----- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:04:31 +0100 From: Bruno NITROSSO 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 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 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 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" Subject: RE: ? loss due to LOS from Truck In message Tue, 01 Feb 1994 10:26:33 +0100, Johan Bergstroem 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 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 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 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" Subject: RE: Q's: HoB for Finn HS, prisoners, and A8.31 In message Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:40:49 -0600, Bryan Milligan 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?_#>>|ounter storage? Tuuuuuuoooooommmiiiiiinnnneeeeen ----- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:30:05 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" Subject: Re: Concealment and Melee RE>> Concealment and Melee Dave Ripton 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 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" 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" 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" 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 [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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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" Subject: RE: Bumping off one's own units. In message Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:13:33 -0600, Bryan Milligan 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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." 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" 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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." 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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" 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" 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" 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 Playtest Coordinator Wizards of the Coast, Inc ----- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:34:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Glenn E. Elliott" 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 Playtest Coordinator Wizards of the Coast, Inc ----- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:48:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Glenn E. Elliott" 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 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 ** 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 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 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 ----- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:54:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl D. Fago" 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=-*