Roy
Living in Brownbackistan
Mike and I played ASL 204 Human Bullets over the last couple of sessions.
AAR at my blog https://cardboardwarrior.blog/
Thanks for reading
AAR at my blog https://cardboardwarrior.blog/
Thanks for reading
ASL 204 Human Bullets
- Thread starter Roy
- Start date
Gunner Scott
Forum Guru
I liked the scenario, lots of interesting options for bothsides. Played it twice, on the first playing the same exact thing happened to me as the NKPA. On the 2nd playing, my opponent decided to crank around his armor to support the NKPA infantry, I think with that move, he had maybe two T-34's left, but they did make a difference in helping the infantry. Also and this is easy to forget that the ROK suffer penalties firing those BAZ's. Anyway, I thought it was a fun action.
jrv
Forum Guru
There are twenty-four NKPA squads, not twenty-five. You missed setting up in 24L5. It doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference.
I see a 57L in 82CC8, which is outside the setup area for that group. Since manhandling is n/a [W1.36], that looks like a setup error.
I can't tell what destroyed what, but because of the steep hills, and in particular W1.32, there are some places where the vehicles will be immune to fire from the ATGs. In particular Z7 can't fire on AA7 nor Z8, and Y4 can't fire on x4 nor Y5.
Without having played it, my suggestion would be to take SSR5 at its word, and move *exactly* one hex per turn towards the exit while still in convoy. The VCA must face the road toward the exit, but for the T-34s the TCA should cover the vehicle ahead, or in the case of units on the CC stretch of road, toward the side so that if a THH enters, it can be dispatched without CA change. Against a moving target MOL is a non-zero but not a great threat even where there is elevation advantage. The convoy is led by the SU-76s because, hey, who cares about them? Once the trap is sprung and convoy breaks up, those T-34s in the rear run back (with their TCA facing towards potential/actual gun locations and attempting sD) to help the infantry forward. AFVs at the front run forward in a desperate bid to draw fire and/or score the unexpected exit point. Those trapped in the middle attempt to find blind hexes where they can hold until relieved. The tanks that make it back to the infantry help crush the blocking force. They then escort the NKPA infantry up into the hills, perhaps even as riders.
This might give the ROK player a hard choice. If he springs the trap late to maximize the vehicle loss, the NKPA infantry will have had plenty of time to clear out the ROK blocking force. With twenty-four squads to six, that shouldn't be too hard. If the ROK player springs the trap early, a fair number of tanks may make it back to the infantry, and early enough to help the infantry a lot.
I think the question of which ROK option to select is also not quite so clear-cut. If you go gun-heavy, the NKPA infantry will run riot once it gets passed the blocking force. The 57L has limited HE. When the T-34s re-enter the hills they will keep their frontal armor toward guns that can shoot at them, and will be able to help suppress those guns.
Trade the 8-1 for another 10-0 commissar? I think so.
Overall (again without having played it) I don't think it is the unbalanced dog you seem to feel it is. By moving the convoy in slow motion, the NKPA player forces the ROK player to time his trap fairly exactly.
JR
I see a 57L in 82CC8, which is outside the setup area for that group. Since manhandling is n/a [W1.36], that looks like a setup error.
I can't tell what destroyed what, but because of the steep hills, and in particular W1.32, there are some places where the vehicles will be immune to fire from the ATGs. In particular Z7 can't fire on AA7 nor Z8, and Y4 can't fire on x4 nor Y5.
Without having played it, my suggestion would be to take SSR5 at its word, and move *exactly* one hex per turn towards the exit while still in convoy. The VCA must face the road toward the exit, but for the T-34s the TCA should cover the vehicle ahead, or in the case of units on the CC stretch of road, toward the side so that if a THH enters, it can be dispatched without CA change. Against a moving target MOL is a non-zero but not a great threat even where there is elevation advantage. The convoy is led by the SU-76s because, hey, who cares about them? Once the trap is sprung and convoy breaks up, those T-34s in the rear run back (with their TCA facing towards potential/actual gun locations and attempting sD) to help the infantry forward. AFVs at the front run forward in a desperate bid to draw fire and/or score the unexpected exit point. Those trapped in the middle attempt to find blind hexes where they can hold until relieved. The tanks that make it back to the infantry help crush the blocking force. They then escort the NKPA infantry up into the hills, perhaps even as riders.
This might give the ROK player a hard choice. If he springs the trap late to maximize the vehicle loss, the NKPA infantry will have had plenty of time to clear out the ROK blocking force. With twenty-four squads to six, that shouldn't be too hard. If the ROK player springs the trap early, a fair number of tanks may make it back to the infantry, and early enough to help the infantry a lot.
