Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 08:31:17 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: After Action Report: Tussle at Thomashoff After Action Report: Tussle at Thomashoff ------------------------------------------ This weekend David Hailey and I squared off in Tussle at Thomashoff, one of the scenarios from the 93b annual. It is a deluxe scenario, using two of the country boards. The British objective is to take the 4 stone buildings by game end (6 turns). To do it they get 12x457, 10-2, 9-1, 8-1, dmMMG, and a few LMGs and PIATs. They also get the use of a Churchill VII and a Crocodile. The Germans get 6x447, 4x436, MMG, 2xLMG, 9-1, 8-0, and 7 trench counters and 4 wire counters. They also get 12 minefield factors, a 75L ATG, and a 81mm MTR. The German defense consisted of putting the conscripts in the outlying buildings. It was expected that they would be lost, but their job was to delay the British long enough so that the main 2-hex building and the one next to it could be held at the end. All the trenches went in front of this building, all connected, and extending out to the woods at the junction of the boards. Wire was place on the outer trench hexes to make them more difficult to storm. A squad set up the MMG in the upper floor of the big building, directed by the 9-1. The 8-0 stayed downstairs to help with rally tasks. The ATG also set up in the woods junction, facing the outlying buildings, hoping for a rear shot at a tank, while the MTR set up in the orchard area on the other side near the big building. The mines were exchanged for 4 AT mines, which were placed, one per hex, in the open middle area of the board. The British came on, as expected, on a broad front. The 10-2, about 5 squads, a PIAT, and the dmMMG came on near the board edge by the outlying buildings. The crocodile came on here also. The middle of the board, near the stream, was the section for the 8-1, a few squads, and an LMG. The far side had the 9-1 and the rest of the infantry, with a couple LMGs and a PIAT, and the Churchill. Although the British made many attempts at gaining infantry smoke, they only succeeded once or twice on their first turn. It didn't matter, since they suffered nothing worse than a pin in defensive fire. The Germans did very little with their turn, and on turn 2 the British advanced farther. The first outlying building was practically taken, although the Crocodile managed only a pin against its first target. It then moved closer to the second outlying building, where the 2 conscript squads stationed in the area let loose with panzerfausts, only to miss. The center units moved up through the stream and the far flank units advanced also, while the Churchill got some acquisition on the MMG nest. Up to this point the British had suffered almost no casualties, so it didn't look good for the Germans. The crocodile, however, was too far forward, and was not in motion. A few more panzerfausts were sent its way, until finally a conscript squad in the building managed to hit it and brew it up. Their training with the weapon was hasty, however, and a few men in the squad suffered serious burns from the backblast. To their credit, the rest of the squad maintained their composure. The ATG opened up on the 8-1 and squads in the stream, since it seemed obvious that they would not get a vehicular target during the game, and the 9-1 and 2 squads were poised to enter their hex anyway. The crew got a hit, but no real damage, so they intensive fired, eliminating the gun. The 9-1 group advanced in (on top of the wire) and destroyed the crew in Close Combat. The rest of the British infantry continued its flanking maneuver on the far side. By this time, there was a lot of smoke in the outlying trenches. The 9-1 group was able to get under the wire during the next movement phase, spending 6 points to do so. They were hit by the adjacent German squad, and then the German MMG group (which had earlier relocated downstairs). The MMG got some decent ROF, and the 9-1 group was completely shredded. Nothing but a broken half squad remained in the area. The British also had a couple of broken units in the area of the outlying buildings, plus a few prisoners. On the flank, one squad advanced in with the mortar crew for some close combat, while the other continued flanking. The crew managed to hold the squad in melee for about 2 full turns, effectively taking it out of the all but the endgame. The British started positioning themselves for the final thrust at the main stronghold. They had one squad on the extreme flank, and one in CC with the mortar crew. The 8-1 was in the center area with a few more squads. They were in mostly open ground. The 10-2 with a few squads was in the outlying stone buildings area, trying to break some units with long range fire. The Churchill did manage to smoke the MMG nest, and the drifting smoke looked like it would help the final charge quite a bit. Earlier in the game, a wind change result had rotated the breeze one hex clockwise. Now gusts came up, which almost eliminated the smoke entirely. The remaining Germans fired desperately, breaking or pinning a few of the enemy that were in the open. Some of the Germans in the trenches near the building were encircled by the lone British flanking squad, but they couldn't seem to break him. The British saw a lot of troops break during the last 2 turns, and without any more smoke from the Churchill, were forced into a last ditch charge. It didn't work, and the Germans held on for the victory. This was a very enjoyable scenario, and it is short enough to be played in one afternoon. I think both sides played competently, and had decent game plans. The biggest British mistake was losing the Crocodile to a panzerfaust shot. The Crocodile is such a great weapon. Since FTs are exempt from halving during bounding first fire, as long as the Crocodile is stopped it can dish out a 36 FP attack. To lose such a weapon early hurts considerably. As for the rest, the Germans simply got lucky in the right places. The melee with the mortar crew was very frustrating for the British player, but it was probably the right move. Getting caught on the wire essentially cost them a platoon, but the rolls could easily have gone the other way. The German sniper was more active than he had a reason to be. He had the 10-2 in his sights once, but failed to get him. He eliminated a broken half squad, got a pin or a break result here and there, and finally wounded the 8-1 on the last turn. The Germans made the mistake of not using their HIP, but maybe that could be written off as a clever and subtle subterfuge. The British never did seem to get a big kill stack with their 10-2, and maybe that was important as well, but the rolls just weren't there for them in the right places. ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 09:39:37 EST From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: Re: Stripping Concealment Greetings, > >Can you fire at a concealed vehicle to strip it's > >concealment? Say you've got a Panther concealed in the > >woods and take a shot with small arms fire and obtain a PTC > >result or better. Is the panther now revealed? Would it > >make any difference if the AFV was CE or BU? > > A12.2 ``CONCEALED 5/8" COUNTERS. ... A concealed vehicle > in the LOS of a Good Order enemy Ground Unit (regardless of > range) loses its concealment if hit on a To Hit Table, or by > at least a "PTC" result ... on the IFT.'' > > I would read this as saying yes, you can. The rule doesn't > say that being fully armored will change this, but you > might argue that A7.307, which says small arms don't affect > AFVs, would preclude a valid attack on the IFT. I can't > decide whether this is correct or not. Clearly if the crew > is unbuttoned and is affected by a PTC, the concealment is > stripped. There is a Q&A on this topic: A12.2 If the Location containing a concealed AFV in the LOS of a Good Order enemy ground unit is subjected to a non-ordnance attack that results in at least a PTC result on the IFT, does the AFV lose its "?"? A. Only if the attack is OBA, and/or if the AFV is CE. {26-5} Since we are talking about concealment: I am confused about how one strips the concealment from a dummy stack. Specifically, with 5/8th inch dummy/concealment counters is it legal to fire on them and strip their concealment with a hit on the vehicle target type? If the 5/8th dummy counter was actually a concealed vehicle the concealment would be lost if a hit was achieved. The dummy stack is not a vehicle. Can it even be targeted with the vehicle target type? If the owner get to choose the type of dummy, it could be either gun or vehicle. If its a gun, the vehicle target type is not valid. When would the owner have to choose? Could he choose to consider it a very small vehicle? Thanks, Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 08:50:20 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: More rout logic Daniel and I shoulda read the Q&A file: A10.51 If a DM broken unit that must rout is within six MF of the nearest woods/building, must it 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 toward that woods/building (i.e., at no time may it increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of that phase). {92} I'd say half a cookie for both of us. You can take more MF than you need in order to rout through non-OG, but you do have to reach that bldg/woods if it's within 6. Tom ----- Subject: Re: NMP and MP Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 16:47:30 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Yo! Patrik sez: > Therefore I think that the rules are food the way they are, 'cause > a wheeled vehicle spends _more_time_ in every hex than a fully tracked ( > who, one can add, has a very homogen speed factor in the most common > terrain types), and firing units simply gets the chance to fire more shoots > per distance travelled at a wheeled vehicle compared with a fully tracked. Very true! A tracked vehicle does not have to "dodge" while driving in open ground as a wheeled vehicle. A tracked vehicle is indeed much faster off road than a wheeled APC. The rules do reflect this and I see no need for the NMP house rule. Just my 0.2. +-----------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+ Asad Rustum | Jag {r B{st, | "Save us, O God, f90-aru@nada.kth.se | hur bra {r du? | from the violence atomic@astrakan.hgs.se | | of the Northmen" ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 12:50:16 -0330 From: Shawn Kenny Subject: ? on Bypass Hi all, I am not sure if this question has been resolved so I will post the query: The question concerns bypass and cost for infantry movement i----j 1 / \ / \ a----b 2 h / \ / / \ / f 3 c----g \ / \ / e----d 4 Assume that Hex 1 is open ground, Hex 2 is a building hex which does not touch any of the hexspines, Hex 3 is woods which also does not touch any of the hexpines and Hex 4 is open ground. Also let the hexspine f-a-b-c have a wall/hedge which extends to the vertex. Q1. If an infantry unit wishes to go from Hex 1 to Hex 2 along the b-c wall hexspine then is the cost for movement 1MF since the other terrain in Hex 2 is open ground or is it 2MF due to the wall even though the unit is actually moving parallel to the obstacle. Q2. If an infantry units moves (albeit foolishly) from Hex 1 to Hex 3 to Hex 2 would the total movement cost would be 4MF (2MF for wall Hex1-Hex3 and 2MF Hex3-Hex2)? (i.e. bypass cannot reduce the MF expended.) Thanks. Shawn. -- "Life is full of surprises, but never when you need one." shawnk@cs.mun.ca St. John's, NF Canada ----- Subject: re: my favorite anomalies Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 12:19:07 -0500 From: strzelin@bnlku9.phy.bnl.gov Thank you for your opinions and contributions so far. Please note that my original posts were erroneously sent to Brian rather than directly to the mailing list (he helpfully re-posted them). So please address any direct mailings to me (strzelin@bnl.gov) rather than Brian. I made a couple mistakes in the examples given in my "NMP house rule" post. 1) I stated that a vehicle spends 1/2 its MP allotment to load/unload infantry. This should be 1/4. 2) I stated that the NMP rule need not be applied here (the above case). This is not strictly true. In a case like this where the MP expenditure is stated in some fraction (in ASL, it's always 1/4, 1/2, or all) of the vehicle's MP allotment, simply equate that fraction to the proper number of NMPs (1/4 = 2.5 NMPs, 1/2 = 5 NMPs, all = 10 NMPs). Thus the act of loading/unloading infantry would allow a gun (retaining ROF) to get off 2 shots at the vehicle while it was loading/unloading. Also, regarding some responses which cited hero-generation mechanics regarding inequalities between nationalities -- this is not the sort of thing I am looking for. The difference between nationalities in relation to hero creation probabilities is a DESIGN DECISION made explicitly to differentiate unit behaviors. It is intentional (whether it is accurate or inaccurate, I don't know). The anomalies I am looking for are UNINTENTIONAL side-effects of otherwise reasonable design decisions. The decision to use MP expenditure as a basis for measuring how long it takes to do certain things which are not themselves movement, but are done in conjunction with the movement of a vehicle, was a reasonable decision which only breaks down when scenarios involving very heterogeneous types of vehicles are involved. Much as Newton's laws of motion break down only in cases involving velocities near light speed. In scenarios involving only tanks, I usually don't invoke the NMP rule, saving it for scenarios involving tanks, trucks, armored cars, etc (and these are pretty rare). Of course, my assumption that this anomaly is an unintentional side-effect could be questioned also. But I think, given the attention to detail relating to MPs ratings for various vehicles and the work that went into producing MP cost charts for several different classes of vehicle in ASL, I have to conclude that this is indeed an unforeseen anomaly. -- Bob Strzelinski ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: More rout logic Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 9:52:30 PST I have another off-the-wall rout question that I can't find ANY answer to in the rulebook: If a squad which is a passenger in an armored halftrack is broken, does it need to rout and if so, how? -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 21:31:08 -0700 (MST) From: -431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Opp. Wanted I have an opening in my PBEM shelves and am looking for a new game. It can be ladder or not, and AREA or not. I'd like to find someone of roughly equal footing to myself. I'm about AREA 1460BCC. I'd like to take a first crack at playing a COB scenario, but will play just about anything (except GUNG HO). 10-2s need not apply. I value the lessons learned from playing with experienced players, but Louis Mehr just handed me my butt on a plate over on GEnie, and around here, Carl Fago and Warren Smith are both chewing me up pretty good. So I'm already learning the lessons the hard way. I'd like to find an opponent on my own level that wants to muddle through a new scenario with me. Cheers! Grant GEnie G.LINNEBERG INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 11:41:36 -1000 (HST) From: Patrick Jonke Subject: Re: More rout logic On Mon, 10 Jan 1994, Doug Gibson wrote: > I have another off-the-wall rout question that I can't find ANY answer to in > the rulebook: If a squad which is a passenger in an armored halftrack is > broken, does it need to rout and if so, how? > D6.1 says, near the end of the paragraph: "Passengers may remain in their vehicle even while broken unless the inherent crew also breaks, in which case any broken Passengers must rout beneath their vehicle as per 5.311. Otherwise, a broken Passenger may remain in its vehicle free from rout requirements, even if enemy units are ADJACENT... etc. ----- Subject: Re: Not the same DC ques From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 12:24:00 -0640 >Right intent, though wrong conclusion. You can only be >ADJACENT if you can advance into the location in the >Advance Phase (A.8), and a "bypass" advance _is_ legal >(B23.71). The LOS thing is specific to the DC rule. You can >only place or throw a DC to an ADJACENT location in your >LOS. Sorry, but Bas is correct. From the index: "ADJACENT (units are considered ADJACENT if any Infantry unit in one hex could conceivably advance into another during the APh _and_ a LOS exists between those two hexes, excluding SMOKE Hindrance DRM as a factor; B.10)" So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: RE: GROUND LEVEL From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 12:24:00 -0640 > I'm playing "One Log Bridge" and the VC refer to control of > a hex which contains a foot bridge. (A foot bridge is > defined in the rules as a pontoon bridge.) The rules also > state that to control a hex you must occupy the hex with a > good order MMC at ground level. What is "ground level" for > a hex with a gully / stream? Is this defined anywhere? As far as I know, the only hexes where 'ground level' are hexes with upper building levels, with subterranian locations, and ones with bridges. I don't think its defined anywhere, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Ground level is the level with the ground :-) In order to control the ground level for an _ordinary_ bridge, you would have to go under the bridge (I would think that a unit in crest controls a hex even if it never enters the Depression, but a unit can't enter crest status in a hex that contains a bridge (B20.9). Since the footbridge is IN the Depression, and you can't go under it (B6.41, B6.44), I see only one Location in the hex, that being on the bridge. I would think that would be the location you have to control. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Re: Stripping Concealment From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 12:25:00 -0640 krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) writes: >There is a Q&A on this topic: Good catch; I missed that. >Since we are talking about concealment: > >I am confused about how one strips the concealment from a >dummy stack. Specifically, with 5/8th inch >dummy/concealment counters is it legal to fire on them and >strip their concealment with a hit on the vehicle target >type? If the 5/8th dummy counter was actually a concealed >vehicle the concealment would be lost if a hit was >achieved. The dummy stack is not a vehicle. Can it even >be targeted with the vehicle target type? > >If the owner get to choose the type of dummy, it could be >either gun or vehicle. If its a gun, the vehicle target >type is not valid. When would the owner have to choose? >Could he choose to consider it a very small vehicle? In A12.11, we read "A 5/8'' Dummy stack can claim to be either an Emplaced Gun or a vehicle." There isn't any information I can find on when the type of the Dummy stack has to be announced. I would say that it has to be announced when the opponent asks. Another way to play it would be that the opponent has to have an LOS to it to ask the type. As to size, I again don't know of any rule. I could see playing with being able to simulate any unit, or playing with Dummies treated as normal size. The former makes Dummies more powerful, and the latter reduces their effectiveness. These are good TAHGC questions. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: 10 Jan 1994 18:13:24 -0800 From: "Mark Bennett" Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM RE>>DFF TH DRM "Carl D. Fago" writes: >> The firer can change his TCA/VCA _without_ a motion attempt, so >> you would get (if I read it correctly): >> >> +3 for NT CA change >> +2 for moving target >> +1 for only 3 MP in LOS >> >> _but_ >> >> you should first fire a MG - just to change the VCA, and then >> on the next MP fire the main armament... for only the total of +3. > This is wrong per D3.51. The Case A would still apply to the main armament. This is an even stronger case than my concern based on D3.54. Thanks, Carl! Although it's super-arcane, D3.54 could still have some bearing on the defensive tactic of using a MG attack to bring to bear the optimal facing to the enemy. Did anybody have any further opinions on whether it is saying that you can't even try a To Kill with non-MA MG, or that you can try, but you don't resolve it? Thanks! Mark ----- Subject: Re: More rout logic From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:20:00 -0640 Doug Gibson writes: >I have another off-the-wall rout question that I can't find >ANY answer to in the rulebook: If a squad which is a >passenger in an armored halftrack is broken, does it need >to rout and if so, how? Not so off-the-wall. I used this the other day when I foolishly ran in front of a .50 cal & HMG with a CE HT. D6.1 "Passengers may remain in their vehicle even while broken unless the inherent crew also breaks, in which case any broken Passengers must rout beneath the vehicle as per 5.311." Presumably if the Passenger decided to rout off the vehicle, even if not required to, it would use D5.311. Now for a truly off-the-wall question: can a broken unit rout from a non-stopped vehicle? Does it suffer Bail Out penalties? An even more off-the-wall question: can an enemy unit on the ground move into the cargo compartment (e.g. via Berserk movement) to engage a Passenger in CC? Why not? What if the cargo compartment is unoccupied: can an enemy unit load itself? So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: ? on Bypass From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:20:00 -0640 Shawn Kenny writes: > i----j > 1 / \ > / \ > a----b 2 h > / \ / > / \ / > f 3 c----g > \ / > \ / > e----d 4 >Assume that Hex 1 is open ground, Hex 2 is a building hex >which does not touch any of the hexspines, Hex 3 is woods >which also does not touch any of the hexpines and Hex 4 is >open ground. Also let the hexspine f-a-b-c have a >wall/hedge which extends to the vertex. > >Q1. If an infantry unit wishes to go from Hex 1 to Hex 2 >along the b-c wall hexspine then is the cost for movement >1MF since the other terrain in Hex 2 is open ground or is >it 2MF due to the wall even though the unit is actually >moving parallel to the obstacle. Only 1 MF because the unit does not cross a wall hexside. If b-i or c-g were a wall hexside, crossing it (as you would entering hex 2 from hex 1) would add 1 MF to the total cost. See the example after A4.31 for a bypass along a wall. >Q2. If an infantry units moves (albeit foolishly) from Hex >1 to Hex 3 to Hex 2 would the total movement cost would be >4MF (2MF for wall Hex1-Hex3 and 2MF Hex3-Hex2)? (i.e. >bypass cannot reduce the MF expended.) I assume you mean to enter hex 3 via bypass along b-c, then enter hex 2 via bypass, perhaps along the c-g hexside. In that case the total MF would be 4: 1 MF to enter open ground in 3, one to cross the a-b hexside, one to enter open ground in hex 2, and one to cross the b-c hexside. It would be reduced, however, because if the terrain had been entered, the total cost would have been 6 MF. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 22:13:36 CST From: Alan Hatcher Subject: KGP Greetings to all on the net from a new list member. I and 2 other players are about to begin a game of KGP 1. It will be me and another player as the Germans versus one player as the Americans. The player experience edge will definately be in favor of the Germans, and as best I can tell in the beginning everything seems to favor the Germans, with things steadily getting worse for them as time goes on. Does anyone have any comments on the usual outcome of KGP? We invested heavily in armor for the first scenario, since we assumed we would need the mobility and firepower to punch through to the Sanitorium, plus armor seems to become a liability on later game days with the fuel shortage. Any comments or advice would be welcomed. Alan Hatcher ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 22:45:36 -1000 (HST) From: Patrick Jonke Subject: Re: More rout logic > An even more off-the-wall question: can an enemy unit on > the ground move into the cargo compartment (e.g. via > Berserk movement) to engage a Passenger in CC? Why not? > What if the cargo compartment is unoccupied: can an enemy > unit load itself? > No, because the vehicle must pay MP to load a unit. Of course, if you could convince your opponent to expend the necessary MP, you might get somewhere... 8-) > Now for a truly off-the-wall question: can a broken unit > rout from a non-stopped vehicle? Does it suffer Bail Out > penalties? > Hmmm... this is another one of those little ASL gremlins. There is nothing that specifically says that the vehicle must be Stopped, but that is certainly implied in the phrase "rout beneath the vehicle as per 5.311". ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: KGP Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 09:19:35 +0100 (MET) Hi, > Greetings to all on the net from a new list member. I and 2 other > players are about to begin a game of KGP 1. It will be me and another player > as the Germans versus one player as the Americans. The player experience edge > will definately be in favor of the Germans, and as best I can tell in the > beginning everything seems to favor the Germans, with things steadily getting > worse for them as time goes on. Does anyone have any comments on the usual > outcome of KGP? We invested heavily in armor for the first scenario, since > we assumed we would need the mobility and firepower to punch through to the > Sanitorium, plus armor seems to become a liability on later game days with > the fuel shortage. Any comments or advice would be welcomed. You may have made one big mistake there. What you need during the first date is _infantry_. Why? Because they are the only ones that can _take_ the terrain you have to take, and you won't have much CPP to spend on infantry during the next few dates. I would recommend buying lots of infantry for the first date - especially the three para inf platoons, fortifications for the second, and save points to buy a Pz VI RG during the night of the 19th. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 20:32:43 +1030 From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: Possibly Pointless Musings (fwd) Hi Brent (Brent Pollock), on Jan 7 you wrote: > Just out of (extremely) idle curiousity, how many people on the ASL BB are > from ex-Axis countries. It seems to me that wargaming, especially > WWII-era, is primarily a hobby of citizens from the ex-Allied countries. > If I recall correctly, the Japanese vehicle notes were researched > primarily by a non-Japanese (I could be misremembering this and it is in fact > the converse) [although the Italian notes were researched by an Italian or > an American of Italian descent]. > > Just Wondering, > Brent There are a few on this List from Germany and Austria, they are even playing in the ASL World Cup, and I have seen a couple of people from Italy as well. Part of the problem for many European gamers is that they have to have a very good grasp of English to play ASL, or have an opponent who does. That rule book is hard to read (as if you didn't know [ha!]). I don't remember where I read this (an Annual or General ???) but apparently one of the most popular WW2 wargames in Germany is Up Front!, the card game based on the SL system. However it can't be placed on public display so it is sold in a brown paper wrapping. Why?, I hear you ask! Because the soldier on the front of the box is Waffen-SS and wears the collar runes. There is some law about the display of Nazi symbols and regalia. Anyone from Germany care to clarify/confirm this? As for me being from Australia, I have an interest in the Australian aspect of WW2, but I also have a deeper interest in German military history, as for why, I don't really know. But I like playing any side in ASL, they all have their ideosyncracies, which gives ASL it's flavour. As we are in a rambling mode, does anyone know why there are so many scenarios involving American 7-4-7's in the ETO. They certainly outweigh any other form of American troops, perhaps you Yanks are not happy writing scenarios about your average line troops, and have to write Para scenarios to make people play Americans!! (please take that in good humour :-) ) Brad. -- Brad McMahon bjm@rommel.apana.org.au Phone: +61-8-332 63 95 (Home) +61-8-204 04 97 (Work) ----- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 20:05:45 +1030 From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: ASLRB updated? Do the ASL Rule Books that come out of TAHGC contain all the updated pages? I don't have a rule book of my own yet (I have a friends copy) but I don't want to go to the hassle of getting the 87 updates et al, in a seperate form. If they still only supply the 1985(?) book, why? Brad -- Brad McMahon bjm@rommel.apana.org.au Phone: +61-8-332 63 95 (Home) +61-8-204 04 97 (Work) ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 07:55:59 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: quote "They keep coming. Like a machine, a huge grinding machine." Harvey sat up. Somewhere a grenade went off, and Cox shouted not to waste ammunition. "That's a frightening image. Fortunately it's not the right one," Harvey said. "It's not a meat grinder. It's one of those kinetic structures where the artist invites a horde of newsmen to stand around and drink and watch while the machine tears itself to pieces." Her laugh sounded forced. "Nice imagery, Harv." "Hell, I made a living off imagery, before I took up breaking rocks. And ruining roads. I used to think of battles as a chess game, but they're not. It's like those sculptures. The commander puts together this huge sculpture, knowing that the pieces will grind each other up, and he doesn't control them all. Half of them are controlled by an art critic who hates him. And each one tries to see that he has pieces left when it's over, but there won't be enough, so it has to be done over and over." --- "Lucifer's Hammer," (pp. 590-591), Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle Guys, When I read this the other day, I couldn't help but think of ASL. Except he doesn't mention the artist's counter trays. Matt ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 07:16:10 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: One Down, Two to Go Hi, everyone. I guess I'm what you might call an ASL anomaly. I've played nearly 300 FTF games of ASL, and I'm still "green" with regard to Red Barricades. I've only played 2 RB scenarios: Bread Factory and Turned Away. All that will change soon, as one of my opponents and I have scheduled to play One Down, Two to Go next week. So, let me cut to the crux: Can anyone out there give me any advice as to my setup as the Russians? I looked at the board last night and found that I was nearly at a loss as to how to go about things. Too many squads, too much ground. Help! I'm clueless. Dade ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:41:13 +0100 From: "hr. Patrik Olsson" Hi Brad, you wrote Jan 10: >Hi Brent (Brent Pollock), on Jan 7 you wrote: >> Just out of (extremely) idle curiousity, how many people on the ASL BB are >> from ex-Axis countries. It seems to me that wargaming, especially >> WWII-era, is primarily a hobby of citizens from the ex-Allied countries. >> If I recall correctly, the Japanese vehicle notes were researched >> primarily by a non-Japanese (I could be misremembering this and it is in fact >> the converse) [although the Italian notes were researched by an Italian or >> an American of Italian descent]. >> >> Just Wondering, >> Brent >There are a few on this List from Germany and Austria, they are even playing >in the ASL World Cup, and I have seen a couple of people from Italy as well. >Part of the problem for many European gamers is that they have to have >a very good grasp of English to play ASL, or have an opponent who does. >That rule book is hard to read (as if you didn't know [ha!]). >I don't remember where I read this (an Annual or General ???) but apparently >one of the most popular WW2 wargames in Germany is Up Front!, the card >game based on the SL system. However it can't be placed on public >display so it is sold in a brown paper wrapping. >Why?, I hear you ask! >Because the soldier on the front of the box is Waffen-SS >and wears the collar runes. >There is some law about the display of Nazi symbols and regalia. >Anyone from Germany care to clarify/confirm this? > >As for me being from Australia, I have an interest in the Australian >aspect of WW2, but I also have a deeper interest in German >military history, as for why, I don't really know. >But I like playing any side in ASL, they all have their ideosyncracies, >which gives ASL it's flavour. Well, I'm not from any of the ex-allied or ex-axis countries. More exactly I'm from Sweden, you know the country who once owned both Norway and Finland :-) (No offence you norwegians and finnish on this list.) ASL is quite popular in Sweden, but maybe not as many players in number or percentage as U.S.A or any other large ex-allied country. I find it quite interesting to play those scenarios who takes place in Finland and Norway, 'cause it feels so very much closer than as an example the desert scenarios (but of course they're very entertaining as well). Sweden itself never took active part in WWII, but we believed in a German victory as a start and let german troops use the railway to get to Norway. We also sent voulantaries to fight for Finland against the russians. As the war moved on we started to tune for a Allied victory. Many has questioned Swedens "week" back in WWII and perhaps their right. Well let's not try to solve historic worldproblems on this list. So, Brent and Brad, there is a certain number of us on the list whose countries never took part in WWII. Sincerely Patrik c93patol@und.ida.liu.se po@lysator.liu.se ----- From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) Subject: Re: One Down, Two to Go Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 16:52:32 +0100 (MET) > > Hi, everyone. > > I guess I'm what you might call an ASL anomaly. I've played nearly 300 FTF > games of ASL, and I'm still "green" with regard to Red Barricades. I've only > played 2 RB scenarios: Bread Factory and Turned Away. > > All that will change soon, as one of my opponents and I have scheduled to play > One Down, Two to Go next week. So, let me cut to the crux: Can anyone out > there give me any advice as to my setup as the Russians? I looked at the board > last night and found that I was nearly at a loss as to how to go about things. > Too many squads, too much ground. > > Help! I'm clueless. > > Dade > > I played this scenario once, as the Russians. I think what you have to remember most is that advancing in the debris in the north is an awfully hard thing to do for the Germans. The Russians can stay in the 1st level of buildings and fire at them with only a +1 TEM, and go down to rally when needed. The Germans have a long way to go. Also, most of the vulnerable areas are wooden, not stone. This means the Germans almost HAVE to grab stone buildings in the center, and MUST face this danger. Just be sure your flanks are not too weak, 'cause a leader and two squads running past your defense at a bad time can cost you the day (it almost happened to me; the only thing that stopped the German 10-2 and 1.5 Elite squad running on my right flank was a long range LMG shot, which triggered Booby Traps and killed the leader). I don't remember the OB very well, but I think I set up lots of things right after the first line of buildings, and mined some of said buildings. This worked quite well; the Germans didn't take much of them. Also, use your trenches to ensure you have relatively safe ways to move around. The Germans have Stukas, so running in the open is very dangerous... -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Night Combat Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 19:59:52 +0100 (MET) Hi all, I played the scenario "Alligator Creek" last saturday, and an old problem again again reared its ugly head into the game. When night rules are in effect, the rules states that all attacks incur a +1 night LV modifier... ...except when the target claims HA, _or_occupy_ _any_terrain_whose_topmost_height_is_>_that_of_the_firing_unit_! At first, this didn't appear as a problem, until we actually started playing. The implication is that anything above you would be outlined against the sky, and would be more easily targetted. But when actually playing, we realized that this is not the way this rule actually works. Consider the board setup in "Alligator Creek". There are lots of palm trees with a few hexes of OG and a beach. Assuming the firing unit is at level 0, a defending unit would get the night LV modifier when in _OG_ or _beach_ hexes! Among the palm trees, however, they wouldn't get the modifier since the palm trees are an obstacle whose topmost height is >0... This seems very counter-intuitive to me! Any unit on the beach should be _especially_ easy targets, while I don't think it would be easy to pick out someone hiding in the shadows of the palm trees. Am I simply reading this rule backwards, or do you read it the same way? Does it seem correct to you? Anyone of the people that is in contact with the Hill, what's the word there? BTW, I eventually won the scenario - getting out 33 VP with 30 being the requirement. 