ASL First FireMonday, May 31, 2004
Memorial Day
"These endured all and gave all that justice among nations might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace."
Inscription on the Chapel at the American Cemetery at Normandy
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Great ASL Moments, Part 2
This is here just to relate some of those wonderful "I can't believe that happened" moments which make ASL so much fun.
In case you're wondering, Part 1 was given in Example 4 under the Infiltration article.
British turn, British HS and broken squad adjacent to a pinned German HS. Due to other German units, the broken squad doesn't have a legal rout path, and so surrenders to the adjacent German unit. The British HS immediately advances into the German's Location and eliminates the German in the first round of CC, thereby freeing the prisoner. The British unit was a prisoner from the end of the RtPh until the CCPh, a total of 2 phases, which based on 2-minute turns means he was captive for all of 30 seconds before being freed.
In case you're wondering, Part 1 was given in Example 4 under the Infiltration article.
British turn, British HS and broken squad adjacent to a pinned German HS. Due to other German units, the broken squad doesn't have a legal rout path, and so surrenders to the adjacent German unit. The British HS immediately advances into the German's Location and eliminates the German in the first round of CC, thereby freeing the prisoner. The British unit was a prisoner from the end of the RtPh until the CCPh, a total of 2 phases, which based on 2-minute turns means he was captive for all of 30 seconds before being freed.
Infiltration: The Final Word
Yeah, right.
Infiltration (A11.22) is one of those rules which give ASL so much of its flavor. It isn't really intended to replicate any specific combat situation or maneuver ("Chapter A Footnote 40: This rule is designed in part to simulate tactics such as the legendary McMurphy Evasion Technique, which so often allowed the Aussies to escape hand-to-hand combat unscathed, leaving their dead opponents behind…"). It seems to exist more as another means to reflect the capricious nature of combat.
It's also one of those rules that make ASL so hard for the new player, taking just a few lines in the Rulebook but seemingly very difficult to comprehend (and taking a document as long as this one to explain). Part of the problem is the rule as written (taken with the following rule A11.3 which begins "There are three other instances in which CC is not considered simultaneous; rather it is sequential…") implies that when Infiltration is invoked, CC becomes sequential. Thus, A11.22 suggests sequential CC when it's actually not sequential, yet also proves that the normally simultaneous CC is not actually simultaneous. Confused? Many people are. In the last couple of months, there've been at least two lengthy threads on the ASL Mailing List, as well as one on the Consimworld forum, debating this very issue, accompanied by several Q&A sent to MMP (and indeed even as I was writing this on Friday, a new question appeared on the ASLML). Between these discussions and the "Perry Sez" that have been issued, I think things are pretty well set and will try to explain how it all works.
First, read the explanation given in the ASL FAQ. I'll try to complement this with some more explanation and examples.
The basic mechanics are simple. If either player rolls an original 2 or 12 on their CC DR, Infiltration comes into play. (And don't forget of course that an original 2 may result in Leader Creation per A18.12.) If a player rolls a 2, then he has the option to withdraw his attacking units from that Location, with their attack taking effect but at the same time avoiding any yet to be resolved attack by the other player. If a player rolls a 12, then his opponent has the option to withdraw the units being attacked although the effects of that 12 DR (if any) still take place. The hard part is understanding the timing.
As laid out in the CC rules, the Attacker designates his attacks, the Defender designates his, then the Attacker resolves all of his attacks before the Defender does so. This sequence is important. Under most conditions, effects only take place after all attacks from both sides have been resolved, thus making CC seem "simultaneous." Infiltration changes all of that, but only slightly. If the Attacker rolls a 2, he can withdraw his forces, (likely eliminating the units being attacked) without those forces facing any return fire. However, if the Defender rolls a 2, any attacks already made by the Attacker still take effect. Likewise, if the Defender rolls a 12, the Attacker's units may withdraw after having already resolved their attacks, but if the Attacker rolls the 12, any Defender units which withdraw give up the chance to make their attacks. This gives the Attacker an advantage in CC, and is the reason why CC is never actually "simultaneous."
However, as stated earlier, Infiltration doesn't make CC completely sequential either. In sequential CC (as laid out in A11.3), a unit can be eliminated by the opponent's attack before it has a chance to retaliate. Infiltration makes things kind of conditionally sequential. The only thing that really changes is the ability of a side to withdraw units while CC is still going on. The effects of any Infiltration attack still do not take place until after all CC attacks (from both sides) are completed, just as with normal CC. The player who rolls the 2 must take the option to withdraw in order to avoid any subsequent attack. If he chooses not to withdraw, then subsequent attacks by the other side are resolved as if Infiltration never happened. However, even though, for instance, the Attacker may withdraw before being attacked, the Defender unit attacked by that 2 DR is not eliminated until after all attacks (from both sides) are resolved. Thus, if multiple units are involved and that Defender unit is predesignated to attack a unit that did not withdraw, his attack will still take place.
One other tactical issue. You may wonder why the Attacker would ever want to withdraw, since presumably he sought CC by advancing into the Location in the first place. A11.2 which deals with withdrawal from melee (and presumably governs withdrawal as dictated by Infiltration) does not in any way restrict the direction in which the Infiltrating unit chooses to withdraw, other than prohibiting entry of a Location containing a Known enemy unit or a Location that unit couldn't normally enter during the APh. Thus, an Attacker could take advantage of this rule to actually escape CC by advancing farther towards enemy-held objectives, potentially also threatening enemy Rout paths.
Now for the examples.
Example 1 - Start simple, right?. A Russian 6-2-8 squad advances into CC against a German 4-3-6 squad with no ambush. The Russian squad rolls a 12, not sufficient to eliminate the German Defender. Facing long odds, the German squad chooses to withdraw from the Location, but is thus unable to make his own attack.
