Desperation Morale Update - Where oh Where are You!

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Summary:
<snip>
Korea...I honestly don't know. Good grief, there's an opinion of Mark's on ASL that I don't know? Clearly I'm slacking. Too much night, which is bad, is my guess. Also quibbles of excessive squad types, which are bad.
Don't you know that ASL is STRICTLY WW2 only according to the Gospel of Mark.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I think that he tolerates some wider period than WW2 - Sino-Japanese war, Spanish Civil War, ...
I don't know his opinion about War of Korea, but I think that he would not oppose it in an absolute way.

Now, when idiots want to play Agincourt, Gettysburg or the Third Invasion of Mars (2312 AD), using the ASL system, I don't think that he would be alone to have a negative opinion.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't think he was enthusiastic about Korea and I'm fairly certain he was dead against anything later. I remember I had to point out something like "It's called 'Advanced Squad Leader' not 'World War 2 Advanced Squad Leader'" in a post.

Obviously I would agree that almost anything before very late WW1 should be out (Boer War maybe?) and from '60s onwards would need rules additions (ATGMs, etc), but since the end of WW1 the squad has been the basic maneuver unit and I'm willing to give anything after that a go.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't think he was enthusiastic about Korea and I'm fairly certain he was dead against anything later.
If that is indeed his opinion (and I think it's a reasonably accurate recollection), he would not be alone, because it describes my opinion perfectly.

I remember I had to point out something like "It's called 'Advanced Squad Leader' not 'World War 2 Advanced Squad Leader'" in a post.
Which is a pretty fatuous statement, Paul. It doesn't matter what the game is called, what's important is what the game can (and cannot) simulate well (within the limits of ASL's ability to "simulate" anything, of course), as well as what the individual player's particular interests are.

I can tolerate Korea as an expansion to ASL (without any real enthusiasm for it) because I know that (mostly) that war was fought (on the ground, at least) using WW2 tactics and weapons systems. Pre-WW2 engagements were obviously not, and yet the existing game system can simulate the proto-WW2 tactics and systems tolerably well, at least back to the early '30s, say. Post-WW1 engagements earlier than that are probably less plausible (when depicted as ASL scenarios) -- you can put counters on a map and say that the counters represent this and that, and use ASL rules to move them around, and even have fun doing it -- but I'm not at all sure that you're coming very close to depicting how the real action actually played out.

Post Korea, take that problem and magnify it by a large factor. The core game rules don't well represent how the various military forces were trained and deployed, nor the support weapon systems available and how they were used. Again, you can put counters down and move them around, and it can work as a game (maybe) but by that point you may as well call the game Hillbillies vs. Aliens -- you've pretty much lost the (already somewhat tenuous) connection to history in the core game. It's not just a matter of writing a bunch of new rules, the entire philosophical underpinnings of the game system are all pointing in the wrong direction. If I wanted to play a game of tactical Vietnam (or Middle-East, or whatever) battles -- or, for that matter, an actual HvA -- I'd want the game to be designed from the ground up to capture those eras, not an unwieldy bolt-on to something else quite different. It's perhaps not as monumentally stupid an idea as CH's "Advanced Civil War", but it would still be (IMO) pretty stupid. I wouldn't want a bar of it.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Obviously I would agree that almost anything before very late WW1 should be out (Boer War maybe?) and from '60s onwards would need rules additions (ATGMs, etc), but since the end of WW1 the squad has been the basic maneuver unit and I'm willing to give anything after that a go.
In some ways, Boer War and early First World War would be very suited for ASL - artillery was still for the most part firing over open sights, for example. The first attempts to fire indirectly came in South Africa and the development of barrage fire was fully fleshed out in the First World War. So the To Hit process for field pieces would not need to be changed - unlike for ATGM, for example.

Whether it would be much fun to try and play mass infantry formations with low range and fire power bludgeoning each other is another story. Some would like it, others not. The rules framework for it kind of exists via IPM now. Put company commanders on horseback and restrict the ability of leaders to influence the battle, it could be done. Rules for poison gas would be a must - and as in life, the effects would be minimal on troops with protective equipment, perhaps CX status for any infantry unit that uses its full movement allotment.

As someone interested in the period, I'd play it. You'd also have an interesting collection of AFVs from 1916 on, including tanks and armoured cars and MG carriers, etc. though probably with heavier mechanical reliability penalties.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I suppose some variation of the just released Infantry Platoon Movement might go some way for early WW1. Whatever about the first few weeks "Race To The Sea" and some sections of the Eastern Front and Middle East, I'm still quite doubtful whether it would either be a plausible reflection of most of WW1 or much fun.

The 2nd Boer War was over such distances and low troop density that it appears a bit closer in line with ASL. There would be problems though. Boers very successfully de-crewed artillery pieces at 1000m with rifle fire alone. That would require something like 12 hex normal range to get to 24 hexes (960m). Close combat was quite rare, the Boers didn't have much bayonet practice. As Corporal Jones said "They don't like it up 'em".

