From: alberni@stat.ubc.ca Subject: Re: SFF change needed Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 12:23:18 GMT-0:24 I don't mind the SFF rules because the attacker cannot force the defender to FF. If the attacker tried to draw fire then the defender has to realize this and hold his fire. The defender moving behind an obstacle then advancing back is a cheesy tactic but most attackers are aware of this so they try to adjust their attack to compensate for this tactic. As a simulation ASL works well for me. It has quirks but it works well. However it is unrealistic. In my opinion, the only possible way to make a realistic tactical game is to have a simultaneous movement/combat system. Unfortunately I think this would be almost unplayable so we compromise and play sequentially. Brent Pollack, myself and a few others here in Vancouver have been working on an impulse system for ASL. Since we are all quite busy we have not finished it. Basically the system combines the Prep Fire, Movement, Defensive Fire and Advancing fire phases into 2 phases called the Fire and Move phase and the Final Fire phase. One player takes an action (usually a single attack or movement) then the other until the phase end. Although it is unfinished, it has the right feel. Rick White Vancouver Canada ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 15:55:13 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Skulking & SFF ron kinney nails the lid on the skulking debate: >The tactic is an artifice of the turn-by-turn game system. It's only >because of that artificial mechanic that the attacker even has the >option of blasting away "for free" at enemy units. In reality, if >you're taking time to fire, that means you're not moving. On a >player's own turn, this is well-represented by the familiar "Prep Fire >or Move?" decision, but on your opponents turn, there's absolutely no >reason not to fire at anything in sight. _That's_ the unrealistic >tactic. Skulking at least allows the realism that the defender can >slow down the units providing covering fire for the advancing enemy. And I attempt to come close to such finality in the SFF debate: Suppose there was no SFF, only Fire and Final Fire. That would make sense, that would be fair. Let's play that way for a while. (Is that what did back in Squad Leader? I don't know, I wasn't involved.) Now, say you wanted to add a little chrome, some extra realism. Let's allow the defender to fire subsequently in the MPh. Alarms, alarms. This is unfair. This is unrealistic. The defender has already shot, why should he be allowed to shoot again? Not only does it make the defender too powerful, but it seems unrealistic and makes the defender omniscient. Isn't it bad enough that defenders are shooting at lone leaders running in the open 12 hexes away when full squads are right in front of them? And why twice? Why not three times, or four times, etc? OK, OK. You are right. It does seem unrealistic to let the defender fire yet again at whomever he wants without restriction. How can we tone this down some? Why not limit this subsequent fire to the closest enemy unit in normal range? That makes sense, doesn't it? Doesn't that seems fair? Well, yes, it does seem fair to me and it does make sense to me. I realize I have not nailed this down as tight as rk did skulking, but there you are. ....Perry ----- Date: 20 Dec 1994 16:09:17 -0500 From: "Noah Matt" Subject: RE: whine and cheese >Certainly not all. I only have one off the top of my head that I would >change, and that's the voluntary-break-in-order-to-move-forward tactic. The "voluntary break to move forward" guano was banned by a change to the rout rules (A10.51 ?) in the 93a (or b, but not 94 :) ) Annual Q&A. ----- Subject: Re: 2 questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 13:55:00 -5 Howdy, Paul F Ferraro writes: P+>> Where does it say this? The only thing I can find is that it cost 1 P+>> MP to change TCA (2 in woods/building) and that the TCA can change P+>> freely. D3.12 P+>I dunno. But check out the example (in section C or D - no book handy) P+>where a 50L AT gun is shooting at a T34/85...it says something about this P+>TCA & 1 MP stuff. This is all covered under C5.12-.13. Case A is never applicable to BFF, but the change of CA must be concurrent with the expenditure of a MP. I think the TCA can be changed more than one hexspine per MP expenditure, unlike the VCA. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 16:12:14 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Is insanity normal? Rob Lyon sez: >Perry Cocke seems to think it was cool of McGrath and Pleva to play >Hill 621 for a final round. Well, "cool" isn't really the adjective that sprang to mind. Perhaps "awesome." I was awed by the choice, by its guts/stupidity/whatever. All I know is I'm either not man enough or too sensible to have made that choice myself. But that's cool. >I think it only proves they didn't want to go home I didn't get home appreciably earlier than they did, though considerably more in one piece. >(Unhappy marriages? 50/50 here, I think. >Avoiding IRS agents? If I were an IRS agent, I'd know where to find McGrath. >How DO those guys afford to keep attending all these ASL >conventions...). McGrath is single and gets free air fare from the FAA. Pleva doesn't attend all that many tourneys. I merely impoverish myself. >Fish should have made them play Shadows of Death. That way the winner >was sure to earn a place in a Sanatorium (Follow Me - to the funny >farm). At least with Festung St. Edouard, both sides are sure to occupy the Sanitarium. And truly, do you think McGrath was fully in command of his faculties at the end of Hill 621? >Wouldn't you hate to be the guy at AH answering all those >questions you guys keep sending them? I can certainly think of some answers I'd like to promulgate. ....Perry ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 16:31:27 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: La Gleize, AAR Bruno describes, among other things, the La Gleize tournament for the 50th Bulge Anniversary playing KGP on the spot: >Amazing and truly great. Gee, why am I not surprised? Also: >If you did not enjoy last ASL News, wait until you see this one : gorgeous! I can't wait. [Details about Bruno's exploits and tribulations deleted.] All very interesting, Bruno. But who won? This was, after all, an ASL tournament. As much fun as everyone was having, someone must have won. No? >All in all an EXCELLENT tournament for which and for KGP I deeply thanks >Philippe Leonard and his belgian buddies (with special mention of Pedro >Ramis, Yeah, yeah. If they really cared, they would hold "the La Gleize tournament for the 50th Bulge Anniversary playing KGP on the spot" event here in the U.S., where I could attend it, preferably near Baltimore. ....Perry ----- Date: 20 Dec 1994 17:33:07 -0500 From: "William Cirillo" Subject: VP Question Subject: Time:5:45 PM OFFICE MEMO VP Question Date:12/20/94 A question has come up in a game of "Cold Crocodiles" that Kyle Curle and I are currently playing concerning the VP "worth" of the 9-2 Armour Leader. The 9-2 was in a Cromwell which was eliminated by a PzJg, but the crew survived and exited the tank. Two Turns later the broken crew was KIA'ed by a Sniper. D3.43 states that an Armour Leader ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form. So the question is since the crew successfully exited the tank and the leader ceased to exist before the crew was KIA'ed, does the 9-2 count towards VPs as being KIA'ed or does he not count since he did not exist at the time the crew was eliminated? Any help greatly appreciated. Bill "German needing every point he can muster" Cirillo w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 15:13:45 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: VP Question > Subject: Time:5:45 PM > OFFICE MEMO VP Question Date:12/20/94 > > A question has come up in a game of "Cold Crocodiles" that Kyle Curle > and I are currently playing concerning the VP "worth" of the 9-2 > Armour Leader. The 9-2 was in a Cromwell which was eliminated by > a PzJg, but the crew survived and exited the tank. Two Turns later the > broken crew was KIA'ed by a Sniper. D3.43 states that an Armour > Leader ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form. So the > question is since the crew successfully exited the tank and the leader > ceased to exist before the crew was KIA'ed, does the 9-2 count towards > VPs as being KIA'ed or does he not count since he did not exist at the > time the crew was eliminated? The AL is part of the crew and would exist again if the crew were to re-crew another vehicle. Therefore it died with the crew and 3 extra VP should be awarded. Fred > > Any help greatly appreciated. > > Bill "German needing every point he can muster" Cirillo > w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov > > > ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:01:47 -5 Subject: Re: TACTIQUES Just received my copy of the translated Tactiques in the mail. Fantastic job! I haven't read through everything yet, gotta savor the ASL fix. But the quality is excellent. I knew the regular issues were good, the tranlation is up to par with the rest. My only complaint would be the scenarios on A4 paper. None of the binders I have seen in the US will hold A4 paper without some sticking out the top. Minor but annoying. A wide variety of scenarios, a few 5.5 to 6 turn scenarios. ranging from early war to late war, eastern front, western front, to the Far East. Even a Korean scenario that actually looks good. Of course this is all old news to those of you on the European continent and French literate, but new stuff to us French illiterates. Oh, and in keeping with my rant over pricing that the new Time On Target inspired, looks like there is a lot of content with consistently good quality graphics. Emphasis on content. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:02:25 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Walden Subject: Cheezy Tactics II (fwd) > > Now, you find a way to justify the cheesy Defender tactic of moving > > behind an obstacle then advancing back in after Def. Fire. There is > > something that really irks me. > There's nothing unrealistic about this, considering that the defender is abandoning his fire phase and can't pull it off for long anyway unless he's well dug-in. As to the SFF restriction v. closer targets, I don't have a huge problem with it. It really is amazing in action what you can overlook when you have an immediate threat in front of you. It can be annoying, I'll admit (except when you use it yourself). Here's two more to mull over: 1) Halftrack (or squad) enters hex of enemy AFV in movement phase for sole purpose of restricting fire outside of hex when elegible for TPBF (A7.212). Large amounts of material then waltz by on way to board edge/objective. 