----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 15:01:28 +0100 (MET) Carl, I just want to say that I agree with you. The suggestions I have made are just that - suggestions. I think that counting each CG as _one_ game is the best way to do it, but for those who think otherwise I have done my best to provide some alternatives. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 08:07:34 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) > From kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu Thu Feb 17 04:16:25 1994 > From: kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney) > Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:53:15 MST > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > Content-Length: 1399 > > Survey says: > > >Where do you stand on the Fire Table issue? > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >17 [168] I use the IFT or we don`t play. > >66 [169] I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime. > >30 [170] I tend to use the IFT. > >18 [171] I tend to use the IIFT. > >14 [172] I usually use the IIFT, but might try the IFT sometime. > >5 [173] I use the IIFT or we don`t play. > > I have to admit that this really surprised me. Not to reopen > the debate on the merits of either table, but of the ASL players I've > ever run into, I estimate that 90% prefer the Incremental IFT. Many > of those I talked to who prefered the IFT almost seemed embarrassed > about it, as if they felt they were resisting enormous peer pressure. > Since I've not met many players outside Texas/Colorado/the west, I > wonder if there's a significant geographical dependence on IIFT > preference. Or maybe its popularity is not what it used to be. Maybe > when Mark Nixon put himself on the 'Nay' side in print, it emboldened > those who were too meek to speak out against the new table. Maybe > people were eager to pick it up and try it out, but many dropped it > after trying it. Maybe people just learning ASL feel there's enough > complexity without the bigger table, and the sport is just growing > quickly. Anybody know what the result of this question was in the > last survey? (John?) > > rk > Well it's changed since you left Austin, Rodney. Mike Seningen is the only one of the about half-dozen players here who prefers the IIFT. Of course, he's usually willing to stomp my troops with the IFT as well, just to prove that what really matters is his superior ability at the game. But most of the guys here just use the IFT. The question never really comes up any more. Matt (I actually like stacking troops to match specific IFT columns) Shostak ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:25 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) Rodney Kinney says >>Where do you stand on the Fire Table issue? >>------------------------------------------------------------- >>17 [168] I use the IFT or we don`t play. >>66 [169] I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime. >>30 [170] I tend to use the IFT. >>18 [171] I tend to use the IIFT. >>14 [172] I usually use the IIFT, but might try the IFT sometime. >>5 [173] I use the IIFT or we don`t play. > I have to admit that this really surprised me. Not to reopen >the debate on the merits of either table, but of the ASL players I've >ever run into, I estimate that 90% prefer the Incremental IFT. Well, I'd like to add some perspective on this. I'm pretty new to ASL, I've played 1 FTF game, and have three PBEM games going on. I am one of the 66 that answered "I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime", the rational being that I've never even seen the IIFT and would like to get a feel of the original before switching to a variant. My impression in the games that I'm playing through mail is that my opponents are in the same boat as me. So, the above results may be a skewed by newly arriving ASL'ers. ----- From: Anders V\dstberg Subject: Ladder Points ... Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:43:41 MET By asking in the survey how many scenarios played *and* time spent on ASL one can calculate a average time per scenario factor (tpsf). Each player of a game in the ladder must use a chess clock to measure the time spent on a scenario (tsoas). Each year every person is rated according to their slowness factor (sf), by their regular opponent, i.e don't take more time then needed to whip your opponent. Then ladder points for a scenario/cg win is awarded acoording to: lp=tsoas/(tpsf*sf) ladder points (lp). This way every type of play gets their rightfull award Please insert :^) all over the above. /Anders -- ^ Anders Vastberg-------------------------------------------------------- |I| Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden |R| Phone: (+46) 18-303673. Telex: 76036 (IRFUPP S). Fax: (+46) 18-403100 /|F|\ INTERNET: av@irfu.se UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!av ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 09:54:21 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Survey Results Comments >How much experience do you have? >------------------------------------------------------------- >14 [1] 6+1: IFT? Yeah, I know what that is! >11 [2] 7-0: Buildings are +3, right, and halved for area fire? >45 [3] 8-0: Perhaps I should Dash across that street. >36 [4] 8-1: I`ll call in that OBA as WP. >27 [5] 9-1: I`ll stay in motion and pop off the sD`s. >11 [6] 9-2: A river crossing? In boats? With DD Shermans? No problem. >7 [7] 10-2: Same as above, but I`ll use the Italians at night. >2 [8] 10-3: I`ve won a Major ASL Tournament. I'm curious who on the list has won a major ASL tournament? Which one? Could you drop us a line telling of the experience? >How frequently do you play? >------------------------------------------------------------- >38 [17] Less than once a month >35 [18] Once a month >41 [19] Every other week >28 [20] Once a week >10 [21] Fully addicted: play at least twice a week >2 [22] Not a member of the human race: play every day Get out! We have two people who play every day? How! Single? College Student? Independently wealthy or just bored? >What ASL tournaments have you attended? >------------------------------------------------------------- >11 [43] Winter Offensive Is there another tournament? Last plug, it is this weekend, Bowie Maryland. If you can attend, please do so! Meet some of the faces to go with these names you see all the time! >1 [48] Chinese Only one person perfers to play the Chinese? Hmm, I'd have thought there would be at least two... >What *one* theater do you prefer to play? >------------------------------------------------------------- >32 [58] Eastern European >9 [59] North African >10 [60] Pacific >43 [61] Western European >59 [62] No preference > I found the results to this question very puzzling. The North African modules have been popular due to the counter mix, not the subject - I guess. Why? Why don't more people like the desert? Too many more rules? The one that stunned me was that only 10 people prefer the PTO. Compared to the 75 who prefer the ETO. Again, too many rules? Just don't have the modules yet? Is there a reason why? >What ASL modules do you own? >------------------------------------------------------------- >143 [63] Beyond Valor >127 [64] Paratrooper >129 [65] Yanks >109 [66] Partisan! >118 [67] West of Alamein >106 [68] The Last Hurrah >101 [69] Hollow Legions >99 [70] Code of Bushido >93 [71] Gung Ho! >103 [72] Croix de Guerre >110 [73] Red Barricades >86 [74] Kampfgruppe Peiper I >92 [75] Streets of Fire >85 [76] Hedgerow Hell > This is a perfect example of the problem with ASL. Sure there are fanatics out there who buy anything/everything ASL (I'm among them), but every new module seems to result in a few people saying "The hell with it, I'm done with this neverending system...". I really think AH should get the minor's ordanence modules done. Then the system would be "complete" before everyone burns out. Then, release the HASL modules as icing on this very wonderful cake... >5 [90] Tactiques Take a look at the last page, newest Tactiques. Yep, I'm now a world-published author! Well, a US and EUROPEAN column author. BTW, Jean-Luc, the article on the page preceeding my article gives the credit to Perry Cocke and Chuck Goetz for the Atlanticon scenarios. Not to pick, but how's bout a little credit where credit is due? 8) Brian ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:20:58 -0800 From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) On Feb 17, 9:25am, Dan Sullivan wrote: > Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) > Rodney Kinney says > > >>Where do you stand on the Fire Table issue? > >>------------------------------------------------------------- > >>17 [168] I use the IFT or we don`t play. > >>66 [169] I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime. > >>30 [170] I tend to use the IFT. > >>18 [171] I tend to use the IIFT. > >>14 [172] I usually use the IIFT, but might try the IFT sometime. > >>5 [173] I use the IIFT or we don`t play. > > > I have to admit that this really surprised me. Not to reopen > >the debate on the merits of either table, but of the ASL players I've > >ever run into, I estimate that 90% prefer the Incremental IFT. > > Well, I'd like to add some perspective on this. I'm pretty new to ASL, > I've played 1 FTF game, and have three PBEM games going on. I am one of the > 66 that answered "I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime", the > rational being that I've never even seen the IIFT and would like to get a > feel of the original before switching to a variant. > My impression in the games that I'm playing through mail is that my opponents > are in the same boat as me. So, the above results may be a skewed by newly > arriving ASL'ers. >-- End of excerpt from Dan Sullivan Well, Dan, I'm a nearly-300-FTF-games player and I responded to the survey similarly. In fact, I guess I prefer the IIFT, but the whole issue doesn't raise much passion in me. I'll go along with whatever my opponent wants, generally. NOTE: This attitude can label you as an easy mark at tournaments! Dade ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:29:55 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT) >Rodney Kinney says > >>>Where do you stand on the Fire Table issue? >>>------------------------------------------------------------- >>>17 [168] I use the IFT or we don`t play. >>>66 [169] I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime. >>>30 [170] I tend to use the IFT. >>>18 [171] I tend to use the IIFT. >>>14 [172] I usually use the IIFT, but might try the IFT sometime. >>>5 [173] I use the IIFT or we don`t play. > >> I have to admit that this really surprised me. Not to reopen >>the debate on the merits of either table, but of the ASL players I've >>ever run into, I estimate that 90% prefer the Incremental IFT. I answered 170, but that is because there was no category for 50/50, or "whatever my opponent likes" or "I like the IIFT, but either is ok", or "I like the IIFT, but my opponents are so paranoid about concealment stripping that I usually wimp out and use the IFT" or "IFT, or a customized version of the IIFT, and special rules, so that my opponents won't whine about my endless mortar ROF revealing all their dummies". Given the inadaquacies of the survey, and the obviously skewed results to this question, I call for an immediate and mandatory all-hands discussion of the merits of IIFT usage, to settle this once and for all. The only viable alternative is a one-question IIFT survey, using the original question, but with a fill-in-the-blank answer space. As soon any two matching answers are found, there will be a 2-month ban enacted on IIFT discussions. Violators will receive a copy of the FAQ from Don Hancock, along with a stern warning. Before anyone goes Berserk, I am just kidding. Especially the "settles this once and for all" part. :-) Seriously, the survey says that there are at least 100+ people out there who wouldn't burn IIFT'ers at the stake. That's pretty good for a hotly debated variant, IMO. And the survey is far from inadaquate. It is very difficult to put together a fair and comprehensive survey. John did one heck of a job, and I thank him for his effort. Now, if some stat-maniac wants to analyze the results for us, Bill James-style... Matt (still 1% more annoying) Brown ----- Subject: Re: Survey Results Comments From: Petri Juhani Piira Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:38:44 +0200 > >What *one* theater do you prefer to play? > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >32 [58] Eastern European > >9 [59] North African > >10 [60] Pacific > >43 [61] Western European > >59 [62] No preference > > > > I found the results to this question very puzzling. The North African modules > have been popular due to the counter mix, not the subject - I guess. Why? > Why don't more people like the desert? Too many more rules? No. the scenarios are too random. In ASL the use of terrain is approximately 60 % of the skill... in the desert there is no terrain, so the person who rolls better wins. > The one that stunned me was that only 10 people prefer the PTO. Compared to the > 75 who prefer the ETO. Again, too many rules? Just don't have the modules > yet? Is there a reason why? The rules (this is true also on the ETO) are nowhere nearl as intuitively self-evident as they are in chapters A-D. They also contain much more "legalese" and concentrate on the minor irrelevant details... I.e. the heart of the ASL, fire combat, morale and rout takes maybe 10 pages of rules... while something as far-fetched as invasion rules in Chapter H takes the same! Also, the pacific scenarios are too similar. In almost every one of them there is about 1-2 companies of Japanese with some LMGs and Light Mtrs... and not much else. Btw. Now the system has existed almost 10 years, and still not a single scenario with a RCL in it? A Pacific scenario featuring one would at least have something new... but no. Lets use an LMG instead. Whoa. Petri ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 08:45:24 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Survey Results Comments Brian writes: >How much experience do you have? >------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > >2 [8] 10-3: I`ve won a Major ASL Tournament. > > I'm curious who on the list has won a major ASL tournament? Which one? > False modesty and ignorance from the Original Laddermeister Himself. Brian, I know you've won one of the big ones, right? > >How frequently do you play? > >------------------------------------------------------------- >38 [17] Less than once a month >35 [18] Once a month >41 [19] Every other week >28 [20] Once a week >10 [21] Fully addicted: play at least twice a week >2 [22] Not a member of the human race: play every day > > Get out! We have two people who play every day? How! Single? College > Student? Independently wealthy or just bored? > I was surprised to see the heavy weighting on the OTHER end of the scale. I thought most pbem games moved at about 1 player turn/week, which translates to both players playing at least once per week. > > >What *one* theater do you prefer to play? > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >32 [58] Eastern European > >9 [59] North African > >10 [60] Pacific > >43 [61] Western European > >59 [62] No preference > > > > The North African modules > have been popular due to the counter mix, not the subject - I guess. Why? > Why don't more people like the desert? Too many more rules? > Spot on, old bean. I bought WoA for the Brits, not the sand. So far I've failed the DTTC (Desert Terrain Task Check) with all of the rules that say "This kind of desert terrain is just like brush/grain/open ground EXCEPT for the following 50 reasons." It's just too much. Are Wadis really THAT much different than Gullies that they deserve their own rules? You telling me that deir-like terrain doesn't exist in Europe? Looked like unnecessary chrome to me. Wonderfully written and illustrated chrome, BTW, but chrome nonetheless. So far, there have been only 3 questions on chapter F in the Q&A file. Wow. Also, desert armor battles have a reputation which doesn't appeal to me. > > >What ASL modules do you own? > >------------------------------------------------------------- > > ..... > > This is a perfect example of the problem with ASL. Sure there are fanatics > out there who buy anything/everything ASL (I'm among them), but every new > module seems to result in a few people saying "The hell with it, I'm done > with this neverending system...". > Nah, they're just climbing the hill more slowly. Gimme a few years and I'll have it all too. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 08:44:35 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Re: Plexiglass, IIFT, and RBIII CG Thanks for all the good suggestions. In summary, it looks like I'll have to 1) turn it over, 2) clamp it down, 3) nail it down, 4) buy 1" thick plexiglass 5) don't let it get old :-) Thanks again. Don Hancock p.s. And Glenn, what do you mean Pegasus Bridge was not balanced :-) p.s. And Matt, did you really think I'd let you strip my concealment with the IIFT in RBIII (PBeM!!! :-0 )? Maybe I'll have to send YOU a FAQ. BTW, I think I'm just about ready to try Day 2. Just imagine all the ladder points we're going to get. BTW, you don't get the 1/4 point for your 1st day win :-) p.s. For the record, Spudsumen Tomunen, I vote a RBIII CG victory is 1 ladder game. ----- Date: 17 Feb 1994 09:20:08 U From: "Noah Matt" Subject: WO94 - Friday Looking for WO94 opponent for Friday morning. I should arrive there about 0930. Will play anything (almost). Any takers? Someone please help me, as I will only be there for Friday (don't ask - it's not a pretty story). Matt Noah noah_matt@prc.com ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:53:03 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: PTO rules compared Petri Juhani Piira writes: > The rules (this is true also on the ETO) are nowhere nearl as > intuitively self-evident as they are in chapters A-D. They also > contain much more "legalese" and concentrate on the minor irrelevant > details... > I.e. the heart of the ASL, fire combat, morale and rout takes > maybe 10 pages of rules... while something as far-fetched as > invasion rules in Chapter H takes the same! But now take a look in the Q&A list (and on the discussion list) and see how many questions "the heart of ASL" generates compared to the later chapters. The "minor irrelevant details" would create lots of nutmail if there were less of them in the rules. There are IMHO two reasons why the later rules are longer (as they indeed are): 1) They are more complete. 2) They have to contain all the interaction with the earlier rules. Everything that concerns (say) both routing and LC has to be with the LC rules, because LC did not exist yet when the rout rules were written. Bas. ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:41:22 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Survey Results Comments Brian Youse writes: > I found the results to this question very puzzling. The North > African modules have been popular due to the counter mix, not the > subject - I guess. Why? Why don't more people like the desert? > Too many more rules? The fact that I don't rate the desert as my favorite does not mean at all that I don't like the desert. It just means it's not my favorite. > The one that stunned me was that only 10 people prefer the PTO. > Compared to the 75 who prefer the ETO. Again, too many rules? Just > don't have the modules yet? Is there a reason why? Same here. Rules: the more the merrier. If I didn't like rules I wouldn't play ASL. I like PTO scenarios, but as I happen to live in Europe, ETO is somewhat easier to identify with. [decreasing list of owned modules] > This is a perfect example of the problem with ASL. Sure there are > fanatics out there who buy anything/everything ASL (I'm among them), > but every new module seems to result in a few people saying "The > hell with it, I'm done with this neverending system...". Why do you conclude this? If people start with ASL, they will usually acquire the modules approximately in order. Not many people buy everything at once. So no wonder more people own the earlier modules than the later ones. I guess most of those who own only the early modules will buy the other ones some time. Bas. ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:38:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things) m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) writes: [stuff deleted] > What I don't like about conceding, is if the scoring system allows for > it to be used as a dirty tactic. Let's say the germans have won the first > three or four scenarios in RB CG III. They can easily do that. Then they > conced. What will happen?? If the scoring system doesn't take care of > that, you'll get a german win - even though the _germans_ conceded! > > That's why I favour treating the whole CG as _one_ game. It can be worth > more points if you wish, but it's _one_ big game. Anything else I feel is > against the spirit of the CG as a whole. Besides, as most of the scenarios > in a CG wouldn't be very balanced, I wouldn't ever wat to play a CG as a > ladder game if each scenario counted. I think that points, how ever many, should only be given to the CG winner. I think that anything else poses exactly the problems stated above and does not reward those who stay in it for the long haul (whole CG) which is the point of a CG in the first place. > > But how about this: > > A CG is worth ** I like this as well. Jim ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:51:17 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: what I'd like to see What I'd Like to See in ASL --------------------------- 1. A complete, comprehensive, Hill-endorsed OBA flowchart. Yes, I know flowcharts out there exist, I'd just like the experts at the Hill to go over them with a fine toothed comb and come up with one that I can be sure covers all cases. 2. Completion of the system. I guess that means Axis minors vehicles. Once that's done, we can not worry too much about keeping up, and get on with those nifty sounding mini-HASL modules. 3. Updated index Brent will be happy I mentioned this. :-) With the system complete, this seems like a logical next step. 4. Errata pages covering all the changes that might have come up from Q&As. Even if it's not a CHANGE, a clarification might be nice, or at least, an official, comprehensive, Q&A. Not everyone has an archive like we do, I suspect. 5. Scenarios using some interesting/rare units. Someone just mentioned that PTO scenarios are all the same, i.e. that either they are a cave-dig/beach assault/rules fest, or they are a few platoons of infantry on each side with LMGs and light mortars. It would be nice to see some of the little-used units in the counter mix get some play. This is true for all theaters. I know it will be hard to find sources, but it would be great to see a scenario involving that Russian land battleship (the T-35?). I haven't seen hetzers appear very often either. There must be quite a few AFVs in the German, Russian, British, and American countermixes that rarely get used. Same goes for guns. I'd like to get a chance to use one of those huge mortars without resorting to DYO. Matt (whatever happened to the favorite AFV poll?) Shostak ----- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:02 PST Subject: Re: Survey.... From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) Thanks to Jeff Berry for tidying up survey section 4. (And kudos to John Foley for doing the survey in the first place, I enjoyed reading the responses!) One thing disturbed me: am I truly the only one who really enjoys playing the scenario called Ambush! which pits a pack of Bulgarians against partisans? No, there's no armour, and precious little in the way of SW, but the firefights are *fierce!* No one else seems to have voted for it. It's a classic scenario, IMO. Am I maybe playing the scenario wrong? :) Signed, A 7-0 with an attitude -- J.D. Frazer a481@mindlink.bc.ca Editor "The Harn Tongue Twister: Three Shortsword Sheaths" Columbia Games ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:11:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: HASL Here's an easy one: What is HASL? Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:07:22 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Ladder CG points decision Hey gang, OK, we've heard from a good sample of people about how to score Campaign Games for the Internet Ladder. About half of the opinions were emailed to me directly. A summary of the respective camps, with my take on their stands follows. To save space, "W" is used to denote the credit you get (points and w/l increment) for a standard scenario win. Market Force Reformists - 2 people - Want a lot of return on their investment. Each CG day win = W/2, plus 3 W for winning the entire CG. Old Line Marxists - 6 people - No special treatment for CG's. Each CG day win = 0 W, entire CG win = 1 W. There was one member of this camp who would give each player 4 participation bonus points for the entire CG instead of two. What a softie. Progressives But Still Pinko - 6 people - Ideological descendents of the Old Line Marxists with a more liberal bent. Each CG day win = 0 W, and the entire CG win is still 1 win or 1 loss for the w/l record, but the points awarded are greater than 1 W. Exactly how much greater is a subject of some discord. Opinions range from a constant for all CG's to some constant which depends on the length of the CG to 1 or 2 points for each CG day win to 2-3 W. Flagrant Liberals - 2 people - Intellectual fringe element looking to impose complex mathmatical schemes on the process. Each CG day win = W/2 or W/4, and the entire CG win garners 1 W for every 4 CG days, FRU and excluding Idle Days. Note that RBI has 12 dates, RBII has 4, RBIII has 30, and G-T has 4. Dunno about KGP. I find myself in the dubious position of MAKING SOME ORDER out of this chaos. Without the handy expedient of a few T-70 tanks to ventilate the Parliament with, I must rely on such wisdom as I have acquired in lo, these long unpaid years of tenure as the Big Bwana and Ideological Guiding Force of the Ladder. And brother, lemme tell you, them were some LONG years. Did I mention UNPAID as well? First, a few opinions: * Ladder rankings are nice, but their margin of error is pretty big unless you've played a lot of scenarios against a lot of people. I'd say you need at least 25 scenarios vs around 15 or so opponents in about 3 or 4 different theatres of action to get a feel for where you stand. Hardly anybody is at that point yet. So let's not invest too much personal self-esteem in our rankings. * Yes, you can play Aachen's Pall a zillion times and rack up a lot of participation bonus points, and maybe even win 60% of the games. Big deal. We also score DYO scenarios, so you might as well do 600 1-turn DYO's in a day to really maximize your profits. That's not what this is about. Playing pbem gives you license to cheat, and we are all trusting one another to be honorable and not do that. In a similar vein, it's not sporting to become the King of Aachen's Pall. Or, for that matter, to accrue an inordinate amount of points in games against the 6+1's who are just starting out. No, I don't have anyone in mind when I say this, I'm just pointing out that we have been holding to some common standards here. There are no explicit rules about this, but so far we haven't needed them, which makes me glad to be part of such a good group of people. Now, I do think that it's good for the veteran players to help the newbies along, and pick up ladder points in the process. That's as it should be. But people generally want the challenge that is provided by others with equal or more experience. Which is also good. * CG's aren't ever going to become common on the ladder, so this should not be a big deal. Everybody relax, OK? * I don't want to see people gaining/losing a lot of points for winning/ losing a CG. A hundred points is a lot on the ladder, and too much to give to the winner of a CG. * CG's ARE different animals than standard scenarios. The point of the game is to make one think long term instead of short term. There is tactical skill involved in each day's play, and strategic skill involved in the planning for the future. I think it's appropriate to reward both types of skill, but to weight the strategic skill as the more important since that's the point of the game. Also, since they depend on the ebb and flow of play, individual CG days are not as well-crafted and finely-honed as standard scenarios, but the CG as a whole _was_ designed with that care (I hope). SO, with all of that in mind, here's the scoop. Each CG will be ONE win or loss for your w/l record. The points awarded will be as normal, and each player will receive the 2 bonus points for the whole CG. But each player will also receive a number of points given by the fraction of the CG scenarios which they won multiplied by the points given for the entire CG win, FRU. So if you win a CG and win 60% of the CG scenarios (non-Idle dates), your w/l record goes up 1 in the w column, you get 1.6 times the normal amount of points, and 2 bonus participation points. The loser in this situation would get an L and lose 0.6 times the normal amount of points (-1 for losing the CG and + 0.4 for winning 40% of the dates) and then gain 2 participation points. This will not apply to CG's with 5 dates or less (G-T, RBII, and anything tha comes out in the future). For those, the entire CG is just like one scenario for ladder points. The Market Garden series in the 91 Annual won't be counted as a CG since there is no carryover of units between scenarios. EX: Jalen has 1108 points, Juwan has 1032 points. They play RBIII, and Juwon wins the entire CG as well as 10 of the 27 non-Idle days they had (he was the Russians). The points go as follows: The standard points awarded are 30 base points + 11 bonus = 41. Jalen loses 41 points but gains back [41*(17/27)]FRU = 26 for winning 17 of the 27 dates Juwan gains 41 points and also [41*(10/27)]FRU = 16 for winning 10 of the 27 dates Each player gets 2 bonus participation points, so the final totals are: Jalen: -41 + 26 + 2 = -13 Juwan: +41 + 16 + 2 = +59 Thank you all for your input. Sorry for the length here. Decisions of the judges are final, and not void where prohobited. Now let's get back to playing. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 09:35:10 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: HASL > Jim Historical Advanced Squad Leader. (I.e. RB, KGP (I and II) and what ever is still to follow. Fred > > Here's an easy one: What is HASL? > > Jim > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics > Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- Date: 17 Feb 1994 12:39:29 -0800 From: "Byrnes, Brent" Subject: Re: Still Bored Who are the three other Pursue The Pennant Players from the survey out there? Sorry for the bandwidth - but my curiosity is up. Brent _______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Pursue the Pennant 4 Pictionary 4 Monopoly 4 Johnny Reb (ACW miniatures game) ----- From: Richard White Subject: ftf opponents in NW Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:56:41 GMT-0:28 Are there any players in the NW USA or BC who would be interested in some ftf ASL. I live in Vancouver and am willing to put you up for the weekend if you don't. I also have a car and am willing to travel for a weekend of ASL if you can put me up. If you are interested send me email and we can arrange a game. Rick White rick@stat.ubc.ca ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:06:41 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Another Rout Question Hello, Seems everybody wants to discuss how many ladder points a CG is worth (The correct answer :-> is 1 normal ladder victory to the winner of the CG, plus two bonus participation points for each individual CG scenario played to each player; other solutions penalize the loser of a CG too much.) Or discuss the survey results (while I'm too lazy to tabulate them, it's probably not a bad idea to bring a copy of Diplomacy and a chessboard to an ASL tourney in case your dice hand cramps up, based on the responses. Or why people do / don't use the IIFT (forget concealment stripping; it's not on my QRDC, and the Annual won't stay open to that page without a BV box and a GH box to hold it in place. If I had that much space, I'd fill it with another PBEM game.) But let's not ignore something less squishy, Mike's rout question: > Imagine a broken and DM squad that is in OG and forced to rout. > Assume that the nearest building is exactly 6 MF away across > open ground, but 9+1/2 MF away if the squad moves through a > grainfield. I have always played that the squad did not have to > risk interdiction to reach cover in a single RtPh, but could > take the safer path to cover (provided of course, both rout > paths are otherwise legal). > However, when reading the Q&A file, I came across: > "A 10.51 If a DM/broken unit that must rout is within 6 MF of > the nearest woods/building, must attempt to reach that > woods/building in a single RtPh? > A. Yes, unless it uses Low Crawl, but it need not take the > shortest route in hexes/MF to do so. Even if it uses Low Crawl > however, it must still do so towards that woods/building (i.e. > at no time may it increase the range between itself and that > woods/buiding, and it must end the RtPh closer to it than it > was at the start of that phase). {92} " > Although this seems clear, it condraticts part of the ASLRB, in > A 10.531, we have > ".....Routing units, unlike units in the MPh may pay combined > entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes containing entrenchments > or a pillbox (see B 27.41). The cost to enter/exit > fortifications within a hex are not part of the total MF cost > used when calculating the nearest building/woods hex. Whether a > broken unit pays such MF costs during the RtPh is up to the > owning player and the speed with which he wishes to enter such > terrain; he does not have to ignore the safer and higher MF > cost option in order to reach cover in the same RtPh, although > this is his option." > So what gives? If I replace the grain with OG hexes containing > foxholes, do I have to risk interdiction? I'd say no. You calculate the shortest path to woods / building by treating each otherwise-open Entrenchment hex as 1 MF. But when actually routing through them, you can spend 2 MF to avoid Interdiction. It's still legal to do this if it means you can't make it to the woods/building within 6 MF, as long as you continue to move closer to it (as detailed above under the Low Crawl blurb in the Q&A). But you can't choose to avoid open ground hexes in favor of Grain. If you can make it to woods/building in 6 MF, you have to take the "quick" hexes. Once in those hexes, though, you can use any available Entrenchments as a special exception to the "Hurry! Hurry!" rout rules. You can take the slow path through the quick hexes, but you can't take the slow hexes. Low Crawl is always an option, of course. Shellholes are similar to Entrenchments here, but they're more fun to make. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:20:00 +0000 From: "matthew (m.) holiday" Subject: re:what I'd like to see I'd agree with that listing, but I'd like to see the index & errata pages sooner, and as a high priority I'd like to see: Programmed learning module to introduce the system, with detailed explanations for some of the hard parts. The module would include scenarios that are interesting but with specific goals. For example, 2-3 infantry-only scenarios, then inf + OBA, then inf + OBA + guns, then AFV only, then AFV + guns, then everything. There aren't that many "simple" scenarios in the system for learners -- too many of them integrate everything (inf, guns, AFVs & other vehicles, and complex terrain or other rules). +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Matt Holiday #include holiday@bnr.ca BNR Richardson, TX ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:37:44 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: interrogation Guys, I'm in the process of reading Enemy at the Gates, and many times already it has mentioned cases where one side or the other received information from prisoners about buildups, locations of certain units, etc. It struck me that this seemed to happen much more often than I would have otherwise thought. Whatever happened to name, rank, and serial number? Now, the book doesn't mention whether the prisoners were tortured for the information, but I presumed they were not. Was I wrong? Or is it just really common for soldiers to easily give out such information to the other side when captured? Matt (keeps putting annoying phrases between first and last names) Shostak ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:09:33 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: The Big Ones Tom writes... >Brian writes: >>How much experience do you have? >>------------------------------------------------------------- >> .... >> >2 [8] 10-3: I`ve won a Major ASL Tournament. >> >> I'm curious who on the list has won a major ASL tournament? Which one? >> > >False modesty and ignorance from the Original Laddermeister Himself. Brian, >I know you've won one of the big ones, right? Not true! Not true! I rated myself a 9-1 since I don't even meet the qualifications of a 9-2 (I couldn't perform a boat landing without a night of rules reading. If only it said beach assault...). BTW, I've never won "one of the big ones". 8( I have finished in the top 10 at Avaloncon every year, I think I'm the only one who has done this, but that and a dollar will buy you four quarters. 8) So, who are the 10-3's... Brian ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:20:33 EST From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: St. Valentine's Day Massacre - After Action Report (long) Greetings, This is an after action report for the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre tournament held in Savannah, Georgia on Feb 12th and 13th. There were 8 participants: three from Atlanta (including me), one from North Carolina, three local to Savannah, and one semi-local (1-2 hours away, but I forget exactly where.) The theme for the tournament is actions around St. Valentine's Day which translates to scenarios occurring in February. The tournament was designed for 4 rounds with a choice of three scenarios for each round. This stretches the TAHGC February scenario selections. Only one or two could be excluded from the list. Games were to be played in 4-5 hour sessions with 3 sessions on Saturday and one session on Sunday. In practice more time was required to resolve some of the longer scenarios. The tournament was held in the Auditorium of the Memorial Medical Center. The game room/facility was very nice although there were no hotels and little food within walking distance. Round one: "The Eastern Front" A26 The Beachhead at Ozereyka Bay G12 Avalanche G14 Tiger, Tiger I played A26 Beachhead. Three of the four game used A26 due to avoiding all armor scenarios at tournaments and ducking the ski rules. As the Russian, my mission was to destroy the two German guns and then exit 10 CVPs off the board. The Germans were setup in an up front defence to attempt to inflict casualties as I moved through the open. My 81mm mortar smoked the two German 105s. The machine gun nest broke/pinned some of the Romanians. By turn three I had crossed the open terrain with a few breaks, but no permanent casualties. With the guns only one turn away and their crews already broken, my opponent resigned. (The scenarios is 10-11 turns long so exiting was not expected to be a problem.) We used the ASL GAP for this game. I had never used it before. Although it did remind us of one or two snipers we might have missed, I thought that overall it slowed the game down. And, I must admit, I missed dropping the dice myself. :) Round two: "Dessert Warfare" 40 Fort McGregor A18 Sbeitla Probe A20 Counterattack at Sidi Bou Zid Hmmm. A choice between two night scenarios and an all armor engagement. We selected A18 Sbeitla Probe. This was my second night scenario. I had the Americans. The Germans infantry entered in the middle; the armor entered on my left. Once the Sherman could move, it came over to get some PBF on the German Infantry. Feb '43 Germans just don't get the respect their later counterparts do. Several German squads were broken by the action on my right flank. The German armor moved up to engage the American SPAs. The Germans got to fire first, but missed. The American fire was more effective. A 105 HEAT round destroyed the Pz IV + leader. Another HEAT round destroyed a Pz III. A Pz III was already imobilized due to an ESB to get one point to stop. The American infantry had been busy unloading the machine guns off the halftracks and the jeep. My opponent conceded since he was down to one "real" tank, the prepared American infantry, and he didn't think he could inflict the necessary number of casualties to win. We ran into one question during the setup of Sbeitla Probe: The Americans (the defenders) start with several vehicles in motion. Normally all defenders start with "No Move" counters. Do the motion vehicles get a "No Move" counter? There is no SSR discussing this. We played that the motion vehicles have freedom of movement because they are required to expend movement points in their movement phase. Is this right? Round four: Deluxe War DA3 Back to School DA5 Intimate War DA12 Tussle at Thomashof We played Round four next instead of round three because it was getting late on Saturday and most of the Deluxe scenarios are shorter than the Round three scenarios. I played DA12 Tussle at Thomashof as the Germans. Neither of us had played this scenario before. The SSRs change the hedges to barbed wire. This makes the board wide open and tough for the British to cross even with the +1 LV provided by SSR. Two squads were lost as the British moved in. The British are required to take the stone buildings. The forward stone buildings have a stone wall one hex away which screens them from LOS. I set up trenches in these open ground hexes so the squads behind the stone wall were safe until the British came adjacent. The stone walls are such that non-adjacent units must actually get behind the German units to fire on them. Some British squads tried this, but they were broken and got into rout problems. When the Crocodile came within three hexes for its flame thrower it was also within PF range (its 45). A lucky half squad tagged it with a PF and the British resigned. Round three: "War in the West" A19 Cat and Mouse G3 The Forgotten Front G13 A View From The Top After three rounds there were two players at 3-0. I played Larry Winslow (also from Atlanta) to resolve the tie. Cat and Mouse is not a "real" scenario. It is intended to be played the best out of several. The OBs are significantly influenced by before game DRs. We didn't consider it an acceptable choice. Continuing our avoidance of the ski rules we picked The Forgotten Front. I got the Germans by random die roll. I set up all three pillboxes on the right hand side of the board. I covered them with wire and gave them machine guns to generate fire lanes. The mortar was placed way on the left flank. Its to hit numbers weren't hurt by the added range and it put it out of the range of the American infantry as they closed in on the pillboxes. I sent 3 half squads into the woods at mid board to delay the Americans. Given it to do over, I'm not sure I would send these guys up. The second American VC permits a win if they have more CVPs and have captured an MMC. Sending these guys forward made them prime capture prospects. The American M8s showed first. One came through the woods to expose the rest of the German fortifications. It was Recalled when the HMG fired and received a K result. Another M8 fell to the delay half squads when one rolled snakes to hit from 3 hexes. (To kill of 62 - 2, not a pretty sight.) The Americans smoked two of my pillboxes with spotted fire from the 60mm mortars. The American infantry then proceeded to move down the very edge of the board toward the pillbox in the corner. I broke both MMGs. The HMG was in a pillbox which didn't bear on the Americans. When my mortar came out it got one shot (a miss) before the crew broke on the first American return mortar shot. Long range fire from the 447s was ineffective and the closer squads could not stand up to the American firepower. Without the fire lanes I couldn't stop the move on the pillboxes and Larry had captured two of my delay half squads which was almost enough CVPs to permit him to win by the second victory condition. It was closing in on our departure time so I conceded. Conclusion: Although the small turn out was a little disappointing, everyone who attended had a good time. Although I hadn't met any of the non-Atlanta players before, it was like a weekend of ASL with your friends. This is the first of what the organizers (Tim McGraw and Jay Browning) intend to be an annual event. Given the opportunity, I will go back next year. If you can't go but want to support the tournament, design more February scenarios. :) Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:12:53 EST Subject: IFT vs IIFT question in the survey Rod asks what the results were from the first survey concerning the IFT vs IIFT. Answer: it was not asked. John Foley Das Survey Meister PS: to increase the density of this message, I tack on the following discardable notes. Re: CG points on the ladder. A scenario in a CG has been shown to be different than a "regular" scenario. Without boring you and me to death, the realistic answer here is to create a CG ladder (although I'm volunteering neither myself nor Der Laddermeister to do this) separate from the "regular ladder." Just do it. As to Market-Garden: it is not a CG. The only thing that joins these scenarios is a point scheme. So, don't count 'em as CGs. ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:10:44 -0800 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: interrogation My understanding is that soldiers from conscript or otherwise required service armies tend to not care much, and as such are great source of information. It really depends on how much the soldier thinks has family has at stake in what he says. In the case of Stalingrad (the subject of Enemy at the Gates - great book), my impression is that the soldiers on both sides had long since past the point at which they thought the city was worth what they had gone through, and were quite willing to compromise. .szy RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am AppleLink: szy saying here and should not Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving" AOL: Sszy So There. ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:20:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Jimmie M. Raines" Subject: re: what I'd like to see "matthew (m.) holiday" writes: > I'd agree with that listing, but I'd like to see the index & errata pages > sooner, and as a high priority I'd like to see: > > Programmed learning module to introduce the system, with detailed > explanations for some of the hard parts. The module would include > scenarios that are interesting but with specific goals. For > example, 2-3 infantry-only scenarios, then inf + OBA, then inf + > OBA + guns, then AFV only, then AFV + guns, then everything. > > There aren't that many "simple" scenarios in the system for learners -- > too many of them integrate everything (inf, guns, AFVs & other vehicles, > and complex terrain or other rules). Amen! I would also love to see this. (I have chapter K, but it leaves off before things really get hairy with vehicles.) Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:42:21 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder Overall, I like Patrik's suggested formula for computing Ladder points for CGs. But I'm not clear about how he thinks the points can be awarded in sequence, when you don't have the win:loss ratio (or even the total of active CG dates) until the end of the CG. Do you mean to perform the calculation incrementally after the game is complete? John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Survey Results Comments Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:07:27 PST > > Get out! We have two people who play every day? How! Single? College > > Student? Independently wealthy or just bored? > > > > I was surprised to see the heavy weighting on the OTHER end of the scale. I > thought most pbem games moved at about 1 player turn/week, which translates > to both players playing at least once per week. Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I considered a PBeM game to count as playing once, even though it takes place over a couple months. Since I only have about two games going at a time, that translates to not very often. > > This is a perfect example of the problem with ASL. Sure there are > fanatics > > out there who buy anything/everything ASL (I'm among them), but every new > > module seems to result in a few people saying "The hell with it, I'm done > > with this neverending system...". > > > > Nah, they're just climbing the hill more slowly. Gimme a few years and I'll > have it all too. Yup. I've been playing for about two years, and haven't worked my way past Hollow Legions yet. I most definitely WILL eventually, but I also spend my time doing silly things like playing World in Flames and GM'ing GURPS. And if you think keeping up with ASL modules is expensive, try keeping up with all of the GURPS supplements (1/2 B^). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Subject: Re: PTO rules compared From: Petri Juhani Piira Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 19:46:27 +0200 Bas de Bakker writes: > Petri Juhani Piira writes: > > > The rules (this is true also on the ETO) are nowhere nearly as > > intuitively self-evident as they are in chapters A-D. They also > > But now take a look in the Q&A list (and on the discussion list) and > see how many questions "the heart of ASL" generates compared to the > later chapters. The "minor irrelevant details" would create lots of > Maybe so few people have managed to read (and use) the rules for chapters E, F and G that they have not generated that many questions? According to the survey, quite few people feel comfortable with night, desert and PTO... (I haven't read the Landing Craft rules yet... I failed my morale check for them in 1992... still DM when I think about them.) Petri ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: ATRs vs. infantry Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 18:30:06 PST Just a quick rules question: If you are firing an ATR vs. infantry, you do not have to use the To Hit table. Are you allowed to use the To Hit table in such a case even though it isn't required? This could be very handy if your target is in beneficial terrain, where it's much better from the firer's point of view if the TEM goes on the To Hit instead of the Effects.... Thanks in advance, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:31:38 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: ATRs vs. infantry Doug: There's a Q&A somewhere ('93a ANNUAL?) about this and the jist of it is: Only 20L ATRs are allowed the option of attempting To Hit vs. Infantry. All others must apply their 1 FP to the IFT. Our group was disappointed by this because one of us had come up with this great (at least we thought so) idea of going for a To Hit vs. Infantry in hard cover, just as you pointed out. Ah well! Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock > > If you are firing an ATR vs. infantry, you do not have to use the To Hit > table. Are you allowed to use the To Hit table in such a case even though it > isn't required? This could be very handy if your target is in beneficial > terrain, where it's much better from the firer's point of view if the TEM goes > on the To Hit instead of the Effects.... ----- From: Eric Roush Subject: no subject (file transmission) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 01:22:26 -0500 (EST) To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Gatecrashing questions Newsgroups: rec.games.board Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Having heard of the existance of this mailing list, I have a few questions. Please e-mail in response, as I'm not an ASL player...yet. I once was a relatively hardcore SL player. I have SL through GI, Anvil of Victory, boards 1-15 (including the rogue boards 9-11), and scenarios including series 100, 200, 300, and rogue scenarios). Presumably AH still sells some of this stuff...at least it's listed in gaming catalogs, and I see it on hobby store shelves. 1) Do people still play SL? 2) How do complete novices get started on ASL? Do they just "jump right in", or do they work their way through SL first? 3) is there a conversion system for SL scenarios --> ASL? 4) Does any of my stuff (besides the boards) have value any more? I was trying to auction the stuff off on rec.games.board, but was receiving little, if any interest. 5) If I want to get back into SL (or, more specifically, ASL), where should I start, besides the rules binder? -- Eric Roush | People ask me what I do in winter when there's no also coache@ | baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the aol.com | window and wait for spring. | Rogers Hornsby ----- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 07:35:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Allison Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission) To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Gatecrashing questions Newsgroups: rec.games.board Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] >1) Do people still play SL? I'm sure some do, but they are not among the group with which I play. ASL is just much better. >2) How do complete novices get started on ASL? Do they >just "jump right in", or do they work their way through >SL first? Well I can tell you what I did. I had played SL years ago, but only up through COI. Then after being away from gaming for 6-7 years, I bought ASL. I read the rules, played some solitaire, then sought out real opponents. I think you'll find that most good ASL players are happy to play a novice and help you with the rules. Playing with experienced players is the best way to learn the game. >3) is there a conversion system for SL scenarios --> ASL? There is no conversion system that I know of, but many of the old SL scenarios have been redone as ASL scenarios and published in the Annuals or the General. >4) Does any of my stuff (besides the boards) have value any more? >I was trying to auction the stuff off on rec.games.board, but >was receiving little, if any interest. None of the old SL stuff is usable or needed in ASL except, as you mention, the boards, which you will definitely need. >5) If I want to get back into SL (or, more specifically, >ASL), where should I start, besides the rules binder? I would reccomend Beyond Valor, which gives you the German and Russion OB's, scads of informational counters, and 10 (yes ten) scenarios. Paratrooper is also a good buy, as it is intended to be an introductory module featuring several small, infantry-only scenarios. As an aside, anybody ever notice that the complexity scale isn't maxed out on the Paratrooper box? Yes it's an introductory module, but it's still ASL! - Jeff Allison ----- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 09:00:24 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: ATRs vs. infantry Part of the reason for not allowing TH on infantry is to avoid critical hits (possible on a 5 out to 12 hexes on infantry moving in the open. Fred > > > Doug: > > There's a Q&A somewhere ('93a ANNUAL?) about this and the jist of it is: > > Only 20L ATRs are allowed the option of attempting To Hit vs. Infantry. All > others must apply their 1 FP to the IFT. > Our group was disappointed by this because one of us had come up with this > great (at least we thought so) idea of going for a To Hit vs. Infantry in > hard cover, just as you pointed out. Ah well! > > Share & Enjoy! > Brent Pollock > > > > > If you are firing an ATR vs. infantry, you do not have to use the To Hit > > table. Are you allowed to use the To Hit table in such a case even though it > > isn't required? This could be very handy if your target is in beneficial > > terrain, where it's much better from the firer's point of view if the TEM goes > > on the To Hit instead of the Effects.... > > > > ----- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission) Contact Eric Pass epass@nyx.cs.du.edu for much infor on basic SL. There is a significant number of games still playing or learning on SL. Don't throw it out yet! Good luck! Paul Ferraro On Fri, 18 Feb 1994, Jeff Allison wrote: > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Gatecrashing questions > Newsgroups: rec.games.board > Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 > X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] > > >1) Do people still play SL? > > I'm sure some do, but they are not among the group with which I play. ASL is > just much better. > > >2) How do complete novices get started on ASL? Do they > >just "jump right in", or do they work their way through > >SL first? > > Well I can tell you what I did. I had played SL years ago, but only up through > COI. Then after being away from gaming for 6-7 years, I bought ASL. I read > the rules, played some solitaire, then sought out real opponents. I think > you'll find that most good ASL players are happy to play a novice and help you > with the rules. Playing with experienced players is the best way to learn the > game. > > >3) is there a conversion system for SL scenarios --> ASL? > > There is no conversion system that I know of, but many of the old SL scenarios > have been redone as ASL scenarios and published in the Annuals or the General. > > >4) Does any of my stuff (besides the boards) have value any more? > >I was trying to auction the stuff off on rec.games.board, but > >was receiving little, if any interest. > > None of the old SL stuff is usable or needed in ASL except, as you mention, the > boards, which you will definitely need. > > >5) If I want to get back into SL (or, more specifically, > >ASL), where should I start, besides the rules binder? > > I would reccomend Beyond Valor, which gives you the German and Russion OB's, > scads of informational counters, and 10 (yes ten) scenarios. Paratrooper is > also a good buy, as it is intended to be an introductory module featuring > several small, infantry-only scenarios. As an aside, anybody ever notice that > the complexity scale isn't maxed out on the Paratrooper box? Yes it's an > introductory module, but it's still ASL! > > - Jeff Allison ----- Subject: NMPs, NMPs, NMPs everywhere! Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 14:17:15 -0500 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Apologies ahead of time if anyone thinks this is wasted bandwidth, but I recent- ly posted this to rec.games.board and does contain material pertinent to ASL (patience, keep reading...). The example may not be quite right in terms of MPs spent to move uphill (I can never remember if it's double OT cost to move uphill or +4 or what and I didn't have the ASLRB handy) but you'll get the drift... Article: 38449 of rec.games.board Newsgroups: rec.games.board Path: bnlux1.bnl.gov!bnlku2.phy.bnl.gov!strzelin From: strzelin@bnlku2.phy.bnl.gov (Robert J Strzelinski) Subject: Re: Over the Reich Message-ID: <1994Feb18.185833.5319@bnlux1.bnl.gov> Sender: news@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Usenet news) Organization: Brookheaven National Laboratories References: <2j3vld$q0b@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:58:33 GMT In article , scott@con.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes: |> (some stuff deleted) |> |> Really, though, as has been pointed out, the aircraft should decelerate |> based on the amount of TIME they spend climbing at a given rate. For |> example, an airplane flying 500mph straight up for 4 seconds should |> decelerate the same amount as an aircraft flying 200mph straight up. But |> in the game, |> Exactly, this comes from the designer's decision to use a spatial parameter (change in vertical position or altitude) to calculate another parameter (velocity) which is in fact proportional to a temporal parameter (time spent in climb). As Scott points out, the proportion of the turn (which is a temporal parameter) is the proper measure of deceleration in an extended climb. So this design decision is bound to show up as an anomaly somewhere. How severely this affects the play of the game I don't know - I'm still eager- ly awaiting its appearance in my local hobby store. Not to get too far off on a tangent, but this is not the only game afflicted with this same design problem. See below, if interested (not an air combat game)... |> 500mph = 10 VFP's x 2 alt per VFP x 3 decel per alt = 60 decel = -300mph (!) |> 200mph = 4VFP's x 2 alt per VFP X 3 decel per alt = 24 decel = -125mph |> |> This is not physics, it's magic. |> |> Anytime physics is violated in an asymmetric manner like this, it will |> produce unrealistic advantages and disadvantages in the game. For example, |> for Focke Wolfs who can't turn worth a damn, they need to rely on vertical |> combat to survive. But with this huge drag cost for climbing at high speed, |> they become unrealistically disadvantaged vs aircraft that like to maneuver. |> |> We should try to find a way of asessing decel based on the proportion of a |> turn that an aircraft climbs or dives at a certain angle, rather than the |> number of altitude levels they change. |> |> Scott That other game? Advanced Squad Leader! You may have seen me whining about this defect on this very news group. Of course, the predominant response was "Shut up and be glad the designers let you by their game!". Sorry, if I didn't want it to be a decent simulation, I'd stick with chess. Anyway, in ASL, they use Movement Points, of which a vehicle may have anywhere from about 6 (those miserable early-war British tankettes) to about 24 (US M18 tank destroyer) if we just stick to fully-tracked vehicles. This works fine for movement purposes as each vehicle spends an amount of MPs to traverse a hex depending on the hex terrain and the vehicle class (tracked, wheeled x-country, truck, etc). Fine. But. Then they chose to use expenditure of these same MPs as a measure of the _time_ required to do things which happen during a vehicles movement but which are not themselves movement, primarily the # of "shots" (in ASL, this is something of an abstraction, itself) which can be directed at the moving target in a given hex. Specifically, the number of shots allowed (if otherwise allowed by Rate of Fire, etc) at the target in a given hex is equal to the # of MPs spent in the hex. You see the problem here don't you (esp. you air combat enthusiasts - where speed is survival)? For that miserable Mk VI tankette, 1 MP represents fully 1/6 of a game turn, but for the M18 Hellcat, it's a piddling 1/24 of a game turn! The effect of this is that vehicle speed is greatly devalued (in fact it's worthless) in contributing to a vehicle's survivability in ASL. Like Scott, above, I have proposed a fix whereby any non-movement rules which are based on MPs (or fire modifiers proportional to a # of MPs) would instead be based on Normalized Movement Points (NMPs) which are equal to 1/10 of a vehicle's total MP allotment (rounded to nearest .5). With this simple change, a lot of things fall into place. For instance, that Mk VI tankette moving uphill into open ground (as before) expends 2 MPs, but for purposes of being targeted in that hex, it has spent (6 MPs -> .6 ->.5 NMPs, 2 / .5 = 4) _four_ NMPs! Meanwhile that Hellcat spends less than _one_ NMP traversing the same hex (24 MPs -> 2.4 -> 2.5, 2 / 2.5 < 1)!!! (Lack of) Speed Kills (as it should on the battlefield)! Esp. when you factor in the modifiers for limited time spent in line of sight (now calculated on NMP expenditures). Sorry for the diversion, I got stuck in a Zoom Climb... /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Robert J Strzelinski // Brookhaven National Laboratory // // strzelin@bnl.gov // Upton, NY 11973-5000 // /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: (the second of) Three things Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:29:39 -0600 > Tom Repeti quips: > > Thing 2 - (Can't help gigging Jack on this) - So the years 1919-1938 were > one vast Refit Phase? :-) Right! Of course, that was no run-of-the-mill, overnight refit. Those years comprise a Generation Refit Phase (GReiPh). The rules differ somewhat from chapters O and P. Reinforcements are not based on CPPs, but rather on the number of Multi-Mother Counters (MMC) currently available to the refitting country [EXC: Single-Mother Counters (SMC) also contribute towards this total beginning in the late 1960's]. :-) Jack ----- Subject: Re: Test Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 01:44:09 +0100 From: Asad Rustum > Okay, I'll try again. I am on the ASL mailing list? Hello...is > any one getting this message. Beam me up! Is the machine the List > is on still in this dimension? Sure you're on! Just in another room, the Hilbert room :-) Traffic seem really slow today :-( If no messages come up, maybe we'll have to call Beavis & Butt-Head to help us out; Fire! Fire! Fire! Hmm, I think I can find an accurate Beavis & Butt-Head quotation: This sucks! Change! Change! :-) Perhaps if I do the Sand-Dance (TM) things will lighten up... * Asad does the Sand-Dance (TM). :-) :-) (Just had to) +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:22:36 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Austin Subject: Ensuring up-to-date rules? I have just recently subscribed to the ML, and I am excited by the possibilities! Several of you have already corresponded with me on several issues, such as sending me the FAQ (Thanks, Don) and pointing me to PBEM information. I ftp'ed the On My Honor file and am raring to go, but a question has come up. I have been playing ASL solitaire off and on since '88 when my wife bought me the ASLRB and Beyond Valor. I have since acquired modules M2, M3, M4, and DM1, plus most of the SL map boards. Recently I discovered the ASL Annuals, and have purchased 90, 93a, & 93b. My question is this: What do I do to ensure I have up-to-date rules? Can I just purchase all the Annuals and mark up my RB with the errata from those mags? Or is there something else? Does TAHGC have updates? They never responded to my errata coupons. Waiting impatiently, Mike Austin mikea@bga.com ----- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 09:38:06 -0500 (EST) From: WAWROSCH@delphi.com Subject: ASL H , I'm looking for information on how to play ASL across Internet. Please e-mail any info about this. Thanks, Warren ----- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:22:29 -0500 (EST) From: Mustafa Unlu Subject: Re: Test I know what's wrong with the list. Everyone is at the Winter offensive (except for me, that is). Sigh. M. ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: Ladder CG points decision Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:21:25 -0600 I fear that the "Big Bwana and Ideological Guiding Force of the Ladder" may have missed a mathematical rung on this one. Of course, we can easily forgive this rare slip-up, which was doubtless due to the effects of malnutrition caused by all those LONG, UNPAID years of selfless slavery in our behalf. :-) Referring to Tom's example we read: > EX: Jalen has 1108 points, Juwan has 1032 points. They play RBIII, and > Juwon wins the entire CG as well as 10 of the 27 non-Idle days they had > (he was the Russians). The points go as follows: > > The standard points awarded are 30 base points + 11 bonus = 41. > Jalen loses 41 points but gains back [41*(17/27)]FRU = 26 for winning > 17 of the 27 dates > Juwan gains 41 points and also [41*(10/27)]FRU = 16 for winning > 10 of the 27 dates > Each player gets 2 bonus participation points, so the final totals are: > Jalen: -41 + 26 + 2 = -13 > Juwan: +41 + 16 + 2 = +59 While this seems fair to Jalen and Juwan, note what has happened to all the rest of us: we have lost ground to these two intrepid warriors by 46 points. Now, four were bonus participation points that Jalen and Juwan earned by putting in all that hard work playing a CG. Surely none of us would object to them. But, 42 new ladder points were created by the Laddermeister and divided among Jalen and Juwan to avoid penalizing poor Jalen too much for losing, since he had won 17 of the 27 scenarios played. My objection to this adjustment is based on the Law of Conservation of Ladder Points. This (hitherto unknown) scientific principle states that "ladder points are neither created nor destroyed during play, they are merely transferred from victim to victor". Like all respectable scientific theories, this one comes equipped with an exception: the two-point participation bonus. The practical application of the Conservation Law to Tom's example would dictate that any adjustments to Jalen's standing due to his ability to win battles (though not the campaign) should be deducted from Juwan's winnings, not from the relative standing of all the rest of us. Of course, one must admit that playing 27 non-CG scenarios would have resulted in the creation of 108 new ladder points due to the participation bonus, alone. But, if that was the intention, then why not just directly award some extra bonus points for CGs? My apologies to our Peerless Laddermeister for this (seeming) quibble with his Final Decision. Thinking that inexperience with CGs disqualified me, I failed to participate in the original discussion, thereby denying him the benefit of this important new scientific theory. The error was all mine. Your Humble and Obedient Servant, Jack ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 12:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Another CG comment! --0-2080620769-761763906:#2524 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII asl --0-2080620769-761763906:#2524 Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name="asl.txt" Content-ID: Content-Description: In response to the enormous verbage concerning CG, I would (at last) like to add my nickels worth. It also gives some of you something to read since mail has bben sparse! While I have never played an ASL CG (sounds terrific tho'), I find the last response to this matter to be most calm and reasonable. Having the players gain/lose points solely from their own accumulation of ladder points (including "bonuses") seems quite satisfactory. In any event, when examing a players ranking the sheer number of points must be weighed against the number of games played, as well as the total accumulated point wealth of the list (which is diluted by new comers such as myself!). Certainly a 1000pt holder with no games is of lesser rank than a 950pt player with two losses under their belt - a fact which can not be discerned by merely viewing the points..... I hope to be included, as time passes, in the list as one who plays the game (wins/losses aside). As it is now, until my first bloodying, I am to remain a humble rookie. --0-2080620769-761763906:#2524-- ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:54:31 CST From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary) Subject: Desert Rout Question If a routing unit in the desert is not able to reach a woods/building hex in a single RtPh, it is allowed to rout to any terrain consistent with the rout rules. Now suppose that a unit it broken and DM in a building in the desert. If there are no other woods/building hexes to which it can rout, can it leave the building and rout elsewhere? What is the unit is forced to rout, e.g., if an enemy unit is adjacent? This question brought to you by Mike O'Leary (moleary@math.nwu.edu) ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 09:43:54 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Ladder Points My two cents on the CG for ladder points is to agree with Carl. A CG is a "game", so 1 point for a win. I could see doubling it to two, but not a point per day. If you're that concerned with ladder points, you're probably not playing for the same reasons most of the ladder folks are. -Razz. ... If you were travelling the speed of light and you turned your headlights on, what would happen? ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 09:55:09 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: The Big Ones > False modesty and ignorance from the Original Laddermeister Himself. Brian, > I know you've won one of the big ones, right? bBY> Not true! Not true! I rated myself a 9-1 since I don't even meet the bBY> qualifications of a 9-2 (I couldn't perform a boat landing without a night bBY> of rules reading. If only it said beach assault...). bBY> bBY> BTW, I've never won "one of the big ones". 8( I have finished in the top bBY> 10 at Avaloncon every year, I think I'm the only one who has done this, but bBY> that and a dollar will buy you four quarters. 8) bBY> bBY> So, who are the 10-3's... Well, Perry Cocke has got to be one, as Perry himself will surely tell you, right Perry? (Perry is the only self-proclaimed ASL elitist on GEnie -don't ask- and is certainly not shy about flashing his ASL-guru status around ). He's also great on clearing up rules binds. -Razz. ... Star Trek sucks. ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 09:57:38 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Ambush aJF> aJF> One thing disturbed me: am I truly the only one who really enjoys playing the aJF> scenario called Ambush! which pits a pack of Bulgarians against partisans? aJF> No, there's no armour, and precious little in the way of SW, but the aJF> firefights are *fierce!* aJF> aJF> No one else seems to have voted for it. It's a classic scenario, IMO. Am I aJF> maybe playing the scenario wrong? :) I played it and like it (and won as the Greeks), but it has developed a reputation as unbalanced (in favour of the Bulgarians), so a lot of people won't play it. Pity. -Razz. ... Jeffrey Dahmer to Loreena Bobbit: "You gonna eat that?" ----- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 10:11:42 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Survey Results bas@phys.uva.nl was discussing Re: Survey Results Comments bBdB> Brian Youse writes: > The one that stunned me was that only 10 people prefer the PTO. > Compared to the 75 who prefer the ETO. Again, too many rules? Just > don't have the modules yet? Is there a reason why? bBdB> Same here. Rules: the more the merrier. If I didn't like rules I bBdB> wouldn't play ASL. I like PTO scenarios, but as I happen to live in bBdB> Europe, ETO is somewhat easier to identify with. bBdB> bBdB> [decreasing list of owned modules] > This is a perfect example of the problem with ASL. Sure there are > fanatics out there who buy anything/everything ASL (I'm among them), > but every new module seems to result in a few people saying "The > hell with it, I'm done with this neverending system...". bBdB> Why do you conclude this? If people start with ASL, they will usually bBdB> acquire the modules approximately in order. Not many people buy bBdB> everything at once. So no wonder more people own the earlier modules bBdB> than the later ones. I guess most of those who own only the early bBdB> modules will buy the other ones some time. bBdB> bBdB> Bas. bBdB> That's true as far as it goes, but I did noter that more people owned Croix de Guerre than Gung Ho (myself included). So many of used skipped the Marines and got back to Europe. I'll get GH later, but I'm not anxious to do so. It sort of feels more like I ought to to be complete. -Razz. ... Dyslexics of the world, untie! ----- From: slagblah@acs.bu.edu (Scott de) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 18:34:35 -0500 Subject: Question regarding Gun Duels As a pretty green ASL player, I hope someone more experienced can help me with this problem. I understand the Gun Duel rules in general, but there is a specific case I am interested in, namely, when they are coupled with platoon movement. Let's say I have a German gun, and a platoon of three Russian tanks moves into view. Although I am not concealed, I wait for them to all move into view. Now if I wish to fire at the first tank, I understand that it can declare a Gun Duel. But what about the other two? Can they just do Bounding First Fire (BFF) normally? If so, do they fire before or after the Gun Duel is resolved? If the Gun Duel is resolved first, and I win, trash the tank, and maintain ROF, is there another Gun Duel with the second tank? In short, can I Gun Duel all three tanks, as long as I maintain ROF, without giving them an uncontested shot? I would appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and/or point me to a rule reference. Thanks, Scott de Brestian her two? Can they just do Bounding First Fire (BFF) normally? If so, do they fire before or after the Gun Duel is resolved? If the Gun Duel is resolved first, and I win, trash the tank, and maintain ROF, is there another Gun Duel with the second tank? In short, can I Gun Duel all three tanks, as long as I maintain ROF, without giving them an uncontested shot? I would appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and/or point me to a rule reference. Thanks, Scott de Brestian ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 08:14:34 -0500 From: Randy Buckland Subject: Hindrance/LOS question I tried to find a rule I thought existed last night and could not do it. Either it doesn't exist, was a SL rule or I didn't look hard enough. Anyway, here is the situation. Multi hex firegroup Inside a factory One hex adjacent to target gets +1 TEM One hex range 2 from target get +1 TEM and +1 hindrance for intervening hex. What is the modifier for the firegroup? I decided it is +1 for the TEM only. I remembered (imagined?) a rule for firegroups saying that if a hindrance applied to only part of a firegroup, it didn't apply. The example given was a firegroup where part of the LOS crossed a wall and part didn't. Randy Buckland "It's hard to work North Carolina State University in a group when you're randy_buckland@ncsu.edu (919) 515-5491 omnipotent" -- Q ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 08:27:06 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Control Question Answered at WO Ok, as promised, I asked Mac about the Control question. He asked how the net was doing and what sort of things we were talking about. He's interested in the net but time is a premium for him and doesn't have the time to read everything we write. So, the question was... Is Hex Control and Building Control independent of each other? In other words, can a unit in a building Control the building and, later, an enemy unit enter a hex in that building and claim Control of the hex while the building is still Controlled by the original unit? And further, does Control of the building confer Control of all hexes of that building? Yes, yes, no. Building Control and Hex Control are two seperate animals. Just because you Control the building doesn't mean that you Control the _hexes_ therein. This answer was his first inclination and given with much protestation from Brian. The further questions dealing with Location Control were not specifically addressed as I didn't have a full handle on the question. But for the short term, I would recommend handling it like Hex Control. Hope this helps. *-=Carl=-* ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 9:35:42 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: Hindrance/LOS question From: Randy Buckland >Anyway, here is the situation. >Multi hex firegroup >Inside a factory >One hex adjacent to target gets +1 TEM >One hex range 2 from target get +1 TEM and +1 hindrance for intervening hex. >What is the modifier for the firegroup? I decided it is +1 for the TEM only. I'm pretty sure you've got it backwards and that the worst case modifiers apply for any firegroup, so it's +2 for group. No access to rules at work so I can't quote a section unfortunately... Bret hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: lrg@cherry.cray.com (Lee Gordon) Subject: Re: Hindrance/LOS question Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 8:49:56 CST > I tried to find a rule I thought existed last night and could not do it. > Either it doesn't exist, was a SL rule or I didn't look hard enough. > Anyway, here is the situation. > > Multi hex firegroup > Inside a factory > One hex adjacent to target gets +1 TEM > One hex range 2 from target get +1 TEM and +1 hindrance for intervening hex. > > What is the modifier for the firegroup? I decided it is +1 for the TEM only. > > I remembered (imagined?) a rule for firegroups saying that if a hindrance > applied to only part of a firegroup, it didn't apply. The example given > was a firegroup where part of the LOS crossed a wall and part didn't. I happen to be at home today, and was able to look the specific rule up. A7.52 ... Should the LOS of any FG member be subject to a Hindrance/TEM (/Cowering/CX penalty), the worst possible case applies to all members of the FG (A.5). ... So, +2. -Lee ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:10:07 PST From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET> Subject: ASLUG For you WO guys: Did you hear any scuttlebutt about when the next ASLUG will be out? Or is there a chance it might be delayed another month so the WO results can be included? Dave ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: ASLUG From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET> >For you WO guys: > Did you hear any scuttlebutt about when the next ASLUG will be out? >Or is there a chance it might be delayed another month so the WO results >can be included? I asked Gary Fortenberry about it while he was destroying my poor paras in Death At Carentan in a vain attempt to distract him. It didn't work, BTW :-( Anyway I think the answer is soon. I believe Gary indicated he was just waiting on the scenarios to return from the printer. Apparently there were some problems with the printer and then the earthquake hit LA, where the printer is located, complicating matters a bit further. Sorry I didn't get a solid date or anything. It sounded like ASLUG may be going to a bi-monthly format because of lack of article submissions. As for Winter Offensive, it was a lot of fun...A good number of people and very good competition. It seemed that most of the top "name" players were there and the non-name players seemed very good...At least the ones I played did... Brian and Perry did an excellent job running the show...When I left at 1:30 Sunday a winner hadn't yet been decided, but Bill "Fish" Conner and Guy Chaney were dueling as the last of the unbeatens...Although Fish needed an extra W to get the 5 games to qualify so it could have been anyone's ballgame... BTW, Brian...Are you submitting all the WO results to the Record or should we report our games individually? I enjoyed putting faces with a lot of the Net names I read so often... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:04:22 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Winter Offensive AAR (long) Hey guys, This is my (large and unorganized) After Action Report (Is AAR an official net-ASL acronym yet?) for Winter Offensive (WO), an ASL tournament that was run by Perry Cocke (and some other dude whose name got left out of the credits) this past Friday through Sunday, allegedly in (we couldn't find a McDonalds, let alone a town) Bowie, Maryland. Mandatory plug: (Arm twisting?) If you missed it and were in the Eastern US, you should be ashamed. Only twelve bucks for the whole weekend, and they sprung for pizza! Nice hotel, except for the fact that it was accessible to nothing but a crossroads of two highways (Strategic Location?) and there was some very loud drumming (artillery?) in the conference room next door on Saturday night. Hint: People should wear nametags with their email addresses on them to events like this. It took me the whole weekend to figure out who a couple of you were, even after multiple conversations. :-> Seriously, a large chunk of Internet and GEnie list people showed up, as well as several of the technologically impaired members of the ASL community. In a fierce competition, Virginia Tech's (plug! plug! plug!) Guy Chaney won with a 5-0 record. Using some arcane tiebreakers out of Chapter Z or maybe the NFL rulebook, The Management deemed that Mike McGrath came in second and Gary Fortenberry came in third, but there were other people with only one loss who were robbed of a tie, probably by virtue of leaving while those two were still going strong, or foolishly playing only four games, or something. The deciding scenario was Blocking Action at Lipki, with Chaney's Russians narrowly averting a CVP loss to Bill "Gravatz!" Conner's Germans in a match that came down to a final-CCPh scrub-on-scrub (crew on HS, I think) CC. Simultaneous DR's for the tourney, before a huge crowd of (six or seven -- everyone else was playing) spectators waiting with baited breath. Overheard: "This game is simple. All you have to do is roll 5 or less, every time. Rate!" -- Mike McGrath "That scenario is an unbalanced dog!" (About pretty much any non-PTO scenario) -- Brian Youse "Carl, you're on the top of the Ladder and you have to look up the stupid Dash rule?!?" -- me "That's why I'm on top of the ladder. I read the rules." -- Carl Fago "I'll play _anyone_, _anytime_, _any scenario_ !!!" - Guy Chaney [Guy, however, conspicuously ended up winning the tourney rather than taking the Russians in Soldiers of Destruction like a real man.] Posted: "NO WRASSLIN!" [The management, with friends from AH, were spotted illegally Wrasslin' later that evening.] "If you make that noise with that thing one more time, I'm going to step on it." -- about 1/3 of the attendees, after witnessing Pop-O-Matic Random Selection one time too many. Quick scenario notes: I knew I had no chance to win this thing, so I went in with the intent to play as many new scenarios as possible. I got in seven, only one of which I'd played before. Here are my opinions of each of them: 1. Bridge to Nowhere. This was Eric Givler's pet scenario; he told me that he'd played it about ten times before but that I could have side choice, so I figured it was pretty balanced and took the Italians. They have one bridge to cross into an FFMO/FFNAM killing ground hex, which is visible to stuff that's out of LOS of potential covering units on the bridge. Brutal. The Italians can also send out more units to cross on the fords way (up? down?)-stream, but I didn't send enough that way. Consequently, I was perpetually overstacked on the (now-thankfully) out-of-most-LOS bridge. Italians exit bridge, break, ELR, rout onto bridge, rally after DM goes away. Repeat ad infinitum. But I got a CH with a 20L ATR on the Russian tank, and managed to tie up lots of Russian FP in Melees at the end. Eric played great, but I rolled snake eyes when I had to. Good scenario, and an upset win against a better player playing his favorite scenario. Luck is awesome when you get it. Play this one. 2. The Puma Prowls. It was late, okay? I'd played this one before, and it wasn't much different against Perry. Well, he did make more effort to get hull-down and use APCR and all that stuff than most people do in this scenario. Bang! Bang! And may the best dice win. Which was exactly what I was looking for, as Perry's an official 10-3 and I'm maybe a pinned 9-1 and die-rolling is a triangle activity. But he blew my Pumas away anyway. Play this one if you want to learn the armor rules, after you've done Blazin' Chariots (which is the same thing with Sun Blindness instead of terrain). You can play this one best-of-three in the time it takes to play Gavin Take. 3. Bone of Contention. Neat premise here. The Germans abandoned some Panthers while fleeing France. Some French partisans said "Hey, we can learn to drive those, and those stupid Shermans sure could use the help." But then the German Dismounted Vehicle Crew Command with an armload of PF's came back to finish them off. Rusty Shields, with the Germans, played a good game EXCEPT that he was a little too desperate to kill a Panther and took a Backblast shot from a building containing 9-2, 4 x 127, lots of PF's. Needed a 7 TH, rolled an 8, and broke his whole stack. I pretty much just skulked before his superior FP and shot things that were either broken and thus unable to shoot back or were jogging through the open. This is a neat little scenario, if a bit dicey. The Germans can kill themselves, as Rusty's did, and the partisans can ruin their best weapons by malfing the Panther MG and MA with captured=use penalties. Oh yeah, I think the partisans need to work on recombining a bunch of those stupid 1-FP HS's into 3-FP squads ASAP. Play this one; it's fun and pretty quick. And try to make the other guy make the first mistake. 4. Totsugeki! Any scenario with a bang in the title must be cool. Especially if I get the Japanese. I played Darryl Lundy, who appears to be the pool-hall shark of ladder players. He claimed to have no ladder wins, then played a sparkling game. Now he has one. It's tough to pull off the perfect fallback defense with the lame Chinese against the IJA, but he did it. My big mistake was to get into too many melees, losing HS's everywhere in the process. His 337's broke continuously, but I never could get a CX squad back behind the rally points and mess up his MMC-return system. Attacking without numerical superiority is tough, but the troop quality advantage must be milked better than I did. It's hard to be patient firing low-FP attacks through PTO terrain, but it is necessary here to do so. I think that flanking the Chinese to cut off their routs is difficult but rewarding. The Japanese actually have to avoid CC in this one, IMO, except when concealed and thus having a huge Ambush advantage. Otherwise the chance of a mutual kill in H-t-H are just too great. Best scenario I played all weekend. Loads of fun, even though I lost it. Try it. 5. To the Rescue. I had the Russians in this one, who have to set up with lots of stupid restrictions and then only get to move 1-3 MMC's per turn except those with leaders. I didn't get enough of my units far enough north, and Dale Wetzelberger saw this and thrust everything that way. With RB TEM and a +1/+2 KGP-esque LV Hindrance, it's really tough for the Russians to get enough FP together to threaten anything. But the German VC's are tough, as they need to extract troops from behind enemy lines. Dale used Climbing rules to his advantage and just barely got his 5 VP's out on the last turn. I think the Russians have the edge, as my setup was bad (and hard to adjust on the fly with the SSR's) and my reinforcements came in late, and Dale played a good game, and I still had a chance. Fun, but this was a white-knuckler that I really hated to lose. (I was having too much PTO H-t-H Banzai fun in Totsugeki! to notice that my forces were totally gone, and Puma Prowls is about as serious as Wrasslin', but this one really felt like Stalingrad. Grim. 6. The Niscemi-Biscary Highway. This scenario is an unbalanced dog. I forget who said that. :-> Anyway, Daniel Zucker and I flipped for sides and I got the Germans. Meaning that I had a 9-2, a MMG, an 11-FP (IFE+CMG) armored car, 6-range squads, and LMG's. And he had 747's. On a totally open board. Can you say Harpoon? Actually, he did have two captured Italian 47 Guns, one of which boxcared on its first shot and one of which had its crew suppressed by the 9-2 death stack and then pelted by the AC at point-blank range while unable to defend itself. You'd think they'd playtest SL conversions. Anyway, I felt sorry for Daniel because he really didn't do anything wrong other than to choose this scenario. It's just that his 747's and BAZ couldn't shoot me effectively without running across the field to come get me, and my AC could do whatever it wanted outside BAZ range once the 47's were gone. Not even fun. Suggestion: Give the Americans some MG's. Maybe a .50 and a MMG would even this up nicely, or at least make it more exciting than a duck shoot. If doing this would be ahistorical, then remove the German 9-2 and MMG instead. 7. The Intimate War. Another unbalanced one, but with a difference. This one is really really fun to play. Deluxe maps and lots of stuff. The Americans get a 155L and two 105's with 24-FP Cannister. The Japanese get a building-full of infantry, two 9-1's, some nice MG's, wire with which to surround the building, and knee mortars which are useless. The American Guns can pulverize anything in their LOS, which is only the front three hexes of the building. The Japanese thus set up just behind this and blast anything that comes in with PBF, a la RB. Stewart King gave it quite a go as the Yanks, but the Japanese and the VC's are just too tough. He pushed his 105's up right next to the building and then got shot. And did it again, and again. The Americans keep rallying, but the 8 ML Japanese with 9-1 leaders never break when in +4 TEM. Stewart and I put some thought into how to balance this. Somebody suggested giving the Americans some smoke OBA, but I'd rather give them some FT's and DC's (to cut through the TEM and the Wire) and some RCL's (gotta use them sometime; anybody know if they were used historically in Manilla?) and change the VC's from Location control on three different levels (silly, and not in the rules) to hex Control. Also, take away the Fortified Building Locations from the Japanese; we need to encourage CC rather than prevent it. Deluxe PTO means the Americans can choose H-t-H and the Japanese have to. Bloody if the two sides can ever get that close. This was the first double Pop-O-Matic scenario of the tourney, as Stewart didn't have any dice with him. It rolled much better for me than for him, proving its loyalty. All in all, I was very happy to go 4-3. I got the "good" side in a couple of scenarios, but I also played several scenarios for the first time against people who'd played them before. I think that getting people to play things they haven't seen before should be emphasized if possible, though that's really hard to do without writing a new set of scenarios for each tourney. Maybe one or two required new ones would be a nice touch. Otherwise the format was nice. Yell for an opponent, find one, flip through scenarios, and go. [Repeat until you realize you haven't eaten in days.] Lots of fun. Thanks go out to the guys who organized it for their hard work and to all of you who I had the privilege to play or kibbitz with. The "weenie factor" at this tourney was very, very low. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:17:00 BST Subject: Lost & Found-- WO LOST & FOUND DEPT. The following items were found by the two die hards that closed out Winter Offensive '94: 1 Handy (TM) bottle opener-- I could have used this when Carl was pumping me full of Bass Ale so's he could kick me around in "Riding Shotgun". 1 One inch spool of LOS thread (white)-- more than enough thread to string LOS from Cheneux to La Gleize and back again. 1 Turn Counter (from "Beyond Valor"; the top edge is die cut out of square with the rest of the counter)-- someone's gonna get frustrated when he can't remember how many turns he has left to exit his troops. 1 Overlay M1-- essential for playing "Delaying Action". I already have enough pens and pencils so I left those behind. If any of the above items are yours, lemme know and I'll get 'em back to you. Steve ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: RE: ASLUG Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:53:04 MET Talking about ASLUG : I ve written to Gary Frontberry once asking how could I pay for a subcribtion from France ( Western Union or what?) and although he answered to my letter he did not to my question. Can anybody out there tell me please? Many Thanks, -Bruno ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:34:30 -0500 From: Chuck Powers Subject: WO Once again, Brian and Perry put on one of the best tournaments I've been to. I've been to 2 WOs, 1 Atlanticon (also conducted by Brian and Perry), and 3 Avaloncons and greatly enjoyed the former two. Not to say I don't enjoy Avaloncon, but the free-form format of WO suits me better. I did get to meet a few more of our emailers, including JR (the Great Oracle of the ASLRB). We're not worthy! We're not worthy! And yes, Brian and Perry even bought Pizza for everyone. I guess from past experience they realized that many ASLers tend to forget to eat and sleep at these events. Thanks, I was starved at the time. :) I even got to take my shot at Carl Fago once again. One day Carl. :) Of course Brian ducked everyone but getting involved in playing Today We Attack, which he started Saturday morning and was still going when I left Saturday evening. :) Anyway, I highly recommend any event conducted by Brian and Perry. ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 09:22:10 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Desert Rout Question Hello, Mike asked: > If a routing unit in the desert is not able to reach a woods/building > hex in a single RtPh, it is allowed to rout to any terrain consistent > with the rout rules. Now suppose that a unit it broken and DM in a > building in the desert. If there are no other woods/building hexes > to which it can rout, can it leave the building and rout elsewhere? > What is the unit is forced to rout, e.g., if an enemy unit is > adjacent? Sounds like it can ignore the building it occupies in the first case. Sounds like it has to leave the building it occupies in the second case. These principles apply equally in the desert or in any other terrain type. Now, since there's no non-ignorable (or non-ADJACENT to an enemy unit) woods/building within the unit's RtPh MF allowance, it's free to rout however it wants, subject to not coming closer to an enemy unit or ending the phase ADJACENT to one. I don't see that the desert rout rules really affect anything here. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 09:50:28 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Question regarding Gun Duels Hi, Scott says: > I understand the Gun Duel rules in general, but > there is a specific case I am interested in, namely, > when they are coupled with platoon movement. Let's > say I have a German gun, and a platoon of three > Russian tanks moves into view. Although I am not > concealed, I wait for them to all move into view. > Now if I wish to fire at the first tank, I understand > that it can declare a Gun Duel. But what about the > other two? Can they just do Bounding First Fire (BFF) > normally? If so, do they fire before or after the Gun Duel > is resolved? If the Gun Duel is resolved first, and I win, > trash the tank, and maintain ROF, is there another Gun Duel > with the second tank? In short, can I Gun Duel all three > tanks, as long as I maintain ROF, without giving them an > uncontested shot? Unless the ATTACKER declares a Gun Duel with a particular tank, the DEFENDER will get to fire on that tank first. So the ATTACKER here would have to declare a Gun Duel to have a chance to shoot first, with any member of the platoon of tanks. So let's say the Gun wins the Duel. (The Russians don't exactly have gyrostabilizers on tanks that don't even have radios, and they've got all those icky Case C penalties.) And it blows away the tank of its choice. Shots are MP-dependent here, so the Gun can't get a second shot in before the two others get their first ones, assuming they tried to fire at the same time as the (dead) tank that declared the Gun Duel. So they should get their shot on (say) 8 MP before the Gun can take its shot for 9 MP. If the tanks (presumably all with the same Gun Duel modifier) somehow win the Duel, then they all get to shoot before the Gun does. So let's say they miss the Gun. As soon as they declare the expenditure of another MP, it shoots another tank, which declares a Gun Duel. I don't think that ROF should be applied as a negative modifier here, since it's a different tank that wasn't involved in the Duel before. Once again, the Gun will probably win the Dual and fire first, then the loser (if alive) and its platoon-mate get return shots before the Gun can use ROF/Intensive Fire because the Gun's shots are MP-dependent. This is all IMO, as the Gun Duel rule doesn't mention anything about platoon movement, but it's reasonable to me. ROF is applied as a modifier only on the second and subsequent rounds of a Gun Duel between a particular set of opponents, and the ATTACKER can only shoot before the DEFENDER if he wins the Duel. Which he never will, here, unless the Gun is pointed the wrong way in woods/building or something. BTW, Gun Duels are a pain in the butt PBEM. "Yeah, blew him to bits. Next line: BFF. Duel. +4 vs. +2, carry the one, um, Yeah, still blew him to bits." I'm glad to see that KGP finally has given us significant chances at getting some gyros into play, making this kind of thing a bit more interesting. Before: Sherman moves. Panther shoots Sherman. Sherman brews up. After: Sherman moves. Panther shoots Sherman. Sherman declares Gun Duel. Sherman wins it. Sherman shoots Panther. Round bounces off Panther. Panther shoots Sherman. Sherman brews up. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:05:19 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Naive tourney question So, what's it like to watch a real pro play? Or play against one? I mean, are the 10-3's these quiet, bookish guys who move their units with precision and calculate everything to the Nth degree? Or do they have more flair than that? And which mailing list guy surprised you most when you met him in person? I have this mental image of many of you and I'm sure it'd be funny to see what y'all really look like. Tom ----- From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Gun duel question... Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:13:24 +0100 (MET) Something that has been on my mind for some time... In PBEM play, when executing someone's MPh, who gets the first shot when a vehicle moves? Suppose someone's moving his tank to hex A, and you recieve the move: B: JgdPz -> A, BFF @ C who gets to shoot first if the Gun in hex C wants to shoot at the tank as well? Who gets to shoot first in FTF? I tend to believe that since the Gun Duel rules exist, the first opportunity for a shot goes to the Gun. Only if the Gun declines the shot may the tank fire BFF. Is this correct? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:31:01 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Gun duel question... Patrik Manlig writes: > Suppose someone's moving his tank to hex A, and you recieve the > move: > B: JgdPz -> A, BFF @ C > who gets to shoot first if the Gun in hex C wants to shoot at the > tank as well? Who gets to shoot first in FTF? > I tend to believe that since the Gun Duel rules exist, the first > opportunity for a shot goes to the Gun. Only if the Gun declines the > shot may the tank fire BFF. Is this correct? I would say that the moving player should write the movement and the BFF on different lines. So: 1) The defender (that should be upper case, but it's so ugly) reveals a line with the attacker's movement. 2) The defender decides whether to DFF. 3) The defender reveals the next line. If this is a BFF action: 3a) If the defender did not DFF he can no longer DFF before the BFF shot. 3b) If the defender did fire, treat the BFF shot as a Gun Duel and determine the first one to have shot in that way. Bas. ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:02:52 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: WO Stuff Gang, Another year until the best little tourny in Md. WO'94 seemed a huge success. We have 51 people attend this year, the same number as WO'93. Have we reached a plateau? I don't think so, I think the weekend change hurt us a bit in attendance. I'll be submitting all scenarios played to Will, so please don't do so yourself. Guy Chaney (5-0) was the winner, taking the coveted "WO'94 Champ" engraved dice cup trophy home. Guy's Friend, Mike McGrath (5-1) came in second, based on his beating Gary Fortenberry (5-1) in a ftf match. Fort was, of course, third. Personally, I was 2-1. (Well, I was 4-2 if you count a few "pre-tournament" scenarios) For me, WO'94 started Thursday Evening when Carl Fago spounged a free bed from the Youse Motel. We played three scenarios Thurs-Fri until we had to go to the Hotel. First, we played "Lehr Sanction" (Carl's selection). I beat Carl in 3 turns, impacting his ladder point situation something fierce. Highlight? A 2-hex PF shot vs. a firefly in a stone building. A snake-eyes later and Carl conceeded. Second, we played "Brandenberger Bridge" or something similar to that. My selection, so I'm told. Well, it was on my list, but I'd have chosen something a little larger. I had the Germans, the Russians are trying to recapture two sides of a bridge. Carl's Russian setup was pretty solid, and my relief column couldn't break through. A 1 hour defeat evened up the ladder points a bit. One note on this scenario, I think this is a dog. Give the Germans the middle ABS balance (Russians give up a bit of their stuff) and it may even things out a bit. I'd like to give it another shot, before I label it, though... Friday morning we played Niscemi-Biscari Highway. I had the Germans and they rolled. Carl did take out my AC, much to my dismay, but I really didn't need it. A berserk squad did a good bit of damage to Mr. Fago's setup. I didn't play again until midnight or so (busy doing "tourny admin" work), when I played Dale Wetzelberger at Totsugeki. Very close scenario where I was accused of throwing counters at Dale in disgust. I don't remember it this way. 8) The scenario ended in dispute over an obvious slime-rule, but we both eliminated each other in the final CC leaving one gun on the map. Chinese win, if you can call total obliteration a win. Saturday, I played Jim Turpin in "Today We Attack". We started setting up 'round 10am and finished the scenario 'bout 11pm. Between us, we rolled some 30+ snake-eyes. But there was no bitching about luck. I won on turn 7, when my bren carriers made like the Daytona 500 and rushed off board without any damage for the winning CVP's/EVP's. Highlight? A dare-death squad created 6+1 maneuvered into CC with a Japanese 228 and 75* Gun. 1-2 odds and an "eyes" later, and I was feelin fine! Sunday, I played co-creator of WO Perry Cocke in Tussle at Thomasof. My play was uninspired, Perry's dice were inspired. 1 Turn later, I surrendered after twelving out my 9-1, 10-2, and the Crocodile's FT. Yuck. A good time to be had by all, except Carl who was losing ladder points every time I talked to him! Brian ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:17:19 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: dc use Hi Everyone, I encountered an interesting situation (that dff resolved ) in dc usage. When placed from a smoke hex to a non smoke hex, does the unit have to expend one extra mf for the smoke to place the dc? The rules (as far as I could find) say expend mp= entry of target hex in current hex. Does this mean smoke has no effect since it is in placing units hex and not target hex? Or does the placing unit expend one extra mf due to smoke and moving in own hex? Just wondering... Randy ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 09:21:26 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: dc use Since the smoke is inthe target hex, there is no extra MF due to smoke. Fred > > Hi Everyone, > I encountered an interesting situation (that dff resolved ) in dc usage. > > When placed from a smoke hex to a non smoke hex, does the unit have to > expend one extra mf for the smoke to place the dc? The rules (as far as I > could find) say expend mp= entry of target hex in current hex. > > Does this mean smoke has no effect since it is in placing units hex and > not target hex? Or does the placing unit expend one extra mf due to smoke > and moving in own hex? > > Just wondering... > Randy > > > ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: _Tussle_at_Thomashof_ (AD12) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:28:42 -0600 Has anybody had any luck playing the British in this scenario? > In Brian's excellent after-action report on WO, he writes: > > Sunday, I played co-creator of WO Perry Cocke in Tussle at > Thomasof. My play was uninspired, Perry's dice were inspired. 1 > Turn later, I surrendered after twelving out my 9-1, 10-2, and the > Crocodile's FT. Yuck. By now, I've played or heard accounts of 5 attempts at this scenario. In all cases the British resigned, usually after only a few turns. Of course, we all know that a 5-0 record is not statistically significant using either an F-test, Student's T-test or any known DYO formula for confidence intervals. BUT, ... It's not very clear how the Brits ought to proceed. During most of these playings, the Germans killed the Crocodile early in the game. The problem is, a big fraction of the British firepower is contained in this one vehicle. Without it, their firepower seems about equal to the Germans'. Crocs need to get close. A good tactic seems to be: stop two hexes away from your target, use Bounding First Fire to fry your victims (36 FP, no TEM, +1 LV Hindrance), then start up again, ending the Movement Phase in Motion. I wonder if it's better to fire at three hexes and take the halved FP? That way Panzerfausts would be less of a danger. More and better SMOKE may be part of the answer. In two attempts there were wind changes and gusts. In another case, the attacker (yours truly) did a poor job of placing SMOKE, relying too heavily on sM. You really need the staying power of ordinance SMOKE in this situation. I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who has seen the British win or knows a good British attack plan for this scenario. It's a fun scenario, and finding a good plan of attack looks like a worthy challenge. Jack ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:47:06 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: tussle Guys, Jack makes some good points about Tussle at Thomashoff. I played him twice, and both times to Germans crushed the Brits. So far I have seen two basic plans of attack for the Brits. One was to concentrate all their strength on one side, near the two small buildings. This was Jack's approach, and it didn't work, despite his display of skill in keeping the Crocodile alive. The other approach I have seen twice, once by David Hailey against me, and once by me in a rematch against Jack. In this approach, the Brits attack on a broad front, with a platoon in the middle gully area, about a platoon on the far side with the tank, and the rest, including the 10-2, MMG, and crocodile and maybe about 6 squads on the side near the small buildings. In both these cases the crocodile was lost early, and the Brits lost of course. I see only one more style of attack for the British. That is to keep the tanks away, especially the Crocodile, for the first 2 turns, and bring the infantry on cautiously. Use the tanks for ordnance smoke in prep fire of turn 2. If both succeed, the drifting smoke ought to provide some cover, allowing the infantry to close with the enemy better. The Crocodile could then be used against targets of opportunity, or held back as a threat. The sM and sD abilities of the tanks, plus additional ordnance smoke or WP are possibilities as well. Will this approach result in British victory? I don't know. Since I have played this scenario three times, I'm not really in the mood to try it. If anyone else does, I would be very interested to know how they did. Like Jack, I would be interested in hearing ANY success stories for the British in this scenario. Matt (less annoying, but twice the calories) Shostak ----- From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Gun duel question... Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 18:44:19 +0100 (MET) Bas, What I perhaps should have stated is that I asked because I know there are mess-ups in almost every game I play. I expect to see someone do that same mistake or do it myself sometime. I know I have seen it be done before (in FTF, not PBeM). It's just a question whether the solution that both you and I use is... In the rules someplace? Somewhere else? Just common sense? As Dave pointed out, this is addressed in the On My Honour rules. That's enough answer for me. And since it is stated, you can claim that the player who writes a move and BFF on the same line did a mistake. That's what I really wanted to know. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:21:52 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Naive tourney question Tom said: > So, what's it like to watch a real pro play? Or play against one? I mean, > are the 10-3's these quiet, bookish guys who move their units with precision > and calculate everything to the Nth degree? Or do they have more flair than > that? Mike McGrath has lots of flair. He's at least half as loud as Brian is, and looks too young to be a 10-3. Bill Conner is also pretty loud, as is Guy Chaney. Gary Fortenberry seems to concentrate a bit more on the game at hand, but is still far from quiet and bookish. Perry ran around talking to everybody, but maybe that's more because he was mostly running the tourney rather than playing in it. I think the way to become really good at ASL is to play a lot of games against a lot of people, and it either requires a pretty outgoing personality to do that, or it bends one in that direction. Did I miss anybody who claims to be a 10-3? The thing that I noticed about all these guys (except Perry, who I only saw play The Puma Prowls, where anybody can move quickly) was how quickly and decisively they made their moves. I can sometimes figure out exactly which plan of attack has the best chance of success in a limited enough situation, but it takes five minutes of probability theory. The better players have done it enough that they just have a feel for what will work better. That, or they're just mathematically intuitive. Also, knowing all the rules and most of the tables really keeps the game moving. Which makes it possible to play real scenarios, rather than just the really dinky ones, where one DR can end it. Exactly the kind of scenario I'd like to play against somebody really good. :-> > And which mailing list guy surprised you most when you met him in person? > I have this mental image of many of you and I'm sure it'd be funny to see > what y'all really look like. JR. I expected him to be quite serious and extremely precise in speech, because that's how most of his posts are. And he had to look like a TV lawyer. But he turned out to be as laid-back as anyone there. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:37:28 -0500 From: snow@lyrae.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow) Subject: G-T After Action Report #2 (long) After Action Report G-T Campaign Assault Period 2: "Night of the Sleaze Move" After being hammered all day by machinegun fire from Gavutu, we decided to wait until nightfall for our next assault. We would be deprived of our two big-ticket weapons, NOBA and Air Support, but we wouldn't have to worry about our LCs being hit in the water much. We would also have the advantage of the invisible jungle. If you've never played a PTO night action, you're really missing something special. The key rule is that a jungle location is never illuminated, so you can fire a starshell and be out of NVR to an adjacent illuminated unit. Who said LOS had to be reciprocal? The first half of the assault went according to plan. One company of Marines came from the north edge to reinforce our remaining units on Tanambogo while a second company came from the east to land on Gavutu. Both reached the shores intact and began to disembark. With almost half of the Japanese able to set up HIP (20% for being Japanese, plus another 25% for Scenario Defender at night) and every hex a possible HIP location (not just concealment terrain at night) we knew that there would be hidden squads everywhere. Climbing out of the water into a building, a Marine 9-1 and two squads uncovered a waiting Jap squad. Neither side ambushed, the defender opted to stay concealed so as to attack HtH next turn. A low roll by the Marines made it a bad decision, since they were able to eliminate him. This was to be the only CC success for the Marines for a LONG time. Next turn, a HIP squad in the adjacent open ground advanced into the building and killed both squads and the leader. After a short conference with my teammate, we decided to allocate all our DCs to Tanambogo. If we didn't actually destroy the caves there, we'd have to garrison the island forever and probably not have enough units to capture either island. Feigning a strategic retreat, I deployed a squad and pulled all my DC-bearing units back to the causeway. The japanese players didn't detect the intent of this move, probably because it was such a motley assortment. One concealed unit, a couple of squads, and a leader who was lucky enough to find the DC left on the ground by the previous CC (the squad he was stacked with couldn't find it, so he had to try himself). At the beginning of the APh, four DCs were given to a HS who started down the causeway. Since he almost immediately became concealed, it must have looked like a platoon heading to the rescue. Since a pier is treated as a bridge which is just like a road, the overburdened HS even moved at a normal rate of speed (with road bonus). We'll call this sleaze move #1. A leader met him at the other end of the causeway and they moved off together with 6 MF. While our demolition special was working its way to the hilltop of Tanambogo, the Japanese inflicted a wealth of casualties. Showing their bravery, the 10-2 and 2 marine squads decided to sit in front of one of the caves. With DCs to spare, the Japanese sent one of their leaders out to place one on the captain's head. Defensive fire managed to wound him, but not wipe him out. After a bit of rules searching, we decided he had enough MFs to place the DC, but it would no longer be Assault Movement. (2 MFs for entering cave while not hidden, plus one to place it in open ground--3MFs for a wounded leader.) The DC detonated on target resulting in both squads broken and the 10-2 wounded. It wasn't until a few turns later that I realized the cave should cost an extra MF for concealment terrain at night. When he became wounded, that leader shouldn't have been able to place the DC at all. We'll call this sleaze move #2. My favorite sleaze move of the evening was a blatant abuse of the beach rules. I had a Marine squad who was broken, and low crawling away from the jungle. The 8-1 leader was unable to rally him, and the DR of 9 didn't even remove his DM counter. In the next RtPh, he low crawled onto the beach, where he became Fanatic. The rally DR was a 6, enough to bring him back (leader+fanatic). Sleaze Move #3. Elsewhere, Japanese squads kept appearing out of nowhere, ambushing the Marines left and right, usually trading casualties evenly. If this rate of casualties continues, the Marines will lose the campaign. But then things started looking up. After illuminating Gavutu with a mortar fired by a wounded heroic leader (on a beach of course), we peppered the trench containing a 10-2 and HMG with our other mortars. Basically we were hoping for critical hits. The dice gods granted our wishes as we fired. CH number one on the trench infliced a NMC on the leader. Passed with ease. But we got another CH on the trench which again selected the leader. This time, a 1MC was the effect which he again passed with ease. After a few more misses, the remaining mortar began firing. With the third CH of the phase, we realized that we should be doing random selection for the location as well as units since there was also a cave entrance in the same hex. But again the trench was selected and yet again that 10-2 leader was randomly selected. Strangely enough the result was another 1MC. But the results of this roll were much different. Snake eyes on the leader's MC resulted in him going Berzerk (probably annoyed at all those pesky CHs). The crew he was stacked with basically had no choice but to go berzerk as well. Hmm, now what? He can see enemies on the illuminated hilltop of the other island, so he has to charge! The berzerk rules specifically say that you don't have to charge over water, but may take an alternate route. In this case, he had to head for the causeway. It wasn't too hard to put my MMG squad in some open ground for him to find, and even a Japanese 10-2 can't expect to survive a 30-1 shot (TPBF, -1 FFMO, -1 FFNAM, +1 night DRM). Making that guy charge the other island like that probably qualifies as Sleaze Move #4. ;-) LESSON TWO: Don't let a SAN=6 deter you from taking those insane shots! As turn 9 rolled around and dawn was beginning to break, the Japanese on Tanambogo began to feel kinda relaxed. Apart from the baby killer stack facing one of their caves (10-2, HMG, and long range MMG vs their cave for an 8+2 attack), they were pretty immune to attack by the Marines. There did seem to be a lot of concealed units clustered around each cave entrance, which meant that coming out of the caves to shoot seemed pointless. The NVR had dropped to zero for most of the scenario, so even if they had DCs, they would have to illuminate the hilltop to Place them which would leave them vulnerable to MG fire from the remaining nest on the other island. So on Turn 9, only one of the cave entrances was occupied. But with skies lightening (NVR increase on turn 10), the marines took advantage of the DC delivery from Gavutu. We placed DCs in every cave entrance, including the one occupied by two crews with MMGs. Surviving point blank MMG Defensive First fire (one of which malfunctioned and cowered), Subsequent FF (successful MC activated a "1" sniper which selected the critical location but didn't hit the squad placing the DC), and FPF (which broke the crew) the last DC was placed. Four DCs on four caves--time for prayers. With a placed DC in an empty cave, the detonation is a 30-4 attack. Only a KIA will destroy the cave, so a DR of 9 or less is required. The cave that was occupied requires an original DR of 5 or less to seal. Saving the tough one for last, we began detonating the caves. First roll: an 8. Boom. Next two caves: Boom, Boom. All but one eliminated. The final cave... SNAKE EYES! KA-BOOM! The entire cave complex on Tanambogo collapses, killing all the remaining units inside. TANAMBOGO IS SECURE! Two more Assault periods to go, with 3 more NOBA missions and 3 flights of FBs. But now we're out of DCs, and can't take many more casualties. It'll be tough. ----- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:55:40 -0800 (PST) From: "P. Gowdy" Subject: Re: Naive tourney question Well, I'm a newbie trying to learn the game. So I went to Orccon 17 in LA to watch the pros play over president's day holiday. I can safely say that all personality types were represented. There was one fellow who I sware had the entire ASL rules memorized. His moves were made quickly and decisively. (Pardon my spelling.) He was not "bookish." Some people play quietly - rarely interacting verbally with the opponent except when a rule is being questioned. Others are constantly engaged verbally with their opponent as well as players at other tables. There was no shortage of loud exclamations of unbelievably bad/good luck. For example, one fellow, on his first attempt to use the main armament on his tank, broke the gun. This resulted in "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS...!" Another guy was very lucky and rolled two consecutive 3s with his HMG, maintaining his ROF each time, and thereby utterly eliminating the targets and SWs in the target hex. I was impressed by the lack of a competitive atmosphere and the general excitement and comraderie exhibited by the players. But don't get me wrong; people played to win. Since everyone played the same scenario at the same time I was impressed by the diversity of strategies that were used. You would think that the pros would all come up with the same general plan of attack. But that was not the case. Cheers! Pete ----- From: Gerald Luther Graef Subject: KGP entry Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:43:03 -0600 (CST) Maybe I'm just blind, but I can't find anything in the KGP CG rules specifying where the allowed German south board initial scenario forces may enter. Does south edge mean anywhere along the south edge? Even at the west edge of the board? Thanks....Gerry ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Naive tourney question Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:43:36 PST Pete Gowdy writes: > Well, I'm a newbie trying to learn the game. So I went to Orccon 17 in > LA to watch the pros play over president's day holiday. I can safely > say that all personality types were represented. There was one fellow > who I sware had the entire ASL rules memorized. His moves were made > quickly and decisively. (Pardon my spelling.) He was not "bookish." > Some people play quietly - rarely interacting verbally with the opponent > except when a rule is being questioned. Others are constantly engaged > verbally with their opponent as well as players at other tables. There > was no shortage of loud exclamations of unbelievably bad/good luck. For > example, one fellow, on his first attempt to use the main armament on > his tank, broke the gun. This resulted in "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS...!" > Another guy was very lucky and rolled two consecutive 3s with his > HMG, maintaining his ROF each time, and thereby utterly eliminating > the targets and SWs in the target hex. Howdy! That was me on the receiving end of the HMG (.50 cal, no less!). The 9-1 wasn't killed, just wounded, but the squads did die. Just as a note, all the tanks involved in that scenario had B11 MA, so it's no big surprise that SOMEBODY broke it ASAP.... > I was impressed by the lack of a > competitive atmosphere and the general excitement and comraderie > exhibited by the players. But don't get me wrong; people played > to win. Since everyone played the same scenario at the same time I > was impressed by the diversity of strategies that were used. You would > think that the pros would all come up with the same general plan of > attack. But that was not the case. Well, that's probably because we're not all pros. Certainly not me, anyway. Just for kicks, I'll give an after action report on this minor tournament.... I'll go ahead and give people's names even though you're not likely to know any of them just in case someone does. If you don't want to read that, please skip to the end, since I have a question for everybody who has Code of Bushido at the end. There were 18 players in the tournament. Everyone played in each of three rounds, getting points for their ranking relative to the other players on the same side in the same scenario. I think this is a great system for a one-day tournament; you don't have to worry about whether the scenarios are balanced, since you're really only competing against the people who drew the same side, and (at least in this one) you get to play all three games no matter how poorly you do. This was especially valuable for me, as we will see shortly. I was the Germans in the first scenario, playing against David Rosner. It is July 4, 1941. I'm reconning a Russian held area; my objective is to take ground and reveal their cloaked/hidden units. I got beaten badly due to a deadly combination of doing stupid things and bad dice luck (that'll get ya every time!). The low point is mentioned above by Pete, who was observing at the time. Also irritating was my one snake-eyes roll in that scenario... for a sD roll. Argh! High point: I break and kill the 8-1 directing the .50-cal as well as breaking the enemy AT Gun's crew in one fire phase with the only good attack DRs I had all morning. End result: I am tied for 7th out of 9 German players. At least ONE person did worse, hard as it is to imagine. The second scenario was Americans vs. Italians on Sicily. My opponent for this round was John Garlic. The objective for both sides is to keep your units good order and on the hill (this used half a board, in the center of which is the LARGE level 1 hill in question). You lose points for suffering casualties, and at the end your opponent's points are subtracted from yours, so you have to dish it out as well as staying on the hill. I was the Americans. Neat point from this scenario: each side is given only a vague idea of what the opposition is (I was only told that I was expected to be outnumbered 2-1 but with about the same firepower, and that I might be facing armor). You then choose one of 4 OBs and both sides enter the board on their first turn. I chose a force of 5 747s with a BAZ 44, MMG, HMG, .50-cal HMG, three leaders (including a 9-2), and an M4A3 with a Gyrostabilizer and a 9-1 armor leader. The other forces had more infantry (including 667s, 666s and even 546s... blech! The available TEM was only +1, so I wanted good morale); a couple had M5A1s (one with Gyro, one without). I liked both the heavier tank and the 7 morale for all of my squads, so the choice was easy. BTW, there was a VP multiplier so that each force had the same maximum number of VP. My opponent chose an OB with about 14 or so (I think) squads, half 447 and half 347, and an MR/35. Unfortunately, it was demonstrated that the Italians are screwed if they have an MR/35 and the Americans picked the OB with the Sherman; the MR/35 is too slow and can't hurt the Sherman. My opponent was kind enough to leave it in plain sight on his first turn, so my infantry double-timed to where they could ID it, and then the tank drove up and killed it. High point of the scenario: in one fire phase, my 9-2 with a squad and the .50 cal reduced a concealed stack of three squads to one broken HS. The Adding Insult (and more Injury) to Injury Award goes to my tank commander, who drove up to a concealed stack in the final game turn, rolling the needed '3' to hit exactly, and breaking a couple extra squads for even more points. I love gyrostabilizers! At any rate, I ended up placing 2nd among the Americans, vaulting me from about 14th in the overall standings to 7th out of 18. As the Italians, I would probably have picked either the OB with an SMV M41M with the 90L gun (in a short scenario, the low, low circled B# doesn't hurt as much), or the one with 24 (!!!) squads. Those MR/35s are just a good way to lose VP. This may be just because of hindsight, but I think I'd have taken one look at the Renaults and said "Next!!!" due to their pitiful firepower. We finally got to the third scenario, after waiting quite a while (somebody was being REALLY slow). In the meantime, I managed to pique people's interest in the Internet ASL community (people seemed particularly interested in the Record; I gave the copy I had on hand to somebody). This was British vs. Germans near Falaise; I drew the Germans again, and Cloyde Angell had the British against me. The Brits get some elite and first-line squads (I think I was outnumbered about 2-1) and a Firefly Sherman to my 6 squads, reinforced after the Brits arrive by a Panther G. The British objectives are based on taking building hexes as fast as possible (more points for earlier turns) and the Germans simply get points for whatever building hexes they have at the end. All I can really say about this one is that I totally out-diced poor Cloyde. In one building which I wanted to hold (but expected to lose early), I put a 447. It suffered a K/2 in the DFPh of my first turn, but DID NOT BREAK. The resulting HS was subjected to another 2MC, at least 4 1MC, and a couple NMC and DID NOT BREAK for the entire game. It finally died in the last turn in CC (pity; I would have almost certainly placed higher in the final standings if it had survived). Posthumous Iron Crosses all around! At any rate, only 2 German players did better than I did in that one, and was tied for 5th with someone else in the final standings. To sum up, the scenarios were a blast, I learned a lot, and I placed higher than I had any right to due to some fabulous die-rolling when it counted. I also finally picked up Code of Bushido, and I have a question about the overlays: my copy came with two copies of the sheet with overlay 1, and one each of the sheets that have overlays 2-5. Did I just get an extra sheet, or is there another sheet of overlays that I am missing? I got a total of 5 sheets (4 and 5 are on the same sheet). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:11:16 +1100 From: lesk@LNA03.lna.oz.au (Les KRAMER) Subject: tussle at thomashoff Howdy, I also played Tussle at Thomashoff recently. First attempt was along the lines suggested by Matt Shostak. Problem with this is that without the tanks in play, the Brits don't have much firepower. It took too long to take the initial buildings and with only 6 turns, they have to be taken quickly. Second attempt brought the Crocidile against the initial buildings and take the other tank straight towards the rear building. The ATG killed it on the first shot. The Croc was immobilised by the mortar. Game over. The only chance I can see for the Brits is to be lucky enough to survive the first attack against the tanks. With next to no cover, no amount of smoke will stop the Germans getting off a good initial shot while still being able to get to the objective. Removal of one of the German guns would be my only suggestion for Balance. Les Kramer ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 23:58:00 BST Subject: ASL Winter Offensive '94 AAR &&& NOTE &&& To the guys who are also on GEnie, this is identical to my posting there so you will probably want to skip one or the other. &&& WARNING &&& Lost post follows. ASL Winter Offensive '94 After-Action Report Before Oktoberfest '93, my first tournament, I said: --> "I fully expect to get trounced at the tournament. But don't expect --> the same thing at my next tournament." I am happy to say that I made good, as far as I am concerned, on that rather brash statement at the recent Winter Offensive '94. I arrived around 6:00 on Friday evening and started off with "Zon With the Wind" against John Appel of the Internet. I was the Germans. John's Turn 2 US reinforcements ran into stiff opposition which delayed them for a turn or so. My units then conducted an orderly withdrawal to set up the end game at the exit hex. The highlight of the mid-game was two melees that John couldn't win in a timely manner. An 8-0 leader and 467 held up two 747s for 3 player turns. Also, Iron Crosses were handed out to one of the AA gun crews for exceptional valor under fire. John finally broke the crew but by then all he had time for was a last turn dash off the board edge. Nothing made it off the edge of the board and I had my first victory. 1-0. I then played David Greshom who is here on GEnie in "Cibik's Ridge" even though both of us were unfamiliar with the PTO. We rolled for sides and I ended up with the Marines. The Marine ambush was executed perfectly resulting in the destruction of 2 leaders and 5 squads. Later in the game, the Japanese couldn't stand up to the 9-2, HMG/668 combination, even though I only rolled ROF once, and rolled 8s or 9s on many of the 24 -1 attacks. Near the end game, when the Japanese tried storming the hill, my low DRs kicked in and the Japanese disappeared with KIAs. I finished the night 2-0; quite a change from my 0-6 Oktoberfest start. Saturday morning around 9:30, I met Bret Hildebran, of the Internet, in a gruelling 9-hour match of "Brandenburger Bridge," published in the Rout Report. It didn't seem that either of us were playing slowly, but it sure took long enough to finish the game. I was the Germans. Both OBs were decimated in this battle. Some of the highlights were a German armor unit breaking through the Russian blocking force to meet the Russian reinforcements at their entry hex. Unfortunately, the tank escaped destruction but then broke its MA on an IF shot and wasn't a factor for the rest of the game. The other highlight was the 548 with the flamethrower who went berserk, taking the flamethrower to the Netherworld with it. With few exceptions, I was doing very well up to this point but this broke my morale. I hung in there and had a chance for a victory but fell short, with the help of some blunders in my last player turn, in my efforts to retake the far side of the bridge from the Russians. We finished the game around 6:30 and then took a break for dinner to recover for the next game. It was a pleasure meeting Bret and I look forward to playing him in the future. 2-1. Next, I faced Tom Kearney as the Americans in "Lash Out." This was a very competitive game which came right down to the wire. Tom had me on the ropes and it seemed that I couldn't do anything against him in the first few turns. However, I was able to withdraw most of my units to the board edge and there made my final stand. Tom did take out the tank but it was too late. When I rolled a '4' on a 6 -4 attack against his last chance to win, the game was over. 3-1. I could barely believe it, I was on the leader board in the running for the title. Don't get me wrong, though. I never even considered the possibility of me actually winning the tournament. However, as far as I was concerned, just getting to this point was a victory for me. Since Tom and I had finished "Lash Out" in about 1 hour 45 minutes, and since noone else was ready to play a game, we decided to play another game off the record. I was told we could play it on the record if we wanted, but I didn't want to take a chance on spoiling my 3-1 record and getting knocked out of the running. It was a good thing as I got annihilated in "Distinguished Service," published by the Rout Report, as the Germans. I had all kinds of difficulty with the Forest and Alpine Hills rules as I had never played either of those before. Tom easily breached and scattered my blocking force. However, I felt confident about my chances to hold on to the last few hill hexes. Unfortunately, I missed a critical LOS that Tom's killer stack had on my HMG position. On a 30 even attack, he rolled a '3' and the game was over as I had nothing left to stop him. 3-2 unofficially. Sunday morning dawned and I was to face Mike McGrath. I never had misconception that I would be able to win this game. I hadn't met Mike before this, but I had heard his name and was awed that I was even playing him. I resolved to do my best and learn as much as I could in the process. I wanted a scenario that neither of us had played before so that we could at least start on even ground. We chose "Le Herisson" and rolled for sides, with me getting the Germans. My attack got off to a good start, but then I got too conservative. I was making good progress on the left side but had gotten stalled in the center of the board. By the time I got my attack going again, Mike was able to consolidate his defense and I ran into a wall of French and got blasted. Meanwhile, my progress on the right side was broken up by a hidden French HS and with my attack broken up in the center, I conceeded the game. The AG kept smoke through the whole game, though one of them was recalled for running out of ammo. I think I used the armor a bit recklessly and will try to be more careful with it in future games. 