From: Paul David Meyer Subject: SL Scenario 12 Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 22:23:38 -0600 (CST) Hey everybody, I'm new to this list and, better yet, I've only had my ASL stough for about a week and a half now. I was wondering if anybody had a converted version of SL Scenario 12, The Road To Wiltz, that they would be willing to share or direct me to. I've checked as best I could the two ftp sites whos addresses have been posted, but no luck. Thanks in advance, Paul Meyer ----- Subject: TPBF & PBF From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 94 22:30:00 -5 Howdy, "Carl D. Fago" writes: >I was looking through the TPBF & PBF rules and came across what I >think is a hole... >An enemy squad bypasses the building with a unit of yours on Level 3 >or 4 (1 or 2 for that matter.) You decide to shoot at the bypassers >taking advantage of their moving in the open. >What do you use? TPBF, PBF, any adjustment? In order to use TPBF, you have to be in the same Location as the target (A7.21), so that is right out (for Infantry targets; PRC are subject to TPBF per A7.211 whenever they are in the same hex). A7.21 "On those rare instances when fire attacks are allowed vs units in the same Location as the attacker or vs PRC in the same hex (7.211) the FP of the attacking unit is tripled (hereafter referred to as TPBF)." Now the PBF rules refer to "adjacent" hexes, but I think we can safely extend this to the same hex, provided a LOS exists. Certainly write to TAHGC to clarify this, but it seems pretty obvious what their answer will be. My question is, does a LOS exist, especially from the higher levels? >From level one an LOS exists because the firer and target are ADJACENT (which also justifies the use of PBF, BTW). But from the upper levels to the first level (not in bypass) no LOS exists, so does one exist to the bypass locations? If it does, I would say the attack is PBF, but again, as you note, it is missed in the rules. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: 04 Dec 94 00:22:21 EST From: craig cooper <74537.573@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" For Concealment and all other matters most secret, my pals and I send a text file for each "secret" which has been encrypted with a programme like Encrypt-It. Then, when we need to prove - so to speak - whatever it is, we simply send the encyption key. craig ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 12:11:30 -0500 From: Drosner@aol.com Subject: Re: ASL Open Vegas was what I had heard also, but that came from Fort.... and well... let's say speedy isn't a descriptive term... anyways, last I heard there were actually three hotels that were bidding for the privelege (yeah, right!) of having us roll dice other than at the craps table... the best choice probably would have been Excalibur (of the three). Unless I am mistaken, Curt Schilling started the ASL open (must be nice to have the kind of money to bankroll a national tourney)... and Curt has since bailed on ASL, from what I have heard there is mail floating around that says that the Open may be actually moving to Chicago in '96, and that the issue of a '95 Open is kinda dead now... then again, the Annual was a dead issue, but you never know... I hope that they finish the three modules that were promised before the turn of the century... Dave in L.A. ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 11:49:39 -0600 From: MAILER-DAEMON@buster.eng.ua.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 421 sss.cba.ua.edu.tcp... Deferred: Connection timed out during user open with cbasssserver1.cba.ua.edu ----- Unsent message follows ----- ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:50:47 +0100 Subject: Re: problems with lysator >has everyone been having problems trying to access lysator, or just me? It could be down temporarily, but I think you use the wrong address. ftp.lysator.liu.se is the correct address. (lysator.liu.se is our fileserver and you can't ftp to that one). /Mats Persson ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 13:08:40 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: SL Scenario 12 Hi guys, Paul said: > I'm new to this list and, better yet, I've only had my ASL stough > for about a week and a half now. Welcome. > I was wondering if anybody had a converted version of SL Scenario > 12, The Road To Wiltz, that they would be willing to share or > direct me to. > I've checked as best I could the two ftp sites whos addresses have > been posted, but no luck. This one appeared in The General as an official TAHGC conversion. AH scenarios won't be on the ftp sites; only scenarios whose copyright holders have given permission will appear there. >From the ASL Record: >> P The Road to Wiltz (26.1) American: 7 German: 4 It's in General 26.1, and (unlike the four-board SL version) the Germans have a chance. Dave Ripton ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 13:17:02 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" Hi guys, Craig said: > For Concealment and all other matters most secret, my pals and I > send a text file for each "secret" which has been encrypted with a > programme like Encrypt-It. Then, when we need to prove - so to > speak - whatever it is, we simply send the encyption key. To me this is exactly the wrong reason to use concealment files. If you're using the honor system for dice, then there's no reason at all to try for verification of HIP and concealment. The only reason to document them is to save mailings -- it's easier for me to grep the contents of ?a out of a concealment file and keep going that it is to make an extra mailing to ask my opponent what I just shot. OTOH, if you're using on of the PBEM methods that uses lists of rolls instead of honorable dice rolling, then I see why you need to do this. But, given the proven honesty of players on the ASL PBEM circuit, I still wouldn't bother. Dave Ripton ----- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 1994 16:22:16 -0600 (CST) From: JEFF ROBERTS Subject: Adapting Other Games to ASL Does anyone on the list know whether or not one would run into copyright infringement or any other legal problems if they designed some ASL scenarios based on a scenario from another game? For example, suppose someone took a scenario from "Tobruk" and managed to overcome the movement factors of "3" and the "F-kills" and so on to produce a workable ASL scenario. Would there be any problem if he then submitted it to Backblast, or another magazine of choice? What if he merely submitted it to the list? Any insight on this matter would be appreciated. Jeff Roberts ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 16:42:14 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: What would YOU do? What would YOU do? Essay exam question #1 It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. 1. What would you fire first, why? (10 points) What would you fire next, why? (10 points) a) Fire the MA using Infantry Target Type. b) Fire the MA using Area Target Type. c) Fire the BMG/CMG together. d) Fire the BMG. e) Fire the CMG. f) None of the above. ----- From: Mike Kreuzer Subject: Conventioning we go .. Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 12:15:34 +1030 (CST) Hey all, Managed to catch part of the Maelstorm/SA Games Convention last weeekend, and managed to get in two games of ftf asl. :-) First game was *Commando Schenke*, an Atlanticon scenario and I drew the Germans, sigh a loss, but a good scenario. Kind of like Fighting Withdrawal but with German Navy assault engineers (dare I say Marines? :-)) attacking against delaying Sov infantry with some terribly low elr. I crossed the first road ok, but then lost my nerve and way too much time crossing the next road, never getting near the fortified building (objective). The other playings of this scenario at the con were much closer and it's a scenario I'd happily play again. Gotta remember: push, push, push (dem Pfrede die *Shenke*l geben :-)) as the Germans. Second game was *Land Leviathans (26.2)*, a remake from the General, and I drew the Sovs. I expected another defeat but was suprised to find that instead of skulking and weaving in the village, going for track shots, the Germans set up on the hills planning on a hull down shoot-out. Bad plan for the Germans, I mounted the nearest hill with the t34 and some other tanks and torched all his armour in the first two or three turns. It ended up being up to his infantry to try and burn my advancing hordes with mg's and atr's. One group touting a heavy and headed by a (I think) 10-2 threatened me with disaster for a moment, but then happily went beserk, dropping their last hope and charging my departing tanks in futile rage .. I noticed the name of the historical Sov commander on the card, Kreyzer, nice name. :-) Does anyone have any info on this guy? Was he purged, kia, or did he survive the whole show? How do you guys that go to conventions and play a zillion scenarios back to back do it? After 2 my mind had been juiced and I was all set for an evening of Risk. :-) Any hints there for future conventions? Mike -- ______________________________________________________________________ Mike Kreuzer kreuzer@apanix.apana.org.au http://apanix.apana.org.au/~kreuzer/ Adelaide, South Australia ----- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 23:30:32 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: What would YOU do? > It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized > BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. > In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with > morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. > > 1. > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) The machine guns. All of them. If I could CE the Tiger VIB, I would. > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > a) Fire the MA using Infantry Target Type. Yup. Might as well give it the old college try. And I'd intensive fire too. > b) Fire the MA using Area Target Type. Nope. > c) Fire the BMG/CMG together. Been there. Done that. > d) Fire the BMG. <---- Hmmm. You CAN'T fire them separately, > e) Fire the CMG. can you? > f) None of the above. Is this where I'm supposed to say I'd smoke the hex the concealed squad is in???? ----- From: gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 09:48:09 +0100 Subject: commando schenke Hi everybody This scenario was first published by tactiques. We will never say enough how good most of their scenario are. French point of view here... Guillaume gc@pmcsun1.polytechnique.fr ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:06:39 +0200 (METDST) From: J|rgen Vasshaug Subject: Re: What would YOU do? > It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized > BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. > In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with > morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. > > 1. > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) MA as Area Target Type (biggest chance of removing that concealment?) Would hit it on an 8 right (I don't have the RB here), a 9 (+1 BU) ? And then 88mm on half, which should at least be an 8 (I'm thinking the IIFT here), and a +2 modifiers. That would probably remove his concealment. Why not a) ? The infantry traget type is out of the question as you would hit the squad on a 3 or less (+2 concealment, +2 TEM, +1 BU) ie 8 (+5). Even if you were to remove his concealment with the MG's and then use the MA with Infantry Target type, you would only hit the squad on a 5. Why not b) and c), d) ? An attack on 4 (+2), or one on 2.5 (+2) and 1.5 (+2) ???? I think MA using Area Target is a better chance. > > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > BMG/CMG together. 