-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:04:31 +0100
From: Bruno NITROSSO <Bruno.Nitrosso@der.edf.fr>
Subject: How many attacks during MPh?
One cannot attack during MPh a moving unit with the same unit
more than the movement factor spent there.... Seems easy for
a change. But, wait! there are some odd situations where I m
not sure what to do. Here are some of them :
1) Assault Movement : how many attacks? 4 for a MMC and 6 for a SMC?
Or just COT?
And what if first attacks breaks the unit? ASLRB says then unit is
no longer assault moving so if it is an open ground 1 pont hex no
more attacks are allowed? That would be a pitty to lose the now
-2DRM (FFNAM applies).
2) A unit placing smoke makes a dr 6 thusly ending his movement. How
many attacks?
3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
Just the fully-tracked COT?
4) A unit bypasses two hexsides but is only in LOS for the second one.
How many attacks? One (MF spent in LOS) or two (MF spent in the hex)?
5) A unit jumps past a wall and enter a pillbox disappearing from LOS.
One attack? No attack? Two attacks?
I hope you guys, old grognards from all over the world will be able
to help me out.
Thanks,
-Bruno
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:26:18 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> One cannot attack during MPh a moving unit with the same unit
> more than the movement factor spent there.... Seems easy for
> a change. But, wait! there are some odd situations where I m
> not sure what to do. Here are some of them :
>
> 1) Assault Movement : how many attacks? 4 for a MMC and 6 for a SMC?
> Or just COT?
> And what if first attacks breaks the unit? ASLRB says then unit is
> no longer assault moving so if it is an open ground 1 pont hex no
> more attacks are allowed? That would be a pitty to lose the now
> -2DRM (FFNAM applies).
From fuzzy memory there is a Q&A that answers this: COT+1, and that
would be regardless of whether the unit breaks or not.
> 2) A unit placing smoke makes a dr 6 thusly ending his movement. How
> many attacks?
Good one, I can't say.
> 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
> One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
> Just the fully-tracked COT?
Vehicular COT.
> 4) A unit bypasses two hexsides but is only in LOS for the second one.
> How many attacks? One (MF spent in LOS) or two (MF spent in the hex)?
First, bypass normally costs 1 MF per TWO hexsides, then even if you would
bypass three hexsides you would not spend both MF simultaneously. That means
the DEFENDER gets to attack once.
> 5) A unit jumps past a wall and enter a pillbox disappearing from LOS.
> One attack? No attack? Two attacks?
These are not simultaneous expenditures, so when the unit enters the hex
he can be attacked twice, and then it disappears into the pillbox.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 10:26:33 +0100
From: Johan Bergstroem <e89jb@efd.lth.se>
Subject: ? loss due to LOS from Truck
In a scenario that I am currently playing with Doug Gibson we have
got a problem with concealment loss.
Doug moved a concealed stack into a woods hex in LOS of one of my
Russian ZIS-5 trucks (in motion, but that does not matter).
The concealment rules say that for a move like this you will loose
concealment (?) if in LOS of a Good order ground unit. Is the
truck a Good order ground unit?
As it has MPs of it own it is anyway a unit.
It is not an aerial flying truck 8-).
. . =20
J o h a n B e r g s t r o m
e89jb@efd.lth.se
-----
From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:44:02 +0100 (MET)
>
> One cannot attack during MPh a moving unit with the same unit
> more than the movement factor spent there.... Seems easy for
> a change. But, wait! there are some odd situations where I m
> not sure what to do. Here are some of them :
>
> 1) Assault Movement : how many attacks? 4 for a MMC and 6 for a SMC?
> Or just COT?
COT. Always use the number of MF/MP actually used.
> And what if first attacks breaks the unit? ASLRB says then unit is
> no longer assault moving so if it is an open ground 1 pont hex no
> more attacks are allowed? That would be a pitty to lose the now
> -2DRM (FFNAM applies).
It is. Too bad...
> 2) A unit placing smoke makes a dr 6 thusly ending his movement. How
> many attacks?
One for same hex, two for adjacent hex SMOKE laying.
> 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
> One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
> Just the fully-tracked COT?
MP expenditure; may be fully-tracked or other, I guess (can only fully-tracked
AFV use Armored Assault ?).
> 4) A unit bypasses two hexsides but is only in LOS for the second one.
> How many attacks? One (MF spent in LOS) or two (MF spent in the hex)?
If bypassing in the open ground portion of an obstacle, you pay only one
MF for up to two hexsides (barring SMOKE or going up), so the answer is
obvious - one. Now, if you decide to Bypass for a third hexside (doubling
the Bypass cost), I'm not sure. It all depends if the MF expenditure is
simultaneous (and then you can fire for all MF expenditure at any vertex),
or you first spend one MF (one shot at any of the first three vertices), then
double it for the third hexside (one shot at any of the last two vertices).
> 5) A unit jumps past a wall and enter a pillbox disappearing from LOS.
> One attack? No attack? Two attacks?
>
No MF expenditure in LOS => no shot. Try a Snap Shot, but that's only one in
any case.
--
Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Changing of rules...
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:45:39 +0100 (MET)
David,
> What I would expect is for AH to publish the new rules and errata
> separately, for the benefit of people who want to play the game without
> buying every module. What I would also expect is for them to update the
> rulebook when new errata comes out, so that people who buy new rulebooks
> would have all of the current errata included.
Well, they kinda do. AFAIK, there is nothing that prevents you from
ordering the rule pages from AH separately. The catch is that you
generally can't buy 'em at your local hobby store, and that is pro-
bably not AH's fault.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Changing of rules...
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 11:10:01 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> Well, I used to think you were right, and toasted a whole lot of German
> vehicles in my last RB day, using MOL. Then, I read a comment on the list
> about the MOL rules being changed in the '93a Annual, and checked the
> thing. Prohibiting MOL usage in SFF/FPF may seem minor to you, but when
> MOL are the primary anti-tank weapon of over 70 Russian squads, I can assure
> you that a 1 in 3 chance of a MOL in SFF, right after you failed to kill
> an AFV with one in DFF, *does* make a difference. And that's *per squad*,
> if you don't stack. Believe me, the Germans didn't run adjacent to me very
> happily...
>
> Now, this looks like a massive case of A.2. The hordes of PzIII and the one
> PzIV will remain dead... (Actually MOL wasn't the only cause of armor
> casualties; the two 45LL AT Guns in fortified 2nd levels were pretty bad too)
Yup, that's proof that it DOES happen. AND it IS bad WHEN it happens. But
I still think some people have overreacted, because it hasn't happened
THAT much. (Sorry about the funky shift key - it does that sometimes).
Anyway, I must admit that *I* don't consider the MOL SFF/FPF change as a
major one. That's because I haven't ever used MOL in SFF/FPF... Well, as
a matter of fact, I have rarely used MOL at all. I simply didn't build
any tactics around being able to use MOL in SFF/FPF (or even at all) so
MOL would be an extra bonus at best. I most often forget to use it anyway.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:58:35 +0100
From: Bruno NITROSSO <Bruno.Nitrosso@der.edf.fr>
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
#Context (skip if aware of the initial post)
#------
#I posted a series of situations where I wasn t sure
#how many attacks could be made upon a moving unit.
#Patrick Manlig and Philippe Duchon have already answered
#me and I guess more answers will come in as the sun rises
#overseas (ie. america). I'll compile them all and made
#a tentative Q&A.
#Patrick and Philippe do not agree in many situations
#They do in one but I disagree with them! Here's my point:
#EndContext
> 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
> One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
> Just the fully-tracked COT?
Patrik Manlig and Philippe Duchon both say : Vehicular COT.
I m not that sure. The rules insist that if a vehicle uses less
MP than its allotment it is supposed to spend the spare MP in
the last hex. They say what really counts is the time that passed.
~~~~
So if a vehicle in armoured assault (say a Puma with 33 MP) just
spends 1MP on a road hex it should be possible to attack it
33 times not just once ! Otherwise, what a nice way of avoiding
an ennemy deadly cannon...
What do ya think?
-Bruno
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:40:25 +0100
From: etxngni@aom.ericsson.se (Nils-Gunnar Nilsson TM/PI 82338 2582)
Subject: Re: Changing of rules...
Hi,
> Yup, that's proof that it DOES happen. AND it IS bad WHEN it happens. But
>I still think some people have overreacted, because it hasn't happened
>THAT much. (Sorry about the funky shift key - it does that sometimes).
Well, it happens two times a year now. That's practically every opportunity
they have...
> Anyway, I must admit that *I* don't consider the MOL SFF/FPF change as a
> major one. That's because I haven't ever used MOL in SFF/FPF... Well, as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do someone else see a flaw in Patriks line or reasoning here :)
This discussion isn't about MY enjoyment of ASL. I own all the modules and
Annuals and buying what is published doesn't bother me a lot. What bothers
me is that it's quickly becoming practically impossible to start playing
ASL, because the up to date rules is spread out in 4 modules and 6 annuals
plus two "free" rules updates.
Another thing that bothers me is that they change rules that there is nothing
wrong with at all, like fire lanes and cavalry, while leaving rules that
badly needs clarifications. How many times have you read the bocage/wall
advantage rules or the rules for routing?
ASL is a great game and I want it to go on being a great game.
BTW Patrik, are you coming to Gothcon, this year?
Nils-Gunnar ( "I don't blame the keyboard for what I write" ) Nilsson
-----
From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:58:58 +0100 (MET)
> #Context (skip if aware of the initial post)
> #------
> #I posted a series of situations where I wasn t sure
> #how many attacks could be made upon a moving unit.
> #Patrick Manlig and Philippe Duchon have already answered
> #me and I guess more answers will come in as the sun rises
> #overseas (ie. america). I'll compile them all and made
> #a tentative Q&A.
> #Patrick and Philippe do not agree in many situations
I answered off the top of my head, and was probably wrong in some. I *was*
wrong on the pillbox issue, since entering a pillbox is a separate MF
expenditure.
> #They do in one but I disagree with them! Here's my point:
> #EndContext
>
> > 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
> > One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
> > Just the fully-tracked COT?
>
> Patrik Manlig and Philippe Duchon both say : Vehicular COT.
>
> I m not that sure. The rules insist that if a vehicle uses less
> MP than its allotment it is supposed to spend the spare MP in
> the last hex. They say what really counts is the time that passed.
> ~~~~
The MP spent are an abstract way of representing time spent, and MP should
be used for that. After all, if the vehicle ends its MPh in the same hex,
you can fire in Defensive Final Fire and get it without restricted-time-in-LOS
modifiers.
This abstraction of MP expenditure for time spent is a bit strange sometimes
in outrageous situations (say, using 1/2 of your MP allotment when you have
only 8 makes you susceptible to only 4 shots, and some weapons *may* retain
ROF 4 times, as we all know from hard-gained experience, but in most cases
it just works not too bad...
--
Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 13:07:17 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Bruno NITROSSO <Bruno.Nitrosso@der.edf.fr> writes:
>> 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at
>> it? One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
>> Just the fully-tracked COT?
> Patrik Manlig and Philippe Duchon both say : Vehicular COT.
I agree with them.
> I m not that sure. The rules insist that if a vehicle uses less MP
> than its allotment it is supposed to spend the spare MP in the last
> hex.
You can use more MP to enter the hex than the COT, to avoid spending
the rest in the last hex.
> So if a vehicle in armoured assault (say a Puma with 33 MP) just
> spends 1MP on a road hex it should be possible to attack it 33 times
> not just once ! Otherwise, what a nice way of avoiding an ennemy
> deadly cannon...
No way. There's still the Defensive Fire Phase.
Bas.
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 07:32:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: ? loss due to LOS from Truck
In message Tue, 01 Feb 1994 10:26:33 +0100,
Johan Bergstroem <e89jb@efd.lth.se> writes:
> The concealment rules say that for a move like this you will loose
> concealment (?) if in LOS of a Good order ground unit. Is the
> truck a Good order ground unit?
No. It is not Good Order since it doesn't have an inherent vehicular crew.
Check the index for the definition of Good Order. It would, however,
prevent concealment gain since it is unbroken.
Hope this helps.
*-=Carl=-*
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 13:26:47 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Patrik Manlig <m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se> writes:
>> 4) A unit bypasses two hexsides but is only in LOS for the second
>> one. How many attacks? One (MF spent in LOS) or two (MF spent in
>> the hex)?
> First, bypass normally costs 1 MF per TWO hexsides, then even if
> you would bypass three hexsides you would not spend both MF
> simultaneously. That means the DEFENDER gets to attack once.
Ah, but there's the infamous 2I9 (if I remember correctly) hex that so
many rules have to make exceptions for. In that case, my answer to
the question is two, as it is a single MF expenditure in that hex.
Bas.
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Changing of rules...
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 13:37:35 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> Well, it happens two times a year now. That's practically every opportunity
> they have...
You're wrong in more than one way here. They do have more than two
opportunities per year... Remember the General? Anyway, I don't think
they introduce *changes* to the rules in each annual. That's the state-
ment I've been trying to refute.
> > Anyway, I must admit that *I* don't consider the MOL SFF/FPF change as a
> > major one. That's because I haven't ever used MOL in SFF/FPF... Well, as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Do someone else see a flaw in Patriks line or reasoning here :)
I was confirming someone's (Philippe?) comment that I might not consider
the MOL SFF/FPF change as major. I do not, and that is partially because
I don't use the rules very often. That makes it a minor change to *me*,
exactly as the previous poster guessed. I didn't claim it *was* minor,
even if it is compared to the rewrite of the cavalry/fire-lane rules.
> This discussion isn't about MY enjoyment of ASL. I own all the modules and
> Annuals and buying what is published doesn't bother me a lot. What bothers
> me is that it's quickly becoming practically impossible to start playing
> ASL, because the up to date rules is spread out in 4 modules and 6 annuals
> plus two "free" rules updates.
Yup, that is a problem. It would be VERY good if a new RulesBinder con-
tained the most up-to-date rules. I though it did until recently, and that
is a disappointment. Not that it has anything to do with the Q&A anyway,
since they are NOT "major additions/changes" to the rules. You would need
ASLRB+Yanks+WoA+CoB+GH+CdG to have a complete set of rules. That's all,
except for those few changes actually made in an Annual, and I wouldn't
consider them mandatory. If you want to limit yourself to the ETO only,
no extras, you would need ASLRB+GH+CdG. Not that much. BUT, I too think
it is absurd that you need Gung Ho! to have a complete set of rules!
> Another thing that bothers me is that they change rules that there is nothing
> wrong with at all, like fire lanes and cavalry, while leaving rules that
> badly needs clarifications. How many times have you read the bocage/wall
> advantage rules or the rules for routing?
Good point, and one that I have not claimed invalid.
> ASL is a great game and I want it to go on being a great game.
Yup.
> BTW Patrik, are you coming to Gothcon, this year?
Vet ej. Det svider en del att l{gga ut ettusen p} en enda helg, s{rskilt
med tanke p} att min budget ligger p} c:a 500/vecka...
> Nils-Gunnar ( "I don't blame the keyboard for what I write" ) Nilsson
Sorry, I forgot: "For the humour-impaired: :-)" ;-)
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:54:22 GMT-0400
From: tom%ack@dmr.com (Tom Flaherty)
Subject: Simple vehicular motion question
Ok folks I think this one is simple, but like the rest of
ASL, you just never know...
Say I have a vehicle in the desert and I want to move it but
I don't want to use all its MP (or MFs, I can never remember which)
but I want it to remain in Motion at the end of my MPh. How do I do
this? There was a rule that said if you wanted to end your MPh in
Motion that you couldn't have used any Delay 'points'? Is this true?
Tom Flaherty
'My dice are statistically challenged.'
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:40:56 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Trucks and concealment
>> The concealment rules say that for a move like this you will loose
>> concealment (?) if in LOS of a Good order ground unit. Is the
>> truck a Good order ground unit?
Carl's answer:
> No. It is not Good Order since it doesn't have an inherent vehicular crew.
> Check the index for the definition of Good Order. It would, however,
> prevent concealment gain since it is unbroken.
Not quite. A truck is considered a _broken_ unit for concealment gain/loss
purposes. I can't quote the rule number from work, but I just looked it
up last week because I wanted to use a truck on a level 2 hill for this
purpose in the AGWAV game.
Shucks. But at least they're still sniper bait.
"We're not saying that a wrecked truck is any more of a hindrance than
an intact one. We just don't want overly brave players using trucks as
screens for more important units." -- just the kind of rules justification
that bugs the heck out of me.
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular motion question
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:45:28 +0100 (MET)
Hi Tom,
> Say I have a vehicle in the desert and I want to move it but
> I don't want to use all its MP (or MFs, I can never remember which)
> but I want it to remain in Motion at the end of my MPh. How do I do
> this? There was a rule that said if you wanted to end your MPh in
> Motion that you couldn't have used any Delay 'points'? Is this true?
There is a rule at the end of chapter F that allows you to spend as
many MP as you wish in any hex, which allows you to spend your remaining
MP allotment in the hex you wish to end your MPh.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 11:20:00 -0500
From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov
Responding to Philippe Duchon's remarks:
"This abstraction of MP expenditure for time spent is a bit strange sometimes
in outrageous situations (say, using 1/2 of your MP allotment when you have
only 8 makes you susceptible to only 4 shots, and some weapons *may* retain
ROF 4 times, as we all know from hard-gained experience, but in most cases
it just works not too bad..."
I agree completely with this statement. MPs mean different things for
different classes of vehicles (and even for different types of vehicles
within a class if they have radically different movement allowances). MPs
do not provide a good basis for measuring "time spent" in a hex or performing
some (non-movement) action. Of course, it usually works OK unless you've got
a scenario with a very heterogeneous mix of vehicles (tanks, ACs, trucks, etc).
Being something of a "treadhead" myself (I love armor-heavy scenarios), I came
up with a simple "house rule" which eliminates these inconsistencies with very
little added complexity. (ASL is already almost more than my poor brain can
handle. As Einstein is reputed to have said "Quantum mechanics is easy. ASL
is hard.") I recently posted a rather muddled version of the rule to this
list (the infamous "normalized movement point", or NMP in ASL-speak). I've
tried to simplify that explanation and will repost it as soon as I've tried
it out in a couple ftf scenarios (to see how my opponent handles it).
Bob Strzelinski
(strzelin@bnl.gov)
-----
From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:58:57 -0500
Subject: Rules Justifications...
Item Subject: Message text
> "We're not saying that a wrecked truck is any more of a hindrance than
> an intact one. We just don't want overly brave players using trucks as
> screens for more important units." -- just the kind of rules justification
> that bugs the heck out of me.
I disagree. The rules should discourage unrealistic tactics from time to time.
ASL is supposed to be a simulation game (at least to some degree). No WWII
commander would send his trucks out to blitz behind the enemy. Trucks were just
too valuble.
I can just imagine the captain explaining to his supperior that he can't keep up
with the division when it moves out because he's been using his trucks as cannon
foder. Not exactly the way to further promotions!!
-dlw
-----
From: jfgrimes@netcom.com (John Grimes)
Subject: ASL ladder opponent wanted!
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Being relatively new to the Internet and the ASL ladder, I'd like to take
this opportunity to ask if anyone out there would care to pummel me into
the dirt as far as a ladder challenge was concerned.
I'm not that new to ASL, but still have a lot of learning to do. I do
have all of the modules and Annuals, though, so finding a scenario
shouldn't be a problem. (I even have all of the ASLUG scenarios!!)
Looking forward to some decent action on the PBEM front.
John
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:40:49 -0600
From: Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu>
Subject: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners, and A8.31
Howdy ASLers,
When a 248 Finn HS (1st line) undergoes battle hardening
what happens? I assume that since it can't become an elite HS
(its range would decrease) it instead becomes Fanatic. Is this
correct?
On a different note (but the same game; Hi, Dan!), do
prisoners count double for exit VP? Does the guard nationality
get the double VP if the prisoner are subsequently eliminated by
friendly fire?
Must SFF/FPF at a target take place immediately after the
units DFF at that same target, or can unit A DFF, unit B (from a
different location) DFF (at the same target), and then A SFF? I
don't think it says in the RB that one can't do the latter (unless
I missed it), but I'm asking to be sure. This means life or death
for the 248 HS from the first paragraph. 8-)
Thanks in advance.
Bryan
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:24:57 PST
From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli)
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Actually the best way to solve this problem of "multiple ROF weapons vs.
vehicles with different speeds" was one rule that we had in COI back in the
good ol' days. The same gun could not fire at the same target before the target
spent 1/4 (or 1/3 or something) of its printed MP. So that would let a racing
SPW on the road get away with a single shot before getting out of LOS most
probably whereas a Mous would have some more trouble doing the same. Which is
quite logical actually. The gun cannot be reloaded faster when shooting at a
faster target, can it ?
take care,
bahadir
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:51:06 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Re: Rules in the Annual...
Nils-Gunnar Nilsson writes...
>Hi,
>
>> Yup, that's proof that it DOES happen. AND it IS bad WHEN it happens. But
>>I still think some people have overreacted, because it hasn't happened
>>THAT much. (Sorry about the funky shift key - it does that sometimes).
I agree with Patrik, not too much is changed in the annual. Certainly
sections of the rules which AH receives a lot of mail on are considered for
changes.
>
>Well, it happens two times a year now. That's practically every opportunity
>they have...
Well, I for one wish there was more changing of the rules. ASL is as complete
a game system you will find, and isn't really for the feinthearted or the
casual gamer.
Is this a problem? Well, probably. It is hard to get a person to start ASL
since it is such a large commitment to get to a stage where you can play
somewhat competently. Of course, there is no requirement to reach this level
of play, and if two people want to get into ASL and each purchase the RB, BV
and boards 1-4 who is to say "Hey, you can't do that, you dont have the most
current MOL rules!"? They can play, since they each have the same rules in
front of 'em.
If a grognard has all the rules and he is teaching a newcomer how to play, this
certainly isn't a problem. You get to the MOL section, you tell the newcomer
"Hey, you have MOL in this scenario, read the section and this fix which came
out in the last annual." Not a big deal.
Nils-Gunnar, your biggest complaint seems to be that the rules changes prevent
you from winning a tournament since you may not have the most "current" version
if you didn't pick up the newest annual. I'm using "you" here to mean "any
solid ASL player, so please don't take offense. Unless you are the proverbial
"big fish in the little pond", this isn't a problem. I'd wager that 99.5% of
the players of ASL don't have a chance to win a tournament, and the people which
do are sure to pick up the current release ASAP!
I'd have to question a persons reasons for wanting to play ASL if they are that
concerned about winning. The play's the thing. I've never seen anyone go
into fits at a tournament or during a casual game when I point out "Hey, that
is different now, here is the change...".
>> Anyway, I must admit that *I* don't consider the MOL SFF/FPF change as a
>> major one. That's because I haven't ever used MOL in SFF/FPF... Well, as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Do someone else see a flaw in Patriks line or reasoning here :)
>>This discussion isn't about MY enjoyment of ASL. I own all the modules and
>Annuals and buying what is published doesn't bother me a lot. What bothers
>me is that it's quickly becoming practically impossible to start playing
>ASL, because the up to date rules is spread out in 4 modules and 6 annuals
>plus two "free" rules updates.
>
Again, it is not impossible. You are not required to have the new firelane
rules to play ASL. Or the new cav rules. Or whatever. To be a tournament
winner, yes. To play ASL for fun? No. Again, I'm willing to wager that there
are hundreds of people misplaying a rule as we speak. Does it reduce their
enjoyment of the game? Not one iota.
>Another thing that bothers me is that they change rules that there is nothing
>wrong with at all, like fire lanes and cavalry, while leaving rules that
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Mac at the 'hill almost certainly received more "nutmail"
on firelanes than any other sections of the rules. Cavalry? Nothing wrong?
Try a massed cavalry charge with the old rules. It can not be done, except in
groups of 30 + SMC. W/O the Cavalry Wave rules, a truely accurate simulation
of a cavalry charge just could not occur. Ok, since the cav rules had to be
changed to fix this, why not clean 'em up and make 'em more historically
accurate? Mac did this.
>badly needs clarifications. How many times have you read the bocage/wall
>advantage rules or the rules for routing?
>
Once or twice? Seriously, I have no problems routing or using the wall
advantage or bocage rules. Of course, I make sure my opponent and I are on
the right page when it comes to these rules prior to a game (whether we
play "right" or "wrong"), but I can't honestly say that these rules are a
big problem. Certainly I had more problems with the firelane rules than
either of these rules.
>ASL is a great game and I want it to go on being a great game.
It is a great game. The best I've ever played in 16 years of gaming. And the
fixes which we get are only going to make it a better game. Who knows, one
day there may be a complete, error free ASL system in place because of the
changes and q&a which are released now.
>Nils-Gunnar ( "I don't blame the keyboard for what I write" ) Nilsson
Nils,
I sure don't mean for this to be a personal attack, so please don't
take it as such. I just don't agree with your opinions on rules/errata in
the ASL publications.
I want the detail. I want the chrome. I want the rules to be fixed
if they are broken. You, appearently, do not. That is fine too, you don'
t have to play by these fixes. You can buy the annuals, rip out the q&a, and
enjoy the scenarios every bit as much as I do.
Just because a (minority?) want the game to "not be so difficult" or
"stop adding chrome" doesn't mean that it should. AH has provided the best
of both worlds. Any time you don't want to add rules, just stop. If you are
an East front treadhead, does your entertainment level decrease if you don't
buy CoB or Gung HO? Not at all.
BTW, MOL seems to have been an issue with this whole argument. Check
out the old rules. The rules for SFF and FPF both exclude MOL from being
used in these fire phases, but the MOL rules add +1 if you try for MOL during
those phases.
The new MOL "rules" in the annual merely clean up this ambiguity.
Nothing new, just mis-interpretations of the existing rules.
Have a nice day,
Brian
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:54:40 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Desert Tank Movement
Patrik writes...
>> Say I have a vehicle in the desert and I want to move it but
>> I don't want to use all its MP (or MFs, I can never remember which)
>> but I want it to remain in Motion at the end of my MPh. How do I do
>> this? There was a rule that said if you wanted to end your MPh in
>> Motion that you couldn't have used any Delay 'points'? Is this true?
>
> There is a rule at the end of chapter F that allows you to spend as
> many MP as you wish in any hex, which allows you to spend your remaining
> MP allotment in the hex you wish to end your MPh.
I have to admit, I don't know *anyone* who plays this way. I've
played a lot of people, but what is the point of this? If you move your
tank "1, 2, 3, Oh I'll stay in motion." is every bit as valid as "1,2,
i'll expend 14 to enter this hex and stay in motion". Just make sure you're
getting all of your DF shots if available and legal.
Let's not turn ASL into a mathematical exercise when determining
tank movement, ok?
Brian
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:13:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Appel <jappel@access.digex.net>
Subject: Thanks (Re:KGP Questions)
My thanks to all who responded publicly and privately to my
question about what to buy on the 19AM Cd in KGP. I'll post our results
after we duke it out.
John
John Appel jappel@access.digex.com
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:03:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners, and A8.31
In message Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:40:49 -0600,
Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu> writes:
> On a different note (but the same game; Hi, Dan!), do
> prisoners count double for exit VP?
Unless otherwise noted in the VC or SSR, yes.
> Does the guard nationality
> get the double VP if the prisoner are subsequently eliminated by
> friendly fire?
No.
> Must SFF/FPF at a target take place immediately after the
> units DFF at that same target, or can unit A DFF, unit B (from a
> different location) DFF (at the same target), and then A SFF?
As far as I know, yes. I have done this myself.
-----
Subject: Re: How many attacks during MPh?
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 18:01:54 -0500
From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov
> Actually the best way to solve this problem of "multiple ROF weapons vs.
> vehicles with different speeds" was one rule that we had in COI back in the
> good ol' days. The same gun could not fire at the same target before the target
> spent 1/4 (or 1/3 or something) of its printed MP. So that would let a racing
> SPW on the road get away with a single shot before getting out of LOS most
> probably whereas a Mous would have some more trouble doing the same. Which is
> quite logical actually. The gun cannot be reloaded faster when shooting at a
> faster target, can it ?
>
> take care,
> bahadir
I'm still working on a formal presentation of this house rule, but, quickly:
If you use MP allowance / 10 (round down to nearest .5) = 1 NMP ("normalized
movement point") and use this as the basis for # shots allowed per hex ( 1 per
NMP spent in hex) you get the effect of the COI rule, but the NMP fits in
better with the way ASL works. For most vehicles (those 10 - 15 MP "standard
tanks") this works just like the original rule based on MPs. But, a jeep or
AC dashing down a road becomes a lot harder to hit than a King Tiger (not just
because of the size difference) if you replace each occurrence of "MP" with
"NMP" in all cases where it appears in the To Hit modifiers table. Basically,
a non-BU AC w/movement allowance of 32 would have to expend 3 NMPs before all
penalties for limited time in LOS have worn off. For a BU Tiger, this is 6
hexes at the road movement rate. For our hypothetical AC this would be
32 / 10 = 3.2 = 3 MPs equal 1 NMP, so 3 NMPs = 9 MPs or 18 hexes at the road
rate. Unless they use delay, you're going to be shooting at fast vehicles
with some extra + modifiers. Finally, there is some tactical advantage to
speed on the battlefield.
Bob Strzelinski
-----
Date: 1 Feb 1994 18:12:09 -0800
From: "Mark Bennett" <Mark_Bennett@taligent.com>
Subject: Concealment and Melee
Concealment and Melee
Hello,
My opponent has a nice, unpossessed(!) HMG in a location where a melee is
happening. We are both interested in the possibility of advancing concealed
units into the location and then attempt recovery in their next MPh, followed
by getting the heck out of there. Sure, it would take a while, but who knows?
Anyway, it appears SW recovery attempts are concealment loss activities. We
just want to double check that the loss of concealment in the MPh doesn't drag
that unit instantly into the Melee, but rather would do that only if the unit
was to stay until the ensuing CCPh. What do you think?
As before, I ask if you could please CC me personally as I read the discussion
off of ftp. I know it's not very participatory, but hey, I put the 93b Q&A up
on carlo.phys.uva.nl! That should count for something!
Thanks!
Mark
-----
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 22:14:36 -0500
From: Stewart R King <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Hurt me, beat me!
Hi,
I'm a new arrival on the ASL Ladder, and I'd like to provide someone with
some points by playing a PBEM game. I've played a good deal of ftf and I
own all the modules, but for a first time out, I'd like to play a
relatively simple scenario. I'm involved in Matt Brown's Sitrep #1
contest, so I would be particularly interested in Fighting Withdrawal, but
any infantry-oriented scenario using one or two maps and no night, desert,
amphibious landing, or other extremely complex rules would be OK. I can
get in about five game messages a week in most cases, I believe (although
experience will see if this is true!)
Stewart King
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 09:33:01 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: Rules in the Annual...
Brian Youse <brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> Well, I for one wish there was more changing of the rules. ASL is
> as complete a game system you will find, and isn't really for the
> feinthearted or the casual gamer.
Personally, I like improvements in the rules as long as they appear in
errata pages. Not if they appear in the Annuals. The latter creates
a reference problem. I just don't want to search in both the rulebook
and the Q&A list for a particular rule. It's ok if the Q&A list
contains _clarifications_, as I will look for them if I don't
understand a rule in the book. But having to look in the list to see
whether something that is clearly spelled out in the book might have
changed is a major pain.
And just imagine not having a nice compiled list and browsing through
all 6 annuals and several old generals for a rules change.
> Is this a problem? Well, probably. It is hard to get a person to
> start ASL since it is such a large commitment to get to a stage
> where you can play somewhat competently. Of course, there is no
> requirement to reach this level of play, and if two people want to
> get into ASL and each purchase the RB, BV and boards 1-4 who is to
> say "Hey, you can't do that, you dont have the most current MOL
> rules!"? They can play, since they each have the same rules in
> front of 'em.
But they can only play all the BV scenarios if they either buy SL and
GI at the same time or order those boards (including #8!) by mail from
AH. This is a different issue, but IMHO the boards are the biggest
problem of getting into ASL.
> Bzzt. Wrong answer. Mac at the 'hill almost certainly received
> more "nutmail" on firelanes than any other sections of the rules.
> Cavalry? Nothing wrong? Try a massed cavalry charge with the old
> rules. It can not be done, except in groups of 30 + SMC. W/O the
> Cavalry Wave rules, a truely accurate simulation of a cavalry charge
> just could not occur. Ok, since the cav rules had to be changed to
> fix this, why not clean 'em up and make 'em more historically
> accurate? Mac did this.
Agreed.
>> badly needs clarifications. How many times have you read the
>> bocage/wall advantage rules or the rules for routing?
Lots of times.
> Once or twice? Seriously, I have no problems routing or using the
> wall advantage or bocage rules.
This I just don't understand. I'll try to send you my biggest
question about bocage one of these days. It's about concealment gain.
> BTW, MOL seems to have been an issue with this whole argument.
> Check out the old rules. The rules for SFF and FPF both exclude MOL
> from being used in these fire phases, but the MOL rules add +1 if
> you try for MOL during those phases.
> The new MOL "rules" in the annual merely clean up this
> ambiguity. Nothing new, just mis-interpretations of the existing
> rules.
I had a vague idea that this might be the case, but still needed to
look it up. The question remains how the playtesters of "The
Professionals" and the RB CGs played.
Bas.
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Desert Tank Movement
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 10:44:27 +0100 (MET)
Brian,
If you read the whole question below, the poster was obviously worried
about the technicality that you CAN'T just end your MPh in Motion if you
have unspent MP. That's the way the rules were written. It's been fixed
in WoA with the rule I referred to (or perhaps only clarified). For some
people just casually doing what intuitively seems right is not enough,
they have to see it in black&white. Please note that this is certainly
not a flame to the original poster, I just say that such persons exist,
and you have to deal with 'em in some way - beside the fact that there
might be a question about how we're supposed to play sometimes.
[ Original question ]
> >> Say I have a vehicle in the desert and I want to move it but
> >> I don't want to use all its MP (or MFs, I can never remember which)
> >> but I want it to remain in Motion at the end of my MPh. How do I do
> >> this? There was a rule that said if you wanted to end your MPh in
> >> Motion that you couldn't have used any Delay 'points'? Is this true?
[ Brian's response ]
> I have to admit, I don't know *anyone* who plays this way. I've
> played a lot of people, but what is the point of this? If you move your
> tank "1, 2, 3, Oh I'll stay in motion." is every bit as valid as "1,2,
> i'll expend 14 to enter this hex and stay in motion". Just make sure you're
> getting all of your DF shots if available and legal.
I beg to differ. Moving 1, 2, 3, motion is ILLEGAL according to the rules.
Don't ask me why - I didn't write 'em!
> Let's not turn ASL into a mathematical exercise when determining
> tank movement, ok?
I wasn't, I was trying to give a hard reference for those who would like
to verify that they were indeed doing it right when they wanted to do what
you describe above.
BTW, tank movement in ASL *is* a mathematical excercise - albeit a very
simple one :-)
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Subject: Good Double Blind Scenarios
From: Petri Juhani Piira <ppii@Niksula.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:40:35 +0200
We tried here the Double Blind ASL rules published in this discussion
list sometime ago. Sorry, but I don't rememner the author now, but
I could look it up.
They really improve the game, taking much of the "fantasy game" aspect
away. Suddenly players don't know where the enemy reserves are...
it becomes possible to use feints and diversionary attacks, etc.
Now, it is obvious that the existing "perfect knowledge" scenarios
can't be used here, so I would like to hear if anyone has any good
double-blind scenarios? Or even guidelines / almost working / not so
good scenarios...
If just somebody came up with command control rules, then the game would
REALLY become interesting.
Petri
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular motion question
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:05:55 +0100 (MET)
Hi Petri,
> > There is a rule at the end of chapter F that allows you to spend as
> > many MP as you wish in any hex, which allows you to spend your remaining
> > MP allotment in the hex you wish to end your MPh.
>
> And if you don't own chapter F, what are you supposed to do?
> Maybe those people who wish to play European front only also
> need Chapter F, like they need Gung Ho?
As I noted when I answered a letter from Brian, it is not really that
severe. It's more of a clarification, a statement that it really IS
legal to do what we always did - simply forget about the rule that says
a vehicle may not end it's MPh in motion if it still has unspent MP.
BUT, the rules for vehicular smoke grenades in chapter F, those really
add something new. As Brian said, if you're a newcomer, you can live
without them, but it is annoying.
Now, can we please stop this? Yes, there are things that could be done
better. Yes, having rules that are changed every once in a while can be
very annoying. I can live with it if new rules are introduced with new
pages to put in the ASLRB. I still think that there have been no major
rule changes introduced through a Q&A. But that's it. I am not going to
argue that there aren't any rule changes in new modules because there
are. I prefer to have it that way rather than having to wait even longer
before new modules are released. If Bob McNamara says he will do an index
later to avoid doing the same thing over and over again, that's fine
with me. Rewriting the rules is something that I would like to see done,
but I would like to sew new modules as well. In the end, I will have
to accept the way things are, because *I'm* not the one doing the work!
If I like what I see (and I sure do) I will keep on buying anything with
the ASL logo on it, and try to *suggest* changes if I have any good
suggestions. Just plain bitchin' will do no good.
For all those starting out with ASL, the best advice I can give is to
find someone who already own ASL to play with. That's by far the best
way to start. Also, playing with only the ASLRB works just fine, it's
not like 90% of the rules have been changed in subsequent modules or
something. AND, I expect that anyone that starts playing ASL will
eventually get all the stuff. While restricting oneself to only east
front scenarios is certainly possible, I think it is ridiculous. Why
would you want to do that? Don't tell me it's because of money, because
then you're not limiting yourself like that, you just postpone it to
when you do have the money.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular motion question
From: Petri Juhani Piira <ppii@Niksula.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:02:24 +0200
Patrik Manlig writes:
> There is a rule at the end of chapter F that allows you to spend as
> many MP as you wish in any hex, which allows you to spend your remaining
> MP allotment in the hex you wish to end your MPh.
And if you don't own chapter F, what are you supposed to do?
Maybe those people who wish to play European front only also
need Chapter F, like they need Gung Ho?
Petri
-----
From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon)
Subject: Re: Desert Tank Movement
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:39:28 +0100 (MET)
>
> Brian,
>
> If you read the whole question below, the poster was obviously worried
> about the technicality that you CAN'T just end your MPh in Motion if you
> have unspent MP. That's the way the rules were written. It's been fixed
> in WoA with the rule I referred to (or perhaps only clarified). For some
> people just casually doing what intuitively seems right is not enough,
> they have to see it in black&white. Please note that this is certainly
> not a flame to the original poster, I just say that such persons exist,
> and you have to deal with 'em in some way - beside the fact that there
> might be a question about how we're supposed to play sometimes.
I believe the reason why this was included in WoA is because of Vehicle Dust,
right ? I'm no expert with Desert rules, but doesn't the production of
Vehicle Dust depend on the number of MP you spent to enter the hex ?
Now, the Delay MP was in the original rules, wasn't it ? Does Delay MP imply
you have to be Stopped ? I'm a bit confused on this...
--
Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: KGP: 20N - The Assault on St Edouard
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 14:12:18 +0100 (MET)
Hi everyone,
For those who didn't read the last after-action report, 20PM ended with a
last-turn dash by four american squads into the St Edouard sanatorium. With
no support from the rest of the american forces, the only reason they could
stay was the fact that the scenario ended on that very turn. At game end
the four squads were isolated in the sanatorium.
With the gracious allotment of a whopping 33 CVP to spend on reinforcements,
and the squads in the sanatorium relatively far away from any help, I decided
it was time for a german counterattack. Not to recapture the sanatorium,
because I knew I would have to give it up shortly anyway, but to grasp the
opportunity to concentrate my troops to gain numerical as well as quali-
tative superiority. Divide and conquer was to be the keyword for the night.
For the 33 CVP I bought two SS platoons, a SS MG platoon and a Pz V section.
Those had to set up in reserve, and they all set up around the church. The
idea was to have the fresh troops hold the church, while the retained troops
from the previous fighting concentrated on eliminating the americans in
the sanatorium. I was out for blood!
Using nine or so SS squads, everything went exactly as planned - with the
additional bonus of KIA'ing two squads that came to the rescue. Just west
of the village the american force that had crept through the woods during
the day was occupied by a very persistent halftrack that overran several
american squads before it was finally stopped by a 30 FP FG. This far the
german losses were only a halftrack and perhaps a halfsquad, and the
americans had lost 7 or 8 squads as well as the sanatorium!
After a while the american reinforcements made their way to the scene,
though, and the real fighting started. A platoon of M5A1 light tanks
supported by two 105mm shermans rolled past the roadblocks on the N.33
as soon as they were cleared. The 57mm AT gun deviously set up on the far
side of the bend north of the sanatorium didn't manage to get off a
single shot before malfunctioning, and the crew didn't even have time
to fire a PF before a 105mm shell ended their war effort. This delaying
force dispatched, the americans headed right for the sanatorium.
Once the sanatorium got into view, the light american tanks charged...
only to be met by deadly fire from a 75mm AT gun. This time the AT crew
had better luck. The first Stuart was quickly hit, and the rest quickly
reconsidered the idea of charging, trying instead to approach the
sanatorium behind the cover of a building.
To counter that, a platoon of SS troopers sallyed forward, armed with
a 'schreck to disheart the american armour. The americans were not to
be repulsed that easily, though, and several Stuarts charged the SS,
along with some brave GIs.
One stuart was hit by the PSK, and the SS were still standing firm,
despite several rounds of canister fired by the Stuarts. Then the
american infantry crept up. The first squad broke under the fire
from several MGs. The next squad weathered the fire, and returned
it. A "3"! Not even snakeeyes could have been as effective! That
resulted in a K/2. Well, I could live with that. One HS dead, or a
leader at worst.
OK, then let's see who dies. Random selection: 5, 5... 5..... and
another 5! Arrrrgh! Three squads reduced, 8-1 dead and of course
everyone breaks as well! Ugly.
Luckily, the american infantry had activated some of my reserves by now,
and a Panter was able to join the King Tiger tasked with stopping the
american advance on the sanatorium. Seeing this new threat, the remaining
Stuarts tried to surround the Panther before it could join up with the
rest of the german forces. Two Stuarts and a 105mm Sherman came on the
lone Panther from two sides. No big deal, the Panther was calmly waiting
for the upcoming Prep Fire while 37mm shells were bouncing off the front
armour. The commander paid little attention to the crew from a wrecked
Stuart right in from of him.
You guessed it! Where three american tanks didn't succeed, a lone 126
crew did. Seemingly effortless, it casually walked up to the Panther and
threw a grenade into one of the open hatches. Boom! No more Panther.
This move left one of the Stuarts right in front of the 75mm AT gun,
though, and the americans had to pay the price of one more Stuart knocked
out. Not that a Stuart for a Panther still isn't a good deal...
Meanwhile a fierce meelee was raging in the litte building just north of
the sanatorium. The remains of the american engineer platoon had tried to
take the building, but were opposed by a german squad. After taking a
beating, german reinforcements got to the building, and the engineers
lost heart. In trying to get out before it was too late, they sealed
their fate. Nicely, they even left a DC for the defenders to use.
Now, with almost no american armour left, it was time for the King Tiger
to make its appearance. An american platoon in posession of two .50 cal
HMGs had positioned themselves in a building across the N.33, threatening
every german that moved. The Pz VI moved up on the north side of the
contested building and into the sight of the american MGs.
A Stuart that had previously thrown a track trying to get too far in too
little time tried to oppose the Tiger with no success. The main gun on
the tiger spoke once, and the Stuart was no more.
Then, a lone american squad on the other side of the sanatorium went
sompletely wild! droping the MG it was toting around, it ran towards the
Tiger. Fire from a german MG didn't seem to bother it. Neither did two
german sqads firing from the sanatorium. And surely those heroes wouldn't
mind going one-on-one with a King Tiger! Barely pausing long enough to
catch their breath, they climbed onto the stopped Tiger and pried open
the hatches. The Tiger crew didn't even have time to fire the anti-
personnel grenades mounted on the tank before they had a fatal encounter
with american FMJ.
Meanwhile, an uneven firefight was raging on the wast side of the little
town of Stoumont. After having finally taken care of the halftracks
harassing them, the americans had continued into town, only to run headlong
into a full-strength SS MG platoon with another platoon as support! Before
they could even return fire, the american attack was beaten off. The GI's
were saved only by the gong that signalled the end of the night's fighting.
The night ended with the germans again in posession of the sanatorium. The
americans had made some progress, and a small force that had advanced
through the woods had gained a foothold in the village, almost cutting the
german forces in the sanatorium off. But it had cost them. For loss of
15 squads and 7 tanks, they have exacted a toll of only 5 SS squads and
2 tanks. Of course, those tanks were a Pz V and Pz VI, but the losses had
still been huge. From a numerical superiority of 3:1, the americans only
have a numerical parity, both in infantry and armour. The germans were
surely the victors of this night's fighting, even if they had given up
much ground and now risk being encircled. About the only advantage the
americans still retain is the plenty of MGs they have. With each Armoured
infantry platoon purchased they get 2*.50 and 6*.30. That's almost two
MGs per squad. Luckily they are attacking, which hopefully will make it
harder to use the MGs.
For the next day, I expect to see lots of american support and not much
infantry. The american haven't got any infantry left to purchase, except
for the armoured infantry platoons, and they are EXPENSIVE. As an added
bonus, almost half of the american onboard infantry are left to the west
of the sanatorium, unable to get any support from the better-equipped
main force east and north of the sanatorium. With some luck, I can repeat
the divide-and-conquer stunt from the nigh one more time. Now if I had only
gotten enough CVP to guard the Chapelle Ste Anne with a platoon of SS,
forcing him to split his force even further...
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:42:56 EST
From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien)
Subject: RE: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners, and A8.31
Greetings,
> > Does the guard nationality
> > get the double VP if the prisoner are subsequently eliminated by
> > friendly fire?
>
> No.
This came up in our KGP campaign as the Americans opened fire on the SS
guarding the American prisoners. Shame on those Americans.
A20.54 Attack Effects: ... Prisoners/Unarmed units eliminated by fire from
their own side still count double for Victory Conditions. ...
Kevin
---
Kevin Valerien
krv@eng.tridom.com
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 09:37:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Mustafa Unlu <mustafa+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: ASL for sale
Found over at rec.games.board. I think people on this list may be
interested. Perhaps you know that someone who is still hesitating to
get into the game?
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
From: sutliffd@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sutliff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: ASL for sale
Date: 1 Feb 1994 10:36:26 -0500
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Reply-To: sutliffd@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Daniel Sutliff)
NNTP-Posting-Host: oasys.dt.navy.mil
I would like to sell as a package:
ASL rules, Beyond Valor (m1), Yanks (m2)
All are unpunched. Asking price is $50 + $5 postage.
Please reply by email if interested.
Thanks.
Dan
M.
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:46:55 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Prisoner VP
Kevin Valerien <krv@eng.tridom.com> writes:
> This came up in our KGP campaign as the Americans opened fire on the
> SS guarding the American prisoners. Shame on those Americans.
> A20.54 Attack Effects: ... Prisoners/Unarmed units eliminated by
> fire from their own side still count double for Victory
> Conditions. ...
