I would like to comment on this topic, speaking as the project manager of the Korean War module that we are planning to submit to MMP.
There are a few conditions that are required to fit into the ASL paradigm:
1. The squad is the basic tactical unit.
2. The technology of the weaponry is from the 20th century.
3. Combatants openly bear arms. ASL will not work for the typical counterinsurgency/ irregular warfare scenario where one side uses civilians as concealment.
4. Forces are least company-sized and engaged in conventional ground combat. ASL will not work for terrorist attacks, sabotage, and many types of special operations.
Clearly, the ASL paradigm fits the Spanish Civil War, the Korean War, the Arab-Israeli Wars up through the initial phase of the 1982 war, the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani Wars, to a limited extent the French and American wars in Indochina, South Africa vs. Cuba, Ethiopia vs. Somalia, to a limited extent WWI and the follow-on wars, the Falklands War and so on. I'm not sure how some of the early 20th Century wars such as the Russian Civil War fit the paradigm, or the French in Algeria.
As for what conflicts should be covered, I would look for several things:
1. Appeal to the market, which is primarily but not exclusively American. All other things being equal, the Korean War or the Arab-Israeli wars are going to evoke greater interest than the Ethiopians vs. the Somalians.
2. Some semblance of play balance. Operation Desert Storm does not have the makings of an interesting module.
3. Something interesting and different, in terms of weapons, nationality characteristics or terrain. For example, in the Korean War module the big innovations are the Korean terrain rules and accompanying mapboards, and the Chinese Communist Forces.
On the subject, we are looking for a few playtesters who will commit to play at least two scenarios a month and write AARs. If interested, please contact me at:
kpkatz (at) alum (dot) mit (dot) edu