8 (?) +2 which hopefully breaks or pins him. BTW You would probably roll boxcars on the MA shot :) Jorgen Vasshaug ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: What would YOU do? Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:42:49 +0100 (MET) Hi, > > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) > > The machine guns. All of them. If I could CE the Tiger VIB, I would. You can't fire either MG and then the other, so that option is out. Firing CMG+BMG will result in a PTC or better on a 5 or less. Firing MA on the ITT will hit on a 3 or less. (+1 BU, +2 TEM, +2 ?) Firing MA on the ATT will hit on a 4 or less. (+1 BU +2 ?) Firing MGs on a revealed target will result in a NMC on a 6 or less. Since you aren't likely to break the guys with just the MGs (revealed or not), I think you're better off firing them first in order to remove any concealment. Then you have a whopping 5 TH with the MA. Why not the other way around? Well, regardless of the order of the two attacks the probability of NE is 33*26*35/36^3 (w/ intensive fire and not accounting for the possibility of malfunction on the first MA shot or the possibility of multiple ROF). The MG have the greatest possibility of unconcealing the target, and the MA will benefit most from an unconcealed target. (2 better to hit, and the ability to retain acquisation if one retains ROF and fires on the ITT.) > > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > > > a) Fire the MA using Infantry Target Type. > > Yup. Might as well give it the old college try. > > And I'd intensive fire too. Ditto. > > b) Fire the MA using Area Target Type. > > Nope. This one is debatable. I haven't checked the numbers which one would be most likely to break the squad, but getting one better TH# doesn't seem to be worth giving up multiple ROF (only 1, though) and half the FP. > > f) None of the above. > > Is this where I'm supposed to say I'd smoke the hex the concealed > squad is in???? Nice catch! I don't think the Pz VIB has any smoke ammo, however. They DO have sN, but you won't benefit from using it... -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: SL Scenario 12 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:47:50 +0100 (MET) Hi, [Re: "The Road to Wiltz"] > It's in General 26.1, and (unlike the four-board SL version) the > Germans have a chance. What?!? You're saying that the SL version was _more_ unbalanced?! I might agree that the germans have a chance. Perhaps something like 10-20% in the ASL version... I _still_ think that this one is a dog in ASL. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: What would YOU do? Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 11:25:44 +0100 (MET) don hancock writes: > > What would YOU do? > > Essay exam question #1 > > It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized > BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. > In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with > morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. > > 1. > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) MA Area Target Type > > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > CMG+BMG -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architectures parallele ( ( LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: TPBF&Bypass Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 11:27:29 MET Carl writes: > >An enemy squad bypasses the building with a unit of yours on Level 3 (stuff deleted) and JR answers: > >From level one an LOS exists because the firer and target > are ADJACENT (which also justifies the use of PBF, BTW). Are they? Can somebody Advance into the bypasses hexside? The more it goes, the more tricky the definition of ADJACENCY becomes... -Bruno ----- From: RCRUDGE@botzoo.uct.ac.za Date: 5 Dec 94 12:40:10 SAST-2 Subject: Re: What would YOU do? > Subject: Re: What would YOU do? > To: don hancock > Cc: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > > > > It's your last player turn of the game. You've got an immobilized > > BU King Tiger and a squad left and you have to exit that squad. > > In your way is a single, concealed squad in a wooden building with > > morale 7. The target is in your VCA and TCA and is 6 hexes away. > > > > 1. > > What would you fire first, why? (10 points) > > MA as Area Target Type (biggest chance of removing that concealment?) > > Would hit it on an 8 right (I don't have the RB here), a 9 (+1 BU) ? Area To Hit = 7 - 2 concealed - 1 BU = 4 if you use Inf you need a 3 Therefore you best chance is MG's at 4 IFT +2 TEM - 5 strips concealment 27.77% chance - if this succeeds blast way with MA Inf To Hit = 5 again 27.77% then try intensive fire To Hit = 4 only a 16.66% chance but these a your best odds > > And then 88mm on half, which should at least be an 8 (I'm thinking the > IIFT here), and a +2 modifiers. > > That would probably remove his concealment. > > Why not a) ? > > The infantry traget type is out of the question as you would hit the squad > on a 3 or less (+2 concealment, +2 TEM, +1 BU) ie 8 (+5). > Even if you were to remove his concealment with the MG's and then use the > MA with Infantry Target type, you would only hit the squad on a 5. > > Why not b) and c), d) ? > > An attack on 4 (+2), or one on 2.5 (+2) and 1.5 (+2) ???? > I think MA using Area Target is a better chance. > > > > > What would you fire next, why? (10 points) > > > > BMG/CMG together. > > 8 (?) +2 which hopefully breaks or pins him. > > > > > BTW You would probably roll boxcars on the MA shot :) > > Jorgen Vasshaug > ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 09:59:45 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: O' Canada.... Hi guys... I need someone to look over some stuff regarding Canadian OB & DYO. Any takers? The document is in Word 6.0, but I can save it as just about any other word processor format -- except text -- I have some tables in this thing and it becomes a bloody mess without them. Hopefully I can dump the file off on carlo or lysator for you to pick up. Let me know.... ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 10:03:31 -0500 From: loss@wpsmtp.bloomu.edu Subject: Two situations we weren't sure about Hello, all. Here are two situations that came up recently on games I've played that we weren't sure how to resolve. Any insight will be appreciated. 1) An AFV enters a hex adjacent to a HIP ATG located in a woods hex, expending 1 MP. The ATG fires, resulting in a hull side hit and maintaining concealment and rate. The AFV is immobilized, but the crew doesn't abandon the vehicle. Now, the AFV wants to return the fire at the ATG. It must change its TCA 1 hexspline to fire, which is allowed per C5.1. Normally such a change is in conjunction with an MP expenditure; since the AFV is immobilized, is this considered an MP expenditure which would allow the ATG to fire again before the AFV can get its turret around, or would the AFV get to fire on the ATG (with all normal penalties) before the ATG could take its next shot? 2) An infantry unit moves adjacent to a squad and a leader (both already marked with a FF marker). The squad and leader decide to use FPF against the moving unit and roll a 12. Are both the directing leader and the squad CRed or should we use random selection to determine the effect? We guessed random selection, but couldn't find rules to back that up. Doug Loss Cogito Eggo Sum Data Network Coordinator I think. I am a waffle. Bloomsburg University loss@husky.bloomu.edu Voice (717) 389-4797 ----- Subject: Adapting Other Games to A From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 09:51:00 -5 Howdy, JJR7904@tntech.edu writes: >Does anyone on the list know whether or not one would run into copyright >infringement or any other legal problems if they designed some ASL >scenarios based on a scenario from another game? >For example, suppose someone took a scenario from "Tobruk" and managed to >overcome the movement factors of "3" and the "F-kills" and so on to produce a >workable ASL scenario. Would there be any problem if he then submitted it to >Backblast, or another magazine of choice? What if he merely submitted it to >the list? This is not the opinion of a lawyer, but from what I understand, facts are not copyrightable, only the expression of those facts is. So, the fact that there were 3 Pz IIIG's at a battle is information you are free to use, as are the facts in any an introduction or aftermath. What would violate the copyright is if you copied the text of any introduction or aftermath rather than just the facts expressed in it. As to where you could submit it, if your scenario violated copyright when submitted to a magazine, it would probably also violate it when put out over the list. I should think any public distribution would do it. I think you could probably make up a scenario and use the verbatim introduction and aftermath so long as you didn't distribute it (again supposition of a lay-person without any expertise in the field), but given that you had gone that far, why wouldn't you write new text for the thing. On the other hand, what if they didn't use factual numbers, but made up numbers of units involved themselves, in order to reduce the complexity of the play? Gosh, this is almost as much fun as scanning the ASLRB :-) So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: TPBF&Bypass From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 09:51:00 -5 Howdy, Bruno NITROSSO writes: >and JR answers: >> >From level one an LOS exists because the firer and target >> are ADJACENT (which also justifies the use of PBF, BTW). >Are they? Can somebody Advance into the bypasses hexside? >The more it goes, the more tricky the definition of ADJACENCY >becomes... One can't Advance into bypass because Infantry can't remain in bypass in a hex, but bypass does not make a separate Location. A unit in bypass of a woods or building hex is in the ground level Location of that hex, and so a unit on the 1st level would be ADJACENT. In the same way, if a vehicle remained in bypass of a hex, fire against it using the Infantry Target Type would affect it and any units on the ground level of the building. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 09:10:18 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: What would YOU do? None of the above. Move the tank first, into the enemy squad's hex so that they're eligible for TPBF and can't fire out of the hex at your squad. Then waltz the squad past the hex, preferably adjacent, thumbing their noses and cackling all the way. Tom ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 08:15:21 -0800 Subject: Re: SL Scenario 12 Hi, all. > > [Re: "The Road to Wiltz"] > > It's in General 26.1, and (unlike the four-board SL version) the > > Germans have a chance. > > What?!? You're saying that the SL version was _more_ unbalanced?! I might > agree that the germans have a chance. Perhaps something like 10-20% in the > ASL version... I _still_ think that this one is a dog in ASL. I'm with Patrik on this one. Despite what the record says, I think the only real chance the Germans have in this one is to hope for an incompetent opponent. Dade ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 09:09:16 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Two situations we weren't sure about Hello, all. > > Here are two situations that came up recently on games I've played that we > weren't sure how to resolve. Any insight will be appreciated. > > 1) An AFV enters a hex adjacent to a HIP ATG located in a woods hex, expending > 1 MP. The ATG fires, resulting in a hull side hit and maintaining concealment and > rate. The AFV is immobilized, but the crew doesn't abandon the vehicle. Now, the > AFV wants to return the fire at the ATG. It must change its TCA 1 hexspline to fire, > which is allowed per C5.1. Normally such a change is in conjunction with an MP > expenditure; since the AFV is immobilized, is this considered an MP expenditure > which would allow the ATG to fire again before the AFV can get its turret around, or > would the AFV get to fire on the ATG (with all normal penalties) before the ATG > could take its next shot? The AFV must spend a delay MP to turn the MA and the Gun can declare a Gun dual (and probably win). > > 2) An infantry unit moves adjacent to a squad and a leader (both already marked > with a FF marker). The squad and leader decide to use FPF against the moving > unit and roll a 12. Are both the directing leader and the squad CRed or should we > use random selection to determine the effect? We guessed random selection, but > couldn't find rules to back that up. Use random selection to determine the unit that is CR'd with a tie possible. Fred > > Doug Loss Cogito Eggo Sum > Data Network Coordinator I think. I am a waffle. > Bloomsburg University > loss@husky.bloomu.edu > Voice (717) 389-4797 > > > ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Two situations we weren't sure about Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 18:28:50 +0100 (MET) Hi, > The AFV must spend a delay MP to turn the MA and the Gun can declare a Gun dual (and > probably win). Not quite. The AFV must declare that it is spending a delay MP (I assume that becoming immobilized doesn't exempt you from having to spend the rest of your MP in the last hex entered). The _Gun_ will then have the opportunity to declare that it will fire. At that point the _AFV_ may declare a gun duel, which it will most probably loose. The only time a non-moving unit may declare a gun duel is if the AFV fires w/o spending any MP. That's what I remember about the discussion Dave R. and I had when playing "The Agony of Doom", anyway. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 13:52:23 EDT Subject: Dec. 6, 1944 FYI, the scenario "Last Act in Lorraine" took place on Dec. 6, 1944, fifty years ago, tomorrow. Any body playing this scenario currently? Anybody win the ASL version as the Amis? the DASL version as the Amis? I like "Last Act in Lorraine." I won as the Amis (ASL version) by attacking to the German right and advancing through the gully. I was able to take out the panthers individually by swamping them with the Shermans. The German player expected me to attack on his left through the graveyard. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 13:32:19 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary Guys, Does anyone know if there are any special commerations for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor? I haven't heard of anything on a national or state (NC) level. Doug ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 14:45:18 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Powers Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Doug Maston wrote: > Does anyone know if there are any special commerations > for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Actually it's the 53rd anniversary of Pearl Harbor coming up. Myself, I'm interested in any events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. Chuck ----- From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Two situations we weren't sure about Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:58:35 +0100 (MET) Hi, > > > The AFV must spend a delay MP to turn the MA and the Gun can declare a Gun dual (and > > probably win). > Patrik Manlig answers: > > Not quite. The AFV must declare that it is spending a delay MP (I assume > that becoming immobilized doesn't exempt you from having to spend the > rest of your MP in the last hex entered). The _Gun_ will then have the > opportunity to declare that it will fire. At that point the _AFV_ may > declare a gun duel, which it will most probably loose. The only time > a non-moving unit may declare a gun duel is if the AFV fires w/o spending > any MP. > I agree, but even if the Gun wins the gun duel, the shot is taken after the turret is moved. The Gun's shot is a reaction on the delay MP, and is taken after the delay MP is expended, and therefore after the turret rotation. > 2) An infantry unit moves adjacent to a squad and a leader (both already marked > with a FF marker). The squad and leader decide to use FPF against the moving > unit and roll a 12. Are both the directing leader and the squad CRed or should we > use random selection to determine the effect? We guessed random selection, but > couldn't find rules to back that up. > from the QA file: A8.31 If a FG of >= two units rolls an Original 2 (or 12) for its FPF attack, does each of those units make a Heat of Battle DR (or suffer a Casualty MC)? A. No - use Random Selection. {91} ___| |__ If you / \ cut off ||||||| Ole Boe / /| |\ \ my head, / \ Rosenborg gt 7B / / ( ) \ \ | + + | 7014 Trondheim | | / \ | | what do I say: | (_) | Norway / /\ \ \ / ooO / \ Ooo \ +++ / ( )/ \( ) Me and my head \___/ oleboe@idt.unit.no \ (/ \) / or \_) (_/ Me and my body? ----- Date: 05 Dec 1994 22:02:00 +0100 From: rydlo@site52.ping.at (Robert Rydlo) Subject: guns in caves and cave-complex Hi Folks! I'am just starting my first GungHo! scenario, "Sea of Tranquility". I play the japanese and therefore have to use this heap of cave counters. While reading the rules I came to following questions. 1.) When I move a unit from a cave into the cave complex and to another cave, what are the movement cost? Would this result in a concealment loss? 2.) Can I push a gun from a cave into the complex and into another cave? If yes, what are the modifiers for the manhandling DR. And how much MF's would it cost ? 3.) When I create an upper cliff cave, is there another way to enter it beside through the cave complex or by scaling the cliff ? Has someone of you played this scenario before? If yes, could you please give me some hints? Cheers, Robert ============================================================= Robert Rydlo /\ * /\ Internet Adr. : rydlo@site52.ping.at /\/ \ / \_ CompuServe Adr.: 100412,2575 / \ \ / \ AUSTRIA (Austria, we don't have kangaroos !) - EUROPE ============================================================= ## CrossPoint v3.02 ## ----- From: pec@cbstp2.att.com (Patrick E Connolly +1 614 860 7163) Date: 5 Dec 94 20:04:00 GMT Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary >From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) >Subject: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary >Status: R > > >Guys, > > Does anyone know if there are any special commerations >for the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor? > > I haven't heard of anything on a national or state (NC) >level. > >Doug > ??? We're a couple years late for the Pearl Harbor 50th Anniversary. Caught some bits on NPR about the 50th Anniversary of the Hiroshima/ Nagasaki bombings though (coming up 8/95). Both a commemorative US Postage stamp (part of a set) and a Smithsonian display of the Enola Gay are planned, and the Japanese government has voiced opposition to both. ----- Subject: guns in caves and cave-co From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 19:36:00 -5 Howdy, rydlo@site52.ping.at (Robert Rydlo) writes: > 1.) When I move a unit from a cave into the cave complex and to another >cave, what are the movement cost? Would this result in a concealment loss? No. You can't enter move from a cave to the cave complex and into another cave [G11.74]. You can move from the cave into the complex if you have 2 MF. You can move from the complex (if you start there) to a cave at a cost of 2 MF if you enter concealed, but at zero MF if you remain hidden or if the cave is hidden. A hidden unit can enter a cave and remain hidden from a cave complex if there are no enemy units w/ LOS w/i 16 hexes [G11.75]. If there are such enemy units, the friendly enters the cave concealed. You can move from one cave into the cave complex, then Advance into a cave. >2.) Can I push a gun from a cave into the complex and into another cave? >If yes, what are the modifiers for the manhandling DR. And how much MF's >would it cost ? No. No manhandling DR at all. No MFs, but you can't enter the cave complex from a cave and then move to another cave in the same MPh [G11.76, G11.74]. >3.) When I create an upper cliff cave, is there another way to enter it >beside through the cave complex or by scaling the cliff ? None I am aware of. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Marcus.Schakowski@lair.co.za (Marcus Schakowski) Date: 06 Dec 94 17:10:50 +0200 Subject: Re: Adapting Other Games to A Greetings All, jo> JJR7904@tntech.edu writes: >Does anyone on the list know whether or not one would run into copyright >infringement or any other legal problems if they designed some ASL >scenarios based on a scenario from another game? jo> This is not the opinion of a lawyer, but from what I jo> understand, facts are not copyrightable, only the expression jo> of those facts is. So, the fact that there were 3 Pz jo> IIIG's at a battle is information you are free to use, as jo> are the facts in any an introduction or aftermath. What jo> would violate the copyright is if you copied the text of jo> any introduction or aftermath rather than just the facts jo> expressed in it. Does this mean it is legal to reproduce scenarios published, say, in The General or other gaming magazines, provided that the background/outcome is not quoted directly ? Or would the fact that game specific information is used, ("4-6-7" instead of "a german squad") infringe on copyright, being an "expression of a fact" ? I am interested in this since down here in sunny South Africa, a copy of The General magazine sets us back the equivilant of $20, a lot of money for two or three ASL scenarios. I am sure that many players in the States are also having problems finding classic out-of-print scenarios. If it were legal to reproduce the basic information of a scenario (board config, forces, victory conditions, SSR's) it would be possible to publish them on the net (perhaps in digest form). This would allow newcomers (who weren't around when ASL-A was published) to play those truly great scenarios. I don't think that TAHGC would lose any money from this (I can't buy a scenario that is OOP). Any opinions / legal information ? Cheers, Marcus (marcus.schakowski@lair.co.za) ... Murphy on Combat:Incoming fire has the right of way. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.12 OS/2 [NR] ----- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 19:51:13 +0930 GMT From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: Conventioning we go .. Hi Mike (Mike Kreuzer), on Dec 5 you wrote: > Hey all, > Managed to catch part of the Maelstorm/SA Games Convention > last weeekend, and managed to get in two games of ftf > asl. :-) You must remember it was going to be five games over one day... I'm glad I changed it around !!!! Tournament players: Mike Kreuzer (kreuzer@apanix.apana.org.au) Brad McMahon (bjm@rommel.apana.org.au) Chris Merchant (barkmann@eve.adam.com.au) (account inactive) Andrew Pearce Jim Burnside Steve Mickevics > First game was *Commando Schenke*, an Atlanticon scenario > and I drew the Germans, sigh a loss, but a good scenario. Written by Jean-Luc Bechennec and then modified by Brian Youse and Perry Cocke (?) for Atlanticon 93. I always thought that this was a tight scenario and I was proved right. Germans 0 Russians 3 but very close and all could have gone either way. Interestingly enough none of the Russians chose to use a Commisar. > Second game was *Land Leviathans (26.2)*, a remake from > the General, and I drew the Sovs. I expected another defeat but > was suprised to find that instead of skulking and weaving in > the village, going for track shots, the Germans set up on the > hills planning on a hull down shoot-out. Yeah, except I forgot to set up hull down, didn't I!!!! > Bad plan for the Germans, I mounted the nearest hill with the yep, stupid... > t34 and some other tanks and torched all his armour in the > first two or three turns. > It ended up being up to his infantry to try and burn my > advancing hordes with mg's and atr's. One group touting a > heavy and headed by a (I think) 10-2 threatened me with > disaster for a moment, but then happily went beserk, dropping > their last hope and charging my departing tanks in futile rage .. You nearly lost it though, didn't you! Actually this was also quite close for everyone involved. I think the Germans need to skulk around blocking exits rather than taking pot shots. I forgot to move my reinforcing tanks which cost me dearly. Well won Mike. > > I noticed the name of the historical Sov commander on the > card, Kreyzer, nice name. :-) > Does anyone have any info on this guy? Was he purged, kia, > or did he survive the whole show? The third scenario which Mike and Chris were meant to play off for second place, but couldn't due to other commitments by Chris, was an old On All Fronts scenario: Operation Bagration This is a very bloody four(!) turn romp on board 22 where Russian assault engineers try and stomp the defending Germans. I played Andrew Pearce for last spot :( and lost as the attacking Russians, but it was touch and go. If I remembered to bring my reinforcements on, it would have been closer.... > How do you guys that go to conventions and play a zillion > scenarios back to back do it? After 2 my mind had been juiced > and I was all set for an evening of Risk. :-) Any hints there > for future conventions? > Mike I had very little idea what was going on in my third game :) All in all the competition was very strong and I was pleasantly surprised at the high skill level of all involved. Hope to see you all back next year! -- Brad McMahon <> bjm@rommel.apana.org.au When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. ----- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:02:51 -0500 (EST) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary On 5 Dec 1994, Patrick E Connolly +1 614 860 7163 wrote: > Caught some bits on NPR about the 50th Anniversary of the Hiroshima/ > Nagasaki bombings though (coming up 8/95). Both a commemorative US > Postage stamp (part of a set) and a Smithsonian display of the Enola > Gay are planned, and the Japanese government has voiced opposition to > both. Hi guys, Haven't written in a while, but this last post hit a nerve. Beware of the coming wave of revisionist history concerning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! You know it's going to happen, and it will probably sound like the following: 1. Japan was already defeated, so why was it necessary? 2. Japan was being starved out, due to the strangulation of supply lines. 3. Etc., Etc. Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning mass killing. My mother is a native of Berlin, and was bombed out twice, so this particular aspect of war has touched my family. Was really riles me is that so many other events late in the war are overlooked, such as: 1. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which were, at the time, a fair indication of how the "defeated" Japanese would resist. 2. The fanatical resistance in Manila, which probably rivaled Stalingrad in it's intensity. 3. The kamikaze's. 4. Etc., etc. Additionally, my father was part of the slated invasion force for Operation Olympic, and would have been in the first waves. As it was, he landed in Tokyo Bay after hostilities had ceased, and the USS Missouri was still anchored there! So, what's the point of this tirade? Don't trust the interpretation of history to the revisionists! And remember, you probably won't see a Dan Rather/General Schwartzkopf lovefest about the Battle of the Bulge like you did for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. I can't see either one of them gushing about the surrender of the 106th Division... Raving as usual, Jim Shetler P.S. Where the heck is the new annual? ----- Subject: Re: Revisionist history and the Bomb Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 12:24:55 -0600 From: "Jack O'Quin" Jim Shetler wrote: > Haven't written in a while, but this last post hit a nerve. Beware of the > coming wave of revisionist history concerning the bombings of Hiroshima > and Nagasaki! You know it's going to happen, and it will probably sound > like the following: > 1. Japan was already defeated, so why was it necessary? > 2. Japan was being starved out, due to the strangulation of supply > lines. > 3. Etc., Etc. I agree with Jim. It seems to me that most of these revisionist arguments come down to either emotion or to hindsight. I can sympathise with the emotional point of view. After all, dropping the Bomb was probably the most violent single act in human history. But, those feelings should not blind us to historical reality. The bombing has to be understood in the overall context of WW-II, the most devastating war in human history. The hindsight argument is a little more subtle. Essentially it boils down to an assertion that "we now know" Japanese resistance was almost at an end: therefore, Truman should not have decided to drop the Bomb. But, Truman was a president, not an historian. He had to make his decision in real-time (no two-pass algorithms allowed). He could not know that Japan was about to collapse. He had to make do with incomplete information and his best judgement. I think he made the only reasonable choice under the circumstances. Jack O'Quin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, back to ASL: Q: What is the heavy payload DRM for an A-bomb? A: -15 Don't forget to apply the result to every hex on the board. ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 07:26:50 -0800 Subject: Re: Conventioning we go .. Hi, all. On Dec 5, 7:51pm, Brad McMahon wrote: > The third scenario which Mike and Chris were meant to play off > for second place, but couldn't due to other commitments by > Chris, was an old On All Fronts scenario: Operation Bagration > > This is a very bloody four(!) turn romp on board 22 > where Russian assault engineers try and stomp the defending > Germans. I played Andrew Pearce for last spot :( and lost > as the attacking Russians, but it was touch and go. > If I remembered to bring my reinforcements on, it would have > been closer.... > Well, Brad, I remember this one and you're definitely right: it's a bloody slugfest. However, I contend that the Germans have almost no chance of winning this one (unless, of course, the Russians forget their reinforcements :-). The lynchpin of the German defense is the Tiger. But the Russians have more than enough infantry and armor to overwhelm that poor bastard. Also, the German infantry is so numerically inferior that they simply can't afford to set up in locations where the Russians can hit them in Turn 1 Prep fire. Hence, they must cede the first line of defense. Of course, it's been 6 or 7 years since I played that one, and I got my ass kicked both times (as the Germans) so I might be a tad biased and out of touch. Many people have accused me of such. Dade ----- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 13:48:23 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: (new) scenario of the year Laddermeister Emeritus suggests for scenario of the year: >Two nominations: >Panzers Marsche (Tactiques TT3). Bit of a stretch time-wise since it >was uploaded to the archives in the middle of December 1993, Certainly no stretch here. It would be a travesty to relegate it to only 1993, even if the category were New Scenario Of The Year (NSOTY). >Acts of Defiance (Critical Hit CH5). Also perhaps a stretch on the >date; wasn't this previously published before CH redid it? Much more of a stretch for NSOTY than Panzers Marsche, because it was published previously by The Rout Report. Someone also mentioned Brandenberger Bridge, which is also a bit of a stretch for NSOTY, since it was published by The Rout Report at ASLOK '93 and indeed "nominated" for (N)SOTY by FFE in the last (& best) FFE (Rob Wolkey chose Ramsey's Charge from ASLUG). Match of the year would have to go to the 14 hour slug-a-thon in Hill 621 between Mike McGrath and Steve Pleva for the ASLOK championship. To plagiarize Rob & FFE a little more: Module of the year would be... D'oh! Annual article of the year would be...D'oh! Annual scenario of the year...Well, you get the picture. ....Perry ----- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 14:04:48 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: Conventioning we go .. Mike Kreuzer asks: >How do you guys that go to conventions and play a zillion >scenarios back to back do it? After 2 my mind had been juiced >and I was all set for an evening of Risk. :-) Any hints there >for future conventions? Back in the first or second Annual, Jon Mischon had a serious article about how to win an ASL tournament. Advice like playing all sorts of different scenarios, re-reading the ASLRB, using one tournament just for practice, staying focused, eating and sleeping right, etc. Mostly good common sense if I am remembering it right. Then in the next Annual, Mark Nixon had a hilarious piece about how to have fun at an ASL tournament, spoofing on Mischon's article. Having fun is the main point, after all. Later, in either a late At The Point or an early Fire For Effect, Marc Hanna had a despicable article about how to win an ASL tourney: no mercy, crush your opponent's spirit, no alcohol whatsoever, etc. My advice would be go to as many tournaments as you can and play as much and as long as you can. If "official" tournaments are few and far between, get some friends together and boogie all weekend long. Practice, practice, practice. ....Perry ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 15:23:31 EDT Subject: Latest OAF Guys, I was pleasantly surprised to see the latest issue of On All Fronts at my doorstep yesterday. It featured 3 scenarios (1 solitaire -airplanes vs. tanks, 1 playtest with mapboard and funky VC, and 1 Bulge scenario with the 106th Division), 2 pages of books and games for sale, a blurb on the Polish Campaign, and some facts on German airplanes vs tanks. I wasn't that taken with the scenarios as only one (106th Division's demise) looked interesting to me. The Polish Campaign article was just a morsel of some actions the writer thought would make for good scenarios. Just enough to wet the appetite but not enough to eat. Kind of like chewing gum. At $15 per year (4 issues at 10-12 pages, and 2+ scenarios/issue), this zine seems a little stiff when compared to the Annual, Critical Hit or BackBlast. This year there were 3-4 solitaire scenarios in OAF. Anybody try any of these? How "playable" were they? Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 11:54:15 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: "Re: Adapting Other Games to A"... M> Does this mean it is legal to reproduce scenarios M> published, say, in The General or other gaming magazines, M> provided that the background/outcome is not quoted directly M> ? Or would the fact that game specific information is M> used, ("4-6-7" instead of "a german squad") infringe on M> copyright, being an "expression of a fact" ? I'm sure AH would see this as infringement. M> I don't think that TAHGC would lose any money from this (I M> can't buy a scenario that is OOP). AH's position is that if the scen is out of print, you can still order a photocopy from them. $5.00 a page, if I remember correctly. M> Any opinions / legal information ? Legally, copyrighted material is clearly unavailable. Morally, it depends how much you respect the work that was done in the first place. -Grant. ... Living with a conscience is like driving a car with the brakes on. - Budd Schulberg -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Subject: Re: guns in caves and cav From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 14:37:00 -5 Howdy, Patrik Manlig writes: > [who really needs a on-line rulebook when there's J.R.? Answers to the > first two questions deleted - they seemed to be correct as far as I > could tell. ] Who needs to be right when there's Patrik? I just put down any old answer and Patrik fixes it :-) >> >3.) When I create an upper cliff cave, is there another way to enter it >> >beside through the cave complex or by scaling the cliff ? >> >> None I am aware of. > I _think_ that you can get there by means of a tunnel as well. On the > other hand, I'm not sure if that's really what the original poster wanted > to know... As I read the Tunnel rules, you can run a tunnel to a woods, building, pillbox or brush hex [B8.6] or to a cave complex, but not directly to a cave [G11.93, G11.933]. I must admit that I am not a caveman, however. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: Re: Adapting Other Games From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 14:37:00 -5 Howdy, Marcus.Schakowski@lair.co.za (Marcus Schakowski) writes: >Does this mean it is legal to reproduce scenarios published, say, in The >General or other gaming magazines, provided that the background/outcome >is not quoted directly ? Or would the fact that game specific >information is used, ("4-6-7" instead of "a german squad") infringe on >copyright, being an "expression of a fact" ? I would say that you need a legal opinion on this. There is a file on the net available for ftp on copyright that might give you some start. One of the standards is that the work provide "original expression." I don't think if you write down the OB and the directions for board placement verbatim, you have provided any original expression. However, I could easily be wrong, because I am a rules lawyer, not a real one. What you suggest is a gray area for me. A real lawyer might know better. Anyway, below is how to get the copyright FAQ. >From the copyright FAQ: "This FAQ is available for anonymous FTP from rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.209], in directory /pub/usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ, files part1 - part6. If you do not have direct access by FTP, you can obtain a copy via email: send a message to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following lines in it: send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part1 send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part2 send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part3 send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part4 send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part5 send usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ/part6 quit >I am interested in this since down here in sunny South Africa, a copy of >The General magazine sets us back the equivilant of $20, a lot of money >for two or three ASL scenarios. I am sure that many players in the >States are also having problems finding classic out-of-print scenarios. >If it were legal to reproduce the basic information of a scenario >(board config, forces, victory conditions, SSR's) it would be possible >to publish them on the net (perhaps in digest form). This would allow >newcomers (who weren't around when ASL-A was published) to play those >truly great scenarios. This is unfortunate. Of course, I don't consider the General worth the price paid here in the States, but that's just me. I'd like to encourage everyone to publish via the net if they can. I really like how my Night article went: published here on the net and in Backblast. That way it has the widest possible distribution, and everyone has an opportunity to reduce their costs to the minimum possible. My new article, "Dance with the Tiger," on overruns will be out the same way, and soon I hope :-) >I don't think that TAHGC would lose any money from this (I can't buy a >scenario that is OOP). I don't think that's relevent to copyright violation. The fact that you violated the copyright is all that is necessary. Just because it's out of print doesn't give you the right to violate the copyright. (BTW, it's hard to understand how a scenario could be OOP, "Object Oriented Programming" :-) So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 16:46:37 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: 1994 Internet List Quote of the Year So many things were said this year by so many people. I actually downloaded all of 1994 from the archives and got through January before failing my Task Check. Next year I promise to save these things as they happen, but this year we'll just have to go from memory. Any other additions are welcome, but these are the ones that stuck in my mind and had me ROTFL. Third Best Quote of the Year: "Gunner! Coax! Nuns and orphans in the open!" - John Appel Second Best Quote of the Year: "In other words, I think that the sequencing provisions of 11.22 are spelled out in enough depth that it's clear that those rules, rather than 11.3, are what apply there. I realize that 11.3 says "other," implying that Infiltration is another non-simultaneous case, but it's clear that Infiltration is "weakly" non-simultaneous (in that the sequence is broken only if the withdrawal option is taken) while the others are "strongly" non-simultaneous (If you ambush somebody and kill him, he can't hit back, period.)" - Dave Ripton ......And the Best Quote of 1994 is: " 'No S.O.B. ever won a scenario by placing his counters back into his plano boxes, he won it by making the other S.O.B. put HIS counters back into HIS plano boxes.' George S. Patton" - Tim Hundsdorfer ----- Date: 6 Dec 1994 18:47:58 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: Annual for Christmas? Not. Subject: Time:6:58 PM OFFICE MEMO Annual for Christmas? Not. Date:12/6/94 Guys, I just got off the phone with AH (last minute Christmas shopping). After placing my order I jokingly commented that they, The Hill, were probably tired of people asking about this, but did they have any idea when the 94 Annual would be out? The response went something like, "..well, (short delay) maybe at the end of December, beginning of January. (Short delay) I guess that kind of makes the 94 Annual come out in 95". Looks like no new AH scenarios in the ol' stocking this Holiday season. Of course the elves could always work overtime:) Hopefully my first TACTIQUES issue will be here soon. Bill Cirillo ----- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 17:00:25 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Annual for Christmas? Not. > I just got off the phone with AH (last minute Christmas shopping). > After placing my order I jokingly commented that they, The Hill, were > probably tired of people asking about this, but did they have any idea > when the 94 Annual would be out? Oh Bill, you're so naive. > The response went something like, "..Well," (short delay) (cups hand over phone) "Hey Joe, I think we got a live one! Line 4!" > "Maybe at the end of December, beginning of January." (Short delay) (starts to crack up laughing but catches himself) "Is he goin' for it?" "I think so!" > "I guess that kind of makes the 94 Annual come out in 95". (cups hand over phone) "BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!! Oh Lordy, I love it when they ask about the Annual!" "Keep him going, keep him going! See if you can get him to order KGP II!" I tell ya, The Grinch lives in Baltimore. Tom ----- From: Gord.Reid@f71.n246.z1.fidonet.org (Gord Reid) Date: 05 Dec 94 06:15:34 -0500 Subject: Conventioning we go .. Mike, kr> How do you guys that go to conventions and play a zillion kr> scenarios back to back do it? After 2 my mind had been juiced kr> and I was all set for an evening of Risk. :-) Any hints there kr> for future conventions? There's an article out there somewhere by Mark Nixon on how to survive a tournement. I will dig it up and try to scan it for you. If I recall it's quite funny. gord ... Specify Drive> (A):, (B):, (C): or (W)arp. ___ OMX/Blue Wave v2.12 ----- From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: LV Hindrances Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 12:14:15 +0100 (MET) Hi! I'm currently playing the KGP CG, and I'm having some problems with the LV Hindrance rule. In my game the mist have com edown to Heavy, so the mist is now a LV Hindrance. E3.1 says: A LV Hindrance is treated exactly like a LOS Hindrance except that a LV Hindrance DRM does _not_ by itself negate the FFMO DRM, Interdiction or Residual FP (A8.26). The first question is whether an otherwise OG hex is considered OG for concealment gain/loss. E3.1 doesn't mention this, implying that a unit advancing into an otherwise OG hex does _not_ lose concealment since it wouldn't have lost the concealment if the Hindrance was a LOS Hindrance. However, the QA have this listing: E3.1 May a concealed unit assault-move/advance into an otherwise Open Ground hex under LV conditions in the LOS/NVR of a Known Good Order enemy unit within 16 hexes and retain its concealment? A. No, unless some other (i.e. aside from LV) factor enables it to retain it's "?". {BW&CF} So I guess you lose the concealment. In addition one may look at A10.531 which defines OG, which IMHO, implies that a hex covered by a LV Hindrance is not OG, but A10.531 is actually a total mess, and the E3.1 QA superseeds it so I guess the unit in question will lose concealment, but comments is very welcome. The next question is about Residual FP. What on earth does "not negate Residual FP" means? If for instance a 8 FP unit fires on a 8 hex range through heavy mist (1 DRM for every three hex FRU), what is the resulting Residual FP? Normally I guess the Residual FP would be 1 (4 down two columns because of the two +1 DRM that comes from mist totally outside the target hex), while a residual attack would get a +1 DRM from the last +1 mist DRM that applies on zero range. But since a LV Hindrance does not negate Residual FP, what is the resulting FP? Is the strength of the Residual FP 8 with a +1 DRM, or is it 1 without the +1 DRM or what? I don't know... ___| |__ If you / \ cut off ||||||| Ole Boe / /| |\ \ my head, / \ Rosenborg gt 7B / / ( ) \ \ | + + | 7014 Trondheim | | / \ | | what do I say: | (_) | Norway / /\ \ \ / ooO / \ Ooo \ +++ / ( )/ \( ) Me and my head \___/ oleboe@idt.unit.no \ (/ \) / or \_) (_/ Me and my body? ----- From: N.G.Piggot@bristol.ac.uk (NG. Piggot) Subject: Opponents wanted Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 11:21:42 +0000 (GMT) Opponents wanted for ladder game(s) by relative newbie - I've played about a dozen times... As for scenario, ETO or Nth Africa - I don't have Cob/GH. Thanks in advance, Neil ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 08:33:37 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: LV Hindrances Hi guys, Ole said: >E3.1 says: > A LV Hindrance is treated exactly like a LOS Hindrance except that a > LV Hindrance DRM does _not_ by itself negate the FFMO DRM, Interdiction > or Residual FP (A8.26). >The first question is whether an otherwise OG hex is considered OG for >concealment gain/loss. E3.1 doesn't mention this, implying that a unit >advancing into an otherwise OG hex does _not_ lose concealment since >it wouldn't have lost the concealment if the Hindrance was a LOS >Hindrance. >However, the QA have this listing: > E3.1 May a concealed unit assault-move/advance into an otherwise Open > Ground hex under LV conditions in the LOS/NVR of a Known Good Order > enemy unit within 16 hexes and retain its concealment? > A. No, unless some other (i.e. aside from LV) factor enables it to > retain it's "?". {BW&CF} >So I guess you lose the concealment. In addition one may look at >A10.531 which defines OG, which IMHO, implies that a hex covered by >a LV Hindrance is not OG, but A10.531 is actually a total mess, and >the E3.1 QA superseeds it so I guess the unit in question will lose >concealment, but comments is very welcome. It is a total