Which reminds me of our game of "The Cat has Jumped". It's an early
war scenario where the Japanese can still take prisoners. They win by
casualty plus exit VP, but prisoners don't count.
My opponent, playing the Japanese, didn't want to invoke No Quarter,
which would decrease the chances of my squads surrendering. But he
wanted to have their Casualty VP. So what did he do?
He took lots of prisoners and then Massacred them all in the last
turn, when the ELR increase hardly mattered anymore.
Bas.
-----
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 07:50:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Allison <JEFF@INNOSOFT.COM>
Subject: RE: Rules in the Annual...
Brian Youse writes....
>
>Nils-Gunnar Nilsson writes...
>
[stuff deleted]
>Well, I for one wish there was more changing of the rules. ASL is as complete
>a game system you will find, and isn't really for the feinthearted or the
>casual gamer.
>
>Is this a problem? Well, probably. It is hard to get a person to start ASL
>since it is such a large commitment to get to a stage where you can play
>somewhat competently. Of course, there is no requirement to reach this level
>of play, and if two people want to get into ASL and each purchase the RB, BV
>and boards 1-4 who is to say "Hey, you can't do that, you dont have the most
>current MOL rules!"? They can play, since they each have the same rules in
>front of 'em.
I pretty much agree with the rest of what Brian has to say, and I won't repeat
it here. I just want to respond to the argument that it's hard to get new
people into ASL because of the intimidation factor. Here in Southern
California (granted, a denser-than-average population center) there is an
active ASL club with some 60+ members. We have three local tournaments a year,
and new faces are popping up all the time. I don't think that anyone who's
willing to buy a $45, 100+ page rulebook is going to be too intimidated by
_anything_. I think that the rules fixes and such are part of the appeal --
ASL is a dynamic, vital hobby! Enjoy it.
- Jeff Allison
[rest of Brian's fine post deleted]
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:43:33 CST
From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com
Subject: Re: Test
> From kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.edu Wed Feb 2 15:35:14 1994
> From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney)
> Subject: Re: Test
> To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:34:10 MST
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
> Content-Length: 189
>
> > Is the list just dead or are we having network problems?
> >Brian
>
> After the discussions on rules changes/updates, I think the
> silence is simply a pause while some people inhale.
>
> rk
>
Well I, for one, certainly do NOT inhale.
Matt (possibly the less annoying Matt) Shostak
OBASL: Does anyone have any good advice on how to complete a campaign
game in a timely manner? I've tried 2 campaign games, one RB and
one KGP, and we abandoned both after a few sessions due to time
considerations. Do we just play too slowly? Should we think less,
and move more (quickly)?
-----
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 15:17:58
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Re: Test
> Returasdfsfgah94 1575fg*(*&35 EST
> From: brian@t#)N_)+{a.gov (Br&U T&$!*M_ouse)
> Sub~#^^@)(ject: T)*(&)(P O_}est
>
> Fo$V^&% *s,
> Is the list jusU&N YU are we hav D _)DOU@#@#work prob+_ 3jv2y9ems?
> Bri2351b fJ )(D(*&*
>
Brian,
I don't know about you, but I'm getting everything just fine.
ObASL:
When a fanati*#)(@#0 in CC, how do yoouoiu230945u 04soi after the Hero
unloads fr# KDNV(U#I in Heavy Surf-(#KDNF_)!I#( without a Starshel)(##(
IN/INTO the Tre+@#ND+_#) ental Floss? I mean, |@#{(*E+_#_ancock always did
it that way, but(#@#)()D>><>???ormalized MP's(##JKLD?_#><at barfed on my RB
#)(#%#|{}{ight Mist Hindrance @@$&(_?|>>|ounter storage?
Tuuuuuuoooooommmiiiiiinnnneeeeen
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:30:05 EST
From: "Matthew E. Brown" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
Subject: Speedy CGonzales
>Well I, for one, certainly do NOT inhale.
>Matt (possibly the less annoying Matt) Shostak
You are certainly putting up a serious challenge, I must admit that.
:-)
>OBASL: Does anyone have any good advice on how to complete a campaign
> game in a timely manner? I've tried 2 campaign games, one RB and
> one KGP, and we abandoned both after a few sessions due to time
> considerations. Do we just play too slowly? Should we think less,
> and move more (quickly)?
Play every other turn. You can also save time by totalling up your at-start
fp and that of your opponent, and conducting one big CC for all the marbles,
on a per scenario basis.
Short of such drastic expedients, consider multi-player with the battlefield
sectored off. Play sectors more or less independently of each other,
stopping when crossovers occur. It will no doubt be a different game,
as tactics will change, and units in one sector will be out of touch and
less able to coordinate with units in other sectors. One could argue that
this would be more realistic. If the action in an RB CG day were divided
up among 6 players (3 per side), there would be at least the illusion
of far speedier resolution, until the scenario ended and you tried to
negotiate through the Dispute^H^H^H^H^H^H^Refit Phase.
Matt (still slightly more annoying) Brown
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:29:26 MST
From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712)
Subject: 10-2 & 9-1 MC
After not inflicting a MC in several player turns I finally roll a 5
and get an NMC against a stack topped by a 10-2 leader. I then proceed
to roll an 11 for the 10-2. Cool, I say :-) I then examine the rest
of the stack and find a 9-1 hiding in there :-( So what happens?
Is the 10-2 pinned unstead of broken?
Don
p.s. Seriously, I may have gotten more than one MC, it just doesn't
seem like I did.
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:50:17 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> After not inflicting a MC in several player turns I finally roll a 5
> and get an NMC against a stack topped by a 10-2 leader. I then proceed
> to roll an 11 for the 10-2. Cool, I say :-) I then examine the rest
> of the stack and find a 9-1 hiding in there :-( So what happens?
>
> Is the 10-2 pinned unstead of broken?
Nope. A leader has to be of higher morale to affect another leader's MC.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:24:51 GMT-0400
From: tom%ack@dmr.com (Tom Flaherty)
Subject: Please repost my last response to Re: Simple vehicular motion question
Folks,
I think I may have sent my latest message regarding
the vehicular motion question to an individual (who also
responded to that question) instead of the mailing list.
Could that person please repost my message to the list?
Thanks,
Tom "not another failed MC!!!" Flaherty
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular motion question
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:57:48 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> (3) 1,2,3 end in Motion is not the same as
> 1,2,3,19 end in Motion because I have expended lots
> of MP in the last hex and can be fired upon lots
> of times (kind of makes it ROF on the ol' armor!)
Yup.
> (4) If the last hex I enter is in LOS of a gun can I
> use say 7 MP in each of the first 3 hexes and then
> only 1 MP in the last hex and remain in motion?
> From the responses I have read it seams that this
> is indeed possible.
Yes, it is.
You seem to have forgotten one thing here, though. If you end your MPh
in LOS of a gun, what would keep the gun from firing at you in the DFPh
with no DRM for restricted aim? AND as many times as the gun cares to
keep ROF.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 15:28:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC
Don:
Have a look at A10.22 (I don't feel like typing the whole thing): he's
broken and crawlin' for cover.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> After not inflicting a MC in several player turns I finally roll a 5
> and get an NMC against a stack topped by a 10-2 leader. I then proceed
> to roll an 11 for the 10-2. Cool, I say :-) I then examine the rest
> of the stack and find a 9-1 hiding in there :-( So what happens?
>
> Is the 10-2 pinned unstead of broken?
[stuff deleted]
-----
From: peschko@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Edward Peschko)
Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC (fwd)[P
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:59:33 CST
Forwarded message:
> From m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se Wed Feb 2 17:54:38 1994
> From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
> Message-Id: <9402022250.AA19382@albireo.tdb.uu.se>
> Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC
> To: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712)
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:50:17 +0100 (MET)
> Cc: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (ASL Discussion list)
> In-Reply-To: <9402022229.AA28977@ono.cats> from "Don Hancock x2712" at Feb 2, 94 03:29:26 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 496
>
> Hi,
>
> > After not inflicting a MC in several player turns I finally roll a 5
> > and get an NMC against a stack topped by a 10-2 leader. I then proceed
> > to roll an 11 for the 10-2. Cool, I say :-) I then examine the rest
> > of the stack and find a 9-1 hiding in there :-( So what happens?
> >
> > Is the 10-2 pinned unstead of broken?
>
> Nope. A leader has to be of higher morale to affect another leader's MC.
>
And isn't there a rule saying that the best morale a unit can possibly have
is 10? (and I also thought that the leader had to be of *equal* morale or
better).
Cheers,
Ed
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 20:20:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC
In message Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:59:33 CST,
peschko@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Edward Peschko) writes:
>> Nope. A leader has to be of higher morale to affect another
>> leader's MC.
>>
> And isn't there a rule saying that the best morale a unit can possibly
> have is 10? (and I also thought that the leader had to be of *equal*
> morale or better).
First, the morale isn't above 10, the morale is 9 with a minus DRM. Yes,
the morale of a unit is limited to 10, though.
Second, A10.22 specifically says it has to be a _higher_ morale to affect a
DRM on a leader's morale check.
-----
From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:03:00 BST
Subject: Open Letter to Stewart King
An open letter to my friend Stewart King:
Stewart, are you coming to Winter Offensive again this year? I hope so. It
seemed like you had fun last time. Or am I just imagining that? You weren't
seriously thinking about winning a tournament your first time out were you?
No reflection on you personally, but I don't think it can be done (certainly
not at a major tournament like Winter Offensive--the fourth jewel in the ASL
triple crown--no matter how good a player you are). That opinion is not
dependent on one's knowledge of the state-of-the-art in rules interpretation
(although that is a factor), but rather on my knowledge of the demands
involved in high level tournament play. Silly me, >I< thought that a major
reason for coming to the various tourneys was to become acquainted with the
state-of-the-art rules.
I, too, would prefer to see >major< changes effectuated by errata pages rather
than Q&A (which is, BTW, the way the Boresighting rule was changed). I would
also prefer to see important changes come out ASAP, rather than waiting an
infinitely-long time for pages that TAHGC is never going to issue. That's
right, never! Or at least not on their own, not until the entire ASLRB is
possibly reissued.
A major change in Self Break was accomplished with just a few words. Most
people I know think it was a >major improvement< in the rules that was needed
ASAP. I'm glad we did not have to wait for an errata page in a module.
And just what is a "change," anyway? Lots of people seem to think that not
allowing MOL in SFF/FPF was a change. I'd say it was a clarification; one
place in the rules allowed it, another disallowed it. Good place for some
clarification.
Fred Timm is pounding on Mac to change the FT/MOL rules so that CX/AFPh-
usage/Smoke/Hindrances affect To Kill rolls. That would be a major change to
the current rules (and not entirely beneficial, IMHO Fred).
No one likes "rules lawyering," whatever that means, but do you seriously mean
to call anyone who has all the Q&A (and is remotely familiar with them) a
"rules hawk"? There are indeed some people who enjoy using their familiarity
with the rules to trip someone else up, but they are few and far between in my
experience. Most players I know are all too eager to share their
understanding of the rules (at whatever level that might be) at the drop of a
hat. And which rules would you bar from tournament play? only the "changes"
or the clarifications too? Q&A/errata aside, I know plenty of players whose
understanding of the rules has been changed by going to a tournament. I hope
it will always be so.
Stewart, at least you are not bemoaning the cost of the ASLRB and eight
modules. You would think that Brent had not gotten his money's worth out of
all that. Do you think he is really serious about an updated Index in >each<
module? How much more would he have been willing to pay for that luxury? He
must know how much work an updated Index would be at this point, how much
effort that would subtract from the next module. I hope to see an updated
index soon. I had hoped that with the completion of chapter G in Gung Ho we
might be ready for the update. I am now resigned to waiting for the
completion of the Minors. Stewart, am I the only one thought that purchase of
the ASLRB did not entitle me to infinite rules updates? Seems to me that a
viable TAHGC option was to publish no rules changes after the '87 and '89
errata. I can easily imagine GH and CDG without an errata page. I would be
the poorer for it.
Thanks, Stewart, for not blaming all this on those nefarious playtesters who
have captured the ear of Mac, though perhaps you are not aware of the
conventional Wisdom. We all know they are not interested in how easily the
game plays. We all know they are not interested in teaching the game to
newcomers or in sharing their knowledge of the system at tournaments or on
BBS. We all know that they are only interested in is in complicating the game
with some useless chrome like limiting MG-Boresighting-vs-Infantry to the MPh.
Personally, I was at first against limiting MG-Boresighting-vs-Infantry to the
MPh. It took away some of my favorite tactics (I forget a lot of things, but
Boresighting is rarely one of them). I was won over, though. I was persuaded
that MG-Boresighting is different that Ordnance-Boresighting (where you can
actually sight down the bore); that it is typically used to prevent movement
through a particular location; and that the changed rule elegantly reflects
this at minimum additional complexity (once one got over his attachment to
the old rule).
My apologies, Stewart, for running on far too long (as usual) and my apologies
again if I have mis-characterized your thoughts on the subject. I tried not
to lump you in with everyone else, but your expressions were not the first
time I have heard similar ideas. So, if in my need to vent I have gone off
the deep end, please remember that I respect not only you but also your
thoughts. I just don't agree. Thanks for listening.
....Perry
PS Thanks also for not mentioning the evil "elitism" word. Ugh,
shades of GEnie!
-----
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 19:22:06
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Re: Perry's Stuff
Perry writes:
> Stewart, are you coming to Winter Offensive again this year? I hope so. It
> seemed like you had fun last time.
Tell y'all what. I promise not to bring up Big Purple Dinosaurs on this list
again if everybody else promises to quit mentioning how much fun they had at
tournaments. *sniff* It gets SO lonely out here on the prarie... *HONK*
> ... I would
> also prefer to see important changes come out ASAP, rather than waiting an
> infinitely-long time for pages that TAHGC is never going to issue. That's
> right, never! Or at least not on their own, not until the entire ASLRB is
> possibly reissued.
Hmm, I wonder. Here we have this nice Internet thingie, which allows file
transfer, capable of handling specific formats for popular word processors.
Wonder how much AH would charge for an Instant Update service which would send
you new rulebook pages containing every change as they happen? How cool would
THAT be ;-)
>
> And just what is a "change," anyway? Lots of people seem to think that not
> allowing MOL in SFF/FPF was a change. I'd say it was a clarification; one
> place in the rules allowed it, another disallowed it. Good place for some
> clarification.
>
I'm really curious about whether the Professionals was playtested with allowing
MOL in SFF/FPF or not. I can't imagine the Yugos winning without it (although I
have never played it and could easily be wrong here.) If so, I'd sure like to
see a revision for this very interesting-looking scenario.
Tom
(one of five Toms who, combined, are still less annoying than two Matts)
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:27:32 -0500
From: Stewart R King <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Stewart King
>
> An open letter to my friend Stewart King:
> Stewart, are you coming to Winter Offensive again this year? I hope so. It
> seemed like you had fun last time. Or am I just imagining that? You weren't
> seriously thinking about winning a tournament your first time out were you?
> No reflection on you personally, but I don't think it can be done (certainly
> not at a major tournament like Winter Offensive--the fourth jewel in the ASL
> triple crown--no matter how good a player you are). That opinion is not
> dependent on one's knowledge of the state-of-the-art in rules interpretation
> (although that is a factor), but rather on my knowledge of the demands
> involved in high level tournament play. Silly me, >I< thought that a major
> reason for coming to the various tourneys was to become acquainted with the
> state-of-the-art rules.
[B>
Yes, I'll be there. I did enjoy myself, as I did at Avaloncon this year
despite being miserably beaten up (due to lousy tactics this time and not
any unfamiliarity with the rules). You're right, going to tournements is
a good way to become more familiar with the rules as well as the tactics.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that I don't enjoy tournements
or that I insist on winning (although my experience at the first Avaloncon
sort of spoiled me!). I didn't play enough scenarios to qualify to win
either tournement, though, even if I had gone undefeated -- I don't have the
stamina to play seven scenarios in a weekend!
> I, too, would prefer to see >major< changes effectuated by errata pages rather
> than Q&A (which is, BTW, the way the Boresighting rule was changed). I would
> also prefer to see important changes come out ASAP, rather than waiting an
> infinitely-long time for pages that TAHGC is never going to issue.
That's [oops!] never...
A shame. I'd pay five or ten bucks a year for the official errata
properly printed as errata pages and insertable in my rule book. Maybe
even 15 if they tossed in a counter sheet or something. Or maybe 20 if
they came as part of the Annual.
> A major change in Self Break was accomplished with just a few words. Most
> people I know think it was a >major improvement< in the rules that was needed
> ASAP. I'm glad we did not have to wait for an errata page in a module.
>
> And just what is a "change," anyway? Lots of people seem to think that not
> allowing MOL in SFF/FPF was a change. I'd say it was a clarification; one
> place in the rules allowed it, another disallowed it. Good place for some
> clarification.
>
Good point. I wasn't aware of the other rule (limiting use of MOL) until
it was pointed out to me on this list. Clarifications are very much what
Q&A pages are for. A "change" is something like the cavalry charge
impulse rule. I believe that the ability to change VCA/TCA each time a
weapon _could_ be fired was introduced in a Q&A (I'm handicapped by not
having my rules in front of me as I draft this). This was a small thing
that made a major difference to AFV play
> Fred Timm is pounding on Mac to change the FT/MOL rules so that CX/AFPh-
> usage/Smoke/Hindrances affect To Kill rolls. That would be a major change to
> the current rules (and not entirely beneficial, IMHO Fred).
>
> No one likes "rules lawyering," whatever that means, but do you seriously mean
> to call anyone who has all the Q&A (and is remotely familiar with them) a
> "rules hawk"? There are indeed some people who enjoy using their familiarity
> with the rules to trip someone else up, but they are few and far between in my
> experience. Most players I know are all too eager to share their
> understanding of the rules (at whatever level that might be) at the drop of a
> hat. And which rules would you bar from tournament play? only the "changes"
> or the clarifications too? Q&A/errata aside, I know plenty of players whose
> understanding of the rules has been changed by going to a tournament. I hope
> it will always be so.
I didn't intend to cast aspersions on anybody in particular or on people
who are very familiar with the rules in general. My apologies if any
offense was taken. Certainly, none was intended, definately not in your
case. I have generally found ASL players most open to helping "newbies"
to learn the rules and tactics of the game. God knows, there are few
enough gamers, as I think we all realize, that we don't want to frighten
away the truly interested! The sheer volume of the ASL rules, make
careful study of them essential to be good at the game. "Naturally" you
say, and anyone who professes to be good at any game should know the
rules. I worry sometimes that having an encyclopedic knowledge of the
rules is perhaps an overly important component of being a good ASL player
as opposed to understanding the tactics and psychology of your opponent.
Maybe this is part of the simulation-game debate. I tend to come down on
the simulation side of the argument. Of course, the "fog of war" can't be
simulated in a board game, but I think ASL does as well as can be
expected, and an imperfect simulation is better than none at all. But I
think of ASL as a way to put you to some extent in the shoes of a
historical character. Understanding his problems helps you understand his
times. If the problem you're wrestling with becomes "did I properly
understand rule Z96.8," then we're getting away from what really attracts
me to ASL.
But I keep coming to tournements and I subscribe to this list not to
complain about the game and cast aspersions on the people who play it but
to enjoy it and enjoy their company and do my small best to try to improve
the experience for all of us. Sometimes I express myself strongly, but I
hope that won't be taken as an attack on others who also love this hobby
but as evidence of my strong love of the game.
>
> Stewart, at least you are not bemoaning the cost of the ASLRB and eight
> modules. You would think that Brent had not gotten his money's worth out of
> all that. Do you think he is really serious about an updated Index in >each<
> module? How much more would he have been willing to pay for that luxury? He
> must know how much work an updated Index would be at this point, how much
> effort that would subtract from the next module. I hope to see an updated
> index soon. I had hoped that with the completion of chapter G in Gung Ho we
> might be ready for the update. I am now resigned to waiting for the
> completion of the Minors. Stewart, am I the only one thought that purchase of
> the ASLRB did not entitle me to infinite rules updates? Seems to me that a
> viable TAHGC option was to publish no rules changes after the '87 and '89
> errata. I can easily imagine GH and CDG without an errata page. I would be
> the poorer for it.
I'd rather have a new index and wait a few months more for the next
module. The original index was a joy to use, and it's irritating not to
be able to look everything up in it. No fanzine is going to do the job --
for one thing, they don't have the rulebook in electronic format, so
indexing would have to be done by hand (gasp!). TAHGC would have to do
it, and I sure hope they would.
>
> Thanks, Stewart, for not blaming all this on those nefarious playtesters who
> have captured the ear of Mac, though perhaps you are not aware of the
> conventional Wisdom. We all know they are not interested in how easily the
> game plays. We all know they are not interested in teaching the game to
> newcomers or in sharing their knowledge of the system at tournaments or on
> BBS. We all know that they are only interested in is in complicating the game
> with some useless chrome like limiting MG-Boresighting-vs-Infantry to the MPh.
> Personally, I was at first against limiting MG-Boresighting-vs-Infantry to the
> MPh. It took away some of my favorite tactics (I forget a lot of things, but
> Boresighting is rarely one of them). I was won over, though. I was persuaded
> that MG-Boresighting is different that Ordnance-Boresighting (where you can
> actually sight down the bore); that it is typically used to prevent movement
> through a particular location; and that the changed rule elegantly reflects
> this at minimum additional complexity (once one got over his attachment to
> the old rule).
I appreciate the work playtesters put into improving the game. My
complaint is with TAHGC who don't put your work on the market in a more
efficient manner. I would like regular errata pages with all the changes
or clarifications and a regularly updated index. This would make the
rules accessible to newbies and older fans alike.
>
> My apologies, Stewart, for running on far too long (as usual) and my apologies
> again if I have mis-characterized your thoughts on the subject. I tried not
> to lump you in with everyone else, but your expressions were not the first
> time I have heard similar ideas. So, if in my need to vent I have gone off
> the deep end, please remember that I respect not only you but also your
> thoughts. I just don't agree. Thanks for listening.
>
> ....Perry
>
> PS Thanks also for not mentioning the evil "elitism" word. Ugh,
> shades of GEnie!
Hope to talk to you at WO. Save me a spot by the fire, a mug of beer, and
a bowl of pretzels.
Stewart
-----
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular moti
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:14:00 -0640
Howdy,
m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) responded to Tom:
>> Say I have a vehicle in the desert and I want to move it but
>> I don't want to use all its MP (or MFs, I can never remember which)
>> but I want it to remain in Motion at the end of my MPh. How do I do
>> this? There was a rule that said if you wanted to end your MPh in
>> Motion that you couldn't have used any Delay 'points'? Is this true?
What it actually says is:
C2.4 "Any Mobile vehicle ... which has used its entire
printed MP allotment during its MPh, without expending a MP
to Stop (2.13) or Delay (2.17) at the end of that MPh, is
considered in Motion..."
The key phrase is "at the end of that MPh." Delaying is
done after stopping, so if your last MP was spent to stop
or if your last MP was spent to delay, in either case your
vehicle was not moving when the MPh stopped. But if you
spend your last MP to start, even though you spent all the
other MP in Delay, you are in Motion at the end of your
MPh.
> There is a rule at the end of chapter F that allows you to spend as
> many MP as you wish in any hex, which allows you to spend your remaining
> MP allotment in the hex you wish to end your MPh.
To be truly complete, there is no rule in chapter F that allows
the spending of extra MP/MF. I think what you are refering to
is the section on vehicular dust, which comments:
F11.74 "Since a vehicle is not prohibited from expending
more MP to enter a hex than the minimum required, it may,
as it enters a new hex, declare a higher-than-necessary MP
expenditure [for sneaky purposes, here avoiding vehicular
dust]."
I thought I should point this out is for the many people
who don't own Chapter F, who can still spend all the extra
MP/MF they want without having to buy Chapter F. Ok, why
would you want to spend more than the minimum cost if you
don't own Chapter F and so don't know about Vehicular Dust?
According to Bruce Bakken in the '93a Annual article, real
Grognards (i.e. not me) will flay you by using C6.16 (which
says all MP not expended are considered expended in the
last hex) to DFF at your tank millions of times in the last
hex. Afterwards, they will smile and tell you what a
valuable lesson you learned. You should thank them.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 23:03:12 -0500 (EST)
From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com
Subject: Re: How many attacks during the MPh?
Patrik, Bas. and Philippe are wrong on this point.
A vehicle must spend all of its MP during the MPh unless it doesnUt move at
all. The rules do not say where the vehicle must spend the MP when using
armored assault, the extra MPs could be in the first hex, the last,
somewhere in the middle, or distributed throughout the MPh. Therefore the
answer to the following:
> 3) An AFV is doing Armored Assault. How many times can I shoot at it?
> One fourth of its movement allotment times the infantry COT?
> Just the fully-tracked COT?
You can shoot at it as many times, in any one hex, that equals the number of
MP that the owner of the vehicle wishes to spend in that hex.
> So if a vehicle in armoured assault (say a Puma with 33 MP) just
> spends 1MP on a road hex it should be possible to attack it 33 times
> not just once ! Otherwise, what a nice way of avoiding an ennemy
> deadly cannon...
The Puma is not allowed to spend just one MP, It must spend all 33 MP. If it
only moves one hex, then it must spend all 33 MP in that hex, making it
vulnerable to DF 33 times.
For proof, I refer you to the following rules:
D2.1,"... A vehicle which ends its MPh with MP remaining is assumed to use
all those MP in that hex." D2.4,"... A vehicle may end its MPh in Motion
without expending all if its MP only if it has insufficient MP remaining to
enter the next hex it wishes to enter." F11.711, "... Since a vehicle is
not prohibited from expending more MP to enter a hex than the minimum
required, it may, as it ehters a new hex, declare a higher-than-necessary MP
expenditure..."
--Daniel T.
-----
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:39:34 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: Concealment and Melee
Hey guys,
Mark said:
> My opponent has a nice, unpossessed(!) HMG in a location where a melee is
> happening. We are both interested in the possibility of advancing concealed
> units into the location and then attempt recovery in their next MPh, followed
> by getting the heck out of there. Sure, it would take a while, but who knows?
> Anyway, it appears SW recovery attempts are concealment loss activities. We
> just want to double check that the loss of concealment in the MPh doesn't drag
> that unit instantly into the Melee, but rather would do that only if the unit
> was to stay until the ensuing CCPh. What do you think?
I think you missed something in A4.44(87), the Recovery rule. "In all
cases, a Recovery attempt is allowed only by an unpinned, Good Order
unit that is not in the same Location as an armed, Known enemy unit..."
> As before, I ask if you could please CC me personally as I read the discussion
> off of ftp. I know it's not very participatory, but hey, I put the 93b Q&A up
> on carlo.phys.uva.nl! That should count for something!
Not a problem, Mark, assuming the CC feature in (cheesy) Mail behaves.
And thanks for doing the scanning.
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:51:28 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: 10-2 & 9-1 MC (fwd)[P
Edward Peschko <peschko@mermaid.micro.umn.edu> writes:
>> > After not inflicting a MC in several player turns I finally roll
>> a 5 > and get an NMC against a stack topped by a 10-2 leader. I
>> then proceed > to roll an 11 for the 10-2. Cool, I say :-) I then
>> examine the rest > of the stack and find a 9-1 hiding in there :-(
>> So what happens? > > Is the 10-2 pinned unstead of broken?
> And isn't there a rule saying that the best morale a unit can
> possibly have is 10?
Sure, but the leadership modifier does not increase a unit's morale,
you just substract it from the DR. That's in important distinction,
exactly because of the rule you quote.
Bas.
-----
From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon)
Subject: ASL Campaigns
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:23:24 +0100 (MET)
>
>
> OBASL: Does anyone have any good advice on how to complete a campaign
> game in a timely manner? I've tried 2 campaign games, one RB and
> one KGP, and we abandoned both after a few sessions due to time
> considerations. Do we just play too slowly? Should we think less,
> and move more (quickly)?
>
>
Yes, a Campaign Game is a very time-consuming affair. Most of my ftf games
in the last months (not enough playings, that's sure) were devoted to a RB
CG I'm sure we'll never finish. Playing a single day takes us a whole
real world day, and more than that in the last two scenarios; maybe playing
a whole week, day after day, would speed that up a little, but this means
social life would have to be cut to zero (right after playing RB for a whole
day, thinking of anything else seems difficult... I wonder what a whole
week of city fights would let us become...).
It seems that the length of Campaign Games tends to decrease as they are
released; I guess no more monsters like RB CG III will appear. KGP, while
still long, is much shorter; KGP II will bring even shorter campaign games.
The CG in the last Annual is only a few scenarios long, as is the one in
Tactiques. These campaigns, while still something you need a lot of time to
play, are of much more manageable size.
Now, while I know my RB CG III will probably never be completed, it's still
a great experience; normal scenarios so often end in a "last rush for the
objective hexes"... Here you have to think about your losses for next day,
and don't even know when the game will end, so maybe you should use your
APh to gain a little ground, but what if it lasts one more turn and the enemy
Prep Fire kills you...
--
Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr
-----
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 23:03:50 -0500 (EST)
From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners...
Bryan M.,
> On a different note (but the same game; Hi, Dan!), do
> prisoners count double for exit VP?
Unless otherwise noted in the VC or SSR, yes.
> Does the guard nationality
> get the double VP if the prisoner are subsequently eliminated by
> friendly fire?
No.
> Must SFF/FPF at a target take place immediately after the
> units DFF at that same target, or can unit A DFF, unit B (from a
> different location) DFF (at the same target), and then A SFF?
No. I disagree with Carl F. here, I know of no rule that forces a unit to
SFF before any other units DFF.
--Daniel T.
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:40:02 +0100
From: oleboe@idt.unit.no
Subject: IIFT once again
First some questions that shouldn't offend anyone:
A11.622 says that the Nahverteidungswaffe has 16 factors on the IFT and that SMOKE/other LOS Hindrances never apply, but what about TEM? It says nothing about TEM and neither does the example. Does the attacked unit receive TEM?
I've read the old articles about RB on this list, and it was discussed what's happening to the German 8-3-8's ELR in the campaign games, but I couldn't find any definitive answer. Does anyone know how their ELR is handled, and whether they split into HS or is replaced by a conscript when they fail the ELR.
Now for the (maybe) offending part:
I usually play using the IIFT. IMO the only real reason not to use the IIFT is the balancing question. To find out how much use of the IIFT has to say, I made a little game:
The game consisted of two squads set up inside normal range of each other, in terrain with equal TEM. The game was then played like a normal ASL game, but the only thing the squads was allowed to do, was firing at each other. Pinning and cowering was included in the normal manner. The game ended when one side become broken, was reduced or KIA'd.
I tried this with different FP and TEM ranging from 0 to 2. With the IFT a squad with 6 and a squad with 7 FP would win 50% of the time each (assuming equal morale), and I wanted to find out how much this changed using the IIFT. To get reliable results I tried this 600,000 times (yes six hundred thousand times. I didn't roll myself, but used a computer) for each FP combination. 200,000 with zero TEM, 200,000 with 1 TEM and 200,000 with 2 TEM. The results came out like this:
FP-Morale FP-Morale result:
3-6 2-6 51.1
5-7 4-7 51.2
7-7 6-7 51.9
7-7 4-7 63.7 ** IFT used
7-7 4-7 65.4 ** IIFT used
This shows that a 3-3-6 will win the game over a 2-3-6, 51.1% of the time.
These result shows clearly, IMHO, that one can ignore the change in play balance when using the IIFT. I am not afraid of having the possibility of loosing increased by 1.9% when I play the Germans against US paratroopers.
However, when it comes to concealment loss the IIFT is another story. I computed how many times you normally will have to fire at a concealed target before the target looses its concealment. The result are in the following table:
FP: 2 3 4 5 6 7
TEM:
0 2.57 1.89 1.71 1.44 1.44 1.24
1 3.60 2.57 2.57 1.80 1.71 1.44
2 6.00 4.00 3.60 2.57 2.57 1.80
aver: 4.06 2.82 2.63 1.94 1.91 1.49
>From this I computed the decrease in number of shots needed when using the IIFT and having a (modified) FP of 3, 5 and 7. This gave:
FP: 3 5 7
30.5% 26.2% 22.0%
These result show that when it comes to concealment loss, the IIFT may have a great impact on the play balance. This leads me to a new House Rule. When using the IIFT, ignore the extra PTC's for concealment loss purposes (only). I.e., treat the extra PTC's as No Effect when shooting at a concealed target. If this rule is included, the IIFT has so little impact on the play balance that no-one should avoid it for that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cut off my head,
what do I say:
Ole Boe
Me and my head
or oleboe@idt.unit.no
Me and my body?
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:17:33 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Nahverteidigungswaffe
oleboe <oleboe@idt.unit.no> writes:
> First some questions that shouldn't offend anyone: A11.622 says that
> the Nahverteidungswaffe has 16 factors on the IFT and that
> SMOKE/other LOS Hindrances never apply, but what about TEM? It says
> nothing about TEM and neither does the example. Does the attacked
> unit receive TEM?
In the Q&A list:
A11.622 May a unit being attacked by a Nahverteidigungswaffe claim a
TEM?
A. No. {93b}
Bas.
-----
From: jlb@lri.fr
Subject: Re: Nahverteidungswaffe & TEM
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:36:29 +0100 (MET)
oleboe@idt.unit.no writes:
> First some questions that shouldn't offend anyone:
> A11.622 says that the Nahverteidungswaffe has 16 factors on the IFT
> and that SMOKE/other LOS Hindrances never apply, but what about TEM?
> It says nothing about TEM and neither does the example. Does the
> attacked unit receive TEM?
>From a personnal QA i posted to the list a few weeks ago :
Q. A11.622 Is an sN attack affected by non-SMOKE IFT DRM (e.g. TEM)?
A. No.
--
==========================================================================
Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et
( ( Conception des Circuits Integres
\ \
LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91
Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86
F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr
==========================================================================
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:02:09 CST
From: archerb@uinta.ssc.gov (Bill Archer)
Subject: Re: Perry's Stuff
tqr@inel.gov writes:
>I'm really curious about whether the Professionals was playtested with
>allowing MOL in SFF/FPF or not. I can't imagine the Yugos winning without it
>(although I have never played it and could easily be wrong here.) If so,
>I'd sure like to see a revision for this very interesting-looking scenario.
Well as a lowly 7-0 I helped playtest The Professional's. I only remember
two games. One ended when an AT gun nailed all 4 german tanks in one DFPh,
excellent ROF and poor German tactics (mine). In the other one a halftrack
died on the bridge (due to an AT gun), whereupon a PzIV was not danity
enough and fell through the bridge. I believe that game also saw an
AT gun sprint :) across the bridge. I don't even remember MOL at all, much
less it having any effect in any fire phase. I just played The Professional's
at the ASL Open and it would not have made any difference if MOL could be
used in SFF/FPF, the German just kept the vehicles away.
stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu writes:
>No fanzine is going to do the job --
>for one thing, they don't have the rulebook in electronic format, so
>indexing would have to be done by hand (gasp!). TAHGC would have to do
>it, and I sure hope they would.
I believe it has come up before that TAHGC does not have a computerized
rulebook either, Mac will have to do the index by hand. Maybe that is
why he only wants to do it once :). Actually, there was an interesting
discussion at the Open, we are very close to the end of changes to the ASLRB,
within the next year or two the rules should be finalized. What is happening
now is fine tuning, after all, who every actually used calvary before?
-----
Subject: Commissar's house
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy_Buckland@ncsu.edu
I am an ASL 6+1 (SL 8-1) and I am learning the rules with solitare games.
I was setting up a game of commissar's house last night and had a question.
What possible use are the trench counters? The russians can only setup on
board 20 and I decided the roads are paved which leaves very few places the
trenches can be placed.
I ended up putting three in the gully and open space in front of 20s6 and
put the other three behind the rowhouses to the left (no board in front of me,
about 20v6 area I think). Any better places? Anything obvious I am missing?
--
Randy Buckland "It's hard to work
North Carolina State University in a group when you're
randy_buckland@ncsu.edu (919) 515-5491 omnipotent" -- Q
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:44:17 -0600
From: Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: Commissar's house
Randy,
My understanding is that Trenches can be _set up_ on paved
roads, however, a unit may not attempt Entrenchment (i.e. make
Foxholes) on a paved road.
In the Commissar's House, good trench locations are 20S5,
20T6, 20W3, 20Y3, 20AA5, and 20AA7. This lets the Russians rout
across these open spaces without fear of Interdiction. On the
down side, they can make it easier for the German to get across
the roads. A Trench in a gully doesn't buy you much. You can't
see very far from it, and if enemy units are adjacent it's like
shooting fish in a barrel.
Just one man's opinion.
Bryan
-----
From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:43:44 -0500
Subject: IIFT once again
Item Subject: Message text
> First some questions that shouldn't offend anyone:
>
> A11.622 says that the Nahverteidungswaffe has 16 factors on the IFT and that
SMO
> KE/other LOS Hindrances never apply, but what about TEM? It says nothing about
T
> EM and neither does the example. Does the attacked unit receive TEM?
My guess would be yes.
> I've read the old articles about RB on this list, and it was discussed what's
ha
> ppening to the German 8-3-8's ELR in the campaign games, but I couldn't find
any
> definitive answer. Does anyone know how their ELR is handled, and whether
they
> split into HS or is replaced by a conscript when they fail the ELR.
I was under the impression that 838's always ELR by deploying not by Greening.
> Now for the (maybe) offending part:
[*snip, snip*]
[test of balence on the IIFT]
This test isn't valid unless you include the increased chance of PTC's. I don't
know if you did that or not. See, if squad A shoots first and gets a PTC, then
squad B may end up returning only half FP, not full FP. If the IIFT has a
greater
chance of that result it may still have a profound effect on the game that
favors
whoever gets to shoot first.
[house rule on ignoring PTC's for ?-stripping]
This might be more accurate (read: less of a potential imbalence over the IFT)
if
you just ignored the extra PTC's altogether. The question then is, is the IIFT
without the extra PTC's significantly different from the IFT?
thanks,
Dave "I don't really care; I just want to PLAY!" Wetzel
dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Prisoner VP
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:10:44 +0100 (MET)
Bas,
> We did not count those units double, just the normal VP. But the
> point was that the scenario VC specified that prisoners did not count
> at all. So he got the points only when he eliminated my units, which
> he did by massacring them.
Ouch! Sorry, I didn't have the scenario card in front of me, and I
didn't remember that SSR.
Still, I wonder... When taken prisoner, a unit _is_ eliminated, and I
would still count it for VP purposes, SSR notwithstanding. Of course,
it wouldn't count for double VP. Seems you found a solution anyway.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 07:29:59 -0800
From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga)
On Feb 3, 10:23am, Philippe Duchon wrote:
> Yes, a Campaign Game is a very time-consuming affair. Most of my ftf games
> in the last months (not enough playings, that's sure) were devoted to a RB
> CG I'm sure we'll never finish. Playing a single day takes us a whole
> real world day, and more than that in the last two scenarios; maybe playing
> a whole week, day after day, would speed that up a little, but this means
> social life would have to be cut to zero (right after playing RB for a whole
> day, thinking of anything else seems difficult... I wonder what a whole
> week of city fights would let us become...).
>
I hate to say it, but this is why I've never played a CG. The enormity of the
task is daunting. With limited gaming time, I'd rather play a full scenario to
conclusion. I love a good "monster" scenario, but a CG is something else
entirely.
I don't know if any of you have the same problem, but on those rare occassions
when my opponent and I are unable to finish a scenario in a single session, I
can really go overboard dwelling on the game (even to the point of losing sleep)!
Should I Prep Fire that stack, or try to move up? What if I shoot and he
doesn't break? Everything depends on the Melee in 4X1, etc. Not that I'm THAT
worried about winning; it's just that I love the game.
The thought of going through this agonizing thought process for weeks on end for
a CG goes beyond what I consider to be healthy. I DO admire you die-hards that
have the (insert your favorite slang term for the male reproductive organs here)
to go for it.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. One of these days, though, I am going to take a deep
breath and play "The Last Bid."
Dade
-----
From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:35:00 -0500
Subject: Okay, stupid SMOKE question...
Item Subject: Message text
Sorry, this is no doubt a dumb question, but...
I was playing the 19am turn of KGP. I fired some WP from a 60mm LtMtr. I got
the depleation number (7 I think), but missed the TH (Extremely Heavy Mist).
So, what happens? Does the smoke just not appear? Do you do a
Direction&Distance (D&D??) Roll?
thanks,
dave "and while we're at it, why has my brain gone out to lunch?" wetzel
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners...
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:36:20 +0100 (MET)
Hi! Just thought I should make an attempt to clear something up:
> > Does the guard nationality
> > get the double VP if the prisoner are subsequently eliminated by
> > friendly fire?
Daniel T answers:
> No.
Well, I suppose this really depends on the circumstances, and the
question doesn't elaborate, so:
Yes. (If you have to amass casualty VP, and "friendly fire" is fire by
units of the prisoners' nationality.)
No. (If this in fact refers to a massacre, or when shooting abandoned/
escaped prisoners.)
No. (If you're required to amass *exit* VP)
I was wondering about this even when I answered the question the first
time, but I decided to ignore it then.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:34:02 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Artillery Questions
Hello,
A couple of questions about artillery came up during a game of "Festung
St. Edouard" (which I definitely recommend, as long as you're up on your
artillery rules).
1. If two FFE's overlap, can the FFE hindrance ever become +2? (We said
no.)
2. If you drop WP on a concealed unit, simultaneously inflicting a
WP MC and cutting off LOS due to a total +6 Hindrance, is that
unit's concealment stripped? (This comes down to whether you
can see the guys jumping around screaming before the SMOKE comes
up, or whether the screaming starts after the SMOKE comes up.)
And, to answer another SMOKE question, SMOKE rounds that miss go nowhere.
I've never seen a rule that says they scatter to a random hex. Yes, this
seems pretty stupid to me too.
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:46:09 +0200
From: Pedro Faria <k89_foc@lthkcu.kc.lth.se>
Subject: Ladder game wanted
Have never played a PTO game before but after reading the rules I'm now
prepared to make a try.
Anyone out there that want to take me on for my first PTO game ???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Pedro Faria : :
: Lund Institute of Technology (LTH) : mail: Kamnarsvagen 13 D:203 :
: email: k89_foc@lthkcu.kc.lth.se : S-226 46 LUND :
: Phone: +46 46/394048 : SWEDEN :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:21:19 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: IIFT stuff, sorry
>First some questions that shouldn't offend anyone:
>
>A11.622 says that the Nahverteidungswaffe has 16 factors on the IFT and that
>SMOKE/other LOS Hindrances never apply, but what about TEM? It says nothing
>about TEM and neither does the example. Does the attacked unit receive TEM?
>
Well, I am offended by the name Nahverteidungswaffe, and refuse to learn the
proper pronunciation! 8)
>I've read the old articles about RB on this list, and it was discussed
>what's happening to the German 8-3-8's ELR in the campaign games, but I
>couldn't find any definitive answer. Does anyone know how their ELR is
>handled, and whether they split into HS or is replaced by a conscript when
>they fail the ELR.
They split to HS because they have underlined morale.
>Now for the (maybe) offending part:
>I usually play using the IIFT. IMO the only real reason not to use the IIFT
>is the balancing question.
Well, here is the part where I disagree. You say "IMO the only real reason
not to use..." the IIFT vs. the IFT but give *NO* reason why I SHOULD use the
IIFT. Change for the sake of changing?
More realistic? Prove it. I've not seen definitive proof that the IIFT is
more "realistic" than the IFT. The "why would you leave a MG out of a shot"
argument doesn't work for me. Maybe the MG is guarding a road. There
has never been, in any of the IIFT debates, what I would call proof of
more realism or, even better, any has there ever been offered a significant
reason WHY I SHOULD CHANGE!
All I ever seem to see are more and more numbers "proving" that the IIFT is
no more or less deadly than the IFT. WELL THEN, WHY USE IT?!?
Please email me responses, if you feel the need to be lambasted for wanting to
prove that I should scrap a working solution.
Have a nice day.
Brian Youse
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:09:21 CST
From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen)
Subject: Central Texas ASL Users Group Forming!
The CT-ASLUG had its first meeting in January and its second meeting
quickly approaches, Feb 6th.
Anyone in the Central Texas (Austin and surrounding areas)
who is interested in joining our newly formed ASLUG, please
drop me a line or call 512-892-7169, 512-892-7802, x265.
We meet on the first Sunday of every month at predetermined
sites.
cheers,
mike
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Artillery Questions
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 9:29:44 PST
> And, to answer another SMOKE question, SMOKE rounds that miss go nowhere.
> I've never seen a rule that says they scatter to a random hex. Yes, this
> seems pretty stupid to me too.
>
>
> Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
Perhaps the idea is that they aren't placed close enough together (I assume a
SMOKE shot represents several rounds) to have the desired effect? If that is
the case, I don't know what the right solution should be (probably +1 and +2
smoke counters, but I'm not sure).
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular moti
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 9:39:53 PST
> I thought I should point this out is for the many people
> who don't own Chapter F, who can still spend all the extra
> MP/MF they want without having to buy Chapter F. Ok, why
> would you want to spend more than the minimum cost if you
> don't own Chapter F and so don't know about Vehicular Dust?
> According to Bruce Bakken in the '93a Annual article, real
> Grognards (i.e. not me) will flay you by using C6.16 (which
> says all MP not expended are considered expended in the
> last hex) to DFF at your tank millions of times in the last
> hex. Afterwards, they will smile and tell you what a
> valuable lesson you learned. You should thank them.
>
> So long,
>
> JR
What's the difference between this situation and the one where you do expend
all the extra MP out of LOS, use your last one to move into that hex, and then
get splattered by 6 or 7 shots in the DFPh?
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular moti
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 19:18:18 +0100 (MET)
Hi Doug,
[ JR's summary of motion/MP expenditure mechanics deleted ]
> What's the difference between this situation and the one where you do expend
> all the extra MP out of LOS, use your last one to move into that hex, and then
> get splattered by 6 or 7 shots in the DFPh?
Though it might not happen very often, you just might have another vehicle
ready to OVR the gun when its attention is caught. Then the gun won't be
around (or at least not be able to fire) when the DFPh comes.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:45:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: IIFT once again
In our RB CGIII we are playing it that the 8-3-8s are replaced by 4-3-6s
(albeit Assault Engineer/Sapper 4-3-6s...yeeehaaaaa!) and we are doing this
because of the folowing two rules:
A19.132 Whenever an SSR (not just an OB) specifically assigns an ELR =<4
to units with an underscored Morale Factor, they suffer Unit Replacement
normally...
O11.617 ELR LOSS/GAIN:...A side's ELR applies to all non-crew Infantry
units of that side...
I suppose it comes down to whether or not you consider O11.617 an SSR (as
I do) or OB designation. However, evidence in favour of splitting them to
3-3-8s is apparent in the non-CG scenarios wherein there are no SSR citing
them as having an ELR <5. And in case any of you are wondering, I'm playing
the Germans and am the one who brought this up during our CG (along with the
business of Retention of captured FT/DC after I'd captured them from the
Russians; do I know how to hamstring myself or what?!).
