How Have Tactics Have Changed In ASL

[David Goldman]

I was reading ASL: difficult to learn to play, easy to learn how to play well, and dying out and reflected that having played ASL since 1991, there is a far more sophisticated set of tactics that experienced gamers employ now than in the early days of ASL. For instance, deploying has become far more prevalent than in the early '90s. I have a question to the forum: What other tactics have evolved since the early days? Please, this is not a commentary on the above post. It just started me considering how the play of ASL has evolved.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I was reading ASL: difficult to learn to play, easy to learn how to play well, and dying out and reflected that having played ASL since 1991, there is a far more sophisticated set of tactics that experienced gamers employ now than in the early days of ASL. For instance, deploying has become far more prevalent than in the early '90s. I have a question to the forum: What other tactics have evolved since the early days? Please, this is not a commentary on the above post. It just started me considering how the play of ASL has evolved.

Along with the HS push I believe the game has become a faster game tactics wise. That is to say, the attacker is more likely to be audacious with his moves, fires less, moves more, and is more aware of the benefits given to the ATTACKER than the DEFENDER in a given situation (a built in aspect of the game). As play developed over the years the AARs and replays by the more astute early players pointed out tactics that not only sped the game up (i.e. using bypass more, increased use of smoke, VBM freeze, etc.) but also had a decided impact upon scenario development. This is especially true with the advent of VASL as more players became aware of these tactics because of the increased opponent opportunities and utilized them more often in their games just to remain competitive. In essence the game has a much higher learning curve today than it did in the 1980's-90's but has become a more viable game experience for a wider community of players. I believe this is borne out by many of the older scenarios being too long for current play for the most part as the VCs can be accomplished (or denied) much quicker than in the earlier days. Incumbent with this is the current design philosophy of most of the scenarios being produced today. Almost gone is the movement to contact aspect of a scenario as most concentrate on the assault or actions on contact phase and beyond, thus imploring the player to utilize more aggressive tactics right from the start.

 

[von Marwitz]

Probably there is now more emphasis on moving instead of shooting.

Furthermore, as scenario designs have changed, play needs to adapt. For example, Schwerpunkt scenarios are known for starting right within the action. There is no time to be lost to meet the objectives. This means that your defensive and offensive setups need much more careful consideration as during the early days of ASL when you had enough time to move into position and towards the action. Nowadays, losing half a turn due to a bad setup might cost you the game.

EDIT:
Eagle4ty's post overtook mine by seconds. Interestingly, his observations are very similar to mine.

von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

A great many more people have successfully identified what makes the Japanese work as a force than when they were first introduced. It wasn't all that many years ago that players were passing up "obvious" opportunities for banzai charges etc., or alternately making such charges recklessly and thus to their detriment. I think that can mostly be seen in the way that the perceived balance of Totsugeki! has changed over the years.

I think a lot of players still have trouble with combined-arms attacks and sometimes scenarios get designed that seem to reflect that trouble. I've seen older scenarios that favour one side because they have a bunch of AFVs that their opponent will have a lot of difficulties dealing with when they are used in an expert manner, making the scenario seem quite unbalanced. Then newer scenarios have been designed anticipating such "expert usage" and people experience problems making that work for them. It's a tricky thing to judge. (I don't have any solutions.)

 

[ASLSARGE]

In the early days of ASL I saw a carry-over of the old SL Tactics....stand toe to toe and shoot it out. Remember the original Guards Counterattack? Now I see a lot more movement, searching, deploying, and an emphasis on the subtler aspects of the game rather than the use of firepower exclusively. Modern scenarios tend to emphasize this. I guess it is a natural tendency to adapt to the current norm. Sometimes I miss the old toe to toe shoot outs though. ..seemed simpler then.

 

[lightspeed]

In the early days of ASL I saw a carry-over of the old SL Tactics....stand toe to toe and shoot it out. Remember the original Guards Counterattack? Now I see a lot more movement, searching, deploying, and an emphasis on the subtler aspects of the game rather than the use of firepower exclusively. Modern scenarios tend to emphasize this. I guess it is a natural tendency to adapt to the current norm. Sometimes I miss the old toe to toe shoot outs though. ..seemed simpler then.

Excellent points...it puts together why I think Guards Counterattack is not really a good learning
scenario. I think Guards teaches one the wrong lessons about ASL. I feel that scenario is less
about maneuver and more about firepower.

jmho.

indy

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Excellent points...it puts together why I think Guards Counterattack is not really a good learning
scenario. I think Guards teaches one the wrong lessons about ASL. I feel that scenario is less
about maneuver and more about firepower.

jmho.

indy

It also gives you really weird ideas about the prevalence and importance of snipers.