2 of them was a HS taken prisoner, just in case I would run low on troops to exit. As an aside, what exactly is the procedure for a Japanese squad that wants to capture a squad in CC? I don't have access to a rulebook now, and I didn't bother looking it up during the game. Can they use H-t-H CC? Will they then get the -1 CC modifier? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 11:29:34 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: Re: KGP > Hi, > > > Greetings to all on the net from a new list member. I and 2 other > > players are about to begin a game of KGP 1. It will be me and another player > > as the Germans versus one player as the Americans. The player experience > edge > > will definately be in favor of the Germans, and as best I can tell in the > > beginning everything seems to favor the Germans, with things steadily getting > > worse for them as time goes on. Does anyone have any comments on the usual > > outcome of KGP? We invested heavily in armor for the first scenario, since > > we assumed we would need the mobility and firepower to punch through to the > > Sanitorium, plus armor seems to become a liability on later game days with > > the fuel shortage. Any comments or advice would be welcomed. > > You may have made one big mistake there. What you need during the first > date is _infantry_. Why? Because they are the only ones that can _take_ the > terrain you have to take, and you won't have much CPP to spend on infantry > during the next few dates. I would recommend buying lots of infantry for the > first date - especially the three para inf platoons, fortifications for the > second, and save points to buy a Pz VI RG during the night of the 19th. > > -- > m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig > "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" > Patrick's advice is sound. The Germans need infantry to seize locations. The vehicles which did the most damage to me (I've been the American player both times that I've played this scenario) where the Flam Tracks and the Panthers. Eight Panthers are plenty, if you use them in tandem with the Mark IVs. Kubelwagons are also good for finding AT mines and the occassional HIP HS with Bazooka. King Tigers seem to be a waste, as they bog down or take too long to get to the front. I don't know about all three platoons of Paratroopers on the first day, but the Assault Engineers and two platoons of SS infantry are definitely worth it. They make a good flanking force when entered along the south side. And you will need those squads to break into the Sanatarium, especially if the Americans still hold it by the 19pm scenario. Hope your American player isn't someone who gets discouraged easily. Carl ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:13:52 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: Night Combat Hi Patrik: > I played the scenario "Alligator Creek" last saturday, and an old problem > again again reared its ugly head into the game. > > When night rules are in effect, the rules states that all attacks incur > a +1 night LV modifier... ...except when the target claims HA, _or_occupy_ > _any_terrain_whose_topmost_height_is_>_that_of_the_firing_unit_! (actually, it says "...is at least a full level higher than the firer.") >... > Assuming the firing unit is at level 0, a defending unit would get the > night LV modifier when in _OG_ or _beach_ hexes! Among the palm trees, > however, they wouldn't get the modifier since the palm trees are an > obstacle whose topmost height is >0... This seems very counter-intuitive > to me! Any unit on the beach should be _especially_ easy targets, while > I don't think it would be easy to pick out someone hiding in the shadows > of the palm trees. > > Am I simply reading this rule backwards, or do you read it the same way? > Does it seem correct to you? Anyone of the people that is in contact with > the Hill, what's the word there? You are reading the rule correctly, but you might be reading the footnote backwards. What Notes 7 & 8 essentially say is that a unit moving or firing near a visible terrain feature is easier to target, rangewise, than a target in open ground (especially one that is not moving). If you can see movement in/near the trees, you pound the trees and probably have some effect. By contrast, somebody in a crater on the beach, firing at you, you have fewer clues as to the actual range. Remember too that there are a bunch of exclusions to this +1, and that it does not cancel FFMO or reduce residual fire. > As an aside, what exactly is the procedure for a Japanese squad that wants > to capture a squad in CC? I don't have access to a rulebook now, and I didn't > bother looking it up during the game. Can they use H-t-H CC? Will they then > get the -1 CC modifier? I didn't see, in a pretty cursory check, anything prohibiting capture attempts in HTH CC in either Chapters J or G. One thing I found was that Scenarios during/after 6/42 have No Quarter in effect for both sides (G1.621). Also, HTH is mandatory unless the Japanese ATTACKER is ambushed, pinned, or attemting withdrawal. Also mandated if the Japanese are the ambushers. But not by/against vehicles/PRC/pillbox-dwellers (G1.64). And here is an interesting sentence: "Each Japanese Hand-to-Hand CC attack receives an _extra_ -1 DRM unless every Japanese Infantry/Cavalry unit participating in that attack is pinned/Unarmed." So if you have 1 pinned, 1 unarmed, and 1 ok Japanese squad, all three would get the -1 DRM in their collective struggles -- no splitting CC in the same location if HTH is used - J2.31; though I seem to recall some heated ETE (Email-to-Email) discussions over the wording/meaning of that one. So, you have a vanilla Japanese squad versus a macho Marine. No ambush, no pin, no funny stuff. A 447 vs a 668, let's say. So: 4:6 = 1:2 +1 Capture attempt, -1 Japanese HTH DRM, must use the red CC numbers, and a 6 or less yields a successful capture, providing the Yank doesn't roll less than an 8 (if he rolls an 8, the Japanese squad is CRed, but then captures the Marines). I think. That's how I read/interpret it, anyway. I also like G11.98 ("Allied Prisoner in a Cave" rule); "like" as in "find amusing and hope I never run into it in a game". Matt Brown (the other, more annoying, Matt) ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:08:17 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: KGP I also must agree with Patrick and Carl on this. The German player should buy Infantry on 19am. Why? With all the vehicles that the German starts with you get massive traffic jams at the south end of Stoumont, the approach to Roua and near the W34 crossroads. The smart American player will make this worse with roadblocks, AT mines, and maybe OBA (if he feels lucky). Buying more vehicles only adds to the confusion. The first scenario is mostly a street fight slugfest. For that you need infantry. The below analysis done without the benefit of the rulebook so the numbers may be off a bit. The German player starts with 70CPP. 2 SS Infantry platoons @ 6ea = 12 2 SS PzGr platoons @ 9ea = 18 1 SS Eng platoon @10ea = 10 1 SS HW (mg) platoon @ 8ea = 8 3 Para Inf platoons @ 3ea = 9 This leaves 13 CPP for more panthers, flakpanzers, flamm FTs etc If you don't get the para's there won't be anyone to absorb all the heros in the battle hardening step other than making SS squads temporarily fanatic. Also the 447s and the 237HS's get all the dirty dangerous jobs: searching clearing mines, roadblocks during the scenario charging concealed AT guns to force ? loss through detection Something you may want to consider: Take a good leader, the SS HW mg platoon and a Sdfz250/sMG and stack them together. When the passenger HS gets out with the dmHMG AAMG and reassembles it you have: 3 x HMG/348s and 2x MMG/348s and the HT's CMG and the leader. D6.64 lets them form a FG. Thats 38FP with high ROF all directed by one leader!!!! It is unlikely that they will get a chance to shoot much as the American player should flee this kill group. Now what do people spend the American 25CPP on? Adrian ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 17:15:26 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: name calling >> Matt Brown >> (the other, more annoying, Matt) >You haven't met me in person yet, Matt. Ah, yes, but you haven't played me pbem, either, Matt. (and it is frankly too confusing to think about) Ever get stuck in a doorway with an insistent "No, no, after you" type? Who, when you finally decide to go first, sticks out a big clumsy foot and...? Matt Brown (Wondering if my ladder game with Philippe will survive its first anniversery. Actually, we've only been playing since March 3rd. And we made it to Turn 3!) Obligatory ASL content: would anyone be interested in an ELR/BH chart for all MMC types as a play aid (with the new 93b Q&A answers included)? I was thinking of doing a graphic version in a .BMP file, then maybe converting to other formats. Or would an ascii version be more useful? ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:49:31 EST From: "Jack of all trades, Master of NONE 11-Jan-1994 1546" Subject: House rules The only one that the several people I play use is that on a roll of snake eyes we don't do the cower. When that first became a rule many years ago, the guy I played with at that time and I decided that nothing should make "snake eyes" "bad", usually you roll them so seldom (at least I do). Everybody since then that I have played agrees. I guess the other "rule" that we play is, that these are friendly games, and to go along with that other note, we help each other out, ie. don't forget your sniper, type of thing. dale ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 14:46:43 PST From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET> Subject: Re: Night Combat More annoying Matt, >the Japanese squad is CRed, but then captures the Marines In a pig's eye. I'm sure there some QA out there that disallows Marines from ever being captured. There must be!! Quick, someone mail this off to the Hill: "Marines never surrender, right? RIGHT?" :-) :-) Dave ----- Subject: Ladder game for sale! CHEAP! Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 00:36:57 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Yo! I'm putting myself for sale for a ladder game. Highest bidder wins :) Seriously, I'm looking to start a new ladder game. Preferably a Russian-German game in which I get to be the Russians. I still am open for any other idea. +-----------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+ Asad Rustum | Jag {r B{st, | "Save us, O God, f90-aru@nada.kth.se | hur bra {r du? | from the violence atomic@astrakan.hgs.se | | of the Northmen" ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: KGP: the action continues Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:54:55 MST For those who like to keep pace with KGP CG games. Dusk, Dec. 19. Our CG has just finished the 19PM date. The scenario began with the Germans within two hexes of the Sanitorium, which the Americans controlled along with some territory along the paved road. The Americans, starting with 8 squads on board, shifted in a 57L and a 76L AT gun, hid 2 HS with bazookas, and bought some daisy chains to go for some armor casualties. After considerable deliberation, he also decided not to just bolt for the exit and set up 5 squads in the Sanitorium hoping to cause some Infantry damage as well. This did not happen. The Germans did not engage with Infantry right away, and instead let their pre-registered 120mm OBA do the talking, and lo! It spake with thunderous voice! The American OBA squeaked with feeble timidity as the field phone broke on player turn 1. The Sanitorium was a death-trap. Being on a slope, even stupid half-tracks way down the hill to the south restrict rout paths out of the building, and 6-morale troops just don't care to withstand 24 FP artillery attacks, thank-you very much. A single Sherman escaped alive from the on-board American forces. The Germans took _zero_ Infantry casualties, unless you count a single squad which was taken prisoner and then liberated (I guess trading an SS for a conscript counts for something). The only thing keeping this from being a complete disaster was that the Americans did succeed in killing some tanks. Both daisy chains were captured unused, but both BAZ scored Panther kills and the 76L took out a Whirlwind. Total CVP suffered were ~65 American, ~30 German. Another difficult decision for the American was whether to enter the board with the date's Infantry purchases. They finally decided to enter and capture some Strategic Locations along the road, hoping to be able to hold onto them until night. This also did not happen. Sneaking along in the trees became very frightening once the OBA was finished with the Sanitorium and continued to draw black, and when a skillful Whirlwind found some snakey LOS to break up two of those reinforcement stacks, the raid was called off. The platoons retreated off-board, but not before fatally surprising a third Panther. The reinforcements made it off with one leader battle- hardened and 2 1/2 squads lost. All those Strategic Locations fell into German hands, which means he'll be able to set up much closer to the board edge than he would have been otherwise. The entire map is now in German hands as the Americans prepare their response. A.2 in action: Suspecting a dummy stack in a certain building near a road intersection, the German sent two squads in to check it out. The stack was in fact not a dummy and the squads were forced back. Then a Panther drove nearby and was blown up by a hidden BAZ. A second Panther came to overrun the bazooka crew and stopped with its side to the building with the non-dummy stack. In DFPh, a gun appeared in the building and to fire at the Panther's side. BUT WAIT!! That gun should have been revealed when the SS moved into that building in the first place, and if that gun was there, I never would have moved either tank to where they are now! That first tank wouldn't have been 'bushed by the 'zook and I would never have been sitting with my side to that stupid gun!! With superhuman graciousness, the German sighed "A.2, I guess" and let the gun fire. Thank the stars, the gun saved me a massive guilt trip by malfunctioning immediately, allowing me to pretend that it never existed. No way did I want _that_ on my conscience! (Besides, there was another BAZ crew ready to fire, which took out the second Panther anyway). rk ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 15:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: Re: KGP > > Now what do people spend the American 25CPP on? > > Adrian > Without benefit of a rulebook handy, this is one set of expenditures which seemed to work okay for the first scenario: 1 Inf Platoon 5 CPP 1 Assault Engineer Platoon 9 CPP 4 Fortifications 4 CPP 1 Module 80mm Mortar Oba 7 CPP The Assault Engineers paid dividends during the street fight for Stoumont, 2 7-4-7s even survived, with the DCs and FT intact. The OBA was a waste due to the first two battery access draws being red. Next time I might substitute an infantry platoon instead and save the extra two CPP. The Fortification points were spent on 3 roadblocks (24 FPP), 8 AT mines (24), 5 HIP HS's (with Bazookas!), and 2 "?" counters. I put one of the "?" counter over the Assault Engineer Platoon so that my opponent couldn't inspect that stack before play began. It was worth a barbecued Panther not letting him see before play that the Americans would also have a FT. The assault engineer platoons helped both sides in the Refit Phase after 19am, there were a lot of wrecks, AT mines, and roadblocks in inopportune locations which needed to be removed. As before, anyone who wants to play the Americans should not get discouraged by a thorough shellacking on the first day. After the first two scenarios, it'll be the American player's turn to do the punishing. Carl ----- Subject: Night Combat From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 17:44:00 -0640 Howdy, m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) writes: >When night rules are in effect, the rules states that all >attacks incur a +1 night LV modifier... ...except when the >target claims HA, or occupy any terrain whose topmost >height is > that of the firing unit! > >At first, this didn't appear as a problem, until we actually >started playing. The implication is that anything above you >would be outlined against the sky, and would be more easily >targetted. > >[deletions] > >Assuming the firing unit is at level 0, a defending unit >would get the night LV modifier when in OG or beach >hexes! Among the palm trees, however, they wouldn't get the >modifier since the palm trees are an obstacle whose topmost >height is >0... This seems very counter-intuitive to me! >Any unit on the beach should be especially easy targets, >while I don't think it would be easy to pick out someone >hiding in the shadows of the palm trees. There are two things you can see at night, units in NVR (or within an illuminated location, and units that fire (gunflashes). For most targets you would have the direction pretty well figured out, for gunflashes especially. The question for the firer then becomes, what is the range to the target? From footnote 8, chapter E we read: "The sky at night is to some degree always less dark than the area below the skyline; therefore, anything that rises above the skyline (e.g., buildings, tree lines) stand out in silhouette and are much more noticeable. Moreover, such features provide a rough point of reference by which size and distance can be estimated. To help visualize this concept, picture a tree line silhouetted against the horizon at night. Since a rough estimate of the trees' height can be made, it is not too hard to calculate the approximate distance to them. A unit in Open Ground with no nearby noticeable terrain features would thus have an advantage when trading shots with an enemy at the base of that tree line, since all the enemy could see would be gunflashes emanating from somewhere in a sea of darkness." [That last bit's rather poetic, no?] Thus what the +1 DRM is meant to simulate is not the ability to hide in shadows, which is probably more shown by the ease with which concealment is retained, but rather the difficulty in judging distances once something was seen, unless there was a familiar object nearby to give scale. This is the effect you observed, and I think it is exactly as intended. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 19:17:14 +1030 From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: More rout logic Hi Doug (Doug Gibson), on Jan 10 you wrote: > I have another off-the-wall rout question that I can't find ANY answer to in > the rulebook: If a squad which is a passenger in an armored halftrack is > broken, does it need to rout and if so, how? Rule 6.1 PASSENGERS ... Passengers may remain in their vehicle even while broken unless the inherent crew also breaks, in which case any broken Passengers must rout beneath the vehicle as per 5.311. Otherwise a broken Passenger may remain in its vehicle free from rout requirements evn if enemy units are ADJACENT, in the same hex or the vehicle is moving towards an enemy unit (even to OVR). Time to rub those eyes, I think! -- Brad McMahon bjm@rommel.apana.org.au Phone: +61-8-332 63 95 (Home) +61-8-204 04 97 (Work) ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: Possibly Pointless Musings (fwd) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 20:01:58 -0600 Brent Pollock wrote: > > Just out of (extremely) idle curiousity, how many people on the ASL BB are > > from ex-Axis countries. It seems to me that wargaming, especially > > WWII-era, is primarily a hobby of citizens from the ex-Allied countries. Brad McMahon replied: > As for me being from Australia, I have an interest in the Australian > aspect of WW2, but I also have a deeper interest in German > military history, as for why, I don't really know. Brad's comment reminds me of the survey results published in issue 2.06 the ASL digest (May, 1992). One of the questions was: What *two* nationalities do you prefer to play? 17 American 7 British 0 Chinese 33 German 2 Italian 2 Japanese 0 Partisan 15 Russian 2 Allied Minor 0 Axis Minor 12 No preference These responses indicate a rather striking preference for playing the Germans, with the Americans and Russians nearly tied for a rather distant second. I doubt this has changed in the last two years, so it seems that Brad's interest in the Wehrmacht is shared by most of us. BTW, these results are almost two years old. Would anyone be interested in running this or a similar survey again? The original form still exists in the archives, and I gather that someone had created a semi-automatic method of compiling the results. Jack O'Quin ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 07:09:38 EST Subject: Survey Per Jack's note on the survey of issue 2.06. I was the editor of the Digest at the time, took a draft of the survey from Chris Farrell (the first and founding editor), edited it some, floated it out on the list, and wrote the scripts that automatically compiled the results. I still have the scripts and could do another survey using the same questions, *if* continuity of results with the first survey would be of use to this community. John A. Foley grendel@sos.wh.att.com formerly beowulf@research.att.com ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 09:33:28 EST Subject: Survey again I've received some supportive email messages about the survey. I am willing to run the same survey for all readers of this list and compile it, prepare the readout, which would include a comparison of the "old" vs the "new" data for each question. If I continue to hear supportive messages about doing the survey again, I'll kick into gear and get the thing rolling next week some time. Thanks, John Foley ----- From: Dave_Wetzel@ccmgw.mis.stratus.com Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 09:50:03 EST Subject: Daisy Chain vs Normal AT Can someone post a quick message describing the advantages of Daisy Chained AT Mines over just placed AT Mines? thanks, dlw ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 08:54:23 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: ASL Open Guys, Is anyone on this list going to the ASL Open in Dallas Jan. 21-23? It would be nice to put some faces with names. Cheers, Matt ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 10:36:41 EST From: krv@eng.tridom.com (Kevin Valerien) Subject: Re: KGP Greetings, > Fortification points were spent on 3 roadblocks (24 FPP), 8 AT mines (24), > 5 HIP HS's (with Bazookas!), and 2 "?" counters. I put one of the "?" > counter over the Assault Engineer Platoon so that my opponent couldn't > inspect that stack before play began. Placing "?" counters to prevent setup inspection should not generally be necessary. CG11 (8.4) permits all infantry in concealment terrain to be set up concealed regardless of LOS. Vehicles in concealment terrain may be concealed if greater than 9 hexes away from all enemy setup locations. These concealments may be done before the opponent has an opportunity to inspect your setup. For this rule a location is also considered concealment terrain if it is out of LOS of all opposing setup locations at the start of the scenario. Kevin --- Kevin Valerien krv@eng.tridom.com ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 10:58:01 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: WO GUYS, WO'94 is coming, please get those pre-regs in if you are attending! Hope to see everyone there. BTW, I have a person who needs a roommate. If you are coming and need to share a room, let me know and I'll email you his address and phone number. Just to make sure everyone is informed, I've attached a copy of the flyer to this post. Sorry for the wasted bandwidth if you've already attended. DONT MISS OUT! Brian ASL WINTER OFFENSIVE `94 FEBRUARY 18 - FEBRUARY 2O Friday 1800 Hours - Sunday 1800 Hours COMFORT INN US Routes 50 & 301 Bowie MD 20718 301-464-0089 ROOM RATES: $48 for 1-4 people. Mention Winter Offensive. Rates guaranteed through 2/5/94; "as available" after that. WEEKEND REGISTRATION $12 ($15 after 02/01/94) ONE DAY REGISTRATION $6 ($8 after 02/01/94) Unstructured format, mutually agreeable scenarios, minimum of five scenarios needed to qualify. Cash prizes based on attendance, plus special 1st place trophy. ASL BOP TILL YOU DROP. "Don't believe most of what you hear and only half of what you read." You may have read that WO'94 would be 2/25-2/27. DON'T BELIEVE IT. Due to circumstances beyond its control, WO'94 will be the next-to- last weekend in February, 2/18-2/20. Conveniently located at a major crossroads just east of DC, the Comfort Inn is a brand new facility, with all the amenities. You may have heard that the Winter Offensive is a rousing good time, with the best competition east of ASLOK and south of Avaloncon. You can believe that, because it's true. Last year's tourney saw the winners of the last nine ASLOKs/Avaloncons, and the ASL Open. Throw in Fish Conner, Guy Chaney, and the cream of the MD/VA playtesters, and you can see how Winter Offensive has earned its designation as the fourth jewel in ASL's triple crown. WO'94 supports all levels of play, from beginner to expert. The unstructured format (stolen from the popular ASLOK and ASL Summer Wars) allows you to play scenarios of your choosing at your own pace. Start early, start late, or take a mid-day nap. Contact (and make checks payable to): Brian Youse 8191 Turn Loop Rd Glen Burnie MD 21061 410-969-2733 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YES, sign me up for the non-stop action at WO'94 so that I can improve my game and have fun at the same time. Here is my $ --------. NAME ______________________________ SPECIAL EARLYBIRD CONTEST Register before 1/20/94 and win a full FULL ______________________________ WO'94 rebate by picking the WO'94 ADDR winner (any ties resolved randomly). ______________________________ ______________________________ I think ___________________ will win WO'94! TEL ______________________________ ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Re: KGP: the action continues (revealing guns) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 9:04:51 MST Since a couple of people have asked, I'll clarify. (From the big long paragraph titled "Detection") I, like some others, assumed I could choose who pushed the ATTACKERs back, and could keep the Gun HIP, but while it's true that the DEFENDER only has to reveal one unit to force an ATTACKER attempting to move into a hex to retreat, all HIP units must first be placed on board beneath a "?." Then, Random Selection determines which unit has to lose the concealment. rk ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Daisy Chain vs Normal AT Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 9:23:49 MST Dave asks: >Can someone post a quick message describing the advantages of Daisy >Chained AT Mines over just placed AT Mines? On the surface, not much. They can only attack once, only attack units on roads, and have to be manned by a unit which can break, etc. One advantage is that you don't have to guess where your opponent will be driving; you can move the daisy chains to where you see him coming (though this is very often not practical). Probably the most significant advantage is that you can attack units on paved roads with Daisy Chains, whereas AT mines placed on a paved road are not hidden and can be cleared by any MMC spending one MF to do so. rk ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 09:48:24 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Possibly Pointless Musings > > What *two* nationalities do you prefer to play? > [...] > > These responses indicate a rather striking preference for playing the > Germans, with the Americans and Russians nearly tied for a rather > distant second. I doubt this has changed in the last two years, so it > seems that Brad's interest in the Wehrmacht is shared by most of us. > I wonder. I like playing the Germans because they usually enjoy higher leader-to-squad ratios, more SW, black TH #'s, etc. It's been said before that the Germans are easier for less-experienced players because of these advantages. I'm not too interested in simulating the Wehrmacht more than the other armies. Which brings up a question that might be good to stick in the New Improved Survey: Which aspect of ASL appeals to you most? a) historical military simulation or b) game? (OK, we can stick in a "c) opportunity to taunt one's opponent" if people want) I know that I fall squarely on the "game" side of the fence. I don't enjoy thinking about, much less simulating, the carnage of war, and I have no illusions that any game could come even remotely close to portraying it at the level of ASL (unless one were playing with DoD CRAYs). Not to hoot on those of you who DO like the simulation aspect; must just be two different modes of thought. Tom Peace, Love, etc. ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 11:20:39 -0600 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: ASL Open Hola, Could someone please give me some info on the ASL Open in Dallas (Jan 21-23)? I'm just a few hours down the road so I thought I might try to attend. Besides, my mother-in-law lives there (free lodging and meals ;-0). Thanks, --- Bryan Milligan bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu ---- My views are just that. ---- ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 09:48:37 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Trenches and concealment Hi, folks. The last sentence of B27.54 states that "[U]nits may move between connecting trenches without loss of concealment." My question: Is this REGARDLESS of enemy LOS? Dade ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: KGP: the action continues Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 18:56:50 +0100 (MET) > The Americans, starting with 8 squads on board, shifted in a 57L and a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 76L AT gun, hid 2 HS with bazookas, and bought some daisy chains to go ^^^^^^^^^^ This one got me thinking. Can you shift a gun w/o having a vehicle to tow it? I am not saying this was the case here, but I seem to remember that the 76L guns are a problem because there are no vehicles in the original american OB that can tow them. > A.2 in action: [ story deleted ] I don't usually apply A.2 that way, but rather - if the HIP units failed to reveal themselves when they should have, they're simply not there. In this case, that would have meant that the AT Gun would not have been allowed to be there. If playing against a nice opponent, he could let you set it up somewhere else - non HIP, and not within your LOS. If not, I would say the AT Gun would have been eliminated (or retained in a CG). -- 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: Re: Trenches and concealment Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 19:07:57 +0100 (MET) Hi, > The last sentence of B27.54 states that "[U]nits may move between connecting > trenches without loss of concealment." My question: Is this REGARDLESS of > enemy LOS? Yup. This is because intertrench movement is never non-assault movement, and a trench is obviously not OG. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 10:13:46 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: More pointless musings Hola: Tom says: > I wonder. I like playing the Germans because they usually enjoy higher > leader-to-squad ratios, more SW, black TH #'s, etc. It's been said before > that the Germans are easier for less-experienced players because of these > advantages. I'm not too interested in simulating the Wehrmacht more than the > other armies. Actually, I think less-experience players (LEPs for acronym junkies) probably fare best with the Russians. Especially when defending, like in RB, or SOF. In these types of scenarios, the Russian setup is essential, but you don't have to worry too much about moving, coordinating, etc. > > Which brings up a question that might be good to stick in the New Improved > Survey: Which aspect of ASL appeals to you most? a) historical military > simulation or b) game? (OK, we can stick in a "c) opportunity to taunt > one's opponent" if people want) > > I know that I fall squarely on the "game" side of the fence. I don't enjoy > thinking about, much less simulating, the carnage of war, and I have no > illusions that any game could come even remotely close to portraying it at > the level of ASL (unless one were playing with DoD CRAYs). Not to hoot on > those of you who DO like the simulation aspect; must just be two different > modes of thought. I'm with you 100% on this, Tom. It's just a game (that I happen to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about, but a game nonetheless). Simulation to me, is neither important, desireable, or a realistic expectation. Dade ----- Subject: Re: Daisy Chain vs Normal AT From: Petri Juhani Piira Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:15:11 +0200 A very good use for Daisy Chains is: Give your infantry some AT capacity, when they don't have any good AT weapons... like in 41 or 42, when armor is strong enough to mostly ignore ATRs, and your PF/BAZ/PIAT etc. are still on the drawing board! Petri ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Night Combat Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 19:32:43 +0100 (MET) JR, your reasoning has two problems: i) I think it should be much easier to spot someone on a beach than among the trees. Don't tell me it is _easy_ to make out someone's position from looking at the gunflashes, esp. when there are several men firing. I think where you would be aided is the dark silhouettes moving across the beach, not the strange shapes lost among all other strange shapes among the trees. ii) Your argument is clearly invalid when two units are both in ad- jacent orchard hexes - or with a continuous line of orchard hexes between them. I.e. when the target is in a "internal" orchard hex. In response to someone else's comment about "not occupying the tree- tops", the rules say that you have to occupy the obstacle. That would mean that the unit at the ground level of a building would still not be affected by the +1 Night LV DRM. What remains is the question if the unit in the palm tree hex is occupying the palm tree obstacle? Since palm trees cannot be bypassed, what terrain would the unit otherwise occupy? I think that this rule would make much more sense if it simply stated that the Night LV DRM applied when firing at a unit at an elevation <= your own. Then, the effect would be that anyone higher than you would be at a disadvantage, exactly as my army FM & that footnote state. -- 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: Re: January 1994 Internet ASL Ladder Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 19:38:18 +0100 (MET) > Award Phase: > > ASL Twilight Zone Award to Darryl Lundy, currently involved in 8 Ladder > games, tying the record held by Patrik Manlig, I believe. That's about right, but I guess that Darryl has even more games going on GEnie (he's a GEnite), so he should have broken that record. -- 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: Excessive stunning... Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:14:30 +0100 (MET) Hi, A question I remembered when someone started talking about KGP: If an inherent crew suffers a K/# result, normally resulting in a recall, would it suffer a +1 or +2 stun in a KGP CG? What about a KIA? A LC during an amphibious assault? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 11:09:53 PST From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET> Subject: Paths Here is a simple teaser: Does a path allow you to cross a wall, hedge, or bocage hexside without paying the penalty for the obstacle? Does it matter if the path artwork extends on both sides of the hexside artwork? What if the artwork exists on both sides of the hexside, but is covered up by the hexside artwork along the hexside? And on a completely different topic, must Riders Bailout if the AFV fires its MA? I can't find it in the rules, so either they don't have to or I'm just missing it. Dave ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 14:49 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: More Pointless mussings > Dade Says >> Tom Says >> I know that I fall squarely on the "game" side of the fence. I don't enjoy >> thinking about, much less simulating, the carnage of war, and I have no >> illusions that any game could come even remotely close to portraying it at >> the level of ASL (unless one were playing with DoD CRAYs). Not to hoot on >> those of you who DO like the simulation aspect; must just be two different >> modes of thought. > >I'm with you 100% on this, Tom. It's just a game (that I happen to spend an >inordinate amount of time thinking about, but a game nonetheless). Simulation >to me, is neither important, desireable, or a realistic expectation. I agree that the game is more appealing than the simulation of WWII warfare. As long as the simulation captures the period, I really couldn't care how acurate it is. But I have to say that I love the fact the most scenarios are grounded in some historical fact, given with the setup and the aftermath. Without these the game would seem a little less interesting. Dan Sullivan djsullivan@bbn.com ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 19:52:20 GMT From: jrtracy@il.us.swissbank.com (J. R. Tracy) Subject: Re: Excessive stunning... Re Patrik's LC question, I believe a landing craft spins for a turn after suffering what would recall an AFV; it doesn't seem like much, but it leaves him out there another turn, prolonging the possibility of swamping, allows another turn of shooting at him, and contributes to an uncoordinated landing. If you're lucky (as the defender) he ends up pointing out to sea which increases his approach time even more. If you haven't tried a beach landing yet, check out "The Cat Has Jumped"; it's dicey, but reasonably fast playing and good fun. Take it easy, (the other) JR Begin forwarded message: From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Excessive stunning... To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (ASL Discussion list) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:14:30 +0100 (MET) Hi, A question I remembered when someone started talking about KGP: If an inherent crew suffers a K/# result, normally resulting in a recall, would it suffer a +1 or +2 stun in a KGP CG? What about a KIA? A LC during an amphibious assault? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:43:14 -0600 > > Dade Cariaga asked: > > > > The last sentence of B27.54 states that "[U]nits may move between > > connecting trenches without loss of concealment." My question: Is > > this REGARDLESS of enemy LOS? > Patrik Manlig replied: > > Yup. This is because intertrench movement is never non-assault movement, > and a trench is obviously not OG. I interpret B27.54 as simply indicating that, because adjacent trenches are connected, inter-trench movement is not Open Ground (as contrasted with foxholes, which you must exit and reenter). I presume that the A6.4 restrictions on Assault Movement still apply: move no more than one hex; do not use ALL your non-doubletime movement factors; etc. Therefore, moving through more than one connected trench hex could not be Assault Movement, and concealment would be lost consistent with A12. Have I got this all wrong? Does the "higher-numbered" rule in section B27 completely override the other considerations of A6.4 and A12? Jack O'Quin #include /* (no ASLRB in office) */ ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 21:57:30 +0100 (MET) Hi, > trenches are connected, inter-trench movement is not Open Ground (as > contrasted with foxholes, which you must exit and reenter). I presume > that the A6.4 restrictions on Assault Movement still apply: move no > more than one hex; do not use ALL your non-doubletime movement > factors; etc. Therefore, moving through more than one connected > trench hex could not be Assault Movement, and concealment would be > lost consistent with A12. > > Have I got this all wrong? Does the "higher-numbered" rule in section > B27 completely override the other considerations of A6.4 and A12? I can't cite the exact rule since I don't have a rulebook here, but there is a rule that says moving between two trenches never apply the -1 FFNAM modifier - even if it a move of more than one location. I interpret that as meaning such movement is considered assault movement. This also makes the answer to the question asked obvious, so it all makes sense together. The crux here is of course if !FFNAM == assault move. It isn't interesting except in the case of concealment loss, which is covered in the paragraph quoted earlier. IMHO, the realistic interpretation is to assume that inter- trench movement is equal to assault movement, and the only thing indicating otherwise is the lack of an explicit statement to that effect in the rules. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Subject: PACIFIC QUESTIONS From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 11:42:00 -0640 Howdy, During my recent tropical vacation the other evening some questions arose. Anybody have any ideas on these? 1) Do the "extra" hexes in a NOBA FFE hinder LOS like a normal HE Concentration (C1.57, G14.65)? There is no rule to the contrary, but the "extra" hexes are at half FP like Harrassing Fire, so the question arose. 2) Is the effect of caves on canister only to halve the FP or is the FP halved and then the cave TEM (+4) applied (G11.8, G11.836)? [Also, the same question for pillboxes (B30.112)] 3) When does Tunnel Recovery take place, during the CCPh when it is about to be eliminated or during the Rally Phase (G11.933, B8.61, A4.44)? 4) Units are allowed to enter enemy occupied hexes via Tunnels (B8.61). B30.44 says units may never enter a pillbox Location with an enemy unit in it. Does B30.44 prevent units from entering a pillbox via a Tunnel when there are enemy units in it? The answer to the last question seems to me to be "yes" quite clearly. However, my opponents felt otherwise. While invoking the "later rules" clause would give me a technical victory, my opponents were quite adament that they could move in via the Tunnel. In the end we let them, and their units died in CC. 5) If an enemy unit can enter into the pillbox when friendly units are in it, can friendly units outside attack in CC outside the pillbox attack the enemy unit along with the friendly units inside the pillbox (as long as there are no enemy units outside the pillbox)? 6) How many aspirin should you take before going into ASL caves? a) One. b) Two. c) Four. d) The whole bottle. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: TALES OF THE S. PACIFIC From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 12:37:00 -0640 Howdy, This after-action report was posted before, but was truncated by my mailer. I have now figured out how the infernal thing works, and I am now reposting this message. I apologize for the wasted bandwidth. Take Two--After Action Report A few people have mentioned some interest in Pacific scenarios and how to handle the Japanese. Four of us here in Philly (Walter Harrar, Bob Hewett, Vince Lewonski, and myself) played a game of "Take Two," and so I would like to offer what observations I can make on our game in hopes that it proves useful to others. It was definitely not expert play; we spent nearly as much time scratching our heads over the cave rules as we did playing. We split into two teams, with the Japanese split into beach & lowland defenders and hill & cave defenders, while the Americans split into a landing force and a causeway force. I was given the landing force, I think because I was the one who had most recently read the LC rules :-) Japanese Defense The Japanese put a strong force at the end of the causeway with the two trenches in 2007 & 2021. Foxholes full of defenders also set up in the palm trees in 1123-25 & 1137. A pillbox visible on the hilltop in 1086 (CA 1099-1100) would play only a limited role in the early game because the two level jungle on the hill blocked most of its LOS's to the beach. These were the visible defenses of the Japanese. In addition the Japanese had hidden fortifications: another pillbox in 1073 (CA 1076-1085), and caves in 1073 (CA 1085), 1073 (CA 1072), 1099 (CA 1111), and 1086 (CA 1099). Because the Japanese had no concealment counters and the Americans set up on board, many of the Japanese on the lower part of the island started out unconcealed. No Japanese were visible on the hill, and indeed they were all underground. One error in the Japanese setup was that they did not take advantage of G1.631 which would have allowed them 10%FRU of their force HIP in addition to any other HIP. Another thing to note about the defense is that while it is quite formidable on the front side of the hill, the backside is undefended and the double crests on Hill 121 create blind hexes around its base, allowing unimpeded access to the back. American Attack The causeway force's initial plan called for sending a half squad across to draw fire, but the defender's strong position on the other end changed this, and this force contented itself with providing supporting fire with the .50 caliber's and rifles for the first few turns. Most of the landing force's LCs are armored in their front facing only. I had feared heavy fire from shore might stun the crews, which can cause the ships to spin and expose their unarmored sides. If the Japanese had deployed strongly in the beach area (1122-23, 1134-35), I would seriously consider trying the landing either at the tip of the causeway (2007, 2021) or further west on the north edge of the island. The main advantage of the beach is that 1134 is adjacent to deep ocean, which means that the LCs can land without fear of running aground. For Infantry, running aground is not such a problem, but the tanks are not water- proofed, and so they can swamp. Sailing around to the north of the island also exposes the flanks of the LCs to fire from the hill, presumably where the MGs are. One final note about the LCs: by SSR the LCVPs are LCVs instead, which are unarmed and unarmored versions. For this reason and because the tanks need Infantry protection, the LCVs were the last boats in the line. The way the boats enter and the narrow beach area mean that the attacker has to land boats in several waves, one right after the other. Once a wave lands, the obvious way to get the boats off the beach is to spend one MP start (reverse), one to stop, and two to turn. This leaves the boat in the following LCs landing hex, causing overstacking for the following wave. The landed LCs should instead spend one to start then two to back up one hex, which clears the landing hex. By weaving ungroundings with landings, it should be possible to avoid any overstacking expenditures. The Americans got ashore with very little trouble. The prime reason for this was that NOBA had landed in hex 1124. The defenders in the foxholes were stuck: if they left their foxholes they would have been blasted, but even in the foxholes they were being whittled away even while getting an extra hindrance for the OBA concentration. As effective as the NOBA was, the air cover was that ineffective, passing only one sighting TC out of six and returning home with all bombs still on. The causeway force in the meanwhile was reducing the defenders on the other end, but a half squad sent out onto the causeway was quickly eradicated by fire from the hilltop pillbox. The Americans left the NOBA in place for several turns while they slid along the north edge of hill 121. Underneath the double crests the Marines moved to the back of the hill and up. I would recommend to a Japanese defender that some defense be put up on the north side of the island for this reason. Perhaps 1097, 1083, and/or 1098 would be good spots for those previously mentioned HIP units. In our game the Americans raced to the back and up the hill, and then it was only a question of time. In this the Marines were quite fortunate. An platoon sent to set up a firebase in 1098 on the front side of the hill was quickly pushed back. Clearing the hill. Once on top of the hill, the Americans moved on top of the two pillboxes and killed their occupants in CC. They did not occupy the pillboxes immediately, but left large stacks in the hex. Although I knew that Japanese pillboxes had tunnels, I did not realize until the last turn that the tunnels can be destroyed by recovering them (G11.933, B8.61). If you defeat a pillbox, go inside and destroy the tunnel to prevent infiltration. The Japanese on the lower island had both their DCs, and after the remnants of the lower defense force were cleared, these DCs and the rest of the Marines moved up the south side of the hill. With the pillboxes gone, the causeway force moved across to join the final fight. In my preparation for this fight I discovered that a unit above a cave can "climb" down and drop a DC into the mouth without exposing itself to the cave (G11.8331). I thought this was just an interesting bit of trivia until I tried it on the cave in 1086. A hero dropped the DC, passed the "thrown-DC" dr required, and rolled a 3 on the IFT which eliminated the cave (G11.88). Bang. Notice too that the DRM for a placed DC in a cave is +0 if there is an unconcealed, GO MMC in the cave and -4 (!) if not (G11.833, G11.88). DCs against occupied caves are fairly deadly. Against unoccupied caves they eliminate the cave almost all the time (DR <= 10). And again, these are placed, not set DCs. After another attempt at climbing to place a DC, this time unsuccessfully, the Marines tried more direct tactics. They built large FGs in front of the caves, fired in to break the defenders in Prep, then placed a DC to eliminate the cave. All the caves were destroyed in this fashion, and so the battle won. Another note on caves: even though the defender can skulk back into the cave complex and advance a concealed unit from the complex into the cave, once the cave is known, attacks against the contents are _not_ halved for the concealment of the contents (G11.812; pillboxes have a similar rule). Skulking prevents attacks during the DFPh, but doesn't give the Japanese any advantages in the following American PFPh. Some 20-20 hindsight thoughts. Pillboxes and caves are vulnerable if the enemy gets above them. The defense we faced was bristling with guns from the front, but uncovered from the rear. One idea I had was that the pillboxes should face uphill to cover the cave hexes. The pillboxes could cover the top of the caves and vice- versa. For example, a pillbox in 1084 (CA 1073) and caves in 1086 (CA 1085) and 1073 (CA 1059) would be able to mutually defend eac ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 13:34:44 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Paths David: I'll have to take another look at the boards because I wasn't aware that there were any paths that crossed such obstacles. My answers would be: > Here is a simple teaser: Does a path allow you to cross a wall, hedge, > or bocage hexside without paying the penalty for the obstacle? Yes. I suppose this represents a substantial gap in the obstacle. > Does it matter if the path artwork extends on both sides of the hexside artwork? No. So long as the path completely covers the hexside artwork. > What if the artwork exists on both sides of the hexside, but is covered > up by the hexside artwork along the hexside? Pay hexside costs. This might represent a stile in the wall/hedge/bocage which tend to slow you down a bit (at least they did when I hiked the Cotswolds with a full backpack). > And on a completely different topic, must Riders Bailout if the AFV fires > its MA? I can't find it in the rules, so either they don't have to or > I'm just missing it. Keep looking. I think it is in the rules. Ciao, Brent Pollock ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 19:57:41 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: non-MA MG's Mark, > Although it's super-arcane, D3.54 could still have some bearing on the > defensive tactic of using a MG attack to bring to bear the optimal > facing to the enemy. Did anybody have any further opinions on whether it > is saying that you can't even try a To Kill with non-MA MG, or that you > can try, but you don't resolve it? D3.54 says you can't even try a TK vs a vehicle. This dosn't mean that you can't fire at the vehicle's Location with the MG. Firing at the Location will cause the tank to turn but it has to be resolved on the IFT. No TK attacks with non-MA MGs on AFVs. --Daniel T. ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 00:30:00 BST Subject: SPRINGTIME FOR MAN{STEIN TOURNAMENT ALERT I received a notice for an ASL Tournament called the St. Vanlentines Day Massacre to be held February 12 & 13 in Savannah, GA. This local tournament should be of interest to those in SC, GA and northern Florida. Contant persons are Jay Browning (912) 884-2922 or write James McGraw, 3211 Center St., Thunderbolt, GA 31404. Note that this tournament is being held the weekend of Prezcon in Charlottesville, VA, which will also have an ASL tournament. The week after this is Winter Offensive and, of course, our (Piedmont Area Wargamers) 6th Annual Winds of War '94 in Winston-Salem, NC the weekend after Easter, April 8-10. Chicago, the weekend of April 23-24, will be the venue for The Windy City Wargamers ASL Championship. From the above you can't complain about a lack of ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 18:20:20 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: US ? in KGP Somebody just posted their 19am force purchases for the US side in KGP I and noted getting 2 ? to cover his 747 sqds to surprise the German. This brought up one quick question: Why weren't the 747's set up in concealment terrain? (If they were, they could have been covered by ? BEFORE the german could look at the setup) - Or was this just a mistake in forgetting that all units in concealment terrain set up concealed before the opponent gets to view the set up? (Just curious if I missed something myself :) Randy ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:21:12 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: Daisy Chain vs Normal AT > > A very good use for Daisy Chains is: > > Give your infantry some AT capacity, when they don't have > any good AT weapons... like in 41 or 42, when armor is strong > enough to mostly ignore ATRs, and your PF/BAZ/PIAT etc. are still > on the drawing board! > > Petri Good point. I would add that they can also be placed in front-line locations in RB and KGP. The biggest advantage of Daisy Chains, though, to my mind, is that they are a _surprise_ to the armor player. As he cruises confidently down a paved street, or gets ready to overrun an isolated squad, bingo!, he's immobilized. I got very good results in my 19DEC AM scenario of KGP with a number of 3-point Daisy Chains issued to squads in delaying positions in the front hexes of the villages. They immobilized a PzVI and a Panther and blew a flamm HT sky-high because it approached to one hex to get a full-strength fire with its two FT's. A mistake the Germans won't repeat! A somewhat unrelated question -- why don't U.S. Armored Infantry platoons have BAZ in KGP? My U.S. Army order of battle says that an Armored Infantry Battalion had 74 Bazookas (as against the leg battalion's 29). Is this just a misprint? Without BAZ, the Armored Infantry is very weak against armor (hence my purchase of AT mines for them). ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 21:56:50 EST Subject: info needed for survey Can some kind person send me a list of the known ASL publications? I'd like to be complete in the upcoming survey. I plan on updating the survey to include all publications and modules. I plan on *dropping* the long section on what folks want to see in the Digest. If Brian and Adrian want to resurvey folks concerning the content of that fine publication, I'll doff the chapeau and let them take on the task. I will consider adding a new series of questions focusing on possibly a) favorite scenarios/rules and/or b) other gaming interests, either now or at another time. I will also be happy to run the "standard" survey and report to the community on an annual basis (seems reasonable) as long as I'm part of the action. (what a dismal thought: I love my job and I love this group; losing them would be non-positive!). John "trading the telestrator for the survey" Foley ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 20:32:17 PST From: David van Kan <6600P@NAVPGS.BITNET> Subject: Re: Paths Gents, With regard to my question about paths, the hex I specifically had in mind was fG2 from Hedgerow Hell. The G2/F1 hexside is a hedge (bocage in our game). The path crosses the hex diagonally from H2. The path artwork is clearly bisected by the hedge artwork on the map. B13.6 says "A path allows entry of that hex through the path hexside by Infantry/Cavalry at a cost of one/two MF--not two/four. Otherwise a path has no other effect on a hex." But in my case, the cost to enter G2 across the G2/F1 hexside is normally four/NA because of the bocage. So do I follow the letter of the rules, and use one/two MF, or add the Bocage penalty to the COT for a cost of three/NA? Dave ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 19:18:25 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Bailing Out The Other Dave asks: > And on a completely different topic, must Riders Bailout if the AFV fires > its MA? I can't find it in the rules, so either they don't have to or > I'm just missing it. There's a reason you can't find this rule: it doesn't exist anymore. Here's a non-ASL citation for the nostalgic among us, from GI: 144.94 BAILING OUT: If the AFV providing Mounted Assault fires any armament other than AAMG, smoke candles, dischargers, or smoke mortars, or is hit by any type of ordnance or FFE not resulting in elimination of the AFV, all passengers must "Bail Out". Riders still Bail Out if you change your TCA, though. (Bonk!) Or drive through woods (Look out for that ... Tree!). Since JR is here to backstop, I'm not even going to attempt to cite chapter and verse. Citing the non-existence of a rule is a bit too difficult for me, anyway. I think you have to use induction on A.2... The Other Other Dave ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 10:23 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Booby Traps Hey Guys, Just a simple question, are Morale Checks considered Task Checks for boobytraps ? If not what kinds of TC set off boobytraps? ----------------- Dan Sullivan djsullivan@bbn.com ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Booby Traps Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 16:36:53 +0100 (MET) Dan, > Just a simple question, are Morale Checks considered Task Checks for > boobytraps ? If not what kinds of TC set off boobytraps? Well, we never played that way, but it would sure make Booby traps more interesting. As for what what kind of TC that sets off booby traps, any will do. Para TC when landing, immobilization TC, PTC, clerance TC, infantry OVR TC, PAATC, etc... -- 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: Booby Traps Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 16:58:41 +0100 (MET) > > Dan, > > > Just a simple question, are Morale Checks considered Task Checks for > > boobytraps ? If not what kinds of TC set off boobytraps? > > Well, we never played that way, but it would sure make Booby traps more > interesting. > > As for what what kind of TC that sets off booby traps, any will do. Para > TC when landing, immobilization TC, PTC, clerance TC, infantry OVR TC, > PAATC, etc... > Yep. Makes the Germans much less intent on lots of activities in a RB CG. Especially when the Russians pump up Booby Traps capability a little (hey! at least it isn't susceptible to Sniper Checks...) -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 10:23:07 -0600 From: Bryan Milligan Subject: ASL Open Thanks to all who sent me info on the ASL Open! As a new player, should I just plan to go and watch or to go and play (and get stomped)? If I can clear my work schedule, I'll be there; better yet, my wife wants to go to Dallas to see her mom. 8-0 Nothing like having fun and earning husbanding points. --- Bryan Milligan bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu ---- My views are just that. ---- ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 08:40:01 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: One Down, Two to Go Okay, this is for any of you RB experts that have some time on your hands. I've developed a preliminary setup as the Russians for "One Down, Two to Go" and I'd LOVE it if an RB veteran would give it the once over and maybe offer some pointers. So, if you're interested, email me and I'll send you my setup. It's always interesting to see how other players look at things, and, like I said the other day, I really am diffident about my ability to approach this one. Everything seems to be in such close proximity, and those German 548's and Stukas are terrifying... Dade ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: KGP Freedom of Movement Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 11:41:46 MST Does the KGP statement that during a night scenario, the Defender gets automatic Freedom of Movement for the two best leaders mean a) Two leaders, instead of one, get to roll for F o' M once the Attacker resolves a non-ambush attack b) The two top leaders get F o' M as soon as the Attacker resolves an attack, without need of a roll. c) The two leaders get F o' M as soon as the scenario begins, without rolling and without waiting for an attack to be resolved ? Opinions welcome, those who've played one way or another encouraged, and those with authority pleaded with. rk ----- From: kinney@sage.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Re: BAZ in Armored platoons Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 10:30:28 MST Stewart asks: >Why don't U.S. Armored Infantry platoons >have BAZ in KGP? Ah, but they do. One of the halftracks accompanying an Armored Infantry Platoon comes with a bazooka. (Check the vehicle notes. They even say "BAZ" on the back.) rk ----- From: solomons@mass.com Subject: the general Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 10:36:39 +0000 (GMT) Are there people out there still waiting for vol28 no6 of The General? AH told me they had mailed the issue out the week of Christmas.... Still waiting :-(-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Solomons solomons@mass.com ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Campbell Subject: RE: the general > Are there people out there still waiting for vol28 no6 of The General? > AH told me they had mailed the issue out the week of Christmas.... Still >waiting :-(-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- >Walter Solomons >solomons@mass.com Yes, there are some who haven't received theirs yet. I got mine right before Christmas, but my gaming club got their copy this past Tuesday. (1/11) And I know two others from the club that haven't gotten theirs yet!!! Rich Campbell campbell@capsrv.jhuapl.edu ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 12:06:55 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: Re: US ? in KGP On Wed, 12 Jan 1994, Randy Nonay wrote: > > Somebody just posted their 19am force purchases for the US side in KGP I > and noted getting 2 ? to cover his 747 sqds to surprise the German. > This brought up one quick question: Why weren't the 747's set up in > concealment terrain? (If they were, they could have been covered by ? > BEFORE the german could look at the setup) - Or was this just a mistake > in forgetting that all units in concealment terrain set up concealed > before the opponent gets to view the set up? > > (Just curious if I missed something myself :) > Randy It was a mistake. They did set up in concealment terrain, I just didn't read P8.4 closely enough before play began. Someone else was already kind enough to inform me of the error of my ways. Carl ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:13:38 +1030 From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Re: your mail Hi hr. (hr. Patrik Olsson), on Jan 11 you wrote: > > Well, I'm not from any of the ex-allied or ex-axis countries. > More exactly I'm from Sweden, you know the country who once owned > both Norway and Finland :-) (No offence you norwegians and finnish on this > list.) > > ASL is quite popular in Sweden, but maybe not as many players in number > or percentage as U.S.A or any other large ex-allied country. > > I find it quite interesting to play those scenarios who takes > place in Finland and Norway, 'cause it feels so very much closer > than as an example the desert scenarios (but of course they're very > entertaining as well). > > Sweden itself never took active part in WWII, but we believed in a German > victory as a start and let german troops use the railway to get to Norway. > We also sent voulantaries to fight for Finland against the russians. > > As the war moved on we started to tune for a Allied victory. > > Many has questioned Swedens "week" back in WWII and perhaps their right. > > Well let's not try to solve historic worldproblems on this list. > So, Brent and Brad, there is a certain number of us on the list > whose countries never took part in WWII. Well, I don't think anyone was getting political, at least I wasn't intending to. Thanks for pointing out there are some from neutral countries. (Well, OK, I _am_ using a wide definition of neutral!) I wonder if anyone has compiled a rough list of subscribers and their countries... Brian?? (C'mon, you know you don't have anything to do ... :-) ) -- Brad McMahon bjm@rommel.apana.org.au Phone: +61-8-332 63 95 (Home) +61-8-204 04 97 (Work) ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 15:08:04 -0600 Patrik Manlig writes: > I can't cite the exact rule since I don't have a rulebook here, but > there is a rule that says moving between two trenches never apply the > -1 FFNAM modifier - even if it a move of more than one location. I > interpret that as meaning such movement is considered assault movement. > This also makes the answer to the question asked obvious, so it all > makes sense together. > > The crux here is of course if !FFNAM == assault move. It isn't interesting > except in the case of concealment loss, which is covered in the paragraph > quoted earlier. IMHO, the realistic interpretation is to assume that inter- > trench movement is equal to assault movement, and the only thing indicating > otherwise is the lack of an explicit statement to that effect in the > rules. You really had me convinced with your argument about lack of FFNAM being equivalent to Assault Movement, Patrik. Last night I looked it up in the ASLRB (just to burn it into those little grey cells), when to my surprise I discovered that B27 doesn't say anything about FFNAM. It simply states that because the trenches are connected, the -1 modifier for FFMO does not apply. Now, we all get FFNAM and FFMO mixed up from time to time, when trying to remember complicated rules passages; but I think the distinction is central to your thesis. So now I've returned to my original opinion: you can Assault Move from one trench hex to an ADJACENT trench without losing concealment; but moving more than one hex requires non-Assault Movement, loses concealment, and would be subject to FFNAM, if fired upon by DFF. Yes? Jack (frequently confused by FFNAM and FFMO) O'Quin ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 16:49:24 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment Patrik sez: > This also makes the answer to the question asked obvious, so it all > makes sense together. Boy, this AGWAV is going to be a real humdinger, given the way Patrik is warming up for it. Assault Movement=trench movement. Neutral Commentators. Passages in Turkish. Ladder points. Scenario modifications. That Ripton guy isn't gonna know what he hit. I mean, what hit him. I think. I mean... Matt Brown Transformational ASL. Or Transcendental. Or, just kidding, Pat. ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 14:24:15 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment On Jan 13, 3:08pm, Jack O'Quin wrote: > So now I've returned to my original opinion: you can Assault Move from > one trench hex to an ADJACENT trench without losing concealment; but > moving more than one hex requires non-Assault Movement, loses > concealment, and would be subject to FFNAM, if fired upon by DFF. I agree in principle, but the wording in B27.54 is unambiguous: "Units may move between connecting trenches without loss of concealment." No mention of assault movement. I don't know, it's confusing, which is why I posted to the list about it in the first place. Is this a possible question for the Hill? Dade ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 17:24:27 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? I was just perusing the Record this afternoon, when I discovered that not one of the most or well-balanced scenarios (listed in the beginning of the Record) takes place in the PTO. (I could be wrong about this but, Chuck and I couldn't find any.) I know that only a subset of ASL'ers has/plays/feels comfortable with PTO rules and scenarios, and that the PTO is relatively new, but you'd think that at least one scenario would've proven accessible to the masses and balanced by this time. (Don't just about half of them use caves and amphibious landings or lotsa Chapter E?) What gives? Is this a problem of supply or demand? Tim ----- Subject: Paths From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 11:53:00 -0640 >Here is a simple teaser: Does a path allow you to cross a >wall, hedge, or bocage hexside without paying the penalty >for the obstacle? Does it matter if the path artwork >extends on both sides of the hexside artwork? What if the >artwork exists on both sides of the hexside, but is covered >up by the hexside artwork along the hexside? Does this actually happen or is this a hypothetical question? The rule says: B13.6 "A path allows entry of that hex through the path hexside by Infantry/Cavalry at a cost of one/two MF--not two/four. Otherwise, a path has no other effect on a hex." Being a strict "rulist" (as opposed to a "realist"), I would say no. > And on a completely different topic, must Riders Bailout if > the AFV fires its MA? Is this perhaps a holdover from SL? I seem to remember something like this, but the rules only say that the riders must bail out if the TCA changes. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 14:29:31 -1000 (HST) From: Patrick Jonke Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? On Thu, 13 Jan 1994, Timothy Van Sant wrote: > I was just perusing the Record this afternoon, when I discovered that not > one of the most or well-balanced scenarios (listed in the beginning of the > Record) takes place in the PTO. (I could be wrong about this but, Chuck > and I couldn't find any.) > > I know that only a subset of ASL'ers has/plays/feels comfortable with PTO > rules and scenarios, and that the PTO is relatively new, but you'd think > that at least > one scenario would've proven accessible to the masses and balanced by this > time. (Don't just > about half of them use caves and amphibious landings or lotsa Chapter E?) > > What gives? Is this a problem of supply or demand? > Speaking as a designer of some of the PTO scenarios in COB and GH, I wish to point out the fact that the module scenarios are intended to teach (and test) the new rules introduced in that module. A lot of new rules were introduced to cover the Pacific theatre, so it is natural to expect the new scenarios to have lots of caves, amphibious landings, etc. Perfect scenario balance is rare. The scenarios would have to be played hundreds of times, between players of equal ability, before the effects of simple luck could be factored out. I get the impression that some players are discouraged from playing a scenario because it has a lopsided win-loss record. If the situation is interesting, there are two possibilities. One, allow the less-experienced of the two opponents to play the favored side. Two, apply the balance provisions of the scenario. I realize that the printed balance provisions are often too weak to fully correct an imbalance, but there is no reason why two players couldn't come up with their own balance provisions (or use the Australian bidding system). On this latter subject, I perceive a aspect of the "fanzine" situation that has not been considered so far. That is, I would like to see a fanzine (or email list...) take up the long-term playtesting of already published scenarios, in an effort to perfect their balance. New balance provisions could be developed, tested, and then presented to the public. I have seen some discussion in this direction, e.g., the recent posts about The Agony of Doom, but no large scale effort. So, who wants to take up the gauntlet? Aloha Patrick Jonke P.S. Errr, no, I'm too busy for the forseeable future... 8-) ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 22:38:18 EST Subject: Australian Bidding System Re: mention of this item by Pat Jonke. Would someone try to explain this in a *coherent* manner, ie, to someone who has not been to a Convention, including a *full* example? I've seen mention of bidding systems before and have asked for an explanation; what I've seen in return confuses me even further. Thanks, John ("Not too busy with the survey to admit ignorance in this matter") ----- Subject: FPBEM-ASL Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 04:48:31 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Yo! I got an idea! FPBEM-ASL = FAST pbem-asl. Anyone interested? Perhaps I should tell you about it first. It's really easy. You play a game on IRC, on your own channel which you either make private/invite only or make all the non-ops (all but the players) silent. Ofcourse, this would give you square eyes, (you'll have to be watching a monitor for the duration of a scenario), but it sure would be fun for all the notsofortunateaslplayers (those that don't get to play FTF all that often) around. Anyone interested? Could at least try it out. If anyone is interested, ping me. +-----------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+ Asad Rustum | Jag {r B{st, | "Save us, O God, f90-aru@nada.kth.se | hur bra {r du? | from the violence atomic@astrakan.hgs.se | | of the Northmen" ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 02:51:00 BST Subject: Acon '93 list Bryan, If you get to the ASL Open, you should play. The only way to shirk your "new player" status is to gain experience through playing the scenarios. I've been taught how to play by some very fine players and I study the ASLRB endlessly, however, the lessons I never forget are the ones I learned painfully in the course of a scenario. Besides, whenever I'm at tournament and just kicking around between games I decide to sit down quietly and watch two expert players play, hoping to learn something. After I few minutes I remember how boring this; ASL is a poor spectator sport. All, The following was posted to GEnie, and due to overwhelming requests, I'm posting it here. Steve Category 21, Topic 2 Message 927 Sun Jan 09, 1994 P.POMERANTZ1 [Phil] at 15:20 EST I have information from Russ Gifford about the ASL ACon tourney, that i will upload in 3 parts as he sent to me. Here are the final standings. I'll also have Russ's rationale for Scenario selection; and the scenario record of ACon for 92 and 93 RANK NAME RD 1 RD 2 RD 3 RD 4 RD 5 RD 6 RD 7 SCORE PLACE 1 McGrath W33 W54 W8 W27 W57 W3 W2 7-0 1ST 2 Fortenberry W17 W40 W10 W4 W12 W11 L1 6-1 2ND-7TH 3 Givler W30 W108 W75 W15 W6 L1 L17 4 Pleva W83 W66 W34 L2 W8 W22 W11 5 Balicki W77 W42 W7 L11 W52 W15 W28 6 Saltzman W107 W71 W59 W37 L3 W27 W12 7 Naiman W53 W81 L5 W88 W18 W14 W43 8 Mehr W9 W14 L1 W84 L4 W50 W32 5-2 8TH-21ST 9 Cocke L8 L24 W86 W10 W29 W37 W22 10 Youse W56 W20 L2 L9 W34 W23 W66 11 Deresinski W18 W90 W55 W5 W22 L2 L4 12 Jordon W94 W97 W13 W28 L2 W26 L6 13 Larcheveque W60 W95 L12 W31 L40 W42 W36 14 Summers W19 L8 W81 W82 W56 L7 W26 15 Drane W84 W96 W72 L3 W42 L5 W23 16 Tankersley W68 W51 L36 L24 W82 W25 W27 17 Flicker L2 W69 W85 W49 W53 W30 L3 18 Croke L11 W94 W109 W96 L7 W40 W31 19 Woloszyn L14 L37 W105 W101 W66 W41 W38 20 Sutton W115 L10 W29 W110 W25 W24 21 Puccio W117 L34 W100 L25 W95 W94 W59 22 Tokarz W44 W23 W49 W26 L11 L4 L9 4-3 22ND-46TH 23 Robin W24 L22 W48 W36 W44 L10 L15 24 Baker L23 W9 W66 W16 W35 L20 25 Hildebran W29 L49 W76 W21 L20 L16 W53 26 Stahler W50 W70 W35 L22 W36 L12 L14 27 Semenza W110 W102 W28 L1 W47 L6 L16 28 Handforth W64 W85 L27 L12 W63 W35 L5 29 Wetzelberger L25 W105 L20 W94 L9 W88 W30 30 Aiken L3 W83 W60 W55 W31 L17 L29 31 Bills W32 W76 W33 L13 L30 W60 L18 32 Pomerantz L31 W114 L52 W61 W54 W33 L8 33 Sidhu L1 W41 L31/W61 W92 L32 W54 34 Meyer W74 W21 L4 L56 L10 W63 W49 35 Rossi W61 W39 L26 W43 L24 L28 W101 36 Feinstein W93 BYE W16 L23 L26 W57 L13 37 Gifford W119 W19 W47 L6 W47 L9 38 Bird W100 L72 W96 L51 W59 W39 L19 39 Kyle W52 L35 L54 W64 W55 L38 W68 40 Widder W41 L2 W108 W62 W13 L18 41 Raymond L40 L33 W68 W77 W76 L19 W55 42 Kavanagh W109 L5 W90 W90 L15 L13 W70 43 McCorry L90 W58 W115 L35 W51 W53 L7 44 Berger L22 W89 W103 W72 L23 W56 45 Provost L55 W92 W73 L50 L80 W97 W69 46 Callen, Bob L102 L100 L101 W115 W104 W74 W58 47 Muije W48 W78 L37 W75 L27 L37 3-4 47TH-71ST 48 Chaney L47 W116 L23 W81 W49 49 Ginnard W63 W25 L22 L17 W74 L48 L34 50 Sielski L26 W99 W51 W45 L8 51 Petry W65 L16 L50 W38 L43 W81 52 Knotts L39 W63 W32 W59 L5 53 Camp L7 W119 W78 W54 L17 L43 L25 54 Morrissey W92 L1 W39 L53 L32 W95 L33 55 Schaaf W45 W104 L11 L30 L39 W87 L41 56 Plachta L10 W106 W77 W34 L14 L44 57 Coyle W58 W79 W74 L1 L36 58 Fredrick L57 L43 L79 W97 W91 W71 L46 59 Tracy W73 W87 L6 L52 L38 W82 L21 60 Fryza L13 L30 W69 W78 L31 61 Barnette L35 W91 L33 L32 W73 W99 62 Snyder W98 L75 W95 L40 W88 63 Dowd L49 L52 W89 W103 L28 L34 W91 64 Mueller L28 L103 W83 L39 L87 W100 W88 65 Ragusa L51 W110 L84 W87 W97 66 Morin W106 L4 L24 W104 L19 W99 L10 67 Willingham L97 W113 W70 W103 68 Watts L16 L74 L41 W114 W106 W96 L39 69 McDonald L76 L17 W116 L60 W103 W78 L45 70 Rodgers W103 L26 L93 L67 W105 W108 L42 71 Callen, Rodney W118 L6 L88 L105 W114 L58 W95 72 Kearney W82 W38 L15 L44 2-5 72ND-99TH 73 Turpin L59 W115 L45 L61 W74 74 Larose L34 W68 W87 L57 L49 L46 L73 75 Romanowski W86 W62 L3 L47 76 Wehrle W69 L31 L25 W100 L41 77 Dolphin L5 W93 L56 L41 W98 78 Campbell W99 L47 L53 W91 L60 L69 79 Stachowski L57 W58 W109 80 Goetz W113 W45 81 Timm W101 L7 L14 L48 W90 L51 82 Hively L72 W86 W104 L14 L16 L59 83 Fago L4 L30 L64 W86 W107 84 Dolan L15 W118 W65 L8 85 Conner W111 L28 L17 W93 86 Johnson L75 L82 L9 L83 W116 W87 87 Lundy W88 L59 L74 L65 W64 L55 L86 88 Petersen L87 W98 W71 L7 L62 L29 L64 89 Murillo L44 L63 L106 W113 W90 L107 90 Kropf W43 L11 L42 L42 L81 L89 W106 91 Zucker L108 L61 W117 L78 L58 W92 L63 92 Kissinger L54 L45 W106 W98 L33 L91 93 King L36 L77 W70 L85 W115 94 Brockie L12 L18 W113 L29 W101 L21 95 Cosmas W116 L13 L62 W108 L21 L54 L71 96 Biss W114 L15 L38 L18 W100 L68 97 Jenkins W67 L12 L58 L65 L45 W113 98 Malloy L62 L88 W114 L92 L77 W106 99 Pelletier L78 L50 W118 W120 L109 L66 L61 100 Woodrow L38 W46 L21 L76 L96 L64 1-6 100TH-112TH 101 Schmitt L81 L60 W46 L19 L94 L35 102 Guyton W46 L27 103 Felton L70 W64 L44 L63 L69 L67 104 Leoce W105 L55 L82 L66 L46 105 Rezabek L104 L29 L19 W71 L70 106 Wright L66 L56 L92 W89 L68 L98 L90 107 Powers L6 L83 W89 108 Pierzchala W91 L3 L40 L95 L70 109 Bonner L42 L18 L79 W99 110 Dunn L27 L65 W111 L20 111 Paull L85 W117 L110 112 Kusterer W111 113 Ockelmann L80 L67 L94 L89 L112 L97 0-7 113TH-120TH 114 Turnas L96 L32 L98 L68 L71 115 Hatfield L20 L73 L43 L46 L93 116 Knippel L95 L48 L69 L86 117 Ornett L21 L111 L91 118 Krout L71 L84 L99 119 Bailey L37 L53 120 Evans L99 ------------ ----- From: s.belcher@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 03:04:00 BST Subject: AGWAV Hi! I'm relatively _un_ experienced with internet - and currently have access only through mail. What do I need to do to "view" the "Game with a view"? Thanks. ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 20:51:51 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: PACIFIC QUESTIONS JR: Since nobody else seems to want to tackle this I'll give it a go. [stuff deleted] > > > >1) Do the "extra" hexes in a NOBA FFE hinder LOS like a > >normal HE Concentration (C1.57, G14.65)? There is no rule > >to the contrary, but the "extra" hexes are at half FP like > >Harrassing Fire, so the question arose. Yes, because Harassing Fire is at 1/3 FP, not 1/2. > >2) Is the effect of caves on canister only to halve the FP > >or is the FP halved and then the cave TEM (+4) applied > >(G11.8, G11.836)? [Also, the same question for pillboxes > >(B30.112)] In both cases, TEM applies in addition to half FP for Cannister. > > > >3) When does Tunnel Recovery take place, during the CCPh > >when it is about to be eliminated or during the Rally Phase > >(G11.933, B8.61, A4.44)? Whenever A4.44 allows it (I'm too lazy to read the whole thing, but I think it is Movement and Rally phases) > > > >4) Units are allowed to enter enemy occupied hexes via > >Tunnels (B8.61). B30.44 says units may never enter a > >pillbox Location with an enemy unit in it. Does B30.44 > >prevent units from entering a pillbox via a Tunnel when > >there are enemy units in it? > > > >The answer to the last question seems to me to be "yes" > >quite clearly. However, my opponents felt otherwise. While > >invoking the "later rules" clause would give me a technical > >victory, my opponents were quite adament that they could > >move in via the Tunnel. In the end we let them, and their > >units died in CC. You play it the same way I do; No Entry into Pillboxes. I think the bit about entering a location not otherwise enterable has to do with Fortified locations, mainly. [stuff deleted] Hope that helps. Ciao, Brent Pollock ----- From: r.woloszyn@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 02:16:00 BST Subject: ASL OPEN/NATIONALITIES I will be attending the Open as probably the sole North Carolinian; Winter Offensive in the company of Joyner, Kearney and Saltzman. I personally love playing the Roumanians and wish my 8-0 Partisan counter was puke green. Born in 1950, I grew up with WWII stories from my dad and his six brothers, all but one having served in the armed forces. On top of this was marrying a German while stationed there whose father was in the 18th Panzer, 101 PzGr Regt (Die schnellen Truppen). See Breakout at Borisov! (COI) In Bezug auf die "Ladder", haette ich gern eine Partie mit jemandem aus einer Deutsch sprechenden Gegend in Europa. Freiwilliger? Ray ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 10:35:08 +0100 (MET) Hi all Timothy Van Sant wrote: > > I was just perusing the Record this afternoon, when I discovered that not > one of the most or well-balanced scenarios (listed in the beginning of the > Record) takes place in the PTO. (I could be wrong about this but, Chuck > and I couldn't find any.) > > I know that only a subset of ASL'ers has/plays/feels comfortable with PTO > rules and scenarios, and that the PTO is relatively new, but you'd think > that at least > one scenario would've proven accessible to the masses and balanced by this > time. (Don't just > about half of them use caves and amphibious landings or lotsa Chapter E?) > > What gives? Is this a problem of supply or demand? > > Tim > > > Try "Kakazu Ridge" that appears in Tactiques #3 under the name "La crete de Kakazu" and appears in the Digest (dont remember issue). I designed this scenario for newcomers to PTO (peoples which want to play the Japanese without having to learn a lot about Caves and Landing Craft). The only necessary rules are Japanese and Light Jungle. It is a short scenario with both sides attacking and that seems to be well balanced : during playtest, it went 4-5 (axis-allied) and we use it recently in France for a tournament where it went 5-6 (axis-allied) (Can these results be put in the record or it is only results from Internet users?) Try it. (if you want i can make a "AH look" layout of Kakazu Ridge. -- ========================================================================== 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: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?') Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 10:41:13 +0100 (MET) Dade Cariaga wrote: > On Jan 13, 3:08pm, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > So now I've returned to my original opinion: you can Assault Move from > > one trench hex to an ADJACENT trench without losing concealment; but > > moving more than one hex requires non-Assault Movement, loses > > concealment, and would be subject to FFNAM, if fired upon by DFF. > > I agree in principle, but the wording in B27.54 is unambiguous: "Units may > move between connecting trenches without loss of concealment." No mention > of assault movement. I don't know, it's confusing, which is why I posted to > the list about it in the first place. > > Is this a possible question for the Hill? > > Dade > > Well , i think Tactiques' staff has already asked this question to AH and got the answer (that appears in the next issue with a lot of other answers. I will look at it and post the answer next monday). I can also post the other answers (we got a set of it every 6 months) but have only the french version (text file). Someone to translate? -- ========================================================================== 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, 13 Jan 94 19:46:00 +1030 From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon) Subject: Riders on the Sturm(geschuetz) Hi David (David van Kan), on Jan 12 you wrote: > And on a completely different topic, must Riders Bailout if the AFV fires > its MA? I can't find it in the rules, so either they don't have to or > I'm just missing it. I looked, and I couldn't find it. I foind it strange that they don't given the conditions for bailing out. If you have ever seen the recoil from a tank firing, I can't see how you could stay on. I must confess never to have used riders, and after reading the rules I can see why! Way too dangerous. -- Brad McMahon bjm@rommel.apana.org.au Phone: +61-8-332 63 95 (Home) +61-8-204 04 97 (Work) ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 07:47:35 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? > From pjonke@mano.soest.hawaii.edu Thu Jan 13 18:50:09 1994 > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 14:29:31 -1000 (HST) > From: Patrick Jonke > Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? > To: Timothy Van Sant > Cc: ASLML > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Content-Length: 2413 > > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 1994, Timothy Van Sant wrote: > > > I was just perusing the Record this afternoon, when I discovered that not > > one of the most or well-balanced scenarios (listed in the beginning of the > > Record) takes place in the PTO. (I could be wrong about this but, Chuck > > and I couldn't find any.) > > > > I know that only a subset of ASL'ers has/plays/feels comfortable with PTO > > rules and scenarios, and that the PTO is relatively new, but you'd think > > that at least > > one scenario would've proven accessible to the masses and balanced by this > > time. (Don't just > > about half of them use caves and amphibious landings or lotsa Chapter E?) > > > > What gives? Is this a problem of supply or demand? > > > > > Speaking as a designer of some of the PTO scenarios in COB and GH, I wish > to point out the fact that the module scenarios are intended to teach > (and test) the new rules introduced in that module. A lot of new rules > were introduced to cover the Pacific theatre, so it is natural to expect > the new scenarios to have lots of caves, amphibious landings, etc. > > Perfect scenario balance is rare. The scenarios would have to be played > hundreds of times, between players of equal ability, before the effects of > simple luck could be factored out. > > I get the impression that some players are discouraged from playing a > scenario because it has a lopsided win-loss record. If the situation is > interesting, there are two possibilities. One, allow the less-experienced > of the two opponents to play the favored side. Two, apply the balance > provisions of the scenario. I realize that the printed balance provisions > are often too weak to fully correct an imbalance, but there is no reason > why two players couldn't come up with their own balance provisions (or use > the Australian bidding system). > > On this latter subject, I perceive a aspect of the "fanzine" situation > that has not been considered so far. That is, I would like to see a > fanzine (or email list...) take up the long-term playtesting of already > published scenarios, in an effort to perfect their balance. New balance > provisions could be developed, tested, and then presented to the public. > I have seen some discussion in this direction, e.g., the recent posts > about The Agony of Doom, but no large scale effort. Actually, I believe some guys with FFE are doing something like this. I don't know how much they have playtested, but they have provided Australian Balance provisions for the scenarios of BV, SoF, and I think either Yanks or Paratrooper, plus for each one they list their "recommended balance." I wholeheartedly support their effort. Matt (every scenario is unbalanced against me) Shostak > > So, who wants to take up the gauntlet? > > Aloha > > Patrick Jonke > > P.S. Errr, no, I'm too busy for the forseeable future... 8-) > > > ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:15:39 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Van Sant Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? On Thu, 13 Jan 1994, Patrick Jonke wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jan 1994, Timothy Van Sant wrote: >> [munch] > > What gives? Is this a problem of supply or demand? > > > Speaking as a designer of some of the PTO scenarios in COB and GH, I wish > to point out the fact that the module scenarios are intended to teach > (and test) the new rules introduced in that module. A lot of new rules > were introduced to cover the Pacific theatre, so it is natural to expect > the new scenarios to have lots of caves, amphibious landings, etc. I'll go along with that. > Perfect scenario balance is rare. The scenarios would have to be played > hundreds of times, between players of equal ability, before the effects of > simple luck could be factored out. I think the topic of how many playings constitute a sufficient sample size to say a scenario is "balanced" (don't know what that means from a statistical standpoint--a scenario no worse than 60-40?) has been discussed on this list before. My dim memory says that a minimum sample size was several score not several hundred. > I get the impression that some players are discouraged from playing a > scenario because it has a lopsided win-loss record. If the situation is > interesting, there are two possibilities. One, allow the less-experienced > of the two opponents to play the favored side. Two, apply the balance > provisions of the scenario. I realize that the printed balance provisions > are often too weak to fully correct an imbalance, but there is no reason > why two players couldn't come up with their own balance provisions (or use > the Australian bidding system). Those of us with limited time for ASL may tend to dismiss scenarios that "appear" unbalanced. You're right--that could be a mistake. Perhaps I should have added that if there are "classic" PTO scenarios out there (like those already in the well-balanced lists) I'd like to know which ones they are. Tim ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 09:52:29 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Australian Play Balance Provisions Guys, Australian Play Balance Provisions is a term I am not familiar with. Would someone care to elaborate? Doug Maston ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 08:47:46 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? Tim Says > I think the topic of how many playings constitute a sufficient sample size > to say a scenario is "balanced" (don't know what that means from a > statistical standpoint--a scenario no worse than 60-40?) has been > discussed on this list before. My dim memory says that a minimum sample size > was several score not several hundred. > Taken from the FAQ, here's the statistical answer to your questions :-) Don Hancock ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q25. How can I tell if a scenario is balanced? >From wilkie@voyager.larc.nasa.gov Wed Jun 9 09:34:29 1993 Okay Don, I'll bite. :-) Here's a table based on a standard chi-square test of goodness of fit. I've given the "unbalance threshold" (i.e., the fraction of wins *above* which you may assume the scenario to be unbalanced) for several values of P. I've defined P here as the likelyhood that the scenario is unbalanced one way or another, or in other words, your degree of certainty that the scenario is unbalanced. Of course this won't tell you how much a scenario is unbalanced, just what the chance is that it is unbalanced (for a given degree of confidence). N Games Unbalance Threshold (P=> 90% Unbalanced 95% Unbalanced 99% Unbalanced) 10 0.76 0.81 0.91 20 0.68 0.72 0.79 30 0.65 0.68 0.74 40 0.63 0.65 0.70 100 0.58 0.60 0.63 As an example, consider good old Scenario N "Soldiers of Destruction". According to my last copy of The Record, Germans have 22 wins to the Russians' 2, yielding a fraction of German wins of... 22/(2+22) = 0.92. So, with 24 total games played and fraction of German wins of 0.92, we may assume that there is a better than 99% chance that "Soldiers of Destruction" is unbalanced. Note that if the Germans had only won 79% of the games played we could draw the same conclusion. Believe it or not, the only AH scenarios that are 99% likely to be unbalanced are "Soldiers of Destruction" and 66 "The Bushmasters". I haven't really checked for lower likelyhoods of unbalance, but 90% is probably a good enough value to start having suspicions about a scenario. Keats (wilkie@voyager.larc.nasa.gov) ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 11:31:22 -0500 (EST) From: John Appel Subject: Bad News about Atlanticon I'm afraid that Atlanticon this year has been cancelled. My source for this information is Bill Frye, the gent who has been running the show for the last couple of years. A decreasing number of event runners, combined with the rising cost of doing business with the Baltimore Convention Center and the hotels, forced him to either call it off or take a serious gamble with his finances. An implication of this is that Origins will not return to Baltimore on a permanent basis in '95, as had been hoped by all of us hear in the area. It appears now that Origins will be "permanantly" in Philadelphia form '95 onwards. (Reliability of this information is also high.) And on top of that, I have a wedding in the family the weekend of WO. Of course, the _old_ date was fine.... Brian, can I light a small fire under some hotel marketing people for you? Maybe I can make Friday for a while.... Guess I'll see y'all at Avaloncon. John John Appel jappel@access.digex.com ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:18:53 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? Hi, Patrick. Your idea for balancing the existing published scenarios is already underway. Mike McGrath and his best friend (who's name escapes me) are doing it for the Fire For Effect 'zine published by Rob Wolke. They've already completed the scenarios for BV, PARA, SOF, and YANKS. Dade ----- From: kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Re: PACIFIC QUESTIONS Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:31:17 MST >> >4) Units are allowed to enter enemy occupied hexes via >> >Tunnels (B8.61). B30.44 says units may never enter a >> >pillbox Location with an enemy unit in it. Does B30.44 >> >prevent units from entering a pillbox via a Tunnel when >> >there are enemy units in it? >> > >> >The answer to the last question seems to me to be "yes" >> >quite clearly. However, my opponents felt otherwise. While >> >invoking the "later rules" clause would give me a technical >> >victory, my opponents were quite adament that they could >> >move in via the Tunnel. In the end we let them, and their >> >units died in CC. >You play it the same way I do; No Entry into Pillboxes. I think the bit >about entering a location not otherwise enterable has to do with >Fortified locations, mainly. Hmmm. This makes me remember something. The pillbox section has some paragraph stating the TEM of a pillbox is different against a DC that is placed "to and from within" a pillbox. We had some chuckles over the awkward phrase "to and from within" but decided it had to refer to a unit in a pillbox throwing a DC at another unit in the same pillbox. Then we had a good time trying to figure out how you could ever get such a situation, but the only way we could think of was if a unit advanced into a pillbox through a tunnel, didn't attack in CC so as to retain its concealment and then threw the DC in the next DFPh. Now this is convoluted reasoning, to be sure, but it makes me think that maybe units are intended to be allowed to advance into enemy-occupied pillboxes via a tunnel, provided they don't cause Overstacking. rk ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 18:48:17 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Balanced scenarios > Here's a table based on a standard chi-square test of goodness of > fit. I've given the "unbalance threshold" (i.e., the fraction of > wins *above* which you may assume the scenario to be unbalanced) > for several values of P. I've defined P here as the likelyhood > that the scenario is unbalanced one way or another, or in other > words, your degree of certainty that the scenario is unbalanced. > Of course this won't tell you how much a scenario is unbalanced, > just what the chance is that it is unbalanced (for a given degree > of confidence). > > N Games Unbalance Threshold > > (P=> 90% Unbalanced 95% Unbalanced 99% Unbalanced) > > 10 0.76 0.81 0.91 > 20 0.68 0.72 0.79 > 30 0.65 0.68 0.74 > 40 0.63 0.65 0.70 > 100 0.58 0.60 0.63 > > As an example, consider good old Scenario N "Soldiers of > Destruction". According to my last copy of The Record, Germans > have 22 wins to the Russians' 2, yielding a fraction of German > wins of... 22/(2+22) = 0.92. So, with 24 total games played and > fraction of German wins of 0.92, we may assume that there is a > better than 99% chance that "Soldiers of Destruction" is > unbalanced. Note that if the Germans had only won 79% of the > games played we could draw the same conclusion. > > Believe it or not, the only AH scenarios that are 99% likely to > be unbalanced are "Soldiers of Destruction" and 66 "The > Bushmasters". I haven't really checked for lower likelyhoods of > unbalance, but 90% is probably a good enough value to start > having suspicions about a scenario. > > Keats (wilkie@voyager.larc.nasa.gov) > > What does it mean that a scenario is unbalanced? Is it worse than 40-60 or what? What I would really like is a formula which with a given certainty and a game's win-loss record can say in which interval the balance is. For example it's possible with 95% certainty to compute that a game with a 10-5 record has a balance between 90%-10% and 45%-55%. These numbers are just an example, but this is possible to compute. Actually I have learned it some years ago, its called something like computing a confidense interval. I'll try to figure this out by myself, but if anyone else know how to compute this, mail me! I think this is the only really interesting knowledge to get out of the Record, and is the only way to tell how balanced a scenario is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off your head, what do you say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Overlay D6 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 19:06:14 +0100 (MET) Hi everyone, I'm messing about with the map scrips after moving GhostScript+PERL+maps to our PC at home. Amazing, I could even get printouts of acceptable quality on our Bubble-Jet printer! Anyway, I ran into problems since there is apparently an error in one of the overlay files. Could someone with access to his gaming stuff mail me a description of overlay D6? It looks roughly like this: L L L S L S ? L L L L(1) S L(2) L is a lip hex, S is scrub, and the error is in the hex with the question mark. The overlay file says this hex should be sand, but the script won't accept it. Is this correct? -- m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:13:12 PST From: will@kafka.saic.com (Will Scarvie x6388) Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? There's something else to consider as well. There are (by my possibly inaccurate count) 65 scenarios involving the Japanese in the Record. There are probably more PTO scenarios, but I was in a hurry and so only counted the ones with the Japanese in them. Of these, only 7 have been played at least 10 times, which is required for a scenario to qualify to be included on the Most/Least lists. I just think that people haven't been playing as much PTO as ETO, even though the modules have been out for a couple of years now (I think). I know that, personally, I'm only just going to start my first PTO scenario ever after a couple of years playing ASL (mostly by email, granted). Basic- ally, there are LOTS of scenarios out there I want to play, and a lot of them use the rules I already know, so I tended, up to this point, to pick scenarios I could play "easily." That is, without learning fundamentally different rules for terrain, etc. I'm REALLY looking forward to my first PTO game though (White Tigers...hi John!). It's just taken me a while to get up the guts to delve into the new chapters. Just my $.02, Will Scarvie will@kafka.saic.com ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 13:24:51 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: The AGWAV Hi guys, It seems that several people who want to be on the AGWAV list haven't made it on yet, so I'll stall my opening comments and first move for a day or two to give them a chance. Patrik sent up his setup already, so if you haven't seen that, you're not on