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> I've read the old articles about RB on this list, and it was discussed what's happening to the German 8-3-8's ELR in the campaign games, but I couldn't find any definitive answer. Does anyone know how their ELR is handled, and whether they split into HS
or is replaced by a conscript when they fail the ELR.
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: 3 Feb 1994 11:00:46 -0800
From: "Mark Bennett" <Mark_Bennett@taligent.com>
Subject: Re: Concealment and Melee
RE>> Concealment and Melee
Dave Ripton <Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com> writes:
> I think you missed something in A4.44(87), the Recovery rule. "In all
> cases, a Recovery attempt is allowed only by an unpinned, Good Order
> unit that is not in the same Location as an armed, Known enemy unit..."
Doh! I'd think by now to have realized that for almost every condition,
there exists a rule in ASL, if I only looked hard enough.
Thanks Dave!
Mark
-----
Subject: Re: Desert Tank Movement
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:14:00 -0640
Howdy,
duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) writes:
> Now, the Delay MP was in the original rules, wasn't it ?
> Does Delay MP imply you have to be Stopped ? I'm a bit
> confused on this...
D2.17: "The expenditure of MP without moving is termed Delay
and can only be used while the vehicle is stopped or using
platoon movement."
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:06:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: Artillery Questions
Dave:
[stuff deleted]
> 1. If two FFE's overlap, can the FFE hindrance ever become +2? (We said
> no.)
Tricky. In C1.57 it is written "...DRM never exceeds +1 regardless of the
number of HE Blast hexes it is traced through..." but I remember a Q&A
(which I cannot find) which stated that the DRM is +1 per FFE so it may be
+2 for the overlapped hex.
> 2. If you drop WP on a concealed unit, simultaneously inflicting a
> WP MC and cutting off LOS due to a total +6 Hindrance, is that
> unit's concealment stripped?
[stuff deleted]
I've always played it that the >+5 hindrance only cuts off LOS past the
blocking hex, not into it.
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:24 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: Artillery Questions
My question:
>> 1. If two FFE's overlap, can the FFE hindrance ever become +2? (We said
>> no.)
Brent's answer:
>Tricky. In C1.57 it is written "...DRM never exceeds +1 regardless of the
>number of HE Blast hexes it is traced through..." but I remember a Q&A
>(which I cannot find) which stated that the DRM is +1 per FFE so it may be
>+2 for the overlapped hex.
I searched the Q&A file a little harder, and it's indeed there, from
the '91 Annual. +2 for two different FFE's, even if only one hex.
(Yep, this seems to violate both the +1 per hex Hindrance principle and
the text of C1.57, but it's the answer.)
>> 2. If you drop WP on a concealed unit, simultaneously inflicting a
>> WP MC and cutting off LOS due to a total +6 Hindrance, is that
>> unit's concealment stripped?
> I've always played it that the >+5 hindrance only cuts off LOS past the
> blocking hex, not into it.
An interesting point, and I don't think this is how it is supposed to
work with SMOKE, but it doesn't really answer the question.
It was a WP FFE, and the hex in front of the one containing the unit was
the one that blocked LOS with the +6 Hindrance. (This is a KGP scenario,
so we have mist and orchards creating lots of Hindrances.)
Does the concealed unit which is hit by a WP MC, along with which comes
enough Hindrance to make a +6 and block all LOS to that unit from all
Good Order enemy viewers, lose that concealment?
I doubt there really is an answer here. Patrik pointed out that this
is analagous to the case where a squad KIA's its previously Good Order
target, with nobody else watching, and loses its concealment. So
that's the way I'd lean in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thanks,
Dave (possibly more annoying than several Matts combined) Ripton
ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:53:58 -0500
From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow)
Subject: tanks in motion
The rule says you can't end a vehicle's MPh in motion unless it doesn't have
enough MP to enter the next hex. But that rule in chapter F says you can spend
as many MP as you want (above the minimum cost) in a hex. Therefore, you can
always voluntarily make the next hex cost too many MPs to enter and stay in
Motion.
Anything wrong with this logic?
Marty
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:36:31 EST
From: "Matthew E. Brown" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
Subject: Tom, Chuck, and Barney
Tuomo says:
>> A great big Barney(TM) Hug to our new players - David Hull, Bryan
Chuck retorts:
>I know this List has little or no rules, but from someone who has two small
>children who watch Barney (TM) all the !?@%$!! time, I propose that he not be
>mentioned on this List again. :)
>
>Hey, he's invaded just about every other part of my life, leave me something!
I suggest we adopt the lovable Sarge from Chapter K as our big hugs mascot
for the Ladder.
Oh, and Chuck, thanks for posting the personal-intimidation hint. I'll be
making up a Lt. Barney counter and posting it to the archives for all
your ladder opponents to ftp and append to their moves.
Matt (you know) Brown
Meanwhile, please forgive the following.
----------------
BARNEY VARIANT COUNTER
32 BARNEY: An SSR may specify that one side in a scenario have a Barney.
A Barney is an SMC from our imagination. Barney is a 5/8" counter, and
an ASL sensation!
32.1 Only one side in a scenario can have a Barney SMC, and no more than
one Barney SMC can be on-board at a time. More would be beyond the limits
of this simulation and the bounds of good taste.
...
32.51 A Barney SMC has no broken side. When a Barney fails an MC, the
Barney immediately goes Berzerk, and is flipped to it's 12 MF X-X-10 side.
Thereafter, until every opposing unit, or itself, is eliminated, the
Barney will charge the nearest (in MF) enemy unit and attempt to stomp
it to death in CC.
32.511 A Berserk Barney SMC is considered Very Lax, and must add +2 to
its Ambush DR (A11.4), or +3 if it is Singing (32.6).
...
32.6 SINGING: A Good Order Barney SMC can attempt to Sing at the beginning
of its Rally Phase by passing an NTC. If the attempt is successful, the
Barney is placed under a +1 labor counter until its next Rally Phase.
32.61 Effects: All enemy units within Normal Singing Range (NSR) [EXC: NSR
is +1 for Russian Barney SMCs] are prevented from Rallying. In addition,
all enemy units within NSR must, in either their next MPh or APh,
attempt to move outside NSR [as modified by Wind Force (B25.63) and
Weather (E3)]. Any enemy units that begin their Rout Phase within NSR
of a Singing Barney SMC must take an immediate INTENSE REVULSION 2MC.
Units that fail ELR during an INTENSE REVULSION 2MC will attempt to surrender,
or become disrupted if surrender is not possible. Japanese units will use
Hara-Kari (G1.641) immediately, rather than waiting for a capture attempt.
-------------------
ERRATA
Add 32.52:
When a Berserk Barney fails an MC, it loses Berserk status and in reduced
in its curent hex to a 1/4" counter Barney, representing a small plush doll.
The 1/4" Barney is treated as an unpossessed SW, and it can be recovered
by either side.
Add 32.53
When a 1/4" Barney is recovered, it can be exchanged for a friendly 5/8"
Barney SMC if the recovering unit passes a 2MC in a subsequent Rally Phase.
Hencforth, the Barney SMC is considered to be part of the recovering unit's
OB.
32.6 Delete "the...is", and add "any friendly unit in the same hex
as Barney must be" in its place. Also add: "NSR is 3 hexes."
32.61 Add the following:
When Night (E1) rules are in effect, NSR is doubled, but a -1 DRM applies
to all INTENSE REVULSION 2MCs inflicted on units outside of NVR (E1.1).
Add 32.62:
Under some circumstances, Singing can have a negative effect on
Barney's own troops. If Singing continues for more than 2 Game Turns,
all friendly units within NSR must pass a 2TC avoid Napping (32.7).
Add 32.7:
NAPPING: Napping units are TI for the remainder of the Game Turn.
Napping units are not Good Order, nor may they guard prisoners. A
friendly Non-Barney Leader may attempt to Revive a Napping unit during
its Rally Phase. However, A failed Revival attempt where doubles are
rolled will result in the Leader joining the Napping unit in Slumber.
---------------
Playtest volunteer?
-----
Subject: Re: IIFT stuff, sorry
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 15:51:03 -0500
From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov
In reply to Brian's comment about the IIFT:
"More realistic? Prove it. I've not seen definitive proof that the IIFT is
more "realistic" than the IFT. The "why would you leave a MG out of a shot"
argument doesn't work for me. Maybe the MG is guarding a road. There
has never been, in any of the IIFT debates, what I would call proof of
more realism or, even better, any has there ever been offered a significant
reason WHY I SHOULD CHANGE!"
So why is that LMG ALWAYS guarding a road when it's with a 4-6-7, but NEVER
guarding a road when it's stacked with a 5-4-8?
But seriously folks, let's face it, I don't think any of us actually have any
proof that the IIFT represents the firepower of a unit more acurrately than
the IFT does. Or vice versa. And maybe the IIFT does shift some probabilities
so that concealment gets stripped 2.554389% more frequently, or maybe 3-3-7
are now more powerful relative to 4-6-7s (I'll still take the 4-6-7!), etc.
I'll concede any of these points you wish to argue. But just let me state
the ONE AND ONLY GOOD REASON TO USE THE IIFT:
The ONE AND ONLY GOOD REASON TO USE THE IIFT is that ASL, better than any other
game gives you the "feel" of making tactical decisions in combat and the IIFT
lets you use a decision process regarding usage of your troops and weapons
which is more akin to the decision processes of an actual leader in the field.
This hypothetical "real" leader would be making decisions in organizing his
men into fire groups based on factors like "how much firepower can we bring
to bear on that target" or "how can I split my firepower to service X different
targets", etc. The IFT on the other hand encourages one to split up ones
firepower in ways that have little or nothing to do with simulating that
decision process and often leads to a bean-counting style of FP allocation
which is the antithesis of that process. In effect, the IIFT removes the
artificial tactic of allocating firepower to achieve certain "golden" levels
and replaces it with the more natural tactic of allocating firepower based
on perceptions of what is necessary/sufficient for a particular situation.
Not that the IIFT is perfect, but it is a better tool for doing what ASL
does best: putting you in charge of a tactical situation and letting you
"fly it by the seat of your pants" (after setting them on fire).
Let me put that another way ("geez won't this guy ever shut up?!?"). It's not
that the IIFT itself is more accurate (regarding unit capabilities) than the
IFT, it's that the _process_ of using the IIFT is more realistic than the
_process_ of using the IFT.
One final comment. Over and over, I see the argument against using the IIFT
that "a unit can't always be expected to fire all its weapons all the time".
Well then why does a 4-6-7 ALWAYS fire on the 4 FP column (at normal range)?
A 6-6-7 ALWAYS on the 6 column. So what is the problem with a 5-4-8 ALWAYS
firing on the 5 column (of the IIFT)? Why is this so different? Anyway, this
is a misleading issue. No matter what column of what table we are using, we
still have to ROLL THE DICE. They are the great randomizer with which the
variability of fire combat results is built into the (I)IFT! Smith didn't
fire his Garrand? Schultz sneezed while firing his MG42? The damned Jerries
ducked just as Smythe-Jones fired his Bren? It's all there in the dice, folks.
That's all folks...
Bob "It's a b... it's a b... it's a... boxcars!!!" Strzelinski
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:09:58 EST
From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle)
Subject: Re: Tom, Chuck, and Barney
Matt forgot the most important rule:
The side that eliminates the Barney SMC *IMMEDIATELY*
wins that scenario.
The side that eliminates Barney also gets to claim
victory in the NEXT scenario should Barney die due to:
Flamthrower KIA - barbequed
HE CH > 150mm - blasted to smithereens
Overrun by a FT equipped Vehicle - barbequed some more
Overrun by a AFV weighing > 50 tons - crushed **
OBA CH > 150 mm (or NOBA ) - really blasted to smithereens
** extra bonus if "Under My Wheels" by Alice Cooper is playing on the
stereo at the time.
Adrian
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:25:48 EST
From: "Matthew E. Brown" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
Subject: Sitrep #1 Update
Folks:
On a slightly more serious note, here is an update on Sitrep #1.
We have 15 entrants signed up. We have received 3 entries (moves)
already. Registration for Sitrep #1 is over.
I am listing the entrants here in case I have forgotten someone.
If you signed up, or tried to sign up, and you are not listed here,
it means your email either dissipated into wayward electrons, or
(more likely) I am an incompetent bozo for misplacing you. Please
contact me.
Darryl Lundy d.lundy3@genie.geis.com
Randy Buckland randy_buckland@ncsu.edu
Dan Sullivan DJSULLIVAN@cooper.bbn.com
Carl Fago cdf1@psu.edu
Grant Linneberg grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
Dave Ripton ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
Stewart R King stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Philippe Duchon duchon@clipper.ens.fr
Ethan Strauss IO00865@MAINE.maine.edu
Jean-Luc Bechennec Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr
Pat Connolly pec@cbstp2.att.com
Dade Cariaga dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM
Don Hancock hancock@ono.geg.mot.com
Mustafa Unlu mustafa+@CMU.EDU
John Foley grendel@sos.wh.att.com
Our judges are:
Randy Nonay rnonay@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Adrian Earle earle@cmc.ca
Bas de Bakker bas@phys.uva.nl
Rodney Kinney kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU
Our schedule is:
1. Mail the Sitrep to the ASL list Wed 1-27 - Done
3. Entry closed. Official Start. Mon 1-31 - Done
4. Part 1 Entries due to mattb@ctron.com Mon 2-07
5. Part 1 Results to players Mon 2-14
6. Part 2 Entries due to mattb@ctron.com Mon 2-21
7. Final results to players and posted to ASL list Mon 2-28
Stay Tuned.
Matt Brown
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:14:52 PST
From: jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar)
Subject: Another quick question...
In the PBEM game I am playing, a situation came up that the rulebook
and Annual Q&A appear to be silent on:
I moved a leader 1MF into an open ground hex. He was promptly attacked &
broken by an 88 Flak gun. Now that he is broken, is his MPh stopped
IMMEDIATELY, or is he considered to have expended 5 more MF in LOS of the
gun, allowing up to 5 more attacks?
I know this applies to vehicles which stop in a hex before their MP
are all expended, but what about infantry?
Jon Biggar
jon@netlabs.com
-----
From: "Jeffrey Wraspir" <wras0002@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Return to ASL After Number of Years- Need Help
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:40:55 -0600
I have a couple of questions I know someone on the mailing list can help with.
I am in the process of returning to ASL after a long absense. I have the ASL
Rule Book and Beyond Valor. These were purchased a number of years ago (1986
vintage I believe). My college years got in the way with my masters degree. My
questions -
1) I failed to return the coupon good for the rules update in 1989.
What is the best way for me to get up to speed on the rule changes and get
the interts for the rule book?
2) What do you use to "store" all the counters? Or how do you take your
equipment to ASL tournements?
3) Is is worthwhile to purchase the ASL Annuals? If so what issue(s) should I
buy?
So as not to clutter up the mailing list please send any respones to my private
email address. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
Jeffrey Wraspir
University of Minnesota
Home of the Golden Gophers!
P.O. Box 17024
St. Paul MN 55117-0024
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 15:23:42 -0800
From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga)
Subject: MGs and deliberate immobilization
Here's another quick question:
Can MGs fire to immobilize? The rules state that deliberate immobilization is
possible if the TK of the weapon is greater than the lowest hull AF for the
AFV. Fine. But deliberate immobilization may only be attempted by Guns/ordnance.
So, does an MG meet this latter qualification? This would seem to make MGs
significantly more effective against otherwise invulnerable AFVs like the
PzIV (I think) that has a 3 hull AF vs. side/rear shots. An LMG at 6 hexes
need only score a hull hit (with appropriate modifiers) and the AFV is fully
hosed.
Disclaimer:
I don't have the ASLRB with me,so I'm going from memory.
Dade
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:43:16 PST
From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli)
Subject: Re: Return to ASL After Number of Years- Need Help
> 2) What do you use to "store" all the counters? Or how do you take your
> equipment to ASL tournements?
aaarrrgghhhhhh ! Unsubscribe me ! Quick ! Quick.... before the flood
of mails start arriving... Heeeeellllpppppp...
(no, no, Brian. Please, don't!)
:-)
bahadir
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:39:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu>
Subject: Night Rules Question
Hello, I have a question regarding a situation which arose in a recent
playing of the 19N scenario of a KGP CGI. Can a leader with Freedom of
Movement at the start of the scenario begin play in the same location
as a vehicle with a radio, and thus confer freedom of movement to all
friendly vehicles with radios?
My opponent did this with his 9-2 leader and I was facing a Panther and a
King Tiger with a 9-2 armor leader versus my infantry in open terrain on
turn 2. It wasn't very pretty.
Thanks!
Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."
--- President Gerald Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:54:45 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Another quick question...
>
> In the PBEM game I am playing, a situation came up that the rulebook
> and Annual Q&A appear to be silent on:
>
> I moved a leader 1MF into an open ground hex. He was promptly attacked &
> broken by an 88 Flak gun. Now that he is broken, is his MPh stopped
> IMMEDIATELY, or is he considered to have expended 5 more MF in LOS of the
> gun, allowing up to 5 more attacks?
>
> I know this applies to vehicles which stop in a hex before their MP
> are all expended, but what about infantry?
>
I don't have the rule reference, but Infantry are assumed to spend
only the MF required to enter a location and maybe fired upon only that
many times. The remaining MF are lost. In your case each unit may fire on
the leader only once.
Fred
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:45:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu>
Subject: 19N KGP Report (long)
Hello, I have a brief report about the 19N scenario which was played at
Metro Seattle Gamers last weekend. The Americans started with a small force
holding the farm buildings and the stream ford up by the Red 20am entry
arrow, and the rest of the OB offboard in the blue 19am entry area. The
plan of attack was to try and infiltrate from the northern woods toward the
Sanitarium. Meanwhile, a Green platoon would enter from the east and trudge
through the woods, digging foxholes and occupying an objective hex, in an
attempt to link up the two groups with strategic locations. The main force
would sally onboard from the east, and try to a) dig foxholes to create a
set-up area for the next scenario; and b) sally down N.33 toward the
Sanitarium and try to seize some real estate. The starting forces were
four ersatz platoons and a 57L ATG in the northern group, and seven platoons,
an M4A3(76)L, and two M10 TDs in the offmap group.
The Germans started with about twenty squads (all SS), two Pak 40s, two
76L ATGs compliments of the 19pm scenario, 2 Mark IVs, 3 PZ Vs, a King
Tiger, two Flamm Tracks, plus assorted halftracks and Kubelwagons. Their
reinforcements consisted of one or two more platoons of SS infantry and
two platoons of paratroopers. The Germans were fanatic for this
scenario.
The American force in the north woods dully stepped off their attack after
the Bombardment. The Bombardment managed to break all of two squads, who
were reserves not in the front line. My opponent deviously set-up one hex
behind the farthest forward hexes he could set up in, so my Recon failed
to uncover anything. It was the first time I had ever purchased Recon,
and I did not utilize it in an optimal fashion. Most of the German
infantry, along with a Panther and both Flamm Tracks, set up facing my
northern force. The northern attack was crushed, moving adjacent to a
concealed vehicle on a forest road, only to find out it is a Flamm Track
is not a pleasant experience. This occurred twice. The Germans
counterattacked in the north and took both of the LVP farm buildings in
the American setup area. The 57L ATG was also overrun by infantry and
captured in CC. The American forces retained a shrunken set-up area
for the next scenario.
The attack from the east faltered just short of the first stone building
along N.33. The Germans deployed most of their minefields here and
had a few set DCs in the woods too. Searching prevented too many casualties,
but the combination of terrain and minefields prevented any large firegroups
from forming. This attack stalled. The German had two 9-2s with squads
dug in also, preventing any GIs from volunteering for a frontal bayonet
charge.
A subsidiary thrust went south, to try and seize some ground closer to
Stoumont. Mr. King Tiger and two towed guns came out to try and stop it.
I eventually pulled the force back to avoid encirclement, but not before
establishing myself in good position in the woods and capturing one of
the Guns. It turned out to be an American 76L, so I essentially traded
the Germans the 57L in the woods for a 76L south and east of the 19am
entry area.
The entrenchment digging forces performed marvellously. Both set-up
areas were linked by scenario end, and a series of entrenchments leap-frogged
down N.33 and southward also. A late German counterattack down N.33 failed,
with the loss of a Panther and the malfunctioning of another Panther's main
armament.
The net result was a German victory by LVP. The casualties were 8.5 squads
and a 7-0 for the American, and 1.5 squads, an 8-1, a HT, and a Panther for
the Germans. However, the American set-up areas are now linked, this
promises to make the next date more challenging for the Germans. There are
still 8 infantry platoons available for purchase as reinforcements, so the
American forces are not quite in desparate straits yet.
This scenario date took about 12 hours of playing time to set up, play, and
clean up. Part of the time included meal breaks and coaching two new players
who joined in for the scenario. Definitely an all-day activity!
In retrospect, 19N seems like another tough scenario for the Americans. The
American force is not yet replenished enough to mass the firepower to dig
the SS out of their holes. However, this date provides an opportunity to
link the set-up areas, allowing forces to be shifted without die roles for
future scenarios. The opportunity also exists to seize terrain closer to
the Sanatarium and south of N.33 toward Stoumont, so that the assaults on
the 20th can start closer to their objectives. Fanatic SS made the
going difficult for the Americans, but now the Germans have only one date
left to declare the OB fanatic. It may prove to be important on the final
day.
That is all for now!
Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."
--- President Gerald Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 17:17:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu>
Subject: Another Question
The following question also arose during my last playing of the KGP CG I
am involved in. Does a squad which is already fanatic due to Battle
Hardening, with morale level equal to 9, become double fanatic and gain a
morale of 10 if the German OB is declared to be fanatic for the scenario
date? If so, some pretty nasty opportunities arise for SS 8-3-10 Assault
Engineers to run around and cause trouble!!!
Thanks,
Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."
--- President Gerald Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:03:44 CST
From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary)
Subject: ELR of 838's in RB
Brent Pollock bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca writes:
>In our RB CGIII we are playing it that the 8-3-8s are replaced by 4-3-6s
>(albeit Assault Engineer/Sapper 4-3-6s...yeeehaaaaa!) and we are doing this
>because of the folowing two rules:
>
>A19.132 Whenever an SSR (not just an OB) specifically assigns an ELR =<4
>to units with an underscored Morale Factor, they suffer Unit Replacement
>normally...
>O11.617 ELR LOSS/GAIN:...A side's ELR applies to all non-crew Infantry
>units of that side...
>
>I suppose it comes down to whether or not you consider O11.617 an SSR (as
>I do) or OB designation. However, evidence in favour of splitting them to
>3-3-8s is apparent in the non-CG scenarios wherein there are no SSR citing
>them as having an ELR <5. And in case any of you are wondering, I'm playing
>the Germans and am the one who brought this up during our CG (along with the
>business of Retention of captured FT/DC after I'd captured them from the
>Russians; do I know how to hamstring myself or what?!).
>
>Share & Enjoy!
>Brent Pollock
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Germans had a great deal of difficulty in
finding units to man their flamethrowers during the Stalingrad fighting, because no one
wanted to take on such a risky task. Perhaps AH was aware of this fact and this rule is
a deliberate attempt to address this issue.
Mike O'Leary
-----
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:13:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: MGs and deliberate immobilization
Having screwed up a couple of rules things recently, I'll try and put myself
on the chopping block again...
In message Thu, 3 Feb 1994 15:23:42 -0800,
dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga) writes:
> Can MGs fire to immobilize?
No. MGs are specifically prevented from this in C5.71 (about halfway down.)
> The rules state that deliberate
> immobilization is possible if the TK of the weapon is greater than the
> lowest hull AF for the AFV. Fine. But deliberate immobilization may
> only be attempted by Guns/ordnance.
> So, does an MG meet this latter qualification?
Yes, an MG, if using a TH/TK combo would be considered "ordnance". Moot
point, though.
-----
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 06:27:36 -0500 (EST)
From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com
Subject: Public apology
Patrik, Bas. and Philippe,
(Patrik said,)
> Anyway, please try to lighten up a little. No offense meant, I just
> think you're sounding just a tad too serious when you refer to the rules
> to "prove" anything. This isn't a courtroom, and I sure don't want it to
> be.
I must admit once the letter was sent back to me, it did look a little mean
spirited. Anyway, I can't "lighten up" when I am dealing with such a HEAVY
book! :)
Seriously though, I noticed that many people, when posting answers on the
list, do not reference the rules at all. I realize many of you don't have
your rule books handy when answering, but I do so I thought I should be more
complete in my answers (even if they do come late).
I see now how bad it is to start any letter with "Mr. X is wrong" and I will
never do it again. I send apologies to Patrik, Bas. and Philippe.
--Daniel T.
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:56:15 +0100
From: oleboe@idt.unit.no
Subject: Re: IFT once again
> >Now for the (maybe) offending part:
> >I usually play using the IIFT. IMO the only real reason not to use the IIFT
> >is the balancing question.
>
> Well, here is the part where I disagree. You say "IMO the only real reason
> not to use..." the IIFT vs. the IFT but give *NO* reason why I SHOULD use the
> IIFT. Change for the sake of changing?
>
> More realistic? Prove it. I've not seen definitive proof that the IIFT is
> more "realistic" than the IFT. The "why would you leave a MG out of a shot"
> argument doesn't work for me. Maybe the MG is guarding a road. There
> has never been, in any of the IIFT debates, what I would call proof of
> more realism or, even better, any has there ever been offered a significant
> reason WHY I SHOULD CHANGE!
>
> All I ever seem to see are more and more numbers "proving" that the IIFT is
> no more or less deadly than the IFT. WELL THEN, WHY USE IT?!?
>
> Please email me responses, if you feel the need to be lambasted for wanting to
> prove that I should scrap a working solution.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Brian Youse
>
First of all, when writing my letter about the IIFT probabilities, I didn't give any reason why anyone SHOULD use the IIFT. I don't think one table is right or one is wrong, just use the table you feel most comfortable with. If anyone dislikes the IIFT, it doesn't bother me. I don't care whether the IIFT is more realistic or not, but to me it is more playable, and that's what counts. When using the IFT and German elite squads the following will happen: Give a LMG to a 4-6-8 and the effect will increase with 2FP, give the LMG to a 5-4-8 and the effect will increase with 4FP, give the LMG to a 8-3-8 and the effect will not increase at all! To me it is more playable to always feel that if I use all of my weapons I may get more effect than using only some of them.
What I did want to, was to point out that using the IIFT does increase the FP effect by less than 2%, but that concealment loss will increase by 25% in the worst case because of the extra PTC's. The reason for this was just to let everyone know what impact the IIFT may have on play balance.
> [test of balence on the IIFT]
>
> This test isn't valid unless you include the increased chance of PTC's. I don't
> know if you did that or not. See, if squad A shoots first and gets a PTC, then
> squad B may end up returning only half FP, not full FP. If the IIFT has a
> greater
> chance of that result it may still have a profound effect on the game that
> favors
> whoever gets to shoot first.
>
> [house rule on ignoring PTC's for ?-stripping]
>
> This might be more accurate (read: less of a potential imbalence over the IFT)
> if
> you just ignored the extra PTC's altogether. The question then is, is the IIFT
> without the extra PTC's significantly different from the IFT?
>
> thanks,
> Dave "I don't really care; I just want to PLAY!" Wetzel
> dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com
>
Yes I did include the increased chance of PTC's while calculating the results, so the test was IMHO accurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cut off my head,
what do I say:
Ole Boe
Me and my head
or oleboe@idt.unit.no
Me and my body?
-----
From: mrhodes@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Dr. M. Rhodes)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:40:22 +0000
Subject: Tank s firing MGS in motion
Hi
with all this talk about fixes in th3e Q&A , does anyone know
has there been an official (ie errata or Q&A in annual) dealing
with the question of a moving tank firing its mgs
ie are they halved for bounding fire
or
1/4 (1/2 for bounding and 1/2 for non-stopped fire)
I always play 1/4 solitaire but Know of no "official" published
errata or clarification which says Im right its just that only halving FP
seems wrong
Michael Rhodes
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: ASLUG?
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 9:50:19 CST
Guys,
Has anyone gotten the new ASLUG? I recently moved to another state and
I am affraid that Fort may not have gotten my change of address card.
Later,
Ed
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:33:01 GMT-0400
From: tom%ack@dmr.com (Tom Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ASLUG?
Folks,
I haven't received the new ASLUG yet. Does anyone know when
it is due out??
Tom Flaherty
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:02 MST
From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712)
Subject: Firelanes
Say you've got a guy with a MG, (say a 467/lmg) in your way who's got
several good spots for a firelane. What's the best way to handle it?
Here are my ideas.
1) Charge somebody (hs preferable) to the side you'd rather see the
firelane on, then head the other way.
2) Run adjacent (or close), draw fire and hope he cowers.
3) Prep fire and roll snake eyes, and have the guy fail his MC :-)
Rules Question:
If a squad/mg lays a firelane an the squad doesn't use it's inherent
FP, can he still use it later, or do both get a first fire marker?
If the squad can fire and does and cowers, what happens to the
previous firelane?
Don
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:08:53 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Tank s firing MGS in motion
> Hi
> with all this talk about fixes in th3e Q&A , does anyone know
> has there been an official (ie errata or Q&A in annual) dealing
> with the question of a moving tank firing its mgs
> ie are they halved for bounding fire
> or
> 1/4 (1/2 for bounding and 1/2 for non-stopped fire)
> I always play 1/4 solitaire but Know of no "official" published
> errata or clarification which says Im right its just that only halving FP
> seems wrong
>
> Michael Rhodes
>
You are halved once for bounding fire, and since you are not stopped, you are
halved again for moving. If you stop, fire, and start again you are halved only
once for bounding fire. Note that halving for bounding fire never applys to FT,
nor for CMG with gyro firing at an acquired target.
[stuff deleted]
>
> Rules Question:
>
> If a squad/mg lays a firelane an the squad doesn't use it's inherent
> FP, can he still use it later, or do both get a first fire marker?
>
> If the squad can fire and does and cowers, what happens to the
> previous firelane?
>
> Don
>
If the squad done not fire when the fire lane is placed (and does not cower)
they may fire later at any target at any range (even long range). If they cower
on this later shot then firelane remains since firelanes are not effected by
cowering except on the shot they are placed.
Fred
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 13:11:22 -0500 (EST)
From: James D Shetler <shetler+@pitt.edu>
Subject: KGPI Panthers
Hey guys,
No, this isn't a comment about Barney. What's there to say, anyway?
And now, the question. Do any of you know if Peiper's forces were equipped
with some of the Panthers that were fitted with night optics? Yes, they did
exist, but in small numbers. If so, this would put a real twist on the
nighttime scenarios in KGP CGI. I've seen photographs of these vehicles,
as well as sketches of the IR scopes, but I've never read where they turned
up in the Ardennes offensive. Hope this question enables some of you to
put that vile, disgusting dinosaur out of your thoughts for a while.
Curious in Pittsburgh,
Jim Shetler
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:55:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: Another Question
Carl:
T'ain't no such thing as double Fanatic: check out the last sentence of
A15.3 "...cannot attain any loftier status due to yet another Battle
Hardening result."
Share & Enjoy!
Brent
"Still-at-home-with-a-cold-that's-why-all-my-responses-are-referenced"
Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> The following question also arose during my last playing of the KGP CG I
> am involved in. Does a squad which is already fanatic due to Battle
> Hardening, with morale level equal to 9, become double fanatic and gain a
> morale of 10 if the German OB is declared to be fanatic for the scenario
> date? If so, some pretty nasty opportunities arise for SS 8-3-10 Assault
> Engineers to run around and cause trouble!!!
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:00:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: Night Rules Question
Carl:
This looks legal and is definitely one to remember!
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> Can a leader with Freedom of
> Movement at the start of the scenario begin play in the same location
> as a vehicle with a radio, and thus confer freedom of movement to all
> friendly vehicles with radios?
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:16:19 GMT-0400
From: tom%ack@dmr.com (Tom Flaherty)
Subject: Trouble getting to ASL Sites
Folks,
I've tried carlo.phys.uva.nl (145.18.220.25) and
lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) and have had the
following problems consistently. carlo just doesn't
seem to connect and lysator doesn't allow anonymous login.
Any help out there?
Tom Flaherty
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:58:49 EST
From: danl@jargon.whoi.edu (Dan Leader)
Subject: LOS Question (Newbie)
I have a newbie LOS question which must be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but it doesn't make sense to me.
If a unit is on the second floor of a large building, for LOS purposes it seems to be on the roof. For example, it can see over level one obstacles, like woods, into ground level behind the obstacles (not counting blind hexes, of course). It can also see along level two hill hexes.
On the other hand, a unit in a small building, or on the ground floor of a large building, is not considered "on the roof", so to speak. Therefore, it cannot see past one level one hill hex, or over hedges and walls.
Am I interpreting this correctly? It seems like units in large buildings get a larger advantage then they deserve, or else those in small buildings are getting shortchanged by having to lie on the floor.
-Dan Leader
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:57:27 -0500 (EST)
From: John Appel <jappel@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: MGs and deliberate immobilization
On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, Dade Cariaga wrote:
> Here's another quick question:
>
> Can MGs fire to immobilize? The rules state that deliberate immobilization is
> possible if the TK of the weapon is greater than the lowest hull AF for the
> AFV. Fine. But deliberate immobilization may only be attempted by Guns/ordnance.
>
> So, does an MG meet this latter qualification? This would seem to make MGs
> significantly more effective against otherwise invulnerable AFVs like the
> PzIV (I think) that has a 3 hull AF vs. side/rear shots. An LMG at 6 hexes
> need only score a hull hit (with appropriate modifiers) and the AFV is fully
> hosed.
>
> Dade
I have a serious reality problem with an MG immobilizing from the
side, but not neessarily from the rear. My reasoning: based on my
personal experience with AFVs, an MG won't be able to do sufficient damage
to the track and drive/idler wheels. However, from the rear, you often
have a chance to penetrate the engine compartment. (Note, for a HT this
would apply to the front.)
No rules reasoning here, just a "from the hip" reaction from an
old (real-life) treadhead.
BTW, Bob and I are starting KGP CGI tonight. Film at 11.....
John
jappel@access.digex.net
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:52:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: KGPI Panthers
James:
Maddeningly, the only reference I can find to these IR Panthers is an
indirect one made in "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two"
(Doyle, Chamberlain & Jentz, 1978; ISBN 0 17600 728 8). Their Halftrack
support vehicles are cited:
SPW 251/1 (IR) Falke: Standard APC fitted with IR for use by
Panzergrenadiers attached to IR Panther units.
SPW251/20 UHU (Owl): Command and Observation vehicle for the five tank IR
Panther platoon. Whereas the Panther equipment was only good to 400
metres, the UHU was equiped with a retractable, 360 degree
searchlight/telescope combination good out to 1500 metres. The SPW crew was
in contact with the Panthers via standard FuG5 radio. About 60 UHU were
delivered prior to war end starting in late '44.
I'll post your question on the sci.military BB for USENET NEWS and see
what comes up.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> And now, the question. Do any of you know if Peiper's forces were equipped
> with some of the Panthers that were fitted with night optics? Yes, they did
> exist, but in small numbers. If so, this would put a real twist on the
> nighttime scenarios in KGP CGI. I've seen photographs of these vehicles,
> as well as sketches of the IR scopes, but I've never read where they turned
> up in the Ardennes offensive. Hope this question enables some of you to
> put that vile, disgusting dinosaur out of your thoughts for a while.
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 15:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com
Subject: RE: LOS Question (Newbie)
From: danl@jargon.whoi.edu (Dan Leader)
>I have a newbie LOS question which must be intuitively obvious to the
>most casual observer, but it doesn't make sense to me.
>If a unit is on the second floor of a large building, for LOS purposes it
>seems to be on the roof. For example, it can see over level one obstacles,
>like woods, into ground level behind the obstacles (not counting blind hexes,
>of course). It can also see along level two hill hexes.
>On the other hand, a unit in a small building, or on the ground floor of a
>large building, is not considered "on the roof", so to speak. Therefore, it
>cannot see past one level one hill hex, or over hedges and walls.
>Am I interpreting this correctly? It seems like units in large
>buildings get a larger advantage then they deserve, or else those in small
>buildings are getting shortchanged by having to lie on the floor.
Dan
I think what you are missing is that large buildings have a ground, first and
second levels. I can remember when I first started playing I was confused by
the fact that level 1 isn't ground level, but the level in between ground and
level 2.
So...You've got guys in large buildings on the 2nd floor which can see as you
described, or guys on the first level of a large or medium building which can
see over 1 level obstacles along level one hill hexes...And then you have
ground level...
And of course you also have cellars and 3rd levels on occasion by SSR, but I
don't think we want to get into that :-)
If you're on the roof you are actually at the full height of the obstacle which
is as follows:
1 level obstacles to LOS only have a ground level and are only 1 hex wihout
inherent stairwells.
1 1/2 level obstacles have a ground and first level and are multi-hex buildings
without an inherent stairwell.
2 1/2 level obstacles have an inherent stairwell (white square instead of
center dot)
Hope that helps clear some confusion...
Bret
hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
-----
Subject: OKAY, STUPID SMOKE QUESTI
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:45:00 -0640
Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com writes
>I was playing the 19am turn of KGP. I fired some WP from a
>60mm LtMtr. I got the depleation number (7 I think), but
>missed the TH (Extremely Heavy Mist). So, what happens?
>Does the smoke just not appear? Do you do a
>Direction&Distance (D&D??) Roll?
Unless there is some special rule in KGP, a miss on the TH
results in no game effect. The shells landed somewhere, but
in game terms the shot was ineffectual. If the TH DR was
exactly the depletion number, the 60mm has no more smoke.
If the TH DR was < the depletion number, the 60mm mortar
can fire smoke again.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Subject: Re: Simple vehicular moti
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:45:00 -0640
To: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
[Doing all kinds of things to avoid spending all a vehicle's
remaining MP in the last hex.]
>What's the difference between this situation and the one
>where you do expend all the extra MP out of LOS, use your
>last one to move into that hex, and then get splattered by
>6 or 7 shots in the DFPh?
One thing I can think of is the tank can get off a BFF
shot, which might be nice with the tank's MGs because their
FP aren't affected by the number of MP spent in LOS.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
From: lrg@cherry.cray.com (Lee Gordon)
Subject: Re: LOS Question (Newbie)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:53:28 CST
> I have a newbie LOS question which must be intuitively obvious to the
> most casual observer, but it doesn't make sense to me.
>
> If a unit is on the second floor of a large building, for LOS purposes
> it seems to be on the roof. For example, it can see over level one obstacles,
> like woods, into ground level behind the obstacles (not counting blind hexes,
> of course). It can also see along level two hill hexes.
>
> On the other hand, a unit in a small building, or on the ground floor of
> a large building, is not considered "on the roof", so to speak. Therefore,
> it cannot see past one level one hill hex, or over hedges and walls.
>
> Am I interpreting this correctly? It seems like units in large
> buildings get a larger advantage then they deserve, or else those in small
> buildings are getting shortchanged by having to lie on the floor.
Dan,
I believe you have it basically correct. Remember, units on the ground
floor are considered to be at level 0. Units on the first floor are at
level 1, and second floor units are at level 2. (There are exceptions to
this for buildings on/in hills). Units on the second floor aren't on the
roof, because I think those buildings are considered to be 2.5 level
obstacles [ > 50% chance I'm wrong here, no ASLRB in the Cray library
yet. :-( ]. I think your confusion is coming from level 1 actually being
one level above the ground. It's an offset, not an index. :-)
-Lee
Lee R. Gordon ATT: 1-612-683-5484
Cray Research, Inc. Fax: 1-612-683-5599
655F Lone Oak Drive Email: lrg@cray.com or
Eagan, MN 55121 uunet!cray!lrg
-----
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:41:27 EST
From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle)
Subject: Re: OKAY, STUPID SMOKE QUESTION
Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com writes
>I was playing the 19am turn of KGP. I fired some WP from a
>60mm LtMtr. I got the depleation number (7 I think), but
>missed the TH (Extremely Heavy Mist). So, what happens?
>Does the smoke just not appear? Do you do a
>Direction&Distance (D&D??) Roll?
Unless there is some special rule in KGP, a miss on the TH
results in no game effect. The shells landed somewhere, but
in game terms the shot was ineffectual. If the TH DR was
exactly the depletion number, the 60mm has no more smoke.
If the TH DR was < the depletion number, the 60mm mortar
can fire smoke again.
So long,
JR
In the old days (pre ASL) Crescendo of Doom had an HE near miss rule.
I *think* it was if you miss an infantry target with HE > 100mm by 1 or 2
then the shell lands in one of the adjacent hexes and attacks as area fire.
It was removed in GI.
Other SL/COI/COD/GI rules I kind of miss are: Scouts and using 6 barrel 150mm
rocket launchers as direct fire support.
Adrian
-----
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 10:44:54 -0700 (MST)
From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg)
Subject: IFE BU
Although I have been told this question has come before the discussion
group and been answered already, I'd like to hear why I'm wrong. I'm
wondering if the +1 DRM for being BU applies if you are using your AFV MA
as IFE. Here's the relevant rules, IMO:
C2.29 ...When using IFE, a weapon is not considered ordnance...
C5.9 Any BU, CT AFV must add the +1 DRM of Case I to its _To Hit DR_.
Being BU has no other effect on the LOS of a vehicle...
D5.2 ...A BU AFV firing its MA (or SA...) as _ordnance_ must add one to
the that _To HIT DR_ (Case I; C5.9).
My reading of this says that the +1 DRM for BU is for ordnance TO HIT DRs
only, and C2.29 specifically states a gun firing as IFE is NOT ordnance.
But I'm anxious to hear your arguments.
Cheers!
Grant
GEnie G.LINNEBERG
INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
-----
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 03:40:31 CST
From: Andrew McCulloh <mcculloh@math.wisc.edu>
Subject: RE Stupid smoke question
I dont know if some one has responed to this (besides saying that the
smoke does not take counter form...) But I beleive that this is a
pull over from the COI days - there was a section there that had
HE shots greater than 150mm (or 120mm or something) causing nearmisses
in adjacent hexes....
Now if I could just find a place to store my scout counters....
Andrew
-----
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 08:11:24 -0500 (EST)
From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com
Subject: Armored Assault
Bas,
> I merely meant to say that if you use Armored Assault the DEFENDER can't
> shoot at you more often than COT just because you're somehow slowed down
> by the Infantry. Of course, if you decide to spend more MP, you can get
> shot at more often. (This was the issue, right?)
At some point the defender will be able to shoot more often than the COT
because you MUST spend more MP than the COT somewhere. I believe THAT was
the issue.
--Daniel T.
-----
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 08:11:49 -0500 (EST)
From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Another Question
Carl said,
> Does a squad which is already fanatic due to Battle Hardening, with
> morale level equal to 9, become double fanatic and gain a morale of 10
> if the German OB is declared to be fanatic for the scenario date?
Brent answered,
> T'ain't no such thing as double Fanatic: check out the last sentence of
> A15.3 "...cannot attain any loftier status due to yet another Battle
> Hardening result."
The problem here is that the squad Carl talks about is not 'attaining any
loftier status due to yet another Battle Hardening result', it is getting
one Battle Hardening result and one Fanatic result.
The question is, can a unit that is Fanatic due to SSR become double Fanatic
if it receives a Battle Hardening result?
I agree that the unit should not receive two +1s to its ML but I don't see
any rule to back me up.
--Daniel T.
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: Re: Trouble getting to ASL Sites
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 15:12:21 -0600
> Tom Flaherty writes:
> I've tried carlo.phys.uva.nl (145.18.220.25) and
> lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.1) and have had the
> following problems consistently. carlo just doesn't
> seem to connect and lysator doesn't allow anonymous login.
> Any help out there?
I just tried carlo.phys.uva.nl, and it seems to work fine. The other
server has moved to ftp.lysator.liu.se (130.236.254.153). Either one
will accept anonymous ftp; i.e. when you use ftp, login as "ftp" or
"anonymous", giving your e-mail address as a password. There is also
some method of getting files via an e-mail server interface. I've
never tried that. Ftp is definitely easier, if available.
Most of the same stuff is available on both servers, although there
are a few differences. Both carry copies of the FAQ, which has
recently been updated to reflect the address of ftp.lysator.liu.se.
Have fun! There's some really great stuff in those archives.
Jack O'Quin internet: joq@austin.ibm.com
-----
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:02:08 +0100
From: "hr. Patrik Olsson" <c93patol@und.ida.liu.se>
Subject: Ladder game....
Hi y'all!
Lookin' for a ladder game?
Well here's a taker. Have just finished my game with Asad (or
rather were crushed by :) )
If U want a game, drop e a note and w find a scenario together, k?
CU
Patrik
po@lysator.liu.se
c93patol@und.ida.liu.se
-----
From: Scott Jackson <scottj@hebron.connected.com>
Subject: KGP Night Leadership
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 19:37:36 -0800
Yes, one of the two automatically aware leaders CAN start stacked with a
vehicle, alert it, and thereby alert ALL radio-equipped vehicle on that
side! This was a question I asked Bob about personally when I was
helping playtest KGP. Also, those two auto-aware leaders DO NOT need to
make any die rolls, etc. or wait any length of time to start rousing the
defenders. They BOTH start the game running around shouting orders. This
was because the night scenarios had (usually US) attacking units slipping
halfway across the map, surrounding defenders at 5-6 different points, and
then attacking them ALL simultaneously and wiping out half of the defenders
before they had a chance to respond. Indeed, one favorite tactic was to
surround German tanks with 6 HS each carrying a BAZ, run another HS into
the tank
's hex to expose it, and then all units would fire at 1 hex range hitting
the front, sides, and rear of the tank; 90% of the time the tank died...
Scott Jackson (KGP playtester)
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:34:01 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Building levels
HILDEBRANB <HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com> writes:
> I think what you are missing is that large buildings have a ground,
> first and second levels. I can remember when I first started
> playing I was confused by the fact that level 1 isn't ground level,
> but the level in between ground and level 2.
But that's because you americans have such a weird system of numbering
building floors. To us europeans it's obvious.
ObASLquestion: Suppose there's a two-hex building with the ground
floor on two different hill levels, say level 0 and 1. Now suppose my
tank is in the building at ground level of the building hex on hill
level 1. I drive my tank to the other building hex.
Do I end up with my tank at building level 1? Is there a chance of
falling through the floor?
Bas.
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 07:12:22 -0500
From: Stewart R King <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: Building levels
>
> ObASLquestion: Suppose there's a two-hex building with the ground
> floor on two different hill levels, say level 0 and 1. Now suppose my
> tank is in the building at ground level of the building hex on hill
> level 1. I drive my tank to the other building hex.
>
> Do I end up with my tank at building level 1? Is there a chance of
> falling through the floor?
>
> Bas.
B23.41 (permitting fully-tracked AFV to enter building obstacles) does not
explicity restrict such entry to level 0. Neither does B23.72 (governing
split-level buildings). Changing levels requires the expenditure of MF
(so vehicles couldn't drive up stairwells, Terminator 2 to the contrary
notwithstanding). Nonetheless, in your example, I would say that the
rules permit entry of an upper building level. I would say that a BOG
check would be required, and a colored-die 6 would result in the AFV
crashing through the floor to 0 level as if it were a cellar.
