From: Shawn Kenny Subject: ? on AM and smoke Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 18:06:25 ADT Hi all, I looked through the rules under infantry smoke placement and AM but I am still unsure as to a correct ruling. From what I gather is that since smoke placement requires the ability for further movement then AM discounts the players ability to make smoke since you can't do any movement other than the one hex change. Anyone out there able to shed light on this issue. Thanks Shawn ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Bridge to Nowhere query on VC Bret: Somewhere, there's a Q&A covering this (either a recent GENERAL or ANNUAL, the brainbox is a bit foggy...). The answer I remember was that 50mm MTR count for 3FP even though their IFT value would normally be 2FP. This applies to any/all scenarios that have this "applied FP" situation in conjunction with 50mm MTR (wow! what a lousy sentence!). Perhaps someone can dig up the Q&A because i'm too busy/lazy. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock > > 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: Wetzel_Dave/sra_hq1@misx12.mis.stratus.com Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 16:31:45 -0400 Subject: Computer Wargames Item Subject: Message text > 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. Tom, though I agree we should be concerned about the future of ASL at AH, I disagree with the concern about the competition with X-Wing et al. You may not be aware but AH is getting into the computer game market through the programmers at Atomic Games. Atomic Games were the developers of the V for Victory series (until 360, who had published the Atomic Games, truely screwed up and essentially forced a divorce). These games were without doubt the best computer war simulations on the market. The smartest AI, the best graphics, etc. The first Atomic release through AH is Operation Crusader, the first of the World at War series (clearly V4V with a face-lift). The demo looks very promising; an improvement upon the V4V series! And Atomic develops on the Mac so you know it has to be great! ;^) Computer games will never replace FtF games (until computers develop personalities anyway), but for AH to get into the market with the fine skills of Atomic behind them is, IMHO, a very smart move. thanks, dlw ----- From: JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 19 JUL 94 14:44 Subject: Re: Computer Wargames >on the market. The smartest AI, the best graphics, etc. Even the smartest AI leaves LOTS to be desired. My first playing of Utah Beach resulted in a decisive victory for my side. I had nothing to do for the last week of the game as I had killed all the bad guys. In my first playing of Market-Garden the germans (bad guys) never attacked the 1st Airborne as I entrenched right away. After a poor start, I managed to capture the bridge at Arnhem because the germans neglected to garrison it! Missed a decisive victory by 5 points. It's already been said, but the true strength of Computer games is providing Fog of War and moderating between two or more human opponents. Remember, if someone could come up with AI that is as good as most humans, the pentagon would classify it. Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340) internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com "Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect" ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 15:58:51 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: ? on AM and smoke > > I looked through the rules under infantry smoke placement > and AM but I am still unsure as to a correct ruling. From what > I gather is that since smoke placement requires the ability > for further movement then AM discounts the players ability > to make smoke since you can't do any movement other than > the one hex change. Anyone out there able to shed light > on this issue. We've been playing the following way: AM requires that you MOVE only 1 hex, and that you spend LESS THAN your entire MF allowance. So, if you AM into an orchard (1mf) you can still place smoke in an adjacent hex (2mf) because your total MF expenditure is less than 4. I think this is right, but I might be wrong.... Dave Hauth ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 15:25:51 -0700 From: Steven J. Szymanski Subject: Re: Computer Wargames Yes, I think Atomic's role is key. They _are_ the best folks out there, and have a good sense of what it will take to succeed. They are doing a _lot_ of work to imporve the artificial opponents (Operation Crusader is _much_ better than the V4V game, although still not as good as a human), and to provide EMail play (the OC system is _very_ usable) so that you can play against a human in a reasonable way. Keith and Co. have a good understanding at what computers are good at (bookkeeping, limited intelligence, calculations) and what they are bad at (large maps, etc.) and see and opportunity to make great games. BSL is an odd case - they (correctly) feel that the computer can do a lot for a squad level game (simultaneous movement, limited intel, lots of statistic and complex behavioural models) and are designing the game on that basis. The down side is that it won't be "ASL". Personally, that doesn't bother me if it is as great of a game as they have specified. The name on the box doesn't matter - the game inside does. FYI - I may not be entirely unbiased. I purchased their first game (Utah Beach), and found it to be the first computer war game that was worth spending my time to critsize (all previous ones were so far off the mark that it wasn't worth the effort). I managed to get ahold of Keith Z. who is the head of Atomic, and we ended up developing a productive relationship. I have done some minor engineering work for them, and have been a beta tester for all of their games. You can judge if this disqualifies my opinion. .szy RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am AppleLink: szy saying here and should not Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving" AOL: Sszy So There. ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 16:36:00 -0600 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) > So why not use the computer for those aspects of a game which a computer is good for. Hmm . . . The problem with computers is many. First, they are expensive. ASL is already prohibitively priced for many people that'd be interested if it were $20. Second, they don't talk too well with each other (I'm on my Mac, and I feel blessed taht BASL is even considering a platform I own). If you say "well IBM is enough because it's the majority", you further preclude more people that'd like to play but can't. Third, I program for a living, and I haven't met a program that I trust. There are many loopholes through any system, and even if a computer would probably keep track of who is and who isn't DM'ed, the overhead of a simple interface (like placing a counter on the unit) is complex enough that I'd be surprised if everything worked. But [SOAPBOX MODE ON] I think games should be tailored to match their medium. Computer games which center around bookkeeping are great. ASL purposely minimizes bookkeeping, not because it isn't realistic, but because it makes the game playable. A board game shouldn't be a historically accurate masterpiece, it should be a GAME. Remebemer the old argument of playability vs. realism? It dominated wargaming for a decade, some time back. But then new revolutionary methods came out, systems like Up Front, Beyond (drat) I mean Turning Point Stalingrad, and dare I say ASL, where an elegant system that merged playability with realism replaced the old game paradymes that used to be the standards. Do you want a computer to tell you you rolled snake eyes, or would you rather have you and your opponent witness the event? Do you want to take the time to type in which counters are underneath the concealment counter, or would you rather just drop the counter on the top? I think ASL would be terrible with a computer. It's already hard enough to find the table space to keep the maps, the scenario card, and the counters all within easy access, and by golly my big-enough-table is in a different room from my computer. Most my friends also live this way. My keyboard and mouse are also tailored for one person to sit in front of one monitor, and anything less than a thousand dollars and I probably won't be changing that set up, either. Someday, sure! I'd love to have a dynamic electronic mapboard. But by then there will be more captivating games than the ones we've seen to date. By then I'll be flying a virtual FW190, or commanding realtime tank platoons, or who knows what. [SOAPBOX MODE OFF] I'm beginning to froth. Sorry, Tom Huntington ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 17:47:43 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: ? on AM and smoke > Hi all, > > I looked through the rules under infantry smoke placement > and AM but I am still unsure as to a correct ruling. From what > I gather is that since smoke placement requires the ability > for further movement then AM discounts the players ability > to make smoke since you can't do any movement other than > the one hex change. Anyone out there able to shed light > on this issue. I don't have it in front of me, but there was a Q&A that says that you can AM one location and attempt to place SMOKE (or attempt to place SMOKE then AM) as long as you declare the AM before expending any MF and you spend a total of less than all of your MF. You can also do certain other things such as place a DC enter/leave entrenchment, etc. This is legal. A squad with a leader can declare AM, leave a foxhole (1 MF) enter open ground (1 MF), place smoke in their hex (1 MF, assuming a 6 is not rolled), place a DC in an ADJACENT open ground hex (1 MF) and enter a foxhole (1 MF) for a total of 5 MF. Futhermore when doing so, you declare each MF expenditure, wait for any DF, then declare the next MF. You do _not_ need to tell your opponent what the next MF will be until after resolving all DF for the current MF expenditure. You can even change your mind after each expenditure. Fred > > Thanks > > Shawn > ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 21:08:25 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: Sympathy for Ivan I need a shoulder to cry on. I played ASL A7 "Slamming of the Door" as the Russian and got utterly hozed by the dice. Turn1: Ivan pulls a human wave. On a MC I roll the SAN of the German. Bang, the crew on the mortar gets broken in open ground! I rush into HTH at 3-1 odds with my 8-1 leader. I get and 12 the kraut gets a three and disengagues from HTH. Almost every other squad is broken German phase is largely ineffectual though he gets another sniper check and kills off the MTR crew. Turn2: Prep I malf. a T-26 main gun and a T-26 coax mg. Movement I roll boxcars on a platoon and imob. a tank. Defensive fire German 81mm mtr OBA gets an imobilization on yet another T-26. German phase sees more weeping and wailing as I get hit by an endless string of ROF from the german HMG. Remember that tank that malfed. its Main Gun, now its gone for good. Turn3 Prep, both a T-26 and my MMG Malf. The mmg was a multihex FG that got boxcars and cowered as well. Everything is going wrong. German phase, he gets his reinforcements! Runs up on one of my two remaining functional tanks. You guessed it! ELEVEN !!! ANOTHER MAFLD. GUN !!! I roll boxcars and my commissar eats it on a MC. I have one functioning tank and a bunch of shot up infantry. German OBA is pounding me, and the StuG IIIs have essentialy the run of the board. Somewhere I rolled a couple of sixes to try and fix my guns so only one tank has the *possibility* of being functional again. I QUIT !!! [sob] [boo hoo] ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 18:29:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "P. Gowdy" Subject: Costa Mesa Club Followup Ok. So what was meant by "expand" is minatures. That's right. The new South Coast Gaming Club in Costa Mesa wants to expand from magic: The Gathering to minatures. Sorry for raising any hopes pre- maturly. Pete Gowdy ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 22:47:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: Computer Wargames > > Even the smartest AI leaves LOTS to be desired. My first playing of Utah Beach > resulted in a decisive victory for my side. I had nothing to do for the last > week of the game as I had killed all the bad guys. > It's already been said, but the true strength of Computer games is providing > Fog of War and moderating between two or more human opponents. Remember, if > someone could come up with AI that is as good as most humans, the pentagon > would classify it. My $0.02: If the game can be played by two players (not just you vs computer) then computer games also provide a good venue for solitaire play. I've enjoyed playing against myself in a number of games. Funny, I always win!? Jeff ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: PBEM opponent wanted Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 21:50:23 PDT I've just managed to lose one of my ongoing email ASL games, and I'm looking for another. I'd prefer a Ladder match, but if you have a strong aversion (especially if there's a scenario that you'd like to try but are afraid isn't well balanced and you don't want it to blow your rating) that's fine. I'm pretty open to what we might play. I've got all the modules and Annuals. If you don't have any strong preference I might suggest Khamsin, Sea of Tranquility, Jungle Citadel, or Chateau de Quesnoy. I don't have any strong preferences for or against any type of scenario; if there's a particular one you'd like to play, I'm willing to try virtually anything. There may be some sections of the rules that I'm not terribly familiar with (night comes to mind), but I'm always happy to learn. Finally, I'm on jury duty at the moment, so for the next few days I might not be responding very quickly; in general, though, I DO try to keep my email games going at a good pace (I try to get my turn out each evening when possible). I don't mind going somewhat slower if you can't keep up that pace, though. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 22:24:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Kyle Curle - Athletes in Action Subject: Game wanted I am 0-1 on the ladder so far and would like to start another game. I'll play any scenario, altho would prefer a smaller one. Any takers? ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 09:16:43 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Hooray! Guys, We've just passed our 350th reader! Stewart King, re-upping after a brief exit, was number 350! Congrats Stewart, you win a free subscription to the ASL list for as long as the list exists! 8) Just thought everyone would like to know... Brian ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 09:25:51 -0400 (EDT) From: James D Shetler Subject: To the Last Man Howdy everybody, Does anybody have a copy of "To the Last Man" which they could copy and either mail or fax to me? The replay in the General really caught my interest, and it's one of the few scenarios I don't actually own! BTW, it appears that a new organization, the "Steel City ASL Nuts" (or something to that effect) will soon grace the ASL community with news/ after action reports/general mayhem/etc. We hope to put Pittsburgh back on the map. After all, it's about time that our fair city is known for more than the Steeler dynastys of yore (and Terry B., if you're reading this, you can still come back anytime). Raving in Pittsburgh, Jim Shetler ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 9:45:36 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: Bridge to Nowhere Summary Yesterday I inquired about the VC on Bridge to Nowhere. Should the Mortars count towards the 16 firepower needed that could hit the bridge/road? I received 3 responses (thank you all) which all said they thought the mortars should count - 2 said at 2 FP and 1 at 3 FP. My opponent and I decided they should count and decided on 2 FP for no real good reason... I had the Russkies trying to defend the bridge. West of the bridge I placed a 426 to the south to affect rout back across and a dummy to the north in the wood building to draw fire. The MMG went with the 447 in a foxhole in the woods with the LOS down the heart of the bridge - lovely firelane country. A half squad and mortar were in the building to the south with the purpose of backing up 1 hex into the woods for a nice shot on the bridge entry hex (wanted to set up in that hex, but it's 5 hexes out :-( A 426/ATR was just north of the road and a dummy unit was hanging out on the near island. The village garrison set up with the 6+1 leader, 2 conscripts and the MTR & half squad on the north flank with the purpose of cutting off anyone attempting attempting to attack via the fords - nice airburst terrain for the mortar and he's guaranteed some shots. The other 2 leaders (1 a commisar) were to get their troops up to the front ASAP. I decided to bring the tank in on the south edge behind the wall and sit with LOS to 17Y10 which would account for half my VP and be tough to knock out. My Italian opponent massed things around the bridge sending only the allowed 3 squads via the fords. He did have a strong presence to the south. The early game had the Italians nuking the dummies, the Russian Medium controlling the bridge in conjunction with the mortar, and the Russian sniper playing a key role KIA'ing a leader and snapping the squads with him on the southern flank allowing the lone conscript to live a while longer. The mortar from the village garrison made it into position to airburst the tree line along the Ford passage, putting a crimp into the Italian flanking maneuver. Things looked really good when the Conscript west of the bridge went berserk, but he failed to do any damage at all, although he did live longer than expected. By the beginning of turn 4, The Italians hadn't really made any progress and the Russkies were without losses. The tide turned in the 4th as the medium was ineffectual and an Italian fire group turned the 447 on the medium into a conscript. A 527 jumped in to man the MMG while the 426 went to the Commisar...The Medium and Mortar covering the bridge both break in the 5th as well as the fear-filled 527. The commisar jumps in to the foxhole and a LMG and 447 are brought up for a firelane across the bridge. Unfortunately his mortars got hot and broke the LMG and commisar... The Italians start crossing the bridge in force in turn 6 although the sniper plays another critical role in knocking out the 8-1 leader and hammering a pair of squads with him...I think the sniper was the Russkie MVP...The commisar continues to shoot conscripts instead of rallying them, the MTR from the village garrison is rushed up into position to cut bridge exit hex in hopes of delaying the Italian hordes. The Russkies show signs of a comeback knocking out a lot of the Italians on this side of the bridge, but our last 447 succumbs to a 2(+1) shot leaving the Commisar with LMG, 2x237 and an ATR along with the 6+1 and 2x426 good order and the 7-0 trying desperately to rally some DM conscripts...I considered moving the tank up, but he's half the VP - the one time I tried he failed his movement TC :-( The 2x237's fell back to the building east of the road back of the grain, and recombined and shifted SW to yield 7 FP and then advance up a hex to lay down a covering fire lane for the conscripts. One 426 advanced into the street north of the road intersections with the other in the woods adjacent in preparation for the Italian rush. The 6+1 had pinned and then routed with a unit in hopes of recovering the ATR, but was not heard from again. I may have made a couple of mistakes prior to this. In the rally phase of my turn 8, I probably should have had the 2 leaders grab the ATR's from the broken squads rather than try to rally them - neither rallied nor had another chance to grab an extra FP. I also should have tried to bring the tank up to cut the road the Italians would have to rush. Odds are he couldn't have hurt it and the 8 FP MG could have helped immensely - of course who knows if he could have moved. The Italians charged needing to suppress the 2 conscripts. The LMG layed down a fire lane which helped things greatly and most Italians pinned or broke. The 426's cowered prematurely, but had some effect. We survived advancing fire, and the Italians could only muster a CX squad and the 9-1 (cx) with a half squad for CC. The 9-1 missed ambush, but with a 1-1 (-1) my conscripts roll a 6 which kills the leader but leaves us in melee with the half squad. The other hex ends in melee as well which means the Russkies have 15 FP, but not 16. Ugh. Close as they come - and I can honestly say my senses were dulled enough by the time that I hadn't even realized that a melee result would win it for my opponent. D'oh! Good scenario. As the Russians I don't know that I play my strategy much differently. I like the MMG along the bridge and the MTR to the south worked out well. If I hadn't broken both my mortars and the Medium I think it would have been an easy Russian win. I did mess up the end game though, and would hope to play that better in the future. I'm not sure which side I'd prefer at AvalonCon actually. I'd probably be content to play either side and just wouldn't want to give up balance. Comments welcome... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 20:48:37 +0000 From: Chris Merchant Subject: Re: Computer Wargames On 19 Jul 1994 JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM wrote: > >on the market. The smartest AI, the best graphics, etc. > > Even the smartest AI leaves LOTS to be desired. My first playing of Utah Beach > resulted in a decisive victory for my side. I had nothing to do for the last > week of the game as I had killed all the bad guys. > > In my first playing of Market-Garden the germans (bad guys) never attacked the > 1st Airborne as I entrenched right away. After a poor start, I managed to > capture the bridge at Arnhem because the germans neglected to garrison it! > Missed a decisive victory by 5 points. > > It's already been said, but the true strength of Computer games is providing > Fog of War and moderating between two or more human opponents. Remember, if > someone could come up with AI that is as good as most humans, the pentagon > would classify it. > > Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340) > internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com > "Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect" > Hi Jim, I'm currently testing Operation Crusader (PC) and I agree with what you say about "AI" if you can call it that. Atomic have introduced a play by electronic mail system into OC that is quite clever in its execution. This eliminates the problem of worrying about dumb computer opponents. Now all you need to find are dumb human opponents :) ps the AI in OC is a much meaner machine than V4V. And Stalingrad will prove to be even better. ********************** * Chris Merchant * * barkmann@adam.com.au * ********************** ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Bridge to Nowhere Summary Bret: I finally tracked it down in the ANNUAL 93b Debriefing: ASL 33 & ASL 54: For Victory Conditions purposes, does the 50m mortar have a FP value of "2", "3" or "6"? Does the Cossack LMG in ASL 33 have a FP value of "2" or "3"? A. "3" in both cases. Brent ----- Subject: BRIDGE TO NOWHERE SUMMARY From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 11:49:00 -0640 Howdy, HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com writes: > Yesterday I inquired about the VC on Bridge to Nowhere. > Should the Mortars count towards the 16 firepower needed > that could hit the bridge/road? I received 3 responses > (thank you all) which all said they thought the mortars > should count - 2 said at 2 FP and 1 at 3 FP. My opponent > and I decided they should count and decided on 2 FP for no > real good reason... Ah, but the one who said three also said it was a Q&A: ASL 33 & ASL 54: For Victory Condition purposes, does the 50mm mortar have a FP value of "2", "3" or "6"? Does the Cossack LMG in ASL 33 have a FP value of "2" or "3"? A. "3" in both cases. {93b} So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 09:23:12 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) 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? S> What we do is 1) move to nearest IFT column (i.e. 9 goes to S> 8) then 2) do an IFT cower, then 3) add or subtract same S> shift amount. S> S> So 9 -> 8 -> 6 -> 7. I think that this was explained in the original IIFT article. It's sort of like that, but without the fianl add on. You move left to the closest "real" column, then shift again one more (or two, if inexperienced) real column(s). So 9->8->6 (or->4 if inexperienced). -Grant. ... As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 09:43:02 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Re: IIFT & Cowering Fire Mister Milligan writes: BMb> I happened to have saved this from a while back. It BMb> looks good to me (although I've never been able to BMb> convince anyone to use the IIFT). Ha! You didn't want to use it in our game. Could that be because you had 658s and I had 747s? I don't mean to slam Bryan in the least, as this is what I find often happens when getting ready to play a scenario. The guy with squads whose FP nicely fits into the IFT doesn't want to let the guy with "odd" squad FP get an advantage by playing with the IIFT. At our local club, we have some players who swear by the IIFT (right, Darren!), and so it gets used a fair bit. We have adopted a house rule WRT the concealment stripping issue whereby if an attack on the IIFT generates a PTC against a concealed stack when, if the IFT were used, it wouldn't, no PTC is taken. OK. I expect Wheel Farris to poke his nose in here any time :^) -Grant. ... Television is so dull that children are doing their homework. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:02:01 CET From: patman@gdpc.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: KGP I anomolies Hi, this bounced when I sent it to Chris, so I'm sending it off to the whole list instead. I hope someone else is interested as well. After playing some KGP CG's I don't really agree that there are that many disturbing anomalies. Partly because I am very tolerant when they make concessions to playability (like when they allow stone rubble to burn several times in RB - you can burn the same stone rubble hex each day). Sure it's not that realistic in all cases, but I really don't want even more counters to clutter the map, like "gutted" counters for all the rubble that mas been gutted. >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. I know that we didn't play this way, but I can't say who were doing it wrong. I do know there is something about hooking up guns to vehicles during the RePh, and then I figured it was possible to hook it up then and move it. It seems more logical anyway. >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. That's a new one... I don't know if that is really legal, since I seem to remember something about vehicles towing guns in the escape table (actually the table that says when different units have to escape.) >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? 50% for each unit? I remember it as being a dr, with a result of 5-6 resulting in a CR. That is if you are actually shifted w/ casualties, the odds for that are pretty low. You're much more likely to not be shifted at all. And what would be wrong with forcing the germans to expend another attack chit to chase those troops? Just set them up as far back as possible and run for the board edge. With a little planning in advance you should have no problem with this. (I admit I never did run off the map like that. As the american you have plenty of troops later, and you can afford to have the germans waste effort on chasing your troops.) >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. Good point. >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. I don't see how the germans could afford this. They simply don't have the manpower to pull that off when 20-30 U.S. squads enter en masse! Plus, in my experience the germans are f**ked if they try a forward defense. They _must_ fall back and set up a defense in depth because they are outnumbered. >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. Yup. Some kind of attrition of friendly SW would be helpful. I don't know how you'd design such a thing, though, since I wouldn't like to see such things as the MG's of a HMG platoon subject to such attrition. It could be used for any SW a normal infantry platoon brings, like MMG, BAZ and MTR for the americans. >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. Same as in RB. I don't think it has that much impact, even when I disabled two Panthers and one Wirbelwind. Anyway, I'd say that malfunction is out of ammo, and disabled is exactly thet. If you want better odds at repairing the weapon, I think you can wait to the end of the game and roll on the repair table with a -2 for a vehicular weapon. That should be better than the odds of repairing it during a scenario (66% or 83%). However, if you push it too hard and try to repair _during_ the scenario... >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. "given some time"? Do you really think that a wreck could be put out of action in only a day? That is what it would take for it to have any effect on the fighting. Moreover, I don't think the mechanics would like to try to salvage some wrecks _during_ a battle. Remember, this _is_ a battlefield in the sense that the enemy is never far away. I bet that any american repair crews could be hit by german fire anywhere on the map throughout the campaign - and that probably means there will be no repair crews in the first place. >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. ??? What do you mean with "the Germans should not win a scenario after the first date until after they lose the Sanatorium"? If you mean that they can't I think that is wrong. Anyway, If you think about what the effects of "winning" a date actually are, do you really think it matters? It is the CG VC that matters, and individual dates aren't worth a damn in the long run. >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. Maybe. The way I interpret it you can choose that option by revealing them at the start of the game. I'd take the CA change over the loss of HIP anyway, but that is just MHO. >11) All this mist is damn annoying. This isn't a rules gripe, just a personal >thing :) Mist? What mist? (we were playing with random weather and rolled clear for several dates...) >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. There are some other things I would like to be able to do on an idle day, but I don't really mind having captured SW disappear. >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. Maybe... But when you know about it, why don't get some bodies there to dig out that Wirbelwind? I know I'd be nervous if I were left alone in a minefield for 8 hrs. And if you really want to save that Wirbelwind, just abandon it and reman it later when you have removed the mines. (Probably the _most_ realistic thing to do anyway.) >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. Ugh, the american armour is powerless anyway, it doesn't matter if you give them gyros or thick frontal armour or a bigger gun. Maybe you're right, but I don't think it matters. If you're going to use U.S. armour you can only use them against infantry, and then it doesn't really matter what tanks you have. If you try to use them against german armour I don't think that they will last very long regardless. Also, the american advantage lies in numbers, not in quality. -- Patrik Manlig @ Gefle DPC [ Please send personal email to pman@hgs.se, or finger that account ] ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:17:10 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: IIFT & Cowering Fire Hello! First, the maybe simplest answer to the original question; "what to do when you're using the IIFT and Cowers", also applies to Fire Lanes and Residual Fire: You simply use the column you would have used if the IFT had been in play. This is not what is said in the original '89 Annual article, but this is the effect of what is said there. Some people have of course adopted their own House Rules. > Grant Linneberg writes: > > Ha! You didn't want to use it in our game. Could that be because you had > 658s and I had 747s? I don't mean to slam Bryan in the least, as this is > what I find often happens when getting ready to play a scenario. The guy > with squads whose FP nicely fits into the IFT doesn't want to let the guy > with "odd" squad FP get an advantage by playing with the IIFT. > The advantage you get by using the IIFT when playing a side with odd FP squads is actually very little, and surely to small to screw any play balance. I have made a little PC program that simulates a fight between two squads with identical DRMs. The fight ends when one squad is broken, CR'ed or KIA'd. Cowering and Pinning is included in the simulation. The program calculates the real probability of winning such a fight, it doesn't simply play the fight a thousand times. To Illustrate Grant's scenario, I found the probability that the 658 would win this fight against a 747 with and without the IIFT: DRM: % wins with IFT % wins with IIFT -1 56.6 54.8 0 57.5 55.2 1 58.9 56.8 2 59.7 56.8 3 59.4 58.7 This shows that the 747's advantage is about 1.5% when using the IIFT. When you include all other things that happen during a real game, where the 747 don't get any advantage due to using the IIFT, one can conclude that the advantage is less than this. I'm not saying which table is the best, but I'm saying that if you have 4 or 6 FP squads against 5 or 7 FP enemies, you should not be afraid of using the IIFT just because of play balance. > At our local club, we have some players who swear by the IIFT (right, > Darren!), and so it gets used a fair bit. We have adopted a house rule WRT > the concealment stripping issue whereby if an attack on the IIFT generates > a PTC against a concealed stack when, if the IFT were used, it wouldn't, no > PTC is taken. > I agree on this. The only point where the IIFT _may_ screw up play balance is when one side need to stay concealed. In the newest version of my own IIFT, I have changed all the new PTCs to "CTC" - Conditional Task Check (I didn't think of a better name). A CTC is a normal PTC against Known units, but is treated as No Effect against Concealed/Hidden targets. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:36:41 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Close Combat Doug Gibson wrote this as an answer to one of mine letters some weeks ago. I haven't answered it before, since I've been away for some time, but I'd like to get a definitive answer on this: > > Actually, I read the Withdrawal/Infiltration section carefully last night and > it looks to me like when the attacker rolls a 2, they're only immune to the > return attack if they actually choose to withdraw. While this seems weird, it > looks to me like that's how the rule is worded. Any comments? > > "A11.22 INFILTRATION: The simultaneous nature of CC is momentarily suspended following an Original CC DR of 2/12..." "A11.3 SEQUENTIAL CC: There are three other instances in which CC is not considered simultaneous; rather it is sequential...[Rule following, saying that the attacker is immune to the return attack if he eliminates the enemy]" I have played that A11.3 applies when you roll an Original 2. After reading Doug's letter I went home, and after reading my rules, I'm not sure anymore. Does A11.3 come into effect when the attacker rolls snake eyes? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:55:26 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: The Raate Road I'm getting geared up to play ASL scenario A54. I'll be playing the Russians with neither side with balance. I think I should be able to pull off a victory against my lesser experienced opponent, as I am pretty cagey with Russian infantry. A couple of observations: 1. The Russian OBA just isn't going to go off. With a radio contact number of five I doub't i'll see much 120mm support. 2. Extreme winter will probably malf. my tanks main guns if I use them much. I will probably see some casualty reduction as well due to E3.742. The finns are also snow cammo'd. 3. The Finns have Boobie Trap Level A and a SAN of five. All this doesn't sound too good for the Russians. In my favor is TIME. Lots of it. Thirteen nice long turns. I'll need it. Schlepping through the snow will slow me down. And I get my usual Horde-o'-Dudes (TM) with an exelent number of support weapons (for the Russians). Perhaps the biggest pluss is that I set up second, so i'll get the initative on whatever part of the Finn line I hit. Hopefully he won't be able to mass up on me too well. It looks like going across the frozen lake is right out. Going down the plowed road is the bloody obvious thing to to. Using the eastern (unplowed) road system is then perhaps the best bet. I guess my inital plan is to keep the tanks out of harms way as long as possible, and use my infantry to hammer a corridor for them to make a dash for the exit zone. Getting actual infantry off the board look like it might not be able to happen. If anyone out there has done this one before i'd appreciate hearing about your experience. Thank you. ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:24:56 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Rules Quest. JOE Sylvester wrote: > > 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? > I don't have the definition of "isolated area" here, but I think it talks about isolated hexes - not isolated locations. Normally I would just say that this is just another example of the rules where they mean Location when they write rule, but the perimeter example is quite clear; If anyone in a hex is isolated, everybody in the hex is isolated. On the other hand I find something I believe is a major error in the same example. The russian player have created a pocket like this: __ / a\ \__/ / b\__ \__/ d\ / c\__/ \__/ where he first placed the perimeter markers in a and d pointing at each other, and then a perimeter marker in c, pointing at d. The example says that he could not point the marker in c to a, since this would overlap the a-b-d Alternate Hex Grain in hex b. This is OK, but I find this whole pocket to be illegal. O11.605 says that for a "loop" to be determined properly, "Each side will be able to start at any Front Line Location, and never re-entering the same Front Line Location, eventually end up back at the starting Front Line Location." For the pocket above, it is impossible to start at any of these Locations and go around the loop wothout entering hex b twice, and therefore the pocket is illegal even though it is used in the example. The example was for a pocket, and it doesn't matter too much if it is three small or one larger pocket, but there are some cases when you may include a hex in your non-isolated Perimeter Area by following all the perimeter placement rules, but the hex must be removed from the area and become a pocket because of O11.605: __ / a\ __ \__/ __ __ / b\__/ d\__/ f\__/ h\ \__/ c\__/ e\__/ g\__/ / \__/ \__/ \__/ \ If the German ahve control of all these hexes, but none of the (undrawn) hexes above, he may place the following perimeter markers: b -> c -> d d -> a a -> d d -> e ->f ... This includes all the drawn hexes. The two perimeter markers in d is allowed, since O11.6054 reads: "... the new (Alternate) Hex Grain may _not_ overlap another _friendly_ (Alternate) Hex Grain (even on the map edge) [EXC: in a hex already containing a friendly Perimeter marker]." Hex d contains a friendly perimeter marker, so you have done nothing wrong, but once again the strange thing happens: Although you have followed the rules strictly, the result is wrong. It is impossible to move around your loop without entering hex d twice, and therefore hex a must be removed from your Perimeter Area and becomes a pocket. Any Comments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:13:39 -0500 (EST) From: SMITDV@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Subject: Re: IIFT and Cowering Fire I think the most elegant solution is what I saw suggested early in this thread: simply add a +1 to the results for cowering. That is basically what happens on the IFT. This could also be used on the IFT. I know that this is a different approach to the method as described in the ASLRB, but when the results are identical, why not opt for a more elegant solution. The advantage to using this on the IIFT is obvious. regards davidb ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:37:07 