----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 07:14:00 BST Subject: archive encoding Hi, Does anyone have any experience in converting BTOA encoded files back into normal text on MS-DOS computers? Are there any programs anywhere that will do this for me? I got a couple of old ASL Digest issues from the archive and they were automatically encoded with BTOA and I can't get them unencoded. I have downloaded the UNPACK.PL file from the archive and have tried to get PERL to unencode them, but it won't work. I suppose that I can get the archive to send me the files unencoded but if I can get this to work, then I am better off. Thanks for any help. Warren ----- Date: Sat, 01 Jan 1994 18:10:42 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: The General Somebody mentioned earlier that he has not yet received his copy of the General. I haven't received that yet. It kind of makes me wonder how in the world someone in the Netherlands can receive his copy several weeks before we do. ----- Date: Sat, 01 Jan 1994 21:18:29 -0700 (MST) From: -431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Japanese Tactics Gentlemen- Being a raw newcomer to the PTO rules, I'm looking for basic tips on playing the Japanese (or against the Japanese). The rules for this nationality are so different that I'm sure there are some rules-of-thumb to remember in scenarios involving them. cheers! Grant grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca GEnie G.Linneberg ----- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 23:16:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Replay: Chappelle St Anne Although my test of Carl's _The Agony of Doom_ mod is on hold (opponent failed his Winter Weather MC (WWMC) and routed to Disney World), I had a chance to play ftf with some other friends whose schedules don't normally match up with mine too well. Time was short, and Scott's KGP set needed to be broken in, so we took a crack at Chappelle St Anne. I took the Americans, while my adversaries (Scott Gajda and Darrel Solley, two souls without Internet access) played the Germans. I have to agree that this is a nice little scenario, but I think the balance may go to the Americans in this one. I set up a 347 with the MMG in the Chappelle itself, with the other half squad deployed on the far side of the hill road in the woods. (Sorry, forgot which way the compass goes in this one.) The 666 took the BAZ to block the center unpaved road, while the 8-1 and one of the 667s set up to fire down the dogleg of the main paved road leading to the Chappelle (N 33), West of the roadblock. The other 667, with the DC, set up hidden in the forest alongside the road to the south (compass headings have returned!) I set up 2 AT mines on the each of the center roads, with the fifth point along the southern route. I felt this gave me a strong center, with some denial of the southern route (where the woods are really dense anyway), and still left enough flexibility to stop a push on the hill road to the north. Not much of a reserve in this one, but the 347 and MMG were set for a last turn stand in the Chappelle should it become necessary. Turn one saw the Germans push right down the hill road, no units CE. The MG halftrack stayed to the rear. I realized the folly of putting the 347 north of that road, and moved it across to the southern side. However, I glitched and blew my concealment. I started reaching for the stack of Next-of-Kin letters, but held up. The SS weren't CE yet, so all was not yet lost. Meanwhile, I began pulling the rest of my force into position to meet the thrust. I didn't fear him pulling out and catching me out of position due to the one-lane road. I managed to keep the rest of these concealed, though, so "Where's the BAZ?" became the game for a short time. Turn two, the Germans rolled one 'track right past my 347 to try to take me from the rear. Oh, s**t, I thought, I'll have to blow concealment or really rush it to get into position to stop this. But then Scott placed a CE counter on the second 'track, and tried to do the same thing. At this point, that blood pact I made a few years ago payed off again, and the dice became the fourth player. B-) (The guy I normally play with, Bob Lyman, doesn't let me use my own dice. He keeps changing them when we play, to no avail. I'm not always hot, but when I am, I'm REAL hot. Of course, when I'm cold...) B-) So, the 347 takes a pot shot at the halftrack. And rolls a three, which in the end resulted in a stunned crew. And, conveniently, a "Made in Berlin" roadblock to tie up the road. This effectively was the end of the German turn, although they did bring the other two tracks up to close ranks somewhat. They also dismounted the 9-1, a squad, and the LMG and CXed them through the pine woods to link up with the forward HT. My turn two saw me firing the 347 in PFPh, figuring that what the hell, it's just a half-squad. Another three, another MC for the squad, which they again pass - with a three, my SAN. I get a one, random selection picks that squad, and now the semi-mobile roadblock is carrying a broken squad. I followed up by sending the 667 with the DC chugging through the woods, keeping to the west in hope of taking the MG track from the rear. I set up the squad with the 8-1 to cover the western orchard, which is now covered by the MG track. The 666 and it's BAZ take the eastern approach. In the advance phase, I shift the 8-1 one hex to keep it out of LOS from the MG track, even with the cruddy TEM, figuring the dice have got to go their way eventually, and PFPh would be a good time for it. The 347 fails the PAATC, saying that they are just fine here in the woods, sir. German turn three. The squad with the LMG pushes down the hill on the far side of the eastern Orchard, trying to draw fire. I hold it. Darrel gets bold and pushes the HT in the lead through the woods, into the orchard. POP goes the BAZ, and BLAM goes the HT. Crew dies, squad bails, squad gets hosed by 666 while bailing, SS squad rolls a bloody eyes and subsequently gets a Hero from HOB. (No sniper this time.) But, my trusty 347 squad is adjacent, and breaks the squad. Scott rolls his eyes, pushes the now-mobile stunned HT up to the 9-1, who boards and begins his pep talk. The broken squad routs to a hex adjacent to the track, so he can pop out and rally them when they come out of DM. The hero uses the APh to fall back to the squad with the LMG. By now, the has the MG track and another HT are adjacent to my hearty 347, whose members are beginning to think that they've done their part. Rally phase comes, and Scotts rolls cars. This HT is starting to look like a very bad place to be, with a SS HS in it now. American PFPh, and the Bazooka gunner tells his loader to throw in some Willie Pete. He draws a bead on the hero and LMG squad, and nails them. Hero passes, but the squad breaks. At this point, the Germans have two broken 658s, a broken HS, a +1 (from stun) HT, and decide to capitulate. I still have three units in concealment, one of which is in a stone building, and those boys with the DC would be in position at the end of the turn. Besides, that 347 was adjacent to TWO of their units.... B-) Chalk this one partly to the dice, partly to adequate if not inspired set-up on my part, and Darrel and Scott not threatening me from another direction, say one squad and HT on the center or southern road. Happy New Year, everyone! And may your dice be as good as mine were tonight, except when you're playing me. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 12:09 EST From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis) Subject: email game? Guys, Warren has just about killed all my Germans in Lash Out, so I'll be looking for a new game soon. Are there any good small night scenarios?? I want to try a night one so I can get ready for KGP. Or I could even play a KGP night scenario with a patient soul. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ ----- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 20:29:11 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: A personal Q&A from the Hill Greetings, I found a reply to the old Cower/DM question in my snail-mailbox when I got home today. Joy! Q. Is an attack such as 1FP, +2 DRM or 2 FP, +3 DRM, with a firer who is susceptable to Cowering, sufficient to cause DM? A. No, but note that it would be sufficient to cause Encirclement. Just in case somebody was interested. There was a little argument about this one back in October. Salutations, Dave Ripton New Year's Resolution #1: To put the correct year on my checks during the month of January. ----- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 20:38:25 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Looking for roomie for Winter Offensive Hi, In case the subject line didn't come through, I'm looking for somebody to split the cost of a room with at Winter Offensive. Now I have to figure out how to make my Closet-o'-ASL portable. Dave Ripton ----- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 1994 13:24:53 -0700 (MST) From: -431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: night scenarios I just played a round of CAT AND MOUSE from one of the annuals (A19, I think the scenario number was). It was great. Short, but forces you to learn the night rules. The only tough thing in my playing was that the inital NVR was only 1 hex, and it decreased to zero. Makes for a whole new style of play. Grant Linneberg GEnie...G.LINNEBERG INET...grant_linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca ----- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 1994 13:26:46 -0700 (MST) From: -431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: The Fugitives I am about to embark on a game of The Fugitives (ASL 8). Anybody remember that one? I am looking for opinions on how long to stay on the bad side of the canal as the Russians. Should you stay and fight a bit, or hightail it for the canal right away? Grant Linneberg GEnie...G.LINNEBERG INET...grant_linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 08:17:30 GUD From: Peter=Nowak%RD%PSE=OE@banyan.siemens.co.at Subject: subscribe Hi folks! Please bring me back on the list again. Thanks! Hope you enjoyed your holidays as I had? Also I have a question: A leader and an elite squad with a DC enters a smokefilled building hex using 4 MF, then spend another 2 MF to place the DC in an ADJACENT building hex. The so attacked units defensive first fires at the leader and the squad and the result is that the leader is pinned. Is the DC placed or not (squad without leader has only 4 MF, pinned units can't place DC)? Peter ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 08:42:30 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: The General LANCELEU writes: > Somebody mentioned earlier that he has not yet received his copy of > the General. I haven't received that yet. It kind of makes me > wonder how in the world someone in the Netherlands can receive his > copy several weeks before we do. It's not so weird as it seems. The General is mailed within the US by third or fourth (I'm not sure, I don't even know what these are) class mail. This is because US mail (or whatever you guys call it) claims that the General is not a magazine (which would allow it to be send by 2nd class mail), but advertisement. We all know that this is quite ridiculous, perhaps you should start a letter writing campaign to them. If you're envious of me, you can ask AH for a subscription by 1st class mail. This will get you the General sooner. Of course, this will be more expensive, but I guess still cheaper than the $72.00 that I pay for a two year subscription here in the Netherlands. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 11:05:04 GMT-0400 From: tom%ack@dmr.com (Tom Flaherty) Subject: Narrow Street and One-Lane Dirt Road Trailbreak Questions Happy Holidays To All, Two questions came up in a recent game of "Panthers In The Mist": (1) Can an infantry unit end its MPh in a hex with a narrow street hexside and claim to be on the road? I was moving a squad along a road and I had 1 MP left and in the last hex I moved into the road turned into a narrow street. Can I only use this road with bypass movement (hence not allowing me to end my MPh in that hex)? (2) I had a wrecked Panther (sigh) in a one-lane dirt road/pine woods hex. My opponent claims that he can make a trailbreak through the woods in that hex (in other words he doesn't have to go around the tank into other hexes). Is this true? Thanks, Tom Flaherty ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 11:27:15 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Platoon movement and armored assault Hi, all. Hope you all had a great holiday season. Mine was pretty good even though I didn't manage to get in a single game of ASL. >:-( Here's a question: The ASLRB states that platoon movement may be used in conjunction with armoured assault/human wave. Does this mean that you can move "multi-hex" stacks of infantry via armoured assault with platoon moving vehicles as if they were in a human wave? Dade ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 15:04:53 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: IN THE DARK! Well lets see if I can confuse the issue: Help, fire an illuminating round (rule)! Having played "Shadows of Death" [KGP] I couldn't make any sense of the 60 mm OBA as far as IR go. To quote "OBA fires IR in the same fashion as a SR -- never as a FFE." (E 1.93) Example: US prep fire in aforementioned scenario. 1) NVR range 1, no known enemy units in sight 2) No starshells placed due to incompetence 3) Gain radio contact, then battery access Given this situation I don't think you can fire a starshell/IR due to the restrictions of E1.91, however: Question 1 Do I need to use an artillery request to fire an IR? E1.931 When OBA is used to fire an IR, the owning player must still have Radio Contact and Battery Access, but FFE:/1/2/C status is kept track of offboard, and each chit used solely to fire IR is reshuffled into the pile when that fire mission is completed. OBA fires IR in the same fashion as a SR - never as a FFE. Short Answer : Yes, but you get your chit back when you are done Question 2 Given the answer to question 1 is no, then I simply place the IR within a six hex multiple of my observer, then role the Random Direction DR a la method 3 of No. Question 3 Since the IR is a fire mission and assuming the above is correct, I would be permitted to fire another IR at the beginning of my next DFPh without resorting t IR is NOT technically a fire mission - see the index. However you only have to maintain contact. You do not have to draw another chit. I am in the dark, pun intended, on the use of an AR with an OBA IR. Thanks, HQ AK As I see it these are the following steps to place an OBA IR. 1. Radio Contact 2. Battery Access If you get a black chit: 3a. Place AR in intended hex (method 2/3 of E1.922) 4a. Roll for accuracy 5a. Roll for extent of error and place IR where the SR would land This is the "SR" phase of the fire mission. Note the IR is removed at the end of the CCPh 6a. On subsequent player turns you can do this for the "FFE:1" and "FFE:2" phases of a "fire mission". You then return the chit to the draw pile. If you get a red chit you are done for now. Red chit still counts as one of the fatal two though. I think you get 3 IRs from one black chit. NOTE: none of the regular OBA requirements apply. ie the observer must have LOS to the hex with the AR, extra draws for no enemy in LOS I *MUST* be crazy to answer an OBA and NIGHT question. Adrian ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 14:17:53 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: whiner's anonymous Guys, Don't get me wrong here. I didn't put this in here to complain about whiners. I did this because I've thought a lot about my own whining lately, and I'm one of the bad offenders. Matt (Whine and Cheese) Shostak "Hello, my name is Matt, and ... I'm ... a whiner." "Hi, Matt!" "I've been stoic before, but I could never keep it up for more than one game in a row." "We've been there, Matt." "Don't get me wrong or anything, I'm not totally in the gutter yet. I mean, I'm not the type to bitch about rolling boxcars on a PTC or anything, but ..." "But the important thing is that you recognize that you have a problem. That's the first step. Whining is a disease. You're seeking help, and that's good." "Thanks. It was real tough for me to say that." "Well, you can get right into our twelve step program. But the only way you can be helped is if you help yourself." "What are the twelve steps?" "Okay, here they are: 1. Apologize to all the people you've whined to about your rolls, when it's possible and won't hurt anyone. 2. Find a whiner buddy. Whenever you feel the inclination to whine about your 8 morale troops crumbling under a simple NMC, give your whiner buddy a call. We're here to help. He'll try to talk you down. 3. You must believe in your own ability to overcome some poor rolls. When it occurs, just think how fun it would be to pull out a win, or at least a good struggle, despite the dice. 4. Think of how you would feel if your opponent were doing the whining. He intensive fired on turn one and broke his gun. Do you want to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth? 5. Ask yourself the question, will you respect yourself in the morning? 6. Ask yourself the question, will your opponent respect you in the morning? 7. Remember that it's just a game. 8. (And this is a hard one) Enjoy the poor rolls. That's right, enjoy them. You and your opponent are creating a story, and it would be boring if nothing interesting ever happened to the main characters. 9. Use stoicism as a psychological weapon. Your opponent may not believe that he's good enough to beat you if a few poor rolls don't seem to bother you. 10. Each time you make a poor roll, remember the time you made an unbelievable roll to win a game. And don't try to tell us it's never happened. If you can't think of one, ask you regular opponents for an example or two. 11. Think of each bad roll as a personal morale check. Will you pass it? 12. Give your opponent credit for the good moves he makes. If he hadn't played well, would he be in a position to exploit a bad roll on your part?" "Gee, thanks guys. That sounds really helpful, although some of them sound hard to follow all the time." "That's okay. One step at a time. You'll get there." ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:38:16 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: The Gamers' Matanikau In a recent trip to the local game store, I added The Gamers' Matanikau to my (massive) unplayed game collection. Can't comment on the game itself much (nice map, counters, etc) but I did notice that our own Joe Sylvester was listed in the credits for the game (gosh, now I forget his role--I think it was more than just a playtest credit). Way to go, Joe. All greater glory and honor to the list. Tim ----- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 1994 18:47:38 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Q&A Update... I was wondering if the online Q&A has been updated with the 93b questions yet... Does anybody know? Also, if I have a 4-3-6 1st line Italian and it battle hardens it becomes a 4-4-7 Elite squad. Now, if I make a MC DR and miss my ELR doesn't it become a 4-3-7 1st line? I am also interested in how to play with/against the Japanese... Any ideas? What is the scoop on the miniHASL modules? Has anybody sent in a submission or found a suitable subject for one? --Daniel T. ----- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 06:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Placing a DC Peter N., > A leader and an elite squad with a DC enters a smokefilled building hex > using 4 MF, then spend another 2 MF to place the DC in an ADJACENT > building hex. The so attacked units defensive first fires at the leader > and the squad and the result is that the leader is pinned. Is the DC > placed or not (squad without leader has only 4 MF, pinned units can't > place DC)? First off, I have to make some assumptions here... The squad had possession of the DC, the stack had to move more than one hex to enter the building (because the building hex only costs 3 MF to enter), and the leader and squad are of the same nationality. First, I look at A23.3 "... if the Placing unit is broken, pinned, or eliminated before or during Placement, the DC is not operably Placed..." well the Placing unit was not pinned, the leader was, this means yes. Then I look at A4.12 "Any Good Order MMC which begins and ends its MPh stacked with a leader of the same nationality in the same Location is eligible for a two MF bonus during that MPh..." Note, this rule says the MMC must be in good order, not the Leader. Your MMC remained stacked with the leader for the entire MPh therefore it gets the 2 MF bonus despite the fact that the leader is pinned! This means that the DC is operably placed and you get to see the bad guys go BOOM! --Daniel T. ----- From: peschko@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Edward Peschko) Subject: heroes and RB... Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 21:29:26 CST hey -- has anybody out there had the troubles that I have had with heroes in RB? According to regular ASL rules, the DRM for FG/CC attacks is CUMULATIVE with other hero/leader mods. Now there is a hell of a lot of dice rolling in RB. Hence, in a couple of the days that we have played, the germans have gathered about 3 or 4 heros, put them in the same stack with a 9-2, and just laid complete waste. I think that this calls for a rule modification. 24 -6 on the die attack. Yuck. Ed (PS: Has anybody played a complete RB campaign game? (The thirty day one and all) If so, how balanced would you say it is?) ----- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 17:08:19 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: KGP CG Init Scen Report (long) Motors were revving and the shells flew fast and furious this past weekend at Metro Seattle Gamers. I thought a report on what happened to the poor SS might be of interest to any would be Peipers lurking out there on the band space. The German player for the Campaign Game is one of my regular opponents. Knowing his style of play, and benefiting from a practice playing of the initial scenario before Xmas, the Americans deployed heavy on both flanks, with an entire platoon and all the AT mines around the Z35 farmhouse. Two artillery spotters (80mm and 60mm) set up in Stoumont to watch for the dreaded flanking infantry, along with three platoons of infantry. The rest of the American force deployed in a line in and around Roua, then north to the edge of the woods. A Green Reserve Platoon was deployed in foxholes at strategic road junctions in the woods, such as in HH23, to act as rearguard delays for any attempted German endrun around the north flank. A nice in-depth AT gunpark was deployed in the orchards north and south of Roua, with the 90L in an overlook position back towards the S18(?) crossroad. Bazooka teams were set up around the AT guns for additional support. A roadblock was set up accross S23-T24 to delay the Germans. The German player executed a nice armored assault on the south flank, with two sections of Panthers, a platoon of Panzergrenadiers, and various other units. The Church and the outlying buildings in Stoumont quickly fell. The majority of the German infantry went north, blowing away my platoon around Z35, then trekked into the woods, where they spent the rest of the game seizing outlying farmhouses and road junctions. The rest of the armor was thrown against Roua, without infantry support, to try and force a lane into the N.33 roadnet behind Stoua. Only a single infantry platoon entered along the southern edge of the map, to attempt the endround to St. Edouards. The net result of this German attack was a bloody donnybrook in the center when the German armor ran head on into the entire American AT gun force, with supporting Bazookas. 5 Mark IV and 2 HT wrecks resulted, with the Americans holding every building in Roua at game's end. The Germans had a chance to seize some outlying buildings at a crucial moment in the battle, when my opponent decided to fire one more time at an already broken 2nd line Squad. The squad had been encircled with Mark IVs and would have been eliminated for failure to route, but his shot caused a MC, which resulted in a berserk squad, after HOB. The next turn this squad charged the nearest Mark IV, survived all defensive fire unscathed, and eliminated the tank in CC. Break out the Bronze Stars! Four functioning American AT guns survived to fight another day, as did seven of the gun crews. The village fight went badly for both sides, casualty wise. The first two draws for the American 80mm OBA were red, and the radio for the 60mm Module broke on its first attempt at contact. On the plus side, the German player received a rude shock when his big firegroup advanced, one squad at a time, next to a 7-4-7 with a FT under a concealment marker. I purchased two ? Counters with FPP and put the Assault Engineer platoon and an elite platoon under them in Stoumont, then did the old spit-the-stack trick. Since they were under purchased concealment counters, he didn't know that the Combat Engineers were present in Stoumont. The look on his face was mint as the FT proceeded to break his big Fire Group stack with the FT. The Germans responded with 150mm artillery and a 7-4-7 and two 6-6-7s were eliminated or captured after a FFE into the village center. I recommend the purchase of the 7-4-7s early in the CG, as FTs and DCs are easier to rout away with than .30 and .50 HMGs. The first time I played the initial scenario as the Americans, I purchased a HMG section. The HMGs were invariably captured by the SS, after their manning HSs had routed away. The FT and two 7-4-7s lived to fight another day, and will prove useful when placed with HIP somewhere in St. Edouards for the next scenario. The German player watched one of his Panthers burn with a FT shot while his Flam Tracks spent the game mired on wire fences away from the action-- it is indeed better to give then to receive! The endrun around Stoumont toward St. Edouards with his platoon of infantry was stopped by American vehicles, at the cost of both M8s, a Jeep with a MG, and one M4A3. Steep, but the Americans retained control of N.33 leading to the HH0 entry area, and the Germans were stopped around the T13 building. The German infantry along the northflank achieved all of their goals with little or no casualties, but failed to reach the battle. The final tallies for Casualties were 107 CVP for the Americans, and 88 CVP for the Germans (the Germans lost a lot of vehicles and over 2 Platoons of Infantry along the way, mostly in and around Stoumont, which he had to reinforce several times). The Germans controlled 28 LVP at the end of German turn 7, when the game ended. St. Edouards will not be in the front line at the start of the 19 pm scenario. The Americans hold a roughly snout-shaped salient, with the tip in Roua, then running due west and northwest from there. Despite heavy German casualties, the CPG is in no way decided, as the Germans have a good jumping-off locations for their next advance and a solid northern flank. The German player did not chose to be fanatic for the 19 am scenario either, meaning morale 9 SS squads are yet to come. The Germans do suffer from a shortage of vehicles after finding all of the American Guns (and a few AT Mines) the hard way. Some lessons were driven home in this playing. First, always support your armor with infantry!! Second, the Germans don't need to send half of their OB on a hike through the north woods. Those units never reached St. Edouards because of a few green squads and some roadblocks. Narrow forrest lanes are not good for a broad advance! The first time we played the Germans cleared the perimeter of Stoumont with Panthers, then marched in three platoons of infantry from the south map edge and drove up two platoons of Panzergrenadiers from the east. That much concentrated firepower was devastating to the American right flank, which caved in in a catastrophic fashion. Finally, always put your AT guns in pairs or triples (with a hex space to minimize danger to OBA). If the guns can support each other, they just might live through the German's defensive fire in the next turn. Well, good luck to anyone else about to begin their campaigns out there. Most of the summaries posted to the list have been German victories. However, I think the Americans have a good shot to maul the Germans with a good fallback defense and groups of mutually supporting AT guns. Use APCD ammo for the 76L's! Carl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before." --- President Gerald Ford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 22:54:08 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: heroes and RB.. Shouldn't the heroes be removed a t the end of each day as per rule O11.67112? If so, it is not so likely that there can be 6 heroes or more present in a single day. Also, I have a question. An Italian 447 squad was designated as an EnAssault engineer squad. It if it if it was ELR to 4367, will that squad still be an assault engineer squad? ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 03:39:00 BST Subject: this 'n that Peter, Since the Elite squad in your example was the unit which was Placing the DC, the success of Placement depends solely on the fate of this squad regardless of what happens to the Leader it was moving with. The Leader allowed the squad to Place the DC (Leader MF Bonus) but it was the squad which actually Placed the DC. Dade, The rule you're referring to is merely saying that Platoon Movement can be used to grant Armored Assault benefits to infantry conducting a Human Wave. Daniel T., The A19.19 93b Q&A says that an Italian 447 is Replaced by a 346 and that an Italian 247 HS is Replaced by a 136 HS. Whammer ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 09:11:27 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Q&A Update... DANIEL T writes: > I was wondering if the online Q&A has been updated with the 93b > questions yet... Does anybody know? I know. The list has not yet been updated, because I do not yet have the 93b Annual. :-( :-( Bas. ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 04:14:00 BST Subject: ASL Grabbag Peter: You asked if pinning a leader moving with a squad placing a DC has any effect on the placement of that DC, assuming that the units had already used 4MF to enter a smoke filled building (query: how did they do that? SMOKE adds +1 to COT, not double COT). The placement of the DC is unaffected by the Pin result on the leader. A23.3 states that placing unit must be pinned or broken for placement to be affected. In your example, the squad is the placing unit, not the leader. What is the impact, you ask, of the pinned leader on the squad's MF and its ability to place the DC? Nothing. A4.12 stipulates that the 2 MF leader movement bonus is gained provided the MMC "begins and ends its MPh stacked with a leader of the same nationality in the same Location." So your elite squad still has 6 MF and can place the DC. Tom Flaherty: An Infantry unit may not end its movement phase in Bypass on a Narrow Street; Bypassing along a narrow street hexside is no different than Bypassing any other hexside so the provisions of A4.3 would seem to apply. With respect to trailbreaks through the Woods/Single Lane Road hex when the road is blocked by a wreck, I don't see anything in the rules that prevents this. The wreck, in effect, blocks the road and renders the hex a Woods hex which an AFV may then move through, creating a trailbreak. If you think about what this represents in real life, it makes sense--no tanker is going to plow through 80 to 120 meters (i.e., 2 to 3 hexes) of woods when he can just take a short off road bypass around the wreck (i.e., in the same hex). As a consolation, your opponent's AFV must still risk Bog and use at least half its MP (+1 MP for the Wreck). Dade: The last line of D14.2 allows platoon movement/Armored Assault in conjunction with multi-hex Infantry movement in a real Human Wave (or Banzai Charge, which is a type of Human Wave), not "as if they [the Infantry] were in a human wave." If your units can't use Human Wave or Banzai, forget about using a multi-hex Armored Assault. Daniel T: The Italian first line units are 346 and 347, not 436 and 437. Both first line units Battle Harden into the Elite 447. The Elite 447 ELRs to the 346 first line unit because that's what the 93b Annual Debriefing says (although a strict reading of the rule in the ASLRB would allow use of the 347 instead; given that the 347 units represent the Bersaglieri [See A25.62], the errata clarification makes sense). Happy New Year to All, Chuck Goetz ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 14:01:26 +0100 From: ehsribo@aom.ericsson.se (Bernt Ribom JV/PBJ 80431 3289) Subject: Re: Placing a DC Hi guys, Peter N. writes: > A leader and an elite squad with a DC enters a smokefilled building hex > using 4 MF, then spend another 2 MF to place the DC in an ADJACENT > building hex. The so attacked units defensive first fires at the leader > and the squad and the result is that the leader is pinned. Is the DC > placed or not (squad without leader has only 4 MF, pinned units can't > place DC)? I have seen a couple of mails saying that the DC may be placed, but is that really so? The squad needs the 2 MF bonus for being stacked with a leader to place the DC. To get this bonus the squad must (according to A4.12): "...begin and end its MPh stacked with a leader..." and "...move with that leader in a combined stack..." Now, the leader got pinned after 4MF and must therefore end its movement (A7.8). Does the squad really "...move with that leader in a combined stack..." if it alone spends MF to place the DC? The only way to allow it in my eyes would be if placing a DC didn't count as movement, but to me movement and expending MF/MP has always been synonymous. Comments? Bernt ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 15:06:04 +0100 Subject: KGP CG report This is a short after action report because I can't think of any glorious words to say about my wimpy americans that got smashed by my unnaturally lucky and skilled regular ftf opponent. I had only 2 squads left, and 4 leaders and several tanks, when the game ended at german turn 8. The Americans lost 118 CVP and the Germans 75 CVP, and they controlled 50 LVP. They grabbed 17 LVP the last turn. Should I continue this CG or not? Or is this normal losses? /Mats Persson ----- From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Placing a DC Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 17:57:02 +0100 (MET) Hi, > Peter N. writes: > > A leader and an elite squad with a DC enters a smokefilled building hex > > using 4 MF, then spend another 2 MF to place the DC in an ADJACENT > > building hex. The so attacked units defensive first fires at the leader > > and the squad and the result is that the leader is pinned. Is the DC > > placed or not (squad without leader has only 4 MF, pinned units can't > > place DC)? > > I have seen a couple of mails saying that the DC may be placed, but is > that really so? > > The squad needs the 2 MF bonus for being stacked with a leader to place > the DC. To get this bonus the squad must (according to A4.12): > > "...begin and end its MPh stacked with a leader..." > and > "...move with that leader in a combined stack..." > > Now, the leader got pinned after 4MF and must therefore end its movement > (A7.8). Does the squad really "...move with that leader in a combined > stack..." if it alone spends MF to place the DC? The only way to allow it > in my eyes would be if placing a DC didn't count as movement, but to me > movement and expending MF/MP has always been synonymous. > > Comments? As I read it, the leader is pinned due to DFF received _when_placing_ the DC. Since the 2 last MF have already been expended by then, I guess the DC is placed. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 10:01:43 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: KGP 19am Hi everyone, I just finished the 19am scenario of KGP (with an American victory!!). Total casualties were 84 german, 54 US. Notable incidents included 2 mkVs killed by 57L ATs (one on a critical hit on the front), and 2 halftracks killed (each worth 11 cvp due to ht+sqd+ 10-3 ldr kiad). My sherman reinforcments never showed up (next time!) and I lost only 2 at guns and the 3 at start shermans (and one M8). The big reason for this outcome is that by the US turn 2 mist had lifted THREE levels leaving a few well placed at guns with very nice views . The other problem the germans had was that he kept breaking his guns (1 each IV, V, and VI with disabled MA). A couple questions arise out of this: can the crew of another unit (eg a Halftrack) be transfered to a more desireable unit (eg mkV) to give the second unit a crew without the +1 stun modifier? Can a leader be reassigned from a afv with a disabled MA to one with a functioning MA? Does any level of mist allow rout through open ground with out low crawl? (or does the unit have to surrender if other conditions for surrender are met?) - this lead to 2 SS sqds and 1 green us sqd to surrender (another cool thing - SS surrendering to green troops!) Thanks for any help! Randy rnonay@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 11:53:50 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: Re: KGP CG Init Scen Report (long) Someone sent me a message asking how artillery could be so effective in the mist. Two reasons, the level decreased twice (to moderate), and both my opponent and I forgot to add hindrance modifiers to the SR accuracy roll. Aargh! Maybe if I let my opponent have the King Tiger that he drove over an AT mine back he'll let me have get back some 667s in return . . . Carl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before." --- President Gerald Ford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 16:13 EST From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis) Subject: KGP Mist Guys, As a guy who is rarin' to try a KGP CG, I have a few questions: 1) How different does the mist make ASL play? It seems that the mist turns the game into a dicefest with all the + modifiers. 2) After reading all the replays, what can you expect on the first scenario end? I mean, it seems like the one guy got just totally smoked, down to 2 squads?!?!? Most of the others make it seem like the SS Will have their way (I assume the mist makes it pretty easy to close with the Am) on the first scenario. So should the Germans take Stoumont pretty easy on the first or second scenario? 3) I get the feeling that KGP could actually get played by email. I pity the poor guys who are playing RB by email. With platoons instead of companies it seems more manageable. Does anybody agree or disagree? If I get up to speed on night rules anybody want to do it by email? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 16:35:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Re: KGP CG Init Scen Report (long) On Tue, 4 Jan 1994, Carl Barden wrote: > Aargh! Maybe if I let my opponent have the King Tiger that he drove over > an AT mine back he'll let me have get back some 667s in return . . . > > Carl I think a few 667s for a King Tiger is a more than even swap.... John jappel@access.digex.net ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 17:08:00 +0000 From: "mark (m.a.) turnbull" Subject: Need PBEM Rules and Opponent Could someone E-mail me the PBEM rules and FAQ? Security access at my company prevents me from FTP-ing from an external site. After reading the PBEM rules, I would be interested in having a game with someone, perhaps even my first "ladder" game. I would go for any scenario, as I have all the ASL stuff. I prefer to use the IIFT, but it is not essential. I've played about 20 FTF games, but always against the same opponent, so I will be interested in seeing some different playing styles. Any takers? Mark Turnbull ----- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 14:18:35 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: Re: KGP Mist On Tue, 4 Jan 1994, Steven M Dennis wrote: > 1) How different does the mist make ASL play? It seems that the mist > turns the game into a dicefest with all the + modifiers. The greatest affect that I have noticed in my playing is that the mist dampens the effect of all the firepower running around on the map. Units in stone buildings now get +4 (or more) on attacks against them on the IFT. Artillery is less accurate (if you remember the modifiers to the spotting round placement!). If the mist is pretty dense (heavy or higher), the SS can run pretty much right up to the American lines and engage with point blank fire attacks or close combats. Melee is more frequent than in usual regular games. About the only things which are still money in the bank are Flame Throwers and ordnance that lives long enough to gain acquisitions. > 2) After reading all the replays, what can you expect on the first > scenario end? I mean, it seems like the one guy got just totally > smoked, down to 2 squads?!?!? Most of the others make it seem like the > SS Will have their way (I assume the mist makes it pretty easy to > close with the Am) on the first scenario. So should the Germans take > Stoumont pretty easy on the first or second scenario? Having played 19 am twice, it seems to me that the Germans can take Stoumont in the first scenario if they want to. Ther Germans can pretty much go wherever they want by concentrating their forces. The problem is that the LVP sights are scattered accross the map. If you read the historical summary, the Germans pretty much cleared out Stoumont, Roua, and the Sanatarium by the end of the 19th. What you should probably do is decide on a set of objectives for 19am and 19pm ahead of time, and avoid spreading the German forces out too much like my opponent did. I think the biggest thing for both sides is to not allow units to get chewed up by bits and pieces. Carl ----- From: Mats Olsson Subject: Re: ASL Grabbag Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 00:26:44 +0100 (MET) > Nothing. A4.12 stipulates that the 2 MF leader movement bonus is > gained provided the MMC "begins and ends its MPh stacked with a > leader of the same nationality in the same Location." So your > elite squad still has 6 MF and can place the DC. Hmm.. when does the movement phase end for a pinned unit? After it is pinned or after all units with which it started to move with has ended their movement? /Mats ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: ASL Grabbag Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 16:37:17 PST > > Nothing. A4.12 stipulates that the 2 MF leader movement bonus is > > gained provided the MMC "begins and ends its MPh stacked with a > > leader of the same nationality in the same Location." So your > > elite squad still has 6 MF and can place the DC. > > Hmm.. when does the movement phase end for a pinned unit? After it is > pinned or after all units with which it started to move with has ended their > movement? It doesn't matter. Here "its" clearly refers to the MMC's MPh, not the leader's MPh. Whether the leader's MPh ends immediately or not, the MMC was still stacked with him for ITS entire MPh. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 04:17:00 BST Subject: ASL Grab bag OBA IR: In the last day or two Adrian responded to certain questions posed by Zadra concerning OBA IR. While much of what Adrian had to say was accurate, there were a few discrepancies that should be noted and corrected. Adrian correctly stated that when firing OBA IR the black chits drawn for battery access go back into the pile when the Fire Mission is over. He then went on to state that red chits drawn for IR battery access also return to the pile (correct), and that all such red chits count towards the loss of the OBA Module (incorrect). As E1.931 states, "each chit used solely to fire IR is reshuffled into the pile when the Fire Mission is completed." The rule does not draw any distinction between red chits and black chits--both are returned to the pile. If a chit is returned to the pile, it cannot count against the two red chit limit for terminating the OBA Module. The situation is exactly like chits drawn from the pile to determine if a SR can be placed, or FFE converted, in a hex with no Known Enemy Unit in the Blast Radius (C1.21). Thus, as I can attest to from illuminating experience during the KGP playtest of "Shadows of Death," an opponent with OBA IR has the equivalent of an everlasting searchlight that only temporarily extinguishes when a red card is drawn for Battery Access. Adrian also stated that he thought one was entitled to three IR "attacks" (for lack of a better word) from one Fire Mission. I don't know how he comes up with three; we have always played 2 IR attacks, just like a regular FFE fire mission gets you 2 HE or SMOKE attacks. An FFE C has no effect for IR OBA. Brent and Mats: With respect to the pinned leader/DC placement issue, you both raised the issue of what happens if the leader is pinned before the squad placing the DC expends the 2 MF to place the DC (Peter's example pretty clearly indicated that the Defensive Fire occurred after the 2MF for the DC placement were expended, so this issue is NA to that example). A4.12 does indicate that the leader and the squad must move as a "combined stack," which, of course, is undefined. I think you can make a strong case that pinning the leader before expenditure of the leader movement bonus negates the ability of the two units to move as a "combined stack," despite the fact that both units remain in the same Location. Randy: You asked about the effect of KGP Mist levels on Routing and Surrendering. Note that only Very Heavy and Extremely Heavy Mist levels are LOS Hindrances; all other Mist levels are LV Hindrances. Thus only the first two allow units to Rout through otherwise "Open" ground. ----- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 14:46:59 +0100 From: Johan Bergstroem Subject: Pz II vs Matilda The other day I looked at the never played scenario A40 Ad Hoc at Beaurain= s. It features the British (with help from some French units) counteratack at Arras in May 1940. The Britts have six Matilda I and six Matilda II and thats all. But rhey a= ll have AF >=3D 6. The Germans get parts of Rommel's Pz div. Some 37mm PaK se= ktions, infantry, 88mm FlaK and tanks. The tanks are mostly Pz III with 37mm guns,= not much to have against the Matildas, but you can anyway try to imobilize the= m. But I wonder to what possible use cold the Pz II with its tiny 20mm be. It= has a TK of 5 so you can not even use deliberate imobilazition. .. J o h a n B e r g s t r o m (Why does computers dislike Swedish caracters lika =E5, =E4 and =F6.) ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 10:31:56 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: ASL Grab bag Chuck I don't entirely agree but it is a little used and confusing rule section. That's my excuse, anyway. OBA IR: In the last day or two Adrian responded to certain questions posed by Zadra concerning OBA IR. While much of what Adrian had to say was accurate, there were a few discrepancies that should be noted and corrected. Adrian correctly stated that when firing OBA IR the black chits drawn for battery access go back into the pile when the Fire Mission is over. He then went on to state that red chits drawn for IR battery access also return to the pile (correct), and that all such red chits count towards the loss of the OBA Module (incorrect). I don't see how this is true according to the letter of the rules. If you don't have Battery Access and you draw a RED trying to get it then its one of the two RED. I don't see a pre - draw IR mission specification phase. I think the battery access mechanism doesn't care what you intend to to with it once you get it. As E1.931 states, "each chit used solely to fire IR is reshuffled into the pile when the Fire Mission is completed." The rule does not draw any distinction between red chits and black chits--both are returned to the pile. If a chit is returned to the pile, it cannot count against the two red chit limit for terminating the OBA Module. If you get the red chit BEFORE you fire the IR then its not a red chit *used* solely to fire IR. ^^^^ - note past tense of the verb Yeah I know - rules lawyering with grammar - ugghh :-) Otherwise some slimeball player could be playing a night scenario and have a big juicy OBA target in LOS, draw a RED and say "that's not a real red because I meant to use it for IR" Hell what's to stop you from doing that in the day? Other than sportsmanship, that is. The situation is exactly like chits drawn from the pile to determine if a SR can be placed, or FFE converted, in a hex with no Known Enemy Unit in the Blast Radius (C1.21). Thus, as I can attest to from illuminating experience during the KGP playtest of "Shadows of Death," an opponent with OBA IR has the equivalent of an everlasting searchlight that only temporarily extinguishes when a red card is drawn for Battery Access. Adrian also stated that he thought one was entitled to three IR "attacks" (for lack of a better word) from one Fire Mission. I don't know how he comes up with three; we have One for the SR on for the FFE:1 and one for the FFE:2. If not this way then how do you handle the SR phase of the OBA fire mission? Do you mean that you go from radio contact to battery access to AR to FFE:1 status? That would make more sense but I can't read that intent in the rules. Or must you place a SR counter the player turn before you fire an IR? always played 2 IR attacks, just like a regular FFE fire mission gets you 2 HE or SMOKE attacks. An FFE C has no effect for IR OBA. Any clarification of this would be useful for all the new KGPers. Adrian ----- From: "Alec Habig" Subject: ASL vs MBT boards Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) Hi guys, A question for any of you who might own both ASL and AH's "Main Battle Tank". Are the boards in MBT the same as ASL boards 1-4? The reason I ask is that I'm trying to start a PBeM game of "Air Force", and we want to play wih ground terrain - I have ASL, my opponent has MBT, and his description of those boards sounds familiar. Thanks, Alec ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 12:14 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Looking for PbM Game First of all, thanks for all the mail reguarding my previous questions. I've played several games solo, and I'm chomping at the bit for a real game. So... Would anyone be interested in a Play by Mail game with a recent new comer to ASL. I have Beyond Valor, Yanks, the first 4 SL boards, as well as scenerios from the 90 and 93a annuals. All I ask is that for the first game, no armor! Anyone interested? ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 09:30:23 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: ASL vs MBT boards Alec: I have both games and the boards are completely different. MBT uses a different artistic style and scale and the terrain does not match up with the ASL boards by any stretch of the imagination. If you've ever seen the FIREPOWER boards you have a good idea of the graphics used for MBT, despite the difference in scale. Ciao, Brent ^ On Wed, 5 Jan 1994, Alec Habig wrote: > Hi guys, > A question for any of you who might own both ASL and AH's "Main Battle > Tank". Are the boards in MBT the same as ASL boards 1-4? The reason I ask is > that I'm trying to start a PBeM game of "Air Force", and we want to play wih > ground terrain - I have ASL, my opponent has MBT, and his description of those > boards sounds familiar. > > Thanks, > Alec ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 12:47:46 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Re: ASL vs MBT boards John Appel jappel@access.digex.com On Wed, 5 Jan 1994, Alec Habig wrote: > Hi guys, > A question for any of you who might own both ASL and AH's "Main Battle > Tank". Are the boards in MBT the same as ASL boards 1-4? The reason I ask is > that I'm trying to start a PBeM game of "Air Force", and we want to play wih > ground terrain - I have ASL, my opponent has MBT, and his description of those > boards sounds familiar. > > Thanks, > Alec Alec, No go. While you might be able to adapt the MBT boards to ASL, they do not fit with the ASL boards. The single biggest difference, off the top of my head, is the way that elevation differences are displayed. I'm also not sure if the roads will match up. I believe that the MBT boards are designed to represent terrain at 1 hex to 100 meters, also, which leads to some other diffeneces. John ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Pz II vs Matilda Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 10:41:08 PST > The other day I looked at the never played scenario A40 Ad Hoc at Beaurain= > s. > It features the British (with help from some French units) counteratack at > Arras in May 1940. > > The Britts have six Matilda I and six Matilda II and thats all. But rhey a= > ll > have AF >=3D 6. The Germans get parts of Rommel's Pz div. Some 37mm PaK se= > ktions, > infantry, 88mm FlaK and tanks. The tanks are mostly Pz III with 37mm guns,= > not > much to have against the Matildas, but you can anyway try to imobilize the= > m. > But I wonder to what possible use cold the Pz II with its tiny 20mm be. It= > has > a TK of 5 so you can not even use deliberate imobilazition. RAMMING SPEED!!!! B^) B^) B^) Seriously, though, it probably isn't much use. The IFE might help keep the Matildas BU. Or you could just abandon them and go for CC with the crew. If nothing else, place it somewhere where it will get in the way. One thing comes to mind: I can't remember the rules on Deliberate Immobilization, but for a rear shot you get a +1 on the TK; does that make a difference? A CH could be effective also. > .. > J o h a n B e r g s t r o m -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: 5 Jan 1994 10:49:16 -0800 From: "Mark Bennett" Subject: DFF TH DRM Subject: Time:10:04 AM OFFICE MEMO DFF TH DRM Date:1/5/94 Ugh. I'm playing 'To the Last Man' with a couple of friends, and I encountered a situation that had me doubting my understanding of what DFF DRMs to apply when firing an AFV at another AFV. Here's the situation: It's the German Player MPh. A PzIVJ moves out from behind a building into the LOS of a stopped SU-85 which has to change CA in order to fire at the PzIVJ. 3 MP have been expended in the SU-85's LOS. The SU-85 wishes to fire. I think the first thing that might have to happen is the SU-85 must make a motion attempt to change VCA. Is this true? Or can it change VCA w/o a motion attempt? Regardless of that answer, let's continue with the assumption that the SU-85 makes the motion attempt anyway in order to be a harder target. Let's assume it's successful. Now, what's the DRM if the SU-85 is BU and must turn its VCA one hexspine? I think that it's case C4 (lower dr X2) for Motion/Non-Stopped Firer, but that says to add case C/C1/C2 which seems to either not apply (since the SU-85 is not BFF) or be +6 (for case B(+2) plus case C(+3 for NT) plus case C1(3MP in LOS of target). If cases C/C1/C2 don't apply, does case C4 apply anyway? It seems it must (C5.35 & D2.42). What about case J1 (DFF vs Moving Vehicle <= 3 MP in Firer's LOS)? It seems excessive to add it to case C/C1/C2, but reasonable to combine with case C4 alone. It just seems fishy to be ignoring the part where case C4 says to add case C/C1/C2 and instead use case J/J1/J2. Why didn't they include that? Ack! My strongest inclination was to apply case A (+3) for the CA change, apply case J1 (+3), since that acknowledges the Moving status of the PzIVJ, apply case C4 (lower dr X2) without adding case C1, since the firer was in Motion but not BFF (supported also by case A stating NA to BFF), and obviously case I (+1) for buttoned up. That gives a total of +7 and doubling the lower dr. Was I wrong or right? I could not find one example in the ASLRB of this type. It's loaded with examples of a Gun doing DFF against a Moving Vehicle. The fact that they can change CA without having to do Motion attempts (since they can't) is what makes me doubt that the SU-85 *HAD* to roll for Motion in order to change VCA. Is that logic bogus? Assuming I'm correct, just to double check, would subsequent shots that didn't require CA change not have to apply case A? Finally, I'd like to ask that you CC me with the answer, as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Instead, I download the discussions from the ftp sites. I know this makes me not very participatory and I apologize; it's just that the level of traffic on the list overloads our poor gateway front end (QuickMail). Thanks for your help! Mark ----- From: Dave_Wetzel@ccmgw.mis.stratus.com Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 14:36:11 EST Subject: Re: KGP CG report [Sorry about the last post... user brain-damage] I wouldn't give up on the CG. It seems to me that the Germans get the upper hand early in the CG. But look at the base CPP chart. It's not long before the Americans can pour men and material into the battle. My guess is that the general flow of the CG should be: the german takes what he can early and then tries to hold on to as much as possible in the face of superior American reinforcements. -dlw ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: OBA IR Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 12:54:42 MST >If the Battery Access cards drawn for IR rounds are reshuffled into the pack, >does that mean that an OBA module used exclusively for IR in a campaign game >will alway be retained for the next day/date? If the red cards don't count >as "drawn", then the black ones shouldn't either. Sounds like a good way >to get the most value for your CPP. Well, you've used a module when you place an FFE, and I'd guess that an IR is an FFE just like Smoke would be. Cards don't really matter, as you could draw black and move SR around all day and still keep your OBA for tomorrow. Less value than the above scam but not without its amusement value. Besides, maybe I'm misremembering, but don't all of the OBA RG in KGP have a note saying "May fire HE and Smoke (only)?" I interpret that footnote to mean no IR for these modules. Maybe the 60mm MTR OBA can fire IR? rk ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 14:12:53 -0500 From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow) Subject: OBA IR If the Battery Access cards drawn for IR rounds are reshuffled into the pack, does that mean that an OBA module used exclusively for IR in a campaign game will alway be retained for the next day/date? If the red cards don't count as "drawn", then the black ones shouldn't either. Sounds like a good way to get the most value for your CPP. Marty ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 16:11:29 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: Pz II vs Matilda Johan>> > The other day I looked at the never played scenario A40 Ad Hoc at Beaurains. > It features the British (with help from some French units) counteratack at > Arras in May 1940. > Doug>> RAMMING SPEED!!!! B^) B^) B^) Seriously, though, it probably isn't much use. The IFE might help keep the Matildas BU. Or you could just abandon them and go for CC with the crew. If nothing else, place