Are you sure?
Red Factories miscellaneous stuff
- Thread starter Gunner Scott
- Start date
The alluded-to-by-you-but-as-yet-unspecified-by-you "unrealistic" aspects of ASL, which you are decrying...
Last edited:
Magpie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 74
- Country
-
One of the things I see quite often in the many wargames I play from Napoleonics to the Far Future is that many people don't really understand how to defend something. Not surprising I suppose as not too many people have actually been taught how.
The idea a force sitting safely in an unassailable fortress, impervious to all foes while they flail away at the bulwark, is fantasy, not defence. A determined attacker left to assail the fortress as they wish will always break in no matter how thick your walls.
For a proper defence, you need to look beyond the walls of your fortress. You need to cover: lines of approach, areas were the enemy could form up to assault, bypass and flanking routes; you also need to ensure there are safe paths of egress and ingress for friendlies and, perhaps most importantly, you need to deny the enemy both observation and lines of fire to the defenders.
Any defender who lets 3 squads with 3 MMG's under the command of a top class leader set up in a position within 4 -6 hexes where they can fire upon them has failed the first principle of defence.
ASL represents that exceptionally well IMO.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,612
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
They can defend much better than in a non fortified building : better TEM and an unpinned squad prevents enemy infantry from entering it.
Augmenting the fortified building TEM to +5 would make it similar to a #+5+7 pillbox, which it is not.
And if you find that a fortified building is too easy to take, this is excellent news for the defender, as he would easily take it back.
I would suggest that you bettered your tactics rather than blame the game's rules.
Yuri0352
Elder Member
Bingo!
Nice to see that a simple remark and thoughts about addressing a very specific issue in ASL is met with false character insinuations, condescension and downright weird statements that made no sense.
I am well aware of all the various tactics, and have been playing (and winning a good deal of the time) ASL since it was first released by AH back in the day. And on another board configuration some of them may indeed be possible. But now I suggest you get out the new RB board and look at scenario RB10, which is the specific situation this all started with.
All of the Red House hexes can be sited for fire, there is nowhere to hide and/or feed units in from. So really the situation is a "stand and fight" one. They do happen you know. The specific detail issue I raised has to do with how you can't stand up to small arms fire even in a fortified building and how it runs counter not only to history (and experiences related by friends I have in the military) but even the ASL AARs on the scenario cards.
Oh, and by the way I do not like TPPs at all - been burned too many times by them. I stick to MMP stuff only nowadays.
I am well aware of all the various tactics, and have been playing (and winning a good deal of the time) ASL since it was first released by AH back in the day. And on another board configuration some of them may indeed be possible. But now I suggest you get out the new RB board and look at scenario RB10, which is the specific situation this all started with.
All of the Red House hexes can be sited for fire, there is nowhere to hide and/or feed units in from. So really the situation is a "stand and fight" one. They do happen you know. The specific detail issue I raised has to do with how you can't stand up to small arms fire even in a fortified building and how it runs counter not only to history (and experiences related by friends I have in the military) but even the ASL AARs on the scenario cards.
Oh, and by the way I do not like TPPs at all - been burned too many times by them. I stick to MMP stuff only nowadays.
You have no idea what you're missing.
Persuade me. I got burned by HoB and Friendly Fire - in both cases scenarios felt like no one play tested them. In one I literally won with my Tigers against US squads which had no AT weaponry of note by driving right off the small play area down the road that the setup did not allow the US to block....
Magpie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 74
- Country
-
"Very specific issue" -> "Aware of the tactics, I've been playing and winning" => so what's the issue?
A single scenario where many of the principles of defence cannot be applied => 1 issue doesn't mean the whole mechanic is buggered.
A single scenario where many of the principles of defence cannot be applied => 1 issue doesn't mean the whole mechanic is buggered.
Well, our club uses a lot of scenarios from ESG and Schwerpunkt at our big tournament, as well as a few from Bounding Fire. Our club President is well known in the community and there's no way he'd put on a big tournament every year using scenarios that were unbalanced or not tested. I'm sure there's some dogs in every crowd, but Bounding Fire, LFT, as well as the previous mentioned publishers are all known for producing top quality products that appear to be well tested. I can attest to playing three different scenarios from BFP Crucible of Steel at West Coast Melee last weekend and all three were very enjoyable (both players agreed) and all three came down to the final turn with both players feeling like they had an excellent chance to win.
Scenario RB10 isn't that a reboot of a BV scenario? I've played that version as both sides and it's pretty fun and it appears to be very well balanced on ROAR. Not sure how much of a change there is in the RF version. Time will tell.
I already describred the issue upthread. I guess RB10 crystalized it but the whole problem of small arms fire being too effective against hardened targets has been around a while. I know what the ASL tactics are but they are not the same as in real life. Also, the approach attacking such positions is ahistorical - blow it away with small arms fire - when the real life approach was covering fire for other units to approach and breach with explosives, use FT or other such tactics.
I would like the game to push the players toward use of more real life tactics in these situations. And it seems like the lynchpin to this is dialing back the lethality of small arms fire versus hardened strongpoints.
It is. It is one of a couple of situations where the essential same situation is presented in two formats. Another is the SK scenario 88s at Zon which also appeared in full ASL Yanks as Zon with the Wind (and Zon with the Wind is a pretty cool scenario).
I have heard good things about Bounding Fire - if I decide to risk a TPP again they are likely it.
Magpie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 74
- Country
-
Heavy covering fire sounds just fine to me. No need to require explosives and FT, nice if you got 'em but far from a requirement.
I did 15 years of "real life tactics" and I can assure you ASL is the best there is at modelling that.
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Out of curiosity, which Friendly Fire scenario have you been "burned" by?
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Sort of - RB10 is an updated version of scenario Historical A2 (from the ASL Annual 92). It is base on the same action as scenario 4 (from Beyond Valod), but based on the RB map.
So they are really not the same scenario.
There are certainly problems with this and other things in ASL. They could be tackled if people approached them with an open mind and were willing to abandon all the time and money they have invested in ASL. Understandably they don't want to do that, so they either ignore issues like this or try to deny them. 'Design for effect' pops up as a mantra before long and covers a multitude of sins. I seldom come back to this forum nowadays and when I do it is just to touch base and see what is new. Sometimes I can't help chipping in on discussions like this, though I do know it's futile.
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Agree.
Not having played this scenario, but I do note that the building in question on the RB Map (BB18) does have 16 Locations where the Russians can be in. If if is possible for the Germans set up fire bases that can clear out all of those with fire or enough to let them more-or-less approach the building unhindered, then it sounds like it could be a specific problem with this scenario. But as I said, I have not played it.