the list. Mail Brian at asl-request.tpocc. gsfc.nasa.gov if you want on or off; if you mail asl@... instead of asl-request@... then people will start throwing things. Thanks, Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:28:19 PST From: Craig Limber Subject: ASL scenarios I am looking to get my hands on all of the scenarios out there that I see listed on Will's excellenet win/loss list that I don't have. Does anyone know a way I can get copies of these without having to buy up millions of magazines? Does Avalon Hill sell 'The General' scenarios seperately? What about the other, 3rd party magazines? Any suggestions? Thanks, eh. Craig climber@myra.com ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 08:37:54 -1000 (HST) From: Patrick Jonke Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? On Fri, 14 Jan 1994, Don Hancock x2712 wrote: > Here's a table based on a standard chi-square test of goodness of > fit. I've given the "unbalance threshold" (i.e., the fraction of > wins *above* which you may assume the scenario to be unbalanced) > for several values of P. I've defined P here as the likelyhood > that the scenario is unbalanced one way or another, or in other > words, your degree of certainty that the scenario is unbalanced. > Of course this won't tell you how much a scenario is unbalanced, > just what the chance is that it is unbalanced (for a given degree > of confidence). > > As an example, consider good old Scenario N "Soldiers of > Destruction". According to my last copy of The Record, Germans > have 22 wins to the Russians' 2, yielding a fraction of German > wins of... 22/(2+22) = 0.92. So, with 24 total games played and > fraction of German wins of 0.92, we may assume that there is a > better than 99% chance that "Soldiers of Destruction" is > unbalanced. Note that if the Germans had only won 79% of the > games played we could draw the same conclusion. > Well, there are lies, damn lies, and... 8-) None of these statistics are rigorously valid because the win-loss record does not reflect the potential difference in playing ability between opponents. In addition, scenario tactics tend to evolve through time, i.e., we've all played scenarios that at first seem unbalanced in favor of one side but later, after some new approach is tried, seem balanced or in favor of the other side. Nonetheless, the results for some of the most-played scenarios seem to reflect reality. The problem is with the scenarios that have been played 10 or fewer times, and are currently 8-2, etc., in favor of one side. I still think the sample base needs to be much larger. Patrick ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 12:07:30 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? > > Well, there are lies, damn lies, and... 8-) > > None of these statistics are rigorously valid because the win-loss record > does not reflect the potential difference in playing ability between > opponents. In addition, scenario tactics tend to evolve through time, > i.e., we've all played scenarios that at first seem unbalanced in favor > of one side but later, after some new approach is tried, seem > balanced or in favor of the other side. > > Nonetheless, the results for some of the most-played scenarios seem to > reflect reality. The problem is with the scenarios that have been played > 10 or fewer times, and are currently 8-2, etc., in favor of one side. I > still think the sample base needs to be much larger. > > Patrick I'm not a statistics expert, but my understanding is that (from the table) after 10 playings, you can be about 90% confident that a scenario with an 8-2 record is not balanced, which means that for 100 different scenarios with an 8-2 record after 10 playings, you can expect 90 of them to be unbalanced. I do agree that the abilities of the players have a huge impact on balance, but with enough playings, you'd hope that it would average out as the better player played different sides. I agree with Will that the reason there are so few records for the Japanese is that many havn't progressed through many of the other good scenarios. I'm just now trying out my first PTO scenario, after 30 or so playing of scenarios in Europe, all of which are in the record. I'd guess there are quite a few people at the same stage. Don Hancock ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 14:49:42 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: TRENCH MOVEMENT Guys, You can move, either Assault Move or non-Assault Move, from trench counter to trench counter without losing concealment. Brian ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 14:58:20 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: NETETIQUETTE Guys, When you include the letters from other readers, please (PLEASE) try to delete the header information from their letters and (perhaps) any non- important information for your discussion. Remember, we now have folks paying to download your mail, please be curteous to other list readers. Thanks, Brian Youse ----- Subject: Re: Trenches and concealm From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 23:58:00 -0640 Howdy, joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) writes: > You really had me convinced with your argument about lack > of FFNAM being equivalent to Assault Movement, Patrik. Last > night I looked it up in the ASLRB (just to burn it into > those little grey cells), when to my surprise I discovered > that B27 doesn't say anything about FFNAM. It simply > states that because the trenches are connected, the -1 > modifier for FFMO does not apply. Now, we all get FFNAM > and FFMO mixed up from time to time, when trying to > remember complicated rules passages; but I think the > distinction is central to your thesis. > > So now I've returned to my original opinion: you can Assault > Move from one trench hex to an ADJACENT trench without > losing concealment; but moving more than one hex requires > non-Assault Movement, loses concealment, and would be > subject to FFNAM, if fired upon by DFF. A4.6 ('87) ``MOVEMENT MODIFIERS (FFMO/FFNAM): Infantry that has moved during the MPh without using Assault (or Hazardous) Movement is subject to a -1 FFNAM DRM to all Defensive First Fire attacks against in in addition to applicable TEM of its Location [EXC: Minefield attacks and units moving from one trench to another].'' B27.54 ``... Infantry moving from one connecting trench to another are never subject to the FFMO DRM or Interdiction. ... Units may move between connecting trenches without loss of concealment.'' A4.6 is, strictly speaking, ambiguous as to whether it is the application of the FFNAM or the terrain TEM that is excepted, but if we agree that it is probably the FFNAM, then at least one of the conclusions is incorrect. I agree that normal movement in a trench is non-assault movement, but non-assault movement that is specifically excepted from FFNAM. Further, the last quoted rule of B27.54 is categorical. Units may move in any fashion without loss of concealment. The rule may be incorrectly printed, but as printed it does not lend itself easily to alternate interpretations. Also, as a minor point, a unit move via assault movement in non-open ground already without losing concealment (A12.14), so it would be redundant to repeat it in B27.54 (although admittedly it might be repeated anyway). As to why this might be so, I suggest that the trenches are the deep trenches found in WWI and in other serious fortifications. Typically they are deeper than a man is tall, so units could move about without being seen (or shot at). It might be necessary to appeal this to TAHGC, however, because by A12.121 "the Concealment Table always takes precedence over the body of the rules" and the Concealment Table does not mention trenches. But I think the result will be that you can move in any fashion without loss of concealment. So long, JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- From: joq@austin.ibm.com (Jack O'Quin) Subject: Re: Trenches and concealment Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 17:21:05 -0600 JR wrote: > I agree that normal movement in a trench is non-assault > movement, but non-assault movement that is specifically > excepted from FFNAM. Further, the last quoted rule of > B27.54 is categorical. Units may move in any fashion > without loss of concealment. OK, now I understand. Many thanks to Patrik, Brian, JR, et al. for your patience in explaining this several different ways. It took me quite a while to get it straight. It's nice that this group allows us 7-0's to air our ignorance in an educational, non-abusive setting. This is really a terrific discussion group! My new-found knowledge may come in handy soon, as I hope to play the German side in _Tussel_at_Thomashof_ this weekend. T-at-T is a nice little scenario for trenches and wire, and (as a bonus) it features the ever-popular Crocodile. Looks rather tough for the British, but still a lot of fun. Since my opponent is much more skillful than I, the result may be fairly even. Jack ----- From: David Hull Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios? Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 16:37:46 PST I think Ole's idea of a confidence interval to get a rough estimate of scenario balance is a good one. Let n = total number of playings p = # wins for one side / n delta = 1.96*sqrt(p*(1-p)/n) Then a *rough* 95% confidence interval for p is: [p-delta, p+delta] For example, a 10-5 record corresponds to n = 15, p = .666, so delta = .2385 and the 95% CI for p is [0.428,0.905]. Since this interval includes .5, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the scenario is unbalanced. The value of n should be at least 10 (and even higher if p is very different from .5) for this approximation to be close. However . . . As Patrick points out, there are a huge number of variables that can screw this up, some of which are . . . 1) The better players tend to play one particular side. 2) The definition of balance may depend on who is playing. The scenario may be balanced for an optimal strategy by both sides, but few players may actually use these strategies. 3) etc . . . Furthermore, the model above assumes that the probability of victory for one side is the same every time the scenario is played, which is false since all players are not of equal ability. Even if there is no outside source of bias, meaning that p is estimated accurately, the model will underestimate the true value of delta (a phenomenon known as over-dispersion). This means that the true confidence interval should be *wider* than the one given. Keeping these problems in mind, this statistic could be useful to give you a rough estimate of which scenarios are unbalanced. --David H. ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 21:32:10 -0400 (EDT) From: DANIEL_T@delphi.com Subject: Trenches and "?" Re: Trenches and concealment B27.54, "Units may move between connecting trenches without loss of concealment." Based on information in the index and A.3, I assume that "move" means movement during the MPh. The rule has no qualifiers (such as "Units may Assault Move between...") So I would say that units may move, during the MPh, between connecting trenches without loss of concealment, period. If I move from hex A to hex B, whether I declare Assault Movement or not, I am moving between connecting trenches (assuming that A and B _are_ connecting trenches of course) and there is nothing that you can say that proves otherwise, right? I agree that this would be a good question from The Hill. I think the above is the correct answer but you never know. Jean-Luc Bechennec, Please send me that French AH Q&A. My wife is learning French and would like to try to translate it for us :) --Daniel T. PS: I am on this AGWAV list right? If not, please add me. ----- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 22:14:11 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: re: Tunnel/Pillbox/DC conundrum Okay, I think I might understand the problem now except for one thing. The problem sentence is the last one in B30.31: '...Any DC that detonates inside (i.e., after being Set within or Placed/Thrown from and to within) a pillbox is resolved as a Set DC.' [specifically "...the Placed/Thrown from and to within..." bit] Setting or Placing a DC in a pillbox is understandable if you wish to demolish it but why would anyone ever Throw a DC into a pillbox. There is only way I can think of to Throw a DC into (rather than at) a pillbox and that is if the unit is In it (bizarre behaviour indeed unless there is something in their you desperately don't want captured). You cannot do it from the Tunnel exit since you do not make a Sewer Emergence dr to exit a Tunnel and subsequently cannot trigger B8.43 (the ability to fire in the AFPh by being "discovered" by the Sewer Emergence dr). Also, I think the Sewer/Tunnel rules preclude the ability to Place a DC during the movement phase because Sewer/Tunnel movement uses ALL MF (Chapter B Terrain Chart). I think it is a minor rules hiccup and it is still clear from B30.44 that you "...may never enter a pillbox Location that contains enemy infantry, not even via Infantry OVR..." Anyone else care to help us out on this one? Ciao, Brent Pollock ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 10:36:31 EST Subject: Update on the Survey I'm well on my way towards producing our second survey. I'm keeping the original questions minus the detailed ones concerning the Digest (unless Brian and/or Adrian send me the list of questions they want asked, along with the rating scheme for each--or, maybe you want me to ask the identical ones to maintain continuity with the first survey? Brian, Adrian, let me know your wishes here). Also, I'm including questions on your interest for future ASL products. Since I received no list of magazines/publications from anyone, etc, I'm going to use the Record as my resource. Note for readers who weren't on the list the first time around (for the survey): if you are interested in looking at the original, you'll find it in the archives, Digest Issue 2.6. John Foley grendel@sos.wh.att.com ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 15:41:00 BST Subject: ASL Grab Bag Dave, You asked about the effect of paths vis-a-vis hexside obstacles, in general, and the bocage of the fG2/fF1 hexside in particular. B13.6 limits the effects of a path to reducing the MF costs of woods and brush hexes. MF for any hexside obstacle must be paid as normal. With respect to the path depiction in hex fG2 and your speculation that is continues into hex fF1, the path clearly ends at the bocage depiction and, in any case, you cannot have a path in an orchard hex such as fF1. Brent, As a follow-up to your question about a KGP "megaCG", I spoke to Bob McNamara about AH's plans for such rules. He said that the KGP rules have been drafted to allow for the possibity of a megaCG but that no one at AH was going to draft rules for it. If others were to do so and submit the rules to AH, AH likely would be interested in publishing the megaCG rules as an insert in the Annual. So if you want to play MegaKGP, you'll have to do it yourself. rk, You asked about the automatic Freedom of Movement allowed a Defender's two best non-Reserve leaders in KGP. The rule says this freedom is "automatic" so I assume it applies from the begining of the scenario, and does not require either a roll or an enemy attack to be activated. Thoughts on the PTO scenario discussion: Basing your opinion of scenario balance on 10 or fewer playings by individuals you know nothing about seems suspect. The variables for the result in each individual playing are many and have already been discussed. Scenario records are helpful in guesstimating about balance, and might alert players to potential problems with balance. But the only true guide of scenario balance is to play the scenario youself, and probably more than once. With respect to PTO scenarios, two of my favorites are Cibik's Ridge and Jungle Citadel. As I recall, Cibik's Ridge appears from the Digest records to be pro Marine, but I'll take the Japs any day; if you see me at a tourney, go ahead and challenge me. Other AH scenarios which receive lots of play at tournaments are Bungle in the Jungle and The Eastern Gate, both of which are said to be balanced by most "pros" on the tourney circuit. Players interested in searching out PTO scenarios also should look to scenarios published in the Rout Report (six total--I've played and enjoyed Glory Road and Victoria Cross), ASLUG (eight total--One Log Bridge seems to be a favorite of many although I haven't played it), and FFE (one only--Used and Abused, which many of my friends have recommended). Those interested in more information on these fanzines can email me personally and I'll be glad to give subscription info. Chuck ----- Date: 15 Jan 94 19:54:15 EST From: Neal Durando <72762.1644@CompuServe.COM> Subject: PERL/Maps Hi guys, I'm new to the list and would like to know more about how to use the maps archive. I've looked the the FAQs and the Readme files and am still without a clue. Could somebody brief a 5+2 on how PERL/Ghostview works? CAN a 5+2 even use them? Cheers, Neal ----- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 17:11:33 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Retained FT/DC Problem Okay (actually not okay otherwise I wouldn't be posting this question), here's a problem we've run into during RB. The offending rule is O11.6134 and its application to captured FT/DC: "Each FT/DC removed from play during the preceding scenario (regardless of why it was removed) is Retained by its original owning side..." The four of us playing agree that this means that captured FT/DC removed on a DR of 10 or less can be Retained by the side that purchased them. We also agree that this seems downright goofy but we'll play it as we read it unless someone has an official Q&A saying that O11.6134 doesn't apply to captured FT/DC. Ciao, Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 21:35:34 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: Lost in the Jungle I'm trying to understand straying. First of all, can I assume that all edge hexes cannot be _Interior_ dense jungle, since it's can't be adjacent to 6 hexes. E1.61 GO SMC are stealthy. Stack it with a Normal MMC and move out of an interior jungle hex. Is the stack considered Stealthy or Normal for straying purposes? E1.6 does the LAX/NORMAL/STEALTHY classification only apply to units at night and in interior jungle hexes? For example, since a Berserk unit is LAX, does it suffer a +1 ambush drm even in a day scenario? Can you fire a MTR out of a swamp? What does the HE for range 1-2 on the Japanese MTR do? Does it just reduce the ROF to 1 at that range? It's still considered indirect fire, right? That's it for now! Thanks, Don Hancock ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 00:09:40 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: ASL Grab Bag Chuck Goetz writes... > With respect to PTO scenarios, two of my favorites are Cibik's >Ridge and Jungle Citadel. As I recall, Cibik's Ridge appears from >the Digest records to be pro Marine, but I'll take the Japs any >day; if you see me at a tourney, go ahead and challenge me. Other Japs can't win. You know this Chuck, I guess I'll have to spank you at it some time. Of course, you'll probably point out that the last time we played you beat me with the Japanese, but had I not gacked that 6(-2) shot vs. your 347 you had no chance... 8) >AH scenarios which receive lots of play at tournaments are Bungle >in the Jungle and The Eastern Gate, both of which are said to be >balanced by most "pros" on the tourney circuit. Players interested Yeah, right. Some time ago, it came out that The Eastern Gate had a "perfect" British strategy. Seeing as how this is my favorite PTO scenario, when both sides aim for the hill (as they should), I often try to get this in at a tournament (not a tournament "pro" I guess, but I attend enough). Most folks just say nothanks, lets try ... IN GENERAL, this ticks me off a bit. I guess I should hold the grudge against Mark Nixon, for he started this whole mess with his original article in the Annual (or was it a General?) I HATE the record (sorry Will, it is true) , the lists that ASLUG keeps, Nixon's list,... Why? I've seen people who write the records on the back of the scenario! Oh, let's play this one. Hmm, Nixon's article has it at 5-1, we'd best pic something else. Sure, I could play the martyr, take the losing side all the time (based on the records, anyways!), but some scenarios are, indeed unbalanced and I like to win on occasion like anyone else. But we're talking principle here. There are far too many problems with these records. What was the skill level of each side? Balances used? Austrailian Balances used? Which level? Were you "diced"? Did you set up like a fool and blow the entire thing? You get the point. Sure, Soldiers of Destruction is 22-2. Well, I just played my wife in 24 games, and I won 22 of them with the Russians, so I guess this scenario is balanced, right? Now. If we're talking sample sizes in the hundreds, based on balances used, rough skill level,... then it may be useful. Still, makes for good discussion on the "ASL Hot-Stove League", doesn't it? Have a nice day, Brian ----- From: c.wallace@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 02:06:00 BST Subject: RULES QUESTION Was wondering if someone could confirm that I am understanding rule A6.42. The way I read this is that a level 2 unit looking over a level one obstacle would never decrease the blind hexes because it isn't >1 level higher. Example: Level 2 units firing at Level 0 units 14 hexes away. There is a level 0 woods 11 hexes from the firing unit. The way I figure it there would be 3 blind hexes (1 normal + 2 for range). Since this couldn't be reduced unless the firer in this example was at level 3 or higher that the target location would be a blind hex. I know this is pretty simple for most of you but for some reason it came up in a PBEM game I'm playing and I wanted to make sure of the rule before telling my opponent he has no LOS. Chuck Wallace ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 01:33:00 BST Subject: ASL Nationalities Howdy, It's too cold (shut up, Pat J.) to go out, so I'm just gonna sit here and ramble awhile. With a & a nod to the upcoming survey, here's The ASL Nationalities and Why I (Dis)Like Them (Ranked from most liked to the truly pathetic) 1. The United States Marine Corps (not to be confused with the lesser, U.S. Army). The USMC has every thing! Great leadership, great morale, great ELR, & great firepower. When these guys come to a party they bring more SW than they can carry. And the 768s (best squad in the system) can freely deploy, just like the Finns. The USMC get big points for scenario selection too-- every Marine scenario is vs. the Japanese. And best of all, "Neither Heat of Battle nor ELR Replacement can transform a U.S.M.C. MMC into a U.S. Army MMC"! 2. Japanese. Hey, ya gotta like anyone who can gun up their opponents immediately after failing a MC. And what's not to like about a stealthy force that automatically gets some HIP stuff each scenario, with a -2 ? drm once they lose that HIP. What with tank-hunter heroes, commisar leaders that can actually participate on the IFT, the ability to blow themselves up with DCs, Banzai charges, and the fact that they automatically force their opponent to play that manliest of all sports-- hand to hand CC, these guys are just plain cool. And caves. Geez, I almost forgot caves. Just perfect for when unwanted guests arrive and you want to pretend that no one's home. Also, with a Japanese scenario, there's a chance you might get to see the USMC in action. 3. Germans. They score as high as the USMC in the leadership & firepower departments but in the late war scenarios their morale & ELR go right down the tubes. Still, like the Marines these guys are usually loaded for bear. I mean take an 838, give it a LMG and move it point blank next to an enemy location. You're shootin' on the 12 column in AFPh with a single squad! They've got a lot of nice vehicles too. I give 'em an extra point for having my favorite AFV, the Wirbelwind. Finaly, with a German scenario, you get to play . 4. British. I know, everyone out there just said, "They don't cower!". Its true. But they get enough leaders that it almost wouldn't matter if they did. Here's another group that's well armed, and with the best OBA draw pile in ASL and late war WP you just know they can kick some butt. But my favorite aspect of the Tommies is their motor pool. They have the neatest AFVs, such as the AVRE, Crocodile, bridge-layers and those things that have unlimited smoke. Its a shame there ain't more scenarios that allow us to tool around in these vehicles. The Brits also score a point for enjoying desert scenarios-- the most underated experience in ASL. 5. French. Any nationality that gives their elite troops an 8 morale is A OK in my book. It's a shame they turn into wussies when they break. Other than that these guys are pretty run of the mill in their other qualities. Admittedly, I don't know alot about their AFVs, but they look kinda interesting. I mean really, what were they thinking, "I know, we'll get a U-Haul trailor, load it up with troops and tow 'em around"? The French lose a point on the TH Table-- "Red #s, Black #s? Black #s, Red #s?". 6. U.S. Army. What kinda army gives its elite troops a 7 morale, huh? Sure, the Yanks have great firepower but it's kinda hard to use it when you're stuck under a DM counter. And their vehicles-- five Shermans to take out one Panther? Sheesh. And they're almost as confused as the French with their TH Table. If not for their good leadership, great OBA draw pile and WP, they'd be hangin' out down there with the Italians on this list. 7. Finns. Great morale and they can freely deploy. Self Rally capability is tops. Lack of AFVs (I'm not impressed with sleds) drives them way down on this list though. The reindeer are kinda cute. 8. Russian. That -1 for entrenching just doesn't make up for the deploying NA restriction. With no smoke the only thing that gets them this high on the list is their kick ass tanks and human wave capability. Oh yeah, their MGs are a pain to move around too. 9. Chinese. If these guys' AFVs weren't so weak they'd rate better than the Russians. I mean sometimes their leadership and OBA draw is better than the Rusians'. What, with dare death squads and SMOKE, the Chinese can really compete. And of course, you all know who their main oppent is. 10. Allied Minors. If weak AFVs is bad, no AFVs is pitiful. Look for these guys to move up the list when their armor & ordnance module comes out. 11. Italians. Any nationality that would rather surrender than go berserk is lame. Period. 12. Axis Minors. Italians without tanks. 'Nuff said. 13. Partisans. With apologies to Zadra, at last, the lame of the lame. If no AFVs is pitiful, no SW of their own is downright laughable. Sure, they're stealthy, they don't disrupt and they can usually crawl along row house window ledges or some cool thing like that. But what gets me is they're always saddled with that "multi-location fire groups NA nyeh, nyeh, nyeh" SSR. Seriously, you practically gotta over stack these guys to get the same firepower as a good Marine totin' an MG. Well, that's it for now. Coming soon-- Why _Beyond Valor_ Is The Best Module. Ah heck, I'll tell you now. It's got the informational counters. Wouldn't do to have the Jarheads forget whether or not they Prep Fired. Steve ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 00:43:00 BST Subject: ASL News & ASLUG Has anyone in the USA or on the Continent (Europe) seen the latest issue of ASL News? It seems late this year. Same for ASLUG.... it is missing. Seen anywhere yet? Since it will be decades before I read French when do we expect to see the first English versions? Jean-Luc, is it still this summer?.... will wait. +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : 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 : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ ----- Subject: Ladder Game Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 08:56:43 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Greetings, After reading Steve's very amusing post on ASL nationalities I just have to play a scenario with partisans for ladder points. Will you take a go as the partisans Steve? :) I was thinking of "The Old Town" or "Sylvan Death" or perhaps "The Globus Raid". Any takers? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- Subject: Re: RULES QUESTION Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 09:28:15 +0100 From: Asad Rustum Chuck asks: > Was wondering if someone could confirm that I am understanding rule A6.42. > The way I read this is that a level 2 unit looking over a level one obstacle > would never decrease the blind hexes because it isn't >1 level higher. Yes, correct. > Example: > Level 2 units firing at Level 0 units 14 hexes away. There is a level 0 > woods 11 hexes from the firing unit. The way I figure it there would be 3 > blind hexes (1 normal + 2 for range). Since this couldn't be reduced unless > the firer in this example was at level 3 or higher that the target location > would be a blind hex. Correct here too. This is almost the same example as in the rules. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Asad Rustum 'Oh Lord won't you buy me f90-aru@nada.kth.se a Mercedes Benz...' atomic@astrakan.hgs.se Janis Joplin ----- From: Mats Olsson Subject: Re: RULES QUESTION Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 13:18:01 +0100 (MET) > Level 2 units firing at Level 0 units 14 hexes away. There is a level 0 > woods 11 hexes from the firing unit. The way I figure it there would be 3 > blind hexes (1 normal + 2 for range). Since this couldn't be reduced unless > the firer in this example was at level 3 or higher that the target location ^^^ > would be a blind hex. 2.5 would be enough. Roofs. Otherwise correct. /Mats ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 14:26:16 +0100 From: "hr. Patrik Olsson" Subject: Australian bidding? Hi Guys, I don't know if I missed something or if I'm going to ask something that is frequently asked, but...... What is Australian bidding? Please would someone mind to tell me, I'd be very grateful. Thanks Patrik c93patol@und.ida.liu.se po@lysator.liu.se ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Records (was Re: ASL Grab Bag) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 14:54:25 +0100 (MET) Brian, I think that you and others are underestimating the randomization of the record. All the talking about skewed records because of differences in player skill seems strange to me, since if you look at the list of con- tributors any one scenario shouldn't usually have been played by the same people! True, if you claim that the more experienced players tend to pick one particular side in an unbalanced scenario, you might have a point. I still don't think that is as much a concern as some seems to believe. As an aside, I might be spoiled because I play mainly with players that play for *fun*. That means that we usually roll the dice to determine who plays what side. Writing the record for the scenario on the scenario card seems to indicate far too much concern about winning and prestige. I will play anyone in any scenario taking any side if asked. I make the distinction _when playing for points/chits/score/status/whatever_. That means I will usually let you play any side you'd like, but I would think you a fool to brag about it afterwards and I would not accept it in a tournament. Anyway, this is the spirit in which some ~250 of the playings submitted to the record were collected. Surrenders were accepted, and recorded as wins even if the scenario wasn't finished. Anyone could have been playing, and we often would switch sides just to see if a scenario truly _is_ unbalanced. I can't vouch for the rest of the playings submitted, but theose I submitted make up close to 10% of the total record. Brian, this isn't meant to be personal, this is intended for others that have raised the same concern about how "valid" and just how random the scenario record actually is. The point you made about how the record is actually used is a very good one, and I think we should strive to change the ways of those who'd not play any scenario just for the fun of it! BTW, Mr Goetz and others have suggested that there are lots of good PTO scenarios, and then pointed to various 'zines. I don't have those 'zines, and I guess there are more people like me out there. Therefore, I would like to make a recommendation about the scenarios in Gung Ho! and CoB: ASL 69: Today We Attack ASL 71: Jungle Citadel These are two scenarios that appeal very much to me, and I think anyone that can appreciate RB will like 'em. I won't elaborate further on how these scenarios actually play or even what they look like. You have to find that out for yourselves ;-) -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 11:36:48 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: PERL/Maps > I'm new to the list and would like to know more about how to use the maps > archive. > I've looked the the FAQs and the Readme files and am still without a clue. > Could somebody brief a 5+2 on how PERL/Ghostview works? CAN a 5+2 even use > them? > > I guess I'm a 4+3 (as anybody who has played against me in a tournement will attest!), but I don't even know what the "maps archive" and "PERL/Ghostview" _is_. Can someone post an explanation to the list for the benefit of other electronic neophytes like myself? ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 12:10 EST From: sdennis@mail.msen.com (Steven M Dennis) Subject: Ladder Game anyone? Guys, I'm looking for a ladder game, I really want to try one of the KGP scenarios to get in some practice with the new rules before I try a CG. Any takers? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Dennis sdennis@msen.com Hail To The Victors!!!! It's soooo pretty!! WS WMCJ ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 14:39:35 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Lost in the Jungle Don: [stuff deleted] > First of all, can I assume that all edge hexes cannot be _Interior_ > dense jungle, since it's can't be adjacent to 6 hexes. Correct. All off-map whole hexes are open ground (A2.51) > E1.61 GO SMC are stealthy. Stack it with a Normal MMC and > move out of an interior jungle hex. Is the stack considered > Stealthy or Normal for straying purposes? Tough call; my guess is that it is Stealthy although it might be that it is both Stealthy and Normal and will split on a white dr of 3 or 4. > E1.6 does the LAX/NORMAL/STEALTHY classification only apply to > units at night and in interior jungle hexes? For example, > since a Berserk unit is LAX, does it suffer a +1 ambush drm > even in a day scenario? Berserk units suffer a +1 Ambush drm for their Lax status only at Night/Interior Dense Jungle or due to being Inexperienced personnel (A11.18). > Can you fire a MTR out of a swamp? No, because it is treated as Marsh and you cannot fire a MTR out of Marsh (B16.32). > What does the HE for range 1-2 on the Japanese MTR do? Does > it just reduce the ROF to 1 at that range? It's still considered > indirect fire, right? It's still Indirect Fire but it cannot cause Air Bursts at that range (Japanese Ordnance Note 1). Ciao, Brent Pollock ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 18:17 PST Subject: The Last Hurrah From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) Can anyone give me a pointer about TLH? Should I pick this one up or ignore it and go straight to Hollow Legions? I have everything up to WoA. Yes, I like playing scenarios with Minor troops, but I'd like to try out the Eyeties as well. Any suggestions? -- J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca | I represent both Columbia Games and Vancouver, B.C., Canada | Discordian Games, so if I seem confused, "Why the deathgrip?" | it's because I am. ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:02:54 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: The Last Hurrah My answer to this kind of question is always "Buy them both" but I take it that this is not immediately possible. If you want more desert scenarios/boards then get Hollow Legions. If you want Boards 11 (Country; hedgerows and low hills) & 33 (Farmland; extensive grainfield) get The Last Hurrah. The scenarios in both are good fun, but I lean more to Hollow Legions for variety of theatres (the Italians vs. everybody in Europe and N. Africa) Ciao, Brent Pollock > On Sun, 16 Jan 1994, J.D. Frazer wrote: > Can anyone give me a pointer about TLH? Should I pick this one up or ignore > it and go straight to Hollow Legions? I have everything up to WoA. > > Yes, I like playing scenarios with Minor troops, but I'd like to try out the > Eyeties as well. Any suggestions? > > > -- > J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca | I represent both Columbia Games and > Vancouver, B.C., Canada | Discordian Games, so if I seem confused, > "Why the deathgrip?" | it's because I am. ----- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:43:41 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: KGP 19pm Report (long) Well, after defeating the Germans in the 19am scenario, it was my turn to take a pounding in the afternoon scenario. In the hopes that other American players will avoid the sorry fate inflicted upon me, I have tried to give a brief overview of what went wrong. The German player independently arrived at the same strategy as recommended on the net for taking St. Edouard's Sanatarium, except that my opponent bought 150mm instead of 120mm OBA. Bombardment with heavy artillery is a good tactic. The four squads that I had set up in ground level hexes of the Sanatarium or in foxholes immediately behind it were destroyed by the end of turn 2. So were 2 of the four minefields that had been layed along the Sanatarium's east side. In hindsight, one real squad and several stacks of ? counters would have been better. The Sanatarium is a deathtrap for American infantry! The overall German strategy was quite sound. Two pincers, one from the north and one from the south, crushed my onboard units between them. The wide left elements of the southern pincer used mounted assault, with infantry riding on Mark IVs, to go wide around Stoumont and get quickly to the American reinforcement entry area. This small force of two squads and two tanks, with a few reinforcements from the force which sacked the Sanatarium, held off two reinforcement platoons of American infantry for the entire game. Most of my onboard infantry was pocketed in the buildings around the N.33 roadjunction behind Roua and captured for failure to rout. On the bright side, my opponent neglected to dig foxholes close to the HH0 entry area, instead contenting himself with letting me concede after four turns. So future American thrusts up the road will have a small area to maneuver within before they hit the German frontlines. At the start, the American lines included all of Roua, part of Stoumont, the Sanatarium, about half of the farm houses along the road just east of the Sanatarium, and two farms near the red 20am entry area. By scenario end, the Americans held three farm houses near the red 20am entry area (2 LVP total). The casualties were 77 CVP for the Germans and 32 CVPs for the Americans. The 90L AA gun and the remaining 76L AT gun both destroyed a Panther with turret shots from the front before being swarmed under. My putzy 60mm OBA did do one good thing, I rolled Eyes while resolving an FFE attack against an SPW251/9, which put a bit of a damper on my opponent's celebrations. My reinforcements did not join the battle, and were hindered by the mist completely disappearing by turn 3. Two infantry platoons did successfully hike through the woods and reach the north pocket. Three of the four Shermans I began the scenario with were massacred by a 9-2 armor leader in a King Tiger, sitting upslope on the hillside north of the Sanatarium. Be carefull of the LOS toward the HH0 entry area! My armor leader, in an M4A3(76)w, did successfully bug out in time, carrying the -2 acquisition from the murderer in the King Tiger with him. If I could play the scenario over, I would have put out delaying forces on the flanks, ignored the Sanatarium, and exited most of my force back up the HH0 entry area, to live to fight another day. For my purchases for this scenario, I bought four Infantry Platoons, a HW platoon (which once again had all four SW captured by the SS when the manning HSs broke and couldn't route away with them), 4 CPPs for fortifications, and a Sniper increase. In hindsight, I would not have bought the HW section and instead substituted either an M36 TD or Fighter Bombers. My lessons from KGP have been that SWs which are too heavy to route away with are not worth buying for the first two scenarios (as the American player)! The Germans have a nice collection of 60mm mortars to complement their .30 HMGs. The four reinforcement infantry platoons and three other miscellaneous squads which survived are my sole infantry units at the moment. For 19N scenario, I plan to attack. The men of the 1st SS division will receive an early Christmas present from the steel workers of Pittsburgh, via bombardment. I plan to purchase four platoons of infantry, an M36 TD, and possibly another infantry HW section. The force holding the QQ29, RR23, and QQ22 buildings (the north pocket) will advance toward the LaRochette(?) farmhouse, while the infantry advancing from the HH0 entry area will try to seize the GG12(?) farmhouse and some objective hexes in positive TEM terrain closer to the Sanatarium, for jumping off locations for the 20th. Has anyone played the 19n scenario yet? I would be interested to hear how things went, and what strategies worked and didn't work. Enjoy the holiday! Carl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before." --- President Gerald Ford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: s.petersen3@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 02:10:00 BST Subject: Re: Lost in the Jungle Brian, The only reason you beat Lu Ann's Germans 22 out of 24 times in "Soldiers of Destruction" is because you wouldn't let Emma kibitz. Inside joke clarification-- Emma is Brian's dog. Lately, Brian has taken to saying, "At this point [in the game], even my dog could win as the [nationality opposing Brian]". He tends to say this right after I roll snake-eyes, whether he's losing or not. Don, I would agree that your assumption that board edge dense-jungle hexes shouldn't be considered Interior dense-jungle hexes is correct. Yes, the E1.6 LAX/NORMAL/STEALTHY classifications only apply at night. For a daytime scenario A11.17-A11.18 apply. So, the stack containing a GO SMC and a MMC in your example would be considered Normal for straying purposes in a daytime scenario. The same applies for your Berserk unit's Ambush roll, i.e. it is Lax only at night. Mortars may not be fired out of a swamp location. Rule B16.32 details what may be fired from marsh/swamp. You're correct about the Jap 50mm MTR-- firing HE at <= 2 hexes only reduces ROF and is still considered indirect fire. Steve ----- From: c.goetz@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 02:43:00 BST Subject: Cibik's Ridge Brian, I can't believe you are STILL bitchin' and moanin' about losing Cibik's Ridge to me TWO YEARS ago. That 6-2 shot has now reached mythical proportions--one would think that 348 half squad was single-handedly holding back the Jap hordes. You were doomed regardless of the result of that dice roll. I am ready, willing and able for a rematch--anytime, anyplace. Chuck "Motion Offense" Goetz (that's "Mr. Goetz" to you, Brian!) ----- Subject: RULES QUESTION From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 18:39:00 -0640 c.wallace@genie.geis.com writes > Was wondering if someone could confirm that I am > understanding rule A6.42. The way I read this is that a > level 2 unit looking over a level one obstacle would never > decrease the blind hexes because it isn't >1 level higher. As others have said, absolutely correct. I derived a simple formula for determining the number of blind hexes: Blind Hexes = Ho [A6.4] - ( Hv - ( Ho + 1 ) ) [A6.42] + Ht [A6.43] - trun( Ro/5 ) [A6.41] { - 1 if obstacle is a crest line } Performing some simplifications: Blind Hexes = 2*Ho - Hv - Ht + trun(Ro/5) { -1 if crest } Notes: Ho=obstacle height; Hv=viewer height (viewer is higher of two units), Ht=target height; Ro=viewer to obstacle range; trun=truncate fraction; Hv must be higher than Ho (A6.4); Ignore 1/2 Levels (A6.4); Minimum 1, unless crest line (A6.42) I have this on a card; it keeps me from having to think too much. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Subject: Lost in the Jungle From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 18:39:00 -0640 hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) writes: >First of all, can I assume that all edge hexes cannot be >_Interior_ dense jungle, since it's can't be adjacent to 6 >hexes. Edge as in edge of the jungle or edge of the board? If the first, then not necessarily because bamboo and marsh hexes also count [G2.22]. If the second, then I guess yes. >E1.61 GO SMC are stealthy. Stack it with a Normal MMC and >move out of an interior jungle hex. Is the stack >considered Stealthy or Normal for straying purposes? I don't know. If a Stealthy and a Lax MMC move as a stack, are they Stealthy or Lax? What constitutes a Stealthy/Lax Stack as refered to in the rules? > E1.6 does the LAX/NORMAL/STEALTHY classification only apply > to units at night and in interior jungle hexes? For > example, since a Berserk unit is LAX, does it suffer a +1 > ambush drm even in a day scenario? A11.4 ``Whenever Infantry _advance_ into CC ... an Ambush can conceivably occur.'' Berserk units never advance anywhere, including into CC, so ambush can't occur. > Can you fire a MTR out of a swamp? By G7.1, swamps are treated like non-flooded marsh. By B16.32, you can't fire a MTR out of a swamp. > What does the HE for range 1-2 on the Japanese MTR do? > Does it just reduce the ROF to 1 at that range? It's still > considered indirect fire, right? The 50mm MTR. It reduces ROF, per Japanese Ordnance note 1. Also, airbursts are n/a. It's still indirect fire. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: NIGHT COMBAT Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 10:51:04 +0100 (MET) JR and others, I have discussed with JR in private, and after getting a chance to check a rulebook last weekend I must admit that what JR (and others) have said is a sensible interpretation of what the rules say and intend to say. The footnote (which I apparently didn't spend enough attention to when I once read the rules) spells this out quite clearly. Sorry about that. This doesn't change the fact that I still find it fishy that the Night LV penalty is negated in *interior* hexes like interior jungle or in my case interior orchard hexes. [Now is that a scary thought - trying to see something in an interior jungle hex at night knowing that the enemy is out there somewhere. Brrr... Gives me the creeps even to think about it.] Like JR said, this might be a glitch or oversight in the design, or it might be intentional. I think it would be useless to ask about it, since AH have stated [I think] that they do not reply to Q's about design intents and the like. I guess I'll just play in accordance with the rules and try not to be bothered by it. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 07:31:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Carl D. Fago" Subject: RE: KGP 19pm Report In message Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:43:41 -0800 (PST), Carl Barden writes: > On the bright side, my opponent neglected to dig > foxholes close to the HH0 entry area, instead contenting himself with > letting me concede after four turns. This brings up an interesting question which might be answered in the rules but I haven't seen it... In RB or KGP or any HASL campaign, can a side conceded the current scenario thus preventing a potentially disasterous territorial gain or infliction of casualties? I could easily see this type of "strategy" used in the hope that the next day's events would go more favorably for a side that happened to get a pounding by dice or whatever. *-=Carl=-* ----- From: duchon@clipper.ens.fr (Philippe Duchon) Subject: Re: KGP 19pm Report Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 13:45:15 +0100 (MET) > > In message Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:43:41 -0800 (PST), > Carl Barden writes: > > > On the bright side, my opponent neglected to dig > > foxholes close to the HH0 entry area, instead contenting himself with > > letting me concede after four turns. > > This brings up an interesting question which might be answered in the rules > but I haven't seen it... > > In RB or KGP or any HASL campaign, can a side conceded the current scenario > thus preventing a potentially disasterous territorial gain or infliction of > casualties? > Hey ! How would you prevent the Russians in RB from conceding on every first turn ? OK, nobody would have fun (except when buying reinforcements), and nobody would ever play you again... Now, maybe we can take this as a home rule and play the fastest ever e-mail RB CG III ? I'll take the Russians, thanks. Ladder ? -- Philippe Duchon duchon@ens.ens.fr ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 07:42:16 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: unbalanced PTO? Guys, This discussion about unbalanced PTO scenarios is interesting, particularly the part about estimating which scenarios really are unbalanced through the use of statistics. One example of a scenario that may not be as unbalanced as the record suggests is The Bushmasters. This is on the list as the most unbalanced scenario, and I bet most of us here have avoided it for that reason (I have). Just yesterday, however, 2 players whom I respect and who are certainly more capable than I am, but who are not on this list, mentioned it to me as one of their favorites, and they don't believe that it is unbalanced in favor of the Japanese. How could this be so? Well, they each claim to know a way to play the Americans that can win the game, so I've added this scenario to my list of "must plays." It sure looks fun as all get out. Cheers, Matt ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 09:28:27 EST Subject: HASL and concession As Philippe writes: > Hey ! How would you prevent the Russians in RB from conceding on every > first turn ? In one sense, the campaign day in RB is a full scenario. However, since the scenarios are linked, there really is only one scenario--the campaign. To concede at any point is to concede THE WHOLE. So, you have to grit your teeth when you're getting hosed, hope for an early sundown dr or whatever, and make the best of the bad situation, that is unless you really want to concede the whole thing! John Foley ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 09:50:19 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Australian balancing Hola, Everybody keeps asking what Australian balancing / bidding is, and nobody with an ASLUG handy to steal^H^H^H^H^Hquote from has answered, so I'll give my off-the-cuff explanation. Basically, the scenario gives each side three balance provisions instead of one. You need to ensure that balance provision 2 is better than balance provision 1, and that balance provision 3 is better than balance provision 2. (For the side getting the balance, of course.) The mathematically rigorous way to do that, for those of you who smiled when they saw JR's blind hex formula, is to include balance provision 1 in balance provision 2 and 2 in 3. No problem, right? Each side bids. You pick the side you want, and how much balance you've willing to give up to get it. So you can bid anything from zero (I won't give up squat <-> I don't really care who I get) to 3 (I'll give up mondo balance to get this side, 'cause I want flame tanks, dammit.) Then the two sides reveal their bids. If you pick different sides, you each get who you want. Great. I'm not sure, but I think you don't use balance here, and you just play it straight. If you pick the same side, then the person who was willing to give up more balance gets it, and the person who's stuck with the other side gets that level of balance to compensate. Ties are broken by a dr or a DR or maybe by arm wrestling. If both sides want the US at level 2 and the tie is broken by a dr, then the person stuck with the Germans still gets level 2 balance. Again, this is sketchy, but at least now somebody with an ASLUG handy will post the blurb in response. Maybe. In any case, I love having scenarios with 3 levels of balance provisions handy, even if I don't mess with the bidding in friendly competition. More stuff to read / think about / complain about. I'm eagerly awaiting the mega-list of Aussie Balance provisions for all TAHGC scenarios that somebody has got to be working on. Dave "but what's that got to do with ANZAC?" Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 10:03:07 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: The Bushmasters Aloha, Matt says he hasn't played The Bushmasters because it's unbalanced. Well, I agree that it's pro-Japanese, but you've got to play it anyway. Why? The Banzai Charge SSR (and the accompanying argument where the Japanese player always states that southwest is too the same "general direction" as north) and the tanks and flamethrowers and wimpy mortars and huts and dinky AT weapons that become pretty capable with HIP and PB range. Why is it so hard for the Americans? Because you need to totally destroy the Japanese force in the village, then cross the stream in the face of a large number of reinforcements with a small number of decent crossing points. If the tanks stay alive and the American sets up to face the Banzai charge with proper FFMO terrain and lots of MG's pointed that way, then the US has a chance. In a stalemate or mutual mauling situation, then the Japanese win. And with all that HIP they always get, it's tough to root them all out and keep them from retaking a village hex while throwing everybody at the stream. I almost won this one with the Americans against a superior opponent, so I'd say it's not quite as imbalanced as it's made out to be. Maybe 75%, not 90%. Play it anyway. I forget what the American balance provision is, but they should probably get it even if it doesn't make much difference. But play it. As fun as "The Mad Minute" and quicker to play. Especially if the US player gets mauled early and doesn't have the units to face that charge. Dave "Memory parity errors -- no CoB at work" Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 10:50:36 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: The Retained FT/DC Problem Hey, I don't see any difference between Retaining a DC that went BOOM! and one that was captured by the enemy. Either way, you get a new one. I don't know much about FT's ("Even Bambi eyes won't get you a flamethrower for Christmas." -- Calvin and Hobbes) but I figure Retaining them means refueling them. If so, then there is a problem with the rule letting you Retain captured FT's. But if you're going to treat FT's and DC's as a group (as the rule clearly does) then replacing captured FT's is better IMO than _not_ replacing captured DC's IMO. ("Sorry, but zees explosives are wary waluable ant jou are nacht to be trusted vif any more! Ve vill gif zem to ze other 838's, who vill use them as intended!") (Am I the only one who goes into a Hogan's Heroes bad German accent when my troops don't behave as they should? Better than impersonating Denisova, I guess.) Dave "Would love a FT to help clear Deep Snow" Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 10:50:20 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: A Different Kind of... A Tournament Proposal --------------------- Here's something completely different. I think. We have several tournaments going on via the aslml. I love 'em. But they are looooooooooong (for which I shoulder part of the blame, but never mind that). So how about some quick hitters? But not scenarios. Even short ones are long. Something different. Sitreps. Situation Reports. One-turn wonders. Almost contest-like. A series of them. PBEM, but not really full scenarios. Here's the deal. I (later you) concoct some game situations. Provide enough historical context to give an ASL flavor (rather than that generic attacker/ defender stuff). Players engage in a two-part competition: Part 1 - Players plot their best next phase(s), email it in to me. with commentary, if you please. A couple of neutral judges examine the legality of the moves. Then, using a secretly pre-rolled set of DRs/drs, I/judges play out the phase, and score the players. Part 2 - Now, each player gets his Sitrep back with the results - and a second set of pre-rolled DRs/drs. He must now plot the remainder of the phase(s)/impulse/turn, using these DRs/drs in exact sequence. Get sleazy. Take those 1fp +6 shots. Rig those Sniper Activations. Burn those bad Drs. Send the result. It gets checked and scored. Up until now, all the moves and results were secret. At this point, I/helpers mail the scoring to the players and the list for a round of friendly arguments and taunting. Then on to the next round. After several rounds (as many as we can stand), we can crown a champ. Or we could keep it running, setting a max number of points per round, and scoring on an average, so that people could drop in, drop out at will, and keep standings. Why, we could have: THE INTERNATIONAL ASL LEAGUE!!! (jeez, what a dreamer.) Seriously, I think this would be fun, and it would progress quicker than a normal 4-round tourney, without the usual problems we have with dropouts and match-ups. The neat thing is that balance isn't a big issue, because everyone is playing the same side. Luck isn't that big an issue, because the DRs are the same for everyone (although how you apply them will make all the difference). While it is no substitute for Straight-Up ASL, neither is it as big a commitment as a year-long tourney. Most of the time I envision the action taking place on a board or two during a turn, turn and a half. So it won't clog up your game room either. After folks get the hang of it, I think we could have a pretty steady supply of sitreps coming in, and the resulting player responses might provide some interesting demonstrations of rules, tactics, situations, and down-right sleaziness, not to mention the spirited discussions we sometimes engage in. This will probably appeal most to the guys who like the ASL puzzles in the GEN, but the intent is not to make the situations single-solve headscratchers and rule-twisters. Initially, it will be to take a competitive look at solving some "commonplace" tactical problems in a real short-term way, with perhaps some interesting units and "local color" thrown in. In a sense, since they are not single solution problems (probably a cvp max kind of scoring, maybe with some secret bonus points thrown in), the sitreps probably can't be "busted" unless something in the situation itself is fried at the start, and even then, we can do a fixup and restart. Rather than take a poll or something, I figure I'll just put one together and let you guys pick it apart. So the next post will contain Sitrep #1 and the rules. What I would like from you folks is: * 2 volunteer judges (maybe more if we get a lot of entries, or less if nobody wants to do the job). A judge needs to be a relatively experienced player, not necessarily a rules freak. The job will be to look over (anonymous) player entries and help resolve situations/ rules problems, and play out the entry objectively. The commitment is just for the first Sitrep for now. We can rotate this around. Email me if you're interested. You can be anonymous if you prefer. * Email from anyone considering entering. * Post to the list with any questions or problems with the rules or the Sitrep setup itself. If you have a question that you would rather not ask in public, for fear or giving away your skill/lack thereof/perfect plan, by all means email to me. Honestly, I'm not convinced about the "Part 2" thing. Do people think that kind of thing is too contrived, or would you look at it as a challenge? Or if you think the whole idea is bogus, well, go ahead, pan it. For now, you can try it out with Sitrep #1. Matt Brown ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 10:52:15 EST From: "Matthew E. Brown" Subject: SitRep #1 Sitrep #1 --------- (If what's below makes no sense to you, you probably missed my previous post. Then again, maybe it's me.) Here is the first Sitrep, the pilot project. I decided there was no better place to start than ASL Scenario 1. We join the scenario in progress, on the Finnish side, pressing forward. I tried to keep this one pretty simple, straight vanilla ASL; there are no intentional "booby traps" in this one. I am tempted, if people like this one, to start a leisurely stroll through the module scenarios in order one Sitrep at a time. But first things first. Here's what I'd like folks to do: 1) Look this over for glaring errors/stupidities and post/email questions, opinions, or fixes. 2) Follow the instructions in "General Rules" below to enter. 3) Email me know if you are willing to judge (hitch: you can't judge if you are entering). Again, my hope for this is a fast-moving competition, scored on an average/ranking so that people can join and drop as they wish. I am still trying to work out some kind of mathematical model for this, so anyone with ideas on scoring is welcome to suggest. I hope you'll give Sitrep #1 a shot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sitrep #1 - Whistling Through the Graveyard Setting: ASL Scenario 1 - Fighting Withdrawal Finnish Game Turn 4 - Start of Rally Phase Report: ------- While your countrymen were mopping up Russian resistance in the center of the town, you were put in command of the remainder of your company, and ordered to pursue the Soviets who had managed to escape the pincers of the initial assault on the town. Taking your men south on the eastern road, you had encountered no inital resistance, but when Petraala's squad entered the shops in the central district, they took losses from Russians firing from the town cemetary. These Russians quickly fell back. The Russian plan became obvious - They had split their forces into three groups, not two! The first had tried to delay the regiment, while the other two began to retreat immediately. Half of them had stopped at the cemetary as a final rearguard, while the rest had escaped to the south. Now, you are faced with what looks like a reinforced platoon, most of them on the ground floor of the old Lutheran church. Luckily, they haven't had time to climb the stairs to the upper level. Now it is up to your men to sweep them aside and continue south. In Game Terms: The Russians have exited 11 Victory points so far. The Finnish vanguard was lucky - the HIP Russians were west and and central, and are being dealt with by the main body of the battalion. The Russian rearguard is partially cut off by the spreading fire from the town hall. They must be bypassed or eliminated, or both, for a Finnish victory - any troops from the main body will be hard pressed to exit in time. The Mission: Break/eliminate as many Russians as possible, while trying to ensure that enough Finns survive to exit and win. Scoring: The Finnish player gets: 2 cvp for an eliminated Russian squad/SMC (1 cvp for each HS) 1 cvp credit for a broken Russian squad/SMC (.5 cvp for each HS) 1 cvp for each Good Order Finnish Squad at the end of Game Turn 4 (.5 cvp for each HS). Setup: Russian forces: 21K2/0 - 447 21J3/0 - 447 21J4/0 - 8-1,447/lmg 21J7 - 447 Finnish forces: 21O4 - 8-0,648 21N3 - 648,648/lmg 21N4 - 648,648 21N5 - 248 21N6 - 648 21M7 - 648/lmg Blaze in 21G2/0,21G2/1, 21G3, 21F2/0, 21F2/1 Flame in 21G4/0 --------------------------------- General Rules for Sitrep #1: ----------------- 1) Register to enter by emailing to mattb@ctron.com. 2) When you are notified to begin, compose your Rally, Prep Fire, and Movement Phases. Don't roll any dice. (Until I give the "all clear", we could get delayed or messed up if there are errors or "busters" in the Sitrep. I wouldn't want people to have to re-work their moves to make up for my mistakes. If need be, the Sitrep will be revised and re-posted before the all-clear). 3) _EMAIL_ your move in "standard" PBEM notation, clear enough so that we can figure it out (spell out modifiers as if we were your most clueless pbem opponent - if you don't claim it, we just might not apply it). 4) Bite fingernails. 5) When completed, we will send you the results of Phase 1 and the pre-generated DR/dr sequence for Part 2. Put on your sleazeball hat and compose the nastiest Advancing Fire Phase, Rout Phase, Advance Phase, and Close Combat Phase you can muster within the rules and the dice we rolled for you. The catch: you cannot exceed the number of DR/dr's we send. 6) _EMAIL_ your Part 2 to mattb@ctron.com, with _your_ count of your score. 7) Bite toenails. 8) When we are done with this round, the results will be posted to the list. Perhaps along with some medal-winners (examples of interesting/weird/brillant play). 9) Bask or hide when the results are posted. Specific Rules for Sitrep #1 ---------------------------- 1) Only Board 21 Rows A through Q are playable (the action in the northern part of town is somebody else's problem). 2) Only the forces shown are in play. There are no HIP units lurking around. 3) The judges will control the Russians. 4) If Russian fire affects your move, tough. If your plotted MPh takes you 5 hexes straight through an MG Fire Lane, them's the breaks. You will only be notified if something occurs that the judge can't handle without you. 5) In Part 2, YOU will get to rout any Russians you break, all within the ASLRB statutes, of course. 6) All else is as described in ASL Scenario 1 (ELR, SAN, etc.). 7) All "Standard" rules are in effect; optional rules (with an * in the ASLRB - example: A16) are NOT IN EFFECT. 8) Resolution is by Standard IFT. Other Stuff: ------ 1) Try to avoid dependence on DRs (such as basing Advancing Fire solely upon recovering an SW in the MPh) in Part 1. While the judges will probably try to give you the benefit of the doubt, their patience is justifiably limited, and they have no obligation to give you a second chance on _ANYTHING_ (though they might). This is not likely to be a big deal in this sitrep, given that the Finns can freely deploy, for example. But in later ones (if any)? 2) Contact with judges will be indirect - they will not know whose entry(s) they are working on because I will strip out the names. If there is a problem, they'll tell me, and I'll pass it on. (I am not a control freak. I just want the judges to be able to be completely objective and blameless.) 3) Have fun with the first one, and let me know what you think. Matt Brown ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 07:54:13 -0800 From: dadec@wv.MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga) Subject: Re: Australian balancing Hi, y'all. On Jan 17, 9:50am, Dave Ripton wrote: > > If you pick different sides, you each get who you want. Great. > I'm not sure, but I think you don't use balance here, and you just > play it straight. The way we played this at the NW Tourney was that if you picked different sides, you each get the side you want, BUT YOU STILL GIVE UP YOUR BALANCE PROVISIONS. Makes you think a little harder about what you're willing to give up. I LOVE the Australian balancing scheme. It adds an enitirely new dimension to the game. Dade ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 10:11:23 MST From: tqr@inel.gov (Thomas Repetti) Subject: Re: Nationalities > > Howdy, > It's too cold (shut up, Pat J.) to go out, so I'm just gonna sit here > and ramble awhile. You betcha. Try waking up at 4 am with the power off cuz of the LA quake. Ugh. Course, being in LA would be worse. > > The ASL Nationalities and Why I (Dis)Like Them > (Ranked from most liked to the truly pathetic) > > 1. The United States Marine Corps Never played 'em, but Dave will argue "strenuously" if I don't agree. > > 3. Germans.... They've got a lot of nice vehicles too. I give 'em > an extra point for having my favorite AFV, the Wirbelwind. Dunno why, but my personal fave is the JgPz IV. Not for its ASL personality, but for its silhouette. > > 4. British....The Brits > also score a point for enjoying desert scenarios-- the most underated > experience in ASL. You meant OVER-rated, right? "Here, let's take the basic ASL framework for terrain and mess with it as much as possible. Let's have half/three-eighths/ nine-sixteenths-level obstacles/hindrances/terrain that does/doesn't/ sometimes/maybe/onTuesday/with+1/with+2 block/hinder/reverse LOS." ;-) > > 7. Finns. Great morale and they can freely deploy. Self Rally capability > is tops. Lack of AFVs (I'm not impressed with sleds) drives them way > down on this list though. The reindeer are kinda cute. Extra points for the leader names. Tuominen? Erno Saarinen? Now THESE are names! Who cares about AFVs, these guys kick butt in the snow. Pulkkas? Lahtis? Sissu? *Leeeetle* tiny country holds off the gigantic Russian bear? Oh yes, baby, these are P-T-P'ers. Gimme a few extra vowels and send me out in the snow! > > 10. Allied Minors. If weak AFVs is bad, no AFVs is pitiful. Look for these > guys to move up the list when their armor & ordnance module comes out. > Naw, ya gotta love the turquoise color scheme. Very 90's. > 11. Italians. Any nationality that would rather surrender than go berserk > is lame. Period. > Hey now. We Italians just possess a heightened tactical sense, one that tells us when the fat lady is singing. Yeah, that's it. Or else, we just hear our mothers calling us in for dinner. Can't fight on an empty stomach. > > 13. Partisans. With apologies to Zadra, at last, the lame of the lame. Real disagreement here. Sure, they're not PanzerGrenadiers, but they have their place. I'm not a giant fan of city fights, but wow, these guys usually get Sewer Movement, MOL, Stealth, and start *the entire force* HIP? THAT's fun stuff, especially when these scrawny 337's start spanking the overblown SS garrisons. Playing the Partisans is a real challenge and very rewarding if you can use the SSR's to overcome the obvious strength disadvantages. Tuomo Repettinen ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 12:41:54 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Steve Petersen's Nationality Chart Guys, I didn't save Steve's post, but I thought I'd add my own two cents... 