2) You want to unload tank riders in a hurry? Try traversing the turret to knock 'em off (D6.21). Yeah, they have to pass a task check, but what do elites care? Don't try it if you have SW, though (D6.24). Now THOSE are annoying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Walden Email: waldenr@gate.net Director of Technical Training Work Phone: +1 813 535-1100 Tampa Bay Training Center Work Fax: +1 813 530-0120 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Arnhem Bridge campaign game Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:32:19 PST I just got my copy of Time on Target, and spotted something that I thought would be of general interest. I'm quoting from ToT, which in turn was quoting a press release from the folks who are producing the product in question: "GOD SAVE THE KING An ASL Campaign Game at Arnhem Bridge In GSTK you'll experience the punishment that the British level on the unprepared SS, who must first contain the Red Devils in order to kill them. Revenge comes sweet and complete for the SS as fantastic weaponry becomes available. King Tigers and 150mm artillery pieces pummel the defiant Tommies. The paratroopers need all of their stealth and commando capabilities to counterattack, again and again, in their tenacious, yet vacant, stand for the King! EDDIE ZEMAN and STEVE DETHLEFSEN introduce GSTK for the ASL enthusiast. GSTK comes complete with a 20x28 full-color map of the northern end of Arnhem Bridge (one inch hexes), 7 new scenarios, complete rules, and a 13 scenario Campaign Game. It is available now for only $15.00; send check or money order to: HEAT OF BATTLE P.O. Box 15073 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Allow 2-4 weeks for delivery. Red Barricades and Slope (KGP) rules are required. If your hair turned grey over Red Barricades you'll lose it at ARNHEM. Rewrite history, right another Montgomery wrong, and turn an [sic] humiliating British defeat into a victory for the free world!" Anyway, that's what it says. I don't know anything more about it than that, although I'm pondering ordering it. I'm a bit dubious, since the map seems a bit on the small side (20x28 inches is slightly less hexes than two standard boards at the one inch hex scale), but it might be worthwhile. Hard to say. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 21:25:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Re: SFF change needed >>Tom's SFF mod deleted<< WRT the realism of this, it's not unreasonable for troops to shoot at the enemy closest to them. Indeed, the strongest element in the "Most Dangerous Target" Doctrine in the US Army is relative proximity of enemy units. Yeah, it opens up a sleaze hole, but I'm not sure how workable the solution is. Although Tom's is probably the best, at first reading. MDT Doctrine does rate the destrucive capability of potential targets - ATGM teams rate ahead of MG teams, for example - but I don't know of anyone crazy enough to try to translate this to ASL terms. US is probably as good as it gets... John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com Advanced Squad Leader WWW home page: http://access.digex.net/~jappel/ASL.html ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:35:20 -0700 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) Subject: Ho Ho Ho, Now I got a machine gun! Hey, Just in time for Christmas, I have sent the new index to Bas asking him to post it on carlo for the world to see. Comments on the index were not too overwhelming, but there have been some duplicate entries removed, some goofy mistakes cleared up, and of course more entries to satiate people who have been thwarted trying to find a rule before. It is wonderful, more complete than you'd ever hoped. Of course, I'm still and always open to input as to what could make the index more complete, more useful, and more dynamic. Have yourselves a merry little Christmas, Tom Huntington ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 03:31:00 UTC Subject: Re: Castello Fatato Errata >> This will change the SSR to read, "...;this Blaze (and all Blazes >>created from it) will only spread on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12." > >How about Flames? Could the above lead one to think that Flames become >Blazes >on less than a Final 12? Yeah, well...hmmm. Actually, I consciously omitted Flames from the "all Blazes created" phrase because I figured that if a player did manage to roll boxcars at the right/wrong time, then what the heck, the cathedral SHOULD burn. :) But, as I said earlier, it shouldn't burn to the ground. The Russian should feel the same anxiety about the cathedral Blaze spreading as he feels about malfunctioning a SW when he fires it. That is, he should keep the possibility in mind, but otherwise not worry too much about it. For those of you following along at home, the initial Blaze exists in one Level 1 Location of the cathedral (a two hex, Two Story House) so that with the above SSR and the -1 DRM for spreading to a lower Location, the ground level (and the two SSR designated Cellar Locations) of the cathedral will never catch fire. The only place the fire can spread to is the adjacent Level 1 Location and from there to the SSR designated steeple above it. So, four of the cathedral's six playable Locations will never burn. Unless, well wait a minute, I guess Gusts could spread the fire to outside of the cathedral and then back into it. But hey, if some players screw the scenario up that bad, I can't be held responsible. :) I beleive it was Marty who heartily approved of the "instant village, just add water" in "Castello Fatato." I'm glad. This scenario was a lot of fun to put together. Brian (who read an account of this action and just HAD to do it up ASL style) and I were casting around for a village board to accurately represent the Russian Steppes. We couldn't find one that seemed to have the right feel to it. So we finally figured, hey, the dessert boards and Steppe Terrain rule do a great job of representing steppes and we've got all these cool building overlays from _Croix de Guere_.... Personally, I think the result has a real _High Plains Drifter_- town ambience about it. Once we got the town laid out and the general historical points added in-- the Italian Human Wave at night through the snow-- we just couldn't help ourselves and threw on a healthy helping of SSRs to turn this one into the chrome with a little bit of scenario in it that it is. Then we played it and had a blast. From there Brian did the historical research to get the involved units represented correctly in ASL terms and voila! Instant classic. :) Steve Head Scenario Guy _Backblast_ ----- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 23:51:53 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: TOT? GSTK? Doug writes... >I just got my copy of Time on Target, and spotted something that I thought >would be of general interest. I'm quoting from ToT, which in turn was quoting >a press release from the folks who are producing the product in question: > >"GOD SAVE THE KING" > Cool title. >An ASL Campaign Game at Arnhem Bridge Umm. Uh huh. Doesn't anyone think that AH is going to be PISSED that someone puts out a HASL Arnhem module while they're working on The Third Bridge, to be released in '95 if the Gods of ASL get their butts in gear? > >In GSTK you'll experience the punishment that the British level on the >unprepared SS, who must first contain the Red Devils in order to kill them. The SS were unprepared? When? Perhaps the Arnhem garrison was overwhelmed but I don't recall the SS being overwhelmed. Perhaps someone who knows more about the battle could post a brief synopsis since I don't have time to go to the library? 8) >Revenge comes sweet and complete for the SS as fantastic weaponry becomes >available. King Tigers and 150mm artillery pieces pummel the defiant Tommies. North Bank with 150mm OBA? I hope the Brits get plenty of -2 and -3 leaders to do some damage to the Tigers. I thought the Germans had regular Tiger tanks at Arnhem. Again, probably wrong, but I don't recall seeing any KT pictures. 8) Where is that "Illustrated book of really cool battles..." >The paratroopers need all of their stealth and commando capabilities to >counterattack, again and again, in their tenacious, yet vacant, stand for the >King! > Cool. >EDDIE ZEMAN and STEVE DETHLEFSEN introduce GSTK for the ASL enthusiast. GSTK >comes complete with a 20x28 full-color map of the northern end of Arnhem >Bridge (one inch hexes), 7 new scenarios, complete rules, and a 13 scenario >Campaign Game. It is available now for only $15.00; send check or money order >to: > > HEAT OF BATTLE > P.O. Box 15073 > Newport Beach, CA 92659 > So, my real question is "who are these guys"? Out of the blue, at least the electronic blue, comes TOT with lots of good press, now these guys (or are these guys TOT guys?). Is there some Left Coast ASL uprising? If so, GO FOR IT, the more the merrier for us fanatics! >Allow 2-4 weeks for delivery. Red Barricades and Slope (KGP) rules are >required. If your hair turned grey over Red Barricades you'll lose it at >ARNHEM. Rewrite history, right another Montgomery wrong, and turn an [sic] >humiliating British defeat into a victory for the free world!" > I'm there, dude. My check's in the mail. Do they refund if AH gets a cease and desist order? 8) >Anyway, that's what it says. I don't know anything more about it than that, >although I'm pondering ordering it. I'm a bit dubious, since the map seems a >bit on the small side (20x28 inches is slightly less hexes than two standard >boards at the one inch hex scale), but it might be worthwhile. Hard to say. I'll let everyone know as soon as I get it. I sent the check today. Thanks for the info, I'm still waiting for my free copy of TOT! 8) (It's good to edit a magazine, you get a free copy from your peers!) Brian ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 00:39:52 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Duh? Guys, WRT GSTK, in NB the Germans get King Tigers, let's hope Mishcon et al researched their scenario. Disregard my previous remarks. Hope they are not backed up for Xmas, gives me something to read over the following weeks... Brian ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:25:20 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: TOT? GSTK? On Tue, 20 Dec 1994, Brian Youse wrote: > Doug writes... > > >I just got my copy of Time on Target, and spotted something that I thought > >would be of general interest. I'm quoting from ToT, which in turn was quoting > >a press release from the folks who are producing the product in question: > > > >"GOD SAVE THE KING" > > > > Cool title. > > >An ASL Campaign Game at Arnhem Bridge > > Umm. Uh huh. Doesn't anyone think that AH is going to be PISSED that someone > puts out a HASL Arnhem module while they're working on The Third Bridge, to > be released in '95 if the Gods of ASL get their butts in gear? > > > > >In GSTK you'll experience the punishment that the British level on the > >unprepared SS, who must first contain the Red Devils in order to kill them. > > The SS were unprepared? When? Perhaps the Arnhem garrison was overwhelmed but > I don't recall the SS being overwhelmed. Perhaps someone who knows more about > the battle could post a brief synopsis since I don't have time to go to the > library? 8) > > >Revenge comes sweet and complete for the SS as fantastic weaponry becomes > >available. King Tigers and 150mm artillery pieces pummel the defiant Tommies. > > North Bank with 150mm OBA? I hope the Brits get plenty of -2 and -3 leaders > to do some damage to the Tigers. I thought the Germans had regular Tiger tanks > at Arnhem. Again, probably wrong, but I don't recall seeing any KT pictures. > 8) Where is that "Illustrated book of really cool battles..." The german 506th heavy tank batallion received tiger II's in august 1944, and was sent to Oesterboek in september, where it participated in defending against operation market garden. Panzer Colors III. > > >The paratroopers need all of their stealth and commando capabilities to > >counterattack, again and again, in their tenacious, yet vacant, stand for the > >King! > > > > Cool. > > >EDDIE ZEMAN and STEVE DETHLEFSEN introduce GSTK for the ASL enthusiast. GSTK > >comes complete with a 20x28 full-color map of the northern end of Arnhem > >Bridge (one inch hexes), 7 new scenarios, complete rules, and a 13 scenario > >Campaign Game. It is available now for only $15.00; send check or money order > >to: > > > > HEAT OF BATTLE > > P.O. Box 15073 > > Newport Beach, CA 92659 > > > > So, my real question is "who are these guys"? Out of the blue, at least the > electronic blue, comes TOT with lots of good press, now these guys (or are > these guys TOT guys?). Is there some Left Coast ASL uprising? If so, GO > FOR IT, the more the merrier for us fanatics! > > >Allow 2-4 weeks for delivery. Red Barricades and Slope (KGP) rules are > >required. If your hair turned grey over Red Barricades you'll lose it at > >ARNHEM. Rewrite history, right another Montgomery wrong, and turn an [sic] > >humiliating British defeat into a victory for the free world!" > > > > I'm there, dude. My check's in the mail. Do they refund if AH gets a cease > and desist order? 