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: target size modifiers Hello again! I know that the To Hit Target Size modifier is relatively abstract, but I want to share this little funny situation with the list: In the latest day of my ongoing RB Campaign we had a mortar duel. On two rooftops a Russian 50 mm MTR and a German 81 mm MTR (and their crews) were firing at each other. The range was so close that they had the same To Hit possibilities - except for one: The Russian mortar that is a SW has no target size, but the German mortar is a Gun - and a small target. This meant that the German mortar was harder to hit because it was a small target, while the Russian mortar that actually was even smaller lacked this modifier, and therefor was easier to hit. Not very logic, but... P.S. Can anyone tell me why an OBA observer that decides to correct and convert a SR, does not have time to halt the OBA if he sees that the FFE falls on his own head, but if he sees that the OBA falls outside his LOS, he has time to stop the shells from falling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:56:19 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: The Raate Road > I'm getting geared up to play ASL scenario A54. I'll be playing the > Russians with neither side with balance. I think I should be able to pull > off a victory against my lesser experienced opponent, as I am pretty cagey > with Russian infantry. > > A couple of observations: > > 1. The Russian OBA just isn't going to go off. With a radio contact > number of five I doub't i'll see much 120mm support. > The radio contact number is six - not five. It's a quite common scenario error to let the Russian radio counter have 5/6/7 instead of the 6/7/8 which it actually has. >From the QA file: ASL A54: The Finnish ATR should be the 20L Lahti, not the 20LL depicted. The Russian radio counter depiction should have Contact values of 6/7/8, not 5/6/7. {93b} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 09:06:57 -0500 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: IIFT (sorry Brian) Guys, Grant, the most recent person to hand me my head on a plate, writes: > Mister Milligan writes: > > BMb> I happened to have saved this from a while back. It > BMb> looks good to me (although I've never been able to > BMb> convince anyone to use the IIFT). > > Ha! You didn't want to use it in our game. Could that be because > you had 658s and I had 747s? I don't mean to slam Bryan in the least, > as this is what I find often happens when getting ready to play a > scenario. The guy with squads whose FP nicely fits into the IFT doesn't > want to let the guy with "odd" squad FP get an advantage by playing with > the IIFT. Wha--?!? Hmm... not the way I remember it. ;-) I don't mind using the IIFT whether it "helps" or "hinders" me; I really don't feel that it makes all that much difference. The problem I run in to is that most people "don't want to keep up with another chart." Sound familiar? Bryan ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:28:30 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: The thrill of the eyes. Last night I played my first PTO scenario, a real treat. To make a long story short, the Americans have these three bazookas, pretty much worthless against everything except a Japanese bunker. Hmmm.... We discussed the reasoning of loading up the Ami's with baz, given the fact that it can be used only against the bunker and numerous infantry guns the Japanese have. In both cases, a critical hit is almost necessary to secure a hit. We talked about it for a long time, and it was obviously wearing on the Japanese commanders. When we finally got down to it, Japanese turn 1 found an American squad in crest, two (hindrance) hexes away from the Japanese bunker, which exposed itself to fire at more retreating Americans. (Actually, it took some convincing by my teammates to get me that being exposed to fire was worth it.) The Japanese laid down a vicious batch of prep fire, determined to break the squad, all to no avail. I could tell the other discussion was wearing on their nerves. Practically every unit with line of sight fired at the squad... Probably everyone saw this one coming (except for me) but the first shot taken by the bazooka goes to the bunker and comes up 1,1 (+5) = 7--which is exactly what I need to hit, so the subsequent dr is a 4, and it is just a hit (not critical). Cheers go up from the American side! The effect: 1,2 = 3 K/2 Ha! Random selection comes up with doubles and two Japanese crews go to meet the beloved ancestors, leaving Honorable 10-2 wondering why he spent hours getting the boys to build a bunker in the first place. Sorry to take up so much space, but rolling snake-eyes, when you need them, is a very cool thing. ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 07:54:28 -0700 Subject: Bloody Calvary Hi, all. It's been a while since I've shamelessly solicited advice for a scenario. I've found this is an especially effective tactic if my opponent doesn't have Internet access. :-) Anyway, I've got the British in Bloody Calvary this Friday. Anybody out there have any advice? Dade ----- From: Bruno NITROSSO Subject: Re: IIFT and Cowering Fire Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:09:02 METDST > I think the most elegant solution is what I saw suggested early in this thread: > simply add a +1 to the results for cowering. That is basically what happens on ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > the IFT. Nope, the main difference is that an original 1FP attack becomes nothing upon cowering (even snake eyes!) whereas 3 on 1FP is a good shot. -Bruno, who has already seen many good 1FP DRM-2 become nothing because of cowering, sight! ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:18:16 -0600 (MDT) From: David Hauth Subject: Re: target size modifiers > > In the latest day of my ongoing RB Campaign we had a mortar duel. On two > rooftops a Russian 50 mm MTR and a German 81 mm MTR (and their crews) were > firing at each other. The range was so close that they had the same To Hit > possibilities - except for one: The Russian mortar that is a SW has no > target size, but the German mortar is a Gun - and a small target. > This meant that the German mortar was harder to hit because it was a small > target, while the Russian mortar that actually was even smaller lacked this > modifier, and therefor was easier to hit. > > Not very logic, but... Is this possible? I thought that mortars had to use the area target type in all cases, and that the target size modifier would not apply for area fire. Am I wrong about this? Dave Hauth ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:52:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: Marsh level? What level is a unit in Marsh/Swamp? Is it level 0 or level -1? The case I'm wondering about is where a marsh hex is connected to a stream hex. It seems to me that a unit in the marsh should be at the same level as a unit IN the stream, but the rules don't really clarify the situation. What they do say is that when the stream is flooded, the marsh hex becomes a water hex -- when the water is up to level 0, the marsh is completely covered. How does everyone else play? Opinion was 3-1 for a level 0 interpretation when this came up in a game. Any other opinions? Marty ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:50:35 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: AG North vs BA Lipki Resurrecting the discussion on early-war Russian front combined-arms scenarios, before the corpse gets cold... If First Crisis at AG North is overly-tough on the Russians, I recommend Blocking Action at Lipki as a kindler, gentler alternative. The Germans are weaker, the Russian infantry stronger, the terrain more friendly. Heck, even the VC's are a tad easier. It's not a Russian walkover by any means, but a different flavor of this kind of battle, for those who might be turned off by the slanderous things recently said about the pro-German nature of First Crisis. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "P. Gowdy" Subject: LA Area Game Clubs Update I received a short list kindly sent to me by Scott (I stripped off the last name :( - Scott: please announce yourself) of game clubs in the LA (Orange county) area. All I have done is make the relevant phone calls and updated some information. I appologise in advance to those of you who do not live in the LA area and have no use for this information. Hopefully the subject line to this email will discourage from reading those for whom this information is irrelevant. ================================================================= TRW Meets every other Saturday (begin this Saturday*). Cafeteria of the TRW building (bld. S). Contact: Mark (310)-332-4437 Dogs of War I (ASL and any other war games) Meets every other Saturday (begin this Saturday) at the home of the contact listed below. Contact: Alan Daum: (714)-288-0114 1128 W. Walnut Orange, CA ================================================================= Dogs of War II (ASL only) aka Southern Calif. ASL Club Contact: Steve Sulzby Fountain Valley (714?)-968-6689 ================================================================ Cheers! Pete * 7/23/94 ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 11:31:29 -0700 Subject: Re: AG North vs BA Lipki On Jul 21, 10:50am, Tom Repetti wrote: > Subject: AG North vs BA Lipki > > If First Crisis at AG North is overly-tough on the Russians, I recommend > Blocking Action at Lipki as a kindler, gentler alternative. The Germans are > weaker, the Russian infantry stronger, the terrain more friendly. Heck, even the > VC's are a tad easier. I've never played Blocking Action... but it looks like a real nail-biter. I've never been able to decide which side I'd rather play, but I think I might lean toward the Germans. The game is set up so that the Krauts can set up their 28LL (APCR only) gun right next to the exit hexes, so the Russians have to face it, and usually in the end game, when the Russian infantry will be lagging behind. Further, the German armor may lack for killing power in a toe-to-toe slugging match, but they make up for it in their superior mobility. Nonetheless, the big Russian tank (is it a KV of some kind?) is enough to give anyone pause before taking the Germans. Some other scenarios of a similar nature are On All Fronts scenarios: The Struggle Begins Victory at Pratulin The Road to Stalingrad Romny These are all good scenarios. In particular Romny, which pits a combined armor/cavalry Russian force against a spread out force of German infantry and AA guns. One of my all-time favs. Dade ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 11:40:11 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: CA change modifiers OK, I've got one question about CA changes. If you use your CMG to fire at a known unit outside the TCA, and then later fire your MA in the same TCA, what modifiers apply to the MA shot? Similarly, if you fire the CMG at a target outside the TCA, and then change the TCA to fire the MA at another target (or even the same target, if it happens to have moved outside your TCA), what modifiers apply to the MA shot. I thought I understood this, but Patrik's and JR's recent posts have made me confused again (really not that hard to do). Can anyone explain this in terms simple enough for a jarhead to understand? Dave ----- Subject: Re: Close Combat From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:12:00 -0640 Howdy, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > Doug Gibson wrote this as an answer ... > >> Actually, I read the Withdrawal/Infiltration section >> carefully last night and it looks to me like when the >> attacker rolls a 2, they're only immune to the return >> attack if they actually choose to withdraw. While this >> seems weird, it looks to me like that's how the rule is >> worded. Any comments? > > "A11.22 INFILTRATION: The simultaneous nature of CC is > momentarily suspended following an Original CC DR of > 2/12..." > > "A11.3 SEQUENTIAL CC: There are three other instances in > which CC is not considered simultaneous; rather it is > sequential...[Rule following, saying that the attacker is > immune to the return attack if he eliminates the enemy]" > > I have played that A11.3 applies when you roll an Original > 2. After reading Doug's letter I went home, and after > reading my rules, I'm not sure anymore. Does A11.3 come > into effect when the attacker rolls snake eyes? No, A11.3 is not what is used here. A11.22 is all you need: A11.22 "INFILTRATION: The simultaneous nature of CC is momentarily suspended following an Original CC DR of 2/12. Provided it has not already been eliminated/capture/pinned, any Infantry/Cavalry unit which rolls an Original 2 CC DR may withdraw from CC/Melee immediately thereafter without being attacked, even if it did not eliminate the defenders (see also Field Promotion; A18.12). Any Infantry/Cavalry unit(s) attacked by an Original 12 CC DR may likewise withdraw from CC immediately thereafter, assuming it has not been eliminated by that 12 CC DR. If the option to withdraw is taken, it must be done immediately; the unit cannot wait to make its own attack (if it has not yet done so) or see the outcome of other attacks before leaving. See also Ambush Withdrawal (A11.41)." Using this rule assumes you have been following the Melee mechanics in rule A11.12 strictly: 1) ATTACKER declares all attacks 2) DEFENDER declares all attacks 3) Repeat until all declared ATTACKER attacks done: ATTACKER selects a declared attack and resolves it 4) Repeat until all declared DEFENDER attacks done: DEFENDER selects a declared and resolves it When a two/twelve is rolled in steps 3 or 4, the effects of the attack are carried out (if any) and then the unit affected may immediately withdraw (leave the location). Whether it withdraws or not, the CC continues using the A11.12 procedure. If it did not withdraw, it can still be attacked; if it did, and it had not yet been attacked, the units that were declared to be attacking the now withdrawn unit have no attack to make. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:28:19 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: Re: AG North vs BA Lipki dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) writes: >I've never played Blocking Action... but it looks like a real nail-biter. I've >never been able to decide which side I'd rather play, but I think I might lean >toward the Germans. The game is set up so that the Krauts can set up their >28LL (APCR only) gun right next to the exit hexes, so the Russians have to face >it, and usually in the end game, when the Russian infantry will be lagging >behind. >Further, the German armor may lack for killing power in a toe-to-toe slugging >match, but they make up for it in their superior mobility. >Nonetheless, the big Russian tank (is it a KV of some kind?) is enough to give >anyone pause before taking the Germans. I played this one recently and it was a very close scenario. Excellent summary of the options, BTW. When I played it I foolishly charged with the platoon of radioless AFV's only to have a pair knocked out before eliminating the German AFV. The other was immobilized by a lucky shot to boot and the crew kept bailing out. After digging a huge hole early, the giant KV152 arrived on the scene and pretty much rolled up to whatever it wanted, pointed and watched it explode. The KV rolled up a halftrack and the Kraut tanks pretty quickly to make it close on the CVP VC. I ended up losing by a CVP or 2 after an ATR Crit on a halftrack was a Dud. I'd probably take the Germans if playing for cash, but for pure raw thrills, not much beats that KV 152 plodding along blowing away everything on the battlefield... A highly enjoyable early war ride... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Subject: target size modifiers From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:48:00 -0640 Howdy, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > P.S. Can anyone tell me why an OBA observer that decides to > correct and convert a SR, does not have time to halt the > OBA if he sees that the FFE falls on his own head, but if > he sees that the OBA falls outside his LOS, he has time to > stop the shells from falling. If the OBA observer could call in FFEs outside his LOS, we'd get all kinds of "omniscient player syndrome" behavior. Probably some shells fell somewhere, but either they are unlikely to hit something or the effect would be open to abuse that it has no game effect. In the other case, the Observer has made a conscious decision to call in the FFE very close to his position, and he is willing to risk a shell falling on his head. No rule says he can't wait until he has the SR exactly where he want it, so if he rushes his spotting, he takes the risk. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 13:41:41 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: AG North vs BA Lipki Dade writes: > I've never played Blocking Action... but it looks like a real nail-biter. I've > never been able to decide which side I'd rather play, but I think I might lean > toward the Germans. The game is set up so that the Krauts can set up their > 28LL (APCR only) gun right next to the exit hexes, so the Russians have to face > it, and usually in the end game, when the Russian infantry will be lagging > behind. > Ja, but I have a hard time pinning my hopes on a 28LL ATG that doesn't set up HIP onboard. I'm playing the Germans right now, and the terrain on board 4 isn't as open as the ATG crew would like it to be. > Further, the German armor may lack for killing power in a toe-to-toe slugging > match, but they make up for it in their superior mobility. > Not all that superior; PzIII's have 13 MP, BT-7's have six billion MP, and the T-34 has 17. What saves the PzIII's is that they don't have to move far if they're retreating from one defensive line to the next, while the BT's and T-34 can burn some of their own MP's with platoon movement shenanigens. The SPW 251/10 37L HT does have 16 MP, but golly Batman, the TK # is 9 just for throwing big rocks at it. > Nonetheless, the big Russian tank (is it a KV of some kind?) is enough to give > anyone pause before taking the Germans. > KV-2. Speed nicely matches that of the infantry as they slog across the board. Reminds me of Andre the Giant for some reason. ("Never get involved in a land war in Asia!") This guy can pulverize the meager German defenses on board 4, provided the rest of the Russian tanks can protect it. Which seems likely. Brian is playing this one nicely as the Russians; using the infantry to leverage the armor across board 5, and presumably the armor to get the infantry across board 4. My PzIII's have been showing themselves but using Motion and sD's to run away from the T-34. Pretty soon I'm going to run out of room to run, though, and the proverbial potato will hit the fryer. Doug Gibson knows plenty about being the Germans in this one - Doug? Tom ----- Subject: target size modifiers From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:48:00 -0640 Howdy, oleboe@idt.unit.no writes: > P.S. Can anyone tell me why an OBA observer that decides to > correct and convert a SR, does not have time to halt the > OBA if he sees that the FFE falls on his own head, but if > he sees that the OBA falls outside his LOS, he has time to > stop the shells from falling. If the OBA observer could call in FFEs outside his LOS, we'd get all kinds of "omniscient player syndrome" behavior. Probably some shells fell somewhere, but either they are unlikely to hit something or the effect would be open to abuse that it has no game effect. In the other case, the Observer has made a conscious decision to call in the FFE very close to his position, and he is willing to risk a shell falling on his head. No rule says he can't wait until he has the SR exactly where he want it, so if he rushes his spotting, he takes the risk. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: CA change modifiers Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:31:15 PDT David van Kan writes: > OK, I've got one question about CA changes. If you use your CMG to fire at > a known unit outside the TCA, and then later fire your MA in the same TCA, > what modifiers apply to the MA shot? > > Similarly, if you fire the CMG at a target outside the TCA, and then change > the TCA to fire the MA at another target (or even the same target, if it > happens to have moved outside your TCA), what modifiers apply to the MA > shot. > > I thought I understood this, but Patrik's and JR's recent posts have > made me confused again (really not that hard to do). Can anyone > explain this in terms simple enough for a jarhead to understand? I'll try to keep the excess verbiage as abbreviated as possible and to eschew obfuscation. B^) Anyway, quoting D3.51: "MAINTAINING CA: Once a vehicle fires any turret-mounted weapon, any of its other turret-mounted weapons which fire within the current respective CA must pay the same CA Change penalty as the first weapon which fired." That covers David's first question. The MA suffers the same Case A DRM as the CMG suffered. Continuing on with D3.51: "If, after firing, another turret-mounted weapon (or the MA which has maintained a Multiple ROF) wishes to fire at another target outside the current TCA, the Case A TH DRM would be applicable based only on the move from the current TCA to the new TCA (C5.12) but only if the preceding shot(s) were taken at a Known enemy unit; otherwise no further change in TCA is allowed during that phase." So, if I crank the turret two spines and fire the CMG, then crank one more to fire the MA, I only suffer a +1 for the MA shot (assuming it's not a slow turret). On the other hand, I'm not allowed to artificially reduce the DRM by firing at an empty hex (or even a concealed stack) with the CMG. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Target Size Modifiers Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:33:56 PDT Dave Hauth writes: > Is this possible? I thought that mortars had to use the area target type > in all cases, and that the target size modifier would not apply for area > fire. > > > Am I wrong about this? Believe it or not (I thought the same thing), you are, it seems. There is no dagger to indicate that it doesn't apply to Area Target Type on Case P, Target Size Modifier. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: AG North vs BA Lipki Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:21:18 PDT [discussion of Blocking Action at Lipki deleted] > Doug Gibson knows plenty about being the Germans in this one - Doug? The game has somewhat different character when the Russians approach from the two possible directions; I've talked to Tom a little about this one, and while he has the hedges that can be used to buy an extra turn (wait for Russkies to approach, go Motion, pop out of sight without suffering anything other than the Russian's Bounding Fire in their MPh/AFPh if the motion works), I didn't; on the other hand, the exit area is closer so this probably isn't a big deal. The Russians have relatively few options for their armor with that approach; on the other approach, I was stuck trying to cover about three possible avenues of approach for tanks with (surprise) three AFVs. My MO was wait for the T-34 to heave into sight, go into motion with whichever tank was staring down the jaws of death and change CA to be out of sight with my first MP expenditure if possible (avoiding the possibility of a decent DFPh shot taking me out). I think if the Germans can pull this off until the Pz IVs arrive, they've got a good chance to win even though the IVs need a lot of luck to penetrate the T-34 (I did it with a rear shot at point blank which scored a CH). I think the key for the Russians in this one is to be conservative with the thin-skinned BTs (which have a TK# of 8 instead of the ht's 9 for throwing large rocks at them); even an LMG can kill one (I know, I did it). They shouldn't be overaggressive with the T-34 either; my opponent drove it right next to building 4O6 (behind which was the 28LL, hoping for rear shots in case the Russian tanks try to dash off the board) in sight of two Pz IIIs. Although he flamed one of the IIIs, the AT Gun was pushed into the building AND the Pz IVs arrived that turn, blowing him away with a point blank shot from bypass in hex 4O6. IMHO, the Russians should try to win on CVP if they can. If they're reasonably conservative, using the BTs to make side shots on the T-34 extremely risky without leaving the BTs exposed to prep fire, I think they probably ought to win, but I have yet to test this theory. On the other hand, if the Russians fail to score a kill by the time the Pz IVs arrive, they may be in trouble. The IVs don't have much AT capacity because of their AP 7 depletion number, but they can't be ignored until they've used it up. Sometime I want to try this scenario again, but from the Russian side. I think that if my opponent hadn't had his KV-2 immobilize at a VERY inconvenient time (out of sight of darn near everything) it would have been very close (and indeed it was; if he had had the last tank standing instead of me, and yes, I mean tank in the singular, the CVP total would have been very close to what he needed to win). While this scenario can be depressing for the Germans at first (the T-34 and KV-2 are SCARY), the tide can be turned. Don't forget the little things; my high point (not counting the CH on the T-34) was when, after I unloaded an HS with the ATR from the SPW 251/10 and promptly was informed by 76mm express that I was in LOS of some things, even though the SPW was killed, the crew survived and picked up the ATR, later capturing an HS (the other half died in the crew's attack) and killing a BT with the ATR. Of course, after that I proceeded to plunk away at the T-34 (which was darn annoying... even a CH didn't penetrate!) with them. Finally, it's important to realize that even though most of the Russian tanks ARE radioless, they only need to roll an 8 to move freely, which works significantly more often than not. The T-34 should, IMHO, be moving by itself through most of the game (first two turns excepted) so that the BTs can be held back out of LOS of the enemy but in supporting positions. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: 21 Jul 94 23:42:40 EDT From: Bruce Probst <100033.3661@compuserve.com> Subject: target size modifiers Ole writes: >> The range was so close that they had the same To Hit possibilities - >> except for one: The Russian mortar that is a SW has no target size, >> but the German mortar is a Gun - and a small target. This meant >> that the German mortar was harder to hit because it was a small >> target, while the Russian mortar that actually was even smaller >> lacked this modifier, and therefor was easier to hit Don't mortars _always_ fire as Area Target Type? Target size is irrelevant. In any case the targets of the attack (for either mortar) is the _crew_, not the gun itself, and again target size is irrelevant. (Germans and Russians are the same height .) Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 06:03:00 UTC Subject: OBA question Hi guys, This question was posted near the weekend and it still hasn't been resolved by my opponent and I. I am hoping that someone else will see it and have some insight to offer. (JR?) Any help is greatly appreciated. =========================== The question involves voluntary loss of Radio Contact. I am not sure that I understand the concept and it seems to me that the ASLRB never goes into any detail about what exactly "voluntary loss of radio contact" is and when it is applied. Anyway, I had a leader with a Radio that had gained Radio Contact and Battery Access in a previous turn. That leader was wounded and broken by enemy fire and routed away, losing Radio Contact, and leaving the radio in his original hex. Now, a new leader comes along and picks up the Radio. During the enemy MPh, 3 squads and a leader move ADJACENT to my leader. During the subsequent DFPh, that leader regains Radio Contact and converts the existing SR into an FFE:1 which is resolved. Now, because the leader is about to get pounced on by a bunch of squads, he voluntarily breaks and takes the radio with him. Radio contact is immediately broken. This is where the problem develops. My opponent claims that because the leader "voluntarily" broke, this constitues "voluntary" loss of Radio Contact, thus totally cancelling the OBA mission and removing the FFE from the board. In my opinion, the rules say nothing about "voluntary rout=voluntary loss of contact". The rules do specifically mention a leader routing with a broken squad, but I do not believe that this is the same as the leader himself breaking, even voluntarily. So, the question is: Does the above situation constitute voluntary loss of radio contact? Again, we appreciate your time and help with this situation if you are able. Thanks, Warren ----- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 01:02:32 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rosner Subject: The General Welllll, I'd like to comend that fine, fine semi annual periodical the General.... it's now about 8 months since I received 29-1 in the mail... (I actually got it in 12/93). The General, the only magazine that you get 4 bonus years for free with a two year subscription I have yet to receive 29-2... Overheard at a game con: Have you seen the latest General? No, I have a subscription.... If a tank kills an Infantry unit, Is that Vehicular manslaughter?? drosner@netcom.com ----- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 11:21:29 +0200 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: target size modifiers Hello First, Mortars do always use Area Fire, _but_ the Target Size Modifier _does_ apply to Area fire too. Remember that Area Fire doesn't mean that you shell every inch of the ground, but that you spread the shells all over the ground, hoping to hit the target. A small target is still harder to hit. JR also answered to my bonus question: > > > P.S. Can anyone tell me why an OBA observer that decides to > > correct and convert a SR, does not have time to halt the > > OBA if he sees that the FFE falls on his own head, but if > > he sees that the OBA falls outside his LOS, he has time to > > stop the shells from falling. > > If the OBA observer could call in FFEs outside his LOS, > we'd get all kinds of "omniscient player syndrome" > behavior. Probably some shells fell somewhere, but either > they are unlikely to hit something or the effect would be > open to abuse that it has no game effect. In the other > case, the Observer has made a conscious decision to call in > the FFE very close to his position, and he is willing to > risk a shell falling on his head. No rule says he can't > wait until he has the SR exactly where he want it, so if he > rushes his spotting, he takes the risk. > > So long, > > JR > I didn't want the observer to be able to call in FFE outside his LOS, what I meant was this; Assume an observer correcting a SR to a hex two hexes away, where he has LOS, and that he declares that he want to convert the SR to a FFE too (he's in a hurry). If the FFE drifts onto his own head, he's stuck, he has no time to stop the shells from falling, but suppose the FFE drifts in another direction, completely out of his LOS. Now he has time to stop the FFE, because by the rules the SR will not be converted. I don't think that allowing this FFE to be resolved is any "omniscient player syndrome", because the observer has to call it down where he has LOS, and he doesn't know where it will drift. What I find most logic, is that when an observer decides to correct _and_ convert a SR, the decision is made, and the shells will fall independent of where the artillerists actually point their guns ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 10:56:16 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Start MP Thanks to Doug Gibson for pointing out my inavility to read and understand even relatively straight-forward rules. Yes, I know that D3.51 clearly answered my question about CA change modifiers. Thanks, but have you ever read over a thing so many times that it stops making sense? :-) Anyway, I've another question. If a vehicle is fired on immediately after having spent its start MP, is it considered a moving target for TH purposes? I don't think so, but then I began to wonder if you could fire at a vehicle that had just made a succesful motion attempt without considering it a moving target. No, you can't, but didn't it have to start to go into Motion? And, along similar lines, You can fire at infantry who spend MF to Recover or place Smoke, and FFNAM/FFMO can apply, even though the target isn't necessarily "moving". Does the ASLRB ever define what it means by "moving"? I've seen definitions of Motion and Mobile, but not "moving". Does it mean "having moved to a new hex/location", "having spent MF/MP this phase", or "having spent Start MP without having spent MP to Stop"? I wish I knew. For example, there is a +1 mod to firing a Smoke Mortar if you are "moving". Which definition do you apply? Or am I still befuddled? Dave ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Start MP Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 15:43:01 PDT David van Kan writes again: > Thanks to Doug Gibson for pointing out my inavility to read and understand > even relatively straight-forward rules. Yes, I know that D3.51 clearly > answered my question about CA change modifiers. Thanks, but have you ever > read over a thing so many times that it stops making sense? :-) Many times. Like the FORTRAN code I'm trying to work on. B^) > Anyway, I've another question. If a vehicle is fired on immediately after > having spent its start MP, is it considered a moving target for TH purposes? Nope. See below. > I don't think so, but then I began to wonder if you could fire at a vehicle > that had just made a succesful motion attempt without considering it a > moving target. No, you can't, but didn't it have to start to go into > Motion? And, along similar lines, You can fire at infantry who spend MF > to Recover or place Smoke, and FFNAM/FFMO can apply, even though the > target isn't necessarily "moving". Not really; it didn't expend a Start MP in the usual sense. Furthermore, it is in Motion, not moving. It is a moving target, though (in terms of taking a TH DRM to hit it). Confused yet? > Does the ASLRB ever define what it means by "moving"? I've seen definitions > of Motion and Mobile, but not "moving". Does it mean "having moved to a new > hex/location", "having spent MF/MP this phase", or "having spent Start MP > without having spent MP to Stop"? I wish I knew. For example, there is > a +1 mod to firing a Smoke Mortar if you are "moving". Which definition > do you apply? Check (I think) C.8 for a definition of "moving target." It certainly IS defined at the beginning of chapter C (regarding vehicles at least, which is the only place it isn't clear). A target which is in Motion (not during *its* MPh) or moving (only during *its* MPh) is harder to hit, and you're not moving in this sense until you've entered a new hex unless you started the MPh in Motion. This is why Motion attempts are so important. Be careful, though, I think this definition only applies to vehicles, and only for purposes of being a moving target or not. For Infantry I don't think it matters, does it? As for the sM, I'd have to look at the relevant Q&A to see just how it's worded. If it actually says "moving," I'd probably treat it the same way as for being a moving target; I'd hope it says "moving/Motion," though if it was asked as a question it won't necessarily even if that is the intent. > Or am I still befuddled? Can't answer that one. I'll check the rulebook when I get home, though. B^) -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: bconab@fir.pwcm.com (Bob Conabee) Subject: Fire Lanes Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 21:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Greetings! I'm just starting ASL Scenario B: The Tractor Works with Bahadir Erimli and we are running into some sticky questions with regards to correctly implementing Fire Lanes. My Defense, being the Germans, heavily relies on Fire Lanes to stop the Russian 295th Infantry Division from Reinforceing his units already in the Factory. Here it goes. Question 1: If the squad manning a MG attempts to fire at the first unit that crosses the MGs Fire Lane, does he do so as a FG? A Russian squad enters an open ground hex 2 hexes from a concealed German squad with a MMG. Wishing to establish a Fire Lane on the street that the Russian squad is attempting to traverse, I reveal the unit with his special weapon and having declared the Fire Lane, resolve the presence of it's Residual FP. The Russian squad having take this on the chin, I then attempt to fire at the unit with the inherent FP of 467 which established the Fire Lane. These are the rules I could find that seemed relevant: 7.55 Mandatory Fire Groups: If Good Order units in the same Location are going to fire at the same target (i.e., at both the same Locations and the same unit; see D3.5) during the same phase they must form a FG [EXC. Fire Lane; 9.22]; they may not attack separately unless they do so with ordinance/FT/DC or the subsequent shots of Multiple ROF weapons (9.2) When the Fire Lane is established it's "target" location is far beyond the present moving unit. Is the MG firing at the same target? Further more: 8.22 (RESIDUAL FIREPOWER) RESTRICTION: Residual FP can never form a FG, i.e., it must always attack alone...... Fire Lanes are a form of Residual Fire Power. Does this apply? Question 2: If a MG has established a Fire Lane, and an enemy unit moves into an adjacent hex, can the squad break off the Fire Lane and fire with the SW using Subsequent First Fire? My opponent rightly sites 9.223 (FIRE LANE) CANCELLATION: ...A MG may not cancel it's Fire Lane in order to regain freedom to fire elsewhere, unless a TPBF situation occurs (7.212), in which the Fire Lane must be cancelled..... I thought they could based on 9.22 FIRE LANES: ...A MG which has established a Fire Lane may not fire outside that Fire Lane until Final Fire and then only at an adjacent or same hex target. This seems to imply that one can cancel a Fire Lane to fire at adjacent enemy units. What's the deal? Thanks in advance Bob Conabee bobc@panix.com ----- Date: 23 Jul 94 01:50:15 EDT From: Bruce Probst <100033.3661@compuserve.com> Subject: Area Fire & Target Size Ole writes: >> First, Mortars do always use Area Fire, _but_ the Target Size Modifier >> _does_ apply to Area fire too. Remember that Area Fire doesn't mean >> that you shell every inch of the ground, but that you spread the >> shells all over the ground, hoping to hit the target. A small target >> is still harder to hit. Then why aren't infantry harder to hit with Area Fire than anything else? Area Fire affects _all_ eligible targets in the Location (and maybe hex, I'm not sure of the exact wording of the rule). That's why it's _area_ fire. Furthermore, how can you _target_ something with _area_ fire? The two concepts are logically incompatible. (I can just see it: the mortar crew carefully aims the tube at the opposing infantry's howitzer. Alas, because the howitzer is small, the mortar shells narrowly miss it on either side, detonating with no apparent effect. The howitzer crew sticks their tongues out at the mortar crew and proceed to fire back.) I think it much more likely that the absence of the dagger for Case P (or whatever) is a typo, not a deliberate design intent. Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) ----- From: ABillsASL@aol.com Date: Sat, 23 Jul 94 13:11:02 EDT Subject: Avalon (DON) Con Here I am again with the latest list of attendees. I received my program a week ago and it has some interesting things in it. The first is the start of some events on Wed night. These events effectively disable use of Salons C-F and the Maryland Ballroom for free gaming that night. Salon A is still open, perhaps a good meeting place for ASLers that evening. Also, the favorites for the ASL tournament:(based on entry received by the publishing date) 1) M. McGrath 2) P. Cocke 3) G. Fortenbery 4) B. Conner 5) R. Barnete 6) M. Balicki 7) C. Goetz AVALONCON Attendees List Arrival Date Alan Bills abillsasl@aol.com Wednesday Brian Youse brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Wednesday Carl Fago cdf1@psu.edu Wednesday JR Tracy jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com Wednesday Bill Edwards edwardsw@delphi.com Wednesday w.edwards12@genie.geis.com Paul Ferraro pferraro+@pitt.edu Thursday Chuck Powers cpowers@ceramics.gsfc.nasa.gov Thursday Bill Archer barcher@aol.com Thursday morning Rich Campbell campbell@capsrv.jhuapl.edu Thursday Robert Feinstein+3 robert@chem.UCSD.EDU ? Stewart King stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ? Rusty Shields shields@ssims.nci.nih.gov ? Bob Lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov Friday Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ? Phil Pomerantz p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com ? Other Genie (via Phil Pomerantz) Bob O'Conner R.Oconnor6@genie.geis.com ? Dan Dolan D.Dolan6@genie.geis.com ? Brian Sielski, Dirk Heinz, Rob Wolkey, Steve Pleva, Russ Gifford (of course), Ray Woloszyn, Jeff Coyle, Darryl Lundy, Brad Miller, Jeff Paull Alan Bills ----- From: sclarke@netcom.com (Scott Clarke) Subject: Seeking a Ladder game Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 10:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Is there anyone who'd like an opponent for a ladder game? I am new on the Internet, so haven't played on this ladder before. I have all the modules (of course, what true ASL player wouldn't ) and would be willing to play anything but beach landings. I like the early war (ie vs France and the allied minors) and Eastern front scenarios the most myself, but also would be interested in playing some PTO scenarios. Email me if interested! Scott ----- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 16:16:39 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: IIFT (sorry Brian) Bryan probably remmbers things more clearly than myself: BMb> Wha--?!? Hmm... not the way I remember it. ;-) I don't BMb> mind using the IIFT whether it "helps" or "hinders" me; I BMb> really don't feel that it makes all that much difference. BMb> The problem I run in to is that most people "don't want BMb> to keep up with another chart." Sound familiar? However, I usually start off a PBEM game by sending a questionaire about optional rules, etc. before moving to setup. In it, I ask "IFT or IIFT" as I don't have a real preference. I might have forgot this in my game with Bryan, but as I had the 747s, that would have been silly of me! Silly, but not unlike me. Bryan, I hereby apologize if I sullied your good name. The offer of another game is always there when you get to your new digs. As we were playing Dice Under the Noel Trees, I don't think it mattered much, especially as I was a chicken with my infantry. -Grant. ... Art is vision not expression. -== IceIQle v2.0 ==- ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 24 Jul 94 00:20:00 UTC Subject: Fire Lanes ======= To: BCONAB@FIR.PWCM.COM@ ======= > Question 1: If the squad manning a MG attempts to fire at the first > unit that crosses the MGs Fire Lane, does he do so as a FG? > A Russian squad enters an open ground hex 2 hexes from a concealed > German squad with a MMG. Wishing to establish a Fire Lane on the > street that the Russian squad is attempting to traverse, I reveal the > unit with his special weapon and having declared the Fire Lane, resolve > the presence of it's Residual FP. The Russian squad having take this > on the chin, I then attempt to fire at the unit with the inherent FP of > 467 which established the Fire Lane. Bob, Fire Lanes are a form of residual fp. In that regard, a firelane can exist only after an attack has been made with the MG. A9.22 (92 revision) says "Whenever the DEFENDER declares a Defensive First Fire attack with a Good Order SW MG that is manned by unpinned _Infantry_ (even as part of a FG), he may also declare a Fire Lane with that MG.... If he does declare a Fire Lane, he must place a First Fire counter on the MG and, after resolving that First Fire attack in the normal manner, must also place a Fire Lane Residual FP counter in one hex along a Hex Grain; that Hex Grain must include the MG's hex and its First Fire target hex, but he may place the Fire Lane counter in or beyond the latter hex." Mandatory Fire Groups apply to the initial attack normally. You cannot attack with the squad and the MG separately for the initial attack. The MG, either with the squad or without, makes an attack and declares that the MG will then place a firelane along the LOS of the initial attack. The following is how the situation should have been resolved: A Russian squad enters an open ground hex 2 hexes from a concealed German squad with a MMG. Wishing to establish a Fire Lane on the street that the Russian squad is attempting to traverse, the squad and MMG attack the moving unit at 8 -2 and then place a 2fp Fire Lane counter at the end of the street along the LOS of the initial attack. As long as the MMG does not malfunction and the attack does not cower, the firelane is placed and all future units attempting to cross the street will be affected by the Fire Lane. Note that the MMG could have attacked by itself at 4 -2 and then placed the Fire Lane further down the street. If the squad were to attack alone, a Fire Lane could not be placed until another unit moved into the street and the MG fired at it. > Question 2: If a MG has established a Fire Lane, and an enemy unit > moves into an adjacent hex, can the squad break off the Fire Lane and > fire with the SW using Subsequent First Fire? > [stuff deleted] > My opponent rightly sites 9.223 (FIRE LANE) CANCELLATION: ...A MG may > not cancel it's Fire Lane in order to regain freedom to fire elsewhere, > unless a TPBF situation occurs (7.212), in which the Fire Lane must be > cancelled..... This is correct. > I thought they could based on 9.22 FIRE LANES: ...A MG which has > established a Fire Lane may not fire outside that Fire Lane until Final > Fire and then only at an adjacent or same hex target. The key words here are "FINAL FIRE". Final Fire occurs only in the DFPh, not the MPh, so it is saying that once movement is completed, then the MG can fire at another adjacent target. Once the firelane is placed, Mandatory FG rules do not apply to attacks made by the squad since the Firelane is considered residual fp. Thus, a second squad moving across the street unaffected by the firelane may then be attacked by the squad as SFF (or FirstFire if the squad never fired). Hope this makes it clear. Warren ----- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 20:10:13 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rosner Subject: Re: The General OOOPS, I actually received 29-1 back in early May.... It just seems like it has been since December (which is when I received 28-6) drosner@netcom.com On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, David Rosner wrote: > > Welllll, I'd like to comend that fine, fine semi annual periodical the > General.... it's now about 8 months since I received 29-1 in the mail... > (I actually got it in 12/93). > > The General, the only magazine that you get 4 bonus years for free with a > two year subscription > > I have yet to receive 29-2... > > Overheard at a game con: > > Have you seen the latest General? No, I have a subscription.... > > If a tank kills an Infantry unit, Is that Vehicular manslaughter?? > > drosner@netcom.com > > ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:38:27 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size Bruce Probst <100033.3661@compuserve.com> writes: > I think it much more likely that the absence of the dagger for Case > P (or whatever) is a typo, not a deliberate design intent. I don't think so. If you read the rules in the "Guns as targets" section, you will see that the target size does apply to an Area Target Type TH attempt. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 07:34:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size > > I think it much more likely that the absence of the dagger for Case > > P (or whatever) is a typo, not a deliberate design intent. > > I don't think so. If you read the rules in the "Guns as targets" > section, you will see that the target size does apply to an Area > Target Type TH attempt. Argument A: Isn't there something in the rules about shooting _at_ the gun itself vs the manning crew? Isn't the gun itself tougher to hit? Who shoots at guns when you can shoot the weanies manning it? Argument B: If you figure the gun is emplaced (sand bags, etc., piled all around), then a 50L syits in a smaller emplacement than a 75L right? So it makes sense, assuming you must shoot at the gun pit to hurt the gun or the crew, that a smaller emplacement is harder to hit (even with a mortar), right? A quick review of the the rules section, C11, kills argument A - sure you shoot at the gun, but you only hit it if you KIA the crew (and destroy the gun as well). Aurgument B gets my vote. Although you could argue that the gun size ought to come off the IFT roll (like the emplacement does), it makes sense for game mechanics that they chose to do it this way. A +3 on the IFT (emplaced small gun) would make mortars lees effective against guns than they already are - so +1 to hit, +2 on the IFT. Does this make sense? Paul Ferraro "Keep shootin' boys! That mortar ain't gonna hurt us! We're emplaced _and_ have a small gun size target modifier!" ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 14:55:42 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size Paul F Ferraro writes: > If you figure the gun is emplaced (sand bags, etc., piled all > around), then a 50L syits in a smaller emplacement than a 75L right? > So it makes sense, assuming you must shoot at the gun pit to hurt > the gun or the crew, that a smaller emplacement is harder to hit > (even with a mortar), right? > Does this make sense? It sure makes sense, but it doesn't explain all the rules. There's still the problem that it's easier to hit the guys with a 60mm SW MTR than those with a 80mm MTR that is _not_ emplaced. Bas. ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 08:58:51 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: 6+1 question > > I have a foolish 6+1 question for some wise ASL'ers: > > In shellholes, FFMO only applies if a single > MF is expended to enter the location; if two > are expended, the +1 TEM applies. > > 1) What happens if the opponent declares DFF > on a unit entering a shellhole hex with 2 MF? > Is he (a) allowed to fire after the first MF (and > gain FFMO), or (b) must he wait until both are > expended (and use the +1 TEM)? You can fire after either the first or second MF, but in either case the +1 TEM is used and FFMO never applys. Fred > > Thanks for your patience. > > > ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 10:03:46 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: 6+1 question > In shellholes, FFMO only applies if a single > MF is expended to enter the location; if two > are expended, the +1 TEM applies. > > 1) What happens if the opponent declares DFF > on a unit entering a shellhole hex with 2 MF? > Is he (a) allowed to fire after the first MF (and > gain FFMO), or (b) must he wait until both are > expended (and use the +1 TEM)? > Far as I know, the 2 MF aren't expended simultaneously; it's 1 MF to enter the hex, then 1 MF to enter the foxhole. So the defender can intervene with dfire after the first MF and not have to deal with the foxhole TEM since the moving unit hasn't entered the foxhole yet. If the foxhole is in open ground, there's even FFMO on that shot. Which is why foxholes are kind of left-handed compliments to me; nice if you can stay in 'em, but tough to leave them since you can be subject to FFMO in the hex once you pop out of the foxhole itself. Tom ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 16:36:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: which is the bigger MTR? As long as we're trying to rationalize the rules, how about this: The squad manning the 50mm MTR is spread out over a much larger area than the two or three man crew which runs the 81mm MTR. So it makes sense that they're easier to hit with area fire than the emplaced crew. Remember that a squad is spread out over the whole hex (or rooftop), espeically a big Russian squad. Marty ----- Date: 25 Jul 1994 13:16:25 U From: "William Cirillo" Subject: Re: 6+1 question Subject: Time:12:22 PM OFFICE MEMO RE>6+1 question Date:7/25/94 "B2.4 Infantry may enter a shellhole hex at a cost of one or two MF. If it expends one MF to enter a shellhole hex it may be subject to FFMO in that hex during that MPh until pinned. If it expends two MF in entering the hex, or starts the phase therin, it is considered in a shellhole and not subject to FFMO penalties..." So, I would interpret this to mean (b) +1 TEM is applicable, no FFMO. Bill >I have a foolish 6+1 question for some wise ASL'ers: >In shellholes, FFMO only applies if a single >MF is expended to enter the location; if two >are expended, the +1 TEM applies. >1) What happens if the opponent declares DFF >on a unit entering a shellhole hex with 2 MF? >Is he (a) allowed to fire after the first MF (and >gain FFMO), or (b) must he wait until both are >expended (and use the +1 TEM)? ----- From: dade_cariaga@RAINBOW.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 10:16:59 -0700 Subject: Re: 6+1 question Hi, all. Tom, I think your assessment of foxholes is correct, but the question was about shellholes. I think shellhole MF expenditure IS considered simulaneous (ala woods, building, etc.) so any attacks vs. a unit entering such would not gain the FFMO benefit. Shellholes are unique, though, in that infantry can ELECT not to spend the extra MF, in which case they would be subject to FFMO. Dade On Jul 25, 10:03am, Tom Repetti wrote: > Subject: Re: 6+1 question > > > In shellholes, FFMO only applies if a single > > MF is expended to enter the location; if two > > are expended, the +1 TEM applies. > > > > 1) What happens if the opponent declares DFF > > on a unit entering a shellhole hex with 2 MF? > > Is he (a) allowed to fire after the first MF (and > > gain FFMO), or (b) must he wait until both are > > expended (and use the +1 TEM)? > > > > Far as I know, the 2 MF aren't expended simultaneously; > it's 1 MF to enter the hex, then 1 MF to enter the > foxhole. So the defender can intervene with dfire after > the first MF and not have to deal with the foxhole TEM > since the moving unit hasn't entered the foxhole yet. If > the foxhole is in open ground, there's even FFMO on that > shot. > > Which is why foxholes are kind of left-handed compliments > to me; nice if you can stay in 'em, but tough to leave > them since you can be subject to FFMO in the hex once > you pop out of the foxhole itself. > > Tom >-- End of excerpt from Tom Repetti ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 11:40:40 EDT From: ackerman@S22CV.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (John Ackerman) Subject: 6+1 question I have a foolish 6+1 question for some wise ASL'ers: In shellholes, FFMO only applies if a single MF is expended to enter the location; if two are expended, the +1 TEM applies. 1) What happens if the opponent declares DFF on a unit entering a shellhole hex with 2 MF? Is he (a) allowed to fire after the first MF (and gain FFMO), or (b) must he wait until both are expended (and use the +1 TEM)? Thanks for your patience. ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: which is the bigger MTR? Marty: This analysis doesn't help either because the problem still exists if the 50mm MTR is manned by a crew. Brent > As long as we're trying to rationalize the rules, how about this: > > The squad manning the 50mm MTR is spread out over a much larger area than > the two or three man crew which runs the 81mm MTR. So it makes sense that > they're easier to hit with area fire than the emplaced crew. Remember that > a squad is spread out over the whole hex (or rooftop), espeically a big > Russian squad. > > Marty > > ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 14:05:00 -0400 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size > > I think it much more likely that the absence of the dagger for Case > > P (or whatever) is a typo, not a deliberate design intent. > > I don't think so. If you read the rules in the "Guns as targets" > section, you will see that the target size does apply to an Area > Target Type TH attempt. I think the real key to this argument is the Area Fire. Under Area Fire, each shot at the hex has a chance to hit everyone and everything in that hex. However, the modifiers for each possible target are calculated separately, but the same DR is used for all.. So, the mortar can hit the gun and does use the target size modifier. It is possible to hit the crew without hitting the gun, or to hit both, but not just the gun. Likewise for hexes containing both concealed and unconcealed units. Under normal circumstances, for a first mortar shot, DR <=5 will hit both concealed and unconcealed target, DR=6 or 7 will hit just unconcealed target, and DR >=8 will miss completely. Doug Williamson ----- From: Kenneth Kai Chi Li Subject: Learning ASL & findinf players... Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 12:21:58 -0600 (MDT) Hi all, I am not a subscriber yet (since don't want a large amount of mail before I learn the game), but knowing all ASL players hang out here I will give it a try to this list. I am currently learning ASL, I have BV,Paratrooper, HL and LH (got the last 2 on a 1/2 price sale in a game shop). Actually, I have got ASL for some years and due to time, haven't got a chance to learn it. What is the fastest way to learn the system?? I have read section A, part of B and is now reading the training manual in Paratrooper. Someone told me that ASL annual 90' has a article of a programmed system somewhat like SL (yea, I have the whole SL system--SL, COI, COD and GI). But right now cannot put out the $15 for the book (I would like to get it later, but not right now...). Is there a way to get a brief summary of the system or can anyone mind to copy the article for me (I will pay the copy charge and postage)?? Also I am finding an opponent to play with, I prefer FtF, I lived in Provo area UTAH. Email opponent is fine for me also, drop me a line if anyone is interested in teaching a newbie... Thanks in advance... --- Kenneth --- ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 16:16:07 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Off the beaten track Has anybody out there played Smasher Karl (On All Fronts, 50.1) or Shootout At Singling (ASLUG 5)? Both look pretty cool, neither have those pesky foxhole things that everybody gets confused with shellholes. "Smasher Karl" is an all-time great scenario name, IMO. Tom ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 22:41:00 UTC Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size Hi, Has anybody mentioned C11.2 in this discussion? "An Emplaced Gun can be fired on using the Area Target Type (the Gun's Target Size [2.271] is a To Hit DRM unless inside a pillbox; B30.32) with a +2 TEM (once hit) for being emplaced; or it can be fired on using the Infantry Target Type, with the +2 Emplacement TEM and the Gun's Target Sized used as a combined To Hit DRM." That kind of sums it up. Warren ----- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:26:38 -0400 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size > There's > still the problem that it's easier to hit the guys with a 60mm SW MTR > than those with a 80mm MTR that is _not_ emplaced. > > Bas. > I played for years that all weapons that use the TH table were emplaced if they hadn't moved yet. My error was pointed out to me at AVALONCON last year. I still think the way I used to play makes more sense -- why wouldn't they emplace a light mortar or a 37mm infantry gun when they expend lots more effort to emplace the larger gun as a matter of course? Stewart King I'm number 350, I try harder! ----- From: NolanCluff@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 03:44:30 EDT Subject: pbem pbem greenie looking for his first match. Any scenerio 1-50 including Deluxe. Interested? e-mail Nolan at NolanCluff@aol.com ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 14:23:43 +0200 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Archive by www Recently I've had a few requests for referencing my ASL archive by WWW. I've tried to discourage this because of the load this generates due to all the ftp connections such access creates. At the moment there's an httpd running that can access my archive. This means it can be accessed through WWW without spawning new ftpd-s for every file. At the moment you can get to the archive through URL http://gauge.phys.uva.nl:2001/bas/asl/ This is not guaranteed to remain the same nor to remain at all. People (Asad?) who would like to make links there are welcome to do so, but the same warning applies. If all this is Greek to you, you obviously don't know any Greek. Bas. ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 08:23:53 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Archive by www Asad and I have talked about getting more exposure for his ASL WWW home page, which would bring more people into our ever-widening sphere of influence (heh heh heh). Hopefully his page will get a link from the Games section of Scott Yanoff's Internet Services List, which looks like a good place to start. If anybody else has a good place to link his page to, contact Asad at f90-aru@nada.kth.se, or do the legwork yourself and let the big list keepers know about the ASL page. With Asad's permission, of course. Asad's ASL page can be found at http://www.nada.kth.se/~f90-aru Tom ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 08:43:04 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: AAR: Blazing Chariots, ACQ & abandon Questions Bob Oppen and I played this twice last night and the Brits wiped out the Germans both times. What can the germans do to defend against a staight charge of the Stuarts? The Stuarts didn't do anything special, except try and avoid sun blindness. We didn't get much ROF out of the PzIIIs either time, so that might have made a difference. A couple of questions. During one charge, a PzIII had acquisition on a Stuart and had already intensive fired when the Stuart moved out of the LOF of the gun, but not out of LOS. Our reading of the rules seemed to say the the PzIII could keep the ACQ on the Stuart, even though he couldn't actually fire at it. On the next fire phase, the PzIII could pay the +1 CA change penalty and still qualify for the -2 acq. Is this right? When abandoning an AFV due to failing a TC after being immmobilized, what modifiers are used? We figured -1 for FFNAM and no cover due to the AFV. When entering the tank, the ift modifiers were +1 for the AFV and -1 for FFNAM. Is that right? Thanks for your help. Next week is Cold Crocodiles. Don Hancock ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 12:01:24 CDT From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Abandoned during set-up? I can't seem to find a rule which prohibits a vehicular crew from setting up outside his vehicle. If this is true can he automatically remove weapons from that vehicle. Can he transfer them to others? My guess is yes, yes, no. mike ----- From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 10:15:48 -0700 Subject: Battle for Rome Good morrow, fellows. Hail and well-met! Etc, etc. Anybody out there know anything about Battle for Rome? Which side is better to play? How does it play out? What are the respective strategies involved? I'm playing this one on Friday and haven't decided which side to play. I'm leaning toward the Italians since I never seem to do well with Exit VP victory conditions. But, on the other hand, they're ... well, Italians. Can anybody offer me some valuable insights? Dade ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 11:28:38 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Area Fire & Target Size > From: Bruce Probst <100033.3661@compuserve.com> > > Ole writes: > > >> First, Mortars do always use Area Fire, _but_ the Target Size Modifier > >> _does_ apply to Area fire too. Remember that Area Fire doesn't mean > >> that you shell every inch of the ground, but that you spread the > >> shells all over the ground, hoping to hit the target. A small target > >> is still harder to hit. > > Then why aren't infantry harder to hit with Area Fire than anything else? > Is this thinking of a single 'person' as a target vs. the collection of infantry present? Seems to me a squad, spread out over some area of the hex would provide at least the same targeting area as a a Large/Huge AFV. > Area Fire affects _all_ eligible targets in the Location (and maybe hex, I'm > not sure of the exact wording of the rule). That's why it's _area_ fire. > > Furthermore, how can you _target_ something with _area_ fire? The two > concepts are logically incompatible. (I can just see it: the mortar crew > carefully aims the tube at the opposing infantry's howitzer. Alas, because > the howitzer is small, the mortar shells narrowly miss it on either side, > detonating with no apparent effect. The howitzer crew sticks their tongues > out at the mortar crew and proceed to fire back.) > As I understand it, the 'hex' is the target. The contents of the hex are each evaluated seperately to see if that portion is hit. So a size modifier would apply to each Gun/Vehicle in the hex as listed on the counter... or am I missing the point of the question... > I think it much more likely that the absence of the dagger for Case P (or > whatever) is a typo, not a deliberate design intent. > > Bruce (Melbourne, Australia) > > ----- Subject: Archive by WWW Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 19:28:48 +0200 From: Asad Rustum I have now added Bas's archive to my WWW-site. There is one problem though for which I need some help. Could someone connect to the archive through my WWW-page (http://www.nada.kth.se/~f90-aru) and mail me, telling me if you were able to view the files. As you may have guessed, the WWW-browser I'm using for another two weeks refuses to uncompress the files. Thanks... +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin http://www.nada.kth.se/~f90-aru http://www.astrakan.hgs.se/~atomic ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 11:15:49 EDT From: mikeclay@maple.circa.ufl.edu Subject: Re: Area fire and target size I think I found the answer to this thread. The critical info: A light mortar is a SW, not a "gun". In the ASLRB a gun is ordnance on a 5/8" counter. Light mortars (C9.2) are considered support weapons, not guns. An 81mm MTR would be hit as per C11 "guns as targets" while light mortars would be destroyed/malfunctioned as per A9.74 "random SW destruction". To destroy the light mortar, an entirely different set of rules come into play. The light mortar is destroyed on the IFT after the manning infantry are KIA'ed and a subsequent dr is made resulting in another KIA. If the subsequent dr is a K result, the light mortar is malfunctioned instead. The 81mm mortar is destroyed as per the guns as targets rules, section C11. See C11.2 for the effect of the gun target size. That is all that I can come up with on this. Mike Clay ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 12:43:20 -0600 From: WILKIE WILLIAM KEATS Subject: "Morgan's Stand" SSR question... Hi Folks, Marty Snow and I were playing "Morgan's Stand" (ASLUG 12?) a couple of weeks back, and could never quite figure out one of the SSR's. The Germans in this one have four reinforcement groups (numbered 1 to 4). These groups enter on turns 1-4 "one group per turn" with the group to enter determined by (bet you can see this coming) "random selection". Our (obvious?) question was what to do if we roll a tie on the random selection roll. Of course, German turn one, Marty rolls a three way tie for his reinforcements. I think our ad hoc solution was to allow the German his choice of the rolled for reinforcement groups in this case. Opinions (official or otherwise) anyone? Keats Wilkie wilkiew@ucsu.colorado.edu ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 09:18:46 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: AAR: Blazing Chariots, ACQ & abandon Questions > > Bob Oppen and I played this twice last night and the Brits wiped out > the Germans both times. What can the germans do to defend against a > staight charge of the Stuarts? The Stuarts didn't do anything special, > except try and avoid sun blindness. We didn't get much ROF out of the > PzIIIs either time, so that might have made a difference. > > A couple of questions. > > During one charge, a PzIII had acquisition on a Stuart and had already > intensive fired when the Stuart moved out of the LOF of the gun, but > not out of LOS. Our reading of the rules seemed to say the the PzIII > could keep the ACQ on the Stuart, even though he couldn't actually fire > at it. On the next fire phase, the PzIII could pay the +1 CA change > penalty and still qualify for the -2 acq. Is this right? Yes, this is correct. > > When abandoning an AFV due to failing a TC after being immmobilized, > what modifiers are used? We figured -1 for FFNAM and no cover due to > the AFV. When entering the tank, the ift modifiers were +1 for the AFV > and -1 for FFNAM. Is that right? Wrong. Use Hazardous Movement and +1 TEM (AFV). Fred > > Thanks for your help. > > Next week is Cold Crocodiles. > > Don Hancock > > > > ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 15:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com Subject: RE: "Morgan's Stand" SSR question... WILLIAM KEATS WILKIE writes: >Marty Snow and I were playing "Morgan's Stand" (ASLUG 12?) a couple of >weeks back, and could never quite figure out one of the SSR's. >The Germans in this one have four reinforcement groups (numbered 1 to >4). These groups enter on turns 1-4 "one group per turn" with the group >to enter determined by (bet you can see this coming) "random selection". >Our (obvious?) question was what to do if we roll a tie on the random >selection roll. I played it at a tourney (Winter Olympics) and we had the same question. We ended up rerolling between the randomly selected forces to break the tie. I think the scenario was written by one of the Sislers and his brother was there and gave his opinion that the intention was for randomness so we should let the dice decide. As the German I wasn't real sure which of the 2 groups remaining would have helped my situation more anyway. By no means official of course... Fun scenario. The Brumbar went on a rampage for me rubbling one building, and toasting the enemy AFV's nearly at will...With the tank support gone the infantry quickly succumbed...Love those 150mm guns :-) Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Subject: BULLDOZERS, MELEE Q'S From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 13:58:00 -0640 Howdy, A couple of questions: May a bulldozer breach a wall or hedge? They can breach bocage per B9.541, so it would seem reasonable for them to breach walls and hedges. A bulldozer can perform an OVR per G15.26. This OVR is the only time that dozing can be used to perform more than one task at a time. However, several of the bulldozer activities (e.g. clearing a pillbox, entrenchment, tunnel) give the bulldozer extra clearance DRM for time spent stopped & TI in the hex. Does this time spent TI count for the MP spent in OVR, or must the dozer choose between spending MP for the OVR and spending MP TI in the hex performing clearance? An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC attack per A20.52)? In the second CC Phase, since a Melee exists, can the prisoners attack their guard per A20.55? If so, since CC is now "sequential" per A11.33, the Prisoner attacks first. Once that has been done, do the CC attacks alternate or are the rest of them conducted per the Mechanics described in A11.12? Can a guard "abandon" prisoners? May it do this by "dropping" them in the same hex? May it do this by moving or advancing away? May it do this by routing away? So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 16:04:37 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: "Morgan's Stand" SSR question... Keats, I don't know, sounds like Marty should have gotten all three groups to me... If you roll triples on a 1KIA result wouldn't all three units be KIA? On a slightly different note... Steve Petersen pointed out some problems with the two new scenarios in the General to me. I don't recall the titles, or which scenarios these apply to. Common sense takes care of 'em, but maybe we should write AH for clarification? In one, the Russians (?) enter between xxa8 and xxa10. It can, quite frankly, be argued that the entire board edge EXCEPT a8,a9,and a10 are between those two hexes! Perhaps this should read "on the (east?) edge between xxa8 and xxa10". (Pretty obvious it does, but if I play Carl or Adrian for ladder ranking I'm a comin' from the opposite edge! 8) One scenario has deep snow with an EC of wet, I believe they cannot coexist in the rules. I think the third error was an EC of rain, or something to that effect. Little slips which are quite easily interpreted but I'd hate to get into an argument over those entry areas or the EC when in the Deep Snow! (BTW, I agree with Tom on the length/conditions of Finnish scenarios. I am, however, dying to play "To The Borderline" and the other monster from the SL days sometime. Maybe ASLOK against some netter?) It was DAMN NICE to see ASL coverage in the General. Good stuff, too, (oops, should have been a .) Gotta Run, Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Youse, System Administrator | "When I'm a good dog they sometimes | | TPOCC and CIGSS projects, CSC | throw me a bone." | | email: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov | | | voice: (301) 497-2506 | Pink Floyd | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 14:16:32 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: WP effect and Multi-Level Played Intimate War, got trashed as the Grunts, and came up with a question on WP effect. Ordnance fires WP at a 2 Level building to which it has no LOS at ground level. The WP is placed in the ground level (Level 0), and rises to level 4 correct? Units are on Levels 0, 1, and 2. Which take a NMC for the WP placement? Regards, mark ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 13:53:36 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: BULLDOZERS, MELEE Q'S > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > attack per A20.52)? The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. > Can a guard "abandon" prisoners? May it do this by > "dropping" them in the same hex? May it do this by moving > or advancing away? May it do this by routing away? Yes, a guard can abandon prisoners. I think they are abandoned just as you would abandon a SW, but that would be strange. If that were the case, then wouldn't CC exist in the hex you abandoned them as soon as you did, since you are now in the same hex as a Known enemy unit? Must be more to it. Now for a question of my own. An unbroken squad is guarding a half squad of prisoners. In itt MPh, the squad and the prisoners move one hex, then the squad deploys, then the resulting half squads and the prisoners move another hex. If it doesn't exceed the movement capabilities of any of the units involved, is this move legal? Dave ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 15:40:20 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: BULLDOZERS, MELEE Q'S > > > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > > Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > > > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > > attack per A20.52)? > > The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. > Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. As I read this a guard is always halved for attacking a prisoner is CC. The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. [cut] > > Now for a question of my own. An unbroken squad is guarding a > half squad of prisoners. In itt MPh, the squad and the prisoners > move one hex, then the squad deploys, then the resulting half > squads and the prisoners move another hex. If it doesn't exceed > the movement capabilities of any of the units involved, is this > move legal? This seems odd, but I can't see anything wrong. Fred > > Dave > ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 19:05:09 -0400 (EDT) From: DPAJNIC@delphi.com Subject: ASL GAP Can anyone tell me how to get the current registered version of the ASL GAP program created by Steve Zundel, along with the various OOBs? Thanks, Dave DP dpajnic@delphi.com ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 19:18:19 -0400 (EDT) From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU Subject: Soviet BT tank armor Are the soviet BT series cavalry tanks even made of steel? I wonder if they were made of cast iron. .....or perhaps even pie plates !! ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 16:33:54 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: BULLDOZERS, MELEE Q'S > From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) > > > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > > > > Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > > > > > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > > > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > > > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > > > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > > > attack per A20.52)? > > > > The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. > > Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. > > As I read this a guard is always halved for attacking a prisoner is CC. > The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. Well, that's what I get for answering without reading. But I don't think the squad is attacking its prisoner, is it? Or have I read both the question and the answer incorrectly? > > Now for a question of my own. An unbroken squad is guarding a > > half squad of prisoners. In itt MPh, the squad and the prisoners > > move one hex, then the squad deploys, then the resulting half > > squads and the prisoners move another hex. If it doesn't exceed > > the movement capabilities of any of the units involved, is this > > move legal? > > This seems odd, but I can't see anything wrong. Damn right it's odd. I wouldn't have done it if I'd remembered to Deploy them _before_ they moved. Dave ----- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 17:46:03 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Guards in CC (Was BULLDOZERS, MELEE Q'S) > > > From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) > > > > > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > > > > > > Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > > > > > > > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > > > > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > > > > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > > > > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > > > > attack per A20.52)? > > > > > > The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. > > > Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. > > > > As I read this a guard is always halved for attacking a prisoner is CC. > > The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. > > Well, that's what I get for answering without reading. But I don't think > the squad is attacking its prisoner, is it? Or have I read both the > question and the answer incorrectly? > I'm sorry. What I meant is that as I read it a guard is always halved when attacking in CC. The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. Fred [cut] > > Dave > ----- Subject: WP effect and Multi-Level From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 22:19:00 -0640 Howdy, markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) writes: >Ordnance fires WP at a 2 Level building to which it >has no LOS at ground level. >The WP is placed in the ground level (Level 0), and rises >to level 4 correct? Correct, per C8.52. >Units are on Levels 0, 1, and 2. Which take a NMC for the >WP placement? A24.31 "CASUALTIES: The chemical agents in WP caused discomfort and could result in demoralization/casualties. All units (including friendly ones) except a non-CE, CT AFV in a Location with a WP counter must take a NMC when the WP is placed in that Location (not when it drifts). The NMC causes DM status (A10.62), and also causes loss of concealment if the affected unit is in LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit. Bother leadership and TEM apply as negative DRM to the NMC. However, if a CH (or Air Burst when using Indirect Fire) is obtained with WP, TEM are applied to the NMC as a positive DRM instead. A CH with WP grenades occurs if the colored dr of the MC DR is a 6. Only units in a Location when WP is placed therein must take a NMC due to that WP." If I read the rule literally, I would say that only the Level 0 Location (where the WP counter is placed) is attacked. It might be worth a letter to TAHGC, since I have this feeling that this might not be what was intended. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Conklin, Ross E." Subject: Clarifications Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 08:51:00 PDT A while back JR wanted to see the rules quote for the MA and MG of an AFV having to shoot from the same hex during Bounding First Fire. Check out D3.51. I do not have a rulebook with me to type in the offending lines. Multiple OVR and retaining ROF are clearly excepted from this rule. BTW, if your MA retains ROF during Bounding First Fire and you fire no other weapons, the MA can fire again (once) during the AFPh. Tom made the comment that getting out of foxholes isn't too easy once you break because you can be Interdicted on the first MF used to exit the foxhole. Actually, it depends on where the foxhole is located and how you expend the MF. The entrenchment rules state (again no quote, sorry, but it is in there) that if the broken unit is routing to a non-Open Ground hex, the unit can combine the costs of leaving the foxhole and entering the adjacent hex. By doing so it avoids Interdiction. Now, of course, you can always pay for them separately and be Interdicted till your hearts content. Foxholes appear to be death traps only when they're out in the middle of Open Ground. rc ----- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 08:38:39 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Guard deployment > > > > Now for a question of my own. An unbroken squad is guarding a > > > half squad of prisoners. In itt MPh, the squad and the prisoners > > > move one hex, then the squad deploys, then the resulting half > > > squads and the prisoners move another hex. If it doesn't exceed > > > the movement capabilities of any of the units involved, is this > > > move legal? > > > > This seems odd, but I can't see anything wrong. > > Damn right it's odd. I wouldn't have done it if I'd remembered to Deploy > them _before_ they moved. > I've never really understood the logic behind letting Guards freely Deploy. If a squad has to pass a NTC in order to Deploy with a leader in the hex, then it doesn't make sense to me to allow it the initiative to self-Deploy when guarding Prisoners. Seems to me that when the local leader wants a squad to Deploy, THAT should be the automatic Deployment situation. Leaders in this game represent outstanding individuals who command the respect of their men (6+1's excepted), so I don't see why they would resist Deploying when the Sarge says so. Or why they would resist MORE than they would when guarding Prisoners. Conversely, when guarding a group of enemy prisoners, I just don't see how the squad would display the initiative to split itself. THAT should be the NTC situation. Tom ----- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 09:04:38 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Guards in CC > From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) > > > > > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > > > > > > > > Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > > > > > > > > > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > > > > > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > > > > > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > > > > > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > > > > > attack per A20.52)? > > > > > > > > The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. > > > > Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. > > > > > > As I read this a guard is always halved for attacking a prisoner is CC. > > > The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. Enough inclusion marks for everyone? Sheesh. I went back and read this section again, and it's still questionable to me, although I think there is a high probability that Fred is right. :-) "A20.52 GUARD FP: A Guard may not attack or Interdict any unit other than its prisoners except in CC [EXC: a Guard whose US# is >= the total US# of its prisoners does not have its FP, attack, or Interdiction capabilities restricted by those prisoners]. A Guard's FP is halved for attack (but not defense) purposes when attacking non-prisoners in CC." The exception bothers me. If it is just an exception to the previous sentence, why does it mention FP? The previous sentence doesn't, so why except FP when they weren't mentioned in the first place? The only places FP are mentioned are in the title and in the following sentence. It's silly to except the FP from the title. I think that if they really meant to use FP in the exception, the only thing for it to apply to is the Guard's FP in CC. Of course, they probably didn't want to use FP in that exception at all, which means that the Guard's FP would be halved in CC. In the absence of (in my opinion) clear guidance, I'd have to follow the sentence structure strictly, and halve the Guard's FP. I think I'll just try to keep my Guards out of CC. Dave ----- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 13:09:48 EDT From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Newbie Faq's Guys, Just in case anyone is working on one, I've received two very good newbie faq's for new subscribers. I'll probably use both so neither effort was wasted. Thanks to everyone who offered, I appreciate the help. See you at DonCon! Brian ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 17:55:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: Swamp base level For those of you wondering what the concensus was on the base level of a swamp/marsh hex, it appears unanimous that it's level 0. (1 out of 1) Further support comes from the rule describing movement into swamp. It says that if you have to climb a level to get in, you can still do it. Therefore the rules writer envisioned a time when you would be downhill from a swamp. It's still strange to me, but I guess that's the way the marsh bubbles. Marty ----- From: JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 29 JUL 94 10:57 Subject: Italian Brothers - ASL Played Italian Brothers scenario Tuesday. It was a good match, and a fun scenario. I played the republican side, and looked to have things well in hand except those little tankettes stormed the my exposed left flank, ran into the building there and nearly won the game for my opponent. A question came up while playing. He overran a squad of mine. I passed the PAATC to perform a reaction-CC attack. I missed, he stayed in the hex. Do I need to continue to pass a PAATC to attack his tank in CC/Melee? His tank stayed there for two full game turns, and my worthy opponent's contention was that my squad had to pass a PAATC each time. The rules stated that a PAATC was needed to enter an AFV's location, but it also said only one PAATC need be made per phase. Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340) internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com "Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect" ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 11:03:00 PDT From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli) Subject: Posting :-) > Someone post something to see if it is getting out... How about a scenario discussion ? Or how about this question: What are some things you expect from an ASL PBeM interface ? (the second question is a bit premature right now, but I may have an idea and will appreciate some feedback) take care, bahadir ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 11:03:55 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: LOS, take 2 This didn't seem to make it the first time, so I'll try again... Hello, all. For the mapboard deprived, I've drawn a picture to illustrate my LOS question. In the drawing below, the X's represent Walls or Hedges. Hexsides 1/3, 3/2, and 2/1 are all either Walls or Hedges. My question is, does unit A have LOS to unit B, assuming both are on the same level as the Walls/Hedges and neither are Entrenched? \____/ \____/ \ / \ / \ / / \____/ B \____/ \ / \ / \ \____/ 1 \____/ \ / \ X \ / / \XXXXX 3 \____/ \ / X / \ \____/ 2 X____/ \ / \ / \ / / \____/ \____/ \ / \ / \ \____/ \____/ \ / \ / \ / / A \____/ \____/ \ / \ / \ \____/ \____/ \ I think that a strict interpretation of the ASLRB would say that A can see B, because B is directly behind the 1/3 hexside. However, if the 1/3 hexside were not a Wall/Hedge, then no LOS would exist, and if either the 1/2 or 2/3 hexside were not Wall/Hedge, then the LOS would clearly exist. Anyone have an opinion about this? Dave ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: CX and CC Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Ok Brian you asked for it! If a 2 units advance into CC and they are both CX is the modifier for CC +1 per unit making a +2 DRM or does the it apply once for both making it a +1 DRM? -bob "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." lyman ----- From: Martin Sleeman Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 11:33:11 PDT Subject: Newbie Faq. Where do I find these great FAQ's?? Also, do they contain some helpful hints about general play tactics. (IE get broken troops OUT of the line of fire ASAP, support weapons are good for your health, staying out of HMG fire lanes will improve your chances of survival by at least 50%, etc.?) Thanks! -Martin ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:17:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Jim Shetler is.... Well folks, Jim Shetler bit the big one today. Yessiree, ASL Jim is now married. He was to tie the knot this afternoon. Seems he failed his MATC (marital avoidance task check). Congratulations or condolences may be mailed to Jim at shetler+@pitt.edu . I'll start by wishing Jim & Mary a lifetime of happiness. But watch out Jim, woman _always_ have a SAN of 7. ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 11:55:51 PDT From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: CX and CC > Ok Brian you asked for it! > > If a 2 units advance into CC and they are both CX is the modifier for CC +1 > per unit making a +2 DRM or does the it apply once for both making it a +1 DRM? The DRM is always +1 if any unit(s) is/are CX. This applys anytime the CX DRM applys. Fred > > -bob > > "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." > > lyman > ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:34:49 -0400 (EDT) From: John Appel Subject: Re: CX and CC Ha! Bob is actually asking if he really lost that game of "Rachi Ridge" as the Germans last Saturday. CAme down to the last turn, with the Tommies and the Jerries going at it with cold steel in the Level 4 wadi - been meaning to write this up all week. Maybe tonight. John "too bad Bob joined the ladder _Wednesday_" Appel John Appel jappel@access.digex.com On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Bob Lyman wrote: > Ok Brian you asked for it! > > If a 2 units advance into CC and they are both CX is the modifier for CC +1 > per unit making a +2 DRM or does the it apply once for both making it a +1 DRM? > > -bob > > "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." > > lyman > ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:41:24 -0600 (MDT) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Too much firepower... I sent this earlier this morning, but I didn't get out, so... Does a unit have to use all it's firepower when attacking a unit? For example, if you are attacking a broken unit and all you have is your inherent FP. You want to encircle the poor, broken conscript squad. Do you have to fire with 8 (16 if adjacent) FP just to get an encirclement and make him surrender? Is there such thing as voluntary cowering? "Keep your heads down boys, we just want to let them know we're here." Spraying fire is one alternative, but won't work if you have too many units around. If anybody has any other ideas, let me know. Tim "Golly, the list has been quiet as a tomb for the last few days. Is it dark in here or what?" Hundsdorfer ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 16:20:00 -0400 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: Re: LOS, take 2 >I think that a strict interpretation of the ASLRB would say that >A can see B, because B is directly behind the 1/3 hexside. However, if >the 1/3 hexside were not a Wall/Hedge, then no LOS would exist, and if either the 1/2 or 2/3 hexside >were not Wall/Hedge, then the LOS would clearly exist. > >Anyone have an opinion about this? I believe that you are correct on all counts. Doug Williamson ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 16:44:12 EDT From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) Subject: Banzai Defence This got rejected twice, hopefully it will get through now. Hello, I just finished a playing of The Bushmasters, and had a question about defending against the 18 Japanese Banzaiers (sp?). Actually more to see if I missed anything in the rules. After losing a German-Russian game due to a human wave I ahd an idea and decided to use it against the Banzai attack, I've not seen this used before, so thats why I was wondering if I missed something. My idea was, that since you are required to fire at units entering your hex, why start firing when the attackers are far away, why not wait till they are adjacent (usually in the open) and then first fire, the survivors enter your hex and you use final fire, thus avoiding the dreaded fpf attack (provided you dont cower in first fire). This has some benefits, is several units survive and enter your location, they could be overstacked, also other units can fire into your hex without fear of hitting friendly troops, since only the moving troops are subject to the fire. The way I see it, you get two attacks one double and one triple-half without worrying about breaking yourself. Did I miss something or is this a usable strategy? Also from the same scenario, is there a rule anywhere that prohibits LATW from firing at infantry in terrain other than biuldings? I looked three times and couldnt find any, other than the penalty on PF availability against non-AFV targets. I was curious why the American had 6 Baz and the only targets would have been the pillboxes and huts (biuldings for most purposes). Thanks for any help! Its a fun scenario BTW, my above strategy crushed the banzai charge quite effectively, and only lost 2 squads in the CC. Jeff Kimmel ujkimmel@ocs.drexel.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know its going to be a bad day when..... You run out of conscript half squads ----- From: blair@hal.com (Blair Martin) Subject: AH reorganization: get modules while you can? Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Does anyone know what kind of effect Avalon Hill's impending shift to computer games will have on availability of ASL components? I just started playing and only have Para, BV and Yanks but I imagine that I'd eventually like to own at least all the regular (ie. not historical or deluxe) modules. Should I run down to the hobby store and plunk down a bundle for all of them right now or will AH continue to print existing games indefinitely? By the way, are there any modules that are no longer printed? I think I heard this about RB...any others? Blair Martin blair@hal.com ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 14:09:31 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Guards in CC OK, the list works again. Here's another repost: > > > > > From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) > > > > > > > > Well, I'll take a crack at part of this: > > > > > > > > > An unbroken friendly squad is guarding a squad of prisoners. > > > > > An enemy squad Advances into the hex. During the first CC > > > > > Phase, is it true that the friendly squad and the enemy > > > > > squad engage in normal CC (the guard being halved in CC > > > > > attack per A20.52)? > > > > > > > > The Guard FP is halved only if its US# is < the US# of the Prisoner. > > > > Since they are both squads, he attacks with full FP. > > > > > > As I read this a guard is always halved for attacking a prisoner is CC. > > > The full FP applys to non-CC attacks only. Enough inclusion marks for everyone? Sheesh. I went back and read this section again, and it's still questionable to me, although I think there is a high probability that Fred is right. :-) "A20.52 GUARD FP: A Guard may not attack or Interdict any unit other than its prisoners except in CC [EXC: a Guard whose US# is >= the total US# of its prisoners does not have its FP, attack, or Interdiction capabilities restricted by those prisoners]. A Guard's FP is halved for attack (but not defense) purposes when attacking non-prisoners in CC." The exception bothers me. If it is just an exception to the previous sentence, why does it mention FP? The previous sentence doesn't, so why except FP when they weren't mentioned in the first place? The only places FP are mentioned are in the title and in the following sentence. It's silly to except the FP from the title. I think that if they really meant to use FP in the exception, the only thing for it to apply to is the Guard's FP in CC. Of course, they probably didn't want to use FP in that exception at all, which means that the Guard's FP would be halved in CC. What do you think? In the absence of (in my opinion) clear guidance, I'd have to follow the sentence structure strictly, and halve the Guard's FP. I think I'll just try to keep my Guards out of CC. Dave ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 14:13:53 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: Banzai Defence > From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) > if I missed something. My idea was, that since you are required to fire > at units entering your hex, why start firing when the attackers are far > away, why not wait till they are adjacent (usually in the open) and then > first fire, the survivors enter your hex and you use final fire, thus > avoiding the dreaded fpf attack (provided you dont cower in first fire). Looks like it would work, unless there are just SO many of the bad guys that you really First Fire, SFF, and FPF to get enough of them > Also from the same scenario, is there a rule anywhere that prohibits LATW > from firing at infantry in terrain other than biuldings? I looked three times > and couldnt find any, other than the penalty on PF availability against > non-AFV targets. I was curious why the American had 6 Baz and the only I think it states what you _can_ use the LATW against. If it doesn't say you _can_ use them against a particular target, then you _can't_ "Concentrate on what the rules allow, blah blah blah..." Dave ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 14:19:47 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: LOS, take 2 Tally so far on the LOS question: Blocked: 4 Clear: 2 I love it when people respond! Dave ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:50:57 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Banzai Defence Dave Van Kan writes: > > > From: ujkimmel@mcs.drexel.edu (Jeff Kimmel) > > > if I missed something. My idea was, that since you are required to fire > > at units entering your hex, why start firing when the attackers are far > > away, why not wait till they are adjacent (usually in the open) and then > > first fire, the survivors enter your hex and you use final fire, thus > > avoiding the dreaded fpf attack (provided you dont cower in first fire). > > Looks like it would work, unless there are just SO many of the bad guys that > you really First Fire, SFF, and FPF to get enough of them > > > Also from the same scenario, is there a rule anywhere that prohibits LATW > > from firing at infantry in terrain other than biuldings? I looked three times > > and couldnt find any, other than the penalty on PF availability against > > non-AFV targets. I was curious why the American had 6 Baz and the only > > I think it states what you _can_ use the LATW against. If it doesn't say you > _can_ use them against a particular target, then you _can't_ "Concentrate > on what the rules allow, blah blah blah..." > > Dave > I think the real restriction on the Baz is not that it is a LATW, but rather that it uses HEAT ammo, and as such can only effect infantry when they are in appropriate terrain: buildings and behind walls if I remember (sorry, but don't recall the Hut implications... mark ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 05:43:34 EDT Subject: Tebbe's Tigers Attached is another scenario. I've grown tired of looking at it. It hasn't been playtested as I have only recently located ftf opponents in the area. If y'all think I should wait before posting new scenarios, let me know. I don't want to be junking up the ether with stuff on slow days :-> I'll put this on carlo and lysator in the next few days. Cheers, Jeff Shields TEBBE'S TIGERS The outskirts of Sporonyy on the Manych River, 15 January, 1943: One of Stalin's attempts to cut off Army Group A involved a massive drive by the 2nd Guard Army between the Don and Manych Rivers. The Russian attack reached its peak as General Rotmistrov's troops pushed into the outskirts of Bataysk, a suburb of Rostov. Under General Manstein's direction, Count Schwerin disengaged the "Greyhound" Division from the fighting south of Stalingrad to redirect a spearhead into the deep right flank of Rotmistrov's penetration. VICTORY CONDITIONS: Prior to the Russian setup the German player selects 2 of the 5 victory conditions presented below. The German player wins if he meets the 2 VCs. (1) Capture/control the bridge in 7AA6-7AA8. (2) Capture/control the two stone buildings: 12U5, 10Z6. (3) Inflict twice as many CVP as received. (4) Control all of the buildings on board 12. (5) Control all of the buildings on board 10. MAPBOARDS N /\ || +------------+------+ HEXROWS IN PLAY ON HALF BOARDS | 12| (18)| Only hexrows GG-Q on board 18, with GG | | | abutting board 12 |------------|------| | 10| (5)| Only hexrows GG-Q on board 5, with GG | | | abutting board 10 |------------|------| | 7| (8)| Only hexrows Q-GG on board 8, with Q | | | abutting board 7 +------------+------+ TURN RECORD CHART: Russian sets up first The game is 10 turns long. ----------------------------------------------------------------- German moves first GERMAN FORCES Elements of the 60th Motorized Infantry Regiment, 16th Motorized Division, with attached elements of Tiger Battalion 503 and Panzer Battalion 116, setup on boards 18, 5 and/or 8 north of the river [ELR 3, SAN 3]. 