These Europeans not only number their building floors funny, they build
them very sturdily! They won't even let me have a waterbed in my
apartment, what would happen if I tried to move a _tank_ in here?
Maybe an official Q&A would resolve this sillyness (or maybe it already
has, I don't have all the Q&A's). Somebody help us?
Stewart King
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:13:33 -0600
From: Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu>
Subject: Bumping off one's own units.
Hola,
Is there a rule which prohibits killing one's own
units? Consider the following situation. You have a disrupted
squad that's just not going to get away without being captured.
Interrogation rules are in effect. Also, you have several hidden
fortifications/HIP units/concealed units that you really don't want
to reveal. For the good of the Motherland, can you target that
squad in hopes of killing it before it's captured? Just curious.
Bryan
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 9:22:26 -0500 (EST)
From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com
Subject: Motion CMG Shot: 1/4 or 1/2?
Another fine rules query...
The situation:
Defensive first fire phase a squad moves through open ground 4 hexes in front
of a motion Crocodile within turret covered arc. The Croc fires a 4FP CMG at
the squad.
The question:
What's the shot? 2(-2) or 1(-2)?
The issues:
I interpret the rules to say any motion shot is halved for motion.
My worthy opponent claims it should be halved for motion and halved again for
bounding fire pointing out that a motion vehicle firing MA must add the
bounding fire penalty to his TH in addition to doubling the lower die...Which
admittedly does seem plausible...
So any definitive answers out there? opinions?
FWIW, the squad escapes either way, but a leader that follows needs to know if
he's running through residual or not...
Thanks in advance for any help.
Bret Hildebran
hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 10:15:00 EST
From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien)
Subject: Burning Buildings in KGP
Greetings,
As the Germans in a KGP CG, I can see a lot of advantages to burning down
the Sanatorium.
1) there are 10 less LVPs on the map for the Americans to capture
2) the terrain becomes rubble so it's safer during bombardments
3) rubble does not create blind hexes so it is easier to cover the
sanatorium from the nearby elevations.
4) Vehicles can set up in the Sanatorium hexes without fear of bog/cellars
In fact if the Germans burn down all three multi-level victory buildings, the
number of LVPs on the map drops from 52 to 31.
Kindling is NA, but vehicle fires in bypass of a building are transfered to
the building during the refit phase. A blaze in one building location will
cause the entire building to burn down. This places rubble in every ground
level location and thus eliminates any upper levels. The "clarification" in
the 93b Q&A identifies that a wreck may be targeted in an attempt to
brew it up.
So it would seem that I can burn down buildings if I can arrange for a wreck
to be in bypass of the building and have some convenient unit flame it. I
can drive a vehicle into bypass and have the crew convert the vehicle to a
wreck when it abandons the vehicle. I could also create a wreck during the
Refit Phase and place it in bypass. Once the wreck is placed, a unit fires
on it until it achieves a result which causes it to burn. This fire cannot
be removed and will burn down the building in the Refit phase.
The reaction from the American players concerning this strategy was not
positive. The questions of game balance and playing "within the spirit of
the rules" were discussed.
How bad does this effect play balance? Does this force the Americans to
abandon the victory condition concerning LVPs and try exclusively for the
"control three buildings" victory condition?
Does anyone know if the use of this tactic was explored during the KGP
playtest? The timing of the Q&A and KGP suggest that they may be connected.
Although the intent may have been to permit the Americans to blow up the
German gas cans. :)
How "sleazy" is this tactic? I believe it is legal. Is it outside the
"spirit of the rules" or do the rules just want you to throw a little gasoline
of the fire to get it going? Does saying that Kindling is NA mean that I am
not supposed to try and burn the buildings down?
A German commander standing by with hot dogs and marshmallows,
Kevin
---
Kevin Valerien
krv@eng.tridom.com
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:45:27 -0500
From: David Elder <david@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Bumping off one's own units.
Hi all!
On the same topic ... I have always wondered about the
realism of firing at one of your own vehicles in order
to immobilize it so it can't drive away if it has been
recalled. Is there a rule prohibiting this? I know of at
least one incidence where someone did this and the tank
stuck around to fire (though this may have been in SL times :).
Are there rules preventing this or is it a legal tactic?
Cheers,
David
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:47:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: Bumping off one's own units.
In message Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:13:33 -0600,
Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu> writes:
> Is there a rule which prohibits killing one's own units?
Yes there is. In the beginning of Chapter A concerning valid targets, you
cannot target your own units. Though, if in a Melee, you can target the
enemy and have the fire affect your own units.
*-=Carl=-*
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:15:53 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Burning down buildings in KGP
Hi guys,
(There is nothing about Barney in this message.)
Kevin, who has probably watched too much Beavis & Butt-head and has
been inspired to pyromania, said:
>So it would seem that I can burn down buildings if I can arrange for a wreck
>to be in bypass of the building and have some convenient unit flame it. I
>can drive a vehicle into bypass and have the crew convert the vehicle to a
>wreck when it abandons the vehicle. I could also create a wreck during the
>Refit Phase and place it in bypass. Once the wreck is placed, a unit fires
>on it until it achieves a result which causes it to burn. This fire cannot
>be removed and will burn down the building in the Refit phase.
Neat idea.
>The reaction from the American players concerning this strategy was not
>positive. The questions of game balance and playing "within the spirit of
>the rules" were discussed.
Well, I think that shooting a wreck in an attempt to brew it up is an
obvious kindling attempt, and should result in the same VP penalties
as Kindling a building. (Basically, giving the other player all its
VP's.) Putting a wimpy halftrack in bypass of a building and hoping
that your opponent shoots it is a legitimate tactic, though. Hmmm, maybe
a nice way to protect a MG halftrack or a Wirblewind from Ordnance fire,
if your opponent is deathly afraid of burning the building down.
>How "sleazy" is this tactic? I believe it is legal. Is it outside the
>"spirit of the rules" or do the rules just want you to throw a little gasoline
>of the fire to get it going? Does saying that Kindling is NA mean that I am
>not supposed to try and burn the buildings down?
It's sleazy, and I think it should be illegal. You're not penalized for
"accidentally" burning down a building, with a FT or MOL KIA on an
enemy unit inside, for example. But shooting a wreck in an attempt to
make it burn is obviously intentional and should be treated as such.
I think shooting an unoccupied hex with a FT falls into the same
category. You burn it; you lose the VP's.
I don't have my rules here and probably couldn't back up my position
with strict rule quotes, anyway. But this is kindling IMO, not an
accidental fire.
I don't think that the fact that Kindling is NA makes it illegal to
burn things down, though, except through that mechanism. Just that you
should be appropriately punished in VP's for this overtly
VP-manipulative behavior.
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:26:15 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Rules Quibble: Mortars
Hi guys,
Nothing about Barney in this post either.
Quick question: Why do mortars hit better at 13 hexes than at 12?
I can see that they made the Area table funny on purpose, but this
really isn't nice to mortar operators who are forced to use that
table at all ranges.
Check out those German 50 mm mortars. They can fire from 2-13 hexes.
So their extreme range is also their most accurate range. Silly.
This applies to SMOKE, too.
Can anybody justify this to me?
Thanks,
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Rules Quibble: Mortars
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:33:24 +0100 (MET)
Hi Dave,
> Quick question: Why do mortars hit better at 13 hexes than at 12?
Most don't - since they are mostly short-barrelled. That means you
subtract one from the TH# and arrive at 7 for most mortars on the 13-24
range band.
I think there is a mortar that has normal barrel length, so this doesn't
cover all mortars - but the designers made that mortar special on purpose
no doubt, so it's not a problem.
> I can see that they made the Area table funny on purpose, but this
> really isn't nice to mortar operators who are forced to use that
> table at all ranges.
Funny? I don't think so. It most probably is simulating something. What?
I don't know, but I trust the designers to know what they're doing.
> This applies to SMOKE, too.
How does it do that? Even w/o the barrel length modifier I get 9 TH on
ranges 1-12 and 8 TH on ranges 12-24.
> Can anybody justify this to me?
Did that suffice?
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: BFF'ing Croc
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:53:50 +0100 (MET)
Hi all,
To add to the question asked by Bret, the following Q&A is what prompts me
to believe that a motion vehicle should have its FP quartered and not halved.
[ From the Q&A file kept by Bas de Bakker ]
C5.35 & D2.42 How do you modify the FP of a vehicle firing its
MG/IFT/IFE armament when it is in motion?
A. Oops! Rule D2.42 should say "/.. A Motion/_non-stopped_ vehicle
../" Therefore a non-stopped vehicle using Bounding First Fire has its
MG FP quartered (or its FT FP halved). OVR are an exception to
this rule, and use the same tripled/halved formula. {PM}
[ End of Q&A ]
Admittedly, this deals only with fire in the MPh, but both I and the person
who answered this question seems to freely intermix the terms "motion" and
"non-stopped" which makes me believe that the same modifiers should be added
in both cases. All other modifiers that I can think of are applied in both
cases, but MG Bounding Fire is not.
Also, since this hasn't appeared as an "official" Q&A, despite being quite
a serious change (or clarification), it is somewhat suspect. The best way
would be for someone closer to TAHGC than me to have this included in an
"official" Q&A. (Hint, hint!)
(BTW, yes, those germans Bret is firing on are mine...)
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:02:38 CST
From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary)
Subject: Demo charge tactic
In a recent game, I had two Japanese squads adjacent to an enormous stack
of Marines. As one of my squads possessed a demo charge, I attempted to
place it on the offending Americans. Well, the squad got creamed. It was
attacked by DFF, SFF and FPF, during the course of which it was blown out
of existence. As a consequence, the DC fell unpossessed into the hex in
which the unit started. Since the remaining squad has not yet moved, can it
attempt to recover the DC, and then place it on the Marines?
Thanks
Mike O'Leary
(moleary@math.nwu.edu)
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Rules Quibble: Mortars
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:16:43 PST
> Hi guys,
>
> Nothing about Barney in this post either.
>
> Quick question: Why do mortars hit better at 13 hexes than at 12?
>
> I can see that they made the Area table funny on purpose, but this
> really isn't nice to mortar operators who are forced to use that
> table at all ranges.
They don't. They're * guns, so at 13 hexes they get a -1 to the basic To Hit
number. In many cases, they suffer an additional minus for being <= 57mm at
13 or more hexes.
> Check out those German 50 mm mortars. They can fire from 2-13 hexes.
> So their extreme range is also their most accurate range. Silly.
Actually, they are LESS accurate at 13 hexes due to a -1 for the * and another
-1 for being <= 57mm.
> This applies to SMOKE, too.
Not really, since SMOKE gets a +2 to the basic To Hit number at 1-12 hexes.
> Can anybody justify this to me?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
Sure.
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 09:35:43 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Motion CMG Shot: 1/4 or 1/2?
>
> Another fine rules query...
>
> The situation:
>
> Defensive first fire phase a squad moves through open ground 4 hexes in front
> of a motion Crocodile within turret covered arc. The Croc fires a 4FP CMG at
> the squad.
>
> The question:
>
> What's the shot? 2(-2) or 1(-2)?
>
The shot is 2(-2). It is halved only once for Motion since bounding fire can
only apply during your turn, not your opponents turn.
If you shot at the same unit during your MPh it would be 1(+0) since you are
halved for non-stopped and again for bounding fire. If you stopped, fired and
were going to start you would be halved only for bounding fire. Note the BFT
if not halved for bounding fire and would be halved only if non-stopped.
> The issues:
>
> I interpret the rules to say any motion shot is halved for motion.
>
> My worthy opponent claims it should be halved for motion and halved again for
> bounding fire pointing out that a motion vehicle firing MA must add the
> bounding fire penalty to his TH in addition to doubling the lower die...Which
> admittedly does seem plausible...
>
> So any definitive answers out there? opinions?
>
[another letter]
>
> Quick question: Why do mortars hit better at 13 hexes than at 12?
>
> I can see that they made the Area table funny on purpose, but this
> really isn't nice to mortar operators who are forced to use that
> table at all ranges.
>
> Check out those German 50 mm mortars. They can fire from 2-13 hexes.
> So their extreme range is also their most accurate range. Silly.
>
Actually all mortars except the american 107 have to add +1 at 13+ hexes
for a short gun so the TH is a 7 at 1-24 hexes for other mortars. Also
the german 50mm (and most other light mortars) are small calibar they
add another +1 at 13+ hexes so the TH number is worse for them at 13+
hexes.
> This applies to SMOKE, too.
>
[And another letter]
>
> In a recent game, I had two Japanese squads adjacent to an enormous stack
> of Marines. As one of my squads possessed a demo charge, I attempted to
> place it on the offending Americans. Well, the squad got creamed. It was
> attacked by DFF, SFF and FPF, during the course of which it was blown out
> of existence. As a consequence, the DC fell unpossessed into the hex in
> which the unit started. Since the remaining squad has not yet moved, can it
> attempt to recover the DC, and then place it on the Marines?
>
A SW that was moved by one unit during the MPh can not be moved by another
unit during the same MPh. I can't recall exactly what the restriction is,
but this keeps you from passing a SW from one unit to another (assuming the
recovering dr are made) clear accross the board.
Fred
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 10:55:40 CST
From: seningen@ross.com (Mike Seningen)
Subject: Rules Interpretation -- Motion vs. Melee
Ok -- A not so surprising thing happened yesterday.
A Mark IV drives arround w/ relative impunity through (and over)
some American units.
He gets CCed by an 8-0 and a 346. He survives but is in Melee.
He is not in motion at the time.
Next movement phase -- He expends 1 MF to start. I declare that
I will reaction fire him roll my PAATC and pass, and then roll a 3
to kill. BUTTTTTTT...
We think the rules say that you can not reaction fire if held in melee,
You are held in melee unless the Enemy AFV is in Motion.
So technically the 1MF for starting means he is not in Motion, therefore we are
still in melee and therefore no RFCC is allowed.
Or, ok he started -- for Reaction fire only he is in Motion, so therefore the
infantry is no longer in melee and can RFCC, but must pay +2 for motion.
Well you get the idea. This thread covered about 3 or 4 pages of interpretation
and page flipping. We let the tank go w/o the RFCC and he proceeded to overrun
everything in site :-(.
oh well,
whats the nets interpretation.
cheers,
mike
-----
From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr
Subject: Re: Rules Interpretation -- Motion vs. Melee
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:12:00 +0100 (MET)
Hi Folks,
Mike Seningen writes:
>
> Next movement phase -- He expends 1 MF to start. I declare that
> I will reaction fire him roll my PAATC and pass, and then roll a 3
> to kill. BUTTTTTTT...
>
As usual i haven't my ASLRB at work and i can't quote but:
There is 2 kind of reaction fire :
Non CC : Use LATW or Gun vs ennemi vehicle in the infantry location
CC : (it is the case here) and i believe it is in only allowed after
an Overrun attack by the vehicle.
So here, no reaction fire possible but i can be wrong
--
==========================================================================
Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et
( ( Conception des Circuits Integres
\ \
LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91
Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86
F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr
==========================================================================
-----
Subject: Bumping off one's own uni
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:15:00 -0640
Bryan Milligan <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu> writes:
>Is there a rule which prohibits killing one's own units?
>Consider the following situation. You have a disrupted
>squad that's just not going to get away without being
>captured. Interrogation rules are in effect. Also, you
>have several hidden fortifications/HIP units/concealed
>units that you really don't want to reveal. For the good
>of the Motherland, can you target that squad in hopes of
>killing it before it's captured? Just curious.
My God, first Tonya Harding and now this! It's spreading.
A7.4 ('87) "A unit/weapon may purposely attack a friendly
unit(s) only if specifically allowed to by the rules
governing a particular circumstance (e.g., Prisoners,
Melee, OBA)."
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 15:05:37 -0500 (EST)
From: James D Shetler <shetler+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: KGPI Panthers
Brent (and everyone else),
Thanks for the information. Your source is better than mine. The reason
I asked in the first place was I've been reading John Toland's "Battle :
the story of the Bulge" while playing KGP CGI. Toland states that at
least one American commander suspected that the Germans were using some
sort of IR device due to their driving habits at night. I figured that
Peiper's boys might have had a few of these, since they seemed to be
issued to elite units.
Now, as an aside, I must say that KGP is the most enjoyable of all the ASL
modules IMO. The combat is intense, as are the situations that develop.
So far I've run through the CG four times. Only in one of these did the SS
achieve victory, and that was the result of a lucky Panzerschrek shot on the
first morning. The resulting losses to the G.I.'s (two squads,mmgs, and a
leader were lost due to a CH) allowed the SS to turn the entire American
position. The American's were on the run from that point on, and never
recovered. Hand that squad a Ritterkreutz out of petty cash!
Oh well, I'm raving, as usual. Thanks again.
Jim Shetler
-----
Subject: FIRELANES
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:28:00 -0640
hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) writes:
>Say you've got a guy with a MG, (say a 467/lmg) in your way
>who's got several good spots for a firelane. What's the
>best way to handle it?
I don't know if this qualifies as the "best" way, but I was
told a story about a game where, in the last turn, the
attacker needed to move several units into a building but
had to cross a firelane to get there. A 7-0 which was too
far away to enter the building "volunteered" to draw fire.
It double-timed, entered the fire lane (roll, survives),
then entered it again (roll, survives), and again (roll, the
MG breaks!). The rest of the attackers stroll into the
victory location. That's one way to do it.
>Rules Question:
>If a squad/mg lays a firelane an the squad doesn't use it's inherent
>FP, can he still use it later, or do both get a first fire marker?
>If the squad can fire and does and cowers, what happens to the
>previous firelane?
I think that once the fire lane is placed, it is not
affected by other attacks the unit makes. The unit can
still use its inherent, and if that attack results in a
cower, it has no effect on the fire lane.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Subject: RE: BUILDING LEVELS
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:28:00 -0640
[Bas proposes one of the most brilliant sleeze moves, whereby
he plans to put a tank on the upper level of a building by
driving it through a split-level building.]
B23.4 ('87) "A vehicle ... may never occupy an upper
building level."
But it was a really great try.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
From: abillsasl@aol.com
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 20:21:30 EST
Subject: RE: Burning Buildings in KGP
IMHO, the tactics of targeting a wreck for burning in order to start a
building on fire are perfectly legal. The rule states "Kindling" is N/A.
This is very specific.
As far as the sleaze factor is concerned, it sounds very sleazy! But,
probably no sleazier than routing units forward, ie voluntary breaking of a
unit and routing him forward. (9-2 ldr and SS squad need to get somewhere
fast, break squad, rout forward with leader, need an 8 in rally phase to
continue). It's been done to me (not recently). The rules allow some of the
slightly unrealistic tactics to exist. As Dave can attest to the two US
squads attacking the sanatorium that broke (unvoluntarily) but then routed to
the nearest building... Fortunately they didn't rally and the game was
chocked up as my first ladder victory.
Anyway, I would think that if a guy wants to take the time to try to burn the
building with the burning wreck tactics, why not. After he destroys his
halftrack, check the spreading fire table and notice it will take a 13 or
greater with two dice to spread to a stone building in KGP! [drms = -2 not
directly attached + -2 for wet EC] If the wind is blowing, he has a slim
chance, but I sure wouldn't get my hopes up.
Alan Bills (abillsasl@aol.com)
-----
From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr
Subject: Re: Rules Interpretation -- Motion vs. Melee
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 09:48:43 +0100 (MET)
Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr writes:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Mike Seningen writes:
> >
> > Next movement phase -- He expends 1 MF to start. I declare that
> > I will reaction fire him roll my PAATC and pass, and then roll a 3
> > to kill. BUTTTTTTT...
> >
>
> As usual i haven't my ASLRB at work and i can't quote but:
>
> There is 2 kind of reaction fire :
>
> Non CC : Use LATW or Gun vs ennemi vehicle in the infantry location
>
> CC : (it is the case here) and i believe it is in only allowed after
> an Overrun attack by the vehicle.
>
> So here, no reaction fire possible but i can be wrong
>
I was wrong. It is non-CC Reaction Fire that is only allowed vs Overrunning
Vehicle and is conducted after the OVR
CC Recation Fire is ok as long as the Infantry unit is not held in melee
and one or 2 other restrictions
--
==========================================================================
Jean-Luc Bechennec / / Equipe Architecture des Ordinateurs et
( ( Conception des Circuits Integres
\ \
LRI, bat 490 \ \ Tel 33 (1) 69-41-70-91
Universite Paris-Sud ) ) Fax 33 (1) 69-41-65-86
F-91405 ORSAY Cedex / / email jlb@lri.lri.fr
==========================================================================
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Rules... (Long)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:37:38 +0100 (MET)
Hi Carl (and others),
[ Carl's response to my post on BFF/motion ]
> I don't see how you make the jump to having the FP quartered. The Croc is
> in Motion. This gives it half FP. It is not using BFF nor is it
> non-stopped. Motion is specifically defined.
You're correct of course, and you choose to interpret the rules strictly
as they're written. Shouldn't be a problem, right?
> In addition, just because Motion fire uses the same penalties as BFF,
> doesn't mean that it _is_ BFF.
Of course.
But let's just look at this a little more. I checked the rules last night,
and found something very amusing.
C5.35 states that a motion firer must double the lower die or add +1 if
the gun is stabilized. This far all is fine. But then, we add cases C1,
C2 or C3 as *applicable*. Since (using your reasoning) a motion vehicle
isn't using B(F)F, none of these are applicable. How's that for a sleazy
interpretation? As far as I can see, it is as correct as anything else,
but I *DON'T* say that I believe the rules should be played that way!
Anyway. To add to the confusion, I checked the rules for passengers. Not
because I was looking for something specific, but because I wanted to
check the (un)loading rules for a PBeM game. Ooops! When I read the state-
ment that halftrack passengers are halved if firing in motion or during
the MPh, I realized that the BFF&motion modifiers are stated as applicable
to AFV MG only. I haven't checked, but I'm fairly sure that the rules
don't mention PRC. Hmm...
OK, we have the following:
1. MG using B(F)F is halved once.
2. MG firing while in motion is halved for motion fire.
3. 1 & 2 are applicable at the same time during the AFPh only.
4. A motion vehicle's MA is penalized by 2*lower dr or +1.
5. MA using B(F)F use case C1-C3 as applicable.
6. 4 & 5 are applicable at the same time during the MPh/AFPh.
7. Passengers have their FP halved if in motion or firing in
the MPh/AFPh.
8. Q&A (and possibly errata, I didn't check if it is indeed in
the rules now) specify that motion penalties apply to
a non-stopped firer as well.
Before anyone takes all this too seriously, please understand that I'm
*NOT* serious about this at all. I'm just trying to show Carl (and others)
that I think the rules are a bloody mess. I'm not saying Carl is right,
I'm saying that I don't think all this makes any sense, and that I can't
tell what modifiers are supposed to be used at what time. It seems strange
to me to distinguish between motion and non-stopped fire _in_this_case_.
Not that I haven't been wrong before. I also think it is strange that the
person answering Q's at TAHGC can't tell a *motion* firer from a *non-
stopped* one! This could have one of two possible explanations:
a) The person answering the question was a real doofus, or just
had a bad day, and messed up.
b) It is indeed the case that motion fire is supposed to be the
same as non-stopped fire, so the person answering the
question didn't make a difference between the two.
Now, I choose to believe in explanation b. I *KNOW* that the rules don't
say this! So? There have been errors in the rules before, right? I rather
believe that than believe that the persons answering Q's at AH don't know
what they're talking about! (Admittedly this could very well be the case.)
What I expect is some logic here. Either you do use BF penalties as a
motion firer or you don't. Why the hell have a MA using BF penalties
but not the MG's? Or why would passengers not be halved if firing from
a non-stopped conveyance, while a vehicle's MG's are?
If anyone feels like sending a letter to AH, I think this is clearly a
candidate for clearing up, or we could just disregard the Q&A I have
received and say that all FP from a vehicle is halved, be it MG or PRC,
be it non-stopped or motion fire. That would actually be consistent
with the original rules. This is what I would like to know:
Q. Is a motion vehicle firing in the DFPh considered using
Bounding Fire?
Q. Do PRC use the same modifiers as a vehicle's MG armament?
(plus mounted fire if applicable)
N.B. While not at all relevant, answers of yes and yes would make me very
happy. Why? Because then the rules would be _consistent_ and less of a
pain to remember. Would do just as fine with a halving at all times, too.
OK, on to another discussion. I think the idea of burning the sanatorium
by torching a wreck is sleazy, dirty and clearly against the spirit of the
rules. Good catch, whoever found it! I think it is a consequence of fancy
rules-wording. Why the f*ck is it necessary to adjust the LVP of a building
when it is burnt down? Is there a historical reason for this? I doubt it
since this is quite artificial, and none of the buildings were (probably)
burnt to the ground in the actual fighting. Unless there is some good
reason for decreasing the LVP of burnt buildings, just have the rubble hex
be worth as many LVP as the original hex. There you are, a nice and quick
fix!
Under any circumstances, I think the practise of burning should be
considered voluntarily, but this is _not_enough_!
Coming to think of it, what do the rules actually say? Doesn't they say
that a wreck blaze is transferred to the terrain it _occupies_? I think
that's the phrase used in RB. In that case there isn't even a problem,
since a vehicle in bypass doesn't occupy the building. If this isn't
stated, that's another quick&easy way of fixing the problem - don't allow
a blazing wreck in bypass to spread.
For those that doesn't realize how this affects game play, I would say it
seriously unbalances CG I in favour of the germans. We have just concluded
a playing of CG I (yes, a report will follow when I get the time) and if I
had been able to burn the sanatorium the americans would have had no chance
whatsoever to win by LVP. Let's see. There are 52 LVP on the St map. 10+
8+3 can be burnt. That leaves 39 LVP. There are eight dates, but if the
germans should have any chance of winning the CG, they can't allow the
americans to gain more than 28 LVP during the first two dates. I'd say
the americans will gain few if any points during the 19N scenario. That
leaves 5*39=195 LVP. The americans will have to take 100 of those. To have
any realistical chance of winning the CG, the americans have to begin
making significant progress during 20AM, or they have already lost. I think
that is way to hard to consider the CG balanced.
In our game, no buildings were burnt. The americans still had to abandon
the LVP VC. He was 8 LVP or so short of being able to attain them and in
the end it boiled down to some CC in the Stoumont Church. The result? Nah,
you'll have to read the after-action report.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon)
Subject: Re: Burning Buildings in KGP
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:18:03 +0100 (MET)
>
> IMHO, the tactics of targeting a wreck for burning in order to start a
> building on fire are perfectly legal. The rule states "Kindling" is N/A.
> This is very specific.
>
> As far as the sleaze factor is concerned, it sounds very sleazy! But,
> probably no sleazier than routing units forward, ie voluntary breaking of a
> unit and routing him forward. (9-2 ldr and SS squad need to get somewhere
> fast, break squad, rout forward with leader, need an 8 in rally phase to
> continue). It's been done to me (not recently). The rules allow some of the
> slightly unrealistic tactics to exist. As Dave can attest to the two US
> squads attacking the sanatorium that broke (unvoluntarily) but then routed to
> the nearest building... Fortunately they didn't rally and the game was
> chocked up as my first ladder victory.
The Voluntary Break rules were changed in an Annual Q&A, 93a or 93b I think.
I think you can only Voluntarily Break if you are in LOS and Range of some
enemy unit (probably Good Order). You can't as easily rout forward with thi
rule.
>
> Anyway, I would think that if a guy wants to take the time to try to burn the
> building with the burning wreck tactics, why not. After he destroys his
> halftrack, check the spreading fire table and notice it will take a 13 or
> greater with two dice to spread to a stone building in KGP! [drms = -2 not
> directly attached + -2 for wet EC] If the wind is blowing, he has a slim
> chance, but I sure wouldn't get my hopes up.
>
I think EC don't apply to Building Kindling/Spreading... Anyway, the Blaze
will spread during the RePh, so just setting the Wreck ablaze will do. Nasty.
I'd say playtesters probably didn't think of it, or the rules would prohibit
firing at a wreck as well as Kindling.
--
Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: Re: Rules Interpretation -- Motion vs. Melee
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 08:30:48 -0600
> > Mike Seningen writes:
> >
> > Next movement phase -- He expends 1 MF to start. I declare that
> > I will reaction fire him roll my PAATC and pass, and then roll a 3
> > to kill. BUTTTTTTT...
>
> Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr replies:
>
> CC Reaction Fire is ok as long as the Infantry unit is not held in melee
> and one or 2 other restrictions
As a witness to this amazing battle, I recall that the Melee
restriction seemed to be at the heart of the matter. Anong other
things, A11.7 states: "... Even though a vehicle cannot be held in
Melee, it holds all Known enemy Infantry occupying the same Location
after a CCPh in Melee as long as it remains in the hex (unless in
Motion)." The tank was stopped, Mike had advanced his infantry into
close combat, but the tank survived. So, A11.7 clearly applied at the
end of Mike's player turn. In the next player turn, Mike's opponent
wanted to move out of that hex, in order to attack targets outside it
(another restriction of A11.7). The tank expended an MP to start. At
that point, Mike wanted to attack.
Now, exactly when does the Melee end? My personal interpretation is
that the tank was not in Motion (note capitalization) according to the
D2.4 definition. Hence Mike's infantry was still held in Melee, and
CC Reaction Fire would be NA.
An interesting question would arise if one assumed that A11.7 was
_really_ intended to read "(unless moving/in Motion)". I know of no
Q&A to that effect, but a similar case arose recently in the list in
regard to motion fire. Even if this were the intent, I think the tank
would still not be considered moving (in the sense of C.8) until it
entered a new hex.
This is basically what Mike and his opponent decided Sunday. The tank
escaped, with unfortunate results to Mike's forces. But that game was
definitely a graduate-level exercise in Infantry vs AFV close combat
rules.
Jack
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:35:19 EST
From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien)
Subject: Re: Burning Buildings in KGP
Greetings,
Dave Ripton writes:
> Kevin, who has probably watched too much Beavis & Butt-head and has
> been inspired to pyromania, ...
Beavis and who?? I don't spend my disposable income on cable so any
pyromania must be inherent. :)
In my original post I included the problem/tactic and some questions. I
thought I would include some opinions this time.
> How bad does this effect play balance? Does this force the Americans to
> abandon the victory condition concerning LVPs and try exclusively for the
> "control three buildings" victory condition?
I agree with Patrik that burning down the buildings and losing the LVPs would
seriously tip the CG in favor of the Germans. If losing the LVPs for say just
the Sanatorium swings the balance too far, then I would contend that the
chance of it burning is already too high even without this sleaze move.
Placing fragile AFVs in bypass is an obvious attempt to activate
the same sequence of events, but forcing the opponent to roll for the flame.
It seems bad that the balance of the CG could swing significantly because some
OBA going into the Sanatorium manages to generate a flame.
I like Patrik's suggestion:
> ... just have the rubble hex
> be worth as many LVP as the original hex.
This would seem to resolve the balance issue whether the torch was intentional
or a side effect. Of course, every solution has its price. If I could take
control of the ground floor of the level two building toward the end of a
scenario, I might try to burn the upper floor defenders out during the
refit phase. This situation might be a bit of a stretch, though.
> Does anyone know if the use of this tactic was explored during the KGP
> playtest?
Philippe Duchon writes:
> I'd say playtesters probably didn't think of it, ...
I, also, suspect that it was missed, but then I have gone through scenarios
without realizing I could unloading the 50cal from the jeep and been told
"everybody unloads the 50cal from the jeep". :) I wanted to know if
"of course, everyone uses a ht to burn down the Sanatorium". :) Some of the
RB suggestions include terrain modifications the Russians should employ.
These include burning down the buildings with the level 2 locations. I would
think that these tactics were included in the RB playtest.
> How "sleazy" is this tactic? I believe it is legal. Is it outside the
> "spirit of the rules" or do the rules just want you to throw a little gasoline
> of the fire to get it going? Does saying that Kindling is NA mean that I am
> not supposed to try and burn the buildings down?
Patrik Manlig writes:
> ... burning the sanatorium by torching a wreck is sleazy, dirty and clearly
> against the spirit of the rules. Good catch, whoever found it!
Thank you. :) I find this tactic sleazy as well. Unfortunately it is
currently legal and I suspect it has a significant affect on balance.
I am also curious as to why Kindling is NA. Is this a game balance issue or
was this imposed in deference to the very wet conditions? If it was
intended to keep the Sanatorium from burning to the ground, there's a
problem. :)
I was hesitant to bring this topic/tactic up at all. I've been reading the
KGP CG after action reports and no one mentioned burning buildings. But
I thought that there might be a chance for errata pages in KGP II, right? :)
Take care,
Kevin
---
Kevin Valerien
krv@eng.tridom.com
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:44:05 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: How's the survey?
John,
How's the survey coming?
Sorry to post this, but I can't find your email addr. Besides, I'm
sure I'm not the only one interested in the results.
Brian
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Rules Interpretation -- Motion vs. Melee
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:03:17 +0100 (MET)
Hi!
Jack writes,
> Now, exactly when does the Melee end? My personal interpretation is
> that the tank was not in Motion (note capitalization) according to the
> D2.4 definition. Hence Mike's infantry was still held in Melee, and
> CC Reaction Fire would be NA.
I think you and Mike are both correct, esp. when you note that a vehicle
can never be in Motion during the MPh.
> An interesting question would arise if one assumed that A11.7 was
> _really_ intended to read "(unless moving/in Motion)". I know of no
> Q&A to that effect, but a similar case arose recently in the list in
> regard to motion fire. Even if this were the intent, I think the tank
> would still not be considered moving (in the sense of C.8) until it
> entered a new hex.
The definition of moving is (if I recall correctly) that the vehicle is
the unit currently conducting its MPh. I think the term you're looking
for is "non-stopped". I know, it IS confusing.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: 8 Feb 1994 12:24:47 -0500
From: "William Cirillo" <William_Cirillo.SPACE#u#DIR@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: 2 Questions
Subject: Time:12:14 PM
OFFICE MEMO 2 Questions Date:2/8/94
First Question:
If at the start of the MPh an MMC in an open ground hex attempts to place smoke in an adjacent hex, thus expending 2 MF, what defensive first fire DR modifications apply? Is it -2 FFMO/FFNAM, or -1 FFNAM, or 0 since he has actually not yet "moved"?
Second question:
If a 7-4-7 American paratrooper roles 6,6 on a 2MC, thus experiencing ELR Failure and a Casualty MC, what is the final status of the remaining unit(s)?
Thanks for any help you can give a newbie
Bill Cirillo
w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Burning Buildings in KGP
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:26:11 +0100 (MET)
Hi Kevin & others!
> I agree with Patrik that burning down the buildings and losing the LVPs would
> seriously tip the CG in favor of the Germans. If losing the LVPs for say just
> the Sanatorium swings the balance too far, then I would contend that the
> chance of it burning is already too high even without this sleaze move.
> Placing fragile AFVs in bypass is an obvious attempt to activate
> the same sequence of events, but forcing the opponent to roll for the flame.
> It seems bad that the balance of the CG could swing significantly because some
> OBA going into the Sanatorium manages to generate a flame.
One observation here. I _wanted_ to burn the sanatorium. I _tried_ to do
it by OBA. I never seemed to have the spare time! It's not all that easy
w/o resorting to kindling I'd say (EXC: mentioned sleaze tactic). I thought
a little more about it, and the reason for decreased LVP could be as a
deterrent for american bombardments in the sanatorium area?
> I like Patrik's suggestion:
>
> > ... just have the rubble hex
> > be worth as many LVP as the original hex.
Which I might have invalidated by now... Or you could have it be worth the
original # of LVP unless the AMERICANS burn it, whether intentionally or
not. That would perhaps simulate the fact that the americans don't want to
destroy their allies' real estate.
> This would seem to resolve the balance issue whether the torch was intentional
> or a side effect. Of course, every solution has its price. If I could take
> control of the ground floor of the level two building toward the end of a
> scenario, I might try to burn the upper floor defenders out during the
> refit phase. This situation might be a bit of a stretch, though.
I guess not, but it could very well be something a german commander felt
tempted to do in the real world.
> > Does anyone know if the use of this tactic was explored during the KGP
> > playtest?
Hardly.
> I, also, suspect that it was missed, but then I have gone through scenarios
> without realizing I could unloading the 50cal from the jeep and been told
> "everybody unloads the 50cal from the jeep". :) I wanted to know if
> "of course, everyone uses a ht to burn down the Sanatorium". :) Some of the
> RB suggestions include terrain modifications the Russians should employ.
> These include burning down the buildings with the level 2 locations. I would
> think that these tactics were included in the RB playtest.
Hey! I thought that was original when we started doing it! Now, DID the
RB playtesters burn down half the map when playing the campaigns??? (And
Dave's accusing Kevin of being a pyromaniac...) Anyway, I think fires were
much less of a concern in Stalingrad than in the Ardennes. Somehow I
picture the russian forces less willing to give any consideration to
civilian real estate and lives. Especially when I read the account of how
"The Commissar's House" was cleared...
> I was hesitant to bring this topic/tactic up at all. I've been reading the
> KGP CG after action reports and no one mentioned burning buildings. But
> I thought that there might be a chance for errata pages in KGP II, right? :)
I've been writing some of those reports, and we didn't burn any buildings,
that's right. It would have been nice to be able to, but IMHO you shouldn't
be. The germans shouldn't have any interest in burning the buildings (hist-
orically) and the americans should be very careful NOT tu burn them (also
historically).
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:04:48 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: 2 Questions
Subject: Time:12:14 PM
> OFFICE MEMO 2 Questions Date:2/8/94
> First Question:
>
> If at the start of the MPh an MMC in an open ground hex attempts to place smoke in an adjacent hex, thus expending 2 MF, what defensive first fire DR modifications apply? Is it -2 FFMO/FFNAM, or -1 FFNAM, or 0 since he has actually not yet "moved"?
>
It is -2 unless AM was declared before the smoke dr. Note that if the smoke dr
was made, all shots must include the smoke DRM if the smoke is in the LOF. If
AM was declared the unit could still expend up to 1.5MF (3.5MF if moving with
a leader) moving to another location if a 6 was not rolled the smoke placement
dr.
> Second question:
>
> If a 7-4-7 American paratrooper roles 6,6 on a 2MC, thus experiencing ELR Failure and a Casualty MC, what is the final status of the remaining unit(s)?
>
You get a broken disrutped 337 HS.
> Thanks for any help you can give a newbie
>
> Bill Cirillo
> w.m.cirillo@larc.nasa.gov
>
Fred
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:04:15 EST
From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien)
Subject: Re: 2 Questions
Greetings,
> > Second question:
> >
> > If a 7-4-7 American paratrooper roles 6,6 on a 2MC, thus experiencing ELR Failure and a Casualty MC, what is the final status of the remaining unit(s)?
> >
>
> You get a broken disrutped 337 HS.
>From the QA list:
A10.31 & A19.13 If an unbroken 6-5-8 SS squad (with its normal 5 ELR)
suffers a Casualty MC that also exceeds its ELR, is it Replaced by a
broken 3-4-8 SS HS?
A. Yes. {25-6}
I would expect the 7-4-7 to behave similarly and result in a broken 337.
Kevin
---
Kevin Valerien
krv@eng.tridom.com
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 15:39 EST
From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis)
Subject: LV DRM and OBA
Does the LV DRM get added to the OBA accuracy dr??
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com
Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ
-----
From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:53:14 -0500
Subject: 2 Questions
Item Subject: Message text
> If at the start of the MPh an MMC in an open ground hex attempts to place
smoke
> in an adjacent hex, thus expending 2 MF, what defensive first fire DR
modificati
> ons apply? Is it -2 FFMO/FFNAM, or -1 FFNAM, or 0 since he has actually not
yet
> "moved"?
Don't know for sure, I'd be kind and go with the -1 personally.
> Second question:
>
> If a 7-4-7 American paratrooper roles 6,6 on a 2MC, thus experiencing ELR
Failur
> e and a Casualty MC, what is the final status of the remaining unit(s)?
Well, this is a little easier.
Failed 2MC; therefore broken 747
ELR; therefore deloy into two broken HS (underlined morale)
Fate; therefore one HS dies.
What's left? One broken HS.
That's my guess!
dave_wetzel@vos.stratus.com
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:21:29 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: LV DRM and OBA
>
>
> Does the LV DRM get added to the OBA accuracy dr??
>
Yes, the same as any other hindrance.
Fred
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com
> Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ
>
-----
From: grendel@sos.att.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:46:07 EST
Subject: Here's the Update on the Survey
Thanks Brian;
I have finished revising the automated counting and report generating
code for this thing. It works.
Since I want to give everyone a fair chance to fill out the
survey, I'll hold open the survey entry deadline until
>>>>>> THIS FRIDAY <<<<<<<
which is not a hard and fast deadline. Sometime during the
weekend I will put together the final report and issue it
directly to the list.
If you want a copy of the survey (gee, just takes a few minutes
to fill out), please write me at grendel@sos.wh.att.com and
I'll send you a copy immediately. Please, there are quite a
few of you who have not responded, so, give it a shot. Thanks.
John Foley
grendel@sos.wh.att.com
ps: I would like to mention something about members of this
list: I have unsuccessfully tried to get V for Victory to
work. I posted a rather angry note on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic.
The ONLY letters I got came from fellow ASL'ers on this list.
I see many of you involved on other lists. Well, I'd like to
say that this crowd of gamers consists of really fine people.
Thank you.
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:51:17 -0800
From: Steven J. Szymanski <szy@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Here's the Update on the Survey
I will forward your message to the Atomic Games folks. In, general, I have
been forwarding a lot of stuff from "the net" to the folks there.
.szy
RealLife: Steven J Szymanski "Apple has no idea what I am
AppleLink: szy saying here and should not
Internet: szy@apple.COM held responsible for my raving"
AOL: Sszy So There.
-----
From: Scott Jackson <scottj@hebron.connected.com>
Subject: KGP building burning
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 12:01:46 -0800
Yes, the KGP playtest DID cover purposeful destruction of VP buildings.
I used it as the Germans while playtesting what is now KGP II. Unfortunately,
the use of this tactic in KGP II isn't anywhere near as unbalancing as its
use in KGP I (or so it sounds). I used OBA and/or AFV though, not the
flaming HT idea; which made mine MUCH less practical to do. TAHGC decided
that it wouldn't occur enough to make special rules about. It is definitely
against the spirit of the game though, because the use of VP locations is
just a non-real measurement of success. This means that the idea of counting
control of a rubbled hex as control of ALL former VP locations for that hex
would be the "best" way to get around this problem.
And the Kindling NA is due quite simply to the dampness of this area
at this time; has nothing to do with VP locations or the Sanatorium.
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:27:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Jared Roach <roach@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Auction of all my ASL stuff
Advanced Squad Leader Auction
I have for sale a complete ASL system (up to about
1991). It is in excellent shape (exception: a few of the
older boards are worn and some of the boxes are dented; the
rulebook is pretty battered as well). In fact, many of the
boards and counters are unused/unpunched. The counters are
currently all sorted by nationality and unit type, so it is
difficult but not impossible for me to sell components
individually. I will run an auction for a month with roughly
3 weekly updates to rec.games.board. I expect most of the
action to take place by email, so send me a note if you wish
to be included in the bidding (either because you wish to
watch, or because you only want to bid after others start the
bidding). I will set a definite end time for the auction in
a couple of weeks. I use a month time because not all
potential bidders read news more frequently; I apologize to
frequent news readers. Whole dollar bids only. First
chronological bidder wins a tie. Buyer pays postage. I am
not responsible for bids I do not receive due to computer
errors (your computer or mine) or goofed up email.
A complete list of stuff follows:
ASL Rulebook and Binder 29.25
Beyond Valor 26.00
Paratrooper 11.70
Yanks 22.75
West of Alamein 29.25
Code of Bushido 26.00
Partisan 11.70
Last Hurrah 11.70
Hollow Legions 16.25
Streets of Fire 13.00
Hedgerow Hell 13.00
Red Barricades 16.25
ASL Annual '89 10.00
ASL Annual '90 12.00
ASL Annual '91 7.80
Rick Troha's 1991 ASL Q+A Summary 1.00
GI Anvil of Victory 22.75
Squad Leader 19.50
Squad Leader (2nd copy) 19.50
Extra Boards ~3.00 apiece
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,24,24,24 (yes three extra
copies of board 24 - I used them in a tournament)
some KGP playtester's stuff free
(except for sweat and tears)
The prices are roughly what I paid for them when they came
out (i.e. 3-5 years ago). I generally buy at about a 35%
discount, as you may notice. I haven't listed the tax or
shipping charges. The total I paid is thus about $368. Use
this and list prices available to you as bidding reference
marks, but feel free to start the bidding at any level.
Please bid on the entire allotment.
If you only wish part, do let me know. I don't want to force
unwanted items on high bidders. If I can jury rig together
an equitable distribution of stuff to a set of bidders, each
wanting only a part, I will try to do so. However, from past
experience, this is unlikely to be possible. Fair warning.
I'll do my best to respond to any questions or inquiries, but
please be patient, as I may not get around to them for
several days due to my busy schedule.
Jared Roach
328 Erie Ave
Seattle Wa, 98122
(206)324-5271
email: roach@u.washington.edu
-----
From: "Rusty Shields" <D4F@CU.NIH.GOV>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 20:32:29 EST
Subject: Opponent Wanted.
Guys,
This is an open invitation to anyone out there who would like to get
a ladder game. I need one _bad_.
I don't care what scenario we play, as long as it is a _night_
scenario.
So, you pick it and I'll play it.
Rusty Shields
d4f@cu.nih.gov
-----
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:44:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Jared Roach <roach@u.washington.edu>
Subject: KGP playtester's comments on burning buildings
The issue of what happens to the victory points associated
with the sanitarium when it was burnt, rubbled, whatever, certainly
was on our minds during the playtest. Historically, neither side was
very interested in destroying it, as has been noted. But then, one
does not want to impose too many artificial restrictions (i.e. Kindling
NA) in an attempt to enforce this.
To be honest, it would have been almost impossible to balance
the campaign game to perfection. It was too big and too long. Hundreds
of playings would have been required to get a statistically valid sample.
IMHO, KGP is ASL at its best. STRATEGY becomes paramount, at
last winning over tactics (barely) and rules lawyering (by a mite). KGP
is a superb simulation. Large scale armor battles! What joy. Darn it,
enjoy the simulation for the simulation's sake. Play balance is
important, but it can't be THAT important. Surely one is not going to
see a lot of double elimination weekend ASL tournaments using the KGP
campaign as a discriminator.
As has been noted, it is hard to burn buildings even if you're trying.
The threat of loss of a few LVP didn't keep me from a bombardment centered
on the sanitarium once while I was playing the Americans. (Knowing that
the German player would probably set up lots of units near there in the
belief that I couldn't POSSIBLY bombard him because of the threat of
rubbling or burning one or two sanitarium hexes). I rubbled one location,
but it was a small price to pay for the two big panzers and many other
units that bit the dust. Know thy opponent. Also, do the unexpected.
All that aside, it is kind of a shame that burning is still a
potentially useful tactic. I reccommend a non-explicit house rule that
reads: "Don't burn buildings if you wouldn't do it if it didn't
potentially deprive the opponent of LVPs." If you need a more explicit
rule, switch opponents. Easy!
