How Have Tactics Have Changed In ASL

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
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 kind of like the suspense of a good advance to contact as well.

I will point out I don't think scenario designers have "lost their way" - purely meant in jest.

And not everyone does it the "new" way in any event. I think George Kelln's scenarios, at least the ones I've played, tend to be a bit longer and I was surprised how many meeting engagements he managed to put into the last couple of scenario packs of his that I've played. Diversity is good.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,357
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I will point out I don't think scenario designers have "lost their way" - purely meant in jest.
I did not take you remark by the word, no worries.

Style of play and thus style of scenario designs have just changed. Or possibly the other way around. Or rather both ways at the same time.

von Marwitz
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
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.
There is some value in designing scenarios with this in mind because it takes skill to organize a hasty defence or quick attack.

Meeting engagements are the purest form of the advance-to-contact scenario approach. Provided there are some challenges/tough decisions for players to make prior to opposing forces making contact, I would not be adverse to adding a turn or two to a scenario in order to facilitate this. Providing "fast" recce elements to one or more sides would add interest too, possibly allowing one side to interrupt the preparations of the other.
 

CTKnudsen

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
469
Reaction score
359
Location
Borden, ON
Country
llCanada
It's a real balancing act that goes to the heart of scenario design. If you make a scenario that allows a lot of time and space for an attacker to develop and carry out an attack, then it will very likely be longer to play and quite unbalanced in favour of the attacker over time, but will allow for people to learn how to attack in various situations, which is a good skill to learn! On the other hand, more modern designs that strive for balance often do so by forcing the attacker to really know what they are doing in order to make a tight schedule - as much an attacker's puzzle as anything else. Fine for guys who are smart or experienced, but definitely a steep tactical learning curve for a new guy!

I wish someone would design a sort of programmed tactical instruction, a series of really quick little scenarios/AARs that would pose tactical problems - how do I fulfill a given VC with a given tool box, given certain parameters? I get that the real way to figure this out is to get into the rules and play play play! But in addition to not having near as much time to play as I would like, I am also a bit lazy...
 

JoeArthur

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,067
Location
Broadstairs
Country
llUnited Kingdom
An interesting question. I queried why some of the old scenarios were being updated in the new core modules when in the past people saw them differently. Specifically:

It is regarding scenario A109. On page 58 of Journal 11 you adjust the victory conditions "In the VC, change "23" to "28"" making a win by CVP more difficult for the Germans.

In Journal One page 21 there is a series replay of A109. In it the German player, Chris Kavanagh, requests the balance (one less US 50 cal) because he states that he has asked around and the scenario is pro US.

Why then make AP109 more difficult for the German player in your Journal 11 page 59 adjustments?


This was the reply from MMP:

Because a lot of time has passed between Journal 1 and Journal 11 and playing styles over that time plus many, many playings showed this scenario to be pro-German.

I'm not sure if that is true. What do people think?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,357
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
An interesting question. I queried why some of the old scenarios were being updated in the new core modules when in the past people saw them differently. Specifically:

It is regarding scenario A109. On page 58 of Journal 11 you adjust the victory conditions "In the VC, change "23" to "28"" making a win by CVP more difficult for the Germans.

In Journal One page 21 there is a series replay of A109. In it the German player, Chris Kavanagh, requests the balance (one less US 50 cal) because he states that he has asked around and the scenario is pro US.

Why then make AP109 more difficult for the German player in your Journal 11 page 59 adjustments?


This was the reply from MMP:

Because a lot of time has passed between Journal 1 and Journal 11 and playing styles over that time plus many, many playings showed this scenario to be pro-German.

I'm not sure if that is true. What do people think?
Well, I believe this just mirrors what some people have pointed out here: The style of play has generally shifted towards more and quicker movement. Requiring more CVP in your example (without having carefully reviewed it) probably really does the following:

You need to do more than before in the same time.
Or, in other words, you have less time to collect the required CVP.

It has been stated, that for the 'old' scenarios with the current style of play, you tend to have more than enough time. Thus, taken you are playing ASL the 'new style', by upping the required CVP will likely balance the scenario. In case you would play 'old style' it might imbalance it.

von Marwitz
 

RobZagnut

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
1,378
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
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.
Blitzkrieg?!?!?

Japanese tactic of ALWAYS flanking, which took awhile for U.S./Commonwealth to figure out.
 

Craig Benn

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
637
Reaction score
508
Location
Liverpool
Country
llUnited Kingdom
If you divide the process of winning a scenario into tactics (killing stuff, keeping your own stuff alive) and strategy (meeting the victory conditions, stopping the other guy meeting them) then I think the relative importance of tactics has declined.

In the old days, you had plenty of time to kill as much you needed and afterwards completing the VC's would be a formality.

Now modern scenarios are much more puzzle like. Its much more important to be in position x, at turn y with the right type of units z or you won't be able to meet the victory conditions even if you are 'winning' the tactical fight. This is perhaps indicative of the fact some of us have been playing for 30 years (not me) and to stop things going stale we need things to feel different.

I'm due to play 'Skiing in Lapland' soon, and that's a classic example of this. Fighting on two unconnected boards, only one battle of which will ultimately matter, and both sides have forces that can commit on either board at variable times. A real brain burner.

I've not played any Korea scenarios yet, but I seem to remember someone saying you have to play very differently and not follow your normal reactions to have a shot at winning.

Also Guards Counterattack is rubbish. If you can't win as the Russians you need to give up the game.
 

Craig Benn

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
637
Reaction score
508
Location
Liverpool
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Yeah - balanced for old timers who didn't know how to attack back in the day.
Who's played it recently?

But more importantly it's just...boring.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
It took awhile for attackers to figure things out to use their stuff more effectively and aggressively, I feel more so than the defenders.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Yeah probably while listening to 50's be-bop and drinking original coke...fools
Hmmm, 1950s Coke lacked the 9mg of cocaine of "original" Coke...and your U.S. Civil War vets while having downed the real stuff never got into war games much having seen the elephant themselves already.

But as a boomer, I did have fun with Guards back in the day as SL...never played it as ASL...and anyways I like Pepsi. ;)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
If you really want to have duels across the street, increase unit density. With low density the defender can be easily overwhelmed at some point, and the attacker can rush into the rear. When unit density increases the attacker can't open up a hole as easily, and has to soften up the defender. The defender has more time to rally his units too and so prop up the line for longer.

JR
 

Khill

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
2,188
Reaction score
792
Location
MAINE
Country
llIceland
Yeah - balanced for old timers who didn't know how to attack back in the day.
Who's played it recently?

But more importantly it's just...boring.
I see your point, but I used it just the other day to intro the system to a couple of young fellows who had expressed an interest in ASL. boring for grognard but good quick start for 1st timer: programmed setup, small half board, obvious objectives, few SW, good troops. got'm up and going quickly and helped'm through a few turns for them to see how the system works
 

Carln0130

Forum Guru
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
2,581
Location
MA
Country
llUnited States
I see your point, but I used it just the other day to intro the system to a couple of young fellows who had expressed an interest in ASL. boring for grognard but good quick start for 1st timer: programmed setup, small half board, obvious objectives, few SW, good troops. got'm up and going quickly and helped'm through a few turns for them to see how the system works
How did they like it Keith? ASL, not Guards C/A. Truth be told though, I always enjoyed that scenario. Never had a problem with its "issues".
 
Top