1) The Japanese. I hated 'em for a year, but now I love 'em. It takes a special kind of play, and I think playing the Japanese requires a lot more movement to win. I hate 'em when they just sit in their holes waiting for the US to root them out. 2) The Germans. What's not too like? Even the conscripts are deadly to AFV's, since they're sure to have 'fausts by the time they come into play. An obvious choice and an obvious favorite of many players. Brian Martuzas often jokes when we are trying to decide what to play "You pick the scenario, I'll take the Germans!" Maybe he isn't joking? 3) The French. Gotta love the underdog, right? The color sucks, the broken side morale sucks, the tanks are pretty much unstoppable defensively but can't hurt a fly with that stump gun. I'd take 'em in a heartbeat! 4) The British. I'm a desert freak, when not playing for points/money, since they tend to be a free-for-all. Definitely best played when downing a few brews... 5) Allied Minors. Love the situations and you almost always have a built in excuse if you lose! 8) 6) Everyone else except the US. They are ok to play, and a bad day of ASL is better than 'bout everything else. 7) US Army. I hate that an average DR on a NMC causes a unit to break. Screw the firepower, their tanks suck compared to the US, their infantry can't attack for shit. Have a nice day... Brian ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 10:24:35 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: The Retained FT/DC Problem Dave: We thought the FT was the main problem here as well ("Excuse me, mister enemy. Could you please take this back and refuel it. You will give it back tomorrow, won't you?"). It seems weird though that any captured FT/DC lost during the Captured SW Retention dr are exempt from this (they are removed by a dr of 10 or less rather than a DR). Ciao, Brent Pollock [stuff deleted] > I don't see any difference between Retaining a DC that went BOOM! and one > that was captured by the enemy. Either way, you get a new one. I don't > know much about FT's ("Even Bambi eyes won't get you a flamethrower for > Christmas." -- Calvin and Hobbes) but I figure Retaining them means > refueling them. If so, then there is a problem with the rule letting > you Retain captured FT's. But if you're going to treat FT's and > DC's as a group (as the rule clearly does) then replacing captured FT's > is better IMO than _not_ replacing captured DC's IMO. ("Sorry, but zees > explosives are wary waluable ant jou are nacht to be trusted vif any > more! Ve vill gif zem to ze other 838's, who vill use them as intended!") > (Am I the only one who goes into a Hogan's Heroes bad German accent when > my troops don't behave as they should? Better than impersonating > Denisova, I guess.) > > Dave "Would love a FT to help clear Deep Snow" Ripton ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 13:18:33 -0500 From: snow@canusr.DNET.NASA.GOV (Martin Snow) Subject: Freak event Here's something you don't see every day: I'm firing on a hex containing a squad and a leader. With a nice roll on the IFT, I get a 1KIA. Random selection picks the leader, and the squad is broken. So far so good. But then the LLMC. Uh oh, snake eyes. HOB roll turns the squad berzerk! I guess I should just be thankful he didn't roll a battle hardening result (which would have resulted in a GO, fanatic 6-4-8)!!! And I thought a 1KIA result was a good thing! Marty ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 10:23:15 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Barden Subject: RE: KGP 19pm Report On Mon, 17 Jan 1994, Carl D. Fago wrote: > > In message Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:43:41 -0800 (PST), > Carl Barden writes: > > > On the bright side, my opponent neglected to dig > > foxholes close to the HH0 entry area, instead contenting himself with > > letting me concede after four turns. > > This brings up an interesting question which might be answered in the rules > but I haven't seen it... > > In RB or KGP or any HASL campaign, can a side concede the current scenario > thus preventing a potentially disasterous territorial gain or infliction of > casualties? > > I could easily see this type of "strategy" used in the hope that the next > day's events would go more favorably for a side that happened to get a > pounding by dice or whatever. > *-=Carl=-* > Hey now, it wasn't intentional! The only American units left on the map for my opponent to play with were on the far side of the map. I asked him if he wanted to finish it out, but he declined. Of course, I didn't VOLUNTEER the information to him that he could spend the next few turns creating strategic locations closer to my entry area. This follows from an old ASL axiom: The amount of helpful information one is willing to give an opponent is inversely proportional to the amount of casualties inflicted upon your force. Of course, I have never been able to figure out the exact relationship. Does anyone else have any ideas of what the ratio is? Carl ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 13:53:26 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Easy question: Sloppy dice Aloha, This is an opinion question, as there are no rules involved. But I'm curious. 1. Do you use dice cups? Only at tourneys, or FTF too, or even PBEM? 1b. Are rolls outside the cup always ignored? 2. When not using a cup: a. If dice fall off the table and land on a flat floor, do you reroll them anyway? b. If only one die is sloppy, do you reroll one or both? c. What other penalties (Sloppy dice -- DRINK!) are in order for inability to control one's throws? If you want to answer but not to elaborate, mail me and I'll summarize results to the list. I'm just wondering... Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 12:06:34 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: LOS Thread I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? Don Hancock ----- Subject: Re: Nationalities From: Petri Juhani Piira Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 20:29:05 +0200 This is not a flame... :-) I'm just burning away some free time, with nothing better to do... But, I'll be giving you some good words... read on. > > Extra points for the leader names. Tuominen? Erno Saarinen? Now THESE are > names! And some of the names are a "bit" strange... I'll give a translation of a couple of them: Sgt Kirkko - Sgt Church... shouldn't there be Sgt Schoolhouse, too? Sgt Rakunna - must be misspelled rakuuna, meaning "Dragoon". It may or may not be a valid name... never seen it as a name, though. Sgt Maartti - misspelled male first name, Martti. Maj Nurmo - I would bet this is Nurmi, a reasonably common surname. Uusimaa, Liete, Hyrsyla ... These are *extremely* rare names. I didn't believe they were names before I checked the telephone directory of Helsinki. I found 1 or 2... out of 500 000. I bet AH found these from "The endangered names of the world" :-) No Finnish equivalent of "Smith" here. (It is "Virtanen"). > Who cares about AFVs, these guys kick butt in the snow. Pulkkas? Pulkka, the word is commonly used to refer to a children's toy, I guess "Toboggan" would approximate it well. Originally it means "Lapplander's sled". But I'll give you a proper word for those counters "ahkio" (a small sled). Of course, the reindeer in the picture are probably rented from Santa Claus, because regular army would have used horses, and sissi would have used, well, sissi. > Lahtis? Sissu? *Leeeetle* tiny country holds off the gigantic Russian bear? ~~~~~ Sisu. > Oh yes, baby, these are P-T-P'ers. Gimme a few extra vowels and send me out > in the snow! .. . Okay, I'll give you the word "haayoaie". Place umlauts over where marked by a dot. It would translate as "an intention for wedding night". Honestly. > > > Tuomo Repettinen Extremely good translation! (It fooled me... sounds more Finnish than the leader counters in ASL.) Petri Piira ppii@niksula.hut.fi ~~ PS. Now, what P-T-P'er means? ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 08:08:31 CST From: Alan Hatcher Subject: Ambush Rule Question I have a question concerning ambush: Rule A11.4 states "Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a melee) in a woods/building hex..." I understand that it has to be a woods or building hex, but what about a building hex that has been rubbled? The only other rule that I can find that applies is : Rule B24.1 "A building totally reduced to rubble is no longer considered to be a building...." Does this mean that Ambush is allowed in a rubble hex as long as the entire building has not been rubbled, or is Ambush just not allowed in a rubble hex? Baffled in Bama ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 13:40:00 +0000 From: "matthew (m.) holiday" Subject: re:LOS Thread -> So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? A laser beam :-) No, actually, I've always used a thread, strung from the center of one dot to the center of the other. So long as either side of the thread isn't touching/overlapping a wall, etc., the LOS is clear. +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Matt Holiday #include holiday@bnr.ca BNR Richardson, TX ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: LOS Thread Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 21:17:52 +0100 (MET) Hi, > I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered > that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. > I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something > that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both > sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on > board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( > > So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? I think the most appropriate thread would be a thread exactly as thick as the hex center dots. This would eliminate all arguments about whether the thread is in the exact center of the hexdots or is too thick/thin. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: eapsr@ea7001.att.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 15:51 EST Subject: Dick Vitale >> Oh yes, baby, these are P-T-P'ers. Gimme a few extra vowels and send me out >> in the snow! .. . > Petri Piira > ppii@niksula.hut.fi ~~ > PS. Now, what P-T-P'er means? I can't believe someone is not familiar with Dick Vitale and his own vocabulary regarding NCAA College basketball. :-) By the way, Tom, I think baby in Dick Vitalese is bAAAAby. ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 14:07:34 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Two Ladder notes Hey gang, Two things about the Ladder - * When you report a new or completed game to me, I always reply with a short confirmation. If I don't confirm, then assume I didn't get your report and please resend it to me. * Reporting wins to me is NOT the same as reporting them to Will Scarvie for the Record. I never get a report of Bob beating Fred with the Russians in Fighting Withdrawl and then report that Russian win to Will; you have to do that yourself. If anyone has assumed I work that way, then please send your old Record data to Will (will@kafka.saic.com) Thanks Tom ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: KGP 19pm + 19night Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 23:34:05 +0100 (MET) Hi all, It's getting late, but I have the day off tomorrow and nothing better to do than to write a report about our 19pm and 19night dates. I'm playing the germans, and by the end of 19am I had captured pretty much everything exept the sanatorium. With less than two platoons left, I expected light resistance. Boy, what a mistake. All started well, when I decided I could risk losing a Pz IV to get rid of the 90L AA gun. I just madly drove through all hexes with a 5/8" ? counters [the american had purchased lots of dummies, since we both knew he couldn't set it up HIP]. The 90L inevitably fired - and rolled boxcars! Way to go! An OVR later the 90L was history. A Panther which had disabled its MA during the previous day sought out some concealed unit to play with, but it unfortunately got stunned in a very embarassing position. I took three or four other AFV's and moved them to cover the Panther. Meanwhile, I forgot about the possibility that the Ami's might actually have put the 76L they retained somewhere else than the sanatorium... I found out soon enough, and after the American prep fire there were three wrecks littering the road past the sanatorium. One of them was my remaining Wirbelwind!! Aaaargh!! How could I be so careless with it!! To add insult to injury, the American had bought air support for that day! After some hassle, the troops that were revealed were taken care of, even if the subsequent casualties were far more than I would have wanted to waste to get rid of them. But lo and behold! From the board edge comes crawling an american column with one dinky vehicle up front. Can't be anything *that* dangerous, so I send off a Panther to investigate. Or so I think... When the investigating vehicle gets within LOS, I take off it's ? counter as we see each other and reveal - a Pz IV! Clumsy, clumsy! I had mixed up the counters! The M36GMC promptly puts a 90mm hole in my tank! Aaaargh! A 90L! Despite that, I managed to kick the american player off the map. His air support was a killer, as he got 3 FB's - all with bombs, but he used them poorly, and they didn't inflict neary as much damage as they could have done. The result was something like 50-75 in CVP, in favour of the Ami's, not at all good. Next, as we prepare for the nigh date, I tease my opponent by saying that he could always try to sneak in and take some ground during the night. That was because I still had far more (and better) troops. He heeds my "advice" and launches a night assault. First thing that happens is that the Americans let loose a bombardment. No big losses. None, really - EXCEPT for the two Panthers that happen to be within the bombardment area! Now I'm down to _one_ functional Panther and one with MA disablement! In comes creeping three or four platoons of Ami's. I forgot about the rule that gives my two best leaders, so my ability to react is limited. I still thought my 9-2 and killer MG stack could deal out some death. Nope. Once they get freedom of movement they advance to within four hexes of the yanks. You could think that being concealed four hexes from some TD's, with three hindrance hexes between you at night would be fairly safe... Wham! Bam! Thankyouverymuch! Game over. My 9-2 went down in a barrage of rolls <6. The newly-arrived 76mm TD's prove as effective as the 90mm one. The american TD's continue to have a field day, with on occasional 81mm mortar round fired in their general direction when they can be illuminated. No visible effects, though, but two of the TD's eventually malf their MA, and drive offboard to safety. With a 5 or better on one die to repair, this is an almost safe bet for the americans. [Happily, he did roll a 6 for the 76mm one that malfed :-> At least some consolidation after seeing 'em bug out as soon as they run out of shells!] The rest of the game slowly turns into a disaster, and at the end even my two opponents are laughing hysterically as they roll several eyes conse- cutively. They didn't have words for it, and I have gotten _very_ irritated at this point. I thought the _Americans_ were supposed to crumble at any MC, not my SS! Irritated as I am, I lose another few tanks to american BAZ's. After this day, the CVP record ends at something like 25-65... No look good! And on the next day I _still_ have that M36 to deal with after seeing it flee off-map twice due to MA malfunction... Lucky I bought some Pz IVBs. They should be able to take care of the sucker! I still have just enough infantry to defend the sanatorium, but who knows what will happen during the next few days? As it is, I'm down to circa 17 squads, 2 75mm AT and 2 75mm INF, 2 Pz IVB, one Pz VG, 2 Pz IVH and an 81mm MTR. [plus some stuff that is rather unimportant] I guess I will have to abandon some of my halftracks and let loose a flood of 127's armed with LMGs before this is all over... The only good thing so far is that I have *lots* of SW. If anyone thinks the USMC gets plenty of SW, they should check out these SS dudes. I have ~16 squads, and nearly *twice* as many SW. LMGs enough to outfit every squad with one! Enough about it! I'm irritated, and I'm gonna make life living hell for the americans next date if I can. Grrrrr.... Lesse, how about some DOOM for awhile.... Yeah, that'll feel fine.... Buy, guys! I'm off to Hell! -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 15:26:18 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Ambush Rule Question In Red Barricades, rubble enables Street Fighting and possibly Ambush. The RB chapter may have stated up front that the changes in RB applied to the whole system. Ciao, Brent Pollock > On Mon, 17 Jan 1994, Alan Hatcher wrote: > I have a question concerning ambush: > > Rule A11.4 states "Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a > melee) in a woods/building hex..." > > I understand that it has to be a woods or building hex, but what about a > building hex that has been rubbled? > > The only other rule that I can find that applies is : > > Rule B24.1 "A building totally reduced to rubble is no longer considered to > be a building...." > > Does this mean that Ambush is allowed in a rubble hex as long as the entire > building has not been rubbled, or is Ambush just not allowed in a rubble hex? > > Baffled in Bama ----- Subject: The bushmasters (was: Re: unbalanced PTO?) From: Petri Juhani Piira Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 16:00:24 +0200 > > Guys, > > One example of a scenario that may not be as unbalanced as the > record suggests is The Bushmasters. This is on the list as the most > unbalanced scenario, and I bet most of us here have avoided it for that Now can anyone explain *why* this seems to be so unbalanced. I have always thought that the Japanese have a terrible disadvantage in this scenario... Does the time run too short for the Americans? Petri ----- From: "Conklin, Ross E." Subject: slopes and orchards Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 21:34:00 PST Hi guys, I have been playing the scenarios in KGP to learn the terrain and the following question arose concerning out-of-season orchard hindrances. >From the ASLRB, B14.2 Out-of-season orchard hex presents a +1 hindrance to any LOS drawn through it to/from a hex one level higher than the Base level of the orchard hex. However, if LOS is drawn to/from a hex two or more levels higher than than the Base level of the out-of-season orchard hex, only one +1 Hindrance DRM applies, and only if LOS crosses an orchard adjacent to the ground level target/firer. P2.3 ...Being Up-Slope affects LOS _only_ in that an Up-Slope Location is treated as being 3/4 of a level higher than normal to LOS that _begins or ends_ in that Location _and crosses_ an Up-Slope hexside of that Location. Questions: Assume a friendly squad is at level 6 in an Up-Slope Location. Assume there is a target at level 4 and the friendly squad is Up-Slope to the target. Is an out-of-season orchard with Base level 5 a Hindrance when shooting at the target if the target is not adjacent to the out-of-season orchard hex? What if the out-of-season orchard is at Base level 6 and not adjacent? Thanks, rc ----- Subject: TALES OF THE S. PACIFIC From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 14:32:00 -0640 Those of you who perservered through my second posting of the Take Two report will have noticed that some program somewhere truncated it yet again. I enclose the complete ending, and apologize for the delay in completing this. Also, I wonder if there are Pacific fans out there who have ideas on caves and/or fortifications. It should be easier to statically analyse ideas for setting these up and attacking them. Take Two--After Action Report--yet again Some 20-20 hindsight thoughts. Pillboxes and caves are vulnerable if the enemy gets above them. The defense we faced was bristling with guns from the front, but uncovered from the rear. One idea I had was that the pillboxes should face uphill to cover the cave hexes. The pillboxes could cover the top of the caves and vice- versa. For example, a pillbox in 1084 (CA 1073) and caves in 1086 (CA 1085) and 1073 (CA 1059) would be able to mutually defend each other. An attacker would have a much harder time cracking that nut. I wonder if trying strenuously to defend the lower island in this scenario is a waste of units, particularly because of the NOBA. One idea that was suggested was a pillbox in 1137 to cover the beach. This pillbox's tunnel could probably reach the cave complex on the hill and would harass the attackers on the beach. Otherwise most of the trenches and foxholes might go on the second level hill to prevent the Marines from flanking the hill. Then put the HIP units by the beach in 1122 :-) Another provocative idea concerns Japanese use of DCs. In our game they were all put on the lower part of the island, for use against the American tanks, and were all captured. Instead they could be kept in the cave complex for a moment when a large stack appeared in the cave's entrance hex, then either thrown or placed from the cave. For a thrown DC, a +3 DRM is applied to the thrower and +2 (+TEM) for the receiver, which is not a bad trade. If the DC is placed from inside the cave, the placer may be eligible for assault movement and will get the +4 cave TEM. Another possibility, not relevent for this scenario, is to put a FT in a cave. Either will make the Americans shy to move next to a cave to fire in. In our game I placed the NOBA observer in the NE corner of the map. Given the above, it should be put more west on the north edge. From the NE corner the observer can't see very much of the hill because of the two level jungle on the lower slopes. Finally, fighting the Japanese requires a bit of a different mindset. You can get really good results and still feel like you aren't getting anywhere. For me, crewed MGs are especially irksome. Break a crewed MG with 6 FP and what do you have? A reduced crew with 6 FP. Break it again? You have a vehicle crew with ... 6 FP. The faster you run, the more you stay in place. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 23:34:20 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: KGP Scenario Recommendations Hoy! I've got a rare FTF opportunity this weekend, and we want to do a KGP scenario. Would somebody who's played all four give a quickie synopsis of their merits? I've seen nice AAR's (add to your acronym lists) of Panthers in the Mist and Chapelle St. Anne, and will probably play one of the other two. BTW, thanks to all 9854 of you who responded on the silly dice question. Results in a couple of days, to give the stragglers a chance. Dave "Pop-A-Matic sounds cool to me" Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 2:36:03 -0500 (EST) From: Wayne Young Subject: LOS > I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered > that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. > I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something > that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both > sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on > board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( > > So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? > > Don Hancock Greetings and hallucinations, It doesn't sound like you want to hear this, but I myself prefer the use of thick floss (as thick as the dot, anyway) for LOS checks - not just in ASL, but in several other games that use similar map boards (MBT, FP, etc). The closer I can get the floss thickness to the dot size, the better - lining things up is easier and less arguments and double checks are involved (especially when playing against nit pickers and number crunchers!). Although some of the guys I game with (never have tried PBM _or_ PBeM) insist on using very fine thread - I usually go with it to keep everyone involved "happy"... but thick floss is my personal preference. Wayne Young [Rifraf] | "In my opinion, we don't devote nearly CS3, Northern College, Ont. | enough scientific research to finding youngwr@kirk.northernc.on.ca | a cure for jerks." - Calvin ----- From: grendel@sos.att.com Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 07:57:18 EST Subject: More survey info requested I'd like to ask "What ASL tournaments ahve you attended?" I'd like to draw the line between local tournaments and/or game-playing days for clubs, and bona fide tournaments/conventions such as AvalonCon and so on. I have the following so far (and I KNOW that I'm missing many of the full-sized, travel more than 100 miles type of events): AvalonCon Atlanticon Winter Offensive ASL OktoberFest I will accept nominations (at grendel@sos.wh.att.com) for other Conventions/Tournaments that should be on this list, and it should be an INTERNATIONAL list. Thanks for your help. John A. Foley grendel@sos.wh.att.com PS: I always reply to messages sent to me; however, I've recently received bounce-back messages from some folks who have written to me and I've replied, but no go. Just FYI. ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Re: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?') (fwd) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 14:38:03 +0100 (MET) Brent Pollock wrote: > From bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca Mon Jan 17 20:23:19 1994 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 10:29:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Brent Pollock > Subject: Re: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?') > To: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr > In-Reply-To: <9401171253.AA10375@sun7h.lri.fr> > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > ATTENTION : les reponses donnees par AH et publiees ici n'ont pas le > > poids des errata et debriefings officiels. Elles representent l'avis > > actuel d'AH sur le sujet et peuvent donc evoluer lors de publications > > futures (comme cela s'est deja produit avec les Fire Lanes ou la ROF > > des MTR tirant de la SMOKE). > ATTENTION/WARNING: The answers given by TAHGC and printed herein are not > official errata and debriefings. The represent the current consensus at > TAHGC but may change prior to publication (as was the case with such > things as Fire Lanes and the ROF of MTR when firing SMOKE). > > > A4.63, B26.4 Une unite peut-elle declarer un Dash a travers une > > Location de route contenant un Barbele ? > > R. : Non. Un unite en Dash ne peut pas depenser de MF dans la route > > autre que le minimum requis pour y entrer (Annual ASL 91 Debriefing). > Q. A4.63, B26.4 May a unit declare a Dash when attempting to cross a > Location containing Wire? > A. No. A unit using Dash cannot expend any MF in the road other than the > minimum required to enter it (ASL Annual '91 Debriefing). > > > A8.2, A8.26 a) Comment une SMOKE dans une Location affecte le Residual > > FP de cette Location ? b) Le TEM d'un pont s'applique-t-il aux > > attaques de Residual FP dans la Location du pont ? > > R. : a) C'est un DRM qui affecte toute attaque de ce Residual FP > > (comme le TEM de la Location). b) Seulement si le TEM n'a pas reduit > > la puissance du Residual FP selon A8.26. > Q. A8.2, A8.26 (a) How does SMOKE in a Location affect the Residual FP > therein? > (b) Does the TEM of a bridge affect Residual FP attacks in its Location? > A. (a) It is a DRM that affects all Residual FP attacks (like a TEM of > that Location). (b) Only if the TEM did not reduce the amount of Residual > FP left as per A8.26. > > > A11.51 "There is a +1 DRM ... HS/Crew Personnel counter ... in the CC > > hex ...". Faut-il comprendre "in the CC Location" ? > > R. : Oui. > Q. A11.51 "There is a +1 DRM ... HS/Crew Personnel counter ... in the CC > hex ...". Should this read "in the CC Location"? > A. Yes. > > > A11.51 Les DRM d'attaques en CC Infantry vs Infantry (eg, by CX, by > > overstacked, by unit on Wire, by Crest unit) s'appliquent-ils en CC > > Infantry vs Vehicules ? > > R. : Oui. > Q. A11.51 Do the DRM that apply to Infantry vs. Infantry CC (e.g. by CX, by > overstacked, by unit on Wire, by Crest unit) also apply to Infantry vs. > Vehicle CC? > A. Yes. > > > A11.62 Les vehicules non-blindes peuvent-ils attaquer l'Infantry en CC ? > > R. : Non. > Q. A11.62 May unarmored vehicles attack Infantry in CC? > A. No. > > > A11.621 Cette regle s'applique-t-elle aux vehicules sans equipage inherent mais avec Riders/Passengers ? > > R. : Non. > Q. A11.621 Does this rule apply to vehicles devoid of equipment [armament?] > but carrying Riders/Passengers? > A. No. > > > A11.622 Les IFT DRM non-SMOKE (eg, TEM) s'appliquent-ils aux attaques de sN ? > > R. : Non. > Q. A11.622 Is an sN attack affected by non-SMOKE IFT DRM (e.g. TEM)? > A. No. > > > A19.13, A25.6 Un squad Elite italien 4-4-7 est-il remplace par par un > > 3-4-7 ou un 3-4-6 ? > > R. : Par un 3-4-6 (NDLA : ceci annule et remplace la reponse formulee > > dans TACTIQUES n4). > Q. A19.13, A25.6 Is an Elite Italian 4-4-7 replaced by a 3-4-7 or a 3-4-6? > A. By a 3-4-6 [This replaces the answer given in TACTIQUES No. 4] > > > A24.1, A8.11 Une unite reussissant un placement de SMOKE grenade est > > attaquee en Defensive First Fire sur le(s) MF de placement. L'attaque > > est-elle resolue avant ou apres le placement ? > > R. : Apres. > Q. A8.11, A24.1 A unit successfully places a SMOKE grenade and the MF > expenditure triggers DFF. Is the attack resolved before or after SMOKE > placement? > A. After. > > > B6.33 Quel est le TH DRM du au TEM pour une attaque contre le pont lui-meme ? > > R. : +1 ou 0 (selon la LOS ; B6.3-.32). Le TEM B6.33 ne s'applique que > > sur l'IFT. > Q. B6.33 What is the To Hit DRM due to the TEM for an attack against a bridge? > A. +1 or 0 (LOS dependent; B6.3-.32). The B6.33 TEM only applies on the IFT. > > > B24.11 Une Location de batiment peut-elle attaquee uniquement pour > > etre transformee en Ruine ? Si oui, quel est le TH DRM du au TEM pour > > une telle attaque ? > > R. : Oui. L'attaque est resolue normalement (ie, comme contre une > > unite d'Infantry potentielle dans cette Location), avec eventuellement > > le TH Case K. > Q. B24.11 May a building Location be attacked solely to cause Rubble? If > so, what is the To Hit DRM due to the TEM of the Location? > A. Yes. The attack is resolved normally (i.e. as if it were directed > against a potential enemy Infantry unit therein) with To Hit Case K. > > > B27.54 Les unites effectuant un non-Assault move entre des Tranchees > > connectees (et dans la LOS d'ennemi Good Order) perdent-elles leur > > concealment? > > R. : Non. > Q. B27.54 Do units using non-Assault Movement between connected Trenches > (and within LOS of a Good Order enemy unit) lose their concealment? > A. No. > > > B28.41, B27.54, B30.8, F8.6, SSR RB6 Les unites entrant/sortant d'une > > Tranchee dans/depuis une Tranchee connectee subissent-elles une > > attaque de Mine dans l'hex entre/sorti ? Meme question pour > > Tranchee/Bunker. Meme question pour Tranchee/Sangar. Meme question > > pour Tranchee/{batiment/Ruine}. > > R. : Non a toutes les questions. > Q. B28.41, B27.54, B30.8, F8.6, SSR RB6 Are units entering/leaving a Trench > Location from/to a directly connected Location (e.g. Trench, Bunker, > Sangar, Building, Rubble) ever attacked by mines in either Location? > A. No. > > > C1.51, B23.71 a) Soit une unite au ground level d'une Rowhouse qui est > > dans un FFE Blast Area. Si l'unite quitte l'hex via "Rowhouse bypass", > > est-elle attaquee par le FFE en quittant l'hex (car elle est plus > > vulnerable dans le vertex Open Ground que dans le batiment) ? > > b) Si une unite entre dans la Rowhouse via "Rowhouse bypass", est-elle > > attaquee par le FFE avec le ground level building TEM ou avec l'Open > > Ground TEM ? > > R. : a) Oui. b) Open Ground TEM. > Q. B23.71, C1.51 (a) Consider a unit in the Ground Level Location of a > Rowhouse in an FFE Blast Area. If the unit leaves the Location using > "Rowhouse bypass", is it attacked by the FFE as it leaves the hex (as it > is "more vulnerable" in the Open Ground used for bypass)? (b) If a unit > enters the Rowhouse using "Rowhouse bypass" is it attacked by the FFE > using the Open Ground or Building TEM? > A. (a) Yes. (b) Open ground TEM. > > > C9.3 a) un MTR avec Spotter peut-il tirer directement (ie, non-Spotted > > Fire) ? b) Si un MTR avec Spotter change de Location, le Spotter > > doit-il suivre ? c) Un Spotter peut-il designe avant d'etre adjacent > > au MTR ? > > R. : a) Oui, que la cible soit dans ou hors la LOS du Spotter. b) > > Non. c) Non. > Q. C9.3 (a) May a MTR with a Spotter fire at a target in the LOS of > the MTR without using the Spotter? (b) If such a MTR changes its Location, > must the Spotter follow? (c) May a Spotter be designated prior to being > adjacent to the MTR? > A. (a) Yes, so long as the target is not in the LOS of the Spotter. (b) > No. (c) No. > > > E7.51 "A MG loses its multiple ROF when it fires at an Aerial target > > unless it is using IFE.". Comment une MG peut-elle utiliser l'IFE (qui > > ne s'applique qu'a certains Guns ; C2.29) ? > > R. : Dans cette phrase, le terme "MG" designe en fait (et abusivement) > > les AA Guns (en terme ASL) qui sont des mitrailleuses (en terme > > courant) ; eg, US M51 12.7, French Mitr de 13.2. > Q. E7.51 "A MG loses its multiple ROF when it fires at an Aerial target > unless it is using IFE.". How can an MG use IFE since this is only > applicable to certain Ordnance (C2.29)? > A. In this sentence, the term "MG" effectively (and erroneously in ASL > terms) denotes AA weapons that are actually machine guns (e.g. US M51 > 12.7mm, French Mitrailleuse de 13.2mm). > > I have not rechecked my translation for spelling. > > Ciao, > Brent Pollock > > > > -- ========================================================================== 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: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: AH QA from Tactiques Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 14:53:05 +0100 (MET) Hi folks, you will find below the QA that Tactiques got from AH. If a message that contained both