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: Re: FIRELANES
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 21:40:37 -0600
> > hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) writes:
> >
> >Say you've got a guy with a MG, (say a 467/lmg) in your way
> >who's got several good spots for a firelane. What's the
> >best way to handle it?
>
> to which JR replies:
>
> I don't know if this qualifies as the "best" way, but I was
> told a story about a game where, in the last turn, the
> attacker needed to move several units into a building but
> had to cross a firelane to get there. A 7-0 which was too
> far away to enter the building "volunteered" to draw fire.
> It double-timed, entered the fire lane (roll, survives),
> then entered it again (roll, survives), and again (roll, the
> MG breaks!). The rest of the attackers stroll into the
> victory location. That's one way to do it.
Jean-Luc recently did something similar to me in a game of "Panzers
Marsch" we're playing. I had the bridge into the village covered with
an LMG fire lane. He ran a German 548 and a HT in an armored assault
right up the lane. After 4 rolls my miserable Russian (B11) LMG
malfunctioned. Then his troops just came pouring in on me.
Until recently I didn't use fire lanes because I couldn't figure out
the rules. Now that I've (sort of) learned them, I'm discovering that
sometimes they are not as formidable as I'd thought. At least normal
residual firepower stays put after you lay it down!
Jack "wanta buy an LMG cheap?" O'Quin
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 08:38:02 GUD
From: Peter=Nowak%RD%PSE=OE@banyan.siemens.co.at
Subject: ASL PBeM ?
Hi all!
The other day i saw a message on the list, that it is possible to watch people
playing ASL via the net. Can anyone tell me what i have do do for this if it is
possible.
I am interrested in playing over the net, but first i want do figure out how it
works.
Peter
==========================================================================
Peter Nowak SIEMENS AG Austria Gudrunstr. 11, A-1100 Vienna
E-Mail: nowak@sol1.gud.siemens.co.at Telephone: +43-1-60171/5893
==========================================================================
There are NO kangaroos in Austria ...
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Location/building control?
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 13:45:04 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
Just something that came to my mind while writing the after-action report
of our CG:
Q. If a side has GO units in a building while the other does not,
thereby claiming control of that building, does that mean that
they automatically control ALL locations of that building?? I.e.
does control of a building infer control of the individual
locations of that building?
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:55 EST
From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis)
Subject: RB and KGP maps
Do most people get theses maps laminated? Right now I just place them
on a hard surface and then place some plexiglass over them, what do
you guys do? WIll a place like Kinko's or any print shop laminate
something that big?
p.s. I don't want this to turn into a "How do you store your
counters?" type of question :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com
Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:13:12 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Re: Auctioning off ASL stuff
Guys,
Funny, he just asked to be added to the list yesterday. Today he
is auctioning off his ASL stuff to, undoubtably the largest ASL audience
available. Anyone wanna bet he asks off in a few days?
Please keep the auctions to the newsgroups. I don't mind someone
posting that they're selling their stuff, but I sure dont' want this list to
become 20 posts a day about people selling stuff and a few 'bout ASL (and
Barney, of course... 8) ).
Pissed at being "used",
Brian
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 09:23:29 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Rules Answers from Da Hill
Hi Guys,
I got a response from AH on some questions that were asked here a few
months back. The first clarifies that you can play around with SMOKE
or DC's and still use Assault Movement if otherwise eligible, and the
second has to do with the mechanics of OBA IR placement.
1. Can a unit which first rolls for SMOKE placement then moves 1 hex
be eligible for the benefits of Assault Movement if the combined
number of MF for these actions is < its MF allowance? What if it
moves first and rolls for SMOKE second? How about DC placement?
A. Yes to all, provided Assault Movement is declared before any MF are
expended for any purpose.
2. When firing IR with OBA, is an SR or an IR placed onboard when the
initial AR is placed?
A. IR
Is an IR placed by OBA removed at the end of the Player Turn?
A. Yes (E1.933)
When does the Fire Mission end when firing IR with OBA?
A. When the FFE:C would be removed if HE were being fired.
What is the effect of a FFE 1/2/C when firing IR?
A. Placing the first IR is equivalent to the FFE:1 portion of the Fire
Mission, as is the second IR to the FFE:2 portion. The FFE:C portion
just completes the duration of the Fire Mission.
Can you correct an IR FFE?
A. Correction isn't necessary. Each time the IR is placed, method 2 or
3 of E1.922 is used anew.
(Yuck. I hate Night rules. But you knew that...)
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: ASLUG?
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 9:48:04 CST
Guys,
Does anyone know the status of the next ASLUG?
Ed
-----
Subject: How good is archive's ASLGAP?
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 10:21:29 PST
From: slin@cisco.com
Do any of you fellows use the PC-based ASLGAP available from the
archives?
How do you rate it?
Is it missing any important features?
Is there a more current version?
Are there info files available for nationalities other than Russian or
German?
Steve
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 13:26:12 -0500 (EST)
From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com
Subject: RE: RB and KGP maps
From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis)
(Asking about RB and KGP maps)
>Do most people get theses maps laminated? Right now I just place them
>on a hard surface and then place some plexiglass over them, what do
>you guys do? WIll a place like Kinko's or any print shop laminate
>something that big?
I got my RB maps laminated at an OfficeMax. They came out pretty nice and were
cheap to do ($2.50 or so for both). The only problem is that if I roll them up
to take to a tourney they don't lay flat easily and you can't fold them for the
real small tourney scenarios (BF#1, Turned Away...) I got an extra set of the
RB maps though so I'll probably start taking the unlaminated ones to a tourney
and use the laminated ones at home where I have the room...
The RB maps just fit in the laminating machine where I went...I haven't gotten
KGP yet so I can't comment on those maps in case they're a slightly different
size.
Bret Hildebran
hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: KGP: The Assault on Stoumont
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:03:59 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
if you've followed the story this far, you know that this campaign started
with the germans all but wiping out the initial force of americans defending
Stoumont and Roua. After the 19AM scenario the remaining 5 squads plus two
AT guns still held the Sanatorium, but that was only because 19AM ended too
soon.
In the afternoon, the german commander had a brain malfunction (that's me).
After loosing the remaining Wirbelwind and three or more tanks to sheer stu-
pidity, the americans were thrown off the map. Luckily, the germans still
had enough superiority to do as they pleased, despite some stupid moves.
When night fell, american forces crawled onboard and unwisely choose to
attack. This scenario, too, saw some stupid moves by the german commander,
but in the end the americans were in no better position than before. They
had managed to end the game with three or four squads onboard, but they
were unsupported. But this was beginning to be costly for the germans.
Another Phyrric victory could be the doom to ther germans by now, with
hardly any armour left at all.
The morning of the 20th saw no fighting at all. The americans instead
prepared for a looong fight when they realized they didn't have enough
attack chits to attack during all the following dates. When the shadows
started to grow longer, a rumble was heard from the north. Four M4(105)
and five M5A1 tried to make their way past some roadblocks set up on the
N.33, accompanied by an armoured MG platoon, an armoured infantry platoon
and an engineer platoon. The two bombardments purchased by the americans
had little effect, except for blowing up a 75mm gun situated with an almost
perfect view of the N.33.
After some very tense fighting, the germans barely stopped the americans
just in front of a bend in [?] the N.33. Having also crept through the
woods, some american troops were approaching the west edge of Stoumont.
Somehow, an american platoon managed to slip past the defenders and claim
several hexes of the Sanatorium.
This couldn't be tolerated, so with the reinforcements brought forward
during the night, the germans decided to counterattack. During the night
of the 20th, they exacted a heavy toll from the americans. The casualty
ratio was almost 3:1 in american losses to german. They also recaptured
the Sanatorium and eliminated all americans therein. While all this was
going on, however, other american forces made their way through the
woods to Roua and nearly encircled the remaining germans.
The morning of the 21st was relatively quiet, inasfar as one could call
constant attacks by JaBos and long range interdicting fire from american
81mm mortars and .50-cal machineguns "quiet". The germans evacuated the
Sanatorium, knowing that the americans could no longer win by capturing
enough LVP. Both sides limited themselves to local counterattacks, and
the losses were even, much due to the three american JaBos patrolling
the skies. The germans managed to recapture Roua, but almost all of the
troops there were killed by the combined fire of the JaBos and three .50-
caliber machineguns. The americans just barely managed to capture the
Sanatorium with the help of two M24 tanks. In the east the americans
cautiously occupied the Gatekeeper's Lodge and the large building to
the South of it. Suspecting a large concentration of troops around the
Chapelle Ste Anne, they halted just out of sight, content with digging
in in anticipation of the afternoon. But alas, this was but a strategical
bluff from the germans that had left the Chapel undefended. When the
americans had secured these buildings, two halftracks raced off along the
N.33 for Stoumont, but didn't get there in time. They managed to capture
two buildings just south of the Church, but could not reach the Church
itself before they were stopped by german reinforcements rushed there.
At the conclusion of this scenario, the time was almost 21:00 (real time),
but despite that we decided to play the remaining scenario. The germans
had only nine remaining squads and a lone Panther while the americans had
slightly more, numbering 15 squads. The american
The americans staged their attack from the Sanatorium, putting almost all
of their infantry there - except for the artillery observers and some .50-
cals that lurked in the woods to the east of Roua. As the infantry cautiou-
sly crossed the road west of the Sanatorium artillery shells started to
fall on the Stoumont Church and in Roua. From the west edge of the map
came a platoon of M4 mediums, and in the north appeared another platoon of
armoured infantry. A small force of americans were assigned to guard the
Chapelle Ste Anne as soon as it was captured, and then the M4(105) and
halftrack that remained started moving towards the church along the N.33.
The remaining Panther positioned itself to block the approach to the
Church that led through Stoumont, along with a sMG halftrack and some
squads. Sitting in the middle of the road, it proposed to stop any
americans trying to reach the Church.
The americans didn't care, or were desperate enough not to care. The
armoured infantry platoon remained mounted and tried to charge past the
Panther. The first got past the Panther, but was hit by the sMG halftrack
just as it rolled back onto the road. The next stopped abruptly when one
of the SS troopers providing infantry support for the Panther killed the
driver.
On the tail of the armoured infantry came the platoon of medium tanks.
One of the M4's stopped just in front of the Panther while the second
bypassed it and swung its turret around to bear at the Panther's vulnerable
behind. On top of that, a third halftrack unloaded only a few tens of
meters from the mess, sending an american squad into the fray. A third
and fourth M4 overran the squad manning two MG's to the right of the
Panther, one of them being blown up by a shaped-charge mine. On the left
two halftracks with an american HW platoon unloaded and advanced on the
sMG halftrack. Yet more american infantry were coming from Roua,
surrounding the squad to the right...
In an effort to at least get off a shot at one of the enemy tanks, the
Panther decided to disheart the enemy infantry with his Nahverteidigungs-
waffe. The only thing they forgot were the SS troops trying to fend off
the americans. As they tried to do that, they turned their backs to the
tank, and... Not a pretty sight :-(
Both the Panther and its escorts soon went down in flames, but by now
the road was littered with so many wrecks it had become hard to traverse.
Matters was made worse by the fact that a survivor from the MG squad to
the right proceeded to immobilize the M4 that had gotten past the Panther.
The germans, realizing that they could not stand and fight this time,
started to slowly yield. Building after building they backed, cautiously
followed by the americans. Small arms fire discouraged any GIs from
following too closely.
When the germans reached the Church, they had their backs to the wall.
Behind them artillery shells were constantly exploding in and around the
Church. To their right was a road, covered by heavy american fire. Going
to the left would mean abandoning the objective they were supposed to
hold. They had nowhere to go, but at least the americans would have to
dig THEM out. But it would only be a question of time...
Time was something the americans were not granted, alas! As the first
american squad set foot in the Church and several others prepared to make
a dash past the five MGs interdicting the road north of the Church, the
game ended. The germans still held almost all of the Church, with the only
exception being an enemy squad that had entered from the south. Only
meters from their last objective, time had finally run out for the
americans!
Well, that's it. Any questions or comments are welcome. I have described
all of this from memory, which is why it lacks hard references, but I
could probably produce them if it interests someone.
Right now, I'm feeling too much like a vegetable to keep on writing, so
I'll just quit now. May your dice be blessed! (EXC: whenever you're playing
me...)
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:33:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jimmie M. Raines" <jr4s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Beginner Q: Chapter K
Is chapter K helpful enough when learning ASL to fork over the $17 for
Paratrooper? Or, is it available from TAHGC separately for some
(smaller) price?
Thanks!
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Raines, Doctoral Student in Chemistry/Biophysics
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I'm in graduate school, what do you expect?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 12:35:39 -0500 (EST)
From: CINABRO@LNS62.LNS.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Ladder game
Wilson Lab, 9-FEB-1994
Anyone up for a ladder game against me. I recently added Partisan,
West of Alamein and KGP I to my ASL collection and would like to play
something out of these. I am still not too comfortable with vehicles.
Dave
-----
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 14:12:46
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Advance Survey Results
John is down with a cold this week, so he asked me to post the survey
results. I don't have all of the numbers, so I'll just give a quickie glance
at the results before the final figures are tallied.
Favorite Scenario - Fighting Withdrawl
Favorite Nationality - Germans
Average # of games experience - 53.8
Frequency of play - 3.65 times per week
Ever been to a tournament? - Yes: 46% No 52% Don't Know 2%
Recommended Yearly Salary for Der Laddermeister - $250
Most Annoying Matt - Shostak: 38% Brown 39% Matt Who?: 23%
AGWAV Winner Prediction - Manlig: 56% Ripton: 40% Van Kan: 4%
Thanks to all who voted. I sure can use the money!
Tom
UM 91, IU 67 Rah!
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:37:38 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: KGPI Playtest
Folks,
I can't speak for others, but TAHGC Playtest Group did *not* even play
the KGP I CG.
Appearently, Charlie Kiblers groups took care of the playtest of it,
we did all the scenarios (as did the other groups).
I'm not too thrilled with KGP. I guess playing it for a good bit of
time has just made me "tired" of KGP. Give me RB any day.
Oh well, others seem to like it a great deal.
BTW, I'd bombard the Sanatarium in a second, as Jared pointed out, if
I could nail some tanks or a bit of infantry. Worth the trade.
Brian
-----
From: grendel@sos.att.com
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:02:27 EST
Subject: Re: Advanced Survey Results
<cough> <wheeze> <getting off my death bed> <cough>
Er, the LadderMeister seems to have been looking at SOME
kind of survey results, but little does he know that he
was peeking at the copy I left on my electronic desk, so
to speak. The REAL survey results are fully encrypted, heh, heh.
I guess all one has to do is say: "SORRY, the survey period
is OVER, you'll have to wait until next year." I'm happy to
say that the delivery curve for surveys has spiked.
To stimulate further, frantic, last-minute submissions, I'll
leak some of the REAL results:
Favorite Scenario: Soldiers of Destruction
(By a preposterous landslide; I caught Tom Repetti
trying to stuff the ballot box on this one, but
his chicanery allowed me to make my survey processing
code more robust. Even so it was still a wild winner.)
Favorite Game: Candyland
(There are so many conscientious fathers on this
list, and honest too!)
Favorite Nationality: Finn
(I got beaten about the head and shoulders by some
fellow name Tuomo Repettinen about not including
the Finns as a nationality; sheesh, it was an
oversight; I tried to explain that I have direct
scandinavian ancestry, and he said, yeah, sure,
Foley, a good scandinavian name, and I said, no
really, I have many relatives in Sweden, and he
said, oh, that's even worse, those Swedes have
always tried to lord it over the rest of us!)
Favorite Board: 25
(I even had fan mail on this one from a correspondant
named Ali ben Repet Tom who comes from Marrakech, but
has a Work-Study deal in Idaho of some kind, and he
said that board 25 PLUS overlay E1 on any other
Desert Board was sheer nirvana. He even forwarded
his revised Pack Animal rules to cover Camels and
Dromedaries (THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW!)
Takes all kinds.)
Favorite New ASL Product: LURP (the Vietnam Module)
(Yes indeedy, we're going to send a message to
the Hill on this one. I got nearly unanimous
support for this entry.)
Well, ta ta for now,
John "Master of the Survey, Comptroller of ASL Internet
Funds Disbursement, Supervisor of the Ladder Department,
Eliminator of all Raises Allotted to People Using
"Meister" to Denote Their Job Function" Foley
( just kidding Tom 8-)
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:58:57 -0500
From: Stewart R King <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: RB and KGP maps
>
>
> Do most people get theses maps laminated? Right now I just place them
> on a hard surface and then place some plexiglass over them, what do
> you guys do? WIll a place like Kinko's or any print shop laminate
> something that big?
>
> p.s. I don't want this to turn into a "How do you store your
> counters?" type of question :-)
>
(Unsolicited plug department) The other day, I went to Staples with my
Tanamboioioioing overlays from the last annual. The young lady there took
a good hour with me to make some very nice laminated maps. We pasted the
overlays together with Post-it notes on the back, made color Xeroxes at
135%, and laminated the four resulting 11x17" sheets. Looks very nice,
and total cost about $7.50. And Staples made a loyal customer.
Stewart King
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:25:51 CST
From: efcm@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: Air Support in KGP
Just curious, in my playing, so far, of KGP, I lack the understanding of
how or when air support might come into play. I understand the concept
in theory, but this CG doesn't look like it will ever be even lightly
used. To boot, in all the after action reports I've read so far, not
one has mentioned air support (might be because they all seem to be
early in the CG, but I don't know).
What do you people think?
Erik
-----
From: c.fago1@genie.geis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 01:56:00 BST
Subject: Tournament Notice
Got this info from Mike Rodgers on GEnie...
May 28-29, 1994
Second Annual Montreal ASL D-Day Tournament
Presented by the Advanced Squad Leader Quebec Association at
the Montreal Olympic Stadium, Montreal, Quebec.
Saturday 9 am to 11 pm and Sunday 9 am to 5 pm.
Three or four rounds of ASL in Avaloncon format.
No fees.
For information on nearby accomodations, or on the tournament, contact
Michael Rodgers; telephone: (514) 620-5757, GEnie Email: M.RODGERS,
address: 5187 Beamish Drive, Pierrefonds, Quebec, H8Z 3G4.
*-=Carl=-*
-----
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 14:45:16 -0700 (MST)
From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg)
Subject: routs
Here's a brief question: If the crew of an emplaced gun (in otherwise Open
Ground) breaks, must it rout to the nearest woods/building, or is the gun
emplacement DRM sufficient to satisfy A10.531?
We said it was in our game and have progressed past that point now, but I
thought I'd ask it for interest's sake.
Cheers!
Grant
GEnie G.LINNEBERG
INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
-----
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 23:37:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Austin <mikea@bga.com>
Subject: PBEM
I am new to the mailing list. I am interested in ASL PBEM, but I don't
have a clue where to start. I am a novice ASL player, having only
played solitaire. I have Beyond Valor, Paratrooper, Yanks, and
Streetfighter, and a number of the old SL boards. I am willing to
purchase other modules as time and money allow.
How do I get started?
Mike Austin
mikea@bga.com
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 08:53:20 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: Rules Answers from Da Hill
Dave Ripton <ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com> writes:
> Hi Guys, I got a response from AH on some questions that were asked
> here a few months back. The first clarifies that you can play
> around with SMOKE or DC's and still use Assault Movement if
> otherwise eligible, and the second has to do with the mechanics of
> OBA IR placement.
They're in my Q&A list now.
Bas.
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 08:51:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net>
Subject: Questions of CC vs. AFV and OBA
I've wondered if I'm interpreting the CC vs. AFV rules correctly or not. Do
the rules make attacks vs. moving AFV more frequent than against
non-moving ones. I've thought that CC Reaction Fire was a DFF phase
action, so a Defender wouldn't have the option of CC against a vehicle
which hasn't moved during the attacker's
turn. Is this right? Isn't it odd that you'd get an attack vs. a moving
AFV in your opponent's turn (or perhaps an opportunity to make an attack)
but not against a stationary vehicle? Or have I missed something?
What happens to an FFE counter (1, 2 or C, take your pick) when the
observer is no longer Good Order (eg, held in Melee)? Radio contact is
lost in the next PFPh but what happens after that?
Tim
-----
From: Peter Jelstrup <peterje@central.sussex.ac.uk>
Subject: ASL info/lists/misc
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 14:00:19 +0000 (GMT)
Hi Guys!
Is there anyone of you there might be able to mail me a somewhat
complete list of telnet/ftp/mailing list adresses where I can find
info/textfiles/progs etc. related to ASL?
Is it possible to access the Genie Newsgroup/mailing list on AH and ASL,
from the internet?
Looking forward to your replies....
--
\\\//
(o o)
-----------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------------------------------------
Peter Jelstrup |
18 Gordon Road | University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 6PD | School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences
England, UK |
Phone: (0273) 559 260 | Email: peterje@central.sussex.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: Wetzel_Dave/mis_m9@misx9.mis.stratus.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:29:09 -0500
Subject: Air Support in KGP
Item Subject: Message text
> Just curious, in my playing, so far, of KGP, I lack the understanding of
> how or when air support might come into play. I understand the concept
> in theory, but this CG doesn't look like it will ever be even lightly
> used. To boot, in all the after action reports I've read so far, not
> one has mentioned air support (might be because they all seem to be
> early in the CG, but I don't know).
>
> What do you people think?
Well, I for one am looking forward to having a clear weather day when I
can bring in some FB's.
When we had played RB, I bought Stuka twice and was very frustrated.
The (annoying) sighting check rules makes it impossible to attack units
in buildings (espcially fortified factories!).
In KGP, though, there's lots of open ground!! I know I'll be able to
find some targets in that one!! I just hope the weather clears soon
enough!
-dlw
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: overstacking attack penalty
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 08:45:27 -0600
I've been having a lot of trouble understanding the overstacking rules
(section A5) lately. Jean-Luc has been patiently explaining them to
me, but there's still one point with which I disagree. Since he's
been right about everything else, I'd like some comments from the
group in order to get this straight once and for all (or, perhaps,
rescue a squad from casualty reduction). :-)
The attack penalty rule reads (in its entirety):
A5.12, "ATTACK PENALTY: All units attacking from or within a Location
which their side has currently overstacked must add one to their
IFT/CC DR (or +1 to their To Hit DR for ordnance) for each vehicle and
squad equivalent (FRU) by which they exceed normal stacking limits."
The situation is that Jean-Luc has three squads and a leader firing
from a hex that also contains two of his halftracks. I think these
units should pay a +1 DRM on their IFT fire due to the extra vehicle.
Jean-Luc says his infantry pay no penalty since Personnel are not
overstacked. He points to this sentence later in the same section:
"A5.4 COMBINED ARMS: The presence of a vehicle(s) in a hex does not
alter Personnel stacking limits..." He emphasizes that the (s) at the
end of 'vehicle' is really important here.
I guess I still believe that even though the limits are separate for
Vehicles and Personnel, some of the overstacking penalties apply even
to the other type of unit. One example is vehicular movement into
hexes that are overstacked by Personnel (though not vice-versa).
Another, I believe, is the A5.12 attack penalty. On the other hand,
Infantry movement and defense penalties clearly are not affected by
Vehicular overstacking.
I can see that it is possible to make a different interpretation of
A5.12 by tightly binding the pronoun "they" in the last phrase to the
subject ("all units"). Since the units attacking are not, themselves,
overstacked, this would support Jean-Luc's opinion. However, to me,
the qualifying phrase "from or within a Location which their side has
currently overstacked" seems to broaden scope of "all units" to
include even infantry firing from a location containing extra
vehicles.
What say you all?
Jack "+1 for rules overstacking" O'Quin
-----
From: "Grabow, Barry E." <GRABOWBE@f1groups.fsd.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: AH Q&A
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:59:00 PST
I have received the following answers to the questions I had sent to AH.
Q. Can a hero apply his heroic DRM to the To Hit table of a weapon counter
he is using? A15.23 says IFT/CC only, but A15.23 (2nd sentence) implies -1
on TH table.
A. Only if it is a SW, and only to negate the extra +1 TH DRM.
Q. Can a hero use a SW in combination with a MMC (which possesses the SW)
for the purpose of using his heroic -1 DRM at a range greater than four hexes
(as he would be able to do if he combined with only a SMC)?
A. No.
Q. In the A7.212 (Target Selection Limits) sentence +It does not have the
freedom to attack units in other hexes while its own Location is occupied by
a known enemy unit..., does the +It refer to +a unit ... eligible for TPBF
vs Known enemy units ... or more generally to any +unit? The implications
of the former interpretation is that a BU CT AFV (which is not a TPBF target)
does not prevent the unit form First Firing out of the Location, while the
latter interpretation would prevent such First Fire out of the Location.
A. Unit refers to any unit other than an unarmored vehicle; see A7.212 in 92A.
Q. When executing the second (or third) attack of a multiple OVR (D7.14)
using a MG/IFE (where such MG/IFE is marked with a Bounding First Fire
Counter after the first OVR) as allowed by D7.14 and D3.5, is this use
considered sustained fire (1/2 FP & -2 breakdown), which is not normally
allowed for VMG (A9.3)? If the MA (where such MA is marked with a Bounding
First Fire Counter after the first OVR) is used to add 2FP to the second (or
third) attack of the multiple OVR, is it using intensive fire (-2 breakdown)?
A. No to both.
Q. Is the FP of a VMG halved twice if non-stopped (1/2 FP for bounding fire
{D3.31}, 1/2 FP non-stopped?) as alluded to (referred to) in the final
sentence of D7.11 (+The halving of FP for Motion/non-stopped fire does not
apply to OVR FP )? If yes, where is the reference to the non-stopped fire
penalty for VMG?
A. Yes, unless OVRing; there is no reference ( we screwed up - sorry).
Q. Can a vehicle that enters an enemy unit s location during the MPh choose
not to OVR (and therefore not spend the OVR MF) but instead fire its MA into
its own hex normally (using case E +2 TH, among other adds)? Can it choose
not to OVR (and therefore not spend the OVR MF) but instead fire its VMG
normally (using TPBF and 1/2 FP Bounding Fire)? If the vehicle is bypassing
(and is therefor not allowed an OVR {D7.13}), can it fire its CMG/AAMG into
its hex (using TPBF and 1/2 FP Bounding Fire) normally? Note that when
bypassing it can fire its MA into its hex as per the last 2 sentences of C5.5.
A. Yes to all.
Also, to comment on the ASLUG question, I have not seen one since November.
Barry
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:49:00 +0000
From: "mark (m.a.) turnbull" <turnbull@bnr.ca>
Subject: re:Tournament Notice
>May 28-29, 1994
>
>Second Annual Montreal ASL D-Day Tournament
>
>Presented by the Advanced Squad Leader Quebec Association at
>the Montreal Olympic Stadium, Montreal, Quebec.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Watch out for that Rubble DR!
(Joke for other Canadians. A 55 ton chunk of concrete fell off of the
stadium a few years ago, demolishing some underground offices. Fortunately,
it was at night and no one was there).
Mark
-----
Subject: ROUTS
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 12:36:00 -0640
Howdy,
N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) writes:
>Here's a brief question: If the crew of an emplaced gun (in
>otherwise Open Ground) breaks, must it rout to the nearest
>woods/building, or is the gun emplacement DRM sufficient to
>satisfy A10.531?
It is not sufficient technically:
A10.531 "OPEN GROUND: For purposes of rout dertermination
... an Open ground hex is any hex ... in which _any_
Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive
First Fire opportunity, the -1 FFMO DRM without any
positive DRM. ... routing units, unlike units in the MPh,
may pay combined entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes
containing entrenchments or a Pillbox..."
If a unit entered an Open Ground hex with the intention of
manning an emplaced Gun, it would expend the normal cost of
terrain, during which time it would be subject to FFMO. It
would then have to expend another MF to recover the Gun
(and would not be assured of actually doing so). This meets
10.531's definition of Open Ground, and so a unit manning an
emplaced Gun is in Open Ground and must rout. It also means
that a Gunshield DRM is not sufficient to prevent rout.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Subject: Questions of CC vs. AFV a
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 12:36:00 -0640
Howdy,
Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net> writes:
>What happens to an FFE counter (1, 2 or C, take your pick)
>when the observer is no longer Good Order (eg, held in
>Melee)? Radio contact is lost in the next PFPh but what
>happens after that?
C1.22 "The involuntary loss of Contact does not
automatically cause loss of Battery Access, but failure to
regain Contact in the next friendly PFPh/DFPh (whichever
comes first) will prevent the Conversion, Correction and
voluntary Cancellation of that battery's onboard SR/FFE
counter; the FFE would continue to be resolved as per
1.5-.51, and, if still existing at the end of the RPh in
which it is a FFE:C, would at that time be Cancelled
(1.34)."
This means that it remains in place until such time as the
Observer recovers or until after the FFE:C is resolved.
Example (A & D are Observer's side is ATTACKER or DEFENDER):
Turn 1A PFPh: Convert SR to FFE:1. FFE:1 resolved,
converted to FFE:2.
Turn 1A CCPh: Observer held in melee, Contact lost.
Turn 1D DFPh: Observer not GO, so can not roll for Contact.
FFE can not be corrected or voluntarily
cancelled. FFE:2 resolved, converted to FFE:C.
Turn 1D CCPh: Observer still held in melee.
Turn 2A RPh: Observer did not regain Contact in
following PFPh/DFPh. FFE:C removed.
Example 2:
Turn 1A PFPh: Convert SR to FFE:1. FFE:1 resolved,
converted to FFE:2.
Turn 1A DFPh: Observer broken. Contact lost.
Turn 1D RPh: Observer does not rally.
Turn 1D DFPh: Observer not GO, so can not roll for Contact.
FFE can not be corrected or voluntarily
cancelled. FFE:2 resolved, converted to FFE:C.
Turn 2A RPh: Observer did not regain Contact in
following PFPh/DFPh. FFE:C removed.
Example 3:
Turn 1A PFPh: Convert SR to FFE:1. FFE:1 resolved,
converted to FFE:2.
Turn 1A DFPh: Observer broken. Contact lost.
Turn 1D RPh: Observer rallies.
Turn 1D DFPh: Observer GO, so can roll for Contact. If he
fails, FFE can not be corrected or voluntarily
cancelled. FFE:2 resolved, converted to FFE:C.
Turn 2A RPh: Observer did not regain Contact in
following PFPh/DFPh. FFE:C removed.
Example 4:
Turn 1A PFPh: Convert SR to FFE:1. FFE:1 resolved,
converted to FFE:2.
Turn 1A DFPh: Observer broken. Contact lost.
Turn 1D RPh: Observer rallies.
Turn 1D DFPh: Observer GO, so can roll for Contact. If he
succeeds, FFE can be corrected or voluntarily
cancelled. If not cancelled, FFE:2 resolved,
converted to FFE:C.
Turn 2A RPh: Observer regained Contact in following
PFPh/DFPh. FFE:C left in place.
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"
-----
From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:54:00 BST
Subject: BORE SIGHTINGS
The -2 bore site modifier applying to first fire is only for MG's.
Other ordnance is allowed the -2 regardless of phase for its bore
sited location.
Ray
-----
From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:49:00 BST
Subject: Address?
In the latest ASL News Philippe mentioned one Bertrand Guillou-Keredan
from Nantes, France who has made, for his friends, a two color version of
the CRT that uses the Incremental IFT. Does anyone have this gentleman's
address? I'd like to aquire that quick reference card.... maybe I can
qualify as a friend!
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
: Wheel or John : If things were left to chance :
: j.farris4@genie.geis.com : they'd be better. :
: GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : :
: John H. Farris : Langin's Law :
: P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA :
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:22:18 -0500
From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow)
Subject: Gavutu-Tanambogo Report (long)
G-T Campaign Assault Period 1: After Action Report
Finally, a campaign to capture an island. Back in my days of SL/COI, the
thought of capturing an island came frequently to mind. But of course
the landing would have been by parachute, or abstracted. Now we players
of ASL can indulge in every aspect of an island assault, including the
beach landing in LC.
I had always been afraid to try out a Seaborne Assault, but with a teammate and
one of the opponents both experienced in such matters, I doubted we'd get
bogged down in rules and I was right. For those of you who have been putting
off reading the LC rules, postpone no further. They're no more difficult than
the rubber rafts and assault boats of COD (and chapter E). If you've ever
crossed a river, you're ready to assault a beach.
Enough preamble, on to the action!
Our initial plan (as the attacking Marines) was to use our NOBA and one flight
of planes (entering on turn 2) to wipe out resistance on the tiny island Gaomi
since the two guns there would likely be the most effective Japanese weapon
against our landing craft. We also designated a small landing force to mop
up--the soon-to-be infamous "V" force. The remainder of our force would enter
from the north edge and make for the nearest beach. That would minimize our
time in the water and get us onto land on turn 2 if all went well. We took one
of our two 200mm NOBA modules and one flight of FBs.
As expected, the guns of Gaomi began firing on our LCs. At first, the only
effect was to lose the crew's concealment so that our shipboard NOBA observer
could spot them (and the FBs would have greatly improved sighting TCs).
Unfortunately, the NOBA observer was not entirely sure we were ready for the
bombardment. Three times in a row we drew a red card for battery access. The
planes were just as bad. The first one failed his sighting TC both times, the
second one malfunctioned his MGs, and the third one missed with his bomb. The
one bomb that landed on target hit the stone building of Gavutu containing a
japanese 10-2 with a stack of HMGs. But of course the effects DR was an 11 (a
NMC that all passed with ease).
With NOBA not responding and the planes doing no damage, the guns of Gaomi
began to wreak havoc on our beaching marines. Two LCs were set on fire and
another one sank with all aboard. V-force tried to save the day. They beached
their LC adjacent to a 2-2-8 crew and planned to swarm ashore with guns ablaze.
The crew had other plans. A lucky roll on the IFT inflicted a 1MC on all the
occupants and 2 DP on the boat. All four half-squads in V-force failed this
roll and died. Their boat slowly limped home, but not before interfering with
another NOBA fire mission (second card for friendly unit within 6 hexes was
red). I guess the shipboard observer had a brother in the V-force's LC's crew.
LESSON ONE: Do not deploy squads in LC. A full squad will take one MC, and
still be a HS if it fails. Two HSs must each take the roll. By not deploying,
the second HS doesn't even need to roll.
By this time we had gotten most of our stuff out of the LCs and onto the
beaches, piers, and adjacent hinterland hexes. The coasts were mainly defended
by conscripts, so resistance at this point was nominal. Creeping from one
building to the next around the northern side of Tanambogo, we took a couple of
squads prisoner in CC. (No Quarter is in effect, but that does not prevent CC
capture attempts. When the marines are the ATTACKER, it's not even HTH.)
The lead squad guarding prisoners decided to advance into another
enemy-occupied hex. Not wanting to bring them into CC, he releases them in his
hex and advances out. Two other squads and a leader then advance into the hex
containing the unarmed unit. My teammate that the second units ought to be
able to immediately recapture the (1)-0-6, but the rest of us decided that he
was a free unarmed japanese unit that had to be dealt with in the normal
fashion, i.e. a normal CC attack. The odds were calculated, and the marines
proceed to roll. Click-click-click, it's BOXCARS! The japanese unit elects to
WITHDRAW. He's free! Since we're playing ASL, not some incomplete game, we
turn to the ASLRB and sure enough, there's a whole section on unarmed units
wandering around looking for guns. None of the four players had ever seen this
happen before, and we were all amused. Well, all except the one who had let
them loose in the first place...
Now we were into the meat of the assault. Climbing the hill, we found the
hilltop to be covered in caves, trenches, and pillboxes full of japanese
firepower with supporting fire from the MGs on the other island. While we got
a few MG breakdowns, there were enough replacement MGs to continue to dish out
12FP attacks with 0 or negative modifiers on anything visible from Tanabogo.
So we decided to just sit and await reinforcements. The paramarines have only
a few LMGs (range 6) for support weapons. 60mm mortars just don't have much
effect on caves. We basically had no means of returning fire on the other
hill.
The one bit of topography that was in our favor was the double crestlines which
surround the level 3 hexes of Tanambogo. The blind hex allowed us to move more
than half of our remaining force around to the palm trees on the northwestern
shores. Finding a cave at ground level, we attempted to make a mini-assault on
it. Moving a crew with DC, a squad, and a leader up to the cave, we had to
face a 6 +0 attack in the folowing Prep Fire Phase. Ok, we're Marines, we can
handle it. Nope, everyone breaks. Then the japs got cocky. One unit moved
out onto the hillside to prevent any routing. NOBA was still busy pounding the
sandbar (FFE:2) so we really had nothing to bring fire on him. Things were
looking grim. But apparently our low morale was detected by the Japs and
prompted them to try for a coup-de-gras. They advanced out of their
fortifications into CC with the remaining marines.
Three CCs consisting of squad vs crew, squad vs HS, and squad vs leader were
initiated. In all three cases the japanese attackers wiped out the defenders.
But wait! In all three the Marines were also able to destroy their opponents.
HTH CC using the red numbers cuts both ways.
The next turn a DC hero ran a captured DC onto a stack of marines with a
prisoner squad. The ensuing 1KIA killed the prisoner and broke the rest. Next
rally phase, the leader self-rallies on snake eyes, goes berserk and causes the
broken HS with him to also go berserk. They charge the squad who had created
the DC hero and eliminated them in CC. Take that!
That was really the climax of the scenario. The last few turns saw very little
shooting, just a bit of MG fire breaking anything visible from Gavutu, and the
final mopping up of the guns on Gaomi. At least we captured ONE of the three
islands. :-) A squad and a half had managed to creep across the causeway, so
we were able to wrest complete control of Gavutu from the Japanese and they
won't be able to freely rearrange their units during the interphase.
Now the question arises about the second assault period. Do we bring in the
tanks? They'll have canister with a depletion number of 11 (normal PTO
depletion number is 10, but marines are an elite formation). We certainly need
more squads if we're going to shut down those cave complexes.
So far, this has been a really fun assault. With four 10-turn scenarios, we've
got plenty of time to maneuver our units around (and around and around). We got
really mauled, and have only 9 of our original 24 squads still alive, but the
prospect of 24 more squads in the second assault wave lessens the sting.
Casualties are about 60-40 in favor of the Japanese, but we've got lots more
firepower on the way.
Marty
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:42:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: ROUTS
I haven't loooked this up but I thought Crews manning guns were exempt
from routing barring Adjacent enemy units. Is this another one lingering
in my brain from SL/COI/COD/GI:AoV or perhaps from a rule changed by erratum?
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> >Here's a brief question: If the crew of an emplaced gun (in
> >otherwise Open Ground) breaks, must it rout to the nearest
> >woods/building, or is the gun emplacement DRM sufficient to
> >satisfy A10.531?
>
> It is not sufficient technically:
>
> A10.531 "OPEN GROUND: For purposes of rout dertermination
> ... an Open ground hex is any hex ... in which _any_
> Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive
> First Fire opportunity, the -1 FFMO DRM without any
> positive DRM. ... routing units, unlike units in the MPh,
> may pay combined entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes
> containing entrenchments or a Pillbox..."
>
> If a unit entered an Open Ground hex with the intention of
> manning an emplaced Gun, it would expend the normal cost of
> terrain, during which time it would be subject to FFMO. It
> would then have to expend another MF to recover the Gun
> (and would not be assured of actually doing so). This meets
> 10.531's definition of Open Ground, and so a unit manning an
> emplaced Gun is in Open Ground and must rout. It also means
> that a Gunshield DRM is not sufficient to prevent rout.
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:48:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: overstacking attack penalty
Jack:
Originally, I thought of this the same way as Jean-Luc but now I'm not so
certain. If you take this to some sort of extreme, such as three squads
stacked with twelve Panthers, then it does seem strange that the LOF of the
squads wouldn't be impeded. Also consider that using Jean-Luc's reasoning
three squads stacked with two (or more) half-tracks would not suffer a DRM
but if any of them were Passengers in the hts they would. I now
think that the paragraph Jean-Luc is citing was included to let you know
that if you have one vehicle and three Infantry squad equivalents you are
not overstacked.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> A5.12, "ATTACK PENALTY: All units attacking from or within a Location
> which their side has currently overstacked must add one to their
> IFT/CC DR (or +1 to their To Hit DR for ordnance) for each vehicle and
> squad equivalent (FRU) by which they exceed normal stacking limits."
>
> The situation is that Jean-Luc has three squads and a leader firing
> from a hex that also contains two of his halftracks. I think these
> units should pay a +1 DRM on their IFT fire due to the extra vehicle.
>
> Jean-Luc says his infantry pay no penalty since Personnel are not
> overstacked. He points to this sentence later in the same section:
> "A5.4 COMBINED ARMS: The presence of a vehicle(s) in a hex does not
> alter Personnel stacking limits..." He emphasizes that the (s) at the
> end of 'vehicle' is really important here.
>
> I guess I still believe that even though the limits are separate for
> Vehicles and Personnel, some of the overstacking penalties apply even
> to the other type of unit. One example is vehicular movement into
> hexes that are overstacked by Personnel (though not vice-versa).
> Another, I believe, is the A5.12 attack penalty. On the other hand,
> Infantry movement and defense penalties clearly are not affected by
> Vehicular overstacking.
>
> I can see that it is possible to make a different interpretation of
> A5.12 by tightly binding the pronoun "they" in the last phrase to the
> subject ("all units"). Since the units attacking are not, themselves,
> overstacked, this would support Jean-Luc's opinion. However, to me,
> the qualifying phrase "from or within a Location which their side has
> currently overstacked" seems to broaden scope of "all units" to
> include even infantry firing from a location containing extra
> vehicles.
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 09:19:53 -0700 (MST)
From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg)
Subject: ASLGAP
s>
s> Do any of you fellows use the PC-based ASLGAP available from the
s> archives?
If it's the Zundel GAP, yep, I've used it.
s>
s> How do you rate it?
It's OK. Good for learning vehicles and guns. But for beginning players,
I don't recommend it as you won't know if it's missing something or you may
not know when to break up your movement phase etc. (not that you're a
beginning player, that's just a general note I have).
s>
s> Is it missing any important features?
Depends which version. I think the one in the lib is probably an older
demo. Missing assault fire bonus and a few other things.
s> Is there a more current version?
Yup. You have to write to the author, though, and either buy it or try it
out in a restricted version and then buy it.
s>
s> Are there info files available for nationalities other than Russian or
s> German?
He has all the OBs done, but only releases those two for the demo.
s> Steve
Cheers!
Grant
GEnie G.LINNEBERG
INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
-----
From: p.pomerantz1@genie.geis.com
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:08:00 BST
Subject: Broken leader
In re: Fred Timm's answer to the question about a leader broken by an 88
after moving 1mf into OG. You only get one shot, but any other shots by
other units will now be -2DRM (FFMO,FFNAM) as even if he used assault
movement, once broken assault movement no longer applies. Similarly, if
pinned, FFNAM/FFMO no longer apply to any subsequent shots during its MPh.
Relevant rules in Ch A 7 I believe.
Phil
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:43:54 -0700 (MST)
From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg)
Subject: Panzer Gegen Sherman
Where might I find this excellent article, "Panzer Gegen Sherman"?
Cheers!
Grant
GEnie G.LINNEBERG
INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
-----
From: "Rusty Shields" <D4F@CU.NIH.GOV>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 21:46:55 EST
Subject: Help!
Hey guys,
Anybody heard from Bob O'Connor (r.oconnor6@genie.geis.com) lately?
I'm in the midst of an email game with him, and haven't heard from
him for several weeks.
Can anyone help me?
Rusty Shields
d4f@cu.nih.gov
-----
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:54:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu>
Subject: KGP Building Destruction with DCs
After coming up with a lot of rules-intensive,firey ways to destroy building
locations, and the old standard artillery, I'm surprised no one has
mentioned using set DCs. During our playing of the 19N scenario date, my
opponent set a DC with his 838s during his set-up and detonated it when an
American unit entered the hex. It seems perfectly legal to me to do this
in a hex of the Sanitarium or any other building when an enemy unit enters
the location. The particular location my opponent chose was a woods hex
with a good LOS to the Sanitarium, which surprised me. Fortunately, all I
ended up losing was a dummy cloaking counter. But rolling on the 36 -3
table has a pretty good chance of rubbling a building location. And the
potential exists to use this tactic four times in CG I if the American
player is considerate enough to provide his Assault Engineer's two DCs to
the SS, in addition to the two their Assault Engineers start with!
Carl
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 00:40:43 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: Location/building control
Hi guys,
Patrik brought up an interesting point about hex/Location/building control:
> If a side has GO units in a building while the other does not,
> thereby claiming control of that building, does that mean that
> they automatically control ALL locations of that building?? I.e.
> does control of a building infer control of the individual
> locations of that building?
I had a similar thought while playing KGP2: Festung St. Edouard. In
that one the Americans have to control 5 Locations of the Sanitarium
to win. Great, except that control of a Location is not defined in
the ASLRB. A26.11 only deals with hex control. This is important
if the American occupies only the ground level of the hex. By A26.11
he then controls the hex; does that give him the upper Location, too?
Tough call if it's unoccupied, but I think the answer would have to
be yes.
To answer Patrik's question, I'd say that Control of a building does
not give Control of all of its hexes or Locations automatically.
The last sentence of A26.12 reads "Otherwise a building is controlled
by the last side to have solely occupied it..." This means that if
some of its hexes are Controlled by each side, then the side that
started with it (usually) has control of the whole building, but
you obviously shouldn't give them all of its hexes. In other words,
there is default Control, which is not sole Control, and it's
important that it's not treated as such. There's no distinction
between this and between having taken the building but not run
through all of its hexes, so I think building Control is pretty
meaningless except in the scenarios that require it in the VC's.
Does Mopping Up give Control of all Locations in the building? I
think so, but I can't find an explicit reference.
Any further comments or references on this stuff? This is an original
rulebook page, and it shows. The word "Control" isn't even
consistently capitalized. :->
Oh, and back to the setting things on fire argument. I maintain that
a player who deliberately sets a building on fire loses all of its
VP's, _even if it's set on fire by shooting a wreck rather than
Kindling_. A26.13 does not mention Kindling. It just says that a
player who deliberately sets a hex on fire forfeits Control, and
then states that fires set randomly while firing at an _enemy unit_
aren't to be held against a player. A wreck is not a unit. Of course,
burning down a multi-level building reduces its number of Locations,
so this is still a useful tactic if it's going to be lost anyway.
There's a problem between the rules assuming hex Control to be
important, and KGP assuming Location Control is the key. I hope
we'll see a new page A41/A42 when the next module comes out.
Fire! Fire! Fire! -- pre-censored Beavis, and every kid in America
imitating him
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: m91pma@tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Location/building control
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 13:07:22 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
Dave got exactly the point I was trying to get across. With the new
Historical modules, there is a new kind of control: Control of a LOCATION.
It is nowhere defined, despite the fact that it is extensively used. It also
invalidates the former definition of HEX control as given in chapter A,
because a hex is NOT automatically controlled by the side occupying its
ground level (this is the definition Dave imply is used). A counterexample
is easily found by looking at the perimeter examples in either RB or KGP.
What I have done until now, is that location control is used exclusively
in the historical modules, since that is the only control that is meaning-
ful there. Building control is defined as in chapter A, but does NOT affect
location control, and is used ONLY when referred to in VCs.
