Advancing Fire Team - Biazza Ridge

[sebosebi]

Btw are you planning a VASL map a well?

/S

Yes we did it, we tested scenarios also on VASL. The map i posted could be a base for a VASL map. The following is better to print instead and you can see there a different colour for level 2. In my next message i will talk about "coloured" crest lines and half level system.

 

[sebosebi]

Regarding coloured crest lines, i have to premise that in developing our packs we like both to be as accurate as possible in historical reconstruction and to try to introduce some news in ASL play system, using rigorously ASL rules, just to give some points to the community and open discussions on them. For that we worked in a mix Operational/ASL in the Operation Brevity pack.

When we worked on the HASL boards for the Sicily pack, in our recon activity at the historical sites of the battle, we saw that the hills there were very slightly and gentle sloped. So the normal Hills system in ASL could be inadequate to represent that landscape, because the structure of big step that creates too many blind hexes. And also we don’t like the ASL Slope as a solution because in many cases we should fill an entire map of those depictions (not in the case of this particular board) without achieving the same effect. So we chose to adopt Hillock (F6) rules to simulate the gentle slopes as half levels. We used “slope” depiction to border the hillock inside a level, so a Hillock is between the slopes depictions and the upper crest line. Also the crest line, when it becomes half level in relation to the directly below terrain, is treated as an Hillock, with the only exception that it isn't inherent terrain. The colour of the crest line is just an help to indicate local height in the passage, and so red it is half level, black normal full level and blue is a 1.5 level. We would have liked to depict the half level inside a level with crest lines instead of slope depictions, but then we thought it would be an excessive "jump" and we left it loose (and also because slope depictions may be used in a different way as i will say below).

The nice effect we have in using Hillocks is that when you are in a hex, you will have LOS on the half level directly below and on the half level directly above, having FFMO in Open Ground hexes in both cases. And this effect changes every time you go up or down for an half level. We thought that it is more realistic. We hope that people could find it also enough playable.

Anyway, even if we tested the game mainly with this “half level system”, all the scenarios are playable also disregarding crest colours and considering the slope depictions as normal ASL Slopes, for who doesn’t want to go with the Hillocks rules, without a sensible loss of balance and playability.

I hope I was enough understandable and am open to all your questions on the subject.

S.

 

[jrv]

So we chose to adopt Hillock (F6) rules to simulate the gentle slopes as half levels. We used “slope” depiction to border the hillock inside a level, so a Hillock is between the slopes depictions and the upper crest line. Also the crest line, when it becomes half level in relation to the directly below terrain, is treated as an Hillock, with the only exception that it isn't inherent terrain. The colour of the crest line is just an help to indicate local height in the passage, and so red it is half level, black normal full level and blue is a 1.5 level. We would have liked to depict the half level inside a level with crest lines instead of slope depictions, but then we thought it would be an excessive "jump" and we left it loose (and also because slope depictions may be used in a different way as i will say below).

I'm not sure I follow all of this, but if I understand a little bit correctly hexside O4/P3 should be black and not red, no?

JR

 

[sebosebi]

I'm not sure I follow all of this, but if I understand a little bit correctly hexside O4/P3 should be black and not red, no?

JR

Yes you are right, it should be black, we are still debugging some of the boards indeed... ... thanks!!

 

[L9000]

Regarding coloured crest lines, i have to premise that in developing our packs we like both to be as accurate as possible in historical reconstruction and to try to introduce some news in ASL play system, using rigorously ASL rules, just to give some points to the community and open discussions on them. For that we worked in a mix Operational/ASL in the Operation Brevity pack.

When we worked on the HASL boards for the Sicily pack, in our recon activity at the historical sites of the battle, we saw that the hills there were very slightly and gentle sloped. So the normal Hills system in ASL could be inadequate to represent that landscape, because the structure of big step that creates too many blind hexes. And also we don’t like the ASL Slope as a solution because in many cases we should fill an entire map of those depictions (not in the case of this particular board) without achieving the same effect. So we chose to adopt Hillock (F6) rules to simulate the gentle slopes as half levels. We used “slope” depiction to border the hillock inside a level, so a Hillock is between the slopes depictions and the upper crest line. Also the crest line, when it becomes half level in relation to the directly below terrain, is treated as an Hillock, with the only exception that it isn't inherent terrain. The colour of the crest line is just an help to indicate local height in the passage, and so red it is half level, black normal full level and blue is a 1.5 level. We would have liked to depict the half level inside a level with crest lines instead of slope depictions, but then we thought it would be an excessive "jump" and we left it loose (and also because slope depictions may be used in a different way as i will say below).