Example 2 - Same situation, except the 6-2-8 rolls a 5 which at 3:2 odds is low enough to eliminate the German. The German then rolls a 2. Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader. The odds of the first attack are refigured with the new leader, resulting in the Russian's attack becoming 1:1, at which point it is now only good enough to Casualty Reduce one of the German units. Random Selection results in the new leader dying from a wound. The German attack takes place at 1:2 odds (5:6 in FP counting the leader). Since the German squad has survived the Russian CC attack, he can still choose to withdraw if he wishes. Of course, if his attack eliminates the Russian he can also remain in the Location.
Example 3 - Two American 6-6-6 squads (A&B) advance into a Location containing three German 4-6-7 squads (C, D and E). No ambush occurs. The American player predesignates his attacks. Squad A will attack squad C at 3:2 odds, Squad B will attack squad D also at 3:2 odds. Squad E will not be attacked. The German player then predesignates his attacks, choosing to have squads C&D attack squad B at 1:1 odds, and squad E attack squad A at 1:2 odds. The American, as the Attacker, goes first, choosing to perform A's attack first. He promptly rolls a 2 but no leader is created. The American takes advantage though to withdraw squad A into the next Location. Squad B rolls a 12 against D, failing to eliminate the unit. Squad D chooses not to withdraw since doing so would forfeit his role in the upcoming attack. Now it's the German's turn. Squad E has nothing to do since his designated target has already left the building. Squads C&D attack squad B as planned at 1:1 odds (since C won't be eliminated until after resolving the attacks). Continuing the run of bizarre rolls, they roll another 12, allowing squad B to withdraw into the same Location as squad A. C is eliminated, leaving D&E in the CC Location, but in a more precarious position with A&B now behind them.
Example 4 - This happened in a game of mine. A German 4-6-7 advances into a building Location containing a British 4-5-7. The Location also happens to be a victory objective. No ambush occurs. Both CC attacks will be resolved at 1:1 odds. The German rolls an original 2. Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader being created. This doesn't change the odds and the 2 will still eliminate the British squad. Now the German has a choice to make. If he chooses to withdraw, he will eliminate the British squad but will leave the victory Location unoccupied. If he chooses to remain in the Location (either the squad, the leader, or both), he then will be attacked by the British squad's CC attack. Again, it is not sequential; i.e., he cannot both stay and avoid the return attack. He chooses to stay, hoping to survive the CC attack and gain control of the Location. However, in one of those "only with the VASL dicebot" moments, the British squad also rolls an original 2. Again, Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader. Both attacks are now refigured with new odds (since this is not sequential CC). Total FP is now 5:5, again resolved on the 1:1 column, and both attacks still result in elimination of the other side. The British squad does not have the option to withdraw, since he is the Defender and will be eliminated by the German's attack. The net result then is that both sides are completely eliminated, including the newly-minted leaders, leaving the Location empty. And moments like that are why I love this game.
Infiltration (A11.22) is one of those rules which give ASL so much of its flavor. It isn't really intended to replicate any specific combat situation or maneuver ("Chapter A Footnote 40: This rule is designed in part to simulate tactics such as the legendary McMurphy Evasion Technique, which so often allowed the Aussies to escape hand-to-hand combat unscathed, leaving their dead opponents behind…"). It seems to exist more as another means to reflect the capricious nature of combat.
It's also one of those rules that make ASL so hard for the new player, taking just a few lines in the Rulebook but seemingly very difficult to comprehend (and taking a document as long as this one to explain). Part of the problem is the rule as written (taken with the following rule A11.3 which begins "There are three other instances in which CC is not considered simultaneous; rather it is sequential…") implies that when Infiltration is invoked, CC becomes sequential. Thus, A11.22 suggests sequential CC when it's actually not sequential, yet also proves that the normally simultaneous CC is not actually simultaneous. Confused? Many people are. In the last couple of months, there've been at least two lengthy threads on the ASL Mailing List, as well as one on the Consimworld forum, debating this very issue, accompanied by several Q&A sent to MMP (and indeed even as I was writing this on Friday, a new question appeared on the ASLML). Between these discussions and the "Perry Sez" that have been issued, I think things are pretty well set and will try to explain how it all works.
First, read the explanation given in the ASL FAQ. I'll try to complement this with some more explanation and examples.
The basic mechanics are simple. If either player rolls an original 2 or 12 on their CC DR, Infiltration comes into play. (And don't forget of course that an original 2 may result in Leader Creation per A18.12.) If a player rolls a 2, then he has the option to withdraw his attacking units from that Location, with their attack taking effect but at the same time avoiding any yet to be resolved attack by the other player. If a player rolls a 12, then his opponent has the option to withdraw the units being attacked although the effects of that 12 DR (if any) still take place. The hard part is understanding the timing.
As laid out in the CC rules, the Attacker designates his attacks, the Defender designates his, then the Attacker resolves all of his attacks before the Defender does so. This sequence is important. Under most conditions, effects only take place after all attacks from both sides have been resolved, thus making CC seem "simultaneous." Infiltration changes all of that, but only slightly. If the Attacker rolls a 2, he can withdraw his forces, (likely eliminating the units being attacked) without those forces facing any return fire. However, if the Defender rolls a 2, any attacks already made by the Attacker still take effect. Likewise, if the Defender rolls a 12, the Attacker's units may withdraw after having already resolved their attacks, but if the Attacker rolls the 12, any Defender units which withdraw give up the chance to make their attacks. This gives the Attacker an advantage in CC, and is the reason why CC is never actually "simultaneous."