I think the question of which ROK option to select is also not quite so clear-cut. If you go gun-heavy, the NKPA infantry will run riot once it gets passed the blocking force. The 57L has limited HE. When the T-34s re-enter the hills they will keep their frontal armor toward guns that can shoot at them, and will be able to help suppress those guns.
Trade the 8-1 for another 10-0 commissar? I think so.
Overall (again without having played it) I don't think it is the unbalanced dog you seem to feel it is. By moving the convoy in slow motion, the NKPA player forces the ROK player to time his trap fairly exactly.
JR
jrv
Forum Guru
The NKPA might also consider firing at potential HIP hexes from the convoy and/or from the infantry force. A 60mm MTR in 24P7 should be able to check 82BB6 and/or 82BB4. Those hexes are of interest because they have elevation advantage over the road. Other MTRs and/or MMGs can "search" likely HIP positions. This may force the ROK trap to be sprung at an unexpected moment, before the ROK player wants. The T-34s can also fire their CMGs in DFPh (at one FP--concealed target & Motion) add one (height advantage) or two (emplaced). It's not likely but if something is found, the trap may unravel.
JR
JR
Last edited:
jrv
Forum Guru
I wasn't paying enough attention. In the KPA setup area P9 is a road hex, adding five more hexes to their area. More importantly, the three 60mm MTRs can be set up in P7, P8 & P9 for immediate assembly in the first PFPh. This means that a fair amount of the near side of hills can be hit for search and/or retaliatory fire. These mortars can also be used against the blocking force where LOS permits.
JR
JR
Roy
Living in Brownbackistan
Well, thanks for all the insight and analysis JR. Looks like we missed a few things.
Perhaps it is too advanced for the likes of me, but I think more that it is very formulaic. You have to do it such and such way, or you have to read this SSR this way and if you miss it you're spending 9 turns wondering what the heck is up.
My account is what happened to us. Anyway, thanks again. I'm always willing to see another point of view. And I always value your advice.
Perhaps it is too advanced for the likes of me, but I think more that it is very formulaic. You have to do it such and such way, or you have to read this SSR this way and if you miss it you're spending 9 turns wondering what the heck is up.
My account is what happened to us. Anyway, thanks again. I'm always willing to see another point of view. And I always value your advice.
jrv
Forum Guru
Ambush scenarios are generally very hard to write. The designer either has to start with all the ambushées in position on the first turn, starting with a great slaughter, or do something to make sure that side has to be pushed into the trap. If you are the ambushée in such a situation, you have to channel your inner Admiral Akbar when you start a scenario with nine AFVs where all nine are potentally within a turn of exiting in the first turn of a nine turn scenario, and exiting any three (and possibly two) will result in the win:
Having channeled your inner Admiral Akbar, you have to do everything you can to avoid the trap, and SSR 5 gives you the out. Move slow, and try to trip the trap early.
If the KPA player has done this, the ROK player has more limited options on his defense. If he sets up on forward slope (even discounting the problem of steep-hill blind hexes adjacent), the three 60mm MTRs can easily find a HIP unit on the forward slope ('though they are B11). That greatly limits where he can place the guns (perhaps 82X6 & 82W7) and other defenders.
Overall I think it is a good attempt at getting a good ASL game out of a situation that is hard to make into good ASL. If what happened historically happens in the game, it's all over in a turn or two. Not good ASL. It's very hard to design a strategic surprise in ASL; both sides can read the scenario card. This is a good attempt to make good ASL out of difficult material.
JR
Having channeled your inner Admiral Akbar, you have to do everything you can to avoid the trap, and SSR 5 gives you the out. Move slow, and try to trip the trap early.
If the KPA player has done this, the ROK player has more limited options on his defense. If he sets up on forward slope (even discounting the problem of steep-hill blind hexes adjacent), the three 60mm MTRs can easily find a HIP unit on the forward slope ('though they are B11). That greatly limits where he can place the guns (perhaps 82X6 & 82W7) and other defenders.
Overall I think it is a good attempt at getting a good ASL game out of a situation that is hard to make into good ASL. If what happened historically happens in the game, it's all over in a turn or two. Not good ASL. It's very hard to design a strategic surprise in ASL; both sides can read the scenario card. This is a good attempt to make good ASL out of difficult material.
JR
Last edited:
wsrt
Recruit
I won as the ROK, but it was a very, very close thing. It went to the final half turn, and DFF from my last good order squad did just enough to prevent my opponent from exiting the required VC. I chose the 2 AT gun option, and I believe that if I had taken the 3 AT gun option, I would have lost, as I needed those extra 2 squads to delay the horde. I destroyed all of the NKPA AFVs, maybe more slowly than if I had the 3rd AT gun, but there is plenty of time. He did manage to exit a vehicle crew though, and I chased another all over the map before nailing it.
