What makes a good HASL?

[witchbottles]

One direction for HASLs could be this: Use a combination of the current geoboards, along with either/both: 1) historically based geoboards that both mate with existing other geoboards and have their terrain be historical, 2) use large historical overlays for the existing geoboards. It would be a kind of hybrid between the standard HASL and the ordinary scenarios. We're already OK with both types of depiction; one very historical (HASLs), one not as much (normal scenarios).

With the above, you could depict a larger historical battle (ie. Kursk north, St.Lo, Voronehz) linked together, create some new geoboards (which could be used elsewhere also), and still achieve the historical battle you're looking for. The HSASL model established already could work along with this. In other words, you could still do a HASL thing, without the map, rules, publication monstrosity aspect. Might work.

sounds a lot like Tactiques CGs there, Three I know of, one on North flank of Kursk, one on the Reichstag assault and one set in the Assaults on Aachen around early Sept, 1944, before Market Garden.

 

[dlazov]

Using geo boards for HASL is a big turn off!

Would rather have a real map.

 

[Robin Reeve]

e. avoid night combat unless it was a key factor in the engagement

Beware.
When I simply evoked the fact that HiF didn't have "Night" days (and that, as I am shy about Night rules, it would introduce me to a CG), jacometti called me a "history denier" - which in my book means "negationist" or "national socialist fan", about the worst insult that someone could fling at my face, as my family lost three scores of kin in Auschwitz and Sobibor...
Yes, one of the designers of "Death to Fascism" attacked a player who has Jewish origins with a slur which usually is aimed at neonazis: quite paradoxical, isn't it?

So, running the risk of being insulted again, I want to say that I really appreciate HiF - and, if time is given to me, I am looking forward to trying the HiF CG.
And, to perhaps avoid some more attacks from players who are Night rules fans and who don't stand players who aren't, when I receive Red Factories, I do have the intention to try the Night rules (again) - either with a scenario or trying a CG.

 

[Philippe D.]

Using geo boards for HASL is a big turn off!

Would rather have a real map.

I too like to have a specific map for a HASL, but from the point of view of a would-be publisher, I can understand why they might want to use geoboards (though, as I suspect that you and I are in the majority, it is also quite possible that the added logistical complexity pays for itself - I suspect original, historical maps help sell the product).

Back when Tactiques published its own CGs, printing their own maps was likely out of the question, and I'd say this is probably why they used geoboards - and published in their own magazine, not as a separate product that sells by itself. But I think most designers who dream up their own HASLs nowadays, are likely to envision a custom-made map for their baby.

 

[DPetros]

Using geo boards for HASL is a big turn off!

Would rather have a real map.

Understood, but we already play the majority of our battles on geoboards, not complaining that they're not historical. HASLs require a lot of resources and are a big investment.

 

[Tater]

Using geo boards for HASL is a big turn off!

Would rather have a real map.

I agree...the historical maps are probably in the top 3 reasons HASL are popular. Having said that, I think dreaming up new/esoteric terrain for a HASL map is a buzz kill. For example...the half orchard...I have always asked, why? The impact to play in ABtF is minimal to non-existent relative to the rule complexity. ABtF could have simply used standard orchard (tree lined) rules and it would have had zero effect on game play.

 

[HansK]

I agree...the historical maps are probably in the top 3 reasons HASL are popular. Having said that, I think dreaming up new/esoteric terrain for a HASL map is a buzz kill. For example...the half orchard...I have always asked, why? The impact to play in ABtF is minimal to non-existent relative to the rule complexity. ABtF could have simply used standard orchard (tree lined) rules and it would have had zero effect on game play.

Time to reprint it this way...?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

A HASL, to be good, has to:

(ie, a Finnish HASL may not work well)

Disagree completely: there are battles along the Mannerheim Line that saw heavy action in the initial and final phases of this brief war which show varying, Russian particularly, capabilities over limited areas. In many ways, this would harken back to The Hedgehog of Piepsk-esque OBs and leadership issues for the Russians early, and a whiff of what the Red Army would later become as the war, and the Red Army matured.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Beware.
When I simply evoked the fact that HiF didn't have "Night" days (and that, as I am shy about Night rules, it would introduce me to a CG), jacometti called me a "history denier" - which in my book means "negationist" or "national socialist fan", about the worst insult that someone could fling at my face, as my family lost three scores of kin in Auschwitz and Sobibor...
Yes, one of the designers of "Death to Fascism" attacked a player who has Jewish origins with a slur which usually is aimed at neonazis: quite paradoxical, isn't it?

So, running the risk of being insulted again, I want to say that I really appreciate HiF - and, if time is given to me, I am looking forward to trying the HiF CG.
And, to perhaps avoid some more attacks from players who are Night rules fans and who don't stand players who aren't, when I receive Red Factories, I do have the intention to try the Night rules (again) - either with a scenario or trying a CG.