I can't say that this is right, but that is the way I have been playing.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: ROUTS
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:54:47 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> >Here's a brief question: If the crew of an emplaced gun (in
> >otherwise Open Ground) breaks, must it rout to the nearest
> >woods/building, or is the gun emplacement DRM sufficient to
> >satisfy A10.531?
JR Answered:
> It is not sufficient technically:
>
> A10.531 "OPEN GROUND: For purposes of rout dertermination
> ... an Open ground hex is any hex ... in which _any_
> Interdictor could apply, during a hypothetical Defensive
> First Fire opportunity, the -1 FFMO DRM without any
> positive DRM. ... routing units, unlike units in the MPh,
> may pay combined entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes
> containing entrenchments or a Pillbox..."
>
> If a unit entered an Open Ground hex with the intention of
> manning an emplaced Gun, it would expend the normal cost of
> terrain, during which time it would be subject to FFMO. It
> would then have to expend another MF to recover the Gun
> (and would not be assured of actually doing so). This meets
> 10.531's definition of Open Ground, and so a unit manning an
> emplaced Gun is in Open Ground and must rout. It also means
> that a Gunshield DRM is not sufficient to prevent rout.
I am afraid I must disagree here. The rule is vague since it
refers to _hexes_, not _locations_. Also, the word "could" needs
some qualifier, otherwise almost any hex could be claimed to
be OG, since bypass is allowed.
With this in mind, we usually qualify this with the the situaion
at hand. If we want to know if a unit is in OG or not, that unit's
status determines if it is OG. Then, what is the "status" of a unit
manning a Gun?
Since a DFF attack does not actually require the _entry_ of the
hex (it does not even require a MF expenditure - check the Q&A),
I would say JR's reasoning is invalid in that it supposes said
_entry_ of the hex. A crew already manning a Gun is already in
the hex, and if it was to be fired on with DFF, the Emplacement
TEM *would* apply (for example if it drops posession of a SW,
as per the Q&A it would then be subject to attack, *with* TEM).
Therefore, a crew manning a Gun in an otherwise OG hex is _not_
in Open Ground, but a unit not manning a Gun (or a squad manning
a Gun) _is_ in Open Ground. A unit routing _through_ said hex is
also in Open Ground.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 10:39:31 -0500 (EST)
From: James D Shetler <shetler+@pitt.edu>
Subject: KGP roads
Hi guys,
One quick question. Have I been interpreting the rules wrong? I know that
the terrain on the KGP map is soft ground, but are vehicles using non-paved
roads subject to bog or not? If not, it would certainly change the way
I've approached the module. I assumed that paved N.33 was the only road
that allowed unfettered movement. Please set me straight!
Curious in Pittsburgh,
Jim Shetler
"A psychotic is a guy who's just found out what's going on"--William
S. Burroughs.
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:37:39 CST
From: archerb@uinta.ssc.gov (Bill Archer)
Subject: Re: ASLUG?
At the Open Gary said he was waiting for the senarios to come back from
whoever he has typesetting them. Gary said one reason ASLUG was late
was because Gary tried to do them himself, but couldn't get them right
so he sent them to a professional. Gary is planning on 4 senarios in
the upcoming double issue.
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:26:45
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Hex control with a Bridge?
Sorry if you've seen this before, but I tried mailing it twice when my
system was being screwy and I didn't see it in the current messages file in
the archive.
In Counterattack on the Vistula, the VC's talk about control of 5Y8 and 5Z9,
which are gully hexes with bridges. To control the hexes, is it enough to
have a unit in the gully locations of these hexes, or do you need to have
control over the bridge location too? The rules seem to indicate that the
gully is enough, but I can see how a platoon of 838's on the bridge would
adversely affect one's control of the hex, neh?
Tom
Still crowing about UM 91, IU 67
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:22:56 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: IFE BU
A Gun using IFE does not add +1 for being BU since you are not rolling TH.
Fred
> Although I have been told this question has come before the discussion
> group and been answered already, I'd like to hear why I'm wrong. I'm
> wondering if the +1 DRM for being BU applies if you are using your AFV MA
> as IFE. Here's the relevant rules, IMO:
>
> C2.29 ...When using IFE, a weapon is not considered ordnance...
>
> C5.9 Any BU, CT AFV must add the +1 DRM of Case I to its _To Hit DR_.
> Being BU has no other effect on the LOS of a vehicle...
>
> D5.2 ...A BU AFV firing its MA (or SA...) as _ordnance_ must add one to
> the that _To HIT DR_ (Case I; C5.9).
>
> My reading of this says that the +1 DRM for BU is for ordnance TO HIT DRs
> only, and C2.29 specifically states a gun firing as IFE is NOT ordnance.
> But I'm anxious to hear your arguments.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Grant
> GEnie G.LINNEBERG
> INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:39:21 -0500
From: Stewart R King <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: KGP roads
>
> Hi guys,
> One quick question. Have I been interpreting the rules wrong? I know that
> the terrain on the KGP map is soft ground, but are vehicles using non-paved
> roads subject to bog or not? If not, it would certainly change the way
> I've approached the module. I assumed that paved N.33 was the only road
> that allowed unfettered movement. Please set me straight!
>
> Curious in Pittsburgh,
> Jim Shetler
Dear Curious,
sure enough. Kind of limits the usefulness of all those wonderful German
tanks, doesn't it? Especially the PzVI's as they are High Ground
Pressure! Treadheads beware!
Stewart King
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Location/building control
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:00:18 PST
Patrik writes:
> Dave got exactly the point I was trying to get across. With the new
> Historical modules, there is a new kind of control: Control of a LOCATION.
> It is nowhere defined, despite the fact that it is extensively used. It also
> invalidates the former definition of HEX control as given in chapter A,
> because a hex is NOT automatically controlled by the side occupying its
> ground level (this is the definition Dave imply is used). A counterexample
> is easily found by looking at the perimeter examples in either RB or KGP.
>
> What I have done until now, is that location control is used exclusively
> in the historical modules, since that is the only control that is meaning-
> ful there. Building control is defined as in chapter A, but does NOT affect
> location control, and is used ONLY when referred to in VCs.
>
> I can't say that this is right, but that is the way I have been playing.
>
> --
> m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
> "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
Well, control of a location is also used in Chapter A (regarding building
control; remember the discussion we had about trying to make sense of THAT,
about a year ago?). If it isn't explicitly defined, this is probably just one
of the many (irritating) cases where they wrote "hex" when they meant
"location."
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:36:48
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Re: KGP tournament
> ENLIST NOW for the RENCONTRES ASL '94, ROUND 4.
>
> On December 16, 17 & 18, 1994, a special extended round of the
> 'Rencontres ASL' tournament will be held at La Gleize, Belgium. The
> KampfGruppe Peiper Historical modules will be played competitively on the
> exact historical locations of the battle...
>
Players will be issued 2 km lengths of rope to check LOS on the actual
battlefield...
Tom
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: KGP roads
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:44:12 PST
> > Hi guys,
> > One quick question. Have I been interpreting the rules wrong? I know that
> > the terrain on the KGP map is soft ground, but are vehicles using non-paved
> > roads subject to bog or not? If not, it would certainly change the way
> > I've approached the module. I assumed that paved N.33 was the only road
> > that allowed unfettered movement. Please set me straight!
> >
> > Curious in Pittsburgh,
> > Jim Shetler
>
> Dear Curious,
>
> sure enough. Kind of limits the usefulness of all those wonderful German
> tanks, doesn't it? Especially the PzVI's as they are High Ground
> Pressure! Treadheads beware!
>
> Stewart King
Really? I thought the KGP SSR just said that the ground was soft, and IF you
had to make a Bog roll, the +1 DRM was added. Does anyone have the rule
reference for having to make a Bog roll for every hex other than a paved road?
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
From: shouard@ulb.ac.be (Houard Sophie)
Subject: KGP tournament
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 18:58:58 MET
sl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov
from
Ph.Leonard for ASL News
subject
KGP tournament
Dear ASLers,
Since 1985, SL/ASL tournaments are periodically held in Brussels, Belgium
(4 rounds each year). Some among you might also know our own ASL News
magazine (also 4 issues per year) and our involvment with the ASL stuff.
This year we will try to celebrate the release of both KGP modules and
the 50th anniversary of the battle of the bulge. So here we are :
In December '94, nearly exactly 50 years after, the event will be in the
Belgian Ardennes again !
ENLIST NOW for the RENCONTRES ASL '94, ROUND 4.
On December 16, 17 & 18, 1994, a special extended round of the
'Rencontres ASL' tournament will be held at La Gleize, Belgium. The
KampfGruppe Peiper Historical modules will be played competitively on the
exact historical locations of the battle.
Guided walks in Stoumont, La Gleize and Cheneux will be organized during
the weekend.
Just nextdoor to the tournament location (i.e. ADJACENT hex), you'll find
the beautifully preserved King Tiger of La Gleize and the La Gleize
Historical museum.
Several houses in the immediate surroundings (see StF46 for example) of
the tournament location will be rented to host all the players (and their
families if they want to). The costs will be minimal : about 1200 Belgian
francs per person for the week-end (about US $35), food/drink not
included.
All the players arriving from abroad by plane will be picked up at
Brussels' airport and driven to the Belgian Ardennes.
A lot of people from USA, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Germany
and Belgium already registered. So, if you are interested in
participating, please send a message to
Philippe Lonard, 28 Avenue Seghers, B-1080 Bruxelles, Belgium (ph nr : 2
427 25 59) or write for any more information.
Thanks.
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: KGP roads
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:39:26 CST
> Really? I thought the KGP SSR just said that the ground was soft, and IF you
> had to make a Bog roll, the +1 DRM was added. Does anyone have the rule
> reference for having to make a Bog roll for every hex other than a paved road?
>
> --
>
> -Doug Gibson
> dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
>
Correct. The exact wording is:
KGP5. SOFT GROUND: To reflect the soggy conditions, each vehicle must ex-
pend one additional MP per hexside (as per E3.9) unless crossing/traversing a
paved-road or stream hexside or entering a building/woods/rubble obstacle.
In addition, each Bog Check receives the Soft Ground DRM (D8.21) [EXC: if on
a paved road or in a building (D8.21); if crossing a barbed-wire-fence
hexside (P3.3)].
Later,
Ed
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:00:24 -0500 (EST)
From: James D Shetler <shetler+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: KGP roads
On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Ed Carter wrote:
> > Really? I thought the KGP SSR just said that the ground was soft, and IF you
> > had to make a Bog roll, the +1 DRM was added. Does anyone have the rule
> > reference for having to make a Bog roll for every hex other than a paved road?
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Doug Gibson
> > dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
> >
>
> Correct. The exact wording is:
>
> KGP5. SOFT GROUND: To reflect the soggy conditions, each vehicle must ex-
> pend one additional MP per hexside (as per E3.9) unless crossing/traversing a
> paved-road or stream hexside or entering a building/woods/rubble obstacle.
> In addition, each Bog Check receives the Soft Ground DRM (D8.21) [EXC: if on
> a paved road or in a building (D8.21); if crossing a barbed-wire-fence
> hexside (P3.3)].
>
> Later,
> Ed
Ed,
Thanks for the rule reference. Other than the extra MP expenditure, where
does it indicate that a non-paved road is soft ground? What am I missing
here? Sorry if this seems like seems like a stupid question. I guess I'm
just frustrated that I can't maneuver on the map the way I'd like to.
Jim
-----
Subject: Tour of the Russian front.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:11:07 +0100
From: Asad Rustum <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
Folks,
Is there anyone out there willing to take me on a ladder tour of the
Eastern Front? Preferably a BV scenario. Side makes no difference.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Asad Rustum "Hehe! I once had a ringworm in
f90-aru@nada.kth.se my nose. That was cool! Hehe!"
atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Beavis & Butt-Head
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:43:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: Hex control with a Bridge?
In message Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:26:45, tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) writes:
> In Counterattack on the Vistula, the VC's talk about control of 5Y8 and
> 5Z9, which are gully hexes with bridges. To control the hexes, is it
> enough to have a unit in the gully locations of these hexes,
It is enough to have a unit in the gully Location if there is no enemy unit
on the bridge. If there is an enemy unit on the bridge at the time a
friendly unit enters the gully, then control does not transfer to friendly
hands.
> or do you
> need to have control over the bridge location too? The rules seem to
> indicate that the gully is enough, but I can see how a platoon of 838's
> on the bridge would adversely affect one's control of the hex, neh?
But the platoon of 838s can _prevent_ control from being passed to the 628s
that enter the gully. But, if the 628s are present when the 838s enter onto
the bridge, the 628s still retain control of the hex.
_Plus_, I would say that entry onto the bridge, with no enemy units in the
hex, is insufficient to control the hex.
Hope this helps.
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: KGP roads
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:42:55 CST
> >
> > Correct. The exact wording is:
> >
> > KGP5. SOFT GROUND: To reflect the soggy conditions, each vehicle must ex-
> > pend one additional MP per hexside (as per E3.9) unless crossing/traversing a
> > paved-road or stream hexside or entering a building/woods/rubble obstacle.
> > In addition, each Bog Check receives the Soft Ground DRM (D8.21) [EXC: if on
> > a paved road or in a building (D8.21); if crossing a barbed-wire-fence
> > hexside (P3.3)].
> >
> > Later,
> > Ed
>
> Ed,
> Thanks for the rule reference. Other than the extra MP expenditure, where
> does it indicate that a non-paved road is soft ground? What am I missing
> here? Sorry if this seems like seems like a stupid question. I guess I'm
> just frustrated that I can't maneuver on the map the way I'd like to.
> Jim
Jim,
I am agreeing with you (I think). Unless there is something in E3.9 (which
I do not have with me) that changes this, KGP5 says that you only add 1 to
a Bog Check when on non-paved road, it does not say that you have to take
a Bog Check because you are on non-paved road (which I think was your original
question?).
In other words, every Bog Check receives the +1 DRM except those in the [EXC:]
box.
Later,
Ed
-----
From: David Hull <hull@parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: ROUTS
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:47:32 PST
> >Here's a brief question: If the crew of an emplaced gun (in
> >otherwise Open Ground) breaks, must it rout to the nearest
> >woods/building, or is the gun emplacement DRM sufficient to
> >satisfy A10.531?
JR gives a persuasive arguement that since FFMO would apply to units
entering the hex, the crew must rout. Patrik disagrees, claiming that
the "could" in A10.531 needs to be qualified since otherwise, the rule
would apply to bypass of a woods/building hex where routing is clearly
not required, and that the emplaced crew could expend MP's in the hex
without leaving the emplaced location.
If JR's arguement is correct, it would imply that units must rout from
foxholes/trenches in open ground as well. I have not played this way,
and it feels wrong to me. Would units in the desert really be forced
to rout out of the only cover available for miles? Can anyone help to
clarify this issue further?
--David H.
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:50:27 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Double-time / Conscript Question
Yes, there is no requirement that all units in a stack must use/not use
DT.
Fred
>
> Just saw something interesting in a PBEM game. Put conscripts with
> a leader, and the stack has 5 MF. (Green units would get 6 MF, since
> the leader cancels their Inexperienced status in addition to adding
> 2 MF.) Let's say you want to move this stack somewhere 6 MF away.
> Can you CX the conscripts and _not_ CX the leader, even though they're
> traveling as a stack?
>
> Probably a dumb RTFASLRB kind of question which I'll answer myself
> as soon as I get home, but I'd never seen this happen before and
> I thought it was neat.
>
> TGIF,
> Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
>
>
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:42:58 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Double-time / Conscript Question
Hi,
Just saw something interesting in a PBEM game. Put conscripts with
a leader, and the stack has 5 MF. (Green units would get 6 MF, since
the leader cancels their Inexperienced status in addition to adding
2 MF.) Let's say you want to move this stack somewhere 6 MF away.
Can you CX the conscripts and _not_ CX the leader, even though they're
traveling as a stack?
Probably a dumb RTFASLRB kind of question which I'll answer myself
as soon as I get home, but I'd never seen this happen before and
I thought it was neat.
TGIF,
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:53:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: IR equipped Panthers in WWII
For any of you interested in the IR panthers, this is the response that I
received from the sci.military news group:
>>
>>I would be greatful for any info concerning the unit histories and
>>technical information regarding the infra-red equipped Panthers and their
>>supporting vehicles (e.g. IR SPW 251/1 and 251/20) employed by the Germans
>>during WWII. The only reference I have for them is "Encyclopedia of German
>>Tanks of World War Two" (Doyle, Chamberlain & Jentz, 1978; ISBN 0 17600
>>728 8).
>
> For information on the system, find a copy of:
>
> Panther & Its Varients
> Speilberger, Walter J.
> Schiffer Publishing
> ~US $40.00
>
>
> Coming this spring (hopefully!)
>
> Panther
> Feist, Uwe & ???
> Ruyton Publications
>
>
> Speilberger is well known for his technical writeups of various
> WWII era German military vehicles. I believe that there is some info
> on the IR system.
>
> "Panther" is going to be a very large photo-history of this
> vechicle along the lines of "Tiger I: 1942-1992", also published by
> Ruyton Publishing. It will likely be in the US $100.00 range.
>
> Was this system ever used? Well, this is a matter of speculation.
> I haven't come across any references that this systam made it past
> the experimental stage. Unfortunately unit histories are rare, when
> you start talking about specific units. If you have a list of units
> that were suspected of using the IR system, I would really like to
> see it and the sources.
>
> Also, it is very likely that unit histories are going to be
> printed in Germany, so a workable reading of German will help consider-
> ably.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Burden bruceb@mpd.tandem.com Tandem Computers Inc.
>
-----
From: abillsasl@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:02:44 EST
Subject: RE: KGP Building Destruction wit
Carl says:
>During our playing of the 19N scenario date, my
opponent set a DC with his 838s during his set-up
and detonated it when an
American unit entered the hex.
I can't find any SSR's allowing set demo charges in the KGP
rules. If there are any, please let me know. By rule
A23.7 "... A set DC is one which has been set prior to play
by SSR, or which was Set and declared during play ..."
Barring an SSR I can't find, the DC could not be Set during
set-up, and if set during play, must be declared ... as A23.7
states.
As far as rubbling buildings is concerned, it will work real
well, and you don't need to wait for an enemy unit, you can
just detonate the DM and hope for the best (or worse depending
on your view). Of course if it causes a flame and no enemy unit
was in the hex, A26.13 would come into play. (see below)
Also notice the +1 DRM for each enemy infantry
_COUNTER_ in the _HEX_ that applies to malfunctioning of the DC.
Dave responds to Patrik's point about hex/location/building control.
>Great, except that control of a Location is not defined in
the ASLRB. A26.11 only deals with hex control.
A26.11 covers multi-level hexes in its first sentence, and I would
agree with his assumption that this gives all locations in the hex
to the controlling side. I also agree with his discussion concerning
hex/location control vs building control. He then asks about mopping-up.
I would assume if the location/building control agruement is true,
mopping-up only gives building control, not hex control.
On the fire question, ie.. the burning building/rubble thread
of discussion. As Dave points out rule A26.13 Control Forfeiture says:
"A player is not held responsible for Fires started randomly while firing at
an _ENEMY_ unit." I would have to interpret that to mean if a player
shot his own vehicle and it started a building on fire, he would
forfeit control of the burning hexes to the opposing side. This is
convoluted during the CG because the burning of the building will
occur during the RePh of the game. I guess I would play it that if
this occurs, forfeiture of control would last for the entire CG.
Its not really in the rules, but the rule doesn't state for how long
the forfeiture exists, the assumption is to the end of the scenario
(or game in this case since it doesn't happen DURING a scenario?).
I also would like an update to this section. I remember Jim Stahler
winning a Deluxe scenario at Origins (Demo match only) by controlling
a crossroads hex with a tank that was in "motion". Legal by the rules
and Mac just said he'd have to look into that one. I thought it was
pretty sleazy, but then I was just a young pup at the time and was
still trying to learn the game.
Alan
P.S. I continued to play Jim for several years while I lived in the
DC area. If you want a good game, he will give it to you. And he
knows the rules like the back of his hand. We argued over the low-crawl
rule for years and it was only recently (I've been in Syracuse 5 years)
that I realized how incorrect my interpretation really was.
-----
Subject: Re: ROUTS
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 18:35:00 -0640
Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca> writes:
>I haven't loooked this up but I thought Crews manning guns
>were exempt from routing barring Adjacent enemy units. Is
>this another one lingering in my brain from
>SL/COI/COD/GI:AoV or perhaps from a rule changed by
>erratum?
I am not aware of such a rule for ASL, and I would be
surprised if it were so (having played it the other way for
so long). Can anyone find this?
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Subject: RE: ROUTS
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 18:35:00 -0640
Howdy,
m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) writes:
> Since a DFF attack does not actually require the _entry_ of the
> hex (it does not even require a MF expenditure - check the Q&A),
> I would say JR's reasoning is invalid in that it supposes said
> _entry_ of the hex. A crew already manning a Gun is already in
> the hex, and if it was to be fired on with DFF, the Emplacement
> TEM *would* apply (for example if it drops posession of a SW,
> as per the Q&A it would then be subject to attack, *with* TEM).
>
> Therefore, a crew manning a Gun in an otherwise OG hex is _not_
> in Open Ground, but a unit not manning a Gun (or a squad manning
> a Gun) _is_ in Open Ground. A unit routing _through_ said hex is
> also in Open Ground.
At first I was going to agree with Patrik that this solves
the problem, but the rules have a vagueness about them.
The rule says that if any Interdictor could apply the -1
FFMO "during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire
opportunity." It does not specify what exactly the
situation of the hypothetical Defensive First Fire must be.
So while the Gun crew could drop a SW as their hypothetical
move for a "hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity"
and not be subject to FFMO, it could also drop possession
and attempt (re-)recovery of the Gun, and so be subject to
FFMO (admittedly a dumb move, but hypothetically possible).
Should the most favorable DFF opportunity be the one taken
as the hypothetical situation or the least?
I think that this is one for TAHGC. IMO, all of the rules
with the word "hypothetical" should be sent back for them
to re-write. Can't we sue for emotional distress or
something to force them to do it? This is America, Land of
the Lawsuit, after all :-)
So long,
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:02:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: KGP Building Destruction wit
On Fri, 11 Feb 1994 abillsasl@aol.com wrote:
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:02:44 EST
> From:abillsasl@aol.com
> To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov
> Subject: RE: KGP Building Destruction wit
>
> Carl says:
>
> >During our playing of the 19N scenario date, my
> opponent set a DC with his 838s during his set-up
> and detonated it when an
> American unit entered the hex.
>
> I can't find any SSR's allowing set demo charges in the KGP
> rules. If there are any, please let me know. By rule
> A23.7 "... A set DC is one which has been set prior to play
> by SSR, or which was Set and declared during play ..."
>
> Barring an SSR I can't find, the DC could not be Set during
> set-up, and if set during play, must be declared ... as A23.7
> states.
>
Thanks! This backs me up in a little quibble I had with my opponent about
his doing that. He still has a few DCs sitting in strategic locations to
deny my infantry access to them. I'm sure he'll change his mind when I
tell him that 100% of the responses I received on the discussion group
backed me up. :)
Carl
-----
From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:22:00 BST
Subject: Random Selections
Grant,
Your reading is right. BU NA to IFE.
But I think JR was wrong when he said that Emplacement would not prevent one
from being in Open Ground for purposes of Routing. JR makes an analogy of
moving to the Gun and possessing it. Obviously, you are not Emplaced till
after you move to the Gun and after you possess it. But having possessed it,
I would say you are no longer in Open Ground. If in your next MPh you try to
throw some Smoke, you would not be subject to FFMO. IMHO.
Tim,
I do not think it odd that the Defender can attack an AFV that enters his hex.
I do not think it odd that the Attacker (be he AFV or Berserker or Waver) can
attack the Defender in his hex during the AFPh on the turn of entry.
I do not think it odd that units in Melee can only attack each other in CC.
So, no, I guess I don't think it odd.
Jack,
I am with Brent on overstacking. The A5.4 reference means that 3 squads and a
vehicle is not overstacking. The (s) in "vehicle(s)" there means that 2
squads and 2 vehicles, while overstacked, are no more overstacked than 3
squads and 2 vehicles. All friendly units are penalized regardless of why the
hex is overstacked. IMHO.
Carl,
Remember, though, that in KGP (unlike RB) you cannot purchase a Set-DC to be
set in set-up (got that?). You would have to set the DC during play.
GEnie sez they have gotten their act back together. I am getting mail again.
We shall see.
....Perry
-----
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Random Selections
On Sat, 12 Feb 1994 p.cocke@genie.geis.com wrote:
> Tim,
> I do not think it odd that the Defender can attack an AFV that enters his
hex.
> I do not think it odd that the Attacker (be he AFV or Berserker or Waver)
can
> attack the Defender in his hex during the AFPh on the turn of entry.
> I do not think it odd that units in Melee can only attack each other in
CC.
> So, no, I guess I don't think it odd.
Well, I guess I didn't explain the situation very well. An immobile enemy
AFV in the street ADJACENT to a friendly squad and, important previously
missing piece of information here, able to attack said AFV using street
fighting. From what I can tell, the squad can use street fighting in his
own CCPh to attack the AFV, but can't attack the AFV in the opponent's MPh
unless it moves (which an immobile AFV will not do). So, what I find a
little odd (to use the popular expression), is that the fact that an AFV which
expends MF in and ADJACENT, street fighting location may get attacked but one
which doesn't, won't.
I can't imagine that this is clear or of interest to anyone at this point.
:-)
Tim
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: Re: overstacking penalties
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:52:29 -0600
Thanks to Tom Repetti, Patrick Joncke, Brent Pollock, and Perry Cocke
for responding to my query about overstacking penalties. Everyone
seems to agree, including Jean-Luc. So, I'll summarize our consensus
for the rest of you.
ATTACK PENALTIES (A5.12): If a side is overstacked in a Location, all
units of any type pay +1 on IFT/CC/TH rolls for each extra Vehicle and
squad equivalent (FRU) by which they exceed normal stacking limits.
So, Jean-Luc's three squads firing from a Location also containing two
of his halftracks suffer a +1 IFT DRM.
Note that this differs from the rules for incoming fire:
PERSONNEL DEFENSE PENALTIES (A5.131): Personnel units being attacked
in a Location suffer a -1 penalty for each squad equivalent (FRU) by
which they exceed Personnel stacking limits. In this case, vehicular
overstacking is irrelevant. So, when I fired at Jean-Luc's stack I
was not entitled to this modifier (although originally I thought I
should be).
VEHICULAR DEFENSE PENALTIES (A5.132): Vehicles being attacked in a
Location whose _vehicular_ stacking limits they have exceeded suffer
additional hit possibilities in cases where the Vehicle Target Type TH
roll misses by < the total number of vehicles in the hex (excluding
those out of LOS, wrecks, and the firer itself). Overstacking
penalties do not apply to attacks resolved on the * Vehicle line of
the IFT. Personnel overstacking makes no difference.
COMBINED ARMS (A5.4): This rule simply states that stacking limits are
calculated separately for vehicles and personnel. The consequences of
being overstacked in either category depend on the action performed.
As demonstrated above, sometimes they are independent, in other cases
they are not.
Jack
-----
From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 06:46:00 BST
Subject: IIFT stuff, sorry
Unfortunately the GEnie folks have been hors de combat because of some
technical prob and it kept me from commenting on Brian's comment.
He wrote back on Feb 2:
>More realistic? Prove it. I've not seen definitive proof that the IIFT is
>more"realistic" than the IFT. The "why would you leave a MG out of a shot"
>argument doesn't work for me. Maybe the MG is guarding a road. There
>has never been, in any of the IIFT debates, what I would call proof of
>more realism or,even better,any has there ever been offered a significant
>reason WHY I SHOULD CHANGE!
As a proponent of the Incremental table I would say:
1. Don't change! Play on the table that makes you happy..... I'll play
on your table if we find ourselves across the gaming board (and even
look forward to that).
2. If a player doesn't want to be concerned that he has effectively
divided his firepower so that there is little wasted then use the
Incremental. All FP is taken into account on the Incremental. Even
our brave leader Mac (of Mac Sez) approved changes to the ARTY IIFT
effects, that is, for example the potential effect of a 57mm > 50mm
(7 vs.6 FP) or an 88mm > 80mm (18 vs.16 FP). BTW this subject in
regard to INF units is called Stacking.
3. As far as realism is concerned I wasn't there to see if the MG was
pointed down the empty road while the enemy poured across the open
field, in the opposite direction from the road, when the remainder of
of the squad let loose. I would guess that the squad leader, and
probably every other squad member, is just waiting to hear the
beautiful music of that L/M/H MG. Since we have all heard the sound
of a MG and possibly seen the effects of the MG music (effects that
often times will cause an enemy to cease and desist), it seems
strange that it would be left out of the shooting. The IFT causes
some unnatural things..... stacking and silent MGs.... Incremental
doesn't.
4. Bottom line..... use the table you like, IFT or Incremental, but
if you run into someone who won't play on your favorite table then
invite him out into the street so you can duke it out.... the winner
gets to use his favorite.... if you loose, beat him with your
un-favorite table. Really, the ASOP is king and it says IFT.... as
unrealistic as it is ;-)))).
5. Question...... should Brian change tables? Hello, no! He has had
enough changes in his life (new baby at home) and changing to the
Incremental table might put him over the edge. He has enough realism
at home;-). Maybe when TAHGC puts out a divider for the Incremental
table he will think twice. Until then Brian..... don't use the
Incremental just let us Incremental admirers use it as we will.
-----------
Bill,
Ref the ASLUG double issue..... do you really mean triple issue? Are
we not now missing Dec+Jan+Feb?
Best Regards,
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
: Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to :
: j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. :
: GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : :
: John H. Farris : Allen's Law :
: P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA :
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
-----
From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 07:38:00 BST
Subject: Re: IIFT stuff, sorry
Bob "Boxcars" Strzelinski did such a wonderful service for Brian when he
wrote:
>The ONE AND ONLY GOOD REASON TO USE THE IIFT is that ASL, better than any
>other game gives you the "feel" of making tactical decisions in combat and
>the IIFT lets you use a decision process regarding usage of your troops
>and weapons which is more akin to the decision process of an actual leader
>in the field...... ......
My...I seem to have read those same sentiments in one of the early FFE
articles on the Incremental table.... I think the FFE article was titled:
Indispensable Incremental... in FFE 1-3. I guess that early writer was
not such a dumkoff after all.
Nevertheless Brian..... use the table that you like. If the Incremental
doesn't add anything to your enjoyment I wouldn't use it either.
Way to go Boxcars!
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
: Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to :
: j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. :
: GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : :
: John H. Farris : Allen's Law :
: P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA :
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: WW-I ASL: Introduction
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:28:14 -0600
Like many others, I have concluded that the Second World War can only
be understood as a continuation of the First. This topic interests
me, and I would enjoy hearing the thoughts of many of you. Since I
find myself going on at some length, I'll divide this posting into
several messages:
1) Introduction
2) Historical overview
3) Simulation in ASL
4) Bibliography
Those who wish to spare themselves the half-baked opinions of an
amateur history buff are encouraged to skip parts 2 and 4, but may
still want to read part 3.
What has all this to do with ASL? Nothing really. Avalon Hill has
clearly delimited the scope of ASL: WW-II tactical land combat. I
think they are right. Limiting the system to the the largest armed
conflict in world history is not in the least confining, yet provides
a clear focus to the game. As for sales, I doubt that a WW-I module
would ever be very popular with gamers.
However...
I feel that many late WW-I infantry battles could be represented in
ASL with relatively few alterations to the system, perhaps less than
were required to handle the Japanese and the PTO. Early WW-I battles
would be much more difficult, and I'm not sure how (or whether) to
even think about that period. But, just for fun, I'd like to kick off
a hypothetical discussion of the changes that would be needed if ASL
were expanded to encompass WW-I combat.
Yes, I know. It's only a game,
Jack
(to be continued)
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: WW-I ASL: historical overview (long)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:29:54 -0600
The first half of the Twentieth Century was a single prolonged
struggle for dominance among the Great Powers. During part I, from
1914 to 1918, a generation of young men killed each other off, then
lapsed into exhaustion without really resolving anything. After a
twenty-year respite a new generation of soldiers had grown up, and in
1939 they began part II of the conflict. By 1945 the original issue
had been settled: the US and USSR dominated world politics, while
Germany, Japan, Italy, Britain and France were in ruins. All the old
European empires were dissolving.
Afterwards a new Great Power conflict began, involving the two
post-war superpowers. But, that's a different story.
Lately I've become interested in political and military developments
between the wars. How did the Germany achieve such incredible
tactical and operational brilliance? How did they manage to combine
this with near-total strategic myopia? What a tragedy for Europe that
the two coincided in place and time.
A unique aspect of the German military between the wars was their
continued emphasis on maneuver when most other armies believed that
firepower had extinguished movement. Authors advance many
explanations for this different perspective. Some point to the
profound influence of Hans von Seeckt on the formation of the
Reichswehr, the 100,000-man force dictated by the Versailles Treaty,
which later formed the nucleus of Hitler's Wehrmacht. Von Seeckt had
served on the Eastern Front during WW-I. Because of its larger ratio
of space to force, fighting on this front remained much more fluid
than on the Western front. Clearly this is only part of the story.
Influential German military thinkers including Clausewitz, Moltke, and
Schlieffen had always emphasized the importance of maneuver.
The German general staff was also noteworthy for its continuity of
tactical doctrine. Most allied armies failed to reconcile the
capabilities of new technology with the tactical lessons of the First
War. But Prussian-German military tradition was immensely pragmatic
about applying new technology within the framework of sound doctrinal
principles. Infantry doctrine, in particular, was already highly
developed by 1918. The small unit infiltration tactics of the
Stosstruppen (assault troops) had been a radical departure from the
clumsy massed attacks of 1915. But, they differed hardly at all from
the infantry tactics used by their sons from 1939 to 1945. This was
no coincidence: skilled veterans like Erwin Rommel taught these
principles to the next generation of infantry leaders.
It is this claimed continuity of doctrine that I propose to explore
via the medium of ASL simulation.
(to be continued)
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: WW-I ASL: Simulation (long)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:30:40 -0600
DISCLAIMER: I don't pretend to understand this in any detail. Most of
the ideas expressed here are based on intuition and a little research,
but no primary sources. If the discussion proves interesting, I am
willing to do some follow-up.
INFANTRY: Leadership, morale, and range factors probably wouldn't
change much. But WW-I squads did not possess automatic weapons, so
their firepower would be about 3 or 4, with no assault fire or
spraying fire capability. Grenades were more primitive, and close
combat with bayonets and entrenching tools ought to be somewhat less
effective, leading to a higher probability of being held in Melee.
Something as simple as a +1 modifier on CC rolls might suffice.
SUPPORT WEAPONS: Types and numbers would be rather limited. Few LMGs
would be available (though I believe the Stosstruppen had them). Most
allied HMGs and MMGs could be used without change. The Germans would
probably need some 5-PP HMGs to represent water-cooled Maxims. In
game terms these would be similar to the British Vickers HMGs or the
American water-cooled .30-cal Brownings. Mortars would be present in
smaller numbers. Late-war German assault engineers would still be
equipped with FTs and DCs.
FORTIFICATIONS: Trenches and barbed wire are already well simulated in
ASL. One might wish to adapt some of the cave rules for underground
bunker Locations. But mostly, I think few changes would be required.
ORDINANCE: OBA would need to be much less flexible. There were no
forward observers with radios, so perhaps only barrage and bombardment
should be allowed. Obviously, there were no anti-tank guns, but field
guns were sometimes placed in direct-fire positions for use against
tanks. Guderian claims that this was a very effective tactic, and
laments that it was not used more often.
ARMOR: Counters for allied tanks would be interesting (can you spell
S-L-O-W?). All tanks would be radioless, of course. It might also be
fun to provide special rules for armor leaders running from tank to
tank giving orders. Guderian's book _Achtung_Panzer! contains an
excellent analysis of WW-I combined armor and infantry tactics. They
don't sound all that different from the things we commonly do with
ASL. Tanks had considerable morale effect against WW-I infantry.
Perhaps a +1 modifier for the PAATC would be advisable.
AIR SUPPORT: Ground support attacks were fairly common by 1917 and
1918. The planes did not have much in the way of bombs, but stafing
attacks were still effective. Since the planes had fewer machine
guns, perhaps their firepower should be reduced. On the other hand,
slower airspeeds may have led to greater accuracy, perhaps at the cost
of greater vulnerability to light AA fire. Some research in this area
might prove interesting.
EARLY WAR TACTICS: Can the game be adapted to encompass early WW-I
massed infantry tactics? ASL already simulates human-wave assaults,
but what would keep late twentieth-century players from abandoning
early twentieth-century methods? Would we need "stupidity rules"
requiring overstacking of hexes that are about to be bombarded by
heavy artillery? "Gee, those five squads in the W8 trench don't look
so hot after that 200mm OBA barrage hit them!"
Some authors claim that high casualties in the trenches were the
direct result of excessive concentration due to the larger-sized units
in use during that period. Perhaps one could disallow deploying
companies or platoons into squads before 1917 for the Germans, and not
until 1918 for the Allies. To avoid new counter types, perhaps we
should require "platoon movement" for groups of early-war squads. The
existing column movement rules using impulses could be adapted for
this purpose (E11.5).
SUMMARY: We often read of Allied and Axis Minor forces being "equipped
like WW-I formations". If so, it may be possible to design WW-I
scenarios using the existing ASL counter mix, perhaps substituting
these units for the major powers. Suppose this turns out to be
possible and the game plays realistically, as it does for WW-II. In
that case, we would have a new kind of support for the argument that
infantry tactics changed little between the wars.
(Bibliography follows)
-----
From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin)
Subject: WW-I ASL: Bibliography (long)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:31:54 -0600
Most of these titles reflect my recent interest in military
developments between the wars. As such, they mostly discuss post WW-I
attitudes and reactions to that conflict. I have not yet read much on
the Great War, itself. Pointers to additional material are especially
welcome.
Addington, Larry H.; The Blitzkrieg Era and the German General Staff,
1865-1941; Rutgers University Press; 1971.
Citino, Robert M.; The Evolution of Blitzkrieg Tactics, Germany
Defends Itself Against Poland, 1918-1933; Greenwood Press;
1987.
Citino advances the interesting thesis that the German general
staff emphasized maneuver warfare at a time when other armies
emphasized firepower because they feared Polish encroachments
into German territory, especially in East Prussia. Since the
Riechswehr was a very small force, mobile defense was their
only option.
Corun, James S.; The Roots of Blitzkrieg, Hans von Seeckt and German
Military Reform; University Press of Kansas; 1992.
Guderian, Heinz; Achtung-Panzer! the development of armoured forces,
their tactics and operational potential; London: Arms and
Armour; 1992. Translated from the German by Christopher
Duffy.
An excellent analysis of WW-I tank operations containing
cogent arguments in favor of close combined-arms operations.
Somewhat polemical, but impressive nevertheless; Guderian was
a very clear thinker.
Lewis, S. J.; Forgotten Legions, German Army Infantry Policy,
1918-1941; Praeger; 1985.
Particularly interesting for ASL players. Documents the
continuity of German infantry doctrine between the wars.
Marshall, S. L. A.; World War I; American Heritage Press; 1971.
A good one-volume overview of the Great War.
Murray, Williamson; German Military Effectiveness; The Nautical &
Aviation Publishing Co. of America; 1992.
Mostly deals with Air Force doctrine. Murray argues that the
Luftwaffe was more interested in strategic bombing and less in
ground-support operations than immediate post-war historians
believed. The good cooperation between tactical air and
ground forces was mostly due to the initiative of
lower-ranking officers, and a military culture that encouraged
cooperation and improvisation at all levels. These
achievements occurred despite the disinterest of the Luftwaffe
high command.
Mysyrowicz, L.; Autopsie D'une Defaite, Origines de l'effondrement
militaire francais de 1940, L'age D'homme; 1973.
Rough translation of the title: "Autopsy of a Defeat, Origins
of the French Military Collapse of 1940." Mysyrowicz
discusses the French reaction to the Great War, which differed
significantly from that of the Germans. After WW-I, the
French general staff was held in widespread contempt both by
veterans and the French public. Their emphasis on firepower
over maneuver was a reaction to the horrible, bloody and
fruitless attacks of 1916. Mysyrowicz documents the heavy
hand with which the general staff suppressed all discussion of
new tactics or technology.
Rommel, Erwin; Infantry Attacks; Greenhill Books, London; 1990.
Translated from the German by G. E. Kidde, original edition
Infanterie Greift an; 1937.
Rommel vividly describes WW-I infantry tactics on several
fronts, casting himself in a well-earned, heroic role. The
similarity to WW-II tactics is no coincidence. Rommel wrote
this book while an instructor at the Infantry School.
Tuchman, Barbara; The Guns of August; Bonanza Books, 1982. Originally
published: Macmillan; 1962.
Pulizer prize-winning discussion of the early WW-I battles of
maneuver on both the Eastern and Western fronts.
Wallach, Jehuda L.; The Dogma of the Battle of Annihilation, The
Theories of Clausewitz and Schlieffen and Their Impact on the
German Conduct of Two World Wars; Greenwood Press; 1986.
-----
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 11:45:27 -0700 (MST)
From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg)
Subject: MPh
Here's one for ya:
Can a unit entering from offboard attempt smoke placement as his first mp
expenditure before actually entering. A2.52 seems to prohibit this, but
maybe I'm reading this wrong.
-Razz.
... Programmer's Cheer: Shift to the left! Shift to the right! Pop up!
Push down! Byte! Byte! Byte!
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:58:15 +0100
From: Robert Rydlo <ryd@ems.co.at>
Subject: ASL Players in AUSTRIA
Hello everybody !
First I want to thank all the guys who mailed me in response to the post
in rec.games.board. (20 Mails in one day) It feels good to know that your
not the only one playing this game. Because maybe you know this question :
"You are playing what.........?"
And second, are there ASL Players from AUSTRIA (not AUSTRALIA) on the
mailing list? If yes, please contact me. Maybe we can do a game now and then?
Cheers,
Robert
Robert RYDLO
Externa Salzburg
AUSTRIA (we don't have kangaroos)
EUROPE
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:56:10 +0100
From: oleboe@idt.unit.no
Subject: some loose ends
Just picking some loose ends:
> >
> > Just saw something interesting in a PBEM game. Put conscripts with
> > a leader, and the stack has 5 MF. (Green units would get 6 MF, since
> > the leader cancels their Inexperienced status in addition to adding
> > 2 MF.) Let's say you want to move this stack somewhere 6 MF away.
> > Can you CX the conscripts and _not_ CX the leader, even though they're
> > traveling as a stack?
> >
> > Probably a dumb RTFASLRB kind of question which I'll answer myself
> > as soon as I get home, but I'd never seen this happen before and
> > I thought it was neat.
> >
> > TGIF,
> > Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
> >
> Yes, there is no requirement that all units in a stack must use/not use
> DT.
>
> Fred
>
I think this is illegal, there _is_ such a recuirement, at least in the QA file:
"A4.12 A stack with one leader and 2 MMC expends 6 MF. The leader and
one MMC wish to go CX to gain 1 MF to place a DC. Must the other MMC
also go CX, or can it end its MPh "before" the other units go CX?
A. Yes, it goes CX because it has used leader bonus; it must "remain
stacked" with that leader (i.e.; must act as a single unit). {MR}"
Alan writes:
> Barring an SSR I can't find, the DC could not be Set during
> set-up, and if set during play, must be declared ... as A23.7
> states.
>
> As far as rubbling buildings is concerned, it will work real
> well, and you don't need to wait for an enemy unit, you can
> just detonate the DM and hope for the best (or worse depending
> on your view). Of course if it causes a flame and no enemy unit
> was in the hex, A26.13 would come into play. (see below)
>
> Also notice the +1 DRM for each enemy infantry
> _COUNTER_ in the _HEX_ that applies to malfunctioning of the DC.
>
Also notice that the ASL Annual 92 changes this to infantry counter in the _LOCATION_, making it a lot easier to detonate a set DC
> On the fire question, ie.. the burning building/rubble thread
> of discussion. As Dave points out rule A26.13 Control Forfeiture says:
> "A player is not held responsible for Fires started randomly while firing at
> an _ENEMY_ unit." I would have to interpret that to mean if a player
> shot his own vehicle and it started a building on fire, he would
> forfeit control of the burning hexes to the opposing side. This is
> convoluted during the CG because the burning of the building will
> occur during the RePh of the game. I guess I would play it that if
> this occurs, forfeiture of control would last for the entire CG.
>
> Its not really in the rules, but the rule doesn't state for how long
> the forfeiture exists, the assumption is to the end of the scenario
> (or game in this case since it doesn't happen DURING a scenario?).
The rules only says that a side forfeits the control, not that he is unable to regain control, so IMHO, the forfeiture exists until that side gains control of the locations in the normal manner.
Doug Gibson writes:
> Well, control of a location is also used in Chapter A (regarding building
> control; remember the discussion we had about trying to make sense of THAT,
> about a year ago?). If it isn't explicitly defined, this is probably just one
> of the many (irritating) cases where they wrote "hex" when they meant
> "location."
No, it can't be. Then ASLRB wouldn't talk about controlling the hex by controlling the ground level Location. I would like someone that lives a little bit nearer TAHGC than me (I'm Norwegian) to send them questions like this:
Assume a two-hex building in hexes A and B consisting of ground level locations A0 and B0, and first level locations A1 and B1. The enemy starts the game with control of the entire Building.
If the building is empty when the friendly side moves a MMC to location A0, which of the following is right:
1) The side gains control of the building, both hexes and all four locations
2) The side gains control of the building, hex A and locations A0 and A1
3) the side gains control of the building, hex A and location A0
The MMC then Mops Up the building, which of the three above is now right?
If there is a Good Order enemy MMC in (upper level) location A1 whem the friendly MMC moves to location A0, which of the two is right:
4) The friendly side gains control of hex A and locations A0 and A1
5) The friendly side gains control of hex A and location A0
I don't have the ASLRB here, but the reason for each possible answer is this:
1) The friendly side gains control of the building, and therefore gains control of all hexes and all locations of the building too.
2) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the hex' locations too.
3) The friendly side only gains controls of the locations that is actually occupied by that side.
4) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the hex' locations too, even though there is a enemy MMC in one location.
5) same as 3)
These questions are very important when playing KGP or RB and I can't understand why TAHGC hasn't made this clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cut off my head,
what do I say:
Ole Boe
Me and my head
or oleboe@idt.unit.no
Me and my body?
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: ROUTS
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 13:21:29 +0100 (MET)
Hi JR (and the rest of you),
> At first I was going to agree with Patrik that this solves
> the problem, but the rules have a vagueness about them.
Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make. The rest
of my reasoning wasn't meant to solve the problem, it was meant
to show that there is a weakness in the wording of the rule that
makes it possible to interpret it in several ways.
> The rule says that if any Interdictor could apply the -1
> FFMO "during a hypothetical Defensive First Fire
> opportunity." It does not specify what exactly the
> situation of the hypothetical Defensive First Fire must be.