it somewhere where it will get in the way. One thing comes to mind: I can't remember the rules on Deliberate Immobilization, but for a rear shot you get a +1 on the TK; does that make a difference? A CH could be effective also. Well here are two others things those PzIIa's can do to annoy the Matildas: Drive INTO their hexes and roll for sD6 which will add +3 to any fire out of those hexes. This may allow infantry to close and CC the Matildas. Or use the sD6 in a hex that they must move through next turn. They only have 6 or 9 MPs so adding one to the cost could be worth it. Park the PzIIs in hexes (especially Roads) the they want to move through. Again this will slow them down. Of course neither of these options gives the PzII a high life expectancy. Their best use is as IFE threat (or overrun vrs CE matilda, 12+2) to keep them buttoned up as Doug pointed out. Adrian ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Re: Pz II vs Matilda: ramming Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 14:24:00 MST Adrian sez: >Well here are two others things those PzIIa's can do to annoy the Matildas: > Drive INTO their hexes and roll for sD6 which will add +3 to > any fire out of those hexes. This may allow infantry to close > >Their best use is as IFE threat (or overrun vrs CE matilda, 12+2) to keep them >buttoned up as Doug pointed out. Caution!! It is not legal to enter an enemy vehicle's hex unless you could damage it with a 5 TK DR (D.something-early-in-the- chapter-in-the-section-on-movement). rk ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 16:43:23 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: Pz II vs Matilda: ramming Adrian sez: >Well here are two others things those PzIIa's can do to annoy the Matildas: > Drive INTO their hexes and roll for sD6 which will add +3 to > any fire out of those hexes. This may allow infantry to close > >Their best use is as IFE threat (or overrun vrs CE matilda, 12+2) to keep them >buttoned up as Doug pointed out. Caution!! It is not legal to enter an enemy vehicle's hex unless you could damage it with a 5 TK DR (D.something-early-in-the- chapter-in-the-section-on-movement). rk My D2.6 says: A vehicle cannot voluntarily stop or end its MPh in Motion in an enemy vehicles hex ..... Nothing about entering, popping smoke and leaving. Unless there is erratta I don't have at work ..... Adrian ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 16:58:00 +0000 From: "mark (m.a.) turnbull" Subject: Looking for PBEM Game Looking for my first PBEM opponent. I have just joined the ladder so we can play for ladder points if you wish. I own all the ASL stuff, so I will play any scenario. I prefer to use the IIFT, but won't whine if we don't. Any takers? Mark Turnbull ----- Subject: PLACING DCS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 15:04:00 -0640 Howdy, PK>A leader and an elite squad with a DC enters a smokefilled building hex >using 4 MF, then spend another 2 MF to place the DC in an ADJACENT >building hex. The so attacked units defensive first fires at the leader >and the squad and the result is that the leader is pinned. >Is the DC placed or not (squad without leader has only 4 MF, pinned >units can't place DC)? Via A7.831 "A moving leader who becomes pinned ... does cancel the two MF (if not already used; see 4.12) and/or portage bonus" If the squad & leader have spent 1-5 MF, then clearly the pinning of the leader means that the squad doesn't have sufficient MF to place the DC. If the leader pins on the 6th MF, has the squad spent the 6th MF simultaneously (and therefore placed the DC)? I would think so, because if the squad and leader were moving, the squad would end up 6 hexes from where it started. BTW, if this works, I will have fixed my e-mail problem. I promised a couple files to two people, but I haven't sent them yet because of a serious glitch. I will try to get them out in a day or so. Sorry for the delay. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ foo ----- Subject: STORIES OF THE S. PACI 1 From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 15:04:00 -0640 Howdy, Take Two--After Action Report A few people have mentioned some interest in Pacific scenarios and how to handle the Japanese. Four of us here in Philly (Walter Harrar, Bob Hewett, Vince Lewonski, and myself) played a game of "Take Two," and so I would like to offer what observations I can make on our game in hopes that it proves useful to others. It was definitely not expert play; we spent nearly as much time scratching our heads over the cave rules as we did playing. We split into two teams, with the Japanese split into beach & lowland defenders and hill & cave defenders, while the Americans split into a landing force and a causeway force. I was given the landing force, I think because I was the one who had most recently read the LC rules :-) Japanese Defense The Japanese put a strong force at the end of the causeway with the two trenches in 2007 & 2021. Foxholes full of defenders also set up in the palm trees in 1123-25 & 1137. A pillbox visible on the hilltop in 1086 (CA 1099-1100) would play only a limited role in the early game because the two level jungle on the hill blocked most of its LOS's to the beach. These were the visible defenses of the Japanese. In addition the Japanese had hidden fortifications: another pillbox in 1073 (CA 1076-1085), and caves in 1073 (CA 1085), 1073 (CA 1072), 1099 (CA 1111), and 1086 (CA 1099). Because the Japanese had no concealment counters and the Americans set up on board, many of the Japanese on the lower part of the island started out unconcealed. No Japanese were visible on the hill, and indeed they were all underground. One error in the Japanese setup was that they did not take advantage of G1.631 which would have allowed them 10%FRU of their force HIP in addition to any other HIP. Another thing to note about the defense is that while it is quite formidable on the front side of the hill, the backside is undefended and the double crests on Hill 121 create blind hexes around its base, allowing unimpeded access to the back. American Attack The causeway force's initial plan called for sending a half squad across to draw fire, but the defender's strong position on the other end changed this, and this force contented itself with providing supporting fire with the .50 caliber's and rifles for the first few turns. Most of the landing force's LCs are armored in their front facing only. I had feared heavy fire from shore might stun the crews, which can cause the ships to spin and expose their unarmored sides. If the Japanese had deployed strongly in the beach area (1122-23, 1134-35), I would seriously consider trying the landing either at the tip of the causeway (2007, 2021) or further west on the north edge of the island. The main advantage of the beach is that 1134 is adjacent to deep ocean, which means that the LCs can land without fear of running aground. For Infantry, running aground is not such a problem, but the tanks are not water- proofed, and so they can swamp. Sailing around to the north of the island also exposes the flanks of the LCs to fire from the hill, presumably where the MGs are. One final note about the LCs: by SSR the LCVPs are LCVs instead, which are unarmed and unarmored versions. For this reason and because the tanks need Infantry protection, the LCVs were the last boats in the line. The way the boats enter and the narrow beach area mean that the attacker has to land boats in several waves, one right after the other. Once a wave lands, the obvious way to get the boats off the beach is to spend one MP start (reverse), one to stop, and two to turn. This leaves the boat in the following LCs landing hex, causing overstacking for the following wave. The landed LCs should instead spend one to start then two to back up one hex, which clears the landing hex. By weaving ungroundings with landings, it should be possible to avoid any overstacking expenditures. The Americans got ashore with very little trouble. The prime reason for this was that NOBA had landed in hex 1124. The defenders in the foxholes were stuck: if they left their foxholes they would have been blasted, but even in the foxholes they were being whittled away even while getting an extra hindrance for the OBA concentration. As effective as the NOBA was, the air cover was that ineffective, passing only one sighting TC out of six and returning home with all bombs still on. The causeway force in the meanwhile was reducing the defenders on the other end, but a half squad sent out onto the causeway was quickly eradicated by fire from the hilltop pillbox. The Americans left the NOBA in place for several turns while they slid along the north edge of hill 121. Underneath the double crests the Marines moved to the back of the hill and up. I would recommend to a Japanese defender that some z Continued in the next message... --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ foo ----- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 15:09:10 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Ultimate Game Room Bored, so I'll muse about what my Ultimate Game Room would have. I often think on this subject as I stand (not sit) in my current basement room, sans heat, chair, or much illumination. Much incentive to make quick decisions when you're freezing your patootey off. But I digress... The Ultimate Game Room would have: * Space, and lots of it. Say, enough tabletop area to leave five pbem 3-board scenarios out. The tables themselves would be high enough for a bar stool, which is the best seating apparatus for ASL, but would also afford plenty of leg room to protect the knees of the long-legged among us. For FTF play, two good firm chairs (with rollers, please) around a lower table so both of you can check out the board together. * Good overhead lighting, but not so bright that my blue Germans turn into green Germans. A window or two for reflective contemplation, preferably with a view of the Washtenaw River as it meanders through the Michigan countryside. * No phone. TV and stereo system optional. Perhaps some classical guitar to aid the little grey cells. Sorry, the Rush CD's go in another room. * A solid lock on the door. * Hardwood floor for proper randomization of dice rolling, but a nice 71 degrees F, please. No nasty ventilation breezes. * Well-stocked refrigerator. Beer & pretzels for certain FTF scenarios. Sink for the cold water needed for the Nestea Iced Tea With Lemon & Sugar, known worldwide as one of the best drinks for ASL. Bagels and cream cheese are mandatory, as is the Entenmann's Crumb Cake. Columbian coffee brewing too. * Whoops, almost forgot the Macintosh with high speed modem for email play. Internet and GEnie access, of course. * Massive counter storage filing system in a hardwood cabinet. * Space-age dust removal system for keeping the place clean without the specter of the dreaded vacuum cleaner. Anything I've missed? Tom ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 15:16:40 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: firing at crews A simple one (yeah right - they all are ) Can you shoot at the manning crew of a gun separate from the gun so as to not have to apply the small target modifier? Ie can you fire at a crew manning a 57l (us) at gun with ordnance and not apply the gun size modifier or must the size mod be used? what about if a squad is manning the gun? In both cases, the inf seems to be safer when manning the gun then if they were alone in the hex (especially in a building!). An interesting problem esp in KGP Randy ----- Date: 5 Jan 1994 14:33:56 -0800 From: "Mark Bennett" Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM RE>>DFF TH DRM Rodney Kinney writes: > If you do make a successful Motion attempt, you may change >your CA freely, so Case A is NA. Case C4 includes Case C/C1/C2, which >includes Case B. Just as you have to add the penalty for "Firing in >AFPh without changing hexes" (Case B) even when you do change hexes, >you must add Cases B/C/C1/C2 whenever you're in motion, even if you're >not technically using BFF. Your total DRM are +5 (Case C for NT) +1 >(BU) +2 (Moving Target) +1 (<=3 MP) = +9 and 2x lower dr. You may >think that's excessive, but have you ever tried to hit a moving target >from a moving vehicle without a turret? In this case, Intensive Fire >doesn't help because you can't gain acquisition and you're still in >motion. Thanks! Excellent analysis and catching of my faulty logic vis-a-vis case A (i.e. using case C makes case A NA, not the other way around). One last question though, is the +1 (<=3 MP) because of case C1 or case J1? This could be important in case of a Gun Duel. It seems you could make a case either way. Or maybe I'm missing something obvious. Also, thanks to you and Brent for pointing out that the Motion Attempt was not required (although I thought the Q&A I read said the Mechanical Reliability DR for read MP numbers was for *motion attempts* to change VCA). Anyway, that's why I had us assume the SU-85 was using the motion attempt to become a harder target. Thanks again! Mark ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: ASL Mailing List Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 16:37:20 -0600 > I just heard that this is an ASL mailing list! Please put me on it > and tell me more about yourself. Welcome to the ASL discussion group. Bryan Youse, who handles subscriptions, is away for personal reasons. It may be about a week before he can add you to the list. Meanwhile, I'll mail you a copy of the FAQ, which you'll find interesting. It explains how to access the ASL archives, which contain many interesting files. For example, carlo.phys.uva.nl has copies of all recent mail to the list (via anonymous ftp) in "/pub/bas/asl/discuss/d-current". Jack O'Quin internet: joq@austin.ibm.com ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 16:47:55 -0600 Is this archive still active? I tried to access it via ftp, but it won't accept either "anonymous" or "ftp" as login names. Is there some new Sys V.4 incantation I need to learn? :-) Jack O'Quin ----- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 18:48:40 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Placing that DC Brent, > Now, the leader got pinned after 4MF and must therefore end its movement > (A7.8). Does the squad really "...move with that leader in a combined > stack..." if it alone spends MF to place the DC? The only way to allow > it in my eyes would be if placing a DC didn't count as movement, but to > me movement and expending MF/MP has always been synonymous. Correction, the leader didn't get pinned until after he spent his full 6 MF keep in mind that any Defensive fire shots happen after the MF expenditure. The only exception (that I can think of off hand) is placing a DC which the leader did not do. While the squad spends 2 MF to place the DC, the leader spends 2 MF to do nothing. Since the squads MF were spent in the Placement Hex, the leader and squad were stacked together the whole turn. Doug G. > Here "its" clearly refers to the MMC's MPh, not the leader's MPh. > Whether the leader's MPh ends immediately or not, the MMC was still > stacked with him for ITS entire MPh. (Hope this enough of a quote for you to know what I am referring to :) It has already been shown that the leader and squad must move as a stack in order for the squad to get the 2 MF bonus. They must begin and end their movement together. If a leader gets pinned, his turn is over and he cannot impart any (more) MF to squads accompanying him. In this case however, the leader did not get pinned until AFTER he spent his last two MF. --Daniel T. ----- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 18:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Re: KGP 19am Randy N., > can the crew of another unit (eg a Halftrack) be transfered to a more > desireable unit (eg mkV) to give the second unit a crew without the +1 > stun modifier? Presumably, if both vehicles are abandoned, then the crews can change vehicles and your +1 stun modifier will go to the ht instead. > Can a leader be reassigned from a afv with a disabled MA to one with a > functioning MA? Again, the leader must stay with the crew of the vehicle he is in. If the crews change vehicles, the leader will be in the new vehicle. I must say that the above makes for a lot of Chinese fire drills! --Daniel T. ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 15:48:29 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: No Quarter Hi, all. Here's a question that I have had answered in different ways by different opponents: When one side invokes No Quarter, do the effects apply to both sides? EX: If I refuse the surrender of my opponents broken unit, does that mean that from that point on my units will use Low Crawl rather than surrender, or is it just for his units? Dade ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 00:17:00 BST Subject: GRAB BAG Chuck, going back to the pinned leader and fanatic squad with the DC. I believe the defender made a mistake in not firing when the units in question first entered the building hex. By saying you are firing on the first or second movement point, you may have robbed the unit of the leader bonus given one of the interpretations on this board. I have to agree that when the DC was placed for 2 MF, then the leader bonus movement was expended and you can't take it back from the squad which used them to place the DC. I have a hard time with your view that the squad would get to expend other movement points in the leader was pinned on the first to fourth movement points of a Movement Phase. You're closer to the source for real "ASL" info, though. Raymond 'zadra' Woloszyn HQ AK ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 21:28:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: No Quarter In message Wed, 5 Jan 1994 15:48:29 -0800, dadec@wv.