However, as stated earlier, Infiltration doesn't make CC completely sequential either. In sequential CC (as laid out in A11.3), a unit can be eliminated by the opponent's attack before it has a chance to retaliate. Infiltration makes things kind of conditionally sequential. The only thing that really changes is the ability of a side to withdraw units while CC is still going on. The effects of any Infiltration attack still do not take place until after all CC attacks (from both sides) are completed, just as with normal CC. The player who rolls the 2 must take the option to withdraw in order to avoid any subsequent attack. If he chooses not to withdraw, then subsequent attacks by the other side are resolved as if Infiltration never happened. However, even though, for instance, the Attacker may withdraw before being attacked, the Defender unit attacked by that 2 DR is not eliminated until after all attacks (from both sides) are resolved. Thus, if multiple units are involved and that Defender unit is predesignated to attack a unit that did not withdraw, his attack will still take place.
One other tactical issue. You may wonder why the Attacker would ever want to withdraw, since presumably he sought CC by advancing into the Location in the first place. A11.2 which deals with withdrawal from melee (and presumably governs withdrawal as dictated by Infiltration) does not in any way restrict the direction in which the Infiltrating unit chooses to withdraw, other than prohibiting entry of a Location containing a Known enemy unit or a Location that unit couldn't normally enter during the APh. Thus, an Attacker could take advantage of this rule to actually escape CC by advancing farther towards enemy-held objectives, potentially also threatening enemy Rout paths.
Now for the examples.
Example 1 - Start simple, right?. A Russian 6-2-8 squad advances into CC against a German 4-3-6 squad with no ambush. The Russian squad rolls a 12, not sufficient to eliminate the German Defender. Facing long odds, the German squad chooses to withdraw from the Location, but is thus unable to make his own attack.
Example 2 - Same situation, except the 6-2-8 rolls a 5 which at 3:2 odds is low enough to eliminate the German. The German then rolls a 2. Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader. The odds of the first attack are refigured with the new leader, resulting in the Russian's attack becoming 1:1, at which point it is now only good enough to Casualty Reduce one of the German units. Random Selection results in the new leader dying from a wound. The German attack takes place at 1:2 odds (5:6 in FP counting the leader). Since the German squad has survived the Russian CC attack, he can still choose to withdraw if he wishes. Of course, if his attack eliminates the Russian he can also remain in the Location.
Example 3 - Two American 6-6-6 squads (A&B) advance into a Location containing three German 4-6-7 squads (C, D and E). No ambush occurs. The American player predesignates his attacks. Squad A will attack squad C at 3:2 odds, Squad B will attack squad D also at 3:2 odds. Squad E will not be attacked. The German player then predesignates his attacks, choosing to have squads C&D attack squad B at 1:1 odds, and squad E attack squad A at 1:2 odds. The American, as the Attacker, goes first, choosing to perform A's attack first. He promptly rolls a 2 but no leader is created. The American takes advantage though to withdraw squad A into the next Location. Squad B rolls a 12 against D, failing to eliminate the unit. Squad D chooses not to withdraw since doing so would forfeit his role in the upcoming attack. Now it's the German's turn. Squad E has nothing to do since his designated target has already left the building. Squads C&D attack squad B as planned at 1:1 odds (since C won't be eliminated until after resolving the attacks). Continuing the run of bizarre rolls, they roll another 12, allowing squad B to withdraw into the same Location as squad A. C is eliminated, leaving D&E in the CC Location, but in a more precarious position with A&B now behind them.
Example 4 - This happened in a game of mine. A German 4-6-7 advances into a building Location containing a British 4-5-7. The Location also happens to be a victory objective. No ambush occurs. Both CC attacks will be resolved at 1:1 odds. The German rolls an original 2. Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader being created. This doesn't change the odds and the 2 will still eliminate the British squad. Now the German has a choice to make. If he chooses to withdraw, he will eliminate the British squad but will leave the victory Location unoccupied. If he chooses to remain in the Location (either the squad, the leader, or both), he then will be attacked by the British squad's CC attack. Again, it is not sequential; i.e., he cannot both stay and avoid the return attack. He chooses to stay, hoping to survive the CC attack and gain control of the Location. However, in one of those "only with the VASL dicebot" moments, the British squad also rolls an original 2. Again, Leader Creation results in an 8-0 leader. Both attacks are now refigured with new odds (since this is not sequential CC). Total FP is now 5:5, again resolved on the 1:1 column, and both attacks still result in elimination of the other side. The British squad does not have the option to withdraw, since he is the Defender and will be eliminated by the German's attack. The net result then is that both sides are completely eliminated, including the newly-minted leaders, leaving the Location empty. And moments like that are why I love this game.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
The Geeklist
Just browsing. Mattias Elfström has made a nice list at the BoardgameGeek website of all of the official ASL modules ever released. Feel free to drop by and leave comments. Mattias has done some nice work with this list and has also been quite an advocate for ASL, trying hard to push it farther up the rankings.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
The Geometry of ASL
Matt K's comments about LOS and Concealment reminded me of another excellent article. If you ever struggle with LOS, especially if your opponent seems to pull off sneaky LOS shots that leave you slack-jawed, do yourself a big favor and check out David Hailey's one page article on using the geometry of the hexagon to help you see LOS better. The article is in Vol. 5, No. 2 of "Banzai!!," the newsletter of the Central Texas ASL Club (the direct link to the issue is here). The issue is from 2000, but basic geometry didn't change with the millennium. A few moments studying this page will go a long way in improving your tactical view of the ASL battlefield.
While you're at it, look over some of the other issues of "Banzai!!" There are some nice scenario analysis articles there, along with good tactical tips, and the April Fools' issues especially are worth the price of admission. Bonsai!! is a classic, featuring the legendary "Saving Ryan's Privates" mini-scenario, complete with an entire Series Replay. Enjoy.