> So while the Gun crew could drop a SW as their hypothetical
> move for a "hypothetical Defensive First Fire opportunity"
> and not be subject to FFMO, it could also drop possession
> and attempt (re-)recovery of the Gun, and so be subject to
> FFMO (admittedly a dumb move, but hypothetically possible).
> Should the most favorable DFF opportunity be the one taken
> as the hypothetical situation or the least?
The problem I have with this is that you would then _have_ to treat
a foxhole hex as OG as well, and that is IMHO clearly in conflict with
the rules. You would have to do this because the unit _could_ enter the
hex w/o entering the foxholes. Why then would there exist a rule that
explicitly let you combine foxhole entrance costs to avoid interdiction?
Now, let's see what happens if we do it the other way. If a unit routing
into a foxhole hex is in OG depending on whether it enters the foxhole or
not, then the crew with the Gun would... ...be in OG or not depending on
whether it wants to abandon its Gun or not! Does that seem correct?
Yes, this _isn't_ a definitive answer, it only happens to be the only
workable interpretation I could come up with. If you're looking for a
definitive answer you'd have to ask AH, because they're the only ones
in a position to come up with such (regardless of how one choose to
express oneself...).
> I think that this is one for TAHGC. IMO, all of the rules
> with the word "hypothetical" should be sent back for them
> to re-write. Can't we sue for emotional distress or
> something to force them to do it? This is America, Land of
> the Lawsuit, after all :-)
Sounds like a good suggestion :-)
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Location/Hex control
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 13:30:18 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> Dave responds to Patrik's point about hex/location/building control.
>
> >Great, except that control of a Location is not defined in
> the ASLRB. A26.11 only deals with hex control.
>
> A26.11 covers multi-level hexes in its first sentence, and I would
> agree with his assumption that this gives all locations in the hex
> to the controlling side. I also agree with his discussion concerning
> hex/location control vs building control. He then asks about mopping-up.
> I would assume if the location/building control agruement is true,
> mopping-up only gives building control, not hex control.
The problem with this is that this is obviously _not_ valid once you move
to RB or KGP. In both KGP and RB there are examples where units of one
side controls the upper level of a building, and opposing units control
the base level. In RB it would result in an upper-level pocket, and in
KGP it would have the same result as controlling the base level (when it
comes to determining setup-areas, that is).
I am working with the assumption that A26.11 does not have any provision
that says that the entire hex is controlled _only_ if no enemy units are
therein. If I'm wrong on this I apologize.
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: "Conklin, Ross E." <CONKLIRE@f3groups3.fsd.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: KGP fords and roads
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:47:00 PST
In KGP I there are two fords that have adjacent woods-road hexes. It appears
that the roads lead to the fords. However, the hexsides separating the woods-
road hexes and the fords are NOT road hexsides. Is that an artistic
mistake on the map? Must vehicles leaving the fords spend all their MP (or
at least half with a +3 Bog DRM) to enter the woods portion of the woods-road
hex? Also, do vehicles have to risk a Bog roll when leaving the woods-road
hex across a non-road hexside? If they were to move off the road into the
woods without leaving the hex, they must roll. The rules clearly imply they
do not when leaving the hex since the case is not mentioned specifically. If
they do not, this is a big rules inconsistency.
Thanks,
rc
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:05:27 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Conscript CX, Control (kinda long)
Hi guys,
I'm interested in the same loose ends as Ole, I guess.
I said:
>>> Just saw something interesting in a PBEM game. Put conscripts with
>>> a leader, and the stack has 5 MF. (Green units would get 6 MF, since
>>> the leader cancels their Inexperienced status in addition to adding
>>> 2 MF.) Let's say you want to move this stack somewhere 6 MF away.
>>> Can you CX the conscripts and _not_ CX the leader, even though they're
>>> traveling as a stack?
And Fred (and others) replied:
>> Yes, there is no requirement that all units in a stack must use/not use
>> DT.
then Ole said:
> I think this is illegal, there _is_ such a recuirement, at least in the
> QA file: "A4.12 A stack with one leader and 2 MMC expends 6 MF. The
> leader and one MMC wish to go CX to gain 1 MF to place a DC. Must the
> other MMC also go CX, or can it end its MPh "before" the other units go
> CX?
> A. Yes, it goes CX because it has used leader bonus; it must "remain
> stacked" with that leader (i.e.; must act as a single unit). {MR}"
I don't think this Q&A applies here. Yes, all the units moving as a
stack must spend the same number of MF. But if they all want to spend
6 MF together, then the conscript squad needs to CX to do so, and the
leader doesn't. An interesting case, but I think it's legal.
About burning buildings down, Ole said:
> The rules only says that a side forfeits the control, not that he is
> unable to regain control, so IMHO, the forfeiture exists until that
> side gains control of the locations in the normal manner.
I think this is right. The Chapter A rule is written with the
assumption that once something is burning, it keeps burning basically
forever. Since fires can go out in the course of a CG, of course the
resulting rubble can be recaptured. But those upper level Locations
that are lost forever can't be recaptured. I think they should go
to the side that didn't burn them (assuming the fire was not random
and forgivable by A26.x), unless there's a rule to the contrary in
the historical module in question. And there seems to be such a
rule at least implied in both RB and KGP, where you count current
Locations rather than starting ones. So torching buildings may
be a good idea after all.
I think the intended rules for hex and Location control in buildings
are pretty clear most of the time. If you occupy the ground level,
you get all the upper levels, too, if they're unoccupied by the enemy.
And if the enemy does have an upper level currently occupied by a Good
Order MMC, he keeps that Location, as pointed out in the RB and KGP
examples of upper-level pockets and whatnot.
So the remaining questions in my mind are:
1. If one side has level 0 and the other has level 1 and level 2 is
unoccupied, who gets to claim Control of level 2? (One of the RB
examples may answer this; I need to go check Chapter O.)
2. Where does Mopping Up (illegal in RB because of No Quarter, but
allowed in KGP) fit in? It seems that if you Mop Up a building you'd
get control of all of its Locations, provided you didn't find any
unbroken enemy units, but this isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
(Since you round up all the broken enemies in the building and find
all the HIP ones, you're obviously traversing all of its Locations
in the act of Mopping Up.)
Does anybody have any pending Q&A to Da Hill on this stuff? If not,
I'll mail 'em in and we'll hear back sometime in April or May.
Pedantically,
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: 14 Feb 94 15:17:00 UT
From: /PN=Doug.Williamson/OU=DL-NOTES/O=SMTRW/PRMD=LANGATE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Email ASL
Hi folks!
A couple of quick questions for you folks. Hope someone can help.
First, is there a ladder game/tournament currently underway on the ML?
If so, is it open to new players?
Second, regardless of the presence or absence of a ladder, is there
anyone interested in playing a little ASL by email? I am relatively new
to the game, so I spend a lot of time reading the rules, but I still
respond fairly quickly I would like to start with a simple scenario
(like #1 :) and proceed from there to become familiar with the rules.
Anyone willing to help me?
Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.
Doug Williamson
-----
From: loss@husky.bloomu.edu
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:37 EST
Subject: First Banzai entry
Status: ON 32768
Mailed To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov
We played First Banzai yesterday, and I have some questions about the
scenario. According to the Japanese entry conditions, the units that enter on
turn 1 must enter on the east edge of board 18, but the units that enter on
turns 2 and 3 just specify entry along the east edge. Is board 18 understood
here, or can the units entering on turns 2 and 3 enter on any board?
Also, since Attu had no trees at all, shouldn't the woods be considered
brush? Of course, this would change LOSes quite a bit.
Incidentally, I lost badly as the Japanese. The American MMG set up a fire
lane on my MPh of turn 2, got a 1KIA on a banzaiing stack, and I rolled doubles
on the high number. Two squads gone. The fire lane got a 2KIA on another
stack; a squad and a leader gone. On my MPh of turn 4, the MMG (through
horribly low TH rolls, maintaining ROF, and my "Let's roll doubles on ALL the
unit determinant rolls for KIA results!" (tm) successes) killed 5 squads and
another leader. At that point I threw in the towel. My opponent had 25 VP, and
I hadn't gotten one unit past mid-board.
We're going to play Contest in the Clouds next. Does anyone have any
suggestions for either the Maquis or the Gebirgsjaeger?
Lastly, Armed Forces Day is on May 21 this year. Would anyone be up for a
FTF meeting of whichever of us can make it at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in
Maryland?
Doug Loss Americans will accept your idea
Data Network Coordinator much more readily if you tell them
Bloomsburg University Benjamin Franklin said it first.
loss@husky.bloomu.edu
Voice (717) 389-4797
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 11:16:32 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Re: First Banzai
Hi,
During the playtest, it was brought to Rex's attention that Attu
had no trees. I guess he either forgot the SSR or chose to ignore the
statements.
Woods *are* in play.
Have a nice day,
Brian
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:18:37 +0100
From: oleboe@idt.unit.no
Subject: Re: Conscript CX, Control
Hope you're not too tired, but I'll comment some of the things Dave wrote:
> And Fred (and others) replied:
> >> Yes, there is no requirement that all units in a stack must use/not use
> >> DT.
>
> then Ole said:
> > I think this is illegal, there _is_ such a recuirement, at least in the
> > QA file: "A4.12 A stack with one leader and 2 MMC expends 6 MF. The
> > leader and one MMC wish to go CX to gain 1 MF to place a DC. Must the
> > other MMC also go CX, or can it end its MPh "before" the other units go
> > CX?
> > A. Yes, it goes CX because it has used leader bonus; it must "remain
> > stacked" with that leader (i.e.; must act as a single unit). {MR}"
>
> I don't think this Q&A applies here. Yes, all the units moving as a
> stack must spend the same number of MF. But if they all want to spend
> 6 MF together, then the conscript squad needs to CX to do so, and the
> leader doesn't. An interesting case, but I think it's legal.
>
> Dave
Dave may be right here. The question is how to interpret the paranthesis:
If it means "(i.e.; must expend MF as a single unit)", its legal to CX the conscript, and it's only a badly worded phrase from TAHGC. But I first interpreted it to mean that they must CX as a single unit too. Actually I don't know (how could I, I'm not Mac :-).
> About burning buildings down, Ole said:
> > The rules only says that a side forfeits the control, not that he is
> > unable to regain control, so IMHO, the forfeiture exists until that
> > side gains control of the locations in the normal manner.
>
> I think this is right. The Chapter A rule is written with the
> assumption that once something is burning, it keeps burning basically
> forever. Since fires can go out in the course of a CG, of course the
> resulting rubble can be recaptured. But those upper level Locations
> that are lost forever can't be recaptured. I think they should go
> to the side that didn't burn them (assuming the fire was not random
> and forgivable by A26.x), unless there's a rule to the contrary in
> the historical module in question. And there seems to be such a
> rule at least implied in both RB and KGP, where you count current
> Locations rather than starting ones. So torching buildings may
> be a good idea after all.
>
I also think that one side may gain control of a location that side has deliberatly put on fire by controlling a majority of the adjacent hexes (or something like that. I don't remember the exact rule, but itis hidden somewhere in A26).
> I think the intended rules for hex and Location control in buildings
> are pretty clear most of the time. If you occupy the ground level,
> you get all the upper levels, too, if they're unoccupied by the enemy.
> And if the enemy does have an upper level currently occupied by a Good
> Order MMC, he keeps that Location, as pointed out in the RB and KGP
> examples of upper-level pockets and whatnot.
>
This sound OK and may be right, but IMHO, it is not written in the ASLRB.
> So the remaining questions in my mind are:
> 1. If one side has level 0 and the other has level 1 and level 2 is
> unoccupied, who gets to claim Control of level 2? (One of the RB
> examples may answer this; I need to go check Chapter O.)
>
> 2. Where does Mopping Up (illegal in RB because of No Quarter, but
> allowed in KGP) fit in? It seems that if you Mop Up a building you'd
> get control of all of its Locations, provided you didn't find any
> unbroken enemy units, but this isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
> (Since you round up all the broken enemies in the building and find
> all the HIP ones, you're obviously traversing all of its Locations
> in the act of Mopping Up.)
>
Good questions, but IMHO, they should be in addition to, not instead of my related questions some letters ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cut off my head,
what do I say:
Ole Boe
Me and my head
or oleboe@idt.unit.no
Me and my body?
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:18:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: MPh
Grant:
You're right, it is prohibited. Just imagine what would happen if they
rolled a 6 dr: they'd Pin and wouldn't be able to enter the board and
would therefore be eliminated for failure to enter. This is probably the
same reason they decided that Offboard FFE zones had no effect so you
wouldn't have to deal with offmap, broken/Pinned units.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
[stuff deleted]
> Can a unit entering from offboard attempt smoke placement as his first mp
> expenditure before actually entering. A2.52 seems to prohibit this, but
> maybe I'm reading this wrong.
[stuff deleted]
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:57:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Mustafa Unlu <mustafa+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re:
oleboe@idt.unit.no writes:
> F Hol s F nth - bel
> F nth - bel
Reveal ARuh/MMG, DFF at Bel, 8(-2). 2,1. 2KIA, ROF.
Establish Fire Lane to Nth.
I'll stop here so you can do the rest of your move. I think only ANor
is left.
:)
M.
-----
From: JJC%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM
Date: 14 FEB 94 15:01
Subject: KGP I Story
Well, I bought KGP I the other day (finally) and went to the Fast Food place
next door to relax, eat and check out the new toy. I opened the box, looked
at the counters, maps, etc and realized that Page 1 of Chapter P was missing.
Hmmm....
A thorough search of the both resulted in no page 1. So, I went back the the
store, and reported the missing page. The clerk opened another copy, and gave
me page one from that copy. Satisfied that everything was in order, I was
about to leave when the clerk remarked, "look, this copy has another page 1".
What are the odds?
Jim Cotugno Languages Continuation MV (714)380-5340 (net**2 656-5340)
LF (714)380-3435 (net**2 689-3435)
internet: jjc@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com
"Opinions Personal, Facts Suspect"
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:13:40 -0500
From: snow@lyrae.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow)
Subject: G-T questions
The rules for the G-T campaign in the last Annual are understandably brief,
but I wish they could have been a few paragraphs longer. Perhaps someone who
did some playtesting on it (or has played it before) could answer this basic
question: Are the "at start" conditions such as SAN and wind force restored
to their nominal values between scenarios?
We rolled up some wind on the last turn of Assault Phase One, and were wondering
if the second Assault Phase should begin with a Mild Breeze or No Wind.
And what about SAN? If it were reduced during play, would it remain reduced
or return to its (printed) value for the next scenario?
Any comments?
Marty
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:28:22 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Conscript CX, Control (kinda long)
> I'm interested in the same loose ends as Ole, I guess.
>
> I said:
> >>> Just saw something interesting in a PBEM game. Put conscripts with
> >>> a leader, and the stack has 5 MF. (Green units would get 6 MF, since
> >>> the leader cancels their Inexperienced status in addition to adding
> >>> 2 MF.) Let's say you want to move this stack somewhere 6 MF away.
> >>> Can you CX the conscripts and _not_ CX the leader, even though they're
> >>> traveling as a stack?
>
> And Fred (and others) replied:
> >> Yes, there is no requirement that all units in a stack must use/not use
> >> DT.
>
> then Ole said:
> > I think this is illegal, there _is_ such a recuirement, at least in the
> > QA file: "A4.12 A stack with one leader and 2 MMC expends 6 MF. The
> > leader and one MMC wish to go CX to gain 1 MF to place a DC. Must the
> > other MMC also go CX, or can it end its MPh "before" the other units go
> > CX?
> > A. Yes, it goes CX because it has used leader bonus; it must "remain
> > stacked" with that leader (i.e.; must act as a single unit). {MR}"
>
> I don't think this Q&A applies here. Yes, all the units moving as a
> stack must spend the same number of MF. But if they all want to spend
> 6 MF together, then the conscript squad needs to CX to do so, and the
> leader doesn't. An interesting case, but I think it's legal.
>
Since they are moving as a stack, both squads and the leader must expend
the seventh MF, although if he/they had one either/both the leader or/and
squad could place a DC in the same or different locations on the same MF
the first squad placed here. The thing to remember is that all units
moving together in a stack must expend the same number of MF.
> About burning buildings down, Ole said:
> > The rules only says that a side forfeits the control, not that he is
> > unable to regain control, so IMHO, the forfeiture exists until that
> > side gains control of the locations in the normal manner.
>
> I think this is right. The Chapter A rule is written with the
> assumption that once something is burning, it keeps burning basically
> forever. Since fires can go out in the course of a CG, of course the
> resulting rubble can be recaptured. But those upper level Locations
> that are lost forever can't be recaptured. I think they should go
> to the side that didn't burn them (assuming the fire was not random
> and forgivable by A26.x), unless there's a rule to the contrary in
> the historical module in question. And there seems to be such a
> rule at least implied in both RB and KGP, where you count current
> Locations rather than starting ones. So torching buildings may
> be a good idea after all.
>
>
> I think the intended rules for hex and Location control in buildings
> are pretty clear most of the time. If you occupy the ground level,
> you get all the upper levels, too, if they're unoccupied by the enemy.
> And if the enemy does have an upper level currently occupied by a Good
> Order MMC, he keeps that Location, as pointed out in the RB and KGP
> examples of upper-level pockets and whatnot.
>
> So the remaining questions in my mind are:
> 1. If one side has level 0 and the other has level 1 and level 2 is
> unoccupied, who gets to claim Control of level 2? (One of the RB
> examples may answer this; I need to go check Chapter O.)
IMHO I would say that each location must be controlled seperately, however
in the RePh an isolated SL that is not occupied (upper level of a building)
is controlled by the side that controls surrounding area.
>
> 2. Where does Mopping Up (illegal in RB because of No Quarter, but
> allowed in KGP) fit in? It seems that if you Mop Up a building you'd
> get control of all of its Locations, provided you didn't find any
> unbroken enemy units, but this isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
> (Since you round up all the broken enemies in the building and find
> all the HIP ones, you're obviously traversing all of its Locations
> in the act of Mopping Up.)
>
IMHO I agree.
Fred
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:37:52 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: some loose ends
{stuff deleted]
>
> Assume a two-hex building in hexes A and B consisting of ground level locations A0 and B0, and first level locations A1 and B1. The enemy starts the game with control of the entire Building.
> If the building is empty when the friendly side moves a MMC to location A0, which of the following is right:
> 1) The side gains control of the building, both hexes and all four locations
> 2) The side gains control of the building, hex A and locations A0 and A1
> 3) the side gains control of the building, hex A and location A0
IMHO, none of the above, the side gains control of only location A0.
> The MMC then Mops Up the building, which of the three above is now right?
In this case 1.
>
> If there is a Good Order enemy MMC in (upper level) location A1 whem the friendly MMC moves to location A0, which of the two is right:
> 4) The friendly side gains control of hex A and locations A0 and A1
> 5) The friendly side gains control of hex A and location A0
IMHO 5.
>
> I don't have the ASLRB here, but the reason for each possible answer is this:
> 1) The friendly side gains control of the building, and therefore gains control of all hexes and all locations of the building too.
> 2) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the hex' locations too.
> 3) The friendly side only gains controls of the locations that is actually occupied by that side.
> 4) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the hex' locations too, even though there is a enemy MMC in one location.
> 5) same as 3)
Fred
-----
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:13:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: KGP I Story
Jim:
The odds are probably pretty good if they were packaged in sequence and
shipped in the same box. Someone on the assembly line just got momentarily
confused.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
> Well, I bought KGP I the other day (finally) and went to the Fast Food place
> next door to relax, eat and check out the new toy. I opened the box, looked
> at the counters, maps, etc and realized that Page 1 of Chapter P was missing.
> Hmmm....
>
> A thorough search of the both resulted in no page 1. So, I went back the the
> store, and reported the missing page. The clerk opened another copy, and gave
> me page one from that copy. Satisfied that everything was in order, I was
> about to leave when the clerk remarked, "look, this copy has another page 1".
>
> What are the odds?
[stuff deleted]
-----
From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 01:16:00 BST
Subject: Any Toledo ASL Folks?
Jim Spencer in the Toledo area (Ohio not Spain) is looking to find some
FTF players. He can be reached at 419-691-8424. Jim found out that the
local hobby shop sold 35 KGPs and hopes he can make contact with a few of
those owners.
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
: Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to :
: j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. :
: GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : :
: John H. Farris : Allen's Law :
: P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA :
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
-----
From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 02:20:00 BST
Subject: some loose ends -control
-=-=-=- To: OLEBOE@IDT.UNIT.NO@I -=-=-=-
Sub: some loose ends-- control
> > Well, control of a location is also used in Chapter A (regarding
> > control; remember the discussion we had about trying to make
> > about a year ago?). If it isn't explicitly defined, this is probably
This discussion has to be modified by the '93b errata--
> No, it can't be. Then ASLRB wouldn't talk about controlling the hex by
> controlling the ground level Location. I would like someone that lives a
> little bit
> nearer TAHGC than me (I'm Norwegian) to send them questions like this:
but it does in combination with presence of enemy armed MMC.
AS to your questions --you got to be a teacher :)) --smile face.
none of your answers are right --but mine may be wrong too.
> Assume a two-hex building in hexes A and B consisting of ground level
> locations A0 and B0, and first level locations A1 and B1. The enemy
> starts the game with control of the entire Building.
> If the building is empty when the friendly side moves a MMC to location
> A0, which of the following is right:
> 1) The side gains control of the building, both hexes and all four
> locations 2) The side gains control of the building, hex A and
> locations A0 and A1 3) the side gains control of the building, hex A
> and location A0 The MMC then Mops Up the building, which of the three
> above is now right?
Number one point is --mopping up is neat --keen-- even useful for the rules
retentive --but has nothing --nada --zip to do with control in this question.
the answer is: if no enemy armed MMC are there when you entered the building
--you control all locations of the building and the hex you entered but not
hex b.--note you do not have to mop-up!!!!!
> If there is a Good Order enemy MMC in (upper level) location A1 whem the
> friendly MMC moves to location A0, which of the two is right: 4) The
> friendly side gains control of hex A and locations A0 and A1 5) The
> friendly side gains control of hex A and location A0
> I don't have the ASLRB here, but the reason for each possible answer is
> this: 1) The friendly side gains control of the building, and therefore
> gains control of all hexes and all locations of the building too.
> 2) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the
> hex' locations too.
> 3) The friendly side only gains controls of the locations that is
> actually occupied by that side.
> 4) The friendly side controls hex A, and therefore controls all of the
> hex' locations too, even though there is a enemy MMC in one location.
> 5) same as 3)
> These questions are very important when playing KGP or RB and I can't
> understand why TAHGC hasn't made this clear.
Don't understand question --per ASLRB --can't control hex with upper level
bad guy --i.e. armed enemy MMC. --so all you control is location you are in
A0.
all the best,
ron the real old guy from GEnie
-----
From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 03:20:00 BST
Subject: WW-I ASL: Bibliography (long)
Jack,
Here are a few more books for the list:
Gudmundsson, Bruce I; Stormtroop Tactics-Innovation in the German Army
1914-1918. Development of open order tactics in the German Army.
Macdonald, Lyn; 1914. Popular history of the British experience during the
first year of the war...Mons to Flanders (Other books of interest... The
Somme, They Call it Passchendaele)
Hart, BH Liddell; The Real War 1914-1918.
Spears, Sir Edward Major General; Liaison 1914; British liaison officer to
the French Vth Army. Spears was first Brit on the Continent. First hand
view of the problems of communication.
Interesting topic.
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
: Wheel or John : Almost anything is easier to :
: j.farris4@genie.geis.com : get into than out of. :
: GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : :
: John H. Farris : Allen's Law :
: P O Box 547, Norman,OK 73070 USA :
+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
-----
From: m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: Conscript CX, Control (kinda long)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:54:49 +0100 (MET)
Hi Dave!
> I think the intended rules for hex and Location control in buildings
> are pretty clear most of the time. If you occupy the ground level,
> you get all the upper levels, too, if they're unoccupied by the enemy.
> And if the enemy does have an upper level currently occupied by a Good
> Order MMC, he keeps that Location, as pointed out in the RB and KGP
> examples of upper-level pockets and whatnot.
After reading A26.11 last night, I think I can explain why it's not at
all that simple.
A26.11 describes only HEX control, nothing else. The part about upper
levels just tells us that the other side can't have any units in the
building to if control is to be transferred. That's it. The problem is
that the smallest thing you can control is an entire HEX.
This results in the following:
The Germans control multi-level building hex A in RB, and have a GO
armed unit at level 0. They also control the Building.
A Russian GO armed unit enter level 2 of said hex.
The game ends.
Now,
...the Germans control the BUILDING (According to A26.xx)
...the Germans control HEX A (According to A26.11)
...the Russians control the level 2 LOCATION of hex A, and any
other LOCATIONS they were the last side to occupy.
This far, I'm just restating what the rules say. Nothing strange this
far. The conflict arises when you gain control of a HEX or BUILDING by
solely occupying it. Does that mean you gain control of all LOCATIONS
or HEXES respectively?
The simple answer is no. It's not in the rules, so you don't.
I don't know if I'm satisfied with the answer, though, but that's the
way I'll play until AH changes the rule (IF they change the rule).
> So the remaining questions in my mind are:
> 1. If one side has level 0 and the other has level 1 and level 2 is
> unoccupied, who gets to claim Control of level 2? (One of the RB
> examples may answer this; I need to go check Chapter O.)
According to chapter A or O, whoever last controlled the hex/location
respectively.
> 2. Where does Mopping Up (illegal in RB because of No Quarter, but
> allowed in KGP) fit in? It seems that if you Mop Up a building you'd
> get control of all of its Locations, provided you didn't find any
> unbroken enemy units, but this isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
> (Since you round up all the broken enemies in the building and find
> all the HIP ones, you're obviously traversing all of its Locations
> in the act of Mopping Up.)
Since it's not in the rules, it doesn't happen. You do mopping up to
get at any brokens, and to verify that there are no HIP units in the
building. The question about location control is a good one, though,
perhaps a candidate for sending to AH?
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 09:42:14 -0500
From: David Elder <david@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Building Control
Hi Patrik, Dave and everyone else ...
I may be confused but the conditions for building
control seem quite explicit... (?).
A26.12 ... Otherwise a building is controlled by the
last side to have solely occupied it (i.e. the
last side to have at least one unbroken unit in
the building while no other enemy units are
contained therein) or possessed it at scenario start.
Thus for example -
If the Germans own a building at the start of the scenario and
a Russian squad enters it then the Russian will control the
whole building (all locations) unless it can be shown that
a German unit was present - in which case building control will
revert to the German as soon as the Russian leaves - since the
German unit will then be the sole occupying side. If there is
a known German enemy unit in a building initially controlled
by the Germans and a Russian unit enters on level 2 (for example)
then the Russian can control only it's own location - hex control
is based on occupying the ground level with no armed enemy units
in the upper levels. If the Russian is on ground level ... it can
control the hex ... however, if it leaves the building it forfeits
any control it may have gained because the German unit will again
be the sole occupying side. If fire breaks the German unit then the
Russian still does not gain control of the whole building until the
German unit leaves ... then if the Russian unit is the sole occupying
side ... it gains control over the whole building.
Hmmm :-) ... so in summary ... the last side to occupy a building
controls the whole thing ... an enemy unit entering can gain control
of various hexes of a building ... but can only get the whole
building if it is unoccupied by an enemy unit. It is not necessary
to enter all locations to gain control ... however the only way to
"verify" or assure oneself that they actually do control the building
is to occupy every location or by Mopping UP (A26.12) - it is not
necessary ... just useful for peace of mind in case there are
hidden units which will control the building after the enemy unit
leaves.
Hmmm ... did I miss the point? :-)
Cheers,
David
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:01:13
From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Subject: Three things
Thing 1 - I will personally send an extra large, grade AAA, good-fer-fryin'
Idaho Spud(TM) to anybody who corners Mac at WO and forces him to resolve
this Control thing. Threaten the guy with bodily harm, whatever it takes.
Makes me wish we were back to talking about Barney.
Thing 2 - (Can't help gigging Jack on this) - So the years 1919-1938 were
one vast Refit Phase? :-)
Thing 3 - I'd like some input about how we should handle Campaign Games on
the Ladder. Some points to think about:
* Seems reasonable that a CG win should count for more than a single
standard scenario, but how much more? Double the normal amount? Triple? One
win for each CG day?
* Brian and Steve Petersen figure that one win per day goes against the
point of a CG, where you don't worry about winning every CG day, as long as
you can win the entire CG. Quoting some paragraphs from Steve:
> Apparently the Russians win the CG through attrition as opposed to
>consistently winning individual scenarios. Also, it wouldn't be right to
>forfeit ladder points by "throwing" a scenario to cut your losses and
>improve your standing in the long view of the campaign. This is how we
>arrived at two CG scenario wins equalling one ladder game win. This line of
>thinking would probably also work with the KGP and other CGs, where winning
>the current scenario takes second priority to winning the whole sheebang.
> Since winning the campaign is the name of the game we felt extra
>points (i.e. three ladder wins) should go to the CG winner. Now that I see
>you're wanting to standardize all this perhaps we can come up with a
>generic CG point bonus that would work for all CGs-- RB, KGP, G-T and
>those yet to be published. I'm thinking along the lines of a point system
>based on the number of scenarios encompassed in the CG. Red Barricades CG
>III is roughly twice as long as RB CG I and so the former should garner
>roughly twice as many points as the latter. Similarly since RB CG II is
>four scenarios long, as is the G-T CG, winning RB CG II would net as many
>points as winning the G-T CG. Obviously these "CG Bonus Points" can't be
>too big or they'll start to mess up the relative standings of the rest of
>the ladder participants. Wouldn't do to have inflationary ladder points.
>Might spark a ladder recession. Yet, anyone who accomplishes a CG win
>deserves something extra.
* FWIW, Phil tells me that on the GEnie ladder, a CG win is not any
different than a standard scenario win.
Since the internet ladder is an experiment in modern cyber-socialism/
communism/utilitarianism (you did know that, didn't you?), I want to hear
people's opinions so that we can figure out what to do. Feel free to email
me directly or go to the general discussion list. If a quick solid consensus
doesn't immediately arise, we'll present some options and vote on it. Also
FWIW, I don't own RB or KGP (heartless Philistine!), so I don't have a
well-informed opinion to give. Except perhaps that I do agree with Steve's
reasoning above as far as 1 win per CG day being a bit much.
Thing 3a - A few of you still haven't sent in your checks covering the
yearly salary for the Laddermeister. I wouldn't want to have to stage a work
slowdown and let the ladder drift into anarchy and chaos, so let's get those
checks in the mail, hmm?
Tom
UM 72, OSU 70
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: G-T questions
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 9:42:44 CST
>
> The rules for the G-T campaign in the last Annual are understandably brief,
> but I wish they could have been a few paragraphs longer. Perhaps someone who
> did some playtesting on it (or has played it before) could answer this basic
> question: Are the "at start" conditions such as SAN and wind force restored
> to their nominal values between scenarios?
>
> We rolled up some wind on the last turn of Assault Phase One, and were wondering
> if the second Assault Phase should begin with a Mild Breeze or No Wind.
> And what about SAN? If it were reduced during play, would it remain reduced
> or return to its (printed) value for the next scenario?
>
> Any comments?
>
> Marty
>
>
Marty,
I do not know the answers, however, if you do not get an answer from the
i-net I will post your message to GEnie's BBS. The G-T designer is a
regular there.
Later,
Ed
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:08:46 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Minefields and Snipers
Hi guys,
Here's a funny situation that happened Sunday during KGP 1: Shadows of
Death. There are 6-FP AP Known Minefields in six preassigned hexes on the
board, which are given as a terrain SSR rather than as part of either
side's OB. I drove a Sherman through one of these hexes (not too
desparate, as it would take snake eyes to immobilize it and a long
time to move around it) and rolled a 4, which is both sides' SAN (after
the +2 for a Night scenario is applied to the SAN on the OB).
Whose sniper should be activated? For that matter, who should have
rolled the minefield attack? We decided that since the mines
belonged to nobody in particular, neither player was more eligible
to make the roll and suffer the SAN. (Even though the American is
the Scenario Defender, we weren't sure who the mines were laid
by historically, and even that really shouldn't matter if it's not
on the card or in the rules.)
BTW, this was a really fun Night scenario. It's kind of tough on
the attacking Germans, though, because they're coming in without
numerical superiority and have to pretty much destroy the entire
American defending force to Control the Sanitarium. They need to
get their Panthers up close and start blasting ASAP. Also, the
Americans need to ensure that their Shermans don't become burning
wrecks too close to the Sanitarium, because that results in permanent
illumination, which allows target acquisition to carry over from
turn to turn, which probably doubles the lethality of those Panthers.
(Mist + Night + Stone building = Lots of Misses.)
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 9:59:54 PST
About counting CG scenarios for ladder wins: my first impression is that I
think it is a bad idea to count scenario wins at all; that's not the point of
the CG. However, making the things winner-take-all will have a DRAMATIC
effect on someone's rating for a single win or loss (which may have been quite
close) so it's probably a necessary evil. My biggest worry is RB; could
someone who has played through RB CG III comment on the possibility of the
Russian player losing most of the scenarios but still winning the CG? If
that's not a problem, then this wouldn't bother me.
My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and make
victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates (we've got to
be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in RB!), FRU of course.
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 09:53:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: Three things
Tom:
If they are so much trouble to splice into the exisiting framework
why not create a separate ladder for CGs (or even one for each, especially RB
CGIII)? You could have a Strategic Ladder for the CGs and a Tactical
Ladder for regular scenarios. Doing it this way would also provide the
option of counting each day of a CG towards the Tactical Ladder.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent "I-always-knew-this-was-an-experiment-in-communism-etc." Pollock
P.S. I've never played by e-mail and am not involved in the ladder.
[stuff deleted]
> Thing 3 - I'd like some input about how we should handle Campaign Games on
> the Ladder.
[jumbo deletion]
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: CG ladder points
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 10:10:01 CST
Tom and others write:
> Thing 3 - I'd like some input about how we should handle Campaign Games on
> the Ladder. Some points to think about:
>
[stuff deleted]
> > Since winning the campaign is the name of the game we felt extra
> >points (i.e. three ladder wins) should go to the CG winner. Now that I see
Extra points is fine, however, I hope you are not suggesting the ladder
showing 3 wins and 3 losses for the CG participants! A campaign game is
just that, _a_ game, i.e. 1 win and 1 loss. (I do not believe you were
suggesting this. Just making sure.)
How about allowing the participants to gamble their points: "I'll bet you
250 points I can beat you at KGP CG I!". :-)
Later,
Ed
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 08:19:16 -0800
From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga)
Subject: Ammo Shortage
Hi, y'all.
Okay, after reading the rules for ammo shortage again last night, I came to
the following conclusions:
Assume I have an MG with a B# of 11.
1) If ammo shortage is in effect, the B# becomes 10.
2) If I roll a 12, the MG is disabled and removed from play.
3) If I roll an 11, it is malfed normally.
4) If I roll a 10, it is malfed and marked with a Low Ammo counter, after which
once repaired:
a) a 9 malfs it normally.
b) a 10, 11, or 12 disables it and removes it from play.
Am I correct?
Dade
-----
Subject: The Tractor Works
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:43:43 -0500
From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov
With all the talk about KGP and RB lately, I'm almost afraid to broach the
subject of such an old and basic scenario as "The Tractor Works". But I've
been going over the original SL scenarios (in their ASL reincarnations) as
a way to force myself to review the ASLRB in a somewhat systematic way.
This is not a bad way to learn ASL for a newbie, either, as these scenarios
WERE designed to introduce one to the SL rules in a gradual fashion. While
the ASLRB does not introduce the rules in the same order as the SLRB, these
scenarios, taken one at a time and in order, still serve to focus one's
attention on specific rules sections.
Anyway, after playing scenario 1, "The Guards Counterattack" and finding that
my old SL tactics still worked pretty well here (I played all the old SL
scenarios MANY times in prehistoric pre-ASL days), I plunged right into
scenarion #2, "The Tractor Works", solitaire, using my standard German
tactics, and by turn 3, the hexes of the Tractor Works were littered with
the bullet-shattered bodies of German Pioneers. Hmmm. Scrap the old SL
tactics here. The problem is that the Board 1, X6 building is now, by SSR,
a Factory (as defined in the ASLRB) with the attendant interior LOS rules.
Time to seek advice on factory-busting from the Pioneers on the 'net!!! I
suspect RB veterans especially, might have some pointers here.
To summarize, my old SL tactics, workmanlike and workable if not brilliant,
were to clear the outer eastern hexes of the factory using massive German
fire concentrations, which usually took a turn or so to clear out a couple
of these hexes. Advancing the Pioneers into these hexes, I would then
usually be able to confront the Russion killer stack(s) that would normally
be lurking in the interior hexes one at a time, defeating them in detail.
With ASL factory rules in effect, this is no longer workable. If the Russian
has a couple or three killer stacks in the interior or western hexes, they
can ALL fire at any German units that dare to enter the factory. And believe
me, the +1 factory TEM and LOS hindrance is not enough to save your Aryan
hide here. So, am I missing some obvious tactic here? The only thing I can
come up with, is to use the DCs to rubble an exterior factory hex, giving
at least +3 cover to my brave Pioneers (+5 during the MPh if they use their
smoke grenades) while giving LOS to the factory interior to my HMG/MMGs in
nearby level 1 building locations. The problem is that, unless one uses a
set DC, its almost impossible to rubble a factory hex (30 column on the IFT,
+3 TEM, subsequent dr <= KIA # to rubble while adding +1 for stone bldg.).
And the problem with set DC is that one must somehow get inside the factory
and remain relatively unmolested for a whole turn in order to set it.
Again, am I missing some obvious tactics here or has the SL->ASL transition
actually unbalanced this scenario to such an extent?
-- Bob Strzelinski
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:46:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: Building Control, Hex Control, Out of Control
It would seem to me that the problem with Control lies, not in the ASLRB,
but in the scenario usage for VC purposes. About the only clarification I
can see that would be helpful would be whether Control of a Building equates
to Control of the hexes in that building.
Other than that, the VC in any scenario needs to be couched within the
confines of VC set forth in the ASLRB or provide SSR to explain any abherent
VC.
*-=Carl=-*
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:42:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things)
On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Doug Gibson wrote:
> About counting CG scenarios for ladder wins: my first impression is that I
> think it is a bad idea to count scenario wins at all; that's not the point of
> the CG. However, making the things winner-take-all will have a DRAMATIC
> effect on someone's rating for a single win or loss (which may have been quite
> close) so it's probably a necessary evil. My biggest worry is RB; could
> someone who has played through RB CG III comment on the possibility of the
> Russian player losing most of the scenarios but still winning the CG? If
> that's not a problem, then this wouldn't bother me.
I think one could easily lose scenarios two or three to one and still win
RB (as the Russians). In my albeit limited experience, the need to field
a respectable force makes winning and losing a given scenario not terribly
important.
> My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and make
> victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates (we've got to
> be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in RB!), FRU of course.
I'd say make that each scenario played in a CG counts as one quarter win with
the CG itself worth one win for every four scenarios played (FRU). That
would cut down on those lightning (conceded) victories.
What about the "free" three points per game played? On second
thought, maybe we should just
award a point for each CG victory and leave the ladder alone. Isn't there
glory enough for both participants just to finish a CG?
Of course the Laddermeister probably wants this as complicated as possible
to justify his demands for more pay!
:-)
Tim
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:39:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net>
Subject: Kakazu Ridge at WO?
I'm looking for a ladder/AREA game of Kakazu Ridge sometime on Saturday at
WO '94. It's one of the French-designed scenarios pitting the US Army vs.
the Japanese on Okinawa. I think it's on the archive (that must be where
I got) or was in one of the Digests. Seems
Any takers?
Tim Van Sant
tvansant@access.digex.net
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:29:05 CST
From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com
Subject: CG ladder points
Guys,
I think that you shouldn't get ANY points for winning a particular
CG date (scenario, whatever-the-hell-you-call-it), because they are not
the focus of the CG. I bet most Germans win the majority of days in RB CG III.
But maybe they still lose the CG. Should they get points for all those
daily wins? I think not. If you want to give a bonus of some kind for
a CG win, then that's fine with me. Maybe it should be static, like +5
for RB CG II, +10 for RB CG I, +20 for RB CG III, and maybe a +15 for
KGP CG I. Or else leave the system alone.
Matt (what about the Market-Garden mini-campaign from the '91 Annual) Shostak
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:39:45 CST
From: "Black, Stephen Thomas" <blackst@okra.millsaps.edu>
Subject: Players
Are there any face-to-face ASL players on the list from Mississippi? I have beenliving in Jackson for 4 years and only found two players. Is there anybody else out there?
Stephen Black Psychology Department
Millsaps College Blackst@okra.millsaps.edu
Jackson, MS 39210 601-974-1381
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:45:30 PST
From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli)
Subject: ELR + K/
Well, I guess we need to ask you-guys a question. Gerry's Germans in
The Commissar's House have been giving me hell, so I decided to shoot some of
them and of course we got into this mess of "what happens if" situations ! :-)
The question is what happens when a 8-3-8 engineer fails its MC by
rolling 6,6 which is also an ELR failure ?
Gerry says:
> My interpretation
> has been that the MC results are resolved first, then the ELR. On
> rereading the rules, I'd tend to say the opposite: the RB does say
> 'immediately replace' for ELR. However, since ELR failure makes an
> 838 into two 338s, and since two MC would then be needed, I think that
> the MC must be resolved first and then the ELR. -> failed MC w/ casualty
> reduction = broken 338, ELR disrupts it.
ASLRB says:
10.31 CASUALTY MC: If an unbroken unit rolls an original 12 during a MC, it
suffers Casualty Reduction and is broken [omitted] - after any unit replacement
which may also be required by ELR failure.
19.13 REPLACEMENT: An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount >
its ELR is immediately replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality
but same size. [EXC: A sq with an underscored Morale Factor is Replaced by its
two broken hs; a hs with an underscored Morale Factor is Distrupted instead. A
Casualty MC failure which also exceeds a squad's ELR causes the squad to be
Reduced to a broken hs of lesser quality]. {rest omitted}
So ? Do we get a broken green halfsquad or a distrupted engineer 3-3-8 ?
Inquiring minds want to know ! :-)
take care,
bahadir
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 12:52:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "P. Gowdy" <pgowdy@ptolemy.ss.uci.edu>
Subject: LA Players
Any LA players out there who would be willing to go face-to-face with me,
a 5+4 leader?
Pete
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:18:13 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: ASL Internet Player Index
Guys,
It has been a while, so I'll post this again. It is the most current
information for the folks who wished to be on this list.
Brian
This is an address list of people who are willing to play face-to-
face ASL. If you wish to join this list, please send me (brian@tpocc.gsfc.
nasa.gov, Sub: PERSONAL INFO) the necessary information and i'll gladly add
you to the list. I will periodically post this to the ASL discussion list.
I have the permission of everyone on this list to post their phone numbers
and addresses when available.
Please don't use this list as a means of obtaining addresses for junk-
mail soliciting.
If a persons email address is listed, please email them prior to
calling them. Unless otherwise specified, the phone numbers are home phone
numbers, so please use common sense when calling (read: don't call me after
10pm EST!)
I hope this helps you out when looking for some ftf play!
CALIFORNIA
Ed Allen
Berkeley, CA
510-848-9495
Doug Gibson
Los Angeles, CA
310-837-5372
Rod Holmes
Los Angeles, CA
310-769-0808
email: rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Jim Cotugno
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
714-380-5340 (w)
714-348-9050 (h)
David van Kan
Monterey, CA
408-649-8901
Bahadir Erimli
Pasadena, CA
818-568-3548
erimli@systems.caltech.edu
Joe White
Redwood City ( SF Bay Area ), CA
415-926-2421 (w)
415-365-6169 (h)
white@esa.slac.stanford.edu
Will Scarvie
San Diego, CA
619-271-7173
David Hull
Stanford, CA (SF Bay Area)
e-mail: hull@parc.xerox.com
COLORADO
Marty Snow
Boulder, CO
303-444-3735
ILLINOIS
Tom Trumpinski
Champaign, IL
217-333-0495 (w)
217-359-9104 (h)
Corey Hymes
Chicago, IL
708-458-4857
Robert Richardson
Chicago, IL (north side on the Lake)
312-338-0578
Matt Mencel
Macomb, IL 61455
309-836-2674
INDIANA
Thomas Ford
Bloomington, IN
812-330-8862
MAINE
Ethan Strauss
IO00865@maine.maine.edu
Dept. Plant Biology & Pathology Maple St. Apt.#1
University of Maine at Orono 04469 Bangor ME, 04401
207-581-2994 207-947-6017
MASSACHUSETTS
Jon Ozbal
Cambridge (also Boston and Greater Boston area), MA
John Reinstrom
Lexington, MA
cognex!eastcoast_grill!jack@uunet.uu.net
Charlie Hamilton
Watertown, MA
617-924-1407
hamilton@pictel.com
Tom Flaherty
(H)Whitman, MA
(W)Waltham, MA
tom@dmr.com
MARYLAND
Tim Van Sant
Baltimore, MD
410-744-3902
Chuck Powers
Columbia, MD
301-776-7069
Rusty Shields
Columbia, MD
410-799-0216
Brian Youse
Glen Burnie, MD
301-497-2506 (w)
410-969-2733 (h)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tom Grant
Derry, NH
603-437-4106
NEW JERSEY
Gradie Frederick
North Plainfield, NJ 07063
908-699-7640 (w)
908-668-1729 (h)
gef@ctt.bellcore.com
NEW YORK
Dave Cinabro
Ithaca, NY
607-255-1260 (w)
607-257-0732 (h)
Jeff Whitmire
Webster, NY
716-872-6447
OHIO
Bret Hildebran
Cleveland (Willoughby Hills), OH
216-646-3402 (w)
216-585-4986 (h)
hildebranb@astro.pc.ab.com (login)
Chris Farrell
Columbus, OH
614-291-6925
farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu
OREGON
Dade Cariaga
Portland, OR 97219
(503) 244-3190
Rich Wood
Salem, OR
503-363-7542
Stuart Craig
Tualatin, OR (Suburb of Portland)
503-692-9072
stuart_craig@mentorg.com
PENNSYLVANIA
Mustafa Unlu
Mellon Institute
4400 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15213
(412)268-3448
Carl Fago
State College, PA
814-234-2478
TEXAS
Ed Carter
Austin, TX
Home: 512-335-0421
Work: 512-338-7276
Internet: ed_carter@hpatc2.desk.hp.com
GEnie: J.CARTER57
Mike Seningen
Austin, TX
512-892-7169
Matthew Shostak
Austin, TX
512-280-8414
Matt Holiday
Dallas, TX
EMAIL: holiday@bnr.ca
PHONE: (H) 788-2575
Bruce Wehrle
Houston, TX
713-977-8846
J. Michael Tisdel
Plano, TX
214-519-2388 (w)
214-335-2916 (h)
VIRGINIA
Don Sargent
Chantilly, VA
703-830-3872
WASHINGTON
Torben Bang Nielsen
Bellevue, WA
206-462-0412
tbn@plato.ds.boeing.com
WISCONSIN
Bob Mosdal
Madison, WI
(608) 251-3791 Home
(608) 263-1307 Work
frm.rx1@mhs.hosp.wisc.edu Internet email
AUSTRAILIA
Brad McMahon
Coromandel Valley, South Australia (SA)
08-2705834
CANADA
Derick Hirasawa
Hamilton, Ontario
416-523-5704
Ron Zandbergen
Victoria, B.C. Canada
604-381-4646
ENGLAND
J. R. Tracy
8 Elsworthy Terrace
Primrose Hill
London, NW3 3DR
071 711 2210 (w)
071 483 1202 (h)
jr_tracy@il.us.swissbank.com
NORWAY
Geir Aalberg
0254 Oslo, Norway
(+47) 22 56 39 45
SWEDEN
Johan Bergstoem
Lund, Sweden
046-127947 (International: +46 46 127947)
Patrik Manlig
Gefle, Sweden
026-119274 (International: +46 26 119274)
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:03:52 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: Building Control
David,
Good description of building and hex control rules in general. But
I think you may have missed my point in this pedantic little discussion.