We did restart the scenario once though. The first time I sprung the ambush, I killed a T-34, made ROF, and then malf'd the AT gun. I followed that up by malf'ing the second AT gun on its first shot. We decided that it wasn't worth playing that out, so we just reset the ambush and went for take 2. FWIW, I placed an AT in Z3 and the other in BB6 with the intention of taking rear CA shots. MOL bearing squads on X5 or Y6 are effective against open topped SU-76s! Option 2 of the OB gives you 2 DCs for HB Heroes, and with no PAATC for being fanatic, squad advance into CC was the tactic of the day.
I think 204 is an unusual scenario, and I can understand that it will not appeal to everyone. To us it felt like 3 linked mini-scenarios. The ambush and destruction of the AFVs; the breakout of the NKPA from the valley; and a desperate delaying action of ROK troops trying to prevent the NKPA from making the exit points.
My defence of the ridge line around the valley was similar to that shown in the AAR. My NKPA opponent did not immediately rush forward but pushed squads up both sides of the valley as well as gently forward. He used a building with an upper level in MMG range of the ridge line as a good fire base, and a 60 MTR in P7 as suggested earlier in this thread.
The ROK problem is too many targets, separated targets. Units at level 0, particularly those with LMGs can interdict rout paths behind the foxholes, so they pose a threat. And, if you fire on the building and the squads up the sides of the valley, then you are not firing on those pushing up the middle.
At 8.5 turns this is a long scenario and even though the NKPA made a cautious start, there is still plenty of opportunity to make up time, once they have reduced the ROK defences a bit. In the early scenario I thought that I was winning easily having killed the convoy. My opponent probably persisted in trying to push the T-34s through for too long and when he did turn back to help the infantry, I got lucky with the bazooka. In the late scenario, I was convinced that I was losing, but somehow I managed to hang on.
On balance I enjoyed the scenario, although I know my opponent hated getting his AFVs trashed, and was looking very gloomy at that stage. And, I know that I hated seeing my infantry evaporate as I tried to pull back before being swamped, as I felt helpless. But, any scenario that goes to the wire with an even balance of luck and outrageous events can't be all bad in my book.
I can't see me playing it again though, as I suspect most playing's will have a lot of similarities. As JR said, that is the nature of the scenario.
We did restart the scenario once though. The first time I sprung the ambush, I killed a T-34, made ROF, and then malf'd the AT gun. I followed that up by malf'ing the second AT gun on its first shot. We decided that it wasn't worth playing that out, so we just reset the ambush and went for take 2. FWIW, I placed an AT in Z3 and the other in BB6 with the intention of taking rear CA shots. MOL bearing squads on X5 or Y6 are effective against open topped SU-76s! Option 2 of the OB gives you 2 DCs for HB Heroes, and with no PAATC for being fanatic, squad advance into CC was the tactic of the day.
I think 204 is an unusual scenario, and I can understand that it will not appeal to everyone. To us it felt like 3 linked mini-scenarios. The ambush and destruction of the AFVs; the breakout of the NKPA from the valley; and a desperate delaying action of ROK troops trying to prevent the NKPA from making the exit points.
My defence of the ridge line around the valley was similar to that shown in the AAR. My NKPA opponent did not immediately rush forward but pushed squads up both sides of the valley as well as gently forward. He used a building with an upper level in MMG range of the ridge line as a good fire base, and a 60 MTR in P7 as suggested earlier in this thread.
The ROK problem is too many targets, separated targets. Units at level 0, particularly those with LMGs can interdict rout paths behind the foxholes, so they pose a threat. And, if you fire on the building and the squads up the sides of the valley, then you are not firing on those pushing up the middle.
At 8.5 turns this is a long scenario and even though the NKPA made a cautious start, there is still plenty of opportunity to make up time, once they have reduced the ROK defences a bit. In the early scenario I thought that I was winning easily having killed the convoy. My opponent probably persisted in trying to push the T-34s through for too long and when he did turn back to help the infantry, I got lucky with the bazooka. In the late scenario, I was convinced that I was losing, but somehow I managed to hang on.
On balance I enjoyed the scenario, although I know my opponent hated getting his AFVs trashed, and was looking very gloomy at that stage. And, I know that I hated seeing my infantry evaporate as I tried to pull back before being swamped, as I felt helpless. But, any scenario that goes to the wire with an even balance of luck and outrageous events can't be all bad in my book.
