Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 11:35:23 EDT From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) Subject: ASL Annual Hello, I'm wondering if anyone saved Gary Fortenberry's (sp?) letter about taking over the Annual. If so, could someone email me a copy? The guys at the game club want to see it and I deleted it long ago :( Thanks! Jeff Kimmel ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu st91nc28@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu ----- Subject: Q/A Compendium From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 10:42:00 -0640 Howdy, "Alain Chabot" writes: >I was wondering, has anyone thought of putting ALL of the accumulated >questions and answers put to Avalon Hill re SL/ASL in a file >downloadable from somewhere? Parts of It? If no such things exists, I >wouldn't mind putting some of my time towards creating one. A good idea indeed. From the FAQ: Q9. What's the Q&A (Question and Answers) and where can I get it? The Q&A is a compilation of all Q&As published by AH in the Generals and the Annuals together with answers that people have received from AH. The latest version can always be found in archive #1 (See answer to Q6 above), or you can have it automatically mailed to you by sending a message to bas@phys.uva.nl with a Subject: of 'asl-q&a-request'. Q5. Is there an archive site for all this good stuff? There are two formal archives of all material generated on the list. They contain: - Back issues of the ASL Digest - Dated packets containing the Discussion List - Game assistance programs - ASL boards, IFT, DRM table representations in PostScript - Series Replays - Indexes and other oddments 1) Use anonymous ftp to ftp.lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.153) in /pub/asl. The email archive server is at ftpserv@lysator.liu.se (put "HELP" or "DIR pub/asl" or "SEND pub/asl/file" in body of message). Mats Persson is the keeper of this archive. 2) Use anonymous ftp to carlo.phys.uva.nl (145.18.218.25) in /pub/bas/asl. The email server is at bas@phys.uva.nl with a subject of 'asl-archive-request' and a message body of 'help'. Bas de Bakker is the keeper of this archive. Their contents are not the same, but there is a large overlap. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q6. How do I use the Auto-mailer if I can't do FTP? Archive 1: Send email to bas@phys.uva.nl with a Subject: line of 'asl-archive-request' and commands in the message body. Use the command 'help' to get more information. Archive 2: Send email to ftpserv@lysator.liu.se with commands in the message body. Use the command 'HELP' to get more information. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 12:02:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Le Manoir I'm playing the Germans in this scenario, and, as usual, taking a beating. I deployed and held my fire until I had good shots. This has proved a grave mistake. Being to wily for such a strategy, my opponent (Hi Keats) flushed me out with half squads and now, I fear, has me just where he wants me. Any advice to help me wiggle off the hook? Tim "Say Uncle" Hundsdorfer ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 13:44:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Favorites Well the lists of Top 5 s keep coming in. We are now up to 32 names, while still waiting for more. The results are becoming interesting, with a few selected scenarios rising high above the rest. Get you picks in. In case you've missed the action, I am looking for you favorite five scenarios, with the results of all submissions to be reposted to the list. I'm thinking next Monday as the posting date. As an aside, I was thinking after starting this all up, this will be the perfect list for those of you who have as much trouble as myself and some of my buddies when trying to pick which scenario we want to play next. It's like going into the video store, you can't find anything you want to watch, but you swear there were supposed to be 5 good movies you'd been dying to see!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the Names that have had there submissions added to the tally. If you don't see yours, I either don't have your list, or you are one of the unfortunate that has succumbed to my itchy delete finger. 8) Brian Youse J.R Tracy Matt Shostak Martin Snow Bret Hildebran Jeff Shields M. Samuels Dade Cariaga Carl Fago Mike Clay Bruno Nitrosso Bas De Bakker M.J. Black David Hauth Grant (Mr. 12) Linneberg Bahadir Erimli Jeff Allison Don Hancock Scott Clarke ?. Dasophist Phil Pomerantzl Warren Smith Chuck Powers Ole Boe Mike Allexenberg Tim S. Hundsdorfer David Rosner Robert Stai Jeff Kimmel Gord Reid Jens Hoppe Olav Marstokk Hope I didn't screw up anyones name, I hate that. (Except for Mr. Breakdown of course...) ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 09:48:40 -1000 From: pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu (Patrick Jonke) Subject: Re: Trucks >An LMG is firing at a sIG at a range of two hexes, and gets a turret >hit. The AF for the sIG's turret are Front 0, Side 0, Rear *. > >By facing, what TK DR will kill the sIG, barring Critical Hits? > > Front: TK 4, +1 Range = 5, -0 AF = 5. > Side: TK 4, +1 Range = 5, -0 AF = 5. > Rear: TK 4 (IFT * line) = 4. > >Note that TH Cases A (Rear facing) and D (Range) only apply to >armored targets. > >Your bullets have a better chance of penetrating the armor and killing >the vehicle than they do if you fire at the unarmored portion? This is >one vehicle that I'm going to back into combat!! Is this a quirk >associated with the LMG, or have I done something wrong? > Yes, your calculations are correct. However... > Now JR has pointed out a QA: > >> D5.311 "If the turret/upper superstructure of an AFV's rear >> Target Facing is unarmored, but the hull of the rear Target >> Facing is armored, then in applying this rule is an attack >> versus the AFV's rear Target Facing treated as against an >> unarmored Target facing so that the crew is vulnerable? >> A. Yes. {24-1}" >> That is, the vehicle is vulnerable to Small Arms and MG >> attacks, and such attacks are treated as against a soft >> vehicle, i.e. no TH/TK. It is not clear whether an MG can >> attack a partially armored vehicle using the Vehicle Target >> Type on the TH & TK tables at the MG's option. What the QA is addressing is the fact that only the turret rear of the sIG is unarmored, and C3.9 (which defines the term "Aspect") seems to imply that you can't determine whether the Aspect is hull or turret without making a TH DR. The QA answer says that for purposes of determining whether or not the crew is unprotected (ie., if D5.311 applies) it is not necessary to make a TH DR; if the current facing of the vehicle presents both one armored and one unarmored Aspect, the crew is unprotected. However, "unprotected" means only that the crew can be attacked by Small Arms and Infantry SW (including MGs) directly on the IFT. Therefore, if the attacking weapon is a MG, it can either: a) attack the sIG directly on the IFT with no TH DR; the sIG is considered an unarmored target and the crew receives a Specific (full FP) Collateral attack; if affected the crew is not stunned or recalled, but instead can break/pin/be-eliminated directly. b) attack the sIG by making a TH DR followed by a TK DR; if the TH DR results in a turret hit the attack is resolved on the * vehicle column of the IFT, if the result is a hull hit the normal TK rules are used. Generally speaking, at anything either than point blank range your net probability of harming the sIG is higher if you attack the unarmored Aspect, but as your calculations show, that isn't always true. For example, if the sIG is stationary two hexes away from a LMG, the TH # is 12 (-1 for point blank range and -1 for large target) and the TK# for the hull is 5, whereas the TK# for the unarmored turret is 4 (* vehicle line). This is just one of those things that slips between the cracks of the rules. However, a case can be made that making the armored portion of the vehicle more vulnerable than the unarmored portion makes sense. When armor is perforated it tends to throw debris around the inside of the vehicle, while regular "soft" steel tends to merely bend ("petal") out of the way of the bullet. I don't know if this clarifies things or merely clouds the issue more, but basically your calculations are correct. sIGs are weird vehicles... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Patrick Jonke School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology Department of Marine Geology & Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----- From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: Anyone keeping a record of TAoD AGWAV? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT) I'm relatively new to ASL and have been following the TAoD AGWAV replay found at lysita.lysator.liu.se as an exercise in pbem and artillery/vehicle rules. Having just subscribed to the AGWAV list it appears that that game is still in progress. Does anyone have any plans to update "AGWAV" at the ftp site since it is only current through 6/15? If not, has anyone kept a record of the game since 6/15 and would they send it to me? Is this message more appropriate for the asl-game list? Thanks, Blair ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 15:16:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Armor Talk With all this talk about LMGs, Unarmored Vehicles, etc. I've been wondering, does anyone use the "ASL Armor Studies" variants which appeared in Vol 24, No 4 of the General. They really do make for more "historical" AFV slugfests. The realism they add certainly make them worthwhile IMHO. Darren Gour ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 16:12:51 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: That Damned sIG > However, "unprotected" means only that the crew can be attacked by Small > Arms and Infantry SW (including MGs) directly on the IFT. Therefore, if the > attacking weapon is a MG, it can either: > > a) attack the sIG directly on the IFT with no TH DR; the sIG is considered > an unarmored target and the crew receives a Specific (full FP) Collateral > attack; if affected the crew is not stunned or recalled, but instead can > break/pin/be-eliminated directly. > > b) attack the sIG by making a TH DR followed by a TK DR; if the TH DR > results in a turret hit the attack is resolved on the * vehicle column of > the IFT, if the result is a hull hit the normal TK rules are used. Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. One last question, though. Does Mandatory Firegroups preclude a squad from firing an MG at a vehicle such as the sIG so that it can make a TK roll for the MG(if a hit is made) and a collateral attack on the IFT using the FP of both the squad and the MMG? Dave ----- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 16:16:10 CDT From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Re: More MGs at AFVs Basically -- Spalling -- unarmored portions let the bullets rip through, Armored portions don't necessarily rip through, but actually disitigrate, spall, what have you, adding to the leathality of the situation. Remember a disabled vehicle need not be a total wreck, just temporarily combat-unworthy. cheers, mike ----- From: c.fago1@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 00:57:00 UTC Subject: Fwd from Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 417 Wed Jul 13, 1994 M.TAPIO [Trail Break] at 23:05 EDT Rob W. and Pleva: We can break the silence. I was at the printer this morning and all systems are go. To everyone else: CRITICAL HIT! has been delivered to the printer in the form of film and everything is on schedule for our debut at Avaloncon. Rob, Steve and me decided not to make any premature "announcements" of what we were "going to deliver" to the hobby until the goods were complete. There's not enough space here to thank all those that have to be thanked. You know who you are and you'll see official gratitude in the mag. CRITICAL HIT! is 32 pages of ASL stuff. Printed in magazine format, similar to the old Fire and Movement format, it has a cover stock cover to protect the pages. You might just want those pages protected since they contain 10 scenarios ranging from tournament size to monster game. You also get ASL wisdom from the rubble of Detroit to a Brooklyn Bunker to sunny California. Throw in a little Italian ASL and Aussie stuff and you have CH. The cost for all this is $8.00 plus $1.95 S & H in the USA and Canada and $3.95 S & H overseas. It will be mailed 1st class in a sturdy envelope to protect your magazine. Send your check or money order payable to: Critical Hit, 88 Lodar Lane, Brewster, NY 10509. If you plan to attend Avaloncon, you can save $1.95 (or $3.95) and get it at the convention. Questions now, and in the future can be directed to me here on GEnie, or Rob W. or Pleva, also here on GEnie. Did I mention 10 scenarios? Did I mention its done, not pie in the sky. Enough said. FORT REPORT: Fort is staying with McGrath until he finds a new opening at the trailer park near AH. I have the phone number if anyone wants it. If anyone else wants to track down a "missing" ASL'er, I own a collection agency and we have a skip tracing service. $75.00 and we'll find anyone. We have loads of material already stacking up for issue #2. BUT, let's see some new blood from you all out there, including lurkers, to the above address. The mag is biannual, by the way. BTW, no copyright infringement, no AH logos, and all the right notices. You'll have to see it to believe it. Thank God for Corel Draw and Adobe Photoshop. And, Kai's Power Tools! Now let me get some sleep. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 01:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: Re: Trucks >From: Jeff Shields >I've been thinking about unarmored vehicles and their capabilities. It >seems that a truck has a better chance of surviving an attack from an ATG >than does an armored halftrack. Say a 37L ATG fires on a truck. It rolls >on the 8 column of the IFT and needs a 7 to immobilize, 6 to kill. The >same attack on a halftrack requires an 8 to immobilize, 7 to kill, even >better if the halftrack is within 1 - 2 hexes. Collateral attacks could >even up the difference but I'd take the truck in this attack any day! Shouldn't the TK# for a 37L ATG against an unarmored target be 8 as listed in C7.31 table? The odds is therefore the same for a truck and halftrack target if range factors are not included. It is indeed a bit harder to hit a truck though but if the rate keeps up and the truck is moving in open ground, then the ATG can easily shoot at a truck more than once in a hex and raise the chance of killing the truck. ----- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 23:36:06 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rosner Subject: Re: TRW Wargamer's group Funny you should mention this, Ron...as I have fallen victim to Cloyde in the final round of at least two conventions, and yes, I would consider him to be the premier west coast player... Is an encircled 1-4-9 a hero sandwich? drosner@netcom.com On Thu, 14 Jul 1994 r.mosher2@genie.geis.com wrote: > > Yep -shudder all types --and that wasn't just Cloyd --it was CLOYDE ANGELL -- > he be the premier west coast player --his help for the new, the innocent, > the many in our favorite game is legendary out here. in last year's labor > day ASL tourneys he placed 3rd and second --one sat. and one sun. > > See you at the next Startegicon tournys on the labor day weekend? > > ron > > ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 07:22:00 UTC Subject: ASL Scenario C Hi guys, I have a question for those of you who have played ASL Scenario C. It has an optional SSR that says that the Russians lose the game if both sides fulfill one victory condition and the Russians don't have a 3:1 advantage in squads over the Germans. What do you all think about this? Did you play with it in effect? Do you think that it helps to balance the scenario or that it unbalances it in favor of the Germans? Any comments pertaining to the above are appreciated. Thanks, Warren ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 10:17:23 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: ASL Scenario C w smith93 writes: > I have a question for those of you who have played ASL Scenario C. > It has an optional SSR that says that the Russians lose the game if > both sides fulfill one victory condition and the Russians don't have > a 3:1 advantage in squads over the Germans. What do you all think > about this? Did you play with it in effect? Do you think that it > helps to balance the scenario or that it unbalances it in favor of > the Germans? I don't know about the optional SSR, but I played this scenario once and it seemed wildly in favor of the Russians. If the Russians put a killer stack in the middle hex of the factory, it becomes very hard to take. With spraying fire and only the -1 factory TEM, the Russians can almost vaporize two hexes where the Germans enter. On the other side of the board, the Russians can send some of their large number of 527s to aid their Scenario A comrades which makes that part unwinnable for the Germans. The 628s take the building across the street, while (with the 527s) the Germans can no longer take the building with the Commisar that they can sometimes take in scenario A. Bas. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 07:29:05 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: Scenario Discussion: (GEN-M) First Crisis at Army Group North Hello fellow ASL Grognards, Many of you said that you would like a discussion of First Crisis at Army Group North (GEN-M), and also The Dead of Winter (GEN-T6). So I will discuss both, but I will discuss AG North first, and when the discussion on that one dies down, then I'll discuss The Dead of Winter (GEN-T6). I will follow to some degree the format Mark Nixon has used in discussing ASL scenarios within the pages of The General magazine. Scenario GEN-M First Crisis at Army Group North. Rating: Strongly Pro German Attraction: A combined arms force heavily slanted towards armor for both sides in a medium sized scenario. A scenario that can be played by beginners, but is still rich in options that can be pursued by both sides. Tanks will burn, but the role of the infantry is only slightly secondary to the role of the armor for both sides. The Russians get three KV1 39's, a trully truly fearsome tank by 1941 standards. Both sides have quality infantry, with the Germans receiving good support weapons, halftracks, and the dreaded FlAK 18 (88). Both sides have brought "good stuff" to the "party". German Advantages. Numerous. Too many in my opinion. Excellent defensive terrain. Concealment. FlAk 18 gun. Armored infantry force with DC's. High ROF for both armor and AT guns. Excellent ELR. 9-2 armor leader. APCR for the PzIIIG's and PAK 35/36's. Limbered fire for the FlAK 18 (88). In summation, a force to be reckoned with. German Disadvantages: PzIIIG's are inferior to the KV1 39's, the Germans are slightly outnumbered, a too weak infantry force to guard a broad front, HEAT is unavailable for the PAK 35/36 in 1941, and low SAN. Russian Advantages: KV1 39's which are superior to the German PzIIIG's, tank heavy force, 76mm tank guns to deal with the German infantry, adequate infantry forces to deal with the German infantry force, good ELR for the Russians of 1941, speed of the BT-7A's, BT-7A's can fire smoke. Russian Disadvantages: Far too many of them. Difficult victory conditions and a short time period to get them accomplished in. Defensive terrain that strongly channels the avenues of approach of the Russians. Red MP's and mechanical reliability problems for all the Russian tanks. RST turrets for all Russian tanks. Low breakdown numbers for Russian AFV's, which are extremely important for the victory conditions. Only one Russian LDR. Low ROF. BT-7A has limited AP ammo. T-26's are radioless. Red TH numbers. No road bonus or the half-MP road movement rate. German Tactics: Fire setting in woods-road, deliberate immobilization versus the KV1 39's, channelizing the attack approach of the Russians, forcing the Russian AFV's to overrun entrenched German MMC's possessing DC's. The use of halftracks as artificial blocking units and/or mobile MG positions. Concealment to disguise German strength. Delaying the Russians and attrition. Russian Tactics: Overwhelming a small portion of the German line, then rushing through the gap with the Russian forces. Use of infantry to "mission kill" the German AT guns. Russian combined arms tactics at close range, with the tanks deployed 7 or 8 hexes away from the German PzIIIG's. Armored assault movement to advance the Russian infantry across the open ground of board 4. Use of vehicular motion to make German deliberate immobilization attacks difficult, and to prevent mechanical reliability checks on the Russian AFV's. Use of smoke from the BT-7A's to aid in the Russian advance. If desperate, overrun attacks can be made with the KV1 39's against weak German infantry positions. Use of gullies to advance hidden (if time permits). Using tanks to make trail breaks in the woods to clear a path (only if necessary). Suggested German Setup: 5R6 ?, 251/1 (VCA S7,R7) 5Q6 ?, DC, 8-1, 467 5V6 251/1 (VCA U7/U6) with crew as passengers, vehicle towing PAK 35/36 AT gun (see SSR2) 5U4 467 4P1 ?, PzIIIG (VCA Q1/Q2), 9-2 AR LDR, crew exposed 4P6 ?, PzIIIG (VCA Q6/Q7), crew exposed 4P8 ?, PzIIIG (VCA Q8/Q9), crew exposed 4Q6 ?, DC, 9-1, LMG, 467 4Q9 ?, LMG, 467 Russian move for turn one. This is for you guys to comment on! German shoots at targets of opportunity, but only if the shot is worth the loss of concealment. There will probably be few targets of opportunity for the Germans that are worth the loss of concealment. German move for turn one. PFPh. 8-1 and 467 in 5Q6 attempt kindling a fire and become TI. 467 in 5U4 attempts entrenching. MPh. HT in 5R6 stays put, even if threatened. HT and PAK 35/36 in %V6 move into hex 5U6, making bog check. They will unhook in German MPh of turn two. SdKfz 7 towing FlAK 18 and carrying 8-0 and crew as passengers enters on west edge of board 4 and moves to hex 4E4, VCA F3/F4. Stack in 4Q6 assault moves into 4R5, preserving concealment. Stack in 4Q9 assault moves into 4R8, preserving concealment. Actions of the AFPh depend on what the Russain commander does. What is your plan of attack, commissars? Mike Clay ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 07:58:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: Trucks > >I've been thinking about unarmored vehicles and their capabilities. It > >seems that a truck has a better chance of surviving an attack from an ATG > >than does an armored halftrack. Say a 37L ATG fires on a truck. It rolls > >on the 8 column of the IFT and needs a 7 to immobilize, 6 to kill. The > >same attack on a halftrack requires an 8 to immobilize, 7 to kill, even > >better if the halftrack is within 1 - 2 hexes. Collateral attacks could > >even up the difference but I'd take the truck in this attack any day! > > Shouldn't the TK# for a 37L ATG against an unarmored target be 8 as listed > in C7.31 table? The odds is therefore the same for a truck and halftrack > target if range factors are not included. Looking at the IFT against Unarmored targets I come up with: Firepower 2 4 6 8 12 TK# 4 5 6 7 8 I believe the ATG uses 8 FP to attack on the IFT. If you roll the TK#, the vehicle is immobilized. If you roll 1 less it is KIA, and if you roll less than or equal to half the TK# the vehicle burns. > It is indeed a bit harder to hit a truck though but if the rate > keeps up and the truck is moving in open ground, then the ATG can easily > shoot at a truck more than once in a hex and raise the chance of killing > the truck. True, but the real forte for trucks is road movement. If you're playing a scenario where the defender is spread out (see AGWAV Agony of Doom, or Counterstroke at Stonne), then a truck blitz up a road is an option. Especially if it looks like your opponent has neglected to cover the road with sufficient forces. In Stonne I played an opponent who neglected to put anything covering the road on the German right flank. I only sent a diversionary attack that was quite successful. When I played the Germans (earlier) I put at least a squad and an LMG covering the road (with later help from reinforcements). It was enough to tie down 3 tanks and 6 squads. Trucks, are they so bad? Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 09:09:36 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: ASL Scenario C Bas comments on what Will writes... >> I have a question for those of you who have played ASL Scenario C. >> It has an optional SSR that says that the Russians lose the game if >> both sides fulfill one victory condition and the Russians don't have >> a 3:1 advantage in squads over the Germans. What do you all think >> about this? Did you play with it in effect? Do you think that it >> helps to balance the scenario or that it unbalances it in favor of >> the Germans? > >I don't know about the optional SSR, but I played this scenario once >and it seemed wildly in favor of the Russians. > >If the Russians put a killer stack in the middle hex of the factory, >it becomes very hard to take. With spraying fire and only the -1 >factory TEM, the Russians can almost vaporize two hexes where the >Germans enter. > >On the other side of the board, the Russians can send some of their >large number of 527s to aid their Scenario A comrades which makes that >part unwinnable for the Germans. The 628s take the building across >the street, while (with the 527s) the Germans can no longer take the >building with the Commisar that they can sometimes take in scenario A. > >Bas. > Bas is right on in this scenario. Making the tractor works a factory was a big play balance mistake, as it is nearly impossible for the Germans to gain more than a toe-hold. While all this is happening, the Russian 527's HW the thin Germans in between them and the factory and get mondo reinforcements INTO the building. Some 527's may aid the Guards, which makes it nearly impossible for the Germans to hold out on that board edge. And, of course, SAN:6 is just absurd for each side in such a small (area wise) scenario. Watch those big leaders fall! I'd rate Scenario A at 50-50. I'd rate Scenario B 70-30 pro-Russian. I'd rate Scenario C as 65-35 pro-Russian. These are, as usual, just my opinion. Actually, I'd recommend playing something else. Like RB! Brian ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 09:21:47 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Critical Hit! Carl posts... >Category 21, Topic 2 > Message 417 Wed Jul 13, 1994 >M.TAPIO [Trail Break] at 23:05 EDT > >Rob W. and Pleva: We can break the silence. I was at the printer this morning >and all systems are go. To everyone else: CRITICAL HIT! has been delivered to >the printer in the form of film and everything is on schedule for our debut at >Avaloncon. Rob, Steve and me decided not to make any premature "announcements" >of what we were "going to deliver" to the hobby until the goods were complete. >There's not enough space here to thank all those that have to be thanked. You >know who you are and you'll see official gratitude in the mag. CRITICAL HIT! >is 32 pages of ASL stuff. Printed in magazine format, similar to the old Fire >and Movement format, it has a cover stock cover to protect the pages. You >might just want those pages protected since they contain 10 scenarios ranging >from tournament size to monster game. You also get ASL wisdom from the rubble >of Detroit to a Brooklyn Bunker to sunny California. Throw in a little >Italian ASL and Aussie stuff and you have CH. The cost for all this is $8.00 >plus $1.95 S & H in the USA and Canada and $3.95 S & H overseas. It will be >mailed 1st class in a sturdy envelope to protect your magazine. Send your >check or money order payable to: Critical Hit, 88 Lodar Lane, Brewster, NY >10509. If you plan to attend Avaloncon, you can save $1.95 (or $3.95) and >get it at the convention. Questions now, and in the future can be directed >to me here on GEnie, or Rob W. or Pleva, also here on GEnie. Did I mention Sounds great. Every SERIOUS ASL player should consider not eating another pizza this Friday and send off their 8 bucks to get CH! I was chatting with Tim Van Sant the other day, and we both agree that this kind of third party support of ASL is what will keep ASL thriving, long after AH has dropped the line. Do you part and help Ray, Rob, and Steve out buy purchasing CH! You're not only buying 10 great scenarios and articles which will keep you busy for some time (at least until Backblast comes out in October 8) ) but you'll help assure that there will be a CH! #2 and many, many more. OR, you can not send in your money and hope that M:TG is still a fad long after ASL fades away... 8) Brian ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 08:59:36 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Scenario Discussion: 1CAGN Comments on Mike Clay's discussion of First Crisis at AG North: > > Rating: Strongly Pro German > Maybe. I agree it's hard on the Russians; what they wouldn't give for another leader or even a truck or two just to get the infantry up to the battle faster. But fun enough regardless. > > German Tactics: Fire setting in woods-road, Ooh, low-down and dirty. > > forcing the Russian AFV's to overrun entrenched German MMC's possessing DC's. ?? How you gonna do that? It would take a lot to make me overrun an entrenched MMC with a DC. > > Russian move for turn one. This is for you guys to comment on! > First decision is what to do with the damn Russian MMG. Brian has mentioned that the scenario designers put it in there just as a gut check for the Russians, to see if they're smart enough to leave it behind. You want it in the battle, but oy, what a PIG it is to haul up there. I guess it's useful somehow, so I'll lug it along, but I wouldn't waste the leader on it. The Russian 447's have to get into the battle ASAP; let the MMG show up when it can. On turn 1, the 8-0 and a platoon can move up to the exit of the board 5 forest-road, providing extra protection in case the Germans send a wild marauder down that way. Actually, the zeroth decision is where and how to attack. Board 4 or 5? Should the tanks wait for the infantry? It's such a short game, my feeling is that the tanks should try to take control of the center of the board in the beginning, winning the armor battle with the KV-1's where the Germans offer a fight. Pray that the Deliberate Immob shots miss. Protect the T-26's and keep them in Motion. Use BT-7's for smoke and to cover the KV-1's against enemy infantry. Then, when they've finally arrived on the scene, let the Russian infantry throw themselves on the defense for the end game push. On the other hand, this may be overly aggressive, a problem I seem to have with my armor. It might be better to just let the tanks use Armored Assault with the infantry in the beginning so that the Russians can hit the line as a combined force. > German move for turn one. > PFPh. 8-1 and 467 in 5Q6 attempt kindling a fire and become I just wouldn't do this, even if it improved my chances to win the scenario. Nixon said something about what a vile tactic it is to Kindle the grain in Age Old Foes, and I think it applies here too. I know, I'd suck at RB, huh? > > What is your plan of attack, commissars? > I like Mike's defense. Given that there is NO WAY I would risk the KV-1's to an 88 shot, or the BT-7's and T-26's to any kind of AP Ordnance without a darn good reason, I think this comes down to being Zon With The Wind, Eastern Front Armor Version. That is, the attackers need to preserve their Exit VP's and avoid their exposure to the deadly big guns before making a late game rush to get offboard. The Russian infantry is crucial, but aren't an offensive threat until the mid-to-late game. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 11:51:00 -0400 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: Progress Report: ASL Database Sorry for not giving you a status earlier. Work has just been hell recently...they actually expected me to do some! :) Mike Clay was able to provide me with a copy of his database to serve as a starting point. It is fully compatible with dBase (my database program). I also recieved a second scenario database from the Archives which had very similar, but not identical, data. I have looked both over (briefly) and come up with some areas for (I think) improvement/streamlining, but I think we are doing very well at this point. Things look busy at work for the near future, so I am not sure how soon I will be able to merge the two, but I will continue to "tinker" in the meantime. When I have some solid progress, I will post to the list. In the meantime, I have a question for the interested parties on the list: the database from the Archives contains information in SL scenarios in addition to the ASL scenarios, cross-referenced as appropriate. Should I retain (and expand upon) this data or eliminate it and keep this as "ASL only" database? While on the topic, does anyone know the original author(s) of the Archvie database? Credit where credit is due... Doug Williamson ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 12:47:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Progress Report: ASL Database > In the meantime, I have a question for the interested parties on the > list: the database from the Archives contains information in SL scenarios > in addition to the ASL scenarios, cross-referenced as appropriate. > Should I retain (and expand upon) this data or eliminate it and keep this > as "ASL only" database? I think keeping _both_ would be good -- unless this causes and undue amount of work for Doug (seems to be doing that already!). The reason for both... Well, our siblings on the SL-list would surely appreciate a copy of such, _and_ if they also had the ASL stuff it just might put 'em over the edge (it happend to most of us) and throw them into the depths of the ASL rulebook (latest convert is Neal Ulen, I believe). Paul ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 14:38:39 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Stalingrad Movie Guys, Downloaded this from my new fav newsgroup, alt.cult-movies: Brian >From news.gsfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vertigo.helix.net!vertigo.helix.net!not-for-mail Fri Jul 15 14:37:18 EDT 1994 Article: 32087 of alt.cult-movies Path: news.gsfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vertigo.helix.net!vertigo.helix.net!not-for-mail From: loh@vertigo.helix.net (Keith Meng-Wei Loh) Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies Subject: Re: Stalingrad Date: 15 Jul 1994 10:49:47 -0700 Organization: Helix Internet Lines: 94 Distribution: na Message-ID: <306i7r$9fj@vertigo.helix.net> References: <304hdr$h8m@vertigo.helix.net> <3068fg$btk@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.231.37.1 I took in STALINGRAD last night, the film about the battle of Stalingrad in which an entire German army led by General Paulus was caught in a trap laid by Zhukov and destroyed. It was recent German film that was reputed to have needed the largest budget by any German production. The plot generally follows the lives of a squad of German elite troops who earn the 'right' to fight in Russia after surviving the Africa campaign. No sooner have they arrived in Stalingrad before they are thrown into a deadly battle for a factory. From then on it becomes a matter of who survives from day to day, surviving the snipers, the street battles, the cold, disease, lack of food, corrupt officers and politics. As a war film, STALINGRAD contains many of the standard elements that we have come to expect, which are often cliches. You have the hard-bitten sergeant who is unmindful of offending higher authorities. You have the young, ardent lieutenant who quickly is worn down by the horror of the war. And the men all just want to survive and go home or are fatalistic. And there are the psychopathic senior officers who send the foot soldiers in to die while quoting the party doctrine, while themselves enjoying the fruits of corruption. These are all elements that I've seen before in war films and in that STALINGRAD offers very little that is new, except, perhaps, to show that even the German army had the same problems as the American or British armies. STALINGRAD also takes some time to establish its characters. It sounds bad, but I found it difficult to tell all the Germans apart until most of the movie was through and many of the characters were dead. I suppose this might have mirrored the real experience of units that are torn apart by warfare until only a few are left to care about. Only near the end did I feel that I knew enough about the survivors to properly empathize with their experience. The battles are such that it is very easy to imagine how hellish the combat must be. The strength of STALINGRAD is most obvious in its street fighting scenes, in which men slog about in the rubble, more realistic than in Stanley Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET, and in greater scale as well. The realism extends to the amount of gore in the film as well, including one scene in which a man is blown in half by a tank gun and continues to survive for a few moments before dying of shock. STALINGRAD is indeed a film about relentless misery. Even from the beginning the black humour is very stale and bitter. The only complaint I have about the production is that in a tank battle later in the film, they never use panzers or distinctive Soviet armour. To me they looked like Shermans. I wonder if any Panzers are left that filmmakers could have used? Previous WWII films like THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE, THE LONGEST DAY, or A BRIDGE TOO FAR (as the most recent WWII film of any scale that I remember) portrayed battles with more information that STALINGRAD, which is almost entirely seen from the point of view of the foot soldiers, aside from a couple scenes in which the general staff is visited. We never get a good idea of what is happening in the battle and thus the scale is never quite realized by anyone unfamiliar with the history of the action. The only other film that I remember seeing that shows the war from the German side was in Sam Peckinpah's CROSS OF IRON. The stories are similar. A small unit who care nothing for the Nazi doctrine just attempt to survive despite the machinations of their dogmatic superiors. Like in CROSS OF IRON, the unit in STALINGRAD even befriend a Russian boy and later a Russian woman. In one scene in STALINGRAD, a foot soldier confronts the ranking field officer about the hypocrisy of the battle. The officer says: "I'm not a Nazi." The soldier replies: "You're worse. You stood by when you knew what they were doing." Which to me is very interesting politically. Both sides in the battle are portrayed fairly, I thought, but I wondered if any unit was as untouched by brutality as this one was, who seemed to be the archetype of the noble soldier who feels more in common with his enemey than with the rest of his army. Part way through the film when I was struggling to empathize with the soldiers, I began to question my own inbred hostility toward the Germans. Film after film has shown the Germans as the enemy; I wondered if this was affecting the difficulty I had in 'telling them apart' or in figuring out their motivations. The last film I had seen before this one was SCHINDLER'S LIST. Although Oskar Schindler was himself a German, all the soldiers were Nazis and carried through with a casual brutality that stunned me. The switch to STALINGRAD was very jarring. I had to reflect upon myself a lot when I was writing this. It is strange because I am Chinese and yet I probably feel more hostility toward the Germans than the Japanese because I have grown up watching western war films, the majority of which were about the European war. While, overall, American war films portray the German side with more sympathy than the Japanese, the whole weight of the genre seems to have affected the basic way I feel toward those WWII icons: the goose-stepping, the helmets, the uniforms, the Iron Cross, and especially the German language. In summary, STALINGRAD is a war film that has many of the same elements that we have seen before in many other war films, but from a different perspective than western audiences are used to seeing. However, it does not illuminate much on a battle that western audiences know little about, despite have a high quality in the day to day realism of the winter war. ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 11:51:18 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Rout question I wanted to make sure I did this right: A broken squad and half-squd rout to the closest building hex. On the other side of the building is a broken enemy leader with a squad. A DM gets placed on the broken enemy leader and enemy squad? After reading the rules I would say yes, but I want to be sure. Now, regardless of the enemy leader/squad's DM-ness, I end my rout phase in this building hex, because I run out of movement. Does the enemy leader/squad have to rout away (rather than remain adjacent to my units? Again I would say yes, but I have a low degree of confidence about this whole thing. Please e-mail me directly with answers because 1) I have a feeling everyone but me knows the answer to this and 2) I don't want them to know how stupid I am (too late for that.) Tim "Huh?" Hundsdorfer ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 12:46:38 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Rout question > From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" > > I wanted to make sure I did this right: > > A broken squad and half-squd rout to the closest building hex. On the other > side of the building is a broken enemy leader with a squad. A DM gets > placed on the broken enemy leader and enemy squad? After reading the > rules I would say yes, but I want to be sure. > Now, regardless of the enemy leader/squad's DM-ness, I end my rout phase > in this building hex, because I run out of movement. > Does the enemy leader/squad have to rout away (rather than remain > adjacent to my units? Again I would say yes, but I have a low degree of > confidence about this whole thing. Sorry, Tim, but as I probably have even less confidence about this than you do, and I'd like to see the answers, too. It seems to me that this might depend on who routed first. If it were your RtPh, then the enemy guys still get to rout away. However, if it was the enemy RtPh, and they'd already routed, might you all be eliminated for failure to rout? Scary thought, and probably wrong, but I don't have the ASLRB here. I think that only unbroken units affect rout. I'm not sure about the DM applying. I suspect that you only place DM if they become adjacent to unbroken units, but I'm not sure. Lots of help, aren't I? See, you're not the only one who doesn't know this. But ask me about shooting an LMG at a sIG, and I could write a book. :-) Dave ----- Subject: Re: Rout question From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 16:57:00 -0640 Howdy, vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) writes: > A broken squad and half-squd rout to the closest building > hex. On the other side of the building is a broken enemy > leader with a squad. A DM gets placed on the broken enemy > leader and enemy squad? After reading the rules I would > say yes, but I want to be sure. A10.62: "A broken unit is also automatically under DM whenever a Known enemy unit becomes ADJACENT to it (even if it does not end the phase ADJACENT to it)." A broken squad is still a unit. > Now, regardless of the enemy leader/squad's DM-ness, I end > my rout phase in this building hex, because I run out of > movement. Does the enemy leader/squad have to rout away > (rather than remain adjacent to my units? Again I would > say yes, but I have a low degree of confidence about this > whole thing. A10.5 ROUTING: "During the RtPh a broken units may not remain in the same Open Ground hex in the Normal Range and LOS of a Known enemy unit, nor--regardless of terrain--may it end a RtPh ADJACENT to or in the same Location with a Known enemy unit that is both unbroken and armed." Both sides will remain DM as long as they are ADJACENT (unless you subscribe to the interpretation that "becomes" in A10.62 does not include "being" ADJACENT, which I do not but which is reasonable), but neither side is required to rout away from the ADJACENT broken units because neither side has a Normal Range nor is either side unbroken. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 18:42:44 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: Rout Question > A broken squad and half-squd rout to the closest building hex. On the other > side of the building is a broken enemy leader with a squad. A DM gets > placed on the broken enemy leader and enemy squad? After reading the > rules I would say yes, but I want to be sure. A10.62: "A broken unit is also automatically under DM whenever a Known enemy unit becomes ADJACENT to it." This is pretty clear. Note it does not specify a good order enemy unit. Therefore the enemy stack undergoes DM. > Now, regardless of the enemy leader/squad's DM-ness, I end my rout phase > in this building hex, because I run out of movement. > Does the enemy leader/squad have to rout away (rather than remain > adjacent to my units? Again I would say yes, but I have a low degree of > confidence about this whole thing. A10.5: "...a broken unit may not...end a RtPh ADJACENT to...a Known enemy unit that is both unbroken and armed." Since the enemy unit is ADJACENT to a broken unit, it does not have to rout. Regards. Davidb ----- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 21:47:47 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: including SL scenarios in ASL database Hello all, There is a debate going on whether to include the SL scenarios within the database that Doug Williamson is making, which will include information from my own database on ASL scenarios. Paul Ferraro (good italian name, shouldn't it be on an italian leader?) wrote that he felt that including the SL scenarios would be a good idea in the ASL database that Doug is making. Paul said that by doing this, it may serve the function of a recruiting tool - to entice some SL players into playing ASL. I agree with his statment, although I didn't ever think of it as a use for my own database. I have some comments on this idea. Some people out there will probably want an ASL only database. Some people will want both SL and ASL. There are some who will want SL only. I believe that everyone can be happy, by using one of two different methods. Method 1. Make one database that encompasses all the SL and ASL scenarios. Include a "field" that categorizes each scenario as to the game from which it came - SL, COI, COD, GI, ASL. Then if the user is interested in only ASL scenarios, for example, then he can exclude all listings of the SL-COI-COD-GI scenarios when he performs a search. This is the "one database fits all solution". The only problem with this is that every search of the database will have to include yet another field type - namely the gase game system field. Method 2. Make three different databases. One will be ASL only. One will be SL and ASL. The third will be SL only. A less elegant solution, but for people like me who play ASL only (I bet that's most of you too) I will use the ASL only database 99% of the time. I would only use the combined database when I wanted to see if there was a SL scenario made about a battle for which I had historical interest, particularly if there was no ASL scenario about the same battle. I am guessing that making the three databases won't be that much more work once all the data for the combined database has been made. But I am not a database expert, despite having created my own ASL scenario database, and that it the reason that I handed my database over to Doug Williamson, who is more knowledgeable than regarding databases. I hope that Doug, if he should decide to include the SL scenarios in the database, will include a field for "game system" so that we aren't forced to have apples with our oranges. A mix of SL and ASL scenarios, without being able to distinguish the game system, would be a big mistake by my estimation. Mike Clay ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 16 Jul 94 04:17:00 UTC Subject: STALINGRAD (The movie) While recently in Berlin I picked up the video of "Stalingrad" and watched it twice between World Cup games. I am now waiting for my brother to convert it from PAL to NTCS format so I can show it to my friends. I paid $28 for it in Germany which I thought was a good deal. Viewing it in the original language and from an ASL point of view I was somewhat disappointed. Brian forwarded a review which I am going to comment on now. The unit depicted in action was an engineer company sent east as part of the "Hubertus" operation to break the stalemate. Some of the special assault tactics were well done in the main battle scene where they break into an unnamed factory after suffering heavy casualties during the advance through a debris strewn street. Friendly small arms fire and OBA take their toll also. Best scene is when a Landser is ordered to redeem himself (think about your family honor) after giving away the company's position by jitter firing. He lands a grenade on target but is cut down in the process. Tanks were T-34/85's (too early) but a good selection of Austrian trucks and Hanomags (251/1's) were depicted. As the tanks overran a German position later in the film, ATM's were used which may be feasible as they were first used in small quantities late in 1942 but probably only on the test range. The film covered the same ground as "Huende, wollt Ihr ewig Leben" (Dogs, do You want to live Forever), a German 1956 film which was just as good (IMHO). Both films had the mandatory Ju-52 take off with men clinging to the wheel spats (until about 150 feet high). It is supposed to be an anti-war film (read realistic) but a bit too cynical about the officer corps (the director must have been an enlisted man) depicting the worse abuses. However, in all fairness, combat leadership was well depicted. ----- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 94 0:21:36 CDT From: carrington rhydderch ward Subject: Panzers Marsch Set up I have a sneaking suspicion that this has been asked before, but should the Russian set up be "on boards (1 and 5) with hex numbers of 10" or "on boards 1 and (5 with hex numbers of 10)"? I have forgotten enough of my grammar to be unsure of the reading the way the set up is phrased. Carrington Ward post replies to CRWARD@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU if this is a FAQ. (sorry). ----- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 02:27:02 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: Discussion of First Crisis at Army Group North Tom Repetti wrote regarding my setup for FCAGN and the russian plan of attack: > forcing the Russian AFV's to overrun entrenched German MMC's possessing > DC's. :? How you gonna do that? It would take a lot to make me overrun an :entrenched MMC with a DC. I'll bet it would. On turn one, the 467 in hex 5U4 begins entrenching. If it doesn't make it, it gets a labor counter and continues until it entrenches. This is very important - even at the cost of alternatively shooting at some russian infantry for a turn or two. After the 467 in hex 5Q6 have kindled a fire (the low down dirty tactic you mentioned), they will move with the DC and 8-1 LDR to hex 5U4 where a nice entrenchment (hopefully) awaits them. They cannot use vehicular bypass through hexes 5V3 or 5T4 because of the fact that there is not enough clearance (one counter thickness) for the vehicles to bypass (rule D2.3). Then on about turn three or so we have the stack which shall consist of an entrenched DC, 8-1, 467 in hex 5U4. So the russians either make a trailbreak in hexes 5V3 and/or 5T4, or overrun the stack in hex 4U4 - which will result in tank losses by either option. If the russian tanks come this way, they are in for heavy losses or a great waste of time - either of which will cost them dearly. The PAK 35/36 by this time will be unhooked and ready to shoot from hex 5U6 and will be able to support the stack in 5U4 or otherwise shoot at any russian tanks that make it past 5U4. Might I remind you of the lethality of a PAK 35/36 to T-26's and BT-7A's? Remember that the PAK 35/36 has ROF 3, APCR capability, and an AP kill number at ranges of six hexes of a 9. This is more than enought to destroy all the russian tanks except the KV1's. Against the KV1's, the german must try deliberate immobilization, get a point blank AP shot, or get a range two APCR shot. The russians can loose 4 AFV's and still win. If the russian uses the guns of the T-26's and BT-7A's to any great extent, then he can expect to loose one to disablement - and thus that tank will count as a loss under the victory conditions. If the russians try to go through hex 4U4, even with the KV1's, they will probably loose a KV1 from either a) the DC/8-1/467 surviving the overrun and destroying the KV1 in CC or b) an immobilizing shot from the PAK 35/36. In either case we have lost another russian tank for purposes of VC's. If lucky, the PAK 35/36 will get tank #3, and the 88 will get tanks #4 and probably tank #5. The infantry in hex 4U4 may get yet another tank via CC, and we have yet to discuss what the 3 PzIIIG's will be doing while all this is going on. The answer is of course that they will be trying to take out a T-26 or BT-7A or two. With my setup, the russian will likely loose at least one light tank just getting to the vicinity of hex 4U4 from enfilade fire from the PzIIIG's. For the sake of argument, my points are still largely valid even if the squad originally in hex 4U4 never did successfully entrench - once the fire in hex 5Q6 gets kindled the stack in hex 5Q6 will move to 4U4. It takes a NTC from the 8-1 followed by a roll of eight or greater to kindle the flame in the woods. That was the LDR and the 467 kindling together. There is a (25/36) x (25/36) or 48% chance on PFPh one that both rolls will be made and a flame will be kindled. By the end of turn two, there is only a 27% chance that the flame in hex 5Q6 has not been kindled. So in all likelyhood by turn three, and perhaps on turn two, the 8-1 stack will be able to begin its move to hex 4U4. The stack can move three woods hexes and advance into hex 4U4 comfortably in one turn. Even if the stack doesn't make it before the russian tanks arrive, the lone 467 in 4U4 will do its "duty" simply by forcing an overrun, which costs tanks 1/4th of their MP's. This will create a bottleneck in the vicinity of hex 4U4, in the "killing zone" of the PAK 35/36. :First decision is what to do with the damn Russian MMG. Brian has mentioned :that the scenario designers put it in there just as a gut check for the :Russians, to see if they're smart enough to leave it behind. You want it in :the battle, but boy, what a PIG it is to haul up there. I guess it's useful :somehow, so I'll lug it along, but I wouldn't waste the leader on it. The :Russian 447's have to get into the battle ASAP; let the MMG show up when it :can. On turn 1, the 8-0 and a platoon can move up to the exit of the board :5 forest-road, providing extra protection in case the Germans send a wild :marauder down that way. Yeah, you'd like to take the MMG along but it is a pig to move. I think that it is worth making a russian stack of the 8-0, two or three 447's, and the MMG. With the leader, and not using doubletime movement, the stack gets five MF's. They have a base of 4 IPC (with the leader included, see A4.42) and have five PP's of weapon to carry. Thus they get three MF's, but the leader bonus makes it five MF's. Had they not taken the MMG along, they would have gotten six MF's and COULD OPT TO DOUBLETIME FOR EIGHT MF's. That would certainly bring them into the battle sooner, but at the expense of a long range weapon. To me, the russians should take along the MMG for the following reasons. It has a normal range of 10 hexes, so the russian stack with the MMG can "reach out and touch someone" - preferably the german 88 which will move to hex 4F4, unhook, and if time permits, unlimber. The russian would like to be able to take out the 88 by means of infantry rather than by a charge of armor - the latter almost certainly destroying at least one russian tank. :Actually, the zeroth decision is where and how to attack. Board 4 or 5? :Should the tanks wait for the infantry? It's such a short game, my feeling :is that the tanks should try to take control of the center of the board in :the beginning, winning the armor battle with the KV-1's where the Germans :offer a fight. Pray that the Deliberate Immob shots miss. Protect the :T-26's and keep them in Motion. Use BT-7's for smoke and to cover the :KV-1's against enemy infantry. Then, when they've finally arrived on the :scene, let the Russian infantry throw themselves on the defense for the :end game push. I think that by now maybe you are convinced that the attack through board 5 is a pretty risky proposition. I say try board 4. The tanks do not need to wait for the infantry, given a couple of turns the three PzIIIG's will be taken out. The german infantry is the problem, as the tanks will have a difficult time taking them out. That is the first task for the russian infantry. The tanks wait in the center of board 4 until the 88 gets taken out by the russian infantry or the end of the game draws near. I also say that it is definitely a must to keep the T-26's in motion, and probably a wise idea to hide all of the russian light tanks from the PzIIIG's LOF, period. Only the KV1's can deal with the PzIIIG's at an acceptable level of risk. Remember, and this fits in with discussions on the net recently, EVEN A LMG CAN DESTROY A T-26 OR A BT-7A! :On the other hand, this may be overly aggressive, a problem I seem to :have with my armor. It might be better to just let the tanks use Armored :Assault with the infantry in the beginning so that the Russians can hit :the line as a combined force. The russians need to be very agressive but not reckless. I agree with most of what your plan of attack is saying so far. > German move for turn one. > PFPh. 8-1 and 467 in 5Q6 attempt kindling a fire and :I just wouldn't do this, even if it improved my chances to win the :scenario. Nixon said something about what a vile tactic it is to Kindle :the grain in Age Old Foes, and I think it applies here too. I know, I'd :suck at RB, huh? Dirty, yes. Legal, yes. BUT ITS IN MY BLOOD. One of my ancestors was an officer under GENERAL SHERMAN when he MARCHED TO THE SEA. Setting fires during times of war is a Clay family tradition, it seems. Its just too effective to not kindle a fire in this scenario. But suppose you don't. The stack in 5Q6 are a lethal tank hunting group and should strongly deter the russians from using the woods-road anyway. When the HT in 5R6 gets destroyed it may catch fire and kindle a fire anyway. Even if doesn't, it still serves as a nice roadblock. I do not believe that the russians can possibly make a successful attack up the woods-road hex with my setup as the germans. :I like Mike's defense. Given that there is NO WAY I would risk the KV-1's :to an 88 shot, or the BT-7's and T-26's to any kind of AP Ordnance without :a darn good reason, I think this comes down to being Zon With The Wind, :Eastern Front Armor Version. That is, the attackers need to preserve their :Exit VP's and avoid their exposure to the deadly big guns before making a :late game rush to get offboard. The Russian infantry is crucial, but aren't :an offensive threat until the mid-to-late game. I agree with your summation. This is the only way in which the russians can win, but in my mind there just isn't enough time in the scenario for the russians to move in such a manner as to exit in time and keep their losses at the required level. The russians need good luck and an extra turn or two if you use my setup. Nevertheless, the scenario is very suspensefull and a lot of fun to play - it just needs a little balance adjustment. Note that the play balance to help the russians is to make the game eight turns long. I say the game should have been eight turns, with the play balance making it nine turns long. Mike Clay  ----- From: y.leung@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 16 Jul 94 06:20:00 UTC Subject: RE: Trucks From: IN%"jeff@back.vims.edu" "Jeff Shields" >> Shouldn't the TK# for a 37L ATG against an unarmored target be 8 as listed >> in C7.31 table? The odds is therefore the same for a truck and halftrack >> target if range factors are not included. >Looking at the IFT against Unarmored targets I come up with: >Firepower 2 4 6 8 12 >TK# 4 5 6 7 8 >I believe the ATG uses 8 FP to attack on the IFT. If you roll the TK#, the >vehicle is immobilized. If you roll 1 less it is KIA, and if you roll less >than or equal to half the TK# the vehicle burns. Why does the ATG use a FP of 8? I always think that the '8' next to the 37-57mm Category for Unarmored Target in Table C7.31 refers to the Final TK# instead of the IFT column. Only IFE/MG-15mm uses IFT to kill unarmored target as listed in Table C7.31. Or have I been mistaken all this time? ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 16 Jul 94 06:38:00 UTC Subject: OBA Question Hi guys, I am hoping someone can help clarify the rules on OBA for "voluntary loss of Radio Contact." It seems unclear to me but that is not surprising seeing as how I have only used OBA twice ever. The situation is as follows: I have a Good Order Observer who gets Radio Contact and Battery Access. He calls down a FFE:1 in the DFPh which is resolved and then flipped over to an FFE:2. Unfortunately for him, during the MPh, a bunch of guys ran up to him and were ready to beat up on him in CC. During the Rout Phase, the observer voluntarily breaks and routs away from the enemy. During the Rally Phase, the observer does NOT rally and so cannot make contact during the Prep Fire Phase. Also, there is no LOS from the observers current hex to any hex of the FFE:2. What I don't understand is whether this counts as "voluntary" loss of Radio Contact or not? Can the FFE:2 be resolved, albiet not corrected/adjusted, etc., or is it totally cancelled? If it is totally cancelled, when does it become cancelled, immediately when the leader routs or during the Prep Fire Phase? The timing matters for purposes of enemy rout and advance. Thanks for any help. Warren ----- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 09:30:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: including SL scenarios in ASL database > Paul Ferraro (good italian name, shouldn't it be on an italian leader?) Waaalllll, dependsa ona howa youa define gooda, doesn't itta? Actually, the only thing that is keeping me from being a proper leader of such distinguished ancestry is my lack of Hollow Legions. There are two reasonable solutions (neither of which involves me parting with the dough): 1. Send all donations to: The Paul Ferraro for Fearalessa Leader 9-1 Leaning Tower uva Pizza Peeetsborg, PA 99999 2. Or... All valiant opponents of the above forementioned notable entity at Avalcon should just lay down & die (at an appropriate theatrical moment) so as to assure my winning, say, the $50 second prize which I can then spend on Hollow Legions. 