realistic to let the defenders SFF at more-distant targets that are > more threatening (by virtue of unit size in my original post, but I > imagine you could come up with other measures of threat). But like Matt > said, you can rationalize anything, so the "threat factor" is not a real > strong argument. The better 3/4 of the reason for changing SFF is that > the current mechanic is too contrived. Sure, you have to balance game > mechanics vs realism and accept the entire game as a hodgepodge of both, > but this one sentence in the SFF rules stands out as an area where a > small change could result in better realism at no greater cost in > playability. Okay, you've got a good point that maybe the SFF rule could have been done better. But let's suppose we do it your way. A unit can SFF at any target. Now nearly every existing scenario has its balance thrown out of whack. In essence, attackers will need slightly more numerical superiority in order to overcome this increased ability of defenders. Matt "founder of Whiners' Anonymous" > > > Besides, if they had held their first fire, then they still would be > > able to hit those assault engineers. > > Heh. I could get into the annoying tendency of my own troopers to Jitter > Fire even in the daytime, but that's another story. > > > So where's the problem? > > See above. It's too unrealistic to base SFF solely on distance to an > enemy unit; it leads to tactics that cross the line of realism and don't > yield much benefit in playability. One little change in the SFF wording > could partially alleviate this. > > Tom > > ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 14:26:06 -0500 From: rlyon@pms157.pms.ford.com (Rob Lyon) Guys, I and my opponent just finished the first date of KGP I where the Germans captured all of the Sanatorium (CVP: US 38, German 107; LVP: US 2, German 50) and the US (6 squads, 2 leaders left isolated) did not get the Sherman reinforcements in time to help. Both of us then Idled 19 PM and have started on 19N. I've read previous opinions of the game and am curious, why the bad vibes? The points people have made are *Too many vehicles: I think all those vehicles are cool. It's like pushing around Matchbox cars with drive by shootings. *Americans: You guys are just jealous :) I admit, playing the Americans can be an occasional drag when the best play option is as unglamorous as keeping a low infantry profile while optimizing the use of intangibles like OBA, FB and bombardment. To you guys I say, live fast - buy a Med. Tank platoon and smilingly charge them all at a Pz VI. Play with the German's mind. *Make* it fun - don't think like a German. *Seemingly buggy rules: Rubbling LVP's out of existence? Well, that _could_ have been handled differently, but alternatively the Americans have more CPP to attempt sleaze options (like rubbling buildings to multiply a location's LVP value) than the Germans. So who do you trust? HIP Gun CA: doesn't seem bad to deal with, but all the guns have ever had good shots at in my 19AM are HT's, so maybe it's a play style issue. *Completeness: Half a campaign module for full price (aka comments at ASLOK)? Well, it's this or computer games. Well, what do you guys say? Huh? Brian? What would further playtesting have *changed*? ***Warning: Stupid humor - Perry Cocke seems to think it was cool of McGrath and Pleva to play Hill 621 for a final round. I think it only proves they didn't want to go home (Unhappy marriages? Avoiding IRS agents? How DO those guys afford to keep attending all these ASL conventions...). Fish should have made them play Shadows of Death. That way the winner was sure to earn a place in a Sanatorium (Follow Me - to the funny farm). *** After reading an email which JR titled "ASL Anomaly of the week" I began to consider just how unfairly the battles in ASL depict the intensity of combat throughout WWII. Thus, in the hopes of promulgating realism (and ultimately usurping Lone Geek Publications in market share), I have begun to work on scenarios which truly capture the feel of real combat. These include "Operation Barbarossa: The First Two Minutes" - A one turn scenario in which 25 Panzers and 40 trucks laden with german infantry must drive east across half-board 4 defended by 3 Russian 436's and a 6+1, ignoring resistance if possible. The Russian player gets to move first, but it doesn't help - the German gets 3 Stukas at scenario start! An attention getter at tournaments! "Katyusha Karnage" - 1945, a four turn scenario on board 1, sized for tournaments, wherein three full board bombardments are resolved against 26 German conscript squads, ELR 1, before 2 Russian SMG companies move in to mop up. "I Expect You To Die, Mr. Bond" - OK, so a leetle artistic license never hurt anyone. This is a manhunt for an unknown british heroic paratrooper on Crete at night, alone in the hills, surrounded by 12 Fallschmirger squads who paradropped simultaneously. Can he exit to regroup with his compatriots? "Steppes Are Cool" - Winter 1944, the Russians have turned the tide on the Eastern Front and are advancing as fast as the Germans can retreat. This desert board scenario pits 3 ISU-2's and 14 T34's against 2 recalled Pz IIIH's with disabled MA. See how they run! Absolutely fantastic for tournaments! Plus an introductory night scenario: "Front Line Lycanthropy" - a night scenario on board 4. First SSR - do not use Chapter E. Famous among night rules novice playtesters. This is a baby step so players can just get used to saying "I'm playing a night scenario." My 1994 ASL summary - (Carefully omitting my win-loss record) Spent more on ASL fanzines than on ASL modules. Play more strangers = lose more games Lending an entire ASL game out to a friend is nerve-wracking. Especially if it's George Windau ("Be gentle. It's the Tiger counters' first time."). 8) Decided there's a fortune in fold-out dice towers. If only they weren't so hard to glue together. -Rob, "Merry Christmas and all that jazz." PS. Wouldn't you hate to be the guy at AH answering all those questions you guys keep sending them? Job satisfaction for that guy probably amounts to hate mail from loophole-adoring loonies and oh-so-sophisticated cargo cultists ("Send us a sign! Send us an ASL module!"). Send that guy some balloons or a personalized counter or something 8). ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 15:08:21 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: whine and cheese Hi guys, Tom: [Blah blah blah] >> "Nearly all", yes, but hopefully not ALL. I'm holding out for the >> possibility that one can improve on the ASLRB, or at least make a change >> that makes certain aspects better while not making other aspects worse. >> That's why I brought this up. Matt: >Certainly not all. I only have one off the top of my head that I would >change, and that's the voluntary-break-in-order-to-move-forward tactic. Hey, punk. You can mess with the SFF rules all you want (though that would be stupid, since DF is already too much stronger than Prep Fire, which is silly because you have to give up moving to Prep Fire), but don't even _think_ of messing with sleaze-routs. There's nothing quite as joyous as figuring out a legal way to use a 4-ML broken conscript HS as an offensive weapon. And, unlike most plans in ASL, the dice can't screw it up (assuming no interdiction). Dave Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 15:05:17 -0500 From: raines@sgllinas.chem.cmu.edu (Jim Raines) Subject: Re: Re: SFF change needed David Elder writes: > > > Hi all :-) > > Besides - the squad had the choice of NOT firing at the HS in the first > place and waiting to see if that big platoon of guys waltz's out of the > trees - and blasting them then ... he can always then hit the HS in Final Exactly. Maybe some of us should be a little more patient, eh Mr. Repetti? :-). Jim ****************************************************************************** Jim Raines, (temporary) Research Assistant Biophysics Research Division, University of Michigan jraines@umich.edu ****************************************************************************** Disclaimer: I'm not in graduate school anymore, what do you expect? What do I expect?! ****************************************************************************** ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 13:15:09 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: whine and cheese > > Okay, you've got a good point that maybe the SFF rule could have been done > better. But let's suppose we do it your way. A unit can SFF at any > target. Now nearly every existing scenario has its balance thrown out of > whack. In essence, attackers will need slightly more numerical superiority > in order to overcome this increased ability of defenders. Is this a good time to mention the new product line that Lone Geek Productions is about to unveil? :-) > Matt "founder of Whiners' Anonymous" And an excellent "straight man" Tom