8) > > >Anyway, that's what it says. I don't know anything more about it than that, > >although I'm pondering ordering it. I'm a bit dubious, since the map seems a > >bit on the small side (20x28 inches is slightly less hexes than two standard > >boards at the one inch hex scale), but it might be worthwhile. Hard to say. > > I'll let everyone know as soon as I get it. I sent the check today. Thanks > for the info, I'm still waiting for my free copy of TOT! 8) (It's good to > edit a magazine, you get a free copy from your peers!) > > Brian > Mike Clay ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:38:02 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: VP Question On 20 Dec 1994, William Cirillo wrote: > Subject: Time:5:45 PM > OFFICE MEMO VP Question Date:12/20/94 > > A question has come up in a game of "Cold Crocodiles" that Kyle Curle > and I are currently playing concerning the VP "worth" of the 9-2 > Armour Leader. The 9-2 was in a Cromwell which was eliminated by > a PzJg, but the crew survived and exited the tank. Two Turns later the > broken crew was KIA'ed by a Sniper. D3.43 states that an Armour > Leader ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form. So the > question is since the crew successfully exited the tank and the leader > ceased to exist before the crew was KIA'ed, does the 9-2 count towards > VPs as being KIA'ed or does he not count since he did not exist at the > time the crew was eliminated? > > Any help greatly appreciated. > > Bill "German needing every point he can muster" Cirillo > w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov > > > Well, instead of help, I'll offer my opinion. The leader still exists, because if that crew were to re-occupy another vehicle, the armor leader would still be present. But he is not represented by a counter of his own (probably to avoid players attempting to use such in the manner of an infantry leader). I say if the crew is eliminated, the other player gets the points for the crew and the armor leader. If the other player was not aware of the presence of the armor leader yet, I would say that there is no need to give him the VP for the armor leader NOW, but rather you can inform him at the end of the game. All this is just my opinion. A Q and A needs to be sent to see what the correct interpretation is. This has happened to me too, and I handled it in this manner. Mike Clay ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: Re: VP Question Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 10:12:26 CET Hi, everyone "William Cirillo" wrote: >A question has come up in a game of "Cold Crocodiles" that Kyle Curle >and I are currently playing concerning the VP "worth" of the 9-2 >Armour Leader. The 9-2 was in a Cromwell which was eliminated by >a PzJg, but the crew survived and exited the tank. Two Turns later the >broken crew was KIA'ed by a Sniper. D3.43 states that an Armour >Leader ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form. So the >question is since the crew successfully exited the tank and the leader >ceased to exist before the crew was KIA'ed, does the 9-2 count towards >VPs as being KIA'ed or does he not count since he did not exist at the >time the crew was eliminated? > >Any help greatly appreciated. Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) then wrote: >The AL is part of the crew and would exist again if the crew were to >re-crew another vehicle. Therefore it died with the crew and 3 extra VP >should be awarded. > >Fred Mike Clay then wrote: >Well, instead of help, I'll offer my opinion. >The leader still exists, because if that crew were to re-occupy another >vehicle, the armor leader would still be present. But he is not >represented by a counter of his own (probably to avoid players attempting >to use such in the manner of an infantry leader). I say if the crew >is eliminated, the other player gets the points for the crew and the armor >leader. If the other player was not aware of the presence of the armor >leader yet, I would say that there is no need to give him the VP for the >armor leader NOW, but rather you can inform him at the end of the game. > >All this is just my opinion. A Q and A needs to be sent to see what the >correct interpretation is. This has happened to me too, and I handled >it in this manner. > >Mike Clay I found this in the Q&A-file: A26.21 Is "A leader" (3rd Sentence) also an armor Leader (as long as he is in his AFV - D3.43) ? A. Yes. {FS} I don't know if this answers the above question since I'm not 100% sure what rule A26.21 is about since I don't have the rulebook with me. But I think it defines CVPs for different kind of units and in that case the above Q&A implies that you only gte CVP for an Armor Leader if he is killed while inside his AFV. Just my opinion anyway. Greetings, Klas Malmstrom ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:48:51 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: The index [Copied to ASL list] Hi Tom, Some program somewhere has messed up your index file. Starting with the Elite entry (not before that, strangely) many lines have been wrapped in horrible ways, introducing equal signs at the end of the first part. I'll try to use a bit of search-and-replace on the thing and put it in the archive as ASLindex.new.Z, but you might like to send me a new version to be sure. Bas. ----- From: etxngni@aom.ericsson.se (Nils-Gunnar Nilsson TM/PI 82338 2582) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 11:05:09 +0100 Subject: Re: La Gleize, AAR Hi, The Recontres 94 tournament in La Gleize was indeed a lot of fun and a great experience. The tenth, and missing, nation from Brunos fine account of the tournament is Sweden as Bernt Ribom, Patrik Manlig and I took the long trip to Belgium. But it was well worth it, just to see so many ASLers at the same time and meet all these nice people. Philippe Leonard and the other tournament arrangers didn't emphasize the competetive side of the tournament. There were no seeding, you were free to play anyone and only the win/loss ratio at the end counted ( a 1-0 result was worth as much as a 4-0 result ). Having said this the winners were ( tataTAM!! ) - Team Sweden! :-), with a 5-0, 4-0 and 4-2 record with one of the french teams second with a 4-0, 1-0 and 2-1 record. ( I think these were the results at least, I'm sure someone will correct me... ) Both teams won both their KGP (new)campaign games. I think winning the tournament wasn't foremost in the attendants minds. I, at least, didn't start to think about the possibility of us winning until I played my fifth game and had a 4-0 record. At that time I understood that we had a good chance. Some impressions: I think the Stoumont campaign in ASL News #28 is much better than the one in the module. Lower unit density and sudden death victory conditions makes the campaign much more playable and fun. The scenario "Devils in the graveyard" was very fun, and works well as a second introduction (Chapel St Anne as the first) scenario to KGP gaming. This scenario features an initially infantry only attack over open ground versus Americans equipped with goodis like one bow flamethrower mounted Sherman and three more Shermans. All in all a unique experience to me. Here in Sweden, if you want a tournament you have to arrange it yourself, and then maybe eight people will come... :-(. Happy Holidays! Nils-Gunnar ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 08:22:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: TOT? GSTK? Does anyone have information on the deployment of Sturmpanzers on the Eastern Front? You know the sturmpanzer, the one with the boxed 11 AF and the 150 gun. I'd like to know if any were attached to 1st Panzer Division, 1st SS Panzer Division (LAH), 16th Panzer Division or 17th Panzer Division in early 1944. I believe they were deployed as schwere Artillerie Abteilungen or schwere SPA Abteilungen. I need a reference or citation to the above, too. Cheers, and have some holiday cheer, too. Jeff ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:36:38 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Schwerpunkt! Enclosed is a little Holiday gift, a new scenario fresh off the press. I think you're gonna like it. It's Part I of a four Part design. I hope to get to Part II over the break. If you play it, PLEASE send me your comments as it improves my concept of play balance. Cheers, Jeff Ps. I think this slightly favors the Russians but it truly depends on German strategy, and not having your 6 yr old roll snake eyes at inopportune times. It's also fairly quick. I've played it solitaire three times and each time was under 2 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SCHWERPUNKT! Hill 239, east of Lysyanka, mid morning 16 February, 1944: The battles on the Dnieper had been bitter and costly. The salient at Cherkassy was the last crossing still held by the Germans. The Russian armored pincers had had torn past the salient boldly netted a pocket containing six and half divisions of the German XI and XLII Army Corps. It fell on the armored fist of the III Panzer Corps to relieve the pocket and save the 56,000 men that were trapped within. Due to Hitler's orders the Germans had wasted time on a flank attack to the north, but soon the 1st Panzer Division redirected the action. In conjunction with Lieutenant Colonel Baeke's schwere Panzer Abteilung, the division made a thrust to capture the high ground of Hill 239. The hill dominated the surrounding steppe; its capture was critical to the breakout of the forces in the cauldron. AFTERMATH: The heavy tanks of Baeke's regiment engaged the Soviet 5th Guard Tank Army in a desperate struggle for the hill. Russian tanks counterattacked from the northern road, and the eastern and southern forests. Over 70 T34s were destroyed in the ensuing battle. At last the German attack was brought to a standstill. Baeke's regiment and the 1st Panzer Division had been stopped. VICTORY CONDITIONS: The German player wins by controlling all of the level two hexes at game end. MAPBOARDS N /\ || +-----+-----+ Only hexrows O - GG are in play. | | | | | | |_____|_____| |xxxxx|xxxxx| |xxxxx|xxxxx| |xxx14|xxx18| +-----+-----+ TURN RECORD CHART: Russian sets up first The game is 8 turns long. ------------------------------------------------------------ German moves first Oz Balancing System G3: G2 + have Russian Reinforcement group 3 enter turn 2. G2: G1 + add a 9-2 Armor Leader to the Russian OB. G1: Demote the German 10-3 to a 9-2. R1: Remove a 2-2-8 and the 152 ART from the Russian OB. R2: R1 + add German Air Support in the form of Stukas. R3: R2 + Exchange the SU85s for SU122s. GERMAN FORCES Advance elements of the Armored Group Frank (1st Panzer Division) and Heavy Panzer Regiment Baeke enter on west edge of board: 6 x Pz V, 6 x PzVIE(L), 10-3, 10-2, 2x9-1 RUSSIAN FORCES Anti-tank elements of the 5th Guard Tank Corp set up on board 18: 3 x 2-2-8, 2 x 85L ART, 152 ART Reinforcement group 1: enter Turn 1 south edge of board 18: 3 x SU152, 5 x SU85, 10-2 Reinforcement group 2: enter Turn 2 north edge of board 18: 6 x T34 M43, 8-1 Reinforcement group 3: enter Turn 3 east edge of board 18: 3 x SU152, 5 x KV-85, 9-1 SPECIAL RULES 1. EC are wet with a moderate wind blowing to the southeast. 2. A strange thaw had descended over the battlefield. During the day, the earth was mud, but at night it froze solid. Mud is in effect, but vehicles will not bog while offboard. 2. Sunken roads do not exit. 3. The 1st Panzer Division and the 5th Guard Tank Army are elite (C8.2). All German AFVs have a ML of 9. Carell, P. 1966. Scorched Earth. Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 652 pp. (Part 7: Cherkassy, pages 465-505). ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven C. Petras" Subject: SFF Debate Another lurker leaps into the fray... A message was posted by Rick White on this topic in which he mentioned that hic group was working on an impulse movement system for ASL. Back before ASL (does anyone remember?) there was published in the General just such a thing for SL. Each player had chits that had either a "M" or "F" on them that he placed on his units at the beginning of the turn during an "Orders Phase" (or something like that). A unit could then either only fire or move depending on it's order. I beleive either side could prep fire and then during the movemnt phase a table was consulted to determine the order of movement, I believe this was based on the number of movement chits issued. Anyway the system worked well for SL and I've tried it several times with ASL and didn't encounter any problems. I'm not an expert but the only problem I see is the increased counter density. I'm sure the more learned people on this list would be better equiped to determine it's consequences in ASL. Sorry I don't remember the issue#, I'm at work. I believe the issue had Circus Maximus as it's feature. Perhaps this could be transferred to ASL, I always thought it was cool and more realistic than having your troops standing around/knee-jerk reacting for half of the time. This is way to long for a first post so I'll quit while I'm ahead Steve ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 11:16:55 EST From: Jim_Doughan@ccmail.prod.susq.com (Jim Doughan) Subject: Re[2]: Set DC First Fire ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Set DC First Fire Author: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" at Internet Date: 12/19/94 6:04 PM (Snip) On 19 Dec 1994, Jim Doughan wrote: > Am I correct in assuming that a Set DC may *not* be exploded as > first fire during the opponent's MPh? If it may, does it leave > residual FP? On 19 Dec 1994 Tim S. Hundorfer replied: No! The ASLRB says that a set DC may be detonated during "any friendly fire phase", which, one assumes, would mean as ff as well. (A23.7) Unfortunately, the ASLRB is less clear about what would happen afterward. If you assume that it is handled the same way as a thrown DC, there is still nothing in the rules about RFP. Perhaps a Q&A on this? In my RB campaign, we play it that it leaves no RFP, just rubble :-). At any rate, this way it is more tense (and more rewarding) to wait until FF. >> Perhaps I am being to literal with the ASLRB, but First Fire occurs >> during the opponents MPh, *not* a friendly fire phase. To me this >> means you must wait until DFph to explode. This interpretation >> explains the absence of residual fire ramifications in (A23.7) >> A justification would go a little like this -- a set DC targets a >> structure (bridge or building), not an enemy. It's not a bunch of >> claymores (sp?). Therefore it's use during FF is prohibited. If, >> however the enemy chooses to hang around for DFPh, well, that's >> another story. They may find the DC (dud) through numbers, or they >> may get their faces blown off. It seems like a reasonable story >> to me. >> I asked the question because I wasn't sure if phase was defined in >> the ASLRB anywhere or if FF was a phase or not. I know the ASLRB >> can be very conceptual at times. >> Thanks again, >> Jim ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:01:33 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Re: Schwerpunkt! I have been playing them as Pz V ausf. G, the black MP. My notes indicate that they were in use at that time. On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Brent Pollock wrote: > > Jeff: > > The Pz V's are Ausf. D, right? > > Brent Pollock > ----- From: "Al Boning" Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:54:25 EST Subject: Re: Simultaneous ASL I have given some thought to the notion of a semi-simultaneous fire/move system for ASL in the vein of AH's "Tobruk". As such the players would alternate activating a unit. Once activated a unit would either fire or move. Such a system would merge both players' Prep Fire Phase, Movement Phase and Defensive Fire Phase into one phase. The players' Advancing Fire, Rout, Advance and Close Combat phases would be merged into their respective phase. The fly in the ointment is that in phased ASL a game turn gives a given unit two opportunities to Rally, Recover a Support Weapon, make a Repair Attempt, etc. and one of these opportunities is lost in simultaneous ASL. Play testing may reveal that this would not imbalance a given scenario but I suspect that the effect would be equivalent to shortening the simulated turn length of two minutes by about half and may therefore entail some adjustment to the relative difficulty of successfully completing those actions that occur in the Rally Phase or increase the number of turns for a scenario. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Al ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: VP Question Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:10:18 PST Klas Malmstrom writes: > I found this in the Q&A-file: > > A26.21 Is "A leader" (3rd Sentence) also an armor Leader (as long as > he is in his AFV - D3.43) ? > A. Yes. {FS} > > I don't know if this answers the above question since I'm not 100% sure > what rule A26.21 is about since I don't have the rulebook with me. > > But I think it defines CVPs for different kind of units and in that case > the above Q&A implies that you only gte CVP for an Armor Leader if he is > killed while inside his AFV. Just my opinion anyway. No, that's not definitive. The person asking the question limited the question to asking about the case where the armor leader is still in the AFV. We don't know what the answer would be if the crew is outside the AFV. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: TOT? GSTK? Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:19:34 PST Brian writes: > Umm. Uh huh. Doesn't anyone think that AH is going to be PISSED that someone > puts out a HASL Arnhem module while they're working on The Third Bridge, to > be released in '95 if the Gods of ASL get their butts in gear? Quite possibly. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that if I had GSTK I'd pass up the AH offering, which will probably have significantly greater scope. > >In GSTK you'll experience the punishment that the British level on the > >unprepared SS, who must first contain the Red Devils in order to kill them. > > The SS were unprepared? When? Perhaps the Arnhem garrison was overwhelmed but > I don't recall the SS being overwhelmed. Perhaps someone who knows more about > the battle could post a brief synopsis since I don't have time to go to the > library? 8) Actually, from what I recall the SS units in the area were there for rest and refitting. Some of the SS units were also pretty rotten (SS Nordland in particular stands out in my mind as being pretty close to the bottom of the barrel... also, take a look at the SS troops in "Tettau's Attack"). > So, my real question is "who are these guys"? Out of the blue, at least the > electronic blue, comes TOT with lots of good press, now these guys (or are > these guys TOT guys?). Is there some Left Coast ASL uprising? If so, GO > FOR IT, the more the merrier for us fanatics! I don't know who they are. I suspect they're also Southern California ASL Club people, but since I've never actually been to any of the "meetings," just a couple of tournaments, I don't really know. They're NOT the same people who did ToT; Mark Neukom and John Knowles are the primary forces behind that (between the two of them they designed all of the scenarios in ToT). -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 14:23:58 -0500 From: jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com (J. R. Tracy) Subject: ASL == ASL Feeling curmudgeonly, I have to comment on the SFF/skulk/sim-move debate: The turn sequence mechanics are at the heart of ASL as we know it. Altering something as fundamental as SFF is interesting from a game design point of view, but irrelevant from an ASL point of view, IMHO. If you change a key mechanic such as SFF, or somehow construct a way to penalize/prevent 'skulking', well, you no longer have ASL. You may still have an interesting game, maybe even a better game, but definitely a different game. Tinkering is fun, but I honestly feel the system as it stands meets my criteria for 'fun' and am at peace with its limitations as a simulation. There are niggling inconsistencies that demand resolution, and I'd rather see these addressed before moving on to super-advanced squad leader. Again, JMHO. Take care, (the other) JR ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:02 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: From the Laddermeister Archives: The Century Club Hey Guys Here is an addendum to the Year End Ladder Award Phase. Annoncing the members of the 1994 Century Club. These are the ladder players who have been on the list for the entire year and wound up at least 100 points higher at the end of 1994 than at the end of 1993. The Evel Knievel Big Jump Award goes to Warren Smith at +217 points, shattering the mark of +140 set last year by Glenn Elliott. Other members of the Century Club are: Patrik Manlig +189 Jean-Luc Bechennec +182 Chuck Powers +175 Adrian Earle +160 Rusty Shields* +159 Bret Hildebran +145 Carl Fago* +130 Doug Gibson +122 Dave van Kan +107 Pedro Faria +107 Mike Seningen +106 * - denotes second year in a row Note this is only open to those who were on the list for the entire year. Much thanks to Tom for keeping on top of aall this... Dan ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 14:53:40 -0600 (CST) From: JEFF ROBERTS Subject: Peiper's Prelude OB > My comments regard the order of battle. Was the 99th Infantry division > a combat experienced unit? My guess is no. My feeling is that this was > a completely green unit. If my guess is correct, then I would suggest > using a mix of 666's and green american squads with an ELR of 2. > Also, the engineers are represented by 747's. Was this unit a combat > engineer unit, or was it a construction engineer unit? If combat engineers,, > then I think 747's would be okay. If construction engineers, I wouldn't have > represented them by elite squads, especially since they are on the defensive > and acting as infantry, something I'm sure construction engineers weren't > very keen about. > > Mike Clay > analytical chemist, ASL and computer wargamer Mike, You raise some valid points here. Here's my reply. Regarding the infantry, I chose a mix of 6-6-7s and 6-6-6s because: 1. While relatively inexperienced, the 99th Division gave a pretty good accounting of itself in the Bulge. 106th Division they're not. 2. Peiper's Prelude takes place on the third day of the battle. There have already been opportunities for the truly green to triple-break their way toward the Meuse or a German POW camp. 3. Along the same lines, the initial shock of the offensive is past. American units still in the line know what they're up against, and have the resolve to face the 1-SS Panzer Division head-on. That takes no small amount of determination in itself. Furthermore, knowledge of nasty German behavior involving dressing in American uniforms, or the Malmedy massacre (which had happened the day before) likely heightened their resolve. 4. Given the high amount of SS-firepower, the 3 ELR seems to provide ample opportunity for the squads to disintegrate upon the loss of a key man (be it Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, or whomever). That there might still be a 90-day wonder running around ready to mess things up is evidenced by the 6+1 with the engineers, which brings me to your other point. Regarding the engineers, I chose 7-4-7s because 1. Reason #1 above reiterated. Engineers gave Peiper fits throughout the offensive. And Reason #3. Resolve and determination. 2. Mostly, though, I chose 7-4-7s because of the SIZE of unit they're to represent. An American engineer platoon had 13 more men than an infantry counterpart. There are simply more men in these 7-4-7 squads. 