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) writes: > When one side invokes No Quarter, do the effects apply to both sides? > EX: If I refuse the surrender of my opponents broken unit, does that mean > that from that point on my units will use Low Crawl rather than > surrender, or is it just for his units? No Quarter is side dependent. So, No Quarter can exist for one side and not the other. ----- From: rudel@aol.com Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 21:44:45 EST Subject: Bocage & measuring LOS This one has been boggling my mind for years: >From where, for a squad with Wall Advantage behind a bocage hexside, does one measure LOS? The centre dot? A vertice of that hexside? Either vertice? And where is LOS measured to (as a target) for such a squad (the same, I suppose). Rule book aside, when one looks at the mapboard "logically", it often seems you can see virtually no where at all. But maybe that's just bocage. Regards, Rudel ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 02:19:00 BST Subject: No Quarter Dade, The ASLRB does not specifically state that No Quarter invoked by one side affects the other, so I would think that it applies to each side individually. If for no other reason, I would think that it only applies to one side to prevent a tremendous sleaze tactic of invoking it to save your own units from surrendering during the Rout Phase. I could be mistaken, but I have always played it this way. Warren ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Ladder game wanted Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 19:36:39 PST I'm in search of a ladder game; I'd like to try out a scenario with a little armor for a change. Blocking Action at Lipki looks good, but I'm open to suggestions. If you care, I'm currently 1-1 on the ladder, and (though I haven't seen the updated rating; just won my game a couple days ago) should be slightly above 1000. I've also never driven a tank against a real opponent before. Please email if you're interested. Thanks, -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 19:49:20 -0800 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: ASL vs MBT boards No, they are not the same. .szy ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 09:54:16 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) Jack O'Quin writes: > Is this archive still active? I tried to access it via ftp, but it > won't accept either "anonymous" or "ftp" as login names. That archive is at ftp.lysator.liu.se:/pub/asl For the nameserver deprived, that's 130.236.254.153 Bas. ----- From: "Rusty Shields" Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 10:42:02 EST Subject: Re: Ultimate Game Room > > The Ultimate Game Room would have: > lots of stuff deleted... > > > Anything I've missed? > > Tom > You forgot the most important part... A wife who would let you have a gameroom like this. :-) You can buy the rest of it, but not the cooperative wife. Rusty Shields d4f@cu.nih.gov ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 09:06:33 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Re: lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) > > > Is this archive still active? I tried to access it via ftp, but it > > > won't accept either "anonymous" or "ftp" as login names. > > > > That archive is at > > > > ftp.lysator.liu.se:/pub/asl > > > > For the nameserver deprived, that's 130.236.254.153 > > Thanks, Bas. I was just checking the correctness of the info in the > FAQ, which still lists the other address. > > Can you correct the FAQ yourself, or should someone else be notified? > I copied Don Hancock on this note since his name is listed in the FAQ > introduction. The FAQ has been updated to reflect the archive being at ftp.lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.153). Don Hancock ----- From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) Subject: Re: Ultimate Game Room Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 17:24:09 +0100 (MET) > > You forgot the most important part... A wife who would let you have > a gameroom like this. :-) > > You can buy the rest of it, but not the cooperative wife. > > > Rusty Shields > d4f@cu.nih.gov > I guess it's all the same as buying the modules: get them first, get the wife then. Or use A.2. I'm afraid Tom forgot something else: some device to irresistibly attract children and pets to something OTHER than the nice little carboard pieces on the nice maps. Say a TV for the pet and your favorite armchair for the children... now wait, it must be the opposite. I don't know. I don't have children anyway. Nor a pet. Nor a Game Room - you could fit my whole appartment into a room the size of what Tom is dreaming about... -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 09:23:34 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Area Fire Hi, again. Suppose a manned mortar has LOS to an enemy unit at level-0 in a building. Further, suppose that the LOS is hindered by grain or brush. Can the mortar fire at the level-1 location of the enemy hex to avoid the hindrance? Area fire affects ALL locations in a hex, but I have trouble with this one. I'm afraid I don't fully understand C3.33. Dade ----- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 11:42:40 EST From: rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu Subject: Re: Ultimate Game Room > The Ultimate Game Room would have: Enough floor space to set up all the Europa maps and some way to move counters in the middle of Europe. Rod Holmes | The boredom eats me like cancer rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu | down here on the farm. - GNR & UK Subs PS - My turns in my PBEM games should be done soon; damn work and finals. ----- From: peschko@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Edward Peschko) Subject: heroes and RB.. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:08:03 CST > Shouldn't the heroes be removed at the end of each day as per rule O11.67112? > If so, it is not so likely that there can be 6 heroes or more present > in a single day. > It is pretty likely when the German is taking his own sweet time and there are over 75 german squads on the board each turn! Ed > ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 11:12:41 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: KGP megaCG Hello all: Has anyone seriously considered a variant for KGPI&II wherein the CGs are linked and played simultaneously. It should require alot of rework for the reinforcement pools/mechanics and German OBA rules (I think that the 120mm MTR and 150 SPA pieces in CGIII represent the OBA modules for CGI & II). However, I think this would make for a tremendous team game. Well, what say you, gentlepersons? Ciao, Brent ----- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 94 13:26:19 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Rout logic Please help us check our rout logic. I don't know why this always seems to elude me when I need it most. A DM unit has to rout toward the nearest building/woods within 6 MF* Now. Check me on this. Given that there's a perfectly fine building within 6 MF that meets all of the other rout criteria**, you can choose to either a) Low crawl 1 hex toward that building and stop with no interdiction allowed, or b) Use a "6-MF rout" toward that building, using as many of your 6 MF as you can, but risking interdiction in hexes that qualify*** But when you rout (using either low crawl or 6 MF rout), you don't have to take the path that costs the least MF. You can choose a path that costs more MF, as long as you're still routing toward that building, even if the extra MF expenditure would result in your not making it to the building with 6 MF. And the reason for doing so is so that you could tromp through some non-Open Ground terrain and avoid interdiction. Yes? Do I get a cookie? Tom * Disregarding hexes of the bldg you're already in, and bldg/woods that are the same distance from a known enemy unit that the DM unit is, and not moving closer to a known enemy unit, blah blah blah, probably 5 or 6 other provisos too. And more stuff about leaving enemy-occupied Locations. All of which isn't germane to the question :-) ** Actually, the question applies to any rout, since you're free to rout anywhere that's consistent with all of the other stuff if there's no such acceptable bldg/woods within 6 MF. So let's just say that we're routing and not breaking any rules, OK? *** Insert voluminous interdiction situations and examples here, such as interdiction being NA for Long Range fire, non-OG hexes, any +1 DRM, etc etc etc. ----- Date: 6 Jan 1994 15:57:19 -0800 From: "Mark Bennett" Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM RE>>DFF TH DRM Petri Juhani Piira writes: > The firer can change his TCA/VCA _without_ a motion attempt, so > you would get (if I read it correctly): > +3 for NT CA change > +2 for moving target > +1 for only 3 MP in LOS > _but_ > you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then > on the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German - ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using Armored Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway (D3.54). Still, something to keep in mind if the situation arises... Thanks! Mark ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 16:52:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Ulen Neal E Subject: ASL scenarios from The General. Greetings! I am looking to acquire the scenarios that have been published in The General: scenarios A-S (revised from SL) and scenarios G1-G16 and possibly T1-T12. Can these scenarios be obtained in any way ***without*** buying all the the back issues of The General? And/or is AH (or have they) published these scenarios so they can be purchased separately? Thanks for any help rendered! BCNU! ***************************************************************************** * Neal E. Ulen (nealu@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu) * * * * Entropy is God * * You have no voice * and * * To be heard my son, * Carnot was his * * No one can hear when you're * Prophet * * Screaming in Digital -Queensryche * * ***************************************************************************** ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 20:35:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Petri Juhani Piira writes: > The firer can change his TCA/VCA _without_ a motion attempt, so > you would get (if I read it correctly): > > +3 for NT CA change > +2 for moving target > +1 for only 3 MP in LOS > > _but_ > > you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then > on the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. This is wrong per D3.51. The Case A would still apply to the main armament. > > > A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German - > ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using Armored > Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway (D3.54). Still, > something to keep in mind if the situation arises... > > Thanks! > > Mark > ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 01:28:00 BST Subject: assault engineers and Crews LANCELEU@delphi.com, You asked whether a 447 Italian Assault Engineer that ELR'd to a 346 was still considered to be an Assault Engineer. Yes, it is and therefore its smoke exponent is 2 greater than that printed on the 346's counter and it still gets a +1 CCV Modifier. However, because this unit is now 1st Line it is no longer considered Elite for HoB purposes and must apply the non-qualified use penalties when using FT and DC. Randy, You were wondering whether a mkV Crew with a +1 stun could be switched with a Crew from a halftrack that was not so encumbered. The last couple of sentences in D5.34 detail this, basically saying that when a stunned Crew Abandons an AFV the +1 stun counter remains on it. So, you Abandon both vehicles and the "good" Crew from the halftrack can then jump into the Panther. Similarly, D3.43 indicates that the same thing can be done to "reassign" an Armor Leader from a vehicle with a Disabled MA to a vehicle that has a functioning MA. Lastly, the first four levels of KGP Mist (V. Light to Heavy) are LV Hinderances and, as per E3.1, do not negate Interdiction, FFMO, or Residual FP. So it appears that those Green troops took some SS squads as prisoners fair and square. Way to go! Whammer ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 21:14:05 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: For Bob Strzelinski ~r >From strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Wed Jan 5 16:28:03 1994 Return-Path: ----- Subject: My favorite anomalies... Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 16:33:30 -0500 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov I posted something similar to this on rec.games.board a while back, but since that group seems to have been taken over by the role-playing crowd, I didn't get much response. So in the interests of starting some interesting discussions... Given that ASL, or at least the ASLRB, is not perfectly free from inconsistency, and that it is attempt to simulate WW2-era tactical warfare, I am interested in gathering a list of the most "annoying" anomalies in the game system. That is, those areas where the game system collides with reality, or our perception of reality. I am not interested here in areas where the rules system does not QUITE model feature of combat, but rather in area where the rules allow or encourage actual counter-intuitive behavior of our cardboard troops. For example, I don't care whether the rear armor of a Panther should be 1 higher or lower, I do care about the tactics used by the Panther in the recent article "Panzer Gegen Sherman" posted here recently (or was it in the digest). Not that it didn't give excellent advice for cardboard-Panther drivers, but rather that it described a Panther literally spinning in circles to confront its more numerous attackers, such behavior being limited (after MA ROF exhaustion) by the number of MGs on-board. Such tactics should be enabled/limited only by the tank commanders awareness of the actual tactical situation, not by the number of secondary weapons carried. "Sorry sir, can't rotate to face that flanking Sherman, the bow MG is disabled..." Get the idea? If not, I'll post an example of what I mean shortly. So post here, or send me directly, your pet peeves and especially any well thought out house rules (that you have actually used) which address the issue. I would like to compile a list of these anomalies along with the best fixes which come my way for the purpose of generating an article for the ASL Digest, something along the lines of "ASL: Game vs Simulation vs Reality". Who knows, maybe some of these fixes could eventually wind up in the ASLRB, 2nd Edition (the book that will supposedly never exist). And finally, let's leave the IIFT vs IFT stuff out of this discussion, not that it isn't relevant (it is and I use the IIFT), but just to get some of the other cockroaches in the system out into the light. -- Bob Strzelinski ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 21:16:07 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: More Bob Stuff >From strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Wed Jan 5 16:48:46 1994 Return-Path: ----- Subject: My favorite anomalies (here's one) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 16:54:13 -0500 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Again, this example appeared on rec.games.board without generating much response aside from one "Sounds like a great fix, think I'll use it" and one "You moron, the gods who designed ASL blah, blah, blah... FOG OF WAR, etc" response. Anyway, here it is again, for your gaming pleasure... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, here's one that really drived me CRAZY everytime I play a scenario with AFVs. Let me describe it in terms of a situation: You have two AFVs, a tank with 11 movement points and an armored car with 33 MPs, both moving across open ground. Each will be able to move the same distance in 1 turn, 11 hexes (tank pays 1 MP/open ground hex, AC pays 3/hex). This means simply that each vehicle is moving at the same speed over open ground. Obviously, the AC is capable of much higher speeds than a tank over roads, but cross-country they are about equal. Seems OK so far... Now, let's suppose there is an AT gun w/multiple rate-of-fire hiding behind some obstacles (woods, buildings, whatever) such that it has a line of sight to only one hex which both of these vehicles will cross. If it fires at the tank and retains its ROF, it will still have only one shot at it since the tank expended only 1 MP in the AT gun's LOS (see where I'm going here?). BUT, if the AT gun fires at the armored car, WHICH IS MOVING AT THE SAME SPEED AS THE TANK (thus presumably providing the same window of opportunity for the AT gun to fire at it), the AT gun can, if it retains its ROF, get off as many as THREE shots at the AC, since the AC expended 3 MPs in the hex. To add insult to injury, because the AC expends more MPs in the gun's LOS, it can be fired at with reduced penalties for "limited time in LOS" (I forget which To-Hit case # this is), at least if the gun manages/needs to get of a 3rd shot or if it holds fire until the 3rd MP is expended. Let me say that no rationalization about fog-of-war will satisfy me here, as this is a violation of the qualitative (at least) laws of physics, and (worse) of common sense. Come on AH, fix this flaw even if you have to rewrite chapters C and D. Of course, if there is some flaw in my analysis above, or if it has been corrected by some unknown-to-me errata pages, please let me know. Other- wise, my house rules are included below (feel free to critique them). Yes, I love this game (otherwise why go to all the trouble analyzing it)! --------------------------------------------- House Rules regarding vehicle movement in ASL --------------------------------------------- Rule: Define a Normalized Movement Point (henceforth NMP) for each vehicle equal to its MP rating divided by 10 and rounded to the nearest integer (minimum 1). That is, fractions .1-.5 round down, .6-.9 round up. Now, anywhere in the rules/charts where mention is made of a cost in MPs to perform an action which is NOT movement of some sort, replace the word MP with the word NMP (see examples below for clarification). However, if the MP ex- penditure is already expressed in terms of a fraction of the MP allowance, use the original rule (it has, in effect, already been normalized by the designers). Examples: (these are not direct quotes from the rule book, merely paraphrases, but I think they are accurate) Original: A turreted AFV may change its TCA by one vertex for each MP expended. Modified: A turreted AVF may change its TCA by one vertex for each NMP expended. Original: A gun with multiple ROF may fire a number of times at a target in a hex equal to the number of MPs expended by the target in that hex. Modified: A gun with multiple ROF may fire a number of times at a target in a hex equal to the number of NMPs expended by the target in that hex. Original: A persononnel carrier spends 1/2 its MPs to load/unload infantry in a hex. Modified: No change. The Apology: I call this a "Normalized" MP because it has been normalized to a time interval of 1/10 of an ASL turn, or about 15 seconds. That is, each NMP represents the passage of an equal interval of time (approximately, because of rounding - which is only done for ease of play) regardless of the MP rating of the vehicle. By using the NMP, the cost in simulation time for performing non-movement actions (turning a turret, opportunities/penalties for firing at a moving vehicle, etc) is no longer tied to the MP rating of the vehicle. The time cost for traversing different terrain types is unaffectd since standard MP expenditure rates are still in use in these cases. I think this rule imposes minimal changes in the system while reducing the effect of anomalies caused by the original MP expenditure rules. While experimenting with various normalizing time intervals and rounding methods, I settled on the above solution for three reasons: 1) a normalizing factor of 1/10 was easy to calculate (ease of play), 2) an interval of 1/10 game turned seemed about right as an ASL quantum of time for things like getting off an effective shot with an AT gun and rotating an average tank turret through approx. 60 degrees, etc., (realism) and 3) the "nearest integer" rounding grouped the AFVs into NMP categories which seemed appropriate, as probably 90% of the tanks you see in the published scenarios have MP ratings between 6 and 15, thus all falling into the same 1 NMP = 1 MP category (ease of play and realism). >From comment #3, you can see that this rule will have little effect in scenarios where all the vehicles are similar in type and MP rating and will have more effect in scenarios with very heterogeneous vehicle type mixes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 16:47:26 -1000 (HST) From: Patrick Jonke Subject: Riders I'm curious about how often players use AFV Riders in normal play, i.e., not considering scenarios like "Swatting at Tigers" where Riders are mandated. Do you use them only if you have a tank/infantry force entering from offboard? Inquiring minds want to know... Mahalo to all respondees! Patrick Jonke ----- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 22:20:44 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Mark B., > It's the German Player MPh. A PzIVJ moves out from behind a building > into the LOS of a stopped SU-85 which has to change CA in order to fire > at the PzIVJ. 