The nice effect we have in using Hillocks is that when you are in a hex, you will have LOS on the half level directly below and on the half level directly above, having FFMO in Open Ground hexes in both cases. And this effect changes every time you go up or down for an half level. We thought that it is more realistic. We hope that people could find it also enough playable.

Anyway, even if we tested the game mainly with this “half level system”, all the scenarios are playable also disregarding crest colours and considering the slope depictions as normal ASL Slopes, for who doesn’t want to go with the Hillocks rules, without a sensible loss of balance and playability.

I hope I was enough understandable and am open to all your questions on the subject.

S.

This is awesome! It looks like a real improvement over the over-simplistic ASL hills.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tuomo]

This is awesome! It looks like a real improvement over the over-simplistic ASL hills.

You followed that explanation?

YOU, Sir, are destined for Greatness.

 

[jrv]

You followed that explanation?

YOU, Sir, are destined for Greatness.

My understanding is that there are two different ways to play the rules. In one way—their "new" way—the "crest lines" are actually "hillock lines", and the slope depictions are not slopes in the KGP/Pegasus Bridge sense, although they behave somewhat similarly. Instead they indicate folds in the terrain that add to the cost either when crossing a "hillock line" or on their own. In relation to "hillock lines" the folds are oriented two different ways. One orientation is along the same hexside as a "hillock line", e.g. O5/P4. This adds a half-level to the cost of crossing that hexside, and makes it black. The other orientation is "perpendicular" to the "hillock line", e.g. N8/O8 & Q8/R7. These occur in pairs (mostly) and indicate a section of "hillock line" that costs two half-levels to cross. The two orientations can be used in combination, e.g. X6/X7 which is also between the perpendicular pair V7/W8 and Z7/Y8, and costs three half-levels to cross. I am guessing crossing the "new slopes" but not crossing a "hillock line", e.g. P6/P7, also costs a half level. I am also guessing that the "new slopes" don't affect actual levels for height advantage, LOS over obstacles, etc.

The other way to play the rules would be the "traditional" way with crest lines and KGP/PB slopes.

The explanation given was not enough to be sure I understand the rules entirely, but that is what I was able to glean from it.

JR

 

[sebosebi]

My understanding is that there are two different ways to play the rules. In one way—their "new" way—the "crest lines" are actually "hillock lines", and the slope depictions are not slopes in the KGP/Pegasus Bridge sense, although they behave somewhat similarly. Instead they indicate folds in the terrain that add to the cost either when crossing a "hillock line" or on their own.

We know that talking about rules is not always so easy... but lets try to not digress on the interpretations. It is very important that you know Hillock (F6) rules so please read it.

I cannot understand where you read that "crest lines" are "hillock lines" can you indicate me? And also I wrote which is the meaning of the slope depictions, they dont indicate "folds" but "hillocks", where the hillocks are terrain so for F6 chapter "... Units on a non-Summit (6.6) hillock hex are at Level ½ (assuming the overlay is on Level 0 terrain) ....". The hillocks on each level go from the slopes depictions on a given level hexes (taking in account the level height of the center dot of the hex) to the directly upper crest line, that means that every hex between these two kind of borders are 1/2 level higher then the base of that given level. I dont think it is ambiguous but please indicate me which passage is not understandable

Then obviously if i am on a hillock on map level 2 i will be at 2.5 level and i will treat level 3 as an Hillock (read Hillock Summit F6.6).

In a word the wonderful world of ASL give us rules for 1/2 level terrain and we are using it not on DTO or on level 0 Kursk terrain. Thats it.