 

[bprobst]

Excellent points...it puts together why I think Guards Counterattack is not really a good learning
scenario. I think Guards teaches one the wrong lessons about ASL. I feel that scenario is less about maneuver and more about firepower.

It's a good learning scenario because it features the core elements of the infantry combat rules.

The Soviet player has a lot of choices in how to make his attack. He can try the toe-to-toe shootout and it may well work. What if it doesn't? What does he do then? Has he left himself enough time to recover?

Alternately he can start right off the bat with trying some clever movement to squeeze the German positions ... but that might not work too well either.

At first glance the scenario seems "limited", with pre-determined locations for setup and all that. I think there's a lot more to it, and IMO it's infinitely replayable.

 

[jrv]

Depending on how the German is set up I might try a Human Wave on the first turn. An experienced German player should probably not be vulnerable to one but he may be.

JR

 

[Sparafucil3]

Has he left himself enough time to recover?

IMO, modern scenario design doesn't leave too much time for one side or the other to recover. If your initial attack is rebuffed, the lost turn can put the whole thing in the scupper. IMO, the time crunch is the biggest change in ASL and the tactics we use reflect that. You can see it pretty easily in the evolution of Schwerpunkt scenarios over time. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[skarper]

My impression is tactics are less historical....WW2 tactical combat involved much more shooting than moving. In newer ASL scenarios the attacker moves a lot more than shoots. It's just a game and this trend makes it more fun than it was before.

I want more historical simulation so I lost interest in playing ASL a while ago. I still drop by here now and then to see what is new in ASL.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

The accursed 'tourney' and 'micro' scenarios are more to blame than ASL itself. Too, the overall shift societally to instant gratification and diminished attention spans only exacerbate the issue.

I'm many ways, The Guards Counterattack is still a useful learning scenario, particularly in the mechanics of DFire, which is one of the most important core rules sections.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Too, the overall shift societally to instant gratification and diminished attention spans only exacerbate the issue.

Instant pudding. My work here is done. -- jim

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Heretic.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent points...it puts together why I think Guards Counterattack is not really a good learning scenario. I think Guards teaches one the wrong lessons about ASL. I feel that scenario is less about maneuver and more about firepower.

Or perhaps it highlights how badly ASL scenario designers have lost their way since 1985?

 

[Robin Reeve]

Or perhaps it highlights how badly ASL scenario designers have lost their way since 1985?

Since 1976, actually.

 

[Cult.44]

Spending 4-6 hours playing a tournament sized scenario doesn't seem like instant gratification to me. IMO, the good tournament scenarios (and there are a lot of them) do leave room for a player to suffer significant setbacks and still prevail.

 

[Vinnie]

My impression is tactics are less historical....WW2 tactical combat involved much more shooting than moving. In newer ASL scenarios the attacker moves a lot more than shoots. It's just a game and this trend makes it more fun than it was before.

I want more historical simulation so I lost interest in playing ASL a while ago. I still drop by here now and then to see what is new in ASL.

I do not think this is true. The number of reports I have read where positions were abandoned after they had been flanked rather than having the defenders wounded or killed suggests that while shooting was important, it was less important than tactical manoeuvering.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I do not think this is true. The number of reports I have read where positions were abandoned after they had been flanked rather than having the defenders wounded or killed suggests that while shooting was important, it was less important than tactical manoeuvering.

"Win the firefight" was one of the basic elements of battle drill. The Germans organized their squads specifically so that the LMG would do the heavy lifting - and in the last year of the war, some squads had two LMGs. Imagine two MG42s going to work. The Germans expected firepower to win skirmishes for them. The "maneuvering" was usually done before contact was made, as they emphasized infiltration.

So I do think skarper's comments have much merit, depending on the nationality. Some nationalities depended on cold steel and the shock of hand-to-hand combat, but that's not really 'maneuver' either.

The attack on the Brecourt Manor battery as depicted in Band of Brothers kind of gives a suggestion of how the Germans would have liked to do an assault. The attack force silently got close to the battery, set up their LMG, and then used heavy fire to bull their way further into the positions to achieve their objective. The maneuvering was done before contact was made, and after contact, they just headed straight down the communication trenches, using grenades and semi-automatic fire to keep pushing forward.

 

[von Marwitz]

Or perhaps it highlights how badly ASL scenario designers have lost their way since 1985?

Well, I still remember playing one of those old scenarios not too long ago where both sides had to move close to two turns until they got to grips with each other. Many say today this would be boring and a waste of time. We were both surprised that we actually enjoyed it.

I believe you do not even 'lose time' before getting into action. Rather, moving into position is nothing else but developing your setup during play that you would otherwise have to spend time of before the game starts.

Of course, if you take such an old scenario and carefully develop a setup for it as you nowadays do with the short, immediate-action tournament-style scenarios, then you will have an advantage and "too much time" for the job.

von Marwitz