Burma 2 AP, tentatively titled: 'Race To Rangoon!', is almost ready. Need Playtesters for one last look.

[Sparafucil3]

All of this just confirms that 6 is a good range for squad firepower. I agree! But what about all the other weapons? "Rommel in his book mentions French Machine gunners opening fire at 5-600 yards." Yes, that's about 15 hexes away for machine guns in 1940! Ergo, it's quite ok for ASL boards to permit shots at 15 hexes. Even further when you consider combat after 1940...

The MG 42 fired "with lethality at ranges of more than 1,000 meters."

[1] Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 7th Edition, Ian V. Hogg & John S. Weeks, Krause Publications, 2000, page 326

According to the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory, tanks in western Europe were immobilized by fire on average at about 900 yards. Note this was neither in the desert nor the steppe.

[2] Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions, Ballistic Research Laboratories (BRL), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Report No. 798, Hardison, David C., 1954.

I fully understand that some people don't like DTO or steppe scenarios. That's why I suggest the boards be ETO and have some cover, just not so much that shots beyond rifle range are nearly impossible. There's plenty of data/evidence to support direct fire combat beyond rifle range. BTW, the last dice fest I played in was a Red Barricades scenario with MGs making rate over and over again.

Fifteen hexes is 1.5 boards tall or approximately half a board wide. There are limitations on the board edges you have to use to make the board geomorphic. You could forgo one edge and make a double wide but that does limit the usability of the board some if you want "true" compliance. The other "problem" then becomes what else do you use the board for? What you're suggesting works well for HASLs but I am not sure how well it would work for general scenario design.

WRT engagement ranges, this comes from Zaloga's book "Red Army Handbook 1939 - 1945". This table comes from page 179. The original table omits the 600 - 800 lines but I am adding it in here by doing math.

Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun
100-200_______10.0%_________4.0%
200-400_______26.1%________14.0%
400-600_______33.5%________18.0%
600-800_______14.5%________31.2%
800-1000_______7.0%________13.5%
1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5%
1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6%
1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0%
1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7%
1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5%

Ranges are in meters and the percentages represent "kills" by mm of the shooter. The vast bulk is below 1200 meters (30 hexes). Even with the 88, the majority of kills were at ranges less than 800 meters (20 hexes). Looking at the 75mm, most occurred at ranges less than 600 meters (15 hexes). So you're point has some support in the data.

Now, you could do this on existing boards relatively easily. If you introduces transparent slope overlays creating "up slope" positions, you could see over vast swaths of Brush, Grain, and Walls to create long range shots. Then you have usable boards and yet can still create long range shots with existing art work. Of course, more people like DTO than like the idea of Slopes which is sad. Still, I am trying to work on stuff with the idea of slope overlays because while I do want longer range engagements, I don't want new limited use maps. In fact, I like the idea of seeing maps get more usage than they seem to be lately with the preference for new maps in packs these days.

Slopes are a tough row to hoe with MMP though. I spoke with several designers and they just won't use them either. Kenn Dunn added them to a project he was working on and it completely solved some design issues he was having. IMO they should be used more. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

Fifteen hexes is 1.5 boards tall or approximately half a board wide. There are limitations on the board edges you have to use to make the board geomorphic. You could forgo one edge and make a double wide but that does limit the usability of the board some if you want "true" compliance. The other "problem" then becomes what else do you use the board for? What you're suggesting works well for HASLs but I am not sure how well it would work for general scenario design.

WRT engagement ranges, this comes from Zaloga's book "Red Army Handbook 1939 - 1945". This table comes from page 179. The original table omits the 600 - 800 lines but I am adding it in here by doing math.

Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun
100-200_______10.0%_________4.0%
200-400_______26.1%________14.0%
400-600_______33.5%________18.0%
600-800_______14.5%________31.2%
800-1000_______7.0%________13.5%
1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5%
1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6%
1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0%
1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7%
1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5%

Ranges are in meters and the percentages represent "kills" by mm of the shooter. The vast bulk is below 1200 meters (30 hexes). Even with the 88, the majority of kills were at ranges less than 800 meters (20 hexes). Looking at the 75mm, most occurred at ranges less than 600 meters (15 hexes). So you're point has some support in the data.

Now, you could do this on existing boards relatively easily. If you introduces transparent slope overlays creating "up slope" positions, you could see over vast swaths of Brush, Grain, and Walls to create long range shots. Then you have usable boards and yet can still create long range shots with existing art work. Of course, more people like DTO than like the idea of Slopes which is sad. Still, I am trying to work on stuff with the idea of slope overlays because while I do want longer range engagements, I don't want new limited use maps. In fact, I like the idea of seeing maps get more usage than they seem to be lately with the preference for new maps in packs these days.

Slopes are a tough row to hoe with MMP though. I spoke with several designers and they just won't use them either. Our loss. -- jim

An interesting perspective. I initially had problems with slopes but learned, probably the hard way.

