I realize that these are early days, and much is subject to change, but basically the post-engagement parameters that TO is going to ask for are the following, then, in no particular order:
1. Distance advanced/given up by either side. This is relatively easy to convert, lots of ASL rules out there for determining perimeters.
2. Casualties suffered. Somewhat problematic, but playtest and tweak will have this figured out fairly quickly. I suspect that we will end up using Paul's Lazarus mechanic, as I have a suspicion that ASL will be regularly casualty intensive compared to the TO engagement resolver. One thing that needs to be addressed is the way in which HLG handles vehicle repair, but again, not too big a challenge, as most likely vehicles that are damaged (but not burnt out) will go to a 1st line repair shop and be available in a day or two. Whether the losing unit gets the repaired vehicle or not is another thing. ASL already has mechanics (hah!) for determining whether things like squad weapons, broken vehicle main armaments, etc. are repaired locally and quickly, which we can adapt without too much trouble. I think we can as a complexity-avoider assume that any wreck that is captured by the other side as part of determining the new FEBA will be made unrepairable in HLG terms.
3. Fatigue. This is really hard to track in ASL, and I suspect most other non-CM resolution methods. I think we need to just establish baseline fatigue levels for given situations ie probe/attack/assault, length of battle, etc., and then allow the players a variance from that based on length of engagement, perceived level of "intensity" of the engagement, and so on.
4. Supply issues. Again, hard to track in ASL. Easy at the start, a side is either under ammo shortage (for all/certain systems) or not. But we need to set where that level is as a function of % of "full" supply, which will take some experiment. Harder at the end. Again, a baseline supply loss level per broad situation modified by engagement length and perceived "intensity" would probably work best. Arty is a bit easier, because there is a good built-in ASL ammo level mechanism, and for consumption you can just tally the number of missions fired in the engagement, multiply by a modifier, and there you go. I really don't want to get into changing availability #'s for special ammo within the ASL scenario, btw - too much paperwork.
5. Troop quality/morale/leadership - This can be almost totally handled within the HLG, so far as I am concerned. Not too sure what the input will look like, but keep in mind that part of the ASL scenario generation process will be to randomize the quality and leadership of forces that a side receives, so as to avoid ruinous amounts of recordkeeping over the course of the campaign. My intent was to take the HLG input ie high/low (elite, crack, green whatever) quality/morale/leadership and apply it as a DRM to the force/ELR/leadership table. On scenario end, I guess we can track the number of ELR fails, positive/negative Heat of Battle, and Field promotion results, and then roll to see if that unit(s) raise or lower quality/morale/leadership in the HLG.
6. Cohesion. As for fatigue/supply, establish a situational baseline and apply modifiers, including player input. This will allow us to experiment with Paul's ideas above regarding time conversion and ending battles early in order to gain a cohesion bonus, as well as handle something that is well beyond the scope of ASL.
I am starting to get to the point now where I think maybe I could start putting together a conversion ruleset, although I would need a bit more under the hood info in terms of scales before I started tinkering with building charts and prospective DRMs.
The beauty of it is that once we have the basic concepts of the interface down, it will be easier for others to port our work to other systems. Maybe I will borrow my buddy's Blitzkrieg Commander rules and see what I can do there, at least in terms of translating the hurdles we are looking at here. One thing at a time though!