3-2, 3-3 unofficially. I must say that my game with Mike was the best game of the tournament. Mike was very helpful and encouraged me and I really appreciated it, even if he did kick my butt. I don't mind losing at all when playing guys of that caliber. I could have gone home after that but I had come to play ASL so I challenged Gary Fortenberry to a game, as much as I hated to ruin my .500 record for the tournament. I wanted to play another PTO scenario and so we played "One- Log Bridge" for lack of a better, small scenario. Fort offered me either side with the Japanese getting J2 balance, and I took the Marines. This game was characterized by numerous over-stacking errors, due to my unfamiliarity with the dense jungle. I paid for one of those errors as Fort got a CH with a mortar against an overstacked hex. When the units retreated to rally, they were pounced upon by a hidden Japanese HS who eliminated them all in H-to-H CC. However, I hung in there and kept trying. In the last turn, I had a statistical chance to win the game but got tied up in Melee on the bridge and couldn't reach the victory hex. I enjoyed my game with Fort and look forward to playing him again. I appreciate the fact that he taught me some important things about serious tournament play, even if he wasn't aware of it. So I ended up with a record of 3-4. As far as I was concerned, though, I had accomplished everything I could have dreamed of with this tournament. In the future, I am going to seek out guys like Gary and Mike for games. It will worth the pounding to learn as much as I can. It was also a pleasure to meet some other guys who I didn't get a chance to play. These include Brian Youse, Perry Cocke, Zadra and Fish, among others. I especially want to thank Perry for his interest in me. He was very encouraging and I really appreciated it. Thanks, Perry. I am looking forward to my next tournament. Unfortunately, I can't make it to either WOW, Summer Wars or Doncon. I guess I will have to wait until next Oktoberfest. Hope to see you guys there. Warren ----- Subject: How quickly do you play? Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:17:52 PST From: slin@cisco.com Having never played ASL ftf, I was wondering, how long does it take for you to play a turn? I realize that the answer may vary widely depending on the size of the scenario, the state of units on board, the turn (i.e. early, middle, or late in the game), and the experience of the player. I would just like to hear an estimate from some of you so that when I do play somebody ftf, I won't take an inordinate amount of time. Steve ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:18:23 +0100 From: Robert Rydlo Subject: Re: How quickly do you play? Hi Steve! In my plays we aslways had turn times between 30 minutes and one hour. cheers robert ----- Date: 23 Feb 94 02:31:34 EST From: Dennis F Menear <74072.110@CompuServe.COM> Subject: ASL Ladder Greetings! I learned in CompuServe that there is an ASL Ladder competition on the Internet, and I was given this address to contact for information. Can I compete on the ladder since I am a member of CompuServe without full access to the Internet? If so, please tell me how I can get on the ladder. I own ASL modules 1 through 4 and 6, and some of the General scenarios, as well as all the Annuals. I have applied for my AREA rating and should be receiving it soon. Any information you can give me will be appreciated. Dennis Menear CompuServe address: 74072.110@compuserve.com ----- From: mrhodes@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Dr. M. Rhodes) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:11:47 +0000 Subject: questions about KGP Ive been playing my first CG of KGP and had several questions 1) It states on numerous occasion that a strategic location cannot be uncontrolled, and yet at the begining of the CG some strategic locations are uncontrolled as they are in neither set up area. So at the end of the first scenario what happens to all those strategic locations that noone has visited yet. I assume they all pass to the US. 2) Can you use battlefield integrity rules, in RB it specifically stated that you should not. In KGP it just states that the Initial ELR is used for the begining of each scenartio, suggesting you can use Battlefield integrity just that it automatically resets at the end of each scenario? 3) The german halftrack with side mounted Flamethrowers, is it 2 x 24 FP atttacks or 2 x 12 Fp attacks Thanks Michael Rhodes ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:37:21 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Old General scenarios Hi everyone! I guess I'm not the only one who want a complete scenario collection. However, there are some out-of-stock issues of the General. I was wondering if people having these Generals and access to a scanner could scan the scenarios in these issues and put them in the ASL archives. If I'm right, TAHGC has nothing against this as long as we do this with only the out-of-stock scenarios (i.e., the scenarios in 22#6, 24 #1, #2, #3, #4, #6 and 25#2). I have three of these issues (24 #3, #4 and #6) myself and could scan them if you are interested. (Another question, however, is why on earth I should need these scenarios; I've got more than 150 official scenarios which I have yet to play, and yesterday I started RB CG III with a friend of mine :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Old General scenarios Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:13:02 +0100 (MET) Hi, > I guess I'm not the only one who want a complete scenario collection. However, > there are some out-of-stock issues of the General. I was wondering if people > having these Generals and access to a scanner could scan the scenarios in these issues and put them in the ASL archives. If I'm right, TAHGC has nothing against > this as long as we do this with only the out-of-stock scenarios (i.e., the > scenarios in 22#6, 24 #1, #2, #3, #4, #6 and 25#2). I have three of these issues > (24 #3, #4 and #6) myself and could scan them if you are interested. (Another > question, however, is why on earth I should need these scenarios; I've got more > than 150 official scenarios which I have yet to play, and yesterday I started RB > CG III with a friend of mine :-) If this is indeed legal, I have every scenario published in the General, and access to a scanner. Some of my copies could be of less-than-good quality, but I think most are OK. The problem, of course, would be if this is legal or not? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:21:31 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Old General scenarios > If this is indeed legal, I have every scenario published in the General, > and access to a scanner. Some of my copies could be of less-than-good > quality, but I think most are OK. > > The problem, of course, would be if this is legal or not? > > -- > m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig > "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" > At least Bas has answered to me and told me that this is legal as long as we don't charge money for it, so he has welcomed the scenarios on his ftp site. The ones I've got (24-3,4,6) is the original Generals, so these should be of good quality, but IMO the most important is the scenarios - not the quality of the scan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:22:28 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Old General scenarios Patrik Manlig writes: > If this is indeed legal, I have every scenario published in the > General, and access to a scanner. Some of my copies could be of > less-than-good quality, but I think most are OK. > The problem, of course, would be if this is legal or not? I couldn't give you a reference now, but from what I remember AH has said that it is ok to reproduce scenarios from old Generals provided: 1) The issue is no longer available. 2) You do not make a profit out of it. That should make Ole's idea ok. Bas. ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: MPh Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:30:30 +0100 (MET) Brent Pollock writes: > > Grant: > > > You're right, it is prohibited. Just imagine what would happen if they > rolled a 6 dr: they'd Pin and wouldn't be able to enter the board and > would therefore be eliminated for failure to enter. This is probably the > same reason they decided that Offboard FFE zones had no effect so you > wouldn't have to deal with offmap, broken/Pinned units. > When a squad roll a 6 dr for smoke grenade placement, it must end its MPh but it is not Pin (so it can enter onboard in the APh). -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: PostScript Kakazu Ridge Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 16:52:01 +0100 (MET) I put the Postscript version of "Kakazu Ridge" on the ftp server : carlo.phys.uva.nl in folder : pub/bas/asl/incoming Until Bas de Bakker move it in folder : pub/bas/asl/scenarios Filename : KakazuRidge.ps.Z it is a 130649 bytes compressed file. Use 'uncompress' to get an ascii postscript file printable on any (i hope) postscript printer. Some peoples already know this scenario (it appeared in Tactique #3 in french and later in the Digest in ascii) but i am sure they will enjoy the english "good looking" print. -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:21:15 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: BERSERKER II IS HERE BERSERKER II OR "Yeah, I can beat Carl Fago and now seems like the time to prove it!" Yep, it is that time again. Two years since the crowning of Carl Fago as head Berserker. Sure, he got lucky, but you can too! Berserker II is for serious ASLers. Players should be ready to flex their knowledge of the ASLRB, as all sections of the rules will be used. I need a minimum of 15 players to start (I'm assuming that Carl will be the number 1 seed as defending Champion. I'm willing to wait on our game, Carl, if you need the space/time. I can take more than 15 players. If I get 17+ people, everyone will play in two rounds, then the 2-0 players will advance while the rest of the bracket will be filled, at random, from the 1-1 player pool. To save time, I'll do the pairings (of course) and pick the sides by dr. STRICT TIME LIMITS will be listed for each scenario. I'll pick a winner if the scenarios drag on past the time limit. If your opponent drops out of sight, you advance. I will not be looking for replacements, a policy recommended by der Laddermeister, since it slows down play. There will be some kind of prize for first place, I'm just not sure what. I'll have plenty of time to work on that while the tournament starts. In the spirit of the competition, all matches will be ladder matches. If you are not a member of the Ladder, you will receive a *FREE LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP* by participating in this tournament. In a list of 282 people (our current total), getting 16 people or so should take no time 'tall. I'll wait at least a day to allow GEnie and foreign users time to receive this message. Anyways, on with the show. The scenarios, by round, are... RND 1: Chance D'une Affair. French/German, one map. RND 2: Totsugeki! Japanese/Chinese, one map PTO tactical exercise. RND 3: Hill 253.5. German/Russian, one map slugfest. RND 4: The Cat Has Jumped. US Army/Japanese, two map beach assault. RND 5: Fort McGregor. German/British, one map desert night scenario. Note the attempt at all major theaters, using almost all the major rules sections. This is, truely, a diehard ASLer's dream tournament. If interested, email me with a subject of BERSERKER II ENTRY Thanks, Brian ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:31:55 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Wood Subject: Re: How quickly do you play? On Tue, 22 Feb 1994 slin@cisco.com wrote: > Having never played ASL ftf, I was wondering, how long does it take > for you to play a turn? I realize that the answer may vary widely > depending on the size of the scenario, the state of units on board, > the turn (i.e. early, middle, or late in the game), and the experience > of the player. I would just like to hear an estimate from some of you > so that when I do play somebody ftf, I won't take an inordinate amount > of time. > > My friends and I play about 1.5 turns per night which takes about 2 hours. We are just learning ASL and probably spending lots of time figuring out interpretation of the rules in the beginning but once game play gets going, we will spend more time doing things like OBA and AFV movement. THOR ----- From: pec@cbstp2.att.com Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:14 EST Subject: orchard tem question are in-season orchards treated the same as woods when the firer and target are on different levels (ie orchard is a one level obstacle and creates a blind hex, but does not add any hindrance if target is not in a blind hex) ? is the blind hex in effect for in-season tree lined roads if the los from different level firer/target never leaves the road depiction ? ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 03:29:00 BST Subject: Naive tourney question Tom says: --> So, what's it like to watch a real pro play? Or play against one? I --> mean, are the 10-3's these quiet, bookish guys who move their units --> with precision and calculate everything to the Nth degree? Or do they --> have more flair than that? I played Mike McGrath and Gary Fortenberry, two of the top players. My experience is that they have quite a bit of flair, not bookish or quiet by any means. Probably the most interesting thing I noticed, is that they play rather quickly. They do everything with "precision" but don't sit there for very long trying to figure out what to do. I figure that these guys already know exactly what they are doing and what will happen when they do it, so they don't have to think about it for very long. I think it has to do with experience with the game. They are so familiar with it, they can make the perfect attack or set up the perfect defense in no time at all. Not being used to playing ftf myself, I was in a blur trying to keep up with Gary Fortenberry. Half the time I wasn't sure exactly what he was rolling for and I missed a whole bunch of sniper attacks because I was having trouble keeping track of things. This is definitely something I will have to get used to for future tournaments. I find that the first time I do a defense of a scenario, it has a lot of flaws in it. Mike McGrath, on the other hand, at the end of our game said he would only change a couple of things for his setup, and they were very minor as far as I was concerned. This was the first time he had played this scenario. It appears that familiarity with the game makes things much more obvious in regards to strategies and setups that newer players, such as myself, don't see as readily. I will also say that all of the top players I have faced, have been a pleasure to play. While they are awe-inspiring in their ASL ability, they are not unapproachable. Mike McGrath, particularly, was very helpful and encouraging to me. I look forward to playing both him and Gary in the future, as well as some of the other guys at the top. If you are at a tournament, look one of them up and challenge them to a game. It will be well worth getting stomped on for the experience. Warren ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:26:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: BERSERKER II IS HERE In message Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:21:15 EST, brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) writes: > "Yeah, I can beat Carl Fago and now seems like the time to prove it!" As if it's some hard thing to do? > I need a minimum of 15 players to start (I'm assuming that Carl will > be the number 1 seed as defending Champion. Yeah, yeah, I'll play. Just don't have some cheesy scenarios. > There will be some kind of prize for first place, I'm just not sure > what. I'll have plenty of time to work on that while the tournament > starts. Sort of like the prize for Berserker I?!? :-) > RND 1: Chance D'une Affair. French/German, one map. There you go. Non-AH cheesy scenario #1. > RND 2: Totsugeki! Japanese/Chinese, one map PTO tactical > exercise. Which version? The Annual one? > RND 3: Hill 253.5. German/Russian, one map slugfest. Now we're starting to get some meat! > RND 4: The Cat Has Jumped. US Army/Japanese, two map beach assault. What??? You declared this one one of the most unbalanced of all time?!? Though, I suppose you think it is better than Brandenberger Bridge? > RND 5: Fort McGregor. German/British, one map desert night scenario. Ooh, aahh, I better start reading right now! Looking forward to this! ----- From: Ed Carter Subject: D1.21 question Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:57:09 CST Guys, OK, a question which will demonstrate my inexperience! I am setting up a GEnie Ladder game of ASLUG's "Temporary Victory" which has the germans attacking at night with 4 SdKfz 7/1 AA halftracks. These vehicles have the 2 verticle stars which shows they are unarmored, however, D1.21 says that these 2 stars mean unarmored "(EX: German Opel truck; German SdKfz 7 halftrack)". So, are these halftracks unarmored? If not, then how do attack them (i.e. what is the AF)? I know I must be missing something simple here. Thanks, Ed ----- From: Ed Carter Subject: Re: D1.21 question Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:15:31 CST > > I think you are misreading the EXample here. The EX means example, > while EXC means exception. > > Is that your question? > > > Rusty Shields > d4f@cu.nih.gov > > Thanks Rusty! Second major embarrasment in 2 days! :-( Later, Ed ----- Subject: Re: How quickly do you play? Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:35:35 PST From: slin@cisco.com Thanks, everyone, for your responses. The consensus from the six or seven responses I got was that it takes roughly 30 minutes to an hour per turn. Campaign game turns are longer and some simple scenarios are shorter. Steve ----- Subject: Personal profile Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:57:19 PST From: slin@cisco.com I was thinking, it might be useful to provide a profile of one's self when looking for pbem opponents. From what I've gathered from previous postings to this list, the most common information provided usually includes a rough estimate of one's skill (6+1), theater of preference (ETO), scenario preferences (no vehicles), and state of ASL ownership (BV and Yanks). Would people find it useful if we came up with a standard list? Here's something to start us off. Feel free to add, subtract, or modify. - Skill level This is usually expressed on the 6+1, 7-0, etc. scale. It may also include Ladder record, AREA (I have no idea what this is) rating, and personal all-time record. One's knowledge of rules may also be provided. - Scenario Preferences This includes theater, vehicles, ordnance, OBA, etc. - Modules, boards, and scenarios owned Some of us people may have everything...yet. :) - Miscellaneous game preferences IFT or IIFT. Optional Chapter E rules. - Historical profile You can list what scenarios you have played and won/lost. My guess is that the less experienced players will find this information more useful than the veterans. Steve ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:26:55 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: KGP entry Yes, just like it says. But only three types of RG are allowed. Fred > > > Maybe I'm just blind, but I can't find anything in the KGP CG rules > specifying where the allowed German south board initial scenario > forces may enter. Does south edge mean anywhere along the south edge? > Even at the west edge of the board? > > Thanks....Gerry > > ----- From: wuj@moss.emsp.att.com Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:45 EST Subject: Re: D1.21 question I always stumble on that one too! EX is for Example EXC is for Exception Walt Ulicki ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:27:02 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: orchard tem question Hello, Patrick asked: > are in-season orchards treated the same as woods when the firer and target > are on different levels (ie orchard is a one level obstacle and creates a > blind hex, but does not add any hindrance if target is not in a blind hex) ? Almost. An in-season orchard is a one-level obstacle to different-level fire, and creates a blind hex. But fire from two levels or more above the orchard is Hindered (once only) if the target is in the orchard's blind zone, rather than blocked as it would be for woods. (B14.2) > is the blind hex in effect for in-season tree lined roads if the los from > different level firer/target never leaves the road depiction ? This is pretty ambiguous in the rules. Clearly no Hindrances apply to fire down the road by B14.6, but nothing is said about whether LOS can be blocked. It depends on whether the trees are said to overhang the road. I'd say no, by the following rather convoluted argument: If the trees do overhang the road and thus block different- level LOS, then they create a Hindrance from a level-2 firer to a blind hex, as above. But B14.2 says that there's never a Hindrance along the road. Therefore, different-level LOS along the road is never blocked, and the trees don't overhang the road. But this is one that really has to go to Da Hill. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ObNonASL: Somebody asked about PBEM Diplomacy after seeing the results of the survey. I've got a copy of the Diplomacy FAQ from rec.games. diplomacy, and will be happy to mail it to anybody who wants one. There are electronically-judged Diplomacy games on several machines around the world, and you only need email Internet access to play. But if you pay by the message or have a mailbox that is easily overfilled, I wouldn't recommend it. ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:04:01 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Captured Weapons O.k., here's a historical-type question for all of those "sure, I'll blow $100 for a book on Tiger tanks" types out there... 8-) 8-) I was pondering the subject of captured weapons the other day, and it occurred to me that my personal understanding of the employment of enemy weapons during combat is exactly opposite of the one expressed by ASL and by John Hill in particular. I recall one designer note from the original SL wherein US troops were described as being "incredibly fond of captured equipment" and were therefore not heavily penalized for captured weapon use. >From what I have read over the years, the use of captured equipment in combat was a sure way of getting yourself shot by your own troops, because most experienced soldiers learned to recognize the distinctive sounds made by enemy weapons (thus the "Burp Gun", or the "Crash-boom" term used to describe Russian 76's). So I put it to the field: does anyone know of a reference to the actual use of enemy weapons in the same battle in which those weapons were captured? Have I been missing out all these years??? I suppose the use of Panzerfausts by U.S. troops in the Battle of the Bulge counts, but I'm more interested in machineguns. Aloha, Patrick Jonke SOEST Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa ----- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 21:52:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: THE GENERAL and ASL Modules Hello All! I'm thinking of subscribing to THE GENERAL and was wondering (on average) how many ASL modules they have been publishing per year or issue. Is the number going up or down? Are they moving away from THE GENERAL (scenario-wise) in favor of the ANNUALs? (i.e. Are they eventually going to quit putting ASL scenarios in THE GENERAL?) Do they have many articles in THE GENERAL dealing with SL/ASL? Thanks in advance for any responses! ********************************************* * Neal E. Ulen (nealu@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu) * * Center for Applied Thermodynamic Studies * * College of Engineering * * University of Idaho * * Moscow.Idaho.83843.USA * ********************************************* ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 09:41:01 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: THE GENERAL and ASL Modules Neal Ulen writes: > I'm thinking of subscribing to THE GENERAL and was wondering (on > average) how many ASL modules they have been publishing per year or > issue. Is the number going up or down? Are they moving away from > THE GENERAL (scenario-wise) in favor of the ANNUALs? (i.e. Are they > eventually going to quit putting ASL scenarios in THE GENERAL?) Do > they have many articles in THE GENERAL dealing with SL/ASL? You can look in the ASL record to see how many scenarios were published in each General. I don't think they're moving away from the General. In fact, _all_ of last volume's issues had one (1 case) or two (5 cases) scenarios. Bas. ----- Date: 24 Feb 94 13:37:00 UT From: /PN=Doug.Williamson/OU=DL-NOTES/O=SMTRW/PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: Re: THE GENERAL and ASL Modules If I remember correctly, each issue also has had a ASL clinic of some sort (i.e. a regular ASL column). Plus they periodically throw in more ASL (but you can't predict when). The last issue came with a full sheet of counters including some marked as "ASL replacements." Can anyone tell me what they are supposed to replace? Were there earlier counter errors that I haven't noticed yet? BTW, if you want to subscribe, I would highly recommend you do it before the next issue hits the stands. After that point they are going to raise the rates (on both the shelf copies and the subscriptions). Doug Williamson ----- Subject: Re: PTO rules compared From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:52:00 -0640 Howdy, Petri Juhani Piira writes: >(I haven't read the Landing Craft rules yet... I failed my >morale check for them in 1992... still DM when I think about >them.) I hope I can rally you :-) You have picked one of the less formidable sections of the new rules to Break on. In spite of their great length the rules have mostly minor patches for the vehicle rules. Most of the rules are about the changes in Collateral attacks, i.e., how Passengers are affected when the LC is hit. The LC Destruction table summerizes the results pretty well. Below are some of the major differences: 1. LC crews are always CE, but LCs don't recall due to crew casualties [they may spin--turn in a random direction--instead]. 2. LCs accumulate Damage Points before being destroyed. 3. Attacks against the LC can cause attacks against the Passengers. 4. LC can run aground (similar to bog) in shallow water. If you feel comfortable with the vehicle rules, especially vehicles that carry Passengers such as HTs, the LC rules should be no problem. So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Question regarding Gun Du From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:52:00 -0640 Howdy, slagblah@acs.bu.edu writes: >As a pretty green ASL player, I hope someone more >experienced can help me with this problem. Ok, first point: anyone who is thinking about a Gun Duel or Platoon Movement can't be all that green. If you are thinking about them in combination, you have to be at least an 8-0. >I understand the Gun Duel rules in general, but there is a >specific case I am interested in, namely, when they are >coupled with platoon movement. Let's say I have a German >gun, and a platoon of three Russian tanks moves into view. >Although I am not concealed, I wait for them to all move >into view. Now if I wish to fire at the first tank, I >understand that it can declare a Gun Duel. But what about >the other two? Can they just do Bounding First Fire (BFF) >normally? If so, do they fire before or after the Gun Duel >is resolved? The first attack should be resolved before you consider the other two tanks. There is no requirement that all members of the Platoon declare their attacks simultaneously, and I think that even if the ATTACKER does declare the intention to do so, game play requires that he pick one Platoon member and resolve that BFF attack. The Gun can then declare Gun Duel and if appropriate, that is resolved. I don't think this is a formal rule, but it is the way the game seems to be played. Attacks are declared sequentially. The ATTACKER can now declare a second BFF attack. >If the Gun Duel is resolved first, and I win, >trash the tank, and maintain ROF, is there another Gun Duel >with the second tank? In short, can I Gun Duel all three >tanks, as long as I maintain ROF, without giving them an >uncontested shot? This is an interesting question. If the Gun survives the first attack, and a second BFF attack is declared before the Platoon moves again, can the Gun declare another Gun Duel? My opinion on this is that C6.17, which states that a Gun may only fire at the same target in the same Location as many times as the MF/MP expended "in that Location," should be extended for Platoon Movement to include all members and Locations of the Platoon. If the Platoon expended more than one MP, the Gun can respond to more than one BFF with Gun Duels, but not if only one MP. My reading of the rules right now is that the Gun can respond to all BFF attacks no matter how many MPs the Platoon expended since they are different targets and typically in different Locations. BTW, someone recently said that the slowest tank has 6 MP. This, sir, is an outrage. The slowest tank in ASL to date is the FT-17, a French WWI veteren with 5 MP. These slurs against the honor of the French Army will not pass unnoticed! It's also radioless. So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:52:00 -0640 Howdy, Kudos to Brian for WO: I had a great time. I only got to play one scenario, which lasted near all Saturday, but it was fun even if I did get slaughtered. One gaff I made was that my opponant kept declaring Opportunity Fire for his tanks, a definite rules no-no. Couple of observations: bring along a snack; if you don't have laminated paper maps or plexiglas (for RB, KGP, etc), try putting sticky putty under the map so you don't get that "Pop-O-Matic" action where the map bubbles; have your counters well sorted for quick set up (I am in the middle of getting enough boxes to sort them properly, so getting out the units was a little slow); don't roll 12 on your first contact DR with a field phone. Point at which I realized I had had enough: driving home I kept looking into the other lane and thinking to myself, "ok, no units there; I can change lanes." Thank goodness there weren't any HIP units on the highway :-) Rules question: during play a question arose about the allowed number of DFF shots at an over-running vehicle before the OVR is resolved. If a vehicle expends X MP to enter the hex and Y MP to perform the OVR (declared and expended as the vehicle enters the hex), how many shots does the Defender get to take before the OVR is resolved? Perry Cocke resolved this by saying the Defender (in this case in the OVR hex) could take X shots, the cost of entering the hex (I believe that's what he said, anyway). I agreed at the time but on further thought I think it should be X + Y shots. D7.1 says that "Defensive First Fire ... prompted by that MP expenditure ... [is] resolved [before the OVR]." Other opinions? Another rules question: my opponants on our regular Tuesday night game were punishing we British badly in "The Eastern Gate." Since winning was nearly out of the question, the only available line of play seemed to be to find some obscure rule to take away the satisfaction of the win and make their victory a Phyrric one :-) The British had a broken squad in Kunai (35F9) surrounded by two Japanese squads. The Japanese ADJACENT were at 12 and 6 o'clock (hexes 35E10 and 35G9). It was RtPh, and the fiendish Japanese were expecting the squad to die for Failure to Rout. However, one of the other hexes was a Swamp hex (35G10). Swamp (and Marsh) hexes can't be entered during the APh, so I routed in, claiming that it wasn't ADJACENT (even though it was adjacent), and therefore I could go in without violating A10.5-51. Howls of protest! Furious page turning! In the end they couldn't find any rules to prevent it. To add insult to injury, I removed the DM marker during the RPh. So the questions: Can I rout as I did? Can I remove the DM marker? [To finish the story, the Japanese just fired into the hex, and the squad was history.] So long, --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:27:38 -0500 (EST) From: James D Shetler Subject: General Hi guys, With all this talk about the General, I was wondering if anyone knows when the next issue is due. Just curious. BTW, I guess I'm obsessed, but I subscribed to the magazine just to get new scenarios. The other articles are usually worth reading, but ASL is the only game I play. Oh, just wanted to thank those responsible for Kakazu Ridge. Cool scenario! Crazy in Pittsburgh, Jim Shetler ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) >Rules question: during play a question arose about the >allowed number of DFF shots at an over-running vehicle >before the OVR is resolved. If a vehicle expends X MP to >enter the hex and Y MP to perform the OVR (declared and >expended as the vehicle enters the hex), how many shots >does the Defender get to take before the OVR is resolved? >Perry Cocke resolved this by saying the Defender (in this >case in the OVR hex) could take X shots, the cost of >entering the hex (I believe that's