In relation to "hillock lines" the folds are oriented two different ways. One orientation is along the same hexside as a "hillock line", e.g. O5/P4. This adds a half-level to the cost of crossing that hexside, and makes it black. The other orientation is "perpendicular" to the "hillock line", e.g. N8/O8 & Q8/R7. These occur in pairs (mostly) and indicate a section of "hillock line" that costs two half-levels to cross. The two orientations can be used in combination, e.g. X6/X7 which is also between the perpendicular pair V7/W8 and Z7/Y8, and costs three half-levels to cross. I am guessing crossing the "new slopes" but not crossing a "hillock line", e.g. P6/P7, also costs a half level. I am also guessing that the "new slopes" don't affect actual levels for height advantage, LOS over obstacles, etc.

No orientation, no perpendicular nor parallel, i never talked about orientation. if in a lower level hex adiacent to a crest line there is an hillock that crest line will be half level high (again please read Hillock Summit F6.6) and we are giving help to Players depicting this case in RED. If both the adjacent lower level hex and the crest line hex are hiillocks or both them are not hillocks then the crest line height is one full level and depicted in BLACK. Finally if the hillock is only on the crest line hex and not in the lower level adjacent hex the crest line height will be 1.5 levels (depicted for help in BLUE). The last two cases for LOS rules may create Blind Hexes, not the half-level crest lines (but we know that out of LOS hexes are created by the Hillocks in other ways, please read again F6 chapter)

Hillock rules F6 together with A6 and B10 give us all we need in terms of movement costs, LOS and relation with obstacles (we used also rules from BFP "European hillocks" regarding half level hindrances)

Thats all, nothing more complex than this, you must only apply the rules, as always

 

[Justiciar]

We know that talking about rules is not always so easy... but lets try to not digress on the interpretations. It is very important that you know Hillock (F6) rules so please read it.

What you will find if you pay close attention to this site...jrv knows more about the rules (and game play, he is an expert player...having diced against him several times, and I am no slouch at the game)...and is along with Klas the two people who have immediate and best command of the the entire breadth of the rules, its EXC, and its Q/A. All you need do is spend an hour clicking through the Rules/Errata thread to verify this for yourself. (And not to discredit there are a few other fine lawyers in that thread too...Eagle4Ty, etc...)

So I would advise you to pay very close attention to anything jrv says (and Klas)...whether directly or indirectly about your product. You ignore, dismiss, or downplay jrv's advice and suggestions and obseveration at the very peril of your product.

Sidebar...and when Tuomo comments on your map you can take that as one of two map-gurus offering his take on your product, and you can take the tone of his post 46 as further evidence of uphill sledding issues.

To sum up you may think your product is close to ready...what you are finding out for free and ahead of time, is there might very well be some important aspects you need to take back to your group and discuss.

 

[sebosebi]

What you will find if you pay close attention to this site...jrv knows more about the rules (and game play, he is an expert player...having diced against him several times, and I am no slouch at the game)...and is along with Klas the two people who have immediate and best command of the the entire breadth of the rules, its EXC, and its Q/A. All you need do is spend an hour clicking through the Rules/Errata thread to verify this for yourself. (And not to discredit there are a few other fine lawyers in that thread too...Eagle4Ty, etc...)

So I would advise you to pay very close attention to anything jrv says (and Klas)...whether directly or indirectly about your product. You ignore, dismiss, or downplay jrv's advice and suggestions and obseveration at the very peril of your product.

Sidebar...and when Tuomo comments on your map you can take that as one of two map-gurus offering his take on your product, and you can take the tone of his post 46 as further evidence of uphill sledding issues.

To sum up you may think your product is close to ready...what you are finding out for free and ahead of time, is there might very well be some important aspects you need to take back to your group and discuss.

Maximum respect for all of them obviously, i wish only to discuss what i wrote, nothing more nothing less.

 

[JoeArthur]

I hope I was enough understandable and am open to all your questions on the subject.

Please don't take this the wrong way because it is meant to be constructive - but I am a great fan of keep it simple. Just something out of the box that you can play with the normal basic rules - like Hatten. The game is complicated enough as it is "no perfect game of ASL has ever been played"...............the problem with hillocks is that they are in chapter F and I try to avoid chapter F as it makes my brain hurt

It is your choice and please be aware that my opinion might be that of a small minority.

