Cpl. Canfield
Member
Wanna see people Foam at the Mouth? Stay tuned . . .
(Note to moderators: I post the following in complete sincerity, with No intent of causing anyone emotional distress - but, having some familiarity with some of the 'Usual Suspects' hereabouts, Every expectation of doing so)
(*ahem*)
I arise in (limited) defense of Bill Wilder.
In case you have been conducting extended geological surveys in the Gobi the last few years, you may not have heard that some in the ASL community have been using their bully pulpits to, well, bully. And one of the targets of these ‘hate-ons’ is Bill Wilder, a once well respected designer.
Curious as to what all the ruckus was about, and having somewhat more money than I know what to do with, I purchased several of the items in question. Specifically, I bought 5 modules endeavoring to apply the ASL engine to earlier periods than originally envisioned by its designers. I did this despite public warnings that they were “probably unplayable . . . stay away”.
And then, I played them.
For starters, let me assure you that they are perfectly playable. Anyone who says otherwise is, at the very least, making statements with reckless disregard for the truth. One, in particular, was an astonishingly well balanced solitaire scenario (Cav08 - “Buffalo Hunt”), with a Lot of potential as a training aid.
This is not to say that there is nothing to complain about. On the contrary, there is plenty here to take exception with, at least, for the typical mainstream ASL player.
1) For starter, it is not exactly ASL. This in itself is, I find, often quite enough to work a certain kind if ASL fan into a froth.
2) In the ACW modules, it is harder to respect your troops, as they are notably harder to control during maneuver, and their fire is Way less effective, with lower IFs, shorter ranges, and random complications. I can just see someone, used to his SS and Assault engineers, tearing his hair out.
Personally, I think this is as it should be. No less a light than Phil Barker has pointed out that the purpose of command control systems in a game is the opposite function of those in reality, as their purpose is to Reduce the commander’s capacity to get his troops to do what he wants.
3) Also in the ACW modules, I anticipate that some will raise the twin scale objections of size of maneuver unit, and density. Let me dispense with these promptly. I believe both vanish if you treat the MMCs as representing companies.
The standard unit of maneuver at the time was the regiment, ideally a decimal structure of 1,000 men, in 10 x 100 man companies. In practice, during the war companies were seldom anywhere Near full strength, usually being 40 or less. Now, according to the manuals of the times, such a company in double line ( = typical formation - skirmish lines were known but not much used) would cover 15 yards of frontage. So three of them would cover 45, which is within 12% of an ASL hex, this matching up passably well with the stacking rules.
As for historical maneuver, these companies would sometimes be “told off” to perform some specific chore within their regiment’s deployment area, semi-independently (as was done famously by the 20th Maine at Little Round Top), so again, company scaling solves any issues of historicity (but, sadly, not those based on plain malice).
4) There are the usual typos, omissions, and map errors on the scenario cards. Nothing you haven’t seen from other third party publishers. Usually obvious; nothing to pitch a fit over.
5) Finally, and most telling, is you have to do some thinking for yourself. The new rules covering this or that new piece or game mechanic are Very poorly documented, usually restricted to a few lines on the counters themselves. This is an omission that is hard to excuse, as a half page of type could probably have spelled everything out Just FINE.
Now, I (who have been playing ASL [and SL before it] for a Very long time) found I could come up with cogent interpretations on my own most of the time, which is no different than coming up with house rules for any other disputable issue. Thus, for example, in the ACW scenarios, I excuse troops from the “Movement card” draw mechanism when stacked with a leader with a 0 or higher mod, or even just near him, if he has a positive mod. No idea if this is in harmony with the Mr.Wilder’s original vision, but it gives good results.
But ASLers are not famous for enjoying rules that require interpretation.
In fairness to the author, I was able to contact him, and he graciously offered to answer some of my rules questions, but his health situation has precluded him from getting to all of them. Also, at least one of those answers seems so obviously wrong that I suspect he has not laid eyes on these works in so long that he is not really familiar with the subject anymore.
SO there you have it: A bold, provocative, but arguably incomplete work, unjustly maligned out of any proportion to actual flaws, by those who need everything to fit into their conception of its proper pigeonhole.