Are you looking for a reason to be insulted? In the context of the thread where he labeled people as "history deniers", he simply meant that those who don't play at night deny the fact that many battles took place at night by avoiding that section of the rules. I am absolutely certain Peter had no intent towards your faith, your history, speaking a slur, or was otherwise remotely interested in insulting you beyond the context of not playing night scenarios. You seem a nice person Robin, but you also seem like your looking for reasons to be hurt or insulted. Turn the other cheek and all that. -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

Jacometti invoked Trump like rhethorics too.
He clearly was aggressive, just because I said that HiF didn't have night days - it was not a global statement against the idea that many military situations occurred at night, nor a judgement against people liking night rules.
"History denier" is clearly coined in relation with negationism and with support of the nazi regime.
Jacometti perfectly knows that aspect, I am sure. And his attack was excessive and unwarranted anyway.
I backed off from his scorn and confrontational rhethorics.
I am all for finding a peaceful solution to the conflict - and evoking it here should be seen as a way to shed light on it with some hope of settling things.
You know that I can apologise when I realise that I was wrong and I have turned the other cheek rather often.
Perhaps should I here.
But I reckon that seeing people being obnoxious without ever being lectured by you or anybody else opens questions for me.
Am I the disruptive person in this neck of the woods?
I sincerely don't think so.
I (try to) avoid insults, even though I can debate with some passion.
But you may be right and I should let people insult me, shrug my shoulders and move on. Even when they equate me with a nazi...

 

[Sparafucil3]

But you may be right and I should let people insult me, shrug my shoulders and move on. Even when they equate me with a nazi...

No one equated you with a Nazi that I see. If you have a quote and can point me to it, I am ready to be corrected. You are free to defend yourself. You're an adult. But I humbly suggest that maybe you slow down a bit and first make sure you're being intentionally maligned--or even actually maligned--before pushing back. I honestly do not believe there was anything in what Peter wrote intended to put your dander up like this. I ask again, are you sure you're just not being a bit thin skinned here? Is there a specific quote, directed at you, that has you angry that I am not aware of? -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

Quote : "In addition, night combat was very, very common on all fronts in WWII so you are a history denier if you don't want to make that effort. Which is bad. Not Good."

1. I was not denying the importance of night combat.
2. I was just saying that I am not at ease with night rules (and that HiF not needing to use them was a good thing for me, as it allowed me to try out a CG)
3. One could argue that stricto sensu "history denier" could just mean that I was denying the fact that night combat was important, but the problem is :

• that it is a name calling and a blanket judgement on all players who don't play night situations
• that it was used in an agressive, haughty and intolerant way: there was no need to interact that way.

When I mildly underlined that his accusation was not the nicest way to adress my post, his answer was : "If that dramatic accusation pushes you over the edge and into Night scenarios, it was worth it. Just like Trump calling Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man" and bringing peace and denuclearisation to the entire Korean peninsula as a result. But I digress."
Hardly a word of appeasement (I am not Kim Jong Un) - and certainly not a way of encouraging me to retry the Night rules.
- that it is an expression linked to negationism

So, indeed, in my book, it is a serious insult.
My skin may be thin here after your standards.
After mine, a line was crossed that is not acceptable.

Well, I will now move on.
And I will try again Night rules with a friendly opponent - I know plenty of them.

 

[Tater]

Quote : "In addition, night combat was very, very common on all fronts in WWII so you are a history denier if you don't want to make that effort. Which is bad. Not Good.

You went from the above quote to “he called me a Nazi”...naaa...sorry...just don’t see it. You have to do some serious grammatical, interpretational and emotional gymnastic to go from that quote to claiming that you are being called a Nazi.

 

[dlazov]

Sorry I know Peter personally, played him at ASLOK a few years back, and what you quoted was in NO WAY name calling, abusive, intolerant, haughty, mean or nasty.

For you to take it as such is to put mildly is ridiculous.

You obviously never spent any time in a military establishment.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Quote : "In addition, night combat was very, very common on all fronts in WWII so you are a history denier if you don't want to make that effort. Which is bad. Not Good."

1. I was not denying the importance of night combat.
2. I was just saying that I am not at ease with night rules (and that HiF not needing to use them was a good thing for me, as it allowed me to try out a CG)
3. One could argue that stricto sensu "history denier" could just mean that I was denying the fact that night combat was important, but the problem is :

• that it is a name calling and a blanket judgement on all players who don't play night situations
• that it was used in an agressive, haughty and intolerant way: there was no need to interact that way.