mess, but the Q&A is pretty straightforward. It's my opinion that this particular answer is a crummy one, since it changes the rules but isn't published so that everybody knows of the change, but I'd play by it anyway if my opponent agreed. >The next question is about Residual FP. What on earth does "not negate >Residual FP" means? If for instance a 8 FP unit fires on a 8 hex range >through heavy mist (1 DRM for every three hex FRU), what is the resulting >Residual FP? > Normally I guess the Residual FP would be 1 (4 down two >columns because of the two +1 DRM that comes from mist totally outside >the target hex), while a residual attack would get a +1 DRM from the >last +1 mist DRM that applies on zero range. But since a LV Hindrance >does not negate Residual FP, what is the resulting FP? Is the strength >of the Residual FP 8 with a +1 DRM, or is it 1 without the +1 DRM or >what? I don't know... I'm sure that the residual FP stays 4 because of the E3.1 statement that LV Hindrances don't negate residual FP. I think the DRM should be +1 for the target-hex mist, but this is debatable. (I consider reducing residual FP to be "negating," but I don't consider adding a DRM to be "negating. But of course the only DRM which can possibly be added to residual FP is the in-hex one.) Dave "Notice that I resisted callling the rules foggy or unclear" Ripton ----- Subject: LV Hindrances From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 94 08:48:00 -5 Howdy, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: >E3.1 says: > A LV Hindrance is treated exactly like a LOS Hindrance except that a > LV Hindrance DRM does _not_ by itself negate the FFMO DRM, Interdiction > or Residual FP (A8.26). >The first question is whether an otherwise OG hex is considered OG for >concealment gain/loss. E3.1 doesn't mention this, implying that a unit >advancing into an otherwise OG hex does _not_ lose concealment since >it wouldn't have lost the concealment if the Hindrance was a LOS >Hindrance. [Q&A deleted] >So I guess you lose the concealment. In addition one may look at >A10.531 which defines OG, which IMHO, implies that a hex covered by >a LV Hindrance is not OG, but A10.531 is actually a total mess, and >the E3.1 QA superseeds it so I guess the unit in question will lose >concealment, but comments is very welcome. Actually, Open Ground is defined in A10.531 as a hex where the -1 FFMO DRM applies, i.e. a target hex with no terrain and no hexside TEM and no Hindrances between the viewer and the target (or Smoke in the viewer or target, etc). Since LV Hindrances don't negate the FFMO DRM, and since open ground for concealment purposes is defined in terms of A10.531 [A12.14], movement/advance into such a hex results in loss of concealment. The Q&A merely clarifies this argument. >The next question is about Residual FP. What on earth does "not negate >Residual FP" means? If for instance a 8 FP unit fires on a 8 hex range >through heavy mist (1 DRM for every three hex FRU), what is the resulting >Residual FP? The sentence should read, "does _not_ by itself negate the FFMO DRM, Interdiction or _reduce_ Residual FP (A8.26)." How do I know this? I don't for certain, but compare with E1.7, the Night LV Hindrance. > Normally I guess the Residual FP would be 1 (4 down two >columns because of the two +1 DRM that comes from mist totally outside >the target hex), while a residual attack would get a +1 DRM from the >last +1 mist DRM that applies on zero range. But since a LV Hindrance >does not negate Residual FP, what is the resulting FP? Is the strength >of the Residual FP 8 with a +1 DRM, or is it 1 without the +1 DRM or >what? I don't know... The Mist DRM is +3 [SSR KGP3], so the Residual would be zero, if it were not a LV Hindrance, no? Because mist is a LV Hindrance, the Residual FP would be 4. Note that Very Heavy and Extra Heavy Mist are LOS Hindrances, not LV Hindrances, and so would reduce residual FP. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: Re: LV Hindrances Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 15:37:32 MET >However, the QA have this listing: > E3.1 May a concealed unit assault-move/advance into an otherwise Open > Ground hex under LV conditions in the LOS/NVR of a Known Good Order > enemy unit within 16 hexes and retain its concealment? > A. No, unless some other (i.e. aside from LV) factor enables it to > retain it's "?". {BW&CF} >So I guess you lose the concealment. In addition one may look at >A10.531 which defines OG, which IMHO, implies that a hex covered by >a LV Hindrance is not OG, but A10.531 is actually a total mess, and >the E3.1 QA superseeds it so I guess the unit in question will lose >concealment, but comments is very welcome. Well, I don t think A10.531 is such a total mess but in any case LV Hindrance are a very special kinda hindrance that needs to be specifically addressed by a rule to be taken into account, that is, IMO. It is just like rules on routing not talking of jungle, the jungle rules need to address the point specifically since you won t see any "jungle" in Chapter A. It is the same here for LV Hindrance. The QA is here a clarification, when E3.1 was talking of OG they forgot to mention one of the instances where OG applies, namely ? loss during the APh. The QA clarifies that but that s the way I would have understood it. > >The next question is about Residual FP. What on earth does "not negate > >Residual FP" means? If for instance a 8 FP unit fires on a 8 hex range > >through heavy mist (1 DRM for every three hex FRU), what is the resulting > >Residual FP? You got me there. I kinda remember that +6LV Hindrance negates the fire just as normal Hindrance, am I right? So I guess it would negate the residual too which is an effect ... dunno. -Bruno ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: LV Hindrances Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 16:00:52 +0100 (MET) Hi, > You got me there. I kinda remember that +6LV Hindrance negates the fire just > as normal Hindrance, am I right? So I guess it would negate the residual too > which is an effect ... dunno. One minor correction: a +6 hindrance doesn't do a damn about any fire, because you won't be able to fire in the first place. A +6 hindrance means that there is no LOS to the location in question, so you can't place residual because you can't fire at all. When you fire at less than +6 hindrance you will have to add the hindrance DRM to the original attack, but not when calculating residual. At least thats the interpretation I think makes the most sense. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 94 10:37:01 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: 1994 Internet List Quote of the Year No list of ASLML quotes would be complete without several selections from the Bard of Idaho. Perhaps, though, it would be unfair to include him in with us mere mortals. A separate category might be in order: Top Ten Repetti Quips of 1994. Since my memory is so poor, I'll open the nominations with a recent one: "Keep him going, keep him going! See if you can get him to order KGP II!" ....Perry ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 10:45:16 -0500 From: Brian SPENCER Subject: The Fugitives Greetings, I just played The Fugitives (ASL 8) solitaire last night and I was wondering what is the best setup for the Russians. According to the record, the Russians have won this a significant amount of time. However, in my game, I set up the AT gun so that it could cover both roads to the canal. The AT's first shot bounced off the front of the Stug III and rolled boxcars on its next shot...it was subsequently destroyed in its repair attempt. Now, the German armour cleared a path for the trucks to carry as much infantry off the board before the Russian reinforcements arrived in turn 5. So, my question from a relative newbie to the game and to armour, what would be the Russian strategy when faced with only infantry to stop an armour attack. There are a few spots for street fighting but generally it looked like an easy win for the Germans. Brian Spencer ----- From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: LV Hindrances Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 16:49:52 +0100 (MET) >JR answered to my LV Hindrance question: > > Actually, Open Ground is defined in A10.531 as a hex where > the -1 FFMO DRM applies, i.e. a target hex with no terrain > and no hexside TEM and no Hindrances between the viewer and > the target (or Smoke in the viewer or target, etc). Since > LV Hindrances don't negate the FFMO DRM, and since open > ground for concealment purposes is defined in terms of > A10.531 [A12.14], movement/advance into such a hex results > in loss of concealment. The Q&A merely clarifies this > argument. > Actually, A10.531 says that an OG hex is a hex where a unit could apply "the -1 FFMO DRM without any positive DRM". In this case, E3.1 says that FFMO is not negated, but the LV Hindrance is a positive DRM, so by strictly following A10.531, the unit would not lose concealment. It is possible the meaning was to let LV Hindrance be non-existant for concealment gain/loss purposes as the QA says, but why didn't they say so in E3.1, or publish the errata? As it stand now, this is not what the rules says, except for the unofficial errata. > >The next question is about Residual FP. What on earth does "not negate > >Residual FP" means? If for instance a 8 FP unit fires on a 8 hex range > >through heavy mist (1 DRM for every three hex FRU), what is the resulting > >Residual FP? > > The sentence should read, "does _not_ by itself negate the > FFMO DRM, Interdiction or _reduce_ Residual FP (A8.26)." > How do I know this? I don't for certain, but compare with > E1.7, the Night LV Hindrance. > This, at least make some sence... > > > Normally I guess the Residual FP would be 1 (4 down two > >columns because of the two +1 DRM that comes from mist totally outside > >the target hex), while a residual attack would get a +1 DRM from the > >last +1 mist DRM that applies on zero range. But since a LV Hindrance > >does not negate Residual FP, what is the resulting FP? Is the strength > >of the Residual FP 8 with a +1 DRM, or is it 1 without the +1 DRM or > >what? I don't know... > > The Mist DRM is +3 [SSR KGP3], so the Residual would be > zero, if it were not a LV Hindrance, no? > The Mist DRM is +3, but only two of the three comes from mist totally outside the hex, so the Residual FP would be changed only two columns. > Because mist is a LV Hindrance, the Residual FP would be 4. > Note that Very Heavy and Extra Heavy Mist are LOS > Hindrances, not LV Hindrances, and so would reduce residual > FP. I agree, and as Dave Ripton pointed out, the Residual FP attack would get the +1 mist DRM that applies at zero range. ___| |__ If you / \ cut off ||||||| Ole Boe / /| |\ \ my head, / \ Rosenborg gt 7B / / ( ) \ \ | + + | 7014 Trondheim | | / \ | | what do I say: | (_) | Norway / /\ \ \ / ooO / \ Ooo \ +++ / ( )/ \( ) Me and my head \___/ oleboe@idt.unit.no \ (/ \) / or \_) (_/ Me and my body? ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 10:01:10 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Re: The Fugitives > From bspencer@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca Wed Dec 7 09:47:54 1994 > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 10:45:16 -0500 > From: Brian SPENCER > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: The Fugitives > Content-Length: 871 > > > Greetings, > > I just played The Fugitives (ASL 8) solitaire last night and I was wondering > what is the best setup for the Russians. According to the record, the Russians > have won this a significant amount of time. However, in my game, I set > up the AT gun so that it could cover both roads to the canal. The AT's first > shot bounced off the front of the Stug III and rolled boxcars on its next > shot...it was subsequently destroyed in its repair attempt. Now, the German > armour cleared a path for the trucks to carry as much infantry off the board > before the Russian reinforcements arrived in turn 5. > > So, my question from a relative newbie to the game and to armour, what would > be the Russian strategy when faced with only infantry to stop an armour attack. > There are a few spots for street fighting but generally it looked like an > easy win for the Germans. > I don't think it's an easy win for the Germans at all. There are just so many things that can go wrong. Sure, losing your ATG can hurt the defense, but there are other ways to stop tanks. Since they have to cross the bridges, it's almost impossible for them to do so without the Russians getting some street fighting chances. A good Russian player beat me in this one without his ATG ever entering the picture. Also, clever placement of Russkie HIPsters can put the hurt on the German advance. I think this scenario comes down to a few key things. One is how much progress the Germans can make before the reinforcements arrive. If they cannot get something across a bridge by then, I like the Russians' chances. Also, I think whether they can get smoke or not is crucial. I didn't get any in the loss I just mentioned. Third, the ammo shortage can put the hurt on the Germans also. It's very frustrating when your first shot with the 9-2 led MMG kill stack breaks both machine guns. My overall impression is that this scenario is more fun to play as the Germans, but it's slightly easier to win as the Russians. Matt > Brian Spencer > ----- From: falsetti@sledge-po.weeg.uiowa.edu Date: 7 Dec 94 11:54 CST Subject: What happen on multiple = TK Situation: A German PzkIVH fires at a British Valentine hitting the hull. It's TK roll equals the final TK# (i.e.. immobilization). The crew fails the TC and abandons the vehicle. The PzkIVH fires again hitting the Valentine's turret. The TK roll equals the final TK# (i.e. shock). Questions: A) On the Valentine do you: 1) place a shock marker 2) treat it is a kill 3) treat as a no effect B) If the PzkIVH had gotten a hull hit the second time, would you: 1) treat it is a kill 2) treat as a no effect >>--> Guy D. Falsetti EMAIL: guy-falsetti@uiowa.edu <--<< ===== The University of Iowa, Weeg Computing Center ===== ===== Lindquist Building , Iowa City, IA 52242 ===== ===== PHONE: 319-335-6140 FAX: 319-335-5505 ===== ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: What happen on multiple = TK Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 10:46:37 PST Guy Falsetti writes: > Situation: A German PzkIVH fires at a British Valentine hitting the > hull. It's TK roll equals the final TK# (i.e.. immobilization). The > crew fails the TC and abandons the vehicle. The PzkIVH fires again > hitting the Valentine's turret. The TK roll equals the final TK# > (i.e. shock). > > Questions: > > A) On the Valentine do you: > 1) place a shock marker Well, the rules don't say otherwise (AFAIK), so I'd say this is the right answer. If you think about it, a Shock really represents a chance of a non-obvious kill; given that, Shock results should be, if anything, MORE common against unoccupied vehicles. > 2) treat it is a kill > 3) treat as a no effect > > B) If the PzkIVH had gotten a hull hit the second time, would you: > 1) treat it is a kill > 2) treat as a no effect No effect. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Radioless vehicle question Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 11:25:08 PST A question has come to mind after reading the section on radioless vehicles. Consider the following situation: a two-vehicle platoon is happily moving along when one of them is blown to smithereens by an AT gun. Does the remaining vehicle have to take an immediate NTC to keep moving? My guess is no, but I'm not really sure. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:07:37 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: What happen on multiple = TK > A) On the Valentine do you: > 1) place a shock marker > 2) treat it is a kill > 3) treat as a no effect No effect on the tank - the crew may need to take a 2fp collateral attack??? > B) If the PzkIVH had gotten a hull hit the second time, would you: > 1) treat it is a kill > 2) treat as a no effect If you mean in got exactly what it needed (TK wise) on a hull hit, on an abandoned tank, I'd say it is immobilized and abandoned. ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 15:39:54 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: BB AND TAC JOINT VENTURE GENTLEMEN! It is with great pride that I'd like to announce a partnership between Backblast and Tactiques magazines. We've negotiated a deal whereby everyone wins. The largest cost with single magazine purchases for overseas folks has been purchasing the correct money order. This is absurd, since the cost of Backblast was more than doubled if someone in France wished to buy a single copy! To alleviate this problem, at least for Frenchmen wishing to buy Backblast and Americans wishing to buy Tactiques, we are now distributing for one another. PLEASE remember to specify which issue you are purchasing. If you live in the US and wish to purchase Tactiques, send a check/ money order to: TACTIQUES MAGAZINE C/O Multi-Man Publishing 531 South Sharp Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Tactiques rates are as follows: 2 Year Sub(4 issues): $40 1 Copy (#1-#4): $10 (#5): $11 (#6): $13 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS) 2 Copies: $19 (any issue) 3 Copies: $27 (any issue) 4 Copies: $37 (any issue) 5 Copies: $45 (any issue) Checks/Money Orders should be made out to Multi-Man Publishing and drawn on US funds. If you live in France and wish to purchase Backblast, send a check/ money order for $5 and $3 postage (add $1 postage for each extra magazine ordered) to: BACKBLAST MAGAZINE c/o Association des Strateges Ludiques 3 rue du Rond-Point F-93160 NOISY-LE-GRAND FRANCE Checks/Money Orders should be made out to "Association des Strateges Ludiques" and drawn on French funds. If you have any questions about ordering Backblast or Tactiques, please contact either Jean-Luc Bechennec (Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr) or Chuck Goetz (c.goetz@genie.geis.com). Thanks for your continued support of our hobby! Association des Strateges Ludiques Multi-Man Publishing ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 16:08:14 -0500 From: jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com (J. R. Tracy) Subject: ammo shortage Folks: Does ammo shortage affect mg breakdown numbers? I thought so, but the other night found references only for Guns and (I think) vehicular MA. What, if anything, am I missing? Thanks, clueless JR ----- Subject: REVIEWERS NEEDED From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 94 14:52:00 -5 Howdy, I have just written an article on the rules for overrun. This was a result of my trying to understand what non-CC Reaction Fire was about. Are there a few people out there who are generally familiar with the rules who would be willing to review my article and send me comments? When I have incorporated all the comments, I will be making the article available to the net. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 18:59:24 EDT Subject: Cherkassy/Korsun/Kanev Pocket I'm designing some more scenarios and I need some information. (1) I'm looking for information on the TOE of the Soviet 5th Guard Tank Corp or 5th Guard Tank Army. I'm specifically interested in early 1944 at the time of the Cherkassy Pocket. Anybody have any info? Is there a good general text on the OB or TOE of Soviet forces? (2) I'd also like to know if the 1st Panzer Division, SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, or schwere Panzer Abteilung Baeke (Heavy Tank Regiment Baeke) possessed JgdPz Tigers (Elefants) in early 1944. The ASLRB states that the elefants were withdrawn from the Nikopol area in mid 1944. Thanks, Jeff jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) Dr. Jeffrey Shields (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 10:58:08 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: What happen on multiple = TK > > > Situation: A German PzkIVH fires at a British Valentine hitting the > hull. It's TK roll equals the final TK# (i.e.. immobilization). The > crew fails the TC and abandons the vehicle. The PzkIVH fires again > hitting the Valentine's turret. The TK roll equals the final TK# > (i.e. shock). > > Questions: > > A) On the Valentine do you: > 1) place a shock marker > 2) treat it is a kill > 3) treat as a no effect 3 Since there is no crew in the Valentine it can't be Shocked. > > B) If the PzkIVH had gotten a hull hit the second time, would you: > 1) treat it is a kill > 2) treat as a no effect 2. Since the Valentine is immobilized it is a NE. (If you really want to you can place a second immobilized marker, but it will have NE.) Had the crew not already abandoned it would have to take another TC, but again no now marker would be placed due to the hit. It sounds like you need to roll lower onteh TK. Fred > > >>--> Guy D. Falsetti EMAIL: guy-falsetti@uiowa.edu <--<< > ===== The University of Iowa, Weeg Computing Center ===== > ===== Lindquist Building , Iowa City, IA 52242 ===== > ===== PHONE: 319-335-6140 FAX: 319-335-5505 ===== > > ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:51:50 -0500 (EST) From: Bryan Kropf Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, James D Shetler wrote: > > > On 5 Dec 1994, Patrick E Connolly +1 614 860 7163 wrote: > > > Caught some bits on NPR about the 50th Anniversary of the Hiroshima/ > > Nagasaki bombings though (coming up 8/95). Both a commemorative US > > Postage stamp (part of a set) and a Smithsonian display of the Enola > > Gay are planned, and the Japanese government has voiced opposition to > > both. > > Hi guys, > Haven't written in a while, but this last post hit a nerve. Beware of the > coming wave of revisionist history concerning the bombings of Hiroshima > and Nagasaki! You know it's going to happen, and it will probably sound > like the following: > 1. Japan was already defeated, so why was it necessary? > 2. Japan was being starved out, due to the strangulation of supply > lines. > 3. Etc., Etc. > Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning mass killing. My mother is a > native of Berlin, and was bombed out twice, so this particular aspect of > war has touched my family. Was really riles me is that so many other > events late in the war are overlooked, such as: > 1. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which were, at the time, > a fair indication of how the "defeated" Japanese would resist. > 2. The fanatical resistance in Manila, which probably rivaled > Stalingrad in it's intensity. > 3. The kamikaze's. > 4. Etc., etc. > Additionally, my father was part of the slated invasion force for Operation > Olympic, and would have been in the first waves. As it was, he landed in > Tokyo Bay after hostilities had ceased, and the USS Missouri was still > anchored there! > > So, what's the point of this tirade? Don't trust the interpretation of > history to the revisionists! And remember, you probably won't see a Dan > Rather/General Schwartzkopf lovefest about the Battle of the Bulge like you > did for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. I can't see either one of them > gushing about the surrender of the 106th Division... > > Raving as usual, > Jim Shetler > > P.S. Where the heck is the new annual? > > Jim Shetler, Cool posting! You raise some good points; however, maybe we don't need to keep such a watchful eye to prevent getting mugged by a revisionist historian (or socially conscious, politically correct reporter for that matter). On one hand, some of the finest military historians (Martin Blumenson, and Carlo D'Este among others) are advocates of a revisionist methodology in their historical analysis. On the other hand, revisionists may infact be individuals packing an agenda and looking for a venue. I agree with P.J. O'Rourke on this point: maybe even Chicken-Little had an agenda! I suspect we derogate revisionists because we think, right, wrong, or indifferent, they have more at stake then balance and truth; they have thier agenda. In the case of the Enola Gay exhibit, Dr. Martin Harwit, director of the National Air and Space Museum, clearly intends on preserving the theme of Japanese suffering which resulted from the hydrogen bomb detonations over Hiroshima/Nagasaki and previous bombings of Japan. And so, a bias remains even in the revised exhibit script: 32 photos of Japanese casualties, 7 photos of American casualties. This fact alone is grounds enough for scrapping the whole exhibit and, as General Tibbits suggests, displaying the bomber alone with a simple note on its mission. You don't need any other context or explanation. In short, revise the revisionists! Most are not even historians, anyway. Lastly, I agree with you in asking what is the point in fussing over how this event is remembered. The point of dropping the bomb was to end the war and save lives. This was a positive thing. The world, not just the U.S., heaved a sigh of relief when the war ended. Regards, Bryan Kropf ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 18:05:15 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Malfunction & Breakdown Gang, I made a (hopefully) exhaustive list of rules references related to weapon malfunction. Let me know what I forgot :-) Sustained Fire +2 A9.3 Ammo Shortage +1 A19.131 Captured Equipment +2 A21.11 Non-Qualified use +4 A21.13 Non-V.Crew Capt. AFV +4 A21.22 Intensive Fire +2 C5.62 Low Ammo +1 D3.71 I don't believe that any combination reduces the X number to below the original B or B(circle) number. Thus Captured, sustained fire for a B11 lmg, would be X'd on an 11 and (+4) B'd on a 7. Don Hancock ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:38:56 -0500 From: BArcher@aol.com Subject: Re: Revisionist history and t... Go to Japan and look at the planned invasion beaches. Blue beach, were the Pizza Hut is at Yokouska Naval Base, is a nightmare. The landing craft would make about a 2 mile run through the bay, including a 90 degree turn after clearing the harbor mouth, past an island, taking fire from ALL directions before hitting the beach. The beach itself is only about 20 yards wide, and then there are these hills that are about 50 feet tall. The hills are so honeycombed with tunnels and bunkers that they are fenced off and are off limits. After seeing this beach, I think estimates of 1 million combined casualities are ludicrous, low that is. We wanted to land there because it was the Japenese Naval Headquarters. Bill ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:45:23 -5 Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor's 50th Anniversary > From: Bryan Kropf > clearly intends on > preserving the theme of Japanese suffering which resulted from the > hydrogen bomb detonations over Hiroshima/Nagasaki Just picking nits. No hydrogen bomb has ever been dropped on a city or another person. They were pure atomic bombs. The hydrogen bomb was not invented 'til after the war. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: 07 Dec 94 21:36:39 EST From: craig cooper <74537.573@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" Dave sez: Hi guys, Craig said: > For Concealment and all other matters most secret, my pals and I > send a text file for each "secret" which has been encrypted with a > programme like Encrypt-It. Then, when we need to prove - so to > speak - whatever it is, we simply send the encyption key. > To me this is exactly the wrong reason to use concealment files. If > you're using the honor system for dice, then there's no reason at all > to try for verification of HIP and concealment. The only reason to > document them is to save mailings -- it's easier for me to grep the > contents of ?a out of a concealment file and keep going that it is > to make an extra mailing to ask my opponent what I just shot. > OTOH, if you're using on of the PBEM methods that uses lists of rolls > instead of honorable dice rolling, then I see why you need to do this. > But, given the proven honesty of players on the ASL PBEM circuit, I > still wouldn't bother. > Dave Ripton Oh, Dave, you're so suspicious. Don't forget that the method I described also greatly decreases the chances of dispositions being misplaced or mistyped in the heat of battle (especially by harried people like me who are playing by e-mail more and more cuz there's no time for FTF). Once committed to a file, encrypted or otherwise, it becomes a permanent record to which both players have (potential) access. Besides, I think encryption programmes are the cat's pajamas. craig ----- Date: 07 Dec 94 21:55:20 EST From: craig cooper <74537.573@compuserve.com> Subject: What would YOU do? The answer is: g) I'd jump out of the turret, yell "aren't Royal Tigers cool?!!?" and promptly die in a hail of lead. Very Seriously, craig ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 23:07:26 -0500 From: Dale150@aol.com Subject: AH news Hello, I have some news from Gary Fortenberry. For the past 6 weeks or so the Baltimore playtest group has been working on finishing the scenarios for the ' 94 annual. Okay it will not be out in 1994 but the scenarios and articles are done. Currently, groups have been issued the revised maps for KGP II and playtest has been re-started. According to Fort, the mapboard terrain has been finalized and only some run throughs of the campaign game are needed before it is ready. Some groups have also been issued copies of "The 3rd Bridge" which is the title of an historical module for the battle for Arnhem. The action covers about a 10 block area north of the bridge. The maps are in the rough stage but serviceable for testing. Finally, AH has developed two new maps #42 and #43 which are to be included in a scenario/map package. I have seen the unmounted maps and they look great. Map 42 has alot of woods and a large lake, 43 is mostly grain with a farm complex. Scenarios are being developed for these maps and playtest will begin this month. Dale ----- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 23:44:19 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: AH news > I have some news from Gary Fortenberry. For the past 6 weeks or so the > Baltimore playtest group has been working on finishing the scenarios for the > ' 94 annual. Okay it will not be out in 1994 but the scenarios and articles > are done. *Gasp!* > Currently, groups have been issued the revised maps for KGP II and playtest > has been re-started. According to Fort, the mapboard terrain has been > finalized and only some run throughs of the campaign game are needed before > it is ready. *GASP!* > Some groups have also been issued copies of "The 3rd Bridge" which is the > title of an historical module for the battle for Arnhem. The action covers > about a 10 block area north of the bridge. The maps are in the rough stage > but serviceable for testing. **GASP!URK!** > Finally, AH has developed two new maps #42 and #43 which are to be included > in a scenario/map package. I have seen the unmounted maps and they look > great. Map 42 has alot of woods and a large lake, 43 is mostly grain with a > farm complex. Scenarios are being developed for these maps and playtest will > begin this month. ***GASP!URK!FAINT!*** > Dale Idaho Repetti, is that really you just getting creative again? ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Radioless vehicle question Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 23:13:17 PST > Does this question have anything to do with a certain game of White > Tigers by chance? That was probably what got me thinking about it. Figured I'd ask now before I start receiving a hail of 2 lb. shells. > The answer is no. No additional TC is required. I didn't think so, but I wasn't sure. > Now here is a question for you from our current scenario. Does the flooded > stream at level 0 form an obstacle for an otherwise clear LOS to a unit > in a ford location(level -1)? What's your opinion? Ick. I'll take a look at the rulebook and see what I think then.... Okay, here's what I think, and my conclusions seem odd enough that I'm forwarding a copy to the list to see if people agree with my interpretation. B20.44 says that a flooded stream is at level 0. B20.8 says: "FORDS: A ford represents an area within a stream or gully hex where the Depression's sides have a gentler slope and the streambed itself is level and lies near the surface, but the ford is still *at the same elevation as that stream hex* (emphasis mine)...." B20.81 and 20.82 describe how a Ford hex differs from a normal stream hex, and the differences concern movement only. Most notably, and I had not realized this before, the rule DOES NOT say that a Ford hex *IS* a stream hex with water depth one classification shallower. Therefore I conclude that, as written, a Ford hex in a flooded stream is ALSO at level 0, just like the rest of the stream. This conclusion bothers me for two reasons. First, I don't think it's what the designer intended. Second, it just doesn't make much sense. It shouldn't be easier for INFANTRY to exit a flooded stream than it is to exit a deep stream, but that's what my conclusion implies (since the stream is no longer a depression, you shouldn't have pay MF/MP to go up a level to leave it). My guess is that the purpose behind the flooded stream becoming level 0 is to make it easier for amphibious vehicles to cross; I think the rule is buggy, though, when combined with a ford. My guess is that the designer just never thought of this case when designing the rule. If you don't like this, then I think the ford hex has to be treated much like a one-hex gully; the rest of the stream WILL block LOS since it isn't a Depression. Personally, I think this is an even sillier result. Any comments from the list? I'd REALLY like to hear a definitive (and preferably correct B^) opinion. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 01:30:00 UTC Subject: Re: guns in caves and cave-com Howdy, Things seem kinda slow around here, so thought I'd rise from lurker status. > >3.) When I create an upper cliff cave, is there another way to enter it > >beside through the cave complex or by scaling the cliff ? > > None I am aware of. > > So long, > > JR Actually, per G11.6, all caves in a hex and within one level of each other are accessible to each other. If I ever get around to playing Monte Castello (A67?) as the Germans, I'd like to try putting this to use as a way to provide the Nazi cave dwellers with a rout path to the rear. I played this once as the Argentinians, and the Germans in the caves were hosed once they broke. You can't rout out of the cave once broken because you'd be routing toward an enemy unit (into the entrance hex) if you want to rout out of the cave. So they just sit there whimpering until somebody can waltz up and force their surrender or elimination. Cool scenario, BTW. With all the fog, the M20 hts (81 MTRs) didn't have anything to do for several turns, so I had the crews bail with the .50 cal AAMGs and hand 'em to the advancing troops before reentering their vehicles to rain WP on the German strong points. Those .50s make for a nice little FP boost. I wonder if this was considered in the playtest? Bob Schaaf ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 10:57:00 UTC Subject: Oops WRT "Monte Castello," make that "Brazillians" instead of Argentinians. Wouldn't want to allow a mistake like that to stand. Next thing you know, someone'll be piping in with a call for a Brazillian counterset. !B^) Cheers, Bob Schaaf