3. That these men would not be as adept with their weapons as standard infantry I concede. But consider the fact that each squad has four or five more men, yet only one more utterly (IFT) or largely (IIFT) irrelevant firepower factor than a standard squad, and it makes more sense. 4. For what its worth, I for a time considered using 5-4-6s with a special SSR allowing them to place DC without penalty, and I struggled with this deci- sion quite a bit. Perhaps it would be better to represent the engineers as four 5-4-6s and a 2-3-6 instead of three 7-4-7s. Simply having more units to cover more German approaches might well offset the loss in morale .... One final note regarding playability. Throughout it all, I tried to give the American units considerable benefit of doubt regarding morale, in part because they face a rather daunting task. Even with the current OB, the American is still outnumbered and outclassed by the 6-5-8s and 8-3-8s of the Germans. Trying to stop Peiper with 5-3-6s seems a bit much to ask. Thanks for your comments. I welcome further comments from the list. Jeff Roberts P.S. Kudos to Kevin Serafini who correctly identified that Peiper's Prelude is in fact a remake/translation of the old PanzerLeader Scenario 14, Bulge:Thrust. ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 16:14:10 EDT Subject: Re: Schwerpunkt! On Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:59:01 PST, Doug Gibson wrote: >I'm a bit curious about this scenario... it looks interesting, but there are a >couple of odd things I noticed. First of all, you give the Germans a dozen >tanks, and some infantry leaders (not armor leaders), but nothing else. My mistake. All of the leaders (Russian and German) should be Armor Leaders. >Also, this may make it >difficult for the Germans to actually control all of the level two hexes, >since I believe a vehicle only controls a hex while it is in the hex, not >after it moves on. Are they intended to have to abandon vehicles to get MMC >to control hexes? To be honest, I'd forgotten about the rule that AFVs only control the hex they occupy. This can be corrected in the scenario by exchanging the VC for "The Germans must be the last to occupy all of the level two hexes." This is a tank battle, no ifs, ands, buts. To all the Netters: Thanks for your comments. I can see that I was a little hasty in sending this scenario out. The errata are: (1) All leaders are armor leaders. (2) Use Pz VG not Pz VD (3) Vehicles will not bog while _offboard._ This is primarily to insure that all forces come into play (and probably noted in the ASLRB). (4) The German player must be the last to occupy all of the level two hexes. Gack! So much for my proof reading! Cheers, Jeff ----- From: "Granville, Tycho" Subject: AAR: Counterattack on the Vistula Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 14:26:00 PST Playing the Germans, I figured I had to be extremely aggressive, taking the stone building and being close to taking the 2 bridges before the Stalin tanks came on. Besides, who wants to skulk with KING TIGERS! So I sent a halftrack, both trucks, and 1 tank up the board 5 wooded road while the remainder (1 tank, 4 halftracks) assaulted the board 4 farm complex. All the infantry entered as passengers. The 1st halftrack went screaming around the corner in the board 5 woods, smack into 3 628s, a leader and an ATR. The Russians panicked and fired to early -- missing with the ATR, FF and SFF as our valient boys overran them. The Tiger came up next, stopping adjacent and breaking the remnents of the stack with MG fire. In the RtP the whole stack died for failure to rout. To the south, the infanty dismounted out of sight of the farm complex, then advanced to within 150-200 meters. The Tiger rolled up CE, drawing lots of ineffective fire. The Russians sent reinforcements into the woods, and tried to slow the German advance on the farm in thier turn. One Russian leader, thinking his troops were following him, advanced into CC with the Tiger tank. On releizing he was alone he discovered the better part of valor and faded back into the woods (ie, he made his ambush roll and withdrew). On the second turn half of the defenders of the farm house broke, and I sent empty halftracks around the north and south flanks to cause DM and cut rout routes. Unfortunatly, the Russian ATG dropped HIP (it was in the grainfield next to the farmhouse) and blew up 2 of them. German infantry advanced to within 40-80 meters of the farmhouse. In the woods I more CC broke out, but the Russians were able to slip away again. In the Russian turn, most of the defenders around the farmhouse broke, In the woods they counterattecked, encircling (but not breaking) a German squad with PBF, and CC'ing an empty halftrack to no effect. On the third turn the remainder of the Russians around the farmhouse broke, including the ATG crew (who went down from captured HMG fire :)), and we advanced into the building. In the woods the 628 in CC with the halftrack went down to TPBF, but the last 2 Russian squads held out. So we sent in the Tiger for some PB fire. The only Russian to find a PF reduced himself with a '12'! But the last 1.5 squads held out .... Russian prep fire, turn 3: The squad finds the correct end of a PF, fires, hits, and BLOWS MY TIGER TANK TO HELL !!! (a TK roll of 4) End of game, Russian win on CVP. I love this game !! Tycho ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 17:43:10 CST From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen) Subject: Re: AAR: Counterattack on the Vistula > The Russians sent reinforcements into the woods, and tried to slow the > German advance on the farm in thier turn. One Russian leader, thinking his > troops were following him, advanced into CC with the Tiger tank. On > releizing he was alone he discovered the better part of valor and faded back > into the woods (ie, he made his ambush roll and withdrew). > Note the leader need not roll before he knows the fate of his troops in the PAATC. ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 16:28:25 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: AAR: Counterattack on the Vistula > > > > The Russians sent reinforcements into the woods, and tried to slow the > > German advance on the farm in thier turn. One Russian leader, thinking his > > troops were following him, advanced into CC with the Tiger tank. On > > releizing he was alone he discovered the better part of valor and faded back > > into the woods (ie, he made his ambush roll and withdrew). > > > Note the leader need not roll before he knows the fate of his troops in the PAATC. Since the leader doesn't even take a PAATC he can want until his troops roll their PAATC then if enough pass he can advance into CC after his men. Fred > > > ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 17:41:12 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Arnhem CG d> Red Barricades you'll lose it at ARNHEM. Rewrite history, d> right another Montgomery wrong, and turn an [sic] d> humiliating British defeat into a victory for the free Why the "[sic]"? When preceding a word that begins with an "h", "a" becomes "an". Doesn't have to, but it is accepted usage, especially in Canada and the UK. d> Anyway, that's what it says. I don't know anything more d> about it than that, although I'm pondering ordering it. d> I'm a bit dubious, since the map seems a bit on the small d> side (20x28 inches is slightly less hexes than two standard d> boards at the one inch hex scale), but it might be d> worthwhile. Hard to say. $15 seems a little steep compared to the fabulously low price we've become accustomed to paying for amateur 'zines, I suppose. But then, we spend twice that going out for an evening, so stay home instead of going out for a few beers, and you've saved the bucks to buy it with! -Grant. ... Blessed are the censors, for they shall inhibit the earth -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Arnhem CG Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 17:35:09 PST Grant Linneberg writes: > d> Red Barricades you'll lose it at ARNHEM. Rewrite history, > d> right another Montgomery wrong, and turn an [sic] > d> humiliating British defeat into a victory for the free > > Why the "[sic]"? When preceding a word that begins with an "h", "a" > becomes "an". Doesn't have to, but it is accepted usage, especially in > Canada and the UK. That was in ToT... I was just quoting it. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 22:23:10 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: RE: SFF Change Tom Reppetti wrote: >If the attacker is racing a bunch of assault engineers loaded with >DC's toward the Victory Condition bridge, it's bizarre to imagine >the defenders to be more concerned with the piddly sapper HS who >crawled up adjacent. The defenders are only more concerned with the HS after they've already First Fired. If the omniscient player can see that a bunch of assault engineers are within a MPh of the VC bridge, why fire at the HS that is not a threat to win the game? If the attacker has forced the defender into a situation where the units controlling or protecting the VC can be neutralized by a single HS, he deserves to win. Tom: >IMO, SFF incorporates another artificial game mechanic that has a >much more damaging effect on the game than does skulking. And the >SFF rule needs to be changed. Don't expect the rule to be changed. After all, AH hasn't made the IIFT official eventhough there is significant acceptence of the variant among players. The half-squad "slug catchers" do come at some cost to the attacker. To be effective at drawing fire they are usually attractive targets, so they are often subjected to negative DRM attacks, meaning high casualties ("Pleeease Mr. Custer...I don't wanna go"). Also, generating a bunch of HS can have a erosive effect on the attacker's FP and range. And the defender may not take the bait, leaving your assault exposed to First Fire anyway, and a HS sitting in a vulnerable position to be picked off or captured later. The changes proposed to the SSF rule would increase the effectiveness of defensive fire. As others have pointed out, defensive fire is already substantially more potent than Prep Fire. SFF is basically a bonus after a FG has made its initial defensive fire attack, placed RFP, and may possibly have a MG with retained ROF. Instead of changing the rules, maybe scenario designers need to take this tactic into consideration when writing VC. More VC's with casualty limits for the attacker would give him reason to pause before sending hapless HS's to their doom. Or scenario defenders should have a little more HIP capability so the attacker can't be so sure that he's safe from all defensive fire. I haven't read today's mail yet, so I hope this isn't too redundantly repetitive... Steve ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 23:04:38 -5 Subject: RE: SFF Change From: SKyle26160@aol.com > Don't expect the rule to be changed. After all, AH hasn't made the > IIFT official eventhough there is significant acceptence of the > variant among players. Hmmm, the IIFT looks official to me. It was printed as a variant in an annual. It is even listed on the ASOP as a variant. That's about as official as variants get! +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 04:33:00 UTC Subject: Ho Ho Ho, Now I got a machine Tom wrote: > Just in time for Christmas, I have sent the new index to Bas asking him >to post it on carlo for the world to see. >rule before. It is wonderful, more complete than you'd ever hoped. Since we GEnie folks don't have good access to file I would sure like to see a GEnieternet person load that file into the GEnie Library. +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Time goes, you say? Ah no! : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : Alas, Time stays, we go. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Henry Dobson : : PO Box 547, Norman, OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 23:50:55 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: Placing Rubble I'm currently finishing a game of "Among the Ruins", and would be interested if anyone has given much thought about the pre-setup rubble placement. Its not a big deal I guess, but there must be some logical way to use the rubble. Several other scenarios have this type of rule. The only thing halfway original I could think of was using some to rubble stairways so if the Americans set up in the 2nd level buildings they'd have to scale to get down. Other ideas I've thought of since then were large rubble areas that are dificult to move through, and knocking down buildings to create better LOS. Any demolition experts out there? BTW, my post regarding the SFF debate may have been a little long. If so, I apologize. I'm still getting the hang of this internet stuff. Like what's the best way to deal with all this mail? Steve ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:55:27 -0500 From: KKnott@aol.com Subject: Re:Among the Ruins I'm in the middle of Among the Ruins at the moment. As the americans I'm being slaughtered. My opponent used the rubble to block the roads on either side leaving only the center two roads for my tanks. Also the rubble has opened up LOS tactics. At ground level his units are not visible from most of my Fire Groups. While others at level one are nailing me. Clever, though I haven't described it too well. Ken ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 05:44:00 UTC Subject: RE: SFF Change Carl wrote: >From: SKyle26160@aol.com >> Don't expect the rule to be changed. After all, AH hasn't made the >> IIFT official eventhough there is significant acceptence of the >> variant among players. >Hmmm, the IIFT looks official to me. It was printed as a variant in >an annual. It is even listed on the ASOP as a variant. >That's about as official as variants get! I am very proud to say I didn't bring up the very excellent table Carl refers to--the Incremental IFT or IIFT. It is just the best table around. The Hill saw value in it but just could not get to the point that a change to the ASLRB could be made so they did the next best thing....Official Variant (and as I have said so often it just doesn't make enough variation in the game results to have received the nasty reviews it has). I would add for any new folks....try it and you'll like it. (As Frosty says, "It's Great!") :-) In regard to the SFF thingee--its getting to the early level of the IIFT debate but with less, maybe no, good reason for change/debate. I look at the SFF tactic as a good and realistic one. It is reasonable in the "real world", if we can look at it that way, because the 1/2 squad that is "drawing the fire" of the defender jumped out of it's attack position at just about the same time as the squad(s) racing for the VCs jumped out of theirs. That is, this is a coordinated platoon attack (although full of risk if the defender is thoughful). If the defender gets spooked by the 1/2squad moving at them and shoots it's wad it is committed and focused on the most dangerous thing (in their mind)--the 1/2 squad. The defenders focus is certainly resonalble.....to not see, in game terms--not be able to fire beyond the first target, the other attackers. The defender in these instances, and they do happen quite often, must attempt to think ahead.... If he has a MG, then Fire Lane (save the squad FP)....If he has multiple squads, hope they are not stacked together (so as to avoid mandatory FG). I guess above all the defender must not get so focused on the near enemy, 1/2 squad, that he forgets what the mission is.....protecting the VCs. Hold that FF. I don't think there is any recourse to fix this "problem" and I think most players would not want it changed as we all use it and defend against it. I like the IIFT! Rah, Rah, Rah!! +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Time goes, you say? Ah no! : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : Alas, Time stays, we go. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Henry Dobson : : PO Box 547, Norman, OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 05:32:01 -0500 From: be051@freenet.carleton.ca (Vic Lewington) Subject: PBEM system Howdy, Is there any particular system being used for PB(E)M? I've decided to take the plunge and will be joining the Ladder soon, but I'd like to get a handle on the mechanics first. I have the system published in ATP a while back, and that is working quite well in a PBM game I have on the go. If some kind soul(s) could email me (direct) what's in use, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Vic -- Vic Lewington: "Mom rides a broom, dad has hooves, and you be051@freenet.carleton.ca people wonder why I have an attitude..." _Interviews_ (from the Elvish) ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 05:32:47 -0500 From: be051@freenet.carleton.ca (Vic Lewington) Subject: SFF Howdy, I don't have a problem with the existing DF mechanics. They are as good a way as any to sequentially deal with events that are more or less simultaneous. Sure it's annoying to not be able to fire at a valuable moving target just because (for example) there's a HS closer. No one forced you to fire at them in the first place. It becomes a matter of priorities. You have full access to your opponent's OB (barring DYO) _and_ VC and are free to examine any (unconcealed) stack in LOS. If he hasn't fired with the valuable units, and they're not tagged for Opportunity Fire, then odds are he's going to move them - so wait. That charging HS isn't going to be a problem; you can still thump it during Final Fire (as long as you're not tagged with a Final Fire counter, of course) if it's adjacent. How big a threat is it in the AFPh? Or in CC for that matter. I'll take CC vs a HS any day, if it means a chance to thump on a valuable stack, or perhaps (better still), discourage such a stack from moving in the first place. Or consider Spraying Fire, if the expected path of the valuable stuff is adjacent to the annoying unit. Sure, it won't be as effective, but that's the price you have to pay to cover all the bases. If a golden opportunity doesn't arise during the MPh, then you still have the DFPh to wreak havoc. If you can force the attacker to change his plans, then you've gained an advantage. The defender has a lot of options open to him; it's quite the challenge. Isn't that why we play this thing? (Uh-oh starting to get preachy. Time to shut up... ;) ) Just my $0.02 Ciao, Vic -- Vic Lewington: "Mom rides a broom, dad has hooves, and you be051@freenet.carleton.ca people wonder why I have an attitude..." _Interviews_ (from the Elvish) ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 09:03:34 -600 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Scenario trivia quiz answers Numbers (not including numbers like End of the Ninth) (11) - Mila 18, Defiance on Hill 30, Half a Chance, KP 167, Bridge of the 7 Planets, One Down Two to Go, Bread Factory #2, Hill 621, Six Came Back, Hill 253.5, Take Two Colors (7) - Red Packets, Red Star Red Sun, Bloody Red Beach, The Red House, Rocket's Red Glare, Beyond the Blue Beach, White Tigers Rivers (7) - In Sight of the Volga, Hitdorf on the Rhine, Tavronitis Bridge (I think), Counterattack on the Vistula, Fire on the Volga, Clash Along the Psel, The Dinant Bridgehead Animals (not counting Le Herisson) (14) - Birds of Prey, Clay Pigeons, Panthers in the Mist , Hedgehog at Piepsk, The Paw of the Tiger, Tiger Tiger, Alligator Creek, The Puma Prowls,Cat and Mouse, Cold Crocodiles, White Tigers, The Tiger of Toungoo, Swan Song, The Cat Has Jumped !'s (7) - Trapped!, Ambush!, Berserk!, They're Coming!, Avalanche!, Savoia!, Totsugeki! Possessives (14) - The Commissar's House, Gavin's Gamble , Cibik's Ridge ,Guryev's Headquarters ,Barkmann's Corner, Hube's Pocket,Timoshenko's Attack, Rocket's Red Glare, Shklov's Labors Lost,Aachen's Pall,Devil's Hill Strayer's Strays, King's Castle, Tettau's Attack The X of Y (8) - The Liberation of Tulle, The Taking of Takrouna, The Dead of Winter,The Price of Impatience, The Agony of Doom ,The Penetration of Rostov, The Crux of Calais,The Tiger of Toungoo (No, The Paw of the Tiger is not eligible since "The Tiger" is two words) ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 08:59:34 -600 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Scenario Trivia Quiz Time for some scenario trivia. The following scenario trivia quiz only covers AH-published scenarios from the modules, Annual, and General. The format is this: Name all of the scenarios whose names have something in common. For example, if the category were "Death", you'd have to name all the scenarios with the word "Death" in the title. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll put the number of answers in parentheses, so the category would be "Death (4):". The answers for this category would be Sylvan Death, Shadows of Death, Silent Death, and Death at Carentan. All set? Answers will be given in the next message titled "Scenario trivia quiz answers". Hopefully I didn't miss any correct answers. Numbers (not including numbers like End of the Ninth) (11): Colors (7): Rivers (7): Animals (not counting Le Herisson) (14): !'s (7): Possessives (like Patton's Prayers, if that were eligible) (14): The X of Y (like The Motti of Suomassalmi, if that were eligible. X and Y are SINGLE words) (8): Good luck! Tom ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 09:37:06 PST From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: Computer wargame, review wanted Hi folks, This isn't directly about ASL so I'll keep it short. Do any of you have a PC gamed called "Cross of Iron"? I saw it in the computer store yesterday and it looked interesting. The overhead views of building areas looked a LOT like an ASL map. If anyone has this game, I'd appreciate a quick review. Is it fun? Does the computer player play reasonably well (assuming there _is_ a computer player)? Please write me via email as this isn't really appropriate to the mailing list. Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 11:30:32 -600 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Woods-Gully question When a gully hex has woods or brush on both sides of it, the woods or brush are considered part of the gully depiction, as stated in Chapter K (page K10, paragraph 4). Does this mean that a same-level LOS which crosses ONLY THE GULLY part of such a gully-woods hex WITHOUT CROSSING THE GULLY LENGTHWISE is blocked? The example in Chapter K covers the situation where the LOS goes lengthwise down a gully-brush hex, and Da Sarge mentions that the Brush hindrance does apply even though the LOS never crosses a brush depiction because the brush is on both sides of the gully and is thus assumed to occupy the Gully itself. Now. Playing Panzers Marsche, LOS from 5X4 to 1I8. The LOS crosses the gully-woods hex 5X8, but ONLY along an edge of the gully depiction, not lengthwise down the gully. If one were to extend the woods depiction across the gully to join both sides of the woods in the Gully, the LOS would not cross the woods. But does Chapter K mean to say that the woods are supposed to run through the entire gully depiction and therefore the LOS is blocked? Guess common sense says that the woods really should only exist in the part of the gully that is between the woods depictions on either side of the gully, but it's an interesting nit to pick. Especially since there's a German MG nest who are very interested in this LOS. Tom ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:44:53 -0500 (EST) From: James D Shetler Subject: Unsubscribe and good-bye (for now) Howdy all, First, sorry to waste the band-width, but I deleted the original posting from this list a long time ago with sign-off instructions, etc. Please unsubscribe me! My wife and I moving to Ohio (Springfield) where I'll be working for some time to come. Another ape-shit librarian in an ape-shit world! Second, I'll be back on the net sometime in January, this time from home as well as work, so I'll finally be able to enter the PBEM arena. So, get ready! Now I can get