ASL Realistic simulation?

[armonica]

Being new to ASL (just started with ASLSK) I am curious about weather ASL is considered a realistic simulation for WWII small units. Do real world tactics really work in ASL, or are there lots of gamey's adjustments? For instance what about ''skulking''?
And how would it compare say to ''Combat Mission'' in terms of realism?

 

[Pitman]

There is no wargame that simulates World War II tactical combat better than ASL. That's all you need to know. The rest is irrelevant, because any other game, board or computer, is worse.

 

[paulkenny]

ASL is by far the BEST World War 2 tactical warfare simulation game. Bar None!

 

[alanp]

ASL is great. The Greatest WWII tactical game (that I've played), like Mark and Paul said.

Don't take everything in ASL literally, though; there was a 'skulking' thread months ago[started 10 March, 2004]. Basically, the skulk represents the tactic of keeping your heads down, not reacting to your enemy's movement. The troops that skulk aren't "really" changing Location/hexes, they're maintaining concealment throughout a certain length of time - an abstracted 2-4 minutes. . . You'll find some here that think even this explanation is too much 'realism'. Also, there are many other examples of this, too. LOS can be quite abstracted, for example. Just don't take it too literally.

Once you learn the whole system better (not sure if anyone, ever, learns it completely. . .) just integrate all the rules and 'real tactics' will work more times than not; at least they're an important aspect of good play. See the 'Lawyers vs. Tacticians' thread here, as well.

It's really a personal choice thing. We all find it worth the effort to learn the rules. We find it fun and it fills some need/meets our interests. Realism isn't necessarily my 'thing' so it's hard for anyone else to answer your question. Yes, ASL's realistic, to a certain extent. Do you find re-enacting a realistic experience of army life/combat? It's more realistic than ASL but not like joining the army!

My guess is that if you've played a couple SK scenarios and haven't given up yet, you'll end up liking it and getting hooked.

Alan

 

[AdrianE]

ASL is actually a great simulation of WWII movie action and only a fair simulation of WWII tactical infantry combat. Avalon Hill's Tobruk is an example of a detailed simulation that sucks as a game.

You could add several more features to ASL such as realistic command and control to make a more realistic simulation but that would suck as a game.

ASL does have some features that reward historical tactics. Running around in the open is unhealthy. Smoke is good. Concealment is rewarded. Tanks stay away from late war German infantry. Shermans need a side or rear shot to kill a panther.

ASL also has some features that promote ahistorical tactics. ASL tanks drive beside buildings to keep their occupants distracted (VBM freeze). MGs are best when clustered into kill stacks. Transportation assets (trucks and half tracks) are frequently squandered for a temporary tactical advantage. Most ASL scenarios under represent the TO&E of the units involved.

I don't know about combat mission or how it compares to ASL.

ASL is the best wargame I've ever played. It is not the best simulation possible.

 

[Priest]

ASL is a decent game and I would have to agree with what has already been said.

 

[zgrose]

Keep in mind Combat Mission was an attempt at a computerized ASL so they are very similar in way they approach the game. If you like CM (and you don't mind taking over all the work of the computer calculating your to hit numbers), you should like ASL.

I would have to concur with AdrianE that it isn't the best simulation, but it is a pretty fun wargame and when look at the game as a whole, all the little rough edges tend to blur away. ASL tends to favor pretty reasonable abstractions in exchange for less bookkeeping.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Some debates about "realism" have boged in unfinishing arguments and counterarguments - all invoking realism...
I believe that no game is perfect and that one will always find mechanics that are not in accordance with what one feels about realism...
There have been debates about the numeric values of units (some find the SS too weak, others too powerfull - idem about the Marines), their SW allotment (some would like to see more MGs given to the German, others find that rifle-grenade effects ought to be precisely covered), about DRMs (some would more penalise BU effects, etc.) ; some discuss about command control - defending or criticizing ASL's system.
These "realism" debates, though sometimes amusing, usually are fruitless.
ASL remains a game including en enormous volume of elements taken from the realty of WWII (plus and minus 10 years) tactical combats : I play ASL because it is a heap of fun!
I find the game "realistic" in the fact that the global results of the scenarios lead to the historical results, more or less...
Now, I find ASL superior to all other wargames of that scale, because of the coherence of its rules, of the variety of the situations, the quality of the references (Chapter H notes are marvelous!), and it is a game full of suspense and surprises.
Even a realtively bad player as I goes on playing it (more than 20 years, counting "SL and gamettes" prehistorical times).
Beware : you'll get hooked and there is no cure - as side effects are mostly positive... :laugh:

 

[The Purist]

ASL is tops for a board game as CM is tops for the PC. Both are probably the best within their own 'genre'. As mentioned above, ASL uses a few (?) abstractions to allow playability while CM lets the computer do the math.

I play both and enjoy both for what they are.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

I would have to say that ASL is more of an abstraction of WW2 combat than it is a simulation. There are miniatures games that involve great detail, with the manuals being 200+ pages of solid text. I have a manual for such a game and just the armour penetration tables alone have multiple pages of small text! This, in my mind, is a simulation. ASL is not that.

In order for it to be more of a simulation there would have to be much more Command and Control rules and be much more in depth for many different things.

ASL is the best at what it does. It combines playability with abstraction to arrive at a very good WW2 infrantry combat game.