3 MP have been expended in the SU-85's LOS. The SU-85 > wishes to fire. > > I think the first thing that might have to happen is the SU-85 must make > a motion attempt to change VCA. Is this true? No, this is not true. The SU-85 may make a VCA change without the motion attempt as long as it fires at the Pz. > Regardless of that answer, let's continue with the assumption that the > SU-85 makes the motion attempt anyway in order to be a harder target. > Let's assume it's successful. Now, what's the DRM if the SU-85 is BU and > must turn its VCA one hexspine? case A: +3 case C4: (b +2, c: +3, c1: +1) = +6 and double lower dr case I: +1 case J1: +3 This gives a total of +13! Look at it this way, if the SU-85 started in motion, wouldn't you come to the conclusion above? Thihing. --Daniel T. daniel_t@freenet.scri.fsu.edu Clearwater, FL. CC: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 23:27:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Regarding the NMP House rule Since I haven't played with much armor, I hadn't really noticed this. But it does make sense.... reminds me of GDW's old game _Snapshot_, for Traveller, in which elevators and other mechanical devices worked faster for characters with higher action point ratings. John BTW: my line noise is really horrible. I hope that this is readable.. B-) John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 22:03:32 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Normalized Movement Points Kind of a neat idea. Not hard to apply. One small problem with it as defined is that .5 rounds up not down, so your algorithm doesn't match your example for MP of 15. To make is simpler, you could take the first digit! So MP up to 19 is normal. MP 20 through 29 would use NMP of 2, etc. So what other house rules are out there? Don ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 00:22:35 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: two more crew questions Ok since consensus seems to be that crews can be freely exchanged between afvs (retaining stun markers), what happens to a crew which is under stun (in KGP) solely due to disabled MA? Does the stun stay with the crew which actually broke the MA or does it stay with the tank with the disabled MA? In otherwords, if the origional crew is replaced, does the new crew also become stunned (due to recall for disabled MA)? Also, does anyone know of a rule which specifically mentions firing at the crew of a gun separately from that gun (with ordnance)? Thanks to those that have answered/ attempted to answer my previous questions. (boy was it cool to take two ss sqds pow - warning to all KGP germans- you MAY want to mop up the St Hubert Church before advancing past it. A halfsqd with a .50 cal hip in the steeple can REALLY ruin your day ) ----- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 12:35:00 +0000 From: "mark (m.a.) turnbull" Subject: Re: KGP 19am > > can the crew of another unit (eg a Halftrack) be transfered to a more > > desireable unit (eg mkV) to give the second unit a crew without the +1 > > stun modifier? > >Presumably, if both vehicles are abandoned, then the crews can change >vehicles and your +1 stun modifier will go to the ht instead. > > > Can a leader be reassigned from a afv with a disabled MA to one with a > > functioning MA? > >Again, the leader must stay with the crew of the vehicle he is in. If the >crews change vehicles, the leader will be in the new vehicle. > >I must say that the above makes for a lot of Chinese fire drills! This is one thing I've always hated about ASL. I think there is far too much flexibility with vehicle crews. Is a HT crew really qualified too man a Panther tank? I also think that crew survival rolls should only be used for VP calculations, and should not result in a crew MMC In most actions I have read about, any survivors from a destroyed vehicle typically took off for rear areas. They didn't hang around to man other weapons or look for CC opportunities with enemy vehicles/personnel. Of course, there are exceptions - especially the Japanese - which could be handled differently. Mark Turnbull ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:17:59 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Mark Bennett writes: >> you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then on >> the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. > A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German > - ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using > Armored Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway > (D3.54). I think the latter point is irrelevant. There is a rule somewhere which mentions that you can fire a MG at a BU tank just to check the LOS. And even if there weren't, if you can't harm something it doesn't mean you can't shoot at it. Similarly, Infantry cannot fire small arms out of a Location with an enemy AFV, even if they can't harm it. Bas. ----- From: j.sylvester2@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 04:33:00 BST Subject: Not the same DC question I've got a DC question of another sort. One unit places a DC in an adjacent hex occupied by a 9-2, 2 447s, an HMG, and a 527. Good so far. Now add that both hexes are in an RB factory and seperated by a wall. Also add that the Soviet hex is accessable by rowhouse type bypass outside the bldg (for those with reference, these are hexes m15 and m16). My opponent maintains that this is legal and that I don't get DFF since the MF are spent on the other side of the wall. I say something stinks and it ain't my dinner. I'm looking at A23.3 which has somthing about the MF cost being the same as that to place the DC without bypass, but he says that that line is just to count the MF cost and does not prohibit the action. I then look at the last line which says you need LOS to the adj hex. Isn't this kinda definitive? Doesn't matter now, it was at the end of getting clobbered for 4 turns and I couldn't muster the energy to argue for the life of my 92 (Rest in Hell). For that matter, could a unit place small (infantry) smoke from the adj hex even though there's no LOS? Trying to save face by at least being right, JOE ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:42:51 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Riders Patrick Jonke writes: > I'm curious about how often players use AFV Riders in normal play, > i.e., not considering scenarios like "Swatting at Tigers" where > Riders are mandated. I can't remember a single occasion where I loaded Riders onto an AFV onboard. They enter from offboard sometimes, but I try to unload them before getting into the enemy's LOS and range. This is mostly because of the Bailing Out NMC (and associated SW problems), which makes the situation more dangerous than for walking Infantry. Bas. ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:51:03 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Not the same DC question j sylvester2 writes: > I've got a DC question of another sort. One unit places a DC in an > adjacent hex occupied by a 9-2, 2 447s, an HMG, and a 527. Good so > far. Now add that both hexes are in an RB factory and seperated by > a wall. Also add that the Soviet hex is accessable by rowhouse type > bypass outside the bldg (for those with reference, these are hexes > m15 and m16). I think you can only place a DC in an ADJACENT Location, and a Location can only be ADJACENT if you have a LOS to it. This also means that you can't place a DC in another Location if both the target Location and yours are in +3 Smoke. > For that matter, could a unit place small (infantry) smoke from the > adj hex even though there's no LOS? I'm not sure what the rules say (I really should have a copy at work :-)), but it seems alright to me. To place a DC you actually have to put it in the right place, while you can throw the smoke grenade (and it can even roll back if you throw it uphill). Bas. ----- From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) Subject: Re: Area Fire Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 12:56:26 +0100 (MET) > > Hi, again. > > Suppose a manned mortar has LOS to an enemy unit at level-0 in a building. > Further, suppose that the LOS is hindered by grain or brush. Can the mortar > fire at the level-1 location of the enemy hex to avoid the hindrance? Area > fire affects ALL locations in a hex, but I have trouble with this one. I'm > afraid I don't fully understand C3.33. > > Dade > > I think you hit units in each Location separately, that is, you can hit the ones in the upper levels (easier) and not those in the ground level (hindered). I can't quote a rule, but this is implied by the rule saying you hit units out of your LOS only if you also hit the hardest-to-hit unit in your LOS. Now, if the ground level units are HIP but you fire at the building, I don't know what happens. I'm pretty sure you can still fire and hit them, but do they get the Hindrance DRM ? -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- Subject: No Quarter From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 00:30:00 -0640 > When one side invokes No Quarter, do the effects apply to > both sides? EX: If I refuse the surrender of my opponents > broken unit, does that mean that from that point on my > units will use Low Crawl rather than surrender, or is it > just for his units? A20.3 "NO QUARTER: The captor may opt to reject a RtPh surrendering unit at the instant of its capture and eliminate it instead, but if he does so all other enemy units willl subsequently always use Low Craw or rist Interdiction to avoid surrendering--even if Disrupted." I read this as being on a per-side basis. The enemy units are enemy to the captor and not all units on board. As a bit of further evidence, there is an RB SSR which states, "RB14. No Quarter (A20.3) is in effect for both sides," as though No Quarter can be in effect for a single side only. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Area Fire From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 00:30:00 -0640 >Suppose a manned mortar has LOS to an enemy unit at level-0 >in a building. Further, suppose that the LOS is hindered >by grain or brush. Can the mortar fire at the level-1 >location of the enemy hex to avoid the hindrance? Area >fire affects ALL locations in a hex, but I have trouble >with this one. I'm afraid I don't fully understand C3.33. When you choose to use the Area Target Type, you don't fire at a Location, you fire at a hex. You roll the TH dice, then apply (possibly different) DRMs to each unit in the hex. If there were a foxhole in the hex with a unit inside and one outside, then you might hit the unit outside and not the one inside. Similarly, if there are hindrances applicable to the TH DR for the ground unit and not to the unit at the higher level, you might hit the higher unit and not the lower one. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) Subject: Re: Rout logic Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 13:08:05 +0100 (MET) > > > Please help us check our rout logic. I don't know why this always seems to > elude me when I need it most. > > A DM unit has to rout toward the nearest building/woods within 6 MF* > I can't find anything in the rules that says teh building/woods has to be within 6 MF. It's the closest one (in MF). > Now. Check me on this. Given that there's a perfectly fine building within 6 > MF that meets all of the other rout criteria**, you can choose to either a) > Low crawl 1 hex toward that building and stop with no interdiction allowed, > or b) Use a "6-MF rout" toward that building, using as many of your 6 MF as > you can, but risking interdiction in hexes that qualify*** > Yes, provided No Quarter/No No Quarter doesn't interfere. I think. > But when you rout (using either low crawl or 6 MF rout), you don't have to > take the path that costs the least MF. You can choose a path that costs more > MF, as long as you're still routing toward that building, even if the extra > MF expenditure would result in your not making it to the building with 6 MF. > And the reason for doing so is so that you could tromp through some non-Open > Ground terrain and avoid interdiction. > Correct, I'd say. But you have to end your RtPh closer than you started. And you can also change your destination hex during the phase, I think. That is, start moving with one hex as your destination, not take the shortest way, and find yourself with a *new* acceptable target hex. I don't know how this interacts with the "end closer than you started" rule. In most cases I can say whether a particular routing way seems legal, even though I'm not sure I do it right all the time. The important part is being able to talk your opponent into accepting that your routing is legal, and that the only thing he can do is walk right to your out-of-LOS units. This is usually easy, since *nobody* really understands the routing rules perfectly. :) :) > Yes? Do I get a cookie? > No. You get to send me one. Air mail, please. -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- Subject: firing at crews From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 00:30:00 -0640 > Can you shoot at the manning crew of a gun separate from the > gun so as to not have to apply the small target modifier? > Ie can you fire at a crew manning a 57l (us) at gun with > ordnance and not apply the gun size modifier or must the > size mod be used? what about if a squad is manning the > gun? An excellent question! I find the rules on several aspects of the relationship between Guns and their crews vague, including this one. I will give my interpretation of the rules, which may or may not be correct. First, you only select a particular unit as target when using the Vehicle Target Type. When you are using the Infantry Target Type, the target you choose is a Location, and when you are using the Area Target Type you specify a hex as target. All units in the chosen target are (potentially) affected. (C3.31, C3.32, C3.33). Since you can't choose to target the Gun and the crew separately the question then becomes, "if Ordnance fires on a Location containing a manned Gun using the Infantry Target Type, is the crew treated as a separate from its Gun when rolling on the IFT?" Here I think the answer is "no." From C11.4: "Once a hit is secured, ... the firer rolls on the IFT to determine the effects on the crew and Gun." In this sentence and subsequent ones the possibility of effects on the crew and on the Gun are treated as if they were synonymous: if there is a possibility of an effect on the Gun (i.e. a hit on the Gun), there is a possibility of an effect on the crew, and vice versa. It is never explicitly stated, however, and that's what I find vague. However, everything in section C11, in particular the second C11.2 example and the discussion in C11.4, indicates to me that in order to affect the crew, you have to get a hit against the Gun. So to sum up, you can't treat the crew as a target independent of its Gun, even if the crew is not a crew counter. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ foo ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 13:49:29 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Area Fire Jonathan Vanmechelen writes: > When you choose to use the Area Target Type, you don't fire at a > Location, you fire at a hex. You roll the TH dice, then apply > (possibly different) DRMs to each unit in the hex. If there were a > foxhole in the hex with a unit inside and one outside, then you > might hit the unit outside and not the one inside. Wrong example. The Foxhole TEM is added to the IFT DR, not the TH DR. If (e.g.) some units are concealed and others aren't you might hit the non-concealed units, but not the concealed ones due to the case K DRM. Bas. ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 06:35:45 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Stripping Concealment from Vehicles Can you fire at a concealed vehicle to strip it's concealment? Say you've got a Panther concealed in the woods and take a shot with small arms fire and obtain a PTC result or better. Is the panther now revealed? Would it make any difference if the AFV was CE or BU? Don ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 09:29:13 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: Not the same DC question Boy, did this one piss me off. I hate to see some one get double-snookered like this. Joe, I think you should consider a night assault against this guy, and maybe one in your RB game as well :-). >those with reference, these are hexes m15 and m16). My opponent maintains >that this is legal and that I don't get DFF since the MF are spent on the >other side of the wall. "I can place the DC because the hexes are ADJACENT because I can bypass advance, but you can't shoot at me because all the action takes place behind the wall." Right. Sorry, pal, the Star Trek Transporter variant counter wasn't in the 93b Annual. Maybe next time. >I say something stinks and it ain't my dinner. Love that line. >I then look at the last line >which says you need LOS to the adj hex. Isn't this kinda definitive? >... I would certainly say so. If the rat was going to try to claim some kind of fictitious "bypass LOS" he would at least have to give you the shot under A4.23 (bypass LOS is supposed to be claimed by the defender, anyway, not the moving unit). >Doesn't matter now, it was at the end of getting clobbered for 4 turns and I >couldn't muster the energy to argue for the life of my 92 (Rest in Hell). May your sniper ping every one of his leaders in your next match. Folks, if there was ever a guy in whose honor we should compile an RB dirty tricks file, here he is. Joe, if you weren't on Genie and paying for every individual electron, I'd email you some of the really brutal RB stuff that some of our more devious and dastardly correspondents posted to the list about a year back. Some of it is in the archives, I believe, in the misc area, others would need to dug out of the list archives. There was some mean and nasty, low-down dirty, ornery varmint stuff in there, as I remember. Worth checking out, if you can ftp. Bas said: >I think you can only place a DC in an ADJACENT Location, and a >Location can only be ADJACENT if you have a LOS to it. Right intent, though wrong conclusion. You can only be ADJACENT if you can advance into the location in the Advance Phase (A.8), and a "bypass" advance _is_ legal (B23.71). The LOS thing is specific to the DC rule. You can only place or throw a DC to an ADJACENT location in your LOS. Matt Brown ----- From: loss@husky.bloomu.edu Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 09:42 EST Subject: HASL module proposal rules Status: ON 32768 Mailed To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Could someone send me the info on submitting proposed HASL modules to the Hill? I managed to lose my copy of that message. I'm beginning to research the battle of Attu as a possibility, and I want to look at the commando raid on St. Nazaire, but I'm a bit hazy on the Hill's requirements. Thanks. Doug Loss Americans will accept your idea Data Network Coordinator much more readily if you tell them Bloomsburg University Benjamin Franklin said it first. loss@husky.bloomu.edu Voice (717) 389-4797 ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:55:50 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Not the same DC question Matthew E Brown writes: > Bas said: >> I think you can only place a DC in an ADJACENT Location, and a >> Location can only be ADJACENT if you have a LOS to it. > Right intent, though wrong conclusion. You can only be ADJACENT if > you can advance into the location in the Advance Phase (A.8), and a > "bypass" advance _is_ legal (B23.71). The LOS thing is specific to > the DC rule. You can only place or throw a DC to an ADJACENT > location in your LOS. As far as my memory is correct, it says nowhere that a Location should be ADJACENT for you to advance into it, but it _does_ say that you need to have a LOS to a Location for that Location to be ADJACENT. I'll check it tonight when I get back to my rules. Bas. ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:58:13 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Bob's anomalies Here's a little anomaly that's no big deal, but that has led to a house rule when I play with my regular opponents: When a vehicle does something that forces it to expend a fraction of its written MP, this fraction is rounded up. This sometimes makes a vehicle with 12 MP faster that a vehicle with 13 or 14 MP. Something like te following may happen (and quite often too when I play RB): A 12 MP AFV loads a passenger (3 MP), starts (1 MP), moves into two debris hexes (2 * 3 MP). The vehicle now has 2 MP left to move into an Open Ground hex and stop. Now, let the AFV be a little bit faster, with 13 MP. 1/4 of its written MP (FRU) is now 4MP: It loads the passenger (4 MP), starts (1 MP), moves into two debris hexes (2 * 4 MP). The AFV does now have to end its MPh where the 12 MP AFV had 2 MP left. The solution to this is quite simple; just don't round up, but keep the fractions. In my example the 13 MP AFV then would have 2 1/4 MP left after entering the second debris hex. ----- From: s.belcher@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 15:09:00 BST Subject: Re: Not the same DC question One response to this question stated that you couldn't place a DC if both your hex and the target hex were in +3 SMOKE because to be ADJACENT you must have LOS. However, if you'll look in the index, the definition of ADJACENT excludes SMOKE Hinderance DRM as a factor. So SMOKE has nothing to do with LOS for purposes of determining if you are ADJACENT. Another question: I'm playing "One Log Bridge" and the VC refer to control of a hex which contains a foot bridge. (A foot bridge is defined in the rules as a pontoon bridge.) The rules also state that to control a hex you must occupy the hex with a good order MMC at ground level. What is "ground level" for a hex with a gully / stream? Is this defined anywhere? I don't intend to make a big deal of this, just curious to know if others interpret it the way I do. The way I'd play this is that if you run a squad across the bridge, you control the hex (assuming no enemy units in that location). If you wade in the stream into the hex then I don't think that counts for control. What say you? Sam ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 17:28:09 +0100 Subject: Re: lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) My ASL archive site is at ftp.lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.153). Don't use the address in the subject line. The difference between my archive site and the other at carlo, is that mine doesn't contain the QA, I throw away some bogus messages on the discussion list and archive the rest, and I sometimes makes extracts of interesting topics from the discussion list. The reason for having two archive sites is that it's a good thing to have backups. Think about what would happen if we lost all this important information. :) /Mats Persson ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Date: Fri, 07 Jan 94 10:52:09 -0600 > Petri Juhani Piira writes: > > > The firer can change his TCA/VCA _without_ a motion attempt, so > > you would get (if I read it correctly): > > > +3 for NT CA change > > +2 for moving target > > +1 for only 3 MP in LOS > > > _but_ > > > you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then > > on the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. Mark Bennett replies: > A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German > - ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using > Armored Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway > (D3.54). Still, something to keep in mind if the situation > arises... Hmm. No rulebook at hand, but I'm nearly certain each vehiclular weapon must take the Case A TH DRM on its first shot after a CA change. So the MG (if there were one) would apply Case A as an IFT DRM, but the MA would still add +3 to its first TH roll. After that, Case A would no longer apply to that gun. So, if it used Intensive Fire or retained ROF, the +3 would no longer apply. Jack ----- From: D_Reagan@ccsmtp.ssc.gov Date: Fri, 07 Jan 94 11:01:03 cts Subject: Request to added to list Hi! I understand this is the home of the ASL mailing list. I would like to request to be added to the list if I may. I currently own all the SL components, and have decided to move up into the ASL world. I am curious as to exactly what I need to purchase to get started with the ASL system, and what all is avaliable for this system in the way of additional modules. Thanks! David Reagan Systems Analyst SSC Laboratory david_reagan@ccsmtp.ssc.gov ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 12:52:39 -0500 From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow) Subject: ASL Rules glitches Here's one to add to Bob's list: Drifting Smoke. The rules say that you put drifting smoke downwind of the (white) smoke counter during the AFPh. But remove the drifting smoke when you remove the original. (They also flip simultaneously). This clashes with a bit of physics. If the smoke is placed in Prep Fire, it apparently takes a bit of time to drift--no problem. So when the source vanishes, why does the drifting smoke instantly vanish too? Our HR is that the drifting smoke isn't removed until the AFPh. Marty ----- Date: 7 Jan 1994 10:30:30 -0800 From: "Mark Bennett" Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM RE>>DFF TH DRM Bas de Bakker writes: >> you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then on >> the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. > A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German > - ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using > Armored Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway > (D3.54). >I think the latter point is irrelevant. There is a rule somewhere >which mentions that you can fire a MG at a BU tank just to check the >LOS. And even if there weren't, if you can't harm something it >doesn't mean you can't shoot at it. Similarly, Infantry cannot fire >small arms out of a Location with an enemy AFV, even if they can't >harm it. Interesting point about the rule that you can fire a MG at a BU tank to check LOS. Does anyone know where that rule is? It seems that D3.54 is making a specific point by using "attempt." Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Ack. The TPBF rule was originally vague about invunerable AFV as no rule says Infantry cannot shoot at BU AFVs and eventually had to be cleared up by a Q&A; this rule doesn't seem as fuzzy. I do see the parallel though. It seems like it's another one of those "what's the intent?" situations. Do they want to stop you from spinning your AFV/Turret at threats/opportunities and shed extra DRM with ineffective fire, or are they just saying you can't kill an AFV with a non-MA vehicular MG? What do others think? Is this a candidate for Q&A? Mark ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 14:33:20 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: KGP megaCG > > Has anyone seriously considered a variant for KGPI&II wherein the CGs are > linked and played simultaneously. It should require alot of rework for the > reinforcement pools/mechanics and German OBA rules (I think that the 120mm > MTR and 150 SPA pieces in CGIII represent the OBA modules for CGI & II). > However, I think this would make for a tremendous team game. > > Well, what say you, gentlepersons? I thought this was the idea of KGP. I would be seriously disappointed if there wasn't any way to combine the two and fight the whole action out from beginning to end. Anyone from AH listening? ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 14:43:00 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: For Bob Strzelinski Brian, my pet peeve, which I may have discussed with you at the last ASL Winter Offensive (if you are the person I'm thinking of, I can't be sure) is that some countries get heroes much more easily than others through the Heat of Battle process. I agree that Italians are much more likely to surrender and Japanese or Russians to go berserk but I think heroism is an unquantifiable outgrowth of the human spirit, not dependent on nationality, troop quality, etc. I have played with the house rule (whenever I could get opponents to agree to it) that an ORIGINAL Heat of Battle DR of <=6 produces a hero, regardless of DRM's. This does tend to unbalance scenarios very slightly in favor of the despised nationalities, but not too much -- there can't be more than two or three MC's per squad in any scenario, with a 1/36 chance for an original 2, and a 15/36 of a <=6 subsequent DR to create a hero under my scheme, while the Japanese have a 1/36 subsequent DR to create a hero, for example. I think this has had an effect on two or three of the several dozen scenarios I have used it in. What do you think? ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 13:10:19 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: KGP CG OBA Question I have a question regarding the purchase of pre-registered hexes for an OBA module. Is it possible to spend CPP for pre-registered hexes (up to the maximum allowed number of 2) for an OBA module retained from an earlier CG scenario? This arises since I did not purchase any pre-registered hexes for an 80mm mortar OBA module in the 19am scenario, and drew red chits for my first two battery access draws. I would like to now purchase pre-registered hexes for the 19pm scenario for this artillery. Is this allowed? Or do pre-registered hexes have to be purchased at the time the OBA module is purchased (i.e. they must come together)? Thanks! Carl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before." --- President Gerald Ford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: mwondere Subject: Info on mailing list Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 22:29:12 +0100 (MET) Hello, I recently read in a newsgroup that if I wanted to get some information about ep pbm ASL I have to send you a mail. Can you tell me how I can get actively involved in pbm ASL and what other activities are going on that I don't know of (europe is a long way from the us if you have to wait for the news to reach you). Especially, what kind of electronic activities are going on and what is your role in all this. Ik hope that you can fill me in on some of the gaps I seem to be having. -- Mike van Wonderen mwondere@xs4all.hacktic.nl ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:35:33 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: re: KGP CG OBA pre-reg. If this functions like Red Barricades, it must be purchased simultaneously. However, to my mind this approximates the case of adding factors to pre-existing minefields. Comb the rules again, and if it doesn't specifically state that you can buy pre-registered hexes on a separate day from the OB module, I would say that you are out of luck. I don't understand just what this limitation on pre-registration purchase is supposed to represent. Ciao, Brent [Sorry, but I killed this message before replying to it.] ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:41:54 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Possibly Pointless Musings Just out of (extremely) idle curiousity, how many people on the ASL BB are from ex-Axis countries. It seems to me that wargaming, especially WWII-era, is primarily a hobby of citizens from the ex-Allied countries. If I recall correctly, the Japanese vehicle notes were researched primarily by a non-Japanese (I could be misremembering this and it is in fact the converse) [although the Italian notes were researched by an Italian or an American of Italian descent]. Just Wondering, Brent ----- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 20:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Re: Rout Logic Tom, > Given that there's a perfectly fine building within 6 MF that meets all > of the other rout criteria**, you can choose to either a) Low crawl 1 > hex toward that building and stop with no interdiction allowed, or b) > Use a "6-MF rout" toward that building, using as many of your 6 MF as > you can, but risking interdiction in hexes that qualify*** > > But when you rout (using either low crawl or 6 MF rout), you don't have > to take the path that costs the least MF. You can choose a path that > costs more MF, as long as you're still routing toward that building, > even if the extra MF expenditure would result in your not making it to > the building with 6 MF. And the reason for doing so is so that you > could tromp through some non-Open Ground terrain and avoid > interdiction. > > Yes? Do I get a cookie? No cookie for you Tom! A10.51, "... a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF) building or woods hex ... unless that rout is through a Blaze or unbridged Water Obstacle. A routing unit... is not forced to [enter a known minefield or FFE] merely to reach the closest woods/building hex." Now, if the only building/woods hex is 6 MF away and you do not successfully get to it during your rout, I would say that you did not "rout to" it like the rules require you to. The only way the unit could NOT end up in that woods/building hex is if it uses Low Crawl, or if there is a known minefield/FFE between the unit and its rout hex. --Daniel T. ----- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 20:30:50 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: NMP House Rule I wasn't going to respond to this one (I didn't think it worth my time), but after reading some of the other responses, I have to say something. The NMP House Rule stinks. I'm not saying that it isn't more realistic, but it doesn't seem worth it to go through the trouble unless I also introduce incremental movement. Despite the fact that many people like incremental FP, no one that I have talked to likes incremental movement. --Daniel T. ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 19:31:07 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: Heros On Fri, 7 Jan 1994, Stewart R King wrote: > Brian, my pet peeve, which I may have discussed with you at the last ASL > Winter Offensive (if you are the person I'm thinking of, I can't be sure) > is that some countries get heroes much more easily than others through the > Heat of Battle process. I agree that Italians are much more likely to > surrender and Japanese or Russians to go berserk but I think heroism is an > unquantifiable outgrowth of the human spirit, not dependent on > nationality, troop quality, etc. I have played with the house rule > (whenever I could get opponents to agree to it) that an ORIGINAL Heat of > Battle DR of <=6 produces a hero, regardless of DRM's. This does tend to > unbalance scenarios very slightly in favor of the despised nationalities, > but not too much -- there can't be more than two or three MC's per squad > in any scenario, with a 1/36 chance for an original 2, and a 15/36 of a > <=6 subsequent DR to create a hero under my scheme, while the Japanese > have a 1/36 subsequent DR to create a hero, for example. I think this has > had an effect on two or three of the several dozen scenarios I have used > it in. > > What do you think? > I think this is a good idea personally. It especially matters in things such as RB where each hero at day end = 1 BH sqd. With the germans getting (in my experience) about 4-5 times as many heros as the Russians, this significantly helps keep the german troops better in quality than the russian ones. Always bothered me too! As an additional oddity - why is it harder to hit a crew manning a gun in a building than if the crew was not manning a gun (assuming a small or vs size for the gun) in that same building? Doesn't seem logical or justifiable in any way I can think of. (note this same situation is true reguardless of terrain - an inf unit manning a small gun is harder to hit with ordnance than one not manning a gun in the same location would be.) Randy ----- From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 05:59:00 BST Subject: Random Selections Good to see JR back! The ability to Advance between locations make them Accessible, not ADJACENT. I think that if you can reach the nearest bldg/woods hex in the RtPh, then you >must< rout there that RtPh; or Low Crawl. The whirling Panther phenomenon works against opponents interested solely in BFF, who then bug out of LOS. It does not work against opponents who are willing to sacrifice a Sherman or two or three by hanging around in LOS at different points of the compass. By whirling, the Panther can present its frontal armor to the moving Sherman only by presenting its side/rear armor to someone else. The Panther does not avoid Case A TH modifiers by whirling; the more it whirls, the more the modifiers add up. I don't see any problem with ineffectual MG fire vs BU AFVs; I think it is simpler to permit it. Actually, the 1/4 of a vehicle's MP spent to load are not FRU; the fractions are left hanging. This as opposed to unloading, where the 1/4 is FRU. I >think< this is because in the first instance the vehicle's MP are defined in terms of the Infantry's MF (which will never need to be rounded). wWereas in the second instance, the Infantry's remaining MFs are being defined in terms of the vehicle's MP. Say what? The only other case I can think of off the top of my head where MP are FRU is in Overruns. Perhaps here it is an attempt to make Overruns slightly more costly, or to give the defender one more ROF shot prior to the Overrun. I don't know. I do know that there are several anomalies in the system WRT differing MPs. I also know that I will gladly live with all of them to avoid Normalized MPs. Seriously, this game is hard enough for me to play without looking for more ways to complicate it. The only House Rule I use is a simplifier: we ignore the 2+2 HE Equivalency Collateral Attack from an AP hit that doesn't affect the CE AFV; if you can't affect it with an original 4, you shouldn't be getting PTCs. Heresy perhaps, but it works for me. (Which is, after all, the bottom line.) It is my understanding that a foot bridge is at ground (i.e, stream) level, so that a unit on a foot bridge would Control the stream hex. With a normal bridge, one would have to be below the bridge to control the hx. But, normally, one is required to Control the bridge, not the hex. Pre-Reg hexes have to be bought with the OBA module; they cannot be acquire later. I think it was simply simpler to do it thus. WRT Heroes, I think that the British and the Finns create more Heroes than do the Germans and the Americans, who then create more than all the other nationalities. I also think American first line troops have a morale of 6, whereas Green Finns have a morale of 8. I've been thinking about this House Rule.... ....Perry +++++++ ----- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 20:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Mark, >> you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then >> on the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. > A good tactic! However, the poor SU-85 has no MG (and I'm the German - > ha!), plus, the PzIVJ is BU, has no riders, and is not using Armored > Assault, so the SU-85 couldn't *attempt* the shot anyway (D3.54). Still, > something to keep in mind if the situation arises... Sorry? D3.54 doesn't prohibit the shot. Assuming the SU-85 had a MG it could still fire at a BU tank that had no enemy units in the same hex. The shot wouldn't hurt the Pz of course, but it could still be made. --Daniel T. ----- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 08:17:16 -0500 (EST) From: James D Shetler Subject: Re: Possibly Pointless Musings On Fri, 7 Jan 1994, Brent Pollock wrote: > Just out of (extremely) idle curiousity, how many people on the ASL BB are > from ex-Axis countries. It seems