what he said, anyway). I >agreed at the time but on further thought I think it should >be X + Y shots. D7.1 says that "Defensive First Fire ... >prompted by that MP expenditure ... [is] resolved [before >the OVR]." Other opinions? I'd agree with Perry (typically a good idea I believe :-). X shots prior to the overrun being resolved and then you could take another Y shots AFTER the overrun...Of course then it's too late usually :-) Of course that's X & Y shots from each unit available to shoot and not X or Y shots total. A WO highlight for me was in a game of Brandenburger Bridge against Warren Smith, when a unit in a woods road hex survived 3 overruns in the same turn. A half-track and 2 tanks I think...And he didn't even break via the forced FPF of the overruns...Truly a momentous occasion I thought, although Warren's opinion may vary slightly :-) Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Subject: Re: Question regarding Gun Du Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:26:38 -0500 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov I _knew_ someone would catch that gaffe... > BTW, someone recently said that the slowest tank has 6 MP. > This, sir, is an outrage. The slowest tank in ASL to date is > the FT-17, a French WWI veteren with 5 MP. These slurs > against the honor of the French Army will not pass > unnoticed! It's also radioless. > > So long, > > JR Yes, and to top it off I misidentified it as a Brit Mk VI! In fact, the Mk VI was a cruiser tank and has the quite respectable MP allowance of 18! The one I thought I was thinking of (?) was the Matilda 1 - 6 MPs, good armor (for the time) rating of 6, and nothing but a Vickers mg for MA! To make matters worse (boy, I should never be allowed to go to work without my ASLRB!), I confused infantry and vehicle costs for uphill movement (infantry cost is doubled, tracked AFVs pay COT + 4). -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:34:07 EST From: brown558@Armstrong.EDU (Jay Browning) Achtung! I have ftp'ed several asl related files from carlo.phys.uva.nl that are in a format I cannot recognize. I tried using pkunzip to decompress them but failed the task check (rolled an 11!). Can someone direct me in my attempt to decipher these files? Danke, Jay Browning ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:44:30 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: questions about KGP > > Ive been playing my first CG of KGP and had several questions > > 1) It states on numerous occasion that a strategic location cannot be > uncontrolled, and yet at the begining of the CG some strategic locations > are uncontrolled as they are in neither set up area. So at the end of the > first scenario what happens to all those strategic locations that noone > has visited yet. I assume they all pass to the US. > Unpublished errata says that Stragetic locations can be uncontrolled. > 2) Can you use battlefield integrity rules, in RB it specifically stated that > you should not. In KGP it just states that the Initial ELR is used for the > begining of each scenartio, suggesting you can use Battlefield integrity just > that it automatically resets at the end of each scenario? > We never have. > 3) The german halftrack with side mounted Flamethrowers, is it 2 x 24 FP > atttacks or 2 x 12 Fp attacks > It has 2 attacks at 24FP, but only one from each side. See the diagram in chapter H to see which hexes each gun can fire at. Fred > Thanks > Michael Rhodes > ----- Subject: General and Fire Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 18:46:29 +0100 From: Asad Rustum All this talk about the countersheets included in the General. Do these come along only if you subscribe or what? BTW, what is the last issue of the General? Now to talk about fire. When a Blaze spreads, is the new fire a Blaze or a Flame? I think the answer is Flame, but I have my doubts. Why? Dunno, might be because I've watched to much Beavis & Butt-Head. Fire! Fire! Fire! +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:59:07 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: orchard tem question > > Patrick asked: > > > are in-season orchards treated the same as woods when the firer and target > > are on different levels (ie orchard is a one level obstacle and creates a > > blind hex, but does not add any hindrance if target is not in a blind hex) ? > > Almost. An in-season orchard is a one-level obstacle to different-level > fire, and creates a blind hex. But fire from two levels or more above > the orchard is Hindered (once only) if the target is in the orchard's > blind zone, rather than blocked as it would be for woods. (B14.2) If you read B14.2 carefully you will see that the Hindreance for being in a blind hex only applys when orchards are out of season. When in season the LOS would be blocked. Fred ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:14:57 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: General and Fire > > All this talk about the countersheets included in the General. Do > these come along only if you subscribe or what? BTW, what is the last > issue of the General? You can get them free if you subscribe, or for $4(?) if you order them seperately. > > Now to talk about fire. When a Blaze spreads, is the new fire a Blaze > or a Flame? I think the answer is Flame, but I have my doubts. Why? > Dunno, might be because I've watched to much Beavis & Butt-Head. Fire! > Fire! Fire! Blazes that spread are flames in the new hex until the flame spreads to become a blaze. Fred > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me > f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' > atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin > > ----- From: JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 24 FEB 94 10:31 Subject: Night Moves I played my first Night scenario the other day and this question came up: When and who can attempt to place that initial starshell? It appears from the rules that when the first gunflash appears, any and every unit can attempt to place a starshell. Can all units keep trying until the first starshell is placed? thanks. Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340) LF (714)380-3435 (net**2 689-3435) internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com "Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect" ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:33:02 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Berserker II Guys, 12 Pro's so far, I need at least four more people to start this shindig up... Brian ----- From: "Alec Habig" Subject: Re: Survey.... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:06:45 -0500 (EST) Glenn E. Elliott writes : > > 4 G11 Pegasus Bridge (26.5) > > You guys are joking, right? Mistaken, actually. One of those votes was mine - I meant to say "Zon with the Wind" but got confused and left in the default (which was Pegasus bridge). Alec ----- From: "Alec Habig" Subject: That old Rogue monster scenario Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:19:33 -0500 (EST) Eric Roush writes : > I once was a relatively hardcore SL player. I have SL through > GI, Anvil of Victory, boards 1-15 (including the rogue boards > 9-11), and scenarios including series 100, 200, 300, and rogue > scenarios). Presumably AH still sells some of this stuff...at > least it's listed in gaming catalogs, and I see it on hobby > store shelves. Speaking of which, does anyone else remember that really, really big scenario involving British and Germans fighting in the low countries over about 20 boards including the "rogue" ones? This might be a good starting point for a mini-HASL module, actually. Alec ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:15:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: GENERAL Subscription Well, I just called in my subscription to DA GENERAL, and everyone was right. The price is now $29 for 2 yrs. instead of $24. Oh well 8-). ********************************************* * Neal E. Ulen (nealu@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu) * * Center for Applied Thermodynamic Studies * * College of Engineering * * University of Idaho * * Moscow.Idaho.83843.USA * ********************************************* ----- From: Shawn Kenny Subject: Help with Playtest Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:58:29 AST Hi folks! I was wondering if some of the die hards and ASL gurus wouldn't mind taking some time out to playtest the following scenario. Thanks, Shawn LAYING DOWN THE GAUNTLET Varaville, France 06 June, 1944. At 0100 hrs an advance party from the 3rd Parachute Brigade descended over the Normandy countryside between the Orne and Dives Rivers. D-Day -- the Allied invasion of Europe had begun. As with other units this night, the main objectives of the Brigade were to secure drop zones and cut-off lines of German reinforcement. One of the tasks for the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion, on their first airborne mission, was to neutralize a strongpoint west of Varaville which threatened the landing zone. Victory Conditions ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Canadians win by controlling building 17W3 and those buildings adjacent to road hexes 17Q1-17O5-17U6 or by inflicting 2xCVP. The Germans win by avoiding Canadian victory conditions or exiting 6 MMC or their equivalent off any Board 33 edge hex from A10-A1-GG1-GG5 inclusive. Turn Record Chart ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8 Turns. Germans set up first, scenario Defender. Canadians move first, scenario Attacker. GERMAN OB Elements of LXXXI Korps, 15th Armee, Heersgruppe B, 711th Bodenstaendige Division [ELR: 2] set up any whole or part Board 17 hex. {SAN: 4} 1 x 8-1, 8-0, 7-0; 6 x 447; 3 x 436; 1 x 228; 1 x lmg; 1xmmg; 1 x 50mm Mtr; 1 x 75L Pak 40; 3 x Wire CANADIAN OB Elements 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion, 3rd Parachute Brigade, "C" Company [ELR: 4] enter Turn 1 via west board edge. {SAN: 2} 1 x 9-2, 8-1, 8-0; 9 x 648; 1 x mmg; 1 x PIAT; 1 x Radio, 3" mortar OBA Special Rules ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SSR 1. EC are wet, overcast with a full moon and a light breeze to the west. Night rules are in effect and the NVR=3 [E1]. SSR 2. Treat all buildings as wooden structures. Wire may not be placed on any road hex. SSR 3. Canadian units are stealthy [A11.17]. SSR 4. Place overlay C with CJ3 on 33S6 and CI8 on 33X4. Road hexes 33GG6-33Y10-17Y1-17GG6 is a deep stream. Aftermath ~~~~~~~~~ Elements of Brigade HQ and the 3rd Parachute Squadron Royal Engineers supported "C" Company by taking up positions around Varaville and cutting off German reinforcements. There were heavy casualties on both sides and Maj. Murray MacLeod, "C" Company commander was killed. The Canadians managed to hold their objectives despite constant mortar and shell fire while taking 42 prisoners and liberating 4 compatriots. The fighting lasted until 1030 that morning and were finally relieved late in the afternoon by Commandos from the 1st Special Service Brigade. "C" Company subsequently withdrew to Battalion area at the Le Mensil crossroads. ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal Ulen Subject: Old SL Series 200 Hello. Do any of you ex-SL players have the old series 200 (not the Rogue 200) that you might want to part with for a reasonable pirce? Thanks. ********************************************* * Neal E. Ulen (nealu@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu) * * Center for Applied Thermodynamic Studies * * College of Engineering * * University of Idaho * * Moscow.Idaho.83843.USA * ********************************************* ----- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:35:56 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Wood Subject: ASL test of section 6: LOS ASL Test series. Back in December, I developed a couple of tests based on the section of the ASL rulebook. I've had a smattering of interest lately for more tests and decided to start the next test of the series at section 6 since the others covered 1-5. IMHO, I hope the test series is a good review for you ASL veterans and a good way to get a handle on ASL for beginners. I'll post the answer key and point system for the test in a couple of days. THOR TEST SECTION 6 LOS 1. Describe the LOS string test. 2. What exception is there to the string test for LOS? 3. What is the resolve to LOS if the players can 4. Normally, a player can not check potential LOS and must declare his attack first. a. What are the exceptions to this rule? b. What happens if the declared attack has a blocked LOS? 5. Atypical LOS. a. Define: b. When are Atypical LOS applicable? 6. Half Level Obstacles. a. Define: b. What are some examples of Half-Level Obstacles (4 required)? 7. In order for a unit to have LOS to a unit IN a Depression, where must the units be relative to each other? (3 cases required) 8. Define Reciprocity: 9. LOS Hindrance. a. Define: b. Give three examples of LOS Hindrance. c. What effects do LOS Hindrance create? d. Being in a LOS Hindrance does not hinder the LOS of a firing or target unit. What are the exceptions to this rule? (2) 10. Do units who are adjacent always have LOS? Explain and give examples. 11. Blind Hexes. a. Define b. What effects do range have to blind hexes? c. What effects do elevation have to Blind Hexes? d. What effects are created by the height of the hexes directly behind the obstacle hex? ----- From: Shawn Kenny Subject: Re: Request for Playtest Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 18:36:52 AST Hi All, Hey it's a night scenario! You expect the terrain to be mapped out for you! Why do you think there is a straying DR! Turn Record Chart |-----|-----| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | 33| 17| ^N 8 Turns. | | | Germans set up first, scenario Defender. | | | Canadians move first, scenario Attacker. |-----|-----| ----- Subject: Re: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:25:00 -0640 Howdy, "Matthew E. Brown" writes: >As long as you can claim that this is not a Low Crawl, I >think you can get asway with it (Low Crawlers are >prohibited from entering marsh/swamp). But it is a rout of >one hex that uses all MP, isn't it? I am just not sure >whether your opponent could claim that this was a Low >Crawl. Since the Swamp rules say that 1) you can rout there using all Rout MF and 2) you can't use Low Crawl, our conclusion was that it had to be a single hex rout but not Low Crawl. >Even if not, check A20.21. "If the broken unit is >disrupted, encircled, or surrendering due to a HOB DR >(15.5), it woll instead rout to that enemy unit as its >prisoner even if it had a legal rout path not requiring >Interdiction or Low Crawl." > >So if both units had fired on the Brit, and they had claimed >Encirc., you'd be caught in spite of the swamp hex. Unclear >if this applied from your description, but the 12 over 6 >position is there, anyway. The unit was encircled, but because this is 1944, No Quarter is in effect. Also the troops were Ghurkas, which never surrender via RtPh method anyway. So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: NIGHT MOVES From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:25:00 -0640 Howdy, JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM writes: >When and who can attempt to place that initial starshell? >It appears from the rules that when the first gunflash >appears, any and every unit can attempt to place a >starshell. Can all units keep trying until the first >starshell is placed? >From "Bring on the Night," a work in progress: If no Starshells/IRs have been placed yet in the game, players can attempt to place the first one only under certain circumstances. Four triggering actions allow firing the first Starshell/IR. First, if a friendly unit has an LOS to an enemy unit (not necessarily Known), that unit can attempt to fire the first Starshell/IR. If a friendly unit places a Gunflash in an attack against an enemy unit, any friendly unit can place the first Starshell/IR (no LOS required for the placing in unit). If an enemy motorized vehicle enters a new hex or changes VCA, and there are no friendly motorized units onboard, any unit within 16 hexes of the enemy vehicle can try to fire the first Starshell or IR. Finally, if the enemy fires an FFE, this allows the placement of the first Starshell. Either side may attempt to place the first Starshell/IR. [NOTE: I am unsure about whether the second reason actually means that a friendly unit has to attack or whether it means any attack. The rule reads: E1.91 "a Gunflash is placed due to an attack vs an enemy unit" I don't know whether "enemy" here means 'my enemy', i.e. if the enemy attacks me, that does not allow me to fire a Starshell, or the word was inserted to prevent attacking an empty hex in order to start Starshells. I suspect that the latter may be the case. Another point that is not clear is: if one of these conditions is met, must the first Starshell be fired immediately or can the qualified units wait?] Example: a unit capable of firing a Starshell is in 2Y4. An enemy unit (concealed Infantry) moves from 2CC6, 2BB6, to 2AA5. When it enters 2AA5, 2Y4 can try to fire the first Starshell because it has an LOS to an enemy unit. Example: If the enemy unit had been a vehicle in the previous example, 2Y4 could have attempted to place the Starshell as it entered 2CC6 because a moving vehicles is considered to be in NVR at a 1.5 times the current NVR (2 time for tracked vehicles). If 2Y4 were a buttoned up vehicle, it would not have an LOS until a unit moved adjacent to it, and even then it could not place a Starshell because it is BU. Example: A friendly unit in 2AA6 has no LOS to 2DD6, but it can attempt to fire the first Starshell when an enemy vehicle moved there from 2DD7 if there were no friendly motorized vehicles on board (?does a friendly wreck count as a friendly motorized vehicle? An immobilized vehicle? An LC?). Example: a friendly unit in 2AA8 fires at a moving enemy unit as it enters 2DD6. The unit in 2AA8 is a hero manning an MG, and so can not fire a Starshell, but a unit in 2AA1 can now fire the first Starshell despite not having an LOS to the firer or the target. The same would have been true if instead of being the target of fire from 2AA8, the enemy unit in 2DD6 had suffered a break from a minefield. Example: a CE, tracked AFV remains in motion in 2FF10. An Observer in 2CC6 calls down an FFE on pre-registered hex 2FF9 during its PFPh. The CE AFV can now fire the first Starshell during the enemy MPh in spite of not having an LOS to the Observer because of the placement of the FFE. The Observer could also have placed the first Starshell because he has an LOS to the AFV. Note that any units friendly to the AFV could also place the First Starshell: no LOS to the FFE is necessary. So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!" ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 23:34:25 EST Subject: Pegasus Bridge Sorry to Alec and the few others who selected this scenario. And I thought I was being so clever to include 5 of the hardest and/or stupidest ASL scenarios I could think of, just for humor factor! Pegasus Bridge has been a shared topic between Glenn and I. Clearly, I stand with him on this one: total, complete dogmeat scenario. My official "balance-o-meter" rating--given remotely equivalent players is 150% German, less than zero British. Sure, there is a stray British victory, but, I submit, the German player must have been less than 12 years old, drunk as hell, nearly asleep, really worried about losing his/her job, and, well, you get the idea. Now, bear in mind, I've been really stupid with my setups, so I flame no one in particular. Just, get real, this scenario is a LOOOO-ZARRRR. (hey, gotta love the concept, but those victory conditions are THE most idiotic VCs I have ever seen. Yo, Tuomo Repettinen, is there a contest for "stupidest VCs" up your sleeve? John "working too late at night to be coherent" Foley ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 07:31:10 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: OBA in the Jungle. How does LOS for OBA work in the Jungle? The Jungle is two levels high and the SR rises two levels. So, if an SR lands in a Jungle hex that the observer can see only the top level of, does that count? Don "savoring the thought of inflicting 200mm OBA with airburst in the Jungle" Hancock ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 10:23:55 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: Re: Berserker II On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > C'mon folks, > > I need three more experienced ASLers to fill out this tournament > and get it going. > > Brian > I just can't resist this kind of plea. OK, if there's a spot left I'll take it. If there isn't, I won't be disappointed. Tim "looking to get PBeM play going again while Chuck and Deann have their kid" Van Sant ----- Subject: Hindrance Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:28:03 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Looking at the chapter B divider I noticed that Grain, Brush and Marsh are not inherent terrain. (Yes, it took me so long) So, if not, I reasoned, then the LOS has to cross the Grain/Marsh/Brush drawing to hinder my fire. But I was not satisfied. I have always modified all shots through the hex (same level) with a +1 if they pass through the hex so I read the rules... The rules say: B12.2: .....forms a LOS Hindrance resulting in a +1 DRM per hex.... B16.2: A marsh hex is a Hindrance to sam-level LOS and causes a +1 DRM for every marsh hex..... The rules for grain do say that the LOS has to cross the depiction. But what about the Brush and Marsh? Is it inherent or does the LOS have to cross the depiction to be modified? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum - "I bit the head off a living cow once!" he he he f90-aru@nada.kth.se - "Yeah! And milk squirted out it's neck" he he he atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Beavis & Butt-Head ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:40:13 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: sw removal from jeeps Does anyone know what the procedure is for removing the MG armament of jeeps (and other Non Half Track/ Carriers) You would think that the inherent crew of a jeep could remove the AAMG in dm form but I can't find a rule allowing this. It may just be that they can only be scrounged. Adrian ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:47:45 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: a game? Anyone out there want to start a email game? I'm on the ladder and AREA, if it matters. I might even be persuaded to take the Americans in The Bushmasters in a non Ladder game. Adrian ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:22:51 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Jack and Matt tour the PTO After Action Report: On the Kokoda Trail ---------------------------------------- I've recently had a hankering to learn the PTO better, so I asked Jack O'Quin"Awa", one of my regular opponents, if we could concentrate on that area for a while. He agreed, and we settled on the scenario On the Kokoda Trail to start. Boards 37 and 34 are butted together with the board numbers at the north, and a hut village overlay (Deniki) is in the southeast corner. The northeast quarter is mostly jungle, while a variety of PTO terrain exists on most of the rest of the board. Dense jungle is in effect for this scenario. To win, the Japanese must have at least 23 points of infantry on the hut overlay at the end of any game turn. They must split up their force upon entry, predesignating 3 of 4 possible entry points: one in the north, one in the northeast, and two in the west. They must so predesignate before the Australians set up. The Japanese get a mixed bag of infantry, including 6x448, 2x228, 2xMMG, a bunch of 447s, 6xLMG and a few knee mortars, plus a 10-1, 10-0, 9-1, 9-0, and an 8-0. The Aussies get 2x648, and a mix of 457s and 447s, a 9-2, 8-1, 8-0, MMG, 3xLMG, a light mortar, and a papuan 337. Also available are 15 foxholes and numerous dummy counters. They also have another assortment of infantry scheduled to arrive on turn 5. Jack wanted the Japs, and being the nice guy that I am, I let him have them and commenced setup. I didn't have any great plan for this scenario, having never played it before, but it sure looked like the Aussies should fight a delaying action and hope that the reinforcements would be enough to prevent a Japanese victory. I put the Papuan squad in the heavily jungled northern area, along with many dummy stacks and a few other infantry units. One of my HIP squads with an LMG went near the extreme eastern edge in the north part of my setup area, near one of the Japanese entry points. Most of the rest of the Australians went to the west of the village, near the closest Japanese entry point. The 9-2, MMG, 457 went in this area, supported by a few squads. A trap was laid in the bamboo, right where the path goes through it. There sat a 648 and LMG HIP. I like bamboo for hidden units in the PTO, since it is a little harder for the opponent to advance into CC, and they are somewhat less likely to be entered by moving units, though in this case the path made that benefit unimportant. The last HIP was used for the other 648 and LMG, also in bamboo in the middle of a large kunai area near the extreme southwest of the Australian setup area, but fairly close to the village overlay. As it turns out, this was not such a great spot. I didn't know how to use the foxholes effectively, so I didn't set up any. It may be that my northern force was too heavy, for Jack entered one group in the north and two in the west. The northern group entered in column, but quickly disbanded on the first turn. Therefore I started shifting some of my northern delaying force toward the southwest as quickly as possible, leaving only about a squad and a half, plus several dummy stacks, to delay the northern Japanese group. This turned out to be enough, for all the dense jungle makes movement slow, and there is only one path. Jack's Japs seemed to guess wrong quite frequently about which stacks were dummies and which were real. Little did he know how weak I left that area, or maybe he was just too cautious. At any rate, he kept advancing but slowly, and lost some troops here and there to CC. Meanwhile the southwestern area was the most interesting. The Australians didn't stay to fight, but kept pulling back. It was relatively easy to do so and retain concealment due to the very limited lines of sight when dense jungle is in effect. They could only withdraw so far, however, before they had to do some fighting. On the extreme southern flank, a half squad with a mortar opened up on a Japanese concealed stack in the jungle. ROF was maintained long enough to casualty reduce the squad, but the 10-0 with him went berserk. (I was enjoying calling this 10-0 "Lt. Wannabe" but it's really Watanabe.) On the next turn they charged the poor Australian half squad, who wounded the leader with point blank fire. A melee ensued between the two half squads, only to have other Japanese units fire into the melee, killing both. Meanwhile, in the "middle" of the southwestern thrust, the HIP 648 with LMG caused much consternation. He waited until a squad tried to enter the bamboo and blasted it with point blank fire, reducing it to a half squad. This half squad later advanced into CC with the 648, and the melee lasted long enough to watch all the Japs bypass the position. Later when the 648 killed the half squad and a reinforcing half squad, he found himself behind the enemy! Other Japanese troops were also having problems in the area. Besides the delay caused by the HIP squad, several Japanese squads were either step reduced or casualty reduced. The 10-1 successfully led a 448 or two through some small residual, but when others tried it without the benefit of great leadership, they CR'd and broke. I perhaps made my first big mistake of the game (besides setup) when an Australian squad had a final fire opportunity at an adjacent stack of three broken half squads. Instead he chose to fire at a group of adjacent unbroken units, doing nothing. I thought I had accounted for all the Japanese leaders at that point, but the 8-0 was in good position to rally these troops, and they came back shortly. As usual, close combats went against expectations and the 10-1 was lost. Despite all the losses, the Japanese had the Australians backed up, and they had quite a bit of force left. One of the more entertaining moments came when a Japanese half squad moved through a jungle path containing an Australian ? counter, thinking it was a dummy. It turned out to be the 8-0, Sgt. Ellis. (Even I thought it was a squad; had I known I would have shuffled my units a little differently in the last advance phase. It's difficult to keep track sometimes with all that concealment.) The Japs decided it would be easy to take him out, since it was 5 or 6 to one, so they tried an infantry overrun. Ellis elected to stay and duke it out. He managed to get them all! But alas, he was also killed. He'll be recommended for a medal, if any Aussies survive to tell the tale. Right next to this area a concealed Japanese crew with a MMG moved adjacent to one of the blocking Aussie squads. They fired (snakes!). But this only lit a fire under the Japs (another snakes!) who went berserk and charged into the hex. Final protective fire (the snakes cowered the 447) was ineffective, but it only pinned the Aussies. Figuring they were goners unless he did something, Mishcon (the 9-2), who was adjacent to the potential melee, directed his mates to fire everything they had including the MMG at the Jap crew (another snakes! Three (almost) in a row! When was the last time you saw that?) and cut them down. Mishcon's mates had just previously KIA'd an entire squad that tried to move adjacent, so the bodies were piling up. Still, the Japanese were infiltrating and starting to reach the village area. Mishcon's position was threatened, and enemy fire caused him and a squad of his to take cover. They decided to try to fall back, to prepare the way for the MMG and last squad, but the Japs could interdict his rout path, and both he and the squad were lost (boxcars on interdiction; ouch!). Meanwhile on the extreme southern flank the other HIP squad was discovering that he was out of position. If he had set up in the kunai he would have had some point blank fire opportunities, but he had to settle for a few 8+1s and 8+0s, which were ineffective. The Aussies were now hurting. They had taken casualties and were pushed back to the edge of the village. Their two best squads were essentially behind the Japanese advance. Only one squad, still manning the MMG, held the middle of the western approach, and he is bound to go down soon. The northern Japanese group was being held much better, and the Aussies had managed a fairly good blocking line at the edge of the jungle. The reinforcements arrived just in Deniki time. Given that the northern blocking force looked okay, the majority of them headed for the patch of jungle at the southern edge of the village, hoping to eliminate the 2 or 3 Japanese squads that had started to push through into that area, and then perhaps move on to other concerns. It was at this point that we stopped due to the late hour. Will the Aussies be able to hold back the evil Jap hordes? Will anyone survive to recommend Ellis and Mishcon for their medals? Will the wounded Lt. "Wannabe" lead his forces to victory for the emperor? Will anyone read this account? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of _On the Kokoda Trail_, or _Jack and Matt Tour the PTO_. Mattsuo Shostakiro ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:43:30 EST From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: Re: Question regarding Gun Duel Greetings, Things wise men avoid: Gun Duel questions. :) > >I understand the Gun Duel rules in general, but there is a > >specific case I am interested in, namely, when they are > >coupled with platoon movement. Let's say I have a German > >gun, and a platoon of three Russian tanks moves into view. > >Although I am not concealed, I wait for them to all move > >into view. Now if I wish to fire at the first tank, I > >understand that it can declare a Gun Duel. But what about > >the other two? Can they just do Bounding First Fire (BFF) > >normally? If so, do they fire before or after the Gun Duel > >is resolved? JR wrote: > The first attack should be resolved before you consider the > other two tanks. There is no requirement that all members > of the Platoon declare their attacks simultaneously, and I > think that even if the ATTACKER does declare the intention > to do so, game play requires that he pick one Platoon > member and resolve that BFF attack. The Gun can then > declare Gun Duel and if appropriate, that is resolved. I > don't think this is a formal rule, but it is the way the > game seems to be played. Attacks are declared > sequentially. The ATTACKER can now declare a second BFF > attack. There is confusion about who declares the Gun Duel and how. The AFV platoon moves, the Gun declares a shot vs a vehicle and that vehicle may declare a gun duel. Gun duels are not declared by the defender after BFF declarations unless the BFF occurs before any movement point expenditure. Except for this case, Gun duels are declared by the Attacker. > >If the Gun Duel is resolved first, and I win, > >trash the tank, and maintain ROF, is there another Gun Duel > >with the second tank? In short, can I Gun Duel all three > >tanks, as long as I maintain ROF, without giving them an > >uncontested shot? I believe there are two cases here dependent upon how may MPs the Platoon used to enter the hex. If the Platoon only used one movement point then the other members of the Platoon should be free to fire on the Gun with BFF after it takes one attack. If the Platoon used more than one movement point, they are not eligable to make BFF attacks yet. They must wait to the end of their movement point expenditure. The Gun could then declare an attack against a different vehicle on the second movement point spent and that vehicle would have the opportunity to declare a gun duel. Unless there is some special provision made in the Platoon movement stuff, only the target of the Gun can declare a gun duel so the other members of the platoon have to wait their turn. I don't have my ASLRB here, so correct me if I'm wrong. :) Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 09:42:13 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Foxholes Matt writes: > [ lotta PTO stuff ] > > I didn't know how to use the foxholes effectively, so I didn't set up any. > > [ more lotta PTO stuff] Me either. I'm getting less enamored of foxholes all the time. The FFMO for moving out of them means that I don't use them much in a fallback defense. And in a static defense, it seems like most good front line positions will eventually be captured by the attacker and used to his advantage. So that leaves static positions in the rear, like on tops of hills overlooking the attacker's advance; moving out of them will have the Height Advantage TEM cancel the FFMO. Also seems like they're good for positions that you don't want OVR by a vehicle (say, on the board 5 woods-road) and for defensive positions where you can advance out of the foxhole into reasonable cover. What else am I missing here? Tom ----- From: nexus@isis.cgd.ucar.EDU (Jeff Berry) Subject: RE: Berserker II Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 9:49:45 MST >In message Fri, 25 Feb 94 09:32:07 EST, > brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) writes: >> I need three more experienced ASLers to fill out this tournament >> and get it going. >C'mon guys, it's a cheap shot at the top of the Berserker heap! Yea, but those of us who don't own every bloody module can't play! Which, I suppose, is kind of the point:-) I'd do it, except it has that icky PTO stuff (which I don't happen to own, just at the moment). JB ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:28:06 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: RE: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS > > I'd agree with Perry (typically a good idea I believe :-). X shots prior to > the overrun being resolved and then you could take another Y shots AFTER the > overrun...Of course then it's too late usually :-) Of course that's X & Y > shots from each unit available to shoot and not X or Y shots total. > > A WO highlight for me was in a game of Brandenburger Bridge against Warren > Smith, when a unit in a woods road hex survived 3 overruns in the same turn. A > half-track and 2 tanks I think...And he didn't even break via the forced FPF of > the overruns...Truly a momentous occasion I thought, although Warren's opinion > may vary slightly :-) > This may be a really stupid question, but how does this all correspond with the idea of Reaction Fire? I thought that when an AFV overran you, you weren't allowed to fire (using your anti-tank weapons, if any) or close combat (if not) until _after_ the overrun was resolved? If you can fire Defensive First fire on the tank as it enters your hex at range 0, and then again when it expends the movement points to overrun you, what's the point of the Reaction Fire rules? Just a basic 8-0 question. Stewart ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:01:52 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS Stewart R King asks: >This may be a really stupid question, but how does this all correspond >with the idea of Reaction Fire? I thought that when an AFV overran you, >you weren't allowed to fire (using your anti-tank weapons, if any) or >close combat (if not) until _after_ the overrun was resolved? I guess I should have been more clear in stating that X shots prior to the overrun were from guys not being overrun & the same with Y shots after the overrun... You're right that the guy being overrun can't use reaction fire until after the overrun occurs. However other units can attempt to blow away the tank before he actually overruns you. So...A squad's in a woods roads adjacent to a HIP gun with LOS to the squad. Tank comes screaming down and spends 1 to enter the hex and simultaneously announces a 4MP overrun. The Squad being overrun can only say his prayers, but the gun can take a shot on the 1MP prior to the overrun. If he toasts the tank, the overrun didn't occur. If he misses, the overrun is resolved and then the squad may reaction fire if he survived after passing a PAATC - And I believe a squad must attempt it even if FPF is necessary - so sometimes failing that PAATC could be preferable :-) If the tank survives reaction fire, the gun then can take up to 4 shots at the tank for the 4MP spent on the overrun...After that the movement proceeds normally. >If you can >fire Defensive First fire on the tank as it enters your hex at range 0, >and then again when it expends the movement points to overrun you, what's >the point of the Reaction Fire rules? I believe the overrunning tank must declare overrun at the time he enters the hex to avoid reaction fire prior to the overrun. If he moves in without declaring overrun, you can shoot. If he lives, he can of course decide to declare overrun then, but I don't think he can declare overrun in answer to a reaction fire and get to go first... Gee...Hope all that's correct being sans rulebook and all...JR, corrections? Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: ASL & Miniatures Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:13:10 -0500 (EST) Hi All, Our group has been playing Command Decision with miniatures, but we feel it is a little lacking. I've been a fan of ASL for awhile (doon't get to play much though) and I was wondering if anyone has experience with using ASL and miniatures? I know about DASL, but what we want is a hexless playing surface. I was thinking of just converting hex measurements into inches and maybe doubling them. That's the kind of thing I was looking at. I was thinking that players would target a squad or vehicle and then everything within three inches or so would be considered the same hax for collateral damage, etc. I'm thinking that these games would be simpler than regular ASL, because the terrain is going to be easier to deal with, but I just want to know if it has been tried and how hard it was to play. Thanks, Neal Smith sasrns@unx.sas.com ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:25:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: sw removal from jeeps In message Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:40:13 EST, earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) writes: > You would think that the inherent crew of a jeep could > remove the AAMG in dm form but I can't find a rule > allowing this. It may just be that they can only be > scrounged. Looks like scrounging is the only way since D6.631 only allows armored halftracks to pull off the MGs. Unless there is something in the vehicle notes for the jeeps which allows this (don't have the vehicle notes handy.) Further, the scrounged MG from a jeep would only be an LMG per D10.52. *-=Carl=-* ----- From: Shawn Kenny Subject: Re: Board Config on Playtest Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:50:32 AST Hi All, Sorry for bothering those people on the list who really don't give a flying *&^? about this scenario but I screwed up the board config yesterday - great memory hey! The boards are as follows (really this is true.. honest!) ------------- |17 |33 | | | | | | | | | \ / N | | | | | | ------------- Again my apologies to those not interested. Shawn ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: RE: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:59:20 MST Stewart asks: >This may be a really stupid question, but how does this all correspond >with the idea of Reaction Fire? I thought that when an AFV overran you, >you weren't allowed to fire (using your anti-tank weapons, if any) or >close combat (if not) until _after_ the overrun was resolved? and Bret says: >You're right that the guy being overrun can't use reaction fire until after >the overrun occurs. However other units can attempt to blow away the tank >before he actually overruns you. but I say: Careful here. The rules state that Reaction Fire must wait until after an OVR is resolved, but this doesn't mean that normal Defensive First Fire must wait, and it is perfectly legal to fire at units in your own hex, by rotating your CA to the hexside being entered, applying the +2 TH DRM, and hitting a random target facing. What distinguishes non-CC Reaction Fire from vanilla First Fire is that you rotate your CA to coincide with the OVRing vehicle's VCA and you automatically hit the rear (if you hit). Usually, it pays to fire before the overrun, but if you're facing the wrong way or need to be sure of hitting the rear, waiting to conduct Reaction Fire can be better. rk ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:36:55 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: Foxholes Matt writes: > [ lotta PTO stuff ] > > I didn't know how to use the foxholes effectively, so I didn't set up any. > > [ more lotta PTO stuff] Me either. I'm getting less enamored of foxholes all the time. The FFMO for moving out of them means that I don't use them much in a fallback defense. And in a static defense, it seems like most good front line positions will eventually be captured by the attacker and used to his advantage. So that leaves static positions in the rear, like on tops of hills overlooking the attacker's advance; moving out of them will have the Height Advantage TEM cancel the FFMO. Also seems like they're good for positions that you don't want OVR by a vehicle (say, on the board 5 woods-road) and for defensive positions where you can advance out of the foxhole into reasonable cover. What else am I missing here? Tom Well take a good leader HMG and two MMC and put them behind a wall in a hex with a foxhole. Now one MMC occupies the foxhole while the leader and the other MMC fire the HMG outside the foxhole. The guys outside claim Wall Advantage. The guy IN the foxhole is out of enemy LOS (foxhole behind a wall) and thus unaffected by direct fire. His job is reserve weapon crew and close range defense (one hex). Foxholes are also good for keeping prying eyes off your stacks during setup before ? placement. Your opponent does not have right of inspection. They can also provide nasty last ditch defensive positions. If the enemy has to exit from a specific hex, dig a foxhole in it and put a concealed MMC in it. An excellent tactic for the Germans in Gavin Take or the Gambit. Now remember that in the PTO foxholes are hidden and revealed as if at night. ie the defender only puts them on map when they are needed. Or say you have a squad caught in the middle of an enemy FFE, moving is dangerous, so dig a foxhole and ride out the storm in relative safety. Adrian ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:54:59 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: Hindrance >The rules for grain do say that the LOS has to cross the depiction. >But what about the Brush and Marsh? Is it inherent or does the LOS >have to cross the depiction to be modified? > The rules are indeed a bit fuzzy on this point, but brush and marsh are not inherent terrain, so the LOS does have to pass through the brush or marsh symbol to be affected. Aloha, Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:00:12 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: ASL & Miniatures > > Hi All, > > Our group has been playing Command Decision with miniatures, but we feel it > is a little lacking. I've been a fan of ASL for awhile (doon't get to play > much though) and I was wondering if anyone has experience with using ASL and > miniatures? > > I know about DASL, but what we want is a hexless playing surface. I was > thinking of just converting hex measurements into inches and maybe doubling > them. That's the kind of thing I was looking at. I was thinking that players > would target a squad or vehicle and then everything within three inches or so > would be considered the same hax for collateral damage, etc. > > I'm thinking that these games would be simpler than regular ASL, because the > terrain is going to be easier to deal with, but I just want to know if it has > been tried and how hard it was to play. > > > Thanks, > Neal Smith > sasrns@unx.sas.com > > I have done this at several times at conventions. I don't remember the scale, but each unit could move 1 unit (inch or 2 inches or whatever) per MP/MF with higher costs for non-0pen Ground. (Each crest would be the same as changing one level, you could move through or around woods/buildings.) LOS/range is done with a ruler (again 1 hex is one unit). You can put the informational counters next to the units. Fred ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 01:52:00 BST Subject: "WOW '94" Attention...Achtung...Vnimanie... LONG ASL winds of war '94 WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA, APRIL 8-10, 1994 Dear Advanced Squad Leader Enthusiast, It's 1944 and you're invited to the 6th annual "Winds of War" ASL Tournament returning to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, April 8-10, 1994. This year's theme, "Triumph and Tragedy" in commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of WWII will feature scenarios representative of such campaigns as Normandy, the Philippines, Arhnem, the Bulge, etc. "Winds of War" continues to emphasize the getting together of players in a "thematic" ASL only tournament setting and has grown to around 50 participants making it a challenging experience for all attendees. Cost to pre-registrants to participate will be $10 for the weekend or $6 for the Saturday only tournament . This will save you a third as $15 and $9 respectively will be charged after March 21st. Plaques, cash ($35 first prize) and door prizes will be offered as in the past. Spectators are welcome to check out the action. Yadkin Valley Games, dealing in new and out of print games, will once again have a small booth. This year's winner will have to play five games by tournament's end (late Sunday afternoon) against opponents of similar records. A ranking system similar to that appearing in "Fire for Effect" Vol. 1, No. 6 will be used as a tie breaker. One official round can be played Friday anytime after the noon opening. However, most games are expected to start Saturday morning. For those wishing to play only on Saturday, a special three round tournament will be held that day. Friday will also feature a special "warm-up" scenario that will entail prizes for the best allied or axis performance. Scenario choice will follow the Avaloncon format of one of six selections per round, each round representing a particular 1944 campaign. Players will have a choice of tournament style scenarios featuring scenarios from such sources as "AH", "ATP", "ASL News", "A.S.L.U.G", "OAF", etc. suggested prepared by special scenario consultant Marc Hanna. The complete scenario listing follows this message. The Best Western Regency Inn in downtown Winston-Salem, just seconds off Business I-40, will be the site for WOW '94 (see situation map on reverse). Room rates for a double will be $49.28 with tax and phone in reservations should be made by March 15th. Amenities include a complimentary continental breakfast. There is a restaurant & lounge with a live jazz on Friday and Saturday on site. So come on down for a little ASL action and a large measure of Southern Hospitality! Your Tournament Director... Partisan Raymond "zadra" Woloszyn AK WAR AND REMEMBRANCE (past winners) 1989 Mike McGrath 1990 & 1991 Bill Conner 1992 Marc Hanna 1993 Mike McGrath & Pat Cross PRE-REGISTRATION FORM NAME______________________________________ SELF-RATING (6+1?)________________________ ADDRESS___________________________________ __________________________________________ PHONE_____________________________________ WEEKEND ($10) [ ] ($15 after 3/21/94) SATURDAY ($6) [ ] ($9 after 3/21/94) WINDS OF WAR '94 PLAY LIST (1944 SCENARIOS BY CAMPAIGN) SOURCE SCENARIO VICTORY STATS AXIS ALLIES BEYOND THE BEACHHEAD (NORMANDY) 16 No Better Spot to Die 26 33 O83.2 A Time to Die 1 1 T5 The Pouppeville Exit 7 7 17 Lost Opportunities 11 9 12 Confusion Reigns 24 14 A59 Death at Carentan 3 6 A BRIDGE TOO FAR (ARNHEM) A38 North Bank 21 17 A36 Oy Vegel 15 4 T10 Devil's Hill (28.1) 7 4 A33 Tettau's Attack 17 19 A32 Zon with the Wind 20 19 A34 Lash Out 7 12 BREAKOUT AND PURSUIT (BATTLES FOR FRANCE AND GERMANY) G15 Bone of Contention 1 0 ASLUG18 Temporary Victory (#8) NEW NEW ASLUG14 Morgan's Stand (#7) 2 1 A9 Midnight Massacre 6 1 22 Kurhaus Clash 10 8 X10 Distinguished Service 3 2 DARK DECEMBER (BATTLE OF THE BULGE) T11 The Attempt to Relieve Peiper 2 3 ASLUG2 Chateau Cherry (issue #1) 1 6 KGP2 Festung St. Edouard 1 1 (X) O1 Peipers Progress 4 10 I Buchholz Station (24.4) 4 4 23 Under the Noel Trees 23 19 RED STAR/RED SUN (THE EASTERN FRONT AND PACIFIC) France Panzer Marsch NEW NEW A60 Totsugeki! 6 2 A53 Smith & Weston 2 1 X6 In the Samurai Tradition 6 9 NEWS26 Turncoats 10 5 30 Sylvan Death 21 13 NOTES: 1) BETWEEN PLAYERS OF ROUGHLY EQUAL ABILITY BALANCE S/B GIVEN TO INDICATED SIDE 2) STATISTICS FROM THE INTERNET LADDER, ASLOK, THE ASL OPEN AND AVALONCON 3) MISC SOURCE CODES: X=ROUT REPORT, NEWS=ASL NEWS (BELGIUM) O=ON ALL FRONTS ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:55:00 EST From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: RE: WO AND TWO QUESTIONS Greetings, > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > >Rules question: during play a question arose about the > >allowed number of DFF shots at an over-running vehicle > >before the OVR is resolved. If a vehicle expends X MP to > >enter the hex and Y MP to perform the OVR (declared and > >expended as the vehicle enters the hex), how many shots > >does the Defender get to take before the OVR is resolved? > >Perry Cocke resolved this by saying the Defender (in this > >case in the OVR hex) could take X shots, the cost of > >entering the hex (I believe that's what he said, anyway). I > >agreed at the time but on further thought I think it should > >be X + Y shots. D7.1 says that "Defensive First Fire ... > >prompted by that MP expenditure ... [is] resolved [before > >the OVR]." Other opinions? I agree with JR that D7.1 has DFF for the MP expenditure happening before the resolution of the overrun. The movement into the hex and the overrun are done as a combined movement point expenditure. Usually defenders wish to break the expenditures up so they can destroy the vehicle before it conducts the overrun. I don't believe this works. In the FP section of overruns it states that even if the vehicle is immobilized or destroyed the overrun occurs at half fire power. Since the movement point expenditure is combined, I don't believe you can avoid the attack. > Stewart R King asks: > >This may be a really stupid question, but how does this all correspond > >with the idea of Reaction Fire? I thought that when an AFV overran you, > >you weren't allowed to fire (using your anti-tank weapons, if any) or > >close combat (if not) until _after_ the overrun was resolved? Bret wrote: > I guess I should have been more clear in stating that X shots prior to the > overrun were from guys not being overrun & the same with Y shots after the > overrun... There is a QA which clarifies that the target of the overrun can fire at the overrunning vehicle so long as the target is not using reaction fire. >From the QA: D7.1 When a vehicle declares an OVR, may its DEFENDER target attack it before the OVR is resolved? If yes, would that DEFENDER have to use Reaction Fire? A. Yes. No -- it would be Reaction Fire only if conducted after the OVR resolution (see the last sentence of D7.2). {93a} > >If you can > >fire Defensive First fire on the tank as it enters your hex at range 0, > >and then again when it expends the movement points to overrun you, what's > >the point of the Reaction Fire rules? Reaction fire is the only way to make a close combat attack against the vehicle during defensive fire. For anti-tank weapons it provides the rear target facing automatically. > I believe the overrunning tank must declare overrun at the time he enters the > hex to avoid reaction fire prior to the overrun. If he moves in without > declaring overrun, you can shoot. If he lives, he can of course decide to > declare overrun then, but I don't think he can declare overrun in answer to a > reaction fire and get to go first... The vehicle it required to declare the overrun as it enters the hex. The exception is if all enemy units are not known when the vehicle enters. In this case the vehicle may declare the overrun after it enters. If the vehicle enters a hex with known enemy units without declaring an overrun, I believe it must leave the hex and reenter to perform an overrun. In dangerous rules water without my ASLRB. Any and all corrections are welcome. :) Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- From: loss@husky.bloomu.edu Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:44 EST Subject: Re: ASL & Miniatures Status: ON 32768 Mailed To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Neil Smith says: > Our group has been playing Command Decision with miniatures, but we feel it > is a little lacking. I've been a fan of ASL for awhile (doon't get to play > much though) and I was wondering if anyone has experience with using ASL and > miniatures? > > I know about DASL, but what we want is a hexless playing surface. I was > thinking of just converting hex measurements into inches and maybe doubling > them. That's the kind of thing I was looking at. I was thinking that players > would target a squad or vehicle and then everything within three inches or so > would be considered the same hax for collateral damage, etc. > > I'm thinking that these games would be simpler than regular ASL, because the > terrain is going to be easier to deal with, but I just want to know if it has > been tried and how hard it was to play. Hi, Neil. I met you at Historicon last July. We had a thread here about ASL and miniatures early last year (about). I was planning to do ASL miniatures to scale, which means hexes around 4.5 inches (14 cm.). We batted the idea around, and came up with a few ideas. A friend of mine used these ideas (sort of) to run a miniatures version of the scenario "The Dead of Winter" at a miniatures micro-convention we held in my home town. It worked pretty well, as I recall. We talked about doing "The Taking of Takrouna," but we can't afford to make the terrain to scale (1/285 scale, about 6 mm miniatures). Track me down at Cold Wars on Saturday and I'll give you a copy of all the messages I can locate about this. Incidentally, we in no way simplified ASL. If anything, it was more complex in some places, simpler in some. Doug Loss It may be better to be a live jackal Data Network Coordinator than a dead lion, but it is better Bloomsburg University still to be a live lion. loss@husky.bloomu.edu And usually easier. Voice (717) 389-4797 ----- From: wuj@moss.emsp.att.com Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:09 EST Subject: Surrender via the Rout Phase Hello everyone! I've been playing ASL for about a year now, and have just recently become aware of the following apparent contradiction in the ASLRB. The illustration under A10.531, starting from the 4th to the last sentence under the actual picture: "The broken squad in I4 may not rout to any hex other than I3 because doing so would be either moving ADJACENT to or decreasing the range to a Known enemy unit. In routing to I3, the squad announces that it is using Low Crawl. However, it also has the option to attempt to rout through I3 to H2 or J2, but at the risk of Interdiction in I3 (or, because those hexes are no farther away from the Known enemy in G4/K4 [10.51], it may continue to rout from H2, or J2, or directly from I3 toward H0/J0 subject to possible further Interdiction). Even if it failed the resulting NMC in I3, a broken HS would survive (barring a 12 Casualty MC DR) to enter H2 or J2." Rule A20.21 says: "Any broken Infantry unit during its RtPh that is both ADJACENT to Known, Good Order, armed enemy Infantry/Cavalry and unable to rout away from it without being subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl, will rout to that enemy unit as its prisoner instead, (captor's choice ..." It seems to me that the broken squad in hex I4 of the illustration meets all the conditions specified in Rule A20.21, and would therefore be required to surrender to one of the German squads. Routing away should not be one of its options! One of the following probably applies: 1. Later rules have precedence over earlier ones, and the illustration is overruled by rule A20.21. (rule E.2) 2. My copy of the ASLRB is out of date. 3. My interpretation is totally messed up. I personally believe #1 applies, but I've had an opponent say something like "why would they show a picture of the squad routing away if it wasn't a legal rout path"? What do most players do? Walt Ulicki wuj@moss.emsp.att.com ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 17:23:27 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: BERSERKER II FULL Guys, A sudden flood of people have given us 20 brave participants in Berserker II. That means that everyone gets to play in first two rounds before elimination. What will happen is the 5 2-0 players will advance to round 3. Then, I'll select at random three 1-1 players to fill out the round three bracket. From that point, it is single elimination to determine the champion of the free world. Well, maybe not, but certainly champion of the Internet for a two year period. And here they are... FRENCH Patrik Manlig m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se GERMAN Paul F Ferraro pferraro+@pitt.edu GERMAN David Elder david@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca FRENCH Nils-Gunnar Nilsson etxngni@aom.ericsson.se FRENCH Chuck Powers cpowers@ceramics.gsfc.nasa.gov GERMAN Jean-Luc Bechennec jlb@lri.lri.fr FRENCH Mustafa Unlu mustafa+@CMU.EDU GERMAN Timothy Van Sant tvansant@access.digex.net> GERMAN Mike Seningen seningen@ross.com FRENCH Rusty Shields D4F@CU.NIH.GOV GERMAN Warren Smith w.smith93@genie.geis.com FRENCH Alan ? abillsasl@aol.com FRENCH Carl Fago cdf1@psu.edu GERMAN Dave Ripton ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com FRENCH Bruno Nitrosso Bruno.Nitrosso@der.edf.fr GERMAN Mike Allexenberg mallexen@lafontaine.webo.dg.com GERMAN Bret Hildebran HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com FRENCH Rich Campbell CAMPBELL@CAPSRV.JHUAPL.EDU FRENCH Don Hancock hancock@ono.geg.mot.com GERMAN Bill Jelinek wjelinek@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu The sides are listed for the scenario, Chance D'une Affaire. I'll be posting that in one second... Good luck. Brian ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 17:25:21 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Chance D'une Affaire Here it is, as promised. Everyone should start ASAP, you have approximately three months to finish round one. Pencils ready? Begin. (sorry, the above sentence had me thinking of SATs) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chance D'une Affaire ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Near Chehery, France, 14 May 1940: On the morning of May 14th, a French counterattack was ordered against the breach at Sedan in an effort to contain Guderian's bridgehead on the Meuse. The attack was to be comprised of two tank battalions, each supported by an infantry regiment. But the two groups were unable to co-ordinate with one another, so the attack commenced with only half the intended force. With the first of Guderian's armor across the Meuse shortly after dawn, his first head-on encounter with French armor was now imminent. Victory Conditions: Board Configuration: The French win if at game end they Control ^ |----------------| (A26.12) two of the following three buildings: N | | 6V9, 6X8, and 6X5. | 6 | |----------------| Balance: French - Add a 7-0 leader to the French OB German - Add a 247 and lmg to the German set up Turns: 9 Germans set up first; French move first German OB: Elements of the 1st Rifle Regiment, 1st Panzer Division [ELR 4] set up within two hexes of building 6N4, one squad maximum per hex {SAN 2} 467 x4 8-1 7-0 lmg Elements 1st Panzer Brigade, 1st Panzer Division set up in indicated hexes 127 PzKw IIF 6K6 w/ca L5/L6 127 PzKw IIF 6L2 w/ca L3/M3 Reinforcements enter Turn 3 on any North edge hex 548 x3 9-1 dc x2 lmg Reinforcements enter Turn 6 on any North edge hex 467 x3 8-0 lmg SPW 251/10 French OB: Elements 213th Infantry Regiment, 55th Division and 7th Ind. Tank Battalion [ELR 3] enter Turn 1 along West edge {SAN 2} 437 x12 9-1 8-1 8-0 mmg x2 lmg x4 60* mtr FCM 36 x3 SSR1: EC are Moderate, with no wind at start. Only buildings 6N4, 6V9, 6K8, 6X8, and 6X5 are of stone construction, all others are wooden. SSR2: French AFVs may only use 1/2 of their printed MPs on Game Turn 1. SSR3: The two German PzKw IIFs are abandoned and therefore must be reoccupied to more or fire. Their TCA coincides with their VCA at start. SSR4: Because the German AFVs were being refueled, the number of turns these vehicles may function normally is restricted. During set up, the German player makes a Secret dr for each PzKw IIF. The resulting value is the number of turns these vehicles are allowed to enter a new hex. AFTERMATH: The French attack started off well-enough catching tanks of the 1st Panzer Division refuelling near the village of Chehery. A brief but savage confrontation resulted at close range with the French armor getting the upper hand. But the situation soon changed as the French hesitated to press their momentary advantage. Units of a nearby German "Sturmpionier" battalion, realizing the danger of the situation, flung themselves at the French armor armed with hollow charges. This held the French at bay long enough for the rest of the 1st Panzer Division to launch their own counterattack and smash the best French hope of destroying the Sedan bulge. ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:35:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Fw: RE: sw removal from jeeps Dave forgot to send this to the list also... ------------------------------ From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:02:25 EST To: cdf1@psu.edu Subject: RE: sw removal from jeeps Hey guys, I remember from the last time I played Chateau Cherry that there's a vehicle note for the jeeps with 4 FP AAMG's. It is Removable, not just Scroungable, and it can be removed as a .50 caliber. Why the idiots ever put it on the jeep and lost half its FP is beyond me... Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ------- But I note that the German equivalents, the Kfz 4 and Kfz 1 cannot Remove their mgs. ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:04:38 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Surrender; Jeeps with MG Hi guys, Two things: Walt said: > The illustration under A10.531, starting from the 4th to the last > sentence under the actual picture: [Quoted text of example deleted. Basically, it says the squad can either Low Crawl or risk Interdiction, even though it's ADJACENT to an armed, Known, Good Order enemy squad.] > Rule A20.21 says: [That broken unit in this situation must surrender unless... ] > It seems to me that the broken squad in hex I4 of the illustration > meets all the conditions specified in Rule A20.21, and would therefore > be required to surrender to one of the German squads. Routing away should > not be one of its options! One of the following probably applies: Me too. The example is correct if No Quarter is in effect, or if the broken squad won't surrender in the RtPh due to being Fanatic, Gurkha, SS vs. Russians, Japanese ... Sometimes the ASLRB isn't perfect. Several other examples have little errors in them. Has anybody found them all and documented them yet? (I'm sure Mac is aware of most of them, from the number of notes in his legendary rulebook.) Maybe when the last couple of modules come out and the system is officially complete, AH will release a $100 "complete and perfect" ASLRB, with all errata really included. Also, on the Jeep / MG question, check out US vehicle note O. A 4- or 6-factor AAMG on any vehicle with this note is Removable as a .50 cal HMG, which a 2-factor AAMG is Removable as a MMG. Moral: Remove them. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:19:32 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: BERSERKER II: Taunt -n- Pose -n- Whine Phase Hallo! > FRENCH Alan ? abillsasl@aol.com Alan Bills just wants you to think that he's cool enough to actually have "ASL" embedded within his name. :-> Gee, I wonder how many sick people here have sons named Gavin or Erwin or Mac? (I don't know Commissar Denisova's first name. Sorry.) > FRENCH Carl Fago cdf1@psu.edu > GERMAN Dave Ripton ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com Okay, okay, okay, I feel like the US Hockey team here. Who did I piss off to get the last seed? Random, you say? Right, I'll bet you used some cheesy pseudo-random system like drawing numbers out of a hat (OK if it was an O's hat) or rolling dice without benefit of a Pop-O-Matic. But what am I complaining about? Carl's worth a pile of ladder points, and instant Battle Hardening to a 9-2. Gotta go find a coach... "The opposing team's quarterback must go down, and he must go down hard." -- Al Davis Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 20:12:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: BERSERKER II: Taunt -n- Pose -n- Whine Phase In message Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:19:32 EST, ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes: >> FRENCH Carl Fago cdf1@psu.edu >> GERMAN Dave Ripton ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com > > Okay, okay, okay, I feel like the US Hockey team here. Who did > I piss off to get the last seed? Random, you say? Right, I'll > bet you used some cheesy pseudo-random system like drawing numbers > out of a hat (OK if it was an O's hat) or rolling dice without > benefit of a Pop-O-Matic. At least this is PBEM and I don't have to listen to the damned Pop-o-matic! > But what am I complaining about? Carl's worth a pile of ladder > points, and instant Battle Hardening to a 9-2. Gotta go find > a coach... Ahh, but you must beat me first. (Emphasis on first since I have some other ladder games going! :-) ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:03:00 BST Subject: RE: ASLUG Bruno, When I subscribe to ASL News, the Belgian zine, I use an International Money Order that I get thru the Post Office. I have sent group subscripts of several hundred dollars so I am sure it works from the USA side of the Atlantic. I bet it works for you.... just give the Post Office enough francs so that it converts to the correct $US amount. +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Allen's Law : : P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 03:44:00 BST Subject: Re: Captured Weapons Aloha Pat, You were asking about the use of captured weapons, particularly machine guns. I have an account of the scenario "Clay Pigeons" which was written by the C.O. of the American battalion depicted in that scenario. If I remember right, the battle went like this: The GIs had two companies dug in side by side with a third company situated behind them. To the rear of the third company was a mortar section and somewhere in the middle was the command post where the author was dug in. The Americans were prepared to launch an attack into the German lines at dawn, but the Germans beat them to it, launching their own attack in the middle of the night. Prior to the German attack infiltrators had managed to sneak into the American positions and cut their communication lines. Two or three companies worth of German paratroopers blew right through the GI's positions so swiftly that, aside from a few who broke and ran, the Americans were left in their holes, able to fight off the Germans mopping up after the paratroopers. The American C.O. could hear the German "burp guns" pass by his position and move on to his rear toward the mortars. Lacking effective communication with his units the C.O. didn't have a clear idea of what was going on. All through the night he heard the burp guns chattering away near his mortars and assumed that his men were getting shot up. What had actually happened though, was that some German paratroopers reached the mortar position and got their butts kicked. The mortar crews then picked up some burp guns and used them on any other Germans that came near. Makes that automatic SAN for using captured MGs at night seem pretty realistic huh? This is a great story, suspenseful in that, as I've said, the author really didn't have a clear picture of the events as they were happening. Points out the realism of the No Move counters too. The story is "Before Saint-Lo" by Glover S. Johns, from the book "Combat WWII-- European Theater of Operations", Arbor House, ISBN: 0-87795-457-7. If ya want, Pat, I'll see what I can do to xerox the story and get it to ya. Steve ----- From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 05:18:00 BST Subject: Winter Offensive WINTER OFFENSIVE 1994 By Perry Cocke I am still pumped. Player after player, grognard and newbie alike, came up to Brian Youse and me as they were leaving to say what a great time they had (and how much they had enjoyed the pizza Saturday night). The fifty-one people in attendance matched last year's crowd, and it seemed like all had a good time. The top three are familiar names on the tourney circuit, but the top twelve is a true mix of the old and the new. Guy Chaney won the title in a classic match vs Fish Conner (the '92 Champ) in Blocking Action At Lipki. This one came down to the wire, with Fish needing to win and survive a 1-1 CC on the final turn to pull another victory out from under his hat. (Hat courtesy of '94 ASL Open: reigning Champion--Fish Conner.) Burning wrecks and immobilized AFVs littered a battlefield notable for a dearth of Good Order Infantry. Brian and I were rooting for Guy to win. Guy is one of the true nice guys in the hobby, excellent player, fun to play and to hang out with. Playtester, designer, author, etc. Guy hasn't prospered on the tournament scene the last two years since he won both the Origins Market-Garden tourney and Summer Wars in the summer of 1991. None of this is why we were rooting for Guy, though. Guy was 4-0 and Fish was 3-0, the only undefeated players with a chance at winning. If Guy won, we would have a clear-cut 5-0 winner. If Fish won, he would have to play McGrath (then 4-1). Then if Mike won, we would be stuck with a bunch of people with one loss. Thanks, Guy. Eric Givler won the early-bird registration rebate contest by picking Guy as this year's champ. Guy took home the engraved dice cup and $50. Fish dropped out of the money by virtue of not playing enough games. In their first game of the tourney, Mike McGrath (6-1, 2nd place, $30) and Gary Fortenberry (6-1, 3rd place, $20) paired off in They're Coming! (HH), Gary getting the Germans and some weird ABS-type balance. Mike's victory turned out to be the difference between second and third place. Gary went on to handle everything else thrown at him, while Mike stumbled with the Russians in Little Stalingrad (SOF), attacking Tom Kearney's Germans and the level-2 ABS balance. Mike went on to knock Jeff Coyle out of the ranks of the undefeated by taking the US and the level-2 balance in The Mad Minute (Yanks). ROUND-ROBIN EXAMPLE Tom Kearney beats Mike McGrath Warren Smith beats Tom Kearney Mike McGrath beats Warren Smith The interesting part of this is that Mike told me part of the reason he felt Tom beat him was that he underestimated Tom: "He has improved a lot since the last time I played him." Tom told me that part of the reason he felt Warren beat him was that he underestimated Warren. The history of warfare is full of such. Following the top three were Carl Fago (4-1), Tom Kearney and Chris Kavanagh (each 4-2),Dave Ripton (4-3), and Jeff Coyle, Dave Ginnard, Steve Petersen, Dale Wetzelberger, and Ray Woloszyn at 3-2. SITE REPORT Facilities-wise, this was the nicest Winter Offensive yet. The gaming area was bright and clean (at least till we got going) and the rooms were nice as well. It was a little tight moving around, but there were more than enough tables and plenty of room to play. The Comfort Inn restaurant put on a good breakfast buffet and the usual slightly overpriced lunch/dinner. Fast- food/variety required some travel, but everyone seemed to manage. CULTURAL HIGHLIGHT The Saturday night fashion show next door, featuring the latest in African haute couture, and complete with drum concert, made a big impression. The divider between our rooms didn't qualify as a wall, so that drum beat was coming through loud and clear. Certainly distracting, but it didn't last long enough to hurt anything. At most, it provided some ready alibis, "Damn drums made me lose my concentration." I felt it provided just the right weird touch, but then I preferred the drum beat to the steady bass booming through the floor at ASLOK. QUOTABLE QUOTES "Let's be sure to read the VC this time." Ross Sutton to Jeff Coyle as they arrange their re-match from last year's battle in Stand Fast The Guards, when they both misread the VC. "Most exciting game I've played in a while." Guy Chaney upon beating Fish Conner for the Championship. "I didn't whine once." Gary Fortenberry after losing to McGrath, as evidence of his resolve in keeping his New Year's pledge to stop whining and stay cool. "Best at getting you to play the scenario he wants." Fish on McGrath "Yes, he has that deceptively honest approach." Perry Cocke, replying to Fish "Best tournament lighting ever." Jim Turpin "How come I do all the work for this thing and you get all the credit?" Brian Youse to Perry Cocke "Home making desert." Standard reply to query about whereabouts of Chuck Goetz IN CONCLUSION Everything went right at this tourney: the right amount of people for the space, no champion dispute, no personality clashes, no serious rules debates. If only the tourney had taken place on the proper weekend. Finally we got some decent, timely publicity--most notably a mention in The General's list, and what happens? The date had to be moved up a week at practically the last minute. And who would have thought that the Rout Report would put out another issue, complete with the wrong date, just at tournament time? (Not me, else I'd have made a better effort at updating the Dagger Dudes). Next year will likely see Winter Offensive at its fourth consecutive new site, as the Comfort Inn wants entirely too much money for the weekend. We may even officially change from the traditional last weekend in February to the more trendy President's Day weekend. We'll try to keep you up to date. Congratulations again to Guy Chaney. Hope to see you all next year. In the meantime, get out there and play! Winds of War, Summer Wars, DonCon, ASLOK, whatever. Just do it. ....Perry PS Internet Highlights I was able to add JR Van Mechelen (hard "c"), Bret Hildebran, and Dave Ripton to my growing collection of faces to go with Internet names. Nice to hook up again with Carl Fago, Chuck Powers, and Tim Van Sant. And, of course, various GEnieites like Warren Smith. Kurt Boren was astounded at the depth of knowledge JR displayed of the night rules. I tried to get JR to admit he had blown it by allowing some doubt to enter the discussion of an Emplaced Crew being in Open Ground, but he wasn't buying and I wasn't pushing too hard. Mr. Pop-o-matic was a blast to have around all weekend. Glad we got a chance to play; nsorry if I disappointed you, Dave, by suggesting a dice-fest like The Puma Prowls. Brian may have done a number on Carl's ladder points, but Carl is the high Internet-finisher for WO'94. PPS Carl Note the addition of Steve Petersen to the ranks of the 3-2 finishers: WINTER OFFENSIVE 1994 OFFICIAL RESULTS CHAMPION (engraved dice cup and $50) 5-0 Guy Chaney (VA) PLACE & SHOW 6-1 Mike McGrath (VA) SECOND PLACE ($30) 6-1 Gary Fortenberry (TX) THIRD PLACE ($20) THE REST (winning record, at least 5 games ) 4-1 Carl Fago (PA) 4-2 Tom Kearney (NC) 4-2 Chris Kavanagh (NY) 4-3 Dave Ripton (NY) 3-2 Jeff Coyle (VA) 3-2 Dave Ginnard (OH) 3-2 Steve Petersen (MD) 3-2 Dale Wetzelberger (MD) 3-2 Ray Woloszyn (NC) HONORABLE MENTION (3 wins in less than 5 games) 3-0 Jim Stahler (VA) 3-0 Kurt Boren (MD) 3-1 Bill Conner (OH) 3-1 Paul Ginnard (OH) 3-1 Darryl Lundy (NY) 3-1 Peter Schmitt (VA) ----- From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 05:20:00 BST Subject: Assorted rules Agreeing with Fred Timm, In-season orchard >is Subject: BAZ question What is the penalty for a Japanese squad that fires a captured American BAZ ? Since Japanese regular (non-crew) infantry can't use their own support weapons, other than mortars, without unqualified penalties, should it be a +4 DRM (+2 captured, +2 non-qualified) on the TH or just a +2 for captured ? The ASLRB does not say anything about it but it seems correct. Don't worry Stewart. My squad is broken this time but mayby next time you try to OVR me ! ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:27:30 +0200 From: Pedro Faria Subject: Our BAZ queston Hi Stewart, As you can see I mail in our BAZ question. Perhaps I won't get more chances of capturing a BAZ but it could be good to know. ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 12:18 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Crest Status question Hey guys, got a question about crest status. If a unit in a gullie moves up into crest status, such that only two of the front hexsides are given area fire, how is fp modified if the los is traced along a spine the splits the hexsides into area fire and normal fire? Was that even remotely clear? -------------- djsullivan@bbn.com ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:55:10 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire Hi guys, I started working on my setup for Chance D'une Affaire, and two quick questions popped up: 1. The eternal board 6 wooden-or-stone question: The coloring on this board is quite ambiguous, and all the old CoD scenarios seemed to have SSR's telling us what was wooden and what was stone. So what's what here? 2. The starred MP on the French FCM 36 tanks. I assume this is only a pointer to the fact that this tank is tough to immobilize. Right? It doesn't have some other hidden meaning within the French vehicle notes that I couldn't find, does it? (My all-time-favorite French vehicle note is the tank that has a radio, but the radio only does Morse code, so the crew gets to roll vs. a 9 on their movement TC.) Today's Math Lesson: 1MT + R = Ha ha ha! (Yeah, I know. 12 squads vs. 4 isn't pretty either.) Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:33:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire In message Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:55:10 EST, ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes: > 1. The eternal board 6 wooden-or-stone question: The coloring on this > board is quite ambiguous, and all the old CoD scenarios seemed to > have SSR's telling us what was wooden and what was stone. So what's > what here? On both my Board 6's it is wooden along with all the other buildings on Board 6. > 2. The starred MP on the French FCM 36 tanks. I assume this is only > a pointer to the fact that this tank is tough to immobilize. > Right? It doesn't have some other hidden meaning within the > French vehicle notes that I couldn't find, does it? You got it right. ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:36:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire In message Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:55:10 EST, ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes: > 1. The eternal board 6 wooden-or-stone question: The coloring on this > board is quite ambiguous, and all the old CoD scenarios seemed to > have SSR's telling us what was wooden and what was stone. So what's > what here? Well, I _want_ the buildings to be wooden but all you need to do is read SSR 1 and it will tell you all you ever wanted to know about buildings on Board 6. ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:40:00 BST Subject: OVR Stewart, You asked: >This may be a really stupid question, but how does this all correspond >with the idea of Reaction Fire? I thought that when an AFV overran you, >you weren't allowed to fire (using your anti-tank weapons, if any) or >close combat (if not) until _after_ the overrun was resolved? If you >can fire Defensive First fire on the tank as it enters your hex at range >0, and then again when it expends the movement points to overrun you, >what's the point of the Reaction Fire rules? There are no stupid questions. First off, I have to disagree with Perry on this subject. An OVR vehicle expends the MP to enter the hex and conduct the OVR as one combined expenditure. Defensive First Fire prompted by this expenditure is conducted prior to the OVR resolution. So, if you have an AFV that spends 1(COT) + 4(1/4 MP)= 5 MP to conduct an OVR, an ATG with hot ROF can fire on the AFV five times before the OVR is resolved. Yes, that ATG conducting that DFF can be the target of the OVR-- units being OVR can DFF normally prior to the resolution of that OVR. Why sit through the OVR attack so that you can use Reaction Fire? Two reasons spring to mind-- a) your ATG is of pea shooter caliber or you have a bazooka, neither of which will stop the offending AFV with a frontal hit. If they could, youd've nailed it when it moved adjacent. When the AFV enters a unit's hex, all non-Reaction DFF is conducted against the front target facing of that AFV. So, possibly your only hope of stopping the AFV is to hope you survive the OVR and then use non-CC Reaction fire which results in an automatic rear target facing hit. Even a bazooka can flame a Tiger from the rear. Second, if your unit being OVR is a hapless squad with no AT capability and the OVR vehicle is BU your only recourse is to take the OVR and then use CC Reaction Fire. A long shot to be sure, but at least it's better than no shot. Well, I'm off to Stalingrad, where life is short and Ladder points are meaningless. Geez, I had no idea this CG thing was going to be so massive. :) Steve P.S.: I just down loaded some mail and as zoomed by on my screen I think I saw Perry reverse his stance on the above subject. Disagreeing with Perry is only a bad idea if your looking to win a rules argument. Otherwise it's guaranteed to be enlightening. ----- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:44:41 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Crest Status question Hi guys, After asking an incredibly stupid question caused by missing an SSR, I'll try to atone by answering a relatively tough one: Dan asked: > If a unit in a gullie moves up into crest status, such that only two of the > front hexsides are given area fire, how is fp modified if the los is traced > along a spine the splits the hexsides into area fire and normal fire? > Was that even remotely clear? The question was clear; the answer is not in the ASLRB. But the Q&A file will help out a bit: > B20.92 Does a unit in Crest status receive entrenchment benefits from > fire that enters its hex through the vertex of a protected Crest > hexside and a non-Crest hexside? > A. Yes. {89} That means that the spine is considered part of the protected-crest hexside for purposes of incoming fire. By symmetry, I'd say that it's part of the protected-crest hexside for purposes for outgoing fire, too, and thus that such fire is not halved as Area Fire. Using symmetry in this way is dangerous, as (for example) an AFV's CA for firing purposes and for armor purposes are different. But in the absence of a ruling to the contrary I think this is the way to go. Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com "I will read all SSR's before asking questions." ----- Subject: Surrender via the Rout Ph From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 20:54:00 -0640 Howdy, wuj@moss.emsp.att.com writes: [Example under A10.531 seems to require the surrender of routing unit in hex I4, but example has them routing anyway.] >It seems to me that the broken squad in hex I4 of the >illustration meets all the conditions specified in Rule >A20.21, and would therefore be required to surrender to one >of the German squads. Routing away should not be one of >its options! One of the following probably applies: > >1. Later rules have precedence over earlier ones, and the >illustration is overruled by rule A20.21. (rule E.2) > >2. My copy of the ASLRB is out of date. > >3. My interpretation is totally messed up. > >I personally believe #1 applies, but I've had an opponent >say something like "why would they show a picture of the >squad routing away if it wasn't a legal rout path"? What >do most players do? After having my head chopped off and handed to me for my recent post on Gun Duels, I am going to stick my neck out once again :-) I don't agree that explanation #1 is correct. I would call it an error. The squad should surrender unless No Quarter or other special rule (Russian Ghurkhas?) is in effect. It might also be an unfortunate elison, saying that "if conditions are such that surrender is not a possibility (e.g., No Quarter is in effect), then the broken squad in I4 may not rout to any hex other than I3 [blah blah blah]." I don't see anything in the errata about it, but surely someone must have noticed this before? So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: RE: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:48:15 PST > In message Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:55:10 EST, > ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes: > > > 1. The eternal board 6 wooden-or-stone question: The coloring on this > > board is quite ambiguous, and all the old CoD scenarios seemed to > > have SSR's telling us what was wooden and what was stone. So what's > > what here? > > Well, I _want_ the buildings to be wooden but all you need to do is read SSR > 1 and it will tell you all you ever wanted to know about buildings on Board > 6. All right, then. Let's consider Board 8 (with the same buiding coloration which looks like a superposition of wooden and stone), and scenario A38 (North Bank). No SSR defining the building type exists. What do you do? -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 11:50:32 -0500 (EST) From: Mustafa Unlu Subject: Re: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire Doug Gibson writes: > > All right, then. Let's consider Board 8 (with the same buiding coloration > which looks like a superposition of wooden and stone), and scenario > A38 (North Bank). No SSR defining the building type exists. What > do you do? Isn't there a rule which states a default blgd type in the absence of SSR? I'd hazard a guess and say that the default type may be stone. M. "What kind of a lousy speed rating is 9?" ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 18:09:00 BST Subject: CC with AFV Close Combat Question: What happens to the CMG on an AFV, that has a broken main gun, when in CC it rolls a 12 DR result? Is the CMG now broken? Can find no direct reference in the ASLRB....it could be played either way. This occurred in Strangers in a Strange Land where the German would have received an advantage if the AFV would have been recalled and since we played that the MG was not broken it went on to play a decisive part....French won. Thanks, +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Allen's Law : : P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 13:52:12 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: Questions about Chance D'une Affaire > > > > > All right, then. Let's consider Board 8 (with the same buiding coloration > > which looks like a superposition of wooden and stone), and scenario > > A38 (North Bank). No SSR defining the building type exists. What > > do you do? > > Isn't there a rule which states a default blgd type in the absence of > SSR? I'd hazard a guess and say that the default type may be stone. > > B23.3 says it should be wood if you can't tell. Are they going to re-issue those orphan maps sometime? I heard that they might be in Doomed Battalions/March to Oblivion. It'd be nice -- I like that castle (now wooden??) overlooking the river. Maybe someday I'll DYO a scenario where the Americans can attack it with RCL's! Stewart ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: Foxholes Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 11:27:58 +0100 (MET) Adrian Earle writes: > > Well take a good leader HMG and two MMC and put them behind a wall > in a hex with a foxhole. Now one MMC occupies the foxhole > while the leader and the other MMC fire the HMG outside the foxhole. > The guys outside claim Wall Advantage. > > The guy IN the foxhole is out of enemy LOS (foxhole behind a wall) > and thus unaffected by direct fire. His job is reserve weapon crew > and close range defense (one hex). > Moreover, when the guys outside lose concealement when they defensive fire, move them during MPh IN the foxhole (enough capacity needed) transfert the HMG at the beginning of the APh and advance the now concealed HMG manning infantry outside. At the end of the turn, the guy IN the foxhole can attempt to gain concealement (dr <= 2 (-2 tem, -X leadership) or automatic if in concealement terrain) A good way to have an always concealed HMG team (work also with gullies or wadis) -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: Foxholes Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 12:58:06 +0100 (MET) Patrik Manlig writes: > > Hi, > > > A good > > way to have an always concealed HMG team (work also with gullies or > > wadis) ^^^^^^^ > > Unfortunately not, since you can't fire a HMG in crest status. You might > be correct in the case of a wadi, since they're different. > In french : "Toujours tourner 7 fois la langue dans sa bouche avant de parler" Thanks Patrick for your remark. -- ========================================================================== Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et ( ( Conception des Circuits Integres \ \ LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91 Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86 F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr ========================================================================== ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:06:38 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: an interesting situation In one of my email games an interesting situation came up: A leader and a squad (CX) performed an Infantry Overrun vrs a broken enemy leader. My leader passed his TC to allow the overrun. My squad and leader entered the enemy hex. Enemy defensive fire from outside the hex pinned the leader and broke the squad :-( Now we resolve the immediate CC with the pinned leader attacking the broken leader at 0.5 to 1 => 1:2 -2brk -2withdraw +1cx. He lives :-( and withdraws as does my broken squad. Assuming that we did the above correctly, what would happen if either of the withdrawing units entered a hex with Residual Firepower? Not that it matters much as both can withdraw without worrying about it, but it is an interesting what if? Adrian ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:00:16 EDT Subject: Player in Williamsburg area I'm looking for FTF opponents in the Williamsburg, or Newport News area. I'd also appreciate news of upcoming tournaments or conventions in the mid- Atlantic region. Jeffrey Shields CBNERR, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu Phone: (804) 642-7128 Fax: (804) 642-7120 ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Adv. vs. difficult terrain Q? Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 17:21:25 +0100 (MET) Hi, I noticed something peculiar when looking at the rule for Advance vs. difficult terrain yesterday. The rule says that a hex that takes >=4 MF or all of a units available MF can be entered as Adv. vs. DT. Now, what then happens if the unit doesn _not_ have enough MF to enter the hex, say a wounded leader portaging 2PP (1MF) trying to go up a level and enter a woods hex (4MF) (Hi Dave!). Now, I always thought that the rule said ">=all of a units available MF". Is this an omission or can't you enter a hex that costs more MF than you have in the APh? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 11:09:48 -0600 (UTC -06:00) From: KCURLE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: Question about With Flame & Shell scenario I'm one turn into With Flame and Shell from SOF. My plan is to go down the non-gully edge of the boards with most of my forces as the German. I'll try to eliminate or capture all in my way and exit as many forces as I can. My thoughts now are to keep his force divided with a small blocking force left behind. If anyone has ever played this one, is this a good strategy or should I just slug it out with the Russians and go for CVP instead of exit VP? Thanks Kyle ----- From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:29:00 BST Subject: rulesrulesrulesrules The EX in A10.531 is wrong in letting the squad in I4 rout away as if No Quarter were in effect. I think there has been no published errata on this because the error has not been causing a problem for anyone. One must be at level 2 or higher in order to see an SR/FFE blast height in a level 0 interior Jungle location. Otherwise the plateau effect of the level 2 Jungle blocks LOS to the Blast Height. Seems like a 12 by an AFV in CC has no effect vs its weapon(s). ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:33:11 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: an interesting situation Adrian Earle wrote: >A leader and a squad (CX) performed an Infantry Overrun vrs a >broken enemy leader. My leader passed his TC to allow the >overrun. My squad and leader entered the enemy hex. Enemy >defensive fire from outside the hex pinned the leader and >broke the squad :-( >Now we resolve the immediate CC with the pinned leader attacking >the broken leader at 0.5 to 1 => 1:2 -2brk -2withdraw +1cx. He >lives :-( and withdraws as does my broken squad. Don't think the leader or the MMC can attempt withdrawal. It is not melee, it is CC, and the rules say that a unit must be in melee to attempt withdrawal. See A11.16 and A11.2. However, my opinion is that as soon as the MMC broke, the OVR was cancelled. Assuming the Def fire was conducted against the first MF of the hex entry of the OVR, the OVR movement was never completed. And only an MMC can conduct an infantry OVR - the SMC by himself cannot (A4.15), although the rule does not specify a Good Order MMC, or even an unbroken one. It is also likely that the leader's pinning would have cancelled some of the MF necessary for the overrun (A7.831), but I can't tell that from the text. Now, with the overrun cancelled, what happens? There seems to be no provision in the rules for moving the units back to the prior hex, and the leader is pinned anyway. The defender had no units to force them back. My guess is that they are not held in melee, and are all free to rout in the RtP. The only thing I am confident about in discussing this, however, is that I would have gaffed it worse. Generally, if you cancel the withdrawal, it's a "no harm, no foul" situation, IMO. Matt () Brown ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:45:51 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: an interesting situation > In one of my email games an interesting situation came up: > > A leader and a squad (CX) performed an Infantry Overrun vrs a > broken enemy leader. My leader passed his TC to allow the > overrun. My squad and leader entered the enemy hex. Enemy > defensive fire from outside the hex pinned the leader and > broke the squad :-( Since the CC attack is immediate, it must be resolved before any other attacks from units outside the location (but not before residual FP, including fire lanes). > > Now we resolve the immediate CC with the pinned leader attacking > the broken leader at 0.5 to 1 => 1:2 -2brk -2withdraw +1cx. He > lives :-( and withdraws as does my broken squad. Neither side >needs< to withdraw since there is not a existing Melee, just CC. > > Assuming that we did the above correctly, what would happen if > either of the withdrawing units entered a hex with Residual > Firepower? Not that it matters much as both can withdraw without > worrying about it, but it is an interesting what if? A withdrawing unit would be subject to Residual FP/FFE/minefield attacks. Fred ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:42:55 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Re: rulesrulesrulesrules > One must be at level 2 or higher in order to see an SR/FFE blast height in a > level 0 interior Jungle location. Otherwise the plateau effect of the level 2 > Jungle blocks LOS to the Blast Height. > Thanks Perry (and Dave earlier), so if I'm at level zero, and the interior jungle hex is at level 1, but adjacent to ground level jungle, I should be able to see the blast height. How about a picture. 3333 2222 2222 2222 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 AA A B C D E F Assuming I"m in hex A or AA, and B,C,D,E,and F are jungle (2 level obstacles). SR lands in B, C, D, E, or F. Which can I see? I'd think I could see B and D from A and B,C,and D from AA. The observer would have to be at level 4 to see E and could never see F. Is this how it works? Thanks, Don Hancock ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:52:40 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Adv. vs. difficult terrain Q? > Hi, > > I noticed something peculiar when looking at the rule for Advance vs. > difficult terrain yesterday. The rule says that a hex that takes >=4 MF > or all of a units available MF can be entered as Adv. vs. DT. Now, what > then happens if the unit doesn _not_ have enough MF to enter the hex, > say a wounded leader portaging 2PP (1MF) trying to go up a level and > enter a woods hex (4MF) (Hi Dave!). > > Now, I always thought that the rule said ">=all of a units available MF". > Is this an omission or can't you enter a hex that costs more MF than you > have in the APh? > A non-CX unit can advance using more than all of its available MF if it spends >=4 MF. The only problem I can see is a unit with 3 or less available MF using more than all of its MF but less than 4 MF. In such a case I would say that it could advancee and become CX since it is using all of its MF, and then some. Fred ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:32:56 EST From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: KGP CGI Well the first Atlanta playing of KGP CGI is over after playing only two scenarios. The Americans played by myself and Gary Bartlett were forced completely off the map with little prospect of returning to a fair fight. We had managed to kill only 3 tanks in the two scenarios and the thought of trying to kill all of those remaining Panthers forced me to resign. The first scenario went well enough. We beat up the Kraut infantry a bit including the killing of a 9-2 while keeping our losses with in reason. Our greatest losses were in the area of support weapons. Unfortunately I failed to establish a good setup area for the PM scenario. This was do to the last second need to withdraw 3 squads to man the 60mm OBA. So, what went wrong. Every attempt to eliminate vehicles failed. We missed a number of side shots. One of the 60mm OBA modules had been lost to faulty equipment. Machineguns could not keep the halftracks out of our faces: not enough stuns or eliminations. The bombardment of the PM turn toook a bad hop and caused very little damage. The single most important thing that caused me to realize I was beat was the mist. The two groups of FBs never got an opportunity since the mist never decreased during the PM scenario. I really needed them, at least I needed them for psychological support. Congatulations to the evil German opponents Kevin Valerian, Mike McMain, and Larry Winslow for a very methodical destruction of the American defense. I also need to apologize for way to much whining. I have been demoralized and playing the Americans really created havoc on my mental stability. Okay, I admit it, I was a cry baby. I'll be ready for another spanking after a couple weeks of vacation. Does anybody really think I shouldn't have resigned so early despite not having been able to kill the tanks? Michael J. Black Department of Plant Pathology University of Georgia Experiment, Georgia 30212 (404) 228-7202 ----- From: Neal Smith Subject: Riders & SW Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:07:41 -0500 (EST) Hi, I was reading the Q&A and it was stated that anyone that bails out must take their support weapons with them. I started to think why would anyone want to leave them on the vehicle/tank anyway? My question really is: Can you load SWs onto an AFV in one location, have it move to another, and then have other infantry take possession of them later? How about transport vehicles? I haven't seen it in the Q&A yet. Thanks, Neal Smith sasrns@unx.sas.com ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:24:22 CST From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: Re: Riders & SW Not to commit the NRBAW crime (no rule boot at work!) but I think there is a passage that precludes loading SW as a rider w/o infantry. In fact, I believe the passage states that unpossesed weapons cannot be "riders." Andrew ----- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:25:12 CST From: Andrew McCulloh Subject: rule boot Yes I have an asl crib sheet that is sewn onto a boot and I take it to work! Andrew