From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 06:44:57 EDT Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Mustafa writes: >Ooops, sent that one without any comments. What I wanted to say was >that of those eleven, only four came published in modules and those >are divided 50/50 between Beyond Valor and Yanks.. In the top 30, I count BV 3 Yanks 4 WofA 1 SofF (DASL) 4 CdeG 2 GH 2 CofB 1 Partisan 1 Minors 2 TOTAL 20 Roughly 66% of the favorites came from modules. The rest come from The Annual, The General, or the 'zines. I find surprising the number of DASL scenarios that made the top 30. I think most of these are fun if not outstanding. SofF (DASL) may not have sold well but it sure plays well. Yet, the Hedgerow Hell version didn't do all that well, even with such interesting scenarios as Repulsed, Bogged Down, and King of the Hill (some of these made it to the top 100 list but, hey, almost any scenario could!). I suspect that the list could change pretty radically whenever a new module or Annual is released. Might be interesting to follow this over the course of a year or two.... Jeff ----- From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Yesterday there was some discussion about this but I accidentally deleted the mail... The following Q&A was mentioned: A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a MG (that is not marked with any fire counter) and wishes to use Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire counter? A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} So is the MG using SFF and thus get its FP halved? Or is this a unique situation in that the MG only suffers _some_ of the penalties of SFF (ie. Sustained fire, no ROF). Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Rules Question for a Learning "Newbie" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 16:53:09 PDT Blair Martin writes: > The following Q&A was mentioned: > > A8.3 If a squad that is marked with a First Fire counter possesses a > MG (that is not marked with any fire counter) and wishes to use > Subsequent First Fire with its inherent FP and its MG is that MG > penalized by Sustained Fire although it hasn't First Fired yet? Would > its ROF be lost? Would it be marked with a First or Final Fire > counter? > A. Yes. Yes. Final Fire. {RM} > > > So is the MG using SFF and thus get its FP halved? Well, Sustained Fire includes the Area Fire penalty (see the section on Sustained Fire; I looked this up back when this thread was first making the rounds, so I know it's there), so the MG is essentially using SFF since it suffers all of the restrictions of SFF. > Or is this a unique situation in that the MG only suffers _some_ of the > penalties of SFF (ie. Sustained fire, no ROF). No, because the missing one (Area Fire) is part of Sustained Fire. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 20:21:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Randy Nonay Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, Steven J. Szymanski wrote: > Randy Nonay Writes: > > Atomic seems quite unwilling to go to any effort to clear up this > >confusion, probably because they are counting on deceiving ASL/SL fans > >into buying BSL and thinking 'Hey - Computer ASL...' > > This is _entirely_ unfair and inaccurate. I have seen several posts by the > folks at Atomic, as well as articles in magazines (including the General and > Strategy Plus) which make it very clear what they are doing. They seem to be > quite open and honest about what they are trying to do. This is entirely true and accurate! I have seen it myself on the internet rec.games.boardgames group. Someone posted a question like Alain's and when Atomic responded (giving release info, etc), there was absolutely no mention that it was not computer ASL. When I asked them about that, they mearly said that they never said it was CASL in the first place, so why should they have to go to any effort to dispell that impression? I am sure a lot of people read the article in Computer gaming world announcing BSL as computer ASL. I have yet to see any retraction/correction of that article by CGW or ATOMIC. Draw your own conclusions. Randy (I will post no more on the subject except to help others realize the truth) ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 02:58:00 UTC Subject: Re: ABS Problems G'day, Thanks Dave, for clearing up my uncertanties about the Australian Balance System. Placing the circumstance, that when someone bids level 0 for a side, in the context of a null bid makes everything click into place. This does indeed solve the problem (which annoyed me also) with the old system where a player ends up bidding for the side he doesn't really want, just to avoid giving his opponent the balance. I guess my problem with the ABS was that I was thinking in terms of the old style balance provisions; that is, if I lost the DR on a Level 0 bid, I should get something. But it seems to make sense that if I bid nothing, I should get nothing. >I'm not big on variants, either, but I like ABS. Neither am I, and so do I. My main reason for liking the ABS is that the Chaney'n'McGrath ABS handicaps published by FFE make unbalanced scenarios from the earlier modules playable. > [Players] can agree that the scenario is balanced at J2 or whatever and > roll dice for sides. This is my preferred method. Geez, when left up to my own devices, I usually end up giving my opponent the favored side. And the balance. :) Steve "Austria's the place with the kangaroos, right?" ----- From: Mike Kreuzer Subject: Tent city Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:30:25 +0930 (CST) > A ways back I saw a trivial rule poser regarding huts and > PF/PFk/PSK. It would seem dumb at first, but I suspect that > BAZ would be affected just like PSK and so maybe the rule is > useful. > Steve [Other stuff edited out] Poser or Poseur? Actually, inspired I suppose by the closing scenes in the film Battle of the Bulge, where the German Peiper look a like is going beserk at the hands of a pretend tiger in a US ammo dump, I've started writing a ETO scenario about the overrunning of a supply dump and I'm using huts/hut rules to represent tents. So it all comes out in the wash after all! My question is: is there any other scenario that covers this situation? I can't remember one, though my memory's none too hot at the moment. Mike (trivial,yep, poseur,yep, rules - what rules? etc :-)). -- _________________________________________________________________________ "Want to change the world? Mike Kreuzer There's nothing to it .." kreuzer@apanix.apana.org.au Willy Wonka Voice/Fax/Data +61-8-296-4416 ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:07:21 +57000 From: Chris Merchant Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, Alain Chabot wrote: > Howdy mates, > > Get this, Atomic Games is thinking of recommending a minimum system > of a 68040 Mac (or PowerPC Mac) with 4 to 8 megs of RAM in order to > run their game. On the DOS side, a minimum of a fast 486 with loads > of RAM. > > I dunno, but I don't believe for a minute that the behemoth will > deliver anything close to the feel of the real cardboard thing. And > in terms of bangs for buck, well ... > > And why the devil would one want to play against a computer? sounds > as exciting as an inflatable doll. > > In Every dream home a heartache... > ... > I blew up your body > But you blew my mind > > (Roxy Music, For Your Pleasure album) > > > Alain > > > Alain Chabot > Universite Sainte-Anne > > Spiders are special animals. Let them live. > G'day mate! Err isn't 8 megs of RAM just about standard these days? And in 6 months when BSL is out it surely would be just about mandatory I would think. I'm not sure why everyone thinks BSL is going to be a computer version of ASL. Poor publicity from AH possibly. Personally, I can't wait for features like TRUE fog of war (unlike our ersatz cardboard alternative :) ) and individual weapons firefight modelling. Once the game has been released, if it's a bad product then it deserves to be canned - let's wait and see! Regards, Chris ********************** * Chris Merchant * * barkmann@adam.com.au * ********************** ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:10:54 +57000 From: Chris Merchant Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) > > (Not trying to Flame you or anything, just ticked at Atomic...) > Randy > Hi Randy, I think it's AH you should be ticked off with, they are responsible for the marketing of the game. ********************** * Chris Merchant * * barkmann@adam.com.au * ********************** ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 03:00:00 UTC Subject: Above and Beyond Howdy, This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call of duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: Germany U.S. France Britain Canadia South Africa Spain Thanks for your help, Steve ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:02:21 +1000 From: lesk@LNA03.lna.oz.au (Les KRAMER) Subject: RE: ABS Problems From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) >He pointed out a problem, it seems, with the variant. Say you and I both >agree the Germans are *SLIGHTLY* favored in a scenario. Neither of us wish >to give up the G1 handicap, so we both bid G0. I lose the DR and am now stuck >playing the Allies, whom I don't like in the scenario, while you get the >Germans, the side we *BOTH* think are favored. This is the the correct usage. The problem would lie in the balanceing conditions used. The first level handicap should be small enough that if both of you thought it was favoured one way, you should be willing to risk the handicap. Regards, Les Kramer ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 22:15:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Above and Beyond From: Canadian_Traveller@mindlink.bc.ca (Canadian Traveller) s.petersen3@genie.geis.com writes: > > Howdy, > > This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various > nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call > of > duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: > Germany > U.S. > France > Britain > Canadia > South Africa > Spain CANADIA? Never heard of it. And I took up to third year geography in university. Must be one of those fictitious U.S. protectorates that crop up every now and then. O:-) -- J.D. Frazer [Art Director] + The views expressed in this article do Canadian Traveller Magazine | not necessarily reflect the opinions of Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA | the publishers. a11870@mindlink.bc.ca + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 23:17:19 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: ABS r> I'm not big on variants, either, but I like ABS. The old r> system was fatally flawed as written since you couldn't bid r> null. So if you really wanted the Germans, but the Russian r> balance provision was overwhelming (think DASL 1 here) you r> might bid Russian to make sure that you wouldn't have to r> face a Russian opponent with the balance. Silly. I don't think there was anything in the original system that said you couldn't bid null. The rules for choosing sides are not hard and fast. The balance provisions are there to resolve clashes. Many players at tourneys have graciously offered either side (hell, Louis Mehr offers you choice of side and choice of scenario). -Grant. ... All the world's a stage. Where does the audience sit? [..............^^^^^^^^^^^^...very apt for me!] -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 23:17:11 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: ABS Much to brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov's surprise, Grant had this to say about "ABS Problems"... b> He pointed out a problem, it seems, with the variant. Say b> you and I both agree the Germans are *SLIGHTLY* favored in b> a scenario. Neither of us wish to give up the G1 handicap, b> so we both bid G0. I lose the DR and am now stuck playing b> the Allies, whom I don't like in the scenario, while you b> get the Germans, the side we *BOTH* think are favored. That's why there are 3 levels of balance each way. The scen designer/developer should be designing Balance Provisions small enough, subtle enough for this type of bid. Otherwise, you might as well just have the one BP each way. -Grant. ... A bleeding heart can be hell on the carpeting. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 05:14:00 UTC Subject: Laddermeisters We are down to the last turn. 2 guns left in possession. he has two phases with a 24+1 shot at one gun (now with a 9-1 in the hex), and the other gun is still concealed after he boxcarred on a 12+0 and malfed his MMG (not that he lacks for SW or troops. It is down and dirty, but all he has to do is break one crew. Phil ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 03:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: To pay the ultimate price. From: IN%"s.petersen3@genie.geis.com" 26-AUG-1994 00:58:02.91 To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" CC: Subj: Above and Beyond This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call of duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: Germany: Circa. 1941 it was the Iron Cross of various degree. U.S.: In decending order; CMOH, Silver Star, Bronz Star. France: Couldn't tell you. Britain: Victoria Cross ? I think so. Canadia: Victoria Cross with some sort of a common wealth designation. South Africa: Another permutation of the VC ??? Spain: I'm clueless. ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:01:16 +0000 From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica) Subject: Re: ABS Problems At 02.58 94-08-26 +0000, s.petersen3@genie.geis.com wrote: [stuff deleted] > Neither am I, and so do I. My main reason for liking the ABS is that >the Chaney'n'McGrath ABS handicaps published by FFE make unbalanced >scenarios from the earlier modules playable. [stuff deleted] Which scenarios from the earlier modules are so unbalanced that they are considered unplayable ? /Robert Maglica, roma@pe.chalmers.se ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:10:21 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Scenario question Hi. I'm having a little problem with the setup for T15 - The Akrotiri Peninsula, the game that the laddermeisters are figting to the bitter end right now. The British AA Gun Battery consists of 5 Guns/Crew, 2 leaders and 2 squads. The may set up on boards 4/6 as per a SSR, but the problem is that this SSR only mention the Guns, and not the leaders and squads. From Jim Stahlers article, it's clear that they are ment to be set up HIP, but its not said in any SSR. One possibility is that the setup SSR for the guns also applies to the leaders/squads, but there are still some problems: Does it have to be one leader and one squad with each gun section, or may they be deployed freely among the two sections. Do they have to be revealed when the guns are revealed, or can they stay HIP? If anyone know some errata or have some opinion, it vould be nice. How did the two Laddermeisters solve this in their game? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 26 Aug 1994 12:49:25 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Favorite Scenarios Hi! > > >You seem to have misunderstood Ole's purpose. You simply take the > >number of playings as a measure of a scenario's popularity. He was > >trying to figure out what percentage of the people who played a > >particular scenario ranked it as one of their favorites. > > > >Suppose everyone (say 200 people) have played scenario A and 20 rate > >it as their favorite. On the other hand, only 10 people have played > >B, but they all rate it as their favorite. Chances are that scenario > >B is better because so many of those _who_have_played_it_ like it. > > Ah, I see that I was mistaken. My apologies, Ole, at not having understood > what you were after. I'll have to think about this as I believe there is a > better approach. My rank*rank attempt is a partial solution but it really > addresses a separate feature. It doesn't get at your "best" index. > Apologies accepted, actually I didn't get very upset at all, but it's always nice to be recognised in your own time :-) To give Bas's example some flesh, consider scenario 1, Fighting Withdrawal. In the original poll, it got two favorite votes, but it is played by almost everyone. It was the first scenario I played simply because it was scenario number 1, but I didn't have to play much more than 6 games until Fighting Withdrawal slipped off my top 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: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 12:54:17 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: ABS Problems > Steve Peterson writes: > > My main reason for liking the ABS is that > the Chaney'n'McGrath ABS handicaps published by FFE make unbalanced > scenarios from the earlier modules playable. > Is it possible to get a hand on these ABS updates for all of us that haven't subscribed to FFE? Could they be put on the ftp-sites, and would the FFE makers agree to 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? ----- From: "Mnr P van Dyk(PH.D-2)" Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 07:41:17 EST-2EDT Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) Gee, who would have thought people could get this hot about it. Well here is my two cents worth. > On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, Steven J. Szymanski wrote: > > Randy Nonay Writes: > > > Atomic seems quite unwilling to go to any effort to clear up this > > >confusion, probably because they are counting on deceiving ASL/SL fans > > >into buying BSL and thinking 'Hey - Computer ASL...' > > > > This is _entirely_ unfair and inaccurate. I have seen several posts by the > > folks at Atomic, as well as articles in magazines (including the General and > > Strategy Plus) which make it very clear what they are doing. They seem to be > > quite open and honest about what they are trying to do. > > This is entirely true and accurate! I have seen it myself on the (rest deleted for the sake of brevity) Have a look at a magazine called Computer Strategy Plus - I was paging through it at the local bookstore and they had a write up on BSL. There it was explicitly stated that it is NOT Computer ASL. Not sure about the issue - but since we are a couple of months behind the US it should be about July / June issue. If I come across it I will get the issue number. If you read the article, the game itself seems different from ASL - each member of the squad is detailed with strengths, weaknesses, etc. Thus it seems to be on a smaller scale than ASL. Well, some people will be convinced, others won't be - but look at it this way. Nowhere have they stated it IS based on ASL. That is it - Pierre /------------------ /- /- 'Stwike him woughly, Thwow him to the gwound' - Pilate /- 'Oh, eleven in all Sir' - Centurion /- - The Life of Brian - /- /------------------ ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 07:25:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: To pay the ultimate price. > > This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various > nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call of > duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: > > Germany: Circa. 1941 it was the Iron Cross of various degree. Isn't there a Pour l'Merite for the Germans? Is it only awarded to officers? > U.S.: In decending order; CMOH, Silver Star, Bronze Star DSO(?), Navy Cross (there are actually some very good books at your local library aboutthe plethora of American medals and for what they were awarded. > France: Couldn't tell you. Croix de Guerre! (no I'm not talking about the game module!) I believe there are a couple of others but I can't think of them right now. > Britain: Victoria Cross ? I think so. St. or King George Medal? Was this awarded to civilians? DSO, DSC and there's always KSB if you're a distinguished officer. > Canadia: Victoria Cross with some sort of a common wealth designation. > South Africa: Another permutation of the VC ??? I believe that the British medals were distributed equally to all of the commonwealth countries of the time - Australia, Canadia (sounds like Arcadia?), India, Singapore, South Afrika, etc. Aussies might argue with me here that they won more but I haven't seen the numbers (and neither have many of them!) > Spain: I'm clueless. > CHeers, Jeff ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:03:16 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Fun & Games Prompted by Tom's "The Visitors" I've created a "humor" directory in my ASL archive. If anyone has old dicussion list submissions of other funny stuff, please send me a copy to add to this directory. I don't want to reread several megabytes of old stuff to find them. Bas. ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 08:07:50 EDT From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Re: To pay the ultimate price. > From MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Fri Aug 26 05:32:25 1994 > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 03:45:50 -0400 (EDT) > From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU > Subject: To pay the ultimate price. > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > X-Vms-To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > CHARSET=US-ASCII> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Content-Length: 650 > > From: IN%"s.petersen3@genie.geis.com" 26-AUG-1994 00:58:02.91 > To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" > CC: > Subj: Above and Beyond > > This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various > nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call of > duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: > > Germany: Circa. 1941 it was the Iron Cross of various degree. > U.S.: In decending order; CMOH, Silver Star, Bronz Star. Folks, There is no Congressional Medal of Honor. It is correctly called "The Medal of Honor". Doug Maston > France: Couldn't tell you. > Britain: Victoria Cross ? I think so. > Canadia: Victoria Cross with some sort of a common wealth designation. > South Africa: Another permutation of the VC ??? > Spain: I'm clueless. > > ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 08:52:23 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: ABS I said: r> I'm not big on variants, either, but I like ABS. The old r> system was fatally flawed as written since you couldn't bid r> null. So if you really wanted the Germans, but the Russian r> balance provision was overwhelming (think DASL 1 here) you r> might bid Russian to make sure that you wouldn't have to r> face a Russian opponent with the balance. Silly. and Grant replied: >I don't think there was anything in the original system that said you >couldn't bid null. The rules for choosing sides are not hard and fast. >The balance provisions are there to resolve clashes. Many players at >tourneys have graciously offered either side (hell, Louis Mehr offers you >choice of side and choice of scenario). I agree with Grant that many or even most players don't actually use the bidding system, but I was just pointing out that the old one, as written, had bigger problems than the one Brian was pointing out in the new one. Sure, it can be modified; that's what ABS is. It's nice to work with a common set of optional rules that everybody knows about, and ABS or the IIFT will fly at a tourney much more often than, say, NMP. ABS balancing conditions are helpful to players who don't bid, though. More options. With seven balance levels instead of three, it's more likely that players experienced with a scenario can find some common ground to balance it before rolling for or picking sides. I just can't think of a reason not to include them, other than laziness or inertia. I hope that Fort pulls to put them in scenarios going into the General from now on. (I hope even more that he puts in new scenarios rather than ASLUG reprints... :-> ) Dave "Got ABS in my car, but not yet in my Pop-O-Matic" Ripton ----- From: Wetzel_Dave/sra_hq1@misx12.mis.stratus.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:10:47 -0400 Subject: Re: BullShitLurks (BSL) Item Subject: Message text > On Thu, 25 Aug 1994, Alain Chabot wrote: > > > Howdy mates, > > > > Get this, Atomic Games is thinking of recommending a minimum system > > of a 68040 Mac (or PowerPC Mac) with 4 to 8 megs of RAM in order to > > run their game. On the DOS side, a minimum of a fast 486 with loads > > of RAM. ... > Err isn't 8 megs of RAM just about standard these days? And in 6 months > when BSL is out it surely would be just about mandatory I would think. Actually I think 4Mb is the standard on the Mac (I wouldn't think to answer for the IBM-clone market, but I would expect that they're close). I don't think you can purchase a mac these days with less. And if this is a recommendation as opposed to a requirement it strikes me as pretty average for Mac software these days. Remember that the System is taking about 2Mb at a minimum so the game itself is only 2Mb to 4Mb. And as long as it's VM friendly that's not a problem. Now the '040 or better is a bit more restrictive. > I'm not sure why everyone thinks BSL is going to be a computer version of > ASL. Poor publicity from AH possibly. Well, contrary to a previous post, Keith and the guys at Atomic have posted many times that BSL is not going to look like ASL at least on the comp.sys.mac.games list. > Personally, I can't wait for features like TRUE fog of war (unlike our > ersatz cardboard alternative :) ) and individual weapons firefight modelling. And if Atomic keeps up their trend for play by email, where you complete a turn and it creates a file to mail to your email opponent, I think it's going to be a big hit! Just MHO, dlw ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 08:35:28 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: CH comments Have to add my 2 kopeks to the commentary on Critical Hit. Apart from the usual spectrum of articles, we have: The Good: * "Sicily From a Loser's Point of View" - Informative and funniest article in the whole mag. Gotta love the anecdotes of the Italian defense of Sicily, from the hilarious ("On the beaches in front of the US 7th Army, the main defenses of the 429th Battalion consisted of two batteries of circa 1911 149mm guns and two captured Polish anti-tank gun batteries shipped by the Wehrmacht with their original Polish instructions only") to the poignant ("A message followed from a Lt. Santocono of the unit's 4th Company: 'Paratroops are behind us, I think to my sons.' Within a half an hour he was dead.") * Scenario CH5: Acts of Defiance - Looks good. Have some fun with the Hitler Youth toting a PSK emerging from the sewers. Cowabunga, dudes! Anybody play this one yet? The Not-So-Good: * "Enter the Kriegsmarine - German NOBA for ASL" - What, you're gonna discuss Operation SeaLion and not even give us a scenario? Geesh. * "St. Joost in My Mind - an ASL Fantasy Trip" - Colorado Tom had it right; this doesn't work real well. Tried reading it as kind of a text-based AAR, but no go. The Downright Ugly: * "Crazy Ramblings from Ray Verbanic" - Offensively and inexcusably bad. In issue #2, instead of another Crazy Ramblings, the editors of CH should just smear a page with pig shit. Tom "Never offensive, always excusable" ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: jeeps Well...no one else seems to have answered this so: > Q ? > Consider the case where a jeep, say is moving in open ground > and is fired on by a MG, is there any modifiers for the jeep > being moving? small target? [stuff deleted] None that I know of. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:06:57 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Scenario question > > I'm having a little problem with the setup for T15 - The Akrotiri Peninsula, > > The British AA Gun Battery consists of 5 Guns/Crew, 2 leaders and 2 squads. > The may set up on boards 4/6 as per a SSR, but the problem is that this SSR > only mention the Guns, and not the leaders and squads. From Jim Stahlers > article, it's clear that they are ment to be set up HIP, but its not said in > any SSR. One possibility is that the setup SSR for the guns also applies to > the leaders/squads, but there are still some problems: Does it have to be > one leader and one squad with each gun section, or may they be deployed > freely among the two sections. Do they have to be revealed when the guns are > revealed, or can they stay HIP? > Phil and I figured the 457's and leaders listed in the OB with the Guns are a security detail, so we let 'em set up any way they wanted, as long as they were within 3 hexes of the 5/8" ? counter. And like you said, the article implies they should be HIP. Can't imagine why they would lose HIP when the guns are revealed; they're separate units and can stack separately away from the Guns. As a hint, Phil's setup of 3 guns near 4Y3 works pretty well. The 3M2 building provides good fire support, and there's good defensive terrain in the area. The very nice Glider landing zones in the area can sorely tempt the Germans into landing there, but it's not hard to put enough Brits there to make it a death trap. Bofors in V4,Y2, and Z1 will ensure that the landing FJ's have no cover at all. A HIP 457 in X1 helps too. Anything less than 7-8 FJ squads landing there is going to have trouble, IMO. Although a little dicey in the beginning with the AA rolls, this is an excellent scenario. Little guessing game in the beginning as far as where the paras will drop, excitement of the Glider landings, then a pitched battle as the Brits seek to defend the Guns against one of the roughest, toughest infantry forces you'll find in any scenario. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:28:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: To pay the ultimate price. Let's not forget the Order of Lenin and Hero of the Soviet Union! Anyone know which is "higher"? ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:27:09 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Laddermeisters > 2 guns left in possession. he has two phases with a 24+1 shot at one gun > (now with a 9-1 in the hex), and the other gun is still concealed after he > boxcarred on a 12+0 and malfed his MMG (not that he lacks for SW or troops. > The malf'd MMG was against Bofors #2. The crew of Bofors #1 decided that running away was smarter (it was), but the leader of the MG nest in 3M2.2 remembered to take a Snap Shot as the crew abandoned the Gun. 12(+1), got a 2MC, boxcars on the roll kills the crew and wins the game! Uh, what? Blocked LOS?!?! AAArrrrggghhhhhh! Heartbreak city. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:45:56 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: CH comments > > Yes! A downright-mean competition between Repetti and Youse (see > Brian's comments about latest General yesterday.) Hee, hee. > Let me explain further. The guy just didn't even TRY to write anything interesting, funny, or worthwhile. Just bugs me that when you're writing an ASL article that's going to be PUBLISHED and read by a wide audience, you should make some kind of effort, you know? People are paying to read what you write. And there are plenty of people who could write better stuff who would LOVE a chance to have half a page in a mag. I think the guy just didn't give a rat's ass about what he was doing, and what a good opportunity he was being given to write something worthwhile. I didn't like the St. Joost article either, but at least that guy was making an effort. Hell, I can talk that way and use that language too, but not when I write, or at least, not when it doesn't contribute to the quality of what I write. Frankly, a few more 4-letter words would have _improved_ the St. Joost article, since soldiers talk that way. But to me, writing stuff like "Christ, I do need to get a life!" and "It was to be his first time in real combat. His cherry was about to be popped" in a published ASL mag is just low-rent, and a waste. Tom Perhaps too long an Idaho resident ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: RE: To pay the ultimate price. Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 12:13:47 EDT > > Let's not forget the Order of Lenin and Hero of the Soviet Union! > > Anyone know which is "higher"? Of course, after getting these there was a high probability that you would end up being executed for treason... That was only partly in jest, I saw the A&E or Discovery channel show about Stalin called "Stalin: A Portrait in Blood", and one part mentioned all the military leaders that were highly honored and then executed because Stalin was not going to let anyone get popular. Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 12:18:53 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: CH comments Potatoes and pig-shit? Just what is happening up there in Idaho? The world wonders... Anyway, I haven't written in a while, so I thought I'd throw my two (2) cents into this one. I saw CH over at Paul Ferraro's house the other night while he was looking at "Aces over Europe". It sure is nice to see scenarios other than the ones AH doles out. Some of them looked really slick, especially the one with the skulking Hitler Youth. I didn't even start to read the article on St. Joost. This kind of stuff just isn't for me. I have a hard time with any fantasy trips like this, since reality is strange enough. I mean, wouldn't some of you agree? After facing down a cardboard HMG with a ROF that just doesn't end the only thing I dream about is a really cold beer. Other than that, I though CH was an admirable effort. Are any more issues forthcoming? And has anyone run through the two latest General scenarios? My wife is letting me go out and play tomorrow (at Paul's) and either of these scenarios look like a possibility. Since I'm on the subject, any advice I can pass along to an ASL widow? Mary (my wife) still can't believe how hooked I am on the whole thing, and when I offered to show her the basics of the game I got a strange grin. Am I missing something here? Rambling in Pittsburgh again, Jim Shetler ----- Subject: VISITORS/HUTS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 11:10:00 -0640 Howdy, steve.katz@opm.gov writes: > A ways back I saw a trivial rule poser regarding huts and > PF/PFk/PSK. It would seem dumb at first, but I suspect that > BAZ would be affected just like PSK and so maybe the rule is > useful. Also one might treat "slum" shacks as huts, although I don't know of any fighting that took place in that sort of terrain. > Speaking of huts, I once played a guy who felt you could do > a streetfighting attack against an AFV moving on a road > between two huts. I said no way. I was right wasn't I???? G5.1 "Except as stated otherwise, huts are treated as wooden Single Story Houses" I don't see any exception for Street Fighting, so I would say it's ok. I think the Street Fighting advantage comes from being able to get very close to the vehicle while the vehicle is in a restricted area moving in a predictable. A road between huts would seem to provide that environment. If the vehicle wants to avoid Street Fighting, it can plow the Huts over or use bypass. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:08:31 -0700 Subject: Re: CH comments On Aug 26, 9:45am, Tom Repetti wrote: > Hell, I can talk that way and use that language too, but not when I write, or at > least, not when it doesn't contribute to the quality of what I write. Frankly, a > few more 4-letter words would have _improved_ the St. Joost article, since > soldiers talk that way. But to me, writing stuff like "Christ, I do need to get > a life!" and "It was to be his first time in real combat. His cherry was about > to be popped" in a published ASL mag is just low-rent, and a waste. Gods Below! So THAT'S the gibberish they publish in CH! Think I'll pass. SATIRE MODE ON Excerpt from the soon to be published "I was There at RB6, Turned Away." Hans shuddered as he saw the half-squad from the ADJACENT trench cut down as they tried to cross the street. The Russian MMG barked visciously, he could see the men wilt under the viscious 4FP. Behind him, Sargeant Metzger barked: "Let's go boys! Got to capture that last building if we want to make our VC." Hans and the others leapt to their feet and dashed across the paved road. Hans thought, "I sure hope Ivan didn't keep ROF!" ..... SATIRE MODE OFF Think it's got a chance? ;-) Dade ----- From: Ed Carter(ASL) Subject: Re: Fun & Games Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 11:14:49 CDT > > Prompted by Tom's "The Visitors" I've created a "humor" directory in > my ASL archive. If anyone has old dicussion list submissions of other > funny stuff, please send me a copy to add to this directory. I don't > want to reread several megabytes of old stuff to find them. Have you heard the one about the traveling IIFT salesman and the potato farmer's daughter? Ed ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:27:51 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: REVISED FINAL: Crossfire Again, as threatened, is the revised final for Crossfire. ....Perry CROSSFIRE: ROCKET'S RED GLARE GERMAN: Mark Nixon AMERICAN: Robert Banozic GERMAN PERSPECTIVE Rating: 50-50 Advantages: Firepower, FlakPz IV/20, Morale, Initial Concealment It is a rare scenario which offers the defender a firepower advantage over an attacker who also has a lower morale. I have 52% of the ROF adjusted firepower in the game and the morale of my MMCs (both Good Order and broken) is one better than the enemy's. In addition, all my force will be concealed following the U.S. set-up, which ought to come in handy right away as those enemy squads move up to kick off the attack. If I can only fire off several shots with the FlakPz before it bites the dust there ought to be some dead enemy to show for it, especially since I will try to force the enemy to approach this vehicle only in adjacent hexes (how many 36 column attacks can they stand?) or out in the open or in the woods where 20 FP attacks work just as well. The whole firepower issue must, unfortunately, also be considered from the alternate angle of squads and machineguns only, due to the limited staying power of the AFV's and the 105mm Gun. Without these weapons I field only 40% of the firepower, which indicates I must make the most of these three weapons while they last in order to prevent the confrontation deteriorating into a matter of who has the most infantry at end-game. Reads well in print; we'll see how it works. Disadvantages: No Retreat Space, Outnumbered Infantry The thought of retreat in Cheneux is not an option; those paras will have to force these Panzergrenadiers off their starting positions. At least that goes for the main line in the middle of town where retreat would spell defeat. Building Q7 is terribly close to positions the U.S. will occupy on their first turn and all I can do about it is hang tough, dish out more punishment than I take, use the stone buildings and shuffle backwards and forwards to avoid enemy Defensive Fire. Since I am outnumbered 12 squads to 7 plus the crews and the U.S. has better leader modifiers to rally the broken, I will probably be forced at some point to use the 9-2 to rally a key stack or two of my own. Not much to be done about it, for the squads must come back to fight or there will be no fight, and the absence of my 9-2 from the front line will hurt. German Set-Up: O5 8-0, squad, LMG P4 squad, LMG Q5 crew, PSK R6 FlakPz IV/20 (in bypass 5/5/TCA-R6) R5 9-2, squad, HMG R6/1 squad, MMG U6 squad, LMG T7 8-0 U7 squad W8 squad U8 StuG (VCA 5) R8 105 ART, crew (CA 1, HIP) My biggest fear is the straightforward attack sweeping right through the village center to Q7. If I don't stop this attack the U.S. could take that building as early as turn 2. This is why I like the FlakPz in bypass on the northeast hexside of R6. With its TCA facing building R6 it can hit R5 with 40 FP and cannot, in return, be hit by U.S. units further away due to the screening building in R5-R6 and the woods in Q6. By setting-up here I am sending the U.S. commander a message which I hope he receives. If he decides to challenge me at R5 fine, but I expect him to look for ways to get around this block, especially since any move into R5 might also face a ROF 40 FP attack (33% chance) and for sure would face a Sustain Fire 20 FP shot if needed. The woods in Q6 would also attract a 40 FP shot after a TCA change and so I begin to feel safe against any immediate U.S. parade right through the middle of Cheneux; the positioning of my 9-2, HMG and MMG obviously supports this feeling. My PSK has been specifically assigned hex R3 as a target and the HIP 105 has plans for buildings S5 and T4. I don't like Q6 for the FlakPz because the U.S. can get into S3/1 with as much as 30 FP directed by a -2 leader to hit me at 30 straight up, whereas I could throw back only 20+3; not a very smart exchange for me. Hex U8 could be nice in order to control U.S. movement on Hills 534 and 547, but there is no guarantee that enemy will provide targets over there so I am using the StuG in this position instead. Its CMG and 75L could easily shut-down enemy moves, particularly through the K5 and J5 area, although it won't fire until the M36 whereabouts is known and it is obvious no enemy infantry will make it into Bazooka range. Should a brave M36 pull up onto hill 522 to challenge my StuG, I will roll for sN (that's why I start BU) and also roll for Motion. The three squads screening this StuG are in place mostly to hamper any U.S. end run around the west, for I don't want hostile troops waltzing in on this flank because of not only the StuG but also the 105 ART, building O10, and the exposed rear end of my FlakPz. This platoon will eventually hustle around to the east should the GIs not challenge them in their starting locations. But the 105 ART hopes for a nice, fat, juicy target running across what seems a quiet bit of road in V2. It has a 27% chance of scoring a CH on someone here which would be rolled on the IFT as a 40(-2) attack. Failing that, it awaits targets in a series of spots: T4, S5, T6, R6, Q6, Q7 (YIKES!), N9, O10 (MORE YIKES!) or even on level 2 hexes of hill 547 and 534 (K7 only on the latter). Throughout, remember my two s8 capabilities are actually s9 since my force is elite, and that StuG A5 and 105 H7 might help nail the M36 and will at least allow the chance for a second shot should the initial depletion roll fail. I doubt Robert would bring in the M36 on the eastern flank, since there is a very good chance it would have to bust through the woods, where it would Bog on a DR of 8 or higher. While on some Board 3 mapboards there is room enough to Bypass I2 on the 2 hexside, pivot, and then enter J2 in Bypass on the 5 hexside, on other mapboards there is not enough space between the J2 woods and the 5 hexside to fit the edge of a counter. I believe the U.S. commander follows a doctrine of conservative AFV use and do not expect to see the M36 enter here, especially since there is little to gain by doing so. However, I do expect to see some infantry and the MMG in R6/1 is eager to lay out a firelane to G1 to greet them. Should the enemy stay off the hill, squads in O5 and P4 cover I3, J3, and K4 with enough firepower to stop any open field running. Finally, the P4 and O5 LMGs also promise parallel firelanes to R0 and R1 in order to stop enemy movement towards building M2. Should Robert make a concerted effort towards building O10 across the east flank, I am counting on my firepower to lay out enough residual fire and firelanes on the first turn to stop him in the I2-K4 area. Subsequent turns will require that my western platoon and the StuG get safely past GIs in the center of town. If the enemy thrust up the center looks weak, I will not hesitate to back the FlakPz out and move it to meet the worst threat. GI machinegun squads in building M2 will be a problem and I expect Robert to stick them up there, but at least my FlakPz and the 105 are initially immune to such fire. It promises to be a close battle; the key for me may very well lie in how soon I can break the first substantial enemy firegroup concentration. Once their squads start breaking the GI commander will have to keep some of those rotten leaders out of the firefight and that will be a big help. Two -2 leaders? Aarrghh! One small quirk I would like to mention is how erraticized rule C2.29 has excluded the key line "Otherwise, IFE is considered the equivalent of MG fire..." which was the guaranteed justification for PBF doubling IFE on the IFT. The current version of this rule fails to address the matter (okay, I admit it, I had an advance copy of the errata and failed to notice at that time) but A7.21 does still suggest IFE is doubled/tripled for PBF/TPBF without actually spelling it out in detail and, thankfully, the final proof in writing remains D7.11 which specifically states that IFE is tripled during an Overrun, therefore indicating to the logic-minded that IFE would likewise be doubled for PBF as well. A second curious point occurs when D2.321 neglects to handle bypass TCA for an IFE firing gun, such as my FlakPz, is set-up in R6 to fire at R5. The rule does not make special allowance for IFE shots within "wide-side" bypass TCA. I must argue against adding this +1 for subsequent shots at the same target in that facing for I believe it is an oversight and IFE should not be penalized more than TH attempts and CMG fire. Otherwise, just let me have a side or rear shot at that M36 with this Flakvierling Gun. With a ROF of 3 and 4 TK rolls per hit firing at a large target while CE myself, I'd like to see what happens when I get that chance to roll eight TK rolls! Unfortunately, reality will be a bit more harsh for I can't expect Robert to hand me such a chance. AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE Rating: 60-40 pro-American Advantages: Leadership, LATWs, Assault Fire, Dual VC The first thing you notice as the American player are the leaders - four for twelve squads, or one for each three-squad stack. These include a 10-2, 9-2, and 9-1, so there will be plenty of negative modifiers to help my fire, MCs, and Rally attempts. It is also hard to beat the LATWs, which include four no-penalty PFs, two of the excellent BAZ 45s, and two BAZ 44s. These guys are equipped to do some serious tank killing, and the BAZs in particular should see quite a bit of anti-infantry use, too. My paras have the Assault Fire bonus, which will often give me a kick up to a higher FP column in the AFPh. It's a short game and I am going to have to move up on the Germans quickly, and this will be a big help. Finally, Mark has to keep me out of two separate buildings, Control of either of which will give me an instant victory. I intend to make him worry about both. Disadvantages: Time Like I said, it's a short game - almost too short, and I will have to keep grinding forward. But I feel this is my only real disadvantage; give me another turn and I'd be rating this scenario 90-10 pro-American. American Set-Up: My strategy is to keep the pressure on as much as possible on the entire German perimeter, while working units into the north central portion of the board so as to threaten O10. Here's how I get started: X3: 10-2, 3 squads, 2 MMGs, BAZ 44, PF V1: 9-1, 3 squads, BAZ 45, PF T1: 9-2, 3 squads, 2 MMGs, BAZ 45, PF Enter I1: 8-0, 3 squads, BAZ 44, PF Enter Y1: M36B1 GMC On-board units gain concealment at start; offboard units enter Concealed. The only thing Mark gets to HIP is that 105, but note that it is too big to place in a building, which really limits his options. I expect to see it in P8/1, from where it can cover several of the approaches to the VC, as well as hill hexes W5 and V4. R8/6 would cover the Q8-L5 line. Mark might try to hide the Gun in BB5/5, correctly anticipating that I will send units around the west side of Hill 522. If he does so he will in fact get one good blast at someone, but the 105 won't last long after that. Finally, the Gun might be in W4/1, to pound anyone setting up in X3. But again, it won't last long there. The Wirbelwind is one of the big attractions in this scenario, and a serious problem for the Yanks. But it's basically a defensive weapon, and I expect Mark to leave it parked where it is and to force me to come to it. If I have to, I will try to swamp it from several angles at once to maximize my chances of taking it out. The M36 enters CE at Y1/4/TCA-3, changes TCA-2 at Y5, and moves to X5 where it tries a HD maneuver attempt to pick up HD status on the Y5/X5 hexside (in case that 105 IS at BB5) and stops. The 9-1 group CXs and moves from V1-Y3- Y7. If the 105 hasn't popped up yet, the 10-2 stack Assault Moves to W4; the 9-2 platoon Assault Moves to U2; and the 8-0 guys CX and bypass into I1 to reach M3. Nobody loses Concealment due to movement. The best DF Mark can get are the 4 FP +1 shots at the 10-2 and 9-2 groups, although if the 10-2 loses Concealment due to fire he could be subject to some additional modest shots, depending on the ROF from the MMG and whether Mark fires the squad in U7. I really suspect Mark will choose not to blow his Concealment for such low-yield opportunities. So, in the AFPh I should be taking 8(-1) FP shots into U7 and 8(+0) FP shots into U6 (ya gotta love the Assault Fire bonus!). In the APh the squad with the PF loses Concealment and advances to X7 (yeah, it's "bait"). The rest of the 9-1 group maintains Concealment and goes to Y8. The 8-0 advances to N2 and his men to N3, all remaining Concealed. The 9-2 will stay put if Mark's squad at U6 is still standing, otherwise it advances to T2. The 10-2 sits tight. It's the end of the first player turn and look what has happened. The Germans are under pressure from the east, west, and south. I can bring under fire most of the German defense. My 9-1 stack is close to threatening a breakthrough in the west, and if the SS in P4 and O5 go down, my troops in the east will have a fairly clear path to the German backfield. Of course, Mark won't be taking all of this lying down, although he will have to decide in his turn whether to trade fire with me or hide from my DF, and thus force me to Prep Fire on turn 2. If he shoots I will take some casualties, but expect to give as good as I get. So on turn 2 I will fire what is necessary to wear down any storm troopers in my path. By then I hope to have at least neutralized the squads that used to be at U6, U7, and W8, so the M36 moves CE up to W6 or W7 (you can bet he'll draw some fire) depending on where the StuG might be, and tries for HD status. Anyone who didn't have to Prep Fire will press forward. In short, I expect the 10-2 to lead my most static firebase against bad guys at level 1 in R5/R6, while the 9-2 stack presses into the center and the 9-1 and 8-0 groups threaten each flank. If this all works, maybe the war will be over by Christmas after all. GERMAN RESPONSE My first reaction to Robert's opening is that he has begun cautiously and also appears to have clearly read the message sent by the opening set-up of my FlakPz in the center of town and is planning to work around it. While that is the effect that I wanted, now I will have to try to deal with the 10-2 and 9-1 platoons driving in on my right flank. This will not be easy but the place to begin is to shoot at those two tall stacks as they assault move into W4 and U2. Contrary to Robert's expectations I have little to lose by firing these shots since three 7-4-7's at a four hex range will Advance Fire only one column higher (the 12 column) if I am no longer concealed, and meanwhile I have been able to take several shots at entire platoons. One good roll amongst my shots has the chance to do far more for me than the U.S. shift from the 8 to the 12 column could be expected to do for him. Indeed, since the 10-2 spends four MF's my U7 squad and the R6 squad and MMG can Subsequent First Fire with the potential of four shots from the MMG with astounding luck. Sure, these are 2(+1) and 4(+1) attempts, although if the initial 2(+1) or 1(+1) from U7 strips concealment the R6 position suddenly has an 8(+1) and that becomes an 8(+0) versus anyone broken already due to the loss of the Assault Move benefit. My 4(+1) shot at U2 does not promise nearly as much due to my inability to Subsequent Fire at units spending only one MF in the location and my slim chance for any ROF, but I will take the shot anyway. Even if all I manage is to Pin one of those -2 leaders, I will be happy. The possibility exists that I won't even accomplish that much, but the low added risk on the "12" column is worth it. One reason my U6 and U7 squads are so bold is because of their very fine chances of rallying by the 8-0 in T7. They will rally on any roll of 6 or less while DM and any roll of 10 or less in the U.S. Turn 2 Rally Phase. Admittedly, they won't be in the most perfect location should they wait to rally until free of DM, but will still be guarding the north edge at V10/U10 and promise 30 FP to the three adjacent hexes T6, U7, and U8. But one big risk I will take is the R6/1 Prep Fire at the 10-2 platoon in W4, assuming my DFPh "cheapo" deluge of shots didn't maul them and force them to rout back to X3 (hey, I love to daydream!). I simply can't resist this 8(+1) shot at the best enemy stack, and the potential ROF 4(+1) rolls. Taken by itself this attack may not promise any great outcome but the potential is there to do some damage to three squads at the risk of only one of my squads to the tune of a 16(+1) if my fire is totally ineffective. But the real attraction here is my chance to follow-up, if the Prep Fire attack hurt that 10-2 stack, by assault moving the still concealed 9-2 and the squad with the HMG up to R5/1 to set-up an AFPh 4(-1) shot on the 10-2. Here is an opportunity to fatally mangle worthwhile targets, although notice I would not expose my 9-2 (even concealed) in this manner if the U.S. 9-2 platoon has, in fact, advanced up to T2 or if the 10-2 boys are still hanging in there. I'm not as afraid of the U.S. firepower as of their -2 leader DRM. My O5 and P4 units assault move back to O6 and Q5 only to Advance back to their original positions at the end of my turn. I'll remain concealed and see what those CX squads in N3 can do on Turn 2. My StuG is useless in U8 and more a target for U.S. HEAT than a threat, and so he moves to O6 (VCA:6) with some CE movement. Those CX enemy squads detached from the 8-0 threaten very little now and could only reach level 1 of hill 534 in the Advance Phase of turn #2. Still, with good infantry smoke use they could get across the road to building M5 and my StuG in this spot might convince them not to step up the threat to this flank with such a move. My firelane to J2 still looks good. Meanwhile, my squad in W8 pulls back to U8 and the U6 and U7 squads will likely be pulling back to avoid U.S. Defensive Fire unless the U7 squad held tough and added his shot at the 10-2 platoon following earlier shots reducing the threat of Defensive Fire in return, or unless these squads are rallying in T7. However it works out this platoon will probably be grouped in this small cluster controlling enemy moves along the north board edge, backed by the MMG (W10), the HMG (U10) and a TCA spin by the FlakPz to the rear to cover V9 and W10. I expect it to be very tough on any U.S. movement past this fire, particularly so with only three squads moving into the central village to try to contest some of my firebases. Unfortunately, anything can happen and the U.S. 9-2 leading that troublemaker platoon might prove to be the key unit in the U.S. attack. Likewise, the M36 appears determined to make a nuisance of itself and will attract some attention on Hill 522. My 105 ART and PSK crew have no immediate targets and so will bide their time on turn #1. I believe this scenario is a real nail biter with both sides wielding ample strength and with plenty of opportunities to pull out a win. At some point I expect the U.S. to force me into a tough defensive knot to cover the two victory buildings. At that point, with my 9-2 stacked with several squads and the FlakPz handy to fire off those tremendous PBF shots, I am at my most dangerous and yet also at my most vulnerable. If these two towers of strength go down, the enemy will have cut past the bluff and bluster, the threat of the unknown, and find there is actually little else of substance beyond these to hold him back. But getting there might do him in, for the strengths of the defense are real enough. My own Assault Fire capability might be only rarely used, but it makes a lowly 6 FP squad the equal of the stronger 7-4-7 and has an extra hex of range as well. As demonstrated with my earlier suggestion with the 9-2 and squad maneuvering for such an AFPh shot, the appeal for me is that I'd rather break the enemy infantry on my own half turn than on theirs since this would force them to rally from DM status in their own rally phase; if they fail at this point they don't get to move at all that turn and also won't be in a position to hurt me with DF in my following half turn. Other considerations involve driving my AFV's into the victory building hexes as a last resort in order to force the G.I.'s to pass a PAATC before entering. Neither OT vehicle in the battle can enter a building but the StuG does have this option, although I'd rather not think about the situation which might force such a move. Usually the game will be a close one although either side might deliver a massive blow at some point, as is common enough with scenarios this size, and take an easy win. AMERICAN RESPONSE I am relieved Mark didn't have that 105 HIP west of Hill 522. Far from being a cautious opening, I thought I was taking a big chance here, and the possibility of having the M36 or a whole stack hammered on turn 1 was a very real fear for me. I won't mind much if Mark takes his available DF, because then I will be looking for those 12 FP AFPh attacks he mentioned, and can still get a couple of 8FP shots even if one squad in each of the 10-2 and 9-2 stacks break, assuming no other ill effects. Note that unless the 10-2 himself breaks, any broken squads in that stack will stay put and hope to Rally from under DM with a "7" or less. I don't want to take the pressure off unless absolutely necessary, and with the MMGs and possible 8FP ROF attacks, these kids just can't wait to kill someone. It's the new training films, you know. The squad at X7 Assault Moves into W8 and the rest of the 9-1 platoon follows as single units, to take on the SS in U8. This prevents FFNAM -1 against more than one unit (unless with Residual FP or Subsequent Fire). This group is ultimately heading for U8 then T7 or S8 in preparation for the final assault. It probably won't come up, but if Mark were to try the FlakPz shot into W10 I would be asking for a LOS check; it's very close but on my board appears it might just clip building R6. The shot into V9 is also very close, but probably clear. If the 10-2 runs out of level 1 targets in R5/R6 and at U7, he will probably be advancing into W5 for a little target practice at any of Mark's boys hiding in T7, or any diehards holding out in U8. I think that LOS from W5-R5 ground level is blocked by building S5, but this, too, is very close, and we might have our microscopes out again. If the German 9-2 stays on R5 level 0, the 10-2 will eventually face off against him from V5, although preferably in conjunction with multiple threats from other hexes as well. Now that I know the StuG will be out of my LOS, the M36 will probably be BU when it moves to W6 on Turn 2 (out of PF range from that U8 squad), unless I really need to draw fire away from the 10-2. It will CE in the APh, thus avoiding damage for a player turn. Expect the 9-2 to be heading for R3, taking its chances with that PSK. From R3 I can hit the 9-2 in R5 (if it is still there), or fire into Q5/P4, thus helping the 8-0 group break through in the east. That group won't be heading for M5, but rather P4 - from which they can pressure the StuG, and maybe swamp it with some assistance from my 9-2 team. Some good BAZ shooting should take care of that AFV, and maybe I'll get a chance to try out those PFs. The way I figure it, I have until turn 5 to get this done, because from P4 a squad using Bypass could CX and be into O10 in one turn for the win. However, even if the 8-0 platoon does nothing more than tie down the two eastern SS squads and the StuG, I will be satisfied with its performance. I don't see the German 9-2, HMG, and MMG still offering resistance at game end; my 10-2 platoon, M36, and 9-1 platoon pressing in from the west, and possible pressure from the 9-2 platoon should usually be enough to bury those guys. The FlakPz will be a tough nut to crack, but with Yanks pouring from all sides, probably not tough enough to stop the Americans from reaching the VC about 6 out of 10 tries. It will be a good fight, though; give the Germans their balance (an extra squad), and I'll call this one an even match. [The current tournament consensus on this seems to favor the U.S. a tad, but there is no way any one here at Backblast would give Nixon or McGrath the Germans with the balance. I guess that makes it balanced enough. But what Backblast is really interested in is what YOU would do with this scenario. Don't you think Nixon should have the 9-2 and the HMG on level 1 of R6? Don't you think Banozic should have several MMGs up in building N2? Tell us what McGrath did to you in this scenario. Or what you did to Chaney.