Armored Trains in ASL

[Whizbang1963]

They get mentioned from time to time. Where there significant actions fought that can be well represented in ASL by the use of Armored Trains? Do we NEED? Armored trains, or is this just Chrome that you'd like to see?

Now's your chance to speak out

 

[Portal]

If we're going to have any form of "Rare Vehicles" module, Armored Trains need to appear. I've read numerous historical accounts where infantry interactions with such trains mattered at the tactical level.

 

[Carln0130]

They get mentioned from time to time. Where there significant actions fought that can be well represented in ASL by the use of Armored Trains? Do we NEED? Armored trains, or is this just Chrome that you'd like to see?

Now's your chance to speak out

Funny you should ask. There was a battle in Poland during the 39 campaign in which a train played a pivotal role. I was trying to design a scenario for it, but the ssr describing the trains characteristics were too unwieldy. Now if they were in the rules someplace.....................

 

[L'Emperor]

One of Paul Kenny's packs, the "Blitzkrieg Pack", had them. Never played it and I am rather indifferent.

 

[King Scott]

Chrome that I'd really like to see.

Semper Fi!
Scott

 

[JoeCleere]

The Germans used an armored train to try and capture Chojnice in a surprise attack on 1 September, but the Poles responded quickly and pushed the Germans out of the town and heavily damaging the train. The 20th Motorized Infantry Division sent the III/Infantry Regiment 90 to the rescue and it cleared the town quickly.

The other armored train action was Mokra on 1 September, where an armored train and cavalry repulsed the attack of a battalion from Schuetzen Regiment 12 from 4th Panzer Division.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

My vote was no, and I base this on a few things.

1) MMP has enough on their plate already with a pile of HASL modules in the pipeline

2) HOB has lots on their plate as well.

3) Trains are such an obscure element that I doubt its really worth the time and effort that it would require to develope rules for said trains.

 

[Houlie]

I thought I remember an ASL update article written by Curt S. in an old Annual (early Journal?) that talked about armored trains (and anti-tank boulders) being part of the Finnish module. Seriously.

I'd love to see some relatively simple rules for armored trains. It feels like a reasonable element of chrome. If some folks don't want scenarios that feature them, don't play them. Just like air power, assault boats, caves, OBA, night, etc., folks can choose not to play them.

JMO.

 

[Glennbo]

Apologies to Charles Schmid, The "Tuscon Murderer":

I have no deisre whatsoever for Armored Trains in ASL. My only desire is to change the minds of people who want Armored Trains in ASL. And I believe the best way to change someone's mind is to kill them. :freak:

 

[jwb3]

There were rules for a train in one of the All American modules (Shanley's Stand, I think) for use in a Chef du Pont scenario. I can't remember whether any of it was armored or not.

I read them but never played the scenario; can't recall how many paragraphs they took up.


John

 

[sswann]

Armored Train rules are written along with 8-10 scenarios (both East Front and PTO). MMP has not decided if they want the module/pack yet.

 

[applecatcher4]

What about regular old trains. Are there any actions that might involve a train? There must have be attempts to get into partially encircled towns with trains, perhaps guys shooting as they go. I can imagine some wild battles beying fought to get the train into the station. Or there could be ambushes.

Let's have rules for trains. In fact, my uncle's most profound memory of the fighting in Malaya - post WW2 - was sitting on a train, guarding it as it wound its way through the rainforest.

The more I think of it, the more I want rules for trains.

 

[kcole4001]

I voted 'I don't care', but if this was done, I'd certainly play it, once anyway.
It would be interesting, but it's not necessary.

 

[McFinn]

I didn't vote,

I would like Armoured Train rules but,

What other ASL goodies would get pushed back in the pipeline to get them?

Sounds like a good action pack!

 

[Pitman]

They get mentioned from time to time. Where there significant actions fought that can be well represented in ASL by the use of Armored Trains? Do we NEED? Armored trains, or is this just Chrome that you'd like to see?

Now's your chance to speak out

Armored trains were mostly used as artillery, though a few ended up in tactical combat for one reason or another. There are more important things I'd like ASL to represent first.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

I don't care, but I'd rather not see 8+ new pages of chapter E for trains .. I can see it now:

x5.1 train OVR,
x5.11 trains smashing AFVs on the track,
x5.2 Boarding trains,
x5.3 Unloading from trains,
x5.4 motion trains and railway gauge compatability,
x5.4 bypassing trains,
x5.6 derailing trains,
x5.61 derailing trains into a bldg & rubble generation,
x5.7 aircraft spotting trains,
x5.8 AA fire from trains,
x5.8 cc against trains,
x5.81 cc rx fire vs trains,
x5.82 cc non-rx fire vs trains,
x5.83 dc & ft vs trains,
x5.84 moving burning trains & smoke,
x5.85 trains & LOS,
x5.9 switching trains,
x5.10 engineer SAN kia & runaway trains,
x5.11 unhooking the caboose .....

.... blah blah blah .. if it comes to this, rather not have trains, JMO.

Preferably, keep it very simple & over-simplify. Two or three paragraphs SSRs (20 or 25 lines of rules) style would be enough .. then armored trains would be a good idea from my POV.

 

[ASLSARGE]

FWIW (which isn't much) - can't imagine there were a lot of instances where infantry/armor engaged armored trains, at least in the scale of ASL play. I'd vote no. Did a scen a few years back from Manila (not in the HASL pack) that depicts a Japanese ambush from some wrecked train cars in downtown Manila. US had infantry and armor....just treated the wrecked train cars the same as a ground-level wood building. Worked out fine in playtesting and could K.I.S.S. with no added rules.

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys

-------------------------------

 

[hershmeister]

I don't care, but I'd rather not see 8+ new pages of chapter E for trains .. I can see it now:

x5.1 train OVR,
x5.11 trains smashing AFVs on the track,
x5.2 Boarding trains,
x5.3 Unloading from trains,
x5.4 motion trains and railway gauge compatability,
x5.4 bypassing trains,
x5.6 derailing trains,
x5.61 derailing trains into a bldg & rubble generation,
x5.7 aircraft spotting trains,
x5.8 AA fire from trains,
x5.8 cc against trains,
x5.81 cc rx fire vs trains,
x5.82 cc non-rx fire vs trains,
x5.83 dc & ft vs trains,
x5.84 moving burning trains & smoke,
x5.85 trains & LOS,
x5.9 switching trains,
x5.10 engineer SAN kia & runaway trains,
x5.11 unhooking the caboose .....

.... blah blah blah .. if it comes to this, rather not have trains, JMO.

Preferably, keep it very simple & over-simplify. Two or three paragraphs SSRs (20 or 25 lines of rules) style would be enough .. then armored trains would be a good idea from my POV.

dont forget the -2 OVR DRM if the train has a "Cowcatcher" (only allowed per SSR) :smoke:

In all seriousness, trains are one of the "unexplored frontiers" of ASL. It would be interesting to have them represented - we already have traintracks in the rules, so its not much a stretch of the imagination to incorporate some rules for trains. I cant see much point in a battle with a moving train as it would be off the map very quickly. I can see using the rules for the battles which included stopped trains.

 

[kempenfelter]

I thought I remember an ASL update article written by Curt S. in an old Annual (early Journal?) that talked about armored trains (and anti-tank boulders) being part of the Finnish module.

I remember that, too. Also, there was some mention of using Impulse Movement to represent moving trains. I'm thinking the counters would have to be double-sized, but maybe not.