to me that wargaming, especially > WWII-era, is primarily a hobby of citizens from the ex-Allied countries. > If I recall correctly, the Japanese vehicle notes were researched > primarily by a non-Japanese (I could be misremembering this and it is in fact > the converse) [although the Italian notes were researched by an Italian or > an American of Italian descent]. > > Just Wondering, > Brent Hmm. Tough question to answer. I'm not from an ex-Axis country, but my mother is. She is a native of Berlin, and her father was a member of a Volksturm and was killed in the battle for the city. Don't really know much about him, but I don't thing he was one of the holdouts in the Reichstag. My father was born near Pittsburgh, and served in the Army infantry in the Pacific. Some of his stops were Guadalcanal, Bouganville, New Guinea, Cebu, Samar, Luzon, and Leyte (He also served in Korea and Vietnam). So, as you all can see, the Second World War had quite an impact on even my life. Maybe that has something to do with my interest in ASL. So, maybe where you're from and your background has something to do with an interest in wargaming in general and ASL in particular. I've always enjoyed the system more as a historical simulation than a form of competition. Granted, I've enjoyed grinding the occasional opponent into the dust now and again, but usually I just like to see what happens in a given scenario. Oh well, just some thoughts. Don't know if this is an answer to your question. Still snowbound in Pittsburgh, Jim Shetler ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 16:07:00 BST Subject: Area Fire Dade asked if a MTR could fire at an unoccupied upper building location to avoid Grain/Brush Hinderance DRMs along its LOS to a unit in the ground level of the same building hex. In order to hit the ground level unit the Grain/Brush DRMs would have to be added to the TH roll. This is delineated in C3.4 which states that some Locations in a hex may be affected by an attack while others are not. In Dade's example, if the upper level also contained an enemy unit with no LOS Hinderances to it it would be possible for the MTR to hit that unit while missing the unit at ground level due to a Brush Hinderance. I think that the most common cause for confusion on this subject is the assumption that fire on the Area Target Type affects all Locations in the target hex. Rule C3.33 says that all units in the target hex can be hit, not that all units are hit. Again, this rule refers to C3.4 to determine which units are actually affected by a given TH roll. All of this supports and elaborates on Philippe Duchon's response. However, Philippe wondered what would happen if the unit at ground level were HIP. So, let's say that there is a HIP squad in LOS at the ground level of the building and there are no other units in this target hex. Because this hex is as good as any to place an Aquisition in, the MTR fires at it. To affect the HIP squad all Hinderance DRMs along the LOF to its Location would apply as well as the +2 for fire at a Concealed unit. If a hit is scored then an IFT effects roll might reveal the units, or worse. Since I've gone this far, I might as well complicate things to the extreme. Suppose there is a wall that blocks the MTR's LOS to the squad in the ground level of the building. Because, as per C3.33 the MTR can't hit the hardest-to-hit non-hidden enemy unit, since there is none, the squad (out of LOS) can't be affected. The MTR could place SMOKE in the hex, but again the squad would not be affected by WP. Assume now that in addition to the out of LOS squad on the ground level, there are squads on the 1st and 2nd building levels. Also, there is an Orchard that hinders the MTR's LOS to the 1st Level but not to the 2nd Level. If the MTR fires and hits the squad on the 2nd Level, but due to the Orchard, misses the squad on the 1st level, the ground level squad is unaffected. If it hits the squad on the 1st Level, which is the hardest to hit non-HIP unit, then the ground level squad will also be affected regardless of whether or not it is HIP. And now, the same thing, only different. This time the MTR is firing at a Woods Gully hex that contains an out-of-LOS unit IN the Gully and a HIP unit in Crest status (in LOS). The MTR fires (adding the case K DRM) and hits the HIP unit in Crest status. Because, as above, there was no non-HIP unit in the hex, the unit IN the Gully is unaffected. If the effects roll reveals the in-LOS HIP unit then the MTR can fire at it again, and this time a hit will affect the unit IN the Gully. Well, I've exhausted my ROF for now. Brian, I could ramble on some more. Ya think it would make for a "Understanding the ASLRB: Area Fire" article for the Digest? Steve Petersen ----- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 11:03:28 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: small arms vs. AFVs and counter sheet exchange If anyone's interested I came up with some optional rules allowing damage to the soft targets on armoured AFVs and they are in THE CANADIAN WARGAMERS JOURNAL, Issue 33 (Autumn), 1992 ("Tobruking the ASL AFVs"). It allows IFT attacks the possibility of picking off MGs and malfunctioning the MA by gunsight hits (anyone played PATTON'S BEST?) and Direct Fire "Sub-Critical Hits" can also cause Immobilization. This should alleviate the frustration of those who want to fire their MGs at AFVs to check LOS. Also included as part of the same article is an optional rule covering crew casualties following UK recovery. If anyone is interested in acquiring the MIDWAY/GUADALCANAL/PANZERBLITZ variant counters from the latest GENERAL (Vol. 28 #6) I would like to trade them for the MERCHANT OF VENUS/FIREPOWER counters from Vol. 26 #3. Ciao, Brent ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 18:53:00 BST Subject: Pat, The one time I used Riders was to enter units in a DYO game. I was too much of a cheapskate to buy proper transport for my infantry, which dismounted before coming into LOS of the enemy. However, it is my personal ASL career goal to get a Hero manning a tank's AAMG. Aloha. Randy, In KGP a German vehicle/Crew doesn't receive a stun for a Disabled MA. Rule KGP12 says the Crew of such a vehicle _can_ be stunned, not that it _is_ stunned. Don, A vehicle loses concealment if hit by a PTC or better on the IFT regardless of whether or not it is CE. See A12.2. Perry, >I don't see any problem with ineffectual MG fire vs BU AFVs; I think it >is simpler to permit it. True, but it is simpler still to avoid arguing about it by knowing that D3.5 practically encourages this type of fire. Also, your house rule certainly sounds like heresy to me. Are you telling me that if we were playing at your house and my M24 "Chaffee" (TK#= 15) secures a turret hit on your CE Panther (AF= 14) and then I roll a 4 on the TK DR that you won't roll to see whether or not your Panther Crew buttons up? Or to see whether or not you roll my SAN? Set off my Booby Traps? Miss the dice tower and scatter units every which way? Yes, this is definitely heresy. Steve Petersen ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: beginning PBEM player seeks game Date: Sat, 08 Jan 94 18:24:24 -0600 My (limited) previous experience has all been solo or FTF. I'd like to play for ladder points. I recently joined the ladder; my record is 0-1. I have most of the modules, annuals, etc. Since this is my first e-mail engagement, I should probably attempt something relatively small. Jean-Luc Bechennec's recent contribution _Panzers_Marsch!_ looks like an interesting possibility. Please e-mail if interested, Jack O'Quin internet: joq@austin.ibm.com ----- Subject: Re: Not the same DC ques From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 13:53:00 -0640 >Right intent, though wrong conclusion. You can only be >ADJACENT if you can advance into the location in the >Advance Phase (A.8), and a "bypass" advance _is_ legal >(B23.71). The LOS thing is specific to the DC rule. You can >only place or throw a DC to an ADJACENT location in your >LOS. Sorry, but Bas is correct. From the index: "ADJACENT (units are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one hex could conceivably advance into another during the APh _and_ a LOS exists between those two hexes, excluding SMOKE Hindrance DRM as a factor; B.10)" So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: RE: GROUND LEVEL From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 13:53:00 -0640 > I'm playing "One Log Bridge" and the VC refer to control of > a hex which contains a foot bridge. (A foot bridge is > defined in the rules as a pontoon bridge.) The rules also > state that to control a hex you must occupy the hex with a > good order MMC at ground level. What is "ground level" for > a hex with a gully / stream? Is this defined anywhere? As far as I know, the only hexes where 'ground level' are hexes with upper building levels, with subterranian locations, and ones with bridges. I don't think its defined anywhere, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Ground level is the level with the ground :-) In order to control the ground level for an _ordinary_ bridge, you would have to go under the bridge (I would think that a unit in crest controls a hex even if it never enters the Depression, but a unit can't enter crest status in a hex that contains a bridge (B20.9). Since the footbridge is IN the Depression, and you can't go under it (B6.41, B6.44), I see only one Location in the hex, that being on the bridge. I would think that would be the location you have to control. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Stripping Concealment fro From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 13:53:00 -0640 >Can you fire at a concealed vehicle to strip it's >concealment? Say you've got a Panther concealed in the >woods and take a shot with small arms fire and obtain a PTC >result or better. Is the panther now revealed? Would it >make any difference if the AFV was CE or BU? A12.2 ``CONCEALED 5/8" COUNTERS. ... A concealed vehicle in the LOS of a Good Order enemy Ground Unit (regardless of range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table, or by at least a "PTC" result ... on the IFT.'' I would read this as saying yes, you can. The rule doesn't say that being fully armored will change this, but you might argue that A7.307, which says small arms don't affect AFVs, would preclude a valid attack on the IFT. I can't decide whether this is correct or not. Clearly if the crew is unbuttoned and is affected by a PTC, the concealment is stripped. The deleted clauses in the quoted rule may affect your reading, so here is the full sentence: A12.2 ``CONCEALED 5/8" COUNTERS. ... A concealed vehicle in the LOS of a Good Order enemy Ground Unit (regardless of range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table, or by at least a "PTC" result (or its corresponding DR, on the * Vehicle Line or for OBA), or by an A-T Mine attack Immobilization result or better, on the IFT.'' A great sentence. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Re: Area Fire From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 13:52:00 -0640 [Question on effects of hindrances on lower level of building vs. upper level of building using the Area Target Type. I muddied the waters in my response by comparing to units in foxholes. Foxholes don't apply to the TH for the Area Target Type.] > Wait a minute. If you use the Area Target Type, TEMs do > not apply to the TH DR, but to the TK resolution. > Hindrances on the other hand, DO apply to the TH DR. > Futher, when you use the Area Target Type, you affect ALL > LOCATIONS in a hex. So, how do you determine the > hindrances that apply to the hex if part of the hex (the > 0-level) is hindered and part (the 1-level) is not? Right. I was trying to analogize the result, but the TEM of foxholes don't apply to the TH DR for the Area Target Type, and so the analogy is misleading. But the TEM does apply to the TH DR for Infantry Target Type, so you can use the analogy from that. In any event, here is what should happen: assume two Infantry units are in a building, one at level one and one at ground level. The hex is fired on using the Area Target Type by a unit at ground level. There is a hindrance at ground level between the firer and the target hex. The attacker rolls the TH dice. Assume the range is 12 hexes, so the base TH is 7. Assume there are no other mods except the hindrance. So, the Final TH for the unit on the first level is a 7 and the Final TH for the unit on the ground is a 6. If the TH DR >= 8, no one is hit. If the TH DR == 7, the unit on the first level is hit, but not the unit at ground level. If the TH DR <= 6, both units are hit. An IFT DR is made, and all the hit units are affected by that result on the IFT (modified by the appropriate (possibly different) IFT DRMs). Sorry for the misleading analogy. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 00:11:30 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM Mark, > It seems that D3.54 is making a specific point by using "attempt." Maybe > I'm reading too much into it. Ack. > What do others think? Is this a candidate for Q&A? D3.54 is very clear and direct. It says a vehicular-mounted MG may not attempt a *To Kill* attack unless it is the vehicle's MA. You can fire the MG at an enemy tank's hex using the IFT, you cannot make a TK attack vs the tank, whether it is BU or not. --Daniel T. ----- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 00:11:50 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Routing question John F., > check the consequences of F.1C on routing! F.1C changes nothing in A10.51 unless the scenario is a daytime, desert, non-Broken/Steppe Terrain one. If there is a building/woods hex within 6 MF of the routing units location, and said unit can get there, then the broken unit MUST rout to that hex. In the example sighted, there was a building/woods hex 6 MF away. The broken unit must go there or use Low Crawl. --Daniel T. ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: NMP House Rule Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 14:52:24 +0100 (MET) Daniel, > The NMP House Rule stinks. > > I'm not saying that it isn't more realistic, but it doesn't seem worth it to > go through the trouble unless I also introduce incremental movement. Despite > the fact that many people like incremental FP, no one that I have talked to > likes incremental movement. I reacted the same way, until I read the last point made: For all normal vehicles (That has 6-15 MP) the rules work exactly the same. Since there are no vehicles with less than 6 MP AFAIK, the only effect is to have vehicles with >15 MP "slow down", or be normalized. Considering that the idea is to still have all MP costs in integers, I don't think it will be cumbersome or unplayable. One point, though. Remember what the most common AFV MP allotments are? Yup, 13 and _16_ MP. Many of the Shermans I think, and the T-34's have 16 MP - which puts them into the 2 MP = 1 NMP category. Could be easier (and more convenient, if not that accurate) to have 0-19 MP => 1:1, 20-29 MP => 2:1 and so on. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: "Alec Habig" Subject: Re: Pz II vs Matilda Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 10:39:25 -0500 (EST) Doug Gibson writes : > > But I wonder to what possible use cold the Pz II with its tiny 20mm be. It= > > has > > a TK of 5 so you can not even use deliberate imobilazition. > > RAMMING SPEED!!!! B^) B^) B^) Reminds me of one time when the only thing I had left to stop my opponent's Tiger was a jeep. And it was all the way at the other end of the map (longways) and across a canal. My heroic jeep driver puts it into high gear, zips over the bridge (under the nose of the german HMG nest), down the road (poast a few squads, all of whom are so suprised they miss), surives the tiger's MG fire, survives the last ditch motion attempt and MA fire, and plows into the side of the Tiger at flank speed (all 30 odd MP's or whatever it is). We then looked up the rules and could find nothing about ramming to immobilize. Owwwww! We had misremembered a rule from "Tobruk". Oh well, it was a fun movement phase. On the other hand, I once lost a CoD scenario as the germans. I had set up a nifty MG nest at the top of the SSR designated level 3 steeple. Was having much fun with it until the Belgian (?) player rammed one of his worthless tanks into the ground floor of the steeple hex, rubbling the hex, massacring my valiant gunners. That one was in the rules. :( Alec ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 9 Jan 94 17:09:00 BST Subject: OBA IR (again) Adrian, Several days ago you posted a response to my comments concerning the use of OBA IR. You doubted the accuracy of my explanation regarding the reshuffling of red chits because you felt it allowed a "slimeball player" to disregard a fatal red chit by claiming it was drawn for use as an IR. One sure way to solve this problem is not to play with slimeball players, but that's not always possible. The real solution is to require players to announce ahead of time if the chit is to be drawn for use of IR (which of course can only be used when Night rules are in effect). As to the issue of 2 versus 3 IR "attacks," the rules don't unequivically state one or the other, but logically and contextually it must be 2 or IR would have more "attacks" per Fire Mission than SMOKE or HE. In essence, you go right from AR to SR to IR in each fire phase that the IR Fire Mission is in effect. It is my profound hope that my devastatingly persuasive logic has convinced you of the accuracy of my positions on these two issues, but in the off-chance it has not I will now play my trump card--"Mac sez." I spoke to Bob McNamara at this past Wednesday's playtest session about these two issues and he stated in no uncertain terms that (1) a red chit drawn as a Battery Access attempt for IR does not count as one of the two fatal red chits, but is reshuffled (as per E1.931) back into the pile, and (2) an IR Fire Mission gives you 2 IR "attacks" (i.e., FFE 1 and FFE 2). Hope this settles things for all on OBA use of IR. Marty and rk, I believe rk is correct--use of an IR is use of an FFE and thus constitutes "use" of an OBA RG sufficient to prevent its return on the next CG date. rk also correctly noted that purchased OBA RG in KGP are limited to HE and SMOKE for both sides. However, the U.S. 60mm OBA modules obtained by trade-in are not so limited by the KGP rules and _may_ fire IR as explicitly specified in U.S. Ordnance Note 1. Brent, I think AH does intend to publish some type of "MegaCG" for the KGP project. I am not sure where or when such rules will see the light of day, but I'll ask Bob McNamara about it at the next playtest session. Chuck ----- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 18:51:58 +0100 From: po@lysator.liu.se Subject: NMP and MP Hi guys! I recently read this letter about NMP and MP and noticed the argument that a fully tracked vehicle draws less fire per hex entered than a wheeled 'cause it spends less MP:s per hex. I did my service in a new Swedish Infantry type that is specialized to from foot knock out enemy tanks and vehicles, as platoon leader one may add. There we studied who much speed goes down in different terrain types for different vehicular types. Therefore I think that the rules are food the way they are, 'cause a wheeled vehicle spends _more_time_ in every hex than a fully tracked ( who, one can add, has a very homogen speed factor in the most common terrain types), and firing units simply gets the chance to fire more shoots per distance travelled at a wheeled vehicle compared with a fully tracked. Well, let's see if there is somebody with the same opinion or more likely somebody with a different. CU Patrik po@lysator.liu.se c93patol@und.ida.liu.se