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 <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
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 <shawnk@cs.mun.ca>
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 <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu>
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 <pjonke@soest.hawaii.edu>
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" <Mark_Bennett@taligent.com>
Subject: Re: DFF TH DRM
RE>>DFF TH DRM
"Carl D. Fago" <cdf1@psu.edu> 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 <dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu> 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 <shawnk@cs.mun.ca> 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 <ZU02380@UABDPO.BITNET>
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 <pjonke@soest.hawaii.edu>
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" <c93patol@und.ida.liu.se>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu>
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" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
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" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
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" <rutschow@pobox.enet.dec.com>
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 <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu>
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
<Jack reprints the responses to the survey question>
>
> 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 <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu>
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 <ppii@Niksula.hut.fi>
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 <DJSULLIVAN@cooper.bbn.com>
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 <asl/std.disclaimer> /* (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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <rnonay@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
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 <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
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 <DJSULLIVAN@cooper.bbn.com>
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 <bryan@kolsky.tamu.edu>
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 <CAMPBELL@CAPSRV.JHUAPL.EDU>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu>
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" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
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 <tvansant@access.digex.net>
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 <pjonke@soest.hawaii.edu>
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 <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <pjonke@soest.hawaii.edu>
> Subject: Re: Lack of balanced PTO scenarios?
> To: Timothy Van Sant <tvansant@access.digex.net>
> Cc: ASLML <asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> 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 <tvansant@access.digex.net>
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 <jappel@access.digex.net>
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 <pman@abacus.hgs.se>
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 <climber@london.myra.com>
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 <pjonke@soest.hawaii.edu>
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 <hull@parc.xerox.com>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <g> & 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 <insert nearly any Allied
nationality here>.
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 <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
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 <f90-aru@nada.kth.se>
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 <matso@dtek.chalmers.se>
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" <c93patol@und.ida.liu.se>
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 <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu>
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" <cdf1@psu.edu>
Subject: RE: KGP 19pm Report
In message Sun, 16 Jan 1994 19:43:41 -0800 (PST),
Carl Barden <barden@stat.washington.edu> 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 <barden@stat.washington.edu> 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" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
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" <mattb@express.ctron.com>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu>
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 <barden@stat.washington.edu> 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 <ppii@Niksula.hut.fi>
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 <ZU02380@UABDPO.BITNET>
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" <holiday@bnr.ca>
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 <std/disclaimer>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <ppii@Niksula.hut.fi>
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." <CONKLIRE@f3groups3.fsd.jhuapl.edu>
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 <YOUNGWR@KIRK.NORTHERNC.ON.CA>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
> Subject: Re: AH QA (was re: Trench and '?')
> To: Jean-Luc.Bechennec@lri.fr
> In-Reply-To: <9401171253.AA10375@sun7h.lri.fr>
> Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9401171026.B2790-d100000@unixg.ubc.ca>
> 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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca> 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 <hull@parc.xerox.com>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <bpgm@unixg.ubc.ca>
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 <stumo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
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
==========================================================================