----- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 10:10:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Glenn E. Elliott" Subject: Re: Leader generation On Thu, 31 Mar 1994, Tom Repetti wrote: > OK, off the soapbox and on to a question. Carl and I are going to play that > leader creation thing like it was a CC during the CCPh, and he's got an 8-0 > leader now (hey, did you honestly think he was gonna roll up a 6+1?). > Considering the many loopholes and mangled language in the other parts of > chapters A-D, I'd say that titling A18.12 as "CCPh" instead of "CC" is > pretty minor. Actually, I've since had an ASLV (That's ASL Vision (tm)), and have become firmly convinced that you DO get to roll for a leader. Yea, verily, read on and thou shalt be convinced... Take a look at the gospel of ASL, Chapter D, verse 7.213. "The only differences between resolving CC Reaction Fire and normal CC are that: ..." Take special note that Leader Creation is not listed as a difference. Therefore, it must be resolved during CC Reaction Fire in the same manner in which it would have been resolved during normal CC. > Now. An 8-0 has no leader DRM to add to the 447's Street Fighting attack, > but is it mandatory to add his 1 CCV to the squad or not? Makes a difference > whether the Original 2 DR was enough to create a burning wreck or not. I'd say yes, you must add his 1 CCV to the squad. Glenn Elliott Playtest Coordinator Wizards of the Coast, Inc ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 14:16:56 EDT Subject: PC archives I have a non-ASL related question that I thought some one might be able to help me with. I am looking for archives of PC programs (especially those with stuff dated after 1991). Does anyone know where to look? I have one site: ftp.cso.uiuc.edu: /pc/exec-pc or /pub/pc/exec-pc but almost all of the stuff here is outdated. I also just picked up a "Panzer Blitz" like electronic wargame from: byrd.mu.wunet.edu (or wvnet). Are there any more games like this one out there? Is there a decent ASL simulation for computers? Thanks Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Question about Marines Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 11:38:16 PST I just bought Gung Ho! yesterday, and after a reading of the USMC rules I have a question: do they Battle Harden normally? For instance, does a 668 become a 768 or a Fanatic 668? Thanks, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 11:40:20 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Question about Marines They become Fanatic, since all Marines are elite and normal BH requires increasing your class. Fred > > I just bought Gung Ho! yesterday, and after a reading of the USMC rules I have > a question: do they Battle Harden normally? For instance, does a 668 become > a 768 or a Fanatic 668? > > Thanks, > > -- > > -Doug Gibson > dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu > ----- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 15:56:28 EST From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: Question about Marines >They become Fanatic, since all Marines are elite and normal BH requires >increasing your class. >Fred >>I just bought Gung Ho! yesterday, and after a reading of the USMC rules I have >>a question: do they Battle Harden normally? For instance, does a 668 become >>a 768 or a Fanatic 668? > -Doug Gibson Well, this appears to be as good an excuse as any to inflict something on the masses. I did up a BH/ELR chart in ascii a while ago, as a prequel to doing a .ps illustrated version (which I only got halfway through or less). I sent it to a few people who indicated an interest, and haven't received any corrections, so I figure I might as well force it on the rest of you. No, this is not an April Fool's post; there is no secret code or subliminal message hidden here. Feedback welcome. Matt "not the Whiner's Anonymous one" Brown Note: my comments about the Marines, generally agreeing with Fred's conclusion. ------------- This is a first draft at an ascii version of the BH/ELR chart. I opted for some redundancy in the first version mostly as an aid to error checking. I think some of the more "regular" progressions could be trimmed down (the patterns are pretty obvious). I used the 93a and 93b Q&A updates, as well as the Ch A and G info. I probably missed some quirks here and there, and the Japanese rules were a head-scratcher. The ELR side does not uniformly reflect the fact that while most of the time the resulting unit is broken, that is not always the case (Japanese exceptions, for example). I'll try to work this in (ideas welcomed). There will also need to be some Notes added, such as the "Fanatic is forever" aspect, which means a unit that goes fanatic, and then gets ELRed down to Conscript, is still Fanatic and immune to Disruption. The Marines were also a little muddy. The ASLRB did not just come out and say that these units cannot be interchanged via BH/ELR, but since they are all elite, and CH A says that MMC class must change during BH, they can't. And on the ELR side, the 5 ELR implies the 2 x HS, though it is not explicitly stated. I couldn't come up with better terms than ABOVE and BELOW to describe BH/ELR changes beyond Elite and Conscript/Green. 838_ means an 8-3-8 squad with an underlined morale (i.e., ELR 5 inherent). bdm means "Broken, under Desperation Morale". "Disrupt" implies Broken. Let me know what you see that raises questions. This is more of a learning excerise for me than a reflection of ASL wisdm (but of course, you knew that already), so I expect confusion, mistakes, and all the other things that inspire our love of ASL. Also, any evaluation of the ascii version as a learning/playing aid would be good. Thanks for your help. ASL Battle Hardening/ELR Replacement Chart ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |GERMAN Battle Hardening |GERMAN ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |436 | C | 447 467 468 Fanatic |436 | Disrupt | |447 | 2 | 467 468 Fanatic |447 | 436 Disrupt | |467 | 1 | 468 Fanatic |467 | 447 436 Disrupt | |548 | (E) | Fanatic |548 | 447 426 Disrupt | |468 | [E] | Fanatic |468 | 467 447 426 Disrupt | |838_ | E | Fanatic |838_ | 2 x 338_ | |658_ | SS | Fanatic |658_ | 2 x 348_ | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |236 | C | 237 247 248 Fanatic |236 | Disrupt | |237 | 2 | 247 248 Fanatic |237 | 236 Disrupt | |247 | 1 | 248 Fanatic |247 | 237 236 Disrupt | |238 | (E) | Fanatic |238 | 237 236 Disrupt | |248 | [E] | Fanatic |248 | 247 237 236 Disrupt | |338_ | E | Fanatic |338_ | Disrupt | |348_ | SS | Fanatic |348_ | Disrupt* | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |* EXC: NA vs Russians | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |ITALIAN Battle Hardening |ITALIAN ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |336 | C | 346 447 Fanatic |336 | Disrupt | |346 | 1 | 447 Fanatic |346 | 336 Disrupt | |347 | [1] | 447 Fanatic |347 | 336 Disrupt | |447 | E | Fanatic |447 | 346 336 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |126 | C | 136 247 Fanatic |126 | Disrupt | |136 | 1 | 247 Fanatic |136 | 126 Disrupt | |137 | [1] | 247 Fanatic |137 | 126 Disrupt | |247 | E | Fanatic |247 | 136 126 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |FINNISH Battle Hardening |FINNISH ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |538 | G | 648 Fanatic |538 | Disrupt | |648 | 1 | Fanatic |648 | 538 Disrupt | |838_ | E | Fanatic |838_ | 2 x 338 | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |238 | G | 248 Fanatic |238 | Disrupt | |248 | 1 | Fanatic |248 | 238 Disrupt | |338_ | E | Fanatic |338_ | Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |AXIS MINOR Battle Hardening |AXIS MINOR ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |336 | C | 347 447 Fanatic |336 | Disrupt | |347 | 1 | 447 Fanatic |347 | 336 Disrupt | |447 | E | Fanatic |447 | 347 336 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |126 | C | 137 247 Fanatic |126 | Disrupt | |137 | 1 | 247 Fanatic |137 | 126 Disrupt | |247 | E | Fanatic |247 | 137 126 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |JAPANESE Battle Hardening |JAPANESE ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| | 336 | C | 347 447 448 Fanatic | 336 | bdm126 | |*226 | C |*237 *347 *348 Fanatic |*226 | bdm126 | | 347 | 2 | 447 448 Fanatic | 347 | *226 bdm126 | |*237 | 2 | *347 *348 Fanatic |*237 | 126 bdm126 | | 447 | 1 | 448 Fanatic | 447 | *237 126 bdm126 | |*347 | 1 | *348 Fanatic |*347 | 137 126 bdm126 | | 448 | E | Fanatic | 448 |*347 137 126 bdm126 | |*348 | E | Fanatic |*348 | 237 137 126 bdm126 | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |126 | C | 137 237 247 Fanatic |126 | bdm126 | |137 | 2 | 237 247 Fanatic |137 | 126 bdm126 | |237 | 1 | 247 Fanatic |237 | 137 126 bdm126 | |247 | E | Fanatic |247 | 237 137 126 bdm126 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |* Reduced Strength Squad | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |ALLIED MINOR Battle Hardening |ALLIED MINOR ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |437 | G | 457 458 Fanatic |437 | Disrupt | |457 | 1 | 458 Fanatic |457 | 437 Disrupt | |458 | E | Fanatic |458 | 457 437 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |227 | G | 137 247 Fanatic |227 | Disrupt | |237 | 1 | 247 Fanatic |237 | 227 Disrupt | |248 | E | Fanatic |248 | 237 227 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |RUSSIAN Battle Hardening |RUSSIAN ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |426 | C | 527 628 Fanatic |426 | Disrupt | |527 | 1 | 628 Fanatic |527 | 426 Disrupt | |447 | [1] | 458 Fanatic |447 | 426 Disrupt | |458 | [E] | Fanatic |458 | 447 426 Disrupt | |628 | E | Fanatic |628 | 527 426 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |226 | C | 227 328 Fanatic |226 | Disrupt | |227 | 1 | 328 Fanatic |227 | 226 Disrupt | |237 | [1] | 248 Fanatic |237 | 226 Disrupt | |248 | [E] | Fanatic |248 | 237 226 Disrupt | |328 | E | Fanatic |328 | 227 226 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |AMERICAN ARMY Battle Hardening |AMERICAN ARMY ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |536 | G | 546 666 667 Fanatic | 536 | Disrupt | |546 | 2 | 666 667 Fanatic | 546 | 536 Disrupt | |666 | 1 | 667 Fanatic | 666 | 546 536 Disrupt | |667 | [E] | Fanatic | 667 | 666 546 536 Disrupt | |747_ | E | Fanatic | 747_| 2 x 337_ | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |226 | G | 236 346 347 Fanatic | 226 | Disrupt | |236 | 2 | 346 347 Fanatic | 236 | 226 Disrupt | |346 | 1 | 347 Fanatic | 346 | 236 226 Disrupt | |347 | [E] | Fanatic | 347 | 346 236 226 Disrupt | |337_ | E | Fanatic | 337_| Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |AMERICAN EARLY/PA Battle Hardening |AMERICAN EARLY/PA ELR Replacement| |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |336 | G | 447 Fanatic | 336 | Disrupt | |447 | 2 | Fanatic | 447 | 336 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |126 | G | 237 Fanatic | 226 | Disrupt | |237 | 2 | Fanatic | 236 | 126 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |AMERICAN MARINES Battle Hardening |AMERICAN MARINES ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |458_ | E | Fanatic | 458_| 2 x 248_ | |558_ | E | Fanatic | 558_| 2 x 238_ | |668_ | E | Fanatic | 668_| 2 x 348_ | |768_ | E | Fanatic | 768_| 2 x 348_ | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |248_ | E | Fanatic | 248_| bdm248_ | |237_ | E | Fanatic | 237_| bdm237_ | |347_ | E | Fanatic | 347_| bdm347_ | |348_ | E | Fanatic | 348_| bdm348_ | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |BRITISH Battle Hardening |BRITISH ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |436 | G | 447 457 458 Fanatic | 436 | Disrupt | |447 | 2 | 457 458 Fanatic | 447 | 436 Disrupt | |457 | 1 | 458 Fanatic | 457 | 447 436 Disrupt | |458 | [E] | Fanatic | 458 | 457 447 436 Disrupt | |648_ | E | Fanatic | 648_| 2 x 338_ | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |226 | G | 237 247 248 Fanatic | 226 | Disrupt | |237 | 2 | 247 248 Fanatic | 237 | 226 Disrupt | |247 | 1 | 248 Fanatic | 247 | 237 226 Disrupt | |248 | [E] | Fanatic | 248 | 247 237 226 Disrupt | |338_ | E | Fanatic | 338_| Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |FRENCH Battle Hardening |FRENCH ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |437 | G | 457 458 Fanatic | 437 | Disrupt | |457 | 1 | 458 Fanatic | 457 | 436 Disrupt | |458 | E | Fanatic | 458 | 457 436 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |227 | G | 237 248 Fanatic | 227 | Disrupt | |237 | 1 | 248 Fanatic | 237 | 227 Disrupt | |248 | E | Fanatic | 248 | 237 227 Disrupt | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |CHINESE GMD Battle Hardening |CHINESE GMD ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |336 | G | 337 447* Fanatic | 336 | Disrupt | |337 | 1 | 447* Fanatic | 337 | 336 Disrupt | |447 | E | Fanatic | 447 | 337 336 Disrupt | |537 | [E] | Fanatic | 537 | 337 336 Disrupt | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |126 | G | 127 237* Fanatic | 126 | Disrupt | |127 | 1 | 237* Fanatic | 127 | 126 Disrupt | |237 | E | Fanatic | 237 | 127 126 Disrupt | |227 | [E] | Fanatic | 227 | 127 126 Disrupt | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |* or to 537 or 227 HS if majority squad type (G18.2) | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |CHINESE RED Battle Hardening |CHINESE RED ELR Replacement | |--------------------------------------|---------------------------------| |UNIT |Class| 2nd 1st Elite Above |UNIT | 1st 2nd C/G Below | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |337_ | * | Fanatic | 337_| 2 x 127_ | |-----|-----|--------------------------|-----|---------------------------| |127_ | * | Fanatic | 127_| bdm127_ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 16:37:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Question about Marines In message Fri, 1 Apr 94 11:38:16 PST, Doug Gibson writes: > I just bought Gung Ho! yesterday, and after a reading of the USMC rules I > have a question: do they Battle Harden normally? For instance, does a > 668 become a 768 or a Fanatic 668? They Battle Harden normally within the Marine infra-structure. (458 to 558 to 668 to 768). ----- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 13:50:01 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Question about Marines One comment I have on you chart is that sometimes the underlined units under go normal ELR replacement (i.e. in A Meeting of Patrols, a 658 SS squad that fails its ELR check becomes a 447 squad). You should include this in your chart. Maybe add a line for 658 after 658_. Fred ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 05:35:00 BST Subject: CC SW elimination Hi, I have an interesting question for somebody. One of my brave, but stupid, Japanese squads with a DC entered into CC with a Chinese squad and they mutually annihilated each other. Now, the Chinese squad rolled a '1' with the red die to possibly eliminate the DC as well. Question: Does the subsequent dr for random SW elimination use the black (ie., regular CC column) or the red H-to-H column to determine if the weapon is eliminated or not? My opponent maintains that the red number is used since it was Hand-to-Hand. However, as far as I can tell, the rule states that it uses the black number for the CC column involved. It does not say that it uses the number which was used for the original attack. Thus, I don't think that it makes a difference whether the attack was H-to-H or not, the black number is still used for SW elimination. What does the jury say? Thanks for any help. Warren ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 13:33:00 BST Subject: DO WIDZENIA For those ASL'ers still waiting to make a TC to come to "Winds of War '94" in Winston-Salem next weekend (4/8-10), please be advised that it will be the 6th and final edition, at least in the near term. About mid-May I will be joining the 'Companie Cycliste' (ASL News list of ASL European players) when I take up my new position as controller of AMP, Inc.'s new Polish subsidiary in Poznan. As I will probably not make AVALONCON or Oktoberfest this year, it will be my chance to say farewell to my U.S. comrades in arms. Turnout is expected to be 50+ and a special, new "WOW 94" scenario will be showcased, destined for publication in "DAGGER." So, 'take the chance' (Scenario TT1 Tournoi IDRAC 92 - by Jean-Luc Bechennec) like the men of the Pionier-Regiment 744 and assault Winston-Salem rather than Balta. ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 27 Mar 94 21:29:00 BST Subject: A18,C9,BFI & Incrementalness Tom wrote (msg 5673689 94/03/24) >Okay, I've got a question . . . > I personally think the optional rule suggestion of using the Cloaking >Displays to stack counters on while they are Concealed is a good idea. >The ASLRB seems to think these are exactly the same, but I am concerned >about published scenario play balance. I think the probability that a published scenario is balanced is pretty small as the design process does not give enough plays to verify the suspected balance. You probably are a subscriber to FFE and have seen the McGrath/Chaney balance fixes for the first 40+ Hill Scenarios. Does this mean that the published scenarios are bad? Not in any way, but some scenarios are going to get more play because they seem to offer a more even chance for both sides to win. Since most scenarios, IMHO, are not really balanced to start with I play them for the enjoyment of the game, win or loose, and include, when an opponent agrees, not only the cloaking provisions of A18, but C9, Battle field Integrity and the Incremental IFT. If you don't mind taking a little more time to play a scenario, really just a little extra, then these optional rules make for a very interesting game.... more intensity, sort of like the real thing. Balance may be changed but you get what you want in a game... fun.....win or loose. > For example, say some Streets of Fire scenario gives one side a dozen >Concealment counters. The player can either put eight of them on real >stacks and stack the other four in the hopes of drawing fire, OR he can >use the Cloaking Display, replace eight stacks with Concealed counters, >and now have four counters to draw fire. The use of a Concealment counter to indicate a stack vs. showing the total number of counters under a ? is to model one element of combat.... uncertainty or the fog of war. > Is there a rule out there that helps balance this? Does DYO even broach >the subject? Or does everyone just take advantage of what seems to me to >be a loophole? I don't think it would be possible to balance a scenario when one uses the provisions of A18, C9 or Battlefield Integrity (you will note that I did not put the Incremental IFT in the same category as the three since the Incremental table IMHO doesn't change balance) as A18, in particular, would result in so many variations of play/setup that it would be impossible to balance. I think the key reason for using these variations is to increase the enjoyment of play by increasing the similarity of the problems faced by real combatants. If win/loss concerns are more important than the hightened intensity, due to uncertainty, during play then one will want to play without these rules. It probably comes down to what you want from the game..... both ways are playable and enjoyable. (But always use the Incremental IFT ;-) ) +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Incoming fire has the right : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : of way. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Murphy's Military Laws : : P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 10:40:51 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: board frequency Matt- In one of the issues of FFE there is an even more complete list of board usage. It has board 4, for example, being used in over 40 scenarios. If I come across the issue, I'll transcribe it and send it. Subscribe to FFE, it's a great little mag! -Grant. ... $$ doesn't buy happiness, if you don't know where to shop -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 09:48:28 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: CC SW elimination Warren: It seems pretty clear from the quote you included: SW elimination by Black numbers rather than Red. There is nothing to contradict this in J2.31. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock > > I have an interesting question for somebody. > > One of my brave, but stupid, Japanese squads with a DC entered into CC with > a Chinese squad and they mutually annihilated each other. Now, the Chinese > squad rolled a '1' with the red die to possibly eliminate the DC as well. > > Question: Does the subsequent dr for random SW elimination use the black > (ie., regular CC column) or the red H-to-H column to determine if the weapon > is eliminated or not? My opponent maintains that the red number is used > since it was Hand-to-Hand. However, as far as I can tell, the rule states > that it uses the black number for the CC column involved. It does not say > that it uses the number which was used for the original attack. Thus, I > don't think that it makes a difference whether the attack was H-to-H or not, > the black number is still used for SW elimination. > > What does the jury say? > > Thanks for any help. > > Warren > ----- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 13:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Brian Williams (REL)" Subject: Newbie question about pbm Hello all, I have played SL about 10 years ago; I waited with great excitment when ASL came out. However, after I purchased ASL, I was unable to continue being a dedicated wargamer. I went so far as to sell my copy of ASL and BV (the only module availible at that time). In the past year I have returned to college and regret having sold those games. The problem I'm having now is that I want to return to ASL, but only have limited time. I see people talking about PBEM but have not found a FAQ for it. My question: is PBM and PBEM satisfying. I have not re-purchased ASL etc. because I do not find solitaire play satisfying. If someone could send me or tell me where I could ftp a FAQ about PBEM I would appreciate it. Also, I am unfamiliar with the Tampa area, is there anyone out there that I could contact about FTF play? Thanks for all help. ------------------------------------|| I am not tall enough to become the || Brian M Williams, Struggling function well, nor lean enough to be|| Student in search of a niche. thought a good studient.-12th Night-|| ----- Subject: LOST AT WINTER O? From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 11:50:00 -0640 Howdy, Did anyone find a set of Italian Ordnance during Winter Offensive? They would have been in a sandwich-sized ziplock bag. My Italian troops have announced that without their Artillery, they will sit out the rest of the war :-) So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Sun, 03 Apr 1994 09:05:45 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: FFE JSj> Grant, JSj> What is the address for FFE and how much does it cost? FFE is currently in the process of merging with ASLUG, so prices are up in the air at the moment. However, for info you can contact: Rob Wolkey E6208 6th #D1 Spokane WA 99212 or on GEnie @ R.WOLKEY or r.wolkey@genie.geis.com Drop him a line for the latest info on price. I heartily recommend FFE (and tell Rob I sent ya!) -Grant. ... A low yield atomic bomb is like being a bit pregnant. -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Mixed Q's Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 14:50:53 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, attended GothCon (Swedish RPG/Wargaming convention) during the weekend and had a great time. It was (of course!) ASL all the way, from my arrival at 9 friday morning to 16:50 on sunday afternoon (had to catch a train at 17:10, so we were a little short on time in the last game). The competition was great, actually the first tournament I have played in with mostly competent play. Of the games I played, only one was a serious drag because of incompetent play by my opponent. I don't want to blame him for that, of course, but it does make a tournament game less enjoyable for me. Too bad I didn't get to play one of the really funny scenarios I brought. I did get to play two of the five, "Ambush!" and "The end of the Ninth". Noone wanted to play the rest :-) Not so strange perhaps? I don't know, but I actually LIKE scenarios like "Grab at Gribovo", "Racchi ridge" and "Shoestring ridge" with lots of funny rules... (BTW, "Grab at Gribovo" must be one of the worst rules-nightmares one could think of, perhaps with the exception of Blood&Sand. For those of you that don't have the scenario, it's a russian para drop in the middle of the night during extreme winter conditions.) Anyway, during the tournament several questions came up - they always do. I couldn't decide what was right during the tournament, so I thought I'd ask for opinions: Q: The rule for withdrawal is titled "Withdrawal from MEELEE" does this mean that it is impossible to withdraw during the first CCPh, since you are not yet in meelee? Q: In the scenario "Gavin Take", do the americans win IMMEDIATELY when they fulfill the VC's, or at GAME END? Q: In the wording of the hex control rule, what is the word "presently" supposed to convey? (The rule says that a vehicle control only the hex it _presently_ occupies.) How does this differ from MMC control? Can a MMC gain control of a hex w/o entering it? (Remember the discussion about building control folks??) That's all for the moment. I won't try to write any kind of after-action report since I expect that Nils-Gunnar will take care of that (he was keeping the tournament). To Nils-Gunnar (and Bernt, in case I accidentally left something at your place): My snail-mail address is: Patrik Manlig Sernanders va"g 1:420 752 61 UPPSALA -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Ed Carter Subject: H-to-H ? Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 9:03:27 CDT Guys, J2.31 states that all units must stack together during H-to-H combat. From this I assume that all units must be attacked together as one group. Is my interpretation correct? Thanks, Ed Carter ----- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 10:54:28 CDT From: "Black, Stephen Thomas" Subject: WP rules I am playing scenario 21 and get some M4A1's with WP capability. As I read the WP rules WP is merely a special kind of smoke that can cause a NMC due to inhalation. Is this correct? Or does WP also have HE equivelency on the IFT? My reading of WWII sources indicates that WP was much feared by troops, not for the smoke capability but because of the nasty wounds it inflicted. thanks, Stephen Black Psychology Department Millsaps College Blackst@okra.millsaps.edu Jackson, MS 39210 601-974-1381 ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:01:02 -0700 Subject: Japanese Field Promotion Hi, guys. Am I correct in assuming that Japanese are not eligible for Field Promotion? Although it does not specifically state this in the (sacred) ASLRB, it would be impossible to derive the correct Japanese leader from the chart as it now exists. Anyway, if they ARE eligible, we (my FTF opponents and I) have been playing it wrong. Dade ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:05:31 -0700 Subject: Chinese Dare-Death Hi, again. I thought of another one: In the Chapter G notes, it states that US-led Chinese forces did not use Dare-Death squads. However, I can't find anything in the rules that prohibits the use of such with same. Am I missing something? Dade ----- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 16:46:08 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: Chinese Dare-Death Dade asks: >In the Chapter G notes, it states that US-led Chinese forces did not use >Dare-Death squads. However, I can't find anything in the rules that prohibits >the use of such with same. Am I missing something? G18.6 says that 537s cannot be Gan su dui. G18.8 says 537 can only be used (purchased) in Burma scenarios. Note 47 says "not used in US-trained units" and Note 48 says "537s represent the US-trained units." So, as usual: 1) It's in there. 2) Much is left as an excerise for the reaader. Matt Brown ----- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:42:51 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: Blind hexes >Notice that the height of each level is not important. It isn't?? You're making the assumption that "one level" up = "one hex" out, i.e., one level of elevation = 40 meters. If you can find me a single story house that's 40 meters tall, I'll accept your argument... 8-) Aloha, Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa ----- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:49:09 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: WP rules >I am playing scenario 21 and get some M4A1's with WP capability. As I read the >WP rules WP is merely a special kind of smoke that can cause a NMC due to >inhalation. Is this correct? Or does WP also have HE equivelency on the IFT? > Both WP and Smoke are covered by all rules that refer to SMOKE (in all capitals). The major differences between WP and Smoke include: different Hindrance modifier (+2 for full-strength WP vis-a-vis +3 for Smoke), ordnance can fire WP at the start of any friendly fire phase (Smoke only in PFPh/DFPh), WP is a four-level Hindrance (Smoke is two-level), WP can cause fires, and WP causes all units to suffer a WP NMC when it is placed in their Location. There are some other minor differences, but WP does not have an HE equivalency. Aloha, Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa ----- Subject: Blind hexes From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 17:48:00 -0640 Howdy, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: >Has anyone noticed that in reality the number of blind hexes >created by obstacles is much larger that in ASL. For >instance if you are on level two, looking past a >one-and-a-half level building four hexes away, in ASL this >creates one blind hex. In reality your line of sight goes >down one level for every eight hexes, which means that your >los needs 8 times one-and-a-half = 12 hexes to reach ground >level, that means 11 blind hexes! A formula for the number >of blind hexes created by a obstacle could be: OD / (FL - >OH) * OH - 1 where OD is the distance to the obstacle, FL >is the firer's level and OH is the obstacle height. This >formula would be much more correct, but would of course >make Red Barricades unplayable. You are assuming that a lot of the names for things in ASL are mathematically correct. First, is a "half-level" obstacle exactly half the height of a full-level obstacle? How many stone walls are half the height of a building? Second, are "levels" exactly the same (e.g. is the distance from level 0 to level 1 the same as from level 1 to level 2)? I can imagine, especially in cities, using a non-linear scale. Third, is it even true that objects that have the same level the same height? Cottages are one level obstacles, as are woods, but most woods I know tower over most cottages. You are correct that if the names correspond to linear measurements then the formulas are incorrect, but I suspect there's a whole lot of abstracting going on. BTW, I suspect there is an inconsistency somewhere in the formulas such that you can show that no matter what is represented, as long as it is consistent, the formulas are wrong, but I have never sat down long enough to figure it out. For more abstrationist fun, look at any of the village maps, count how many hexes have only one building in them, and think about how many real villages have buildings 40 m (120 feet) apart. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: Re: Blind hexes Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 18:53:44 -0400 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Regarding Ole Boe's comments on blind hexes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Has anyone noticed that in reality the number of blind hexes created by obstacles is much larger that in ASL. For instance if you are on level two, looking past a one-and-a-half level building four hexes away, in ASL this creates one blind hex. In reality your line of sight goes down one level for every eight hexes, which means that your los needs 8 times one-and-a-half = 12 hexes to reach ground level, that means 11 blind hexes! A formula for the number of blind hexes created by a obstacle could be: OD / (FL - OH) * OH - 1 where OD is the distance to the obstacle, FL is the firer's level and OH is the obstacle height. This formula would be much more correct, but would of course make Red Barricades unplayable. ---------------------- nice diagram deleted ----------------------------------- Richard Berg's Great Battles of the ACW series used (originally, anyway) a simple mathematical formula based on the geometrical properties of similar triangles to gauge unit LOS capabilities/restrictions. This is apparently the method used by Mr Boe in his example. The formula can be stated a bit less ambiguously as: (height of obstacle) * (distance to obstacle) # blind hexes = --------------------------------------------- - 1 (height of firer - height of obstacle) The 1 is substracted since the formula actually calculates the distance to the closest hex which could be observed (hence n - 1 hexes are unobservable). It's accurate and not too unwieldy in GBACW where it usually only comes into play when one is deciding where to place one's artillery batteries. In even a medium size ASL scenario featuring an ordinary mix of terrain and buildings, it would, as pointed out above, quickly become tedious to the point of unplayability. Note that you must be careful not to compare apples and oranges (mortars and hand grenades?) -- both heights and horizontal distances must be expressed in the same units. A hex represents 40 meters horizontally, of course, but does the ASLRB state anywhere what a vertical level represents in meters? I'm not sure (anyone know?), but if you make a commonsense estimate that 1 level = approx. 4 meters, or 0.10 hex diameter (which would be a reasonable estimate for each level of a building), you get, as does Mr Boe: ( 0.15 ) * ( 4 ) # blind hexes = ----------------- - 1 = 12 - 1 = 11 ( 0.20 - 0.15 ) If you prefer calculating in meters, change the -1 term in the formula to -40 and divide the final result by 40 to convert back to hexes (round up if you'd consider partially blocked hexes to be visible, down otherwise). Of course, this assumes that LOS is calculated from the base level of the firer's location when it might be more accurate to assume that the actual height of the firer is a meter or two higher (to account for the height of a crouching or standing man). This reduces the # of blind hexes produced by "nearby" obstacles significantly. In the above example, adding 1 or 2 meters to the firer's height reduces the # of blind hexes to 7 or 5, respec- tively. So what does all this analysis imply? For one thing, if you want to show the tactical effects of terrain/building height variations on a reasonably compact map-board, ASL's "unrealistic" LOS algorithm's beat "reality" in more ways than one!!! -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 17:04:58 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Blind Hexes Plus, you have to figure in that the average American soldier was 0.2 meters taller than the average European soldier (actually 0.3 meters taller than your basic southern (not Northern, please) Italian). Plus, Americans use FEET and INCHES, not METERS, so none of this applies in scenarios where the Scenario Defender is >60% American (or American-trained, if you're counting Chinese Dare-Death squads). I can see the scene in a quonset hut somewhere in deepest China. An American training sergeant is in front of a class of his Chinese subordinates: "Now gentlemen, use of this Dare Death thing is STRICTLY PROHIBITED in this here Yewnited States Army. You got that? NONE of you is to kill yourself in any unauthorized heroic action without EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION by me or my American superiors!" It's all abstract, dudes. Doesn't make sense, even if AH says so. Tom ----- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 19:35:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Japanese Field Promotion In message Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:01:02 -0700, dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) writes: > Am I correct in assuming that Japanese are not eligible for Field > Promotion? Correct. See last sentence of G1.62 (Actually second to last sentence.) ----- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 20:00:45 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: Re: H-to-H I had the same question about H-to-H when the Japanese module just came out. I forgot who answered it in GEnie as I remember only the answer, which says that in a H-to-H combat, it is not required for each side to attack the other in one single combat. The CCs can still be done like those regular ones except that a different table is used. ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Blind hexes Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 17:45:01 PDT Bob Strzelinski writes: > Note that you must be careful not to compare apples and > oranges (mortars and hand grenades?) -- both heights and horizontal distances > must be expressed in the same units. That's not actually true. So long as all the heights are expressed in the same units, it doesn't matter if the horizontal distance unit is different. (Do the math: if you multiply all the heights in meters by 100 to represent them in centimeters, you'll get the same answer.) -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: m.rodgers@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 03:20:00 BST Subject: Montreal tournament ATTENTION PLAYERS OF ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER! The Advanced Squad Leader Quebec Association presents THE SECOND ANNUAL MONTREAL ASL D-DAY TOURNAMENT This tournament will be in the "MILLES ILES 1 and 2" rooms at the Olympic Stadium on May 28, 1994 from 09:00 to 23:00 and on May 29, 1994 from 09:00 to 17:00. If desired, players may take part on only one day. The tournament will consist of three or four rounds of ASL. Each round will have three scenarios from which to choose. There are no fees to take part in this tournament. The three top players will receive certificates of achievement. For more information on our group, or the tournament call Michael at (514) 620-5757 or Jean-Pierre at (514) 631-9396 between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., Monday to Friday. Register at the door or preregister by filling out the attached registration form and mailing it to: Jean-Pierre Raymond, 1560 Birchview Place, Dorval, Quebec, H9P 1Y1. Pre-registrants will receive, when it is available, an information package that will include the list of scenarios for each round of the tournament, the tournament rules and a map. ----- Subject: Stuff... From: sinkhole!tlvx!killrave@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Killraven) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 17:36:08 EDT Hi guys! Guess I'm gonna have to design a special scenario that has at least 20 boards, all of which are multiple copies of boards TWO and FOUR! hahahahahahhahahaha......(fiendish laughter) Quick question: is there a separate list for the Digest, or am I just goofy? Haven't seen one in a while.... See ya at WOW.... Take care, Shelly ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:44:13 +0000 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: The record ? When will a new asl record get posted ? /Robert Maglica ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:50:05 +0000 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: KGP II contents Hi, I just spoke with a friend of mine who said that he had seen a retailer ad for KGP II in a magazine. The contents of the module was listed as 3 maps and a countersheet (!). Does anybody out there know if the module really contains any counters ? /Robert Maglica ----- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 10:45:24 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: re: CASL After Action Report I apologize to all for the waste of bandwidth on my After Action Report. Apparently the BBS that I use to get Inet access saw fit to uuencode that last post automatically. I don't know what's going on, but I'll try to correct it before sending anything else! -Grant. ... A deluge of words and drop of sense. -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- From: Jens Hoppe (ogm - 8/94) Subject: ASL FTP site? Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 15:10:02 METDST Hi all! Is there somewhere an FTP site where one can get hold of non-official scenarios and other non-TAHGC stuff? If so, what is the IP adress of the place? Thanks, proj15@imsor.dth.dk Jens "Hopsie" Hoppe ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 15:38:48 +0200 Subject: Re: ASL FTP site? There is a FTP site at ftp.lysator.liu.se in directory pub/asl /Mats P ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Mixed Q's Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:03:34 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > Regarding one of Patrik Manlig's questions: > > > Q: In the wording of the hex control rule, what is the word > > "presently" supposed to convey? (The rule says that a vehicle > > control only the hex it _presently_ occupies.) How does this > > differ from MMC control? Can a MMC gain control of a hex w/o > > entering it? (Remember the discussion about building control > > folks??) > > My interpretation of this is that having a MMC pass through a hex gives > control of the hex to the owning player even after the MMC has left the > hex (until such time as an opponent manages to gain control of it - by > whatever nerfarious unspecified means) but a vehicle only gives control > of a hex while actually occupying it. That is, once the vehicle leaves > a hex, control of the hex reverts to whoever controlled it previous to > the vehicle's entrance. I used to interpret it like that as well, but when I read the last sentence of said rule, I got uncertain. The last sentence states that control is retained until the time the opposing player can claim control. This is fairly clear, IMHO, and if you are in a hex you can claim control of it even with a vehicle - and per the last sentence you retain that control when you leave the hex? -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: Mixed Q's Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:12:02 +0200 (MET DST) > > Regarding one of Patrik Manlig's questions: > > > > > Q: In the wording of the hex control rule, what is the word > > > "presently" supposed to convey? (The rule says that a vehicle > > > control only the hex it _presently_ occupies.) How does this > > > differ from MMC control? Can a MMC gain control of a hex w/o > > > entering it? (Remember the discussion about building control > > > folks??) > > > > My interpretation of this is that having a MMC pass through a hex gives > > control of the hex to the owning player even after the MMC has left the > > hex (until such time as an opponent manages to gain control of it - by > > whatever nerfarious unspecified means) but a vehicle only gives control > > of a hex while actually occupying it. > That is, once the vehicle leaves a hex, control of the hex reverts to whoever controlled it previous to the vehicle's entrance. I would say none of the players are controlling the hex once the wehicle has leaved -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 08:15:54 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: FAQ on a business trip. I'm going out of town until at least the 12th of April. I've been sending FAQs out to all who looked like they needed it. Anybody want to volunteer to do it for a week or so? Thanks, Don Hancock ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 23:31:45 EDT Subject: Re: ASL FTP site? >There is a FTP site at ftp.lysator.liu.se in directory pub/asl There is also a FTP site at carlo.phys.uva.nl: /pub/bas/asl Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Subject: Re: Blind hexes Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 11:32:02 -0400 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Doug Gibson observes, correctly: >> Note that you must be careful not to compare apples and >> oranges (mortars and hand grenades?) -- both heights and horizontal distances >> must be expressed in the same units. > That's not actually true. So long as all the heights are expressed in the > same units, it doesn't matter if the horizontal distance unit is different. > (Do the math: if you multiply all the heights in meters by 100 to represent > them in centimeters, you'll get the same answer.) A little simplification of the formula and some simple dimensional analysis shows this: (height of obstacle) * (distance to obstacle) # blind hexes = --------------------------------------------- - 1 (height of firer - height of obstacle) (height of obstacle) = -------------------- * (distance to obstacle) - 1 (height difference) So the height information is contained entirely within a dimensionless ratio (cm/cm or levels/levels or m/m, whatever) and the formula works fine with apples and oranges (height levels and hexes). Sorry for the confusion, it was late in the afternoon... -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 08:37:38 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Ft. Irwin, Barstow, Victorville :-) Any ASLers in Ft Irwin, Barstow, or Victorville? I'll be at ODC II (Operation Desert Capture II) for the next week. -- Real army wargames :-) If you are available to play, I'll be staying at the Holiday Inn in Victorville. Ask for Don Hancock. Thanks, Don ----- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 11:03:38 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: More Mixed Qs Now that I've been learning ASL solitaire for a month, I've got some weird design/system ??s. ##??s: 1) US 6-6-6s. I understand that ASL infantry range & FP values are derived from both weaponry and the willingness of the men to stand up and shoot straight. I also understand that the relatively low morale/ high rally values of US squads are intended to represent our traditional "skedaddle if that looks like the best bet, but not too far" military heritage (I've gamed the ACW for years, after all). But what do the high FP & range values indicate? The BAR? Or what? 2) German MGs. Why the off-column (barring IIFT) FP values? The system seems to be saying "German MGs were better-designed than most but not enough to make a difference unless they were grouped together." Is my impression correct? Mr. Language Person ??s (OK, OK, I'm an English teacher.): 1) Does the phrase Subsequent First Fire strike anyone else as an awkward oxymoron? So SFF is the first fire that isn't first? (I get the concept. The phrase bugs me, though.) 2) And, of course, Final Fire isn't really the last fire a unit can do, is it? That would be Final Protective Fire, or "Double Secret Final Fire," as it's sometimes known, which itself, so far from being Final, theoretically can go indefinitely. Until it's over. Misc. ??: Is the Digest Scenario "Shootout at Singling" the same as the "Last Act in Lorraine" scenario that appeared in The General some years back? If not, what is their relationship? Do units themselves ever block same-level LOS? I was playing _Commissar's House_ solitaire, when a Ger. 8-3-8 wanted to shoot a FT with a friendly broken unit between it and the target. The rules (my late-night reading of them, that is) seemed to suggest they could do it. Intuitively it seemed pretty toasty for the broken unit, though. Thanks, Rusty witek@suvax1.stetson.edu ----- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 09:20:45 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited OK, I'm going to try this again. Seems the last attempt had a high-ascii character in it somewhere that made our internet router automatically encode it (with what, I don't know- uuencode laughed at me, too). ......................................................................... The second meeting of our local Calgary group was a success. We increased in numbers from 5 to 8, so 4 games were played this session. Crocodile Rock from In Contact was was played between GEnie newbie Garth Boucher and John Burns. The amount of noise coming from this game was indicitive of the fun involved when one side has three Crocodiles! However, Garth managed to keep one squad HIP in the victory area, denying John a win. Curiously, John didn't deploy any of his squads to help search more territory, so Garth may have got off the hook a little easily. On the other hand, while Garth was frantically searching the tome for some sort of TEM or hindrance to save himself from those FT attacks, I doubt he would agree that he had an easy time of it. Game 2 pitted another GEnieite, Peter Salekin, against local shark Randy Richards in Gureyev's HQ. Peter offered to take either side, but Randy insisted on the by-the-book method of each secretly choosong a side. The upshot of this odd attitude was that they both picked the Germans, Peter won the dr, so Randy got the Russians with Balance. This is a very tough game for the Germans when the Russians have the balance as the buildings become fortified and the Germans have no DC or FT. Peter's always amazing dice made it interesting, but Randy prevailed. Apparently Randy was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made for an uncomfortable game. I don't want to kick anyone out of the club, but I don't think this type of behaviour is neccessary for a friendly game. Anyone with any ideas about how to deal with this sort of player? Please, don't suggest whipping his butt on the gameboard as he's a really good player on top of the intmidation tactics, so that's not an option for this poor 8-0! Game three had fellow INetter Darren Gour playing Ron Richard's in Hill 235.5. This looks like a good scenario with a bit of everything. Both sides have OBA, both sides have FB, both sides have armour and infantry. Unfortunately, it looked to be a little long for our 7 hour session, particularly with the many rules lookups that happen when you add in seldom used rules (FB), and when two players with very different styles of play are playing each other for the first time ("Can he do that?"). One queston that came up during this game was how do you tell which German and Russian OBA mods get SMOKE FFEs. Any help would be appreciated. As the 8th man to arrive was fairly late, it looked like I might not get a game in myself. Luckily he did arrive, but was pressed for time. We had a little over 3 hours available, so decided to take a shot at Le Manoir. My GIs attacked his hidden MG nests. Tom Hill's set up was very clever. He set up as wide and almost as far back as possible. This made any sort of an end run around one side or the other pretty difficult, so I had to move head on. One of my 60mm mtrs malfed on it's first shot, and was gone on the subsequent 6dr repair attempt. But the other one put on an ROF display rarely seen. In 3 turns I must have showered one of his HMG/248 nest with over 30 shots! Unfortunately, that HS was in line for an iron cross. I couldn't break it, even with a CH! But that and my absolute inability to generate any smoke to cover may advance were my only problems. The iron cross winners did finally succumb to some FG lead that I managed to get close enough, and I had him down to one HS left with 3.5 turns left. He concede and I got my first CASL win. All in all, a pretty successful day of ASL. Next meeting isn't for three weeks, but I think I'll introduce some Dan Dolan and Brent Pollock scenarios and see if I can't get some playtest reports for these guys. -Grant. ... 43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wrong, will. -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 11:16:39 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: AFV Riders: Cheesy tactics Hello all, I was recently rereading the rules for transporting personnel on AFV's and came across an interesting rule interpretation. I noticed that the AFV can save itself a lot of hassle in unloading personnel by changing its TCA and forcing a Bail Out rather than expending the MP to Unload. I suppose this tactic would be useful only if the Infantry had sufficiently high morale to risk the required NMC. My question is really on the legality of this trick. I can find nothing saying this is illegal, but it seems very cheesy. Almost against the spirit of the rules. Have I missed something? Bryan P.S. No, Grant, I'm not going to try this. :-) It's too easy to eliminate the SW. ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 09:46:23 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: FAQ's Back John Appel has graciously offered to bombard anybody who asks a question that's answered in the FAQ. His email address is jappel@access.digex.net for those who want/need/desire/can't live without a FAQ. So, until I return, roll low (except the spud-meister :-) Don Hancock ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:58:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: More Mixed Qs In message Tue, 05 Apr 1994 11:03:38 -0500 (EST), WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu writes: > 1) US 6-6-6s. > But what do the > high FP & range values indicate? The BAR? Or what? Yes, the inherent BAR that is with each squad. Note that there is no American LMG (at least not with Yanks). Apparently since the BAR was more prevelent than the German LMG (MG34 and MG 42) and the German LMGs were more powerful (higher rate of fire and usually belt fed though they could be drum fed) the German LMG was opted as a seperate counter while the BAR was factored into the US squad. Oh, and the US squad was a 12 man squad, the German a ten man squad if I remember correctly. > Is the Digest Scenario "Shootout at Singling" the same as the "Last > Act in Lorraine" scenario that appeared in The General some years > back? If not, what is their relationship? They are based on the same battle. SaS was designed by Guy Chaney for Atlanticon a few years back. I think Guy was trying for something like LAiL but on a smaller, more managable tournament scale. Note that the rest of Guy's scenarios appeared in an Annual but SaS didn't. Basically so as not o overload one particular conflict. SaS did make it on card stock as a scenario in ASLUG. > Do units themselves ever block same-level LOS? I was playing _Commissar's > House_ solitaire, when a Ger. 8-3-8 wanted to shoot a FT with a friendly > broken unit between it and the target. The rules (my late-night reading > of them, that is) seemed to suggest they could do it. Intuitively it > seemed pretty toasty for the broken unit, though. Units never block LOS, though vehicles can hinder LOS. I suppose the rational is that a 40 meter hex is pretty big and you can find some line of fire through the troops in front of you. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 13:05:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited In message Tue, 05 Apr 1994 09:20:45 -0700 (MST), N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) writes: > Game 2 pitted another GEnieite, Peter Salekin, against local shark Randy > Richards in Gureyev's HQ. Peter offered to take either side, but Randy > insisted on the by-the-book method of each secretly choosong a side. I don't believe that it is required "by-the-book" to secretly pick a side. I think that you can choose a side by whatever method both players agree upon. > Apparently Randy > was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand > off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made > for an uncomfortable game. Also, I don't believe this is in the rules. It sounds more like a chess rule than an ASL rule. If I remember correctly, a unit's move is over when the move is declared over rather than when the hand is taken off. > I don't want to kick anyone out of the club, > but I don't think this type of behaviour is neccessary for a friendly > game. Anyone with any ideas about how to deal with this sort of player? The easiest way is to let nature take it's course. After a while no one will want to play him. It can be rough at first but in the end he will probably get the message. *-=Carl=-* ----- Subject: So what's the deal? Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 20:03:12 +0200 From: Asad Rustum Hi! I was looking through the Q&A's yesterday and found two contradicting answers. Do any of you know what the correct answer is? ---------------------- From Q&A: ------------------- A12.12 When one side begins with all forces offboard, the opponent may conceal all his onboard units. In this situation, may he place a "?" on an already-concealed unit (including a Dummy stack)? A. No. {90} A12.12 If a player's OB contains a number of "?", may he place >= one of them beneath a Personnel/vehicle unit during his setup? A. No. {93b} ---------------------------------------------------- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- Subject: Ladder game Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 20:04:32 +0200 From: Asad Rustum Yo! Anyone want to take up a game against me? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- Subject: Re: More Mixed Qs Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 14:52:47 -0400 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Some interesting questions from Rusty Witek: > 1) US 6-6-6s. I understand that ASL infantry range & FP values are > derived from both weaponry and the willingness of the men to stand up > and shoot straight. I also understand that the relatively low morale/ > high rally values of US squads are intended to represent our traditional > "skedaddle if that looks like the best bet, but not too far" military > heritage (I've gamed the ACW for years, after all). But what do the > high FP & range values indicate? The BAR? Or what? I too have pondered the mysteries of unit FP-range-morale ratings in ASL. Actually, there has been an excellent series of articles about the various nationalities represented in ASL appearing over the last few years in the ASL Annual ("Eight Million Bayonets" - Italians, "Man and Superman" - Russians, etc) addressing many of these questions. Anyway, I believe the relatively high FP and range factors for US squads stems from the fact that the US squad had a 12 man roster, a (at least one) BAR, and the fact that each rifleman was armed with the excellent M1 Garrand rifle which was far superior, with respect to rate-of-fire, to the standard bolt-action rifles used by German, Italian, Japanese?, and British riflemen - and fairly accurate, I believe, at long range. I don't know if it's significant, but I would bet that a higher percentage of American troops had pre-service experience with fire- arms (hunting rifles) than the troops of other nationalities, perhaps enough to justify a slightly better range rating. > 2) German MGs. Why the off-column (barring IIFT) FP values? The > system seems to be saying "German MGs were better-designed than most > but not enough to make a difference unless they were grouped together." > Is my impression correct? To paraphrase and summarize some things I have read -- "the standard German infantry squad was not _organized_ around the MG34, it _WAS_ the MG34". It provided virtually _all_ of the firepower of the German squad. So the 4-6-7 rating of the 1st line German squads was probably derived figuring 3 FP from the inherent LMG and 1 FP from those crummy bolt-action rifles. As to why the LMG itself, rated 3-8, is no better (except for range differences) than the Bren LMG or the various shoddy LMGs fielded by other countries - this remains a mystery to me. There's a neat ordnance museum at West Point which had, when I visited it a couple years ago, an exhibit of automatic weapons. I was amazed at the superiority of the MG34 and MG42 to other similar weapons of there day (and after!). The rate-of-fire for these weapons was on the order of 1200 rpm while that for most other contemporary LMGs was in the 600 - 800 rpm range (I think the Bren was about 600 rpm, the BAR was slightly better at about 800 rpm - but was hampered by a small clip). John Hill wrote about the development of the German LMG and its influence on small-unit tactics in an excellent article in The General, reprinted in the ASL Annual a couple years ago. Given all this, it seems a damn shame to hang the IFT around this fine weapon's neck (and is one of the main reasons I always use the IIFT) such that it is no more effective than its contemporaries except in rare circumstances ("ganged" together, or point-blank use). Not only were they better enough to "make a difference", they were one of the funda- mental reasons that (even severely understrength) German squads were so combat effective. > Mr. Language Person ??s (OK, OK, I'm an English teacher.): Hey, English is a funny language. And the ASLRB is even funnier... ;-) -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 1994 15:44:13 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited >> Apparently Randy >> was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand >> off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made >> for an uncomfortable game. > >Also, I don't believe this is in the rules. It sounds more like a chess >rule than an ASL rule. If I remember correctly, a unit's move is over when >the move is declared over rather than when the hand is taken off. I think it can not be in the rules. Otherwise, how could one take a Morale Check during DFF? Would one have to leave their fingers on the unit while they rolled with the other hand? Patently ludicrous. I suggest that the move is finished when one runs out of movement points, or declares and end. ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 15:35:48 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited > >> Apparently Randy > >> was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand > >> off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made > >> for an uncomfortable game. > > > >Also, I don't believe this is in the rules. It sounds more like a chess > >rule than an ASL rule. If I remember correctly, a unit's move is over when > >the move is declared over rather than when the hand is taken off. > > I think it can not be in the rules. Otherwise, how could one take a Morale > Check during DFF? Would one have to leave their fingers on the unit while they > rolled with the other hand? Patently ludicrous. I suggest that the move is > finished when one runs out of movement points, or declares and end. > Did he require you to remove your hand so that he could see the terrain around the unit to determine if he might have an LOS, or did you position your hand so that as little as possible of the surrounding terrain was visable around it? Fred ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 12:27:55 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: So what's the deal? Both are correct. The net effect is that if you have three ? and a 467 in a stack, the 467 must be on the bottom with two dummies and a concealment counter on top. You can not put the 467 on top and during set-up (or at any other time) put a concealment counter on top so that in effect you end up with three dummies and 467 all concealed. (Note a dummy is a ? which looks like a real unit to your opponent, and does not include the top ? which is referred to as a concealment counter). Fred > Hi! > > I was looking through the Q&A's yesterday and found two contradicting > answers. Do any of you know what the correct answer is? > > ---------------------- From Q&A: ------------------- > > A12.12 When one side begins with all forces offboard, the opponent may > conceal all his onboard units. In this situation, may he place a "?" > on an already-concealed unit (including a Dummy stack)? > A. No. {90} > This only applys when the first player is setting-up (or in KGP/RB campaign games for both players). > A12.12 If a player's OB contains a number of "?", may he place >= one > of them beneath a Personnel/vehicle unit during his setup? > A. No. {93b} > This only says that you can't have dummies under concealed real units, they must be on top of all concealed real units (although I play that you can have dummies under a concealed vehicle as long as they are on the top of the stack of concealed units that are not on a vehicle.) > ---------------------------------------------------- > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me > f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' > atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin > > ----- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 13:55:07 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: More Mixed Qs Bob S. Sez: > > Actually, there has been an excellent series of articles about the various > nationalities represented in ASL appearing over the last few years in the > ASL Annual ("Eight Million Bayonets" -Italians, "Man and Superman" > - Russians, etc) addressing many of these questions. My opinion on these articles is that they're very interesting for historical perspectives on each nationality and the problems they faced in organizing the manpower and tactics of the infantry and equipping them (as well as the armor and artillery). But IMO, they're absolutely pathetic in terms of explaining why each nationality's MMC's have the Strength Factors that they do. The articles will go on for pages about the quality of the men and materiel of the squad and then give one paragraph that says "The ASL treatment of the Hottentots reflects these considerations by assigning 4-4-7 counters to the first line units, with 4-5-8 counters reserved for elite units such as the King's Parachute Grenadiers and the Lower Gundphalia Division. The leader to squad ratio of 1:4.89 reflects the problems encountered in training qualified leaders after the start of the war." Well, thanks, I can see how all of that insightful research and analysis on the previous pages has really paid off. Case in point is the article on the Japanese (92 annual) which basically rips them from head to toe for pages on end. Their leadership sucked, their morale sucked, their training sucked, their equipment sucked, their health sucked, their uniforms sucked, etc etc etc. After reading up to that point, I expected Japanese MMC's to be 128's or something, but no, here's those good old 448's again. Fer cryin out loud. The reality seems to be that Strength Factors are a game mechanic more than they reflect reality. Most everybody is going to have 4 FP. Real stinko units are going to have 3 FP. My grandmother's bridge club would have 2 FP (but no Spraying Fire). A bunch of semi-satient primates (or Ohio State alums, whichever you prefer) toting sharp sticks would have 1 FP. I really respect the amount of work and research that can be done into the relative strengths of each nationality's squads, but the Annual articles seem to wave hands over these issues. There may be excellent reasons why German 548's are different than their standard 467's, but I don't think you'll find out why by reading the Annual articles. Tom ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 09:14:34 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: AFV Riders: Cheesy tactics >...the AFV can save itself a lot of hassle in unloading >personnel by changing its TCA and forcing a Bail Out rather than >expending the MP to Unload... Legal? Yes. Cheesy? Probably. Do I use it? Of course! re: Swatting at Tigers... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- From: Chris Farrell Subject: Underlined ELR Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 16:13:02 EDT Alright, let me see if I have this right ... If an OB has only squads with an underlined ML, and it lists an ELR < 5, the ELR of those squads is as the OB says, but they are still replaced by two HS by ELR failure. (I just thought of a second option ... the squads are ELR 5, but the leaders are ELR whatever. This seems very unlikely, just in the context of some of the scenarios I've been looking at, like Liberation of Tulle.) Iff (an OB lists an ELR of < 5 for units with an underlined morale) AND (an SSR explicitly lists these units as suceptable to replacement), they will ELR down to lower quality squads. This is how I read the rules, but I know there has been considerable discussion especially wrt pioneers in RB). This is particularly brutal for people like partisans; if they ELR to HS's, those ML 5 HS's can be very rapidly eliminated. Thanks, Chris -- Chris Farrell | What a journey in has been, Programmer/Analyst, Genetics | And the end is not in sight, ckf2@po.cwru.edu or | But the stars are out tonight, farrell@chimera.gene.cwru.edu| And they're bound to guide my way. - Lea Salonga ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 09:11:17 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: More Mixed Qs >1) US 6-6-6s. ... But what do the >high FP & range values indicate? The BAR? Yes. >2) German MGs. Why the off-column (barring IIFT) FP values? The >system seems to be saying "German MGs were better-designed than most >but not enough to make a difference unless they were grouped together." The better FP does occasionally make a difference even if they are not grouped together, but for the most part you're correct. Giving the German MGs 2 more FP than those of other nationalities would have been a bit too much. >Do units themselves ever block same-level LOS? I was playing _Commissar's >House_ solitaire, when a Ger. 8-3-8 wanted to shoot a FT with a friendly >broken unit between it and the target. The rules (my late-night reading >of them, that is) seemed to suggest they could do it. Intuitively it >seemed pretty toasty for the broken unit, though. Units do not block LOS. A FT firing at long range is using "looping fire", as mentioned in A22, so the flame is arching over the adjacent units without making them toasty. In real life, of course, I wouldn't want to be under a stream of jellied gasoline... 8-o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- From: y.leung@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 05:53:00 BST Subject: ASL Record After checking the record, I noticed that Sc. A58 - A60 are "ATL redone". What does that mean? What is ATL? ----- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:38:14 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Trick Question Harken all ye rules lawyers out there! Consider the following: There is a building at base level 0, containing unit A at level 2. Three hexes away is a woods hex (at base level 0). Adjacent to the woods hex is a building also at base level 0, containing unit B at level 1 or higher. A | B | W| ------ Assuming the LOS from A to B crosses the woods symbol, does A have= a clear LOS to B? A6.4: BLIND HEXES: Assuming an otherwise clear LOS, even if a firing= (or target) unit is at an elevation > the height equivalent of any intervening full level obstacle, a number of potential target hexes that are= both directly behind that obstacle and also equal to the full level height equivalent (i.e., ignoring any half-level) of that obstacle are considered Blind Hexes to the firer. Blind Hexes cannot be seen by the firer= unless the Blind Hex is at an elevation =84 the height of the obstacle...= =20 The remainder of A6.5 deals with other matters. Clearly, the first sentence says unit B is in a Blind "Hex". Also,= the Blind Hex is not at an elevation =84 the height of the obstacle,= so the last quoted sentence does not clear the LOS, nor does A6.43 clear the= LOS, for the same reason.=20 =20 My contention is that this is a classic case where everyone plays= the way the game intends (i.e., that the LOS is clear), but that the way= the rules actually read, unit B is in a Blind Hex (A6.4) and therefore the= LOS is blocked. I would like to hear all opinions on this subject, particularly from anyone who does think the LOS is blocked. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 10:21:41 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Fun scenarios ? Will Scarvie x6388 writes: > For this reason, I think that the Most-Played list is a far more > valuable tool for picking scenarios to try than the balance lists. > A scenario that's been played over and over is likely to be a good > deal of fun, I'd guess. I doubt whether picking a scenario from the most-played list is a good way to get a "fun" scenario. There are several other reasons a scenario can have been chosen: 1) It's short enough to play in an evening. Take a look at the most-played lists. Lots of them are relatively short scenarios. 2) One is not very familiar with ASL yet and wants a no-armor scenario. 3) One wants to practice a particular aspect of ASL, like armor, OBA, desert, PTO. Most people wouldn't like practicing PTO by starting with Bloody Red Beach, even if it looks fun. 4) The scenario has been chosen by the tournament organizers. I think the best way to choose a fun scenario is not to look in any list, but to choose a scenario that looks fun to _you_. Bas. ----- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 09:19:36 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: Trick Question >blocked. I would like to hear all opinions on this subject, particularly >from anyone who does think the LOS is blocked. IMO, the LOS is not blocked. Rule A6.4 goes on to say "Blind hexes cannot be seen by by the firer unless the Blind Hex is at an elevation >= the height of the obstacle." Since part of the building is >= to the obstacle height, it is not a blind hex. I do see the ambiguity in the rule. Perhaps it should read "... unless the Blind LOCATION is at an elevation..."? Certainly if the unit was in a level 2 building, there should be no problem with LOS. Yet the rule seems to state that these too would be blocked. Anyone else have a suggestion? DavidB Smith ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 09:37:11 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Calgary house rules ("Touch" ASL) Grant L. says: >I don't want to kick anyone out of the club, but I don't think this type of >behaviour is neccessary for a friendly game. Anyone with any ideas about how >to deal with this sort of player? Please, don't suggest whipping his butt on >the gameboard as he's a really good player on top of the intmidation tactics, >so that's not an option for this poor 8-0! Some possible responses: 1) "Show me the rule, please." (This will be educational if he can find it. In the case of movement, for example, A4.2 says nothing about "touch" per se, but it does say that once a unit enters a hex, it can only be "taken back" if the move is illegal. This would seem even more stringent! Allowing a finger "take back" is actually rather kind, in a sense. In "reality' (whatever that is) in a friendly game, "take backs", at least during the course of an individual unit's move, before any DF, should be allowed.) 2) "I concede. The win is obviously more important to you than our friendly competition." At some point, the guy should realize that these wins are not sucesses. If you feel that concession is unworthy, an alternative would be the more direct: "I'm sorry, but I refuse to submit to such intimidation tactics in what should be a friendly game. We can resume the game later when you have agreed to play in a civil manner." 3) "If you are so insistent on childishly having your own way before we have even started the game, it is rather useless for us to proceed any further." (A26.5 says nothing about players _secretly_ choosing sides. If a player says "I will take either side", then clearly the A26.5 rule just does not apply. Forcing a player to take a 50/50 shot at losing the balance when he has in effect said "Pick your side" is bogus. If this were a tournament, with every game using a "secret pick", fine. In a club game, give me a break. 4) Have whomever is leading/organizing the club/meetings draft some ground rules for club play, and have the players vote on them. This should get the message across. If it does not, use these ground rules to intimidate back ("Your insistence upon XYZ is clearly outside of our established club rules, so I am afraid I am forced to ask you to either reconsider your position, or concede the game."). 5) "You know, you make me nervous, very nervous. And when people make me nervous, I tend to spill food and drink at the most inappropriate times and places. Oh, by the way, I really like your counter storage system." (Hit 'em where they live.) Matt (Miss Annoying Manners) Brown ----- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 08:49:27 CDT From: "Black, Stephen Thomas" Subject: Squad equivalence In some scenarios the VC are exiting X number of good order squads or their equivelents from the board. I assume equivelence is intended to mean two half squads equal a squad. Is there a rule that clearly defines all this? Do AFVs have equivalence? Thanks Stephen Black Psychology Department Millsaps College Blackst@okra.millsaps.edu Jackson, MS 39210 601-974-1381 ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 22:26:40 EDT Subject: Re: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited >> >> Apparently Randy >> >> was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand >> >> off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made >> >> for an uncomfortable game. >> > >> >Also, I don't believe this is in the rules. It sounds more like a chess >> >rule than an ASL rule. If I remember correctly, a unit's move is over when >> >the move is declared over rather than when the hand is taken off. Alas, the spirit of tournament gaming raises its ugly head. In chess the touch-move rule applies in tournaments, as pre-game "taunting" (i.e., by agreement), or as a matter of principles. Randy's actions may put him in the principles section (which aren't necessarily applied to others). Was the CASL session a tournament? If so, then perhaps the touch-move rule (with some clarifications) should have been discussed by the tournament organizers. It does seem difficult to apply the rule to ASL because of stacking (does the whole stack move when touched?) and because of the subtleties of DF, terrain, etc. This kind of player may "get the message" in one-on-one play but in multi- player scenarios, he should be told that the rule doesn't apply. I simply refuse to play with players who are hard___ed about "rules" like this. Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 10:58:31 EDT From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited >> Apparently Randy >> was a real stickler for the minuatae of the rules ("you took your hand >> off it, you can't move it anymore" sort of thing), and I think it made >> for an uncomfortable game. One of the best ways I've found to point out the error of their ways to this type of player is to take out the Advanced Sequence of play and follow it precisely. Look up *EVERY* rule. Say to the person (when they complain) "Since playing by the rules is of such great importance to you, I'm just making sure we are playing by the rules" You might actually get a turn done before the night is over. Probably not though. Unless the original offender is really thick skulled, he will get the message. A better way is to *INSIST* on a friendly game with such a player *BEFORE* starting the game. Adrian ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: "Touch" and ASL Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:20:03 -0400 (EDT) > > I think it can not be in the rules. Otherwise, how could one take a Morale > Check during DFF? Would one have to leave their fingers on the unit while they > rolled with the other hand? Patently ludicrous. I suggest that the move is > finished when one runs out of movement points, or declares and end. > Actually, it _is_ in the rules. It's one of the A.x rules. I really don't agree with, especially, in DFF. Later, Neal Smith ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 08:47:26 PDT From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: note regarding Record letter Hi folks, I blew it. Patrik used Chi-squared tests to analyze the Record data, of course. Not t-tests as I said in the letter. Sorry for the confusion. Didn't mean to malign Patrik's abilities :-) Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 08:58:58 PDT From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: Re: ASL Record Hi there, >What is ATL If you look down in the Record for the scenarios listed under ATLANTICON `92 SCENARIOS you'll find them. These are scenarios that were played at Atlanticon '92, published in the on-line ASL Digest with permission from the authors, and then re-published in other magazines, sometimes with modifications and sometimes not. Where seperate win/loss records are kept for the scenario as it was published in each magazine, there are some differences between the scenarios. Where a Record entry points you to another Record entry (see some of the re-published TACTIQUES scenarios for an example) the scenario was republished without significant changes. I hope this helps, Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com. ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 09:02:21 PDT From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: Re: Fun scenarios ? Bas de Bakker (bas@phys.uva.nl) writes: >I think the best way to choose a fun scenario is not to look in any >list, but to choose a scenario that looks fun to _you_. I couldn't agree with Bas more. My original point was only that I, personally, put more "stock" in the Most-Played list than in the others. There are tons of scenarios that aren't on the Most-Played list that look like great fun to me and I'd play them in a heartbeat, no matter what the Record says. Didn't mean to sound like the Most-Played list was somehow the _best_, or even a really _good_ way to pick scenarios to play, Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 11:26:39 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: Trick Question Pat J ponders: >Consider the following: > >There is a building at base level 0, containing unit A at level 2. >Three hexes away is a woods hex (at base level 0). >Adjacent to the woods hex is a building also at base level 0, containing >unit B at level 1 or higher. > >A >| B >| W| >------ > >Assuming the LOS from A to B crosses the woods symbol, does A have= > a clear >LOS to B? Easy one! 6.43 ... If a hex behind an obstacle is at a level higher than the elevation of the hex containing the obstacle, the difference in elevation of those two hexes is subtracted from the number of Blind Hexes which are created by that obstacle to deterimine if that hex behind the obstacle is actually a Blind Hex. Strictly by the rules (and we know what a mistake it is to reason thusly), the position of the target unit is irrelevent! (At least to the determination of blind hexes.) Now, clearly, if there is a unit at level 1, the building is at least as tall at the woods. If the building is a two-story, 1.5 levels, why, by the rules, we have a 1/2 Blind Hex (or 1/2 a Blind Hex)! Given that the rule doesn't specify FRU or FRD, it is hard to tell what we have. Or which half of the hex is blind, upper or lower? Clearly. But if the building is a multi-story building (ASL re-defining "multi" to mean "more than two"), it is 2.5 levels, and subtracting the woods, you end up with -1.5 blind hexes, which I assume is reduced (increased?) to zero. Then "normal" (HAH!) LOS rules apply, and a unit at level 1 or higher is a valid target. Also, note that the last sentence of B23.2 is a higher-numbered rule than A6.4: "...an intervening same-level obstacle never blocks the LOS of same-level units." ^^^^^ So if unit A was at level 1, the woods could not block LOS to unit B at level 1, unless ASL has conveniently redefined the word "never" to be conditional in some obscure Q&A or "Macsez". So forget all that Blind Hex nonsense. Logic (that silly stuff) would thus dictate that unit A at level 2 would also be able to see unit B, although that would require a rules interpretation not backed by a specific citation. Matt Clearly, tongue-in-cheek, but I hope there is some value here if you can wade through all the sarcasm and faux-rules-lawyering. Brown ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:13:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: Dependence on West of Alamein I'm thinking of buying Code of Bushido and Gung Ho before West of Alamein, mainly because I'm really interested in the PTO right now and I'm a married graduate student (read: limited ASL budget). It seems to me that a lot of PTO scenarios feature the Japanese v. Chinese/Marines/Americans, so not having WoA might not be a big problem, OB-wise. Is this true? And, do the CoB and GH scenarios use a lot of WoA boards? (I do have BV, Paratrooper, Partisan and Yanks (en route).) Thanks! Jim p.s. Of course I plan on buying WoA after CoB and GH. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 10:39:18 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Dependence on West of Alamein You won't be able to play the British/Japanese scenarios nor Red Star Red Sun, a Russian/Japanese scenario. You might consider CoB and WoA, then you will be mostly missing the Marines and Amphibous (sp?) landings. > I'm thinking of buying Code of Bushido and Gung Ho before West of > Alamein, mainly because I'm really interested in the PTO right now and > I'm a married graduate student (read: limited ASL budget). It seems > to me that a lot of PTO scenarios feature the Japanese v. > Chinese/Marines/Americans, so not having WoA might not be a big > problem, OB-wise. Is this true? And, do the CoB and GH scenarios use > a lot of WoA boards? (I do have BV, Paratrooper, Partisan and Yanks > (en route).) > > Thanks! > > Jim > > p.s. Of course I plan on buying WoA after CoB and GH. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics > Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 16:00:09 -0400 Subject: Dependence on West of Alamein Item Subject: Message text > I'm thinking of buying Code of Bushido and Gung Ho before West of > Alamein, mainly because I'm really interested in the PTO right now and > I'm a married graduate student (read: limited ASL budget). It seems > to me that a lot of PTO scenarios feature the Japanese v. > Chinese/Marines/Americans, so not having WoA might not be a big > problem, OB-wise. Is this true? And, do the CoB and GH scenarios use > a lot of WoA boards? (I do have BV, Paratrooper, Partisan and Yanks > (en route).) I can see two problems with this plan. Neither is releated to boards (as I recall CoB and GH don't use the desert boards). The first problem is that most of the CoB senario involve the Brits (or use Brit counters to represent various other nationalities). So you'll probably lose about a quarter of the senario available between the two sets. The second problem, I'm not sure of, but I seem to recall occasional references to chapter F (included in WoA) in the chapter on the Pacific (chapter H I think). -dlw ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:16:12 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Dependence on West of Alamein Well, there is sand on the beaches (no way!) and the sand rules are in WoA. That's about two paragraphs they should have reprinted, but didn't. British counters are used in 3 of 8 scenarios in CoB, and desert board are used in one scenario in CoB and one in GH (with Russians and Marines, respectively). A couple other minor erratta things are in WoA also, like reverse motion and vehicular smoke grenades. That's about all the overlap. If you can get somebody to fill you in on the sand rules, CoB/GH's contigency on WoA is minimal. In my opinion, you're better off just buying WoA than just buying CoB; WoA opens up a whole new world of blasting each other in the desert, while CoB alone, while enticing, really needs GH as a counterpart to open up the Pacific theatre. If you can get both CoB and GH, go for it. There's nothing like invading beaches for a good time. Chris ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 14:38:50 PDT From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: Re: Dependence on West of Alamein Chris Farrell (farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov) writes: >In my opinion, >you're better off just buying WoA than just buying CoB; WoA opens up a whole >new world of blasting each other in the desert... Not to mention a lot of terrific scenarios in the ETO using the British. Of course, the original author wants to get into the PTO (sorry, I've lost track of who asked the original question). My suggestion would be to purchase CofB since you want to play PTO scenarios, then buy WofA mainly for the British counters. There are lots of good PTO scenarios in the Annuals involving the British counters, too. And, of course, you get the Desert. Just my $.02, Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com ----- From: abillsasl@aol.com Date: Wed, 06 Apr 94 19:09:05 EDT Subject: re: Touching units In response to the thread on "touching" pieces and the end of a units movement: Neal Smith says, >Actually, it _is_ in the rules. It's one of the A.x rules. I really don't >agree with, especially, in DFF. My rulebook (in front of me right now) says A.1 DICE A.2 ERRORS A.3 MOVE/ADVANCE A.4 OPTIONAL RULES A.5 ATTACK DRM A.6 IN/INTO A.7 GOOD ORDER A.8 ADJACENT A.9 RANDOM SELECTION A.10 LERDERSHIP DRM A.11 PERMANENT BREAKDOWN A.12 WHITE COUNTERS A.13 ATTACKER/DEFENDER A.14 COLLATERAL ATTACKS A.14A SPECIFIC A.14B GENERAL A.15 FIRST/FINAL FIRE A.16 SMOKE A.17 DRM A.18 MORALE LEVEL CEILING None of these rules states any thing about "touching" your pieces and the end of movement. This page (A1/A2) has not been changed by any errata that I have (And I have all published). However, the closest rule I can find on this subject is A8.1 "... Once another unit begins movement or the MPh is declared over, previously moved units are no longer subject to Defensive First Fire attack. ..." IMHO this allows one to move his unit as long as he has not moved another unit or has not declared the MPh over. (And of course, if the unit can still legally move [pin, broke, etc.]) Nothing in here about touching! IMHO if an opponent tried this on me I would respond with a something similar to those mentioned in other responses to this thread. Maybe "Oh!, I didn't realize we were playing with chess rules. Lets see, that means my Sherman is my queen and takes your Panther. Checkmate!" The best way to prevent others from pushing non-existant rules on you is for you to know the rules yourself. I don't know the rules by heart, but I re-read and lookup rules constantly. I'm always reading the postings on the mail list and checking the rules myself. It's amazing the things you can find in the rulebook that weren't there before. The easiest way I know of to discourage the "intimidation" tactics are simple, just don't play the guy. Everyone I know of who plays this game is dying to play. When he can't get a game among a group of players for some time maybe he'll figure it out. The easiest way to clarify a rule is to look it up. When someone can't find the rule they say is there, it's pretty hard for them to win the arguement. My own personal rule is, if it ain't published, it ain't a rule. (by published, I mean by TAHGC) I have everything they publish and will continue to support them. When rules are unclear, I fall back to clarification and Q&A from sources like this and try to come to an agreement. If I can't come to an agreement with someone over a rule, I know my priorities are out of whack. Alan Bills ----- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 18:47:54 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Re: CASL After ACtion Report Revisited FFT> Did he require you to remove your hand so that he could see FFT> the terrain around the unit to determine if he might have an FFT> LOS, or did you position your hand so that as little as FFT> possible of the surrounding terrain was visable around it? FFT> Nope. He was just a stickler for some sort of procedure, looking to gain some sort of advantage from it as far as I could tell. -Grant. ... A flying particle will seek the nearest eye. -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 21:48:33 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: CASL P.S. Pardon Me!! -- I meant to say winning Guryev's as the Russian with balance!! Done, Promise... ----- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 21:29:48 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: CASL Talk Boy has this sparked a lot of talk !! While I have found the replies to Grant's original comments very informative and at times amusing...but really it should be said that Randy really isn't the devil personified and though many of the letters posted here would have him cruixified I don't think that it is really necessary. While I have yet to talk to Peter personally since saturday and I am quite sure that Grant knows a lot more about what went on I really must step in to in some capacity defend Randy a little. Other than Peter I was the closest guy in the room and while preoccupied with my own game I must say that I really didn't notice any real un-sportsmanlike conduct. It can definately be said that Randy and together with his brother think that they know the rules pretty well, which I'm am convinced they don't, I really must say it didn't seem as bad as one would think from all the mail this has generated...with no disrespect to anyone it all comes down to you must know the rules at least as well as your opponent !! If the guy is being a prick then call him on it and show him the error of his ways !! It was undoubtably an unfortunate situation that a realively new 'Squad Leader' was pitted against someone who while knowledgable , doesn't know quite as much as he would like to believe and definately is prone to outbursts when things aren't going quite as he would like -- but really isn't that all of us and haven't we all sorta lost it every now and then. As it was his first time at the club I think that the jury must really have to postpone a decision. If this becomes a regular behavior then something will have to be done, till then I think we'll just have to try and knock down that ego a little -- I'm definately 'Gung Ho' to give it a shot. A sound trashing is all someone like that really needs to learn a little humility and I don't think its all that far off for our culprit. Winning Guryev's as the German with balance is definately no great sign of being a 'player.' Anyways -- enough said about this subject, at least for me!! One last point: while I usually feel bad when I have a good string of rolls against a friend, I relish a couple low ones against a pre-madonna !! Darren Gour ----- From: t.campbell8@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 05:37:00 BST Subject: unsubscribe Well I'm off to Austrailia for three weeks. Try not to burn the game system down while I'm gone ;-) <---you know, I NEVER wink in real life... Please take me off the discussion list whilst I'm away. If it is at all possible to keep me on the digest list please do so. Either way, thanks. Thanks to everyone who helped me find a player from down under. Sorry for the possible waste of band width on my feeble existence. (But you guys will still all have to sit through the slide show when I get back!!) Tom Campbell ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: "Touch" and ASL Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 06:17:47 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Actually, it _is_ in the rules. It's one of the A.x rules. I really > > don't agree with, especially, in DFF. > > Show it to me and I'll believe it. I'm telling you that there is no such > rule. People have eroneously carried it over from chess. > WARNING: I don't agree with this rule, but since I've been "challenged", I'll find it. I just read it last week. Later, Neal ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 08:33:38 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: CASL touch report Grant, One last thing - are you sure this guy was Canadian? His attitude doesn't jibe with the standard relaxed pose of our Northern brothers. I think what you got there is a displaced Californian who misses smog and traffic jams. Check his passport. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 09:57:04 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: AH news Just got off the phone with AH's order department. Are you sitting down? To quote their person: "There's not going to be a 94 Annual. All of that stuff is going to be incorporated into the General." Also, KGP II won't be out till August at least. AAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH! Not to doubt my own ears, but this blows my mind. What in the world is going ON out there? Tom not joking, but wishing I was ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Fun scenarios ? Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 18:09:00 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > >I think the best way to choose a fun scenario is not to look in any > >list, but to choose a scenario that looks fun to _you_. > > I couldn't agree with Bas more. My original point was only that I, > personally, put more "stock" in the Most-Played list than in the > others. I think that Bas' description of the Most-Played list is a fairly accurate one. It's mostly a bunch of short, uncomplicated scenarios that I personally don't consider to be much fun at all. YMMV, of course. Anyway, the Most-Played list is probably more a measure of how complicated a scenario is. > There are tons of scenarios that aren't on the Most-Played list that > look like great fun to me and I'd play them in a heartbeat, no matter > what the Record says. Amen to that! Just look at scenarios like "Jungle Citadel" and "Today We Attack". Just the kind of scenarios that will never get on the Most-Played list since they are too complicated. > Didn't mean to sound like the Most-Played list was somehow the _best_, > or even a really _good_ way to pick scenarios to play, Actually, the Least-Balanced list is IMHO a good estimate of scenarios _not_ to play if you're concerned about balance. Other than that, no need to pay real attention to what the record says - especially if the scenario hasn't been played more than 10-15 times. As a matter of fact, when going to GothCon I looked for scenarios that were skewed according to the record when picking scenarios to bring. Of course I never got to play any of those scenarios, partly b/c I picked complicated ones as well (rules-wise that is) :-( No fear here of playing the "worse" side in a scenario that was 7-3 or 7-2 - even in a tournament! If you're new to the game I think that the Most-Played list is a good indication of scenarios to start with, though. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Trick Question Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 18:15:59 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, regarding the LOS question, the problem is clearly one common in the early rules - they speak a lot about hexes when they should say location instead. That said, I think there is one thing most of you missed that would clear up this example. > So if unit A was at level 1, the woods could not block LOS to unit B at > level 1, unless ASL has conveniently redefined the word "never" to be > conditional in some obscure Q&A or "Macsez". So forget all that Blind > Hex nonsense. Logic (that silly stuff) would thus dictate that unit A at > level 2 would also be able to see unit B, although that would require a > rules interpretation not backed by a specific citation. Right on target! The rule Matt is looking for is "RECIPROCITY" somewhere in section A6. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 09:13:17 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Calgary house rules ("Touch" ASL) mMEB> 5) "You know, you make me nervous, very nervous. And when mMEB> people make me mMEB> nervous, I tend to spill food and drink at the most mMEB> inappropriate times and places. Oh, by the way, I really mMEB> like your counter storage system." (Hit 'em where they mMEB> live.) Matt- All your suggestions were good, but this is my fave! But I'm sure that a little common sense and the general attitude of the club will straighten this guy out. I had considered drafting a mini-constitution for the club that generally states we meet to have fun, to play the game and learn the game, and maybe something about the spirit of the rules. Having the members vote on it is a good idea, for they all would agree, I'm sure. -Grant. ... Put down that flyswatter and bring me some icewater. - Lyle Lovett -== IceIQle v1.5 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 09:40:03 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: CASL Talk d> As it was his first time at the club I think that the jury d> must really have to postpone a decision. If this becomes a d> regular behavior then something will have to be done, till then d> I think we'll just have to try and knock down that ego a little d> -- I'm definately 'Gung Ho' to give it a shot. A sound trashing d> is all someone like that really needs to learn a little humility d> and I don't think its all that far off for our culprit. Winning d> Guryev's as the German with balance is definately no great sign d> of being a 'player.' d> Darren is right, of course. It is way too early to have formed a solid negative opinion of this player. I'm sure he was a little nervous as it was his first time to the club, and that probably didn't help anything. (You should have seen his face though when he was shown the Q&A that says a leader generated on a DR=2 in CC gets added to the attack. He went from KIAing three squads to CRing one!) I think this thread has sparked a lot of comments not because Randy is the devil so much as every player has come across this sort of guy once in a while. So everyone wants to respond. Fair enough. I think Darren is right. Randy fancies himself a shark, and perhaps if Darren hands his butt to him on a platter, that will settle things down nicely. Grant. ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 12:52:27 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: Trick Question Patrik says: > regarding the LOS question, the problem is clearly one common in the early > rules - they speak a lot about hexes when they should say location instead. > That said, I think there is one thing most of you missed that would clear > up this example. Hi Pat, and thanks for waking me up. Rereading A6.43, I was wrong in looking at the elevation of the building rather than the elevation of the hex it stands on. So the hex is actually a blind hex, by the rules. I agree with the (currently) Hawaiian Patrick that this is bogus, and with the Swedish Patrik that hex vs location is one of the problems. >> So if unit A was at level 1, the woods could not block LOS to unit B at >> level 1, unless ASL has conveniently redefined the word "never" to be >> conditional in some obscure Q&A or "Macsez". So forget all that Blind >> Hex nonsense. Logic (that silly stuff) would thus dictate that unit A at >> level 2 would also be able to see unit B, although that would require a >> rules interpretation not backed by a specific citation. > > Right on target! The rule Matt is looking for is "RECIPROCITY" somewhere > in section A6. A6.5, and so your reasoning is "If we start by looking B to A, nothing blocks LOS, so B must see A, and A must therefore see B." Fine, but all this does is core dump the ASLRB. Because the damn thing is still a blind hex by the rules, and RECIPROCITY is broken. But however applicable, I don't think that is what I meant. The logic was: A at level 1 can see B at Level 1 so A at level 2 can see B at Level 1 (assuming all else is equal). Not a reciprocity argument. I still think B23.2 plus logic is the best answer. Matt ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Trick Question Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 19:12:28 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > > Right on target! The rule Matt is looking for is "RECIPROCITY" somewhere > > in section A6. > > A6.5, and so your reasoning is "If we start by looking B to A, nothing blocks > LOS, so B must see A, and A must therefore see B." Or, to put it another way: "If A can see B, B will be able to see A" > Fine, but all this does is core dump the ASLRB. Because the damn thing is > still a blind hex by the rules, and RECIPROCITY is broken. So? Even if the unit happens to be in a blind hex, it can still see the other unit. Then, reciprocity kicks in to tell us that they can both see each other. Doesn't matter what the rules for blind hexes say in this case. It could of course matter if both of the units were in buildings (I don't think the second one was in this example - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). I don't know the rules good enough to say if this is indeed the case. > But however applicable, I don't think that is what I meant. Sorry, I should have read you letter more carefully :-( Don't be too hard on me - I mean if you can't even tell for yourself if that's what you meant how could I? ;-) -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 10:36:07 -0700 Subject: Re: AH news Hi, Tom. On Apr 7, 9:57am, Tom Repetti wrote: > Subject: AH news > > Not to doubt my own ears, but this blows my mind. What in the world is going > ON out there? I spoke with Rob Wolke when he was here in Portland last month about AH's perceived waning interest in ASL. He told me that AH is turning away from board games and focusing on computer games. I said, "Well, that kind of worries me." He said, "You SHOULD be worried." Rob went on to say that if AH were to stop -er- supporting ASL he felt that between himself and FORT and the others involved with the new FFE/ASLUG publication, they could continue to keep the hobby alive, provided that AH goes ahead with its releases of Armies of Oblivion and the other Minors module (can't remember the name). This gives rise to the terrifying spectre that the days of ASL at AH are numbered. If AH quits supporting the game, how long will it survive? Sure, guys like us on the list will continue to play it for a while (maybe even years), but eventually, with nothing new coming out, our numbers will dwindle as new games come along. Of course, this could all be nothing more than the ranting of a paranoid schizophrenic (me, not Wolke) but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean their NOT out to get you. > > Tom > not joking, but wishing I was > Dade not joking either, but could be looking for reassurance > >-- End of excerpt from Tom Repetti ----- Subject: general 29-1 Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 12:08:39 -0600 (MDT) From: solomons Incase anyone was wondering, Avalon Hill has not yet shipped vol.29 #1 of the General. It was to have been mailed in March, but they have not received them from printing at this time. Walter. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Solomons solomons@mass.com ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 21:43:08 +0100 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: AH: Trouble in the House Avalon(TAHGC) Hi, Here's something I got from Consim-l. >Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:23:02 -0500 >Reply-To: Conflict simulation Games >Sender: Conflict simulation Games >From: manuel mendoza >Subject: AH: Trouble in the House Avalon(TAHGC) >X-To: Conflict simulation Games >To: Multiple recipients of list CONSIM-L > >I guess I will answer my own question here. Here follows a message posted >on AOL by Rex Martin: > >"Subj: Re:ASL >Date: 94-04-06 13:31:29 EDT >From: AH Games > >Gentlemen - > > Regarding The GENERAL, indeed Don Hawthorne (my successor as editor) has >departed Avalon Hill, leaving the magazine in a state of flux. Don Greenwood >(my successor) is serving as interim editor, and hopes to have Vol. 29-1 out >within the month. Too, he has already begun work on 29-2 and hopes to see it >into print as soon as possible. Until a new editor is found, Don will be >juggling his editorial chores with a couple of game developments he is >laboring through. > Regarding PC THIRD REICH, the programmers ran into some problems when it >came time to devise the AI. With a new team at work on the problem, it is >hoped that we will be able to begin beta-testing it in 3-4 weeks. Given the >usual production (printing, packaging, etc.) time once the beta-testing nears >its conclusion (and assuming all goes as hoped there), I would not look for >the game to see release much before mid-July. > As for KINGMAKER (PC), it and OPERATION CRUSADER (Mac) are both in the >final stages of beta-testing and most of the supporting materials have been >printed. I would expect them to be shipping by the end of the month. > Hope this answers your questions. Best - > >Rex A. Martin >-------------------------------------------- >Subj: Re:The General >Date: 94-04-07 09:00:33 EDT >From: AH Games > >Dear Legionary (and any others interested): > > The departure of Don Hawthorne as editor has brought about yet another >delay in Vol. 29-1. However, Don Greenwood has stepped in to insure that it >is finished (and in fact has turned it over to production just this week). I >would expect that 29-1 will be in the mails within a couple of weeks. > Meanwhile, until a new editor is installed, Don is laboring on 29-2. He >hopes to pick up the pace on it, and have it out to the subscribers as soon >as possible. > Best - > >Rex A. Martin" > > ----- Date: 07 Apr 94 15:37:54 EDT From: Paul Bushland <74111.226@CompuServe.COM> Subject: ASL Annual Info (RIP) In regards to the [lack of an] ASL Annual for '94, here is the text of a message posted to the Board Wargames section of the Compuserve PBM games forum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07-Apr-94 11:03:40 Sb: #ASL Annual Fm: Avalon Hill 72662,1207 To: All Gentlemen - [And ladies too, I hope -p.b.] Effective with the next issue (Vol. 29, No. 2) of The GENERAL, the "ASL Annual" has been merged into Avalon Hill's flagship magazine. Henceforth, the authoritative articles and scenarios that have fueled wargaming's most popular tactical game system will make their new home there. The material slated for the 1994 issue of the ASL Annual will instead grace those pages over the next few months. Don Greenwood will go into more detail concerning this decision and future plans for The GENERAL in his editorial in this issue, so please direct your comments to his attention. To receive all the "official" ASL news and updates, now is the time to subscribe or renew your subscription to The GENERAL. Current subscription rates are $18 for a one-year sub; $29 for a two-year subscription. (Individual issues are available at $5 each.) To subscribe, or for more details, write to Avalon Hill (4517 Harford Road, Baltimore, MD 21214). Alternatively, you can subscribe via AH's toll-free number: 1-800-999-3222. On a personal note: To the many who have supported the Annual - whether as authors, playtesters or readers - for the past five years, I'd like to express my most sincere thanks. I hope we have provided you with the best in analysis, scenarios and even a few chuckles over these six issues. I am sure that you can expect the same challenges and insights with the expanded coverage of ASL now to be found in the pages of The GENERAL ... and I'd hope it enjoys the same whole-hearted support from all of you. Best - Rex A. Martin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That's about as offical as it's going to get. Hope some of youse out there find this interesting. Paul Bushland ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 14:11:25 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: ASL Annual Info (RIP) Only way this makes sense to me is if AH just doesn't have the bodies to work on both the Annual and the General. Financially, losing the Annual doesn't seem to be a good move since they could have gotten us all for two annuals per year at $15 apiece, or even one per year at $20 if they wanted to. Now they'll have to be happy with only $18 per year from the General subscriptions. Plus, many Annual buyers already get the General, so they'll be keeping their money in their wallets and still getting Annual stuff. It can't be that they don't have enough ASL material to fill up one or two annuals per year. Otherwise, why would they have gone to two annuals per year in 1993? Putting all the ASL stuff in the General slows down the playtesting process for new scenarios since the G,T, and A series scenarios will all be in the same place now, and I doubt AH will publish more than 2 ASL scenarios in each General. So again, perhaps AH just didn't want to commit the people to playtesting all of those scenarios that they would have put out in the Annual. Harrumph. Now I get to subscribe to the General and wait for their terminally late issues so that I can read 20% or less of the magazine. Boy oh boy, can't wait. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:19:56 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: AH news Let me preface all this with an IHHO ... > board games and focusing on computer games. I said, "Well, that kind of > worries me." He said, "You SHOULD be worried." Rob went on to say that if AH > were to stop -er- supporting ASL he felt that between himself and FORT and the > others involved with the new FFE/ASLUG publication, they could continue to keep > the hobby alive, provided that AH goes ahead with its releases of Armies of > Oblivion and the other Minors module (can't remember the name). What should *REALLY* scare you is not so much the demise of AH (as I've always said, they had it coming), but if they continue to stay in business, with only minimal investment in ASL, and continue to aggressively defend their copyrights. I have no doubt that Fortenberry and the other FFE/ASLUG/ASL News/ Dagger people could make products like historical modules - very good ones - and actually make some money. But if AH will not allow them to despite not supporting the product, there is a disaster in the making for us. All you newbies, make sure you get copies of all the modules soon! I'll have to make sure I get a second set of ASL and leave it in shrink-wrap for the day my current set finally dies :-) Seriously, I don't think we're looking at anything in the immediate future, but it's not totally impossible that KGP II and March to Oblivion (title or release date?) will be the last dedicated ASL we see. Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's inevitable. I'm not sure it's even likely. But AH *has* taken a hammering over the past years, and despite owning what it probably the most profitable wargame of all time, it is still not a good climate for wargames and wargamers. I wouldn't blame them for wanting to seriously cut back the boardgaming end of their business. Then again, I would think that it would be a bad business decision to slash ASL. If ASL doesn't make money, either 1) Things are a lot worse in the wargaming industry than they appear to me, or 2) They need to fire their accountants and marketing executives instead. Somehow I can't see AH doing computer games. Almost every single computer release of theirs that I have seen has been a good solid 3-5 years behind the state of the art. If they want to make money they are going to be competing with the likes of F/A-18 Hornet, Myst, DOOM, etc, and I don't think AI is advanced enough yet to do serious wargaming on computers. But hey, maybe with the application of money they can solve these problems. But with the big debate on comp.sys.mac.games on whether Nazi iconography should be removed from wargames, I wonder ... Ah well, it's been a long week. I need to do some ASL this weekend :-) Maybe trot out the marines and go kill some Japanese. Chris irritated and frustrated Farrell ----- From: "Alec Habig" Subject: Re: More Mixed Qs Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:24:03 -0500 (EST) strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov writes : > Anyway, I believe the relatively > high FP and range factors for US squads stems from the fact that the US squad > had a 12 man roster, a (at least one) BAR, and the fact that each rifleman > was armed with the excellent M1 Garrand rifle which was far superior, with > respect to rate-of-fire, to the standard bolt-action rifles used by German, > Italian, Japanese?, and British riflemen - and fairly accurate, I believe, > at long range. I don't know if it's significant, but I would bet that a > higher percentage of American troops had pre-service experience with fire- > arms (hunting rifles) than the troops of other nationalities, perhaps > enough to justify a slightly better range rating. Owning a WWII Mauser, and firing a club-owned M1 in matches, I'd take the M1 any day. The Mauser perhaps has a bit more extreme-range capability, but the M1 has the rate of fire. Rate of accurate fire, too - it's easy to hold on target and get another well aimed shot off quickly - working the bolt action on the Mauser can be a bit distracting. Also, the sight setup on the M1 is really amazing - one can aquire a target accurately and quickly - the sights on the Mauser are much harder to use. The British Enfields and Russian Nagants I've dealt with were quite similar to the Mauser - the M1 was almost unique among WWII firearms. Buy yours quickly before our beloved congress outlaws them as viscous assault rifles (really!). Oh, another consideration - the M1 has an 8 round clip that one just jams in the top. Most bolt action guns were fed by stripper clips, which take longer to load, and often only did 5 rounds at a time (even those bolt actions which sported detachable magazines were still usually reloaded via stripper clip). Alec ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 15:31:25 CDT From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: demise of ASL Guys, Maybe I'm just being naive, but why is everyone panicking every time they hear some bad news from the Hill? There have been some messages posted here about how if TAHGC doesn't support ASL that it will eventually die. I don't share that belief. Once the last couple modules are finished (whatever they are called) the system will be complete. What else is there to do? The implication was that without "new" products coming out every year, that ASL players would start to play other things. Hah. I know I sure won't be playing much else besides ASL. If I have the complete system, why should I stop playing? Hell, it may even give some of us a chance to finally catch up with the system. What do we have out there anyway? Several modules, 41 boards, a few historical thingies (if you count G-T), and a few hundred scenarios when you count all the fanzine scenarios. I know I don't have to play a scenario for the first time to have fun with it. In fact, I think I have more fun on subsequent playings. It would take me almost forever to get bored with the system as it stands right now. Suppose TAHGC does not continue to make any other ASL modules or annuals. Will this discourage new players? I doubt it, unless they discontinue the game altogether. But I'm sure they could still make the game available, even if they are not adding to it. So what's the big deal? Matt "have I become more annoying than that Brown character yet?" Shostak ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 16:34:28 EDT From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) Subject: ASL Annual Info (RIP) > Harrumph. Now I get to subscribe to the General and wait for their > terminally late issues so that I can read 20% or less of the magazine. Boy > oh boy, can't wait. I think it's likely that part of their motivation is to try to interest ASL gamers in other TAHGC products, and one way to do this is to get them to subscribe to the General. Of course, this isn't foolproof, but I think the hope on their part is that once you have gotten the General anyway, you will at least occasionally glance at other things in it. I expect this is why they always publish an ASL scenario in the General now. I'm sure that TAHGC must find it frustrating that they have a large pool of gamers who buy all of their ASL stuff, and have a generally favorable impression of AH, but that doesn't translate into sales of their other games. It will be interesting to see whether they really do significantly expand ASL coverage in the General, and if so whether they cut back on coverage of their other games, or whether they expand the magazine to absorb it. None of the options seems entirely satisfactory, and I have my doubts with everyone else about how well this will turn out. David desJardins ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: AH news Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:27:13 -0400 (EDT) > > I spoke with Rob Wolke when he was here in Portland last month about AH's > perceived waning interest in ASL. He told me that AH is turning away from > board games and focusing on computer games. I said, "Well, that kind of > worries me." He said, "You SHOULD be worried." Rob went on to say that if AH > were to stop -er- supporting ASL he felt that between himself and FORT and the > others involved with the new FFE/ASLUG publication, they could continue to keep > the hobby alive, provided that AH goes ahead with its releases of Armies of > Oblivion and the other Minors module (can't remember the name). Competition too tough? > > This gives rise to the terrifying spectre that the days of ASL at AH are > numbered. If AH quits supporting the game, how long will it survive? Sure, > guys like us on the list will continue to play it for a while (maybe even > years), but eventually, with nothing new coming out, our numbers will dwindle > as new games come along. Well, I know KGP I, by itself is going to keep my DYO heaven for years! Can you imagine Russians, Japs, etc. fighting it out over this terrain? That's something surprising. I haven't seen any talk about using the HASL maps for DYO stuff. I've been dreaming of this for a long time now. Just haven't had the time. Later, Neal ----- Date: 7 Apr 1994 16:36:34 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: DASL Game Wanted Subject: Time:3:35 PM OFFICE MEMO DASL Game Wanted Date:4/7/94 Hello, I'm a newbie ASL player who recently purchased and painted some of GHQ's miniatures and thought I would like to see how they looked in a DASL game. If anyone is interested in playing a game like Lehr Sanction against someone who is still learning the AFV rules please give me a holler. Thanks. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:46:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: AH news The conjecturing on the future of ASL had some discussion on GEnie a while back. Most of the people interpreted it to mean the death of ASL rather than the end of AH support of ASL. At least what has been presented here from AOL and Compuserve is more than I have seen on GEnie, though I haven't gotten GEnie messages for a couple of days. It is clear to me that, for ASL to continue to thrive, third party modules will have to be forthcoming. I would hope that AH would be willing to license the ASL logo or otherwise authorize third party modules. I look forward to Brian's Crete module and the Dagger guys' Last Bridge (or is ti Third Bridge) Arnhem module. I also think something could be worked up for Tobruk and El Alamein similar to what Tactiques did for Kursk. Note that this also bodes ill for corrections to the ASLRB. It would be interesting if some erratta came out from a third party also. Actually, this could be suggested erratta. Granted that this might fragment the hobby a tad but no more than the IIFT has (or hasn't) but it would be nice to correct the panzerfaust rules, the hedge rules, clarify the hedgerow rules, and the other stuff we have agonized over at times. ----- Date: 07 Apr 94 16:44:37 EDT From: Paul Bushland <74111.226@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Trick Question OK, I've been reading this for a while and have decide to jump in and muck things up even more (note: I'm writing this from work and don't have the ASLRB with me, so I won't be citing anything specifically). 1. The main problem is that the rules on blind hexes specify the creation of a blind _hex_ not a blind location based on the level of the hex. If there is a unit in the 25th level of a building, but the building is in a hex with a base level of 0, it is still a level 0 _hex_ (I know there aren't any level 25 buildings yet, but there weren't any level 8 hills until recently, so who knows (just think of all the level counters you would need )). 2. As someone pointed out (I'm just typing this off the cuff, so I don't have any of the names in front of me, sorry) There is a rule which states that the LOS of _same_ level units is not blocked by obsticles of the same or lower height. This rule says that a unit at level 1 of a bldg could see a unit at level 1 of another blgd even with a level 1 woods in the way. It says nothing about the LOS of a unit at level 2 to level 1 (which is the point I believe he was trying to make). All reciprocity does for this is allows the other level 1 unit to fire back at the first level 1 unit (since this is already covered in the original rule, this is the source of the reciprocity dosn't apply comment, I believe). 3. The way that LOS is described in the ASLRB is to define LOS from higher unit to lower unit and apply reciprocity if you want to find LOS from low to high. The ASLRB does not define LOS from low to high (at least as far as I can remember). This means that you cannot say 'the unit at level 1 can see the unit at level 2 so reciprocity says...' because the ASLRB does not say anything directly about level 1 to level 2 LOS. The only way to find out if a unit at level 1 can see a unit at level 2 is to first find out if the unit at level 2 can see the unit at level 1 (which is where we run into the blind hex problem). 4. Commen sense says... Of course it does. No one is arguing that the game should really be played this way, all they are saying is 'look at what these rule really say.' It is commen sense that if a level 1 unit can see a level 1 unit, it should be able to see a level 2 unit (as long as there isn't any kind of overhang in the way), there's just nothing in the rulebook about it. Again, I'm not arguing for the above interpretation, I am just trying to get the discusion clarified (there has been enough back and forth that people are now arguing points that don't relate to the issue at hand, and I'm very interested to see where _this_ topic goes). One thing that I haven't seen is any discussion of the definition of Hex as it applies to multi-location hexes. I think that is the main cause of the rule problem. Any more thoughts? Paul Bushland ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:49:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: Re: AH news farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) writes: [stuff deleted] > All you newbies, make sure you get copies of all the modules soon! I'll have > to make sure I get a second set of ASL and leave it in shrink-wrap for the > day my current set finally dies :-) Seriously, I don't think we're looking > at anything in the immediate future, but it's not totally impossible that > KGP II and March to Oblivion (title or release date?) will be the last > dedicated ASL we see. As if I didn't have a hard enough time waiting to buy modules (as I can afford them)! Now I feel like I'd better buy the rest of the them tomorrow. :-). [stuff deleted] > Somehow I can't see AH doing computer games. Almost every single computer > release of theirs that I have seen has been a good solid 3-5 years behind > the state of the art. If they want to make money they are going to be competing > with the likes of F/A-18 Hornet, Myst, DOOM, etc, and I don't think AI is > advanced enough yet to do serious wargaming on computers. But hey, maybe with > the application of money they can solve these problems. But with the big > debate on comp.sys.mac.games on whether Nazi iconography should be removed > from wargames, I wonder ... Limited AI might not be as much of a problem as it could be: I they release 'Beyond Squad Leader' with the capability to write moves/positions out to ascii files --which wouldn't be difficult-- play by email would be simple. And, of course, the capabilty to play vs. a local human opponent is easy. What's more, they could build the thing so that modules could be added on, like V for Victory, maybe even with scenario editor. I think they could definitely do some business with computerized ASL, possibly some with me if they do it right. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate them dropping traditional ASL in the least. Otherwise why would I have to order all the rest of the modules tomorrow? :-). But, I think they might *be able* to do it, without dropping ASL altogether. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:53:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: Re: demise of ASL mbs@zycor.lgc.com writes: > Guys, > > Maybe I'm just being naive, but why is everyone panicking every time > they hear some bad news from the Hill? There have been some messages posted > here about how if TAHGC doesn't support ASL that it will eventually die. > I don't share that belief. Once the last couple modules are finished > (whatever they are called) the system will be complete. What else is there > to do? The implication was that without "new" products coming out every > year, that ASL players would start to play other things. Hah. I know I > sure won't be playing much else besides ASL. If I have the complete system, > why should I stop playing? Hell, it may even give some of us a chance to > finally catch up with the system. What do we have out there anyway? Several > modules, 41 boards, a few historical thingies (if you count G-T), and a few > hundred scenarios when you count all the fanzine scenarios. I know I don't > have to play a scenario for the first time to have fun with it. In fact, > I think I have more fun on subsequent playings. It would take me almost > forever to get bored with the system as it stands right now. I agree whole-heartedly. Plus, now everyone will have more motivation to do some nifty DYO scenarios. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 14:10:19 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: ASL Annual Info (RIP) > Harrumph. Now I get to subscribe to the General and wait for their > terminally late issues so that I can read 20% or less of the magazine. Boy > oh boy, can't wait. > > Tom What really bothers me about this whole mess is that now Tom will never be able to get me the Annual he owes me. I'll bet he had something to do with the AH decision--"Stop the Annual and you'll never want for potatoes again." Dave ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 17:42 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: General DYO issue I remember someone saying that there was a good article on DYO secenarios for ASL in one of the Generals. Might someone out there in etherland be able to tell me in what issue it occurred. ------------------- djsullivan@bbn.com Dan Sullivan "Avalon Hill going out of buisness ?? I better by my copies of "The Floating Vagabond" now !" ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 17:28:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: AH, Comp Games, Annual My nickel: I'll miss the annual. On the plus side, I still haven't bought the 93a & 93b yet -- "Uh, gee honey, I didn't buy milk & cereal this week 'cause we REALLY needed to have the 93a Annual...". The temptation will no longer be there (to spend, Spend, SPEND!), but neither will the joy of reading those excellent tomes. On the subject of computer games...the Hill has put out some pretty sucky stuff. I bought "Line of Fire" or something like that - I can't recall the name because I haven't touched it for 3 years - and it was not very good. On the other hand, I played the C64 version of Wooden Ships and Iron Men at a convention way back in '86 or '87 and was VERY impressed with it. Of course, I could never find the thing - AH only sold it for the full boat price of $59 (a lot of $ in 1986-87). You could not buy it "locally", and I don't hink they ever made an IBM PC version either. If AH really pulls off the computer version of Third Reich, and the computer version of SL...well, I'll be impressed. But these products won't have the same attraction to those of us that favor the ultimate opponent (via FTF). I wonder if some marketing genius thinks that software is the wave of the future???? It isn't. Hardware platforms have such short (and getting shorter) lifespans that what is great today won't run on what is great five years from now. Say what you will about paper, card, and board games -- they *last*. I am returning to ASL after a 5-6 year hiatus. If ASL was a computer game, I doubt that I would bother. Paul Ferrraro "Damn, broke the MA...AGAIN!" ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: AH, Comp Games, Annual Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 15:21:06 PDT > If AH really pulls off the computer version of Third Reich, and the > computer version of SL...well, I'll be impressed. But these products > won't have the same attraction to those of us that favor the ultimate > opponent (via FTF). I wonder if some marketing genius thinks that > software is the wave of the future???? It isn't. Hardware platforms have > such short (and getting shorter) lifespans that what is great today won't > run on what is great five years from now. Say what you will about paper, > card, and board games -- they *last*. I am returning to ASL after a 5-6 > year hiatus. If ASL was a computer game, I doubt that I would bother. > > Paul Ferrraro > "Damn, broke the MA...AGAIN!" I'm truly amazed that AH is still in the computer market at all. Their attempts in the past have been average at best and incompetently distributed. Is there some reason that they think they can do better now, when they have shown no inclination to do so in the past? I think the hardware-lifespan that Paul mentions above will only make matters worse for them (last catalog of theirs I saw still seemed to have mostly C64 and Apple II games, fercrissakes). BTW, for those who may care, I saw a playtest version of the cancelled Computer Patton's Best yesterday, and it looked like a BIG improvement over the board game. So what does AH do? Cancel it. IMHO, it was better than ANY of their computer products I've ever seen. Go figure. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 16:28:27 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Quick Cavalry Question Can Cavalry use infantry bypass around a woods hex? Tom ----- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 18:26:41 EDT From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: AH Demise I would like to say that if AH goes under, it was in fact my fault. I should never have renewed my subscription to the General. I renewed my S&T sub and SPI went down. Obviously, I should have been more thoughtful. Michael J. Black Department of Plant Pathology University of Georgia Experiment, Georgia 30212 (404) 228-7202 ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 16:06:31 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Quick Cavalry Question > Can Cavalry use infantry bypass around a woods hex? > > Tom Yes, they can, but not when they are galloping. Note that wagons, however, use the vehicle bypass rules. ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 14:09:18 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: Rules Errata >...it would be nice to >correct the panzerfaust rules, the hedge rules, Hmmm... what problems do you have with these two rules sections? Inquiring minds want to know... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 20:58:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: Rules Errata In message Thu, 7 Apr 1994 14:09:18 -1000, pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) writes: >>...it would be nice to >> correct the panzerfaust rules, the hedge rules, > > Hmmm... what problems do you have with these two rules sections? Inquiring > minds want to know... Panzerfaust rules - is it a support weapon or not? What is the meaning of "may not make a PF check in SFF or FPF" in C13.31? Talking to Mac at WO, he said pretty much to ignore the SFF and FPF sentence in C13.31 and treat it just like any other SW covered by the SFF and FPF rules in Chapter A. Hedge rules - very illogical. Example on Board 6... Unit in X8 has LOS to a unit in N8. Remove any one of the hedge lines parallel to the LOS (W8:W9, U8:U9, or O8:O9) and there is no LOS. This is illogical. I figure that B9 is trying to say that the hedge/walls in parallel to the LOS do not, in themselves, block LOS but any hedge/wall not parallel and intersecting the LOS should block LOS as they would if the parallel wall/hedge were not there. And these are things that quickly spring to mind. ----- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:36:13 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: re: PF and hedges >Panzerfaust rules - is it a support weapon or not? What is the meaning of >"may not make a PF check in SFF or FPF" in C13.31? Talking to Mac at WO, he >said pretty much to ignore the SFF and FPF sentence in C13.31 and treat it >just like any other SW covered by the SFF and FPF rules in Chapter A. Hmmm... this is an interesting ruling by Mac (yes, it's the dreaded MacSez)... >Hedge rules - very illogical. Example on Board 6... >Unit in X8 has LOS to a unit in N8. Remove any one of the hedge lines >parallel to the LOS (W8:W9, U8:U9, or O8:O9) and there is no LOS. This is >illogical. No, the LOS is always blocked in this example. 9.2 says: "Walls and hedges are Half-Level obstacles to LOS even if they lie lengthwise (on a hexspine) exactly along a LOS unless the VIEWING/TARGET HEX is formed by that hexside/hexspine." {Emphasis added} Therefore, in your example the LOS is blocked by the U8:U9 hexside because it is not a hexspine of either the viewing or target hex. However, there are cases where a missing hexside would block the LOS, e.g., the 9.2 example showing a squad firing from 6Z9 to 6X6. In this example the LOS would be blocked if either the X7/Y7 or Y9/Z8 hexside vanished. In cases such as this, though, the rules are handicapped by the fact that the hedge must follow an artificial hexside. Consider the following thought experiment: what if the hedge in the 9.2 example ran in a straight line from the Y7-Z6-Z7 vertex to the Y9-Z8-Z9 vertex, and the wall ran from X5-X6-Y6 to X8-Y8-Y9, as the "real" wall would. Do you agree that the two units in X6 and Z9 should be able to see each other? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- From: mrhodes@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Dr. M. Rhodes) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:49:01 +0000 Subject: What if .... Thought Id give my opinion of what happens if AH stop supporting ASL Well if there is no one to publish "official" rules changes/clarifications every eventually there would be loads of house rule fixes floating around and that would give great problems. I mean they still havent fixed everything yet (eg nonstopped tank Mg firing) Also with the demise of the annual will the general do one debreifing a year or lots of little fixes in there Q & A box ie miss one issue of the general and you may have missed out on an absolutely vital errata. Hope all this is not true, but it sounds like someones in serious stumf lets all hope the situation improves Michael Rhodes p.s Ive always felt that AH never seem to advertise the only adverts I see for there new products are in the general. Ive always felt this has been a big problem as if they cant attract newcomers with there simple games then where will the new blod come from? ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: AH news Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 11:22:54 +0200 (MET DST) Chris Farrell writes: > > [stuff deleted] > said, they had it coming), but if they continue to stay in business, with > only minimal investment in ASL, and continue to aggressively defend their > copyrights. I have no doubt that Fortenberry and the other FFE/ASLUG/ASL News/ > Dagger people could make products like historical modules - very good ones - > and actually make some money. But if AH will not allow them to despite not > supporting the product, there is a disaster in the making for us. > And don't forget Tactiques. If AH lets somebody else doing modules, sure we will do it _and in english_. We are ready, we have stuff, a handfull of designers and we are already with a game editor for the distribution of our mag. We are currently try color (in the next issue, there will be a full sheet of color overlays (hedges/bocages to feature Normandy terrain on standard mapboards) -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: AH, Comp Games, Annual Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 06:29:15 -0400 (EDT) > > I'm truly amazed that AH is still in the computer market at all. Their > attempts in the past have been average at best and incompetently distributed. > Is there some reason that they think they can do better now, when they have > shown no inclination to do so in the past? I think the hardware-lifespan that > Paul mentions above will only make matters worse for them (last catalog of > theirs I saw still seemed to have mostly C64 and Apple II games, > fercrissakes). I agree with the old attempts, but AHs new found confidence stems from their relationship with Atomic. (The people who did the V4V series) Later, Neal Smith ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:13:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: re: PF and hedges In message Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:36:13 -1000, pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) writes: >> Panzerfaust rules - is it a support weapon or not? What is the meaning >> of "may not make a PF check in SFF or FPF" in C13.31? > > Hmmm... this is an interesting ruling by Mac (yes, it's the dreaded > MacSez)... And it makes sense. Consider the squad that has fired its inherent fire power and is marked with a first fire counter. Can it check for a PF? The conclusion this list came up with was, "Yes it can. The squad still has capability (non-SFF of FPF) to use a SW. Thus a PF check is allowed." I contended that this is in violation of C13.31 but the conclusion that was reached and what Mac said was logical and consistent with the rest of the SW rules. >>Hedge rules - very illogical. Example on Board 6... > >>Unit in X8 has LOS to a unit in N8. Remove any one of the hedge lines >> parallel to the LOS (W8:W9, U8:U9, or O8:O9) and there is no LOS. >> > > No, the LOS is always blocked in this example. Oops, you're correct. > However, there are cases where a missing hexside would block the LOS, > e.g., the 9.2 example showing a squad firing from 6Z9 to 6X6. In this > example the LOS would be blocked if either the X7/Y7 or Y9/Z8 hexside > vanished. In cases such as this, though, the rules are handicapped by the > fact that the hedge must follow an artificial hexside. Right. And this is what is illogical or at least not consistent. > Consider the > following thought experiment: what if the hedge in the 9.2 example ran in > a straight line from the Y7-Z6-Z7 vertex to the Y9-Z8-Z9 vertex, and the > wall ran from X5-X6-Y6 to X8-Y8-Y9, as the "real" wall would. Do you > agree that the two units in X6 and Z9 should be able to see each other? Maybe. Consider the same wall/hedge combination but have units in Z9 and X5. Should they be able to see each other? Again, maybe. I agree that there is some angle on the wall at which LOS would be lost. But I think it is more important that the rules be internally consistent. The plateau nature of the hills in ASL is a concession to the hex grid nature of the board layout but the LOS rules are internally consistent. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 09:22:28 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: AH news I tried to mail this directly to Jean-Luc, but it bounced ... So how can we Americans subscribe to Tactiques? Sorry if this question has been gone over a dozen times before. Yes, I know it's in French. Chris ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:47:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: General DYO issue Dan: Schmittgens & Kibler, GENERAL vol. 24, no. 1. Going All Out: Design Your Own (My Way). Let me know if you want to give it a whirl by PBEM sometime (I.m full-up at the moment). Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock > > I remember someone saying that there was a good article on DYO secenarios for > ASL in one of the Generals. Might someone out there in etherland be able to > tell me in what issue it occurred. > > ------------------- > djsullivan@bbn.com > Dan Sullivan > > "Avalon Hill going out of buisness ?? I better by my copies of "The Floating > Vagabond" now !" > > > ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 12:18:13 -0500 From: "Robert K. Brunner" Subject: Unsubcribe From: w.holmes5@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 21:10:00 BST X-Genie-Id: 2989894 X-Genie-From: W.HOLMES5 PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME THIS IS MY 3RD REQUEST THE MAIL VOLUME IS FAR TOO MUCH FOR MY ACCOUNT TO HANDLE!!! A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING CARBONED TO GENIE IF FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED. W.HOLMES5 I think you should send list requests to a different address. It might be asl-request@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov, but I don't remember for sure. If this isn't right, could somebody who knows for sure help this guy? By the way, Mr. Holmes, the person who runs this list also has to work for a living. If there busy with something else, it may take a few days to get to list business. Robert ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Glenn E. Elliott" Subject: Re: Unsubcribe On Thu, 7 Apr 1994 w.holmes5@genie.geis.com wrote: > PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME THIS IS MY 3RD REQUEST THE MAIL VOLUME IS FAR TOO MUCH > FOR MY ACCOUNT TO HANDLE!!! A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING CARBONED TO > GENIE IF FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED. Mr. Holmes (and others who seem to have this problem), You are mailing your request to the wrong address. asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov is a simple rerouting address which immediately sends your message to the hundreds of people subscribed to the mailing list. If you wish to unsubscribe from the list, you need to send your request to asl-request@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov. It is true that requests such as yours to the mailing list itself will occasionally work, but it is only due to the fact that the list administrator is also a reader of the mailing list. If you desire a quick response, you really need to send your request to the proper address. Glenn Elliott ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 14:22:37 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: AH news My two cents, I, for one, will be sorry to see the annual disappear. I subscribe to the General, but I fear that fans of all the other games produced by AH will bitch if ASL if featured too much. They have in the past, and I'm sure it will continue. Not that I blame them. At any rate, with the not-so-good news and rumors concerning the Hill, I'm glad that this newsgroup exists for the die-hards. Besides, I remember past editorials in the General lamenting the state of war-gaming and came to realize that it's the players that keep the spirit alive, and not the companies that produce the games. So, I guess it's up to us if the worst should happen. I can't see that being a problem, though. So what happens when the system is complete? Even if AH stalls on finishing the basic system (and it would probably be in their best interests to do so) the day will come when they call it quits, and move on. I'll be sorry to see that day come. Computer games are fun, but as Paul Ferraro stated earlier they just don't have the edge a ftf game generates. Well, that's enough for today. Sorry to prattle on. Just keep rolling the dice, and see what happens. Jim Shetler ----- Date: 8 Apr 1994 14:58:48 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: Game Wanted Subject: Time:1:58 PM OFFICE MEMO Game Wanted Date:4/8/94 Well, since I didn't get an overwelming response to my request for a DASL game, how about any game at all? Regards. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- Subject: QUESTIONS & MORE From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 14:35:00 -0640 Howdy, What with all this talk about the Demise of ASL, it may all be moot, but I have a rules questions and some other stuff :-) Rules questions: A squad has a PF & fires, but rolls a 12, reducing it to a HS. Can the HS now look for a second PF? Is the HS marked with a First Fire marker? Can SMOKE be placed by Ordnance in a water obstacle? Infantry can't (A24.1), but I don't see anything about Ordnance SMOKE or Smoke Dischargers, except G13.47 which prohibits SMOKE in Ocean. Player comments: I think it is possible to have a good game while holding your opponent "strictly" to the rules, but it is a matter of attitude. If a player is serious about holding to the rules, and it is a "friendly" game, the player ought to help his opponent with the obvious things, like rallies, repairs, etc, especially with an opponent he has never played before and who isn't used to playing that way. This will help bring his opponent up to speed and make the game more enjoyable for both players. After all, a player who wants to play strictly by the rules obviously wants to develop his discipline against the most stringent opposition :-) Trivia question: Fire by MGs & Inherent FP is generally doubled if the two units are adjacent. Under what circumstance is it not? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: 08 Apr 94 17:55:16 EDT From: Paul Bushland <74111.226@CompuServe.COM> Subject: KGP Info wanted Hey all you out there, This request was posted over in Compuserve, but since I've seen a lot more ASL discussion out here, I have taken the liberty of 'forwarding' it. If you want to reply, the address to use would be 72662.2443@compuserve.com (note, that's a period, not a comma). ----------------------------------------------------------------- #: 478829 S11/Board Wargames 04-Apr-94 14:19:57 Sb: ASL: KGP Fm: Avalon Hill 72662,2443 To: all If any of you ASLers have gotten some KGP I scenarios/campaign-games under your belts, I'd sure like to hear what you think about the module; what you do/don't like about it, your feelings on the balance, and any other comments you'd care to make. Bob Mc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- On a side note, I just got KGP I last week and have been wanting to try it out. Has anyone had experience trying to play it PBEM? Does it work? Anyone want to try? Paul Bushland (74111.226@compuserve.com) ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 20:48:12 +0930 GMT From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: Fun scenarios ? Hi Will (Will Scarvie x6388), on Apr 6 you wrote: > Bas de Bakker (bas@phys.uva.nl) writes: > > >I think the best way to choose a fun scenario is not to look in any > >list, but to choose a scenario that looks fun to _you_. > > I couldn't agree with Bas more. My original point was only that I, > personally, put more "stock" in the Most-Played list than in the > others. > > There are tons of scenarios that aren't on the Most-Played list that > look like great fun to me and I'd play them in a heartbeat, no matter > what the Record says. Exactly. Mant "Most Played" scenarios are short scenarios. Many people (myself included) are reluctant to play any scenarios with more than 8 turns due to time constraints, but some of these scenarios are excellent. > > Didn't mean to sound like the Most-Played list was somehow the _best_, > or even a really _good_ way to pick scenarios to play, > > Will Scarvie > will@kafka.saic.com > -- Brad McMahon <> bjm@rommel.apana.org.au "It's only a rumour" ----- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 18:53:53 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: AH news >I spoke with Rob Wolke when he was here in Portland last month about AH's >perceived waning interest in ASL. He told me that AH is turning away from >board games and focusing on computer games. I said, "Well, that kind of >worries me." He said, "You SHOULD be worried." Rob went on to say that if AH I may be making a somewhat sacrireligious statement here, and I must first say that I *love* ASL, and consider it the best wargaming simulation on the market. That aside, I must wonder at the fear that seems to be striking at everyone when contemplating AH's (possible) decision to go into computer gaming. Particularly since evetyone reading this mailing list is on the internet. As much as I love ASL, there are some aspects of the game which I consider problematic. 1) Limited Intelligence. I know that AH has taken great pains to incorporate "fog of war" rules, with concealment and HIP. However, these do not go nearly far enough. Certainly one does not know as much about their opponent, but one can still see the enterance of a mass of troops in a location which should be beyond LOS. And what about when a microsituation brews up, and an entire side can respond instantly to that event (when they would probably not even know that this event had occured?). As well: what about misinterpreted orders, or bumbled officers? 2) The rule set. ASL has without doubt the longest and most-legalistic set of rules I have ever encountered in any war game. My copy is very well thumbed, in its second binder, and the index has been xeroxed and replaced. I must have spent hundreds of hours pouring over the tome and attempting to clarify yet one more minor reinterpretation of a sub-rule. Often a game will degenerate into a match to find out who will find the best rule interpretation. Obviously from this mailing list, this is a problem with all of you as well (since the vast majority of questions concern rules interpretations). 3) Real Time versus Game time. Most battles happen in a blinding dlash of confusion and turmoil. ASL reflects a two minute game turn. Yet I have often spent many times over that amount considering the "best" move a particular squad may make. The deliberative process certainly makes for better play, but certainly does not reflect the split-second decisions that influence a real battle situation. Where is the pressure to "do something now"? 4) Moving those damn counters. How many times have you had a stack of three squads, each with its own SW, a leader on top, but one of the squads is pinned, another broken, another exhausted. One of the squads could be fanatic as well, and maybe the leader is wounded. Then, the pinned unit defensive first fires. (On and on). finally, another stack comes in adjacent and you elect to route the broken unit. Then the finger happens to knock the whole stack over! Sometimes the situation is so tight that one cannot even get their hand in to move a unit without ecffecting the adjacent stacks! (And then someone bumps the mapboard). So the game we know and love has flaws. So what? One must take the good with the bad. Or does one? I can conceptualize an ASL type game run on a computer system. Hidden movement and limited intelligence could easily be handled by the software. On would not have to worry about rule interpretations, because the computer would only allow moves within its rules-set. The pace of the moves could be controlled, and thus allow a little pressure over time-based situations. Your troops might not quite understand your order, and perhaps do something unexpected. And you would never knock over a stack again! Many of you are playing by e-mail: would this not be more fun if a computer program were to deal with all the grunt work? I for one would be ecstatic if AH were to develop some multi-player computer gaming system on par with ASL. Perhaps AH is merely moving in the direction that the rest of the world is moving: away from paper and towards electronic media. Certainly my ASL counters will survive for several more years beyond any pase-out of the system. Hopefully by that time, there will be some version of ASL which can take advantage of all that a computer can do to speed up play and increase realism. regards David B. Smith -- SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 19:07:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Powers Subject: AH News With all this talk about the demise of AH, I thought I'd report something positive. I just received my application for Avaloncon 94. :) Hope to see some netters there, Chuck ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 19:34:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: QUESTIONS & MORE What the heck, I'll take a shot at the answers! (har har) In message Fri, 8 Apr 94 14:35:00 -0640, jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) writes: > A squad has a PF & fires, but rolls a 12, reducing it to a > HS. Can the HS now look for a second PF? Is the HS marked with > a First Fire marker? A toughy. The half-squad shares the fate of the full squad. In other words it carries the applicable fire counter with it. Thus, the "pf SW" would be marked with a FF counter. Thus, the halfsquad would be considered to have fired a weapon and would be ineligible for using its inherent fire in other than SFF or FPF or Final Fire. > Can SMOKE be placed by Ordnance in a water obstacle? > Infantry can't (A24.1), but I don't see anything about > Ordnance SMOKE or Smoke Dischargers, except G13.47 which > prohibits SMOKE in Ocean. Well, I did find where OBA Smoke may not be placed in a Water Obstacle (C1.71) But I haven't found anything limiting Ordnance SMOKE beyond prohibition for placement in Mud or Deep Snow. > Trivia question: > > Fire by MGs & Inherent FP is generally doubled if the two units > are adjacent. Under what circumstance is it not? When greater than one level height difference exists between the firer and the target. ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 17:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: Computerized ASL? On Fri, 8 Apr 1994 SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU wrote: [snip snip] > I for one would be ecstatic if AH were to develop some multi-player computer > gaming system on par with ASL. Perhaps AH is merely moving in the direction > that the rest of the world is moving: away from paper and towards electronic > media. Certainly my ASL counters will survive for several more years beyond > any pase-out of the system. Hopefully by that time, there will be some version > of ASL which can take advantage of all that a computer can do to speed up play > and increase realism. Well, if that is what AH is planning on doing, then I believe that they will go under. Why? Because the task of transfering the contents of the ASLRB into a computer game format w/graphics etc, would be mind boggling! This would not be a task to be taken lightly. And we all know how critical ASL players are :-). If a computerized version was not "perfect" or nearly so, it probably would not have the support of the verteran ASL players. I know that I would not settle for any two-bit (no computer pun intended) text based cryptic version that is full of bugs. Look how many problems us humans have interpreting the ASLRB...just imagine the task it would be to program ASL and have some sort of on-line rules checker validating everything the players did. I think it's a pretty tall order to fill. ********************************************* * Neal E. Ulen (nealu@uidaho.edu) * * Center for Applied Thermodynamic Studies * * College of Engineering * * University of Idaho * * Moscow.Idaho.83843.USA * ********************************************* ----- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 20:58:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: RE: QUESTIONS & MORE On Fri, 8 Apr 1994, Carl D. Fago wrote: > What the heck, I'll take a shot at the answers! (har har) > > > Trivia question: > > > > Fire by MGs & Inherent FP is generally doubled if the two units > > are adjacent. Under what circumstance is it not? > > When greater than one level height difference exists between the firer and > the target. ...iff the firer is lower than the target location. Also when adjacent but with no LOS, no attack at all is possible. Tim P.S. I know that units in higher levels should be placed *on* the appropriate level counter. Why do I always want to put units in RB cellars *under* the cellar counter? :-) ----- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 09:19:11 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Re: Fun scenarios ? PMm> I think that Bas' description of the Most-Played list is a PMm> fairly accurate one. It's mostly a bunch of short, PMm> uncomplicated scenarios that I personally don't consider to PMm> be much fun at all. YMMV, of course. Anyway, the Most-Played PMm> list is probably more a measure of how complicated a scenario PMm> is. I totally agree here. I think that without taking into account balance, the record doesn't have a lot of meaning, even in scenarios that have a lot of playings. Particularly since people started using the Aussie Balance Provisions. They can swing the balance of a scenario drastically from one side to the other. So the record doesn't really tell you which side is favoured at all. Still, I appreciate the work, and I do like to see what scenarios are being played the most in each period, to see what's "hot". -Grant. ... SEARS VIRUS: Your data won't appear unless you buy new cables, power supply and a set of shocks. -== IceIQle v1.6 ==- ----- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 09:12:07 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: CASL touch report tTR> One last thing - are you sure this guy was Canadian? His tTR> attitude doesn't jibe with the standard relaxed pose of our tTR> Northern brothers. I think what you got there is a displaced tTR> Californian who misses smog and traffic jams. Check his tTR> passport. tTR> Gack! We've been found out! There are actually some "unpleasant" Canadians. But you've really got to look for them. -Grant. ... A bleeding heart can be hell on the carpeting. -== IceIQle v1.6 ==- ----- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 09:42:47 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: AH, Comp Games, Annual I don't buy all this doom and gloom about AH. Sure, I'll miss the Annuals and wish I knew why AH is taking this step. But as for the demaise of SL or AH deciding not to support it- hogwash. Where did we get this info? Someone talked to Rob Wolkey who talked to someone else who said AH might be turning to computer games. Pretty much like party-line rubbering if you ask me. I'll wait for some facts, and in the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the greatest wargame ever devised. -Grant. ... "None of the Above" for President. -== IceIQle v1.6 ==- ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 05:16:00 BST Subject: Where in the world is Brian Yo To all those trying desparately to unsubscribe: As a good friend of Brian (the ASL Internet Bulletin Board Guru) Youse's, I can tell you that he has been out of town this week on business and that he will continue to be out of town over the weekend due to his attendence at the Winds of War tournament. But rest assured that Brian is a stand-up guy and he will unsubscribe you as soon as he becomes aware of your message. Chuck ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: How to subscribe to TACTIQUES Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 15:38:43 +0200 (MET DST) Hi everybody, Chris Farrel askes info about how to subscribe to TACTIQUES So: You can subscribe to Tactiques by sending an International Mail Order payable (is it the correct word) to MULTISIM to MULTISIM 24-26 rue des Prairies F-75020 PARIS FRANCE Price for 4 issues (Oversea) : 216 FF (includes shipping) 216FF ~ US$40 Don't forget to give your address and the starting issue # of your subscription You can subscribe starting with issue #5. Older issues are currently not available Issue #6 (June 94) will contain 8 scenarios, Wall/Hedge/Bocage rules study, Bocage battle historical study and a sheet of 12 color overlays used in 2 of the 8 scenarios and in several futur scenarios we are currently designing. Issue #7 (December 94) : 8 scenarios. Historical study : Tunisian campaign with at least 3 scenarios depicting actions on this theater. part of Desert rules study. -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- Subject: TRIVIA PHASE From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 14:43:00 -0640 Howdy, As was noted, the answer to the previous trivia question was that Inherent FP & MGs are not doubled per PBF when attacking adjacent units if the firer is at least two levels lower than its target (e.g. attacking a unit high in a building from the street below (A7.21). 'Nother trivia question: there are two types of stars which might appear on a vehicle or Gun counter indicating a note about the item (in addition to the stars for short Barrel length and for unarmored vehicle aspect). For instance, the German StuH 42(L) has one kind of star by the CMG indicating that the CMG can fire in the VCA only, and another kind of star by the AAMG indicating that it was remotely controlled and so couldn't be used by a rider or fired at aircraft. Describe these two stars and the difference in their meaning. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: DASL Scenario 10 SSR question Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 16:45:49 PDT I've just bought the Deluxe modules, and while I was reading the scenario cards something struck me: I can't for the life of me figure out what SSR 7 of DASL Scenario 10 is trying to say. For the record, here's what it says: "Even though the 88 and Panthers have no Concealment Terrain, they may set up hidden as long as they remain out of enemy LOS. The 88 may be considered emplaced even in street hexes." Now, looking at the DASL boards a-d, I see LOTS of Concealment Terrain. Is this SSR trying to say (poorly) that the 88 and Panthers are not allowed to set up in Concealment Terrain? I could certainly understand this, since two of the three Panthers have to be set up Immobilized (and I'd be tempted to put them in buildings). Or is the SSR just trying to say that IF they aren't set up in Concealment Terrain they may be hidden anyway? Thanks, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: abillsasl@aol.com Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 08:03:26 EDT Subject: Mailings to Genie,Compuserve To all the people unsubscribing due to excessive costs to get your mail. Try America Online! For the $9.95 monthly fee I get 5 free hours of connect time, that includes 9600 baud if a line is in your area. AOL uses Sprintnet so most of the lines are the same as Genie or Compuserve. All forums are included, they only charge you for your connect time. After the 5 hours are up, its $3.50 an hour. The most I've paid for a month has been $12.00, but last month I didn't even use all my free time. I usually check for mail everyday and spend from 2 to 15 minutes saving mail and looking through other discussion lists. At 9600 baud I've whipped through the ASL mailing list in less than 10 minutes at its peak 40+ size. I can selectively ignore mail quickly or use a utility that will download all the mail without me even actively controlling the session. AOL provides free software that runs on Windows, DOS, Mac or Apple II. They give 5 free hours of bonus time to a customer who signs up someone else. I would suggest getting together with your friends and make sure everyone gets a little of the free time by sending each other the package. The initial month comes free with 10 hours of connect time, no obligations. If you need more info just send me a message. Alan Bills ----- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 10:17:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Yiu Chong Leung Subject: GEnie Actually, I think the GEnie rate is a bit less than AOL. GEnie's monthly charge is about $5 for 4 hours of log-on time and for each additional hours after that, it is $3 per hour. GEnie also has an interface program that allows automatic download and upload of messages. That program can run only on IBM or compatible computers though. Lance ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 21:15:00 BST Subject: Mailings to Genie,Compuserve Alan, Has America On-Line added full interest access, yet, or at least FTP. That is mainly what I am interested in. I recently heard that they were supposed to be added these other features. If so, I will check into it. If others are not interested in this, send a private reply. Thanks, Warren ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 21:13:00 BST Subject: Postscript scenarios Are there any text-only versions of the Postscript scenarios available? If so, can someone send them to me or put them in the archive? Through GEnie, I can only get the files through e-mail as uncompressed text. Talk about expensive! I tried downloading one of them and 360,000 bytes later, I had had enough. Thanks for any help. Warren ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 01:41:00 BST Subject: "WINDS OF WAR '94" "WOW '94" saw 48 participants fighting it out in Winston-Salem, NC over a variety of 1944 venues. First place went to Russ Bunten 5-0, Pete Chamness and Rich Summers ended up tied for second at 4-1. Honorable mention to Richard Andrews and Alan Salzman. Everything went well in what was probably the last WOW. Next year I will be in Poznan, Poland and would appreciate any info on the wargaming scene in Poland or in Berlin, Germany. Guess I'll have to make a few Recontres. Ray ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 08:43:37 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > As was noted, the answer to the previous trivia question > was that Inherent FP & MGs are not doubled per PBF when > attacking adjacent units if the firer is at least two > levels lower than its target (e.g. attacking a unit high in > a building from the street below (A7.21). Well, there is at least one more circumstance I can think of... :-> > 'Nother trivia question: there are two types of stars which > might appear on a vehicle or Gun counter indicating a note > about the item (in addition to the stars for short Barrel > length and for unarmored vehicle aspect). For instance, > the German StuH 42(L) has one kind of star by the CMG > indicating that the CMG can fire in the VCA only, and > another kind of star by the AAMG indicating that it was > remotely controlled and so couldn't be used by a rider or > fired at aircraft. Describe these two stars and the > difference in their meaning. Easy! The five-pointed star is used for denoting that the meaning of the star is on the back of the counter, and the six-pointed star is used to denote that the meaning of the star is found in chapter H of the ASLRB. Speaking of those stars, is there anyone else that has noted that the star meaning "there is something in the RB about this" is *not* identical to the short-barrel star? Am I imagining things here? As far as I've seen, the short-barrel star is rotated 60 degrees in comparison with the other, but I don't know if they've been doing this consistently. That tiny thing actually made me think that the short barrel of the french B1-bis was a "special info" star, and allowed it to knock out two or three shermans! -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Trick Question Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 09:10:26 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > OK, I've been reading this for a while and have decide to jump in and muck > things up even more (note: I'm writing this from work and don't have the > ASLRB with me, so I won't be citing anything specifically). You're very welcome. > 1. The main problem is that the rules on blind hexes specify the creation > of a blind _hex_ not a blind location based on the level of the hex. If there > is a unit in the 25th level of a building, but the building is in a hex > with a base level of 0, it is still a level 0 _hex_ (I know there aren't any > level 25 buildings yet, but there weren't any level 8 hills until recently, > so who knows (just think of all the level counters you would need )). Bah! We'll just stack the level counters, and add the level of each to see what level the unit is actually at :-) > 3. The way that LOS is described in the ASLRB is to define LOS from higher > unit to lower unit and apply reciprocity if you want to find LOS from low > to high. The ASLRB does not define LOS from low to high (at least as far > as I can remember). This means that you cannot say 'the unit at level 1 > can see the unit at level 2 so reciprocity says...' because the ASLRB does > not say anything directly about level 1 to level 2 LOS. The only way to > find out if a unit at level 1 can see a unit at level 2 is to first find > out if the unit at level 2 can see the unit at level 1 (which is where we > run into the blind hex problem). As have been pointed out to me, reciprocity doesn't simply state "LOS works both ways", but instead works the way you describe it. Therefore my comments on reciprocity are wrong. > 4. Commen sense says... Of course it does. No one is arguing that the > game should really be played this way, all they are saying is 'look at > what these rule really say.' It is commen sense that if a level 1 unit > can see a level 1 unit, it should be able to see a level 2 unit (as long > as there isn't any kind of overhang in the way), there's just nothing in > the rulebook about it. Since the original question was posed as "I know this is wrong, but the rules still say this" the point of the discussion is to work out a bug in the rules. I hope noone is actually claiming that the LOS described is blocked. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: PF and hedges Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 09:18:42 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, [ about a MacSez and PF/SFF-FPF ] > And it makes sense. Consider the squad that has fired its inherent fire > power and is marked with a first fire counter. Can it check for a PF? The > conclusion this list came up with was, "Yes it can. The squad still has > capability (non-SFF of FPF) to use a SW. Thus a PF check is allowed." But is this really the same thing as ignoring the restriction on SFF and FPF for PF's? I don't think so. IMO, the SW usage by a unit that has fired its inherent FP (only) isn't SFF so a PF shot is allowed anyway, without any MacSez. > I contended that this is in violation of C13.31 but the conclusion that was > reached and what Mac said was logical and consistent with the rest of the SW > rules. I disagree that this is in violation of said rule. See above. As usual, this comes from the problem of actually placing those annoying First/Final/Prep fire counters on the board. I never did that, and I never had any problems figuring out what could be done and what couldn't... (This isn't intended to be personal, I am just generally annoyed that people seem to forget about common sense just because there is an informational marker to place. As far as I am concerned that's all the fire markers are for, they don't magically change the rules to become illogical to make it easier to place markers.) -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:07:03 +0200 From: Robert Rydlo Subject: Questions on DC's Hi everybody! This weekend i played the BV scenario 'the commissar's house'. Thereby we came across some questions about laying DC's. The situation: A german and a russian unit are ADJACENT but in different buildings. The buildings are seperated by an open ground hexside. It's the german player MPh. The questions: 1.) Can the german elite squad lay the DC in the russian building hex as the first action in their MPh? 2.) If the russians FirstFire on the germans, what DRM's would apply? (FFNAM?, the Building TEM?, ...) I hope that these questions are not too 'basic'. Cheers, Robert ====================================== Robert RYDLO ryd@ems.co.at EXTERNA Salzburg AUSTRIA / Europe We don't have kangaroos............... ====================================== ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:07:53 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: RE: QUESTIONS & MORE Timothy Van Sant writes: > P.S. I know that units in higher levels should be placed *on* the > appropriate level counter. Why do I always want to put units in RB > cellars *under* the cellar counter? :-) Because there are no level 0 counters (unless the Location is fortified). If you put the units which are in the cellar on the cellar counter, how would you distinguish them from those at ground level? I guess by putting the units at ground level beneath the cellar counter. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:27:49 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Computer games (was: AH News) SMITDV writes: > That aside, I must wonder at the fear that seems to be striking at > everyone when contemplating AH's (possible) decision to go into > computer gaming. Particularly since evetyone reading this mailing > list is on the internet. The fact that I'm on the internet doesn't imply that I like computer games. I spend most of my working day programming computers, I don't want to spend my gaming time behind a computer as well. > As much as I love ASL, there are some aspects of the game which I > consider problematic. > 1) Limited Intelligence. Granted. > As well: what about misinterpreted orders, or bumbled officers? More randomness of this kind might make a better simulation, but I wouldn't like it in a game. If you have less control over your units, this usually means the game is more luck dependent. > 2) The rule set. If I were playing "computer ASL" I'd like to know the rules, too. > 3) Real Time versus Game time. Most battles happen in a blinding > dlash of confusion and turmoil. ASL reflects a two minute game > turn. Yet I have often spent many times over that amount > considering the "best" move a particular squad may make. The > deliberative process certainly makes for better play, but certainly > does not reflect the split-second decisions that influence a real > battle situation. Where is the pressure to "do something now"? But you do have to take the decisions of several hundred men, so no wonder you need more time. If you want pressure you can try using some kind of timer. Personally, I couldn't stand that, though. > 4) Moving those damn counters. OTOH, a computer screen is a lot smaller than your average wargame map and you have to keep scrolling across the map to see something. The "grand map" on the computer screen contains a lot less detail. > Many of you are playing by e-mail: would this not be more fun if a > computer program were to deal with all the grunt work? Sure, but only as an addition to the normal ASL game. If AH were to move into mainly producing computer games, where would ASL be to add an email assist program to? There'd just be some computer game which I can't play FTF. > I for one would be ecstatic if AH were to develop some multi-player > computer gaming system on par with ASL. I wouldn't. I like maps and counters. I don't like computer games. I have no problem with AH making computer games, as long as they also keep making board games and don't fill the General with computer articles. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:48:44 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Questions on DC's Robert writes: > Hi everybody! > > This weekend i played the BV scenario 'the commissar's house'. Thereby we > came across some questions about laying DC's. > > The situation: > A german and a russian unit are ADJACENT but in different buildings. > The buildings are seperated by an open ground hexside. It's the german > player MPh. > > The questions: > 1.) Can the german elite squad lay the DC in the russian building > hex as the first action in their MPh? > Yes you can. The placing of the DC is movement like any other movement, expending MF as if you actually entered the target location, in this example it uses 2 MF. > 2.) If the russians FirstFire on the germans, what DRM's would > apply? (FFNAM?, the Building TEM?, ...) > Yes to both, as long as you don't declare Assault Movement. Note that you may use Assault Movement even if you both move one location and places a DC (irrespective of order). The TEM of your unit's location always applies, even though the DC is placed in another location. The fire is resolved just as you moved inside your own location. > > I hope that these questions are not too 'basic'. > No questions are too basic. I have often noticed that the most basic rules are often misinterpreted by the 'experts'. There are several rules that I found so basic that I never read them, and due to a 'basic' question found I had misinterpreted them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: The State of ASL (was: AH News) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 07:03:08 -0400 (EDT) > > 1) Limited Intelligence. I know that AH has taken great pains to incorporate > "fog of war" rules, with concealment and HIP. However, these do not go nearly > far enough. Certainly one does not know as much about their opponent, but one > can still see the enterance of a mass of troops in a location which should be > beyond LOS. And what about when a microsituation brews up, and an entire side > can respond instantly to that event (when they would probably not even know > that this event had occured?). As well: what about misinterpreted orders, or > bumbled officers? I have always disliked the fact that both players get to read the scenario card and, therefore, know everything about the other side. He knows the total force composition, when reinforcements arrive, what the objectives are, etc. Later, Neal Smith ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 07:24:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Computer games (was: AH News) SMITDV writes: > That aside, I must wonder at the fear that seems to be striking at > everyone when contemplating AH's (possible) decision to go into > computer gaming. Particularly since evetyone reading this mailing > list is on the internet. I take it that you haven't seen AH computer games. From the ones I have seen I find nothing encouraging about AH entering the computer game market (again.) If they are indeed moving away from boardgames and into computer games they are violating one of the basic business tenants...stick with what you know and what you do well. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 08:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Limited intelligence in FTF About this limited intelligence thing for FTF: Hey! WHO have you guys been talking too? All the games I play have limited intelligence. I'd like to think I will get smarter one day, but no one is holding there breath on this matter. :) Paul ----- Date: 11 Apr 1994 09:07:30 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: Victory Cond. Question Subject: Time:8:06 AM OFFICE MEMO Victory Cond. Question Date:4/11/94 ASLers, I have a question on the Victory Conditions for DASL A7, Lehr Sanction, or I guess any other game with building control VCs. Do the small out-buildings ( in this case the ones in hexes dE4, dN2, and dN4) count as separate buildings for VC purposes? Are thre 17 or 20 buildings on board d? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 09:57:43 -0400 Subject: The Annual (RIP) & Computer games Item Subject: Message text The death of the annual is particularly annoying to me. I have absolutely no desire to subscribe to the general. The only AH game I'm interested in reading articles about is ASL. Unless they at least treble the amount of attention ASL gets in the General I will not subscribe. So I'm pretty much feeling like AH has cut me and those like me (all the guys I play with) off. I can't for the life of me figure out why those morons would do this. The annuals have been impossible to keep in the store I frequent, so they must sell reasonably well. As for AH getting into computer games, I have to say they're likely to be very disappointed. One poster claims they're doing all of this because they're taking a beating finnacially. Don't they realize how hard it is to make money in the software biz? Sure some folks have made a killing but you have to invest an enourmous sum of money to hope to make anything respectable. It's crazy. Sigh. A newly disgruntled ASL fan, dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 08:25:16 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Where in the world is Brian Yo > As a good friend of Brian (the ASL Internet Bulletin Board > Guru) Youse's, I can tell you that he has been out of town this > week on business and that he will continue to be out of town over > the weekend due to his attendence at the Winds of War tournament. Rumors of Brian's reaction to the demise of the Annual being on the order of throwing a temper tantrum and piling his dogs into the minivan for a week- long drunk at Frannie's Bar and Grille in Natchitoches, LA, swilling Yoo-Hoo and muskrat burgers, are largely unfounded. Brian HATES muskrat. Tom ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 10:26:06 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Today We Attack Patrik writes... > Amen to that! Just look at scenarios like "Jungle Citadel" and "Today > We Attack". Just the kind of scenarios that will never get on the > Most-Played list since they are too complicated. Today We Attack is complicated? I think this scenario may scare some people off due to its size, but it is actually a very basic scenario. Also, very fun. ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Today We Attack Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:48:53 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > > Amen to that! Just look at scenarios like "Jungle Citadel" and "Today > > We Attack". Just the kind of scenarios that will never get on the > > Most-Played list since they are too complicated. > > Today We Attack is complicated? I think this scenario may scare some people > off due to its size, but it is actually a very basic scenario. Also, very > fun. Well, you have to have most of chapter G with: PTO terrain rules Japanese rules Chinese rules Don't remember if the chinese tanks are radioless as well, adding yet another rule to this. No, _I_ don't consider the scenario very complicated, but I think many consider most anything in the PTO to be complicated. And it sure is fun, too! Otherwise I wouldn't have played it two or three times. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 09:57:41 CDT From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary) Subject: Musings on the fate of the Annual I am going to go out on a limb here. I do not think that the situation at AH is as bad as we might think it to be. After reading the comments posted here earlier, I think the problem with the annual can be traced to the departure of Don Hawthorne as editor of The General. It seems that they do not have the personnel to work on all of the projects that they would like to- note the delay in the publication of The General. My guess is that they simply do not have enough people on staff to publish the Annual right now, and they will not until they find a replacement for Don Hawthorne. Personally I am very optimistic that we will see a 1995 Annual, and that AH's support for ASL is not being eliminated. I base part of this optimism on the fact that, a few years ago, when a letter to The General asked if the Annual might be published quarterly instead of biannually, they responded that they would like to, but that they simply did not have the manpower to publish it on that schedule. All of this is IMVHO, of course. Mike O'Leary ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 17:03:43 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Changing PBEM moves Suppose you're playing a pbem game and have just moved two tanks. The 2nd tank tried to BFF but malfunctioned its MA. (No Bret, I didn't. This is really hypothetical.) Now your opponent shoots at your 1st tank and kills it. He doesn't read on and allows you to change your other movements, a common occurrence. You could know make the 2nd tank not BFF just to avoid the malfunction. You could make it do something slightly different and roll again for a similar BFF attack. On the other hand, had the BFF attack been very good you can leave it at that and let your opponent read on. I'm not suggesting that one could somehow deliberately cheat in this way (as cheating is trivial anyway), but I'm wondering what an honest player should do. One could suggest that you try to forget all the DRs you already made and reconsider the situation to see whether you would still have made the exact same move. This, however, is impossible as I wouldn't even make the same move twice in the same situation. ASL is too difficult for me to be reproducible like that. How do people handle this kind of situation? Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:06:31 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: AH Computer Games Guys, It goes against the grain for me to recommend AH's computer line (since they blackballed me from the playtest... 8( ) *BUT* their computer game line is *not* their usual shoddy, half-developed product from the past. Instead, they have a *real* computer game company doing most of the work. Atomic? 360? I don't recall which. The games should be the equal, at the very least, of the V for Victory series of computer games... Not that I'll buy 'em. Guess they shouldn't have admitted to me that I was "blackballed". 8) Brian ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 11:07:32 -0500 (CDT) From: KCURLE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Question about Annuals All this talk about the demise of the Annual makes me wonder, how many of them did AH sell each year anyway? Does anybody know this or appox. how many ASLRB's have been sold? How many ASLer's are there out there anyway? ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 09:12:33 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: The State of ASL (was: AH News) > I have always disliked the fact that both players get to read the scenario > card and, therefore, know everything about the other side. He knows the total > force composition, when reinforcements arrive, what the objectives are, etc. > > Later, > Neal Smith The old GDW Assault series og games eliminated this problem by having separate scenario cards for each side, with varying force levels on each card. When you played a game, you both decided on the general scenario, but you were never quite sure what your opponents victory conditions were or what forces he had! Made for very interesting games, and the mechanics were very simple. Dave ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Glenn E. Elliott" Subject: Re: Limited intelligence in FTF > About this limited intelligence thing for FTF: > > Hey! WHO have you guys been talking too? All the games I play have limited > intelligence. I'd like to think I will get smarter one day, but no one is > holding their breath on this matter. :-) And if you want even MORE limited intelligence, play DYO. That's part of the fun of a DYO game - you have no idea what your opponent is going to purchase. Yes, you do know his victory conditions and the number of points he has available to buy his force with, but that's generally not nearly as important as knowing what he actually bought. By the time you encounter his force, yours is already fixed and you have to make do with what you have. Glenn Elliott Playtest Coordinator Wizards of the Coast, Inc ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 09:27:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Today We Attack Brian sez: > Today We Attack is complicated? I think this scenario may scare some people > off due to its size, but it is actually a very basic scenario. Also, very > fun. >-- End of excerpt from Brian Youse No, not really very complicated. But, IMO, this is a very tough one for the Japanese to win. The setup restrictions requiring that they setup in a perimeter around the airstrip makes the defense very brittle; ie., no defense in depth. Besides that, they are really outgunned. Anyone else? Dade ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:34:05 CDT From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: all you fog of war enthusiasts Guys, If fog of war is so important to you, why don't any scenarios designers among you take that into account when making a scenario? Take a hint from the GDW game that a previous poster just mentioned. Why not have a scenario where the attacker gets to choose from among 3 or 4 OBs and 3 or 4 VCs. Let the defender choose his OB from a list also. All choices kept secret of course. The deluxe scenario Draconian Measures already contains the VC element of this idea. Would that produce enough fog of war for you? Of course, I imagine DYO could produce a good amount of fog of war also, though I have never tried it. Matt ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 12:50:39 EDT From: Paul Stoecker Subject: The annual and AH I have been reading all of the postings about the AH demise and the annual and I think that if we give it time and allow things to settle down after the editorial change over things will work out for the best. From what I understand a few years ago AH wrote off some titles and took a loss but their demise is not iminent. I don't think they will fall off the planet after all of these years. The task of getting these games developed is monumental and the cost of playtesting probably outrageous. Once things settle down I am sure they will get back to publishing the annual and more gamettes. Why would they dump what has developed into a great game and is a labor of love for most of the people at AH. Maybe one of us should offer to become editor of the annual or help out in other ways. Just thought I would throw in my opinions on the matter. Paul stoecker@gandalf.rutgers.edu ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:47:09 CDT From: efcm@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: AH News Maybe this isn't completely relevant, but I'm comparing ASL with other games. How long has it been since Diplomacy was completed? It seems to me that with little help from AH, Diplomacy has survived quite well. I'd like to think that ASL could do likewise. Erik ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:54:32 CDT From: efcm@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: AH News >Many of you are playing by e-mail: would this not be more fun if a >computer program were to deal with all the grunt work? It could... This is akin to books versus movies. I enjoy a good movie, but I wouldn't give up reading my books soley for the movies. They are apples and oranges. "Computerizing" ASL won't make it better, it'll just make it different (good or bad). Erik ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:09:27 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Changing PBEM moves > Suppose you're playing a pbem game and have just moved two tanks. The > 2nd tank tried to BFF but malfunctioned its MA. (No Bret, I didn't. > This is really hypothetical.) Now your opponent shoots at your 1st > tank and kills it. He doesn't read on and allows you to change your > other movements, a common occurrence. > > You could know make the 2nd tank not BFF just to avoid the > malfunction. You could make it do something slightly different and > roll again for a similar BFF attack. On the other hand, had the BFF > attack been very good you can leave it at that and let your opponent > read on. > I don't really do any PBeM (nowhere to really set it up until now, so maybe I'll get into it again), but I'd say - live with it. It's a reality of the PBeM system. Of course, I'd be a little irked if someone used my 1(+2) from a conscript HS to change a tank's move to something that was not substantially different in order to avoid a MA malf, but I'd say it's part of the game. In some respects, the depletion numbers on ammo are similar - since the numbers are usually low, you can put yourself in a position of "if I don't roll low enough to kill the tank, I'll start up and drive away" or somthing along those lines. It's a mechanic that allows some non-logical abuse. Sometimes you just have to play by the rules, even when they aren't perfect. Any rule you tried to enact to prevent the mentioned "ploy" would, I think, be even more full of loopholes and possibilities for explotion. Of course, if you are in a freindly game with someone you know, you can work by some sort of honor system. But in a PBeM tournament or whatever, I'd use the ploy and expect my opponent to as well. I'd be curious to know how often such a thing comes up. Chris Chris ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:22:55 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Annuals, the General, whatever I seem to remember that AH keeps a pretty tight lid on their annual sales figures and how well each game does; I'm not quite sure why this is. Every year, they publish in The General what the new all-time best sellers are; last I looked at it (about 4-5 years ago) ASL had not yet made it there. I'm sure it probably has by now. Re: the decision to dump the Annual instead of the General, a lot has been said about how bad a business decision this is, but let's look at it from a different perspective. They don't have enough editors for two publications (or so the theory goes). The General is really nothing more than a walking 38 (or whatever it is now) page advertisement, so the theory goes that they lose a lot more than just the revenues (if any) from the General if they scale back it's production. Don Hawthorne's resignation has evidently thrown them into some disarray, so hopefully once they sort all this out, hopefully they can go back to a regular annual production. Or at least that would seem like the most logical course. Of course, since Don Greenwood is doing the General, it is unclear to me why Rex Martin can't do the annual (since by his own admission they usually write themselves ... most of the content is submitted or had the real work done by outsiders). I, for one, will most certainly NOT subscribe to the General, which has deteriorated to the point of uselessness since I first subscribed over 10 years ago. At least back then many of the articles were funny. I'm hoping that I can find 4 or 5 people to go in on one subscription and we can all share the ASL stuff. For $3-$4 a year it might be worth it. Chris ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:38:57 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: ASLRB ? I just got my 1st ASLRB. I *know* it was on the shelf for a couple of years at least. It has revised pages marked '87 & '89. Are there any more revised pages, and if so, how do I get them? Rusty witek@suvax1.stetson.edu ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 10:58:52 -0700 From: jwhit@aries.wr.usgs.GOV (Jon Whitworth) Subject: RE: Fog of War There is no emptiness is quite as profound as that experienced on a Monday following your once a month ASL fix. >>1) Limited Intelligence. I know that AH has taken great pains to incorporate >>"fog of war" rules, with concealment and HIP. However, these do not go nearly >>far enough. > I have always disliked the fact that both players get to read the scenario >card and, therefore, know everything about the other side. He knows the total >force composition, when reinforcements arrive, what the objectives are, etc. What I am going to throw in has probably been gone over in the past, but the comments above are one reason I have only played DYO scenarios so far. Oh sure I have played a few published scenarios solitaire, but IMHO it is a waste of rare FTF opportunities play a published one. Why not wallow in the fog of a DYO scenarios? Heck, purchase and set up are easily half the fun. And as the game progresses there are endless chances to bemoan your lack of foresight. "If only I'd bought SS squads instead of 1st line and a PzIVD." Does my opponent have mines, OBA, AT guns or what? Believe me, it makes a HUGE difference in play. This is not meant to be a commercial, but I have found the $25.00 investment in Tim Kitchen's ASL_DYO software to be the best software buy since I got EMPIRE many years ago. Jon Whitworth ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:00:11 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: DYO/Limited intelligence > And if you want even MORE limited intelligence, play DYO. I'll put in my occasional plug here for some help developing a new DYO system. The one in the rulebook sucks big time for a lot of reasons that we've gone over before (and you may or may not agree with). I was working on a system which works a bit like KGP, where you buy stuff by the platoon instead of by the single squad/vehicle, with semi-randomly generated leaders and SWs. The problem is that this breaks down with the smaller scenarios that most people usually like to play (maybe 1 - 1.5 companies and a platoon of vehicles or a couple of guns per side). What we really need is a set of scenario templates from which you can then supplement your OB with purchased units. Take for example a scenario like Cold Crocodiles (a great scenario), then let the German trade in one of those StuG's for some AT-mines, or swap one of the 88LL's for another platoon or so of infantry. All of a sudden it becomes a whole new ball game, especially if you keep the trade-ins hidden. Give them, say, a base force of the standard infantry complement and one AT gun, and then an additional X SPP (scenario Purchase Points) to buy men/equipment from a (reasonably short) list. Along these lines, I had another interesting idea (like I have any time to follow up on all these interesting ideas I have) - a sort of "generic HASL" much like the GT campaign game in the Annual. GT is so interesting because you control every aspect of the battle, from the timing of the assault to the availability of aircover and artillery. So, why don't we create some miscellaneous small island groups (not real hard ... maybe half to two-thirds of a real mapboard) and then make some KGP-style RG's for purchase. Maybe the Germans get three platoons of 2nd line squads, a HW Coy, and a platoon of 75's in pillboxes as their base, while the invading British commandos get a base of a company of 6-4-8's and a company of 4-5-8's (with LC), and then they could go on to buy a platoon of DD Shermans, some 200mm NOBA, two platoons of reinforcing glider trops, and a Crocodile, while the Germans buy a flak gun, a couple of old renaults, and some more conscripts ... anyway, you get my point. Play 4 scenarios, 8 turns each, one at night. Germans win if they have good order units at game end and their ELR doesn't drop below 0. British may commit at most two new companies and one armor platoon per scenario. Of course, you could size to taste with fewer or smaller islands in the group, but it would be by definition a moderatly large/long scenario, since I believe good DYO requires larger scenarios. The situation is small enough and the OB's limited enough that I think we could throw somthing together that would be on the same planet as balanced and a lot of fun to play. And you could even use the same island groups to cover a bunch of scenarios, like Brits vs. Germans, Gurkhas vs. Japanese (good fun!), or Japanese vs. Americans. I'd like to make the islands a little bigger (especially for non-Japanese, so there actually is somewhere to rout), but not much. So, do you think it has merit? Anybody want to give me a push in the right dircetion by helping to contribute some OB suggestions? I've been working on Marines, early-war US, British, and Japanese. Chris ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 13:15:30 CDT From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Electronic Flyer for: 1994 ASL Team Tournament * Austin, Tx * Jun 3rd-5th ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: text X-Sun-Data-Description: text X-Sun-Data-Name: text X-Sun-Content-Lines: 1 ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: default X-Sun-Data-Description: default X-Sun-Data-Name: tourny.flyer.94 X-Sun-Content-Lines: 107 #### 1994 ASL Team Tournament #### Austin, Texas The Sheraton on Sixth Street 6PM Friday June 3rd - 6PM Sunday June 5th 1994. The organizers of the ASL Team Tournament in Austin, Texas are committed to making the 1994 ASL Team Tournament as successful as last year's event. Prizes will be awarded in both team and individual categories. Here's how it works: Players can register as three person teams. Individuals without a team are welcome to band together on the opening night, or they may allow the organizers to randomly assign them to a team. Each team member, however, still plays games as an individual. Only now his success also contributes to his team's overall success. The most successful team wins. Simple, eh? Each team member should play three team qualifying matches. The team as a whole will be required to play scenarios from a number of different genres. No matches played between members of the same team count toward the team record (they will, however, count in the individual category). So bring your desert warfare expert, your PTO expert, and your urban warfare expert, and slug it out for bragging rights (and some pretty nice prizes). The winning team members will have their names emblazoned upon the coveted Austin Memorial Cup alongside 1993 champion: Fortenberry, Mueller, and Werhle. This trophy will be showcased from year to year as an honor roll of ASL Team Tournament champions. Don't fear, even if you put in a great effort, but your team should falter, you may still receive individual honors! Our free form tournament style and flexible schedule is designed to allow you to fully enjoy your weekend in Austin. The quality accommodations of the Sheraton are conveniently located within walking distance of many of Austin's great attractions, including the historic Sixth Street entertainment district. As hotel space is limited in the Austin area, and the Sheraton has a history of selling out over the weekends, it is highly recommended that you make reservations early. Austin's Robert Mueller Airport is serviced by most major carriers, so those traveling from afar should have no problems, even those of you on the East or West coasts. Complementary shuttle service is available to/from the airport and hotel, just pick up the courtesy phone at the airport and contact the Sheraton. For those driving, Austin is located 200 miles south of Dallas, 180 miles west of Houston, and a short 75 miles north of San Antonio. The Sheraton is located at 6th St. and I35. Here are more some details: Hotel - S Room reservations should be made directly with the Sheraton. The Sheraton's phone number is (512)-448-8181. S Mention the 1994 ASL Team Tournament and receive a discounted room rate of $69+tax for up to four persons. S If you are coming from out of town and would like to share a room at the Sheraton, although we cannot make the actual arrangements, we would be more than happy to provide you with a list of others whom you might wish to contact to share a room. Free Format - S Play as many games as you like, whenever you like, with whomever you like. This will allow you to enjoy your weekend to the fullest. S The tournament room will be available on a 24 hour basis beginning 6:00PM Friday, June 3rd, and 6:00PM Sunday, June 5th. If there is sufficient demand, the room will remain available until midnight Sunday. S Each team will be required to play scenarios from several genres. S Each player is automatically registered for both team and individual categories. Prizes - S 1st place, team - Plaques for each team member, plus each name emblazoned upon the Austin Memorial Cup, S 2nd place, team - Choice of game* for each team member, S 3rd place, team - A copy of the 94a ASL Annual for each team member, S 1st place, individual - Plaque, S 2nd place, individual - Choice of game*, S 2 door prizes - A copy of the 94a ASL Annual, * Choice of Game is limited to any available Avalon Hill ASL product, including, but not limited to, Kampfgruppe Peiper II and March to Oblivion. To allow the most flexibility, your choice of game will be mailed to you courtesy of Battlefields Unlimited shortly following the tournament. Although Kampfgruppe Peiper II and March to Oblivion may not be available in time for the 1994 ASL Team Tournament, as soon as they are made available, your reserved copy will be mailed to you. Questions? If you have any questions feel free to contact the tournament organizer. Mike Seningen c/o Battlefields Unlimited 512-892-7169 or seningen@ross.com for those with internet access. How To Register - Pre-Registration - S $25 per person. Three person teams are $75. S Any registration forms postmarked after May 27th, 1994, cannot be guaranteed pre-registered status, and therefore may not be eligible for the pre-registered admission. Registration at the Door - S $30 per person, $90 per team. Friday 6-8PM, Saturday 8:30-10AM. What Do I Do With The Registration Form? - S Simply fill out the form below. Accompany the completed form with a check or money order for the amount of $25 for one person or $75 for an entire three person team, made out to Battlefields Unlimited. Return this form to: Battlefields Unlimited 4607 Yellow Rose Trail Austin, Texas 78749 S NOTE: Registration does NOT include a room reservation at the Sheraton. You are responsible for your own hotel accommodations. As room availability is limited I would not hesitate on making your reservations early. 1994 ASL TEAM TOURNAMENT REGISTRATION FORM Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: ( ) - Arrival Date & time: Departure Date & time: YES / NO --- I'm looking to share a room at the Sheraton. I prefer / I do not care -- to be placed in a non-smoking hotel room. TEAM NAME: Other team members: S S ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Sherman DD tanks Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:28:12 PDT I was reading the notes on the Sherman DD recently, and there are some things I'm just not sure about. When the DD lowers its screen, is it replaced with a different counter to show that it no longer has amphibious capability (and its BMG may now fire)? It seems like I read something to that effect at some point, but I couldn't find it over the weekend. Otherwise, is there a good way to record which ones have the screens up and which ones don't? For that matter, was the actual DD Sherman capable of firing the BMG with the screen down (from photos I've seen, it looks like the screen MIGHT be in the way, but unfortunately I've only been able to find rear shots, not that I've looked terribly hard)? Thanks, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 11:46:08 -0700 From: jwhit@aries.wr.usgs.GOV (Jon Whitworth) Subject: RE: DYO, the better way to go? FUN is the operative word! Sometimes I think you guys on this list are too serious, with your concerns about balance, realism, and other serious IDEALS. Chess is a blanced game. Only white's initial tempo advantage distrubs the level play. I happen to enjoy chess alot, but since its so balanced, I take it alot more serious than ASL. I mean, there is no luck nor any excuses. If you lose, it's because you were the second best player (or the black side). Critial hits in ASL alone make IDEAL balance impossible to achieve. I am satified if a scenerio "feels" balanced (IOW, can I see a winning stratgey for both sides; how lucky does either side have to be to win, etc.). Realism is abstract in ASL and will be until we choose up sides, break into the National Guard Armories and do it for real. But then some of you guys will complain about balance again :-). DYO scenarios have all the elements of the published ones, plus the FUN of purchase. (don't begin up historical accuracy, because I have some annoying thoughts about that too! :-). Jon Whitworth ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:40:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian Williams (REL)" Subject: Re: AH Computer Games On Mon, 11 Apr 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > Guys, > It goes against the grain for me to recommend AH's computer line > (since they blackballed me from the playtest... 8( ) *BUT* their computer game > line is *not* their usual shoddy, half-developed product from the past. > > Instead, they have a *real* computer game company doing most of the > work. Atomic? 360? I don't recall which. The games should be the equal, > at the very least, of the V for Victory series of computer games... > > Atomic Games is producing the new Avalon Hill _line_ of computer games. In the 'zine _Strategy Plus_ (which I don't usually buy) there is a review of the first "battleset," of the series World at War(?). It is based on the British attempt to relieve Tobruk, Operation Crusader. Similar to the V for Victory games, it corrects some flaws, air power and captured supply for example, and will eventually be able to be played by e-mail, which is a promise often given but rarely actualized. I plan to hold off until the next battleset, Stalingrad. North Africa has never been my interest. Although if they had garunteeed! e-mail in the first of the series I would jump on it. Thanks, ------------------------------------|| I am not tall enough to become the || Brian M Williams, Struggling function well, nor lean enough to be|| Student in search of a niche. thought a good studient.-12th Night-|| ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 14:55:47 -0400 From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow) Subject: AH's direction There's something odd about the two statements we've been getting: 1. AH is changing its focus to computer games instead of board games. 2. Someone other than AH will be doing the computer games. If Atomic (or someone else) will be writing the code, how does this distract Avalon Hill from continuing its current support of board games including ASL? I guess the designer of a particular game needs to work with the programers to make sure the game plays the same, but why does this impact the editing staff? Have I missed something? Marty ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Re: Fog of War Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:00:14 -0400 (EDT) > > > I have always disliked the fact that both players get to read the scenario > >card and, therefore, know everything about the other side. He knows the total > >force composition, when reinforcements arrive, what the objectives are, etc. > > What I am going to throw in has probably been gone over in the past, but > the comments above are one reason I have only played DYO scenarios so far. > Oh sure I have played a few published scenarios solitaire, but IMHO it is a > waste of rare FTF opportunities play a published one. Why not wallow in the > fog of a DYO scenarios? Heck, purchase and set up are easily half the fun. > And as the game progresses there are endless chances to bemoan your lack > of foresight. "If only I'd bought SS squads instead of 1st line and a PzIVD." > > Does my opponent have mines, OBA, AT guns or what? > I just want to say that I make extensive use of DYO and the HASL. I was just stating I never liked the way the canned scenarios let you know everything about the opponent, etc. Later, Neal ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 15:14:07 EDT From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) Subject: AH's direction > If Atomic (or someone else) will be writing the code, how does this distract > Avalon Hill from continuing its current support of board games including ASL? > I guess the designer of a particular game needs to work with the programers > to make sure the game plays the same, but why does this impact the editing > staff? As I understand it, traditionally the primary job performed by TAHGC is not "editing," but "development"---taking a game from a designer, probably with lots of rough edges, and turning it into a finished product. The job of a game developer is a lot more than just editing. And the reason for their success is that they are pretty good at it. Computer games require at least as much development effort as board games, if not more. This is not something which can be delegated either to the game designer, or to the programmer, if high quality is to be achieved. I don't really understand what you mean when you say "make sure that the game plays the same." No computer game plays exactly the same as a board game, even the ones that are based on board games. If they did play exactly the same, there wouldn't be any point in it. It's certainly true that direct derivatives of existing board games might require somewhat less development than brand-new games. On the other hand, games which are simply direct translations of existing AH board games onto the computer are likely to be a major flop, so it doesn't really matter how easy they are. In order to be a success, a computer game has to add something, and appeal to a broader audience than does a board game. (If you think otherwise, start counting all of the major successful computer games which have been direct translations of board games. Let me know when you get to one.) David desJardins ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 15:35:29 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Today We Attack > Brian sez: > > > Today We Attack is complicated? I think this scenario may scare some people > > off due to its size, but it is actually a very basic scenario. Also, very > > fun. > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Youse > > No, not really very complicated. But, IMO, this is a very tough one for the > Japanese to win. The setup restrictions requiring that they setup in a > perimeter around the airstrip makes the defense very brittle; ie., no defense > in depth. Besides that, they are really outgunned. > > Anyone else? > > Dade Never seen the Japanese win. Neither has anyone else I know. None of us really see how the Japanese have a real good chance. The scenario mix in GH wasn't too good; I don't think there were any in there that were both fun to play AND reasonably balanced. Jungle Citadel and Bloody Red Beach were a lot of fun, but not exactly balanced. TWA to my mind is an example of a scenario which is too complicated because you have a bunch of stupid stuff like radioless AFV's and all the PTO overhead, without much net gain in "tactical interest". I'd rather have somthing like napalm-weilding FB's that are complicated, but at least you get results. I suppose if you take the PTO rules as read, it's not that bad, but a lot of people haven't taken the leap to the Pacific yet (but they should! :-) While I'm on this train of thought, I remember someone saying how if they see another scenario with boards 2 and 4 they're going to go insane. I would just like to point out that whoever designed some of the later boards was on some pretty good drugs, which is why the earlier, more rational boards get used more often. The wooded ridge in GH especially (39? 40?) is a nightmare. Not only can't you see anything, but everything is an advance vs. difficult terrain. That board contributes to my lack of desire to ever play KP 1?? again. The early boards have a much better balance of terrain. Chris ----- Subject: Changing PBEM moves From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 14:19:00 -0640 Howdy, bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) writes: >Suppose you're playing a pbem game and have just moved two >tanks. The 2nd tank tried to BFF but malfunctioned its >MA. (No Bret, I didn't. This is really hypothetical.) Now >your opponent shoots at your 1st tank and kills it. He >doesn't read on and allows you to change your other >movements, a common occurrence. > >You could know make the 2nd tank not BFF just to avoid the >malfunction. You could make it do something slightly >different and roll again for a similar BFF attack. On the >other hand, had the BFF attack been very good you can leave >it at that and let your opponent read on. What you should do in theory to fully duplicate a f2f game is that every time you get interrupted and shots were taken afterward, you should play the game from the point of the interruption, re-rolling any attacks. You should do this even if you would take the same shots. You obviously can't force the phasing player to continue with the movement he had written. You also can't allow him the choice of whether to continue for exactly the reason you stated. The only option, then, is to force the re-play. Note that it is not necessary to actually re-play the movements if no attacks (or other dice-rolling) were involved because changing the movement "slightly" can't improve (or worsen) situations where no dice were rolled. Of course, what I think you should do in theory and what you should do in practice are two different things. Again note that this is only relevent if there was any dice rolling after the interruption. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 12:40:30 -0700 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: AH Computer Games On Mon, 11 Apr 1994, Wrote: > Although if they had garunteeed! e-mail in the first > of the series I would jump on it. Every version I beta tested has EMail play in it. I have now played 2 of the smaller scenarios by EMail with other play testers. Works great! .szy RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am AppleLink: szy saying here and should not Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving" AOL: Sszy So There. ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 15:51:24 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: Castello Fratata? Will, I gave it to Rex for the Annual, then Gary for ASLUG. Seems that receiving Castello Fatato is the kiss of death to any publication... Brian ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: re: AH's direction Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:00:33 EDT In regard to AH not needing to use their time to develop computer simulations... It is not time that is important but money, if AH is putting more money into computer game development then they have to be taking that money away from board game development. The same holds true for the ASL annual (wish I had one of them...). AH is (was) probably making money from it but are they making enough to cover the manpower costs of producing it? By putting this information back into the General they will get many/most (not all) ASL annual buyers to subscribe to the General thus increasing profit by cutting the overhead associated with the printing of TWO magazines. AH might not be stopping the annual for the above reason but it is the only one I can think of that makes sense. If an editor quit you hire a new one - you don't anounce that you are going to cut a product. If a product does not return a large enough profit then you drop the product, and if a product makes sales is of no importance; the important thing is maximizing profit. Ask any business person. Just some musings... Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:33:09 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: RE: DYO, the better way to go? > FUN is the operative word! > > Sometimes I think you guys on this list are too serious, with your concerns > about balance, realism, and other serious IDEALS. Gee, I don't have much to do today other than post to the ASL mailing list. Never fear, I'll become a lurker again for a few months after this :-) Of course there is a happy medium. A scenario with good balance is preferable to a similar scenario that is 90-10 (oh really? :-). Then again, The Bushmasters is a great scenario despite being (at a conservative estimate) 90% pro-Japanese. My point is that twofold: DYO will usually generate badly unbalanced scenarios. The points are screwed up, and your already overpriced Shermans can be rendered worthless by a good German RF roll - so good players will almost never buy armor if there is a good chance they will be outclassed. This leads to stereotypical scenarios as good players discover which units are better buys. Add the tremendous difficulty involved in picking boards and victory conditions also works against it. The Desert is probably the one place it works OK, since the need to balance terrain is eliminated. Two: with the ability to pick grossly ahistorical forces and buy assault engineers whenever you feel like it, each side has almost too many options; the whole scenario can boil down to who guessed right for guns & armor, or who (like the Germans) gets better bang for their buck from their infantry units. And let's be reasonable; no commander ever had total control over what forces he could use, and a local commander was rarely totally ignorant of what he was facing (SS? Conscripts?). My point is that DYO generates both unbalanced (just because of the inherent difficulties in balancing a scenario) and uninteresting (because, by chapter H, a lot of neat equipment is either unrealistically expensive, too rare, or never bought because it is almost certain to be outclassed by the enemy and rendered worthless, or just isn't as efficient as just buying infantry). This is not to condemn DYO; far from it. DYO is great. But it needs to be done with a reasonable system and under reasonable constraints. While they can be developed on-the-fly, I'd very much like to see a concrete system developed, which could be used as a framework for developing good DYO scenarios. There is a good reason why none of the big-name tournaments are DYO, despite the obvious competetive appeal of bidding for and purchasing forces. I'd much rather play a well-done published scenario than a vanilla by-the-book take-your-chances DYO. And there are a lot of good published scenarios out there. Of course, I'd rather play a KGP/GT/RB campaign than any of the above. There ... did I take your post more seriously than you ever intended? :-) :-) Chris whose address is really: (anybody have a guess as to why the return address is incorrect?) ckf2@po.cwru.edu OR farrell@hybrid.gene.cwru.edu ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:55:00 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: GH Scenarios Suck? Chris writes... >Never seen the Japanese win. Neither has anyone else I know. None of us really >see how the Japanese have a real good chance. The scenario mix The Japanese won plenty in the playtest. I agree the Chinese seem to have the upper hand, but it isn't exactly like the Japanese suck. They have plenty of guns, all of which can take out the Chinese armor, and also work well against the infantry. Their setup restriction hurts a bit, but is easily overcome due to the tremendous cover of the PTO. >in GH wasn't too good; I don't think there were any in there that were both I have to disagree with this statement. GH was the first module I helped playtest, and I think all of the scenarios except one are fairly even (certainly no worse than 60:40). Let's look at the GH Scenarios from the record. GUNG HO! --------------------------------------------------------------- 67 Cibik's Ridge American: 25 Japanese: 12 Hmm, I'm suprised this seems so skewed. During the playtest, the Americans were not considered favored. Perhaps this number is a reflection of the skill of the Japanese player? Not to slam any/everyone, the Japanese require a different train of thought which the average ASL'er doesn't seem to be able to board. A forward US defense, if SKILLFULLY retreated, should give the US 'bout a 70% chance of a win. Blow the fallback, however, against a good Japanese player, and you *will* lose. Sit on the mountain and wait for the Japanese? I'd give the Japs a 70-30 chance of winning with this US defense. 68 The Rock American: 6 Japanese: 2 Great fun, though I always thought the US was a little favored. This scenario didn't get a lot of playtesting in our group, so maybe it could have been a little better. Still, it is very fun to play. I've yet to find a good way of getting the big OBA onto the exit area, though. Shame. 69 Today We Attack Japanese: 2 Chinese: 7 I like the Chinese, but the Japanese can win this scenario. The Guns are the big tide turner, as they can get hot and crush the Chinese nearly by themselves. The Bren Carriers are the key, as they equal 20 EVPs for the Chinese while having little/no fighting ability. Keep 'em offboard until you are near a breakout then make like Daytona and keep the pedal to the metal. Try to keep 'em away from the Japanese sniper counter as well. 70 KP 167 Japanese: 3 Phillipine: 2 IMNSHO, this is the worst of the GH scenarios, and it aint that bad. The PI troops are favored, definitely, though the Japanese can catch the PI'ers by setting up a *tiny* defense on one end and everything else on the other. Beat the PI'ers on one end, and then cling to a roadblock. 71 Jungle Citadel Japanese: 4 Chinese: 5 This scenario is fun, balanced or not, due to all of its goodies. OBA, FT, Japanese, Tunnels, FB, PB, Wire, Panjii, where's the armor? It is also large enough that the play's the thing, not the balance. I'd call it 55-45 pro-Chinese, IF they forget about the immediate win and go the distance. IMO, the Chinese should/are *hard* pressed to get the immediate VC. 72 Sea of Tranquility Japanese: 2 American: 3 Well, I don't care for this scenario (sorry Pat). Why? I got spanked so many times with varying defenses that I just can't figure out how to defend with the Japanese. During the Playtest, the US forces were twice as large, with a 10-3, a 10-2, and, I think, two 9-2's. Lots of other leaders as well. Fortunately, Mac cut 'bout half of the US and some Japanese to make this a doable scenario. Doable for others, but not me. 8) Still, a very good cave scenario if that's your poison. 73 Hell or High Water Japanese: 3 American: 4 GREAT scenario. I've won with both sides. Classic problem with the beach assaults. If the US lose too much getting ashore, they can't win. Lose too little, they can't lose. I've heard some people say the Japs can win by putting a lot on the island. I remember this tactic during the playtest, and never saw it work. Still, the COB Scenario "The Eastern Gate" supposedly has a "sure fire" way to win and I've never seen that work either! (Right Carl? 8) ). Try stacking the Japanese on one flank, and hope that the US land on the other and are too cautious in their advance inland. This can work well if you know your opponent. Plus, if he lands in the midst of your stacked defense, you may just stop 'em at the beach. 