Red Factories miscellaneous stuff

[MajorDomo]

To echo an earlier post by Philippe, ASL"s time frame per turn makes it very difficult to portray a large urban battle like Stalingrad.

After the German 6th army was surrounded and cutoff, the Russians proposed surrender, which was refused from Berlin.

Russians then proceeded to reduce the Stalingrad pocket systematically. Their records show that they expended 9 million artillery shells, 9 million mortar rounds and projectiles and 89 million bullets to reduce the pocket.

This against a starving army, with huge ammo shortages, confined to buildings due to constant shelling, with wounded and dying in halls that doubled as toilet facilities.

After the eventual surrender and wounded eradication, there were still 100,000 German soldiers that were physically able to walk into capivity. Not that many made the trek to Moscow alive, by design.

The point is that it is very difficult to capture urban buildings from soldiers, no matter how depleted they are.

ASL would require a countless number of its small time lapsed scenarios to model just the reduction of the Stalingrad pocket and most would be very boring.

 

[Ganjulama]

Not to peddle one of my own scenarios - but DftB 122 - Prescription for the Kommissar - has the building completely fortified with some other rules to aid in its defense.

Great scenario I've played it 3 times. 2 German and 1 Russian wins in my playings.

 

[JR Brackin]

Great scenario I've played it 3 times. 2 German and 1 Russian wins in my playings.

Thank you

 

[mi80j]

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.

Would you like some cheese...?

 

[mi80j]

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.

IIRC, Critical Hit's "Advanced Tobruk System" was supposed to be the cure-all for all ills ASL...
Maybe you should check out the ATS subforum on this website...
Oh wait… it's not there anymore.
Sorry.

 

[skarper]

I did look at ATS back when in the day. In the end I went my own way. What I have works for me. I don't expect it to work for others.

 

[mi80j]

Is there a factory working overtime somewhere producing these bots?

 

[Joelist]

Seven

I like the idea of the corrective overlays as it allows playing both "old map" and "corrected".

 

[Joelist]

It actually is a confession of sin and a statement that ASL is just a game.
On the other side of the debate, the evocation of "realism" is a much more aetheral, wobbly argument to push one's personal idea about "how things should work", not from a gaming perspective, but from a historical one.
ASL has many flaws and I would say that any reasonable player knows it.
But - and this should be a factor in all our debates - players have their shortcomings too.
What can obscure a discussion is when people don't seem to have the slightest doubt about their skills or about their mastery of the game.

In the present case, we have the additional problem of a single scenario where a given general rule doesn't seem to work well.
This leads Joelist to require a change of the general rule, taking the specific example of the scenario as a proof that the whole system is flawed.

This seems to be a (fallacious) logical process that Joelist seems to want to apply as a general way of analysis, as he also dismisses TPP altogether because in some few occasions he found a scenario unbalanced or badly designed.
Anecdotic evidence is, by definition, anecdotic.
There are so many factors to take into account : did the players really understand the scenario's data ? What really is their level of skill ? What were the dice results ?
In particular, how can the experience of a single (or a couple) of scenarios allow a blanket statement about the quality of a TPP?
I do find quite strange that HOB and FrF are the TPP invoked here as possibly badly playtested.
They have (especially the latter) the reputation - confirmed by the experience of very good players - of being thouroughly and extensively playtested (FrF shines out as one of the best TPP on that count).

So for the RB scenario we are speaking about, the first reasonable step - as we don't have any satisfying statistical or AAR record up to now because the scenario was just published - would be to plead for an SSR which adapts the general rule to the specific situation where it seems unsatisfactory.
The main reason for such a specific adaptation is that fortified building rules are around from the start of ASL and that I don't seem to recall any serious debate about them as being flawed. Players seem to be able to manage that aspect of the rules without major issues.

I do find that the additional arguments that Joelist has presented weaken his case.
But it will be interesting if other people express in the future the same or additional concerns as he does about the scenario - and/or about fortified building rules.
I may happen that, after 34 years of existence, a yet unrevealed major problem pops up and should be adressed.
The probability exists, but I would think that it is quite low.