--Eds.] ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:23:55 CDT From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: RE: To pay the ultimate price Germany did have a Pour le Merite medal but that was before Hitler came to power. In fact, the germans used alot of french words until the 1930's and the rise of nationalism. The germans used to use the french word for sidewalk - now they say Burgersteig - literally Citizen place to walk. Rommel was awarded a PlM in WW1 for his brilliant tactical leadership. Every asler should read his book - Infantry Attacks - it gives a good account of the battlefield at a tactical level. Andrew ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:54:21 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: Scenario DTD Hello again, Does anyone out there have a scenario DTD in SGML? If not, does anyone have any ideas on how to create one? Curious in Pittsburgh, Jim Shetler ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 01:57:19 EDT Subject: Re: CH comments >Hell, I can talk that way and use that language too, but not when I write, or at >least, not when it doesn't contribute to the quality of what I write. Frankly, a >few more 4-letter words would have _improved_ the St. Joost article, since >soldiers talk that way. But to me, writing stuff like "Christ, I do need to get >a life!" and "It was to be his first time in real combat. His cherry was about >to be popped" in a published ASL mag is just low-rent, and a waste. Cliches are the sign of an unimaginative writer. Where's that bored (deranged?) English teacher when he's needed? Time to dust off the paper that's been laying around all summer and write an article for us Squid Racers!! (Heh, heh - the latter is an _in_ joke to us marine biologist/ASL players. Which squid is LEADing? Oh well, I'm still working on achieving that annoying status.... Notice that was marine biologist not Marine!) Jeff Shields jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:45:17 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: CH comments > Hans and the others leapt to their feet and dashed across the paved road. Hans > thought, "I sure hope Ivan didn't keep ROF!" ..... > > SATIRE MODE OFF > > Think it's got a chance? ;-) > > Dade Nope. Should have been "Hans and the others leapt to their feet and dashed across the paved road. Hans thought, `I sure hope #@%&# Ivan didn't keep his #$%@ ROF!' ....." Since soldiers talk that way. Now, a _Marine_ would have thought "I sure #$%@ hope #@%&# Ivan kept his #$%@ ROF! If I $#%@ take out that !@#$% gun, the %$##@ $%!# Captain might grant me some #$%# Liberty. @#$#@!" We give new meaning to the quote "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Dave "27 days until I graduate" van Kan ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 14:47:33 EDT From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: ABS and Scenario Design Hello, When designing a scenario, how does one come up with the ABS balance provisions? It is through playtesting, or just by logical deduction? I have been confused about this for quite a while. Doug Maston ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:37:42 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: CH comments Overall, I heartily agree with Idaho Tom's comments on CH. I myself was disappointed with the layout and, to a lesser extent, the content of CH. Having said that, I still think the zine has many worthwhile qualities. First, and foremost, the Scenarios! Breakthrough at Kozani was the first scenario my group played. I recommend it highly. Very subtle strategies and good fun for the Germans, who get to waste pathetic Mark VI machine-gun tanks. It is good for team play and from a campaign which, IMHO, is underrepresented. I didn't get to finish this one (I never do), but it is a very solid scenario. The Green Hell is also good, as is the other PTO, and I am looking forward to playing Acts of Defiance. So there is good material in CH. However, Stuetzpunkt Vierville (sic) is so riddled with errata that it will never see my gaming table. (Couldn't they have corrected the spelling in the title in the errata page? Sheesh.) I've told a number of people on the list that I found the St. Joost article a little disjointed and difficult to follow (because of the turn sequence or the writing style?) and I agree with Idaho Tom regarding the Verbanic article. Is this guy some kind of ASL genius or what? Why take up a half a page of irrelevant rambling? Find some sponsors, sell some ads and put something useful in that space. I disagree with Tom about the Kriegsmarine article. I liked it a lot. I can hardly blame the editors if they were reluctant to put an ahistorical scenario on the order of SeaLion in their first edition. Don't deny that there are purists out there whom would make this controversial. I think the fact that I work on a lot of newsletters makes me less tolerant of the editing problems than most people would be. O.K., so, maybe this is a backhanded endorsement of CH (I hope Backblast! is better [I think it will be]), but it is an endorsement. I'm glad I bought it and would buy it again. ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 15:15:08 -0500 From: Robert Richardson Subject: scenarios Does anyone know if there is a data base of ASL scenarios lying around somewhere? Rob ----- From: steve.katz@opm.gov Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 16:02:39 Subject: HUTS/BSL My streetfighting re: huts question was from The Bushmasters. I think I misinterpreted the existence of a road. I was right--but the wrong way... On BSL, I am kind of surprised at the confusion. If it were Computer ASL, or even SL wouldn't it be called that in order to catch our eyes in the software store? I can't imagine AH coming out with the real McCoy and not squeezing every bit of advertising power they could out of a well recognized trade name. I guess that's why I never thought of it as anything but a new computer game from AH/Atomic. Speaking of which, I do like Operation Crusader a lot and see it as the shape of things to come. Let's face it, computers are the only way to do realisitc fog-of-war, supplies and some other things such as perhaps weather. It will ab a while (8-10 years?) before an affordable computer exists that can actually do ASL, real ASL. I don't mean that the AI will exist for it, but that the two-player mode will and it will make all of our boards, counters and whatnot obsolete. I think there will be substantial resistance to this at first dur to our sentimental attachement to tabletop cameraderie, but in the end the better simulation will win out--look at SL's dinosaur like fate. I for one cannot wait. Am I right or too utopian in my estimate of near term computer capabilities? Steve ----- From: NolanCluff@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 17:30:40 EDT Subject: OBA AR placement It's the second turn in a game of Kurhaus Clash with my most worthy opponent Tim Hundsdorfer. This sitch has arisen. My US OBA observer has LOS to a German MG nest on the second floor of the church on 23F3. My AR and SR are placed squarely upon his tow-headed Skirts-n-Snapple (SS) boys in F3 during my Prep. On his next movement, the boys move down to L1 to take advantage of the extra level TEM. With his units on L1, my observer no longer has LOS to any of the German OB. Here's the question: According to SSR 2 the Americans have automatic OBA access unless there is no known enemy in the 7 hex blast area. "If no such LOS exists, the Observer must draw two cards for Battery Access during that player turn." Is the American player allowed to place an AR on a given hex regardless of whether he has LOS to a location in that hex or not? I think that I would at least need to have LOS to some location in the hex in order to place an AR there. Any other ideas, comments, clarifications. Thanks Nolan ----- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 18:19:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: BSL/Fog of war > Let's face it, computers are the only way to do realisitc > fog-of-war.... Obviously you never had the pleasure of playing against me. Usually I fog things up quite well all by myself. On the odd occaisional chance that I happen to be having a sharp game (hey, lookie, a ONE ON THE RED DIE! I think that means I might get ROF with a heavy MG, doncha think?!) I just go turn on a faucet or two - just the hot water side -- and let the steam pour forth to fog up my glasses. The only problem is if my opponent doesn't have glasses - then we are forced to switch to sun glasses, and _then_ we have to play night rules to boot. See how foggy you can get without a computer?! 8-) Paul ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 23:30:00 UTC Subject: Re: RB entry (again) Sorry to beat this horse, but: OK, to really figure out this RB entry hex thing, we need to go back to the beginning - A2.5, to be exact. This rule states, in part: "ENTRY: . . . If entry was to have been via a certain hex and that hex is occupied by an enemy unit . . . entry must be made in a non-obstructed hex within four hexes of the scheduled entry point, but one Game Turn later. . . . and so on. . . ." Now, with this in mind, let's take another look at RB CG SSR 9. Rearranging somewhat, this rule states: "GERMAN INFANTRY/AFV RG: enter on north-/west-edge land hex(es) depending on the current CG Day . . .: [you know this part]" This says that the Germans can enter on the listed hexes on the given dates IN ACCORDANCE WITH A2.5. There is an exception which states: "entry is _always_ allowed on/between A9 and N0, . . ." This says (to me) that, even if the Russians occupy every possible entry hex with a unit (including dummies), then the Germans can still enter on/between A9 and N0. Presumably, they'd have to wait until the APh and risk ambush/CC, but at least they could enter. I think the intent of this rule may be to discourage the Russian player from attempting to block German entry in the above described manner. Lastly, the exception goes on to say: ". . . as well as via any edge hex that is currently friendly- Controlled _and_ was friendly-Controlled at scenario start." This is probably the clearest part, it says that: if the German rocks the Russian player's world on 17 October and takes the west edge down to, say, A30, then 18 October he can enter down to A30 even though he would normally only be allowed to enter down to A9. In trying to discern the intent of the designer, we also should consider Chapter O Footnote 16 (related to the SSR in question, which states in part, " . . . German forces were never far off map to the west in and around the _Barrikady Housing Estates_. From 23- 25 October [units] attacked from the west against both the _Barrikady_ and _Krasnyi_Oktyabr_ factories." I'm no expert on East Front history, but if I remember correctly, the Red October factories are to the south of the Barrikady. If the Germans could attack both from the west in this time frame, this would seem to bear out the validity of this SSR as stated in the ASLRB. With the above thinking in mind, in the absence of any _official_ Q&A to the contrary, I would play German entry as listed in the CG SSR. Bob S. ----- From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 00:05:00 UTC Subject: Akrotiri Ole Boe, I set the leader/squads within the hex radiius restriction that the guns were under, but ditributed in the two sections as i desired. Phil ----- Subject: OBA AR placement From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 21:11:00 -0640 Howdy, NolanCluff@aol.com writes: > It's the second turn in a game of Kurhaus Clash with my most > worthy opponent Tim Hundsdorfer. This sitch has arisen. My > US OBA observer has LOS to a German MG nest on the second > floor of the church on 23F3. My AR and SR are placed > squarely upon his tow-headed Skirts-n-Snapple (SS) boys in > F3 during my Prep. On his next movement, the boys move down > to L1 to take advantage of the extra level TEM. With his > units on L1, my observer no longer has LOS to any of the > German OB. Here's the question: > > According to SSR 2 the Americans have automatic OBA access > unless there is no known enemy in the 7 hex blast area. "If > no such LOS exists, the Observer must draw two cards for > Battery Access during that player turn." Is the American > player allowed to place an AR on a given hex regardless of > whether he has LOS to a location in that hex or not? > > I think that I would at least need to have LOS to some > location in the hex in order to place an AR there. Any > other ideas, comments, clarifications. C1.3 "ARTILLERY REQUEST (AR): Having established (or maintained) Radio Contact during that phase, and if he has Battery Access, the player may continue his radio action in that phase by placing an AR counter on any hex containing a Location that is in his Observer's LOS which he wishes to be the target of an OBA attack. LOS is then checked from the Observer to the AR's hex; if no such LOS exists to any non-Aerial Location therein, that AR is removed, that Observer's OBA actions are considered finished for the current phase, and at the opponent's option that current Fire Mission is Canceled." Since Battery Access is a process separate from AR placement, I don't think that changing the procedures for Battery Access would affect C1.3 above. An LOS would be required to some non-aerial Location in the hex. Another question you might ask is that now that the SS have moved out of the Observer's LOS, are the Battery Access draws necessary to convert the SR? I would say yes. So long,z JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 01:12:00 UTC Subject: asl_gen ======= To: MLICARI@CSD.UWM.EDU@ ======= Sub: asl_gen Mike, > Quite a while ago I got a copy of a nifty little ASL DYO scenario > generator. Checking the doc file, I noticed that it was released in > 1990. (I did say quite a while ago) It's called ASL_GEN (for IBM > compats) and was made/distributed by a Timothy Kitchen in Rochester NY. Here's data: Tim Kitchen 4004 Fetlock Dr Mechanicsville, VA 23111 O R D E R F O R M Name:________________________________ Address:____________________________ City:___________________ State:___________ Zip:_____________ Country:______________ Date:_____/_____/_____ (Fill out form completely) DESCRIPTION # Price Total 1. ASL_DYO - Version 2.2 (New User) $25.00 2. ASL_DYO - Version 2.2 Upgrade 1 FREE FREE (Registered 2.1 Users Only!) 3. ASL_DYO - Version 2.2 Upgrade 1 $8.00 $8.00 (Registered 2.0 Users Only!) ************************* TOTAL ENCLOSED *********** Disk: 5-1/4" ___ | 3-1/2" ___ How did you find out about ASL DYO Assistant? BBS ____ Store ____ Friend ____ Magazine ____________________ Other ______________ All Checks/Money Orders should be payable in U.S. dollars to TIM KITCHEN. --It's a great program all that's missing is beach landings- ron ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 04:15:00 UTC Subject: Re: Above and Beyond Awright already, I apologize for misspelling Canada in that post yesterday. I've been buried, away from current news events lately, so I don't know nothin' about somebody singin' somethin' wrong or anything. Honest. It was late and I was travellin' sans spell-checker. Sheesh, you'd think I dissed hockey or somethin'. :) Seriously though, thanks to all of you who helped to answer my question. Steve P.S.: Crokinole rules! ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 04:15:00 UTC Subject: Re: ABS Problems Hi, Ole writes, > Is it possible to get a hand on these ABS updates for all of us that > haven't subscribed to FFE? Could they be put on the ftp-sites, and would > the FFE makers agree to this? I don't know whether he has any back issues of FFE left, but Rob Wolkey can be contacted at: r.wolkey@genie.geis.com And definitely, ask him if they can be put on the ftp-sites. They need to be shared and enjoyed. Steve ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 04:16:00 UTC Subject: A25: St. Joost Hello, I just finished reading "St. Joost in My Mind" in CH!. So I'm reading it, and I'm thinking, "Crocodiles, a Canal-- waitaminute! I've been there." So I dig through my scenarios and sure enough "Cold Crocodiles" takes place in St. Joost. So obviously Joe (who's whooped up on me twice in tournament play) is writing his fantasy Series Replay about this scenario. Not my cup of tea, but there it is. So then I'm reading, "Seargeant Todd's group crossed over the frozen surface of the Krom Beck without drawing any fire, and took the two southernmost buildings on the east side of the canal, which were unoccupied." And I'm thinking, "Geez, why don't I ever think of doing that when I'm the Brits in this?" Well, mainly because I look in the ASLRB as I'm setting up my Hussars to see hows I can go about crossing the canal. Rule B21.1 says, barring "special assistance", that I can't. So I leave it at that. But looking further into it now, SSR 1. says, "All Water Obstacles are Frigid." This doesn't qualify as special assistance to me, since the Frigid rule (B20.7) only accounts for really cold streams. If it said, "...Ice (B21.6)", then sure, you can cross it like Level -1 Open Ground. The Chapter B Terrain chart says you can cross a Water Obstacle (which the canal is) only if Fordable. But there's no SSR saying it's Fordable. So what am I misunderstanding here? Am I missing something (an Errata maybe), or is Joe's prose more fiction than he thinks? Does anyone else play that you can cross the canal without the bridge in this scenario? Steve ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 04:15:00 UTC Subject: Re: ABS Problems Hi, Robert Maglica asks, > Which scenarios from the earlier modules are so unbalanced that > they are considered unplayable ? Well, off the top of my head I'd say: Silence that Gun No Better Spot to Die Backs to the Sea Taking the Left Tit The Mad Minute Ambush! Actually, I cheated. That wasn't off the top of my head-- I had to look. "Considered" is the key word here (although, perhaps "unplayable" is extreme for some of these scenarios). Word has it that these are unbalanced. I've played four of these six and have to agree with the hearsay. Steve ----- From: jkemppi@phoenix.oulu.fi (Janne Kemppi) Subject: Gamers looked for Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 18:35:30 +0300 (EET DST) I am currently looking for gamers in Oulu, Finland area to Advanced Squad Leader Firepower IDF Air Superiority Harpoon jkemppi@phoenix.oulu.fi ----- From: William G Jelinek Subject: Acts of Defiance/How Not to Be Seen Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 11:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Hola, Everybody-- Been waiting for a sure-fire strategy in ASL? Want to be guaranteed a win? Even in Ladder/AREA play? If you promise not to tell where you heard this, I'll let you in on my new-found secret: Play against someone the night before he (or she) gets married. Works like a charm. My opponent was so distracted it was a cakewalk. (Actually, the game served it's purpose--when we wrapped up around 1:30 am, he was able to fall asleep.) All kidding aside . . . * * * * * "How Not to Be Seen" (with apologies to Monty Python) There's been talk recently of scenario CH5, "Acts of Defiance," and how it looks like a good scenario. Although I'd like to provide an in-depth analysis of the scenario, I'll have to suffice with a critique of the Russian set-up in "Acts of Defiance" and a few observations about this scenario. Tim, my then-single, now-married friend, and I tried this one last weekend. The early reviews seem to be accurate--this one looks like a winner. I realize, given my worthy opponent's uncharacteristic preoccupation with things not-ASL, that this playing only could provide a glimpse of what "Acts of Defiance" has to offer. Once Tim and Michele are further along their road of lifelong commitment, he and I will have to try this one again and apply the lessons we learned in our first playing. We used the ABS method of side selection. It was the first time for both of us. (Even though it was painless, does this mean we're on our way to becoming "top-floor" ABS courtesans? :) ) Because the VC seem a little rough in that there can be no Good Order Russian MMC (they start with ten squads) within the Board 20 Russian setup perimeter at game end (6 turns), I bid G0; I didn't see any point in trading in the only German 9-2 leader in this street fight for a measly 9-1 (The G1 bid). Presumably enamored of the 120+ mm OBA (with plentiful ammo, no less), three T-44s and two ISU-122s, Tim bid R1, which gave me the 9-2 armor leader who promptly took control of my JgdPz IV/70 (Oh! Look, Tim. The To Kill number is 23!). After thanking Tim for this gift-wrapped armor leader, I prepared to reclaim the rubble-strewn _Festung_ _Breslau_. To start I placed my fanatic half-squad of Hitler Youth and their PSK in the sewers in 20W5 hoping to appear behind one of his three T-44s and their oppressive circled-18 frontal armor factor. The SSR concerning the Hitler Youth could use some fleshing out. It states, "Hitler Youth 2-3-7 must set up HIP in any sewer hex on Board 20 before Russian set up. The 2-3-7 is Fanatic and Stealthy and must use Sewer Movement on Turn 1." The question that begged asking for us was, "What happens on Turn 2?" Tim and I agreed that the half-squad should be entitled to use Sewer Movement throughout the game and that no other units were permitted in the sewers although this was not explicitly stated in the SSR. Hopefully this was Pete Mudge's intention, but alternative interpretations are sure to exist. Unfortunately for our game, Tim set up as though he were getting married the next day. His defense was a primer on "What Not to Do" with its two major flaws: tall infantry stacks and T-44s so close you could almost touch them. On his behalf, Tim, of course, _was_ getting married the next day, and usually sets up much better than he did. When we play again, I'm sure he'll have a more thoughtful defense planned if he's the Russians. In a hunt-your-opponent-down-like-a-dog scenario, like "Acts of Defiance," it is crucial for the defender to dilute the attacker's firepower by dispersing his units and gaining concealment whenever possible. This increases the amount of time needed to break, eliminate, or capture the defending units hopefully to the point where the attacker is unable to accomplish his goal within the time allotted in the scenario. Tim seemed to rely too heavily on the four OB-granted concealment counters as his only means of concealing his on-board units and chose to use them to conceal four stacks of units all of which began the scenario in LOS of the Germans. If the defender receives enough OB-granted concealment counters to use on front-line units, as he does in this scenario, they should be used to conceal just enough solitary units capable of interdicting the attacker's initial advance long enough to rout back to a waiting leader. These units will benefit from their concealed status and, at least in this scenario, the defensive advantages of stone buildings despite beginning the scenario within the enemy's LOS. After establishing a concealed front line, the rest of the OB then has the luxury of beginning the game behind the lines and out of LOS (and _LOF_) so as to gain concealment before Turn 1. This effectively increases your concealment allocation and obviates placing critical assets in the line-of-fire too early in the game merely for the sake of setting up under concealment counters. In subsequent turns, particularly in the city, these concealed reserve units may be repositioned to meet enemy advances while maintaining their concealment until the defender decides it's time to reveal his units. This error, although serious, can be corrected as early as the defender's half of Turn 1 by moving off the front line--provided the attacker does not strip the concealment of your ranking leader's stack and shred the entire lot with Prep Fire in the first half of the turn. Given the relatively short duration of this scenario, the German player probably will not be able to allocate too many units for taking Turn 1 Prep Fire attacks at concealed units in stone buildings. This was the case in our game where I felt it to be more valuable to maneuver than to take shots that were not likely to do much, if any, damage. So on this count, Tim was free to correct his initial mistake. Tim's second mistake was more costly. He placed his T-44s in 20DD7 (no problem with this one, no one can see it at the start of the game), 20Y3 (problem), and 20BB2 (big problem). For infantry versus armor situations during 1945, was a more glorious device ever created than the Panzerfaust? I started two squads behind the wall in 21BB9, three hexes away, for the expressed purpose of firing PFs at the T-44 in 20BB2 until they or it died. Although success for these attacks was improbable, the Germans certainly have enough PFs to waste--beside, the thought of knocking out a T- 44 with a PF was very appealing. The T-44 in 20Y3 was also at risk from two German half-squads with PSK in 21Y9. Again, these were low-odds attacks, but a hit was quite likely to damage the target. There is absolutely no reason to put these tanks in such precarious positions. Against infantry, tanks should generally park six hexes away and keep shooting until the target infantry runs away or dies. Against armor, it would have been foolhardy to trade shots against a hull-down opponent while in open ground yourself--especially when the enemies hits are more likely to kill your tank than yours are of killing his. The Russian armor must be used at a distance in this scenario if it is going to last. With the slight numerical advantage the on-board Russians will enjoy over the German armor, it would probably be wiser to position the Russian tanks to threaten positions to which the German is likely to move, rather than to engage in a macho, blow-for-blow brawl that favors the German AFVs. On the other side of the Russian set-up perimeter, a platoon of Pioneers with two Goliaths (although I had never used them before, I'll dispense with more "virgin" cracks :) ) set up in position to hamper the advance of the Russian reinforcements that enter on Turn 1. If the Germans start a Goliath in 23EE2, it can be driven onto the bridge in 23BB5 during Turn 1 without facing any enemy fire. The threat of the Goliath detonating with Russian units in its blast area (as well as a squad with a LMG in the stone building in 23BB3) will deter the Russian reinforcements from racing across that bridge and onto the German side of the canal. In fact, this _threat_ seemed more valuable than actually attempting to destroy the bridge on which the Goliath was moving. If a demolition attempt failed, the bridge would again be available for the Russian advance and the German would not have much with which to stop them. #3--The Larch. During Turn 1, the 9-1 leader attached to the Pioneers and a squad with a LMG double-timed to get into position in 23X1 to cover the other bridge over the canal. Maneuvering the other Goliath proved difficult given its six MFs and the cluttered city terrain. Perhaps if the game had gone longer than it did, I may have attempted to drive it to the other bridge, but this did not seem necessary. The last set-up consideration for the Germans was the Turn-1 entry of the JgdPz IV/70 and the StuPz IV. These two monsters should be able to enter and claim hull-down positions along the wall along the south edge of Board 21. Since the Germans are out-AFVed 5:2 (including the Russian reinforcements) and will need their AFVs for the whole scenario, I felt it necessary to use infantry smoke to cover the approaches of the two AFVs lest a stray shell knock-out one of them. A more aggressive commander may have eschewed the smoke and used the infantry in other ways, but I still vividly recall losing tanks to shots that "probably won't do anything to me" (e.g., Chris Farrell's ATR-wielding half-squad [was he pinned too?] turning my hull-down Pz IIIL into a two-level hinderance from seven hexes away in The Barrikady). As you'd expect given this introduction, the first shot of the German Prep Fire phase was a successful PF check (don't forget the -1 DRM for 1945!) followed by a DR of 3. One shot, one dead T-44. Although I wanted to follow that with a PSK kill of the other T-44, my two half-squads couldn't score a hit. Using smoke to cover my JgdPz's approach it eventually took a hull-down position in 21Y9 while the StuPz covered the 20AA3 building from its hull-down position in 21DD8. The infantry advanced toward and then into the Russian perimeter with few casualties--meanwhile the rabid Hitler Youth took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and never did make their way out of the subterranean maze. After the Russian reinforcements holed up in the 23Z6 building, The Pioneers tried to attack them with the Goliath that had been on the bridge. It was destroyed by the small arms fire of five 6-2-8s and a .50 calibre MG. So much for visions of my first successful Goliath detonation. During three turns we played, he lost four of his five AFVs to Panzerfausts and the other to Herr 9-2 in the JgdPz. The coup de grace came in the Russian half of Turn 3 when his OBA drifted into the hex containing three of his last five surviving units on Board 20, breaking them all. Clearly, this wasn't tournament-level play, but being ASL, it was fun and helped calm Tim's nerves. At first blush, "Acts of Defiance" appears to be a well-balanced (possibly _slightly_ pro- Russian), tight scenario. It has an interesting variety of toys, some of which are as much cosmetic as useful (Goliaths) and others that are downright frightening (all the AFVs, Russian OBA). If the German player is to clear the perimeter of Russian MMCs within six turns, he must work efficiently and take advantage of the terrain to cover his advance and should strive to preserve his armor. For the Russian, his troops must become expert practitioners of "Not Being Seen." Adios, Bill =============================================================================== Bill Jelinek Darn! I still don't have anything jelinek.1@osu.edu --OR-- in quotation marks between wjelinek@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu between my first and last names! =============================================================================== ----- From: NolanCluff@aol.