While you're at it, look over some of the other issues of "Banzai!!" There are some nice scenario analysis articles there, along with good tactical tips, and the April Fools' issues especially are worth the price of admission. Bonsai!! is a classic, featuring the legendary "Saving Ryan's Privates" mini-scenario, complete with an entire Series Replay. Enjoy.
Out of the Wrapper, Non-ASL Edition
I have purchased or subscribed to two gaming magazines in the past few months, both of which are relative newcomers to the wargaming scene and both of which promise a new game in (or available with) each issue. The first was "Against the Odds", to which I first subscribed back in December. The second issue I've received (Volume 2, Number 3 overall) arrived a few weeks ago. The other was "Armchair General", which has just published its second issue. Both are game- and history-oriented, but take very different approaches to their subject matter.
"Against the Odds" is published quarterly, the newest issue being its seventh overall. AtO includes a game in each issue, with printed (glossy stock) mapsheet, mounted counters and rules. One of the attractive things about AtO is that its subject matter strays (for the most part) far beyond the Second World War and the American Civil War, perhaps the two most common areas of interest for many publications. The games released to date in AtO have ranged from the Battle of Thermopylae to the Battle of Khe Sanh, with "Napoleon at the Berezina" among others in between. Of the two WWII-era games published so far, one of them ("North Wind Rain") is a "what-if" game covering a hypothetical attack by the Japanese against the Soviet Far East. Upcoming games include "Fortress Berlin" covering the last days of WWII, but also games covering the Battle of Grozny from 1995, the Battle of Mohacs ("Sulieman the Magnificent" by Richard Berg) and the Battle of the Somme.
The current issue features "A Dark and Bloody Ground," a depiction of the fighting over control of the Ohio frontier at the end of the 18th century between the Native American nations and the armed forces of the newly formed United States of America. The game is designed to be played equally well between two players or as a solitaire game. As with the other games from AtO, the rules are included in the center of the magazine and a high-quality mapsheet is included along with mounted counters. The physical quality looks good and the mapsheet, as has been the custom for this series, is very attractive visually, using maps and pictures from the era as a basis in order to capture the feel of the period nicely. "Go Tell the Spartans" from the previous issue, about Thermopylae, also was a departure but again seemed to give a nice feel to the game. Both seem to be of high quality and should make for interesting playing. GTTS has generated a number of questions, and a draft second edition of the rules has been provided online, with plans to publish them in a future issue. While errata are never welcome, the AtO staff is to be commended to their attention to these issues, which has apparently saved GTTS as a game, according to feedback on the Consimworld site.
The articles also are welcome. Many have been historical, with a few intended as a view on wargaming in general. The current issue includes a historical background on the Campaign for Ohio by the game's designer, Paul Rohrbaugh. Other articles include a review on "aerial assassination" attempts during WWII, a review of the 13th century battles between the Mongol and the Muslim forces, and an overview of the myths surrounding Alexander, written in anticipation of an upcoming movie on that topic. John Prados, designer of Third Reich, has a column on historicity in wargames. John Compton has the second part of his three-part series on the future of gaming, which to say the least has generated a lot of discussion online.
Overall, this is an impressive series of magazines. The subjects addressed are intriguing, the articles appear well written and make interesting and informative reading, and the games seem to be very well done, both in design and physical quality. This is well worth looking into.
"Armchair General" on the other hand takes a more traditional approach in its choice of subject matter, as the cover pictures of Patton and Eisenhower would indicate. The emphasis through the first two issues has been on World War II (primarily the American experience) and, to a lesser degree, the American Civil War. Part of the World War II emphasis is clearly related to the upcoming 60th anniversary of the "D-Day" landings in Normandy. Where "Armchair General" breaks new ground is in its presentation of those subjects. Rather than dry historical articles, the emphasis is on a "You Are There" approach, not just relating the events but often making an effort to put the reader into the situation. For example, a series of articles entitled "What Next General?" tells the story of a battle, while asking the reader to consider different options on how to proceed at critical points in the battle. In the first issue, the reader is asked to take the place of General Robert E. Lee as the Battle of Gettysburg unfolds. In issue two, an alternate history scenario is presented with General George C. Marshall planning the invasion of Fortress Europa as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in place of an incapacitated Eisenhower.
Other articles are even more interactive. A series entitled "You Command" presents a tactical situation in detail (as a German tank leader preparing for a British counterattack in North Africa in issue one, and as a Airborne company commander trying to retain a captured bridge on D-Day in issue two), and then asks the reader to outline a plan to carry out the objective, providing a map on which to sketch out an appropriate deployment. The plan can be submitted as part of a contest, with winners to be announced in a future issue. Another highly interactive article which has stretched over both issues is "Fire and Steel," an "Interactive Combat Story." In this series, the reader becomes a tank commander storming Omaha Beach, given a narrative but occasionally asked to make specific choices as to how to proceed, with the next part of the narrative (and the reader's "survival") depending on what option was selected.
There is some more traditional fare, such as the "Battlefield Leader" articles, which have so far concentrated on coverboys Patton and Eisenhower. "Walk Where They Fought" is another series which presents history with a twist. These articles provide highly detailed maps of battlefield areas (Omaha Beach and the 82nd Airborne's targets areas inland from Utah Beach have been presented so far) combined with a narrative summary of the battles in question along with a guided tour of the areas as they exist now. These should be a fantastic resource for anyone fortunate enough to get to tour those battlefields.