clobbered (hi Paul) in the virtual world as well. Last, anybody on the net from the Springfield/Dayton area? If so, drop me a line. I'll be at this address until tomorrow, and will have my new account as of Jan.2. No longer a hillbilly from Pennsyltucky, Jim Shetler ----- From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) Subject: Re: Woods-Gully Question Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 11:04:51 -0800 (PST) Forwarded message: > From tqr@inel.gov Thu Dec 22 10:54:35 1994 > Message-Id: <9412221829.AA09658@mica.inel.gov> > Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 11:30:32 -600 > From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Woods-Gully question > > Tom's asked: > When a gully hex has woods or brush on both sides of it, the woods or > brush are considered part of the gully depiction, as stated in Chapter K > (page K10, paragraph 4). > [snip] > > Now. Playing Panzers Marsche, LOS from 5X4 to 1I8. The LOS crosses the > gully-woods hex 5X8, but ONLY along an edge of the gully depiction, not umm, by SSR, isn't the gully a Deep Stream? I can't imagine that the ASLRB is going to tell us that the woods are part of the stream, are they? I would play it (in fact I AM playing it - Hi Bahadir!) that the woods end where their depiction ends and that they do NOT follow the gully (stream in this case) all the way through. Of course, one could make the argument that the trees line the edge of stream.... :-) > lengthwise down the gully. If one were to extend the woods depiction > across the gully to join both sides of the woods in the Gully, the LOS > would not cross the woods. But does Chapter K mean to say that the woods > are supposed to run through the entire gully depiction and therefore the > LOS is blocked? > > Guess common sense says that the woods really should only exist in the > part of the gully that is between the woods depictions on either side of > the gully, but it's an interesting nit to pick. Especially since there's > a German MG nest who are very interested in this LOS. just my $.02 -Nadir ----- From: alberni@stat.ubc.ca Subject: luck Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 11:39:48 GMT-0:30 I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), I then hit it again (dud). It moved out of my LOS into the LOS of another 57L. I missed w/o rate and missed with the intensive fire. It then survived about 6 attacks against the exposed crew. It then melted a 57L with the right ft and broke 2 squads with the lest ft. I then critically hit it with another 57L. This time it burned. However it opened up a flank before its blessed existance came to an end. I also malfunction the hmg, 1 mmg and an lmg (later I destroyed the mmg). My opponent malfunctioned 2 panther ma's, 3 cmg's and 2 bmg's. So far he has disabled 1 bmg and repaired both ma's, 2 cmg's and a bmg. One good point is I killed a panther with a piat. Great scenario. Rick White Vancouver Canada ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:20:24 -0700 (MST) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: Re: luck In my current e-mail game with Magnus Hindsberger, Magnus has managed to Malf 3 Stuarts in 1 Game turn. Unbelievable. Perhaps more unbelievable, I think he's winning. ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 13:20:39 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: luck > I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed > existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. Fred [cut] > > Rick White > Vancouver Canada > ----- From: bprobst@melbpc.org.au (Bruce Probst) Subject: Re: TOT? GSTK? Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 08:24:56 -1000 In article <9412210451.AA13726@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov>, brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) wrote thusly about "TOT? GSTK?": >> Umm. Uh huh. Doesn't anyone think that AH is going to be PISSED that someone >> puts out a HASL Arnhem module while they're working on The Third Bridge, to >> be released in '95 if the Gods of ASL get their butts in gear? That sounds nice - but given the general paucity of new ASL material, there's probably room for both, even if they overlap in scope. How definite is the Hill version anyway? (It's the first I've heard of it, not that I'm necessarily well informed .) >> The SS were unprepared? When? Perhaps the Arnhem garrison was overwhelmed but >> I don't recall the SS being overwhelmed. Perhaps someone who knows more about >> the battle could post a brief synopsis since I don't have time to go to the >> library? 8) Any decent book on Market-Garden should point out that the Germans were absolutely and completely taken by surprise by the landings. (This is emphasised very strongly in "It Never Snows In September" particularly.) They had no defense plans as such, they pretty much made everything up as they went along. (Both SS divisions in the area were on rest and refit anyway.) Do you think Graebner would have driven across the bridge if he'd known what he was doing and what he was up against? (The initial German defense of the bridge was especially pathetic - everyone thought that "someone else" was defending it, with of course the final result that no-one was defending it, aside from some grand-dads doing sentry duty who ran for Germany as soon as they heard the British were coming.) Later on in the battle, when the SS had decided that the only way they were going to remove the British from the bridge was "feet-first" and proceeded to systematically demolish every building, they were really paying the British a high compliment: at one point when Model (I think) was complaining that the bridge clearance wasn't happening fast enough, the response was "but these British are Real Men". (Haven't you ever played a scenario and had a squad just resist _everything_ that was thrown against it? They're Real Men when that happens. For me, strangely enough, it's usually conscript squads that turn out to be Real Men, while my elite forces run for mummy as soon as someone looks at them ....) One of my favorite verbal exchanges from the battle, as reported in "A Bridge Too Far", was an SS soldier saying to a captured British soldier "You fight very well. I fought in Russia and have done much street-fighting, it is clear that your troops have had similar experiences." The response was "No, this was our first attempt. We'll be much better next time." >> North Bank with 150mm OBA? I hope the Brits get plenty of -2 and -3 leaders >> to do some damage to the Tigers. I thought the Germans had regular Tiger tanks >> at Arnhem. Again, probably wrong, but I don't recall seeing any KT pictures. >> 8) Where is that "Illustrated book of really cool battles..." I'm not sure if there were any Tigers at Arnhem, but there were certainly a handful of King Tigers late in the battle. Most of the AFVs were Mk III's and StgIII's, though. Apparently they were very vulnerable to PIATs and 57mm AT guns . My only concern with a module like this is that play balance is going to be difficult, if historical accuracy is going to be kept. There will come a point when nothing happens in the game except for hordes of Germans blasting everything on the board, whether it moves or not. Presumably campaign victory will be similar to the classic "Storm Over Arnhem", where the final fate of the British is never in doubt: the question becomes, how long do they hold on? It's a bit sad, really, since no matter how long they hold on, reinforcements will never arrive .... The great tragedy of Arnhem is that all that heroism was completely wasted. Bruce Probst bprobst@melbpc.org.au MelbPC User Group CIS: 100033,3661 Melbourne, Australia ----- From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) Subject: Arnhem DYO Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 15:03:00 -0800 (PST) Hi guys, with all the talk about Arnhem, I thought I'd give you all a heads up for a great source of DYO ideas. It's a book by Martin Middlebrook entitled, "Arnhem 1944: The Airborne Battle". Unlike "A Bridge Too Far", Middlebrook's work only covers the fight in Arnhem and Oosterbeek. As a result, he covers it in great detail. gotta agree with Bruce, though, tragic waste of elan - should've landed the whole division right on the bridge, casualties be damned. BTW, how many of us who are interested in this battle would actually consider skipping the AH-version when if finally comes out only because we have an amatuer version? AH has us by the short hairs if you ask me. -Nadir ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:07:00 -0500 From: Doug.Williamson@DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com Subject: ASL Database--Request for Input and Volunteers Greetings! First off, let me thank you all for your comments on the previous version of the database. The most common comment I heard was "it is too detailed for my use." I hear you, but... The original designer intended the database to be detailed. For his own personal use, he wanted to be able to get really specific. Now, in some ways, the database is already less specific then he intended, because I didn't think we needed quite that much detail. However, it is obviously still too detailed for many of you. So, I plan a compromise. I intend to produce two versions of the database: one with all the detail in it and the second with many of the fields rolled up. The primary database will still be the detailed one, because it is much easier to remove detail than to try to add it later. I hope that should go a fair ways to satisfying most people. That said, I still need some input on how much detail to include. :) The original database broke AFVs out by specific type: heavy tank, light tank, medium tank, tank destroyer, etc. I started to roll these all up to the "Tanks" and "Halftracks" level, but then had to pause. One of the original example of use of the database was to find scenarios with Tiger tanks. Once rolled up, this will be impossible as there are a LOT of scenarios with "tanks" but only a very few with "heavy tanks." The problem with the detail comes at the time of entering the data: the only way to find the detailed tank designation is to refer to the DYO information in the ASLRB, which is a lot of work. So, the first question is: Is the added work of consulting the DYO data worthwhile for inclusion in the detailed version of the database? The second item is that the format of the database is rapidly approaching closure (more or less). Once that happens, I would like volunteers to help enter the scenario data into the database. I will be entering all of the Beyond Valor data myself as a test and sample. What I would like at this time are volunteers to enter scenario data from the other modules. ONLY OFFICIAL ASL MODULE SCENARIOS ARE TO BE ENTERED IN THIS FIRST ROUND. We will branch out to other sources after this first effort is completed. To volunteer, you need access to the module scenarios and to Dbase (III+ or IV) or another compatible database program. You will receive a partially completed database for your module which I will rely on you to complete. If interested, please contact me directly and let me know which modules you have access to. Just a word on timing. Obviously we are currently in the middle of the holiday season and I expect to get nothing done on this now. :) I will repost this message in early January and try to line up folks then. So think of this as an early warning. :) Thank you all very much for your attention. Doug Williamson Doug.Williamson @ DL-NOTES.SMTRW.LANGATE.sprint.com ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 17:00:36 -600 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Gun question Can a Gun at ground level in a building fire up the stairs at a first-level location in that hex? Tom ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 15:59:56 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Indo-China scenarios? All: Has anyone designed scenario(es) involving the French vs, Japanese in French Indo-China? Is such a scenario possible or did the French surrender without a fight? Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 17:06:10 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: luck On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Fred Timm wrote: > > I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed > > existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), > > A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. > > Fred > > [cut] > > > > Rick White > > Vancouver Canada Hello from Colorado, Rule C 7.35 states that any TK DR of 12 is a dud and has no effect. I looked in the CRITICAL HIT rules C 3.7 and I could not find anything that would supersede C 7.35. I'd like to find out where in the rules it states that a 12 DR on a CRITICAL HIT is not a dud. It has happened to me a few times. Bye.. Bill ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:06:47 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: luck Fred: [stuff deleted] > A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. Where the heck does it say that? In C7.35 it states: DUD: Any Original TK DR of 12 (regardless of ammunition or Target Type) has no effect. Footnote 15 does mention it either but does discuss "glancing blows" and "non-vital parts". Nothing in C3.72 (CH Resolution vs. Armored [sic] Target) indicates that Duds are ignored during CH resolution. Fred, your word is close to law on this net' - don't mess with my brain. Help! Brent Pollock ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:55:06 -5 Subject: Re: luck From: Frederick.Timm@eng.sun.com (Fred Timm) > > I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed > > existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), > > A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. Please cite a rules reference for this. It is in error. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:58:30 -5 Subject: Re: Gun question From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) > Can a Gun at ground level in a building fire up the stairs at a > first-level location in that hex? No, unless it is an AA Gun of less than or equal to 40mm. C2.6 +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 17:15:31 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Gun question Tom: > Can a Gun at ground level in a building fire up the stairs at a > first-level location in that hex? Yes...no...it depends - "C2.6 GUN DEPRESSION/ELEVATION: ...A Gun in a building hex...may fire at an ADJACENT higher-level target in its hex only if it is an AA Gun of <= 40mm..." Time to make dinner. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 21:02:09 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: RE: Gully LOS I need clarification on rule A6.3 (DEPRESSIONS). It says that units with a clear LOS between them through other continuous depression "hexsides" do not count those intervening Depression hexes in determining the necessary height advantage (to see INTO the Depression hex). In the illustrated example, reference is made to the Depression "depiction". B19.2 refers to the Depression "depiction" when checking LOS from units IN a gully hex to another non-adjacent gully hex. B19.51 uses the term "hexside" for LOS through a Crest-Depression hexside. These rules indicicate that a unit at ground level can see into a non-adjacent gully hex if its LOS crosses continuous depression hexsides, regardless of the actual gully artwork. However, a unit IN the gully must trace LOS through the gully artwork to see into another non-adjacent gully hex. I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation because the A6.3 illustration implies that the ground level unit also must see through the gully depiction. I would assume the wording of A6.3 takes precedence over the example, but I want to check it out with you guys. ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 21:20:20 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Re: Gun question On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Tom Repetti wrote: > > Can a Gun at ground level in a building fire up the stairs at a > first-level location in that hex? > > Tom Working without a net here, but I'm unaware of any piece of ordnance excepting a MTR or AA gun which would be capable of sufficient elevation. Hey, I'm at home, and my ASLRB is in easy reach. Here it is: checkout C 2.6, "Gun Depression/Elevation". "C2.6 Only mortars, AA Guns (2.22) and Guns capable of using AA fire may fire-at/affect a higher-level target if the range to that target is < the elevation difference between the firer's and the target's Location. Otherwise, a Gun may fire-at-affect a different-level target only if the range is => the elevation difference between them [EXC: cliff; B11.31-32]. A Gun in a building may not fire at an ADJACENT lower-level target in its own hex, and may fire at an ADJACENT higher level target in its hex only if it is an AA Gun of <= 40mm." I've snipped a reference to MGs and Gun-type SW. Enjoy. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com Advanced Squad Leader WWW home page: http://access.digex.net/~jappel/ASL.html ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 01:44:00 UTC Subject: Wind Change and Drifting Smoke Mild breeze in effect with blazes on board, so lots o' drifting smoke. Wind change DR results in change in wind direction. Question: when do drifting smoke counters realign to new wind direction? I can't find anything in The Book besides A24.61's reference to placing drifting smoke counters at start of AFPh. Thanks and Happy Holidays, Bob S. ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 02:39:00 UTC Subject: Re: TOT? GSTK? ======= To: DAG@WIFFIN.CHEM.UCLA ======= Sub: Re: TOT? GSTK? > I don't know who they are. I suspect they're also Southern California > ASL Club people, but since I've never actually been to any of the > "meetings," just a couple of tournaments, I don't really know. They're > NOT the same people who did ToT; Mark Neukom and John Knowles are the > primary forces behind that (between the two of them they designed all > of the scenarios in ToT). Gang, Doug is right re identifying "those guys" --but there ain't no meetings of the SCASL whatevers except the tourneys and some playing at TRW ---I work about 10 blocks from the Ed dude of GSTK and thunked that maybe i'd get this for my son for xmas. No luck --maybe 1-2 weeks for completion time on this item. so when i get i'll reveiw -- but don't expect the arnhem thingee until mid to late jan. for the out of state people. ron p.s. all you dudes with wives that "let" you play ASL -- yes i got a son that plays the "game" -- snicker. :)) ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 21:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Trouble with Lysator? Howdy all. I've been working on the WWW page and I'm having trouble linking to the lysator archive via Mosiac. Is anyone else having this problem, or should I look closer to home? thanks, John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com Advanced Squad Leader WWW home page: http://access.digex.net/~jappel/ASL.html ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:10:11 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: Re: SFF Change I said: >>Don't expect the rule to be changed. After all, AH hasn't made the >>IIFT official eventhough there is significant acceptence of the >>variant among players. Carl said: >Hmmm, the IIFT looks official to me. It was printed as a variant in >an annual. It is even listed on the ASOP as a variant. >That's about as official as variants get! Then John said: > I am very proud to say I didn't bring up the very excellent table Carl > refers to--the Incremental IFT or IIFT. Now hold on there guys...I wasn't trying to start that debate (honest), just making the point that the guys on The Hill are reluctant to re-write a significant aspect of the system. Changing SFF would be a much more controversial decision. Now, about the IIFT/IFT, if it were up to me I'd (transmission mysteriously cut short) ----- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:14:35 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Gavutu-Totombongo Campaign Game Howdy, I'm about to start a Gavutu-Totombongo Campaign Game. I blew up the boards and had them color copied (1.5x) to make play easier. Has anyone tried this venture? How have the Japanese faired? I'll be setting up the defense for the first day beginning Dec. 29, 1994 in Dillon, Colorado. Bye.. Bill ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 01:36:45 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: VP Question On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Klas Malmstrom wrote: > Hi, everyone > > "William Cirillo" wrote: > > >A question has come up in a game of "Cold Crocodiles" that Kyle Curle > >and I are currently playing concerning the VP "worth" of the 9-2 > >Armour Leader. The 9-2 was in a Cromwell which was eliminated by > >a PzJg, but the crew survived and exited the tank. Two Turns later the > >broken crew was KIA'ed by a Sniper. D3.43 states that an Armour > >Leader ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form. So the > >question is since the crew successfully exited the tank and the leader > >ceased to exist before the crew was KIA'ed, does the 9-2 count towards > >VPs as being KIA'ed or does he not count since he did not exist at the > >time the crew was eliminated? > > > >Any help greatly appreciated. > > Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) then wrote: > > >The AL is part of the crew and would exist again if the crew were to > >re-crew another vehicle. Therefore it died with the crew and 3 extra VP > >should be awarded. > > > >Fred > > Mike Clay then wrote: > > >Well, instead of help, I'll offer my opinion. > >The leader still exists, because if that crew were to re-occupy another > >vehicle, the armor leader would still be present. But he is not > >represented by a counter of his own (probably to avoid players attempting > >to use such in the manner of an infantry leader). I say if the crew > >is eliminated, the other player gets the points for the crew and the armor > >leader. If the other player was not aware of the presence of the armor > >leader yet, I would say that there is no need to give him the VP for the > >armor leader NOW, but rather you can inform him at the end of the game. > > > >All this is just my opinion. A Q and A needs to be sent to see what the > >correct interpretation is. This has happened to me too, and I handled > >it in this manner. > > > >Mike Clay > > I found this in the Q&A-file: > > A26.21 Is "A leader" (3rd Sentence) also an armor Leader (as long as > he is in his AFV - D3.43) ? > A. Yes. {FS} > > I don't know if this answers the above question since I'm not 100% sure > what rule A26.21 is about since I don't have the rulebook with me. A26.21 is about CVP. D3.43 says that an armor leader "ceases to exist once the crew takes counter form". That "ceases to exist" part is starting to bother me. Maybe it is their intention that no CVP should be awarded for the AL in this case. This question is one that could be answered either way depending on how you are "reading between the lines" of the ASLRB, because they are ambiguous about what should happen in this case. It will only be resolved by a question to the hill. But my opinion is that their intention is what I stated earlier, and that is how I would play it if it came up in one of my games again. > > But I think it defines CVPs for different kind of units and in that case > the above Q&A implies that you only gte CVP for an Armor Leader if he is > killed while inside his AFV. Just my opinion anyway. > The Q&A only states that CVP get awarded for the AL if he gets eliminated in his AFV. That doesn't mean you don't get CVP if he gets eliminated while with the crew counter. You could read the Q and A to mean either possible answer. This is only going to get resolved by an implicit question to the Hill. Mike Clay > Greetings, > > Klas Malmstrom >