I can't see me playing it again though, as I suspect most playing's will have a lot of similarities. As JR said, that is the nature of the scenario.
Justiciar
Elder Member
This scenario does not originate from TOT/KE days nor its personnel.
Nor is there anything wrong with complicated scenarios...it is horses for courses. Don't want caves and a amphib assault, move on down the list of 4,000 scenarios to find what suits you and your opponent. But I for one do not want the Happy Menu every time I go out. Not that are not some nice meals on that side of the menu.
Last edited:
sunoftzu
Senior Member
I play-tested this scenario twice, both times as the ROK.
The ROK were stronger in the PT version, and even had a module of 100mm OBA (which is able to use VT fuses), but the essence of the scenario remains the same. As ROK, I took (option 3) 1 ATG on both occasions and found this adequate to mess up the convoy (so I guess that makes me 'nuts' then).
The vehicles will be slaughtered if the KPA infantry cannot marry up with them. The convoy should move the bare minimum of 1 hex per turn, and meanwhile the KPA go like hell to get to them....
John.
The ROK were stronger in the PT version, and even had a module of 100mm OBA (which is able to use VT fuses), but the essence of the scenario remains the same. As ROK, I took (option 3) 1 ATG on both occasions and found this adequate to mess up the convoy (so I guess that makes me 'nuts' then).
The vehicles will be slaughtered if the KPA infantry cannot marry up with them. The convoy should move the bare minimum of 1 hex per turn, and meanwhile the KPA go like hell to get to them....
John.
I never said, nor even suggest there was. I don't know why you inferred that into what I wrote.
There's also nothing wrong with convoy scenarios nor ambush scenarios.
Last edited:
Justiciar
Elder Member
The tone of your post is suggestive.
jrv
Forum Guru
So far as I can see the scenario is mostly not very complicated. The SSRs are trying to simulate what can't be directly created, i.e. the surprise ambush. This is not a line-up-the-pieces-and-play scenario. Both players have to understand the implications of the SSRs and how they channel the flow of the scenario. You can call it "scripting" if you like, but it is a way to "design for effect" such a situation. From the player's perspective it may seem frustrating that he has all these constraints on his behavior that the real commander would not have, but from the scenario designer's perspective, the player has all this knowledge that the real commander would not have either. You can bet the KPA commander didn't voluntarily send his tank column without infantry support under the guns of a field artillery regiment.
If you played this without the convoy SSR, on the first player turn the KPA player would send, say, five tanks down the road toward the exit and the other seven back. This would force the ROK player to cover both directions, meaning that it is likely that at least some of one group or the other would escape. If the exit-team escapes, then the game is over. If a substantial number of the return group gets back, they help clean up the blocking force (which effectively has almost no A-T assets) in short order, then return with their infantry helpers to clean out the hills. The scenario would miss any chance for a grand ambush.
This scenario illustrates one of the problems the game and a scenario designer have to handle. Both players can read the OBs on the scenario card, which is information that the unit commanders would not have had. What turns the SSR from mere "spinach eating" ("eat yer spinach; it's good fer ya") into something better is that the ambush is only partly set at the beginning of the game. The ROK player has to trade allowing the KPA tank column to creep forward into the trap against his skill at using his blocking force to delay the on-coming hoards. Meanwhile the KPA player can try to trip the trap early using his mortars and other weapons. I think the scenario does well here.
Where I would claim the scenario does less well is that both players have to recognize the scenario is channeled at the start. If they do not, if they play line-your-pieces-up-and-go, the scenario will not go "according to script." I think in that case the KPA will have a problem. If one player but not the other recognizes the channeling, that side will have a very distinct advantage. Only if both players understand will it turn out to be a good playing (in most cases). The SSR should give the players reason to think about its consequences, but that won't happen in every playing. Perhaps there should be a warning sticker on the card too.
The scenario begins with a situation that makes it difficult to model in ASL. Both players have much more knowledge than their historical counterparts had. The convoy SSR attempts to make up for this, but at the expense of greatly constraining the KPA player's options. In addition both players have to understand the consequences of the SSR fully or suffer. SSRs like this feel heavy-handed, but when I explore alternatives I find there really isn't a very good one.
JR
If you played this without the convoy SSR, on the first player turn the KPA player would send, say, five tanks down the road toward the exit and the other seven back. This would force the ROK player to cover both directions, meaning that it is likely that at least some of one group or the other would escape. If the exit-team escapes, then the game is over. If a substantial number of the return group gets back, they help clean up the blocking force (which effectively has almost no A-T assets) in short order, then return with their infantry helpers to clean out the hills. The scenario would miss any chance for a grand ambush.
