ASL First FireWednesday, January 21, 2004
Realism in ASL
Pretty much everyone who plays ASL at some point runs into an aspect of the game they wish was "more realistic." Realism arguments are one of the most common threads on the various ASL online sites, with several having played out recently on the ASL Forums (see links). Here is my reply to one of these which states my view on "realism" and ASL:
Probably everyone who plays this game makes the mistake at some point of thinking it's more realism based than it actually is. The incredible detail (and chrome) of the ASL system implies much more of a "simulation" than is actually the case, and probably leads to most of the "realism" arguments that this and other forums so entertaining.
John Hill, the designer of the original Squad Leader, made it clear that the game was originally designed with playability in mind as the foremost objective, and that the actual details were abstracted as necessary to achieve this goal. To quote from his original preview article in The General:
The first step was in defining what both AVALON HILL and I wanted in the game. After some discussion the following objectives were generally agreed upon. SQUAD LEADER was to be a "basically simple" game that could be "gotten into" quickly. It had to have a high emphasis on playability with ready access to "playing data". We would avoid the usual polyglot of different tables and charts and confine ourselves to one basic systems chart that would calculate the effect of everything. All basic player info would be contained on one sheet, printed both sides. Bookkeeping would be kept to a minimum. Graphically, it should be the most "visually descriptive" game ever printed. AND within all these pre-set parameters of playability all the following effects of infantry combat must be portrayed:
1. Firepower differentials between different squads.
2. The effect of differing ability of individual NCOs and leaders.
3. Effect differences between all main infantry type weapons.
4. A morale system that would capture all the subtle psychological differences in different nationalities, situations and types of cover.
5. The effects of armor in an infantry environment must be realistically portrayed, but the effects of armor vs. armor could be simplified.
6. Mechanical reliability of armament by nationality.
7. The game must show the concept of leadership as it portrays probable tactical success.
8. The game must show how as key leaders of squads and platoons become casualties the overall performance of an entire battalion suffers.
Now, all those nice realistic effects have been captured and portrayed before, BUT never under the very strict playability standards that were clearly defined prior to listing the "realism standards." And both Don Greenwood and myself agreed that we would both become quite strict if either I, as the designer, or he, as the developer, attempted to water down the "playability" and "reference ease" standards that we originally set down. Compromises, could and would be made, only with great hesitation. SQUAD LEADER would primarily be a "players game."
Some players would laugh at the insistence on playability, given what a "monster" ASL has morphed into over 25+ years. However, IMO, no amount of "realism" and detail grafted onto the original framework can change the underlying abstractions at the heart of the system, abstractions that still exist in the system to this day. I've always contended that the wonderful thing about ASL is the "feel" one gets for tactical combat. If you break it down into the most minute detail, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny from a realism standpoint, but if you look at the end result as a whole (ie, like reading the prologue and aftermath on every scenario card), you get an experience that gives a great experience of WWII combat, and is damned fun and playable to boot.
None of this means that additional rules can't be added in (eg, SW crews, different representations of LMGs, etc.) when appropriate in representing specific concepts or to help in capturing the "flavor" of the action being "recreated", based on the individual designer's tastes. That's what SSRs are for. Certainly all rules in the game had some ultimate basis in reality. It just shouldn't be done with the idea that it's making ASL more "realistic".
So be it. It's easy to get caught up in the incredibly intricate detail of ASL's approach to infantry combat and assume that what is being protrayed is more realistic than it is intended to be. Sacrifices in "realism" were made from the very beginning to ensure "playability" and adding detail without a change in the fundamental structure of the game does not lead to greater realism. Besides, as the detail in ASL attests, the designers had a pretty good idea of what ASL combat involved. Don't assume that just because your favorite squad-level weapon doesn't have its own counter or the degree of representation you feel it should have that the designers weren't aware of its existence. The greater likelihood is that that weapon is well represented, but more abstractly, in line with the basic design philosophy behind the original Squad Leader.
Probably everyone who plays this game makes the mistake at some point of thinking it's more realism based than it actually is. The incredible detail (and chrome) of the ASL system implies much more of a "simulation" than is actually the case, and probably leads to most of the "realism" arguments that this and other forums so entertaining.
John Hill, the designer of the original Squad Leader, made it clear that the game was originally designed with playability in mind as the foremost objective, and that the actual details were abstracted as necessary to achieve this goal. To quote from his original preview article in The General:
The first step was in defining what both AVALON HILL and I wanted in the game. After some discussion the following objectives were generally agreed upon. SQUAD LEADER was to be a "basically simple" game that could be "gotten into" quickly. It had to have a high emphasis on playability with ready access to "playing data". We would avoid the usual polyglot of different tables and charts and confine ourselves to one basic systems chart that would calculate the effect of everything. All basic player info would be contained on one sheet, printed both sides. Bookkeeping would be kept to a minimum. Graphically, it should be the most "visually descriptive" game ever printed. AND within all these pre-set parameters of playability all the following effects of infantry combat must be portrayed:
1. Firepower differentials between different squads.
2. The effect of differing ability of individual NCOs and leaders.
3. Effect differences between all main infantry type weapons.
4. A morale system that would capture all the subtle psychological differences in different nationalities, situations and types of cover.
5. The effects of armor in an infantry environment must be realistically portrayed, but the effects of armor vs. armor could be simplified.
6. Mechanical reliability of armament by nationality.
7. The game must show the concept of leadership as it portrays probable tactical success.
8. The game must show how as key leaders of squads and platoons become casualties the overall performance of an entire battalion suffers.
Now, all those nice realistic effects have been captured and portrayed before, BUT never under the very strict playability standards that were clearly defined prior to listing the "realism standards." And both Don Greenwood and myself agreed that we would both become quite strict if either I, as the designer, or he, as the developer, attempted to water down the "playability" and "reference ease" standards that we originally set down. Compromises, could and would be made, only with great hesitation. SQUAD LEADER would primarily be a "players game."
Some players would laugh at the insistence on playability, given what a "monster" ASL has morphed into over 25+ years. However, IMO, no amount of "realism" and detail grafted onto the original framework can change the underlying abstractions at the heart of the system, abstractions that still exist in the system to this day. I've always contended that the wonderful thing about ASL is the "feel" one gets for tactical combat. If you break it down into the most minute detail, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny from a realism standpoint, but if you look at the end result as a whole (ie, like reading the prologue and aftermath on every scenario card), you get an experience that gives a great experience of WWII combat, and is damned fun and playable to boot.
None of this means that additional rules can't be added in (eg, SW crews, different representations of LMGs, etc.) when appropriate in representing specific concepts or to help in capturing the "flavor" of the action being "recreated", based on the individual designer's tastes. That's what SSRs are for. Certainly all rules in the game had some ultimate basis in reality. It just shouldn't be done with the idea that it's making ASL more "realistic".
So be it. It's easy to get caught up in the incredibly intricate detail of ASL's approach to infantry combat and assume that what is being protrayed is more realistic than it is intended to be. Sacrifices in "realism" were made from the very beginning to ensure "playability" and adding detail without a change in the fundamental structure of the game does not lead to greater realism. Besides, as the detail in ASL attests, the designers had a pretty good idea of what ASL combat involved. Don't assume that just because your favorite squad-level weapon doesn't have its own counter or the degree of representation you feel it should have that the designers weren't aware of its existence. The greater likelihood is that that weapon is well represented, but more abstractly, in line with the basic design philosophy behind the original Squad Leader.
