larrymarak
Member
To misapply my high school Shakespeare from half a century ago, "the play's the thing".
There are a couple of physical constraints of the weapons that were used that doom the use of the ASL system for combat during the American Civil War. The first of these is the rate of fire. The use of breech-loading repeating rifles paired with metal cartridges and smokeless powder made fire and maneuver possible. There is just no way a weapon that can fire two to four rounds a minute and fit in a fire and movement system within a 2 minute phased turn. Another constraint is the effective range of the black powder single shot muzzle-loading rife. There was a reason these were fired in volleys as after the first shot it was incredibly difficult to see the target and target acquisition was impossible. Introduce smokeless powder and give everyone repeating rifles then maybe it might work. It is not that the tactical doctrine used by the forces involved that is the problem. The problem is the weapons systems used will work with the ASL system.I don't think the problem Bob is adaptation. The problem could be what makes that adaptation so easy. Subtract all the fun goodies of ASL and go back, way back to SL and delete the SW and you have a basic infantry v. infantry combat system. ASL could be thought to break down post ww2, which isn't true of course, you just have to have a deft creative touch in the design, but prior to ww2. No compatibility shouldn't be an issue, especially for CH who have spent more time outside of ww2, and much of it successfully IMO, than anyone has.
What could be the problem is that it simply wouldn't be interesting which is got me yakking with Larry. The ACW was on the tactical level, less about tactics, more about pure slaughter until one side blinks or 'fails their MC' and runs for the hills haha. Interesting to study, less fun I would suspect to game out. That is why few IIRC really have tried it at such a small scale, the most fun are at the regimental level. Get lower than that and it is a trip to gameplay snoozeville IMO.
There are a couple of physical constraints of the weapons that were used that doom the use of the ASL system for combat during the American Civil War. The first of these is the rate of fire. The use of breech-loading repeating rifles paired with metal cartridges and smokeless powder made fire and maneuver possible. There is just no way a weapon that can fire two to four rounds a minute and fit in a fire and movement system within a 2 minute phased turn. Umm.. HASL CG play forever doomed the notion of a hard and fast '2 minute phased turn'.
Another constraint is the effective range of the black powder single shot muzzle-loading rife. There was a reason these were fired in volleys as after the first shot it was incredibly difficult to see the target and target acquisition was impossible. Introduce smokeless powder and give everyone repeating rifles then maybe it might work. It is not that the tactical doctrine used by the forces involved that is the problem. The problem is the weapons systems used will work with the ASL system. Excellent points, but as I noted above, nothing that can not be dealt with with appropriate rules and SSR to the existing framework of basic infantry ASL action. I've seen people rail for years that ASL doesn't work in other eras, yet the proof is what it is, TPP have moved it out of ww2 and done so in a way that is playable. That is the beauty of ASL, it is highly adaptable, yet at its core very simple. Yes the ASL rulebook has evolved into a monster, but it had it's genesis, and still the core of the game is quite simple. Infantry v. Infantry.
The 2 minute turn wasn't describing how long it would take to play a turn, but how much activity would happen, mostly 'simultaneously', in a two minute period in the battle. For CGs, it takes much longer to 'act out' that two minute period, but it's still meant to represent 2-ish minutes.Umm.. HASL CG play forever doomed the notion of a hard and fast '2 minute phased turn'.
It's all relative man... 2 minutes.. 4 minutes.... 10 minutes of actual time a game turn represents. Who cares.
I think that both sides have a point.Equating a situation that uses breech-loading smokeless powder weapons to one using muzzle-loading back powder weapons is totally ahistorical. Can units equipped with those weapons even accomplish in real life what they can accomplish in the game?
umm hmmm I can agree in principal with that Jazz. For if we are talking pure simulation purposes, you don't have to go back to the Civil War to argue that but to ASL HASL to show how ASL does not work representing the crowded battlefield.ASL works representing the empty battlefield. Characterized by high accuracy/long range that equated to anything that could be seen could be killed.
It does not work representing the crowded battlefield. Characterized by low accuracy/short range weaponry that required massed firepower to inflict any appreciable damage.
<shrug> Whatever....you are entitled to your opinion. Evidently there are more than a few folks that disagree with you, on any number of your points.umm hmmm I can agree in principal with that Jazz. For if we are talking pure simulation purposes, you don't have to go back to the Civil War to argue that but to ASL HASL to show how ASL does not work representing the crowded battlefield.
work? As a simulation that is. It plays well, and I guess that is my point I've been trying to make. Do players really care? Of course not. As a simulation yeah one could find or create better systems to model mid 19th century combat. How many play ASL for simulations sake? Very few I suspect. It is fun to play and you get the flavor of the conflict Just as one can say that one can find a better system than ASL to model large dense 'crowded' HASL actions of ASL. Yet ASL works for those doesn't it, could find a better system, but it work. As I said, I have no particular interest in what CH did here so I can't say how well they did model it. My point earlier though is they have taken ASL out of ww2 on numerous occasions and done so successfully. I see nothing inherent in the basics that make up ASL that make in incompatible with modeling the ACW.
I think many have illustrated why the ASL system is totally ahistorical for use in the black powder era. Note I am not saying it is not playable or even not fun, it is, however, not remotely representative of combat in the black powder era. It does not give the flavor of Civil War combat. In the ASL system do you think infantry could charge a kilometer and a quarter over open ground (33 hexes) against an infantry and artillery position and make it to their goal?umm hmmm I can agree in principal with that Jazz. For if we are talking pure simulation purposes, you don't have to go back to the Civil War to argue that but to ASL HASL to show how ASL does not work representing the crowded battlefield.
work? As a simulation that is. It plays well, and I guess that is my point I've been trying to make. Do players really care? Of course not. As a simulation yeah one could find or create better systems to model mid 19th century combat. How many play ASL for simulations sake? Very few I suspect. It is fun to play and you get the flavor of the conflict Just as one can say that one can find a better system than ASL to model large dense 'crowded' HASL actions of ASL. Yet ASL works for those doesn't it, could find a better system, but it works.
As I said, I have no particular interest in what CH did here, so I can't say how well they did model it. My point earlier though is they have taken ASL out of ww2 on numerous occasions and done so successfully. So my paycheck on this this being playable, and generally realistic. I see nothing inherent in the basics that make up ASL that make in incompatible with modeling the ACW.
Sorry. Mea Culpa.oh well... so much for trying to have a discussion. You actually had a nice point.
back to regular old boys club backslapping programming haha.
Jazz... I don't give fuck about Tapio. I do about the ACW.Sorry. Mea Culpa.
I have a hard time having an objective discussion when anything CH is involved. Watched too much crap come out of Ray Tapio over the years.
And ASL is a miserable and inappropriate system where the basic maneuver elements were companies or larger in linear or column formations.Jazz... I don't give fuck about Tapio. I do about the ACW.
I believe the majority consensus around here is that ASL is not a simulation for any period.was asking precisely how ASL is incaptable as a simulation to the ACW.
Fire/Movement relation in the form of -1 FFMO / -1 FFNAM have been mentioned. These are pretty much the most important and core modifiers that dominate how the game is played. Their effects cannot be "adapted" to ACW by merely scrapping FFNAM, for example.Nothing you brought up (IMO as it seems prudent to mention) makes ASL (as a basic combat system) incomptible with ACW play.
The above point is another one.And ASL is a miserable and inappropriate system where the basic maneuver elements were companies or larger in linear or column formations.