8) 74 Bloody Red Beach Japanese: 3 American: 3 This is so large I don't know how anyone can call it unbalanced. More on that later. Still, this is a tough scenario on the US. They constantly have that spectre of a CVP limit over their heads while the Japanese are slaughtering 'em on the beach and try to get into HTH CC where they'll gladly trade one for one (or more). See above 'bout too much/too little ashore. >fun to play AND reasonably balanced. Jungle Citadel and Bloody Red Beach were >a lot of fun, but not exactly balanced. TWA to my mind is an example of a >scenario which is too complicated because you have a bunch of stupid stuff like >radioless AFV's and all the PTO overhead, without much net gain in "tactical >interest". I'd rather have somthing like napalm-weilding FB's that are I guess I don't understand this statement. Give the Chinese radios in their vehicles even though they didn't have them? PTO overhead? What's that? They are just as easy, terrain wise, as an ETO theatre scenario. The Japanese have special rules, but so do the Russians (comissars and HW attacks). TWA has no special fortifications. No special weather. No air rules. Just the pregame bombardment and then the "basic" infantry vs. an infantry/armor attack. The size may be daunting. The PTO may be daunting, but then again Cibik's Ridge would bother someone who doesn't know the PTO so this should apply to all PTO scenarios. >complicated, but at least you get results. I suppose if you take the PTO rules >as read, it's not that bad, but a lot of people haven't taken the leap to >the Pacific yet (but they should! :-) I agree, they should. >While I'm on this train of thought, I remember someone saying how if they >see another scenario with boards 2 and 4 they're going to go insane. I would >just like to point out that whoever designed some of the later boards was on Bob MacNamara designed all the boards, as far as I know, in GH, CdG. >some pretty good drugs, which is why the earlier, more rational boards get >used more often. The wooded ridge in GH especially (39? 40?) is a nightmare. Not >only can't you see anything, but everything is an advance vs. difficult terrain. Again, a pretty strange comment. Why don't you play just the desert if the closeness of the terrain offends you? It simulates a section of Terrain in a battle of WWII. I don't care for the board, since I have a hard time differentiating the levels (same with KGP) but it does serve a purpose quite nicely. >That board contributes to my lack of desire to ever play KP 1?? again. The >early boards have a much better balance of terrain. Hey, it is/was a densely wooded hill. Should there be grain/og/whatever in it just to make it "easier" to traverse/fight on? ON SOAPBOX A word on balance. Giant scenarios are balanced. Period. Why? Each side has so many options/forces that they ultimately affect the outcome more than the dice. A large number of good/bad rolls will not affect the game as much as good, sound tactics. Small scenarios are unbalanced. Period. One bad die roll affects the entire scenario. The Mishcon scenarios all reflect this. If your superpiece, the 10-3 in any of their scenarios, dies due to an early sniper, you have nearly no chance of winning. A SINGLE snakeeyes can ruin the entire scenario. Does this make little scenarios bad and big scenarios good? Of course not. I enjoy most of the Mishcon scenario. I dislike some large scenarios. Does this mean that the two sides will split wins/losses in the big scenarios? Again, no. Player skill may not be equal. Luck may still apply since you may never roll lower than 8 on a MC with the US. (I've seen it happen, and no matter how large the scenario the US will lose if they never roll less than an 8 on a MC!) But, the scenario is still balanced in that each side can win in a large scenario. Does balance matter at all? Well, a little. No one likes to sit around for a day, no matter how good the company, and lose. I'd have to question the psyche of someone who *enjoys* blowing an entire afternoon playing the losing end of an unbalanced scenario. That just 'aint right. But, when you are talking 70-30 or so, who cares? Did you have fun playing it? Would you play it again? Can you identify a specific action which, if changed, would result in a different outcome? Did you answer yes to any of the above? If so, then play it again. Try to change the outcome. Fun is the goal of any game. If you get this playing the Russians in Soldiers of Destruction, then fine. Play it a hundred times, and ignore the sniggers of those who say the Russians can't win. Once you figure out how, play the folks who laugh and teach 'em a lesson. Just my opinion, as usual, OFF SOAPBOX > > Chris > Brian ----- From: abillsasl@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 17:00:22 EDT Subject: re: DYO Gaming I agree with all of the DYO enthusiasts. A friend and I developed a DYO campaign style game for NWE after Red Barricades came out. This led to some very exciting and wild games. We used eight randomly generated mapboards to form a 2x4 matrix mapboard. Lots of fun, but very time consuming. We also included personal leaders and a mechanism to "push" the boards when one player advanced a certain distance across the board. I think the idea of random unit composition for DYO is great. I also recalled the old Squad Leader random selection table using cards. It could be a great way to create that Fog of War. Alan ----- From: abillsasl@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 17:00:17 EDT Subject: RE: AOL answers (long) In resonse to the questions about AOL: 1) Lance writes: >Actually, I think the GEnie rate is a bit less than AOL. GEnie's monthly >charge is about $5 for 4 hours of log-on time and for each additional >hours after that, it is $3 per hour. GEnie also has an interface program >that allows automatic download and upload of messages. That program can >run only on IBM or compatible computers though. I tried Genie between mid-January and mid February and the rates they charged me were $8.95 per month for 3 free hours of 2400 baud plus $3.00 per hour after that. 9600 mbaud was an additional $6 per hour, even during the "free" time. AOL has a shareware program (free) that will call and download all of your mail and then exit. The program I have runs on windows, I don't know if its available for other platforms. (Its called WhaleExpress) 2) Warren asks about the internet services provided. The following is the AOL propaganda and one message about ftp posted to the bulletin board. Copyright 1992 America Online, Inc.Internet Center The Internet Center is designed to give you fast and easy access to the Internet through America Online. As an America Online member, you are already a part of the exciting global connection of the Internet. The Internet Center on America Online is designed to help you understand what is available on the Internet, and to show you how to take advantage of its resources. Today, America Online's Internet Center is your headquarters for information about the Internet, and for access to two of the Internet's most popular features -- electronic mail and "mailing lists." Over the coming months, America Online will expand the Internet Center to provide you access to even more features -- all using the easy America Online look and feel that you already know. Here's a brief tour of what you will find in America Online's Internet Center: ZEN AND THE ART OF THE INTERNET "Zen and the Art of the Internet" has been a "classic" on the 'Net for some time. Written by Brendan Kehoe, it's meant to be an orientation for the novice user of what's available on the Internet. Here on America Online, you can browse through the "chapters" of Brendan's piece, or you can search it for definitions and areas that interest you. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the organized voice for the community of nationally and internationally networked computer users. EFF was founded in July 1990 to assure freedom of expression in digital media, with a particular emphasis on applying the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to computer-based communication. In the Electronic Frontier Foundation forum, you'll be able to keep up with social and legislative trends that will impact the emerging shape of the information superhighway. Be sure to check out the lively message board exchange surrounding issues like privacy, censorship, online communities, education, communications infrastructure, and regulation. WIRED MAGAZINE Wired is the "magazine of the Digital Generation" -- covering interactive media, the networking community, and the toys of technology. In the Wired Magazine forum, you can read back issues, and participate in online discussion with the "Wired community" on America Online. MAC AND PC COMMUNICATIONS FORUMS In the Mac and PC Telecommunications Forums, you'll find message boards, software libraries, real-time conferences, and much more to help you learn about the world of electronic communities and the world beyond your desktop. In these forums, America Online members support each other in their interests in networking and BBS-ing. INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD As you explore the Internet through America Online, stop by the Message Board to exchange your experiences and tips with other members. And, we'll be interested in hearing what you think about the Internet Center, and what you'd like to see next as we roll out our series of Internet connections. ELECTRONIC MAIL Electronic mail ("e-mail") is one of the most popular uses of America Online. It's also one of the most popular uses of the Internet. Today, you can use America Online to send electronic mail to anyone who is connected to the Internet -- whether they are an America Online member or not. If you have friends or associates who use any of the popular online networks -- Compuserve, Prodigy, Sprintmail, MCI Mail, AT&T mail, AppleLink and many others -- you can send them mail through America Online. It's easy, because it works just like the America Online mail system you already use. America Online handles tens of thousands of pieces of Internet mail every day, and there are no extra charges for America Online members who use this service. MAILING LISTS Mailing Lists are electronic mail "discussion groups" that are exchanged through the Internet among groups of people who share similar interests. You can exchange in an ongoing, interactive discussion with people from all around the world using America Online electronic mail. Hundreds of these Mailing Lists cover almost every imaginable topic: technology, American literature, philosophy, cooking, chess, motorcycling, sports, environmentalism, rock music, lifestyles -- you name it! You can search a database of all available Mailing Lists to find lists that match your special interests. When you select these lists (it's called "subscribing"), you'll start to automatically receive them in your America Online mailbox. Join in this exciting global exchange on America Online today! NEWSGROUPS (coming soon) -- Its there - Alan Also known as "USENET Newsgroups," these lively exchanges are the 'Net equivalent of message boards on America Online. Like Mailing Lists, there is a Newsgroup for just about any topic you can imagine (and more). In January, America Online's Internet Center will allow you to browse a list of all the Newsgroups available through the Internet, and place the ones that interest you in your own customized message board. Using this message board, you'll be able to discuss your special interests with people from all over the world. Watch the Internet Center for announcements about when this new feature will be available. DATABASES (coming soon) -- Its there -- Alan The Internet contains hundreds of free databases of information on many topics. These libraries, or archives, of information are devoted to topics as diverse as home brewing, NASA news, recipes, Congressional contact information, and the works of Shakespeare. These databases are "indexed," meaning that they can be searched for information using key words and phrases. (If you've been following news about the Internet, you may have heard these databases referred to as "WAIS" -- pronounced "wayz" -- databases. WAIS stands for "wide area information server," and is a tool used on the Internet for searching databases.) Since most of the databases are run by volunteers, their quality and reliability varies from excellent to inconsistent. And figuring out how to search the databases can get complicated. America Online's Internet Center will make it easy to find and use Internet databases. In February, America Online's Internet Center will include a selection of some of the best databases available on the Internet. Each will have any easy to use "front end" just like those used on databases throughout America Online. (The encyclopedia in America Online's Learning and Reference Department is a good example.) As the number of databases available on the Internet grows, we'll add to the list. And for "Internet experts," we'll provide a way to use a tool called "GOPHER" to search all the databases out there. EXPERT CONNECTION We'll add additional popular Internet features, such as file transfer (called "ftp"), and the ability to log on to remote computers from your home computer desktop (called "telnet") in 1994. In the meantime, use the resources of the Internet Center to familiarize yourself with the resources of the Internet, and let us know what you would like to see next. Keyword: Internet 2 February 1994 The America Online Internet Team Subj: FTP possible through AOL. Date: 94-04-09 00:21:52 EDT From: Aranya Well, sort of. Any user having access to Internet through a mail gateway (which is something AOL has offered all along) is able to perform FTP through 'batch mode'. You cannot log into the ftp server interactively, but you can send a request to BITFTP at PUCC.BITNET. It is a server at Princeton that allows Bitnet users to allow batch mode conversations by sending all commands by mail. For a while I have used this successfully to get software from ftp sites via America Online. Make sure you have the UUDECODE.EXE program ready. Send a one line mail stating HELP in the message body addressed to BITFTP@PUCC.BITNET for information. - Aranya 3) Paul asks about connect charges and mail time. I just spent 11 minutes of connect time logging/downloading my mail and investigating the internet center. Todays mail created a file 110K on my computer. After downloading/investigating area I log off and read/respond to the mail. The following is a list of the current 9600 baud numbers to AOL, 2400 numbers are more numerous and no different from Genie/Compuserve as far as cost/performance. Below you will find the list of 9600 baud numbers. To access America Online at 9600 baud, pick the closest access number to you, and input that into your access number boxes and set the network to SPRINTNET and the baud rate to 9600. BIRMINGHAM AL 205 328-5719 HUNTSVILLE AL 205 533-6787 MOBILE AL 205 432-9190 MONTGOMERY AL 205 264-7284 LITTLE ROCK AR 501 375-4177 PHOENIX AZ 602 254-1903 TUCSON AZ 602 620-0658 BAKERSFIELD CA 805 631-0577 CONCORD CA 510 687-0216 COLTON CA 909 824-5571 CORONA CA 909-278-1211 ESCONDIDO CA 619 738-0203 FAIRFIELD CA 707-426-3860 FREMONT CA 510 249-9220 FRESNO CA 209 233-6928 GARDEN GROVE CA 714 898-3132 GLENDALE CA 818 507-0511 HAYWARD CA 510 538-0623 LOS ANGELES CA 213 937-5526 MARINA DEL REY CA 310 306-3450 NAPA CA 707-257-0217 OAKLAND CA 510 836-3844 PALO ALTO CA 415 856-4854 SACRAMENTO CA 916 448-0820 SAN CARLOS CA 415 591-8578 SAN DIEGO CA 619 233-1025 SAN FRANCISCO CA 415 247-9976 SAN JOSE CA 408 294-9067 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 805-543-3233 SAN PEDRO CA 310 548-7146 SAN RAFAEL CA 415 499-1629 SANTA ANA CA 714 558-1501 SANTA BARBARA CA 805 965-3326 SANTA CRUZ CA 408 459-7735 SANTA ROSA CA 707 523-1048 STOCKTON CA 209 478-0402 VENTURA CA 805 650-9203 WEST COVINA CA 818 331-6611 WOODLAND HILLS CA 818 887-7420 COLORADO SPRINGS CO 719 632-0278 DENVER CO 303 745-3285 BRIDGEPORT CT 203 332-7400 DANBURY CT 203 778-2022 HARTFORD CT 203 560-1385 NEW HAVEN CT 203 624-5945 NEW LONDON CT 203 440-0656 STAMFORD CT 203 961-8371 NEWARK DE 302 477-1745 WASHINGTON DC 202 659-2733 BOCA RATON FL 407 367-0732 FT LAUDERDALE FL 305 764-0318 JACKSONVILLE FL 904 353-1137 GAINESVILLE FL 904 331-3799 MELBOURNE FL 407 725-9641 MIAMI FL 305 358-5349 ORLANDO FL 407 246-0851 PENSACOLA FL 904 469-9688 SARASOTA FL 813 952-1152 ST PETERSBURG FL 813 327-7024 TALLAHASSEE FL 904 222-0533 TAMPA FL 813 221-3713 WEST PALM BEACH FL 407 820-9391 ATLANTA GA 404 688-1212 SAVANNAH GA 912 236-2898 OAHU HI 808 536-3886 ARLINGTON HEIGHTSIL 708 670-9522 AURORA IL 708 896-9802 BELLEVILLE IL 618 277-9551 BOISE ID 208 343-0957 CHICAGO IL 312 938-5462 GLENCOE IL 708 835-1143 JOLIET IL 815 722-9652 LANSING IL 708-474-9310 LIBERTYVILLE IL 708 362-5718 NAPERVILLE IL 708 355-4449 ROCKFORD IL 815 962-9523 FT. WAYNE IN 219 422-8013 GARY IN 219 881-1020 INDIANAPOLIS IN 317 299-2593 SOUTH BEND IN 219 288-2355 DES MOINES IA 515 288-4626 WICHITA KS 316 729-9888 LEXINGTON KY 606 231-7717 LOUISVILLE KY 502 583-1209 NEW ORLEANS LA 504 524-7442 BATON ROUGE LA 504 293-6010 LAFAYETTE LA 318 233-6951 ANNAPOLIS MD 410 266-6851 BALTIMORE MD 410 244-0470 ATTLEBORO MA 508-226-8956 BOSTON MA 617 338-0002 LEXINGTON MA 617 862-9124 SPRINGFIELD MA 413 747-3700 WORCESTER MA 508 791-7630 ANN ARBOR MI 313 741-8488 DETROIT MI 313 965-3011 GRAND RAPIDS MI 616 774-5958 KALAMAZOO MI 616 381-3101 LANSING MI 517 482-0120 MARQUETTE MI 906-228-4622 PONTIAC MI 313 858-7109 SAGINAW MI 517 797-3822 WARREN MI 313 573-7300 MINNEAPOLIS MN 612 332-0033 KANSAS CITY MO 816 421-5783 SPRINGFIELD MO 417 831-0057 ST LOUIS MO 314 421-1376 OMAHA NE 402 341-4622 LAS VEGAS NV 702 737-1752 RENO NV 702 324-1718 MANCHESTER NH 603 647-2750 NASHUA NH 603 880-0118 ATLANTIC CITY NJ 609 348-3233 FREEHOLD NJ 908 780-2680 HACKENSACK NJ 201 488-1726 MARLTON NJ 609 424-1144 MERCHANTVILLE NJ 609 663-7730 MORRISTOWN NJ 201 605-1836 NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 908 220-0405 NEWARK NJ 201 624-8843 PATERSON NJ 201 279-4515 PRINCETON NJ 609 799-2266 RAHWAY NJ 908 388-5288 SUMMIT NJ 201 701-0767 VINELAND NJ 609-696-3883 ALBUQUERQUE NM 505 246-8950 ALBANY NY 518 433-0092 BINGHAMTON NY 607 773-2244 BUFFALO NY 716 847-8181 DEER PARK NY 516 254-6021 HEMPSTEAD NY 516 292-2820 NEW YORK CITY NY 212 206-0256 POUGHKEEPSIE NY 914 471-6728 ROCHESTER NY 716 546-6998 SYRACUSE NY 315 448-0021 WHITE PLAINS NY 914 949-6878 CHARLOTTE NC 704 332-4023 FAYETTEVILLE NC 919 323-5940 GREENSBORO NC 919 299-6600 RALEIGH NC 919 781-9976 RES TRI PARK NC 919 549-0542 WINSTON-SALEM NC 919 785-9962 CINCINNATI OH 513 579-1593 CLEVELAND OH 216 575-0811 COLUMBUS OH 614 461-8671 DAYTON OH 513 461-4600 KENT OH 216 678-8330 TOLEDO OH 419 255-7010 OKLAHOMA CITY OK 405 270-0028 TULSA OK 918 584-6935 MEDFORD OR 503 772-3994 PORTLAND OR 503 295-0337 ALLENTOWN PA 215 435-8118 BUTLER PA 412-285-8721 HARRISBURG PA 717 236-1186 KING OF PRUSSIA PA 215 265-2812 PHILADELPHIA PA 215 854-0589 PITTSBURGH PA 412 281-8326 NEWPORT RI 401-849-0229 PROVIDENCE RI 401 453-5353 CHARLESTON SC 803 723-7342 COLUMBIA SC 803 254-0038 GREENVILLE SC 803 232-7832 CHATTANOOGA TN 615 266-3066 KNOXVILLE TN 615 523-4031 MEMPHIS TN 901 525-5201 NASHVILLE TN 615 726-1213 AUSTIN TX 512 929-0078 CORPUS CHRISTI TX 512 888-7207 DALLAS TX 214 653-0840 EL PASO TX 915 532-1912 FT WORTH TX 817 332-1015 HOUSTON TX 713 228-0705 SAN ANGELO TX 915 944-0376 SAN ANTONIO TX 210 225-1191 PROVO UT 801 371-0278 SALT LAKE CITY UT 801 355-9030 HERNDON VA 703 787-6719 NEWPORT NEWS VA 804 596-9232 NORFOLK VA 804 340-8930 RICHMOND VA 804 225-0021 OLYMPIA WA 206 705-0769 SEATTLE WA 206 625-1386 SPOKANE WA 509 747-2069 MADISON WI 608 257-8330 MILWAUKEE WI 414 271-2420 WAUSAU WI 715 848-6044 NEW 9600 V.32 LOCATION STATE NUMBER ABILENE TX 915-672-3902 AMARILLO TX 806-373-2926 ASHEVILLE NC 704-259-9945 ATTLEBORO MA 508-226-8956 AUGUSTA GA 706-722-9877 BATTLE CREEK MI 616-961-9927 BLOOMINGTON IL 309-828-1441 BOWLING GREEN KY 502-843-0632 BROCKTON MA 508-583-3533 BURLINGTON VT 802-660-4795 BUTLER PA 412-285-8721 CANTON OH 216-455-1700 CEDAR RAPIDS IA 319-393-8988 CHARLESTON WV 304-346-0524 CHICO CA 916-894-6882 COLUMBIA MO 314-499-0580 COLUMBUS GA 706-322-9386 CONCORD NH 603-225-2566 CORONA CA 909-278-1211 DAVENPORT IA 319-322-3361 DE KALB IL 815-756-3455 DOTHAN AL 205-793-5034 DULUTH MN 218-722-3029 ERIE PA 814-459-9779 EUGENE OR 503-683-5147 EVANSVILLE IN 812-422-2911 FAIRFIELD CA 707-426-3860 FAYETTEVILLE AR 501-442-0212 FLINT MI 313-767-3590 FRAMINGHAM MA 508-620-1119 FRANKFORT KY 502-875-2911 FT COLLINS CO 303-495-6799 FT. MEYERS FL 813-275-6342 FT. SMITH AR 501-782-2852 GALVESTON TX 409-762-8076 GULFPORT MS 601-863-0024 HOLLY HILL FL 904-252-1609 HOOD RIVER OR 503-386-4405 IOWA CITY IA 319-339-0320 ITHACA NY 607-273-2200 JACKSON MS 601-354-5303 JOHNSTOWN PA 814-535-3356 LACROSSE WI 608-784-0560 LAKELAND FL 813-680-3332 LANSING IL 708-474-9310 LAWRENCE MA 508-687-8252 LINCOLN NE 402-438-4305 LOWELL MA 508-459-2350 MANKATO MN 507-388-3780 MARQUETTE MI 906-228-4622 MCALLEN TX 210-631-8967 MIDLAND TX 915-561-8931 MONROE LA 318-345-0106 MONTEREY CA 408-655-1925 NAPA CA 707-257-0217 NEDERLAND TX 409-722-7162 NEW BEDFORD MA 508-990-3300 NEWPORT RI 401-849-0229 OWENSBORO KY 502-686-8107 PALM SPRINGS CA 619-343-3470 PASSAIC NJ 201-777-2700 PEORIA IL 309-674-2344 PINOLE CA 510-724-0271 PORTSMOUTH NH 603-431-7984 REDDING CA 916-243-0690 RICHLAND WA 509-943-6117 ROANOKE VA 703-857-4266 ROCHESTER MN 507-282-0555 SALEM OR 503-375-3104 SAN L. OBISPO CA 805-543-3233 SCRANTON PA 717-341-5611 SIOUX CITY IA 712-255-1545 SIOUX FALLS SD 605-334-4953 SPARTANBURG SC 803-542-1653 SPRINGFIELD IL 217-525-1590 ST. CLOUD MN 612-253-1624 TACOMA WA 206-383-9488 TERRE HAUTE IN 812-235-5671 TEXARKANA AR 501-772-6181 THOUSAND OAKS CA 805-495-3588 TOPEKA KS 913-232-5507 TRENTON NJ 609-392-4100 URBANA IL 217-384-3322 UTICA NY 315-792-9962 VICTORVILLE CA 619-951-2612 VINELAND NJ 609-696-3883 WATERBURY CT 203-759-1445 WENATCHEE WA 509-663-9482 WICHITA FALLS TX 817-322-3774 WILKES-BARRE PA 717-820-9755 WILMINGTON NC 919-763-8292 WOODS HOLE MA 508-540-4085 YAKIMA WA 509-575-1060 YORK PA 717-845-9717 YOUNGSTOWN OH 216-743-2983 Hopefully this information can give you an idea if AOL is a viable alternative for you individual needs. Alan ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 17:40:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: DYO & the frog (ribbit, ribbit) of war On a more serius note.... The most fun I've ever had playing ASL was a DYO. The only tricky thing is a reasonable play balance. This is a no brainer if you declare a meeting engagement -- also known as throwing the eggs (two of them) in the blender. Two forces, charging to the center of the board, being the children of VASTLY different stratagems and psyches often result in much fun and amusement. Typically I would chose a mobile armor-infantry mix. My opponet would take ALL infantry and the accompanying 12,000 PFs or 8 bazookas and 6 HMGs (etc, etc). Then there is the "I'll take all off board artillery and a few spotters" ploy. Yep, DYO is the way to go. Plus, you can no longer blame the scenario -- you have made your own little hell and have to live with it. Paul ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:48:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: DYO again.... Oops, forgot to mention.... One of the reasons DYO has always worked for me was that the folks I play against & myself always have a certain feel for what is balanced. For instance, the US, to allow for paucity of armor quality would typically get a couple hundred extra points for AFVs. Neither side carped about it because both sides would take the Germans at 900 pts vs the US at 1150 and vice-versa. Of course, if the Germans bought a MkV then the US picks were sure to be junk, right? Depends. By picking (mostly) infantry, and using the extra points to pick up a couple of (M19?) 4x.50cal halftracks -- you then have a force taylor made to chew up infantry -- so you just go after the infantry. Sooner of later you will get close enough & can do the Panther too! And if the US player picks all Shermans? Well, heck, that sounds like it would be a lot of fun too. Lots & lots of shooting going on at least! All in all, its a game ... and the fun is in the playing. Paul ----- From: amcmillan@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 18:56:42 EDT Subject: Rangers in ASL In looking at the scenario included with Yanks called "Backs to the sea" and seeing how AH decided to represent one of the most elite units in the US Army as 6-6-7's, and then recently purchasing GH and finding the marines represented by 7-6-8's I had to ask myself: why? As far as I knnow a line marine squad was still not as highly trained and well equipped as a ranger squad. Has anyone else noted this discrepancy on the part of AH in representing the rangers incorrectly? Personally I like to play scenarios with as much historical accuracy as possible, therefore I have been using the Marine 7-6-8 squads to represent the 2nd battalion when playing "Backs to the sea" and whenever I play the rangers in a DYO( paying the appropriate 17 BPV of course ).I Have a friend who was a ranger that plays with me, and he was very upset that the "Jar Heads" were deemed more powerful as well. Any feedback is appreciated. Andrew McMillan AMcMillan@aol.com ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Today We Attack Chris: [stuff deleted] > Never seen the Japanese win. Neither has anyone else I know. None of us really [stuff deleted] Although we didn't play his through to the end we did have the Chinese concede. This was due largely to an AT-gun-from-Hell that took care of 4 or so of the tanks in the first DFPh; this included some ineffective hits which gives you some idea of the ROF maintenance that this thing accomplished. I think some of the Chinese infantry was badly mauled early on as well, but this was a while ago and the memory has faded a touch. > While I'm on this train of thought, I remember someone saying how if they > see another scenario with boards 2 and 4 they're going to go insane. I would > just like to point out that whoever designed some of the later boards was on > some pretty good drugs, which is why the earlier, more rational boards get > used more often. The wooded ridge in GH especially (39? 40?) is a nightmare. Not > only can't you see anything, but everything is an advance vs. difficult terrain. > That board contributes to my lack of desire to ever play KP 1?? again. The > early boards have a much better balance of terrain. Actually, I think I salivated a tad when I first laid eyes on board 39 (massive wooded hill) and I eagerly await the first non-PTO scenario to incorporate this board (or any other "PTO" boards, for that matter). It was this board that inspired me to make up a new board matrix for Schmittgens & Kibler's DYO generation system (GENERAL vol. 24, no. 1). It is the DR 7 board for the woods/hill column. The matrix includes columns for every choice (i.e. town/town is no longer the same as town/village) and has a desert option, as well. All boards from modules 1 to 10 are covered, including a few overlays. The file is in Microsoft Word and I use a Mac; if anyone's interested I can try to zap it to them. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 19:44:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Wayne Young Subject: Unbalanced scenarios Greetings, Felt I had to add my two cents (1.4 cents US) to the whole play balance debate and I have to throw my support behind Brian. In my own experience (all FTF) any "canned" scenario I've ever played I've been able to look at afterwards and say to myself "I'd do that different for sure", whether I won or lost. My experience with DYO, while very inter- esting and quite fun, has yielded a few sour scenarios. But most of those were due to unrealistic selection of personnel and/or equipment. We usually try to keep things as close to realistic as possible. As for a scenario "looking" unbalanced, then that is when the more experienced player is supposed to do the honourable thing and play the "disadvantaged" side. If there's still a debate, use the play balance options for the scenario. It's simply a matter of doing what the game is supposed to do - put you the player in the boots of a military commander (at whatever level). You don't usually get to choose your force and you have to make the best of what you have - the trick is to turn your disadvantages into a threat to your opponent. Anyway, as much as I love it, it's just a damned game. Wayne Young youngwr@kirk.northernc.on.ca "The pessimist believes the glass to be half empty, the optimist believes it to be half full, but the realist *knows* that the glass is just too damned big." ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 19:43:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: GH Scenarios Suck? In message Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:55:00 EDT, brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) writes: > I remember this tactic during the > playtest, and never saw it work. Still, the COB Scenario "The Eastern > Gate" supposedly has a "sure fire" way to win and I've never seen that > work either! (Right Carl? 8) ). Well, I thought I was close. :-) >> some pretty good drugs, which is why the earlier, more rational boards >> get used more often. The wooded ridge in GH especially (39? 40?) is a >> nightmare. Not only can't you see anything, but everything is an >> advance vs. difficult terrain. > > Again, a pretty strange comment. I enjoy these new boards. Plenty of LOS's that haven't been memorized 50 or 60 times. > Does balance matter at all? Well, a little. A "little"?!? This from the guy who ranted for half an hour about Brandenberger Bridge? Hmmm, maybe I ought to drag out this note when we get together and play another unknown scenario, hey Brian? :-) ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 10:40:10 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: GEnie YCLy> YCLy> Actually, I think the GEnie rate is a bit less than AOL. YCLy> GEnie's monthly charge is about $5 for 4 hours of log-on time YCLy> and for each additional hours after that, it is $3 per hour. YCLy> GEnie also has an interface program that allows automatic YCLy> download and upload of messages. That program can run only YCLy> on IBM or compatible computers though. YCLy> Actually, they have it for the Amiga as well, and they've just come out with new proggies for the Mac and IBM (a little different than Aladdin). If the guys who are trying to unsubscribe because of cost were on AOL, they'd still be racking up the bills. The advantage Alan Bills has is that he has a 9600 baud modem. That would be cheaper on either service. -Grant. ... "Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C mean?" -== IceIQle v1.6 ==- ----- Subject: Sherman DD tanks From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 20:10:00 -0640 Howdy, Doug Gibson writes: >I was reading the notes on the Sherman DD recently, and >there are some things I'm just not sure about. When the DD >lowers its screen, is it replaced with a different counter >to show that it no longer has amphibious capability (and >its BMG may now fire)? It seems like I read something to >that effect at some point, but I couldn't find it over the >weekend. Otherwise, is there a good way to record which >ones have the screens up and which ones don't? > >For that matter, was the actual DD Sherman capable of firing >the BMG with the screen down (from photos I've seen, it >looks like the screen MIGHT be in the way, but >unfortunately I've only been able to find rear shots, not >that I've looked terribly hard)? I don't think the DD tank was capable of firing the BMG even once the screens dropped. There is no rule for replacing the Sherman once it lands. These are some other errata I thought of: D16.11 If a DD tank suffers an IFT attack (other than an HE hit D16.1) while on land that results in a soft vehicle kill, the DD screens are no longer effective, and the vehicle is no longer amphibious. Screens still have to be lowered during the MPh before the screen-up restrictions are removed. D16.121 DD tanks may not fire any of their weapons nor change TCA while screens are erect. TCA must coincide with VCA while screens are erect. D16.122 DD screens may not be erected during the a game. DD units that wish to exploit the amphibious capability must begin the game with screens erected. I would welcome any comments or changes; it's been a while since I've actually looked at the vehicle specs. The first rule on IFT attacks may go too far: perhaps the requirement for CE and the Stun and Recall rules are sufficient to show the effect of bullets on screens. Copyright is explicitly waived. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: amcmillan@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 21:42:09 EDT Subject: More about rangers.... > That said, there are a few mitigating factors you might consider >with regard to Backs to the Sea, and the Marines: > Equipment: The Rangers had just scaled a VERY tall cliff to >attack >the alleged gun positions at the top of the bluff. Therefore, there's >an excellent chance that their heavy equipment was left behind. Of >course, not having the scenario in front of me, it probably shows >81mm MTRs or something, naming me a liar :-) > The Marines, usually, had two BARs per squad and were well >known >for long range accurate rifle fire (one of the MAIN tenants of >Marine Corps training then and now). > Given both of these factors, 7-6 for the FP/Range factor compared >to >the 6-6 for the Rangers in BTTS seems more reasonable. > The Morale factor, of course, is probably skewed. No doubt the >Rangers >deserve an 8 if the Marines do. I could buy that. Perhaps then using 6-6-8 squads to represent rangers would be more accurate since the marines had more men as well. I was not aware that they had 2 BAR's per squad. :-) I just read about the marine rifle squads and how thery were set up. As for the 81mm's in "Backs to the sea" nothing like that, the only support weapons avail to the rangers are 2 of the 60mm para morters. The germans of course have a hefty sprinkling of MMG's as well as LMG's. Nasty thing they did, scaling that rock.... What was the bit about the 8 morale level of marines? has it been said that that is too high? I would like to hear more about that...(opening the can of worms) *pop*. Granted the marines accomplished a lot in the PTO but some Army units had a better battle record than some of the marines. I could see some marine units being represented as 7-6-7's. Please don't think of me as a marine basher anyone. I happen to love the tenet that was tought to me a long time ago by my father who learned to shoot from a marine: "there is no substitute for aimed fire." Personal opinion to follow: I recently finished the book " The Forgotton Soldier " by Guy Sajer. For anyone interested in the way the war was actually conducted on the eastern front, this book is marvelous. It is the singularly most amazing story about war that I have ever read. I highly reccommend it to anyone interested in WW II. Andrew McMillan AMcMillan@aol.com ----- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 22:44:15 EDT From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: KGP I After taking a thorough trouncing in my first KGPCG I have been doing some thinking. I played the first scenario twice, once on each side. Both times I felt the Nazi zealots had far more material than they really needed. The GIs really got wipped. Yes I realize the importance of conservation of force and the fighting withdrawal. Note I have never seen the latter part of the CGI since Hitler weather conspired to prevent the destruction of more than one Panther causing me to disrupt.(5+2) IMHO the initial 70 CPP is too much: the germans don't need it and it slows play tremendously to push all those extra vehicles. Why not push some of these CPP back to later dates? It would speed play and make things a little more interesting/less demoralizing for GI Joe. So, here is a suggestion. Let the German player withhold as many of the 70 CPP as he wants. He can commit them by simply adding them during any CPP replenishment phase. Allow the German player to gain 0.1 Command Points for each CPP withheld per scenario played. So if the Germans withhold 30 CPP until the first night scenario they would in effect receive a bonus of 6 CPP. CPP accumulations would be subject to FRD. Opinions welcome. Michael J. Black Department of Plant Pathology University of Georgia Experiment, Georgia 30212 (404) 228-7202 ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 10:07:09 -0400 Subject: More about rangers.... Item Subject: Message text > What was the bit about the 8 morale level of marines? has it been said that > that is too high? I would like to hear more about that...(opening the can of > worms) *pop*. As I recall from the last debate, the 8 morale was due to their fanatism especially during beach assaults. I guess the fear was that they'd break too easily with all the MC's you end up taking getting to and off the beach. Some of us then asked why they weren't given a 7 morale with a fanatic bonus during specific actions like beach assualts. IMHO, AH goofed. -dlw ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 07:10:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Unbalanced scenarios On Apr 11, 7:44pm, Wayne Young wrote: > Anyway, as much as I love it, it's just a damned game. Charlatan! ;-) Dade ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 10:13:32 -0400 Subject: KGP I Item Subject: Message text > So, here is a suggestion. Let the German player withhold as many of the > 70 CPP as he wants. He can commit them by simply adding them during any > CPP replenishment phase. Why can't the German do this now? All he has to do is spend the points and hold whatever he wants off board. Or buy as reserves (you even save CPP that way!). Even if he didn't want to do that, there's nothing that I know of that requires the german to move every unit on the board. Let him park half his vehicles around Peiper's HQ. That way if he starts getting stuck he can toss these guys in too. Am I missing something? dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:50:30 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: GH Scenarios/boards I think you may have misunderstood me a little, Brian ... Some of the scenarios in GH are a lot of fun (like Bloody Red Beach and Jungle Citadel). At least one of them is reasonably balanced (Cibik's Ridge). But in general, it is my opinion (and yes, I've played them all at least once!) that none of them are *both* balanced *and* fun to play, Cibik's Ridge being the exception. Compared with the great scenario mixes in modules like WoA, LH, and CoB, GH was a dissapointment. There are no scenarios in there that I am going to return to time and time again, like say Point of No Return, Khamsin, Into the Fray, or Red Star Red Sun. And it's not just my opinion; more people I have talked to at ASLOK agreed with me than not. Maybe I'm just easier to get rid of if you agree with me :-) It's interesting too - my opinion is that Bloody Red Beach is unbalanced in favour of the Americans. The first couple of times we played the Japanese got slaughtered. After we figured out what we were doing wrong, we played a couple more times - giving the Japanese the balance - and they still lost. One game, the Marines (me) were taking a serious hammering, were more or less totally stalled by the Japanese, but still managed to win by sleazing into the "units on both hills" VC's (forget specifics). That was the turning point for me, since I really felt the Japanese had played far too well to lose and the Americans too poorly to win. But I digress. I guess my complaint is primarily against scenarios which are no fun to play - with balance being only one element of this (although an important one). KP 167 falls in that category due to hellish terrain. Hell or High Water has excessive rules overhead, Today We Attack is unbalanced. All IMHO, of course :-) I play scenarios for the same reasons everyone else does, to have fun, and I think the scenarios in GH fail both to really show off the new system (except for Boody Red Beach, which everyone should play a couple of times) and in general are not that much fun to play. As for the boards, it is simply my opinion (forgot to mention that in the previous post, so I figured I better insert it liberally here) that boards like 39 are a nightmare due to the impossibility of getting anywhere and the inability to see anything more than a hex away. Has anyone actually *played* KP 167 (or whatever) on board 39? It's brutal! I can see if you were playing a scenario where you were attacking up the less-wooded side it wouldn't be so bad, and it still wouldn't stop me from playing a scenario that otherwise looked quite interesting, but I'd still prefer to assault that board 2 hill any day. A lot of the high-numbered boards are like this, in being dominated by a single terrain type. 33 is almost entirely open ground, 32 is bit more woods than I usually like to deal with, the CdG city board is also pretty brutal once you start counting MF's/MP's to actually get around, etc. The CoB boards are pretty good, and finally AH got back into overlays, so any problems I might have with those board are entirely mitigated. Still, I don't think there are any boards that match the utility and overall quality of boards 2,3,4,24, and the like. Don't get me wrong ... I'd rather have board 39 than not, but there is a reason why scenario designers shy away from these boards. And, I suppose with 50 boards there is enough room for a couple like 39 :-) I'll leave now, Chris ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:59:20 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: More about rangers.... > > What was the bit about the 8 morale level of marines? has it been said that > > that is too high? I would like to hear more about that...(opening the can of > > worms) *pop*. [snip] > Some of us then asked why they weren't given a 7 morale with a fanatic bonus > during specific actions like beach assualts. > > IMHO, AH goofed. Just for the record, they are ML 8, and also fanatic while wading or on the sand (so it can oftentimes pay to stay on that sloped beach rather than advancing into the woods, since you lose your fanatic bonus for no better terrain ... you tell me). Like the Japanese, I never believed that the Marines would work in the system as AH made them. But they do. The Marines do seem awfully tough in a non-beach invasion scenario like Cibik's ridge, but within the context of a beach invasion they work well. I would say just use 6-6-7's for Marines in normal, inland scenarios if you do DYO are are really concerned about historical accuracy. Chris ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 08:43:35 PST From: rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu Subject: Re: More about rangers.... > > What was the bit about the 8 morale level of marines? has it been said that > > that is too high? I would like to hear more about that...(opening the can of > > worms) *pop*. [snip] I don't think 8 morale is to high for the marines. They were volunteers for the most part, had excellent training, and were drawn from the best personel catagories as defined by the draft boards. For these same reasons I think both US paratroopers and Rangers should have 8 morale. Normal US infantry on the other hand were mostly draftees, had average training, and were mostly drawn from the lowest personal catagories. Which sounds like a 6 morale to me. Rod Holmes | Bitterness keeps me warm. Hatred keeps me rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu | happy. Love makes me sick. ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 09:06:22 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: More about rangers.... There was a lot of discussion of what to make the Marines ML and it was decided that 7 was too weak for beach landings (even with the fanatic bonus). Fred > Item Subject: Message text > > What was the bit about the 8 morale level of marines? has it been said that > > that is too high? I would like to hear more about that...(opening the can of > > worms) *pop*. > > As I recall from the last debate, the 8 morale was due to their fanatism > especially during beach assaults. I guess the fear was that they'd break too > easily with all the MC's you end up taking getting to and off the beach. > > Some of us then asked why they weren't given a 7 morale with a fanatic bonus > during specific actions like beach assualts. > All ATTACKERS in a beach landing already are fanatic. > IMHO, AH goofed. > > -dlw > ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 11:10:38 CDT From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary) Subject: Tactics in Festung St. Edouard This weekend I am going to sit down to a game of "Festung St. Edouard", and am looking for any strategy tips from anyone out there who has played it. Any suggestions? Mike O'Leary (moleary@math.nwu.edu) ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 12:02:30 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: More about rangers.... Chris's point about the Marines and the Rangers is well taken. It reminded me of William Manchester's comments about the subject in his memoir "Goodbye darkness". He stated that one of the reasons the Marines in the PTO fought with such tenacity was that they had to end battles quickly in order to provide more freedom of action to the fleet offshore. It was a part of their training, and the differences between the Marine and Army approach became very apparent during the battles in the Mariannas (Guam in particular). Of course, his viewpoint is biased since he served in the "Green machine", but I think his point is valid. He gives other reasons as well. He noted that the WWII Corps contained a large number of men from the south. The rebel fighting heritage had a lot to do with the way many of them dealt with combat. This might be going out on a limb, but I can't really say since I'm from Pennsyltucky which is sandwiched between North and South. Anyway, I think the addition of the PTO to the ASL system was long overdue. The scenarios I've played from Gung Ho and Code of Bushido have been a blast. That alone is enough for me to shrug off any differences in morale. Ranting in Pittsburgh (again), Jim Shetler ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 09:46:37 -0700 Subject: GH Boards Hello, Chris and everyone. On Apr 12, 10:50am, Chris Farrell wrote: > As for the boards, it is simply my opinion (forgot to mention that in the > previous post, so I figured I better insert it liberally here) that boards > like 39 are a nightmare due to the impossibility of getting anywhere and the > inability to see anything more than a hex away. Has anyone actually *played* > KP 167 (or whatever) on board 39? It's brutal! I can see if you were playing I like KP167, even though I lost a heart-breaker as the Japanese; (he MADE his damn clearance roll on the last turn.) Yes, the tough terrain does channel the action down the road, but that, in my mind, is a good reflection of the nature of the fighting in that part of the war. And, I'll take it a step farther and say that I like the Gung-Ho boards: they put a new face on ASL. Just like the Japanese, the new boards make you rethink your tactics and make a lot of your tried and true ASL tenets inapplicable. BTW, has anyone ever noticed that the deluxe ASL boards from SOF are deceptively open? The big hexes allow for a lot of LOS's through building hexes that would never be open on the small boards. I've paid for that more than once. Dade ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 01:11:58 EDT Subject: Re: scenarios/boards Chris Farrell writes: >I guess my complaint is primarily against scenarios which are no fun to play - >with balance being only one element of this (although an important one). >KP 167 falls in that category due to hellish terrain. Hell or High Water has >excessive rules overhead, Today We Attack is unbalanced. All IMHO, of >course :-) I play scenarios for the same reasons everyone else does, to have >fun, and I think the scenarios in GH fail both to really show off the new >system (except for Boody Red Beach, which everyone should play a couple of >times) and in general are not that much fun to play. I guess the more experience you get, the more "easy" it is to pick out scenarios that look "balanced" or fun. For example, I like scenarios with armor, guns, and first rate units. They're fun to me. For this reason I don't generally play the partisan scenarios. If a scenario doesn't grab me, then I just don't play it. For GH, that could be a problem because their are only a limited number of scenarios to start. >As for the boards, [snip snip] on board 39? It's brutal! I can see if you were playing >a scenario where you were attacking up the less-wooded side it wouldn't be so >bad, and it still wouldn't stop me from playing a scenario that otherwise >looked quite interesting, but I'd still prefer to assault that board 2 hill any >day. A lot of the high-numbered boards are like this, in being dominated by a >single terrain type. 33 is almost entirely open ground, 32 is bit more woods >than I usually like to deal with, the CdG city board is also pretty brutal once >you start counting MF's/MP's to actually get around, etc. [snip snip] I for one enjoy having the "difficult" boards because they give you the feel for just how hard it is to charge into rough terrain and win your objectives. Also, several accounts that I've read (e.g., Soldiers of Destruction, pp. 154-163; Guadalcanal, etc.) take place in swamps, marshes, jungles or river bends where LOS and movement are quite limited. The game is trying to simulate these actions, nicht wahr? Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) VIMS (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Subject: Re: More about rangers.... Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 13:42:00 -0400 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov > I don't think 8 morale is to high for the marines. They were volunteers for > the most part, had excellent training, and were drawn from the best > personel catagories as defined by the draft boards. For these same reasons > I think both US paratroopers and Rangers should have 8 morale. Normal US > infantry on the other hand were mostly draftees, had average training, and > were mostly drawn from the lowest personal catagories. Which sounds like a > 6 morale to me. > Rod Holmes | Bitterness keeps me warm. Hatred keeps me > rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu | happy. Love makes me sick. Much that I have read about the PTO stresses that there was a different mind-set among the US combatants, compared to their brothers-in-arms in the ETO. Specifically, defeating Germany and Italy was often characterized as a "job that had to be done" whereas defeating Japan was spoken of in terms of getting "revenge for Pearl Harbor". These are two quite different attitudes (if this characterization is at all accurate)! Perhaps the morale difference between rangers/paras and marines is meant to represent this "personal" nature of the PTO fighting rather than any difference in troop quality/training between the service branches. "Let's get this done as efficiently as possible and go home" sounds like a morale 7 to me. "Let's gut the bastards at the point of our bayonets" sounds like a morale 8 (with an attitude). Not that there wasn't some vicious fighting in the ETO, in which case, the simplest ASL mechanic would be to give rangers/paras fanatic benefits in appropriate circumstances (like in Backs To The Sea). -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 11:28:49 -0700 From: jwhit@aries.wr.usgs.GOV (Jon Whitworth) Hey, I just had an idea (and boy did it hurt). Background: I was play a DYO scenario against my brother on Sat. He was defending a ridge of level four hills which I was attempting to get pass. He was French, I was Germs. Since he had such a height advantage he was able to take many, many long range HMG, MMG shots. I advanced one squad at a time to minimize his chances. However, though he took plenty of shots at squads, he always seemed to have one more shot whenever I moved a leader. So here are 15-20 squad advancing one at a time (but really at the same time) toward a position 400-500 meters away taking MG fire. Then behind them come two or three leaders. These poor dudes can't take a step without getting a burst of fire. The French wounded three leaders with these long range sniper MGs. (This is why I laugh at those that take realism too seriously :-) Point: This tactic was really a doctrine for my brother. His play could _possibly?_ be defined as a series of doctrines or rules of thumb. Question: Has there been any discussion here on formulating some standard doctrines for firing, movement and such, not so much for winning purposes, but in order to fit into a solitaire system? I have been impressed by the gaming knowledge and system Mastery of the posters here (not counting myself, of course) and am conceived that it would be possible to come up with 50-100 rules. Then an 'opponent' could be defined as a subset of those rules; perhaps randomly selected. Anybody have any thoughts about attempting this? Why wait for the HILL? Jon Whitworth ----- From: slagblah@acs.bu.edu (Scott de) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 15:01:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Marines' Morale I don't yet have Gung Ho!, and the following concerns me: If the Marines need an 8 Morale to survive a beach assault, what's going to happen when we have a scenario with a bunch of 6-6-6s invading Omaha Beach? Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle more important. Scott de Brestian ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 15:12:38 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Marines Scott writes... > I don't yet have Gung Ho!, and the following >concerns me: If the Marines need an 8 Morale to >survive a beach assault, what's going to happen >when we have a scenario with a bunch of 6-6-6s >invading Omaha Beach? I suspect they'll be OK, just a bunch more HS running around. 8) > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle >more important. I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies who had the potential to make life pretty miserable for us. It is not like Germany was the strongman of the Axis alliance (what a paper alliance at that). Anyways, there just were not that many Marine divisions to go around during the beginning of 44. Heck, just a guess here, there were certainly less than 5 divisions, as I think the 5th div was formed around Iwo Jima (running on foggy memory here). The divisions were in use in the PTO so transporting one to the ETO really wouldn't make sense. Could the marines have done a better job the the army at Omaha? I doubt it, the Army did just fine. > Scott de Brestian Brian ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 12:39:21 +0800 From: Jerry.Drake@Eng.Sun.COM (Jerry Drake) Subject: another ASL widow As a brief counterpoint to the recurring "morale level of Marines" discussion, I thought I'd comment on an interesting experience I had last week. I read once in rec.games.board about a couple of guys playing ASL (or perhaps old SL--I don't recall) on a Saturday. When they finished the scenario the winner sat back and said how much fun it had been and proposed another game the next Saturday. At which his girlfriend spoke up, saying: "Oh, honey, you can't do that. We're getting married, remember?" He apparently thought for a minute, admitted that he'd forgotten about that, and proposed a game on Sunday instead. Funny story, but my thought at the time was "gosh, that seems a tad outrageous." Two good friends of mine were married last Friday. It was a civil ceremony at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse, and they did me the honor of asking me to act as their witness. Since this is the guy with whom I play most of my ASL (about 99% of it, anyway), we arranged for me to come down for the entire day and we'd play a scenario in the morning. I'm sure you can guess what's coming. As we were crouched over the board in a closely contested game of "Cat and Mouse," A19, wrangling over some obscure points of casualty reduction and desperation morale, the bride-to-be brought up scheduling for the afternoon, including the time for the ceremony and the fact that they were expected at her parents' house that evening, which precluded finishing a second round of "Cat and Mouse." She fortunately had the good grace to excuse herself for breaking into our debate and diminishing the gaming time available. B-) I hope you'll join me in a silent mental salute to Melinda, the world's latest (well, probably) ASL widow. Well, okay, she's really a "ASL/SPQR/Tokyo Express/Thunder at the Crossroads II/Attack Sub/Lion of the North/B-17/Knights of the Air/Spies!/Kremlin/Circus Maximus" widow, but it's the thought the counts. And I never thought that kind of thing would ever happen while *I* was around... 8-) j "I got a bad feeling about this." -Han Solo approaches the Death Star in Star Wars ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 13:02:02 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Marines I have been trying very hard to resist this discussion, but I've failed my TC (even with my 8ML), and have to make a couple of comments. > > I don't yet have Gung Ho!, and the following > >concerns me: If the Marines need an 8 Morale to > >survive a beach assault, what's going to happen > >when we have a scenario with a bunch of 6-6-6s > >invading Omaha Beach? > > I suspect they'll be OK, just a bunch more HS running around. 