This scenario illustrates one of the problems the game and a scenario designer have to handle. Both players can read the OBs on the scenario card, which is information that the unit commanders would not have had. What turns the SSR from mere "spinach eating" ("eat yer spinach; it's good fer ya") into something better is that the ambush is only partly set at the beginning of the game. The ROK player has to trade allowing the KPA tank column to creep forward into the trap against his skill at using his blocking force to delay the on-coming hoards. Meanwhile the KPA player can try to trip the trap early using his mortars and other weapons. I think the scenario does well here.
Where I would claim the scenario does less well is that both players have to recognize the scenario is channeled at the start. If they do not, if they play line-your-pieces-up-and-go, the scenario will not go "according to script." I think in that case the KPA will have a problem. If one player but not the other recognizes the channeling, that side will have a very distinct advantage. Only if both players understand will it turn out to be a good playing (in most cases). The SSR should give the players reason to think about its consequences, but that won't happen in every playing. Perhaps there should be a warning sticker on the card too.
The scenario begins with a situation that makes it difficult to model in ASL. Both players have much more knowledge than their historical counterparts had. The convoy SSR attempts to make up for this, but at the expense of greatly constraining the KPA player's options. In addition both players have to understand the consequences of the SSR fully or suffer. SSRs like this feel heavy-handed, but when I explore alternatives I find there really isn't a very good one.
JR
Roy
Living in Brownbackistan
Well, thanks to all you guys. A good discussion.
I will admit right off the top that my ability to see all that can be done with a scenario is below average. However, as Justiciar pointed out, there are 4000 scenarios out there, the vast majority of them I own. I'm personally not interested in playing a scenario a second time that I didn't enjoy the first time because it wasn't immediately evident that the convoy "should only move 1 hex per turn". If that is a prerequisite of an already scripted scenario to be enjoyable, just go one more 'script' and require that the convoy only move 1 hex per turn. If "A" has to happen for "B" to be enjoyable, then make sure the player knows it has to happen. What's one more "scripted" move in a scripted scenario?
Anyway, I really appreciated the discussion. Thanks to everyone for reading my blog.
Enjoy,
Roy
I will admit right off the top that my ability to see all that can be done with a scenario is below average. However, as Justiciar pointed out, there are 4000 scenarios out there, the vast majority of them I own. I'm personally not interested in playing a scenario a second time that I didn't enjoy the first time because it wasn't immediately evident that the convoy "should only move 1 hex per turn". If that is a prerequisite of an already scripted scenario to be enjoyable, just go one more 'script' and require that the convoy only move 1 hex per turn. If "A" has to happen for "B" to be enjoyable, then make sure the player knows it has to happen. What's one more "scripted" move in a scripted scenario?
Anyway, I really appreciated the discussion. Thanks to everyone for reading my blog.
Enjoy,
Roy
jrv
Forum Guru
If someone tells me that a scenario from a reputable publisher is a completely unbalanced dog my first thought is, what did the players miss? My recent playing of Gloster Hill is a great example. It took me a long time reviewing the card to see what we had missed, but I was convinced that we had missed something. Certainly even good publishers can produce scenarios that don't quite make it, but it would be nearly impossible for them to release one that was completely over in the first turns. Then when you see an attempt like this to simulate what is hard to simulate in ASL--a surprise ambush--you have to suspect that there is probably something buried in the basement.
I imagine it is a hard design choice for a scenario designer. Ambush on South Knob (there's that magic word "ambush" again) is another scenario that I think has to be played the "right" way to get the most out of it. But as the scenario designer, how much do you give away to the players? Do you have to remind the players to remember to use SMOKE and depletable ammo as well? I don't have answers to these questions, but I have been trying to make the case that the scenario was an attempt to do something that is difficult in ASL, and that I think it did fairly well considering. The trade-off is that it is likely to catch players unawares if the players miss the hints that are scattered in the SSRs.
JR
I imagine it is a hard design choice for a scenario designer. Ambush on South Knob (there's that magic word "ambush" again) is another scenario that I think has to be played the "right" way to get the most out of it. But as the scenario designer, how much do you give away to the players? Do you have to remind the players to remember to use SMOKE and depletable ammo as well? I don't have answers to these questions, but I have been trying to make the case that the scenario was an attempt to do something that is difficult in ASL, and that I think it did fairly well considering. The trade-off is that it is likely to catch players unawares if the players miss the hints that are scattered in the SSRs.
JR
Roy
Living in Brownbackistan
JR. I have understood everything that you were trying to get across. I'll have to go back and read what I wrote, but I am fairly certain that in no place did I refer to the scenario as an 'unbalanced dog'. I did claim that we would rather 'watch concrete set' than play it again. 