You seem to have made two assumptions. One is that having Control of
a building gives you Control of all unoccupied hexes within it, and the
other is that having Control of a hex gives you control of all
unoccupied Locations within it. Both sound reasonable, but neither is
in the rules. Location Control is mentioned nowhere in the rules except
the RB and KGP chapters, where it's used but not defined. (A Rules
Compiler would catch that. :-> )
FWIW, I kind of like the way you do it, but I'd like to hear how Mac
does it. My spin is that whoever gets the hex gets the empty Locations,
but that having the building doesn't get you the unoccupied hexes without
jogging through their ground level or Mopping Up. But this is all just
personal opinion since the rules don't say, and the way you do it makes
just as much sense.
I promised somebody I'd shut up on this topic, though, so I will try
to do so now until I get some official clarifications. (Trying to
win a Prize Spud, or at least keep from being docked more ladder points
for unruly behavior...)
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:12:42 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: Ammo Shortage
Dade said:
> Assume I have an MG with a B# of 11.
Okay. Maybe you should trade it in on a better one.
> 1) If ammo shortage is in effect, the B# becomes 10.
Yes.
> 2) If I roll a 12, the MG is disabled and removed from play.
Correct, by A.11 as referenced by A19.131
> 3) If I roll an 11, it is malfed normally.
No, if you roll an 11 it's disabled, as above. If you roll a 10
it's malfunctioned.
> 4) If I roll a 10, it is malfed and marked with a Low Ammo counter...
Ammo shortage for MG's simply lowers the B# by one and transforms
the original B# to an X#. Only vehicles and Guns get circled breakdown
numbers during an ammo shortage by A19.131.
[Considering that Dade corrected 1001 of my rules errors and beat the
tar out of my French when we played, all of this is highly suspect.
But I do have an open ASLRB in front of me for a change.]
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: ELR + K/
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 15:14:14 PST
> 10.31 CASUALTY MC: If an unbroken unit rolls an original 12 during a MC, it
> suffers Casualty Reduction and is broken [omitted] - after any unit replacement
> which may also be required by ELR failure.
>
> 19.13 REPLACEMENT: An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount >
> its ELR is immediately replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality
> but same size. [EXC: A sq with an underscored Morale Factor is Replaced by its
> two broken hs; a hs with an underscored Morale Factor is Distrupted instead. A
> Casualty MC failure which also exceeds a squad's ELR causes the squad to be
> Reduced to a broken hs of lesser quality]. {rest omitted}
>
> So ? Do we get a broken green halfsquad or a distrupted engineer 3-3-8 ?
> Inquiring minds want to know ! :-)
>
> take care,
> bahadir
Well, I would think that the result should be a disrupted 338. The rules you
have quoted above say that "Casualty MC failure which also exceeds a squad's
ELR causes the squad to be Reduced to a broken hs of lesser quality."
However, the same rule ALSO says that "a hs with an underscored Morale Factor
(as the 338 which results from the CR'd 838 is) is Disrupted instead." Given
that, I think that the correct deciphering is: 838 is cr'd & elr'd to a
broken HS of lesser quality; BUT, since it has a underlined morale, instead of
reducing to a lower HS we get a disrupted HS. This would be clearer if AH
were to reverse the order of the two sentences in the EXC in A19.13.
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:33:03 EST
From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton)
Subject: Re: ELR + K/
Bahadir asks:
> The question is what happens when a 8-3-8 engineer fails its MC by
> rolling 6,6 which is also an ELR failure ?
> Gerry says:
>> My interpretation
>> has been that the MC results are resolved first, then the ELR. On
>> rereading the rules, I'd tend to say the opposite: the RB does say
>> 'immediately replace' for ELR. However, since ELR failure makes an
>> 838 into two 338s, and since two MC would then be needed, I think that
>> the MC must be resolved first and then the ELR. -> failed MC w/ casualty
>> reduction = broken 338, ELR disrupts it.
> ASLRB says:
10.31 CASUALTY MC: If an unbroken unit rolls an original 12 during a MC, it
suffers Casualty Reduction and is broken [omitted] - after any unit replacement
which may also be required by ELR failure.
19.13 REPLACEMENT: An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount >
its ELR is immediately replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality
but same size. [EXC: A sq with an underscored Morale Factor is Replaced by its
two broken hs; a hs with an underscored Morale Factor is Distrupted instead. A
Casualty MC failure which also exceeds a squad's ELR causes the squad to be
Reduced to a broken hs of lesser quality]. {rest omitted}
> So ? Do we get a broken green halfsquad or a distrupted engineer 3-3-8 ?
Replacement comes first, then CR, then breaking. (G1.14 examples, and
the Q&A file):
A10.31 If an unbroken 4-6-7 squad suffers a Casualty MC that also
exceeds its ELR, does it undergo Replacement before or after Casualty
Reduction?
A. It is first Replaced, then it suffers Casualty Reduction, then it
becomes broken. {25-6}
A10.31 & A19.13 If an unbroken 6-5-8 SS squad (with its normal 5 ELR)
suffers a Casualty MC that also exceeds its ELR, is it Replaced by a
broken 3-4-8 SS HS?
A. Yes. {25-6}
So I assume that the 838 would work just like the 658: you get one
broken but non-disrupted 338 HS. In other words, the ELR failure
does nothing further.
ELR -> Replace with 2 HS's.
CR -> eliminate one of them.
break -> break the survivor.
Conclusion: Underlined morale is awesome.
Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
-----
From: abillsasl@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:24:13 EST
Subject: RE: Three Things
It would seem to me that a CG would justify only win/loss points
for one game played. However, would it not also justify scenario played
bonus points (only the extra 2?) for each scenario played.
This would give the win-loss points to each player and credit them
appropriately for the time spent on the game. This also makes it easy to
distinguish between RB CG III and a G-T CG as far as points received are
concerned. As far as the Market-Garden scenarios are concerned, each is a
seperate scenario with win/loss points for each.
Unfortunately I don't have the Annual handy, but I didn't think there was any
real carry-over between these scenarios.
Alan
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: G-T CG
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 22:16:58 CST
Martin,
As I went to post your questions from earlier today onto GEnie I noticed
that John Ferris had already done so. Here is the response from Dan Dolan
(the scenario designer):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games RoundTable
Category 21, Topic 2
Message 382 Tue Feb 15, 1994
D.DOLAN6 [Phlegm] at 20:14 EST
Wheel:
Please forward this to Martin Snow.
Regarding your question concerning SAN, check out GT6. Reductions to the SAN
do not carry over to the next Assault period.
As to the Wind question. GT2 states there is no wind at start. IMO this was
meant to mean the start of each Assault Period.
There was considerable debate during playtest as to whether or not rain should
have been included. Steve Swann's work showed it did in fact occur several
times during the nights depicted in the CG. I would say that you should feel
free to experiment with the effects weather changes might have on the course
of the battle. The debate was pretty evenly divided on who would benefit most
from rain falling. It would be more likely to occur during the night Assault
Period than the day one however.
Hope this helps.
------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Later,
Ed Carter
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: ELR + K/
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:49:29 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
> So I assume that the 838 would work just like the 658: you get one
> broken but non-disrupted 338 HS. In other words, the ELR failure
> does nothing further.
>
> ELR -> Replace with 2 HS's.
> CR -> eliminate one of them.
> break -> break the survivor.
>
> Conclusion: Underlined morale is awesome.
Dave's right here, no argument about that. I'm a little bit curious about
it, though. Let's use the above example. W/o the Q&A, I think it would work
like this:
ELR -> Replace with 2 HS
CR -> Use Random Selection to determine one HS to be eliminated
Break -> IF one of them survives, it's now broken
See the difference? I'm not looking for aruments either way, I just wanted
to point out that that Q&A is indeed a change to the rules (Yes, I know -
they do exist!).
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:53:30 +0100
From: oleboe@idt.unit.no
Subject: Re: KGP I Story
> The odds are probably pretty good if they were packaged in sequence and
> shipped in the same box. Someone on the assembly line just got momentarily
> confused.
>
> Share & Enjoy!
> Brent Pollock
The the odds are pretty good that someone here in Trondheim (Norway) is annoyed because of a missing page. I've got two copies of page 13-14 in my KGP package.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cut off my head,
what do I say:
Ole Boe
Me and my head
or oleboe@idt.unit.no
Me and my body?
-----
From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 05:54:00 BST
Subject: CG Ladder Points
Since Brian used the threat of physical violence to force me into
taking the Russians in this RB CG thing, I now feel compelled to lobby for
lotsa Ladder points for a Russian win and minimal Ladder points for a
German win. :)
>* FWIW, Phil tells me that on the GEnie ladder, a CG win is not any
>different than a standard scenario win.
Talk about working for minimum wage! How long's it take to play a RB
CG? I figure (with no prior experience) that you can play a dozen, give or
take a few, standard scenarios in the time it takes to play out RB CG I.
Now, I'm not overly concerned with my standing on the ladder, but if I
were, there's no way I would invest my time playing a CG that's only going
to net me one Ladder win. Instead, I'd play several standard scenarios
where, in roughly the same amount of time involved, I could possibly rack
up several Ladder wins.
>Extra points is fine, however, I hope you are not suggesting the ladder
>showing 3 wins and 3 losses for the CG participants!
That's exactly what we are suggesting for our playing of RB CG I.
>A campaign game is
>just that, _a_ game, i.e. 1 win and 1 loss.
Bite your tongue! To hear Brian tell it, RB CGs are ASL nirvana.
Seriously, a CG is not just one game but a series of interrelated games
(scenarios). I'm really stuck on this "time is money" concept. If each
CG scenario doesn't count for a full-blown Ladder scenario (and, for
various reasons, it shouldn't) then the overall potential reward for a
twelve scenario CG should be roughly equivalent to that of twelve playings
of "Aachen's Pall" or "Bloody Red Beach".
>How about allowing the participants to gamble their points: "I'll bet
>you
>250 points I can beat you at KGP CG I!". :-)
Now you're talkin'! A man after my own heart. "Geez, you just beat
me at KGP CG I. Double or nothing on the G-T CG?"
>About counting CG scenarios for ladder wins: my first impression is
>that I think it is a bad idea to count scenario wins at all; that's not
>the point of the CG. However, making the things winner-take-all will
>have a DRAMATIC effect on someone's rating for a single win or loss
>(which may have been quite close) so it's probably a necessary evil. My
I agree. If, for some reason, Brian manages to win the majority
scenarios but by such a slim margin that I'm able to win the CG on the
last scenario, I shouldn't get all the marbles. Yet, since I accomplished
the real objective, I should get the best marbles. Too, this why Tom
threw this discussion at the list-- we don't want CGs to dramatically
affect the ladder point system.
>biggest worry is RB; could someone who has played through RB CG III
>comment on the possibility of the Russian player losing most of the
>scenarios but still winning the CG? If that's not a problem, then this
>wouldn't bother me.
Yeah, like I said I have no experience at the RB CG and I'm starting
to feel like Brian suckered me in over my head. Really, the more
discussion on this the easier it'll be for the underpaid Laddermeister and
the fairer it'll be for anyone who wants to do a Ladder CG.
>My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and
This is what Brian and I suggested.
>make victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates
>(we've got to be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in
>RB!), FRU of course.
Red Barricades CG I has twelve scenarios (dates). Let's say Brian
kicks my butt royally, winning every scenario and the CG itself. That's
six wins for winning twelve scenarios and three wins for the CG. I like
it. The scoring system that is, not Brian's kicking my butt. This is
exactly what herr Youse and I came up with just BSing, tossin' ideas
around and saying "Yeah, that sounds cool." Nine possible wins for twelve
scenarios is acceptable on my "time is points" pay scale. I really gotta
read chapter O soon. What are Idle Days? They sound like something
Ladder points shouldn't be given out for.
>If they are so much trouble to splice into the exisiting framework
>why not create a separate ladder for CGs (or even one for each,
>especially RB CGIII)? You could have a Strategic Ladder for the CGs and
>a Tactical Ladder for regular scenarios. Doing it this way would also
>provide the option of counting each day of a CG towards the Tactical
Ladder.
I don't like this idea much. I'm just a FGN on the Ladder, looking
to change my position (up or down-- I just want some action) and now you
want to relegate me to some Ladder ghetto. I think CGs can be dovetailed
nicely into the Ladder with a little insight from those experienced at
them. Also, establishing several ladders sounds like more work in the
long run for the Laddermeister who, the last I heard was threatening to
strike for higher wages.
>I think one could easily lose scenarios two or three to one and still
>win RB (as the Russians). In my albeit limited experience, the need to
>field a respectable force makes winning and losing a given scenario not
>terribly important.
>
>
>>My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and
>>make victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates
>>(we've got to be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in
>>RB!), FRU of course.
>
>I'd say make that each scenario played in a CG counts as one quarter win
>with the CG itself worth one win for every four scenarios played (FRU).
>That would cut down on those lightning (conceded) victories.
Let's see, play twelve scenarios get three wins and three for the
whole enchilada. I'm back to thinking it's more economical to knock out
twelve games of "Cibik's Ridge". Still, if this 1:3 Russian to German
wins ratio is accurate then maybe one Ladder win for every three scenario
wins is more appropriate. I dunno.
>What about the "free" three points per game played? On second
Free Ladder points? Hey, Brian, free Ladder points! Let's knock out
a dozen rounds of "Aachen's Pall" (his favorite scenario) at WO and scarf
up on these.
>thought, maybe we should just award a point for each CG victory and
>leave the ladder alone. Isn't there glory enough for both participants
>just to finish a CG? Of course the Laddermeister probably wants this as
>complicated as possible to justify his demands for more pay!
>
>:-)
Yes, it will indeed be glorious when I whoop up in this CG. But as
it is I can either play a CG or play several Ladder games. I'd like to do
both at the same time. And I'm sure all of this will make a good
bargaining chip in the upcoming Laddermeister labor disputes.
> I think that you shouldn't get ANY points for winning a particular
>CG date (scenario, whatever-the-hell-you-call-it), because they are not
>the focus of the CG. I bet most Germans win the majority of days in RB
>CG III. But maybe they still lose the CG. Should they get points for
>all those daily wins? I think not. If you want to give a bonus of some
>kind for a CG win, then that's fine with me. Maybe it should be static,
>like +5 for RB CG II, +10 for RB CG I, +20 for RB CG III, and maybe a
>+15 for KGP CG I. Or else leave the system alone.
This is the all or nothing position. As mentioned earlier, it
doesn't seem fair that someone who puts all the time and effort into a CG
and narrowly loses should be penalized as greatly as someone who gets
stomped on thoroughly. Although individual scenarios are not the focus of
the CG, they still count for something-- you're not gonna win the CG if
you play the individual scenarios poorly.
>Matt (what about the Market-Garden mini-campaign from the '91 Annual)
>Shostak
Oh yeah, that reminds me-- let's not forget about "Cat and Mouse"
either. I wanna get Ladder points as I learn the Night rules too.
Well, I hope all of this has gotten you to formulating some thoughts
on this issue. Like I said, the more discussion the better.
Hey Brian, howsabout the loser buys a twelve pack of "Lone Star"....
Steve
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 13:59:02 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: CG Ladder points
I think all this discussion about CG ladder points is somewhat
overdone. The fun in a CG is in the playing, not in the ladder
points. If anyone seriously is not going to play a CG because so few
ladder points can be lost, I think he takes the ladder much too
seriously.
If you want my opinion: a CG is one (large) game, so why not count it
as such? We don't rate Bloody Red Beach for more points than Aachen's
Pall, even though it's a lot more "work" (to quote another poster).
Bas.
-----
From: "Rusty Shields" <D4F@CU.NIH.GOV>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:14:51 EST
Subject: WO94
Hey guys,
Anybody like to set up a match for WO94? I only plan to be there
Saturday, and I'd like to have a game planned to start at about
9:00 am.
Any takers?
Rusty Shields
d4f@cu.nih.gov
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 07:31:30 -0800
From: dade_cariaga@rainbow.mentorg.com (Dade Cariaga)
Subject: ASL Gaming Weekend!
Howdy, howdy.
Although tame, no doubt, when compared to the smoke and ruin that surrounds the
East Coast biggies, we in Oregon will be experiencing an ASL tournament of our
own this spring. Right here in my hometown of Portland! As you can imagine,
I'm all aquiver in anticipation.
I know some of you on the list hail from relatively accessible geographical
points (Seattle, Idaho, etc.), so I'll post the info. (I'm guessing, Patrik,
but I suspect Sweden is a little far ;-).
******************************************************************************
ASL Gaming Weekend
March 26th and 27th
10am to 10pm
Place:
Northwest Boardgaming Society Clubhouse
717 SE Main Street
Portland, OR
Cost: a mere $2.50/day.
Registration at door. Call ahead to reserve a spot in the Multi-round
tournament.
Direct questions and reservations to Bill Bold, phone (503)240-0497.
********************************************************************************
Again, the level of refinement/organization here is probably somewhat less than
that customary with East Coast tourneys, but it's a beginning. The last NW
tourney I attended featured Mike McGrath. If we can get one or two ASL "names"
to show, we may even get some legitimacy in the AH circles.
Email me if this sounds interesting and you want to talk to someone other than
the tournament organizer.
Dade
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:16:44 EST
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Re: CG Ladder Points
Subject: CG Ladder Points
> Since Brian used the threat of physical violence to force me into
>taking the Russians in this RB CG thing, I now feel compelled to lobby for
>lotsa Ladder points for a Russian win and minimal Ladder points for a
>German win. :)
Physical Violence? Heck, for 500 ladder points I'll trade you sides...
> >A campaign game is
> >just that, _a_ game, i.e. 1 win and 1 loss.
> Bite your tongue! To hear Brian tell it, RB CGs are ASL nirvana.
>Seriously, a CG is not just one game but a series of interrelated games
>(scenarios). I'm really stuck on this "time is money" concept. If each
>CG scenario doesn't count for a full-blown Ladder scenario (and, for
>various reasons, it shouldn't) then the overall potential reward for a
>twelve scenario CG should be roughly equivalent to that of twelve playings
>of "Aachen's Pall" or "Bloody Red Beach".
RB CGs are ASL Nirvana. The absolute best thing there is in ASL. Better
than ... well, maybe not better than that. Still, they are great fun and
should be tried by everyone.
One CG = 1 Ladder win/loss just is not fair. Sure, it is just a game and
people should ignore ladder rankings (Hi Bas!), but those of us with no life
have nothing to do except banter about shoving our rankings in other peoples
faces! Seriously, though, ladder rankings are important to me, I like to know
where I stand in relation to other friends/players. They are really pretty
bogus, in that you can "win" the losing side of a scenario, but it is nice
to have some positional figure attached to your skill level.
Steve has pointed out that why would I want to rank a CG when I can play
Cibik's Ridge 24 times in the time it takes to play CGI. Well, I want to play
the CG. I want it to count in the ladder, as I want to increase my sample
size (number of games played). But, I want it to be fairly rewarded.
In a typical CG, the Germans and Russians will split (roughly) wins and losses
for the "days". The Germans may have more wins, but the Russians only have
to hang on to win the entire CG. So, during CGI's 12 days, there may be 3
Idle days and 9 "scenarios". This would, under Steve's suggestion to Tom,
be worth 4 ladder wins total, and 3 ladder wins for the CG. The players should
report the scenario day wins as they occur, to offset the sudden "shoot" effect
a report of seven wins vs. one opponent may have.
Perfect. We get a little incentive to play a CG (outside the desire to play)
but are not as rewarded as spending a weekend splitting 12 games of Aachen's
Pall.
> >How about allowing the participants to gamble their points: "I'll bet
> >you
> >250 points I can beat you at KGP CG I!". :-)
>
> Now you're talkin'! A man after my own heart. "Geez, you just beat
>me at KGP CG I. Double or nothing on the G-T CG?"
>
I have to admit, I really like this idea, though it is totally bogus for any
decent ranking system. Actually, this is how Steve and I started working
out the idea of multiple wins for a CG.
> I agree. If, for some reason, Brian manages to win the majority
>scenarios but by such a slim margin that I'm able to win the CG on the
If? If? How's 'bout "when"! 8)
>last scenario, I shouldn't get all the marbles. Yet, since I accomplished
>the real objective, I should get the best marbles. Too, this why Tom
>threw this discussion at the list-- we don't want CGs to dramatically
>affect the ladder point system.
> Yeah, like I said I have no experience at the RB CG and I'm starting
>to feel like Brian suckered me in over my head. Really, the more
Over your head? This is supposed to be fun!
>discussion on this the easier it'll be for the underpaid Laddermeister and
>the fairer it'll be for anyone who wants to do a Ladder CG.
> >My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and
> This is what Brian and I suggested.
> >make victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates
>(we've got to be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in
>RB!), FRU of course.
I like this suggestion a lot, since it applies to every HASL module.
> >If they are so much trouble to splice into the exisiting framework
> >why not create a separate ladder for CGs (or even one for each,
> >especially RB CGIII)? You could have a Strategic Ladder for the CGs and
> >a Tactical Ladder for regular scenarios. Doing it this way would also
> >provide the option of counting each day of a CG towards the Tactical
> >Ladder.
> I don't like this idea much. I'm just a FGN on the Ladder, looking
>to change my position (up or down-- I just want some action) and now you
>want to relegate me to some Ladder ghetto. I think CGs can be dovetailed
>nicely into the Ladder with a little insight from those experienced at
>them. Also, establishing several ladders sounds like more work in the
>long run for the Laddermeister who, the last I heard was threatening to
>strike for higher wages.
Blech, I don't like this idea much as a separate CG ladder would generate
little movement within the frame of the ladder. Of course, it would be easy
to administer since updates would only be necessary every six or so months.
BTW, Steve, I think you meant FNG not FGN. Or am I missing yet another
acronym?
> >What about the "free" three points per game played? On second
Everyone already gets two points per scenario played. Maybe this is all that
is necessary, but this doesn't reflect who wins or loses a scenario, it is just
"reward" for being active.
> >thought, maybe we should just award a point for each CG victory and
> >leave the ladder alone. Isn't there glory enough for both participants
> >just to finish a CG? Of course the Laddermeister probably wants this as
Not much glory. Actually, I've played in three or four CGIII and have not seen
one go the distance. It certainly can happen. Finishing a CG isn't a big
deal, if you play much ASL. It is large. It is time consuming. But so is
playing Bloody Red Beach over a week or two, then setting up a "Final Battle",
...
How many big scenarios do people play? This would have been a good survey
question. Do people prefer "tournament" scenarios? "Monsters"?
> >Matt (what about the Market-Garden mini-campaign from the '91 Annual)
> >Shostak
Matt,
The mini-campaign is nothing but a bunch of tourny scenarios with some
"play 'em all" system of figuring out a winner. Units dont' carry over, the
scenarios are totally unrelated, other than they happened on/near the same
date. If you played all (7?), you should get credit for 7 scenarios.
BTW, "A Bridge Too Far" was on two nights ago on the Lifetime Network,
I think. Great movie. They just don't make 'em like that anymore, can you
imagine the cost of a movie with that many "stars" in it?
But, did anyone notice that 30 Corps vehicles all had US stars painted
on 'em? I'm not sure, but I doubt that the British Halftracks of 30 Corps
would keep US designation.
Gotta love the part of the first German probe across the bridge, why
did they waste a piat shot on the Kubelwagon when the guys in the building
had an obvious 12(-Urqhart) shot on the star vehicle line?
> Hey Brian, howsabout the loser buys a twelve pack of "Lone Star"....
Deal. Just make sure it is cold. Ice cold.
>Steve
Have a nice day,
Brian
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:35:25 CST
From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary)
Subject: Another Rout Question
Imagine a broken and DM squad that is in OG and forced to rout.
Assume that the nearest building is exactly 6 MF away across
open ground, but 9+1/2 MF away if the squad moves through a
grainfield. I have always played that the squad did not have to
risk interdiction to reach cover in a single RtPh, but could
take the safer path to cover (provided of course, both rout
paths are otherwise legal).
However, when reading the Q&A file, I came across:
"A 10.51 If a DM/broken unit that must rout is within 6 MF of
the nearest woods/building, must attempt to reach that
woods/building in a single RtPh?
A. Yes, unless it uses Low Crawl, but it need not take the
shortest route in hexes/MF to do so. Even if it uses Low Crawl
however, it must still do so towards that woods/building (i.e.
at no time may it increase the range between itself and that
woods/buiding, and it must end the RtPh closer to it than it
was at the start of that phase). {92} "
Although this seems clear, it condraticts part of the ASLRB, in
A 10.531, we have
".....Routing units, unlike units in the MPh may pay combined
entry costs to enter Open Ground hexes containing entrenchments
or a pillbox (see B 27.41). The cost to enter/exit
fortifications within a hex are not part of the total MF cost
used when calculating the nearest building/woods hex. Whether a
broken unit pays such MF costs during the RtPh is up to the
owning player and the speed with which he wishes to enter such
terrain; he does not have to ignore the safer and higher MF
cost option in order to reach cover in the same RtPh, although
this is his option."
So what gives? If I replace the grain with OG hexes containing
foxholes, do I have to risk interdiction?
This question brought to you by
Mike O'Leary
moleary@math.nwu.edu
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:19:23 EST
From: Paul Stoecker <stoecker@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
Subject: ASL PBeM
Folks,
Are there play by e-mail games? Are templates made for such a thing? And
would anyone like to play such a game? I only have Paratrooper and the First
module (whose name escapes me at the moment), although I am looking a getting
the new ASL historical module. I would be available at the end of march to
start play. Thanks for the help.
Paul
stoecker@gandalf.rutgers.edu
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:19:23 PST
From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli)
Subject: 8-3-8s
Well, I don't like it, but the answer turns out to be a broken 338
when an 838 rolls 6,6 which is also ELR reduction for him. In fact, I hate it !
I hate all 838 ! This is so unfair ! :( :( :(
Thanks to all you guys who answered my question.
take care,
bahadir :-)
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: CG Ladder Points
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:08:19 CST
Guys,
[Sorry about the previous blank msg!]
If you want to make a CG game worth more points, then fine. You can even
make each CG scenario worth 1 win/loss. But to just say that a CG is
worth X wins/losses is not a true representation of what a person has
done as far as win/losses. If a guy wins 2 CGs and 2 regular scenarios,
his record is now 9-2. I don't think so! If a basketball game goes into
4 overtime periods do we give the victor 2 wins since it took twice as
long to play and was twice as much work?
Just one former lurker's thoughts.
Later,
Ed
-----
From: Doug Gibson <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
Subject: Looking for a new Ladder game!
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:08:09 PST
Well, I've just finished one of my ladder games and am looking for another.
I've got the modules through Hollow Legions plus RB and KGP, all the Annuals,
and a couple of Generals with scenarios, plus all the old boards except for
boards 7 (which I could probably borrow from an inactive player I know if
necessary) and 9 (which I'm not so sure about). I'm willing to try about
anything; I'm not very experienced with armor (currently playing my first
armor scenario against a real opponent) and haven't tried night yet, but I'm
willing to learn. My boards 4, 5, and 16 are currently tied up in a game of
Blocking Action at Lipki, but I could probably borrow 4 or 5 and board 16
isn't likely to see any more action so I could just remove it.
Oh, I'd kind of prefer to play something other than Germans vs. Russians, as
that's what the game I've still got going AND the one I just finished are.
--
-Doug Gibson
dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:13:11 MST
From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712)
Subject: Plexiglass
I bought a 0.100" sheet of plexiglass to cover the maps and it doesn't
lay flat. :-( Is this common, or did I get a bad product? Should I
buy some clamps to hold it down. What sizes of plexiglass work the
best?
Thanks,
Don Hancock
uuh, a rules question. I can't post without a rules question!
Can't think of any at the moment :-)
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:06:28 CST
From: efcm@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: Charleston FTF?
I'm on a business trip to Charleston SC. Would anyone be interested in
a face-to-face game this weekend? I'm looking forward to doing
something other than sitting in my hotel room this weekend.
Thanks.
Erik
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:44:57 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Plexiglass
Try something about 1/4" thick. It will look like there is an extra counter
in each stack at first, but you quickly adjust and going back to no cover
is no problem.
Fred
> I bought a 0.100" sheet of plexiglass to cover the maps and it doesn't
> lay flat. :-( Is this common, or did I get a bad product? Should I
> buy some clamps to hold it down. What sizes of plexiglass work the
> best?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Hancock
>
> uuh, a rules question. I can't post without a rules question!
>
> Can't think of any at the moment :-)
>
>
>
-----
From: Ed Carter <ed@a3197pm.ssr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Plexiglass
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:08:57 CST
>
> I bought a 0.100" sheet of plexiglass to cover the maps and it doesn't
> lay flat. :-( Is this common, or did I get a bad product? Should I
Yes, especially when it gets older.
> buy some clamps to hold it down. What sizes of plexiglass work the
> best?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Hancock
>
> uuh, a rules question. I can't post without a rules question!
>
> Can't think of any at the moment :-)
>
I have my games setup on a workbench so that I can use stick pins to pin
the plexi down. I have also used 2 equally sized pieces of plexiglass with
the map sheets between them, use the clips from those cheap notebook covers
to clip the edges together. Works great!
Ed
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 13:31:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brent Pollock <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: New to PBEM
I wouldn't mind trying my hand at a play-by-e-mail scenario if anyone's
interested in teaching me the intricacies of the PBEM method. I've plenty
of experience, all the modules, all the Annuals (EXC: '93b) and the
GENERAL scenarios. I'll play any theatre, nationality and period and I
quite enjoy DYO (especially in conjunction with the DYO My Way article
from the GENERAL). I would rather not play any RB because I'm involved in a
CGIII and wouldn't mind a change of scene(ario). My Mother-in-Law arrives
the last Sunday of this month and I lose my gaming space then.
Share & Enjoy!
Brent Pollock
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:19:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul F Ferraro <pferraro+@pitt.edu>
Subject: On My Honor....
Hi all!
I need the "rules" for the honor system regarding PBeM ASL.
My address: pferraro+@pitt.edu
Thanks! Hope to "see" some of you soon (hiding in a stone bldg no doubt!).
Paul Ferraro
-----
Subject: Minefields and Snipers
From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:45:00 -0640
Howdy,
ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes:
>Here's a funny situation that happened Sunday during KGP 1:
>Shadows of Death. There are 6-FP AP Known Minefields in
>six preassigned hexes on the board, which are given as a
>terrain SSR rather than as part of either side's OB. I
>drove a Sherman through one of these hexes (not too
>desparate, as it would take snake eyes to immobilize it and
>a long time to move around it) and rolled a 4, which is
>both sides' SAN (after the +2 for a Night scenario is
>applied to the SAN on the OB).
>
>Whose sniper should be activated? For that matter, who
>should have rolled the minefield attack?
I don't have an answer for you. Minefield attacks are
conducted by "the owning player" (B28.41), and here there is
no owner. Your solution, ignoring Sniper effects, sounds
fine. Some alternatives, all equally ad hoc, are (1) if
the mines are obviously placed to benefit one player, give
him the ownership, or (2) since Sniper attacks "offset"
good results in an attack, have "the owning player" be the
player whose units are not entering the minefield. I
personally like the latter (if ownership is not obvious)
because I like to see Sniper attacks in the game.
So long
JR
---
~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo
-----
From: nexus@isis.cgd.ucar.EDU (Jeff Berry)
Subject: Survey....
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:20:41 MST
Ok, I was bored. Here is my interpretation of the fave scenarios
from survey mailing 4. I threw out all the ones that only had
one choice, any errors that crept in are mine, of course.
JB
16 4 The Commissar's House
13 A25 Cold Crocodiles
12 RB-III The Barrikady
12 1 Fighting Withdrawal
10 A32 Zon with the Wind
9 RB3 Bread Factory #2
8 E Hill 621
8 A8 The Agony of Doom
7 10 The Citadel
6 KGPCG1 Clash at Stoumont
6 A Guards Counterattack
6 23 Under The Noel Trees
5 RB6 Turned Away
5 G6 Rocket's Red Glare
5 A38 North Bank
5 67 Cibik's Ridge
5 24 The Mad minute
5 21 Among the Ruins
4 T1 Gavin Take
4 RB-I Into the Factory
4 KGP3 Panthers in the Mist
4 G11 Pegasus Bridge (26.5)
4 G Hube's Pocket (23.5)
4 A47 White Tigers
4 71 Jungle Citadel
4 54 Bridge to Nowhere
4 39 Turning the Tables
4 30 Sylvan Death
3 T4 Shklov's Labors Lost
3 T2 The Puma Prowls
3 RB4 To the Rescue
3 RB1 One Down, Two to Go
3 76 End of the Ninth
3 73 Hell or High Water
3 66 The Bushmasters
3 40 Fort McGregor
3 37 Khamsin
3 33 The Cossacks Are Coming
3 32 Subterranean Quarry
3 14 Silence that Gun
3 11 Defiance on Hill 30
2 T9 Niscemi-Biscari Highway
2 RB-II Operation Hubertus
2 P The Road to Wiltz (26.1)
2 N Soldiers of Destruction
2 D2 Last Act in Lorraine II
2 D Hedgehog at Piepsk
2 B The Tractor Works
2 ASLUG14 Morgan's Stand
2 A60 Totsugeki!
2 A59 Death at Carentan
2 A34 Lash Out
2 A22 Crux of Calais
2 82 For Honor Alone
2 8 The Fugitives
2 79 Bridge of the Seven Planets
2 77 Le Herisson
2 74 Bloody Red Beach
2 65 Red Star, Red Sun
2 62 Bungle in the Jungle
2 60 On the Kokoda Trail
2 6 Red Packets
2 51 The Taking of Takrouna 51
2 48 Toujours L'Audace
2 44 The Gauntlet
2 43 Into The Fray
2 42 Point of no return
2 38 Escape from Derna
2 34 A new kind of foe
2 12 Confusion Reigns
-----
From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney)
Subject: Minefields and Snipers
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:46:42 MST
>Whose sniper should be activated? For that matter, who
>should have rolled the minefield attack?
All I can say is that I was deeply scarred by the indignity of
having to roll a minefield attack on one of my own units routing
through one of my minefields in Red Barricades. I rolled low enough
to kill the broken unit and then had to eat a Sniper attack. No one
should have to suffer so.
rk
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:00:57 PST
From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm)
Subject: Re: Minefields and Snipers
>
> >Whose sniper should be activated? For that matter, who
> >should have rolled the minefield attack?
>
> All I can say is that I was deeply scarred by the indignity of
> having to roll a minefield attack on one of my own units routing
> through one of my minefields in Red Barricades. I rolled low enough
> to kill the broken unit and then had to eat a Sniper attack. No one
> should have to suffer so.
>
> rk
>
Then don't buy minefields. :)
Fred
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:38:35 PST
From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Survey....
>Ok, I was bored. Here is my interpretation of the fave scenarios
>from survey mailing 4. I threw out all the ones that only had
>one choice, any errors that crept in are mine, of course.
>
>JB
>
>
>16 4 The Commissar's House
.
[6 deleted]
.
>8 A8 The Agony of Doom
Hmm, I wonder if Tuomo stuffed the ballot box to get his favorite in the
top 10. And you thought Agony of Doom was unbalanced!! Just play the
Laddermeister. He'll show you how to do it. [Snicker][Guffaw] :-)
Sorry, Tom, couldn't help that one.
Dave
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:07:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Glenn E. Elliott" <gee@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things)
On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Timothy Van Sant wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Doug Gibson wrote:
>
> > My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and make
> > victory of the CG itself worth one win for every four CG dates (we've got to
> > be careful with our definitions; they're only "days" in RB!), FRU of course.
>
> I'd say make that each scenario played in a CG counts as one quarter win with
> the CG itself worth one win for every four scenarios played (FRU). That
> would cut down on those lightning (conceded) victories.
It would? Wouldn't counting CG scenarios as a half win be even _more_
of an incentive to play the game out?
I actually like the idea of 1/4 win per CG scenario better than 1/2, but
I don't really know why.
> What about the "free" three points per game played?
It's two per game played, unless der Laddermeister changed it while I
was asleep.
> On second thought, maybe we should just
> award a point for each CG victory and leave the ladder alone. Isn't there
> glory enough for both participants just to finish a CG?
How's this sound:
Each CG scenario counts as 1/4 game, rounding mathematically. That is,
0.25 rounds down, 0.75 rounds up, and 0.50 rounds to the even number
(both 1.5 and 2.5 round to 2). The CG itself counts as a full game.
In addition, each player receives 1 pt per CG scenario completed.
For long CGs, the players will need to keep track of the order in which
the CG scenarios were won so that der Laddermeister can adjust the point
totals sequentially. The CG "game" should be figured after the awards
for the scenarios (or fractions thereof).
This makes those big boomers like RB CGIII worth playing without putting
too much on the line.
Glenn Elliott <gee@eskimo.com>
Playtest Coordinator
Wizards of the Coast, Inc
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:34:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Glenn E. Elliott" <gee@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CG Ladder Points
On Wed, 16 Feb 1994 s.petersen3@genie.geis.com wrote:
> >A campaign game is
> >just that, _a_ game, i.e. 1 win and 1 loss.
>
> Bite your tongue! To hear Brian tell it, RB CGs are ASL nirvana.
> Seriously, a CG is not just one game but a series of interrelated games
> (scenarios). I'm really stuck on this "time is money" concept. If each
> CG scenario doesn't count for a full-blown Ladder scenario (and, for
> various reasons, it shouldn't) then the overall potential reward for a
> twelve scenario CG should be roughly equivalent to that of twelve playings
> of "Aachen's Pall" or "Bloody Red Beach".
I like it! Time is money! That means I'm gonna get _RICH_ as soon as I
finish whomping Tim in The Pouppeville Exit. We've been playing for
what, at least a year now, so that oughtta be worth at _LEAST_ 12
scenarios, right Tim? :-)
What? You meant actual time spent playing? Damn...
> >My suggestion would be that each CG scenario counts as a half-win, and
>
> This is what Brian and I suggested.
I could go with that, but for some reason I still like 1/4 win better.
> What are Idle Days? They sound like something Ladder points shouldn't
> be given out for.
They're CG dates on which no scenario is played, which is why we should
refer to CG scenarios in stead of CG dates. I agree that they shouldn't
count.
> Free Ladder points? Hey, Brian, free Ladder points! Let's knock out
> a dozen rounds of "Aachen's Pall" (his favorite scenario) at WO and scarf
> up on these.
Go ahead... someone's gotta lose those 12 games, which has a tendency to
drag you down when you're above 1000, and up when you're below 1000.
The two free points per game are in there to reward people like Brian
who were putting effort into supporting the ladder in its early days,
and are still there to continue that reward.
Glenn Elliott <gee@eskimo.com>
Playtest Coordinator
Wizards of the Coast, Inc
-----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:48:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "Glenn E. Elliott" <gee@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Survey....
On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Jeff Berry wrote:
> Ok, I was bored. Here is my interpretation of the fave scenarios
> from survey mailing 4. I threw out all the ones that only had
> one choice, any errors that crept in are mine, of course.
Thanks, Jeff, saves me the trouble of doing the same thing... :-)
> 4 G11 Pegasus Bridge (26.5)
You guys are joking, right?
Okay, here's the deal. I'll take all 4 of ya on at once, but I get to
be the Germans in all 4 games. After the whomping I took at Don
Hancock's hands when I played the Brits, I'll never be able pass a
morale check with a tan counter again...
Either Don and I seriously screwed up some rule/SSR, or this scenario
is hopelessly unbalanced in favor of the Krauts.
You can even have the balance provisions...
Glenn Elliott <gee@eskimo.com>
Playtest Coordinator
Wizards of the Coast, Inc
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 10:19:39 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
About CG's and ladder standings...
Unfortunately, a CG is not like any old scenario. The scenarios are
nowhere near balanced sometimes. Then why would the loosing side want
to keep playing if they've already lost? In fact, if the Germans have
killed almost all of the Russians, why would they want to take that
last building when they can rack up ladder points by not doing it and
keep on getting cheap ladder wins?
I've seen at least three conceded RB CGs, in fact the KGP CG we finished
two weeks ago was the first CG I have ever completed. I don't think any
scoring system is going to change that.
What I don't like about conceding, is if the scoring system allows for
it to be used as a dirty tactic. Let's say the germans have won the first
three or four scenarios in RB CG III. They can easily do that. Then they
conced. What will happen?? If the scoring system doesn't take care of
that, you'll get a german win - even though the _germans_ conceded!
That's why I favour treating the whole CG as _one_ game. It can be worth
more points if you wish, but it's _one_ big game. Anything else I feel is
against the spirit of the CG as a whole. Besides, as most of the scenarios
in a CG wouldn't be very balanced, I wouldn't ever wat to play a CG as a
ladder game if each scenario counted.
But how about this:
A CG is worth <number of dates>*<multiplier>*<win percentage of CG scenarios>
That would mean that a German RB CG III win, with a multiplier of .25
and a win:loss record of 8:12 would be worth 30*.25*.4=3 times as many
points as a normal game.
If the Germans should _really_ stomp the Russians, however, and win 20 out
of 20 scenarios, he would be awarded 30*.25*1=7.5 times as many points as
a normal game.
And, in the scenario where one side concedes (which IMHO is one of the
more glorious ways of winning a scenario - if you force the other side to
concede, that normally means he's smashed to bits), you would still have
a win:loss record, and a conceded victory would be worth as many points
as a normal victory if one side really has been thrashed. If it's used
in the above example of sleaze tactic?? Since the germans concede - they
get no points whatsoever! That's IMHO good. _And_ since the russians has
not done really well, they would get 30*.25*0 = zero points!
Ah, and bonus points for a CG would be one or two points for each _scenario_
played - anything else would not be fair.
Glenn also has a point that the wins should be awarded sequentially. If
someone wins a CG and gets 7.5 times as many points as normal, that could
push the losing player way too far down on points. Better to award the
"wins" one at a time, which means bashing on someone who's already lying
down is worth successively less.
What do you think?
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:00:50 +0100
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: CG Ladder Points
Brian Youse <brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> Steve has pointed out that why would I want to rank a CG when I can
> play Cibik's Ridge 24 times in the time it takes to play CGI. Well,
> I want to play the CG. I want it to count in the ladder, as I want
> to increase my sample size (number of games played). But, I want it
> to be fairly rewarded.
And playing The Road to Wiltz takes 24 times as long to play as
Aachen's Pall. Playing PBEM takes longer than FTF, even in real
playing time (at least with me). Some games are over in 3 turns while
others take 10. This has never been a reason to credit them
differently.
> but it is nice to have some positional figure attached to your skill
> level.
And while talking about fairness, is it fair that some people can get
lots of ladder points with FTF games while all my ladder games have to
be PBEM? Is your skill level greater just because you happen to have
more opponents on this list?
Anyway, although I don't agree with Brian I don't care much about this
issue so don't count my ramblings as a vote against.
Bas.
-----
From: kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney)
Subject: Re: Survey Results (IIFT)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:53:15 MST
Survey says:
>Where do you stand on the Fire Table issue?
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>17 [168] I use the IFT or we don`t play.
>66 [169] I usually use the IFT, but might try the IIFT sometime.
>30 [170] I tend to use the IFT.
>18 [171] I tend to use the IIFT.
>14 [172] I usually use the IIFT, but might try the IFT sometime.
>5 [173] I use the IIFT or we don`t play.
I have to admit that this really surprised me. Not to reopen
the debate on the merits of either table, but of the ASL players I've
ever run into, I estimate that 90% prefer the Incremental IFT. Many
of those I talked to who prefered the IFT almost seemed embarrassed
about it, as if they felt they were resisting enormous peer pressure.
Since I've not met many players outside Texas/Colorado/the west, I
wonder if there's a significant geographical dependence on IIFT
preference. Or maybe its popularity is not what it used to be. Maybe
when Mark Nixon put himself on the 'Nay' side in print, it emboldened
those who were too meek to speak out against the new table. Maybe
people were eager to pick it up and try it out, but many dropped it
after trying it. Maybe people just learning ASL feel there's enough
complexity without the bigger table, and the sport is just growing
quickly. Anybody know what the result of this question was in the
last survey? (John?)
rk
-----
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Prisoners
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:18:30 +0100 (MET)
Hi,
Just a quick question.
If a stack is forced to surrender, do they surrender as a stack?
I just want to make sure that that is correct. There is a Q&A that
states exactly this, but there is also a Q&A that states the opposite.
AND, if we look in the rules the answer seems to be no since broken
units newer rout as a stack [EXC: voluntarily rout]. BUT, the most
"authorative" Q&A says that units surrender as one combined stack.
Help!
--
m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig
"Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"
-----
From: Klas Malmstrom <klama@weald.air.saab.se>
Subject: Re: Prisoners
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:13:12 CET
Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick question.
>
> If a stack is forced to surrender, do they surrender as a stack?
>
> I just want to make sure that that is correct. There is a Q&A that
> states exactly this, but there is also a Q&A that states the opposite.
>
I was wondering the same thing. When I asked The Hill I got the answer
that they surrender one at a time because they can not Rout as a stack.
> AND, if we look in the rules the answer seems to be no since broken
> units newer rout as a stack [EXC: voluntarily rout]. BUT, the most
> "authorative" Q&A says that units surrender as one combined stack.
>
> Help!
I would say that the Q&A that was in the Debriefing 93b (I believe) is
the one that is correct.
>
Klas Malmstrom <klama@weald.air.saab.se>
-----
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:54:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: CGs & the Ladder (was Re: Three Things)
I can't see why playing a CG ought to be any different than any other
scenario as far as the ladder is concerned.
The point of the ladder is...
1) Provide a source of opponents
2) Provide some marginal indication of skill
3) Provide an incentive to play ASL
4) Promote PBeM play
IMHO, adjusting the ladder to increase the "worth" of a CG is corrupting the
idea of the ladder.
To play a CG takes ftf opponents. It won't take away from PBeM play. It is
the two ftf opponents decision to play something large whether it be a CG or
The Last Bid.
If the decision whether to play a CG or some other smaller scenarios hinges
on whether the worth in "ladder points" is commensurate with the time spent
then I would offer that something is seriously wrong with the decision
process of those making the decision.
The decision on what to play ought to be based on what will be fun and
enjoyable. Not what will enhance ladder standings.
If it comes to this then the ladder has lost its meaning and should be
disbanded all together.
*-=Carl=-*