Now, Bring on The Hate!
(Note to moderators: I post the following in complete sincerity, with No intent of causing anyone emotional distress - but, having some familiarity with some of the 'Usual Suspects' hereabouts, Every expectation of doing so)
(*ahem*)
I arise in (limited) defense of Bill Wilder.
In case you have been conducting extended geological surveys in the Gobi the last few years, you may not have heard that some in the ASL community have been using their bully pulpits to, well, bully. And one of the targets of these ‘hate-ons’ is Bill Wilder, a once well respected designer.
Curious as to what all the ruckus was about, and having somewhat more money than I know what to do with, I purchased several of the items in question. Specifically, I bought 5 modules endeavoring to apply the ASL engine to earlier periods than originally envisioned by its designers. I did this despite public warnings that they were “probably unplayable . . . stay away”.
And then, I played them.
For starters, let me assure you that they are perfectly playable. Anyone who says otherwise is, at the very least, making statements with reckless disregard for the truth. One, in particular, was an astonishingly well balanced solitaire scenario (Cav08 - “Buffalo Hunt”), with a Lot of potential as a training aid.
This is not to say that there is nothing to complain about. On the contrary, there is plenty here to take exception with, at least, for the typical mainstream ASL player.
1) For starter, it is not exactly ASL. This in itself is, I find, often quite enough to work a certain kind if ASL fan into a froth.
2) In the ACW modules, it is harder to respect your troops, as they are notably harder to control during maneuver, and their fire is Way less effective, with lower IFs, shorter ranges, and random complications. I can just see someone, used to his SS and Assault engineers, tearing his hair out.
Personally, I think this is as it should be. No less a light than Phil Barker has pointed out that the purpose of command control systems in a game is the opposite function of those in reality, as their purpose is to Reduce the commander’s capacity to get his troops to do what he wants.
3) Also in the ACW modules, I anticipate that some will raise the twin scale objections of size of maneuver unit, and density. Let me dispense with these promptly. I believe both vanish if you treat the MMCs as representing companies.
The standard unit of maneuver at the time was the regiment, ideally a decimal structure of 1,000 men, in 10 x 100 man companies. In practice, during the war companies were seldom anywhere Near full strength, usually being 40 or less. Now, according to the manuals of the times, such a company in double line ( = typical formation - skirmish lines were known but not much used) would cover 15 yards of frontage. So three of them would cover 45, which is within 12% of an ASL hex, this matching up passably well with the stacking rules.
As for historical maneuver, these companies would sometimes be “told off” to perform some specific chore within their regiment’s deployment area, semi-independently (as was done famously by the 20th Maine at Little Round Top), so again, company scaling solves any issues of historicity (but, sadly, not those based on plain malice).
4) There are the usual typos, omissions, and map errors on the scenario cards. Nothing you haven’t seen from other third party publishers. Usually obvious; nothing to pitch a fit over.
5) Finally, and most telling, is you have to do some thinking for yourself. The new rules covering this or that new piece or game mechanic are Very poorly documented, usually restricted to a few lines on the counters themselves. This is an omission that is hard to excuse, as a half page of type could probably have spelled everything out Just FINE.
Now, I (who have been playing ASL [and SL before it] for a Very long time) found I could come up with cogent interpretations on my own most of the time, which is no different than coming up with house rules for any other disputable issue. Thus, for example, in the ACW scenarios, I excuse troops from the “Movement card” draw mechanism when stacked with a leader with a 0 or higher mod, or even just near him, if he has a positive mod. No idea if this is in harmony with the Mr.Wilder’s original vision, but it gives good results.
But ASLers are not famous for enjoying rules that require interpretation.
In fairness to the author, I was able to contact him, and he graciously offered to answer some of my rules questions, but his health situation has precluded him from getting to all of them. Also, at least one of those answers seems so obviously wrong that I suspect he has not laid eyes on these works in so long that he is not really familiar with the subject anymore.
SO there you have it: A bold, provocative, but arguably incomplete work, unjustly maligned out of any proportion to actual flaws, by those who need everything to fit into their conception of its proper pigeonhole.
Now, Bring on The Hate!