Actually I said that this scenario crystalized something I had noticed before in other scenarios - obviously those with fortified buildings present.

The case is actually pretty simple - I contend that as they stand the fortified building rules tend not to yield very realistic results as the usual ASL "Death Stars" with leaders with negative modifiers just break/PIN the defenders no matter the slight increase in DRM, and that said breaking/PINNING nullifies the other fortified building benefit.

What I proposed was an experiment trying out two different approaches to the problem. One basically disallowed leadership modifiers to IFT shots at fortified buildings. The other traded the extra +1 TEM currently given for instead resolving all non-ordinance/DC/FT fire as Area Fire. I also specifically stated the experiment was to be conducted in scenario RB10.

That was when all the attacks began for some reason.

Or is it just not possible to try to discuss ASL rules here?

And my distrusting TPP is just my experience. It was a HoB scenario where I just drove off the board on GT1 with no problem. Now other here seem to be vouching for some TPP, and I have heard good things about Bounding Fire; so perhaps I may try one of theirs.

 

[clubby]

You're not really discussing the rules. You're discussing changing the game play mechanics to suit your own needs and views. Which is fine, but I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody to be on board. And this isn't the rules folder.`

 

[skarper]

Actually I said that this scenario crystalized something I had noticed before in other scenarios - obviously those with fortified buildings present.

The case is actually pretty simple - I contend that as they stand the fortified building rules tend not to yield very realistic results as the usual ASL "Death Stars" with leaders with negative modifiers just break/PIN the defenders no matter the slight increase in DRM, and that said breaking/PINNING nullifies the other fortified building benefit.

What I proposed was an experiment trying out two different approaches to the problem. One basically disallowed leadership modifiers to IFT shots at fortified buildings. The other traded the extra +1 TEM currently given for instead resolving all non-ordinance/DC/FT fire as Area Fire. I also specifically stated the experiment was to be conducted in scenario RB10.

That was when all the attacks began for some reason.

Or is it just not possible to try to discuss ASL rules here?

And my distrusting TPP is just my experience. It was a HoB scenario where I just drove off the board on GT1 with no problem. Now other here seem to be vouching for some TPP, and I have heard good things about Bounding Fire; so perhaps I may try one of theirs.

My experience is that people don't want to consider any significant changes to ASL and I can understand why not. Once you start opening up to the idea that basic concepts can be revisited you never stop. I started trying to make small changes and rapidly ended up with a completely different system having just cribbed the basic game scale and concepts of FP, TEM, MF etc.

As to your ideas about the fortified buildings issue, which I think is a real issue, my system has the following that address them.

Leaders do not modify IFT attacks. Leader DRM do other things.

The maximum small arms/MG attack possible is 16FP. I don't allow multi location firegroups and limit the number and type of MGs that can fire from one location to about 15 men plus a limited number of support weapons. This means you can't get over 16 FP no matter how you try.

Stone buildings are +4 TEM and fortified buildings are +6. Fortified building can only be entered thru a breach or a designated entrance. All my TEM increased.

Any unit in a building that is 'heads down' either voluntarily or due to being Pinned get an extra +2 TEM.

I am not suggesting ASL should be modified in this manner, but I get much more realistic results [IMO anyway] with these rules.

Like I say, it works for me. I only play solo and the enjoyment I got was research and development for the rules. I'd design a scenario [often one already covered by an HASL] and test the rules against it, making modifications as I saw fit. I enjoyed it and I don't mean to convert anyone. I hesitate to stick my oar in to this discussion but want people who do see problems to know they are not the only ones who feel that way.

As I see it you have two choices.
1] Play the rules as written and the enjoy the game for what it is.
2] Write your own system either alone or with a group of friends and abandon ASL [my choice].

I went with option 2. Option 1 probably makes more sense but I just couldn't deal with the fundamental flaws in ASL any longer. Even the basic squad FP and Range values are wrong......

Back in the 80s it seemed great and I enjoyed it a lot.

 

[Robin Reeve]

The case is actually pretty simple - I contend that as they stand the fortified building rules tend not to yield very realistic results as the usual ASL "Death Stars" with leaders with negative modifiers just break/PIN the defenders no matter the slight increase in DRM, and that said breaking/PINNING nullifies the other fortified building benefit.