 

[gorkowskij]

Fifteen hexes is 1.5 boards tall or approximately half a board wide. There are limitations on the board edges you have to use to make the board geomorphic. You could forgo one edge and make a double wide but that does limit the usability of the board some if you want "true" compliance. The other "problem" then becomes what else do you use the board for? What you're suggesting works well for HASLs but I am not sure how well it would work for general scenario design.

WRT engagement ranges, this comes from Zaloga's book "Red Army Handbook 1939 - 1945". This table comes from page 179. The original table omits the 600 - 800 lines but I am adding it in here by doing math.

Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun
100-200_______10.0%_________4.0%
200-400_______26.1%________14.0%
400-600_______33.5%________18.0%
600-800_______14.5%________31.2%
800-1000_______7.0%________13.5%
1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5%
1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6%
1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0%
1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7%
1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5%

Ranges are in meters and the percentages represent "kills" by mm of the shooter. The vast bulk is below 1200 meters (30 hexes). Even with the 88, the majority of kills were at ranges less than 800 meters (20 hexes). Looking at the 75mm, most occurred at ranges less than 600 meters (15 hexes). So you're point has some support in the data.

Now, you could do this on existing boards relatively easily. If you introduces transparent slope overlays creating "up slope" positions, you could see over vast swaths of Brush, Grain, and Walls to create long range shots. Then you have usable boards and yet can still create long range shots with existing art work. Of course, more people like DTO than like the idea of Slopes which is sad. Still, I am trying to work on stuff with the idea of slope overlays because while I do want longer range engagements, I don't want new limited use maps. In fact, I like the idea of seeing maps get more usage than they seem to be lately with the preference for new maps in packs these days.

Slopes are a tough row to hoe with MMP though. I spoke with several designers and they just won't use them either. Our loss. -- jim

Right, I saw that table too. Note, it indicates that 16% of kills by the 75mm and 33% of kills by the 88mm occurred at or beyond 800 meters (20 hexes). Further note the very small percentage of kills at 200 meters (5 hexes) or less. The bulk fall between 400-800 meters (10-20 hexes). All good support for long lines of sight, especially when you consider that many shots would have been fired and missed at longer ranges. These ranges are possible by putting boards together, if said boards are not clogged with LOS obstacles that compel a bunch of shots at 5 hexes or less, where the 88 got only 4% of its kills.

 

[Sparafucil3]

As an example of my point, see the attached Board 4a. I have draggable overlay extension that allows me to add slopes to a VASL map. Look how the up-slope positions in C19, D19, and E19 completely opens the map up. A unit in any of those hexes see completely over the grain. Now an LOS exists between C19 and A1. There are many others. For instance, an LOS now exists between C19 and P17. IMO, we don't need "new" maps. We need a willingness to see the maps in a new light. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

Right, I saw that table too. Note, it indicates that 16% of kills by the 75mm and 33% of kills by the 88mm occurred at or beyond 800 meters (20 hexes). Further note the very small percentage of kills at 200 meters (5 hexes) or less. The bulk fall between 400-800 meters (10-20 hexes). All good support for long lines of sight, especially when you consider that many shots would have been fired and missed at longer ranges. These ranges are possible by putting boards together, if said boards are not clogged with LOS obstacles that compel a bunch of shots at 5 hexes or less, where the 88 got only 4% of its kills.

The bulk of 75mm is below 600 meters. The 88's get out to 800 meters. WRT clogged boards, where do you stand on slopes for opening boards up? -- jim

 

[gorkowskij]

The bulk of 75mm is below 600 meters. The 88's get out to 800 meters. WRT clogged boards, where do you stand on slopes for opening boards up? -- jim

Slopes are definitely a useful tool for expanding LOS. And yes, the bulk of 75mm kills occurred at 600m or less, but the 1/6th that occurred beyond 800m is a significant fraction not to be overlooked.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Slopes are definitely a useful tool for expanding LOS. And yes, the bulk of 75mm kills occurred at 600m or less, but the 1/6th that occurred beyond 800m is a significant fraction not to be overlooked.

Perhaps they aren't overlooked, they just aren't represented in ASL. Think of it as design space -- jim

 

[gorkowskij]

Perhaps they aren't overlooked, they just aren't represented in ASL. Think of it as design space -- jim

They are easily within the scope of ASL's presentation. The C3 range table goes out to 54 hexes (over 2,000 meters), so a shot at 25 hexes is not a stretch, especially for an 88, if the board allows it.

 

[Sparafucil3]

They are easily within the scope of ASL's presentation. The C3 range table goes out to 54 hexes (over 2,000 meters), so a shot at 25 hexes is not a stretch, especially for an 88, if the board allows it.

Represented by a scenario. The system clearly allows for them (e.g. they aren’t over looked) — jim

 

[Tuomo]

Another thing we could us is a generic map (vice HASL) with printed rubble and debris

Got one in the hopper.