Each issue has, as promised, delivered a new game. However, unlike "Against the Odds," which supplies the game and all materials with the magazine, "Armchair General" takes the Desktop Publishing (DTP) approach, providing the game materials as a downloadable file from the website (a required code number is printed in the magazine), with the player responsible for printing the materials and mounting them as necessary. For those of us (like me) who are not particularly facile with such "arts and crafts" procedures, the editors have promised on the website forum to issue these games for sale in the future as a "pre-packaged boardgame." The first issue gave the gaming world "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a simulation of the Coalition forces' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Game number two is "Gettysburg: The Battle for Cemetery Ridge," a brigade level game covering the first day of the battle. I haven't played either yet (although both claim to be solitaire-suitable), but both appear to be fairly straightforward and not too complex. Both were designed by Mark H. Walker (designer of Lock 'n Load).
Both of these magazines make nice additions to both the historical magazine and wargaming genres. They would certainly be worth investigation by both the wargamer and the military history buff.
"Against the Odds" is published quarterly, the newest issue being its seventh overall. AtO includes a game in each issue, with printed (glossy stock) mapsheet, mounted counters and rules. One of the attractive things about AtO is that its subject matter strays (for the most part) far beyond the Second World War and the American Civil War, perhaps the two most common areas of interest for many publications. The games released to date in AtO have ranged from the Battle of Thermopylae to the Battle of Khe Sanh, with "Napoleon at the Berezina" among others in between. Of the two WWII-era games published so far, one of them ("North Wind Rain") is a "what-if" game covering a hypothetical attack by the Japanese against the Soviet Far East. Upcoming games include "Fortress Berlin" covering the last days of WWII, but also games covering the Battle of Grozny from 1995, the Battle of Mohacs ("Sulieman the Magnificent" by Richard Berg) and the Battle of the Somme.The current issue features "A Dark and Bloody Ground," a depiction of the fighting over control of the Ohio frontier at the end of the 18th century between the Native American nations and the armed forces of the newly formed United States of America. The game is designed to be played equally well between two players or as a solitaire game. As with the other games from AtO, the rules are included in the center of the magazine and a high-quality mapsheet is included along with mounted counters. The physical quality looks good and the mapsheet, as has been the custom for this series, is very attractive visually, using maps and pictures from the era as a basis in order to capture the feel of the period nicely. "Go Tell the Spartans" from the previous issue, about Thermopylae, also was a departure but again seemed to give a nice feel to the game. Both seem to be of high quality and should make for interesting playing. GTTS has generated a number of questions, and a draft second edition of the rules has been provided online, with plans to publish them in a future issue. While errata are never welcome, the AtO staff is to be commended to their attention to these issues, which has apparently saved GTTS as a game, according to feedback on the Consimworld site.The articles also are welcome. Many have been historical, with a few intended as a view on wargaming in general. The current issue includes a historical background on the Campaign for Ohio by the game's designer, Paul Rohrbaugh. Other articles include a review on "aerial assassination" attempts during WWII, a review of the 13th century battles between the Mongol and the Muslim forces, and an overview of the myths surrounding Alexander, written in anticipation of an upcoming movie on that topic. John Prados, designer of Third Reich, has a column on historicity in wargames. John Compton has the second part of his three-part series on the future of gaming, which to say the least has generated a lot of discussion online.
Overall, this is an impressive series of magazines. The subjects addressed are intriguing, the articles appear well written and make interesting and informative reading, and the games seem to be very well done, both in design and physical quality. This is well worth looking into.
"Armchair General" on the other hand takes a more traditional approach in its choice of subject matter, as the cover pictures of Patton and Eisenhower would indicate. The emphasis through the first two issues has been on World War II (primarily the American experience) and, to a lesser degree, the American Civil War. Part of the World War II emphasis is clearly related to the upcoming 60th anniversary of the "D-Day" landings in Normandy. Where "Armchair General" breaks new ground is in its presentation of those subjects. Rather than dry historical articles, the emphasis is on a "You Are There" approach, not just relating the events but often making an effort to put the reader into the situation. For example, a series of articles entitled "What Next General?" tells the story of a battle, while asking the reader to consider different options on how to proceed at critical points in the battle. In the first issue, the reader is asked to take the place of General Robert E. Lee as the Battle of Gettysburg unfolds. In issue two, an alternate history scenario is presented with General George C. Marshall planning the invasion of Fortress Europa as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in place of an incapacitated Eisenhower.Other articles are even more interactive. A series entitled "You Command" presents a tactical situation in detail (as a German tank leader preparing for a British counterattack in North Africa in issue one, and as a Airborne company commander trying to retain a captured bridge on D-Day in issue two), and then asks the reader to outline a plan to carry out the objective, providing a map on which to sketch out an appropriate deployment. The plan can be submitted as part of a contest, with winners to be announced in a future issue. Another highly interactive article which has stretched over both issues is "Fire and Steel," an "Interactive Combat Story." In this series, the reader becomes a tank commander storming Omaha Beach, given a narrative but occasionally asked to make specific choices as to how to proceed, with the next part of the narrative (and the reader's "survival") depending on what option was selected.
There is some more traditional fare, such as the "Battlefield Leader" articles, which have so far concentrated on coverboys Patton and Eisenhower. "Walk Where They Fought" is another series which presents history with a twist. These articles provide highly detailed maps of battlefield areas (Omaha Beach and the 82nd Airborne's targets areas inland from Utah Beach have been presented so far) combined with a narrative summary of the battles in question along with a guided tour of the areas as they exist now. These should be a fantastic resource for anyone fortunate enough to get to tour those battlefields.
Each issue has, as promised, delivered a new game. However, unlike "Against the Odds," which supplies the game and all materials with the magazine, "Armchair General" takes the Desktop Publishing (DTP) approach, providing the game materials as a downloadable file from the website (a required code number is printed in the magazine), with the player responsible for printing the materials and mounting them as necessary. For those of us (like me) who are not particularly facile with such "arts and crafts" procedures, the editors have promised on the website forum to issue these games for sale in the future as a "pre-packaged boardgame." The first issue gave the gaming world "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a simulation of the Coalition forces' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Game number two is "Gettysburg: The Battle for Cemetery Ridge," a brigade level game covering the first day of the battle. I haven't played either yet (although both claim to be solitaire-suitable), but both appear to be fairly straightforward and not too complex. Both were designed by Mark H. Walker (designer of Lock 'n Load).