I think that, as a general rule, fortifications never hold on by themselves.
Their approaches must be covered by fire from other strongpoints, or they will finally fall.
If the attacker only uses a deathstar, other units will have to approach the building and try to enter it: does the defender have means to cut or hinder that movement with well aimed defensive fire (including fire lanes)?
There are many other factors which must be taken into account when you want to take an enemy position - ASL is a game of manoeuvre, where pumping lead during PFPh won't be the main way to solve tactical challenges.

That said, RB10 could require supplemental SSRs to help the defending Russians.
As an indication, the ROAR record of the previous RB version of Commissar's house lists 30 Russian victories vs 50 German ones.
ROAR is certainly not a very reliable way of measure, but at least 30 players did manage to pull out a victory against the Germans.
The scenario seemed to favour the Germans, which could explain why MMP modified it in RF?

That was when all the attacks began for some reason.

As you are answering my post, I presume that I must be counted about those who, as you say, "attack" you.
I contest that accusation.
I have been factual - at least I try to be the most analytical in this debate.
I certainly contest your argumental logics, but don't see anything like a PA in the fact that you have people daring offer you some contradiction.
And as much as you posit yourself in your freedom to criticise the game system, as much other people have the freedom to question your statements - and that, without you being a heroic heretic fighting a brainless mob of hyperconservative guardians of the holy temple of ASL.

One aspect may ruffle your feathers, though, is that I don't see you have many doubts about your own skills.
Not that I am contesting your player level (I have no idea of your tourney or other gaming records - but it certainly could be better than mine), but the fact that you develop your analysis from the startpoint that you are not a possible factor in the problem that you want to solve is in some sense telling.
It closes any contestation, as you don't question your own tactics.
The fact that the fortified building rules aren't at the core of heated debates and that you are - at least in my limited knowing - the first player who contests the rule should at least send you a signal that your analysis is isolated.
Of course, you may be right against everybody - btw, being right against me would be a rather easy feat - but I do think that it is improbable.

Now, perhaps a poll on the forum could shed some light about how many people have issues with the fortified building rule?

 

[Robin Reeve]

As I see it you have two choices.
1] Play the rules as written and the enjoy the game for what it is.
2] Write your own system either alone or with a group of friends and abandon ASL [my choice].

You put it right.
I would venture that Option 2 would be even better if a group of designers worked on it.
As in all domains of expertise, an individual person rarely grasps all the aspects of a topic and group thinking can save a project from many flaws that a lone person won't percieve.

I went for Option 1, as I am no WW2 expert and as ASL is a very entertaining game.

 

[skarper]

I think it is fairly clear that the fortified building rules can't make the so called Commissars House be as tough as it was in the real battle.

The scenarios have been playtested well so are balanced games.

Some people want to play a balanced game. Some want the games to be 'realistic' [whatever that might be].

I wanted to learn about the battles using the model provided by a game. It's impossible to say how well I succeeded but I enjoyed trying.

I've never enjoyed competitive gaming much, so there was no need for me to be part of a large community of fellow gamers.

I agree a small group of designers could have done a better job than I managed alone, but I had no choice. Often I felt in dire need of a fresh point of view.

 

[Joelist]

I think that, as a general rule, fortifications never hold on by themselves.
Their approaches must be covered by fire from other strongpoints, or they will finally fall.
If the attacker only uses a deathstar, other units will have to approach the building and try to enter it: does the defender have means to cut or hinder that movement with well aimed defensive fire (including fire lanes)?
There are many other factors which must be taken into account when you want to take an enemy position - ASL is a game of manoeuvre, where pumping lead during PFPh won't be the main way to solve tactical challenges.

That said, RB10 could require supplemental SSRs to help the defending Russians.
As an indication, the ROAR record of the previous RB version of Commissar's house lists 30 Russian victories vs 50 German ones.
ROAR is certainly not a very reliable way of measure, but at least 30 players did manage to pull out a victory against the Germans.
The scenario seemed to favour the Germans, which could explain why MMP modified it in RF?