 

[Gen. blunder]

I think you're right Bryan we could go on discussing for ages about realism versus playability .
For example i love the air rules but i saw somewhere that only the USMC had a ground spotter for tactical air stikes that could coordinate the strikes with the operations on the ground. The us land army didn't have ground air stike contollers so air strikes so close to the front line generaly resulted in friendly fire casualties that's why they were generally avoided , and tactical air attacks where performed more in the rear area of the ennemy on road networks for example.

 

[Pitman]

ASL is actually a great simulation of WWII movie action and only a fair simulation of WWII tactical infantry combat. Avalon Hill's Tobruk is an example of a detailed simulation that sucks as a game.

I think Tobruk is distinctly inferior to ASL as a simulation. There are all sorts of things, human and otherwise, it doesn't even try to simulate.

 

[Pitman]

I would have to say that ASL is more of an abstraction of WW2 combat than it is a simulation. There are miniatures games that involve great detail, with the manuals being 200+ pages of solid text. I have a manual for such a game and just the armour penetration tables alone have multiple pages of small text! This, in my mind, is a simulation. ASL is not that.

ASL simulates more aspects of World War tactical combat than any minatures system I have *ever* seen. It is not even close.

 

[purdyrc]

ASL sucks! I'm not sure why I've put hundreds and hundreds of dollars into it.

Seriously, I'm not sure if you'll find an unbiased opinion of ASL in this forum!

- Rick

 

[R.S. Barker]

Still being very new to this system, I personally think that the rules are a bit much, and need to be cleaned up - as in better, more detailed sections that give more examples of Gameplay. The flow of the rules leaves a ton to be desired, so:

The best example I've heard is that the ASL rules are essentially an encyclopedia of rules, with little regard for flow in how the various sections were presented. ASLRB is in no way a sit-down read it straight through system, becaue the rules were not written like other common board games like Air Force or Ambush!. Then again, ASl is no common board game.

That being said, I do concede that no other board-based game matches ASL for complexity, and what you can do. In addition, I believe its a safe assumption to say that ASl has pretty much included every type of action a squad can do, and does it very well.

Inherently, all of this complexity does indeed translate to realism.

My own "final opinion" on the ASl system is being withheld till I get a chance to play the system for more than a couple hours on VASL, given the lack of FtF play in this area.

Cheers,

 

[RobZagnut]

I never get into the realism debate about wargames. I'm more interested in them being fun to play. It is a game, so I hope I have fun. I like what ASL represents and how it handles infantry and tank combat.

What I like the most about ASL as a game (besides the people) is the interaction. You are as much involved in the other players turn as your own. Something is happening all the time. It's CONSTANT tension filled moments where fortunes turn on a dime that make you say after the game is over, "Whew, that was awesome! I can't wait to play again."

 

[Aries]

ASL is great mainly for the magnitude of detail.

Now I have heard people slag games based on the level of detail too.

So if you can't handle reams of detail, nothing we say is going to matter.

By definition, games like MOO3 should be great due to magnitide of attention to detail. But not everyone wants that much detail.

I think Steel Panthers is great, because it is all that ASL can be, but without a need to memorise a manual.

CM is considered great by some because it is in 3d.
3d doesn't really float my boat though.

CC is considered great by some because it is in real time.
Real time can often be a hassle if done wrong.
I think CC did it right.

Complexity is not required to be a great simulation.
I have Sniper/Hetzer Sniper/Special Forces Sniper, and it might actually be better at portraying what a game called "Squad Leader would seem to imply ie leading some squads in some cases.

But ASL combines complexity with completeness.
If you are willing to purchase the various essentials, you can generally simulate any portion of the Second World war.

Lock n Load is not a lesser game though, just because it isn't a wallet killing shelf eating homewrecking mega purchase hehe.

On realism though, every single "game" I have ever played wasn't even close to being "realistic". Only the real thing is ever going to be that. And you can't go back to the past.

 

[Chas]

As a combat vet, I can say that in no way can you really 'simulate' combat. However, I think the main question was tactics application. In that regard, they work. When I first started playing, I didnt know the rules too well, but applied actual military tactics to how I played, and I could actually stay in games, even as a newbie. Once I learned the rules I become a fairly decent player. I even applied SOSR (see article in RBF 2) against Matt Shostak in a scenario, and his only comment was...." You have to write an article about this".

Bottom line is that real tactics work, but there are also some game tactics that need to be learned as well. Stuff like skulking, VBM freeze and such assist in a better simulation moreso than some think.

Chas

 

[Robin Reeve]

The best example I've heard is that the ASL rules are essentially an encyclopedia of rules, with little regard for flow in how the various sections were presented. ASLRB is in no way a sit-down read it straight through system, becaue the rules were not written like other common board games like Air Force or Ambush!.

You are quite right.
This is a point where I would raise some critic against the rules : not the contents, but the lack of pedagogy in their presentation.

 

[RobZagnut]

>This is a point where I would raise some critic against the rules : not the contents, but the lack of pedagogy in their presentation.

The best way to learn ASL is to play it against someone who knows how to play. After I play a newbie for the first time I always tell him, "Don't try and read the rulebook from the start. Pick some of the areas that you were fuzzy on during our game. For example, go back and read about Close Combat and Ambush. Or look into Defensive First Fire principles. That way you can remember what happened during our game and apply it to what you are reading."

One newbie actually took notes during the game and made a list of the rules he wanted to go back and read about. That is the best way to learn the rules.