 

[Tuomo]

Sidebar...and when Tuomo comments on your map you can take that as one of two map-gurus offering his take on your product, and you can take the tone of his post 46 as further evidence of uphill sledding issues.

Thanks, but sometimes I can be kinda full of myself and am not always as kind as I want to be. I respect Sebastiano's right to have faith in his own product and appreciate him giving us an advance look. Not backing down from my opinion, but I do hope they succeed.

 

[Gordon]

For what little it is worth, I applaud the attempt at addressing the plateau effect on an HASL board. I know that for me personally, conflating slopes and hillocks (e.g., using established slope symbology with the hillock rules) is going to make my head hurt. I'm sure I'll work past it eventually, maybe there's a better way to denote the half level "steps".

 

[Justiciar]

In my view KGP slopes are far easier than hillocks, and certainly more so then some "intermediate hillock" (not sure what to call it) If it were me it would jus use normal crests and the slopes are shown. You can make another case for slopes in that BFP has published a nice article on slopes in CoS, which many players own, and which is in print as a 2nd print run was published. Whereas this "intermediate hillock" is unknown.

I respect the right in HASLs for designers to get to grips with new terrain (that is part of the joy of a HASL for designer and plater), but in this case the tools in the tool box seem already to exist. The fact that the designers says in post 42 you can revert to ordinary crests and slopes very much suggest the project designed something that did not need designing. But that is my view without having seen the whole enchilada in order to better understand what is going on.

One other side bar is that the poster's explanation of this new hillock concept is not tight ASL-speak/law in language, so one wonders who wrote the ASL rule for the module. Perhaps it is perfectly clear, perhaps not....a lot is riding on this one rule it seems. If unclear, or a brain hurt, it will harm the product (greatly). The design group might actually want to show the rule as written here so the likes of jrv and others can comment, if needed. Perhaps it is perfect, if so this will serve as helpful good public relations advertising. If the rule needs work, you might get some free help from the community.

 

[sebosebi]

In my view KGP slopes are far easier than hillocks, and certainly more so then some "intermediate hillock" (not sure what to call it) If it were me it would jus use normal crests and the slopes are shown. You can make another case for slopes in that BFP has published a nice article on slopes in CoS, which many players own, and which is in print as a 2nd print run was published. Whereas this "intermediate hillock" is unknown.

I respect the right in HASLs for designers to get to grips with new terrain (that is part of the joy of a HASL for designer and plater), but in this case the tools in the tool box seem already to exist. The fact that the designers says in post 42 you can revert to ordinary crests and slopes very much suggest the project designed something that did not need designing. But that is my view without having seen the whole enchilada in order to better understand what is going on.

One other side bar is that the poster's explanation of this new hillock concept is not tight ASL-speak/law in language, so one wonders who wrote the ASL rule for the module. Perhaps it is perfectly clear, perhaps not....a lot is riding on this one rule it seems. If unclear, or a brain hurt, it will harm the product (greatly). The design group might actually want to show the rule as written here so the likes of jrv and others can comment, if needed. Perhaps it is perfect, if so this will serve as helpful good public relations advertising. If the rule needs work, you might get some free help from the community.

KGP slopes are easier but don't give you the same results, you havent F6.5 HD and TEM+1, you havent "wall-like effect" of the hillocks, you havent LOS changing when you move half level up or down, you haven't absence of Blind Hexes because half-level crest-lines, you havent the differences in LOS between entrenched and not-entrenched units, adjacent and behind, in a word you havent a model for small ondulations on the terrain which otherwise do not find any representation... Then I cannot understand why you call them "intemediary hillock" and not simply "hillock".

BFP also used hillocks in COS module.

We give the opportunity to play all the scenarios in the pack also with normal crest lines and normal slopes to avoid hillock rules and to play more easily, because we know that many people will prefear this. But the best model for the Sicilian terrain we did is with the hillock, it is much more close to the reality, unavoidably.

