ASL scenario 172 : The Last Attack

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
278
Reaction score
63
Location
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Okay just for clarification purposes
(and I've looked around to see if I can find any Errata existing )

Group 8
Soviet forces
is it correct that they have five anti-tank rifles ?
It's what's printed their, but it does seem a little excessive !

Thanks
Neil
Bathurst
Australia
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
489
Reaction score
82
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Yeah, doesn't make any sense. I'd go with one ATR. I don't know of any errata. Maybe the scenario designer will pay a visit.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,802
Reaction score
2,970
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
There was a thread on this before.

I am pretty sure to remember, that the 5 ATRs are correct. I think the scenario designer mentioned that not all of them need necessarily set up with the infantry of that Group. As far as I remember, the Groups in that scenario have overlapping setup areas. So if Group 8 setup area overlap with Group 6 for example, the ATRs of Group 8 could also set up with units from Group 6 as long as they remain in the overlapping area.

To confirm what I seem to recall, I advise searching for the older thread.

von Marwitz
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
489
Reaction score
82
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
I did try to look for another thread. Gamesquad is not as easy to search as it should be (or used to be); it keeps cutting off google search links to bring bringing me to a generic landing page; I can't any longer go to the exact thread. Possibly because the result was cached and no longer available? And the on-platform basic search results yield multiple pages of results (I'm not THAT interested!)

Reading the SSR was revealing, as you indicated. Now it makes more sense and I agree, but nevertheless that's a lot of ATRs for a 17 squad OB. Fussy set-up requirements. I would find it annoying to play; not gonna make my list... also, it's trending unbalanced on ROAR, probably because of all those ATRs ;)
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
755
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
There have been a couple of threads on this scenario, but good luck finding them now. Eventually we were able to arrive at the following clarifications for this scenario:

ASL 172 (The Last Attack)
SSR 2: This is the intention spelled out more verbose: All counters in each group 1-5 are intended to be set up with that group. Guns and their crews in group 6 and 7 must set up in Woods/Light Woods/Hill hexes as listed in the SSR. Other units/SW in group 6 and 7 plus group 8 may set up with any of groups 1-5.

Yes, there are a lot of ATRs, but you get to spread them around.
 

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
278
Reaction score
63
Location
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Morning all
thanks for all replies to this


it proves two things to me

1/ that despite the new forums having many advantages over the old. I really really really really really do dislike the new way you have to search. It is completely inefficient, and doesn't go back far enough for what I wanted it to do. Will it be like that always know because it will eventually have its own memory developed from the point of its new inception (if that makes sense to everyone)
I very much tried to find an answer myself, and as others said, not so easy to do now

2/ that the way the SSRs is written ............. in particular SSR2, could have been done a whole lot better. Thank you in particular to Bruce and Klas for the clarification. But re-writing than SSR could have made it much easier to understand for everybody. And it wouldn't be hard to do. Or even better still, having the support weapons grouped in the top section with the leaders that can be placed anywhere and foxholes would have made much much more sense.
In fact I don't quite understand why it's not done that way !??

But thanks everyone

Note this is my opinion
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,123
Reaction score
5,257
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Okay just for clarification purposes
(and I've looked around to see if I can find any Errata existing )

Group 8
Soviet forces
is it correct that they have five anti-tank rifles ?
It's what's printed their, but it does seem a little excessive !
This is the official reply: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/hakkaa-päälle-errata-and-faq.121252/page-3#post-1741920

I believe the intention was that the ATRs would be used by troops in other groups.

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,080
Reaction score
2,561
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Or even better still, having the support weapons grouped in the top section with the leaders that can be placed anywhere and foxholes would have made much much more sense.
That would not have worked, since you need to choose Group 8 to get the SW.

From SSR 2:
"...Units/Guns from Groups 6-8 must set up in woods/Light-Woods/hill hexes on board(s) 17/44..."
I.e., it is only the "Units/Guns" - not SW - that are limited to setting up "in woods/Light-Woods/hill hexes on board(s) 17/44".

While I personally thought this line from SSR 2 was/is clear (in part due to the fact that I know the intention) when we were editing these scenarios, I do realize that it probably should have specifically spelled out that the SW could set up with any unit from any group.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
755
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
As someone who did not know the original intention when I played the scenario, I can assure you that the SSR was about as poorly written as it is possible for an SSR to be. It apparently represents the victory of the desire to be concise over the requirement for clarity, ultimately needlessly given that there was plenty of room available on the double-sided scenario card.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
561
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Agree with Bruce on this (though I haven't played the scenario). Adding an explicit sentence about SW being allowed to setup with other units would have prevented any confusion from reading the SSR a little bit too fast (which I'd certainly have done).
 

commissar1969

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
319
Reaction score
12
Location
Martin, TN
Country
llUnited States
As someone who did not know the original intention when I played the scenario, I can assure you that the SSR was about as poorly written as it is possible for an SSR to be. It apparently represents the victory of the desire to be concise over the requirement for clarity, ultimately needlessly given that there was plenty of room available on the double-sided scenario card.
I agree 100%.
 
Top