Both of these magazines make nice additions to both the historical magazine and wargaming genres. They would certainly be worth investigation by both the wargamer and the military history buff.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Concealment: Rules of Thumb
Concealment plays an important role in ASL. Along with its brother, HIP, it is the most important rule for combating the player's unrealistic omniscience. However, utilizing the Concealment rules can be a major headache, especially with a high unit-density scenario. The Concealment table on the Chapter A divider is clear but cumbersome. It's nice (and speeds up play) if you can look at a unit and quickly decide (without digging out the Chapter A divider) whether it gains or loses concealment. Admittedly, it's hard to simplify the rules for Concealment Loss (beyond "you lose Concealment if you do anything in LOS of the enemy") but fortunately the Concealment Gain stuff is very straightforward, and with a couple of rules of thumb, you should never have to look at the table again to determine when you can place a "?" counter.
Most commonly, you'll be determining possible "?" gain for Infantry units. You only need to know three things (all assuming your unit is in Good Order): whether the unit is in concealment terrain, whether it's in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit, and whether the nearest such enemy unit is within 16 hexes or not. Most of the time, those three factors will determine whether you get concealment, but sometimes you'll have to make a dr of 5 or less, using the DRM described in A12.122. Ready?
If your unit is in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit, it never gains concealment, unless it is both far away (at least 17 hexes away) and able to hide (in concealment terrain), in which case it can gain concealment by making a modified dr of 5 or less.
If your unit is out of LOS from any such enemy unit, it always gains concealment unless it is both close (16 or fewer hexes from the nearest unbroken enemy unit) and unable to hide (not in concealment terrain), in which case it must pass the die roll.
Not so bad, is it? Emplaced Guns and Vehicles are even easier. They never gain concealment if in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit. If out of all LOS, then they are treated the same as an Infantry unit. And Fortifications can never gain concealment once they lose HIP.
Again, Concealment Loss is a bit more complex, but since most of the time your units will be within 16 hexes of the enemy, it simplifies reasonably well. Generally, almost anything you do in LOS of the enemy will cost your concealment, but if out of LOS you'll only lose it if you are damaged by enemy fire. Two things to remember are that an enemy unit has to be Good Order to affect Concealment Loss (not just unbroken) and Emplaced Guns in concealment terrain have the ability to retain concealment when firing if the colored die is low enough (see A12.34). Spend a little time reading over the chart (especially for situations when the nearest enemy is 17 or more hexes away), but for most circumstances the above comments will work just fine.
So remember, Infantry units in LOS never gain "?" unless far away and able to hide, in which case you must roll a die. Infantry units out of LOS always gain "?" unless close and unable to hide, in which case you must roll a die. Happy hunting, and keep your head down.
Most commonly, you'll be determining possible "?" gain for Infantry units. You only need to know three things (all assuming your unit is in Good Order): whether the unit is in concealment terrain, whether it's in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit, and whether the nearest such enemy unit is within 16 hexes or not. Most of the time, those three factors will determine whether you get concealment, but sometimes you'll have to make a dr of 5 or less, using the DRM described in A12.122. Ready?
If your unit is in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit, it never gains concealment, unless it is both far away (at least 17 hexes away) and able to hide (in concealment terrain), in which case it can gain concealment by making a modified dr of 5 or less.
If your unit is out of LOS from any such enemy unit, it always gains concealment unless it is both close (16 or fewer hexes from the nearest unbroken enemy unit) and unable to hide (not in concealment terrain), in which case it must pass the die roll.
Not so bad, is it? Emplaced Guns and Vehicles are even easier. They never gain concealment if in LOS of an unbroken enemy unit. If out of all LOS, then they are treated the same as an Infantry unit. And Fortifications can never gain concealment once they lose HIP.
Again, Concealment Loss is a bit more complex, but since most of the time your units will be within 16 hexes of the enemy, it simplifies reasonably well. Generally, almost anything you do in LOS of the enemy will cost your concealment, but if out of LOS you'll only lose it if you are damaged by enemy fire. Two things to remember are that an enemy unit has to be Good Order to affect Concealment Loss (not just unbroken) and Emplaced Guns in concealment terrain have the ability to retain concealment when firing if the colored die is low enough (see A12.34). Spend a little time reading over the chart (especially for situations when the nearest enemy is 17 or more hexes away), but for most circumstances the above comments will work just fine.
So remember, Infantry units in LOS never gain "?" unless far away and able to hide, in which case you must roll a die. Infantry units out of LOS always gain "?" unless close and unable to hide, in which case you must roll a die. Happy hunting, and keep your head down.
Monday, May 10, 2004
More Rules to Remember
10. A Gun can change its CA in PFPh and fire in fire in AFPh without Case A penalties (C3.22) - Changing CA at the end of the PFPh (if still able to fire without using Sustained/Intensive Fire) allows the Gun to fire in the AFPh without suffering a high DRM for changing CA for that shot (although Case B would still apply for firing in the AFPh). For example, if firing in the PFPh would give a prohibitive DRM (e.g., +5 for a three hexside change in CA), then make the CA change at the end of the PFPh and take the shot in the AFPh where the +2 for Case B is much less of a problem. However, if you have a Gun with a high ROF, taking the shot in the PFPh may be worth it since if ROF is maintained, the subsequent shot will not suffer the Case A DRM.