french and english text was posted to the list, i apologize : i had some problems with my mailer and i don't know if a message was send or not Thanks to Brent Pollock for the translation. Another guy has proposed to do it but i lost the mail, i apologize if he got no answer and i thank him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTENTION/WARNING: The answers given by TAHGC and printed herein are not official errata and debriefings. The represent the current consensus at TAHGC but may change prior to publication (as was the case with such things as Fire Lanes and the ROF of MTR when firing SMOKE). Q. A4.63, B26.4 May a unit declare a Dash when attempting to cross a Location containing Wire? A. No. A unit using Dash cannot expend any MF in the road other than the minimum required to enter it (ASL Annual '91 Debriefing). Q. A8.2, A8.26 (a) How does SMOKE in a Location affect the Residual FP therein? (b) Does the TEM of a bridge affect Residual FP attacks in its Location? A. (a) It is a DRM that affects all Residual FP attacks (like a TEM of that Location). (b) Only if the TEM did not reduce the amount of Residual FP left as per A8.26. Q. A11.51 "There is a +1 DRM ... HS/Crew Personnel counter ... in the CC hex ...". Should this read "in the CC Location"? A. Yes. Q. A11.51 Do the DRM that apply to Infantry vs. Infantry CC (e.g. by CX, by overstacked, by unit on Wire, by Crest unit) also apply to Infantry vs. Vehicle CC? A. Yes. Q. A11.62 May unarmored vehicles attack Infantry in CC? A. No. Q. A11.621 Does this rule apply to vehicles with no inherent crew but carrying Riders/Passengers? A. No. Q. A11.622 Is an sN attack affected by non-SMOKE IFT DRM (e.g. TEM)? A. No. Q. A19.13, A25.6 Is an Elite Italian 4-4-7 replaced by a 3-4-7 or a 3-4-6? A. By a 3-4-6 [This replaces the answer given in TACTIQUES No. 4] Q. A8.11, A24.1 A unit successfully places a SMOKE grenade and the MF expenditure triggers DFF. Is the attack resolved before or after SMOKE placement? A. After. Q. B6.33 What is the To Hit DRM due to the TEM for an attack against a bridge? A. +1 or 0 (LOS dependent; B6.3-.32). The B6.33 TEM only applies on the IFT. Q. B24.11 May a building Location be attacked solely to cause Rubble? If so, what is the To Hit DRM due to the TEM of the Location? A. Yes. The attack is resolved normally (i.e. as if it were directed against a potential enemy Infantry unit therein) with To Hit Case K. R. : Non. Q. B27.54 Do units using non-Assault Movement between connected Trenches (and within LOS of a Good Order enemy unit) lose their concealment? A. No. Q. B28.41, B27.54, B30.8, F8.6, SSR RB6 Are units entering/leaving a Trench Location from/to a directly connected Location (e.g. Trench, Bunker, Sangar, Building, Rubble) ever attacked by mines in either Location? A. No. Q. B23.71, C1.51 (a) Consider a unit in the Ground Level Location of a Rowhouse in an FFE Blast Area. If the unit leaves the Location using "Rowhouse bypass", is it attacked by the FFE as it leaves the hex (as it is "more vulnerable" in the Open Ground used for bypass)? (b) If a unit enters the Rowhouse using "Rowhouse bypass" is it attacked by the FFE using the Open Ground or Building TEM? A. (a) Yes. (b) Open ground TEM. Q. C9.3 (a) May a MTR with a Spotter fire at a target in the LOS of the MTR without using the Spotter? (b) If such a MTR changes its Location, must the Spotter follow? (c) May a Spotter be designated prior to being adjacent to the MTR? A. (a) Yes, so long as the target is not in the LOS of the Spotter. (b) No. (c) No. Q. E7.51 "A MG loses its multiple ROF when it fires at an Aerial target unless it is using IFE.". How can an MG use IFE since this is only applicable to certain Ordnance (C2.29)? A. In this sentence, the term "MG" effectively (and erroneously in ASL terms) denotes AA weapons that are actually machine guns (e.g. US M51 12.7mm, French Mitrailleuse de 13.2mm). -- ========================================================================== 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: Tue, 18 Jan 94 09:36:40 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Re: LOS Thread As a alternative, try a piece of fishing leader. Preferable is the kind that is died a light green. It's clear enough to see through, but allows accurate LOS checks. The piece I use is attached to two small corks, one at each end. This keeps it from getting lost, and I don't have any trouble findinf it on` the gaming table. Doug Maston > From hancock@ono.geg.mot.com Mon Jan 17 15:22:41 1994 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 12:06:34 MST > From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: LOS Thread > Content-Length: 473 > > > I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered > that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. > I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something > that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both > sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on > board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( > > So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? > > Don Hancock > > ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 10:16:05 EST From: rba26@cas.org (Brad Andrews) Subject: Summaries? Is there a way to get a daily summary of these messages, instead of each individual post? Brad ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?') (fwd) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 17:20:43 +0100 (MET) Hi, this is something that has bugged me for some time, thogh it hasn't been a problem yet. This Q&A may change that: > > Q. B23.71, C1.51 (a) Consider a unit in the Ground Level Location of a > > Rowhouse in an FFE Blast Area. If the unit leaves the Location using > > "Rowhouse bypass", is it attacked by the FFE as it leaves the hex (as it > > is "more vulnerable" in the Open Ground used for bypass)? (b) If a unit > > enters the Rowhouse using "Rowhouse bypass" is it attacked by the FFE > > using the Open Ground or Building TEM? > > A. (a) Yes. (b) Open ground TEM. OK, now consider that the infantry leaves the rowhouse hex using _normal_ bypass, would any of you argue that it is attacked in the hex it is leaving? Then realize that you can use _normal_ bypass to enter an adjacent rowhouse hex as well, and then pay the in-hex COT to enter the rowhouse. This would cost as many MF, but _not_ yield a FFE attack! Now, let's say we're entering an adjacent building hex which is in the blast area of an FFE. What TEM would apply? Yup, the building TEM. Now, let's say we're doing the same using rowhouse bypass, exept that we spend 1 MF to enter bypass _in the hex occupied_ and *then* enter the rowhouse hex. Voila! We have once again avoided the OG attack. Now, what remains is when going from one FFE hex to another, and then we would be attacked twice in OG using the rowhouse bypass rules, but only once in OG and once with the building TEM if we use normal bypass. I thought that "rowhouse bypass" was simply a special case of bypass, but if AH insist on the interpretation above, my conclusion is: Screw "rowhouse bypass" - I'll just use normal bypass instead! Waddya think? -- 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: Berzerk in daytime Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 17:29:29 +0100 (MET) Hi, Just a quick note. Two persons on the list have stated that berserk units aren't lax during daytime scenarios. This is wrong. E1.533 states that ber- serks are lax even in daytime scenarios. I don't know if anyone would care to argument that this is an optional rule (since the whole of chapter E is) but I think it is a silly argument. Now, this is another thing that makes me think that the statement that all the chapter E rules are optional is bogus. If you have 'em you play by 'em if applicable. That's the way to go, IMHO. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 11:32:38 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: New Scenario Hello, A new scenario has been placed in the archive on carlo.phys.uva.nl. It is a remake of "Debacle at Korosten" (COI-17) done for ASL by Mustafa Unlu (scenario conversion) and myself (scenario artwork). The file is in Adboe PostScript 3.0 format and is 74,321 bytes in size. I was unable to login to lysator.liu.se as anonymous, so it is only on "carlo" at this time. It is located in the directory /pub/bas/asl/incoming. Enjoy, Doug Maston ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: Berzerk in daytime Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 17:42:22 +0100 (MET) Hi Marty, > There seem to be a LOT of people who don't routinely use chapter E. They're > always shocked when I want to interrogate their prisoners. Yup, that's exactly what I mean. The way it is written they should - since chapter E _is_ optional. What I would like to know is if they object to the interrogation because of this. The point is, that chapter E contains rules that are obviously intended to _alyways_ being used. Who'd be stupid enough to accept an opponent that is the attacker in a scenario to use the interrogation rules??? And how about the statement about berserks in E1.533? I think the only way to play is to use chapter E *unless* one/both of the players don't actually have chapter E (or access to it). -- 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: Map scripts Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 18:12:05 +0100 (MET) Hi, I know that there are several people that has made attempts at making the PERL map scripts work to produce scenario maps for published scenarios. I think one of the frenchmen on the list had done something like that a while ago, and I have heard that others are working on the same thing. I am sending this in the hope of coordinating our efforts. I am working on writing several .sce files that contain the mapboard configuration for all of the scenarios published, along with any special map that might be re- quired. Then, one could just run "map2.pl S.sce" to get the map for scenario S. Note that this is intended to be exact maps. If a SSR specify there is no woods, I make new maps w/o the woods. So far, I have done about 20 of the scenarios - mainly because I am lazy. Writing and changing files for a specific scenario doesn't take very long, and one could easily do most in 10 min. Is there anyone that has thought of/done anything similar? Also, is there anyone that could help me changing the map script to allow for the new terrain types in KGP? I would very much have a PostScript map of the KGP map, as the small map I have is barely readable. -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Subject: Re: LOS Thread Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 10:33:36 PST From: slin@cisco.com The problem I see with dental floss or any string is that you have to hold it in place. In the two ASL games that I've played to date, I've used a small transparent ruler. Normally I just lay it flat for all to see. In the few instances, however, it's not always easy to lay it flat on a crowded board, I sometimes place it on its edge. Steve On Mon, 17 Jan 94 12:06:34 MST, hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) said: > I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered > that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. > I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something > that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both > sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on > board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( > So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? > Don Hancock ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:18:25 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Touchy Subject Guys, I sure don't want this to be blow into a full fledged debate over the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of my following statements. We've been over this before, and I don't want it to be a huge issue, OK? In other words, lets not flood the list with this same stale arguments over and over. Please? I've been asked by involved parties to remind everyone that Postscript scenarios and really nice, but to please remove the ASL logo from the corner and any other references to Avalon Hill from the scenario. It has something to do with copyright infringement, don't ask me what I'm not a lawyer, and my lawyer is still ticked that I vividly remember a certain 6(-2) shot I missed! 8) So I'll not bother to ask him what I have at stake if posted stuff from a list I run violates copyrights. Nuff said, I hope, and if the involved parties wish any further discussion please email me directly at "brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov". Thanks, and have a nice day, Brian ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 09:14:18 -0700 (MST) From: -431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: opponenet wanted WANTED: OPPONENT DESCRIPTION: A novice to intermediate ASLer who rates himself in the 7-0 to 8-1 range, wants to play new scenarios that he hasn't tried yet, and isn't hung up on his AREA rating. Game can be AREA rated or not, and can be a Ladder game or not. Any scenario will do, except no Germans (4 games involving Germans on the go at the moment has stretched the countermix pretty thin). Also, no USMC. If this description looks like you, drop me a line. First come, first served. Cheers! Grant GEnie G.LINNEBERG INET grant.linneberg@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:36:01 EST From: danl@jargon.whoi.edu (Dan Leader) Subject: Re: LOS Thread On Mon, 17 Jan 94 12:06:34 MST, hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) said: > I've had a chance to play some FTF recently (hurray) and discovered > that the ASL gang down here uses thick dental floss to do LOS checks. > I've always used thread. Their reasoning was that you need something > that covers both dots completely, then if you can see something on both > sides, it's blocked. Interestingly enough, this clears the LOS on > board 4 in some new and surprising ways :-( > So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? > Don Hancock Here's another vote for dental floss. Using something thicker means you get to shoot more, and isn't that what it's all about? :) -Dan Leader danl@jargon.whoi.edu ----- Subject: Re: Ambush Rule Question From: jonathan.vanmechelen@satalink.com (Jonathan Vanmechelen) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 11:14:00 -0640 Brent Pollock writes: > In Red Barricades, rubble enables Street Fighting and > possibly Ambush. The RB chapter may have stated up front > that the changes in RB applied to the whole system. This is actually an RB SSR (RB8), so it is not applicable to the whole system. In response to the original question by Alan Hatcher, the rules as written (which he cited) say that ambush is possible in a building hex, presumably including the rubble parts of the hex. This is probably an error, with "hex" being used for "location", but it's written rather clearly. Some indirect indication that this may be an error comes from another Q&A, which suggests that rubble Locations in a building hex are not treated the same as building Locations: A10.51 & A10.61 ``Are the rubble Locations of a partially rubbled building still considered building Locations for rout/rally purposes? A. No. {92}'' But strictly following the rules, Ambush is possible. So long, JR JR --- ~ 1st 1.11 #2895 ~ Foo ----- From: David Hull Subject: Sangar question Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 12:04:50 PST Are Sangars considered to be entrenchments? F8.1 says they are treated exactly like foxholes except as modified and no mention is made of entrenchments so I would assume yes, according to the rules. However, if they are really just a pile of rocks, I wouldn't consider that an entrenchment. I'm wondering whether I can put them on a paved road and whether I can see over walls/hillocks. --David H. ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 12:28:30 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Berzerk in daytime Patrik: These listings for Stealthy/Normal/Lax are in the Night Rules section, so I believe they only apply to night-like conditions (now, of course, I'll have to remember to look this up when I get home; we're in the midst of RB CGIII and Berserkers/Ambushes abound). There is no mention in the Berserk rules specifically citing them as Lax but I'm with you: Chapter E is only optional in name. I am still curious about the comment someone made about Ambush only being triggered by units ADVANCING into CC, which Berserkers do not do. Have I been screwing up (wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last!) by doing Ambush for Berserk Attackers? Thanks for the note about the dr for the retention of RB captured SW not occurring during the scenario. My brain ceased processing when it differentiated dr from DR. Ciao, Brent Pollock > On Tue, 18 Jan 1994, Patrik Manlig wrote: > Hi, > > Just a quick note. Two persons on the list have stated that berserk units > aren't lax during daytime scenarios. This is wrong. E1.533 states that ber- > serks are lax even in daytime scenarios. I don't know if anyone would care > to argument that this is an optional rule (since the whole of chapter E is) > but I think it is a silly argument. > > Now, this is another thing that makes me think that the statement that all > the chapter E rules are optional is bogus. If you have 'em you play by 'em > if applicable. That's the way to go, IMHO. > > -- > m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig > "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 12:40:40 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?') (fwd) Can you bypass an obstacle and then enter it? I thought this was one of the reasons for Rowhouse Bypass (aside from the wall, of course). Ciao, Brent Pollock > On Tue, 18 Jan 1994, Patrik Manlig wrote: [stuff deleted] > > > Q. B23.71, C1.51 (a) Consider a unit in the Ground Level Location of a > > > Rowhouse in an FFE Blast Area. If the unit leaves the Location using > > > "Rowhouse bypass", is it attacked by the FFE as it leaves the hex (as it > > > is "more vulnerable" in the Open Ground used for bypass)? (b) If a unit > > > enters the Rowhouse using "Rowhouse bypass" is it attacked by the FFE > > > using the Open Ground or Building TEM? > > > A. (a) Yes. (b) Open ground TEM. > > OK, now consider that the infantry leaves the rowhouse hex using _normal_ > bypass, would any of you argue that it is attacked in the hex it is > leaving? Then realize that you can use _normal_ bypass to enter an > adjacent rowhouse hex as well, and then pay the in-hex COT to enter the > rowhouse. This would cost as many MF, but _not_ yield a FFE attack! > > Now, let's say we're entering an adjacent building hex which is in the > blast area of an FFE. What TEM would apply? Yup, the building TEM. Now, > let's say we're doing the same using rowhouse bypass, exept that we spend > 1 MF to enter bypass _in the hex occupied_ and *then* enter the rowhouse > hex. Voila! We have once again avoided the OG attack. > > Now, what remains is when going from one FFE hex to another, and then > we would be attacked twice in OG using the rowhouse bypass rules, but > only once in OG and once with the building TEM if we use normal bypass. > > I thought that "rowhouse bypass" was simply a special case of bypass, > but if AH insist on the interpretation above, my conclusion is: Screw > "rowhouse bypass" - I'll just use normal bypass instead! [stuff deleted] ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 13:49:24 MST From: hancock@ono.geg.mot.com (Don Hancock x2712) Subject: BANZAI!!!!!! and more. OK, I need yet more help, this time with the Banzai rules. Say I've got a chain of Japanese squads, with at least one leader. One squad has LOS to an enemy unit (or ? counter). My understanding is that I can declare a BANZAI and now move 8 MF during the movement phase. If I haven't entered an enemy hex (possibly causing FTF), and I'm adjacent to a unit (? included), the I become LAX until the end of CC. If I enter the enemy unit's hex, then we're marked with a CC counter and there's no ambush possible, so the LAX doesn't matter. What are some good ways to use and abuse this rule. I'm thinking if I can spot a bad guy a good distance off, then I can get 8 MF during movement, a higher morale, and still get to advance. If I really do want to do some HTH, I just want to be sure I enter during the movement phase, to not suffer the LAX penalty. Now, as to my earlier questions. Does the LAX even apply after a Banzai charge if it's not into an interior jungle or at night? Thanks again. Oh, one more question, if you've got a loaded HT that prep fires, can the PRC unload during movement? And another, if you've got an AFV with MA, CMG, and BMG and during Advancing fire shoots the MA, can the AFV freely change CA at the end of the Advancing Fire Phase. And another, The Bnd(F)F on the back of some counters, IAG-10-AA, means that the AFV can only fire during Prep Fire and Defensive Fire. Never during movement or during the Advancing fire phase. Thanks, Finally, a summary of the LOS Thread thread. Dental floss seems to be prefered over super-thin thread. Mint and Cinniman (sp?) seem to be highly favored (flavored) :-) Don ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 15:05:53 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Tim) Subject: Re: Berzerk in daytime For those who wondered why berserkers (and in banzai) are LAX, it makes a difference if the berserkers enter an enemy location in the MPh and some other unit(s) advance into the same location. In this case ambush could occure since a unit is advancing into CC (if the other requirements are met). Fred Timm ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 18:02:49 -0500 From: Stewart R King Subject: Re: unbalanced PTO? > One example of a scenario that may not be as unbalanced as the > record suggests is The Bushmasters. This is on the list as the most > unbalanced scenario, and I bet most of us here have avoided it for that > reason (I have). Just yesterday, however, 2 players whom I respect and > who are certainly more capable than I am, but who are not on this list, > mentioned it to me as one of their favorites, and they don't believe > that it is unbalanced in favor of the Japanese. How could this be so? > Well, they each claim to know a way to play the Americans that can win > the game, so I've added this scenario to my list of "must plays." It > sure looks fun as all get out. > > Cheers, > > Matt Thanks, Matt, for standing up for a scenario that I've always enjoyed. I've played it solo two or three times, and in competition against real live people, three times. My solo record is 2-1 Japanese and my "live" record is 2-1 Americans. I rate it 55-45 Japanese. The Americans have to be anal about sweeping jungle hexes to prevent them from being the origin of the Japanese banzai charge, and must set up a good defence against the charge when they can predict where it's coming from. I'd be pleased to play it against you if you're coming to the ASL WO. ----- From: abillsasl@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 19:12:31 EST Subject: ASL Game wanted Hi! I'm new cannon fodder for the PBeM system. I'm interested in playing a game. I'd like to play for ladder points (my first game of course) and would also like to play for AREA chits (not necessary but given preference). I have requested to be put on the ASL list but if you reply directly to abillsasl@aol.com you will get a quicker response. I'll accept the first offer I get in my mailbox. If I get more than one, I'll take the first AREA and ladder. I just got my specific ASL AREA (1500) and have a 1560 AREA general rating with 15 rated ASL games (All from Avaloncon '91 and '93). Alan Bills - ABillsASL@aol.com ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 19:21:33 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Banzai charges and whatnot Hey, Don asks (about Banzai charges): > What are some good ways to use and abuse this rule. I'm thinking if I > can spot a bad guy a good distance off, then I can get 8 MF during > movement, a higher morale, and still get to advance. If I really do > want to do some HTH, I just want to be sure I enter during the movement > phase, to not suffer the LAX penalty. Yep, I think you've got it. Except that it's really dangerous and you sometimes get shot to itty bitty pieces. Good for overwhelming a single isolated defender when you've got several adjacent squads with LOS. Usually, as the Japanese you'd rather advance into CC because your elite and first-line units are Stealthy and those of your opponent are Normal, but if you really need the extra MF then Banzai is better than Double Time. "A good distance off" in PTO terrain is often about 3 hexes. I love the hill overlay with no LOS. You read the notes for Cibik's Ridge, and it's like "Good observation post? What a moron. How'd he get that negative leadership modifier, anyway?" > Now, as to my earlier questions. Does the LAX even apply after a > Banzai charge if it's not into an interior jungle or at night? Yep. G1.6 seems to make no exceptions. > Oh, one more question, if you've got a loaded HT that prep fires, can > the PRC unload during movement? Passengers and Riders, yes. (Though the only Rider allowed on a halftrack is one SMC with 2 PP, D6.2.) D6.5: "...This does not prevent Passengers and riders from leaving a vehicle that fired during the preceding PFPh and expended no MP in this MPh, although they could not leave that vehicle's Location during that MPh." The crew fired the weapons in the PFPh, so they're stuck there. If the Passengers fired, then I don't think they can unload. > And another, if you've got an AFV with MA, CMG, and BMG and during > Advancing fire shoots the MA, can the AFV freely change CA at the end > of the Advancing Fire Phase. No, only if still eligible to fire its MA (D2.11). Note that it says nothing about Intensive Fire, but the analagous rule for Guns (C3.22[89]) does say "without using Intensive/Sustained Fire," and that's how I'd interpret "still eligible to fire," personally. JMO, Dave Ripton ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 19:46:07 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Tough Rout Question Hi all, Get board 16 out if you want to answer this one. Put a German 247 in H5, and a broken DM French 457 in a Foxhole in G5. Grain is in season. No Quarter is not in effect. No other units matter; these two squads are on the periphery of the action, so none of those "no farther away" clauses will matter. Now, the only building/woods within 6 MF of the squad is B5, which can be entered at the road rate. (Remember that they need to leave the foxhole.) Therefore, the squad has to either go there or Low Crawl. But it can't really get there, because it would have to risk interdiction in F5 to make it there, and a unit that needs to risk interdiction or Low Crawl to get away from an ADJACENT enemy surrenders instead. But the squad doesn't really NEED to Low Crawl, because there are amber waves of safe grain behind it. But it can't choose to play in it without Low Crawling, because there's a woods hex within 6 MF. Sorry. I'm being silly. But, seriously, what happens? It depends on how you read the rout rules and the surrender rules, but I'd like to hear opinions. My opinion is that the squad is toast regardless because I have the Reinforcements From Hell coming in on the A and 10 boardedges next turn, but I'm wondering. Possible answers: 1. The squad has to Low Crawl, to any of 3 places. 2. The squad has to risk interdiction and run for the woods. 3. The squad can do either of the above, at the option of the player. 4. The squad can rout more than one hex through the grain without reaching the woods. 5. The squad surrenders. 6. None of the above But I'm more interested in the justification that the answer. The squad is a goner either way. (Yes, this is a peripheral taunt-n-pose. But nothing compared to the way Mustafa announces his CVP's.) Thanks, Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com P.S. Keep the sloppy-dice answers coming. After reading the various chi-squared and carry-the-epsilon answers on scenario balance, I'm convinced that any sample size of less that 9999 is totally irrelevant, and any sample size larger than 20 will cause math errors in the tabulation. ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 17:43:51 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Tim) Subject: Re: Banzai charges and whatnot > > Don asks (about Banzai charges): > > What are some good ways to use and abuse this rule. I'm thinking if I > > can spot a bad guy a good distance off, then I can get 8 MF during > > movement, a higher morale, and still get to advance. If I really do > > want to do some HTH, I just want to be sure I enter during the movement > > phase, to not suffer the LAX penalty. > > Yep, I think you've got it. Except that it's really dangerous and you > sometimes get shot to itty bitty pieces. Good for overwhelming a single > isolated defender when you've got several adjacent squads with LOS. > Usually, as the Japanese you'd rather advance into CC because your elite > and first-line units are Stealthy and those of your opponent are Normal, > but if you really need the extra MF then Banzai is better than Double > Time. Don't forget the to do a banzai someone in the charge must start within 8MF and LOS to an enemy unit. {Stuff deleted] > > > Oh, one more question, if you've got a loaded HT that prep fires, can > > the PRC unload during movement? > > Passengers and Riders, yes. (Though the only Rider allowed on a halftrack > is one SMC with 2 PP, D6.2.) D6.5: "...This does not prevent Passengers > and riders from leaving a vehicle that fired during the preceding PFPh > and expended no MP in this MPh, although they could not leave that > vehicle's Location during that MPh." The crew fired the weapons in the > PFPh, so they're stuck there. If the Passengers fired, then I don't > think they can unload. > Correct, any PRC that prep can not unload, but other passengers and riders can > > And another, if you've got an AFV with MA, CMG, and BMG and during > > Advancing fire shoots the MA, can the AFV freely change CA at the end > > of the Advancing Fire Phase. > > No, only if still eligible to fire its MA (D2.11). Note that it says > nothing about Intensive Fire, but the analagous rule for Guns (C3.22[89]) > does say "without using Intensive/Sustained Fire," and that's how I'd > interpret "still eligible to fire," personally. > You could of course turn the VCA or TCA and fire a weapon at any hex looking for HIP units (even if none could possibly be there). This isn't free since you risk both breakdown and a sniper, but you can do it. > JMO, > Dave Ripton > > Fred Timm ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 19:37 PST Subject: The Last Hurrah vs. Hollow Legions From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) Thanks for all of the helpful replies! Looks like I'll be picking up TLH first, then HL a couple months from now. Everyone pretty much said "Buy both!" and I have every intention of doing so, but I need to do things in moderation now that I blew piles of bucks on other games. :) ("WHAT?!? You ...BUY...OTHER GAMES?! Surely you don't PLAY them!) I'm sorry. Don't beat me. ----- From: y.leung@genie.geis.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 23:41:00 BST Subject: LOS thread I think even the ASLRB endorses the use of thread for LOS check. Rule A6.1 specifies its use. So, dental floss shouldn't be allowed. :) ----- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 23:44:56 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: More on my Tough Rout Question Hi guys, Carl kindly pointed out that 16C7 is also within 6 MF of the beleagered broken French unit in the foxhole in 16G5. (The ADJACENT German unit is in 16H5.) I don't really think this has any effect on the question, though. The squad has two target hexes at 6 MF instead of one, but once it picks one the problem is as before. To reiterate, Grain is in season and No Quarter is not in effect. What happens? And why? I wish this were just a quiz and I knew the answer, but I've been staring at my ASLRB for quite a while and still see three possible interpretations. Rout becomes icky when you bring surrender and non-open-ground Low Crawl into the picture. Having two targets instead of one makes this an even better example than I thought it was. (Gee, maybe Mustafa let me break that squad on purpose.) Thanks, Dave ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com ----- From: w.smith93@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 03:19:00 BST Subject: LOS Thread >> So, what do most people use to check LOS, a thread, floss, a 2x4? Shortly after I joined the ASL topic on GEnie, I answered an LOS question that someone had posted. Unfortunately, I used a string (not thread) to answer and came up with LOS blocked. Someone else also answered the question and used a thread and the LOS was as clear as daylight. This prompted a lively discussion about what to use for LOS checks which included someone asking me if I had used rope to check the LOS. Ever since that time, I use thread and wouldn't use anything else. :) Warren ----- From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig) Subject: Re: BANZAI!!!!!! and more. Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 10:41:25 +0100 (MET) Hi, With the Banzai thread, I thought I'd ask you all what you think about a tactic, if it's legal, and whatnot: First, Banzai charge with your Japs into an enemy occupied hex, and stop there with some units. Then follow on with more units positioned to advance into that same hex. Then, after advance firing with the Banzai units, advance them out of the hex in the APh! This should be allowed since the units are not yet held in meelee. Advance in with the other units, and avoid the lax penalty to the Ambush dr. Of course, the units advancing out of the hex will advance out to a hex BEHIND the enemy. How about that for a nasty surprise? -- m91pma@tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- From: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr Subject: Postscript Scenarios without ASL logo Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:17:40 +0100 (MET) Hi Guys, According to Brian, i put on carlo.phys.uva.nl the two scenarios "Take the chance" and "Panzer marsch !" with the ASL logo removed (in the incoming folder) Please, download the new versions print them and throw the old ones in the paper basket Brian Youse wrote: > Bob M., however, wanted me to ask you to please remove the ASL logo > in the corner (and maybe some AH logo?) since it is a copyright > logo. No big deal, no threats of lawyers, just a low-key request > from the 'Hill. -- ========================================================================== 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 ==========================================================================