When I mildly underlined that his accusation was not the nicest way to adress my post, his answer was : "If that dramatic accusation pushes you over the edge and into Night scenarios, it was worth it. Just like Trump calling Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man" and bringing peace and denuclearisation to the entire Korean peninsula as a result. But I digress."
Hardly a word of appeasement (I am not Kim Jong Un) - and certainly not a way of encouraging me to retry the Night rules.
- that it is an expression linked to negationism

So, indeed, in my book, it is a serious insult.
My skin may be thin here after your standards.
After mine, a line was crossed that is not acceptable.

Well, I will now move on.
And I will try again Night rules with a friendly opponent - I know plenty of them.

Notice, "dramatic accusation" is in bold font because Peter is being sarcastic as is his want. The rest of the quote is also pure satire. If this is what passes as serious insult, as you contend, then aren't you in natural fact, insinuating that I am abnormal by your standards as I don't see a line crossed. Should I now be insulted and angry at you for crossing that line with your malicious accusation? Should I get all in a lather?

Me, I don't know how you go through life like that. You're either sheltered from everything or constantly pissed off at everyone. I don't know which it is or which is worse. I am sure there is a third option but I imagine that would have to be bland and milquetoast too in order to keep your dander down. Stress is bad for your health. I try to steer clear of the self-created variety. JMO. YMMV. -- jim

 

[MaxTheBlueMoose]

I'm going to try, perhaps foolishly, to get this thread back on topic.
Thanks to everyone for their replies. Some people clearly put a lot of thought into their posts and I really appreciate it.

So far what I have distilled is as follows. Apologies if I missed any points that someone was trying to make.

Subject- Selecting a historical battle for the HASL, these are elements of a battle to be considered when selecting it

1. Balance
   1. Initiative- (Both players should have opportunities to attack/defend and make tactical decisions, ideally in the same scenarios)
   2. Forces - (For both sides to have a realistic balance of initiative they must also have a balance in the size of forces)
2. Interest - something that provides a new and exotic experience for players
   1. non-standard terrain that impacted the battle
   2. unique elements that cannot be captured within the standard rules framework (in other words a HASL should have some Chrome)
3. Variety - forces including combined arms (infantry, armor, guns)
4. Tactical flexibility - (Look for a battle where the commanders had real choices)
5. Length - (The battle should have taken several days over the same terrain)
6. Scope - (The battle shouldn't be too big or too small, this applies to geographic scope as well as to the OOB)
7. Accessible History - (There should be some reasonably detailed information about the battle available)

Design - Elements that the designer controls

1. Succinct - Reduce complexity (like limiting OOB and special rules) to keep game times manageable while...
2. Historical Authenticity - Make the game feel true to the subject but also ..
3. Balance - Keep VCs, as well as forces and tactical flexibility achievable for both players
4. A good mix of both scenarios and CGs
5. A quality map
6. Reasonable CG length
7. Appeal - artwork (maps), or chrome (special rules)
8. JR always wins

This has helped put some of the choices for existing HASLs into context.

For example, I've found this clarifying on why there are so few early war HASLs: relative lack of combined arms, less variety in forces (there maybe many poor early war choices vs. late war where there are a variety of effective choices to be made)

 

[witchbottles]

Good distillation - I think you've got the makings of a "Volume II" for a "Scenario Design Guide".

 

[kcole4001]

For me it's a balance of historical accuracy and replayability, combined with the feeling that each separate day's efforts effect the next action and future goals need to be kept clearly in mind. No last turn banzai attacks.
It has to leave you thinking "what if I pressed here, instead of over here", or "what if I tried this combination of purchases".
Strict historical accuracy ensures by some means (to the best of it's ability barring heavy dice effects) that the outcome will be very similar each time.
That's too linear, but I'm not interested in fantasy battles on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[Sully]

1. Use of standard rules as much as possible (the fewer the SSR the better, including special terrain)
2. Simple perimeter determination.
3. RePh short and sweet.
4. The CG need to be designed to keep both players interested.

To me, #4 is possible the most critical.

I'd second this. I'd phrase this as, "Provides each player interesting choices in each CG day." I.e. what the player should do should not be obvious or scripted, especially in the RePh.

 

[Carln0130]

Sorry I know Peter personally, played him at ASLOK a few years back, and what you quoted was in NO WAY name calling, abusive, intolerant, haughty, mean or nasty.

For you to take it as such is to put mildly is ridiculous.

You obviously never spent any time in a military establishment.

I also know Peter and correspond with him from time to time. I have had a chance to meet him and we have had some pretty deep conversations. I agree with Dave, no way he meant that statement as you took it. He meant you were missing out on a major rules section and bypassing a part of history for any given HASL by not playing them. He was not saying you were a history-denier in the sense that phrase has come to mean.

The man's line of work is to build infrastructure in struggling third world places first hand, where armed men would not want to set foot, with nothing but the shirt on his back, know-how and his NGO's backing and good intentions. You have completely mis-read him as a person and his intent. I agree that HAD he meant it that way, you would most definitely have cause for being more than upset. I would stake my life, that he did not mean it that way.