 

[FrankH.]

At the risk of continuing a highjacking of this thread, I must say that we really only need one or two open boards, and these can be in the standard format of 10 hexes by 33 hexes. Mostly open being: a bit of grain and some brush, a dirt road or two, maybe a gully, maybe a crag hex or two, maybe a small depression, maybe some very small single or double hex hills, and a few very small orchards. All these years it seems only board 16 even comes close (while 19, 33, 69 and 90, and SK board t are "OK"). Most if not all of these have too many woods. How else could one simulate a combined arms flanking attack on a village (i.e, one represented by its own board, e.g., boards 12, 48, 56, 57, 63, 66, 70, 89, and 92, etc.) - on the East Front, West Front, or Northern or Southern Italy, Sicily, or even in Tunisia?

 

[von Marwitz]

View attachment 27898View attachment 27898

Last map for playtesting.

Awww! I like this one at first sight! Very nice.

Very interesting terrain: I like the layout of the two hills - also in relation to the other terrain. I like that there are only a few buildings and not a larger village. I think this map is also very versatile even if only used as half-boards.

To me, it feels like the best one of the lot.

If ASL maps were cat depictions, then this one would be...



von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

If you introduce transparent slope overlays...

I promote this idea for many years (but being only a player, not a designer).

So far using transparent overlays for slopes has not occurred to me, but it is yet another possible application.

Others are Roads, Railroads (crossing otherwise impassable Woods), Road/Railroad Tunnel entrances (enabling passing beneath hills), Bridges (creating the possibility to cross from hill to hill).

Surely, the hive mind could come up with many more innovative and useful applications.


I like to see that the concept of transparent overlays slowly seems to gain a hold. I believe Broken Ground has published some. If other players are pondering the concept, I appreciate it.

The breakthrough would be, if MMP would add the concept of transparent overlays to the canon of ASL rules.

von Marwitz

 

[pensatl1962]

I love the idea of adding Slopes as overlays. A transparent VASL overlay is a brilliant idea! I only wonder how this could be implemented to accommodate the physical map board for FtF. Maybe slopes printed on transparency sheets?

 

[FrankH.]

View attachment 27898View attachment 27898

Last map for playtesting.

I like how the road actually mostly parallels the water obstacle. That should be more common. Maybe one or both bridges should be fords instead? Or wooden bridges? Or of Bamboo!? I realize the module is about bridges, but that stream does not seem to warrant stone bridges. Not big enough or long enough or wide enough. If Burma is mostly a water powered economy at this time I don't know why this one large stone building is not astride and paralleling the stream, as a mill. Unless it's a monastery. But we don't have rules for monastaries yet. (Or will we?) Maybe one end of the stream should start in a mountain, cross a wood bridge, pass this stone building nearby, then go on its way.

This board seems a bit of a compromise. Maybe it is intended in part to function as 2 separate half boards. Probably OK in that.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Maybe slopes printed on transparency sheets?

Correct. Broken Ground Design has done this already. So far, the one I used in the map image above is only on my PC. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

Maybe slopes printed on transparency sheets?

Exactly.

In the time of overhead projectors before the age of beamers, I remember presentations being printed on special transparency sheets. In the company I worked for, now and then some people tried that using laser printers, which were so hot that the transparency sheets melted within ruining the machine. No problem, though, with inkjets.

For FtF play, it would not really make much of a difference if you have to cut out cardboard overlays or transparency sheet overlays. The entire thing is technically feasible and cheap.

For VASL play, transparent overlays would be even simpler to implement.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Correct. Broken Ground Design has done this already. So far, the one I used in the map image above is only on my PC. -- jim

This is the proof of concept that transparency sheets work.

Albeit it seems that Broken Ground used the material to replicate the regular overlay terrain and not expanding on the type of terrain we are discussing.

As aforementioned, I believe if MMP would adopt the basic idea, this would be the breakthrough to introducing an innovative overlay type to the game.

von Marwitz

 

[pensatl1962]

Exactly.

In the time of overhead projectors before the age of beamers, I remember presentations being printed on special transparency sheets. In the company I worked for, now and then some people tried that using laser printers, which were so hot that the transparency sheets melted within ruining the machine. No problem, though, with inkjets.

For FtF play, it would not really make much of a difference if you have to cut out cardboard overlays or transparency sheet overlays. The entire thing is technically feasible and cheap.

For VASL play, transparent overlays would be even simpler to implement.

von Marwitz

You are so right about the past use of overhead projectors. I managed to teach three years of Navy ROTC using not much else besides an overhead projector with transparencies, back in the Stone Age. Well before the days of laptops and PowerPoint, thank god.

 

[Paul John]

5 hexes or less, where the 88 got only 4% of its kills.

Interesting data! Any evidence whether the 88s didn't get many kills at short ranges because by then they had gotten themselves all shot up?