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 14:43:24 EDT Subject: Pegasus Bridge just read Stephen Ambrose's (the author of Band of Brothers) account of the D-Day action at Pegasus Bridge. It was very interesting reading though I enjoyed Band of Brothers more. Has anyone attemped a scenerio about Pegasus Bridge. It seemed like it might be interesting though there may be too many variables to make it playable. ----- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 14:46 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Crest Status Question Hey guys, I have a question about something that has come up in one of my e-mail games. A hex contains both woods and a gully. A unit in the gully moves to crest status. Can that unit claim the +1 tem of the woods as well as the +2 for create status? A rule towards the beginning of chapter A says that all terrian TEM's are cummulative unless stated otherwise in the specific terrian feature rules. I reread the chapter B rules for woods and gullies and crest but didn't find and exclusion. What do y'all think? ------------- djsulivan@bbn.com ----- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 14:27:02 CDT From: Scott de Brestian Subject: Any opponents in Columbia, MO? Hello, I am looking for FTF opponents in Columbia, MO. Please reply to c647100@mizzou1.missouri.edu as I am not currently subscribing to this list. Thanks, Scott de Brestian ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 20:14:00 UTC Subject: Re: Crest Status Question Dan Sullivan writes: > [stuff deleted] > > A hex contains both woods and a gully. A unit in the gully moves to > crest status. Can that unit claim the +1 tem of the woods as well as > the +2 for create status? > > [more stuff deleted] B20.9 CREST STATUS: B20.91 ". . . Infantry in Crest status are considered entrenched . . ." B27 ENTRENCHMENTS B27.1 FOXHOLE: B27.3 ". . . foxhole TEM is not cumulative with that of other positive TEM in the same hex . . ." So, it would seem not. Bob S. ----- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 16:01:28 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: A25: St. Joost >Hello, > > I just finished reading "St. Joost in My Mind" in CH!. So I'm > reading it, and I'm thinking, "Crocodiles, a Canal-- waitaminute! I've > been there." So I dig through my scenarios and sure enough "Cold > Crocodiles" takes place in St. Joost. Hey Steve, this is Rex Martin's fault, as my original name for the scenario was simply "St. Joost". Of course "Cold Crocodiles" is a much better name aesthetically speaking, but at the all-too-high price of producing public confusion and, potentially, riots in the streets. > So then I'm reading, "Seargeant Todd's group crossed over the frozen > surface of the Krom Beck without drawing any fire, and took the two > southernmost buildings on the east side of the canal, which were > unoccupied." And I'm thinking, "Geez, why don't I ever think of doing > that when I'm the Brits in this?" > So what am I misunderstanding here? Am I missing something (an > Errata maybe), or is Joe's prose more fiction than he thinks? No, you are correct. The only way to cross the canal is on the bridge. >Does anyone else play that you can cross the canal without the bridge in this >>scenario? If so, they will have to be shot! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 23:40:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: The Light at the End of the Tunnel My brothers (and sisters, if any), There is hope for the hobby. I just came back from a local con which was typical of the average con I've heard of lately. Enough M:tG players to conduct a Human Wave, a small horde of RPGers, the Battle-tech crew - and about a half-dozen actual board-gamers of various affiliations. Deciding to be part of the solution, I offer to run an ASL game on Saturday evening. I'm re-working "Sweep for the Bordj Tuom Bridge" in ASL terms, so I figure I'll trty it out - the original was a lot of fun and it can handle four players well. By the time I need to set-up, I'm feeling mediocre about this con. I did win 1 of 2 Hacker games I played Friday, and scored a couple of SPI games for a grand total of $8 (would you believe a couple went unsold, and I could have had another for $7), but I'd had my butt kicked badly in a Johnny Reb game that afternoon. Other than Talisman, I hadn't seen another game played on a board yet. And no one had signed up to play mine. Gamely, I set up my boards and began pulling counters. Two younger (12-14, I guess) attendees at the next table came up to me. "Are you going to run something here? We're bored, and this looks coll." I had seen them playing some Civil War miniatures earlier, and already had them pegged as being several steps ahead of their peers. "Sure," I replied. "Come back around 8 and I'll be ready." A little while later they came by again. "We're just going to get some food, please don't start until we get back, OK?" "No problem!" I reply. They get back, I finish, and I begin explaining the fundamentals to them. They pick it up quickly, but we don't have long- they have to go around 9. I whip out Le Manior, as no one else has showed any interest. They soak the game up like a sponge. Turns out one of them has played SL, and they co-wrote the rules for the Civil War minis they were playing earlier. We only get through one game turn, but their appetites have been whetted. I told them how to get in touch with me, and they're interested in playing some more - they even live nearby. 14 year olds designing a miniatures game? And seeking out a real wargame in the Nintendo age? I had a grin from ear-to ear as I packed up. Just by pulling out the game and being willing to explain it may have picked up tow new players. Sorry if anyone considers this a waste of bnadwidth, but it was damned good to see people who are now the age I was when I started playing SL eager to get into a "real" wargame. Moral of the story: any con I can get to, I'm going to run some ASL if no one else is. I don't claim to be an expert, or that great a player, but if I'm going to gripe about a lack of boardgaming then I've got the energy to do something about it. Thanks for hearing me vent. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Subject: Crest Status Question From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 23:40:00 -0640 Howdy, Dan Sullivan writes: > A hex contains both woods and a gully. A unit in the gully > moves to crest status. Can that unit claim the +1 tem of > the woods as well as the +2 for create status? > > A rule towards the beginning of chapter A says that all > terrian TEM's are cummulative unless stated otherwise in > the specific terrian feature rules. I reread the chapter B > rules for woods and gullies and crest but didn't find and > exclusion. What do y'all think? I suspect that this man not be what is intended. The unit is "considered entrenched." There isn't an explicit rule on the effects of being entrenched, only on being in a foxhole or a trench, but none of the entrenchment TEMs are cumulative with the terrain TEM (except airburst). Since the only two entrenchments are foxholes and trenches (according to B27.0), I would carry over that effect to crest status as well. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 22:57:07 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Pegasus Bridge Nolan said: > just read Stephen Ambrose's (the author of Band of Brothers) > account of the D-Day action at Pegasus Bridge. It was very > interesting reading though I enjoyed Band of Brothers more. Has > anyone attemped a scenerio about Pegasus Bridge. It seemed like it > might be interesting though there may be too many variables to make > it playable. Scenario G11, from General 26.5, is called Pegasus Bridge. It's tiny. 9 British 458 squads and assorted toys in 5 big-ol' gliders, at night. 5 second-line German squads are supposed to stop them, with the help of a 1+3+5 pillbox and a trench and some wire and full HIP. Too small, but at least it's got gliders. Looks like a good one to try at a tourney when you feel like going to bed soon. Dave Ripton ----- From: jkemppi@phoenix.oulu.fi (Janne Kemppi) Subject: RoPeCon 94 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 10:01:20 +0300 (EET DST) RoPeCon 94 in finland was finally over. This Roleplaying Con was first in Finland and Strategy games were not there. There were also only few board games..mainly Games Workshop WH:40000 etc. I happened to see Imperium by GDW too. Thoughts that spring to my mind were total lack of strategy games. RoPeCon is going to happen again next year...and I shall be there with both ASL and Harpoon and I hope that many other players in Finland (especially in Helsinki area) will be there. Janne Kemppi ----- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 12:00:11 +0930 GMT From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: To pay the ultimate price. > > This is a off topic, but I'm wondering what medals various > > nationalities award to an infantryman for going above and beyond the call of > > duty. The countries I'm most interested in are: > > > > Germany: Circa. 1941 it was the Iron Cross of various degree. > > Isn't there a Pour l'Merite for the Germans? Is it only awarded to officers? Only during WW1. WW2 had Iron Cross 2nd class, Iron Cross 1st Class Knights Cross, Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves, Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves & Swords Knights Cross w/ Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds. Knights Cross with Golden Oakleaves/Swords and Diamonds (awarded once to Hand Rudel) There is also the German Cross (in Silver and Gold, Silver was the lower order but hardly ever awarded). > > > U.S.: In decending order; CMOH, Silver Star, Bronze Star > DSO(?), Navy Cross (there are actually some very good books at your local > library aboutthe plethora of American medals and for what they were awarded. > > > France: Couldn't tell you. > > Croix de Guerre! (no I'm not talking about the game module!) > I believe there are a couple of others but I can't think of them right now. There are several classes of Croix de Guerre. I know that much. > > > Britain: Victoria Cross ? I think so. > > St. or King George Medal? Was this awarded to civilians? The George Cross is the civilian equivalent of the VC. >DSO, DSC and > there's always KSB if you're a distinguished officer. > I don't think you can get the KCB for heroism. There is also the Military Medal (MM) as well. > > Canadia: Victoria Cross with some sort of a common wealth designation. > > South Africa: Another permutation of the VC ??? > > I believe that the British medals were distributed equally to all of the > commonwealth countries of the time - Australia, Canadia (sounds like > Arcadia?), India, Singapore, South Afrika, etc. Aussies might argue with > me here that they won more but I haven't seen the numbers (and neither > have many of them!) I thought Candians lived in Canada... Yes, British heroism medals were awarded throughout the CW countries without national distinctions. I don't know about winning more medals, but having a higher percentage of medals would not surprise me in the least. In fact all the other CW countries were better fighters on average than the Poms who were, for the most part, a bunch of wussy girl's blouses. -- Brad McMahon <> bjm@rommel.apana.org.au "The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov. ----- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 05:58:49 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: Trenches From: IN%"jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com" 28-AUG-1994 01:07:08.33 To: IN%"asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov" CC: Subj: Crest Status Question > A hex contains both woods and a gully. A unit in the gully > moves to crest status. Can that unit claim the +1 tem of > the woods as well as the +2 for creast status? > A rule towards the beginning of chapter A says that all > terrian TEM's are cummulative unless stated otherwise in > the specific terrian feature rules. I reread the chapter B > rules for woods and gullies and crest but didn't find and > exclusion. What do y'all think? I suspect that this man not be what is intended. The unit is "considered entrenched." There isn't an explicit rule on the effects of being entrenched, only on being in a foxhole or a trench, but none of the entrenchment TEMs are cumulative with the terrain TEM (except airburst). Since the only two entrenchments are foxholes and trenches (according to B27.0), I would carry over that effect to crest status as well. >>>>> As far as ASL is concerned being in foxholes in a tree line is no better than being entrenched in the open. Matter of fact, it is better (by the rules) to be in the open than in the trees because of the airburst rules. This IMO fails the basic reality check. AB can be done against INF units in the open as well as in woods using time dealy fuses. So given air bust munitions, it is still better to be in woods where the spotters LOS is limited and the folliage may still hamper schrapnell effectiveness. Additionaly i'd rather be entrenched in the woods against inf FP than in a wood building. A unit can disperse over a much greater area in an entrenched woods location. I'd argue that foxhole/entrenchment TEM should be cummulative with woods as it was is SL. ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Trenches Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 8:24:05 PDT MSAMUELS writes: > >>>>> As far as ASL is concerned being in foxholes in a tree > line is no better than being entrenched in the open. Matter > of fact, it is better (by the rules) to be in the open than > in the trees because of the airburst rules. Only true in one particular aspect! In others, putting the foxholes in woods is better (easier to enter/leave without getting shot up). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 15:05:12 CDT From: rahmie@anubis.network.com (Eric Rahmig) Subject: ASLRB - Chapter K "Training Manual" Hi all, I've been a lurker on the list for quite a while. I'm also a newbie to ASL, and have greatly enjoyed all the learned discussion about the game, rules, etc. I have yet to play a game of ASL since I'm still trying mightily to digest the rules. My question is this: is the training manual that comes with Paratrooper worth reading? I don't mind reading an extra 24 pages of stuff if it will help me get started. But if it won't be helpful, I'd rather concentrate on chapters A, B, C, and D. I used to play the SL back in high school (too many years ago!) so I do have some background in the concepts of ASL. Any questions, comments, cheers, or jeers welcome! +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Eric Rahmig : Network Systems Corporation | | eric.rahmig@network.com : 7600 Boone Avenue North | | rahmie@anubis.network.com : Mail Stop 033 | | (612) 424-1797 : Minneapolis, MN 55428 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ----- From: BArcher@aol.com Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 18:20:57 EDT Subject: Re: ASLRB - Chapter K "Traini... Don't read it, play it. That is set up the boards and work through the situations with Chap K. It helps with the basics like movement and LOS. It really does not take very long. Read A and B first. There is another learning aid in Annual '90 which is much more detailed, introducing specific rules. Bill ----- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 16:15:20 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: A25: St. Joost Speaking of said scenario, I'm about to start a pbem game of Cold Crocs. Any one have any comment or suggestions about it? Any good Brit or German strategies? We haven't picked sides yet, so I'm open to anything. The Record shows it as 22/22, but Mark Nixon wrote in the General that he thought it favored the British. Does any one else have any thought on its balance? Dave ----- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 19:50:59 -0400 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: Re: A25: St. Joost >Speaking of said scenario, I'm about to start a pbem game of Cold Crocs. >Any one have any comment or suggestions about it? Any good Brit or German >strategies? We haven't picked sides yet, so I'm open to anything. I think its fairly well balanced. It is a tough scenario with a lot of bloodshed. The thing I always see the German player do is set up the 88's in a building. This is a no-no since they are too big. I like to get to the point where I can park a tank on the bridge to keep the JgdPz IVs penned into the other side of the canal. BTW, the bridge is the only place to cross the canal regardless of what was said in the CH article. I do like to try and run a British squad over on the other side of the bridge to snatch the buildings that are over there since vehicles can't Control a building, they should not be in jeopardy of being recaptured. On the German side, I think they need to keep up the pressure inflicting damage when and where they can. Not much other insight at this point. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | Sixteen empty missile tubes; | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | a mushroom cloud; and now | | Carl Fago State College, PA | its Miller time! | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 00:27:00 UTC Subject: Soviet Medals Steve Peterson's questions on military decorations are better left to a more specialized topic due to their complexity. One response echoed confusion as to which was the most important Soviet decoration. One must distinguish between orders and medals, particularly with foreign nations. Highest Soviet Decoration - Order of Lenin (1930) Highest Military Decoration - Order of Victory (1943) Highest Distinction - Hero of the Soviet Union (1934) conferred with the Gold Star Medal ...BTW, eight were given to Soviet citizens with my last name. Most Respected Medal - "For Gallantry" (Za otvagu) (1938) Most Respected Soldiers Decoration - Order of Glory (1943) I would be happy to discuss Russian medals off line. I bought a number of minor decorations on the black market in 1991 while in the USSR on a military history tour. However, without the decoration certificate, they have little value. ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 00:27:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Re: A25: St. Joost On Sun, 28 Aug 1994, Carl D. Fago wrote: > >Speaking of said scenario, I'm about to start a pbem game of Cold Crocs. > >Any one have any comment or suggestions about it? Any good Brit or German > >strategies? We haven't picked sides yet, so I'm open to anything. > > The thing I always see the German player do is set up the 88's in a building. > This is a no-no since they are too big. > The other thing prevelant in this scenario is the attempt to use the orchard road along the canal to set up the 88s hidden. Another no-no as the paved road prevents EMPLACEMENT, and thus hidden initial. > I like to get to the point where I can park a tank on the bridge to keep the > JgdPz IVs > penned into the other side of the canal. BTW, the bridge is the only place > to cross > the canal regardless of what was said in the CH article. > > I do like to try and run a British squad over on the other side of the > bridge to snatch > the buildings that are over there since vehicles can't Control a building, > they should > not be in jeopardy of being recaptured. > > On the German side, I think they need to keep up the pressure inflicting > damage when > and where they can. Not much other insight at this point. In the ten or so playings I have had of this one I have found the exact opposite. I find this pro-British as well because the German always trys to defend to far forward. If you are going to play this as the German and win, delay the British with a fallback defense through the board 24 village, and defend to the death the cluster of buildings/rowhouses on 23 near the number (can't remember which way is N). If the German attempts to stand and fight he will lose. The British are too easily able to use there artillery and advantage of concentration at a focal point to wear down the Germans. The German needs to be on his side of the Q10 road on 24 by the time the Crocodiles come on. Either this, or strategically well placed, and lucky, 88s. If the 88s don't get at least one of the Crocodiles the Germans are fried!! (Pun intended) A very near great scenario, one of the best, and extremely multi-playable. I would play anyone if I got the British, but don't mind playing the Germans either. Darren Gour ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:56:48 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: some comments John Appel wrote about some youngsters he introduced to ASL: > > Sorry if anyone considers this a waste of bnadwidth, but it was > damned good to see people who are now the age I was when I started > playing SL eager to get into a "real" wargame. > I apprechiate this letter, and don't think its a waste neither of bnawidth nor bandwith :-) Actually I misread the heading as 'There is no hope for the hobby', and expected the normal 'evereyone plays RPG or M:TG or computer games'-whining. It was nice to read a positive article about the future of boardgaming. Regarding the ongoing discussion about BSL, I've got a Game catalogue from Avalon Hill with an ad for coming computer games. Among these is Computer SL, with the SL box as illustration. Surely this implies that this is computer Squad Leader and not a totally different game. BTW, Don't laugh of my trailer, or I might come and cut off your head. What would you say then? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:58:15 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Prisoners Q's Klas Malmstrom writes: > > 1. Can a broken Guard abanddon their prisoners before > or during their rout ? > > A20.53 stated the following " . . . Prisoners do not > rout while guarded unless their Guard routs - in which > case they accompany the Guard. Guards abandon their pri- > soners onlt by choice and only by leaving those prisoners > behind as they exit a hex. . . ." > This was difficult... A20.5 says "...The captor becomes the Guard until releaved of the task during any friendly RPh/APh in which the prisoners ...are either transferred above another guarding unit in the same manner as a SW(4.431) or abandoned" This implies that the transfer is handled like the transfer of SW (but the gurads may do other tasks in the RPh too). With this in mind, I would say NO, a broken Guard cannot abandon their prisoners before or during their rout, in the same manner as a broken squad cannot abandon a SW they can carry. This is not explicit in the rules however, so a question to TAHGC would be appropriate. > 2. A20.55 ESCAPE > > Assume the following situation: > > A broken half-squad guard and a prisoner leader have routed > during the rout phase. During the APh a Good Order squad (of > the same side as the broken Guard) enters the same hex. > > Now assume that the leader wishes to attack its Guard in the > CCPh and takes the required NTC to do so. > > If the leader fails its NTC can the Good Order squad still > attack him during Close Combat ? > NO (reason below) > If the leader choses not to attack its Guard (thus doesn't > try to pass thre NTC) can the Good Order squad still attack > him during Close Combat ? > > NO (reason below) This is IMHO easier. First, A20.4 says "only (some unit types) - if not in Melee may eliminate an unarmored unit not in the act of escape. They do so in their Fire Phase..." This means that to be allowed to attack the prisoner in CC, the attacker must be in Melee or the prisoner must be in the act of escape. To be in the act of escape is not defined, but I think it means to have _passed_ the required NTC. A prisoner that fails the NTC is not in the act of escape - it may know that it should try to escape, but doesn't dear to try. To back me up, I have the A20.55 example where there are a broken guard, three prisoner squads and a squad friendly to the Guard. The three prisoners try their NTC and two makes it, but the third fails it. The squad may attack one or both of the escaping squads, but "The non- participating prisoner squad is not involved at all and remains under control of the Guard". I.e., even though it has tried the NTC, it cannot be attacked. BTW, A20.55 says that "Once a Melee exists within the _hex_, prisoners may during the CCPh attack without passing a NTC". This is another of the several places where the ASLRB says hex but mean Location, IMO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 11:08:09 --100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Devilish Defenses... Another question I have seen no responses to: Dave Rosner writes: > > Just curious about how the mechanics of this defense would work: > > Assume Red Barricades, I am the Russian, I have an HIP Squad in a > (unbeknownst to the German player) fortified and MINED exterior > factory hex... > > German squad decides,"gee there's an empty hex that looks like a good place > to break into the factory with" and moves (or even assaults into it...) > > does he take the minefield attack if I don't reveal the HIP unit to throw him > back?? and what if he does take the attack and suffers a PIN?? > > regardless, if I do reveal, I am gonna hose his butt with FFMO/FFNAM > pointblank fire... > > > any thoughts?? > > Dave Rosner in L.A.... > > First, You have to reveal the HIP unit (unless) he uses Bypass. If he uses Bypass he gets in and is attacked by the minefield. If he does not, you have to reveal your squad (HIP is no different from concealment in this case), and the attacker will be forced back. If the attacker is forced back, he is not attacked by the minefield: A12.15: "A unit forced back is not subject to attack (even by a minefield or FFE) during its brief period in the previously-concealed unit's Location" If he uses bypass and your don't reveal your squad, and the attacker becomes pinned by the minefiled (or another attack), he will be considered in the hex (the same Location as your HIP squad), and _all_ concealment in the Location will be lost as per A12.151. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 07:14:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Pegasus Bridge The estimable Mr. Ripton comments: > Subject: Re: Pegasus Bridge > Scenario G11, from General 26.5, is called Pegasus Bridge. It's tiny. > 9 British 458 squads and assorted toys in 5 big-ol' gliders, at night. > 5 second-line German squads are supposed to stop them, with the help > of a 1+3+5 pillbox and a trench and some wire and full HIP. > > Too small, but at least it's got gliders. Looks like a good one to > try at a tourney when you feel like going to bed soon. So, does anybody have a clue how the Brits can win this one? I played it a couple of weeks ago, and found it to be -well, boring. The Germans just kind of sit in their HIP positions and wait for the Brits that manage to survive the glider landings to stumble into them. Damn near impossible to win as the British, I say. Dade ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 09:38:14 CDT From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: paranoid crossfire Don't you guys just love those wonderful "Crossfire" articles, in which Nixon and Banozic rhetorically whip each other's butts? Perry Cocke posted their latest endeavor the other day, dealing with the scenario, Rockets' Red Glare. I set it up and walked through their suggestions. I found it interesting to get an insight into a top player's thought process about how to win a scenario. What I loved most are the comments along the lines of "I'll assault move my 10-2, stacked with 3 squads into the woods at W4. I'm not concerned by the 4+1 attack that the Germans can deliver, as this group should just shrug it off. Then I'll be able to clobber him with 20+1 after that." What makes it so fun is that it is just the exact opposite of how I think when planning my strategy. Mine would go more like "I greatly fear the 4+1 my guys would receive in W4, because I know my opponent will probably get ROF and roll a three. Then my guys will crumble, and he'll start dishing out 8+1s with considerable ROF. So I think I'll just stay out of LOS until the advance phase." So I guess that's one of the reasons why I'm not a top player. Matt "duck! incoming 1+2!" Shostak ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 11:21:43 -0500 (EST) From: WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Subject: Kurhaus Clash I'm getting set to play "Kurhaus Clash" solo as part of my ASL autodidactic project, and I was wondering what the wisdom is on the US setup. The SS have to cross a wide boulevard, but if the US wants to make them pay for that, the GIs need to set up what looks to me like too far forward. The somewhat unusual VCs (which seem to amount to: "Proceed to Board 16 and kill each other + take buildings"). The US also gets foxholes for everyone, and it seems like they'd like to get as many of those as posssible, since the Rout paths on Board 16 are so few. The Record seems to show this as pro-German, and I can see more US mistakes than good ideas. Any thoughts? Rusty witek@suvax1.stetson.edu ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 08:57:29 -0700 Subject: Re: paranoid crossfire Hi, Matt. On Aug 29, 9:38am, mbs@zycor.lgc.com wrote: > What makes it so fun is that it is just the exact opposite of how > I think when planning my strategy. > Mine would go more like "I greatly fear the 4+1 my guys would receive in W4, > because I know my opponent will probably get ROF and roll a three. Then my > guys will crumble, and he'll start dishing out 8+1s with considerable ROF. > So I think I'll just stay out of LOS until the advance phase." I know how you feel. I positively wince every time any of my -2 or better leaders have to take so much as an NMC. But, I don't know about Banozic. IMO, his arguments are never up to snuff for precisely these kinds of reasons. I think he's overly optimistic and I think Nixon pretty much clobbers his arguments. I don't know what happens when they actually play each other, but I'd be willing to bet that Nixon wins most often. I haven't gone through the Rocket's Red Glare discussion yet. But in the discussions they had about Probing Layforce and Holding the Rear, Nixon definitely seems to have the better strategies. Of course, it's all just my opinion, but Banozic seems a little out-gunned in these things. Dade > > So I guess that's one of the reasons why I'm not a top player. > > > Matt "duck! incoming 1+2!" Shostak > > >-- End of excerpt from mbs@zycor.lgc.com ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 12:14:04 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Crossfire The wimpier and less annoying Matt said: >What I loved most are the comments along the lines of >"I'll assault move my 10-2, stacked with 3 squads into the woods at W4. I'm >not concerned by the 4+1 attack that the Germans can deliver, as this group >should just shrug it off. Then I'll be able to clobber him with 20+1 after >that." I like these crossfire articles, except that I'd like to see a real Series Replay so much more. The word "cop-out" comes to mind... >What makes it so fun is that it is just the exact opposite of how >I think when planning my strategy. >Mine would go more like "I greatly fear the 4+1 my guys would receive in W4, >because I know my opponent will probably get ROF and roll a three. Then my >guys will crumble, and he'll start dishing out 8+1s with considerable ROF. >So I think I'll just stay out of LOS until the advance phase." This is why I enjoy last-turn charges so much. You don't think "I may die to an 8-3." You think "I at least have a mathematical chance of surviving this attack, and maybe I'll get HoB. Might as well, because his squad may cower so I can force it to FPF with the next squad or die in CC." >So I guess that's one of the reasons why I'm not a top player. I guess the reason I'm not a top player is that I _need_ way too many of those last-turn charges. And you never see those mentioned in the Crossfires, since each player hypothesizes that he'll have won by then. > Matt "duck! incoming 1+2!" Shostak Dave "12-2? Okay, if you're that brave in the face of my SAN" Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 12:25:08 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: Crossfire D'oh. Instead of sending the Nixon-Banozic Crossfire to my fellow editors at Backblast, I Mistakenly Released it to the list instead: Final 12 on my Posting TC--DRMs include +1 CX, +1 Klutz, +1 Inexperienced (on this new software). When I realized what I had done, I started looking into the Federal Witness Relocation Program; but my fellow editors assure me that they are ready to forgive and forget. At least it wasn't one of our freewheeling internal memos. But if I come up missing, you'll know why. Consider this a taste of things to come from Backblast. A free preview. Of course, in the 'zine we will have pretty pictures so you don't even have to break out your boards and counters in order to follow along. And we do want you to follow along, and to comment--as the annoying Matt Shostak has done. With that in mind, Matt, I'd like to ask your permission to include your message as either a Letter To The Editors or in a possible future Backblast article devoted to Crossfire comments. Plenty of other people lust after 4 (+1) shots on moving stacks, trust me. I do want to see a raging debate, but I guess I am hoping it waits till the 'zine is published. One last comment. Matt writes: >Don't you guys just love those wonderful "Crossfire" articles, in >which Nixon and Banozic rhetorically whip each other's butts? Well, I certainly do love them, and I am proud that this one is appearing in Backblast. Just as I am proud that this article is representative of the quality material we will be bringing your way. I still wish I hadn't mistakenly posted it, but if I had to screw up, this was the best way. ....Perry ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 14:39:03 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: Trenches Hi all: > > >>>>> As far as ASL is concerned being in foxholes in a tree > > line is no better than being entrenched in the open. Matter > > of fact, it is better (by the rules) to be in the open than > > in the trees because of the airburst rules. Well, consider that in woods, you can also gain _concealment_ and stay concealed if you move in; a _big_ advantage over open ground. And to address the airburst in open ground RE: time-delay fuses -- I know these kind of munitions are used today; were they available in WWII? Cheers, Dave ----- Subject: paranoid crossfire From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 16:41:00 -0640 Howdy, mbs@zycor.lgc.com writes: > What I loved most are the comments along the lines of "I'll > assault move my 10-2, stacked with 3 squads into the woods > at W4. I'm not concerned by the 4+1 attack that the > Germans can deliver, as this group should just shrug it > off. Then I'll be able to clobber him with 20+1 after > that." > > What makes it so fun is that it is just the exact opposite > of how I think when planning my strategy. Mine would go > more like "I greatly fear the 4+1 my guys would receive in > W4, because I know my opponent will probably get ROF and > roll a three. Then my guys will crumble, and he'll start > dishing out 8+1s with considerable ROF. So I think I'll > just stay out of LOS until the advance phase." One of the things I find most difficult is judging what is a foolhardy risk. My current theory can be summarized as, "Hey, they're only pieces of cardboard :-)" On the other hand, you can gain some idea of how risky a particular attack is using my IIFT analyst (available at an ftp site near you). A 4+1 attack on a 9 ML unit will produce the following results, assuming no cower: Fire Parameters Values Result Percent DRM 1 HoB 0.7716% FP (IIFT values only) 4 NE 86.4198% Cower (0,1,2) 0 Pin 5.9414% Target Morale 9 Broke 6.0957% CR (all) 0.7716% KIA 0.0000% Roughly 13% of the time your units won't have the benefit of the leadership modifier. If the leader has a 10 ML, this falls to roughly 7%. Even if the leader pins, there is still a fair chance the squads will come through ok. If the leader breaks, then there may be problems, but that happens only 1 time in 20. I would rate this as an acceptable risk if the leader and stack are clearing an important position, as they should be. BTW, the results for a 1+2 on a 10 ML are: Fire Parameters Values Result Percent DRM 2 HoB 0.0000% FP (IIFT values only) 1 NE 99.5370% Cower (0,1,2) 1 Pin 0.4630% Target Morale 10 Broke 0.0000% CR (all) 0.0000% KIA 0.0000% What, me worry? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 14:29:10 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: PacifiCon Yes there will be ASL at PacifiCon. I will be running it. It starts sat. morning (10 I think) and will run until mon. Unlike other games at the con ASL will be run similar to the way it is run at A-Con and the Open meaning that you can keep playing after losing a game. Fred Timm > > Looking for info on PacifiCon in San Mateo CA on Labor Day weekend. Any ASL > going on? Anyone ever been before etc? > > Nolan > (Sorry, no witty Post Script) > > ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 16:58:29 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Humor archive filling up Folks, Thanks to Bas, the "humor" subdirectory of the carlo.phys.uva.nl archive is filling up nicely. Good place to spend a few minutes on a coffee break. Tom ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 22:24:00 UTC Subject: Re: A25: St. Joost Carl sez: > The thing I always see the German player do is set up the 88's in a > building. > This is a no-no since they are too big. That's funny, I always see the German set one of the 88s up HIP in an orchard road hex near the bridge. This also is a no-no since only Emplaced Guns may be set up HIP and Guns may not be emplaced in a paved road. Steve ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 20:02:22 -0600 From: keithz@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) Subject: Tweezers not included (BSL) Hi. I'm Keith Zabalaoui, president of Atomic Games. A few people have been sending me nasty-grams about our upcoming product, Beyond Squad Leader. The tone of these letters has been, well, nasty. So, I'm posting this note in hopes of answering some of your questions and to dispel incorrect rumors. 1) BSL is not now and has never been touted as being computer (A)SL. The differences are manifold. The biggest difference is that BSL is (obviously) on the computer. BSL is continuous action - not phased turns. The basic unit in BSL is the team, which is composed of 4-5 men. In most cases, the player will direct the team and not single men. There will be up to 20 teams per side, plus AFVs and other vehicles. BSL features a campaign mode of play, wherein the player will keep his men and vehicles from scenario to scenario, if they survive. They will also improve from scenario to scenario. 2) The name of the game is Beyond Squad Leader. It is a name that Avalon Hill and Atomic agreed upon. The name will not change. We feel it is completely appropriate for the game since it goes BEYOND Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader in portraying small unit actions during WWII. 3) BSL is being developed exclusively by Atomic, with consultation and support of Avalon Hill. 4) At this time (August, 1994), we expect BSL to require a 486 or Pentium, 68040 or PowerPC, and at least 8mb in your machine. It will be SVGA only and may very well be CD-ROM only, but this is not yet decided. We plan to support Chicago and OS/2, but again, this is not yet decided. We also plan to support multi-machine play, but this is also not yet decided. 5) The current target release date is second quarter of '95. The game is about to enter Alpha (in-house) testing and we plan to begin Beta testing in December '94. I think that answers all the common questions. I'll be happy to answer other questions directly, but please do not ask me to repeat the above. - Keith PS - I do not subscribe to the ASL list (I'm on too many lists as it is!) So please reply via email. Thanks. __ Keith Zabalaoui _______________________________________ Atomic Games __ _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ keithz@atomic.com \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ ----- From: steve.katz@opm.gov Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 21:33:32 Subject: SCENARIOS/KIDS On the list of bad scenarios surely belongs Strangers in a Strange Land. Try to win that one as the Germans. Piercing the Peel is also pretty bad although that is secondhand opinion. I am glad to hear that some members of what I call Generation Nintendo are interested in ASL. Once someone takes the time to explain strategy games in a patient manner, kids that age and younger tend to see that they have much higher replay value than the video game du jour. AH is dead right in marketing games at the 10-15 crowd. Without them it is only a matter of time before we are members of Jurassic Park. --Steve ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 22:08:57 -0400 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: Re: Tweezers not included (BSL) >Hi. I'm Keith Zabalaoui, president of Atomic Games. First, let me say, thank you for the note. This is more than most companies would have done. > A few people have >been sending me nasty-grams about our upcoming product, Beyond Squad >Leader. The tone of these letters has been, well, nasty. Well, and I think I represent many of the list subscribers, I'm sorry of some of the letters where composed of flamage. The list is usually pretty tame, sometimes heated but not usually flaming. I think some of the feelings comes from the way AH has treated our beloved hobby. It has not been very kind and doesn't look to improve in the future. >1) BSL is not now and has never been touted as being computer (A)SL. Not having seen some of the computer gaming magazines, one of the rumours was that some issue or another lent credence to the belief that BSL was computer ASL in some fashion. I think that the connection between the names does tend to lend itself to the confusion. Beyond Squad Leader could mean taking the system and doing further improvements, namely introducing the computer aspect (some would not see this as an improvement and I would agree) rather than calling it something silly like Advanced Advanced Squad Leader or Really Advanced Squad Leader. Thus, intended or not, the connection will remain for some time. Though efforts like these will help the situation. > BSL is continuous action - not phased turns. Sounds like something akin to DOOM or Wolfenstein. Is this true? Will it require some sort of player agility? > BSL features a >campaign mode of play, wherein the player will keep his men and vehicles >from scenario to scenario, if they survive. They will also improve from >scenario to scenario. Will there be a DYO scenario system? > We feel it is >completely appropriate for the game since it goes BEYOND Squad Leader and >Advanced Squad Leader in portraying small unit actions during WWII. Sounds more like a Computer Up Front than anything else. Though, not being an Up Front player, I could be mistaken. Not that I'm asking to change the name, just that it is my feeling that the name problem will remain for sometime and will continue through product release as those who are not connected see the name, run to the store and see that it isn't what they expected. >3) BSL is being developed exclusively by Atomic, with consultation and >support of Avalon Hill. So, this is different than the other games, my understanding is that AH does game development and Atomic codes as appropriate. >4) At this time (August, 1994), we expect BSL to require a 486 or Pentium, >68040 or PowerPC, and at least 8mb in your machine. Please don't make it require a Pentium! > We also plan to support multi-machine play, but this is also not yet decided. So, this confirms something akin to DOOM in that it will _not_ be something that can be played by mail. >5) The current target release date is second quarter of '95. The game is >about to enter Alpha (in-house) testing and we plan to begin Beta testing >in December '94. I'd be interested in helping if your taking names. Thanks again for writing to us. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | Sixteen empty missile tubes; | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | a mushroom cloud; and now | | Carl Fago State College, PA | its Miller time! | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 22:04:55 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Slamming Stranger/Strange Land Steve Katz writes... >On the list of bad scenarios surely belongs Strangers in a Strange Land. Try to >win that one as the Germans. Piercing the Peel is also pretty bad although that >is secondhand opinion. I am glad to hear that some members of what I call C'mon Steve, put up your dukes. I've played, and won, with the Germans in Strangers in a Strange Land many times and have won. It is tough, the Germans need the balance although it is mighty weak. During the playtest I wish I'd have offered the following suggestion (I think I did but i'm not sure...) Turn 3 German Reinforcements: leader, 2x468, DC Turn 4 German Reinforcements: 2x468, lmg This should total up to the "real" reinforcements. IMO, that would make this scenario 50/50 or right close. 'course, IMO, it isn't that bad now... Brian ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 23:42:41 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Strangers in a Strange Land Brian said: > I've played, and won, with the Germans in Strangers in a Strange > Land many times and have won. It is tough, the Germans need the > balance although it is mighty weak. For those who believe in the Record: 75 Strangers in a Strange Land German: 12 French: 14 (46/54) Yep, it's on the Most Balanced List. Dave "And I've lost it with the French, dammit" Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: OVR and gully questions Here are some questions that caught me this weekend. 1) Situation: A squad in CREST status in an OG gully hex is about to be OVR by a KV1-M42. The OVR rules (D7.15) state specifically that the tank does not have to cross the Crest hexside during the attack. (a) Since Bypass movement is only allowed in woods and building hexes, where is the tank considered to be during the OVR? [The implication here is that bypass movement can be used in gully, hence, any obstacle hex.] (b) Say the tank ends its move in the hex but the OVR leaves it without MP to actually enter the gully. Now where is the tank? Does it have to expend the MPs to enter the gully (and risk immobilization due to ESB)? (c) As the tank is expending the MP to OVR it is attacked and immobilized. Its attack is halved. Where is the tank now? [I immobilized it with an AFV shot then Reaction-fire CCed it to kill it as an immobilized tank. *:-() Where is the wreck? 2) LOS problem with gullies: (I think it's just me....) Gullies are -1 depression hexes (as are sunken roads and water obstacles). Hexes A and B have a multi-hex 2-story building (ground, 1 and 2 levels). Hexes XYZ are part of a gully. A squad in A in the 2nd level clearly has LOS to XY and Z. What about a squad in the 2nd level of B? Can it see X? Y? Z? >----< >----< / \ / \ < A >----< > \ / \ / >----< >----< / \ / \ < B >----< X >----< \ / \ / \ >----< >----< Y >----< \ / \ / \ >----< >----< Z > \ / >----< 3) Are the hexes in which Pillboxes set up in considered clear terrain? The implication in B30.4 is that Pillboxes are in the terrain. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 23:31:19 -0600 From: keithz@atomic.com (Keith Zabalaoui) Subject: BSL is not DOOM Hey, guys. A couple of you have asked me if BSL will be like DOOM or X-COM. No and No. BSL is played as though you are suspended over the battlefield, looking straight down. All the vehicles are rendered, as are the men. But nothing about it is "cutesy". We have taken great pains to make everything look and feel correct. Everything is to scale, so that tanks and men are NOT the same size. All the vehicles were digitized from actual scale models. (We have special equipment for this.) Then the computerized models were rendered and given shadows, markings, camo, etc. The men have been modeled using software that allows us to choreograph all their motions. This means that mortar teams will look like mortar teams and so on. Its truly unlike anything we've ever seen. Compared to X-COM, there are more than just superficial differences. X-COM deals with one man at a time. You tell him what to wear, what to load, what to shoot, when to shoot, etc. Personally, I found it once I started moving more than about 5 men around. Can you imagine doing this for 100 men? YEOW! Instead, BSL focuses on teams of 4-5 men (usually). You will give them orders like "move here and cover this area". THEY will decide how to get there, if they should low-crawl or double time (or whatever), what to shoot, when to shoot, etc. The idea is not that you are every man on the field, rather you are the company commander. Also, we expand on the idea of Morale that was introduced in ASL. But we actually have a psych profile for each soldier, as well as a background. This work with a psych model that was developped for us by a combat psychiatrist. It takes into account elements such as fatigue, hunger, shelling, death of a comrade, death of an officer, and a whole lot more. When playing with the psych model turned on, your men will sometimes not obey your orders. Anyway, I hope this gives you all a better image of what we're working on. I will also be glad to accept some of you as testers when the time comes. I extend that offer now, to anyone who wants to test Stalingrad for us (Mac and PC). We'll start late this week and got for 7-8 weeks. Just let me know. Keith __ Keith Zabalaoui _______________________________________ Atomic Games __ _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ _/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ keithz@atomic.com \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \ ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Tebbe's Tigers The scenario that I posted to the list awhile back has some design flaws. I've done some playtesting and will post some changes to it shortly. If any of you have played it, please let me know and I'll incorporate your suggestions. Also got a chance to playtest another one that I think y'all are gonna like. I have to make a couple of changes to that and it'll be ready. Cheers, Jeff ----- From: Thomas Leedle Subject: Re: OVR and gully quest Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 8:31:47 MESZ Jeff writes: > 1) Situation: A squad in CREST status in an OG gully hex is > about to be OVR by a KV1-M42. The OVR rules (D7.15) state > specifically that the tank does not have to cross the Crest > hexside during the attack. (a) Since Bypass movement is > only allowed in woods and building hexes, where is the tank > considered to be during the OVR? > > [The implication here is that bypass movement can be used in > gully, hence, any obstacle hex.] IMO what is ment here is that the vehical does not have to cross the hex side on which the enemy unit(s) is crested in order to overrun them. i.e.: The vehical may enter the hex over another hex side while entering the hex. <---------------------------------------------------------------> Thom Leedle leed@wien.duropack.co.at Duropack Wellpappe Holding AG To the Victor, the Spoils of War Phone: +43(1)86-300-308 Fax: +43(1)86-300-316 ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 10:01:31 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Humor archive filling up Tom Repetti writes: > Thanks to Bas, the "humor" subdirectory of the carlo.phys.uva.nl > archive is filling up nicely. It is filling up thanks to Tom. I really should have called the directory "Repetti". Bas. ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 10:43:44 +0100 From: (Peter Nowak) Subject: Tactical Q. Hi all! I'm going to play my first scenario with ordnance and AFV tomorrow evening. It would be 'Lost Opportunities' (A17). Now the Question: As the American, what to do with the gun? As the German, what to do with the AFVs? Peter ========================================================================= Peter Nowak SIEMENS AG Austria Gudrunstr. 11, A-1100 Vienna E-Mail: peter.nowak@pc0064.gud.siemens.co.at Telephone: +43-1-60171/5893 ========================================================================= There are NO kangaroos in Austria ... ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 07:05:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Tweezers not included (BSL) It is this kind of reply or action that speaks VOLUMES for the dedication of a company to their consumer base. Three-Sixty did the same thing a few years back (sure, Harpoon had problems, but they sent registered users THREE version updates for FREE). Heck, back then the President of Three Sixty returned a phone call to me...just to answer some questions. Small company, big service. If Atomic is like that, they will build quite a loyal following.... Mandatory ASL topic: Mr. Zabalaoui, I don't suppose you play ASL??? I'm sure one of "us" would be happy to assist you if you care to learn! ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- From: Thomas Leedle Subject: Re: Resid FP question Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 13:50:20 MESZ Tom Repetti writes: (on 9 AUG 94) > > > \ X2 ------ Situation: cx838 enters woods hex W1 using bypass along > \B C / \ the AB hexside. A 247 in woods hex W1 first fires > X1 ######/ W2 \ with a 4(+1) shot since hexspine BC is a wall. The > / \ / shot misses, and 2 Resid is placed in W1. The cx838 has >___A/ W1 \D_____/ 4 MF remaining, and wants to both enter W1 and make a > \ / smoke attempt in W2. Question is, what are the Resid > W0 \______/ FP attack DRM's depending on which action the cx838 > /F E\ does first? If he goes for smoke first, does he get > / \ the wall TEM, or would he get hit by FFMO? - Tom > Situation: cx838 enters woods hex W1 using bypass along > the AB hexside. A 247 in woods hex W1 first fires 1) If th 8-3-8 is using bypass then if it is moving from w0 it will expent 1MF or if it is moving from X2 2MF as it must cross the wall. 2) If fired on at the X2-X1-W1 hex vertex by the 2-4-7 4(+1) the residual FP would be reduced 2 columns to the left for the +2 DRM caused by the wall leaving 1Resid.FP in W1. 3) The 8-3-8 is however still at the X2-X1-W1 vertex and when it expends 2MF to enter the woods location in W1, or if it continued bypass along the W0-W1 hex side it would be attacked by the 1Resid.FP in W1 with +0 DRM for W1 or -2 for bypass. 4) The 8-3-8 enters W1 where it should have been attacked by the 1Resid.FP +0(+1 woods -1 FFNAM). Then the 2-4-7 would have a chance of SFF 2(+0) and if they wished FPF 2(+0) because the 8-3-8 expended 2MF to enter the W1 location. 5) If the 8-3-8 has survived until now (this is the cream of Das Deutsche Volk) and expends 1MF to attemt to place smoke then IMHO it will not be attacked by the 1Resid.FP although the 2-4-7 could attack it again with SFF/FPF, which ever is appopreat. The 2nd Paragraph of A8.22 of the ASLRB states: ----------------------------------------------------- A unit can be attacked by Residual FP only once per Location [EXC: if, since that first Residual FP attack, the Redisual FP has increased in strength or the unit is subject to more-negative- DRM/less-positive-DRM (the writing with "-" is from the ASLRB), it will be attacked by that Residual FP upon further MF/MP expenditure]. ----------------------------------------------------- Since the Resid.FP has not increased nor has there been a change in the IFT(IIFT)DRM affecting the 8-3-8 IMHO it should not be attacked again by that Resid.FP. I hope this late reply is never the less appreceated. <---------------------------------------------------------------> Thom Leedle leed@wien.duropack.co.at Duropack Wellpappe Holding AG To the Victor, the Spoils of War Phone: +43(1)86-300-308 Fax: +43(1)86-300-316 ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 10:21:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: The ASL Widow Some advice as per your fine post re CH. That strange grin on your wife's face is an indication that it's a lost cause. She probably wouldn't like the "war" idea anyway. I tried that and my wife gave me the grin, too. If you don't have children, plan on playing at around twice a month. If you have children, you may have to give up for a few months (infants) then settle into a once a month routine. Anymore and you'll be pushing it with your wife and your kids will think you're strange :-) If you play on your honeymoon, I'd say you've got a "war bride." You'll probably get left at the gas station when you go to pay the bill. If you haven't already, you will learn to cut cute deals with said loved one. Things like, "Ah, honey, I know we said only a couple of hours but it was a close game. I'll make it up to you by making dinner, doing the dishes, _and_ bathing the kids." Then you think to yourself, "Shucks, I just gave away my whole hand...." Or deals like, "This Friday night, and I promise to take you out on Saturday. What, I'm never awake after an evening of ASL. Well, honey, you'll just have to inspire me. Oh, I'll have to inspire you ...." It's too late for us, the noose tightens. Jeff ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 10:39:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: ABS and Scenario Design I have some questions about the ABS, too. Does it work like this: G3: Sure Russian win. G2: Good Russian advantage. G1: Slight Russian advantage. G0: The German null bid. R0: The Russian null bid. R1: Slight German advantage. R2: Good German advantage. R3: Sure German win. What happens with the following bid? Me: R3 Bad guys: G0 It doesn't seem fair to give away victory when the bad guys have given a null bid. Yeah, I know, this is what Game Theory is all about. Some scenarios seem to lend themselves to subtle increases in balance provisions where you add a squad, then a leader, then a tank, or some such. But finally balanced games could easily be unbalanced by say making buildings stone, increasing SAN, or even just changing the bore of an ATG. I'm working on this problem now and since I don't have the balance rules and provisions, and haven't even played a scenario using ABS, I'm wondering what to do. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 09:01:53 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: OVR and gully questions > > Here are some questions that caught me this weekend. > > 1) Situation: A squad in CREST status in an OG gully hex is > about to be OVR by a KV1-M42. The OVR rules (D7.15) state > specifically that the tank does not have to cross the Crest > hexside during the attack. (a) Since Bypass movement is > only allowed in woods and building hexes, where is the tank > considered to be during the OVR? > > [The implication here is that bypass movement can be used in > gully, hence, any obstacle hex.] The tank can not use bypass to enter the hex. It must enter the gully. In fact bypass can not be used if using OVR (D7.13) > > (b) Say the tank ends its move in the hex but the OVR leaves > it without MP to actually enter the gully. Now where is the > tank? Does it have to expend the MPs to enter the gully > (and risk immobilization due to ESB)? This is not possible. If it does not have the MP to enter the gully and the extra MP to overrun then it can not OVR. > > (c) As the tank is expending the MP to OVR it is attacked > and immobilized. Its attack is halved. Where is the tank > now? [I immobilized it with an AFV shot then Reaction-fire > CCed it to kill it as an immobilized tank. *:-() Where is the wreck? In the gully just as if it was killed with non-reaction-fire. > > 2) LOS problem with gullies: (I think it's just me....) Gullies > are -1 depression hexes (as are sunken roads and water > obstacles). Hexes A and B have a multi-hex 2-story building > (ground, 1 and 2 levels). Hexes XYZ are part of a gully. A > squad in A in the 2nd level clearly has LOS to XY and Z. > What about a squad in the 2nd level of B? Can it see X? Y? > Z? Both A and B can see X and Y since the range is 2 or 3 hexes and the elevation difference is 3 levels. Either A or B can see into Z only if there LOS from Y into Z does not leave the gully depiction. This means that A can usually see Z unless there is a big jog where the gully crosses the Y/Z hexside. If the gully isvery wide B might be able to see into Z. > > > >----< >----< > / \ / \ > < A >----< > > \ / \ / > >----< >----< > / \ / \ > < B >----< X >----< > \ / \ / \ > >----< >----< Y >----< > \ / \ / \ > >----< >----< Z > > \ / > >----< > > 3) Are the hexes in which Pillboxes set up in considered clear > terrain? The implication in B30.4 is that Pillboxes are in > the terrain. No, the terrain is whatever else is in the hex. B30.4 says that is costs 1MF to enter or leave the pillbox from the hex it is in (like a foxhole). Fred > > Cheers, Jeff > > > > > ----- From: Thomas Leedle Subject: Re: Concealment loss Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 16:06:51 MESZ GORD REID writes: (Aug 10 '94 at 8:23 am) > Can a concealed unit advance from concealment terrain to behind a wall > in the APh and still retain his concealment counter even within an > enemies LOS? As long as all enemy LOS pass over that wall or someother LOS hinderence or obstical so that the hex behind the wall is not considered Open Ground. <---------------------------------------------------------------> Thom Leedle leed@wien.duropack.co.at Duropack Wellpappe Holding AG To the Victor, the Spoils of War Phone: +43(1)86-300-308 Fax: +43(1)86-300-316 ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 12:09:04 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: ABS Jeff wrote: >I have some questions about the ABS, too. Does it work like this: >G3: Sure Russian win. >G2: Good Russian advantage. >G1: Slight Russian advantage. >G0: The German null bid. >R0: The Russian null bid. >R1: Slight German advantage. >R2: Good German advantage. >R3: Sure German win. I hate to see the word "sure" about anything, since I've seen the Russians win Soldiers of Destruction (McGrath told me he likes the Russians, FWIW) and I've come within an eyelash of winning The Bushmasters with the Americans, without the balance. But, yeah, you should only bid 3 if you think one side has a severe advantage, and you really, really want that side, even with all you have to give up. >What happens with the following bid? Me: R3 Bad guys: G0 >It doesn't seem fair to give away victory when the bad guys have given a >null bid. Yeah, I know, this is what Game Theory is all about. I did that this weekend, with CH7: Prelude to Breakthrough. And lost. Though I would have lost with the US at 0; the Germans are better in this one than they look, and I double-red-carded the 105mm artillery to boot. I'm not used to deluxe boards or bocage, and overestimated my mobility and the amount of frontage I had available to exploit for a breakthrough. So I overbid. Still, it wasn't the HMG and SAN increase and armor leader that lost the scenario for me, and the game was decided on the mapboards, not at bidding time. Bad decisions to risk a tank near a possible PSk (boom!) and to spread my armor and infantry rather than forcing a battering ram up the only road, plus a stingy German defense, made the big difference. As they should. Luck was a secondary factor, and the balance hardly mattered. >Some scenarios seem to lend themselves to subtle increases in balance >provisions where you add a squad, then a leader, then a tank, or some >such. But finally balanced games could easily be unbalanced by say making >buildings stone, increasing SAN, or even just changing the bore of an ATG. Sure. But that's why you bid. You choose to give your opponents these advantages, and if you really don't want to do that you can always bid either side at 0. With the old system you don't have the option of categorically refusing to give up balance provisions like you do now. I don't think any of the suggestions you make would drastically unbalance a scenario (unless the change of ATG bore was from 37L to 88LL. :-> ) The kind of balance provision that unbalances a scenario is making a whole large victory building fortified, or adding a 9-2 or better leader, or dramatically raising or reducing VP requirements. Not too many scenarios do this kind of thing in my experience. And the ones that do are annoying. At least with three grades of balance there's a better chance of relegating the heavy sledgehammer stuff to level 3, where it shouldn't come up often. >I'm working on this problem now and since I don't have the balance rules >and provisions, and haven't even played a scenario using ABS, I'm >wondering what to do. Somebody should post the ABS rules on the ftp sites. I'll get around to it eventually if nobody else does. (Though I need to either paraphrase, or ask Fortenberry for permission to use the ASLUG blurb.) But it's simple. Just bid the side you want, at 0-3. The higher the number, the more you give up. If you bid opposite sides, you each play the side you want _at the level you bid_. If you bid the same side, the side who bid higher gets it, giving that handicap up, and the other side is played at 0. Same for a tie bid, except you roll a die or flip a coin to see who gets that side, as bid, and the other guy gets the other side at 0. Dave Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 09:36:23 +0800 From: chrisk@protocol.com (Chris Kessel) Subject: Game anyone? After having ASL gather dust on my shelf for the last year I finally got around to really reading the rules and getting excited about playing. I've played a few solitaire games to familiarize myself with the basics and now I'm ready to get fully clobbered :) Anyone up for a game? I'd really appreciate a living, breathing opponent. HIP sort of loses something in solitaire. I'd like to make it a ladder game to get myself going on the ladder, but non-ladder is fine. Now, fair warning, as a reasonably new player I'm likely to make more than a couple of rules errors so you'll probably have to allow for some corrections from time to time. I've got Beyond Valor and Paratrooper (and boards 1-4 from SL) so any scenario using those boards would be fine. Thanks, Chris chrisk@protocol.com ----- Subject: OVR and gully questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 11:33:00 -0640 Howdy, Jeff Shields writes: >1) Situation: A squad in CREST status in an OG gully hex is > about to be OVR by a KV1-M42. The OVR rules (D7.15) state > specifically that the tank does not have to cross the Crest > hexside during the attack. (a) Since Bypass movement is > only allowed in woods and building hexes, where is the tank > considered to be during the OVR? > [The implication here is that bypass movement can be used in > gully, hence, any obstacle hex.] Actually I think what is meant is that the vehicle does not need to "go" into the "crest Locations." It can OVR the squad while remaining IN the gully or crossing the other side of the stream. This intrepretation makes all the other questions moot. >2) LOS problem with gullies: (I think it's just me....) Gullies > are -1 depression hexes (as are sunken roads and water > obstacles). Hexes A and B have a multi-hex 2-story building > (ground, 1 and 2 levels). Hexes XYZ are part of a gully. A > squad in A in the 2nd level clearly has LOS to XY and Z. > What about a squad in the 2nd level of B? Can it see X? Y? > Z? > >----< >----< > / \ / \ > < A >----< > > \ / \ / > >----< >----< > / \ / \ > < B >----< X >----< > \ / \ / \ > >----< >----< Y >----< > \ / \ / \ > >----< J >----< Z > > \ / > >----< The rule is that the elevation advantage over the unit in the depression hex must be >= the range. A unit in A on the first level is two levels above a unit in X (at level -1), so the difference (= 2) >= the range (= 2). There is a second rule that says that the depression hexes continuously connected to the target in the depression don't count as part of the range [A6.3], so once a unit in Hex A can see into Hex X, it can also see into Y and Zed. The "continuous depression adjusted range" to these hexes is also two. (When performing LOS checks from different levels, BTW, it is not the stream or gully depiction that counts, but the whole hex.) A unit on level 1 in Hex A can see the entire X-Y-Z gully, as, of course, can a unit on level 2 in Hex A. A unit on the first level of Hex B can also see INTO Hex X, using the same logic. It can also see into Hex Y, because the LOS from Hex B to Hex Y runs through Hex X, which by the second rule doesn't count toward the range determination. The LOS from the first level of Hex B to Hex Z is probably blocked: I think the LOS goes through the hex I've labeled "J" on its way into Hex Y and then Hex Z. If it does (and you can string it out to see), then the range is 4 Hexes minus one for Hex Y (continuous depression) = 3 hexes which is > elevation advantage (=2). However, if the unit in B were on level 2, the elevation advantage would be >= the (continuous depression adjusted) range, and the LOS would exist. >3) Are the hexes in which Pillboxes set up in considered clear > terrain? The implication in B30.4 is that Pillboxes are in > the terrain. I don't understand this. The pillbox TEM is not cumulative with terrain TEM [B30.3]. The cost to enter the pillbox _from_its_own_hex_ or to exit the pillbox _into_the_ pillbox's_hex_ is one MF [B30.4]. None of this makes negates the other effects of the terrain in the pillbox hex. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Thomas Leedle Subject: Re: ASLRB - Chapter K "Training Manual" Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 19:20:24 MESZ Eric Rahmig writes: (at Aug 28, 94 3:05 pm) > ...... My question is this: is the training manual that comes > with Paratrooper worth reading? I don't mind reading an extra > 24 pages of stuff if it will help me get started. ............ It was a great help to me in learning ASL even after playing SL for quite some time. Also a very good tip is the "EIGHT STEPS TO ASL - A Programmed Instruction Approach" from Jim Stahler (thank you Jim) in the 90 ASL Annual. A friend and I went through the first 4 or 5 Lesson together and then winged it from there. It was a lot easier than trying to sort out which rules to learn first as a rank amature. Good luck and good gunning! <---------------------------------------------------------------> Thom Leedle leed@wien.duropack.co.at Duropack Wellpappe Holding AG To the Victor, the Spoils of War Phone: +43(1)86-300-308 Fax: +43(1)86-300-316 ----- From: Thomas Leedle Subject: Re: ABS and Scenario Design Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 18:25:08 MESZ Jeff Shields writes: (at Aug 30, 94 10:39 am) > I have some questions about the ABS, too. Does it work like this: I too have some questions about the ABS (I thought I only got this with a car). Being new to the ASLDL I'm not realy up to date. Is there maybe something to explain this to me (or someone) at one of the asl ftp sites? Thanks for any help in advance. Thom <---------------------------------------------------------------> Thom Leedle leed@wien.duropack.co.at Duropack Wellpappe Holding AG To the Victor, the Spoils of War Phone: +43(1)86-300-308 Fax: +43(1)86-300-316 ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 11:08:29 PDT In the midst of a game, a question has come up. First, the relevant rule: C5.11 ...Should they (turreted vehicles) elect to pivot their vehicular counter instead (of the turret) so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM apply to the first shot of ALL (emphasis mine) vehicular weapons (see also D3.51). Now, this ALL is disturbing. Say a vehicle with a turret mounted weapon fires it (which is already pointing in the proper direction) and then decides to change the VCA to fire a bow mounted weapon. Does the NT DRM then go back and apply to the first shot? If not, does that first shot PREVENT a VCA change since you can't go back and apply the DRM to it? My opinion is that the intent is all subsequent shots, but I can't find a rule to definitely back it up. What reading of this rule is correct? If possible, PLEASE give rule citations if another rule clears this up. I think rule C5.12 says no to the first question (though D3.51 will later modify it, D3.51 only applies to subsequent shots), but I can't find anything definite on the second. Thanks, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: Kampfgruppe Peiper I Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) I've been offered KPI unopened for $24. I'm trying to figure out if I should buy it. This is a historical module correct? Do you need an earlier HM (eg. Hedgerow Hell) for HM rules? What's the retail for KPI? What's the general consensus on this module? How are the scenarios? Can I ask any _more_ questions? :) Thanks. Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 12:10:22 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 > > In the midst of a game, a question has come up. > > First, the relevant rule: > > C5.11 ...Should they (turreted vehicles) elect to pivot their vehicular > counter instead (of the turret) so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM > apply to the first shot of ALL (emphasis mine) vehicular weapons (see also > D3.51). > > Now, this ALL is disturbing. Say a vehicle with a turret mounted weapon fires > it (which is already pointing in the proper direction) and then decides to > change the VCA to fire a bow mounted weapon. Does the NT DRM then go back and > apply to the first shot? If not, does that first shot PREVENT a VCA change > since you can't go back and apply the DRM to it? The NT DRM does not apply to the first shot. I can't find anything not allowing the VCA to change. > > My opinion is that the intent is all subsequent shots, but I can't find a rule > to definitely back it up. What reading of this rule is correct? If possible, > PLEASE give rule citations if another rule clears this up. I think rule C5.12 > says no to the first question (though D3.51 will later modify it, D3.51 only > applies to subsequent shots), but I can't find anything definite on the > second. The examples in D3.51 show that it effects only subsequent shots, but nowhere in the examples is a shot (other than AAMG) taken before the VCA is changed. Fred > > Thanks, > > -- > > -Doug Gibson > dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu > ----- From: kinney@neit.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 (Re:) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 13:20:57 MDT >C5.11 ...Should they (turreted vehicles) elect to pivot their vehicular >counter instead (of the turret) so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM >apply to the first shot of ALL (emphasis mine) vehicular weapons (see also >D3.51). > >Does the NT DRM then go back and apply to the first shot? Aaak!! What a nightmare interpretation! Of course, why stop there? Not only does the rule fail to say "subsequent," but it also mentions nothing about which game turn or even what vehicle to apply the DRM to! "Apply the NT DRM to the first shot of all vehicular weapons." I suppose you're supposed to go back and recalculate the effects of the first attack from each vehicular weapon, whenever that took place. Such retroactivity is too ugly to contemplate, but in principle no different from applying DRM to shots already taken by that vehicle during that turn. >Does that first shot PREVENT a VCA change since you can't go back and >apply the DRM to it? To reach this conclusion you must first assume that a VCA change requires a retroactive DRM, and then conclude that because a retroactive DRM is forbidden, the VCA change is disallowed. This is twisted logic. Here's an analogous argument: Rule book states the Road rate for CE vehicles is 1/2 MP. Therefore a vehicle which changes from BU to CE after moving on a road should get back the appropriate number of MP. Granting such MPs retroactively is clearly not allowed, however, so obviously it is forbidden to become CE after having moved on a road while BU. It's clearly wacko. Why assume an action has retroactive effects if you never allow the effects to be retroactive? If you take out the retroactivity of DRMs arising from VCA changes, that is the same as saying they affect subsequent shots only. >My opinion is that the intent is all subsequent shots The only sane interpretation, though I'd be surprised if this were spelled out in any particular rule if it's not in the one you cited. rk ----- From: kinney@neit.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Kampfgruppe Peiper I (Re:) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 13:34:03 MDT >What's the general consensus on this module? How are the scenarios? Can I ask >any _more_ questions? :) My particular consensus is that it's good fun, and I haven't even played the scenarios in it. I played the campaign game only once, and I'm glad I bought it, though I'd hope to play again. The terrain is sufficiently open to make for interesting armor engagements, and the flavor is markedly different from Red Barricades. I would only advise you to hesitate if you don't think you'll ever be able to organize a playing of the campaign game, since that's the real point of the module. Any KGP (or RB for that matter) campaign games going on out there? I like to hear those reports! rk ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 15:46:50 -0400 From: BJessup@prior.com (Brad Jessup) Subject: Re: Game anyone? > Anyone up for a game? I'd really appreciate a living, breathing > opponent. HIP sort of loses something in solitaire. I am a relative newbie on this list ( and to ASL ) and have noticed that not many people have .Sigs ( or whatever ) that say where they are from. All you list grognards probably know where each other is from but us newbies, desparate for enlightened guidance or crushing defeat :), would like to know. Just the city and state/country where you are from would be great. Or am I just missing some nice catalogue ( by ftp etc ) of everyone's address on the list? By the way, I am looking for FtF opponents in the Ottawa, Ontario, Canada area ( or Vancouver, since I will be moving there in a couple of months ). Thanks, Brad. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Brad Jessup | | | Gallium Software Inc. | "Whose game was empires | | 303 Moodie Drive | and whose stakes were thrones, | | Suite 4000 | whose table earth - whose dice | | Nepean, ON, Canada | were human bones." | | bjessup@gallium.com | - Lord Byron on Napoleon | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 15:54:57 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: KGP 1 >I've been offered KPI unopened for $24. I'm trying to figure out if I should >buy it. > >This is a historical module correct? Do you need an earlier HM (eg. Hedgerow >Hell) for HM rules? What's the retail for KPI? > >What's the general consensus on this module? How are the scenarios? Can I ask >any _more_ questions? :) > > Well, I think it's worth it just for the board, which is a great sheet to play on. No, you do not need any other historical module. I think it has been retailing for about twice what you have been offered. Yes it is a historical module, detailing the high water mark of Peiper's advance during the Battle of the Bulge operations (notice how both historical modules are about German high water marks?). regards davidb smith ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 19:48:47 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: RE: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 (Re:) Bret said: >What am I missing that allows you to shoot a turreted gun and then change VCA? >If a VCA change DRM must apply to the first shot of the turreted gun that >would seem to exclude the possibility of a later VCA change... You agree, I suppose, that you can fire a turreted gun and then change TCA. Or fire a non-vehicular Gun and then change CA. The "fixed CA" counters would be unnecessary if not for this ability. (Okay, okay, you use them for MG too.) So the interpretation you're saying is possible, based on clumsy wording in C5.11, depends on making VCA spins different from both TCA spins and Gun CA spins. That would be quite clumsy IMO, and not the intent of the rule. That clause is IMO telling you to apply the NT DRM for Case A rather than the T/ST DRM for the first shots taken with all vehicular weapons _after_ spinning VCA. Which is perfectly consistent with everything else. Note that C5.11 also points you to D3.51, where we learn that "the same principles also apply to bow-mounted weapons if changing the VCA to fire." So we have turreted weapons with spinning TCA, Guns changing CA, and NT vehicles changing CA all working in the same manner. I just can't see how a turreted weapon changing VCA would work in a totally different way than a NT weapon changing VCA. Plus you have the nice words "the same principles." I think we need to infer that "the same principles" apply in other cases, too. Clearly "first shot" means "first shot after this event." Nothing else makes a bit of sense. The ASLRB can't catch everything. >Maybe I'm just having a problem with the English language when applied to >C5.11 or reading to much into it? I think you're concentrating too much on one word, "first." It can obviously mean only one thing: the first shot after changing the CA. Not before it. And it certainly doesn't mean that you can't fire a turreted weapon, change VCA, and fire it again. (Assuming ROF or IF, of course.) Not when you can do that with a NT Gun, vehicular or not. If the writers of ASL wanted to do something that stupid, I think they'd at least spell out the prohibition. Dave "I hate paragraph i.4" Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 17:36:36 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 (Re:) kinney@neit.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) writes: >Doug Gibson wrote: >>C5.11 ...Should they (turreted vehicles) elect to pivot their vehicular >>counter instead (of the turret) so as to change their VCA, the NT To Hit DRM >>apply to the first shot of ALL (emphasis mine) vehicular weapons (see also >>D3.51). > >>Does that first shot PREVENT a VCA change since you can't go back and >>apply the DRM to it? > To reach this conclusion you must first assume that a VCA >change requires a retroactive DRM, and then conclude that because a >retroactive DRM is forbidden, the VCA change is disallowed. Why not just assume that if you want to change VCA sometime during the fire phase to take a shot you must do that first since it says the NT DRM applies to the FIRST shot of ALL vehicular weapons? I interpret the FIRST & ALL as saying if you intend to change VCA to fire, you have to do that first since it must apply to each shot any vehicle armament takes. What am I missing that allows you to shoot a turreted gun and then change VCA? If a VCA change DRM must apply to the first shot of the turreted gun that would seem to exclude the possibility of a later VCA change... Maybe I'm just having a problem with the English language when applied to C5.11 or reading to much into it? Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 20:20:07 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Two Fun Rules Questions Hi guys, I've got two questions that seem too basic not to already be in the Q&A file, but I couldn't find the answers: 1. Can a leader on foot direct the fire of an armored halftrack firing alone in his Location? How about if the armored halftrack is part of a FG with infantry on foot in the Location? Look around D6.64 and D6.65. I think the answer is yes with the FG and no if just with the halftrack, but that's inferring from the two similar situations in D6.65. (Passenger leader, and armor leader.) The next one is harder, IMO. 2. Can a non-mortar Gun which has fired on the infantry or vehicle target type and retained ROF then fire on the Area target type? I'd say yes, based on C3.33[89], but it's iffy. What does "consumes all of that Gun's ROF for that turn (excluding IF)" really mean? We've been here before, with dismantled SW. Can you fire a SW, retain rate, and then dm it? It's not "marked with a Prep Fire or First/Final Fire counter," so the answer is yes. But the dismantling "includes use of all ROF," so maybe not. My opinion here is that the more-clearly-spelled-out rule, "marked with a counter," (rather than "having fired previously that Player Turn," which they would have said if that's what they meant) is the one that matters. This means that "includes use of all ROF" means "precludes use of all _future_ ROF that phase." Because we don't have a counter to tell us that something fired and retained ROF, it may as well never have fired. [Except that if a unit fires a SW (only) in its PFPh, it's not marked with a Prep Fire counter if it retains ROF. (And if it doesn't, it's hard to figure out how to stack the counters, but that's another gripe.) But it surely can't move. So sometimes we do have to remember stuff. (Yep, the "it moved" counter and the "armored assault" counter again, but this is more germane to the question of ROF.)] Anyway, I think you can fire, retain ROF, and fire Area. What do you think? Is there a clear rule that I'm missing, or is it all interpretation again? Dave "And please don't bring that 82mm Russian mortar into it" Ripton ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 03:41:00 UTC Subject: ABS ftp Hi, > Somebody should post the ABS rules on the ftp sites. I don't know what an ftp site is, other than Brian sez I can't do it. So, here's something I found on the desk of the editor of an up and coming ASL mag. Hopefully someone can get it from here to that ftp thing. Many thanks to Dave Ripton for helping me figure out the ABS. Steve USING THE AUSTRALIAN BALANCE SYSTEM (ABS) Each scenario using the ABS will have eight levels of handicap bidding-- Axis 1-3, Allied 1-3, and level 0 (no handicap) for each side. These are _HANDICAPS_-- the higher the level, the more that side _GIVES UP_. To use the ABS, players may: Freely agree among themselves which side and at what handicap level(s) they will play, or Freely agree what handicap levels the Axis and Allied sides need to make the scenario balanced, and then dice to decide who plays which side at those levels, or Using the level 1 handicaps as Balance Provisions, follow the A26.5 procedure (note that the Axis handicap becomes the Allied Balance and vice versa), or Secretly bid on which side and at what handicap level they wish to play; the results of the bidding are as follows: If Players bid different sides, each plays the side and the handicap level bid. If both players bid the same side, the player bidding the higher handicap level plays the side and level he bid and the other player plays the opposite side at handicap level 0. If players bid the same side and handicap level, low DR plays the side and level he bid; high DR plays the other side at level 0. ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 8:52:36 +0100 From: (Peter Nowak) Subject: Spraying Fire Q. Hi to all! Is anybody out there, that can tell me if the following is correct? bE1 - 9-1, HMG/628, 527 spray fire vs D1 & C1 FP 17/4.5 | DRM +2/+1 | 3, 1 2MC/NMC ROF This occurs in a pbem game of 'Gurveys Headquarter'. I'm the German so the Russians doing this against at me. The modifiers are OK. Versus D1 this must be OK (halfed for Area, doubled for PBF) but vs C1 (range 2) it must be 8 FP (even more worse). Am I right? Are both squads, the 628 and the 527, capable of Spraying Fire (don't have this info handy at work)? Thanks in advance! Peter ========================================================================= Peter Nowak SIEMENS AG Austria Gudrunstr. 11, A-1100 Vienna E-Mail: peter.nowak@pc0064.gud.siemens.co.at Telephone: +43-1-60171/5893 ========================================================================= There are NO kangaroos in Austria ... ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:43:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: Re: Kampfgruppe Peiper I (Re:) On Tue, 30 Aug 1994, Rodney Kinney wrote: > Any KGP (or RB for that matter) campaign games going on out > there? I like to hear those reports! > Chuck and I've just completed the first date of a KGP CG I. Whew, what grueling experience. I know that I'm not a particularly fast player, but the pace of the CG for two players just seems glacial. We only finished the last half turn the last evening we played. With the Germans getting 160+ CVP and the Americans 60+, it was a highly one-sided affair. Unlike our experience with RB CG, where the excitement level was uniformly high throughout (even when one player is getting stomped), KGP just seems too large (sooooo many vehicles). The RePh rules seemed very strange. One 2nd line half squad left in a building led to about a dozen German units having to escape No Man's Land and several (empty) 1st level American strategic locations in the Sanatorium caused half a dozen others to escape (this when the Germans had reduced the total US infantry force to something like 5 squads). The density of counters in Stoumont and Roua got rather unmanageable in the second half of the game. All in all, I'm glad I bought the game. The mapboard is very cool and I enjoyed maneuvering units over terrain that really "feels" right. I like the slope rules, and the German and American units of the period are lotsa fun. I just think the CG plays twice as slow as its RB counterpart (of course, there are many fewer dates in KGP CGI than days is RB CG III). Given all of this, I will be very disappointed if KGP II doesn't get released. We ASL players want more choices! Tim Van Sant Kindling (in response to this message) is NA. ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 9:23:20 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: Question: VCA/TCA changes and C5.11 (Re:) Dave "Pop-O-Matic" Ripton writes: >You agree, I suppose, that you can fire a turreted gun and then change TCA. Assuming ROF or a CMG which still hasn't fired & in the right terrain, sure. >Or fire a non-vehicular Gun and then change CA. Again assuming ROF & terrain, sure. >So the interpretation you're saying is possible, based on clumsy wording >in C5.11, depends on making VCA spins different from both TCA spins and >Gun CA spins. That would be quite clumsy IMO, and not the intent of the >rule. That clause is IMO telling you to apply the NT DRM for Case A >rather than the T/ST DRM for the first shots taken with all vehicular >weapons _after_ spinning VCA. Which is perfectly consistent with >everything else. I agree that _after_ makes a ton more sense - my problem is the rule doesn't say that and I have trouble implying the "after spinning VCA"...If that's what they meant they should have written that or said NEXT rather than FIRST. >I think you're concentrating too much on one word, "first." It can >obviously mean only one thing: the first shot after changing the CA. >Not before it. And it certainly doesn't mean that you can't fire >a turreted weapon, change VCA, and fire it again. (Assuming ROF or >IF, of course.) Ah, maybe this is a point of confusion. Actually the case is for a Grant tank...The TCA is different from the VCA by 1. 37LL turret mounted gun fires at his acquired target in TCA & misses. Can the VCA be changed to fire the 75 along the same CA as the TCA? and what happens to the TCA? If you assume that VCA changes must apply to the "first" shot of all vehicular weapons then it would seem you have to change VCA and fire the 75 first and then fire the 37LL 2nd with a +4 DRM (+3 NT, +1 T) - if you assume "first" really equals "first after the VCA change" then the 75 can change and fire after the 37LL took his no mods shot. I guess the TCA would change 1 and have to be brought back to its acquired target and now the VCA by firing the CMG... > If the writers of ASL wanted to do something that stupid, I >think they'd at least spell out the prohibition. I think I can make the case they did spell out the prohibition by using "first" shot of all vehicular weapons rather than "next" or "first after VCA change". Maybe they just assumed no one would read it as bizarrely as I am and any sane person would assume first after VCA. I get the feeling that "first after VCA" is the correct or intended interpretation, and I'm just frustrated by their lack of actually writing that... Thanks for the feedback, I think it's helping clarify things for me...I'm just a slow learner at times :-) Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Subject: SPRAYING FIRE Q. From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:41:00 -0640 Howdy, (Peter Nowak) writes: > bE1 - 9-1, HMG/628, 527 spray fire > vs D1 & C1 FP 17/4.5 | DRM +2/+1 | 3, 1 2MC/NMC ROF > > The modifiers are OK. Versus D1 this must be OK (halfed for > Area, doubled for PBF) but vs C1 (range 2) it must be 8 FP > (even more worse). Am I right? > > Are both squads, the 628 and the 527, capable of Spraying > Fire (don't have this info handy at work)? Both are so capable. The FP should be 8.5, so I would guess your opponent just divided/typed wrong. What does he say? Nice use of Spraying Fire, BTW. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Broken in Melee Question Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 16:33:58 CETDST Hi, everyone Came across the following last night. >From the rule book: 11.16 BROKEN UNITS: A broken unit in the same Location with an enemy unit may be attacked in CC and is subject to a -2 DRM to the CC DR. Broken units may never attack, but still defend with their full (un- broken side) FP. Broken Infantry in Melee may not rout during the RtPh, but must attempt to Withdraw from Melee (11.2) unless Disrupted or guarding prisoners. Any other broken unit unable to withdraw from Melee is eliminated at the end of that CCPh for Failure to Rout. Broken units may withdraw into any Accessible hex unoccupied by enemy units, but once there normal rout rules apply in any subsequent RtPh. This rule states (line 4-6) that all broken units in Melee _must_ attempt to withdraw, unless they are guarding prisoners or they are Disrupted. Does one interpret this that broken units that are disrupted or guarding units cannot attempt to withdraw or just that they can but they don't have to ? Also what does the "Any other unit . . ." in line 6-7 mean. Is it referring to any other broken unit other than those that are dis- rupted or guarding prisoners ? If this is correct then can't broken units that are disrupted or guarding prisoners remain in melee without being eliminated for failure to rout ? It would seem so, but according to the following from the Q&A-file. Note that this is an "official" answer from the 92 Annual: A11.16 Does a Disrupted unit in Melee remain in Melee or is it eliminated for Failure to Rout? A. It is eliminated for Failure to Rout if still Disrupted and in Melee at the end of that CCPh. {92} So what about a broken guard, is it also eliminated for failure to rout ? Am I missing something here or is the Rulebook in conflict with an "official" answer ? Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:23:49 +0800 From: chrisk@protocol.com (Chris Kessel) Subject: Simple initial concealment rule I've read the initial concealment rule about units starting concealed and I'm a bit confused. Sorry if this has been clarified before (I did look in the FAQ though). I don't have my rulebook with me, but the rule seems to state that you do the following: 1) Player A sets up his units and scenario given ? may be placed at this time. 2) Player B sets up his units and again scenario given ? may be placed at this time. 3) Give ? to anyone that qualifies. My question is on phase 3. The problem is that it seems like your opponent will know information (the top counter at least) about all your stacks not covered with scenario given ? which doesn't seem quite right if some of those stacks are going to immediately be given concealment (and thus were never actually seen by any enemy units before the engagement). Thanks, Chris ----- From: Gord.Reid@aslnut.qleap.com (Gord Reid) Date: 31 Aug 94 07:55:14 -0800 Subject: question Peter, bE1 - 9-1, HMG/628, 527 spray fire vs D1 & C1 FP 17/4.5 | DRM +2/+1 | 3, 1 2MC/NMC ROF The modifiers are OK. Versus D1 this must be OK (halfed for Area, doubled for PBF) but vs C1 (range 2) it must be 8 FP (even more worse). Am I right? Yes, you are right. Are both squads, the 628 and the 527, capable of Spraying Fire (don't have this info handy at work)? Yes they can. gord ... ++++++ Hey Rocky, watch me pull a tagline outta my hat! --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 -- Fidonet: Gord Reid 1:340/30.107 Internet: Gord.Reid@aslnut.qleap.com Standard disclaimer -> goes here. Via Quantum Leap BBS Gateway Victoria B.C. Canada (604)595-4407 ----- From: Gord.Reid@aslnut.qleap.com (Gord Reid) Date: 31 Aug 94 07:55:08 -0800 Subject: ASL Widow Jeff and all, If you don't have children, plan on playing at around twice a month. If you have children, you may have to give up for a few months (infants) then settle into a once a month routine. Anymore and you'll be pushing it with your wife and your kids will think you're strange :-) If you play on your honeymoon, I'd say you've got a "war bride." You'll probably get left at the gas station when you go to pay the bill. Let me tell you about my ASL widow. My wife received her drivers licence before me and drove me from Toronto, Ontario to the very first ASLOK (350 miles) where I gunned and she went site seeing. Although she won't play she has read the rulebook, listens intently and shows interest when I rehash games. Because of my location I get to play FTF maybe twice a year and have never been denied the opportunity to gun when I can. (I live in a rural area of Southwestern Ontario about an 1.5 hour drive from Detroit) She makes up her own ASL rules like "if you have 3 squads in a hex they should have a LOS over a hedgerow for the simple reason that that many guys standing on each others shoulders should be able to see anything". On the odd occasion that I've had people over she will take the kids out so we won't be disturbed. All in all I think I'll keep her. gord ... Hey Worf, Watch me pull a Romulan outta my hat! --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 -- Fidonet: Gord Reid 1:340/30.107 Internet: Gord.Reid@aslnut.qleap.com Standard disclaimer -> goes here. Via Quantum Leap BBS Gateway Victoria B.C. Canada (604)595-4407 ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Simple initial concealment rule Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 17:50:11 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, > My question is on phase 3. The problem is that it seems like > your opponent will know information (the top counter at least) about > all your stacks not covered with scenario given ? which doesn't seem > quite right if some of those stacks are going to immediately be given > concealment (and thus were never actually seen by any enemy units before > the engagement). Annoying, but true: it actually works that way. You can make up house rules to the contrary, but AFAIK the "correct" way is to let your opponent inspect the top counter (only, remember that he hasn't got right of inspection!). This leads to weird stacking orders like putting your leaders in the bottom of stacks, etc. There is one exception to this, though. That is when one side enters play from offboard. Then you can conceal everyone before your opponent gets to look at the board. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 12:00:46 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Initial concealment Chris said: >1) Player A sets up his units and scenario given ? may be placed at >this time. >2) Player B sets up his units and again scenario given ? may be >placed at this time. >3) Give ? to anyone that qualifies. >My question is on phase 3. The problem is that it seems like >your opponent will know information (the top counter at least) about >all your stacks not covered with scenario given ? which doesn't seem >quite right if some of those stacks are going to immediately be given >concealment (and thus were never actually seen by any enemy units before >the engagement). Nope, you're doing it right. Except that if one player enters all his units from off-board, the other player gets to conceal everything up front without letting his opponent see the top counter of stacks. It's common practice to set up leaders beneath squads, and people occasionally put SW beneath their possessing squads (which requires making a dr to pick it up during the RPh, of course). A foxhole counter will also keep prying eyes away until your concealment counter grows, as will a vehicle. Dave Ripton ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:23:47 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Simple initial concealment rule > I've read the initial concealment rule about units starting concealed and I'm > a bit confused. Sorry if this has been clarified before (I did look in > the FAQ though). > > I don't have my rulebook with me, but the rule seems to state that you do > the following: > > 1) Player A sets up his units and scenario given ? may be placed at > this time. > 2) Player B sets up his units and again scenario given ? may be > placed at this time. > 3) Give ? to anyone that qualifies. > > My question is on phase 3. The problem is that it seems like > your opponent will know information (the top counter at least) about > all your stacks not covered with scenario given ? which doesn't seem > quite right if some of those stacks are going to immediately be given > concealment (and thus were never actually seen by any enemy units before > the engagement). This is correct assuming that player B has at lease some units setting up on board. If all of player B's units enter from off board do 3 before player B see the board. The problem with player A putting ? on his units before player B sets up is that player A doesn't know what units will qualify for ? placement (He may know of a few units, but usually some ? placement is dependent on where player B sets up). Just consider it good reconnaissance by the other player. One trick you can use is to give the HMG to a leader and put the squad on top of the stack and in the first RPh transfer the MG to the squad. At least he won't know what leader or MG is there even if he can guess that one is there. Fred > > Thanks, > Chris > > > > ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:23:37 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Q's: Elite Ammo usage, Street Fighting, & .Control Bob Oppen and I had a fun time playing PanzersMarsch last night. A few questions came up, as usual :-) How do you know when your troops are elite? Bob rolled just over his sN number once, prompting us to do a quick investigation. It's not clear to me if a squad should be marked with a first fire counter after a street fight. It says something like " After the attack, the units are marked with a first/final fire counter, as appropriate" Huh, what's considered appropriate :-) It's really CC, so is it fire? We decided that the squad should be marked with a first fire counter, effectively prohibiting him from making a second street fighting attempt. And lastly, when the VC are Hex control, instead of building control, can you claim control of a building and thereby gain control of all the hexes in the building? My russian right flank collapsed and he got to where he could control two 4 hex buildings, but couldn't enter all the hexes? Thanks for your help. Don Hancock ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:31:38 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Broken in Melee Question > > Hi, everyone > > Came across the following last night. > > >From the rule book: > > 11.16 BROKEN UNITS: A broken unit in the same Location with an enemy > unit may be attacked in CC and is subject to a -2 DRM to the CC DR. > Broken units may never attack, but still defend with their full (un- > broken side) FP. Broken Infantry in Melee may not rout during the RtPh, > but must attempt to Withdraw from Melee (11.2) unless Disrupted or > guarding prisoners. Any other broken unit unable to withdraw from > Melee is eliminated at the end of that CCPh for Failure to Rout. Broken > units may withdraw into any Accessible hex unoccupied by enemy units, but > once there normal rout rules apply in any subsequent RtPh. > > This rule states (line 4-6) that all broken units in Melee _must_ > attempt to withdraw, unless they are guarding prisoners or they > are Disrupted. Does one interpret this that broken units that are > disrupted or guarding units cannot attempt to withdraw or just that > they can but they don't have to ? Disrupted units are eliminated as per the Q&A. Guards may, but are not required to, withdraw from Melee. This is more for the situation when the prisoners are trying to escape. > > Also what does the "Any other unit . . ." in line 6-7 mean. Is it > referring to any other broken unit other than those that are dis- > rupted or guarding prisoners ? This is a catch-all in case some future rule has a broken unit in Melee yet the unit is unable to rout/withdraw for some reason. > > If this is correct then can't broken units that are disrupted or > guarding prisoners remain in melee without being eliminated for > failure to rout ? > > It would seem so, but according to the following from the Q&A-file. > Note that this is an "official" answer from the 92 Annual: > > A11.16 Does a Disrupted unit in Melee remain in Melee or is it > eliminated for Failure to Rout? > A. It is eliminated for Failure to Rout if still Disrupted and in > Melee at the end of that CCPh. {92} > > So what about a broken guard, is it also eliminated for failure to > rout ? No. Broken guards are allowed to remain in Melee. > > Am I missing something here or is the Rulebook in conflict with an > "official" answer ? > > Klas Malmstrom > > ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 09:59:39 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: "Re: ABS and Scenario Design" j> G3: Sure Russian win. j> G2: Good Russian advantage. j> G1: Slight Russian advantage. j> G0: The German null bid. j> R0: The Russian null bid. j> R1: Slight German advantage. j> R2: Good German advantage. j> R3: Sure German win. Yup, that's how it works allright. j> j> What happens with the following bid? Me: R3 Bad guys: j> G0 It doesn't seem fair to give away victory when the bad j> guys have given a null bid. Yeah, I know, this is what j> Game Theory is all about. I'd say one of you is way off the mark with such wildly different bids. Maybe try Risk instead :^) Seriously, bids are more usually like G1/G2 or R1/G0 or G1/G1. I've never seen one like the one you suggested. -Grant. ... 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Q's: Elite Ammo usage, Street Fighting, & .Control Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 10:03:33 PDT Don Hancock writes: > How do you know when your troops are elite? Bob rolled just over his > sN number once, prompting us to do a quick investigation. This one is covered in a Debriefing in one of the Annuals. I believe the answer is SS and Russian Guards are considered elite, otherwise only by SSR. The second question [deleted] I'm not absolutely sure about. > And lastly, when the VC are Hex control, instead of building control, > can you claim control of a building and thereby gain control of all the > hexes in the building? My russian right flank collapsed and he got to > where he could control two 4 hex buildings, but couldn't enter all the > hexes? Building control and hex control are two different issues, and there's no explicit connection in the rulebook, so the answer is no. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:15:03 AST Subject: Re: ASL Widow > > Jeff and all, > > If you don't have children, plan on playing at around twice a month. If > you have children, you may have to give up for a few months (infants) then > settle into a once a month routine. Anymore and you'll be pushing it with > your wife and your kids will think you're strange :-) If you play on your > honeymoon, I'd say you've got a "war bride." You'll probably get left at > the gas station when you go to pay the bill. I play every Sunday afternoon with the same fellow. Not much choice, before he showed up in this boondock (SW Nova Scotia), I was by myself. But this means a hard choice between football and/or auto racing and gaming > > Let me tell you about my ASL widow. > > My wife received her drivers licence before me and drove me from > Toronto, Ontario to the very first ASLOK (350 miles) where I gunned and she > went site seeing. > > Although she won't play she has read the rulebook, listens intently and > shows interest when I rehash games. Mine just pretends to be interested. > > Because of my location I get to play FTF maybe twice a year and have > never been denied the opportunity to gun when I can. (I live in a rural > area of Southwestern Ontario about an 1.5 hour drive from Detroit) Hey, In Detroit, don't they shoot real ammo while playing ASL?? That's the impression one gets listening to Detroit news on all those networks we get here. > She makes up her own ASL rules like "if you have 3 squads in a hex they > should have a LOS over a hedgerow for the simple reason that that many > guys standing on each others shoulders should be able to see anything". Quick ship a Q to the Hill, this might yet work > > On the odd occasion that I've had people over she will take the kids out > so we won't be disturbed. Now you're talking. I'll make that suggestion at dinner tonite. > > All in all I think I'll keep her. You should. My wife #2 used to bitch and bitch and bitch and rave... about my weird hobby. Now I'm having a real revenge, our 11 year old shows keen interest in the game and has started bugging his mum to buy him wargames. I don't even have to listen to her, I just put the phone down. And it's her nickel. Long distance and all. :) > > gord > > ... Hey Worf, Watch me pull a Romulan outta my hat! > --- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 > alain Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 10:18:05 -0700 From: robert@chem.UCSD.EDU (Robert D. Feinstein) Subject: Does AH have an attitude problem? Dear Fellow ASL netters I thought I'd plant a seed of discussion for all of us - after all, a few of the topics currently being discussed are chalking up over 100 Email messages, and might be getting a bid old. And, I promise, I am not going top bring up the "IFT vs IIFT" topic! ;-) A gentleman/ASL-player whose signature I never bothered to look at wrote: > I think some of the feelings comes from the way AH has treated our beloved > hobby. It has not been very kind and doesn't look to improve in the future. I would ____NEVER___ go out of my way to defend Avalon Hill. The people I've met (which are almost all of the ASL gurus) are good guys, but the company seems to have an ugly attitude towards its customers; especially ASLer. BUT... At the last Avaloncon, word was that ASL was being essentially turned over to the players, in so much that AH was handing most of the reins to the editor of ASLUG, Gary Fortenbery (sp?). I have met Gary, but I do not know him personally. However, he produces high quality ASL material, and AH being willing to give up _ANY_ control is a sign of times a'changing (IMHO). Furthermore, a fellow San Diegan, Don Petros, who was a member of our now dormant San Diego ASL Club (SDASLC), and who is famous for his INCREDABLE hand made ASL maps, is now "IN" with AH. They are having him consult on map design (according to my limited information), and he has provided them with a number of maps already (including the other half of Stalingrad, which was on display at Avaloncon for about 15 minutes). This is yet another indication that AH has given up the notion of ASL being a mother-load for them. After all, you can screw all the hard core ASL'ers all the time, but there are just not that many of us. One last word - AH may piss many of us off (myself included) - but the game designing core of people there are obviously not rich. I should be so lucky to manage a living doing something that is obviously a labor of love(/hate?) to me. They are dedicated to the sport. Has anyone out there dealt with Monarch Printing? Maybe there is where the trouble is? (not that I even know for sure that AH is still a subsidiary of MP - is it?) What does anyone else know about AH's current philosophy on the subject of ASL? I'd really like to hear about it from persons more knowledgeable than myself. Robert P.S. Kudos to the prez of Atomic Games - regardless of what BSL is or will be, he demonstrated consideration and professionalism to us in his posting. ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 19:14:15 +0200 From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: ladder opponent wanted Hi there, is there anyone willing to play yet another scenario? I m willing to tackle just about any scenario, heck, isn t even Red Rocket s Glare supposed to be balanced according to the preview of Back blast's Crossfire ? Just pick up one and let me know. Cheers, -Bruno ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 10:24:24 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Q's: Elite Ammo usage, Street Fighting, & .Control > Bob Oppen and I had a fun time playing PanzersMarsch last night. A few > questions came up, as usual :-) > > How do you know when your troops are elite? Bob rolled just over his > sN number once, prompting us to do a quick investigation. As per Q&A somewhere no units are elite unless specified in SSR or they are SS or Russian Guards. > > It's not clear to me if a squad should be marked with a first fire > counter after a street fight. It says something like " After the > attack, the units are marked with a first/final fire counter, as > appropriate" Huh, what's considered appropriate :-) It's really CC, > so is it fire? We decided that the squad should be marked with a first > fire counter, effectively prohibiting him from making a second street > fighting attempt. Street fighting is considered an attack and would be marked first fire (or final fire if it already used first fire.) > > And lastly, when the VC are Hex control, instead of building control, > can you claim control of a building and thereby gain control of all the > hexes in the building? My russian right flank collapsed and he got to > where he could control two 4 hex buildings, but couldn't enter all the > hexes? No, if the VC are hex control you must occupy the base level of each hex. Fred > > > Thanks for your help. > > Don Hancock > > > > ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: ABS and normal Balance Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 19:22:11 METDST With all this going on about balance I feel like throwing my view for the little it s worth. Wether ABS or simple balance, here how I like to play : agree beforehand with my partner as to what is a balanced game (taking into account scenario intrinsic balance and relative stregnth of the player). That s it. Say for instance we pick up a fairly balanced scenario and a player of my level (I believe it should be possible provided he s new enough to the hobby!) then why spoil the fun by having someone taking the balance? We both wanted the same side ? Well, we do a nice random selection but just do not take the balance. Does anybody out there use this system? -Bruno ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 13:38:58 +0059 (EDT) From: Robert Hammond Subject: ASL/SL BPV question I have recently picked up the 92 ASL Annual and am interested in converting the Commando campaign to an ASL format. The only snag I've hit is the BPV values. Are these the same for ASL as they are in SL? If not, is there any scaling or conversion factor available? Rob ============================================================================= "Chemists do not usually stutter. It would be awkward if they did, seeing that they have at times to get out such words as methylethylamylophenylium." -William Crookes, 1865 ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 01:30:22 EDT Subject: Spraying fire I had an excellent example of spray fire demonstrated on my human wave this last weekend. The Ruskies were adjacent to the bad guys and had just finished their movement. The bad guys sprayed me for 6 -3 (FFNAM, FFMO, leader) and disrupted the conscripts in both hexes. They melted.... Spray fire from squads can only be used at 3 or less hexes distance and within normal range by MGs. I think it works best when leader directed otherwise FP can be lost if you cower. The leader is a definite advantage if spraying with two squids because if they fire separately only one of their attacks will be directed. What are other good times to use Spray Fire? Cheers, Jeff Shields jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 10:22:54 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Street Fighting Hey gang, While cleaning out some old files, I realize I've asked this question before on the AGWAV list, but don't remember the response. Here it is again. I'm posting this to the main list as the AGWAV is over. >Here's some Russian DF: > >> MPh: > >> M3: JgdPz V start: 2,4 (OK) -> Start (1) >> -> VCA >O3 (3) >> -> N3 (4) >> -> O3 (5) >> -> P3 (7) >> -> Q3 (8) >> ESB for .5: 4,3 (OK) >Uh, oh. Only one thing to use that extra MP for... > >9-1, fan 328 in R3 make Street Fighting CC attack >No PAATC necessary for Fanatic (never got to do that before) >CCV: 3 + 1 =4, -1 ambush, -1 leader, +2 motion >Roll: 6,4 -> nope > > -> R3 (15.5) > BOG: 2,2 (No) > >9-1, fan 328 make another CC reaction fire attack as SFF >CCV: 4 Roll: 3,2 +1 (motion, leader) =6 -> no I'm a little confused here. A11.8 " ... Furthermore, any vehicle in such a road hex may be attacked with Reaction Fire (D7.2) by infantry on ground level of those buildings as their Defensive First Fire or Subsequent First Fire attack..." D7.21 "... After completing its attack, that DEFENDER ... marked with a CC counter, and also with a First or Final Fire counter as appropriate for that attack." D7.211 "... Street Fighting CC Reaction Fire may not be attempted by a unit that is ... already marked with a First/Final/Intensive/ No Fire counter. ..." I take this to mean that after the first attack, the 9-1, f328 would be marked by a First Fire counter, and the second attack would not be allowed. However, the A11.8 seems to allow SFF street fighting attacks. So which is right? Don Hancock ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 15:50:04 EDT From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Re: ASL Widow Hi Guys, My wife has almost no interest in ASL. However, during one dry period, with no players around for 6 months, she finally told me she was being driven crazy by my moping around, reading the ASLRB, and dreaming up new, and absurd, DYO scenarios. In a fit of pity, my wife let me teach her how to play "The Guards Counterattack". Son of a bitch, she beat me! Must be either beginners' luck or a great teacher. Doug Maston ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 16:00:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: ASL Widow > All in all I think I'll keep her. Keep her? Good God, man! You must clone her for all the single men on the list! ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 16:05:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: SL Mailing List: Interesting Quotes with Game References (fwd) This showed up on the SL list.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:45:12 MDT From: Eric Pass Subject: SL Mailing List: Interesting Quotes with Game References Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 09:39:37 +0200 (SAST) From: Kevin Pietersen To: epass@nyx.cs.du.edu Subject: Quotes QUOTES I few quotes I picked up on the Infantrymen and Tankmans experience to give a more dimension to the rules. I find it worthwhile to do when game-mechanics starts to push tactics and atmosphere out of my head. I do not know if this is wanted on the SL mail list but here it is (Eric you can decide). LEADERSHIP "One platoon led by Sergeant Harry Long, moved towards the top of the western hill but on the first rise Long was wounded and the Bren gunner beside him was killed. Deprived of leadership, the group hesitated and some of the men sat down." Canadians, Dieppe Raid, France, August 1942. FAILURE OF OFFICERS (8-0?) "Paralysed with fear I listened to a mortar-barrage sweep over the Company. Five Platoon's Brens opened up. Forcing myself to look over the parapet [of my slit-trench] I saw Mr Simmonds [,the platoon commander,] jump out of his trench. 