8-) Paul ----- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 15:22:03 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: Re: OBA Q. >W.SMITH93 [Warren] at 02:38 EDT >The situation is as follows: > I have a Good Order Observer who gets Radio Contact and Battery Access. He >calls down a FFE:1 in the DFPh which is resolved and then flipped over to an >FFE:2. Unfortunately for him, during the MPh, a bunch of guys ran up to him >and were ready to beat up on him in CC. During the Rout Phase, the observer >voluntarily breaks and routs away from the enemy. During the Rally Phase, the >observer does NOT rally and so cannot make contact during the Prep Fire Phase. >Also, there is no LOS from the observers current hex to any hex of the FFE:2. >What I don't understand is whether this counts as "voluntary" loss of Radio >Contact or not? Can the FFE:2 be resolved, albiet not corrected/adjusted, >etc., or is it totally cancelled? If it is totally cancelled, when does it >become cancelled, immediately when the leader routs or during the Prep Fire >Phase? The timing matters for purposes of enemy rout and advance. Although this comes from the game between Warren and me, I nonetheless would like to add something here. Since the Observer mentioned voluntarily broke himself and moved out of the LOS of any Known enemy unit in/adjacent to the FFE counter, he should therefore lose any radio contact and access to the Battery. The FFE should be cancelled when the leader fails to rally. Regardless, the Observer has no LOS to any Known enemy unit in/adjacent to the FFE counter, can he still resolve the FFE:2 mission if he is able to maintain radio contact? Here is another question of mine: If a wounded and broken leader routed out of its hex and left a radio in the original hex, is it considered voluntary loss of radio contact and thus cancellation of the FFE mission that is already on the board? This question may come a bit too late but I would still like to know the answer from the FFE gurus out there. ----- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 94 18:47:06 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Discussion of First Crisis at Army Group North > > On turn one, the 467 in hex 5U4 begins entrenching.... > the lone 467 in 4U4 will do its "duty" > simply by forcing an overrun, which costs tanks 1/4th of their MP's. Ja, an entrenched 8-1, 467/DC in 5U4 is a good thing. But I don't think you can force an overrun; Russian tanks can just blitz through the hex without making an overrun attack. Also, if a KV-1 does run the gauntlet, the German will have to pass a PAATC, then Throw the DC. DC position DRM will be +3 to +5, depending on whether the Germans wait to place it through the rear armor facing or go for frontal. Best case (+3), rolling snakes will almost guarantee a kill. A 3-5 DC placement DR will still need an 8 or less on the TK roll; a Placement DR of 6 or more will miss completely. And in all cases, the Germans themselves suffer the effects of their own DC. To my Russian tanker's mind, that's not a terrible risk if the payoff is high enough. With some adequate softening up of the position, the Germans may be broken or Pinned, which makes the DC even less dangerous. Point is that this is not an ironclad bottleneck of the board 5 corridor. By turn 4, the Russian infantry can be in position to try to neutralize 5U4 and the rest of the corridor defenses. Meanwhile the KV-1's are dealing with the PzIII's and the thin-skinned tanks are avoiding everything they can. Hey, if the 88 is guarding board 4, you bet your hiney I'm gonna think about forcing the board 5 corridor any way I can. > To me, the russians should take along the MMG for the > following reasons. It has a normal range of 10 hexes, so the russian stack > with the MMG can "reach out and touch someone" - preferably the german 88 > which will move to hex 4F4, unhook, and if time permits, unlimber. I think the terrain is just too congested for the Russians to pin any hopes on the MMG. Too easy for the Germans to avoid its LOS. Getting the MMG to within 10 hexes of 4F4 is pert-near impossible, IMO. Takes too long to lug it into position, and the Germans at level 1 of the 4P6 building will be gleefully shooting at the lone Russian leader running across open ground. If the rest of the Wehrmacht doesn't take out the MMG Banzai squad, then the 88 will lazily rotate, cough once, and the MMG crew will be meat. Nosir, I say the 8-0 is better used in getting 447's to the middle of the map quickly so they can work on suppressing the defenses along the tank's advance route. > > I think that by now maybe you are convinced that the attack > through board 5 is a pretty risky proposition. Going along the woods-road is ballsy. Possibly do-able, but ballsy. If the Germans kindle the road, forget it. > I say try board 4. The tanks do not need to wait for the infantry, given a > couple of turns the three PzIIIG's will be taken out. Certainly the first 3 turns will be the KV-1's trying to find and kill the PzIII's. Whether the Russian attack goes through the board 5 corridor or around either side of 4P6 depends on what kind of damage he's been able to do. I think a wily German won't risk the PzIII's if the thin-skinned Russian AFV's aren't exposing themselves and if the KV-1's are out of Deliberate Immob range; fall back and make the Russian commit by the middle of the game, then hit his flank. Also, while the KV-1's don't have to wait for the Russian infantry to initiate the tank battle on board 4, they won't be secure until that area is clear of German infantry. > I do not believe that the russians can > possibly make a successful attack up the woods-road hex with my setup as > the germans. > Agreed. Too easy to block the road with a wreck or have German infantry prowl the woods with DC's. If the Russian sees a 5/8" ? counter on the woods-road, he'd better assume it's a PzIII. > The russians need good luck and > an extra turn or two if you use my setup. Nevertheless, the scenario is > very suspensefull and a lot of fun to play - it just needs a little > balance adjustment. Ja, adding a turn to the game would really improve this one. Or adding another leader to the Russian forces, to get both the MMG and the rest of the Russians up to the battle. Tom ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 03:15:00 UTC Subject: Zine News/FFE to CH! Here are several messages from the GEnie BB on the "new" zine: ------------- Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 417 Wed Jul 13, 1994 M.TAPIO [Trail Break] at 23:05 EDT Rob W. and Pleva: We can break the silence. I was at the printer this morning and all systems are go. To everyone else: CRITICAL HIT! has been delivered to the printer in the form of film and everything is on schedule for our debut at Avaloncon. Rob, Steve and me decided not to make any premature "announcements" of what we were "going to deliver" to the hobby until the goods were complete. There's not enough space here to thank all those that have to be thanked. You know who you are and you'll see official gratitude in the mag. CRITICAL HIT! is 32 pages of ASL stuff. Printed in magazine format, similar to the old Fire and Movement format, it has a cover stock cover to protect the pages. You might just want those pages protected since they contain 10 scenarios ranging from tournament size to monster game. You also get ASL wisdom from the rubble of Detroit to a Brooklyn Bunker to sunny California. Throw in a little Italian ASL and Aussie stuff and you have CH. The cost for all this is $8.00 plus $1.95 S & H in the USA and Canada and $3.95 S & H overseas. It will be mailed 1st class in a sturdy envelope to protect your magazine. Send your check or money order payable to: Critical Hit, 88 Lodar Lane, Brewster, NY 10509. If you plan to attend Avaloncon, you can save $1.95 (or $3.95) and get it at the convention. Questions now, and in the future can be directed to me here on GEnie, or Rob W. or Pleva, also here on GEnie. Did I mention 10 scenarios? Did I mention its done, not pie in the sky. Enough said. FORT REPORT: Fort is staying with McGrath until he finds a new opening at the trailer park near AH. I have the phone number if anyone wants it. If anyone else wants to track down a "missing" ASL'er, I own a collection agency and we have a skip tracing service. $75.00 and we'll find anyone. We have loads of material already stacking up for issue #2. BUT, let's see some new blood from you all out there, including lurkers, to the above address. The mag is biannual, by the way. BTW, no copyright infringement, no AH logos, and all the right notices. You'll have to see it to believe it. Thank God for Corel Draw and Adobe Photoshop. And, Kai's Power Tools! Now let me get some sleep. ------------ Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 428 Thu Jul 14, 1994 M.TAPIO [Trail Break] at 22:34 EDT To all FFE subscribers: I guess I am beating Rob Wolkey to the post but here it is. A letter is going out to all FFE subscribers from Rob. All of you are getting taken care of out of Rob's pocket. He has put up the funds for an additional 500 copies of our 32 page, 1000 scenario, tons of great articles, HERE AND COMPLETED mag and you guys get it pro rated for your remaining FFE issues. The details are in Rob's letter but you will find it super fair and super cheap. Or free! Rob Wolkey and I have been in regular contact since the birth of Critical Hit! Rob has always made it abundantly clear that the combination of FFE and CH will leave no one grumbling. In fact, ROB loses money making sure he is not the next (well deserved) guy who takes the money and runs. So, FFE people sit tight as you have a copy of CH reserved for you. The rest of the ASL'ers should know we are printing 1000 copies of the mag. And then its wait unitl Winter 1995 for the next one. We'll be running some cool contests during ASLOK 1994 for those who make the wise choice to play our scenarios. And, I'll personally issue a challange right here and now: Anyone who beats me in a scenario at Avaloncon or ASLOK gets a free CH out of my pocket. Go ahead, make my day. Or, buy CH now before its gone and still make my day. BBS WARNING: 3 weeks straight of 3 AM work sessions has Mr. T. a little wied out. But the offer stands. Ray T. ------------ Now we must wonder when Tactiques will have a version called Tactics...er, that is the English version. Hope this is not seen twice..... +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Incoming fire has the right : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : of way. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Murphy's Military Laws : : P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- From: ABillsASL@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 08:07:26 EDT Subject: Boresight Question I have a squad and an MMG that fire during Defensive First Fire at a unit in the MMG's boresighted hex. The next to last sentence of C6.44 states: "The -2 Bore Sighting DRM may be used by a FG making such an attack only if _all_ elements of that FG have Bore Sighted the same Location." Does this mean that my FG of squad and MMG does not get the -2 DRM and I must fire only the MMG if I want the -2 DRM? The italicized "all" in the rule seems to indicate they really mean all. Alan Bills ----- From: ABillsASL@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 09:38:31 EDT Subject: re: OBA Q. Lance? responds to Warren's question on OBA: Warren: "... During the Rout Phase, the observer >voluntarily breaks and routs away from the enemy." Lance: "... Since the Observer mentioned voluntarily broke himself and moved out of the LOS of any Known enemy unit in/adjacent to the FFE counter, he should therefore lose any radio contact and access to the Battery. The FFE should be cancelled when the leader fails to rally." IMHO by C1.61, the observer immediately loses Radio Contact when he breaks. This is also voluntary by what Warren states. By C1.22 I would consider this voluntary loss of Contact which should cause immediate loss of Access and Cancellation of the mission. The FFE should be removed _immediately_ not when the leader fails to rally; i.e when the leader voluntarily breaks, the FFE is gone. Lance also askes: "If a wounded and broken leader routed out of its hex and left a radio in the original hex, is it considered voluntary loss of radio contact and thus cancellation of the FFE mission that is already on the board? This question may come a bit too late but I would still like to know the answer from the FFE gurus out there." I would say this is voluntary loss of Contact and the mission is immediately cancelled. Although I'm far from being an OBA guru. Alan ----- From: y.leung@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 16:19:00 UTC Subject: RE: OBA FFE Q. About the voluntary loss of contact question in the game between Warren and me, here are two summarized reasons why I think the loss of contact because of voluntary routing of the user should be considered as voluntary: a) The last sentence of C1.6 states that a leader loses radio contact voluntarily if he accompanies a routing unit as per A10.711. So, if even accompanying a routing unit is considered as voluntary loss of contact, then shouldn't voluntarily routing the leader himself be also considered as voluntary loss of contact? Okay, if the leader was broken by the enemy, then it is quite likely an involuntary loss although I am not so sure. But in the voluntary rout case, the leader can still choose to remain where he is and hopes for some miraculous snake eye or ambush roll in the following CCPh. He is not required to rout in the RtPh. That he chooses to rout anyway in the RtPh should be considered as a voluntary action and since a broken user automatically loses radio contact, it is therefore not unreasonable to state that the voluntary rout of such user is also a voluntary loss of radio contact. b) Also, it so happens in this case that the broken leader has no LOS to the SR's/FFE's Blast Height from the position that he ends up in the RtPh, so since he automatically fails to roll for radio Contact/Maintenance in his broken condition in the PFPh, then by C1.22, shouldn't such loss of contact be considered as a voluntary one? I have to admit, the above is quite biased because as it is apparent from the exchanges, I am the side being bombarded by some cranky Russian OBA. :) ----- From: y.leung@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 17:58:00 UTC Subject: RE: OBA Q. I just checked the boards again and found that the broken leader still has LOS to the FFE blast height. So, my case (b) argument probably doesn't hold up that well any more. ----- From: j.sylvester2@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 03:13:00 UTC Subject: Rules Quest. Hi all, I was recently playing a game of Red Barr. and my opponent and I were stymied about some rules (in ASL? can't be!). Most perplexing was the creation of a Cellar level pocket in bldg bb24 (He controlled the Ground level locations, I controlled the Cellar level locations and had a unit therein). When it came time for isolation determination -- step 11.606 -- he claimed that his units in the ground level of that bldg were isolated. The basis of his argument was hex h41 of the ex. on p.O13. However, my reading of rules 11.605-11.606 and the definition of 'isolated area' leads me to believe that these units should not be isolated. The logic of it is beyond me. I'm trapped in the basement and he's isolated? I think the isolated area is confined to the level I'm at in this case, not the whole hex. Therefore, I think his units in this bldg should be retained and he should be allowed to set up in the bldg. Does anyone know of some concrete rules (rulings, Mac sez', etc.) to back this up? Can't remember the other questions, this one's just too hideous. All help much appreciated, JOE ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 04:58:28 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: First Crisis at Army Group North Concerning First Crisis at Army Group North, Tom Repetti wrote: MC> On turn one, the 467 in hex 5U4 begins entrenching.... MC> the lone 467 in 4U4 will do its "duty" simply by forcing an MC> overrun, which costs tanks 1/4th of their MP's. TR: Ja, an entrenched 8-1, 467/DC in 5U4 is a good thing. But I don't think TR: you can force an overrun; Russian tanks can just blitz through the hex TR: without making an overrun attack. Forgive me, most of my ASL play is solitaire. I think I must have had a SL-COI-COD-GI rules hangover. I presume that you mean that the Russians can use vehicular bypass movement to bypass the hex so as to not be forced to overrun it? But lets do some figuring. Lets try to Blitz past without risking the KV1's too much. Say that the KV1's begin in hex 5S3 in motion on any given turn with VCA 5T2/5T3. They were in hex 4S3 to hide away from the PAK 35/36 LOF, and did not want to be adjacent to the entrenched 8-1/DC/467 stack. Ok, they begin to move forward to hex 5T3, then use bypass movement in hex 5U4 for two hexsides, and proceed to 5V4. So far, 6MP expended. Now we have expended 5 of those MP in the LOS of the PAK 35/36 and we are now two hexes away from the PAK 35/36. It will get a deliberate immobilization shot, and with ROF, a second attempt or a third. Not likely, but it is possible. My question is, where are you going to park the KV1's so that the 88 doesn't have a LOF to them THIS TURN, and also seven or more hexes away from the PAK 35/36 (so it won't get another two or three chances to immobilize the KV1's next turn), and also far enough away so that the infantry with 8-1 and DC in hex 5U4 (that you just failed to overrun) won't be able to move/advance and engage with CC? I say that even though I didn't FORCE you to overrun, you are still running my gauntlet. I'd be happy if the infantry stack and/or the PAK 35/36 immobilized or destroyed just one KV1. I think that the answer that you will come up with is the gully in hex 5Y3. But next turn, I'm going to try to come visit you by doubletiming into hexes 5V3-W3-X2, then advancing into Y3 for CC. TR: Also, if a KV-1 does run the gauntlet, the German will have to pass a TR: PAATC, then Throw the DC. DC position DRM will be +3 to +5, depending TR: on whether the Germans wait to place it through the rear armor facing TR: or go for frontal. Best case (+3), rolling snakes will almost guarantee TR: a kill. A 3-5 DC placement DR will still need an 8 or less on the TK TR: roll; a Placement DR of 6 or more will miss completely. And in all cases, TR: the Germans themselves suffer the effects of their own DC. Agreed. The thrown DC isn't likely to be effective. TR: To my Russian tanker's mind, that's not a terrible risk if the payoff is TR: high enough. With some adequate softening up of the position, the TR: Germans may be broken or Pinned, which makes the DC even less dangerous. My response is that this would only be safe if the PzIIIG's have been taken out, as if you move in such a manner as to seperate the KV1's from the russian light tanks, then I'm going to maneuver to engage the russian light tanks. Are you going to move the russian light tanks through the same path as the KV1's? Or do they move through board 4? I say that the squad in hex 5U4 is still creating a bottleneck of movement. I think that the blitz around 5U4 could work, but only if a) the PzIIIG's have ALL been taken out first and b) then you waste the time to hit 5U4 with russian armor. The stack in 5U4 has done its "duty" by forcing the russian armor to shoot at it for a full turn. TR: Point is that this is not an ironclad bottleneck of the board 5 corridor. TR: By turn 4, the Russian infantry can be in position to try to neutralize TR: 5U4 and the rest of the corridor defenses. Meanwhile the KV-1's are TR: dealing with the PzIII's and the thin-skinned tanks are avoiding TR: everything they can. Hey, if the 88 is guarding board 4, you bet your TR: hiney I'm gonna think about forcing the board 5 corridor any way I can. Well, I agree about what you are saying for the russian infantry. I presume that you are saying that the KV1's have already taken out the PzIIIG's before they try the blitz. The 88 guards both boards, except the gully hexes which are a little slow going. No, I did not mean to suggest that the entrenched units in 5U4 are going to totally and all by themselves hold back the russian forces. I do say that my setup seems to force the russians to repeatedly expose themselves to AP fire, and possibly infantry CC attacks versus the russian AFV's, and/or take some pretty slow going routes. Time is short and the russian can't take too heavy losses and still win. MC> To me, the russians should take along the MMG for the MC> following reasons. It has a normal range of 10 hexes, so the russian MC> stack with the MMG can "reach out and touch someone" - preferably the MC> german 88 which will move to hex 4F4, unhook, and if time permits, MC> unlimber. TR: I think the terrain is just too congested for the Russians to pin any TR: hopes on the MMG. Too easy for the Germans to avoid its LOS. Getting the TR: MMG to within 10 hexes of 4F4 is pert-near impossible, IMO. Takes too TR: long to lug it into position, and the Germans at level 1 of the 4P6 TR: building will be gleefully shooting at the lone Russian leader running TR: across open ground. If the rest of the Wehrmacht doesn't take out the TR: MMG Banzai squad, then the 88 will lazily rotate, cough once, and the TR: MMG crew will be meat. Nosir, I say the 8-0 is better used in getting TR: 447's to the middle of the map quickly so they can work on suppressing TR: the defenses along the tank's advance route. Well, its debateable whether or not to take the MMG along, but the only good reason IMHO to move it is to try to take out the 88 crew. If they don't get the 88 crew on their first shot, the 88 will probably do exactly what you say they will. Is it worth one extra MP per turn to ditch the MMG? I think there is no clear cut answer to this, only player preferences. I still say its worth a try to disrupt the 88's crew, but I strongly acknowledge all of your points on this. MC> I say try board 4. The tanks do not need to wait for the infantry, MC> given a couple of turns the three PzIIIG's will be taken out. TR: Certainly the first 3 turns will be the KV-1's trying to find and TR: kill the PzIII's. Whether the Russian attack goes through the board TR: 5 corridor or around either side of 4P6 depends on what kind of damage TR: he's been able to do. I think a wily German won't risk the PzIII's if TR: the thin-skinned Russian AFV's aren't exposing themselves and if the TR: KV-1's are out of Deliberate Immob range; fall back and make the Russian TR: commit by the middle of the game, then hit his flank. Also, while the TR: KV-1's don't have to wait for the Russian infantry to initiate TR: the tank battle on board 4, they won't be secure until that area is clear TR: of German infantry. In my mind, the KV1's have three jobs. They are a) to protect the russian light tanks from counterattack by the german PzIII's and/or infantry b) to find and destroy the PzIII's and c) to exit and count as victory points. The russian light tanks need the heavies to "escort" them until the PzIII's have been destroyed or immobilized. If the KV1's become widely seperated from the russian light tanks, I would not hesitate to use the Panzer III's to counterattack the russian light tanks. Jon Mishcon said the same thing in the "Squad Leader Clinic". MC> The russians need good luck and MC> an extra turn or two if you use my setup. Nevertheless, the scenario is MC> very suspensefull and a lot of fun to play - it just needs a little MC> balance adjustment. TR: Ja, adding a turn to the game would really improve this one. Or adding TR: another leader to the Russian forces, to get both the MMG and the rest TR: of the Russians up to the battle. I can't agree more. An extra turn or two or an extra leader would help the russians out a lot. The balance provision to help the russians is to add an extra turn. With the original seven turns, I wouldn't take the russian side and think I had very good chances on winning against a competent german. The main reason why I wanted to discuss this scenario is to see if there were people out there who felt that this one was a little rough on the russians, and to see what tactics the various russian players would use. For the most part, I think that how you seem to approach the russians and how I do seems to be the same. The main difference is about the MMG. Can you think of any nasties that the russian can do (besides bypassing hex 5U4) to help the cause of the red star? One thing that I can think of is to overrun german infantry if it gets in non-building/woods hexes using the KV1's, but only if the DC's aren't in the stack. I think I figured that the KV1's get a 13 FP overrun, which is a pretty good one by any standards and an excellent one for 1941 standards. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the russian light tanks are worth risking to use in an overrun attack under the same conditions?  ----- From: GORD.REID@olimitsbbs.com (GORD REID) Subject: Boresight Question Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 19:41:00 GMT Alan, A~:)I have a squad and an MMG that fire during Defensive First Fire at a ~:)unit in the MMG's boresighted hex. The next to last sentence of C6.44 ~:)states: ~:)"The -2 Bore Sighting DRM may be used by a FG making such an attack ~:)only if _all_ elements of that FG have Bore Sighted the same Location." A~:)Does this mean that my FG of squad and MMG does not get the -2 DRM and I ~:)must fire only the MMG if I want the -2 DRM? The italicized "all" in the ~:)rule seems to indicate they really mean all. I don't have the ASLRB in front of me but I'd say that the mentioned FG would be the squad and the MMG meaning you can't fire the squad at another target. Of course I could be wrong. gord The Outer Limits BBS - 313-692-9065 - USA Today - BoardWatch Mag. 250,000 Files - 15.6 Gigs - Internet - 15 Lines 28.8 - Adult - Fido ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:44:35 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Boresight Question > Alan Bills writes: > > I have a squad and an MMG that fire during Defensive First Fire at a > unit in the MMG's boresighted hex. The next to last sentence of C6.44 > states: > "The -2 Bore Sighting DRM may be used by a FG making such an attack > only if _all_ elements of that FG have Bore Sighted the same Location." > > Does this mean that my FG of squad and MMG does not get the -2 DRM and I > must fire only the MMG if I want the -2 DRM? The italicized "all" in the > rule seems to indicate they really mean all. > Yes, you get the -2 DRM only if ALL elements of that FG have Bore Sighted that Location. I think Bore Sighting actually means to carefully sightening your MG, and write down, or something, the coordinates to the position so that it is very easy to turn the MG to exactly the same position. This is of course impossible with inherent weapons, and that's why they can't be Bore Sighted at all. This is a special case of a more general rule: A negative DRM must be applicable for _all_ elements of an attack to apply, while each positive DRM that is applicable for at least one element apply. Also notice that it is not each element's final DRM that counts, but each individual DRM. For Example, If a FG consists of one squad with a -1 leader and fires through a +1 Hindrance, and one squad in an Adjacent hex, the DRM for the FG is +1, even though each element would had a DRM of zero individually. The -1 for the leader does not count, since he does not affect both squads, but the Hindrance applies, because it affects one of the elements of the FG. To get back to Bore Sighting, remember that you get the -2 DRM only against _moving_ Infantry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Subject: Boresight Question From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 09:28:00 -0640 Howdy, ABillsASL@aol.com writes: >I have a squad and an MMG that fire during Defensive First Fire at a >unit in the MMG's boresighted hex. The next to last sentence of C6.44 >states: >"The -2 Bore Sighting DRM may be used by a FG making such an attack >only if _all_ elements of that FG have Bore Sighted the same Location." >Does this mean that my FG of squad and MMG does not get the -2 DRM and I >must fire only the MMG if I want the -2 DRM? The italicized "all" in the >rule seems to indicate they really mean all. Sounds right. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 10:24:28 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: DonCon Discussion Hi, While the AGN discussion has been interesting, we should be talking about the DonCon scenarios. Problem is, there is only some 2.5 weeks until DC so we'll have to talk fast. 8) Round one (thurs am) has the following to offer... Taking of Takrouna (51) Bridge to Nowhere (54) Italian Brothers (Rout Report O2) The key to taking Takrouna with the British is to stack the best leader (10-3?) and two heros with a lmg. This give the British a -4 shot out to the range of the LMG. A pretty powerful combination. The British must take their time on entry, and not lose troops to senseless "running" around. Sure, they're Italians, but they can still score big with lots of 2(-2) shots. Bridge to Nowhere. The Russian's have to protect that tank. I've seen many people run the tank up to the bridge to fight the Italians, but it should remain on the back board with a shot to the exit hex of the bridge (if possible) so as to avoid being shot at early. The Italians, IMO, just have to hope to gain a breakthrough, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of tactics on their side. I've never played Italian Brothers. These comments are from my rather muddled Monday morning memory, let's have some comments... Brian ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 08:45:22 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: First Crisis at Army Group North > I presume that you mean that the Russians can use vehicular bypass movement > to bypass the hex so as to not be forced to overrun it? As JR said, an overrun in 5U4 isn't mandatory. I also checked out the board and I'd argue that the woods hexes on either side of 5U4 are arguably VBM'able. > > But lets do some figuring [about the PaK 35/36 strengthening the gauntlet] > No argument, the Germans can place several units to defend the gauntlet - DC in 5U4, PaK 35/36, 467/lmg, and maybe a PzIII to shoot any tanks that come out the end. And the Russians would have a hard time forcing the corridor in that event - this one IS Pro-German, right? > > Can you think of any nasties that the russian can do (besides bypassing > hex 5U4) to help the cause of the red star? > I think the Russian's best play is to get their armor and infantry to a large jump-off area as close to the middle of the board as the KV-1's can get them by turn 3 or 4, then pick an avenue of attack and blitz it. Depending on the ratio of large-caliber guns, it might even be do-able to try to overwhelm the 88 from several angles, with some Russian tank ending its turn in the 88's hex to eliminate the gun. Doubtful, I know, but boy would that be fun. Regardless, the Russians will have to sacrifice some units (infantry and the weaker tanks) to get their foot in the door and then go for the goal line. Only other good option I see is to use the speed of the BT-7's to race through the defense early on and take up positions that will be really irritating to the Germans, if such a situation presents itself. Tom ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: I'll be at DonCon... Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 11:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Friday, Saturday, and if possible Sunday (doubt it, but one can hope) so I probably won't partake in the tourney, but if someone is interested in some ftf let me know. -bob Patton's qoute to Monty on the success of Oper Market Garden included with a 5 gallon jerry can of gas: "Here's all the gas you'll need for as far as you'll get." Taken from the book "The Unknown Patton" ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:37:45 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: DonCon Guys, I'm definitely there Wed night on. My wife (Lu Ann) is leaving to visit her folks the Saturday prior to DonCon week (an official holiday?) so I'll have Sat,Sun,Mon,Tues to work on Bb scenarios and Wed,Thur,Fri,Sat,Sun for DonCon tourny and Bb scenarios. Look me up if I'm not busy we can give something a go. It should be easy, I'll be the guy with the ASL stare by Wed. night... Brian ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:50:17 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: DonCon Discussion Brian said: >Bridge to Nowhere. The Russian's have to protect that tank. I've seen >many people run the tank up to the bridge to fight the Italians, but it should >remain on the back board with a shot to the exit hex of the bridge (if >possible) so as to avoid being shot at early. There is a spot that has LOS to the victory road while being almost totally out of reach of the Italians. I'd still consider using the thing as the Russians, just very carefully. Avoid the 20L ATR's. The FP from that thing is a significant chunk of the VC's. But if it's safe, by all means strafe the end of the bridge rather than sitting smugly on the other side of creation. More fun that way. :-> Just don't get rash with the thing. It's armored by Fiat standards, not Cadillac. >The Italians, IMO, just have to hope to gain a breakthrough, as there >doesn't seem to be a lot of tactics on their side. Sure there are. After McGrath smashed my Italians, he pointed a couple of things out. One is that the Italians tend to get overstacked and bottled up on the bridge, so it's wise to send two groups across the leftern (forget which way is north) fords. (One in the gimme setup hex, and one further back.) Another is that a Russian unit in the woods to the right of the bridge (from the Italian perspective) can mess up the attack by preventing rout from the Death Hex (first one off the bridge) to the other side, while being out of LOS of all the FP on the bridge. A well-placed mortar (to the right of the Italian side of the bridge with LOS to the woods hexes in question) can help a lot here. And another mortar near there can be aimed at the woods hex that has a shot down the hexspine at the Death Hex. If the Italian just charges up the bore, it gets really ugly without a lot of luck. (I've done it with and without luck, and it's ugly both ways, even if you win.) Sorry I can't quote the hexes in question, but they're pretty obvious once you know what you're looking for. The rule is that if it won't fit on the bridge, don't force it. Find another use. Takrouna and Bridge to Nowhere are both a lot of fun, and they can both be very frustrating. Dust is bad, when you gack every obvious- looking shot in sight. Having a bunch of 1-FP broken 4 ML HS's overstacked on a bridge messing up your attack is even worse. (Can I capture my own disrupted crap so it doesn't count for stacking purposes? :-> "A disrupted unit is not an obstacle to movement" may be in the ASLRB, but it sure doesn't apply here.) Dave Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 08:58:39 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: New General Guys, Received the new General in the mail Saturday. Overall, I think it was better than the last issue. I haven't read it thoroughly yet, but here are the highlights: 2 Scenarios: G17 Hakkaa Paalle ("mow 'em down," according to one source). Vetko, Finland, 1940. Extreme Winter. Deep Snow. 20 Russian 628s, 12 Finn 838s. All units on both sides are ski-equipped and have winter camouflage. VC: Finns have 10 more CVP than the Russians. The aftermath says it all: "a bloody, brutal, running firefight." G18 Goya. Rochelinval, Belgium, 1945. Ground Snow, Germans have Winter Camouflage. 20 US 747s vs 10 German 447s and 10 436s. The US has to dash across the relatively open terrain of Board 16 to capture two buildings on Board 23. A Scenario Briefing by Mark Nixon. This month he discusses DASL Scenario A To The Last Man, which was published in the General Vol 24, No 1. The graphics used to illustrate the briefing are pretty good. Apparently they are using a new artist and some new techniques. The ASL AREA Top 10. :-) 3 articles and a Series Replay for the featured game We The People, and articles about Acquire, Breakout; Normandy Up Front, and Kingmaker PC. Wait, an _article_ about computer Kingmaker? Well, two, actually. An introduction to it by Rex Martin, comparing it to the boardgame version, and a reprint of a review which appeared in computer game magazine. Interesting. Even more interesting is the Avalon Hill Philosophy by Don Greenwood. He announces that AH is shifting its focus from boardgames to computer games. "Avalon Hill will continue to do boardgames--if for not other reason than to design platforms for talented programmers to emulate." "The transition from a predominantly boardgame company to one depending primarily on computer games will not be easy." It won't be easy for me, either. Dave ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 08:59:13 -0700 Subject: Re: DonCon Discussion Hola. Brian sez: > > The key to taking Takrouna with the British is to stack the best leader > (10-3?) and two heros with a lmg. This give the British a -4 shot out to > the range of the LMG. A pretty powerful combination. Yes. A very powerful combo. Jeff DeBraal handed me my oats doing more or less this very thing. > > The British must take their time on entry, and not lose troops to > senseless "running" around. Sure, they're Italians, but they can still score > big with lots of 2(-2) shots. Doesn't this scenario include light dust? Makes it a lot easier (although not completely safe) to run around in the open. And, after all, those are mighty good troops. > > Bridge to Nowhere. The Russian's have to protect that tank. I've seen > many people run the tank up to the bridge to fight the Italians, but it should > remain on the back board with a shot to the exit hex of the bridge (if possible) > so as to avoid being shot at early. Hmm.... Could be. But it makes me nervous to stop a radioless tank that, if memory serves, is also subject to a mechanical reliability roll, in a hex that does not meet the VC. You don't know if the damn thing will ever start again. I think this one is pretty darn tough for the Russians. A force that is largely conscript with an ELR of 2, and very poor leadership, against a well-led well-armed Italian force that has plenty of time. Dade ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 17:02:16 BST From: jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com (J. R. Tracy) Subject: Re: DonCon Discussion Following Brian's lead on the Italian scenarios: Bridge to Nowhere I've got to agree with keeping the Russian tankette back; it's tempting to blitz the bridge, but the thing is a tin can after all and has a short life expectancy even in the presence of Italians..don't forget about those two 20L AT rifles, either. Also, a well-sighted mortar position can be found which hits both the bridge and the fording site, and remains out of LOS to most positive TEM firing postions available to the Italians on the far side of the river; I don't have the boards with me, but it's on the river bank itself. As for the Italians, it's sort of Gavinelli's Gamble, only less dangerous. At the Windy City tourney, a couple of people sent extra troops over the fords, with some success. Italian Brothers This a fun scenario, set in the Spanish Civil War, with crummy troops on both sides, a sprinkling of SWs, and some of those tiny little Italian tankettes. I've played this once as each side; it is essentially a meeting engagement, with both sides dashing for five buildings; the Facists get to two first, the Republicans grab the other three, and then it's a slugging match. If neither side has four buildings, victory is settled by CVP. Vague hints on play include *use the MGs against the tankettes* (nobody on the List has any excuse for forgetting this) and, for the Republican, decide which buildings to focus on and stick to the plan - it's very easy to spread yourself too thin. One question on the scenario: the Republic uses a mix of Allied Minors and Russians; Allied Minors have their broken morale raised by one versus Italians - does that apply to this scenario? No opinion on Takrouna, other than 'it looks cool'. Now, how about those RB scenarios? I've played a total of one scenario of RB, so *any* advice is welcome! Take it easy, JR ----- Subject: AAR: MOUNT PISSODERI From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:28:00 -0640 Howdy, Some random thoughts on Mount Pissoderi, ASLUG 15. I was playing the Italians. My opponant, Phil Pomerantz, said that the scenario is unbalanced in favor of the Italians, so we gave the Greeks their first level of balance, a 9-1 leader. The Italians defend a Level 4 hilltop against a mob of lightly armed Greeks. The Greeks have only Infantry; their heaviest weapons are an ATR and a HMG. The Italians get light armor support, an L3/35 Tankette and an AB 40 AC. They also have a 65 mm INF Gun. The short length of the game, 6 turns, means that the Greeks have to come up the hill in the open. I set the Italians up mostly on the 9O5 hill, in the area of the 9R4 crags and the 9S2 woods. Two squads, the MMG and the 8-1 leader went into the foxholes in 9O5. I wouldn't do this again: 9O5 is too vulnerable to Prep fire on the first turn. Instead I would put the MMG in 9T2, behind the woods, but able to put down a Fire Lane across the length of the hill. I would put a squad in 9O5 instead, with no SW so that if the Greeks do get into the hex they won't be given a free weapon to help them. The 8-1 leader would probably go behind the hill to rally troops, because the 6 ML Italians break so easily. I put the 65 INF on the other Level 4 hill in 9Y6. It has a LOS to nearly every part of the 9O5 hill front from here. >From where the Greeks start it is very difficult for them to move to the 65 INF, so no Infantry are needed to screen the Gun. The 45 MTRs were in 9W2 (manned by a HS) and 9M4. The one in 9M4 broke almost instantly and never was used. On reflection I would put it in 9M5 to give it shots down the front slope, but I wouldn't expect it to last long anyway. The second MTR fired frequently but had hardly any results from fire. Its presence did indirectly cause some serious hurt to the Greeks: the Greek HMG moved forward to support the attack in the 4th or 5th Turn. In order to avoid a 2.5 down one attack in the woods 2S1 from the MTR, the Greek HMG moved into 2R1. The Italian AC, parked in 9T2, spotted the opportunity and ran forward (using an indirect route to avoid the ATR) to OVR the Greek heavy weapons section with an 8 down one attack. After the attack, the AC remained in motion in the hex (not by my design, but because it had run out of MP), which was exactly the right move because the HMG was kept out of the rest of the battle. In addition to this attack, the armor had several other key OVRs. The Location behind the woods in 9T2 makes an excellent place to put armor because it can fire or OVR units using the road across the front of the hill. I had only one squad on the west side, and it turned tail on the first turn. The Greeks almost flanked my position through the 9L4 pass, but the armor was able to turn back this force with substantial casualties. On the Greek side, Phil put the HMG in 2S3 with the 9-1 leader. Given my setup, this is a good position because it avoids the LOS of the 65 INF and the MTRs while giving a clear view of the hill. I was much vexed by this weapon for many turns: kill it if you can. The Greek ATR should be put up on the hill; 2T3 is a good spot. This gives the Greeks good shots without Height Advantage TEM at the Italian armor if they run across the 9M2 road to OVR assaulting Greek Infantry. The Greeks should avoid stacking in the open if they can: 8 down 1 OVRs are effective (break or better) 60% of the time against 7ML, and adding Pins and a 1PAATC, the Greeks won't get many reaction fire kills as consolation. Finally, I had an opportunity to try the infamous truck OVR, but Phil shot my truck to pieces. I shouldn't have tried it because the wreck ended up in 9O3, providing the Greeks with much needed cover. If it had been a flaming wreck, I might have been much more unhappy. As it was, I'm glad Phil didn't fire on the wreck to ignite it. Overall, a fun scenario with tin tanks and uninspired Infantry for the Italians, much bravery and a hint of desparation from Greeks counter-attacking armor supported invaders without heavy weapons. Phil's wily, determined assault and my great dice rolling brought this one down to the last turn. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 18:38:46 CET From: patman@gdpc.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: CA changing Hi, I remember reading some discussion about changing TCA/VCA and the resulting DRMs. I didn't comment the discussion then because I didn't have a rulebook. I checked the rules this weekend because I seemed to remember that there are some subtleties about changing CA and firing that no one seemed to be aware of. Sure enough, there were some (minor) points that is usefule to know about: When firing a weapon that canges CA as it is firing, the DRM is calculated from the last CA change of each type to occur. That means that if you change the TCA (fast traverse) to fire your MA, and then another hexspine to fire your CMG, you will only net a TCA Change DRM of +1. Likewise, if you change your VCA to do the same you would get only a +3 VCA change DRM. When this was discussed, the consensus seemed to be that you add up all CA changes for a particular weapon, and then apply them when the weapon fires. When changing CA to fire at a concealed target, you cannot then change your CA again to fire at another target. This surprised me, at least. I bet many of you didn't know either. If you have fired your MA, you cannot fire your MGs unless you fire them from that very same hex. This seems very strange to me, but it's in there. I don't remember the exact wording, and a thing that come to my mind as I write this is how multiple OVRs are supposed to happen? This is from the beginning of Chapter D (D2.42?), for those who would like to check what the rules say. BTW, I'm not reading list mail regularily at the moment so if you need to contect me please mail me directly (and Cc:ing the list is no good either, since that mail will be filtered out as well.) -- Patrik Manlig @ Gefle DPC [ Please send personal email to pman@hgs.se, or finger that account ] ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:29:33 AST Subject: Canadians during WWII I have a copy of the official history of the Royal 22nd Regiment of Canada (in French). If anyone has questions about battles the unit participated in, send them this way. I have found scenarios involving the 22nd in an old issue of the Digest (vol, #5, I think). I could also fax relevant pages or even lend the thing. Also, if you have material in French that you would like translated into English, this is the address. Only SL/ASL related stuff, though. I still have to earn my paycheck. I can also translate the other way (English to French), but I am sure the members in France and other French speaking countries have been doing a good job of it. Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are special animals. Let them live. ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:50:31 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: MG CA I've got a question about MG CA. Suppose an MMG or HMG is in a building, and it fires at moving targets during the MPh, but it retains ROF after all shots. In the DFPh, can it fire at targets outside of the CA established in the MPh? Now before you offer up the "easy" answer, the next-to-last sentence in A9.21 (I think) states that the CA is set only for the _phase_ in which the MG fires. I think my real issue is if Defensive Fire during the MPh considered part of the MPh, or is it part of the DFPh? On the ASOP is says (I think) that each unit has its own MPh, but how does that apply to units defensive firing? Dave ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 11:59 PDT From: john@data.microtekintl.com (John Mantey) Subject: Re: including SL scenarios in ASL database As I was reading Mike Clay's discussion of the database comments it occured to me that people who've been playing this game for a long time (read since SL) may want the SL stuff integrated into the database to assist in the "has this SL scenario been ASL'ized?" question. For instance, if you're looking for a scenario with x, y, and z and only the SL version comes up, it may encourage scenario migration or assist in locating migrated scenarios (cv Sochow 79, et al.). John Mantey john@microtekintl.com Microtek International ...!uunet!data!john 3300 NW 211th Terrace Those who know what's best for us, Hillsboro, OR 97124 Must rise and save us from ourselves. - "Witch Hunt" - RUSH ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 13:17:20 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: New General > G17 Hakkaa Paalle ("mow 'em down," according to one source). > Vetko, Finland, 1940. Extreme Winter. Deep Snow. 20 Russian 628s, > 12 Finn 838s. All units on both sides are ski-equipped and have > winter camouflage. VC: Finns have 10 more CVP than the Russians. The > aftermath says it all: "a bloody, brutal, running firefight." > Dave tells me this one is 10 turns long. Could someone please tell me where it's written that every g-dang Russo-Finnish scenario has to be in Deep Snow and be at least 10 turns long? Ay carumba! Only way to get MORE trite is to situate it on boards 2 and 4. Yes, I know Fighting Withdrawl isn't like that. And I don't count Silent Death. And I know that Finland gets more than its share of snow. I just can't believe that nobody can come up with an 8-turn Finnish scenario set in the summer, or ANYTIME DURING 1944. Boggles my mind. I admit to not knowing my history well enough here, so I'd be glad if somebody said, "Ahem. You idiot, the Russians and Finns signed a non-agression treaty during the summer months." Really, I'd take the news like a man. Tuomo ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 13:51:33 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Master Plan >ASL AREA TOP 10 > >1. Mike McGrath 2148HI >2. Gary Fortenberry 2104ILE >3. Perry Cocke 2076IJ >4. Bill Conner 2014GH >5. Ron Berger 1996HKH >6. Steve Pleva 1988DGG >7. Bruce Rinehart 1929HG >8. Marc Hanna 1892DGH >9. Phil Petry 1832NH >10. Scott Orane 1825EIF Good, my master plan must be working. I've been losing games so often lately my ranking is in the toilet! Now lets see those pairings at DonCon! 8) 8) Brian ----- From: ABillsASL@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 15:42:40 EDT Subject: re: OBA Q. I'm sorry if I did not word my response clearly. I believe we are agreeing on the point of voluntary loss of Contact. However, I believe that voluntary loss is at the point that the leader voluntarily breaks himself. At that point IMO the FFE is removed/Cancelled. To clearly state it, IMO: the FFE is removed IMMEDIATELY after the leader voluntarily breaks. All of the rules concerning this clearly state IMMEDIATELY. I don't think the leader should have a chance to rally and continue. The fact that he might rally and is out of LOS should not even come into play, the fire mission should already be cancelled. If the leader had been broken by enemy fire, radio contact would be unvoluntarily lost, again no radio contact, however, the fire mission would continue. At this point, it does not matter what the leader does in the broken state, he has no radio contact. How can he voluntarily (or unvoluntarily for that matter) lose something he doesn't have in the first place? If he rallies before the fire mission is finished, he can contact the OBA and adjust/modify as per the rules. In this case he is just lucky if this occurs. If he has no LOS to the FFE, case C1.335 or C1.337 would apply. I would compare it to losing ROF on an intensive fire shot. If you intensive fire, by default you have no ROF, what does losing ROF mean at that point? Alan ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 15:57:08 +0500 From: farrell@hybrid.gsfc.nasa.gov (Chris Farrell) Subject: KGP I anomolies Hi All, Just a brief note. A couple friends and I are playing KGP. While I think we are all enjoying it, we have run across so many rules idiocies we are planning to write up our own house rules for when we play again (make it the Riker-Gillihan- Farrell, or RGF KGP). Our gripes include: 1) If your gun isn't hooked to a towing vehicle at the end of a scenario you can't move that gun more than three hexes between games. We always wonder what exactly the SPW drivers are doing between scenarios. I mean really, if you end the game in the gun's hex (but not hooked up), do the drivers just sort of punch out? They can then pick up a squad, leader, and SW, all in remote locations, and shift to an entirely different setup area - but refuse to spend 60 seconds hooking up the gun. Not in the job description, I guess. This is especially annoying when there is an idle date between scenarios; evidently halftrack drivers aren't paid for idle dates either. Crew's aren't paid to push either; 8 extra hours doesn't allow them to move more than 3 hexes. 2) A gun doesn't have to be emplaced to be a strategic location. So a truck/HT can hook up a gun and be a mobile strategic location. Makes your Panthers feel a bit safer. Captured US 57L's are especially good for this. 3) At times (especially at the end of the first day), US units are far better off in no-man's land than in friendly territory. This is because the escape table is, at times, far safer than the shift table. Shifting off-board is very dicey, wheras you can usually escape. Thinking of shifting, why is it that trucks and halftracks don't make it easier to shift, especially over long distances? And who exactly is inflicting such horrendous shift casualties (50% for each unit) when the US is shifting off-board while they control significant on-board territory? 4) The escape table in and of itself is pretty screwed up, since it takes no account of distance to the best of my memory. I remember having a platoon isolated way behind enemy lines, but because of how things fell out, they had no trouble escaping through at least 15 hexes of enemy territory at high noon. 5) Rule sleaze #1: Although it didn't happen, I had nightmares of the Germans taking a night offensive even though I had very little on the board, and then for the morning turn simply building entrenchments two hexes away from the board edge. With only an 9-hex wide entry area, they could have simply sat there and blasted any US units trying to enter. A bombardment would have helped, but I couldn't see myself breaking such a line without massive amounts of *very* expensive tanks and halftracks. Since I can't fire from off-board, and can't even take an off-board observer for the arty, I would have had to have moved on and weathered the whole 9 yards of SS firepower, panzerfausts, PSK's, and panthers. The entire second day would have been a virtual write-off. 6) Although not a rules problem, the SW-proliferation problem seems to carried over very nicely from RB. As the US, after the 19PM scenario, I had a SW:Squad ratio of well in excess of 1.5:1. Having bought a couple of HW plt's, I now have more SW's than my entire order of battle can carry with their IPC, even if I dismantle everything. This may be anomolous, but the Germans are even worse. They already have a 1:1 ratio, throw in scrounged LMG's, captured weapons, and casualties, and you're looking at a pretty obscene ratio. I suppose it's only fair, though; while the quartermaster refuses to take back some of those SW's that belong to squads that were not really dead/wounded but still eliminated, they also refuse to re-equip the engineers when they expend their weapons. I can't help but think that there are just too many damn guns in this game. 7) Those MA disabled results seem awfully permanent, especially for the Germans. I mean, aren't a lot of MA disabled results supposed to actually mean that the tank is out of ammo? Shouldn't there at least be a dr to fix these things? I don't want to be too leniant, but an extra Panther killing itself to MA disabled can be very bad. 8) There is no account of one of the most critical parts of serious armoured battles - the retention of wrecks. The US should gain some benefit from non- burnt out wrecks. A lot of these vehicles could actually be made combat worthy given some time. Maybe the scale is too small, but everything I understand says how important it was to hold the field and recover as many of your wrecks as you could. As it is, the US just leaves their wrecks lying around. The same thing should apply for the germans. It would be worth simulating and would clean up the battlefield some. 9) Rules sleaze #2: The victory conditions are awfully strange. If the US doesn't control any territory at start, they can "win" by taking a single LVP, despite any casualties. Likewise, if the Germans start controlling all the LVP's, they can eridicate the American presence from the map without winning the scenario. All in all, the Germans should not win a scenario after the first day (sorry, date) until after they lose the Sanatorium. 10) You know, those rules for the US guns on date 1 seem really dumb. I would prefer somthing like making a dr for each gun, and if they fail they set up concealed insead of HIP. 11) All this mist is damn annoying. This isn't a rules gripe, just a personal thing :) 12) Why exactly do you have to check all your captured equipment on an idle date? And why is it just as likely to go away then as after heavy fighting? I don't know if this is really a rules bug, given the plethora of equipment already available, but it just seems odd. Certainly it's irritating my german opponents no end. Given the tremendous reliability of friendly equipment, captured equipment seems awfullys fragile. Thinking of which, why is it just as easy to repair a HMG between scenarios as a LMG? During the scenario, I don't worry too much about malfed HMG's, since the odds are that it'll come back. But if the battle actually ends, the units are again struck by an immediate, driving urge to clear the jam in the next 10 seconds lest armegeddon strike them without a HMG, cutting their odds of actually fixing it considerably. 13) Picture this ... a wirbelwind gets stuck in an AP minefield. The driver stops, figuring that between scenarios the pioneers will just come up and clear the minefield so they can get out. But no! The refit phase forces the unit to attempt to exit the minefield before any clearance attempts. Apparently those pioneers enjoy the same pay scale as the SPW 251 drivers, and join them for a beer break right after the end of the game. The Wirblewind driver then compounds impatience with stupidity and blows himself up on a mine. This also extends to infantry units in AP minefields. If a squad gets stuck in a minefield well behind the lines, he is normally in no danger since the risk of casualties is pretty small (1-in-12). But the instant the game is over, the units are seized by an immediate, irrational desire to flee the minefiled ASAP, skyrocketing their chances of killing themselves to over 50% for a normal US squad. 14) Lastly, having played it now, I think there should be more predictability in the US purchases. If the US gets really lucky/unlucky on his tank unit composition DR's, it can have a profound balance influence. If you're like me, you end up with all these trashy M4's without gyrostabilizers. An M4 is bad enough, but without the gyro it's pretty hopeless in such a vehicle- unfriendly environment. By contrast, if you get one of the E3's, you can walk around and obliterate anything except a panther. And those BFT's seem a little powerful to trust to a DR. One could say the same thing about the leaders, but they are not such an all-or-nothing affair. You may miss the 10-3, but at least you got a 9-1. I realize it's just one more random factor to account for, but the vehicle encounters are dicey enough as it is. There is more, I just can't recall it right now. I'll let you know if I do. Chris ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 15:47:26 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: New scenario on carlos Greetings, A few weeks ago, while all the preparations for the 50th anniversary of the D-day landing were in the news, I came across a letter from an US Army battalion commander in Normandy to my wife's grandmother. The letter gave a very detailed account of a minor engagement that occurred on 13 June 1944; however, that was not its primary purpose. This letter was to console the wife of a fallen comrade. I kicked an idea around in my head a few weeks and decided that there's more to this game than pushing cardboard around a table: many of the scenarios memorialize the actions of soldiers on both sides of the line. As my contribution, I've assembled a scenario, "A Helping Hand," which I've just placed on carlo. It's by no means in its finished form, but I need input at this point, so if it appeals to you, give it a try and then drop me a line with suggestions/comments. Other sources for this work included _Cross Channel Attack_ by G.A. Harrison (still available, BTW) and the US and German OBs as published by W.V. Madej (which I can't seem to find a seller outside a library). Many, many thanks are due to Doug Maston for providing the final product. Without his help I would not have been able to do this. Thanks, Doug! Bryan P.S. I sincerely hope that I have not offended anyone. That was not my intention. I just had to clear the ghosts from my head. ----- Date: 18 Jul 1994 16:10:09 U From: "Noah Matt" Subject: Advance into Difficult Terrain Pop Quiz: Can a CX unit that is underneath a foxhole advance to be underneath another foxhole that is in an ADJACENT woods hex? Before you say "No way dude, that's 4 MF!", kindly peruse A4.72 (I think that's the right number, and don't call me dude). This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. Since the CX unit in question is spending 1 MF in the old hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 *as written* really prohibit this advance? I fully aware that I'm splitting hairs here, but hey, I'm an ASL player! Actually, I'm curious to see how the rest of you interpret this rule. Do all MF costs apply to the 4 MF limit, or just those MF costs for the hex being advanced into? Thanks. Matt Noah noah_matt@prc.com ----- Subject: MG CA From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 17:39:00 -0640 Howdy, vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) writes: >I've got a question about MG CA. Suppose an MMG or HMG is in a >building, and it fires at moving targets during the MPh, but it >retains ROF after all shots. In the DFPh, can it fire at targets >outside of the CA established in the MPh? >Now before you offer up the "easy" answer, the next-to-last sentence >in A9.21 (I think) states that the CA is set only for the _phase_ in >which the MG fires. I think my real issue is if Defensive Fire during >the MPh considered part of the MPh, or is it part of the DFPh? On the >ASOP is says (I think) that each unit has its own MPh, but how does that >apply to units defensive firing? The easy answer is the right answer. The next-to-last sentence of A9.21 ('92) says, "Remove the CA counter at the end of the current phase [EXC: a SW MMG/HMG with a fixed CA, and whose operator was pinned in the PFPh/MPh, retains its fixed CA until the end of the DFPh]." The MPh is never considered the same phase as the DFPh; what you are thinking of is rule A.15, which states: "FIRST/FINAL FIRE: Even though Defensive First Fire occurs during the MPh and Defensive FInal Fire usually occurs during the DFPh, qualifying units may fire in both without violating the general rule that no unit can fire in more than one phase per Player Turn (A7.1)." The two are considered different phases and the CA marker is removed at the end of the current phase, the MPh. Note that the EXC in A9.21 would not be necessary if the CA remained fixed through the DFPh (I don't know why the PFPh is mentioned, because I can't think of any way to change the CA of the ATTACKER's MG in the MPh/DFPh). So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: CA changing From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 17:39:00 -0640 Howdy, patman@gdpc.se (Patrik Manlig) writes: > When firing a weapon that canges CA as it is firing, the > DRM is calculated from the last CA change of each type to > occur. That means that if you change the TCA (fast traverse) > to fire your MA, and then another hexspine to fire your > CMG, you will only net a TCA Change DRM of +1. Likewise, > if you change your VCA to do the same you would get only a > +3 VCA change DRM. > When this was discussed, the consensus seemed to be that you add up > all CA changes for a particular weapon, and then apply them when the > weapon fires. > When changing CA to fire at a concealed target, you cannot then > change your CA again to fire at another target. [This is all in reference to D3.51, for those of you following the score.] I suspect that all this is a concession to playability. You don't want to have to keep track of all the changes of CA, yet you also don't want the firer to fire a CMG at an empty hex (or a concealed unit) to get the MA close to the right CA and avoid having to pay for > 1 hexside change. > If you have fired your MA, you cannot fire your MGs unless you > fire them from that very same hex. > This seems very strange to me, but it's in there. I don't remember > the exact wording, and a thing that come to my mind as I write this is > how multiple OVRs are supposed to happen? This needs a cite: I know if you fire one weapon [/PRC] you can fire the others only during the same _phase_ [D3.5], but I don't think there is any limitation as to hexes/locations. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 15:17:32 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Advance into Difficult Terrain > From: "Noah Matt" > Pop Quiz: Can a CX unit that is underneath a foxhole advance to be underneath > another foxhole that is in an ADJACENT woods hex? > > Before you say "No way dude, that's 4 MF!", kindly peruse A4.72 (I think that's > the right number, and don't call me dude). > > This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. Since the CX unit in > question is spending 1 MF in the old hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 > *as written* really prohibit this advance? > > I fully aware that I'm splitting hairs here, but hey, I'm an ASL player! > Actually, I'm curious to see how the rest of you interpret this rule. Do all > MF costs apply to the 4 MF limit, or just those MF costs for the hex being > advanced into? Hmm, would that be changing more than one Location at a time? Or are FH considered the same Location as the hex they are in? I'd need to see the rule about Advancing, but does it allow you a one hex change, or a one Location change? That might be the key to the problem, not just the MF cost. Dave ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 17:06:08 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Advance into Difficult Terrain > > > From: "Noah Matt" > > > Pop Quiz: Can a CX unit that is underneath a foxhole advance to be underneath > > another foxhole that is in an ADJACENT woods hex? > > > > Before you say "No way dude, that's 4 MF!", kindly peruse A4.72 (I think that's > > the right number, and don't call me dude). > > > > This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. Since the CX unit in > > question is spending 1 MF in the old hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 > > *as written* really prohibit this advance? > > > > I fully aware that I'm splitting hairs here, but hey, I'm an ASL player! > > Actually, I'm curious to see how the rest of you interpret this rule. Do all > > MF costs apply to the 4 MF limit, or just those MF costs for the hex being > > advanced into? > > Hmm, would that be changing more than one Location at a time? Or are > FH considered the same Location as the hex they are in? I'd need to see > the rule about Advancing, but does it allow you a one hex change, or a > one Location change? That might be the key to the problem, not just > the MF cost. > > Dave > I know that you are restricted from changing BOTH hex and location in the same APh (see the definition of the phase in sequence of play, forget the A.##.#). Thus the inability to advance INTO a pillbox from an adjacent hex. As far as Foxholes, they are only considered seperate location for a few situations, which I don't recall. However, I believe the example of advancing out of a Foxhole into an adjacent hex is clearly possible (in most cases...) As to the original question, I guess I 'interpreted' the intent to be all MF that would be expended as if the unit were moving in the MPh, not just those in the hex being advanced into... JMHO, Mark ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 17:26:44 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Sniper Activation Hi, I am wondering if I have a Sniper Activation case correctly... Is a Sniper Check made if the IFT Effect DR following a hit by Ordnance (specifically Mortar) equals the SAN? I know that OBA IFT is excluded, but no others are mentioned. My doubts that they might not be included are due to that fact that the To Hit DR is subject to SAN, and it seems like double jeapordy... Regards, mark ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 19:30:47 -0400 (EDT) From: LANCELEU@delphi.com Subject: Re: OBA Q. >From: IN%"ABillsASL@aol.com" >I believe we are agreeing on the point of voluntary loss of >Contact. However, I believe that voluntary loss is at the point >that the leader voluntarily breaks himself. At that point IMO >the FFE is removed/Cancelled. To clearly state it, IMO: the FFE >is removed IMMEDIATELY after the leader voluntarily breaks. All >of the rules concerning this clearly state IMMEDIATELY. I agree with this also. Sorry that those messages following up were intended for the GEnie BB. I just chose to post them here anyway. Thanks for your response. (Of course, your answer is the one I want to hear.) :) >If the leader had been broken by enemy fire, radio contact would >be unvoluntarily lost, again no radio contact, however, the fire >mission would continue. At this point, it does not matter what >the leader does in the broken state, he has no radio contact. >How can he voluntarily (or unvoluntarily for that matter) lose >something he doesn't have in the first place? If he rallies >before the fire mission is finished, he can contact the OBA and >adjust/modify as per the rules. In this case he is just lucky if >this occurs. If he has no LOS to the FFE, case C1.335 or C1.337 >would apply. Yes, I agree to this too. If that is so, it seems to pay for the leader to stand on his ground and take on those advancing enemy units in the CCPh than just routing away voluntarily in the face of enemy units. That seems to make sense as "chickening out" shouldn't be encouraged in the battlefield. :) ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 09:13:31 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Boresight Question Alan- A> I have a squad and an MMG that fire during Defensive First A> Fire at a unit in the MMG's boresighted hex. The next to A> last sentence of C6.44 states: A> "The -2 Bore Sighting DRM may be used by a FG making such A> an attack only if _all_ elements of that FG have Bore A> Sighted the same Location." A> A> Does this mean that my FG of squad and MMG does not get the A> -2 DRM and I must fire only the MMG if I want the -2 DRM? A> The italicized "all" in the rule seems to indicate they A> really mean all. That's exactly what that means. -Grant. ... Attack first, then get tough. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Subject: Re: Advance into Difficul From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 21:38:00 -0640 Howdy, > From: "Noah Matt" > This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. > Since the CX unit in question is spending 1 MF in the old > hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 *as written* really > prohibit this advance? > > I fully aware that I'm splitting hairs here, but hey, I'm an > ASL player! Actually, I'm curious to see how the rest of > you interpret this rule. Do all MF costs apply to the 4 MF > limit, or just those MF costs for the hex being advanced > into? A4.72 "vs DIFFICULT TERRAIN: An advance into any hex whose MF cost (excluding SMOKE) is >= four MF or all of a unit's available non-Double Time MF allotment (whcihever is less) may not be made if the unit is already CX [EXC: Climbing, B11.432; Deep Stream Entry, B20.43]; otherwise it may advance but becomes CX in the process." I can see it, but it's a stretch. Most of the rules are not that subtle. It's unfortunate that there are a few that are. I'm not changing the way I play. > vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) writes: > > Hmm, would that be changing more than one Location at a > time? Or are FH considered the same Location as the hex > they are in? I'd need to see the rule about Advancing, but > does it allow you a one hex change, or a one Location > change? That might be the key to the problem, not just the > MF cost. B27.13 "LOCATION: A unit in a foxhole is not in the same Location as a unit outside that foxhole on teh same level (not in a pillbox) and in the same hex for purposes of weapon Recovery or TEM, but is considered in the same Location for all other purposes (including CC and LLMC/LLTC)." So this doesn't solve the problem. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 01:51:00 UTC Subject: Mt Pissoderi JR, you are too kind. You had a very nice defense that covered the appraoches very well. The 65 was nicely placed, and although you didn't get much from the Flintstone tank, the AC could have been a Panther as far as i was concerned. It was a well played defense, a tight game, and very enjoyable. If only I hadnt FPFed the hero :) See you there in August Phil ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 19:28:49 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Sniper Activation A mortar IFT DR can cause a sniper as can any ordance shot that also uses the IFT. It may not seem fair, but it is possible for them to cause two sniper attacks (TH and IFT). Fred > Hi, > > I am wondering if I have a Sniper Activation case correctly... > Is a Sniper Check made if the IFT Effect DR following a hit > by Ordnance (specifically Mortar) equals the SAN? I know that > OBA IFT is excluded, but no others are mentioned. My doubts > that they might not be included are due to that fact that > the To Hit DR is subject to SAN, and it seems like double > jeapordy... > > Regards, > > mark > ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 01:58:00 UTC Subject: Re: OBA Q. Re: OBA battery contact loss: >>I believe we are agreeing on the point of voluntary loss of >>Contact. However, I believe that voluntary loss is at the point >>that the leader voluntarily breaks himself. At that point IMO >>the FFE is removed/Cancelled. To clearly state it, IMO: the FFE >>is removed IMMEDIATELY after the leader voluntarily breaks. All >>of the rules concerning this clearly state IMMEDIATELY. > [stuff deleted] > > . . . . If that is so, it seems to pay for >the leader to stand on his ground and take on those advancing >enemy units in the CCPh than just routing away voluntarily in the >face of enemy units. That seems to make sense as "chickening out" >shouldn't be encouraged in the battlefield. :) While I have to agree with the interpretation of the rules as stated here, to me this is one of those places where the rules just don't "feel right." A lone Lt. with a Radio sees the better part of a platoon bearing down on him and he's supposed to stand his ground - hoping for a miracle - or immediately lose the fire mission? Seems to me he'd give a terse "Gotta bug out - keep firing!" to the battery and then beat feet. After all, discretion IS the better part of valor. Just my $.02. Bob Schaaf No.VA ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 03:18:00 UTC Subject: Advance into Difficult Terrain --> > From: "Noah Matt" > --> > This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. --> > Since the CX unit in question is spending 1 MF in the old --> > hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 *as written* really --> > prohibit this advance? --> > --> [stuff deleted] --> --> A4.72 "vs DIFFICULT TERRAIN: An advance into any hex whose MF --> cost (excluding SMOKE) is >= four MF or all of a unit's --> available non-Double Time MF allotment (whcihever is less) --> may not be made if the unit is already CX [EXC: Climbing, --> B11.432; Deep Stream Entry, B20.43]; otherwise it may --> advance but becomes CX in the process." --> I can see it, but it's a stretch. Most of the rules are not --> that subtle. It's unfortunate that there are a few that --> are. I'm not changing the way I play. I agree with the statement that "it's a stretch." It all depends on what we think the phrase "whose MF cost" modifies. Noah reads it to modify the object "any hex." Now, I am no English teacher or student, but I think it modifies the subject, "an advance." Perhaps it would have been more clear written as "An advance into any hex that costs (excluding SMOKE) >= four MF..." I think it is clear that this was the intent. Probably the biggest clue to this for me is in the exceptions. The exceptions don't list hex types, it lists types of advances. It only seems reasonable to conclude that the "whose MF cost" clause also refers to the subject, the advance, and not the prepositional phrase, "into any hex." To rephase Noah's comment, "this rule talks about an advance *whose* MF cost ..." With my luck, some English grammar professor will come along and trash my argument but I think it is clear that if the "advance" costs >= 4 MF, then it cannot be made if the unit is already CX. Warren ----- From: s.pleva@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 03:58:00 UTC Subject: Available now... CCCCCC ----------- C | | C | | C | o | CCCCCC | | ----------- | | |-------- | | H H | o | H H | | HHHHHH | | H H ----------- H H Critical Hit! - The Independent Journal of ASL Q. What is CH!? A. Thirty-two pages of ASL euphoria including articles for the neophite, rare information critical to scenario designers, and ten, count 'em, TEN scenarios for all play abiliies. Scenarios span the spectrum from tournament size to monster, challenging the green and battle hardened alike. Q. How do I get my hands on a copy (or two) of CH!? A. Send $8.00 plus $1.95 shipping and handling in the USA and Canada ($3.95 for shipping and handling overseas) to Critical Hit!, 88 Lodar Lane, Brewster, NY 10509. Shipping discounts on bulk orders available. Copies will also be available direct from Critical Hit! representatives at AvalonCon '94 in Baltimore, MD and the '94 ASL Oktoberfest in Youngstown, OH. ***** Important Note ***** Only 1500 copies are being printed. Approximately 500 copies are already reserved, that's 1/3 of the entire print run! Order now before supplies run out. ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:05:04 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: IIFT and cowering fire When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? ----- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 23:38:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rosner Subject: Re: Master Plan I don't know if you know, but there is at least one individual (without naming names) in the "toilet of the top half" on the list you published who has been accused of "less than honorable play" drosner@netcom.com On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > >ASL AREA TOP 10 > > > >1. Mike McGrath 2148HI > >2. Gary Fortenberry 2104ILE > >3. Perry Cocke 2076IJ > >4. Bill Conner 2014GH > >5. Ron Berger 1996HKH > >6. Steve Pleva 1988DGG > >7. Bruce Rinehart 1929HG > >8. Marc Hanna 1892DGH > >9. Phil Petry 1832NH > >10. Scott Orane 1825EIF > > Good, my master plan must be working. I've been losing games so often lately > my ranking is in the toilet! Now lets see those pairings at DonCon! 8) > > 8) > Brian > ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 07:15:36 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: IIFT & Cowering Fire >When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a >squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT >handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? What we do is 1) move to nearest IFT column (i.e. 9 goes to 8) then 2) do an IFT cower, then 3) add or subtract same shift amount. So 9 -> 8 -> 6 -> 7. This works for us. regards davidb ----- From: Kevin Pietersen Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:06:07 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Newbie Question: BV and RB Hi all, I am in the process of changing from SL to ASL and all I have at the moment is the ASL rules. I would like to play RB, but in the advert it says that YANKS is required. Can anyone enligthen me on what in YANKS is required to play RB. An extra question: Does anyone have the latest price list of AH, for BV and RB, and the foreign posting charges for these two products. Sorry about the basic question. Kevin _____________________________________________ | KEVIN PIETERSEN | | Department of Geology and Applied Geology | | University of Natal (Durban) | | King George V Avenue | | Durban, 4001, Republic of South Africa | | Tel: INT-RSA-31-260-1277 | --------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:12:49 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Newbie Question: BV and RB Kevin Pietersen writes: > I am in the process of changing from SL to ASL and all I have at the > moment is the ASL rules. I would like to play RB, but in the advert > it says that YANKS is required. Can anyone enligthen me on what in > YANKS is required to play RB. The chapter E rules. In particular those on Night, Airplanes and Artillery Barrages. Bas. ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Advance into Difficul Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:38:43 +0200 (MET DST) Hi, about the Adv. vs. Diff. Terrain, JR cites: > A4.72 "vs DIFFICULT TERRAIN: An advance into any hex whose MF > cost (excluding SMOKE) is >= four MF or all of a unit's > available non-Double Time MF allotment (whcihever is less) > may not be made if the unit is already CX [EXC: Climbing, > B11.432; Deep Stream Entry, B20.43]; otherwise it may > advance but becomes CX in the process." Well, this means that the advance cannot be done by a lone squad anyway. ("... or all of a unit's available non-Double Time MF ...") After spending 1 MF to exit the foxholes, they only have 3 MF. -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 08:56:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: IIFT & Cowering Fire > >When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a > >squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT > >handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? > > What we do is 1) move to nearest IFT column (i.e. 9 goes to 8) then 2) do an > IFT cower, then 3) add or subtract same shift amount. > > So 9 -> 8 -> 6 -> 7. I've always done 9 -> 8 -> 6 so as not to upset play balance or the designed in destructive capacity of mortars. Paul ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: re: BV and RB Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 9:27:49 EDT Hey this is one I can help answer. On why BV is needed to play RB. Two reasons are that BV has the air support and night rules for ASL. Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: re: re: BV and RB and YANKS Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 9:29:50 EDT Whoops YANKS has the night rules and air support rules. BV of course has needed counters to play RB. sorry bout that got all excited and goofed my answer. Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 09:36:05 -0400 (EDT) From: David Elder Subject: Re: Advance into Difficul Hi all ... just have a comment on this ... or maybe a question :) On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Jonathan Vanmechelen wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > From: "Noah Matt" > > > This rule talks about a hex *whose* MF cost is 4 or more. > > Since the CX unit in question is spending 1 MF in the old > > hex and 3 MF in the new hex, does A4.72 *as written* really > > prohibit this advance? > > > > I fully aware that I'm splitting hairs here, but hey, I'm an > > ASL player! Actually, I'm curious to see how the rest of > > you interpret this rule. Do all MF costs apply to the 4 MF > > limit, or just those MF costs for the hex being advanced > > into? > > A4.72 "vs DIFFICULT TERRAIN: An advance into any hex whose MF > cost (excluding SMOKE) is >= four MF or all of a unit's > available non-Double Time MF allotment (whcihever is less) > may not be made if the unit is already CX [EXC: Climbing, > B11.432; Deep Stream Entry, B20.43]; otherwise it may > advance but becomes CX in the process." > It is considered an advance into difficult terrain if it has a MF cost >= 4 or all of a unit's available non-Double Time MF allotment. I realize that MF are not usually considered in the Advance Phase ... but if 1MF is used exiting the foxhole ... then only three are left for the advance ... since that is all that would be avaialble if the unit were moving. (I do realize that that phrase is usually interpreted to mean reductions in MF due to exceeding IPC limits ... i.e. squads with 5 PP HMG's can't advance into woods or buildings without becoming CX), however, because it uses the word "available" in the above, I think you could make a case for this alternate interpretation. Cheers, David ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 22:35:00 EDT Subject: Re: Master Plan On Mon, 18 Jul 1994 23:38:26 -0700 , David Rosner wrote: > I don't know if you know, but there is at least one individual >(without naming names) in the "toilet of the top half" on the list you >published who has been accused of "less than honorable play" I hope this is a humorous comment. Trashing someone publicly is tantamount to slander or libel. I think comments like this should be held as private opinion and therefore should not be posted to this list. This isn't meant as a flame. It's a respectful opinion. Jeff >On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > >> >ASL AREA TOP 10 >> > >> >1. Mike McGrath 2148HI >> >2. Gary Fortenberry 2104ILE >> >3. Perry Cocke 2076IJ >> >4. Bill Conner 2014GH >> >5. Ron Berger 1996HKH >> >6. Steve Pleva 1988DGG >> >7. Bruce Rinehart 1929HG >> >8. Marc Hanna 1892DGH >> >9. Phil Petry 1832NH >> >10. Scott Orane 1825EIF Jeffrey Shields CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062 jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) (^ ^) (^ ^) (^) . . (^) \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: 19 Jul 1994 11:11:05 U From: "Noah Matt" Subject: FW: Re: Advance into Difficul Patrick Manling writes: > about the Adv. vs. Diff. Terrain, JR cites: >> A4.72 "vs DIFFICULT TERRAIN: An advance into any hex whose MF >> cost (excluding SMOKE) is >= four MF or all of a unit's >> available non-Double Time MF allotment (whcihever is less) >> may not be made if the unit is already CX [EXC: Climbing, >> B11.432; Deep Stream Entry, B20.43]; otherwise it may >> advance but becomes CX in the process." > Well, this means that the advance cannot be done by a lone > squad anyway. ("... or all of a unit's available non-Double > Time MF ...") After spending 1 MF to exit the foxholes, they > only have 3 MF. Good point. A leader would have to be stacked with the CX unit to make the whole discussion worthwhile (which it probably isn't anyway). At last count, the votes were 1 Yes and 4 No on the issue. I too, had always played counting all MF and will continue to do so. Thanks for your opinions. Roll low. Matt -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Advance into Difficul Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:38:43 +0200 (MET DST) Date: 19 Jul 1994 11:44:50 U From: "Noah Matt" Subject: ftf in Oklahoma Hi. My good friend Jeff Coyle will be in Stillwell, OK next week, and is looking for some ftf play. Unfortunately, Jeff's PC is broken and is new hard drive hasn't arrived yet, so I get to be his ASL pimp! Send me a note here, or call him at: (703) 734-8606 ext 524 (w) (703) 904-0024 (h) When you play him, be sure to ask how his dog is. Its name is Scurvy. Thanks. Matt Noah noah_matt@prc.com ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 08:56:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: Re: IIFT and cowering fire On Tue, 19 Jul 1994 uunet!VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU!MSAMUELS@tron wrote: > > When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a > squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT > handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? > based on the original article, from the 89 annual, i think, i'm pretty sure that cowerings are handled this way: when a unit cowers, you first reduce the fp to the highest possible original fp column (ift, not iift, column), then reduce firepower from there. so, if an american 7-4-7 cowers, it would fire on the 4 fp column (7 to 6, cowers to 4). if a 6-6-6 cowers, it would also use the 4 fp column. i guess the bottom line is that you would use whatever column would be appropriate on the ift. i hope this helps, kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@cecil.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 09:06:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "P. Gowdy" Subject: South Coast Game Assoc. LA people read I thought I would pass on some info for our LA based readers. Apparently there is a "South Coast Game Association" in Costa Mesa. They started by playing nothing but Magic: The Gathering (puke!). However, they now want to "expand" to other games. They meet every Saturday at the Costa Mesa Women's Club. 610 W. 18th Street, Costa Mesa. I will try to go this Saturday and find out what they mean by "expand" (since I have been unable to reach anyone by phone). I will report my findings here if interested. Pete Gowdy ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 10:07:11 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: IIFT and cowering fire > > When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a > squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT > handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? > The way we handled it (when we used the IIFT; I have reconsidered since and now use the original IFT exclusively -- see the article in the annual for, I believe, good reasons to avoid the IIFT) was the following: If a unit cowers during a, say, 15 FP attack, the attack is first reduced to the next lowest "original IFT" column (i.e. to the 12 column in this case). Then you do the 1-column reduction (i.e. to the 8 column). This makes cowering (relatively) more severe when using the IIFT. Dave Hauth ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 10:42:10 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) [SOAPBOX MODE ON] I heard mention that Don Greenwood says AH is now looking more towards computers than boardgaming, as mentioned in the latest General philosophy. Sigh. Last night, I got my latest copy of Military History Quarterly, and in it was an article about wargames and their ties with history. Mostly, that article centered around unnamed brass in the Pentagon sitting around playing "Gulf Strike" during the Persian Gulf War. I wish I had it on hand to quote directly from, but the closing comments were basically summarized as this: Computer wargames have stopped being used as much by the military as they used to be, because the randomness of what your opponent will do next is input somewhere, and therefor unrealistically predictable. When squared off across a board from a human opponent, you don't know what will happen next, which simulates the fog of war more realistically than any algorithm. Personally, I like computer games. I have an opponent that donesn't mind when I cheat, when I shut him off when I'm losing, or when I lose my temper because the improbable has happened and my brilliant strategy is now scrapped. But I think the strength of board games is it makes gamers become socially active -- possibly the hardest option for any of us to do. I tend to favor games that involve many people, games that are easy to play and teach, and games that are playable in a finite amount of time (so why do I play ASL? IT'S GOT TANKS!!!). The interaction, the group reaction to a pleasurable game, the laughter of bad jokes, all these things are lost in computer games. The best use of Computer Diplomacy is to fill in the missing players you couldn't get. Other than that, the computer is a nuisance that I think decreases the speed and playability of the game. I hope the trend of the future is networked games -- things that take advantage of the medium, instead of accurately recreating "Afrika Korps" in 256 colors. I'm glad AH is diversifying it's market. But it is now in competition with X-Wing and Sid Meyer's Civilization, and seeing an electronic version of Merchants of Venus isn't going to put AH into Waldensoftware. I wish them luck, they are boldly going where none of their men have gone before. But something might be lost, and I would hate to see a project as momentous as ASL ever be finished and forgotten because BASL has been upgraded to two-player. Maybe I'm an unyielding old codger, remembering how it used to be done when I was a kid. But compare your favorite computer game to your first moment as a teen-aged general that successfully executes a plan against a real opponent that just didn't know you were coming at him from that direction. I don't think there's a comparison. Tom Huntington [SOAPBOX MODE OFF] ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 12:54:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: Re: New scenario on carlos Bryan, Haven't checked out your scenario yet, but I certainly will. I only wish my grandfather would have relayed some of his experiences in the Pcific to me. As it is, all my family has are a few things he brought back which are now my uncles - a couple of rifles, a Japanese flag, and some pictures. How anyone could be offended by your act is beyond me. You've provided the ASL community with a "new" experience, based on a first-hand account. What could be wrong with that? See ya. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 13:22:05 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Computers Suck? Tom writes... >[SOAPBOX MODE ON] > >I heard mention that Don Greenwood says AH is now looking more towards >computers than boardgaming, as mentioned in the latest General philosophy. I've not gotten my General yet, so I don't know what he said. This is true, witness Bob M. getting pulled off ASL to work on computer games. If AH folds, the wargame market (small as it is) will be sorely tested. I predict that we'll become small bands of gamers, eventually fading away. Sorta like war veterans in that they just get fewer and fewer... [stuff deleted...] > Personally, I like computer games. I have an opponent that donesn't mind [stuff deleted...] Me too. I like gun 'em up computer games. I like strategic war computer games. I buy 'em when they are released. BUT, I solve 'em pretty quick. Then, they sit on a shelf until I throw 'em away or sell 'em on the net. This has happened with games, I buy a game based on the box description and am not satisfied with the game, but when I buy something I like, I keep it and keep going back and back and back to play it. This NEVER happens with a computer game. Unfortunately, this fits that market well. By the time you've figured out their $50 game, they have a $55 game ready to suck you in. It just isn't the same. No interaction. No whining. 8) > I'm glad AH is diversifying it's market. But it is now in competition with >X-Wing and Sid Meyer's Civilization, and seeing an electronic version of >Merchants of Venus isn't going to put AH into Waldensoftware. I wish them I think a version of MoV would be welcomed, but it would be "just another computer game". >luck, they are boldly going where none of their men have gone before. But A strange way to run a company, but that isn't suprising from AH. >something might be lost, and I would hate to see a project as momentous as >ASL ever be finished and forgotten because BASL has been upgraded to two- >player. I, for one, wont stop playing ASL because of a computer game. I don't network my PC to play games, and I wont pay online fees while I've got free net access. I sure hope AH isn't counting on my dollars, since I've got no intention of buying/looking at BASL. > Maybe I'm an unyielding old codger, remembering how it used to be done when Could be... 8) >I was a kid. But compare your favorite computer game to your first moment >as a teen-aged general that successfully executes a plan against a real >opponent that just didn't know you were coming at him from that direction. >I don't think there's a comparison. No comparison. Especially when you jump up, wave your fists in your opponents face screaming "HA HA HA, TAKE THAT MOFO! YOU'RE TOAST!" 8) Brian ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 10:44:49 PDT From: mad@guest.apple.com (Michael Derry) Subject: Re: IIFT and cowering fire First uunet!VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU!MSAMUELS@tron wrote: >> When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a >> squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the IIFT >> handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? >> then Kevin Serafini wrote: >based on the original article, from the 89 annual, i think, i'm pretty >sure that cowerings are handled this way: > >when a unit cowers, you first reduce the fp to the highest possible >original fp column (ift, not iift, column), then reduce firepower from >there. so, if an american 7-4-7 cowers, it would fire on the 4 fp column >(7 to 6, cowers to 4). if a 6-6-6 cowers, it would also use the 4 fp >column. i guess the bottom line is that you would use whatever column >would be appropriate on the ift. Michael Derry responds: This double column drop was too much for our pea-sized brains to actually use and we decided to add one (ie. +1) to the roll when doubles are rolled and stay on the same column. This method reduces the impact of cowering on the IIFT and brings in more in line with its impact on the IFT. ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 13:44:29 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: IIFT again After my question about cowering fire it seems to me that almost everyone hates the IIFT. Why? If you don't use it you stack your units in artificial FGs to avoid the loss of FP. If your balanced stacks get broken up, MGs have a habit of not being fired because there is no added benefit. Using the IIFT eliminates this unrealistic dynamic of the game. IMO this is a good thing. I can concentrate on good infantry tatics rather than on artificial stacking mechanics. An argument is the concealment stripping issue. IMO the IIFT doesn't strip concealment any faster than the IFT because if you use the IFT players will simply stack "properly" to avoid loss of FP. As for cowering fire and other column shifts I have had it suggested to me that one should round down to the IFT number, do the colum shift, then add back the round off loss to get the new IIFT FP. ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 13:03:37 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: Re: IIFT & Cowering Fire I happened to have saved this from a while back. It looks good to me (although I've never been able to convince anyone to use the IIFT). -- Date: Fri, 27 May 94 10:19:01 +2 From: Marcus.Schakowski@f72.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Marcus Schakowski) Greetings to everyone, I have been using the IIFT ever since it came out back in the '89 Annual and have been following the IFT vs. IIFT debate with some interest. One point that has always nagged me about the IIFT was the way column shifts due to Cowering, Barrage, etc. were handled. Accoring to the notes accompaning the IIFT: one had to shift to the next-lower-FP "standard IFT" collumn and then again to next-lower-FP "standard" collumn. Thus, a 18 FP attack which cowers would become a 12 FP attack. In a way it seems to undermine the elegance (?) of the IIFT. So after some careful deliberation, I have come up with the IIFT Column Shift Modifiers : --------------------------------------------------------------------- Firepower : 1-1.5 2-2.5 3-3.5 4-8 9-11 12-24 25-29 30+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Modifier : NE -1 -1.5 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 --------------------------------------------------------------------- NE: The attack will have no effect. The Modifier is SUBTRACTED from the FP of the attack, it's NOT a column shift. For example: A German 467 w. LMG firing at range 4 cowers. Its FP would now be reduced to 5 (7-2). The 18 FP attack mentioned above, would become a 14 FP attack. If two column shifts are required (ex. inexperienced personnel), make the first adjustment as described above, and the second one based on the new modified FP. For example: Two German 436 firing at range 4 cower. The first modification would reduce the FP from 4 to 2, the second "shift" from 2 to 1. I hope that others will find this little table useful. Comments are welcome. Cheers, Marcus. (MS@lair.cds.alt.za) -- Bryan ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 14:12:19 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: It's baaack! Well, Much like plaque, the IIFT issue has reared its (ugly?) head again. Beaten to a pulp, the list, GEnie, and free-world debates have all thrashed and rethrashed this issue. Why/Why not the IIFT? IMO, who cares. It is personal preference. I choose not to use it, but I also choose not to do a lot of things. Use it if you wish. Have a great time with the IIFT. OBTW, a major argument of the IIFT is its ease of use. It sure seems like cowering is a major brake on that argument, since no one seems to know how to cower with the IIFT. Funny, I've never heard of anyone not understanding how to cower with the IFT. Sorry, just had to get that bit o'flame bait in place... Email, please, I'd rather see no posts than a lot of posts on the IIFT. Have a nice day, Brian ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:55:57 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: Bridge to Nowhere query on VC I'm playing Bridge to Nowhere for the first time this evening in preparation for AvalonCon and I had a question about the Victory Conditions. The VC are that the Russians must have >= 16 VP able to hit the road and bridge including SW regardless of B# and ROF. Do the mortars count? Everything else doesn't need a TH DR except for the 2 50mm mortars, should they count as 2 FP at the road? or actually 3 I guess, since it doesn't say anything about firegrouping? or should they not count since they need a TH DR? Please let me know your opinion... Thanks, Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 16:29:00 UTC Subject: IIFT and cowering fire --> When using the IIFT the graduadions between FP colums increase. When a --> squad cowers it recieves a 1 column shift. How do the users of the --> IIFT handle this case, and other cases where colum shifts are needed? David writes: --> What we do is 1) move to nearest IFT column (i.e. 9 goes to 8) then 2) --> do an IFT cower, then 3) add or subtract same shift amount. --> So 9 -> 8 -> 6 -> 7. This is a "house rule" for the use of the IIFT. The "official" method appeared in the '89 Annual as follows: 'Column shifts...always use the "standard" IFT columns.... When a one column shift is required...an attack that otherwise [would] have used an "incremental" IFT column first shifts to the next-lower-FP "standard" column, then shifts again to the next-lower-FP "standard" column.' This means that whether an attack is on the 9fp, 10fp, or 11fp columns, it will cower down to the 6fp column. The IIFT distance between columns is also irrelevant. A 35fp attack will cower down to the 24fp column. Warren ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 15:13:11 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: Computers Suck? Of course the best thing about strategy games is playing against a human opponent. Of course most of the computer games which are available now rely on solvable AI algorithms, then become predictable. The fact remains that the record keeping of a board game can get tedious, mistakes (read breaking the laws of physics) occur frequently, whether or not intentional, and manipulating hundreds of tiny cardboard counters becomes awkward (which way is my turrent facing? Who was the squad with the LMG? Which squads in a stack are DM? etc etc etc). How many times have you had your opponent bump over a stack of dummies, thereby revealing the nature of that bluff? How many times have you detailed a squad to repair a weapon, only to forget to do it during RPh? These are the problems of a manual board game. So why not use the computer for those aspects of a game which a computer is good for. Everyone here must have a certain amount of computer literacy. Obviously you are using it as a tool for various things (like the ASL mailing list?). Why not use the capabilities of the computer as a referee and scorekeeper? I guess I am talking networked games. Play could even be done ftf (put two computers in a room, players facing each other. Connect computers. Start play). I certainly hope that BASL allows for multiple simultaneous play by human opponents. A further possibility, though certainly a few years off. What about a horizontal display screen, using active matrix (or whatever) technology? The units could be displayed as on a regular map. Use of polarized systems could work so that only the appropriate information is displayed to each player. fingers (as in a touch sensitive screen) could select and move various units. Its bound to happen: every other human endeavor is seeing the impact of computer-as-tool, why not those loyal minions of ASL? regards davidb ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 16:39:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: New scenario on carlos Helping Hand looks like a nice scenario. It _looks_ tough for the Americans, but I haven't parused the boards yet either. 8-) BTW, just how _do_ you make these groovy sceanrio ps files? Here in IBM land I am somewhat ignorant (hey, back off wit 'dem snide remarks yunz snooty Mac yewzers!) about this. Software aside, is there a remplate running around with all those groovy counter faces on it? Or are they all scanned? ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA *****************************