Bruce raised the point about differences in training and doctrine. I can see a major problem with insurgencies, ASL can be quite spotty in that regard. However I question whether there was such a quantum leap in methods post war compared to the changes that occurred during WW2. In the '50s and '60s you had the US Army experimenting with the Pentomic organisations in response to nuclear weapons. A WP-NATO clash would involve much, much greater dispersion than WW2, no doubt. However other clashes like the various Arab-Israeli wars, Indian-Pakistan and the like were closer to late WW2 than a potential ETO war.

Obviously Your Mileage Does Vary.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Bruce raised the point about differences in training and doctrine. I can see a major problem with insurgencies, ASL can be quite spotty in that regard. However I question whether there was such a quantum leap in methods post war compared to the changes that occurred during WW2.
I agree completely.

The old SPI game Search & Destroy had some interesting mechanics vis a vis insurgency warfare in Vietnam. Such conflicts would probably be most fruitfully explored in HASL CG where you have a defined area of operations (AO, as the Americans called it) and try and influence the local population over time. Site weapons and food caches, dig tunnels, bend the population to your will. Would it be ASL at that point? You'd want to concentrate as much on the low level patrols and ambushes, but it could be possible to do something interesting if you linked the small scale actions with overall operations. You'd still want the meat of your game to be in portraying the conventional clashes - and Vietnam had plenty of those from 1966 onwards, or at least enough to make the venture worthwhile.

A WP-NATO clash would involve much, much greater dispersion than WW2, no doubt. However other clashes like the various Arab-Israeli wars, Indian-Pakistan and the like were closer to late WW2 than a potential ETO war.
Yes.
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
An excellent point, indeed I have one of their games "Heroes of the Gap", as much out of curiosity than anything else.
I played the Vietnam one once with a friend. The math of the fire attacks was tricky, for me at least, at first, but it was enjoyable.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If that is indeed his opinion (and I think it's a reasonably accurate recollection), he would not be alone, because it describes my opinion perfectly.
Mine too.
If I wanted to play a game of tactical Vietnam (or Middle-East, or whatever) battles -- or, for that matter, an actual HvA -- I'd want the game to be designed from the ground up to capture those eras, not an unwieldy bolt-on to something else quite different. It's perhaps not as monumentally stupid an idea as CH's "Advanced Civil War", but it would still be (IMO) pretty stupid. I wouldn't want a bar of it.
MMP have put on preorder a tactical (1 hex = approx. 50 m) game on Vietnam : Front Towards Enemy.
A clear sign that they don't think that adapting ASL to that conflict is a good idea.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Mine too.
MMP have put on preorder a tactical (1 hex = approx. 50 m) game on Vietnam : Front Towards Enemy.
A clear sign that they don't think that adapting ASL to that conflict is a good idea.
FTE didn't make its preorder, 512 of 540 over two years later.

Want to bet a Vietnam ASL would?

In fact, whoever these guys are, they might even be better off going back to the drawing board and rewriting it as an ASL module:
  • Designer: Joe Chacon
  • Developer: Nick Richardson
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Mine too.
MMP have put on preorder a tactical (1 hex = approx. 50 m) game on Vietnam : Front Towards Enemy.
A clear sign that they don't think that adapting ASL to that conflict is a good idea.
Not sure I would interpret that as a "clear sign" - i.e., I doubt they decided upon FTE by weighing it against a possible ASL version of Vietnam. YMMV.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If they moved to a Vietnam ASL volume, I would not follow them.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The problem with Vietnam is that the war was won or lost on the operational-political level. At the tactical level the US usually, but not always, gained the upper hand. ASL is solely concerned with the tactical level, fine for Hue or many of the Tet clashes but unsuited to a lot of the Search & Destroy and similar operations. In WW2 you conduct an operation and a serious fight will almost always ensue, while so many Vietnam operations entailed hitting air or a very few losses to mines, booby traps, etc. The US too often failed in its objective of fighting the fight that they wanted to fight and could win. Remember Tet was a military disaster for the Viet Minh/Cong but a long term political success.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The problem with Vietnam is that the war was won or lost on the operational-political level. At the tactical level the US usually, but not always, gained the upper hand. ASL is solely concerned with the tactical level, fine for Hue or many of the Tet clashes but unsuited to a lot of the Search & Destroy and similar operations. In WW2 you conduct an operation and a serious fight will almost always ensue, while so many Vietnam operations entailed hitting air or a very few losses to mines, booby traps, etc. The US too often failed in its objective of fighting the fight that they wanted to fight and could win. Remember Tet was a military disaster for the Viet Minh/Cong but a long term political success.
But of course Vietnam wasn't just the Americans. Australia, Thailand, and I believe Korea all had troops in Vietnam, and of course the ARVN fought the NVA for two years after the US pull-out - in a much more conventional war. And that's putting aside the main effort of the French from 1945 to 1954 or so.
 
Top