As you are answering my post, I presume that I must be counted about those who, as you say, "attack" you.
I contest that accusation.
I have been factual - at least I try to be the most analytical in this debate.
I certainly contest your argumental logics, but don't see anything like a PA in the fact that you have people daring offer you some contradiction.
And as much as you posit yourself in your freedom to criticise the game system, as much other people have the freedom to question your statements - and that, without you being a heroic heretic fighting a brainless mob of hyperconservative guardians of the holy temple of ASL.

One aspect may ruffle your feathers, though, is that I don't see you have many doubts about your own skills.
Not that I am contesting your player level (I have no idea of your tourney or other gaming records - but it certainly could be better than mine), but the fact that you develop your analysis from the startpoint that you are not a possible factor in the problem that you want to solve is in some sense telling.
It closes any contestation, as you don't question your own tactics.
The fact that the fortified building rules aren't at the core of heated debates and that you are - at least in my limited knowing - the first player who contests the rule should at least send you a signal that your analysis is isolated.
Of course, you may be right against everybody - btw, being right against me would be a rather easy feat - but I do think that it is improbable.

Now, perhaps a poll on the forum could shed some light about how many people have issues with the fortified building rule?

Actually no you have not been one of the attackers. But I have already been talked down to, called a bot (among other things) and derided.

I questioned one rule about a specific type of terrain - one that in fact can only exist by SSR in the first place. I know all of the usual tactics for defense. And when you have a situation like RB10 where the attacker can site fire on all the building hexes they break down.

And this is not some "core mechanic" either. Core mechanics are things like the turn sequence, the types of defensive fire and how they interrelate, Morale, Rout and so on.

So how about analyzing the specific situation as opposed to instant opposition?

If you have VASL you can even check in out there - use the v2RB board and look at scenario RB10.

 

[Joelist]

I have to admit I would also like to get my hands on Valor of the Guards to try its "Pavlov's House" scenario.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I went with option 2. Option 1 probably makes more sense but I just couldn't deal with the fundamental flaws in ASL any longer. Even the basic squad FP and Range values are wrong......

If one is of this opinion, then ditching ASL and going with one's own system is probably the way to go.

 

[Craig Benn]

Hmmmmm. I won't swap ASL for another system now. But that doesn't mean I can't dislike bits of it.

And the bit I don't like the most is HMGs with -2/-3 leaders.

Clearly ASL models this far too unrealistically or the Germans would have won in Stalingrad.

Why does inspiring leadership make troops shoot more accurately? Max -1 benefit if that.

How many ROF shots? I get early on target shots means can do something else. But spotting? replacing barrels/ ammo belts? Max number of extra shots equal to ROF, so HMG gets max of four per phase.

If you're in a trench, the HMG can't get you because you're underground - unless you stick your head up to fire. Should be able to choose to stay low. No double breaks. First one means you duck below the parapet.

Buildings similar - take and give up 'window advantage' a bit like wall advantage with similar LOS effects. You need HE to blast into a house not bullets.

Russians and Germans honeycombed on different levels of the same building for weeks and months. Hazardous movement up stairwells and close combat modifier of +1/-1 in defenders favour. It's hard to clear buildings...

Red Barricades campaigns end up with squads dying quicker than their SW so magnifies problem as ratio of death stars to normal troops increases.

I love the game as it is but I can understand people getting irritated about this....

 

[Magpie]

" I contend that as they stand the fortified building rules tend not to yield very realistic results as the usual ASL "Death Stars" with leaders with negative modifiers "

You know mate earlier you were bleating about comments ppl had made that made no sense.
What makes 0 sense is "German MG's and leaders are too strong so let's change the terrain rules"

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Max number of extra shots equal to ROF, so HMG gets max of four per phase.

The expected average number of shots for a RoF [3] is 2, for a [2] is 1.5 and for [1] is 1.2. You can get more or less, but that's the average. In theory you could keep getting RoF until the tournament hotel management throws you out.

The more generalised case is 1/(1-p) where p is the probability of getting RoF. So where RoF = [2], p=2/6 and expected number of shots is 1/(1-2/6) = 1/(4/6) = 6/4 = 1.5.