11. A Hero's modifier can be used in multi-hex firegroups (FG) but only within Normal Range of the Hero or his SW (A15.24) - One of the limitations of fire groups is that leadership modifiers generally only apply to the leader's own Location. For example, a 9-2 leader's -2 modifier would apply to an attack made solely by units in the same Location as that leader, but would not apply at all if those units were part of a multi-Location FG. One of the advantages of a Hero is that his -1 modifier does apply to the entire FG, even if it extends to multiple Locations. However, remember that the Hero must be firing within Normal Range (either his inherent FP or his SW) as part of that FG for his modifier to apply.
11. A Hero's modifier can be used in multi-hex firegroups (FG) but only within Normal Range of the Hero or his SW (A15.24) - One of the limitations of fire groups is that leadership modifiers generally only apply to the leader's own Location. For example, a 9-2 leader's -2 modifier would apply to an attack made solely by units in the same Location as that leader, but would not apply at all if those units were part of a multi-Location FG. One of the advantages of a Hero is that his -1 modifier does apply to the entire FG, even if it extends to multiple Locations. However, remember that the Hero must be firing within Normal Range (either his inherent FP or his SW) as part of that FG for his modifier to apply.
The ASL WebDex - "Google" for the ASL Online Community
Just had to give a quick nod to Larry Memmott for his wonderful ASL WebDex. If you haven't seen this yet, this is perhaps the ultimate directory for ASL materials available online. This first appeared several years ago, but hadn't been updated for quite a while. Last month, Larry wrote in to the various online forums to tell of the websites rebirth. The result is fantastic.
He has organized pretty much all of the ASL sites available for perusal based on Rulebook chapters and other categories. Do you want to see if there is anything online about the use of Wire? Look at the appropriate section under Chapter B on his page. Turns out there is no available online document about that topic, but he does reference a couple of published "journal" articles on the topic (actually the same article in two different publications). Larry has not only listed the online sites but has also fully indexed a number of magazines, ranging from the obvious General, Annual and Journal articles to online fare such as Pete Phillipps' excellent View From the Trenches, as well as a number of more obscure on- and offline resources. While not all of these sources are readily available to the player, it's a terrific resource to have the articles organized in this way, and obviously a tremendous amount of effort has been required. Thanks, Larry.
And no, I didn't write this just because he has indexed this site as well... :-)
He has organized pretty much all of the ASL sites available for perusal based on Rulebook chapters and other categories. Do you want to see if there is anything online about the use of Wire? Look at the appropriate section under Chapter B on his page. Turns out there is no available online document about that topic, but he does reference a couple of published "journal" articles on the topic (actually the same article in two different publications). Larry has not only listed the online sites but has also fully indexed a number of magazines, ranging from the obvious General, Annual and Journal articles to online fare such as Pete Phillipps' excellent View From the Trenches, as well as a number of more obscure on- and offline resources. While not all of these sources are readily available to the player, it's a terrific resource to have the articles organized in this way, and obviously a tremendous amount of effort has been required. Thanks, Larry.
And no, I didn't write this just because he has indexed this site as well... :-)
Friday, May 07, 2004
Lookin' Good So Far
Well-deserved congratulations go out to MMP for the success of the ASL Starter Kit. I have already reviewed this product, but it's interesting now to look back on how it has been received in its first four to six weeks of existence.
There's no question that the release of the Starter Kit has succeeded in getting Advanced Squad Leader into the public eye again. There has been more "buzz" about this release than just about anything else I can remember related to ASL. If the first step in increasing or maintaining the popularity of something is getting people to notice and talk about it, the Starter Kit has been a resounding success. The next stage though is to actually get new players to try it. ASL players have generally been considered a community of their own, a very specialized subset of the larger wargaming community, with those outside that small community considering ASL players to be a breed apart, made up mostly of seriously obsessive-compulsive personality types. What's been impressive while reading the various online ASL and wargaming forums over the last several weeks however is that it's not just the usual suspects writing about this latest release. A number of players (especially at Consimworld) are clearly people who have either avoided ASL in the past or have not played it since the Squad Leader days. So far, the Starter Kit seems to be doing everything MMP hoped it would do.
The "controversy" starting to surface now, though, concerns exactly what the Starter Kit should develop into in the future. As planned, the next two Starter Kits will introduce Ordnance followed by Vehicles, with the idea that a player who has completed those kits will be ready to move on to ASL. As I've said before, once a new player has assimilated all three Kits, I expect the step up to "full" ASL will be much smaller than many think it will be. However, already some players, for several different reasons, are clamoring for more Starter Kits to be released, including PTO and Desert. Whether those should get made or not depends on what MMP (and the rest of us) want to ASLSK to be.
Three or four years ago, I recall the members of MMP outlining future plans for ASL. At one point, the plan included development of two products. One was Introductory ASL (iASL), a stripped down (but fully compatible) version of ASL intended to be a stepping stone to ASL for the new player. The other was Basic ASL (BASL), intended to be "ASL Lite," using a simpler version of the ASL system, but apparently intended to remain a system unto itself, essentially a replacement for the original Squad Leader, a game still played by some stalwarts who've either not wanted to take the apparent leap in complexity required to take on ASL, or, in some cases, never forgiven Don Greenwood for turning their beloved system into the "monster" ASL had become in their eyes. Based on online postings, work was reportedly done on the iASL product for a while before MMP announced several months ago that the Starter Kit would be coming out. It hasn't been clear what the relationship was between the Starter Kit and iASL, and indeed some of the earliest postings by MMP about the ASLSK implied that iASL might still be a separate product. Clearly, based on the early success so far, there seems to be no need for another introductory product at this point. But what about BASL?