8) Reading first hand accounts of the Omaha landings and, say, the Tarawa landings leads me to believe that the nature of the defenses were much, much different. Could a bunch of 6-6-6s survive wading more than a mile under fire like the Marines had to do at Tarawa? Could a bunch of 6-6-6s survive the massive Banzai attacks against the beach like the Marines had to do at Saipan? Whether the Marines rate an 8ML or not, the nature of the amphibious assaults in the Pacific demand that ASL represent them with the 8ML, just so we can play the game. Besides, you'd feel awfully agressive, too, after having been doing ready circles in an LCVP or LVTP for hours on end. Make you a Fanatic, for sure, by the time you got ashore. And, by the way, I think GH was heavily influenced by the Camp Pendleton ASL playtest group, headed by Don Chappell. But I'm sure they were completely unbiased in their suggestions to AH. :-) > > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than > >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of > >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading > >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle > >more important. > > I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was > no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies who > had the potential to make life pretty miserable for us. It is not like > Germany was the strongman of the Axis alliance (what a paper alliance > at that). > > Anyways, there just were not that many Marine divisions to go > around during the beginning of 44. Heck, just a guess here, there were > certainly less than 5 divisions, as I think the 5th div was formed around > Iwo Jima (running on foggy memory here). The divisions were in use in > the PTO so transporting one to the ETO really wouldn't make sense. > > Could the marines have done a better job the the army at Omaha? > I doubt it, the Army did just fine. And the Army didn't want the Marines in the ETO. Other than a few with the OSS, none served there. Interservice rivalry was _very_ strong, and the Army wanted as little to do with the Marines as possible. They did borrow heavily from the amphibious doctrine developed by the Marines in the PTO, especially as far as logistics were concerned. On the other hand, one Army General, MacArthur, certainly wanted to keep the Marines were they could be used to support him. And Brian is right about the size of the Marine Corps at the time; it never grew bigger than 6 Divisions, of which no more than 3 or 4 were ever combat ready at any one time (a landing tended to really trash a Division, and it took a long time to rebuild). Even removing one from the PTO would significantly reduce the ground combat forces available for the war on Japan. Well, 'nuff said for now. Anyone want to discuss House Rules which allow Marines to Deploy into 3 HS, instead of 2? Dave van Kan ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 16:06:42 EDT From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Re: Marines > From brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Apr 12 15:49:33 1994 > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 15:12:38 EDT > From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Marines > Content-Length: 1298 > > Scott writes... > > > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than > >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of > >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading > >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle > >more important. > The Marines are part of the Navy. Mac'A and the Navy (Nimitz) were running the show in the Pacific. The Army (Marshall and Eisenhower) had the ball in Europe. The Air Force was part of the Army at that time. It was felt by Roosevelt that mixing Commands was a mistake. Therefore, no Marines (other than those normally on a Navy ship) were sent to Europe. Those on the ships stayed there! It was correctly stated that the Corps increased from 3 divisions to 5. They wanted more men in the Corps, but could not train them fast enough. It was planned to sent the Army from Eurpoe to the Pacific at the end of the European War (and this was done to some extent), and the Marines to Europe at the end of the Pacific War. Who won first was the determining factor. Today, the USMC is back to 3 infantry division, and one air division. Doug Maston ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 16:17:32 -0400 Subject: Marines Item Subject: Message text > > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than > >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of > >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading > >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle > >more important. > > I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was > no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies who I suspect the people at the time thought the threat from Japan was a little more immediate. After all, the germans never attacked US soil. Plus, I'd guess that the people running the show thought it more important to have the divisions skilled in seaborne invasions in the PTO since there were a lot more seaborne invasions there than there were in the ETO. -dlw ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 16:34:08 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Marines at Normandy Scott wrote:: > I don't yet have Gung Ho!, and the following >concerns me: If the Marines need an 8 Morale to >survive a beach assault, what's going to happen >when we have a scenario with a bunch of 6-6-6s >invading Omaha Beach? > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle >more important. One short snappy answer is that the Allies didn't have the world's largest aircraft carrier (Great Britain) in the Pacific. Try to envision a Pacific battle pitting the largest invasion fleet in history, backed by several air armies of bombers and fighters, operating across a 32 mile wide channel, against an enemy who could muster nothing bigger than a few Me109s and FW190s, and some E-boats. Compare this to thousands of square miles of open ocean, comparatively small land units (and little land on which to base them), fewer heavy bombers, and a hide and seek carrier-based naval situation, where being seen often equaled being dead. Small wonder the fleet didn't want to stick around, bombarding the defenders senseless while the troops waited to invade. Conversely, the Marines were not really equipped to take and hold European terrain against Panzer divisions. Try putting Gyrenes into _Swatting at Tigers_ sans the bazookas and the 75inf. Consider also the opposition and the terrain. In the Pacific, there was nowhere to withdraw to, no Dunkirk. And capture was a more daunting experience, with the Stalags being a holiday camp by comparison. That's if you survived the surrender itself. In Europe, a unit that broke might not get overrun, and might be able to sneak back to safety. In the Pacific, there was nowhere to run to. My point is that the situation and the opposition were vastly different. The Marines were a fleet arm, and it made more sense to commit them to a naval war than to a European land war. In ASL terms, I still think that Paras on Jump night should get a morale boost and lower numbers in most scenarios (fanatic is the game term, though I don't think it really characterizes the situation; I also think that "real fanatics" like in RB and similar situations should get a +2, but that would unbalance things even more). Ditto the Rangers on a mission. But I don't want to be accused of ML inflation. We've hashed over the Marines a good bit in the past, and new guys are encouraged to visit the archives if they want to see this group at its most vociferous and combatitive. I'm not trying to stifle anyone, but you may get your questions answered by grepping through the old stuff, rather than being accused of rehashing old arguments on today's bandwidth. If you can't get there from here, I could probably dig up some and email it. Of course, the customary $1 a page for out-of-print back issues applies. Just kidding. Matt Brown ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:36:19 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Marines, etc What? Chris is going to disagree with Brian again? No way! :-) > > > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than > >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of > >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading > >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle > >more important. > > I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was > no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies who > had the potential to make life pretty miserable for us. It is not like > Germany was the strongman of the Axis alliance (what a paper alliance > at that). I dunno, but Japan had demonstrated it's inability to control China and had gotten good and mashed at Midway and Guadalcanal in '42, after only 6 months of war with the west. In '42, after 3 years of war, Germany had only been beated at El Alemain, and was still threatening to topple Russia and crush Britain. By '42, Japan had comitted atrocities in China and had killed a number of POW's; by '42, Germany was getting closer to the 5 million Jews and 2 million others that eventually died in concentration camps, not to mention the countless atrocities committed on the Russian front. God knows how many million more would have died at the hands of both the Germans and Russians had D-Day failed or been delayed 6 months. No, I'd say Tojo wasn't quite the threat to the world that Hitler and Stalin combined represented. Of course, in mid-'42, Stalingrad was just around the corner; but by the end of '42 Japan's offensive potential had been virtually eliminated, and Germany would show that she still had plenty of punch in '43. By '44, the war was over bar the shouting for Japan with the battle of Imphal-Kohima, while Germany was still hanging tough against the Russians (although the writing was on the wall). The Japanese would still exact a heavy toll for their final destruction, but with Germany every additional day was another day the concentration camps were still in operation - and the pace would only accelerate as the war went on. > Anyways, there just were not that many Marine divisions to go > around during the beginning of 44. Heck, just a guess here, there were > certainly less than 5 divisions, as I think the 5th div was formed around > Iwo Jima (running on foggy memory here). The divisions were in use in > the PTO so transporting one to the ETO really wouldn't make sense. I believe the minimum number of Marine divisions is mandated by law at 2 (? someone correct me if this is wrong). At Guadalcanal, wasn't it just the 1st and 2nd Marine divisions that existed? How may more could they have raised? > Could the marines have done a better job the the army at Omaha? > I doubt it, the Army did just fine. The other thing is that I think the "Big Red One" landed at Omaha, so they would at least be fanatic 6-6-7's. The difference between 8 and 9 isn't that great. The 8ML, to my mind, is a game mechanic that works. No, it's not commutative, 'cause the Marines just simply weren't the professionals that you would find in the Fallschrimijaegers, Gurkhas, or your other favorite elite unit - at least not outside of beach landings. The "more personal" nature of the war in the Pacific doesn't wash for me. I would think that things like whether the rations were better and how many of my friends those bastards killed yesterday would have a more profound effect than such a nebulous concept. Ah well, I'll stop now 'cause I'm sure we could debate this forever. Chris ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 13:44:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Marines > Subject: Marines > Scott writes... > > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than > >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of > >divisions on D-Day? I don't think the 8 morale for Marines is intended as an indication that they were any "better" than Rangers or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that the reasoning behind the Marine morale is much less complicated: the much-maligned play-balance. Brian will probably be able to confirm or destroy my argument, but I think the Marines were originally designed with a 7 morale. Play-testing showed that they weren't winning many scenarios and hence they were beefed-up. Dade ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:54:47 -0400 (EDT) From: GEORGE PEARSON Subject: Marine Morale I think we should label this, "The Discussion That Would Not Die". Bob S made some good points about the Marine Morale being somewhat relative to the circumstances under which they fought. The Pacific Theatre was characterized by 2 factors which, by and large, were absent from most US/Brit vs German/Italian clashes: racism and a radical clash of cultures. Most accounts agree that the fighting in the Pacific was characterized by a level of viscousness and barbarity not matched on the Western Front (though sometimes present in the fighting in Russia). The Japanese viewed surrender as anathema; the ratio of KIA to captured among Japanese troops is staggering. This determination to literally do-or-die fight in with the racism of many, if not most, Allied troops, who tended to view the Japanese as somewhat less than human. The reaction to Japanese "fanaticism" was to ratchet up the morale of their opponents. The game effect seems right. I just played my first PTO scenario, Cibik's ridge, as the American player. I beat the Japanese player by dishing out horrendous casualties in the face of his banzai charges. But there was a heavy price to pay, as one position after another was overun. Twice, we had HTH meless where all but 1 half squad was eliminated, while 3 or 4 squads went down. Even in Red Barricades, I have rarely seen such continual, non-stop carnage. We are going to try The Rock next Saturday. PTO is going to take some getting used to (I don't think I EVER used TPBF as much as Cibik's). But I must say, it is a lot of fun, and not just as a change from regular ASL. I consider Bush and GH to be money well spent... George P ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 17:02:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: Re: Marines On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > Scott writes... > > I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was > no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies who > had the potential to make life pretty miserable for us. It is not like > Germany was the strongman of the Axis alliance (what a paper alliance > at that). Germany was by far the greater threat to world order and American security in WW II. Just imagine what surrender terms the Germans might have imposed on the Brits if they'd been conquered. It's not to difficult to imagine Royal Navy ships in the Kriegsmarine (of course, Churchill would've scuttled them first, we hope!). Ever heard of some of the planning scenarios floated in 1942 which assumed Russia would go down? One had the US raising 300 divisions (roughly triple what did raise, I think). Beating the Japanese back was a foregone conclusion once the US survived its initial onslaught with its carrier fleet and, more importantly, its political will to fight intact. Sheesh, the US commissioned something like 16 Essex-class CV's in 1943! > Iwo Jima (running on foggy memory here). The divisions were in use in > the PTO so transporting one to the ETO really wouldn't make sense. The Marines were specifically excluded from the ETO early in the war. > Could the marines have done a better job the the army at Omaha? > I doubt it, the Army did just fine. Omaha was almost a disaster. Ever played The Longest Day for any length of time without a successful landing at Omaha? I don't think the war ends in 1945 if the Normandy landings don't succeed in total, though we would've probably nuked Berlin if we'd had to. Of course if Bradley hadn't been such a snob and turned down the British offer of the funny AFV's, the landing might've gone much smoother. Tim ----- From: slagblah@acs.bu.edu (Scott de) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 16:50:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Marine's Morale I didn't say the ETO was more important than the PTO, just that Normandy was more important than Saipan, strategically and psychologically. Some American commanders (i.e. MacArthur) felt Saipan should have been bypassed, or at least invaded later. Scott de Brestian ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:15:46 -0700 From: jwhit@aries.wr.usgs.GOV (Jon Whitworth) I haven't read anything concerning my first message on a solitaire system yet, so I don't know if it provoked any more than massive boredom. However, since it will be many hours before I can read my mail again, I will throw the following out: Phased development of solitaire system requires a breakdown of the various aspects of ASL. Therefore I purpose that use be made of a simple (infantry, SW, no vehicles) scenarios to model developments on. Perhaps someone out there can suggest a simple one where the defensive objectives are clear (stop 'em, hold the stone buildings, etc.). Reinforcements would be a complication. I can't remember but I believe there are a couple in Paratrooper. Because it is simpler to do, the decision process for the defensive side of the model scenario should be done first. The decisions that stick out in my mind are: Set up Defensive First Fire Defensive Fire Local advance (counter attack) Prep Fire Voluntary Concealment Loss Fire Lanes (probably belongs within DFF) Withdraw (both from CC and to new defensive position) Routs any others? Gee, wouldn't it be cool to have a data base of set ups for the scenario in question. After the attacker sets up, the set up for defender is randomly selected. I could see bore-sighting and Fire lanes being a DRM for given hexes for a set up that would apply to each MG in LOS until the required placement DR or less is rolled. (I can hear the Pop-o-matics now :-). All Fire could be determined by target type priority, range, firing weapon type, etc, which could be changed (randomly? nationality? turn-to-turn?). Local advance could be determined by DR with DRM (aggressiveness, # of enemy in LOS, TEM of advance route, nationality, etc). Anyway whatever the system, the point would be to have a rational way OUTSIDE the solitaire player to determine the defender's reaction. The drawback would be that the player would have another system to handle and the temptation to find cheesy tactics to beat the system instead of the enemy would exist. P.S. Since the US built a huge navy just to carry Marines around, they were pretty special guys. I think an 8 Morale is about right. But then, I might be biased. (Once a Marine, always a Marine! :-). ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 14:45:53 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Marines > Today, the USMC is back to 3 infantry division, and one > air division. > > Doug Maston 3 Marine Divisions and 3 Marine Air Wings, plus one more of each in the Reserve. A Division and a MAW together help to form a Marine Expeditionary Force, a "Corps"-size element which is our largest tactical organization. Dave van Kan ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 14:50:20 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Marines, etc > I believe the minimum number of Marine divisions is mandated by law > at 2 (? someone correct me if this is wrong). At Guadalcanal, wasn't it just > the 1st and 2nd Marine divisions that existed? How may more could they have > raised? The National Security Act of 1947 requires that the Marine Corps provide at least 3 Divisions and 3 Air Wings, with a 4th in the Reserves. It also states that the Marines are responsible for developing and maintaining amphibious doctrine and equipment for all services. Dave van Kan ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 16:08:24 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Marines and Navy All this talk about the Marines and the Navy is vaguely interesting, but neither of them would have been ANYWHERE without the support of the unsung heroes of the war, the civilian scientist corps. Yes, these Heroes in Lab Coats worked long hours late at night, braving the terrible, uh, the terrible lighting in the buildings, working hard to overcome hazardous obstacles such as, uh, er, such as those funny kind of pencil sharpeners they used to have in those days that could really give you a nasty cut if you weren't careful, and, uh, well, things were really, really kind of hard if you worked till 5:30 and got home late and your supper was cold and, uh, er, well FORGET IT. Tom ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:10:12 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) For what it is worth . . . I'm horrified that ASL '94 is already a history lesson. I had this vision, some time last winter, that here we are on the 50th anniversary of D-Day, and ASL has finally published rules for landing craft -- anxiously awaited for nearly a decade now -- and wouldn't it be natural to have a D-Day theme for ASL '94? Any SPI survivors that feel the need to bootleg a copy of the Annual? I plan on drinking enough beer some night to get really prolific, and write a letter to the General that voices all the rage and frustration that I find in hearing my favorite magazine died a secret hidden death. I think it is a conspiracy, and hope that Oliver Stone plays ASL. Tom Huntington ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:23:51 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: Marines The _real_ reason we beat the Germans first is so the COMMIES wouldn't be running Europe after the war. "Greetings from Stalingrad, wish you were here." Postcard from von Paulus to the Fuhrer, December, 1942 (O.K. maybe not.) ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 15:51:28 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Smoke If the Capabilities Chart shows an Infantry Squad having Smoke, and so do the counters, but the Scenario Card shows them without the exponent, do they have Smoke? The specific scenario is Age Old Foes, ASL 50. The Polish counters have the exponent 1 and the Chart confirms that Allied Minor Neutrals can have Smoke, but the Scenario Card depicts them without the exponent. There are no SSRs regarding Smoke. Does anyone have an answer to this? Dave van Kan ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 20:20:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: Marines, etc In message Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:36:19 +0500, farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) writes: >> > Furthermore, if Marines were that much better than >> >the avarage Joe, why didn't we have a couple of >> >divisions on D-Day? Yes, I know they were invading >> >Saipan, but it seems to me Normandy was a leeetle >> >more important. >> >> I'm suprised that this opinion still exists today. The ETO was >> no more important than the PTO during WWII, each were valid enemies >> who had the potential to make life pretty miserable for us. It is not >> like Germany was the strongman of the Axis alliance (what a paper >> alliance at that). The timing of D-Day was dictated more by political maneuvering than who was the greater enemy. From what I have read, Tojo and Hitler were considered pretty much equal as far as the US is concerned. But it was the Potsdam conference where Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill decided the basic strategy for ending the war. The result was Hitler first, then Tojo. The Normandy landings were a means to open a second front and defeat Germany. The timetable still showed a German defeat early in '45. > By '42, Japan had comitted atrocities in China > and had killed a number of POW's; by '42, Germany was getting closer to > the 5 million Jews and 2 million others that eventually died in > concentration camps, not to mention the countless atrocities committed on > the Russian front. God knows how many million more would have died at the > hands of both the Germans and Russians had D-Day failed or been delayed 6 > months. The extermination of the Jews wasn't the all encompassing motivation for getting rid of Hitler first. If it was up to Roosevelt, I think he would have wanted to get rid of Japan first, then Germany. But the British had been in the war for 2 more years than the Amis. Plus, Japan wasn't all that big a threat to Russia. So it seems that Roosevelt would be outvoted 2 to 1 on who to finish off first. There had been rumours about the Jewish holocaust at the time but nothing that would change the course of the war. >> Anyways, there just were not that many Marine divisions to go >> around during the beginning of 44. Heck, just a guess here, there >> were certainly less than 5 divisions, as I think the 5th div was >> formed around Iwo Jima (running on foggy memory here). The divisions >> were in use in the PTO so transporting one to the ETO really wouldn't >> make sense. Correct. At the time, transferring a division to another theater just wasn't done. It is a waste of valuable resources. Especially when the defenses were so vastly different, the Marines being trained for Japanese defenses. ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 20:34:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Smoke In message Tue, 12 Apr 94 15:51:28 PDT, vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) writes: > If the Capabilities Chart shows an Infantry Squad having Smoke, and so do > the counters, but the Scenario Card shows them without the exponent, do > they have Smoke? Yes, unless removed by SSR. > The specific scenario is Age Old Foes, ASL 50. The Polish counters have > the exponent 1 and the Chart confirms that Allied Minor Neutrals can have > Smoke, but the Scenario Card depicts them without the exponent. There are > no SSRs regarding Smoke. Does anyone have an answer to this? I think it is a typo on the scenario card. This card already has one error having to do with the wagons (M>=6 1S/5PP should be T6 15PP and two stars vice one) I suspect this is a second error. ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 21:29:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Marines and Navy On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, Tom Repetti wrote: > > All this talk about the Marines and the Navy is vaguely interesting, but > neither of them would have been ANYWHERE without the support of the unsung > heroes of the war, the civilian scientist corps. Yes, these Heroes in Lab > Coats worked long hours late at night, braving the terrible, uh, the > terrible lighting in the buildings, working hard to overcome hazardous > obstacles such as, uh, er, such as those funny kind of pencil sharpeners > they used to have in those days that could really give you a nasty cut if > you weren't careful, and, uh, well, things were really, really kind of hard > if you worked till 5:30 and got home late and your supper was cold and, uh, > er, well FORGET IT. > > Tom Uh, what about milkmen? You left out the milkmen (east coast milkmen had 8ML) and all they did as heroes of the war?!! :) Paul ----- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 21:32:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: More on 94 ASL Annual On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, Tom Huntington wrote: > For what it is worth . . . > > I'm horrified that ASL '94 is already a history lesson. I had this vision, > some time last winter, that here we are on the 50th anniversary of D-Day, and > ASL has finally published rules for landing craft -- anxiously awaited for > nearly a decade now -- and wouldn't it be natural to have a D-Day > theme for ASL '94? Any SPI survivors that feel the need to bootleg a copy > of the Annual? > > I plan on drinking enough beer some night to get really prolific, and > write a letter to the General that voices all the rage and frustration that > I find in hearing my favorite magazine died a secret hidden death. I think > it is a conspiracy, and hope that Oliver Stone plays ASL. > > Tom Huntington Uh, if Oliver Stone gets his smarmy palms on ASL, the Marines will have ML of 10, the Japanese will never charge (conspiracy brought them into the war ya know), and there will be just one scenario for each theater - inaccurate as all hell, but showing the "true meaning" of events dosed with a healthy dash of writers perogative to clean up the story and make it more appealing to the masses...ie; we'll also have female SMC with, ahem, 40D-8ML. Paul ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 09:23:24 +0000 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: Re: Marines Dade writes: >Brian will probably be able to confirm or destroy my argument, but I think the >Marines were originally designed with a 7 morale. Play-testing showed that >they weren't winning many scenarios and hence they were beefed-up. I have a vague memory of having seen an ad for GH in one of the annuals where a 7-6-7 marine unit is depicted. /Robert Maglica ----- From: s.hudman@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 07:19:00 UTC Subject: David Van Kan, Don Chappell has long since retired from "God's Chosen Few" to a civilian job. He now resides in Arlington, Tx. ASL USMC units shouldn't have a printed Morale. What a Gyrene break and run from any enemy? NEVER!!! Chesty would hunt him down personally and expose the coward for the imposter he is. The grovelling maggot would then receive the disposal he deserved. Good Night Chesty, Wherever you may be!!! SEMPER FI!! UURAAHH Find me one account of any US army unit bearing up under the impossible conditions the USMC faced on nearly all of their campaigns; Peliliu, Tarawa, and Guadalcanal in particular. The only instances I can think of, that come close, are the exploits of Merrill's Marauders. The army units fighting in the pacific generally had a much poorer record than the USMC units, although they usually suffered fewer casualties than their Marines brothers. Furthermore, most of the Army units (I did not say all) in the central pacific campaign were used to mop up after the Marines had made the initial assault and broken the enemies back. In the end, TAHGC decided to go with "8" for the USMC, and printed the counters that way, so what's the point of arguing over it? :) FORT sn ----- Subject: Computer ASL... From: sinkhole!tlvx!killrave@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Killraven) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 00:48:00 EDT Hi guys! Just as a by-the-by, when talking to Mac at last year's ASLOK, he said that although CASL (beyond,above,beneath,behind...asl) would use some of the basic math of ASL (the IFT, to hit charts, etc...), the game would NOT be "computer ASL", but something a little more "arcadey"... Let's start a "bring back the Annual" campaign. Market-based forces are as American as apple pie. Boycott the General, write letters, do whatever, but show your support for the Annual! Take care, Shelly ----- Subject: BOATS ON THE WATER From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 06:57:00 -0640 Howdy, I have a question about firing at boats on land with Ordnance. As best I read E5.52, you can fire at boats on land using the Infantry or Vehicle Target Types. According to this same rule, "[i]f a boat is hit using the Vehicle or Infantry Target Type, it sinks ..." To my mind, "sinking" a boat on land is a strange idea at best, but my best interpretation of this is that a boat on land that is hit is destroyed. On the other hand I half feel that "sinking" must refer only to boats in the water or beached, and that the rules do not explain what happens when a boat is hit on land. If that is the case the best I can think of to do is to use the soft vehicle procedures and roll for a soft vehicle TK. Does anyone know what the correct procedure is for Ordnance fire against boats on land? Is there a rule, an erratum, or even a Mac-sez? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: RE: Sherman DD tanks From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 07:26:00 -0640 Howdy, "Carl D. Fago" writes: >> D16.11 If a DD tank suffers an IFT attack (other than an >> HE hit D16.1) while on land that results in a soft vehicle >> kill, the DD screens are no longer effective, and the >> vehicle is no longer amphibious. Screens still have to be >> lowered during the MPh before the screen-up restrictions >> are removed. >This last sentence seems to be wasted effort. It cost no MP >or any other penalty to lower the screens, so why not save >the player the effort and consider the screens lowered? Because I wanted the player to have the option of going back into the water if he wanted, and those screens can't be re-erected. Not useful very often, but if the tank wanted to cross a small island or a jutting pennisula, it might want to go back into the water. A minor thing, I know, but I know someone would want to do it in the middle of a game and would curse me and my family for 10 generations because I wrote the rule wrong :) So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 21:37:02 EDT Subject: Re: Marines Wasn't it at the Yalta Conference that the Allied leaders decided to destroy Germany first, then beat Japan? If this were the case, it is surprising that the Marines weren't used in the Atlantic, especially considering the scale of the invasions there when compared to those in the Pacific. One could argue that the British Marines (Commandos) were the counterpart (notice I didn't use equivalent) to the US Marines. Their landings at Walcheren Island could make for some very interesting scenarios. One could also argue that the British naval experience was the counterpart to the Jarheads in the Atlantic Theater. Cheers, Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) VIMS (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 21:57:44 EDT Subject: Re: Marines S. Hudman writes: > Find me one account of any US army unit bearing up under >the impossible conditions the USMC faced on nearly all of >their campaigns; Peliliu, Tarawa, and Guadalcanal in >particular. The only instances I can think of, that come >close, are the exploits of Merrill's Marauders. How about the paratroopers? Gavin's escapades in Sicily, the 101st's trials by fire during Normandy? These actions were as short as Tarawa or Betio, but perhaps not as difficult as Guadalcanal. Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) VIMS (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 10:07:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Marines, etc Item Subject: Message text > The extermination of the Jews wasn't the all encompassing motivation for > getting rid of Hitler first. If it was up to Roosevelt, I think he would > have wanted to get rid of Japan first, then Germany. But the British had > been in the war for 2 more years than the Amis. Plus, Japan wasn't all that > big a threat to Russia. So it seems that Roosevelt would be outvoted 2 to 1 > on who to finish off first. There had been rumours about the Jewish > holocaust at the time but nothing that would change the course of the war. Actually the State department knew what was going on early in the war but acted to suppress the information. That's assuming the PBS special on that aired last week is accurate. -dlw ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 10:18:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: Marines In message Tue, 12 Apr 94 21:37:02 EDT, "Jeff Shields" writes: > Wasn't it at the Yalta Conference that the Allied leaders decided to > destroy Germany first, then beat Japan? I was getting my conferences confused. There was also the Tehran conference of the big three. Have to go searching in the books to find the right one. At any rate, it was a concensus decision to get rid of Hitler first. *-=Carl=-* ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 22:18:28 EDT Subject: Re: PC archives Will Scarvie (and others), I have placed RUSFRONT.ZIP on carlo.phys.uva.nl: /pub/bas/asl/incoming. It shoudl probably be moved to /pub/bas/asl/pcprogs. It is a shareware computer game of PanzerBlitz with 3 Kursk scenarios. You can save game turns and email those to opponents. Let me know if you like it. A week or two ago I asked the group about PC archives. Below is a list of addresses that people sent to me. I haven't had the time to check many of these. One can also "gopher" around to find several other archives. Can anyone tell me what simtel20 is all about? I haven't had the time to dig around to find out about it. Are you all aware of the WWII interest group on the net? ftp.funet.fi ftp.cica.indiana.edu - windows programs wuarchive.wustl.edu - games, utilities ftp.umich.edu garbo.uwasa.fi oak.oakland.edu ftp.cso.uiuc.edu - for games (before 92) see .../pc/exec-pc ftp.ulowell.edu = hermes.uml.edu - for games check /msdos/Games simtel20.wsmr.army.mil - for simtel20 byrd.mu.wvnet.edu - check out /pub/history/military/wwii carlo.phys.uva.nl - for ASL go to /pub/bas/asl ftp.lysator.lui.se - for ASL Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) VIMS (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 08:26:29 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: RE: Smoke > > > The specific scenario is Age Old Foes, ASL 50. The Polish counters have > > the exponent 1 and the Chart confirms that Allied Minor Neutrals can > > have Smoke, but the Scenario Card depicts them without the exponent. > > There are no SSRs regarding Smoke. Does anyone have an answer to this? > > I think it is a typo on the scenario card. This card already has one error > having to do with the wagons (M>=6 1S/5PP should be T6 15PP and two stars > vice one) I suspect this is a second error. > The third error on the card is that the Russian radio has contact values of 6/7/8, not 5/6/7, although it might as well be -6/-7/-8 for all of the success that Lt. Dobrinyn has had in rousting the boys at Battalion Mortar. Meanwhile, it's like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade out on board 33 with all of the Poles just walking past the stunned, pinned, broken, and otherwise bamboozled Russians. I don't think I could even shoot down that big Garfield balloon they're towing behind them. Tom "What's THIS knob for?" ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 07:21:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Computer ASL... On Apr 13, 12:48am, Killraven wrote: > Let's start a "bring back the Annual" campaign. Market-based forces > are as American as apple pie. Boycott the General, write letters, > do whatever, but show your support for the Annual! > > Take care, > Shelly Sounds like a great idea! I'm all for it. If enough of us belly-ache they might just listen. I'll draft a letter today. Dade ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 08:35:20 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) Hi, Recently Scott (?) published a count of each board, and its frequency of use in published scenarios. He left out the scenarios from the General magazines, and all occurances of the DASL and HASL boards. Getting a wild hair, I decided to fill in those missing pieces. The data has been exhaustively counted once, and any errors are ommisions on my part. The format was liberally borrowed from Scott's publishing, and couldn't have been done so quickly without his work. Tom Huntington _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Included Modules: Beyond Valor Annual '89 Paratrooper Annual '90 Yanks Annual '91 West of Alamein Annual '92 The Last Hurrah Annual '93a Hollow Legions Annual '93b Partisan Code of Bushido General Magazines Vol 22 #5 thru Vol 28 # 6 Gung Ho Croix de Guerre Number : Description :Mod : Frequency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ ] 1 : City; stone buildings :SL : 15 [ ] 2 : Country; two Level 3 Hills :SL : 42 [ ] 3 : Village amidst Level 2 Hills :SL : 28 [ ] 4 : Farmland; woods and grainfields :SL : 48 [ ] 5 : Woods; gullies :CoI : 25 [ ] 6 : Chateau; orchard and grainfields :CoD : 8 [ ] 7 : River; islands and marsh :CoD : 7 [ ] 8 : River; cliffs and hill :GI : 5 [ ] 9 : Mountain; Level 4 Hill, crags, cliff: : 9 [ ] 10 : Village; rowhouses, path, pond :Part : 6 [ ] 11 : Country; hedgerows and low hills :LH : 13 [ ] 12 : Village; gullies, graveyard :GI : 8 [ ] 13 : Country; elevated road and stream :GI : 4 [ ] 14 : Airfield; sunken road :GI : 2 [ ] 15 : Mountain; two Level 4 Hills :GI : 6 [ ] 16 : Rural Crossroads; grainfields :Yank : 14 [ ] 17 : Farmland; brush, woods, grainfields :Yank : 16 [ ] 18 : Rolling Country; sevel Level 1 Hills:Yank : 9 [ ] 19 : Cpen Country; bordered by woods :Yank : 10 [ ] 20 : City; rowhouses and gully :BV : 11 [ ] 21 : City; rowhouses and graveyard :BV : 10 [ ] 22 : City; suburbs and stream :BV : 14 [ ] 23 : City; canal :BV : 11 [ ] 24 : Village; valley, gully, and cliffs :Para : 7 [ ] 25 : Mountain; wadis, hammada :WoA : 10 [ ] 26 : Desert; scrub, hammada :WoA : 10 [ ] 27 : Desert; scrub, hammada :WoA : 14 [ ] 28 : Desert; scrub, hammada :WoA : 15 [ ] 29 : Desert; scrub, hammada :WoA : 9 [ ] 30 : Desert; scrub, hammada :HL : 3 [ ] 31 : Desert; scrub, hammada :HL : 5 [ ] 32 : Woods; stream :Part : 6 [ ] 33 : Farmland; extensive grainfield :LH : 7 [ ] 34 : Woods; marshy stream :CoB : 9 [ ] 35 : Farmland; orchard and grainfields :CoB : 11 [ ] 36 : Wooded Hills; marshy streams :CoB : 5 [ ] 37 : Country; woods, orchard, grainfields:CoB : 12 [ ] 38 : Airstrip; farmland :GI : 3 [ ] 39 : Wooded Ridge :GI : 1 [ ] 40 : Village :CdG : 1 [ ] 41 : Village :CdG : 2 [ ] a : City :SoF : 12 [ ] b : City :SoF : 18 [ ] c : City :SoF : 13 [ ] d : City :SoF : 15 [ ] e : Boccage :HH : 9 [ ] f : Boccage :HH : 9 [ ] g : Boccage :HH : 6 [ ] h : Boccage :HH : 12 [ ] RB : Stalingrad :RB : 10 [ ] KGP: Belgian Countryside :KGP : 4 [ ] GT : Pacific Islands :GT : 3 [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 ----- From: Chris Farrell Subject: AH and Atomic Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 10:30:54 EDT I saw this while browsing on comp.sys.mac.games, where there has been some discussion lately on the impending release of Operation Crusader, AH's new *real* computer game. I thought it might help clear up some of the confusion. Operation Crusader actually sounds pretty cool. I might even get a copy in a few months after I hear the reviews, especially with the PBeM feature. And it sounds like the new relationship with Atomic does not represent a feet-first jump into the computer software industry, as some of us might have feared. Actually, it sounds to me like a good decision on AH's part, both for their bottom line and for gaming in general. I just wish that AH would be a little more forthcoming to us about the real state of affairs. It would save us a lot of heartburn, since the rumors are always worse than the reality. --begin include [various ranting about problems with V for Victory, atomic's old line of games, omitted. Apparently 360's support was lousy, among other things] Maury, Hi. I'm the president of Atomic Games. I don't know if this will help at all, but the problem with offering an upgrade or continued support is that Atomic is a pretty small design and development company. 360 published our games, did the advertising, testing, customer support, and so on. When they failed to pay us for Market Garden, GJS, and the VicPak, we left - with nothing but our code and legal bills. We have since allied with Avalon Hill and, as you know, we are releasing Operation Crusader through them. Again, they are our publisher/distributer and they are responsible for support, testing, etc. Avalon Hill cannot be expected to support products that 360 released or to give discounts to owners of a competitors products. [snip snip] And there is still no modem option. There IS a PBEM feature, but that was never mentioned before Crusader. Maury, believe me, if there's anything I can help you with, like a sound fix for an AV or something like that, I'll do it. If you want to test Stalingrad with us, POOF! its done. The whole divorce was tragic and nearly ruined us, but we have spent 6 months testing Crusader and we think it is going to help us, and everyone else, forget our past problems. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Keith Zabalaoui Atomic Games keithz@neosoft.com -- Chris Farrell | Forward, always forward, Programmer/Analyst, Genetics | onward always up, ckf2@po.cwru.edu or | catching every drop of hope farrell@chimera.gene.cwru.edu | in my empty cup - Lea Salonga ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 16:44:48 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Swedish war heroes Did you know that the Swedish war effort has been much underrated. The most prominent leaders and heroes fighting for Norway in 1940 were Swedish. How did I come to this conclusion? I just had to look at the allied minors leaders and heroes provided with The Last Hurrah. Of all the SMCs in TLH, I found four leaders and one hero with Scandinavian sounding names. These were the 10-3 Maj Oleson, the 9-1 Lt Nordquest, the 8-1 Sgt Karlson, the 8-0 Sgt Anderssen and the hero Nordstrum. Sweden and Norway both have a common group of surnames that's actually meaning "son of x" where "x" is a Christian name; Oleson actually means son of Ole (this means that I've got a son that's a 10-3 leader, and I'm only 27 :-), the problem is that in Norwegian this kind of names is written with one "s" and the vocal "e", while in Sweden it's normally written with two "s" and the vocal "o". This means that Karlson is definately Swedish, with Oleson and Anderssen somewhere in between. In addition Nordquest and Nordstrum looks like the Swedish names Nordquist and Nordstroem, where "oe" is pronounced something like "u" in "but" (This applies to my surname too). I guess TAHGC knew what they did when they made TLH, so this means that the history concerning the Swedish war effort has to be rewritten. :-) p.s. If I'm wrong, I'm sure some of our Swedish list members will correct me. --------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 23:36:27 EDT Subject: Re: ETO vs PTO (was Marines awhile back) Potsdam, Tehran, Yalta. One of these was a key conference in deciding which enemy to destroy first. [Get out that history book, Jeff!] While the USA clearly had anti-Japan sentiments and was provoked by Japan, the need to destroy Germany was clearly more pressing to world stability. Where did all the Lend Lease mat!rial go? How much US shipping was lost to Germany compared to Japan? How many major US fronts were there in ETO at any one time after 1943 compared with PTO? [One of the conferences may also have been instrumental in affecting the Axis "devotion" to fight on (i.e., the Allies agreed to accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from Germany).] Am I beating a dead horse? Jeffrey Shields ( ) ( ) CBNERRVA (^ ^) (^ ^) VIMS (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062 \\ 0 | | 0 // (804) 642-7128 \\__\\|}{|//__// jeff@back.vims.edu \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 17:48:49 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Dummies and control Hello! How do you handle concealed stacks and building/hex/location control? I am currently playing day six of RB CG III, and there's a lot of concealed stacks moving around, where some of these stacks are dummies. To hide the dummy stacks, they move around like other stacks (of course using assault movement when in LOS of enemy units), and sometimes moves to locations currently controlled by the enemy. By the rules, the stack gains control of the location only if there is a real unit in the stack, but if you reveal this, you also have to reveal your dummy stacks when they move to an enemy controlled location. One possibility is never to move a dummy stack to an enemy controlled location, but by doing this, you often give your opponent a clue to which stacks are dummies. I first resolved this by placing a control marker on the location just as if the dummy stack was a real stack, revealing by the end of the day the locations that had been "gained" by dummies, and therefore hadn't been gained after all. This is, IMHO cumbersome, because you have to remember all the locations with your control markers on, that actually is still controlled by the enemy. My last solution is to make dummy stacks a little bit more powerful, by changing the control rules, letting ALL concealed units be capable of gaining control of a location. This means that a dummy stack, until revealed, may gain control of locations. I would like to know, however, how others have solved this. ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 11:57:06 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: A non-boycott alternative I am far from as anti-GENERAL as some folks, because I love to read about games, and I remember the pre-SPI days of my youth when I thought I was the only one nuts enough to like these things. But I still am not at all pleased by the direction things seem to be headed. i still haven't heard anything conclusive about why Hawthorne quit, so I'll just assume it was a chemistry thing like it seemed to be with Alan Moon, or his disillusionment with the Hill of his dreams and the reality. Whatever. Clearly, the GENERAL will never be what the ANNUALs _ARE_, and the non-ASLers out there will suffer too (they already complain about ASL-centrism). Whatever the circumstances, the AH guys are in a bind of some sort. As unhappy as I am about their decisions to date, I don't think we should add to their problems by threatening a boycot or such. Sure, we must make it clear that we are not happy at all with the situation. We should ask for some kind of clarification and some assurances about ASL. But I think threats are a lose-lose proposition. We are more likely to make progress if we identify the problem clearly, and make constructive suggestions. Rather, I would like to know if there is any way we can help them out. There is a vast (well...) talent pool out here on the list of eager and skilled people. Maybe it is too late to do anything about 94a and the late GENERAL issue, but we should be discussing the future direction. I was most encouraged and gratified when Rex addressed the net discussing the mini-HASL products. I don't know what kind of response he got, but I hope it was a good one. I would think that a similar discussion, with some input from the Hill, would help here. At that, most probably, the answer will be "no". I am pretty sure they aren't equipped to take advantage of the net to do any editing or such remotely; those of us with macs probably don't have matching software (they were using QUARK or something last I heard); and those of us with publishing experience aren't familiar with their type specs and guidelines. Certainly some of us could help out with copy editing, via hardcopy or ascii, or the gaming equivalent of "technical editing" but the layout/paste-up remotely probably isn't short-term practical. Long-term, maybe it is. A procedure could be worked out, if the Hill is willing. I know I would be glad to donate time to this kind of thing. I would expect a "no" also because they have seemed to prefer development work to be mostly internal, and they are rightly concerned with product quality and standards. At this point, the only thing I could see them accepting would be a "project" to work on a 94b kind of Annual, with no promises given to the overall ASL community that it will ever be published. This would be a no-lose situation, because any failure to produce would not change the status quo, only change the order in which articles on ASL would appear in the GEN (as the ASL ANN group would have certain articles "reserved" for the project). Ok, maybe I am dreaming. But maybe not. Why not do an ANNUAL in a folio style, focused on an ASL topic or theatre? Mostly a magazine, but also with "conventional" scenarios, maybe or maybe not counters, maybe a small HASL board, along the lines of GT or the mini-HASLs Rex proposed. That way, even the GENERAL-haters would come out ahead. They'd get a GENERAL they might think is worth buying, because AH would still expand ASL coverage, and they'd be able to get ANNUALS/HASLs as they come out. In summary, I'm not saying this list is AH's white knight, but with the brainpower out here, on genie, and in the clubs, from Calgary to Stockholm, we can do more than complain, although complain we must. In fact, to throw down the gauntlet a bit, I'd like to propose a Mini-HASL/ANNUAL/Folio based on Keegan's _Six Armies in Normandy_ It's got everything! 50th Anniversary! International appeal (Ray can sell a bunch in Poland for us)! Every west front nationality (almost)! Lots of interesting scenario possibilities! Mini-Campaign possibilities! Ok, so maybe we/AH couldn't get the rights to use Keegan directly. So what. As a theme, under a different name, it could work. Call it AEF (Allied Expeditionary Force) or something. Comments? Matt Brown ----- Date: 13 Apr 1994 11:58:25 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: Devil's Den hillside? Subject: Time:10:57 AM OFFICE MEMO Devil's Den hillside? Date:4/13/94 Greetings, Recently, Tom Huntington published an updated list of ASL board usage that included the General scenarios and DASL and HASL boards. At the bottom of the list was the line: [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 Could someone fill me in on what board this refers to? Thanks for any input. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 09:08:30 -0700 Subject: Commissar Self-Rally Hello, folks. A broken commissar must always attempt self-rally as per A25.221. However, does he nullify the DM status for himself when attempting to do so? A25.222 states that "a unit is immune to DM status while being rallied by a commissar." So, does this apply to the commissar HIMSELF, or only to other units he is attempting to rally? Interesting(?) annecdote: I was playing "The Borders are Burning" a while back and my opponent replaced two of his leaders with commissars. Man! Those guys must have been in a really pissy mood. Without exaggeration, I'd say they caused as many Russian casualties (due to being unable to rally broken units) as my Finns did. Didn't do me much good, though. He still punched through enough VP to win. Dade ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 12:13:44 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: ETO vs PTO (was Marines awhile back) >Am I beating a dead horse? No, but that crustacean of yours is starting to look like Chesapeake Bay roadkill. (just kidding). Seriously, my opinion is that the big point was to keep Russia on its feet. Stalin had been screaming for a second front since 42. The Japanese hunkered down to defense after Midway, but the Germans were still on the attack, and it was still rather unclear if the SU could stop them. And it wasn't so much "Hitler first", as the island-hopping campaign began before Torch or Normandy. I feel that the Allies dragged their feet committing land forces until they began to see the Russians hold and begin to advance. Then they started to worry about having a People's Republic of France and got off their cans and did something, Matt Brown ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 13:31:01 -0400 Subject: Dummies and control Item Subject: Message text > How do you handle concealed stacks and building/hex/location > control? I am currently playing day six of RB CG III, and > there's a lot of concealed stacks moving around, where some of > these stacks are dummies. To hide the dummy stacks, they move > around like other stacks (of course using assault movement > when in LOS of enemy units), and sometimes moves to locations > currently controlled by the enemy. This is easy. Don't move dummies to enemy controlled locations. I think it's fair to insist that you prove you've taken control of a building from the defender and that means revealing that there's at least one real MMC/SMC at the bottom of that stack. If you feel strongly about keeping them up with the advancing troops, why not use them as a shadow reserve? Move real troops in to take control then move the dummies behind freeing the real troop stacks to move some more. thanks, dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 13:53:42 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: Hitler First policy Sorry to keep adding to a divergence from ASL lore, guys, but my recent initiation to ASL sparked some historical reading on WWII, so the ETO vs. PTO just came up in several books I read. Several sources indicate that Churchill talked Roosevelt into committing the US (in case of war, that is) to concentrating on Hitler in meetings BEFORE US entry into the war. There were secret meetings in Baffin Bay or some Great White North hideaway like that where FDR heard Churchill's pitch. There was a great deal of pressure to take revenge on Japan post- Pearl Harbor, but the Hitler First business was a done deal very early. Doesn't it strike you as weird that the US had obvious Pacific interests, a long-term relationship with China (now under the tyrant's heel), and the Pearl Harbor attack as reasons to fight Japan, so as soon as the (very powerful) isolationists were nullified, the US gears up for a priority fight in Europe? Hitler did FDR a big favor by declaring war on the US. If he hadn't, the rationale for US intervention in Europe was by no means clear, as inevitable as it seems in hindsight. Token ASL angle: How about a "Skorzeny's Assaulta on Yalta" scenario? What's the ground pressure for FDR's personal asssistance vehicle? :-) Rusty ----- Subject: Commissar Self-Rally From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 13:40:00 -0640 Howdy, dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) writes: > A broken commissar must always attempt self-rally as per > A25.221. However, does he nullify the DM status for > himself when attempting to do so? A25.222 states that "a > unit is immune to DM status while being rallied by a > commissar." So, does this apply to the commissar HIMSELF, > or only to other units he is attempting to rally? >From the Q&A: A25.222 Is a Commissar immune to DM when attempting Self- Rally? A. No, a leader cannot affect his own performance (A10.7). {89} So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 13:41:02 CDT From: carrington rhydderch ward Subject: Red Barricades CG strategy I'm just starting up a Red Barricades campaign -- yes, CGIII, (unfinished symphonies anyone) -- and I am wondering if anybody has strong ideas as to long-term Russian or German strategy. How useful is artillery? Gun groups? Fortifications? What is the role of Armor? How much territory can the Russians afford to give up? How important is ELR? If anybody has notes from the last time this thread started up, please post or send, and otherwise, feel free to sound off. One last question. In the first game, it seems a tempting strategy for the Germans to buy pioneers. What do you think of the pros and cons of this purchase? Sorry for all those who haven't looked at RB. :( Carrington "time commitments" Ward ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 20:48:24 +0200 From: Johan Bergstroem Subject: Marines are whimps Execuse me the drastic subject but a 13 man marine squad with two or even three BAR's is not overated with loads of FP. Compare with the late war (late 43 and onwards) German line squad 4-6-7. It has eight men and a MG42. The early war German squad is 10 men but with the MG34 which has lower rate of fire. Sombody made a great analysis of the SW's in the digest some time ago. He wanted the MG34 to be a 2-FP LMG as the other nationalities has. (I think to remember that the MG42 fires 1200rpm= and the MG34 which were cotlier to produce fires about 800rpm. Corect me if I am wrong.) This comparison means that the marines per soldier basis does not posess much more firepower than the German soldiers. This with different sizes o= f the squads can make things funy as they still take the same amount of spa= ce 10 pp or US# of 3. Figure the 8 Germans digging foxholes for themselves then going away and now 13 fat Americans manages to enter the foxholes with no problems at al= l :-) = -- . . o . . J o h a n B e r g s t r o m snailmail: M a s v a g e n 4B Lund Institute of Technology (LTH) S-227 33 LUND email: e89jb@efd.lth.se SWEDEN Phone: +46 46/127947 ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 15:07:35 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: Computer ASL... On Wed, 13 Apr 1994, Killraven wrote: > Hi guys! > Just as a by-the-by, when talking to Mac at last year's ASLOK, > he said that although CASL (beyond,above,beneath,behind...asl) would > use some of the basic math of ASL (the IFT, to hit charts, etc...), > the game would NOT be "computer ASL", but something a little more > "arcadey"... > > Let's start a "bring back the Annual" campaign. Market-based forces > are as American as apple pie. Boycott the General, write letters, > do whatever, but show your support for the Annual! > > Take care, > Shelly I won't boycott the General, but I wish and hope the annual comes back. Arcadey? How? BTW, I saw a couple of Atomic products in a software store this weekend. The packaging was cool, at least. Do any of you know what they're like? Missing the annual already, Jim Shetler ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 13:00:16 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: RE: Smoke > > > The specific scenario is Age Old Foes, ASL 50. The Polish counters have > > > the exponent 1 and the Chart confirms that Allied Minor Neutrals can > > > have Smoke, but the Scenario Card depicts them without the exponent. > > > There are no SSRs regarding Smoke. Does anyone have an answer to this? > > > > I think it is a typo on the scenario card. This card already has one error > > having to do with the wagons (M>=6 1S/5PP should be T6 15PP and two stars > > vice one) I suspect this is a second error. > > > > The third error on the card is that the Russian radio has contact values of > 6/7/8, not 5/6/7, although it might as well be -6/-7/-8 for all of the > success that Lt. Dobrinyn has had in rousting the boys at Battalion Mortar. The unit depiction in the ASLRB also shows the squads without the smoke exponent. Could be one of those last minute counter changes that never made it into the book. > Meanwhile, it's like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade out on board 33 with > all of the Poles just walking past the stunned, pinned, broken, and > otherwise bamboozled Russians. I don't think I could even shoot down that > big Garfield balloon they're towing behind them. Sounds like it should have been AGWAV. You mean your opponent actually is running across the open, even though you have those wonderful MMG's? Must have some real cojones! :-) Dave ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 16:10:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: A non-boycott alternative I keep hoping to get my General 29/1 in the mail so that I can see what AH actually has to say about the future of ASL with them. Barring that, I like the idea of coming up with a "replacement" annual. However, I think we already have a starting point in FFE/ASLUG or Tactiques (if it were in English.) For the most part, I have enjoyed the ASLUG scenarios and they have a great format and come on cardstock. But, as has been seen, neither Fort nor Rob Wolkey are up to the task of single-handedly keeping a 'zine going in full force. Heck, people get _paid_ to do that as their job. At any rate, I wonder if we ought not to try and throw our weight behind helping FFE/ASLUG keep on schedule and keeping the scenarios and articles coming rather than try to strike something up with AH. As Matt pointed out, I doubt AH would be interested at all. But I think Rob and Fort would be interested. 'Course we should also be throwing our weight behind our own Digest to help fill in the void. For me, the biggest loss, besides "Official Scenarios", from the annual are the "Official Q&A and Errata". How would we fill in that void? *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 16:14:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Dummies and control In message Wed, 13 Apr 1994 17:48:49 +0200, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > I first resolved this by placing a control marker on the > location just as if the dummy stack was a real stack, > revealing by the end of the day the locations that had been > "gained" by dummies, and therefore hadn't been gained after > all. This is, IMHO cumbersome, because you have to remember > all the locations with your control markers on, that actually > is still controlled by the enemy. I think this is the appropriate solution. In addition, I think the added encumberance of writing down which control markers were placed by dummies is offset by the advantage of being able to use your dummies to "gain" control. > My last solution is to make dummy stacks a little bit more > powerful, by changing the control rules, letting ALL concealed > units be capable of gaining control of a location. This means > that a dummy stack, until revealed, may gain control of > locations. I don't like this idea since it is clearly in violation of the rules. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 14:33:42 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Dummies in Stalingrad Dave writes... >> How do you handle concealed stacks and building/hex/location >> control? I am currently playing day six of RB CG III, and >> there's a lot of concealed stacks moving around, where some of >> these stacks are dummies. To hide the dummy stacks, they move >> around like other stacks (of course using assault movement >> when in LOS of enemy units), and sometimes moves to locations >> currently controlled by the enemy. > >This is easy. Don't move dummies to enemy controlled locations. > Whoa. Wait a minute. Move the dummies into the enemy controlled location. Have a great time. Watch him send a squad or two back to "retake" the building you never regained control of. I don't think you are *required* to place a building control marker on a building you "recapture". Put your dummy stack into the building, put 'em in the basement, and watch your opponent sweat as he thinks you've grabbed the building. Imagine his horror as he thinks you'll now encircle a large portion of his army if he doesn't retake this building. I've no rules here, but this *has* to be legal. It sums up everything that dummies represent. (IMO, of course) >I think it's fair to insist that you prove you've taken control >of a building from the defender and that means revealing that >there's at least one real MMC/SMC at the bottom of that stack. > >If you feel strongly about keeping them up with the advancing >troops, why not use them as a shadow reserve? Move real troops >in to take control then move the dummies behind freeing the real >troop stacks to move some more. > Hey, this works too. I like to take ? as the Germans in RB and use dummy stacks to attack with. This may force the Russians to reveal units which fire at your stack. A little free recon is nice. >thanks, >dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com > JMO, Brian ----- From: Gerald Luther Graef Subject: Re: KGP I Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 13:36:23 -0500 (CDT) > After taking a thorough trouncing in my first KGPCG I have been doing some > thinking. I played the first scenario twice, once on each side. Both times I > felt the Nazi zealots had far more material than they really needed. The > GIs really got wipped. Yes I realize the importance of conservation of force > and the fighting withdrawal. Note I have never seen the latter part of the > CGI since Hitler weather conspired to prevent the destruction of more than > one Panther causing me to disrupt.(5+2) It sounds like the Germans overbought vehicles in the initial scenario. In fact, not buying any - other than panzer grenadier HTs - is probably the best bet. Why? Because you don't need them, and the Germans need infantry. In the game I'm playing now, the Americans lost big the first day: they managed to withdraw 10 squads and a tank. Take a close look at the victory conditions though: 130 LVP's isn't very much. If the Germans don't take the sanatorium, they lose. End of game. And don't underestimate the effects of the fuel shortage: a good U.S. player will try to force the German to move vehicles and then make concentrated attacks on out of gas tanks. For my current game, during 20am I had 7 panthers and 2 tigers, a fact my opponent lamented to no end, yet he managed to destroy 4 panthers without losing a tank. Remember the mist! panthers can't destory infantry all that well. Combined arms assaults are the motto of the day: let your shermans die to get the infantry close if you have to, but find a way to whittle away the panthers... It is probably true that KGP requires greater skill on the part of the US player, but the game is not as unbalanced as you make it out to be. The US player can pick and choose attacks for the second and third day. Don't get greedy but make steady progress towards specific goals. By the end of the game, things may well look like the original scenario reversed... Gerry ----- Date: 13 Apr 1994 16:18:31 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: AFV White ROF Box? Subject: Time:3:17 PM OFFICE MEMO AFV White ROF Box? Date:4/13/94 Hi, Newbie AFV question. On the British Sherman V(a) the ROF box has a white background. What does this indicate? Thanks. Bill Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 14:19:58 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: AFV White ROF Box? > Newbie AFV question. On the British Sherman V(a) the ROF box has > a white background. What does this indicate? > > Thanks. > > Bill Cirillo > w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov This one, I know!!! It means that the 75mm Gun is capable of Multiple Hits, even though it is larger than 40mm. It's in the Multi-vehicle notes for both the British and US vehicles. Dave ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 14:37:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: AFV White ROF Box? Bill: The white box on the ROF for Shermans with the 75mm denotes their ability to make Multiple Hits, despite being >40mm. This is supposed to represent their high ROF for the caliber of the gun. If you play Patton's Best, you'll encounter the same thing. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock > Subject: Time:3:17 PM > OFFICE MEMO AFV White ROF Box? Date:4/13/94 > Hi, > > Newbie AFV question. On the British Sherman V(a) the ROF box has > a white background. What does this indicate? > > Thanks. > > Bill Cirillo > w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov > > > > ----- Subject: TRIVIA PHASE From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 17:19:00 -0640 Howdy, So far the Trivia Phase has been just too easy for you. I'm not sure I can find anything too trivial for you, but I'll keep on trying :-) What does the "W" stand for on some of the M4 Shermans, for instance the M4A3(75)W (my answer not guaranteed to be correct)? The vehicle notes are sequential with one exception. There is a gap in one of the sequences, a number that doesn't correspond to a vehicle. What nationality & what number? And let's not see the same hands all the time, ok? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 18:01:34 CDT From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: Re: RE: Smoke I would agree that the chapter A (or better the chapter G) insert should be followed - consider the case of the British para/commando units - in my rule book they are the old SL 638's in WoE (or is it WoA?) they become 648's! - your best bet is to play with the counters and assume thEy are correct - unless there exists errata otherwise - in my experience the infantry counters are error free - the veh. counters tend to be the ones with errors. RE squad size and couter ratings: I think this should be taken with a grain of salt. The russains (at the begining of the war at least.) had 12 - 15 man squads - and these are represneted by 447's. In fact the italians had a 18 man squad with 2 lmg's (although nowhere as good as the lmgs of other nationalites) And they are 347 (or is it 346?) So maybe we should rescale ASL to take these factors into account - this would make the italian first line unit 10-4-6 or some thing like that..."If they get close and are in a building they can really do some dammage - if it wern;t for all those 6+1 leaders...." Andrew ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 16:14:29 CDT From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Re: AFV White ROF Box? Multiple Hits possibilities on doubles. It is the same for *ALL* <=40mm, and is specially noted on bigger guns by the white background in the ROF box. cheers, mike ----- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Well...without Chapter H in front of me, I don't know which vehicle note is missing/unaccounted for but I'll give the "W" a try. My guess is that it denotes "W"et storage of ammo. If so, then these M4's will have black CS# rather than the usual red ones. Ciao, Brent ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:57:04 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, Brent already answered the first question, so I'll pass on that one (he's perfectly right). Regarding the second question: > The vehicle notes are sequential with one exception. There > is a gap in one of the sequences, a number that doesn't > correspond to a vehicle. What nationality & what number? Sorry, no RB at hand and I don't remember which one it is. BUT, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with another exception to this. This isn't a number w/o a vehicle though, but rather a vehicle w/o a number or an entry. Oh, actually there are TWO such exceptions if my memory is correct - what two? BTW, noone has answered where the second exception to the PBF doubling is yet! -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Dummies and control Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:03:19 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, [ about dummies and control ] > By the rules, the stack gains control of the location only if > there is a real unit in the stack, but if you reveal this, you > also have to reveal your dummy stacks when they move to an > enemy controlled location. One possibility is never to move a > dummy stack to an enemy controlled location, but by doing this, > you often give your opponent a clue to which stacks are > dummies. The missing thing here is that you don't have to reveal whether you control a location or not. The rules for placing control markers say that you *may* place a control marker - not that you _must_. > I first resolved this by placing a control marker on the > location just as if the dummy stack was a real stack, > revealing by the end of the day the locations that had been > "gained" by dummies, and therefore hadn't been gained after > all. This is, IMHO cumbersome, because you have to remember > all the locations with your control markers on, that actually > is still controlled by the enemy. I think that is a definite no-no according to the rules. You may not place control markers in locations that you do not control. > My last solution is to make dummy stacks a little bit more > powerful, by changing the control rules, letting ALL concealed > units be capable of gaining control of a location. This means > that a dummy stack, until revealed, may gain control of > locations. That one I would definitely object to. Makes dummies far too useful. > I would like to know, however, how others have solved this. See above. I hope I didn't sound too harsh, I didn't intend to. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:33:53 +0100 (MET) From: abog@btmv06.god.bel.alcatel.be (Alain Bogaert) Subject: Counters in Postscript Hello, I was recently playing with the map2.pl program. I think it works great. At least now I have an idea about how my missing mapboards look like. Since this converts everything to postscript file, I wondered if there exist some postscript files of the counters. It would be great to have an enlarged print-out of one the squads. It could give some additional flavor to the "war-room". Alain ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:56:42 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Devil's Den hillside? > Recently, Tom Huntington published an updated list of ASL board > usage that included the General scenarios and DASL and HASL boards. > At the bottom of the list was the line: > > [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 > > > Could someone fill me in on what board this refers to? > > Thanks for any input. > > Bill Cirillo > > This board is actually the board belonging to the civil war game "Devils Den", (of course) published by AH. I don't own the game so I don't know what the board looks like. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 16:24:40 +1000 From: lesk@lna03.lna.oz.au (Les KRAMER) TOURNAMENT ANNOUNCEMENT - SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------------------- This is an early announcement for the upcoming ASL tournament in Sydney Australia. It will be held from June 11th, 1994 through to June 13th. This is the Queen's Birthday long weekend in NSW. The tournament will consist of 6 rounds, utilising scenarios developed by the organiser for the tournament. Further information can be obtained by email from lesk@lna.oz.au or by phone on (02) 6908570 or (02) 8171683. Regards, Les Kramer ----- Date: 13 Apr 94 21:48:09 EDT From: Bruce Probst <100033.3661@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Squad Sizes Andrew writes: >> I think this should be taken with a grain of salt. The russains (at >> the begining of the war at least.) had 12 - 15 man squads - and >> these are represneted by 447's. In fact the italians had a 18 man >> squad with 2 lmg's (although nowhere as good as the lmgs of other >> nationalites) And they are 347 (or is it 346?) So maybe we should >> rescale ASL to take these factors into account - this would make the >> italian first line unit 10-4-6 or some thing like that..."If they >> get close and are in a building they can really do some dammage - if >> it wern;t for all those 6+1 leaders...." There's a heck of a lot more in the firepower rating than just the number of men. It appears to be a combination of equipment and training; the actual size of the squad seems largely irrelevant. (But it sure must get tight in some of those half-tracks .) Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:57:24 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Offboard Artillery Here is another trick question: What do you do when you have an OBA which have a SR onboard, and an observer that has no LOS to SR nor its blast height, but has LOS to a known enemy unit adjacent to the SR? This should be quite easy, shouldn't it? The problem is that when I re-read my OBA rules for the twentieth time or so, I noticed that the way the rules are written, this situation is not handled by the rules. Well, actually it is handled in rule C1.336 where it's written that you may voluntarilycancel the SR, but obviously there should be other possibilities. Let's take a look at the other rules: 1.331 and 1.332 both demands LOS to the blast height, so these are out. 1.333 demands LOS to the base level or to the blast height and an enemy unit, while 1.334 only applies to FFE's. This leaves only 1.335 left (except the voluntarily canceling), but this rule applies: "...if he currently has no LOS to the SR's or FFE's Blast Height nor to any non-Aerial Location in/adjacent to the SR's hex that contains a Known (to him) enemy unit..." Doesn't this mean that if the observer sees a known enemy unit, then this rule doesn't apply? If it doesn't mean this, then my English knowledge is even worse than I thought, and I hope you will forget reading this as soon as possible :-) I have always played that 1.335 always applies when the observer doesn't see the blast height at all, and that's how I still play (maybe I should stop re-reading my rulebook:-). What the rules mean, is IMHO, that 1.335 applies when the observer has no LOS to the blast height independent of enemy units near the SR or FFE. That means delete from "nor to any..." to "...enemy unit," in C1.335. I can see no sense in that if the observer doesn't know where the SR or FFE is, he may correct it, but if he can see an enemy unit on/adjacent to the SR/FFE (Units which he doesn't know is on/adjacent to the SR/FFE because he doesn't know where the SR/FFE is.), he has to voluntarily cancel the fire mission. This doesn't sound very much like a voluntarily canceling to me. I am still reluctant to post this letter, because I can hardly imagine that the rules have such an overlooked mistake, and I expect to be laughed at in public by someone pointing out some- thing obvious that I have missed ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:03:04 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Searching I'd like to hear from people who have used searching a few times. It seems that I always forget to do the search with my units. However, since I'm the German in RB CG III, I think it's high time I do some searching to reveal my opponents minefields, set DCs e.t.c. (By the way, there was a discussion of how set DCs was revealed; I think the conclusion was that it is revealed by searching and detonating only. Can someone confirm this?) My Russian opponent, however, dislikes the searching - he thinks its way too effective, especially the fact that the whole hex is searched, not only ADJACENT locations. For instance, if you're on ground level outside an adjacent two level building and search it, you reveal the contents of the rooftop, level two, level one, ground level and cellar, even if there are some enemy units in some of the locations. What my opponent wants, is to let the searching be possible only in the accessible locations (i.e., the ones you could advance into). I'd like to hear some views on searching; Is it too powerful, would it be too weak if we restricted it to only affect accessible locations? ----------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:05:54 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: Re: Squad size > I think this should be taken with a grain of salt. The russains (at the > begining of the war at least.) had 12 - 15 man squads - and these are > represneted by 447's. In fact the italians had a 18 man squad with 2 lmg's > (although nowhere as good as the lmgs of other nationalites) And they > are 347 (or is it 346?) So maybe we should rescale ASL to take these factors > into account - this would make the italian first line unit 10-4-6 or some > thing like that..."If they get close and are in a building they can really > do some dammage - if it wern;t for all those 6+1 leaders...." > I know the Italians have an 18-man squad in Up Front, but was this the real TO&E? I find that unlikely. The other thing is that official Russian TO&E varied from 8 to 12 men throughout the war. I think it's best to assume that Russian, Italian, Partisan, etc. squads represented about 10 men. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. Chris ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 09:09:13 EDT From: mattb@express.ctron.com (Matthew E. Brown) Subject: Re: Devil's Den hillside? Bill wrote: > [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 Ole wrote: >This board is actually the board belonging to the civil war game "Devils Den", >(of course) published by AH. I don't own the game so I don't know what the >board looks like. Since nobody else has volunteered it, the reason for this Civil War intrusion is that Charles Kibler, the ASL map & counter designer, conjured up a scenario of the most fictional fanciful sort, using ASL rules and counters and the DD mapboard, way back when ASL first hit the streets. It was the first ASL scenario published in the GEN. He Germanicized/Russified typical Civil War names in the situation and aftermath. Much of the DD map was repro'd in the GEN, but I don't think the whole thing was there. So I have never played it. Map Brown ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 00:18:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian Williams (REL)" Subject: Re: Computer ASL... On Wed, 13 Apr 1994, James D Shetler wrote: > > I won't boycott the General, but I wish and hope the annual comes back. > Arcadey? How? BTW, I saw a couple of Atomic products in a software store > this weekend. The packaging was cool, at least. Do any of you know what > they're like? > > Missing the annual already, > Jim Shetler > > I just bought a video card so the copy of V4V:Utah beach I bought when it came out is finally being played. I bring good and bad news. the good: Utah Beach is everything you want in a computer wargame. It gives you a veriety of options over supply and control; it allows for fog of war; includes realistic varients; can be played any time day or night; doesn't pout when you beat the pants off it; and finally, the interface is very good. Utah Beach is also has the bugs that all computer games have: limited AI; destructability of files; limited AI; not a good conversationalist (good thing to confuse opponant during his move); and finally limited AI. All in All a worthy game. It's obvious that they put a lot of effort into OB, but the designer notes are not great. Also, more scenarios would have been nice. This game is why I bought my first computer. BTW, I hated PanzerBlitz on board game and I think it sucks on the computer too. ------------------------------------|| I am not tall enough to become the || Brian M Williams, Struggling function well, nor lean enough to be|| Student in search of a niche. thought a good studient.-12th Night-|| ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:17:16 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE > > The vehicle notes are sequential with one exception. There > > is a gap in one of the sequences, a number that doesn't > > correspond to a vehicle. What nationality & what number? > > Sorry, no RB at hand and I don't remember which one it is. BUT, I'd like > to see if anyone can come up with another exception to this. This isn't > a number w/o a vehicle though, but rather a vehicle w/o a number or an > entry. Oh, actually there are TWO such exceptions if my memory is correct > - what two? > Patrik's question is easy, or would have been if I had my chapter H with me. The first vehicle is found in RB, I think its called StuG 33b or something. It has a 150 mm HE Gun. (I have only come to october 21. yet, but I look forward to the date when this thingie gets accessible to my German forces in the campaign game.) This AFV is actually mentioned in one of the other German vehicles' notes. The other vehicle is the one found in KGP I. As I have yet to play anything but "Panters in the Mist" from KGP I, I don't remember what kind of vehicle it is (I think it's a halftrack with some extra weapons mounted on it though). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:19:18 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Rules Questions Since I don't have anything better to do today I'll continue filling your mailbox; Now its time to check your rules knowledge (and to reveal my own lack of such). The first question is for the RB players among us: When determining the winner of the just-completed CG scenario, you count how many stone locations you have gained control of during the day. However, according to the rules, this is done in step O11.6031, and in steps 11.605x and 11.606x you often gain some more stone locations. My question is, how do these locations inflict the victory determination; Are they counted this day even though they are actually gained after victory determination, do they count for victory determination the next day (even though next day you start with control of them), or don't they count at all? The Stone Locations I'm talking about is of two types: non- ground level location where you control the ground level at scenario end become yours in 11.605x, and locations which is totally surrounded by your locations changes side in step 11.6062. These locations must of course be devoid of enemy MMC. When talking about RB, I'll also try the good old question of what's happening with German 8-3-8s which suffer unit replacement (and what is their ELR), do they split into two HS or do they become 4-3-6s? I know this has been discussed a lot before, but could someone please tell me the conclusion? I am also wondering if I have understood smoke properly. Please tell if I'm doing this right: turn 1, start of your PfPh: you fire +3 smoke. turn 1, start of your DfPh: you fire +2 dispersed smoke. turn 2, start of your PfPh: the +2 counter is removed, the +3 is flipped over to +2 dispersed smoke turn 3, start of your PfPh: the last smoke counter is removed. I think this is right, but I find it strange that the second smoke counter laid one-and-a-half player turn after the first, is removed 2 player turns earlier than the first. One may argue that the shot in the DfPh is more hastily laid down, and therefore not so effective, but this also applies to OBA, and all HE or FFE shots are just as effective during the DfPh. Assault Engineers have some special capabilities. When playing a scenario where the OB names some units as assault engineers, but it is not mentioned in any SSR, is this enough to give the units the special capabilities? (I.e., does the 8-3-8s in scenarios B and C have smoke exponent of 3 or 5?) May a unit be fanatic more than once, and thereby getting his morale raised by two or more? I know Battle Hardening may make a unit fanatic only once, but there are other ways of becoming fanatic (like russians in factories in RB and German fanaticism in KGP). ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 15:32:20 CETDST Hi [snip snap] > > The vehicle notes are sequential with one exception. There > > is a gap in one of the sequences, a number that doesn't > > correspond to a vehicle. What nationality & what number? > > Sorry, no RB at hand and I don't remember which one it is. BUT, I'd like > to see if anyone can come up with another exception to this. This isn't > a number w/o a vehicle though, but rather a vehicle w/o a number or an > entry. Oh, actually there are TWO such exceptions if my memory is correct > - what two? > If my memory serves me right then the German colored R35 in No Better Spot To Die has no entry, although the French does in CdG. Klas Malmstrom ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: Searching Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 16:07:12 CETDST Hi, > > I'd like to hear from people who have used searching a few > times. It seems that I always forget to do the search with my > units. However, since I'm the German in RB CG III, I think > it's high time I do some searching to reveal my opponents > minefields, set DCs e.t.c. (By the way, there was a discussion > of how set DCs was revealed; I think the conclusion was that > it is revealed by searching and detonating only. Can someone > confirm this?) > My Russian opponent, however, dislikes the searching - he > thinks its way too effective, especially the fact that the > whole hex is searched, not only ADJACENT locations. For > instance, if you're on ground level outside an adjacent two > level building and search it, you reveal the contents of the > rooftop, level two, level one, ground level and cellar, even > if there are some enemy units in some of the locations. What > my opponent wants, is to let the searching be possible only in > the accessible locations (i.e., the ones you could advance > into). > I'd like to hear some views on searching; Is it too powerful, > would it be too weak if we restricted it to only affect > accessible locations? > ----------------------------------------------------------- > If you cut off my head, > what do I say: > Ole Boe > Me and my head > or oleboe@idt.unit.no > Me and my body? > Well MHO is that it is too powerful, but then I've been mostly on the receving side. I think the "accessible location" proposal above would be better. I have some questions on searching while I'm at it: Since it costs 1 MF to search, is the searching units "moving" when they search, i.e. could they be fired on during the MPh, and would/could FFNAN/FFMO apply ? And if they can be fired upon does the "search" result apply before or after such Defensive fire ? Klas Malmstrom ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 10:06:53 -0400 Subject: Dummies in Stalingrad Item Subject: Message text [someone wants to move dummies into enemy controlled locations, to which I responed:] > >This is easy. Don't move dummies to enemy controlled locations. > > Whoa. Wait a minute. Move the dummies into the enemy controlled location. > Have a great time. Watch him send a squad or two back to "retake" > the building you never regained control of. > > I don't think you are *required* to place a building control marker on > a building you "recapture"... Whoa. Wait a minute, to borrow a pharse ;^) The inital post was bemoaning the fact that if he moves dummies into enemy controlled locations but doesn't place control markers then it won't take long for the opposition to guess that they're dummies. I don't have any problem with moving dummies to enemy controlled locations without placing control markers. I was just suggesting a way to move dummies without giving them away. thanks, dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 10:16:47 -0400 Subject: RE: Dummies and control Item Subject: Message text [Proposal to let dummies "temporarily" place control markers. To which Carl replys:] > > I think this is the appropriate solution. In addition, I think the added > encumberance of writing down which control markers were placed by dummies is > offset by the advantage of being able to use your dummies to "gain" control. I disagree. I seem to recall that for placing control markers you have to reveal (temporarily) that there is at least one real MMC/SMC in the stack. In any event this is a real sleazy tactic for taking buildings. Imagine the German attacker spends the day encircling buildings but only using dummies to actual take the center. He's risking little since even if there's hip Russians in those buildings, he's going to reveal them at the cost of losing a stack of dummies. At the end of the senario he reveals that all those buildings were really never taken and we draw the permiter with dozens of little Russian pockets. But in the next senario the russian can't put units in those pockets since they're not connected. The german then allocates on half sqaud to offically take control of all these empty buildings. Sounds like rules abuse to me. dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 16:24:59 +0100 (MET) From: abog@btmv06.god.bel.alcatel.be (Alain Bogaert) Subject: Re: Devil's Den hillside? In a message of Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:56:42 +0200 Received on Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:33:25 MET oleboe@idt.unit.no wrote to asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > > Recently, Tom Huntington published an updated list of ASL board > > usage that included the General scenarios and DASL and HASL boards. > > At the bottom of the list was the line: > > > > [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 > > > > > > Could someone fill me in on what board this refers to? > > > > Thanks for any input. > > > > Bill Cirillo > > > > > This board is actually the board belonging to the civil war game "Devils Den", > (of course) published by AH. I don't own the game so I don't know what the > board looks like. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ole Boe I own Devils Den, so which scenario is it that makes use of these boards. It must be pretty fun to play on a battleground of an other time period. Alain ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 10:45:33 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: Devil's Den hillside? On Thu, 14 Apr 1994, Alain Bogaert wrote: > I own Devils Den, so which scenario is it that makes use of these boards. > It must be pretty fun to play on a battleground of an other time period. The scenario in question appeared in the General (v.23:no.2 I think). It was pretty strange: something about a renegade squirrel kept popping up. As far as I know this issues is still available from AH. Jim Shetler P.S. Could anyone with a General index confirm the volume/issue number. I'm going from memory here, and it's not what it used to be. ----- Subject: RE: SHERMAN DD TANKS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 21:53:00 -0640 Howdy, >>> D16.11 If a DD tank suffers an IFT attack (other than an >>> HE hit D16.1) while on land that results in a soft vehicle >>> kill, the DD screens are no longer effective, and the >>> vehicle is no longer amphibious. Screens still have to be >>> lowered during the MPh before the screen-up restrictions >>> are removed. >> >>This last sentence seems to be wasted effort. It cost no MP >>or any other penalty to lower the screens, so why not save >>the player the effort and consider the screens lowered? > >Because I wanted the player to have the option of going >back into the water if he wanted, and those screens can't >be re-erected. Not useful very often, but if the tank >wanted to cross a small island or a jutting pennisula, it >might want to go back into the water. A minor thing, I >know, but I know someone would want to do it in the middle >of a game and would curse me and my family for 10 >generations because I wrote the rule wrong :) This response of mine made no sense, mostly because I was responding to the comment without reading it. The reason is because a DD tank should get no benefit from having its screens blown off; it should have to wait for the movement phase like other DD tanks. If the screens are broken, say during the enemy PFPh, allowing the screens to be considered down immediately gives an advantage that the tank shouldn't acrue, I think. For example (and this is an odd example), if a DD tank wants to cross an island and then re-enter the water to swim to shore and during its time on the island it has the screens destroyed, it shouldn't immediately be able to fire. If it had wanted to lower its screens and intended to, then it could have done so in its last movement phase. So long, So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:07:55 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Devil's Den hillside? > > > Recently, Tom Huntington published an updated list of ASL board > > > usage that included the General scenarios and DASL and HASL boards. > > > At the bottom of the list was the line: > > > > > > [ ] DD : Devil's Den hillside :GEN : 1 > > > > > > > > > Could someone fill me in on what board this refers to? > > > > > > Thanks for any input. > > > > > > Bill Cirillo > > > > > > > > This board is actually the board belonging to the civil war game "Devils Den", > > (of course) published by AH. I don't own the game so I don't know what the > > board looks like. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ole Boe > I own Devils Den, so which scenario is it that makes use of these boards. > It must be pretty fun to play on a battleground of an other time period. > > Alain > I don't remember the scenario's name, but its found in General 22-5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 11:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Wayne Young Subject: Re: Searching From: Klas Malmstrom > Well MHO is that it is too powerful, but then I've been mostly on > the receving side. I think the "accessible location" proposal > above would be better. Heartily agreed, and I have actually been on the searching end of this. > I have some questions on searching while I'm at it: > > Since it costs 1 MF to search, is the searching units "moving" > when they search, i.e. could they be fired on during the MPh, > and would/could FFNAN/FFMO apply ? I could be wrong (and if I am the grognards are gonna roast me), but it seems to me that _any_ action requiring MF (placing DC or smoke, searching, etc) is treated as normal movement for First Fire purposes and FFNAM/FFMO could each potentially apply (under their own individual circumstances). > And if they can be fired upon does the "search" result apply > before or after such Defensive fire ? Good question, my guess (uh-oh, a "guess") would be the search would apply before the Defensive Fire. Wayne Young youngwr@kirk.northernc.on.ca "The pessimist believes the glass to be half empty, the optimist believes it to be half full, but the realist *knows* that the glass is just too damned big." ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 11:29:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Wayne Young Subject: New blood Greetings and hallucinations, Yet another fine soul has been hooked by ASL. Indoctrinated a new player last night (Fighting Withdrawal, he was the Finns with the balance option in his favour). He learns quickly, so this could get interesting. That makes about three in the last month... at this rate I might even be able to start a club by the summer (in Northern Ontario? Hmmmm...) Anyway, again the Finns managed to win the scenario due to some gambles on my part that did not work and some wild dice rolls (lots of 2s, 3s, 11s, and 12s!) on both sides. Apologies for this seemingly pointless waste of bandwidth, I'm just impressed when I can find a new player of "the game" in these parts. Wayne Young youngwr@kirk.northernc.on.ca "The pessimist believes the glass to be half empty, the optimist believes it to be half full, but the realist *knows* that the glass is just too damned big." ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:33:54 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad Don't make dummy counters into something they're not. Dummy counters taking locations? C'mon... "Johann, I thought I ordered you to take that building?" "Jawohl, Herr Ober, but I just fainted the bolshevik devils into thinking it was taken." "Very crafty, Johann, NOW GET YOUR BUTT OVER THERE AND TAKE THAT FACTORY FOR THE FATHERLAND!!!" Dummy counters are helpful in providing a "fog of war," but shouldn't be allowed to become anything other than a doubt in the opponents mind. I have never seen such a clever use of dummy stacks that they can be useful for more than a few turns without becoming recognized for what they are. No matter how hard a player tries, I can tell by the way the stack moves, or by the lack of defensive fire. Maybe I'm naive or just a poor player (No reason I can't be both.) but I think that anyone who plays a little poker can see through a dummy stack in at least 3 to 4 turns. Perhaps if someone has time, they could write me with a lesson on more creative-better uses of dummy stacks. "Russia?!? I thought we were still in Poland! Just a mixup guys, honest." von Paulus to Russian captors, February, 1942. ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Rules Questions Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:41:22 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > The first question is for the RB players among us: When > determining the winner of the just-completed CG scenario, you > count how many stone locations you have gained control of > during the day. However, according to the rules, this is done > in step O11.6031, and in steps 11.605x and 11.606x you often > gain some more stone locations. My question is, how do these > locations inflict the victory determination; No, at least that is not the way we play. This is because if those locations counted, there would be no point in having the victory determination where it is. If they should be counted, victory determination would be after those steps, not before. > Are they counted > this day even though they are actually gained after victory > determination, No. > do they count for victory determination the > next day (even though next day you start with control of > them), No, as per the rationale above. > or don't they count at all? That seems to be the conclusion of it all, doesn't it? I don't have a problem with this at all. [ 838 question deleted - I can only give MY opinion, and I know it differs from others' ] > I am also wondering if I have understood smoke properly. > Please tell if I'm doing this right: [ example deleted ] That seemed right. > I think this is right, but I find it strange that the second > smoke counter laid one-and-a-half player turn after the > first, is removed 2 player turns earlier than the first. One > may argue that the shot in the DfPh is more hastily laid > down, and therefore not so effective, but this also applies to > OBA, and all HE or FFE shots are just as effective during the > DfPh. Well, since you don't add up hindrance of the smoke, I think it doesn't matter which smoke counter gets removed first. See it as a convenient game mechanic (that's what it is). > Assault Engineers have some special capabilities. When playing > a scenario where the OB names some units as assault engineers, > but it is not mentioned in any SSR, is this enough to give the > units the special capabilities? (I.e., does the 8-3-8s in > scenarios B and C have smoke exponent of 3 or 5?) I play it that units are never AEs unless so cited by SSR. I think this is what the rules say if you read them literally. Anyway, I think that the 838 are used to represent engineers in general, so that all 838s you see in a scenario will be from engineer units. This turns the question into "are there 838s that are *not* AEs?" I think there are. > May a unit be fanatic more than once, and thereby getting his > morale raised by two or more? I know Battle Hardening may make > a unit fanatic only once, but there are other ways of becoming > fanatic (like russians in factories in RB and German > fanaticism in KGP). Can't give a reference, but I think I have seen somewhere that this is not the case. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Searching Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:45:05 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, [ Original question about searching deleted ] > Well MHO is that it is too powerful, but then I've been mostly on > the receving side. I think the "accessible location" proposal > above would be better. I disagree, but this is only a matter of taste of course. In RB it isn't all that useful anyway, since the russians get to roll for search casualties every time you search. Ouch! > I have some questions on searching while I'm at it: > > Since it costs 1 MF to search, is the searching units "moving" > when they search, i.e. could they be fired on during the MPh, > and would/could FFNAN/FFMO apply ? Definitely. Even an action that costs *no* MF allows DFF. > And if they can be fired upon does the "search" result apply > before or after such Defensive fire ? I think there is a general rule that says that the effect of all such actions are in effect before the attack is conducted. (With some exceptions of course.) -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 09:48:23 MDT From: tqr@inel.gov (Thomas Repetti) Subject: Horse question Chance to test your Horse Sense, ar ar ar. A squad on a Horse gets viciously pummeled by a K/1 result which also happens to equal the number on the * vehicle line. How do you resolve this? A) Squad get's CR'd to a HS on a Horse, the HS takes a 1MC and then the HS's Horse gets CR'd, so the HS has to Bail Out. B) Say that the K result already CR'd the Horse, so do the same as A but forget about the Horse CR and the resulting Bail Out C) Split the squad into two HS's on horses, Randomly Select which horse to CR and then determine which HS dies on the K result (no ties possible). That way, the CR'd horse may also be the one that died due to the K result. Any help appreciated. And to continue the saga, Lt. Nuryev (can't remember his name from yesterday) did finally figure out how to contact Batallion Mortar, and a nice fat SR is sitting in the vicinity of the Polish parade. Now, if he can just be nice enough to the boys back at Batallion to convince them to send us some real mortar shells... Tom Today's Special: Horsemeat Stew, $2.99, all you can eat. ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Dummies and control Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:52:22 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > I disagree. I seem to recall that for placing control markers you have to > reveal (temporarily) that there is at least one real MMC/SMC in the stack. This might be true, and I think it seems very reasonable. Anyway, control markers are only informational markers intended to help remember where you have been. This means that you can play any way you want. What matters is that you only gain control of the units you at some time occupy. > In any event this is a real sleazy tactic for taking buildings. Imagine the > German attacker spends the day encircling buildings but only using dummies to > actual take the center. He's risking little since even if there's hip Russians > in those buildings, he's going to reveal them at the cost of losing a stack of > dummies. I don't think that this is a sleazy tactic at all, and I think the designers would agree with me. See below. > At the end of the senario he reveals that all those buildings were really never > taken and we draw the permiter with dozens of little Russian pockets. But in > the next senario the russian can't put units in those pockets since they're not > connected. The german then allocates on half sqaud to offically take control > of all these empty buildings. If the pockets are really empty I think that control of all those locations would be transferred to the germans during the RePh if they control all adjacent strategic locations. No need to even allot a HS to take 'em. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:56:42 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > I have never seen such a clever use of dummy stacks that they can be > useful for more than a few turns without becoming recognized for what > they are. No matter how hard a player tries, I can tell by the way the > stack moves, or by the lack of defensive fire. Maybe I'm naive or just a > poor player (No reason I can't be both.) but I think that anyone who > plays a little poker can see through a dummy stack in at least 3 to 4 > turns. Perhaps if someone has time, they could write me with a lesson on > more creative-better uses of dummy stacks. * They can be used as sniper bait near your important stacks. * They can search for mines and other HIP stuff. - just two uses off the top of my head. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 18:04:46 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, Ole and Klas promptly proved me wrong when I said that there were only two vehicles w/o vehicle notes - there were actually three: * The Pz 35R (f) in Paratrooper * The StuIG 33B from Red Barricades * The SPW 251/21 from KG Peiper Oh, well - you can't be right all the time. Anyway, to keep asking trivia questions, how about this one: Of all the countries that have vehicles manufactured in another country, which one has the least such vehicles and which vehicles are they? Disregard Lend-lease vehicles. And no looking in the rulebook, guys! For good measure, here is another: There is one vehicle that is immune to (some?) mines. Which? BTW, I seem to remember that there is a russian vehicle note number missing, but I'm not at all sure about it. Note # 44 seems to appear in my mind - which certainly means that it isn't correct. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Swedish war heroes Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 18:11:21 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, after hearing that half of the finnish leaders have never been heard of in finland, I guess noone is surprised to learn that the swedes actually made up half of the norwegian army? :-> > This means that Karlson is definately Swedish, with Oleson > and Anderssen somewhere in between. In addition Nordquest and > Nordstrum looks like the Swedish names Nordquist and > Nordstroem, where "oe" is pronounced something like "u" in > "but" (This applies to my surname too). I might add that there is noone in sweden named "Ole", so I guess Oleson is definitely norwegian. Anyway, how about the danes? Don't they have similar names as well? -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:48:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad Tim: Durig the set-up of any CG wherein one or more of your leaders begins wounded, place equal numbers of wounded markers on dummies. We couldn't find rules for/against this and it helps to prevent the wounded guys from standing out even though they are concealed. Using 5/8" "?" counters is always fun, too. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Searching Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 10:02:19 PDT Ole Boe writes: > I'd like to hear from people who have used searching a few > times. It seems that I always forget to do the search with my > units. However, since I'm the German in RB CG III, I think > it's high time I do some searching to reveal my opponents > minefields, set DCs e.t.c. (By the way, there was a discussion > of how set DCs was revealed; I think the conclusion was that > it is revealed by searching and detonating only. Can someone > confirm this?) Yes, sort of. I figure the extra failure chance per unit in the hex represents the DC being found before it is detonated. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:02:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: FAQ DH speaks Just a reminder that I'm slinging the FAQ out while Don H. is out in the desert. If you need a copy, please include "FAQ" or "ASL FAQ" in the subject line, as my mail input has trebled of late, while my on-line time has dropped significantly (temporarily). Of course, maybe the Jarhead thread will die down (forgive me, I used to jump out of planes for the Army, so I know not what I say), and things will calm down a bit about the Hill. I'd personally like to see the facts here. John "FAQ DH and why aren't the USA Airbonre boys ML 8?" Appel John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 10:28:00 -0640 Howdy, Patrik Manlig writes: >Sorry, no RB at hand and I don't remember which one it is. >BUT, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with another >exception to this. This isn't a number w/o a vehicle >though, but rather a vehicle w/o a number or an entry. Oh, >actually there are TWO such exceptions if my memory is >correct - what two? One is the StuIG 33B, supplied with RB (Red Barricades, the rule book being ASLRB), another is the German SPW 251/21 which came with KGPI, and another is the German Pz 35R(f) which came with Paratrooper and which does have a note under the French section, so it counts for only half. >BTW, noone has answered where the second exception to the >PBF doubling is yet! There's another? On the "W" on the Shermans, everyone came up with the same answer I did. Was the "W" for Wet Storage part of the official nomenclature or was it something TAHGC dreamed up? BTW, the missing note is German Vehicle Note 53. 52 is the JgPz IV and 54 is the JgPz IV/70. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 10:38:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Allison Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad While we're on this dummy subject... Can a dummy stack that is out of LOS to all enemy units attempt to entrench? What do you do if it succeeds? If you place a foxhole counter, when is that foxhole removed? - Jeff Allison ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:34:39 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Howdy, Nobody seems to want to take a stab at this, so I guess I will. Wet storage in the M4 family was an attempt to reduce brew ups from ammunition fires. Shermans equipped with "wet" storage had ammo bins that contained ethylene glycol (or something like that) in the plates that were supposed to prevent fires when the bins were struck by hostile fire. How well did it work? Well, I guess the Germans didn't call the Sherman the "Ronson" for nothing, since they "always lit on the first try". Along those lines, the placement of American recognition stars on the sides of hulls and turrets were usually right over these bins. Enemy gunners realized this, and used the white stars as aiming points. That's why you usually don't see them on photographs later in the war. Crewmen either painted over them, or applied mud, etc. The only one that wasn't painted over was usually on the hull/turret top. A great book to check out on the Sherman is from Squadron/Signal entitled "Sherman in action" by Bruce Culver. That's were I found this information. Jim Shetler ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 19:53:00 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > While we're on this dummy subject... Can a dummy stack that is out of LOS to > all enemy units attempt to entrench? What do you do if it succeeds? If you > place a foxhole counter, when is that foxhole removed? If I'm not mistaken only MMC can attempt to entrench. A dummy isn't a MMC, and so can't appempt to entrench. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 19:56:31 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > >BTW, noone has answered where the second exception to the > >PBF doubling is yet! > > There's another? Yes. Maybe it only counts for half, and it's rather hard to find. Clue: it is only applicable under _very_ special circumstances. Hardly a rule, even. > BTW, the missing note is German Vehicle Note 53. 52 is the > JgPz IV and 54 is the JgPz IV/70. Meaning I was totally off on this one... Well, I never claimed I memorized all of the ASLRB :-> -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 14:09:58 EDT From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Military Men Who Play ASL Survey Guys, Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I am curious about the percentage of ASL'ers who are in the Military or are Veterans. For countries like Sweden, count your countries alternative service programs as making you active or a Vet. Just for fun, those of you who qualify send me your stats: Country, Branch, Dates of Service, Active or Vet. Send them directly me (do not waste the bandwidth), and I will total them. Brian, I'll need the number of list members from you. I'll post the results one week from Friday (April 22). Doug Maston ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:38:54 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) I have a question . . . Many years ago, in General Vol 24 #1, there was an article published called "Going All Out" by Charlie Kibler and Greg Schmittgens. In it, a series of random charts helped players generate random board layouts and random victory conditions to add more flavor to DYO scenarios. A few months passed, and then the Infiltrator's Report announced that there was a shareware IBM program that did all this for you. I'm a Mac user, and was filled with envy. A few more months passed, and I realized how absolutely great such a program could look if done in HyperCard (a strictly Mac programming tool). I proceeded to create it, and expand it to include the DYO information from West of Alamein. Dreams fulfilled, it is a fun program to toy around with. Okay, so I look into marketing it. I don't know what the laws are on copywrites on articles in the General, so I write to AH to ask if I can have their permission to release this program to the common masses. I get no reply. Time passes, I write again, and I get a reply saying "not my department", which makes me wonder, in a company of what I imagine to be less than twenty people even if you count the mascot, how hard it is to find the right department. Time passes, I write c/o Charlie Kibler to ask HIM if I can have his permission, and again no reply. All these included a SASE and the first two contacts included copies of the program. I get bummed, and the program retires to a corner of my hard drive. My question(s) is (er, are): Is there a Mac using ASL minority that would be interested in my program? Can I upload this to the ftp site without openning myself up to litigation? Can Avalon Hill break my knees if I ask a shareware fee for a program based on an article that has become the property of Avalon Hill? Does someone know the address of the person that did this on the IBM, so I could ask him how he released his program? The program does not have PTO stuff in it, and only runs in black and white, but other than that is still the envy of the modern world. I'd appreciate any advice on this. Tom Huntington ----- Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 14:51:00 -0640 Howdy, Patrik Manlig writes: MA> There is one vehicle that is immune to (some?) mines. Which? AT mines :-) Unless you count the Crab & the Aunt Jemima. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:20:06 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: TRIVIA PHASE I think there was an amphibious vehicle (American) which had a ground pressure less than an ordinary footsoldier. I think this made it immune to mine attacks. No idea what its name was, but I'll guess "M" something or other. ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:31:00 -0400 From: "mark (m.a.) turnbull" Subject: re:Squad Sizes >There's a heck of a lot more in the firepower rating than just the number of >men. It appears to be a combination of equipment and training; the actual >size of the squad seems largely irrelevant. (But it sure must get tight in >some of those half-tracks .) Agreed. In fact, the men with automatic weapons put out more than their share of the firepower. There was a lot of study done after WWII, and it seems that most men with rifles don't actually do much more than take cover during a battle, and take the occasional pot-shot. The men with automatic weapons had a higher degree of confidence that their firepower could control the ground in front of them, and thus were more likely to fire. This, coupled with the fact that the few automatic weapons available were given to the best men in a squad, meant that they were responsible for a higher percentage of the squad firepower than a simple RPM calculation would suggest. Mark ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 18:12:27 EDT From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: Re: Dummies in Stalingrad Several have asked questions about placing extra wound counters, digging foxholes with dummies, control of buildings, etc. The holy book states that this is illegal. Please see the introduction to the ASLRB for desiigners' intent. Paraphrased: anything not specifically allowed by the rules is NOT allowed. Don't go trying no monkey business like this unless it is an agreed upon house rule. Don't try changing control markers, quietly waiting for your opponent to ask "Is that a real unit?" That would be a big hose. The real reason Hawthorne left: He found out TAHGC has secretly been upping the nicotine content in the ASL countermix. He considered it unethical. Michael J. Black Department of Plant Pathology University of Georgia Experiment, Georgia 30212 (404) 228-7202 ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:29:41 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Trivia The one vechile that is immune to hidden AT mines is the Sdfz2 Kettenkrad, AP mines are resolved at half their normal strength. I don't know if this is the one you meant because the question didn't specify AT, AP, or any type of mines. Enought for now, Darren Gour ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:34:43 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: MAP2.PL Program I take it this map2.pl program contains postscript versions of a number of maps for ASL. My question: how do you access this program; is it part of the archives, and if so how do I access it? Also anyone with tips on accessing the archives if they would please send them to me...I've attempted access to the 2nd with the anonymous call, it will not accept my address as the password. Anyways, any help would be appreciated!! Darren Gour ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 17:04:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: wounded dummies The rationale I used for placing a WOUND marker on a "?" counter during set up is this: 1. they can behave like Leaders by virtue of having 6MF (8MF if CX) 2. they can behave like Leaders by virtue of bestowing Leader Movement Bonus to the rest of the dummy stack 3. You can mark them with other markers (e.g. CX markers) In short, they can behave like unwounded Leaders so why can they not behave like wounded Leaders? Also, it seemed like a good way to prevent telegraphing the location of wounded Leaders because they would otherwise be the only ones set up on map with a white counter on top. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 20:05:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE On Wed, 13 Apr 1994, Jonathan Vanmechelen wrote: > > Howdy, > > So far the Trivia Phase has been just too easy for you. I'm > not sure I can find anything too trivial for you, but I'll > keep on trying :-) > > What does the "W" stand for on some of the M4 Shermans, for > instance the M4A3(75)W (my answer not guaranteed to be > correct)? WET STORAGE!!! > > The vehicle notes are sequential with one exception. There > is a gap in one of the sequences, a number that doesn't > correspond to a vehicle. What nationality & what number? DONT KNOW!! > > And let's not see the same hands all the time, ok? > > So long, > > JR > --- > ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo > ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 18:28:19 EDT From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: *Trivia Phase It is the Goliath isn't it? That little thing almost certainly couldn't set off an AT mine. Michael J. Black Department of Plant Pathology University of Georgia Experiment, Georgia 30212 (404) 228-7202 ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 21:09:58 CDT From: carrington rhydderch ward Subject: Wounded leaders I know in KGP there is a rule allowing vehicle status markers to be kept offboard until the vehicle is in los. Why not the same for leader status markers? I guess it's not in the rules, but it seems a reasonable house rule. Carrington ward ----- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 22:51:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE On Thu, 14 Apr 1994, James D Shetler wrote: > Howdy, > Nobody seems to want to take a stab at this, so I guess I will. Wet > storage in the M4 family was an attempt to reduce brew ups from > ammunition fires. Shermans equipped with "wet" storage had ammo bins > that contained ethylene glycol (or something like that) in the plates > that were supposed to prevent fires when the bins were struck by hostile > fire. How well did it work? Well, I guess the Germans didn't call the > Sherman the "Ronson" for nothing, since they "always lit on the first > try". > > Along those lines, the placement of American recognition stars on the > sides of hulls and turrets were usually right over these bins. Enemy > gunners realized this, and used the white stars as aiming points. That's > why you usually don't see them on photographs later in the war. Crewmen > either painted over them, or applied mud, etc. The only one that wasn't > painted over was usually on the hull/turret top. > > A great book to check out on the Sherman is from Squadron/Signal entitled > "Sherman in action" by Bruce Culver. That's were I found this > information. > > Jim Shetler > Jim is right, of course. But to add more... -typically later Shermans had an extra steel plate (about 1" thick) welded to the forward area of eash SIDE of the tank to cover the ammo bins. You can see this on the M4s parked at Aberdeen. -according to Tanks of the World 1915-45, by Chamberlain & Ellis, "Vehicles fitted with this device {wet stowage} were designated M4A3W. All M4s (76mm) series were equipped with wet stowage" Happy Trails, Paul ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Trivia Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:51:00 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > The one vechile that is immune to hidden AT mines is the Sdfz2 Kettenkrad, AP > mines are resolved at half their normal strength. I don't know if this is the > one you meant because the question didn't specify AT, AP, or any type of mines. This is indeed the one I was thinking of. No, the american LVT's or the Goliaths don't have this specified in the rulebook (even if it was true). I found this out when playing KGP, and thought: "Neat, this is a nice way to run a HS along the woods-road where the americans certainly have some A-T mines set up but no A-P ones. Sneaky way to capture that flank if he thinks he can block it with mere A-T mines." -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:53:12 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: New blood > Wayne Young writes: > [stuff deletet] > Apologies for this seemingly pointless waste of bandwidth, I'm > just impressed when I can find a new player of "the game" in these parts. > How hard is it actually to find opponents in the US? I'm living in Trondheim, a not too large Norwegian city, but I guess its more than twenty active ASL players here. As an example; There are two games stores here (one of them is actually a magazine store but have some games too), and the main one got 12 copies of KGP I (needless to say, I bought the first). When I came back less than a week later, there was only one copy left. I don't know how many copies that's been sold after that. I am also proud to say that in the last half year two persons have started buing the ASL stuff after playing at my house. Are there actually hard to find opponents around the world? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 10:03:13 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE > Patrik writes: > Of all the countries that have vehicles manufactured in another > country, which one has the least such vehicles and which vehicles > are they? Disregard Lend-lease vehicles. > > And no looking in the rulebook, guys! For good measure, here is another: > > There is one vehicle that is immune to (some?) mines. Which? > don't know any answer to the first question, but I surely know of a vehicle that's immune to ANY mines. That's my immobile PzIVF2 in Red Barricades. Unless the Russian finds some way to get the mines moving to my location, it can't be attacked by mines at all (damned debris, and damned 6 dr on Bog removal). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:22:32 +0000 (GMT) From: TOWEY@statlan.ucd.ie Subject: KGP PROBLEMS Does anyone have some suggestions how to deal with the Panther Problem (seen from the U.S. side of course)in KGP campaign game one.Storming these tanks just doesnt work as my opponent never goes anywhere without heavy infantry backup.I am sorry to say that it is now the afternoon of the second day and he still has all his Panthers and two King Tigers,and worst of all he pops my tank destroyers with one hit while all my shells bounce off the hull,even with APCR.At this stage its getting demoralising and the Yanks have low enough morale to begin with. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:10:36 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: KGP PROBLEMS Speaking of KGP problems, have any of you found stacking to be a problem, especially in Stoumont or the Sanatorium? Maybe I'm too ham fisted, but I seem to spend a lot of time restacking units I knock over while reaching for others. Is this just an old ASL gripe, or am I just losing my dexterity in my declining youth? Along those lines, do any of you know if enlarging the map is possible, without removing clarity and detail? I couldn't bear being without that subtle crest line in the Bois, but it would be nice if the hexes were a little bigger. One other thing. Are any of you attending the festivities in Normandy this year? Maybe we should attempt an marathon of D-Day related scenarios when June arrives. I, for one, have never attempted Pegasus Bridge, and it certainly seems to capture the moment. Until next time... Jim Shetler ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: Re: New blood Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 8:15:43 EDT > How hard is it actually to find opponents in the US? I'm living in Trondheim, The US is a BIG country, some places are real easy to find opponents, but other places is real hard. If you live near a major city opponents are easy to find but if you live in the boonies the nearest opponent could be three hours away, and then there are those little towns in the desert - don't imagine there's any opponent for 5 hours or so, but then I don't live anywhere near there. Paul Blankenship ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 08:22:46 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Marine question Sorry to bring this up again, but I wanted to ask the Marines on this list if the following is true. Did Chesty Puller really say he was going to come home from the Pacific with a Medal of Honor if it took a seabag full of dead Marine's dog tags to do it? No wonder their morale factor is 8! Along those lines, what do all yunz out there think of the house rule that allows a Marine squad to deploy in 3 HS? Sounds reasonable to me! Retired Army brat, Jim Shetler ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 07:26:04 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: Re: New blood Ole Boe writes: How hard is it actually to find opponents in the US? [snip] Are there actually hard to find opponents around the world? ---- Heavy sigh. I live in a community of ~100,000 with an additional 40,000 college students and I can't find a FTF opponent. I've tried the local newsgroups, the gaming groups, even ringing a bell in the town square at midnight. Heck, only one of the game stores in town even stocks ASL anymore, and I'm the only one whose bought any of it (they not restocking either). I tried to teach my cat to play, but she just barfed of the US OB for Le Manoir. (I guess she wanted the Germans.) If it weren't for my Internet connection, I'd be playing Trouble with the neighbors kids using Pop-O-Matic dice. Bryan "Living in the vast wasteland of the 409 area code" Milligan ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:40:26 -0400 From: jos@biology.bu.edu (Joshua Seamon) Subject: More Trivia While we're on a trivia binge, here's a funny (sad, actually) one from a friend of mine: What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? Cheers, Josh ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 08:43:13 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: Italian squads Greetings, A few days ago someone asked about the Italian army in reference to squad size. Well, I asked a friend who just returned from a stint as a foot soldier in the Italian army (he has a Ph.D.; go figure) about squad sizes in WWII. He said that the squads during that time were eighteen-man squads. What really struck me as funny was that the army still uses an eighteen man unit (plus one non-com), but the APC's will only hold twelve men. Does this seem odd to anyone else? Bryan ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 10:33:51 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: More Trivia In message Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:40:26 -0400, jos@BIO.BU.EDU (Joshua Seamon) writes: > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? A quick stab at this one... is it 6? (I think there is a 7 morale Elite unit, then -1 for being encircled.) *-=Carl=-* ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 07:29:01 -0700 Subject: Re: New blood On Apr 15, 7:26am, Bryan Milligan wrote: > Subject: Re: New blood > Ole Boe writes: > How hard is it actually to find opponents in the US? > Here in Portland, there are about 4 or 5 of us that play fairly regularly and another 3 or 4 occasional players, so I'm usually able to find an opponent for Friday night. However, when I lived in Klamath Falls, OR, I had a single FTF opponent who was a classmate of mine in college. We'd play like fiends during the school year, then not play at all for winter/spring/summer breaks. The current situation is much better. Dade ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:33:00 +0200 From: Johan Bergstroem Subject: Re: Italian squads Your message dated: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 08:43:13 CDT > = > Greetings, > A few days ago someone asked about the Italian army in > reference to squad size. Well, I asked a friend who just > returned from a stint as a foot soldier in the Italian army > (he has a Ph.D.; go figure) about squad sizes in WWII. He > said that the squads during that time were eighteen-man squads. > What really struck me as funny was that the army still uses an > eighteen man unit (plus one non-com), but the APC's will only = > hold twelve men. Does this seem odd to anyone else? > = > Bryan > = I have a little green a5 thingy at home called "WWII Army Organisations and Equipment, 3rd Ed.", Ian Shaw (Tabletop Games, Nottingham, 1986). It deploys this gigantic 18 man squad, with only one LMG, into two sections. I belive it is these sections that ASL tries to depict. This could be a good reason not to allow Italians to deploy. Further giving about 9 men with poor rifles 3 FP is quite generous to me. If I remember right the squad decomposition was something like 8+10 with the LMG in the 10 men group. I am not to sure about this though as this c= omes from memory only. Johan ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 08:48:02 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: RE: More Trivia > > > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? > > A quick stab at this one... is it 6? > > (I think there is a 7 morale Elite unit, then -1 for being encircled.) Well, if you count leaders as elite units, take a 6+1 and then wound and encircle him for a ML of 4. Then maybe insult his counter storage and get a ML of 3. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 10:55:40 EDT From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: RE: More Trivia In message Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:40:26 -0400, jos@BIO.BU.EDU (Joshua Seamon) writes: > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? I would guess 4. A 6+1 is a good order elite unit. (hard to believe but true) encircled is -1 morale wounded is -1 morale (I think he is still good order if wounded.) If you count a wounded, encircled 6+1 about to undergo a friendly FFE attack (another -1 morale but only temporary) then the answer is 3. No ASLRB here so I cannot verify my guesses. :) Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 08:56:32 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Re: Italian squads > reference to squad size. Well, I asked a friend who just > returned from a stint as a foot soldier in the Italian army > (he has a Ph.D.; go figure) about squad sizes in WWII. He > said that the squads during that time were eighteen-man squads. > What really struck me as funny was that the army still uses an > eighteen man unit (plus one non-com), but the APC's will only > > hold twelve men. Does this seem odd to anyone else? Not really, considering the glorious history of the Italian army. After all, Stalingrad was THEIR fault, not the Wehrmacht's. "Where are the honeys?" Guderian upon entering Paris. ----- Subject: Re: Italian squads Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 10:58:31 -0400 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov > Greetings, > A few days ago someone asked about the Italian army in > reference to squad size. Well, I asked a friend who just > returned from a stint as a foot soldier in the Italian army > (he has a Ph.D.; go figure) about squad sizes in WWII. He > said that the squads during that time were eighteen-man squads. > What really struck me as funny was that the army still uses an > eighteen man unit (plus one non-com), but the APC's will only > > hold twelve men. Does this seem odd to anyone else? > > Bryan Perhaps they allocate 2 APC's per squad? Are the squads further broken down into sections? I seem to remember reading somewhere that this was the case in WW2. Anyway the Italian army in WW2 was pretty much limited to trucks for motorization. -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:05:57 -0400 From: jos@biology.bu.edu (Joshua Seamon) Subject: Sad but true The trivia prize goes in a tie to Kevin Valerian and Michael Black, who note that the lowest morale of a Good Order unit is 3. I love this game! Cheers, Josh ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 09:34:55 MDT From: markg@daedalus.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: RE: More Trivia > From tqr@inel.gov Fri Apr 15 09:17:29 1994 > Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 08:48:02 > From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Re: RE: More Trivia > Content-Length: 359 > X-Lines: 13 > > > > > > > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? > > > > A quick stab at this one... is it 6? > > > > (I think there is a 7 morale Elite unit, then -1 for being encircled.) > > Well, if you count leaders as elite units, take a 6+1 and then wound and > encircle him for a ML of 4. Then maybe insult his counter storage and get a > ML of 3. > > Tom > If you assign him to Idaho his ML drops to 2... Mark :) ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:39:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: HH or LH? Another easy question, I'm trying to get the most for my shipping and handling payment when ordering Yanks, so I'm going to buy another of the cheap modules. I'm a big WTO fan, so I'm considering either Last Hurrah or Hedgerow Hell. (I have BV, Paratrooper, Partisan, and boards 1-4 now and buying Yanks with the module in question.) I'm leaning toward HH as I'd like to try some DASL scenarios, but am put off by the FAQ saying the HH depends on Streets of Fire. Can someone tell me 1) how many HH scenarios depend on SoF? 2) recommend either LH or HH Thanks alot! Jim p.s. I hope these type of questions aren't too annoying. I figure speaking up on the list for lame questions is better than not speaking up at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Wayne Young Subject: Opponents From: oleboe@idt.unit.no > How hard is it actually to find opponents in the US? I'm living in Trondheim, > a not too large Norwegian city, but I guess its more than twenty active ASL It's very hard to find opponents in the US when you live in Canada. ;) It's bad enough that I live in an area where the nearest town with a populace of greater than 50,000 is more than 150km away (which is also where the nearest gaming stores are as well). Everything remotely near my locale is towns of 5,000 persons or less. Furthermore, the gaming crowd in these parts seem to be geared more to role-playing. I have a hard enough time getting opponents for _any_ wargame (ASL, MBT, IDF, Air Force, etc, etc, etc)... you'd think variety would bring some of them out of the closet. As it is, there is roughly half a dozen of us (die-hards at that) within about a 100km radius of where I live. Right now I'm in the process of getting as many folks as I know acquainted with ASL. What I really need to do is move back to Southern Ontario, where players and conventions exist in bliss! =) Wayne Young youngwr@kirk.northernc.on.ca "When uncertain or in doubt, Run in circles, scream and shout..." ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 23:49:41 EDT Subject: Panthers (was KGP problems) >Does anyone have some suggestions how to deal with the Panther Problem. I haven't played KGP but I have had some successes killing heavy tanks. It really depends on the situation. With combined infantry, artillery and tanks, I fire SMOKE directly onto the behemoth. That cut's down its visibility. I then assault it with the infantry if possible. In city situations, you can sometimes get to a lone tank and use (1) close combat in your APh or (2) street fighting/reaction fire in its MP. I once took out two panthers this way in DASL's Preparing the Way, as my opponent neglected half of his front :-) If you have armor, and your opponent has only a few big tanks (e.g., Last Act in Lorraine), you can sometimes flood one panther with 4 or 5 Shermans and squeeze off a flank or rear shot for the kill. Keep the other armor occupied or you'll lose all of your tanks. This same principle applies with bazookas. Oops forgot a Budget Justification for a grant proposal. More anon. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:54:33 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Re: More Trivia I would have to say that this would be 4. A wounded 6+1 leader either encircled or in a FFE of its own side would do it... Darren Gour ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 08:55:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: wounded dummies Some of you seem to be under the impression that I was putting the Wound counter on top of the Dummy stack. This is not so. However, I lack the ability to keep my stacks within microengineering limits so it is always possible to see the colour of the counters in the stack. Come to think of it, I can forsee a similar problem arising with units that start a game Fanatic...I suppose this is something else I'll have to keep track of on a side record. This is definitely something I like about PBEM: the colour of the units isn't known and in advertant recon can be done by a careless bump. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 11:59:43 EST From: "gary bartlett" Subject: Trivia - Lowest Elite Morale In message Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:40:26 jos@BIO.BU.EDU (Joshua Seamon) writes: > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? How about "4". Wounded 6+1 leader (and I'll add Carl Fago's suggestion and encircle him). I believe all SMC's are elite, and I don't think wounding will impact "good order" status. Gary ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Trivia - Lowest Elite Morale Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 9:52:09 PDT > In message Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:40:26 > jos@BIO.BU.EDU (Joshua Seamon) writes: > > > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? > > How about "4". > > Wounded 6+1 leader (and I'll add Carl Fago's suggestion and encircle > him). I believe all SMC's are elite, and I don't think wounding will > impact "good order" status. > > Gary How about "3." Wounded 6+1, encircled, under fire from friendly OBA. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 15 APR 94 09:54 Subject: 2Re: Italian squads >Not really, considering the glorious history of the Italian army. After >all, Stalingrad was THEIR fault, not the Wehrmacht's. Since I just finished reading Enemy at the Gates, I have to respond. :-) It was the Rumanian Army that crumbled under the initial Soviet offensive, not the Italians. However, it was not their fault. When you get hit with 9 to 1 superiority in numbers and are overwhelmed with hordes of tanks and artillery that you have little or no defense against, you'll crumble in about six hours just as the Romanians did. It was the Wehrmacht's (or OKW's) fault, as they had 2-3 weeks notice of the impending Soviet offensive and sat on their hind-quarters instead of preparing for it. Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340) internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com "Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect" ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: TRIVIA PHASE Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 9:59:52 PDT > don't know any answer to the first question, but I surely know of a vehicle > that's immune to ANY mines. That's my immobile PzIVF2 in Red Barricades. > Unless the Russian finds some way to get the mines moving to my location, > it can't be attacked by mines at all (damned debris, and damned 6 dr on > Bog removal). Not true! If the Russkies capture it your elite squads can try to take it out with ATMM. B^) B^) B^) -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Subject: More Trivia From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 12:02:00 -0640 Howdy, jos@biology.bu.edu (Joshua Seamon) writes: > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? I think the answer is 4. Can anyone go better? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 10:40:03 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Marine question Jim, > Sorry to bring this up again, but I wanted to ask the Marines on this list > if the following is true. Did Chesty Puller really say he was going to > come home from the Pacific with a Medal of Honor if it took a seabag full > of dead Marine's dog tags to do it? No wonder their morale factor is > 8! I doubt Chesty ever said that. He had too much respect for the men he led, and always downplayed the decorations he had one. > Along those lines, what do all yunz out there think of the house rule > that allows a Marine squad to deploy in 3 HS? Sounds reasonable to me! Tough to implement. You'd need extra counters to represent a squad which had lost one fireteam to CR or that had only Deployed one fireteam. Could be done, and I don't think the mechanics would really be that tough. I suppose, if you were desparate, you could use the Army 667 to represent [shudder] the Marine squad whch had two fireteams in it, but then it wouldn't have the cool looking Birdie-on-the-Beachball on the counter. Dave ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 11:22:12 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: RE: TRIVIA PHASE > I think there was an amphibious vehicle (American) which had a ground > pressure less than an ordinary footsoldier. I think this made it immune > to mine attacks. No idea what its name was, but I'll guess "M" something > or other. That would be the Weasel. I don't know what it's ASL stats are. Dave ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 11:31:15 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: RE: More Trivia > > > > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? > > > > > > A quick stab at this one... is it 6? > > > > > > (I think there is a 7 morale Elite unit, then -1 for being encircled.) > > > > Well, if you count leaders as elite units, take a 6+1 and then wound and > > encircle him for a ML of 4. Then maybe insult his counter storage and get a > > ML of 3. > > > > Tom > > > > If you assign him to Idaho his ML drops to 2... > > Mark :) > And then put a Radio in his hand and tell him to call in fire on Polish Cavalry, and he'll be a 1+1! Dave ----- From: ozbal@MIT.EDU Subject: Trivia Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 14:37:58 EDT I bet the lowest possible morale for an elite unit is 4. A 6+1 leader (being an SMC he is elite be definition), wounded and encircled. Can't think of anything else to lower it. So long, Jon. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 13:28:39 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Marine question > I suppose, if you were desparate, you could use the Army 667 to represent > [shudder] the Marine squad whch had two fireteams in it, but then it wouldn't > have the cool looking Birdie-on-the-Beachball on the counter. > Oh, I thought Marine squads DEPLOYED INTO Army 667's :-) Tom ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 13:05:31 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Good to be back - 300 messages waiting :-0 Hey everybody, Well, I'm back from my business trip and was pleased to find almost 300 messages waiting for me :-) Cool. Everybody keep up the good work. Now, a question for the wise, an easy one really. Does the CX modifier apply to manhandling a gun. It's not listed in the table, but the CX modifier is applied to labor tasks and since you can gain labor status manhandling a gun, I guess it should apply. Thanks Don Hancock p.s. Thanks go out to John Appel for sending out FAQs to those who requested it. I may be leaving soon again, so keep the FAQ requests heading his way. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 15:21:53 CDT From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: Re: RE: More Trivia So youre down to four...how about if that wounded, encircled 6+1 takes friendly OBA fire, I think that reduces morale by one more. Now you can insult his storage capabilites, Tom and make it 2. Wow a unit with moral 2. Does that require a subseqent die roll: 6 he breaks, 4-5 he's pinned and 1-3 hes ok (unless axis minor or italian....) Stack that man with a commisar and his moral will increase by 50%! Andrew ----- From: William G Jelinek Subject: Re: More Trivia Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 16:41:10 EDT > > While we're on a trivia binge, here's a funny (sad, actually) one from > a friend of mine: > > What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? > > Cheers, Josh > Hola, everybody-- How 'bout "5." ML=7, -1 for encirclement, -1 for being shelled by their own OBA. Adios, Bill =============================================================================== Bill Jelinek jelinek.1@osu.edu --OR-- "Where did I get wjelinek@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu all these socks?" =============================================================================== ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 15:14:06 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: RE: More Trivia As for the 3 ML due to wound, encircled, and FFE -- I don't think you could count encircled as well as FFE. That's only a guess though, I'll have to scour the rules... Darren Gour ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:11:34 -0600 From: djgour@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: RE: Correction Well I have checked and you can be encircled and then take friendly fire -- its in the book.. Darren Gour ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 20:56:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: "Touch" and ASL In message Thu, 7 Apr 1994 06:17:47 -0400 (EDT), Neal Smith writes: > WARNING: I don't agree with this rule, but since I've been > "challenged", I'll find it. I just read it last week. Just wondering if the "touch" rule was ever found? ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 17:57:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: New Board Matrix for DYO :-) Some folks requested this info in ASCII rather than MacWord, so I reformatted the tables and then figured that I might as well blast it out to everyone and the could retain it if they were interested. Addition to TABLE 6 of "Going All Out: Design Your Own (My Way)" [General, vol. 24(1)]. Add to the "West Front" column (which is now the "West Front/North Africa" column): Date North Africa --------------------------------------------------------------- Mo/Yr German Italian Vichy British American --------------------------------------------------------------- 8/40 +1 -1 9/40 -2 +2 10/40 0 +1 11/40 +1 0 12/40 +2 -1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1/41 +3 -2 2/41 +3 -2 3/41 -2 0 +1 4/41 -3 -1 +3 5/41 -3 -1 +2 6/41 0 +1 +3 0 7/41 +1 +2 +1 8/41 +1 +2 +1 9/41 +1 +2 +1 10/41 +1 +2 +1 11/41 +2 +2 -2 12/41 +1 +3 -2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1/42 -1 0 +1 2/42 -2 -1 +3 3/42 -2 0 +2 4/42 -2 0 +2 5/42 -2 0 +2 6/42 -2 0 +2 7/42 -2 -1 +3 8/42 -2 -1 +2 9/42 -1 -1 +2 10/42 0 +1 +1 11/42 +1 +2 +3 -2 -2 12/42 +2 +3 -2 -2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1/43 +1 +3 -2 -1 2/43 +1 +3 -2 -1 3/43 +2 +3 -2 -1 4/43 +3 +3 -2 -2 5/43 +3 +3 -2 -2 --------------------------------------------------------------- North Africa: The "Hill" terrain type can only be selected in 8/42 and from 11/42 on; "Farmland" cannot be selected until 4/43. "Woods" can never be selected: replace it with "Desert" (neither "Desert" nor "Woods" may be selected during 4/43 or 5/43). During 8/42 and from 11/42 on, a dr of 1-3 results in Broken Terrain (F13.1). From 11/42 on dr of 3-5 implements Cactus Patch terrain (F13.4) and Cactus Hedge (F13.3) is in effect on a dr of 3-4. Italy/Balkans: >From 4/41 until 6/44: (i) Arid Climatic Conditions (F11) are in effect; (ii) on a dr of 1-5 Olive Grove (F13.5) is in effect, Marsh=Open Ground, and Woods=Vineyard (F13.6); (iii) on a dr of 1-2 Grainfields are also Vineyard and all Buildings are stone. "Woods" terrain cannot be chosen from 7/43-10/43. East Front: >From 6/42-9/43 if either player chooses "Farmland" make a subsequent dr; on a 1-2 Steppe Terrain (F13.2) is in effect and for each board a dr is made to determine which column it comes from: use the DD column on a 1-3, otherwise use the normal column. West Front: >From 6/44-8/44 Bocage (B9.5) is in effect on a dr of 1-3. Addition to TABLE 11: Board Primary Objective Secondary Objective 25[1] BB5 Y2 26[1] Z7-8-AA8-BB8 R7 27[1] Z7-AA7-8 F3-G3 28[1] AA1-2-BB2 K9-L8 29[1] R4-S4 D1-2 30[1] U2-V2 O9 31[1] J2-K2-3-L1 M9 32 F4 N8 33 R6 R8 34 P5-Q6 U5-V5-W6 35 BB4 O6-P6-Q7 36 P5-Q6-R3-6 U4-6-V4-W4 37 O6-7 H4&X5 38 J8 E6 39 R3 H1 40 R1 I8 41 N6 W5 oE1 oU4 oQ6 [1] overlays take precedence, first to last: X(4/5); H(1/4/5/6/2/3); SD(5/2/8/6/1/4/3/7); X(3/2); W(4/2/3/1); D(5/6/1/2/4/3); S(5/8/3/1/4/6/7/2) NEW TABLE 10 TERRAIN MATCH-UP DR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DD 27 28 28 27 26 25d 29 30 31 31 30 DT 25d 27 17e 26 28 12e 31 29 30 16d 18d DV 25d 27 20e 26 28 22e 31 29 30 1d 23d FF 12 37 4 6 16 33 19 35 11 17 13 FH 2 15 13 3 18 11 4H/I 24 36 39 33 FT 20 21 24 6 32 10 22 17 3 38 34 FV 38 32 17 24 14F 10 3 4 22 6 11 FWa 34 11 17 6 37 35 19 4 24 18 16 HH 25 39 4H/I 3 15 11 9 2 36 18 41 HT 21 22 23 24 41 3 15 11 2 36 9 HV 25 18 4H/I 15 41 3 24 2 11 9 13 HWa 11 4H/I 3 2 18 39 36 34 32 37 41 TT 14 3 23 22 20 1 21 10 12 24 41 TV 10 14 21 20 1 22 24 3 12 23 41 TWb 14 41 23 1 22 10 32 5 20 21 3 VV 14 23 22 3 10 24 12 17 41 22 21 VWa 41 22 6 3 24 10 32 5 12 17 4 WWc 6 19 39 37 32 5 34 36 10 17 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ D=Desert(F12.3 is in effect) F=Farmland H=Hills T=Town V=Village W=Woods Capital letters indicate overlays Forest (B13.7) exists on a dr of: a=1-3 b=1 c=1-5 d=On a subsequent dr of 1-4, place overlay E1 e=Stream/Gully=Wadi; Woods=In-season Orchards; Grain=Brush Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 21:23:19 -0500 (CDT) From: KCURLE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Rout Report I subscribe to the Rout Report and it's just occured to me that I haven't received an issue in months. The last one I got was the one with about 6-8 scenarios in it. Did I miss one or are they just slow? Thanks for the info, if any of you knows. Kyle ----- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 12:33:01 +0100 From: mwondere@mvw.hacktic.nl (Mike van Wonderen) Subject: PTO ladder opponent wanted Hi, I just bought Code of Bushido a few weeks back and played my first Japanese scenario solitaire. Boy was I impressed by the capabilities of those Japanese units. So now (I think) I'm ready for my first PTO ladder game. Any opponent looking for an easy ladder win in the dense jungle of south-east asia is welcome! Any takers? Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike van Wonderen mwondere@mvw.hacktic.nl ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: wounded dummies Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 17:35:01 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > Some of you seem to be under the impression that I was putting the Wound > counter on top of the Dummy stack. This is not so. However, I lack the > ability to keep my stacks within microengineering limits so it is always > possible to see the colour of the counters in the stack. Come to think of > it, I can forsee a similar problem arising with units that start a game > Fanatic...I suppose this is something else I'll have to keep track of on > a side record. This made me think about the wounded dummies again. When you have dummies, they should be able to represent any units. Thus, I find it perfectly OK to have wounded dummies running around _as_long_as_a_ _dummy_counter_was_spent_so_simulate_the_wound_counter_. I don't know if that was something you all were speaking of before? I thought that someone was trying to put wound counters on his dummies w/o using a dummy counter for it. What do you say? -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 14:45:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: wounded dummies In message Sat, 16 Apr 1994 17:35:01 +0200 (MET DST), Patrik Manlig writes: >> Some of you seem to be under the impression that I was putting the >> Wound counter on top of the Dummy stack. This is not so. > > This made me think about the wounded dummies again. When you have > dummies, they should be able to represent any units. Thus, I find it > perfectly OK to have wounded dummies running around _as_long_as_a_ > _dummy_counter_was_spent_so_simulate_the_wound_counter_. I disagree. I think informational markers may be placed on appropriate dummy stacks just as if they were real units. A wound marker would be placed on top of the top "?". Just like sending a dummy CX. Is there a difference? Not in the least. The same goes for 5/8-inch dummies acting as vehicles. If they "bog" you pop a Bog marker on them. Informational markers should be able to be used freely. 'Course, this would make a good question to send to the Hill. ----- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 12:25:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: wounded dummies Patrik: [stuff deleted] > This made me think about the wounded dummies again. When you have > dummies, they should be able to represent any units. Thus, I find it > perfectly OK to have wounded dummies running around _as_long_as_a_ > _dummy_counter_was_spent_so_simulate_the_wound_counter_. I don't know > if that was something you all were speaking of before? I thought that > someone was trying to put wound counters on his dummies w/o using a > dummy counter for it. > > What do you say? Trading in the "?" for a status marker (e.g. WOUND, FANATIC) was another option that didn't occur to me until I brought this up on the net. To me it is preferable to keeping a written side record if only because my biological hardware has trouble keeping track of such thins. This is especially true in the counter morass of RB. I would also consider doing this to place CE/Turret markers on dummy vehicles instead of following the Q&A (cannot remeber which one) which stated that you must use a "?" to represent the CE/Turret marker. Granted that it is easier to hide the colour of the small "?" when it is underneath the large "?", so this isn't such a problem. I would even go so far as to allow dummies to attempt to Entrench/Set (dummy) DC/etc. However, this would be a gamble as I would expect verification once the task was completed (at least you would have a chance to wish for high DR for a change); this would avoid placing non-existant Foxholes/SW/etc. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: wounded dummies Carl: I suppose I really should read ALL of my mail before responding to a particular thread. [my & Patrik's stuff deleted] > I disagree. I think informational markers may be placed on appropriate > dummy stacks just as if they were real units. A wound marker would be > placed on top of the top "?". Just like sending a dummy CX. Is there a > difference? Not in the least. The same goes for 5/8-inch dummies acting as > vehicles. If they "bog" you pop a Bog marker on them. > > Informational markers should be able to be used freely. > > 'Course, this would make a good question to send to the Hill. > Indeed, it would make a boffo question to TAHGC. I still support Patrik's suggestion of trading "?" counters for info markers because the difference here is between markers being placed during set up and during play. Trading "?" markers in circumvents the problem of how many info counters you should be allowed to place during set up (e.g. 1 per wounded Leader or Fanatic unit or some higher ratio?). Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 22:36:50 CDT From: jennifer johnson Subject: Chicago ASL tourney next weekend 1994 Chicago ASL Championships Sponsored By The Windy City Wargamers April 23rd and 24th 1994 At the Best Western Inn of Burr Ridge (About 30 Minutes SW of Chicago) Cost $15 All preregistrants will be sent all rules and scenarios to be used by March 1. I can send them through email for people who would need a copy. Prizes Plaques for first and second place. Top four finishers will receive cash prizes. Hotel Info: Phone # (708) 325)2900 Room Rates: $50 per night if you mention that you are with theWindy City Wargamers. The hotel allows a maximum of four peopleper room. If you want this special rate please mention that youwill be staying in the hotel on your preregistrati on sheet. Transport: Shuttle service is available from Midway ($7.50) orO'Hare ($20). It is suggested that you call ahead to reserveshuttle service. Registration: Send bottom half of flyer to: WCW C/O Louie Tokarz 5724 W. 106 ST Chicago Ridge, IL 60415 Phone# (708) 857)7060 I can also send info through internet(jjohnson@midway.uchicago.edu) _________________________________________________________________ Preregistration Sheet Name: Phone: Address: City: State: Zip: Area Rating: Years Experience: Number of Times Attended Oktoberfest______, AvalonCon______, ASL (above info used for first round seeding) ...... Corey ----- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 10:25:22 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Touch ASL CDFc> In message Thu, 7 Apr 1994 06:17:47 -0400 (EDT), CDFc> Neal Smith writes: > WARNING: I don't agree with this rule, but since I've been > "challenged", I'll find it. I just read it last week. CDFc> Just wondering if the "touch" rule was ever found? Carl- I never found it. All I could come up with was one unit's movement is over when another unit starts to move. -Grant. ... An alcoholic: A person who drinks more than his physician -== IceIQle v1.7 ==- ----- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 10:09:24 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: More Trivia jJS> While we're on a trivia binge, here's a funny (sad, actually) jJS> one from a friend of mine: jJS> jJS> What is the lowest morale a Good Order elite unit may have? jJS> My guess is that since all leaders are elite, that would be a wounded 6+1 with a morale of 5. -Grant. ... A+iens are ea+ing mY brAin -- +i+m AT e+even. -== IceIQle v1.7 ==- ----- From: RCRUDGE@zoo.uct.ac.za Date: 18 Apr 94 09:33:07 SAST-2 Subject: Questions on KGP I Hi All Hope you guys can answer a few questions I had with the up/down slopes in KGP I: 1) A unit in EE22 is at level 5 plus 3/4 when looking across EE21 or DD21 but what does he see across the EE19/EE20 hexside when looking at say hex EE14? Is it a level 5 plus 3/4 half level hedge or does the slope miraculously disappear? 2) If it miraculously disappears what does the building in EE17 look like? 3) If a upslope appears on a crest line ie CC17/BB16, is the base level of the hex CC17 equal to level 4 plus 3/4 across hexside CC17/BB16 or does the up/down slope undulations only apply to adjacent SAME LEVEL terrain. In the game we're playing I've had to accept that they miraculously disappear, that orchards are all deformed on one side ie a 1/4 level but a full level on the other side of the hex... the buildings of course are the weidest 1/4 level one minute then a full level. Please get back as soon as possible as I don't think I can handle another campaign day of this. Also, just how balanced is KGP I ?? - not that it matters as the campaign game is great - but with a record of 2-1 in the american's favour according to the ASL Record Report, I was hoping more people had played the campaign and thus could give us more info. (ie I'm playing the german and my 2 yank "enemies" won't give me the balance unless I can prove the campaign favours the yank.) According to me I thought the yank build up would be like the following: the -DR is an average of 7 and the SQuad build up is american vs german BASE -DR CCP bal inf SQ's 19 AM 25 25 25 0 2 inf, 57AT, 45 FFP, FB44 28 vs 35 19 PM 40 33 33 0 4 inf, 100 OBA, 45 FFP, FB44 42 vs 44 19 N 55 48 43 5 4inf, HMG, 76 AT, 45 FFP 58 vs 47 20 AM 75 68 69 4 4inf,Eng,HMG,OBA bomb,90AA,FFP 77 vs 47 20 PM 50 43 44 3 2inf,M3(HMG),OBA bomb 87 vs 47 20 N 60 53 53 3 Arm.,HMG, 76 AT, M36, FFP 93 vs 53 21 AM 70 63 60 6 2 Arm., 100 OBA, FFP, SNIPER 102 vs 53 21 PM 85 78 79 5 80 OBA bomb,57 AT,med tank,M10 102 vs 53 ----- ----- 411 406 ----- ----- desired reinforces 161 16 inf, Eng, 3 Arm. inf 45 2 HMG, M3(HMG) 19 12 @ 15 FFP, 2 FB44, SNIPER 64 80,100 OBA, bombardments 60 76AT, 57AT, 90AA 57 M36, med tank II, M10 ----- 406 CCP's If the american player buys all his infantry - his OB for just infantry becomes: 102.5 squads 12 .50 HMG's, 15 HMG's, 48 MMG's 25 Mtr's and 25 Baz, plus any other MG's he may get from his 6 Jeeps - ie MMG's DR<=7 and .50 HMG's DR<=5 the size of this force is awsome when compared to the MAXIMUM germaninfantry force of: 46.5 SS squads 9 paras 5 HMG's, 4 MMG's, 47 LMG's (of which 25 are taken from HT) 3 Mtr's and 13 Psk. plus any LMG's scounged from vehicles/wrecks. My proposed german builds are as follows: BASE -DR CCP bal inf SQ's 19 AM 70 70 70 0 2 SS inf, 2 SS Pz Gr, 3 Para 35 vs 28 SS MG, Pz V, FlaK PzIV/20 19 PM 30 23 22 1 2 SS inf, SS Eng 44 vs 42 19 N 20 13 6 8 SS inf 47 vs 58 20 AM 15 8 11 5 150 OBA, 30 FFP 47 vs 77 20 PM 15 8 11 2 150 OBA, 30 FFP 47 vs 87 20 N 40 33 33 2 2 Pz Gr, Pz V, 30 FFP 53 vs 93 21 AM 15 8 9 1 120 OBA, 30 FFP 53 vs102 21 PM 20 13 9 5 120 OBA, 30 FFP 53 vs102 ----- ----- 176 171 ----- ----- desired reinforces 101 5 SS inf, 4 Pz Gr, SS Eng, 2 SS MG,3Para 26 2 Pz V depleted >10 20th 10 FlaK PzIV/20 no ammo =12 20th 10 5 @ 30 FFP AP MINES depleted > 9 21st 32 2 @ 150 OBA, 2 @ 120 OBA no ammo >10 21st ----- out of gas = 12 179 CCP's My axis of attack was also wrong, I attacked down hexrows C to M, met slight resistance even thou' the mist lifted to V heavy on turn 3, but with the scenario ending on german turn 6 I had not done enough damage to the american. I think the german should ALWAYS attack down hexrows P to Y on 19 AM as this threatens the american the most and can inflict the most amount of squad losses if the american defends the town on the 19 PM turn. Cheers Robin ----- From: mrhodes@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Dr. M. Rhodes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 10:44:07 +0000 Subject: Red Barricades the film HI Just saw a great german film (with english subtitles) rather daringly called Stalingrad. IT is great includes an assault on a factory and a fine demonstration of how inf can take out incompetent Tankers Not sur if its on show in US but if it is I highlry recomend it I have a question, during a recent game there was a rules reference to an "armed" unit , is a broken unit an armed unit. The rule did not mention good order (Ive forgotten what the rule was unfortunately) Michael Rhodes ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: wounded dummies Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:39:49 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > I think the problem lies in the fact that one can sometimes tell what is > under a concealment counter, especially when it may be a wound marker or > even a fanatic marker. The concealment counters aren't 100% effective in > hiding what is underneath the thing. At least it isn't a problem that comes > up everyday (just CG days. :-) That's why I suggested that you could use a wound counter instead of a dummy counter. Since it isn't SUPPOSED to be seen it doesn't really require a change in the rules. Plus, it's still fair since you can't get lots of "extra" dummies by placing lots of informational markers. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: wounded dummies Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:13:42 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > I disagree. I think informational markers may be placed on appropriate > dummy stacks just as if they were real units. A wound marker would be > placed on top of the top "?". Just like sending a dummy CX. Is there a > difference? Not in the least. The same goes for 5/8-inch dummies acting as > vehicles. If they "bog" you pop a Bog marker on them. IMHO, the difference is in placing the markers. I usually place the wound marker above the leader, which is really the only sensible thing to do if you have several SMCs in one stack. Then, the ? goes on top of everything. If you place the wound on top of the ?, no problem. If you place it under the ? I think you can use whatever counter you wish to represent the dummy counter under the ?. Hence, if you have a concealed stack with three dummy ? in, I don't see a problem with using a wound marker to represent one of those dummy counters. They're supposed not to be seen anyway. > Informational markers should be able to be used freely. Not if they are free dummies, which they become if you can place them under a ?. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"