'Six Platoon!' he yelled. 'Come to the help of your friends!' None of us moved. For a moment Mr Simmonds stood upright in a pelt of shrapnel, then he jumped back into his trench. Humphreys, who had dug himself a 'lean-to' trench, caught my eye. We grinned." Private Bowlby, British Army, Italy, 1944. SUCCESS OF OFFICERS (9-2 or Idiot?) "The Germans fired two shots. The Company went to ground as if it had been two hundred. Only Captain Kendall remained on his feet. A Spandau opened up. We clung to the ground as if it alone could save us. Captain Kendall walked slowly through the Company. 'Look at me,' he said quietly, 'They can't hit me. Look at me.' We looked. He might have been taking a stroll in the sun. The Germans didn't hit him. His courage hit us. We got to our feet." Private Bowlby, British Army, Italy, 1944 GREENS, BROKEN and RALLIED "Before I could move a step, the clatter of machine guns and the b-r-r-r-ip of burp guns sounded almost on top of us. The men on the rear line were only partly dug in, and they dove to the ground. These men were mostly replacements, and they were shocked and nearly paralysed by the suddenness and fierceness of their first action. Very few of them even attempted to fire back. Lieutenant Caldwell and I began firing our rifles and yelling at the men to start shooting. Then I told Caldwell to keep trying to get them to shoot while I went up to the front - actually back to the front - to get more men. Bullets cut through the branches and zipped all around me as I ran back. Every damned man I came upon was trying to hide in his foxhole or under a tree, making no attempt at all to fight back. I rousted a bunch of them out and got them to follow me, running as low as possible under the whizzing bullets. It was easy to tell where the Krauts were from all their firing, and a led the dozen or so of my men out to the side and killed a couple of them, wounded three and took a prisoner. A few managed to get away." 1st Lieutenant Wilson, 4th Infantry Division, Huertgen Forest, November 1944. SCOUTS, OBSERVORS and OBA "The patrol's mission was to investigate the trail which the map showed to run through the woods from a point almost between our location and the town occupied by the second platoon. Accomplishing the mission would probably be simple once the men had crossed the wide-open space to the woods line, but crossing that open space was the problem. The patrol would leave the next morning at four o'clock, thus providing darkness to reach the woods. I told Campbell to provide the squad with one 536 radio, and he would maintain an outpost in a small, round patch of firs between the town and the main woods with another 536 radio and the light machine guns to provide supporting fire, if necessary. Lieutenant Reed gave the patrol leader an overlay of artillery concentrations he had plotted by firing during the afternoon. It was almost daylight when I heard the first small-arms fire in the distance. 'The patrol has hit small-arms fire from the woods,' Campbell reported, 'but the enemy disappeared across a low rise, and I can't see them......My scouts were almost in the woods before the Krauts opened fire, and now all of them are pinned down in the open. One of the scouts is pretty badly wounded." .....(After three artillery concentrations 20 Germans surrendered). Captain Macdonald, US Army, May 1945, Czechoslovakia THE CHARGE and CC "We rushed madly up the hill, gaining courage with every yard, on the right someone was firing. The right platoon was going slowly, the left platoon going well and now half-way up the hill; the right platoon going again, more firing, a man hit - there are Japanese. Damn, I thought, having hoped they would all be killed or give in. Another hit to my right, the right platoon held up, a Japanese light machine-gun and grenades. The little Bastards. Someone firing back. The platoon sergeant of 6 Platoon, Davies, with blood on his shoulder and holding it. Suddenly finding myself looking at a Japanese just about to fire at me, ten yards off. Instinct - fire back; one dead Japanese soldier. Still on again, another Japanese, a grenade out and into his hole, explosion and groans, on again, bayonet - and now the platoons are moving again. In with the bayonet, shouting, and sticking a third Japanese in the chest. More shooting and no more Japanese to be seen." Major Hill, British Army, Late January 1945, Kabwet, Burma. HIP, CONCEALMENT or NOT? "A few days ago we carried out a reconnaissance patrol into the Russian zone. It was a beautiful clear day.....The Sturmfuhrer called me and pointed at something on the ridge....Clearly seen in the bright sunlight there were long black streaks across the snow; marks made by a machine gun which had been firing for a long time. Through the glasses I was then able to pick out a white cloth which covered a hole in the snow wall of a trench....Thanks to the slackness of one Red MG group the whole position, a trench system not marked on our maps, had been betrayed....." Norwegian NCO, SS Viking Division, Eastern Front. TACTICS "The Russian infantrymen was remarkable for the way in which they blended into the terrain and they could dig themselves in an amazingly short time......co-operation with the heavy weapons was lacking and one could sense the absence of flexible leadership......Russian battlefield discipline was most impressive. German patrols were allowed to penetrate Soviet lines and even to withdraw without having seen anything.....It was most important to remain alert against any type of infiltration because a Russian patrol driven off from our line would leave behind a small detachment which would remain concealed for days and be gradually reinforced until at a specified time and place a large body of enemy troops would emerge and cause havoc." General Max Simon, Waffen SS. BROKEN BY ARTILLERY "...quite a lot of the men had flung their guns away and were screaming at the tops of their voices, throwing off their equipment so that they could run faster. Others collapsed trembling and crying or were having spasms like epilepsy." Polish infantrymen in the Soviet army after being attacked with Nebelwerfers, 1942. "Then we heard another noise. It sounded as if the Germans were cranking up an enormous tin-lizzie. The rattle changed to a moan. The moan grew louder. We ducked into our trenches. I had time to notice the exact growth of my fear. It began in the calves, welled up through my loins and stomach, and finally struck home at the throat. As the moan changed to a deafening roar I think I screamed. A series of explosions shook the ground. Part of my parapet fell in. I let it lie on me. Bathed in sweat from head to toe I stared at the holes my fingers had clawed in the clay." Private Bowlby, British Army, Italy, 1944 after being attacked by Nebelwerfers. THE ROUT " 'This is Mac. My left flank is fallen back. I can't stop them. The Germans are overrunning my left platoon. I'll try build up another line along the fire break' There. I had said it. This was 'I' Company turning tail and running...I didn't give a damn....We reached the north-south firebreak...I ran up and down the line shouting 'We've got to hold 'em here! We've got to hold 'em here!' The men stared back at me unbelievingly...The Germans were upon us almost before we knew what was happening...Cowan began to spit machine-gun fire across the narrow firebreak, and I heard a German scream with pain.....Hails of enemy bullets thrashed the snow and fir trees around us...Great God! There was no one left but Cowan. The others had fallen back....I yelled to Cowan to withdraw....I turned and plunged through the thickly branches and little firs...I stumbled blindly through the brush, unheedful of the branches scratching my hands and face. My overshoes were slick, and I tripped and fell face downward in the snow. I rose again and stumbled blindly on." Captain MacDonald, US Army, The opening stages of the Battle of the Bulge, 1944. THE SURVIVAL ROLL "One of the tanks [Grant/Lee] recieved a direct hit at about 100 yards range from a [Japanese] 75mm and set on fire. The tank was burning fiercely and its ammunition was exploding everywhere. The crew were in the most shocking state. Right under our noses, they baled out one by one through the burning turret, each one more badly burnt than the last, and for some reason there were seven of them, which is more than the normal crew. I shall never forget watching them helplessly, as we all were: the first man had no hair and his clothes were half-burnt. It needs no language to describe the last man. They all died later in hospital - those who got that far." Major Hill, British Army, Mandalay, Burma, 1945. INFANTRY USING AN ATM (and it works!) "Crouching low I started towards the monster [T-34], pulled the detonator [on a ATM]....the outside of the tank was covered in concrete. My bomb would not stick....The Tank suddenly spun...so that is pointed straight at me....I fell straight into a partly dug slit trench. As the tank rolled over me....I reached up [and]....stuck the charge on the smooth, unpasted metal....barely had the tank passed over me than there was a loud explosion. Smoke poured out, then with a tremendous roar the vehicle burst into flames and blew up." Young German Grenadier, Autumn 1944. TACTICS "[German troops] concentrated on forcing the Russian infantry [accompanying the Russian tanks] to go to ground. Red Tanks would thereupon halt and open fire to cover the infantry digging in. If the armour [then] charged the German positions they offered good target[s] to the waiting [infantry] anti-tank units." Waffen SS General, Eastern Front. THE ATTACK, THE CLOSE COMBAT, CAPTURE SW "Up on the ridge the moonlight and in the shafts if silver light between the trees...they suddenly glimpsed large groups of Germans moving quietly towards them. In an instant the rustic moonlit ridge became and inferno. Jack Scarrat shouted a warning, a Spandua opened fire from the right followed by another from the left and three of our brens raked the trees in return. Then the German infantry, abandoning any attempt to conceal their approach, came trampling forward through the trees and grass. shouting and firing their Schmeissers. The Germans were led by an officer of remarkable courage who, ahead of all his men, dashed straight down the track towards our trenches, firing his Schmeisser and shouting to his men to kill the 'Swheinhunder Englander'. Miraculously he escaped being riddled by the first of our Vickers machine-guns, though he ran straight past its muzzle. Yelling and cursing, he dashed on. shot one of the crew of the second Vickers and, seizing the gun, dragged it down the track in an effort to position it to fire back at our trenches. But by then another of the Vickers crew had drawn his pistol and, all but placing the muzzle against the German officers head, shot him dead. Meanwhile, the remainder of the enemy infantry, uncertain, in the tumult and shifting light, of their commanders fate, continued to fight resolutely. Most of them were by then lying in the grass, only thirty yards away, firing their machine-guns, throwing stick-grenades and howling intimidatory abuse. Despite the losses, the Inniskillings, returning fire, grenades and abuse in full measure, gave no ground. Meanwhile our artillery barrage had started and hundreds of our shells were raining down on the ridge...Our shells were so near that the splinters were whistling over our trenches...The barrage not only killed and wounded many of the German vangaurd, as their anguished cries testified, but drove their follow-up troops completely to ground." Sir Cole, Signaller, British Army, Italy, 1944 TANKS vs TANK, and WHAT HAPPENS to the SURVIVORS "Suddenly a shell exploded inside the first building beyond the wall, and instantly I hit the dirt. When I looked up a few seconds later from my prone position in the brick gutter, a Jerry Mark IV medium tank was cutting around the corner only a short block away and heading directly toward me. Our Sherman tank and the Mark IV began to fire at each other at once from point-blank range. Our tank began to back up as it was firing, apparently looking for some kind of cover. And this left me in front, actually between the two tanks. I looked around frantically, but the stone wall appeared impossible to climb, and the buildings ahead were too close to the oncoming Mark IV, so I stayed flat in the gutter and watched the tank battle. Each tank fired as rapidly as possible as the distance closed to less than one hundred yards. The muzzle blasts shattered windows in the houses and storefronts, and each explosion knocked my helmet halfway off my head. The narrow, walled-in street seemed to act like a sound tunnel, and the concussion smashed at my ears. The Mark IV kept firing as it came toward us. Both tanks somehow kept missing at this close range or their armor-piercing shells were bouncing off. Finally, after an exchange of about a half- dozen rounds each, the Jerry suddenly went up in flames. Two Krauts crawled out of the tank's belly escape hatch and ran back for the corner. Both were knocked down by machine gun fire from our tank. The German tank commander, a sergeant, then jumped down from the turret---and charged right at me. I struggled to my feet but could not raise my M-1 rifle to my shoulder. As I shook with excitement and fright my rifle came up to my waist and fired three times---and was empty. Had I been more experienced, I would have loaded my rifle before walking into the burg with a clip of eight bullets. On the other hand, it was probably better for my peace of mind that I didn't have a full clip, for I probably would have killed him. After he had fallen, I did my best to reload but was all thumbs. I just couldn't get that damned clip to fit into the breech. The Kraut sergeant had blood seeping from his ears and mouth due to concussion of his tank being hit, and, with his eyes staring directly into mine, he grabbed his thigh where my bullet had struck and then hobbled across the street into a doorway---all before I managed to get my rifle reloaded." First Lieutenant George Wilson, US Army, Saint-Lo Breakthrough, France, 1944 ----- Subject: RE: QUESTION: VCA/TCA CH From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 10:21:00 -0640 Howdy, HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com writes: > Ah, maybe this is a point of confusion. Actually the case > is for a Grant tank...The TCA is different from the VCA by > 1. 37LL turret mounted gun fires at his acquired target in > TCA & misses. Can the VCA be changed to fire the 75 along > the same CA as the TCA? and what happens to the TCA? This question came up last night here. The second part is easy to answer from D3.51: "If the VCA is changed, the TCA changes the same number of hexspines while retaining its position relative to the VCA." To the first question, can the VCA change, I would say yes. D3.51 goes on to say that if the TCA changes after the VCA, the shot gets both the TCA and VCA change penalties, so changing both during one fire phase is clearly possible. The difference is that in the case we are interested in, the TCA changes before the VCA. I don't see any rules that prevent this or penalize it so I would say it's legal. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 15:58:12 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: Simple initial concealment rule I thought I'd run a house rule by y'all and see what people think of it. Years ago, when I was learning the game, my tutor had a house rule that essentially let both sides set up completely concealed AND _cloaked_. Both sides would use the Night Rules cloaking display and all stacks were represented on the board by a single "?" counter. You didn't know what you were shooting at until you got an effect. How badly do you think this affects play balance? It certainly gives the attacker an advantage (I think). Anyway, it was good for "fog of war" feel. Cheers, Dave Hauth ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 18:29:20 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Street Fighting Hi guys, Don said: > While cleaning out some old files, I realize I've asked > this question before on the AGWAV list, but don't remember the > response. > Here it is again. I'm posting this to the main list as the AGWAV > is over. I couldn't read the AGWAV list, but I'll give you my thinking on the matter. > >Here's some Russian DF: > >> MPh: > >> M3: JgdPz V start: 2,4 (OK) -> Start (1) ... > >> -> Q3 (8) (3Q3 is a road hex between two buildings.) > >> ESB for .5: 4,3 (OK) > >Uh, oh. Only one thing to use that extra MP for... (I knew that Patrik's tank was coming into my building here.) > >9-1, fan 328 in R3 make Street Fighting CC attack > >No PAATC necessary for Fanatic (never got to do that before) > >CCV: 3 + 1 =4, -1 ambush, -1 leader, +2 motion > >Roll: 6,4 -> nope Mark with First Fire as per D7.21 (but not with the CC counter as noted, since there's no enemy in the hex.) > > -> R3 (15.5) > > BOG: 2,2 (No) > >9-1, fan 328 make another CC reaction fire attack as SFF > >CCV: 4 Roll: 3,2 +1 (motion, leader) =6 -> no And I should have added another -1 to the CCV for SFF, since that is a FP halving situation. (Patrik pointed this out during the game.) > I'm a little confused here. > > A11.8 " ... Furthermore, any vehicle in such a road hex may > be attacked with Reaction Fire (D7.2) by infantry on ground > level of those buildings as their Defensive First Fire or > Subsequent First Fire attack..." > D7.21 "... After completing its attack, that DEFENDER ... > marked with a CC counter, and also with a First or Final Fire > counter as appropriate for that attack." > D7.211 "... Street Fighting CC Reaction Fire may not be attempted > by a unit that is ... already marked with a First/Final/Intensive/ > No Fire counter. ..." My second CC Reaction Fire attack wasn't _Street Fighting_ CC Reaction Fire, since it was within the building hex. This rule doesn't apply. > I take this to mean that after the first attack, the 9-1, f328 > would be marked by a First Fire counter, and the second attack > would not be allowed. However, the A11.8 seems to allow SFF street > fighting attacks. So which is right? It's flat-out contradictory. But Chapter D supercedes Chapter A, so it's not allowed. Especially since the page in Chapter D is an 89 errata page, and this rule has a dot next to it. Gee, they took away SFF MOL _and_ SFF SFCCRF. Watch for the 95 errata, where they say "We were just kidding about SFF. You can't do it at all. And we were kidding about an updated index, too." (Actually, I don't have the pre-89 page, so I don't know that they changed this exact part of the rule. Did they?) So, IMO, my attack was legal (since it wasn't Street Fighting) but it's illegal for a unit to make a SFCCRF attack while wearing a fire counter. Dave "Bog next time, dammit!" Ripton ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 19:49:18 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: ASL/SL BPV question Hi, Rob said: > I have recently picked up the 92 ASL Annual and am interested in > converting the Commando campaign to an ASL format. The only snag > I've hit is the BPV values. Are these the same for ASL as they > are in SL? If not, is there any scaling or conversion factor > available? No, they're not the same. The SL/COI/COD system (none in GI) let you buy pretty much all units freely. The Chapter H ASL system, OTOH, allocates leaders and SW based on the number of squads purchased, and requires rarity factor rolls before certain equipment can be purchased. But I'll try to get a ballpark figure. German Rifle Company, 1942 (approximate) COI ASL 12 467 squads 252 120 2 LMG 30 1 MMG 20 2 ATR 30 2 LtMTR 90 9-1 100 8-1 80 7-0 40 Total: 642 120 Panzer VG (Late-model Panther) 200 89 (Yeah, I know, I'm mixing years. Sue me.) Anyway, since the Germans are usually restricted to a mostly Infantry force in the CCG, I'd probably divide the points given to the Germans by 4 or so. (The light mortars are ridiculously overpriced, accounting for some of the difference above. And the ATRs aren't that useful either.) This number is just a very rough guess, but then again I bet the various point allotments to the Germans in the different scenarios weren't too scientific to begin with. I'd prefer a company-based system like the ones in RB and KGP, except that the Commando scenarios are too small for that. The SL system, as unrealistic as it is, is probably the most fun for tiny engagements, since it allows the option of a (very expensive) 10-3, or a SW-heavy force (like the RB Heavy Weapons platoons) or a bunch of 436s (only 1/3 the cost of 467s!) with no leaders or SW. Silly, but how else is this CG going to keep your interest through 13 scenarios? (Gee, in Mission E, I'd spend the 1500 points on 214 436 squads. No, wait, 211 436 squads, and a 6+1 to lead them. :-> ) Dave Ripton ----- From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary) Subject: Review- CH2 The Capture of Balta Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 18:58:40 -0500 (CDT) Given the large number of existing scenarios, both official and unofficial, it is often difficult to decide which one to play. It might be helpful to possess a 'review' of the scenarios in question to aid in the decision making process, especially for those of us lack the time or the dedication to play each scenario. To that end, I offer the following review of the Critical Hit! scenario CH2, The Capture of Balta: August 1941. It is not intended to contain a detailed desription of the best tactics for the scenario; I leave that to players better than I. Additionally, I do not wish to address issues of balance; although this is an important topic, one playing of a scenario is simply not a large enough sample to determine if a scenario is balanced. Finally, note that this scenario was played solitaire which has a slightly different feel that 'true' FTF play. With the scenario now set, we turn to CH2: The Capture of Balta- A Review This is a large scenario, make now mistake on this count. The playing area consists of 6 boards, although one half of three of them are unplayable. >From north to south are the open fields of #19 and #16, in the center is the village of #10 abutting more grainfield in #33, while the south contains the river of #40 and #7. A number of pond and marsh overlays are used on #40, and the deep river is crossed by a pontoon bridge and a ford. A mixed bag of thirty Russian squads, hold a line across the northern fields, south through the village and to the river. Although poorly led, they are supported by a few light tanks, some 82mm mortars and a 76mm Art piece. In opposition are a well led and equipped company of 8-3-8 assault engineers attack across the open fields to the north, supported by a company of poorly led Rumanians. South of the village along the river bank is a second company of 8-3-8 engineers that can call upon the services of a single 105mm Art piece. To win, the German must clear the village and the road from the village to and across the river of Russians, and must do so in nine turns. Good points: This is not a simple update of the original COI scenario, but rather a new scenario based on that same action. Although I liked many of the original SL scenarios, I am not a big fan of their wholesale conversion to ASL. Given a choice, I would rather see new scenarios rather than updated old ones. This is a wild scenario with lots of action occuring all over the board. I have always liked the idea of the mixed German/Rumanian atacking force present in the original COI version. The Germans get to play with DC's, FT's, and 8-3-8's which is a plus in my book- nothing like a little firepower to spice up a game. Although the Russians are poorly led and somewhat brittle, they have a few good MG's- 2xHMG, 2xMMG. Remember the tactics section in the back of the SL rules? Remember the graphic on how to set up MG's to provide overlapping fields of fire? Imagine a company of 8-3-8's scampering across the open areas of board 19 with Russian MG's sitting in the treeline..... What sets this scenario apart for me are the victory conditions, which require control of the village and the road/bridge across the river. The twist in these conditions is that these objectives are widely spaced. As a consequence, neither German group is able to take both objectives in the time alotted, even against minimal resistance, as the objectives are simply too far apart. Thus, one needs to allot the proper resources to assault both objectives, knowing that if one group encounters encounters difficulty, it will probably be two or more turns before help can arrive, if then. Similarly, much depends on the initial Russian setup. If they bunch too closely near one objective, the Germans can seize the other quickly, join forces and massacre the Russians. Conversely, if the Russian spreads himself too thin, he finds that bunches of 4+1 attacks on 9-2 led 8-3-8's will not slow the Germans. As a consequence I found that the tactics in this scenario to be exceedingly rich in complications and possibilities. The CH article that describes the actual battle is adds that extra realism into this game. It was interesting to compare the outcome of the battle to the scenario at game's end. Bad Points: Although the scenario is tactically quite complex, I found the initial disposition of German forces just too neat and tidy. Each German squad gets either an LMG and DC, or gets a FT. (save one). What happened to attrition? I guess the Germans went back to the supply depot prior to the scenario. If they did, I wonder why they did not bring any MMG's or HMG's? Combined with the short inherent range of the 8-3-8's, it seems that this force is out of place in the Russian steppe. Stalingrad perhaps, but Balta? Also, German leadership is simply outrageous, even for assault engineers- 10-3, 2x9-2 + others for 17 squads. In the end game, there were two Russian squads in a foxhole attacked by 2x8-3-8 with LMG's, a hero and the 10-3. What is a Russian to do? My other beef with this scenario is the south side of the river- there isn't any. There are a few hexes south of the river by the bridge, and as these victory hexes are as far away from the Germans as one could get, I had a Russian platoon dig in on a DIP mission (i.e. die in place) to force the Germans to at least march all that way to win. Unfortunately, the only way to reach theses hexes is by crossing the bridge. Although there is a ford just a fex hexes downstream, there is no land on the south side of the river between the bridge and the ford, rendering impossible any type of flanking maneuver. Summary: This is a tactically rich scenario that requires more planning and organization than is generally needed. Although is possesses some annoying features, it is certainly something I would play again. This scenario is well suited for team play. Complexity: Moderate Time: Long Rating: *** (4 max) Please send any comments or suggestions to Mike O'Leary moleary@math.nwu.edu ----- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 21:42:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: The Last Wave Here's a scenario that I think y'all will really like. Despite it's appearance I think it favors the Germans! Give it a go, and let me know! THE LAST WAVE Hill 249.6, south of Krasnodar, mid January, 1943: The Soviet winter offensive was to expand the victory of Stalingrad by trapping Army Group 'A' near the Caucuses. The Germans were withdrawing everywhere with the intent of reforming strong defensive lines. One such line was near Krasnodar where the German 125th Division had dug in on a crucial hill. Its role was to prevent the Russian 56th Army from capturing Krasnodar before the withdrawal was complete. VICTORY CONDITIONS: The Russians win if they control all of the 2nd level hill hexes on board e. MAPBOARDS N /\ || +------------+ | e| That's right it's DASL! | | +------------+ | g| | | +------------+ | | |h | +------------+ TURN RECORD CHART: German sets up first The game is 6 turns long. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Russian moves first BALANCE G3: Add a 9-2 Russian leader to the OB. G2: Add 10x5-2-7, and an 8-0 to the Russian OB. G1: All of the buildings are stone. R1: Replace the HMG with a MMG in the Russian OB. R2: Add a 4-6-7, and a MMG to the German OB. R3: Add a German radio with one module 81 mm battalion mortar having scarce ammo. GERMAN FORCES Elements of the 3rd Battalion, 421st Regiment, 125th Infantry Division setup on or within 1 hex of any hill hex [ELR 4, SAN 5]. 7x4-6-7, 2-2-8, 9-2, 9-1, 8-1, 8-0, HMG, MMG, 5xLMG, 75*INF, 4xTrench, Pillbox (1+5+7), 3xWire RUSSIAN FORCES Elements of the newly raised 9th Mountain Division, 56th Army set up on board h [ELR 3, SAN 3]. 20x4-4-7, 10x5-2-7, 9-1, 8-1, 8-0, 2x7-0, HMG, MMG, 4xLMG, 3xDC, 50_MRT SPECIAL RULES 1. Ground snow is in effect. Streams and marshes are frozen. The buildings on board h are stone. 2. Hedges do not exist. 3. Prior to the start of play place 5 snowdrifts on each board as per E3.75 (along north hexsides). The snowdrifts represent the carnage from previous wave attacks. They act like hedges (E3.752), except that it takes all MF to move through; they can be removed as per roadblocks. AFTERMATH: For several days, waves upon waves of men from the newly formed 9th Infantry Division, 56th Army crashed into the defenses on Hill 249.6. The Russian officers openly exhorted their troops over their radios and thus alerted Captain Winzen of the 3rd Battalion, 421st Regiment to the timing of the attacks. With this information Winzen's men met every assault with concentrated fire that left mounds of dead on the slopes. The situation grew desperate with the continuous onslaught and only through a desperate counterattack was Winzen able to hold the hill and help protect the withdrawal of Army Group "A." Carell, P. 1966. Scorched Earth. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 652 pp. (pages 160-161, map on page 159).