12x4-6-8, 9-2, 9-1, 8-1, 8-0, HMG, MMG, 3xLMG, 4xPzVIE, 2xStuGH42, 2xPzIVH, 2xPzIIIM, 1xSPW251/sMG, 4xSPW251/1, 9-2AL, 8-1AL (AL= armor leader) RUSSIAN FORCES Elements of the 2nd Guard Mechanized Corp, 2nd Guard Army set up east of hexrow B on boards 12, 10 and/or 7 [ELR 3, SAN 3] 4x6-2-8, 8x4-5-8, 5x2-2-8, 9-1, 2x8-0, HMG, 3xLMG, 4x76L_ART, 82*MRT, 4xFoxholes(1S), 6xT-34/M43, 2xKV1M42 SPECIAL RULES 1. Ground snow is in effect. Ponds and streams are frozen. 2. All buildings are wooden except 12U5 and 10Z6. All woods are brush. 3. In addition to their guns, the Russians may use HIP for 1 MMC (and any SMC/SW that stack with it). 4. German tanks may set up hull down as per D4.221. 5. There is a two-way stone vehicular bridge in 7AA8-7AA6. The river is not frozen. AFTERMATH: Captain Tebbe, commanding the new Tigers, drove his panzer troops straight through the Russian lines to the high ground near Sporonyy. He then turned and assaulted the village. After a sharp fight, in which the Russians lost several T-34s and anti-tank guns, the village and the nearby bridge on the Manych were secured for further operations against the Russian flank. The German successes at Sporonyy and later at Samodurovka seriously hampered the Russian attack on Rostov and led to the successful withdrawal of Army Group A from rapidly closing encirclement. Carell, P. 1966. Scorched Earth. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 652 pp. (pages 134-136) ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: AH reorganization: get modules while you can? Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 15:47:28 PDT Blair Martin writes: > Does anyone know what kind of effect Avalon Hill's impending shift to computer > games will have on availability of ASL components? > > I just started playing and only have Para, BV and Yanks but I imagine that I'd > eventually like to own at least all the regular (ie. not historical or deluxe) > modules. Well, look at it this way. I'm told that the Deluxe modules have been out of print for a couple years, but my local game shop got them back in stock virtually instantly after I bought them a couple months ago. While other modules are likely to be more popular, even after they do go out of print (if they do) they'll probably be available for a while. IMHO, the ASL modules are unlikely to go out of print soon, but one never knows. > Should I run down to the hobby store and plunk down a bundle for all of them > right now or will AH continue to print existing games indefinitely? > > By the way, are there any modules that are no longer printed? I think I heard > this about RB...any others? Really? I'd be surprised. So far as I know the only ones out of print are the Deluxe modules. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: "Christopher Poor" Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 17:38:09 CST Subject: ASL Variants Hello to all, I am relatively new to the list, and have been lurking about for a couple of weeks. I guess it's time for me to try and start a discussion. I have been playing SL/ASL for about 15 years, and over the years my friends and I have developed several 'variant' styles of play which we have found amusing in one way or another, so I thought I'd see if we are the only ones to tinker in this way or if there are any other apporaches out there. So, here goes; Is anyone else interested in: 1) Blind ASL: meaning in general a two-board game with limited information available to both players. I have developed a way to do this quickly and relatively easily without a referee. 2) Altering the turn sequence to resemble TOBRUK, where players alternate activating units or stacks throughout a turn. This can be a lot of fun, as the game becomes more fluid. You move/fire a tank, then I move/fire a tank, etc. Again I've developed some workable rules for this. 3) Yet another IFT variant. I've sent a query letter to the ASL ANNUAL editor after Rex Martin indicated to me that he thought it was worth publishing. Basically, we use the original IFT and a percentage die roll to resolve intermediate FP attacks. 4) PBM/PBeM: I have a copy of the chapter XL (?) PBM rules (Still in the playtest stage, I believe), but I was interested in finding other PBM rules that may be out there. I've heard that there is one called "On My Honor", or somesuch. Can anyone give me more info on this? IMO, PB(e)M is the PERFECT Blind format! Fire Away! Chris Poor chrisp@fcm.missouri.edu Columbia,Missouri,USA ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 17:07:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Favorites Well, here it is finally! All thanks can be directed to Will Scarvie who gave me the tip which finally allowed this to be brought to us all. Thanks to all those who responded, some 55 of the diehards here on the list. The next time your sitting there flipping through scenarios trying to figure out what to play next, have a look at this list. There are some real gems. One point of interest that sorta surprised me, take a look at all the deluxe scenarios that made it to the list of faves. So why didn't they sell? Darren ID Scenario Name # of Votes === ============= ========== ASL 4 Commissar's House 9 E Hill 621 8 A 25 Cold Crocodiles 7 ASL 71 Jungle Citadel 5 CG III The Barrikady 5 G Hube's Pocket 5 RB 3 Bread Factory #2 5 A 60 Totsugeki! 4 ASL 23 Under The Noel Trees 4 ASL 8 The Fugitives 4 ASL 37 Khamsin 3 ASL 54 Bridge To Nowhere 3 ASL 65 Red Star, Red Sun 3 C Streets Of Stalingrad 3 Deluxe 8 The Schoolhouse 3 RB 6 Turned Away 3 T 2 Puma Prowls 3 A 39 Showdown At Tug Arg Pa 2 A 44 Blocking Action At Lipki 2 ASL 1 Fighting Withdrawl 2 ASL 11 Defiance On Hill 30 2 ASL 13 Le Manoir 2 ASL 21 Among The Ruins 2 ASL 22 Kurhaus Clash 2 ASL 25 Gavin's Gamble 2 ASL 30 Sylvan Death 2 ASL 34 A New Kind Of Foe 2 ASL 35 Blazin' Chariots 2 ASL 46 Birds of Prey 2 ASL 5 In Sight Of The Volga 2 ASL 60 On The Kokoda Trail 2 ASL 63 The Eastern Gate 2 ASL 82 For Honor Alone 2 ASLUG 14 Morgan's Stand 2 Atp 8 Italian Brothers 2 Deluxe 10 The Final Battle 2 Deluxe 7 With Flame And Shell 2 F Paw Of The Tiger 2 G 6 Rocket's Red Glare 2 KGP 3 Panthers in the Mist 2 KGP I Clash At Stoumont 2 RB 2 Blood & Guts 2 T 6 Dead Of Winter 2 T 7 Hill 253.5 2 TT 3 Panzers Marsch! 2 One More Hour 1 A 19 Cat And Mouse 1 A 20 Counterattack at Sidi Bou Zid 1 A 28 The Professionals 1 A 32 Zon With The Wind 1 A 34 Lash Out 1 A 37 Dreil Team 1 A 41 OP Hill 1 A 47 White Tigers 1 A 52 Swan Song 1 A 55 The Cat Has Jumped 1 A 58 Munda Mash 1 A 59 Death At Carentan 1 A 64 Chateau de Quesnoy 1 A 66 Counterstroke At Stonne 1 A 7 Slamming The Door 1 A 8 Agony Of Doom 1 ASL 14 Silence That Gun 1 ASL 32 Subterranean Quarry 1 ASL 39 Turning The Tables 1 ASL 42 Point Of No Return 1 ASL 48 Tjour L'Audace 1 ASL 55 A High Price To Pay 1 ASL 57 Battle For Rome 1 ASL 6 Red Packets 1 ASL 62 Bungle In The Jungle 1 ASL 66 Bushmasters 1 ASL 67 Cibik's Ridge 1 ASL 70 KP 167 1 ASL 74 Bloody Red Beach 1 ASL 77 Le Herisson 1 ASL 79 Bridge Of The Seven Planets 1 ASLUG 11 Raiders On Butaritari 1 B Tractor Works 1 Deluxe 13 Bogged Down 1 Deluxe 15 Barkmann's Corner 1 Deluxe 18 King Of The Hill 1 Deluxe 3 Storming The Factory 1 Deluxe 5 Little Stalingrad 1 Deluxe 6 Draconian Measures 1 Deluxe 9 Preparing The Way 1 Deluxe A To The Last Man 1 Deluxe A6 Breakout 1 G 1 Timoshenko's Attack 1 G 14 Tiger, Tiger 1 G 8 Recon In Force 1 HASL A5 Take Two 1 J The Bitiche Salient 1 L Hitdorf On The Rhine 1 M First Crisis At Army Group N 1 N Soldiers Of Destruction 1 NEWS 32 Death and Ruins 1 O 50.2 Dora II 1 P The Road To Wiltz 1 Q Land Leviathans 1 RB 1 One Down, Two To Go 1 RB 4 To The Rescue 1 Rout R Brandenburger Bridge 1 Rout R Wintergewitter 1 T 4 Shklov's Labors Lost 1 TT 1 Take The Chance 1 X 13 Acts Of Defiance 1 Z 7 Cushman's Pocket 1 ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:36:28 -0400 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: PbEM Interface Minimal: a dice-roller and a chat system (currently available on 2000 mud.lysator.liu.se) Next step: an array that keeps track of what units are in what stacks and their condition, along with ASL GAP features. Ultimate!: The maps, the scenarios, an LOS checker, a DYO generator, in short, the whole game. I foresee a time not so far in the future when we won't need to have a full set of luggage to play our game! Stewart King ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:43:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: LATW Check out HE Equivalency, C8.31. LATW can only be used against vehicles, guns, and infantry behind walls or in buildings, rubble, etc. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 16:49:58 PDT From: vankan@sun10or.or.nps.navy.mil (Capt David Van Kan) Subject: Re: LOS, take 2 Now here's an answer I really like: > From: (Fred Timm) > I would say that the LOS is Blocked by either hexside 1/2 or hexside 2/3 whether > or not hexside 1/3 is a wall/hedge. What the rule says is that if you are behind > the 1/3 hexside wall/hedge THAT wall/hedge hexside won't block your LOS. It does > not say the other walls/hedges won't block the LOS. Goes along with what my intuition says should be true, but uses the rules to back it up. Thanks a lot!! Dave PS Final vote was Blocked: 5 Clear: 3 ----- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 20:04:32 EDT From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: ASL Variants Chris P. said: > 1) Blind ASL: meaning in general a two-board game with limited > information available to both players. I have developed a way to > do this quickly and relatively easily without a referee. This has been discussed here before, and I believe that a blind system done by some guys in California is on carlo. I'd like to see your blind rules. > 2) Altering the turn sequence to resemble TOBRUK, where players > alternate activating units or stacks throughout a turn. This can > be a lot of fun, as the game becomes more fluid. You move/fire a > tank, then I move/fire a tank, etc. Again I've developed some > workable rules for this. Hmmmm. Not ASL anymore IMO, and this makes it tougher to PBEM. But post 'em if you've got 'em. > 3) Yet another IFT variant. I've sent a query letter to the ASL > ANNUAL editor after Rex Martin indicated to me that he thought it > was worth publishing. Basically, we use the original IFT and a > percentage die roll to resolve intermediate FP attacks. Yuck. I like the idea of the IIFT, but I don't use it because I find it cumbersome and ugly. (Print up some new residual FP counters for non-IFT columns, fix the stupid IIFT cowering rules, and make a solid, official, consistent decision on concealment stripping and Ordnance of odd calibers.) This is even uglier IMO. > 4) PBM/PBeM: I have a copy of the chapter XL (?) PBM rules > (Still in the playtest stage, I believe), but I was interested in > finding other PBM rules that may be out there. I've heard that > there is one called "On My Honor", or somesuch. Can anyone give > me more info on this? IMO, PB(e)M is the PERFECT Blind format! OMH is the earlier form of Chapter XL, also by Keith Larson. I like it better, because it's in English instead of ASL-ese. Ch. XL spends too much time inventing new nomenclature rather than resolving the non-obvious sequencing problems with PBM. And it's clearly written with PBSM rather than PBEM in mind, other than a useless mention of the fact that GEnie and Compu$erve exist. (In my experience, it's hard enough to agree on which die comes first or who rolls CC -- I like the OMH system for both. Keith's done a good job, but I just don't find Ch. XL any more useful than the simpler OMH.) It's on both ftp sites, and I'd send a copy to anybody. Dave Ripton ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 23:58:00 UTC Subject: Banzai Defence Jeff, > The way I see it, you get two attacks one double and one triple-half > without worrying about breaking yourself. Did I miss something or is > this a usable strategy? If the enemy is coming in several waves at you, this won't help as each time an enemy unit enters the hex, you will be forced to fire and it will probably be fpf at some point. Also, the more waves in the charge, the more important any residual fp becomes. However, if the enemy is only coming in one wave, why not go this one better and not fire until they actually enter your hex. If you are in woods or some terrain that costs 2MF, you can fire at triple for the first MF, and triple halved for the second MF. It also has the added benefit that if you cower on the first shot, you will not have to fpf for the second MF. Mind you, I haven't had the privelege to try this so I am not saying it will work. It is, however, a logical extension to your suggestion. > Also from the same scenario, is there a rule anywhere that prohibits > LATW from firing at infantry in terrain other than biuldings? I looked > three times and couldnt find any, other than the penalty on PF > availability against non-AFV targets. I was curious why the American > had 6 Baz and the only targets would have been the pillboxes and huts > (biuldings for most purposes). As someone said, it is the restriction placed on HEAT ammunition, that all SCW weapons use, that matters here. C8.31 restricts HEAT to units in building/rubble/pillbox or behind a wall. Warren ----- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 01:39:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Deluxe Scenario "Breakout" Just played the Deluxe scenario "Breakout" twice recently, once as both sides. If you haven't tried this one, you must, it's great. What basically happens is a German Infantry force is surrounded by some Russian IS-2s, an OT-34 (flamethrowing tank), and a bunch of infantry. If the Germans are quick enough, and lucky, they can exit the requisite number of forces. If not, they have to punch there way through some reinforcing Russian groups, all the while pursued by a horde of Russians. While playing this scenario, from both sides, I was constantly thinking to myself that one side or another could not lose. The next moment something would happen and I would think that that side could not win. It is this kind of tension which makes one want to play it over and over, and at a measly five turns, one can. As I said, this is a great scenario. If anyone has any comments, strategies, or sure-fire plans I'd be glad to hear them. I'm sure everyone else would too! Darren (I only wish this was a paid ad) Gour ----- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 08:02:39 -0400 From: Stewart R King Subject: Reposting: American paratroops' anti-tank equipment > Hi group, > > I was just reading John Keegan's _Six Armies in Normandy_ when I came > across the following description of the equipment of a typical > infantryman in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st > Airborne Div.: > > "One suit of Olive Drab, worn under my jump suit -- this was an order for > everyone -- helmet, boots, gloves, main parachute, reserve parachute, Mae > West, rifle, .45 automatic pistol, trench knife, jump knife, hunting > knife, machete, one cartridge belt, two bandoliers, two cans of machine > gun ammo totalling 676 rounds of .30 ammo, 66 rounds of .45 ammo, one > Hawkins mine capable of blowing off the track of a tank, four blocks of > TNT, one entrenching tool with two blasting caps taped on the outside of > the steel part, three first-aid kits, two morphine needles, one gas mask, > a canteen on water, three days' supply of K rations, two days' supply of > D rations, six fragmentation grenades, one Gammon grenade, one orange and > one red smoke grenade, one orange panel, one blanket, one raincoat, one > change of socks and underwear, two cartons of cigarettes." (pg. 77 of the > paperback edition) > > The Gammon mine is an anti-tank 'magnetic' (actually sticky) mine. > The book includes the tale of paratroopers who destroyed a StG and > two Renault tanks with Gammon mines. > > The discussion also states that every squad was equipped with one bazooka. > > Given the prevalence of infantry anti-tank weapons, shouldn't the A25 > rules give American parachute infantry ATMM capability automatically? And > there certainly seem to be a lot more BAZ in the TO&E than scenario > designers hand out -- of course, if the unit had been in battle for a > while, some of them might have broken down, but for units going right > into battle, like those in the Paratrooper scenarios, shouldn't they be a > _little_ closer to the regulation 1:1 ratio between squads and BAZ? > > The Hawkins mine might be an AP mine (capable of blowing off the track of > a tank), but the description of the Allied battle plan lays great stress > on the intention of the parachute units to mine roads and such to keep > off counterattacking German armor. Shouldn't more of these scenarios > include American mine points? Maybe a good basic rule would be one point > of AT mines or four points of AP for each squad-equivalent in its drop > zone or original objective. > ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 12:28:00 UTC Subject: "WINDS OF WAR '94" AFTER ACTION REPORT WINDS OF WAR '94 Submariner and C.P.O. Russ Bunten (FL) bested a field of fifty to win the 6th Annual "Winds of War" tournament (sponsored by the Piedmont Area Gamers) this past April in Winston-Salem, NC. A final round victory as the Japanese over Pete Chamness (KY) in "Totsugeki!" added to the mystic of this naval infantryman. Pete got to the final round by a well played chess match of "Buchholz Station" against Rich Summers (WI) who later that month won the Chicago ASL Championship. Pete might have been intimidated by Russ had he known about Russ's 100mm OBA CH (7 K.I.A.) vs. the sanitorium in "Festung St. Edouard" in an earlier round. However, dead men tell no tales. Top finishers: Russ Bunten FL 5-0 Pete Chamness KY 4-1 Rich Summers WI 4-1 John Skillman TN 4-1 Jeff Thompson VA 4-1 Alan Saltzman NC 4-1 Richard Anrews VA 4-1 Mike Seningen TX 3-0 Jeff Harris TN 3-1 Kevin Valerian GA 3-1 Ken Daughety NC 3-1 Showcased at this year's tournament was Vince Lewonski's new scenario, "Not out of the Woods yet" set appropriately enough in Normandy. Of the six matches played, the Germans won four. The scenario artwork was professionally prepared by Doug Maston with copies given to all participants. In what seems to be an increasing regionalization at "WOW", most of the old Confederacy and border states were represented. The return to Winston-Salem this year put as downtown at the Best Western Regency Inn. The gaming area was well lighted and roomy and the accommodations affordable. Your gamemaster thought that he would shortly be in Eastern Europe after the tournament, however, the political and economic scene there prompted a postponement my transer until an indefinite time in the future. Thus, "WOW '95" will be held April 7-9, 1995 with the theme "Victory at Last" (1945 scenarios). For additional details contact: Raymond Woloszyn (GEnie R.Woloszyn) (910) 996-5677 7162 Mantlewood Lane