There has been little if any mention of this product over the last couple of years that I can recall, and I have to assume that there is no current plan to develop it. The real issue now is whether the ASLSK should develop into BASL, and this is in large part the focus of the current discussions online regarding the future of this product. Clearly, some players who've started using the ASLSK are interested in continuing at that level of complexity. These are (mostly) the ones advocating further "expansion packs" for the Starter Kit series, providing additional nationalities and even introducing simplified versions of the more involved ASL rules, such as PTO and the Japanese, thus providing the greater breadth of ASL without the large investment in money and time needed to fully embrace the existing system.
I can especially empathize with the latter wish. PTO has always been the area of greatest interest for me when it comes to the Second World War. My earliest WWII reading involved books such as Walter Lord's "Day of Infamy" and "Incredible Victory" along with Leon Uris' "Battle Cry." My first wargame (bought in about 1977) was Avalon Hill's classic "Midway" and another early game (along with Squad Leader) was "Victory in the Pacific." Once I was in college, my interest waned and I sold or (gasp) threw out a large part of my game collection. In 1993, I found the Victory Games title "Tokyo Express" in a store, which led to my resubscribing to The General for the first time in about eight years. With my subscription came the latest AH catalog, and there in full-color glory was the entire ASL system (up through Croix de Guerre). What really made me salivate was reading the descriptions of Code of Bushido and Gung Ho! It also helped that my first issue of The General with my new subscription contained the ASL scenario "Alligator Creek," depicting the action at the Ilu River during the Guadalcanal campaign. I was hooked.
Of course, I quickly was slapped in the face with reality. To get to PTO in the ASL system required investing in the Rulebook, Beyond Valor, Yanks, and West of Alamein, at a minimum. After buying the Rulebook and BV, my interest in continuing farther in the system quickly dissipated, and for the next five or six years, I rarely touched them except to occasionally flip through the Rulebook. It wasn't until discovering Solitaire ASL in 1999, several months after the demise of Avalon Hill, that I finally took the plunge and embraced ASL in all its glory. Even then, I never played a PTO scenario until a couple of years ago, over eight years after originally setting out to do so.
So, PTO is a terrific experience in ASL, but one that requires a huge expenditure in time and money to attain. Should there be an easier way to do this? That's the big question. A PTO expansion pack for the ASLSK as some have advocated would be nice. I question how easily the Chapter G rules could be stripped down to the level of complexity required for a Starter Kit, but certainly the rules as presented in Starter Kit #1 exceeded any expectations I had for a reduced rules set, so I wouldn't discount the possibility. But should they do it?
Whether such expansions to the originally planned three-volume Starter Kit should be created ultimately depends on MMP's plans for the product line. As it stands now, the plan is to use the three modules as a Programmed Instruction introduction to ASL. It allows a new player to gradually learn the rules in a low-impact way, with ultimately only a short step-up to the full system. It also allows a player who is unsure about making the full commitment to test the waters with a fairly minimal outlay of money. If he decides not to pursue ASL further, he hasn't wasted much money in the process. That's all fine, and again the early returns indicate that the Starter Kit is doing just what was intended. But should it be expanded further? Currently there are no publicly released plans to expand the line, beyond comments that Starter Kit-level scenarios might be welcome for publication in future issues of the ASL Journal. However, if the expansion pack idea were to take hold, this would almost certainly lead to a new game system, existing in parallel with ASL.
Certainly an easier introduction to ASL-level PTO would be nice. However, this simply doesn't seem to work well as a Starter Kit. Given the current construction of the ASL system, a new player who really likes the PTO Starter Kit still has a huge investment in products in front of him to be able to play PTO using the full ASL system. This seems to go against the whole point of the ASLSK, which in part is to shorten the steps needed to play ASL. For this reason, I think MMP has taken the correct approach with the introductory modules.
But what about BASL? Should this parallel system be developed? This is really the question at hand in all of my meandering in the above paragraphs. As I stated (much) earlier, there is a group of players who would like to have access to the ASL experience, including all nationalities and theatres, along with such gems as Red Barricades, without having to fully embrace the entire Rulebook. For these players, a parallel ASL system continuing the stripped down approach of the Starter Kit would be ideal, essentially completing the original Squad Leader system as was promised but never done before it morphed into ASL. There's no question that there would be a market for such a system. The two problems I see (as an ASL player) are that it could reduce the impact of bringing new blood into the full system and that it would divert time and resources from MMP's continuing efforts to produce new ASL materials. Personally I don't see either of these as fatal complications. Even if only a small number of new players continue on to the full ASL system, that's likely to be more than would otherwise have done so in the absence of the Starter Kit. Also, as much as I like buying new products, I already have far more ASL material than I will ever tire of playing in my foreseeable lifetime. Not everyone agrees, especially with the latter point, as the amount of hand-wringing over the oft delayed release of Armies of Oblivion would indicate. But in my not-so-humble opinion, ASL (and MMP) is in fine shape regardless of which approach is taken.
It's a win-win situation from my perspective either way. If the Starter Kits as planned are carried out, it raises the awareness of ASL among the gaming public, with a lot of players who would have never even considered the game giving it a try, and certainly some sticking with their newfound addiction. If the BASL system were to take on a life of its own, the ultimate growth of ASL might be lessened, both in numbers of players and numbers of products, but in the meantime MMP would be sitting on another successful product which would keep them around to produce more material, and the greater number of players gaming with ASL in one form or the other should continue to keep both systems alive for many years to come. This would also allow restructuring of the traditional hierarchical system for obtaining ASL materials, permitting (for example) a BASL player who wants to do PTO to possibly do so without the severe entry requirements of ASL. With this approach, a PTO Starter Kit becomes a workable reality.
Ultimately, I don't have strong feelings either way, and being a glass-is-half-full person, I see good things regardless of how ASL and the Starter Kits evolve. I do think MMP has clearly hit a home run with the Starter Kit, and that this may be the most significant product created for the system since Red Barricades broke the mold. Good job all around.