 

[Justiciar]

KGP slopes are easier but don't give you the same results, you havent F6.5 HD and TEM+1, you havent "wall-like effect" of the hillocks, you havent LOS changing when you move half level up or down, you haven't absence of Blind Hexes because half-level crest-lines, you havent the differences in LOS between entrenched and not-entrenched units, adjacent and behind, in a word you havent a model for small ondulations on the terrain which otherwise do not find any representation... Then I cannot understand why you call them "intemediary hillock" and not simply "hillock".

BFP also used hillocks in COS module.

We give the opportunity to play all the scenarios in the pack also with normal crest lines and normal slopes to avoid hillock rules and to play more easily, because we know that many people will prefear this. But the best model for the Sicilian terrain we did is with the hillock, it is much more close to the reality, unavoidably.

First my use of "intermediary hillock" I was just assigning a name to what was seen to be your revised hillock rules of post 42. Which as other posters noted is completely unintelligible. So pretend I did not use that term but a term like "B. Aslt. Hillock." In short the name I gave them does not matter. The point is....

I don't see how your last paragraph here is compatible with your first paragraph here? That you can do this as a matter of fact just play by X rules vs. Y, sure. That you are then modeling the same battle is another matter altogether, so clearly the two ways to play are NOT interchangeable as you suggest they are for a HASL.

Anyways, I bow out of this discussion. I tried to render you some salient points to address. You can take them or leave them as you see fit. Good luck.

 

[sebosebi]

First my use of "intermediary hillock" I was just assigning a name to what was seen to be your revised hillock rules of post 42. Which as other posters noted is completely unintelligible. So pretend I did not use that term but a term like "B. Aslt. Hillock." In short the name I gave them does not matter. The point is....

I don't see how your last paragraph here is compatible with your first paragraph here? That you can do this as a matter of fact just play by X rules vs. Y, sure. That you are then modeling the same battle is another matter altogether, so clearly the two ways to play are NOT interchangeable as you suggest they are for a HASL.

Anyways, I bow out of this discussion. I tried to render you some salient points to address. You can take them or leave them as you see fit. Good luck.

There is not any "revised hillock rules" but i understand that it is what you are feeling and i respect you.

Despite im totally open, i didnt receive a simple direct question on what is "completely unintellegible", i cannot understand why but it's ok, maybe you just dont want to.

You are only saying in three posts that im completely incomprehensible, but that "completely" maybe it is a bit too much since i think that you understand the word "hillock", you understand the chapter F6 of the ASL rules, and maybe some other things i wrote, or not?

Thanks for the Good Luck and see you soon.

 

[asloser]

Just a comment from my own experience- I hope you have several people who are independent from each other playtesting and reviewing this.

It is really hard to insert new concepts or modify existing ones in ASL. Changes in rules can have significant consequences which are not obvious immediately.

I was part of the Hakkaa Päälle design team and things like Aerosans, Prepared fire Zones, Ahkios and modified ski rules took leghty discussions wit top players, rules experts and MMP along with judicious playtesting to get right.

Personally I would have taken something that is already used like slopes and used those rules. But I can appreciate your line of thinking.

As others have said, best of luck and I really hope you will succeed.

 

[sebosebi]

Just a comment from my own experience- I hope you have several people who are independent from each other playtesting and reviewing this.

It is really hard to insert new concepts or modify existing ones in ASL. Changes in rules can have significant consequences which are not obvious at immediately.

I was part of the Hakkaa Päälle design team and things like Aerosans, Prepared fire Zones, Ahkios and modified ski rules took leghty discussions wit top players, rules experts and MMP along with judicious playtesting to get right.

Personally I would have taken something that is already used like slopes and used those rules. But I can appreciate your line of thinking.

As others have said, best of luck and I really hope you will succeed.

Thank you very much, yes we are conscious that it could be a big news, we studied it a lot and made reviews with several players. We playtested it a lot and we are still making playtests.

The best could be to mix hillocks and slopes rules to increase possibilities, but actually unfortunately there are big difficulties for that in the body of the rules. (the quarter of level of a slope over an hillock could be not manageable... BFP made a compromise considering on an half-level height Location a unit UP-slope when referring to a LOS over a hillock). We will see.

Thanks again.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Have you included a (large?) example of different open/blocked/blind-hexes LOS to/from different elevations?