CH experimenting with Counters from Recent Events

macrobo

King of Boxcars
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
569
Location
Geelong Melbourne
First name
Rob
Country
llAustralia
Hi All

Experimenting is so cool and CH is the "primordial swamp" from which arises the ideas for the future
As an example - this was really cool discussion on their communication email about what the recent tanks would look like compared to current ASL labelling - very experimental early days but very interesting - enjoy! Rob :)
20758
 

Attachments

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
3,025
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
The weakness of the approach you're demonstrating is in trying to have compartive AF for a modern T-80 MBT and a WW2 T-80 LT. The standard TK tables and AF ranges are designed for mid-century technology, but I think their usefulness post-Korea is limited.

For modern era, I believe a new TK table and AF range should be created. The values may appear similar to standard values, but would be keyed for consistancy within the modern era only. For example (and I'm just spit-balling numbers), the T-80 above could have AF of [11] & [4], and the TK# of opponent's guns would be set at values appropriate for those AF. Obviously, time-travel combat would not work in this set-up, but the brain-space needed to determine effects would be within normal limitations of the basic ASLer's mental capacity.

My 2 cents.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
1,346
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
I know a group was working on 'Modern' ASL. If someone from that group could jump in here for a touch of clarification, maybe???

I am following what footsteps says in having separate charts (for the different versions of ASL/ MASL) instead of having an AF of 58 but if you are following the same type rules as ASL, then a 57LL AT gun should not be able to have any effect whatsoever on a modern T-80 as it should.
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
3,025
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
I know a group was working on 'Modern' ASL. If someone from that group could jump in here for a touch of clarification, maybe???

I am following what footsteps says in having separate charts (for the different versions of ASL/ MASL) instead of having an AF of 58 but if you are following the same type rules as ASL, then a 57LL AT gun should not be able to have any effect whatsoever on a modern T-80 as it should.
It all depends on what a modern 57LL TK# is in relation to a modern T-80 AF. That's the beauty of new tables, everything starts fresh from a new perspective.

And I'm glad to hear that my initial explanation was understandable. I had my doubts about it.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
13,639
Reaction score
8,872
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
The weakness of the approach you're demonstrating is in trying to have compartive AF for a modern T-80 MBT and a WW2 T-80 LT. The standard TK tables and AF ranges are designed for mid-century technology, but I think their usefulness post-Korea is limited.
What might be even more important than the difficulties of determining the comparative AF is the following IMHO:

In WW2 ASL - already - the typical ranges in actual gaming practice in which tanks engage each other is almost always much lower than historically. This is mostly due to the terrain on the geoboards which does not allow for longer LOSes in which historical engagements would have happended most of the time [EXC: langer stretches of open terrain like in the ASL desert.]

In modern times, ranges of engagement are larger then they were in WW2. So with the scale of 1 hex = approx. 40 meters, we will get into trouble with regard to 'table space'. The same is true with regard to movement: Modern tanks are capable of much faster movement than their WW2 counterparts - and able to fire while moving much more precisely.

These factors make it very difficult to reflect modern engagements with the tools offered by the ASL system unless in very restricted terrain. And even in very restricted terrain, the role of OBA and other sorts of "offboard-type" weapon systems would be higher than in WW2. That said, we have to remember that even the WW2 ASL understates the role that OBA has played in engagements.

The more precise weapons become and the longer their effective ranges, the more units on the battlefield disperse (the 'empty' battlefield). This makes it very challenging to portray squad-centered tactical engagements making use of the full array of weaponry (i.e. including MBTs etc.) for board-games.

von Marwitz
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
3,025
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
What might be even more important than the difficulties of determining the comparative AF is the following IMHO:

In WW2 ASL - already - the typical ranges in actual gaming practice in which tanks engage each other is almost always much lower than historically. This is mostly due to the terrain on the geoboards which does not allow for longer LOSes in which historical engagements would have happended most of the time [EXC: langer stretches of open terrain like in the ASL desert.]

In modern times, ranges of engagement are larger then they were in WW2. So with the scale of 1 hex = approx. 40 meters, we will get into trouble with regard to 'table space'. The same is true with regard to movement: Modern tanks are capable of much faster movement than their WW2 counterparts - and able to fire while moving much more precisely.

These factors make it very difficult to reflect modern engagements with the tools offered by the ASL system unless in very restricted terrain. And even in very restricted terrain, the role of OBA and other sorts of "offboard-type" weapon systems would be higher than in WW2. That said, we have to remember that even the WW2 ASL understates the role that OBA has played in engagements.

The more precise weapons become and the longer their effective ranges, the more units on the battlefield disperse (the 'empty' battlefield). This makes it very challenging to portray squad-centered tactical engagements making use of the full array of weaponry (i.e. including MBTs etc.) for board-games.

von Marwitz
Good points. That's an argument that M-ASL can really only be infantry vs infantry actions, which is what SL/ASL truly geared for!
 

Futbol

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
247
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
RPG 7 to kill #? I recently brought up something similar in the ASL forum about the M203 Grenade launcher and how it would be calculated would be curious about infantry weapons too... and let's not get into SAMs and missiles
 

Futbol

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
247
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
if a countersheet were ever made I would likely get it
 

Paul_RS

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,702
Reaction score
747
Location
Gammonopolis
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Or you could try MBT from GMT, or one the modern tactical PC sims from Battlefront.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
6,652
Reaction score
4,244
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
What might be even more important than the difficulties of determining the comparative AF is the following IMHO:

In WW2 ASL - already - the typical ranges in actual gaming practice in which tanks engage each other is almost always much lower than historically. This is mostly due to the terrain on the geoboards which does not allow for longer LOSes in which historical engagements would have happended most of the time [EXC: langer stretches of open terrain like in the ASL desert.]

In modern times, ranges of engagement are larger then they were in WW2. So with the scale of 1 hex = approx. 40 meters, we will get into trouble with regard to 'table space'. The same is true with regard to movement: Modern tanks are capable of much faster movement than their WW2 counterparts - and able to fire while moving much more precisely.

These factors make it very difficult to reflect modern engagements with the tools offered by the ASL system unless in very restricted terrain. And even in very restricted terrain, the role of OBA and other sorts of "offboard-type" weapon systems would be higher than in WW2. That said, we have to remember that even the WW2 ASL understates the role that OBA has played in engagements.

The more precise weapons become and the longer their effective ranges, the more units on the battlefield disperse (the 'empty' battlefield). This makes it very challenging to portray squad-centered tactical engagements making use of the full array of weaponry (i.e. including MBTs etc.) for board-games.

von Marwitz
Nice.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
6,652
Reaction score
4,244
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
RPG 7 to kill #? I recently brought up something similar in the ASL forum about the M203 Grenade launcher and how it would be calculated would be curious about infantry weapons too... and let's not get into SAMs and missiles
What is the effective range of a blaster or a faser?😉
 

Danno

Ost Front Fanatic
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
764
Location
Land of OZ
Country
llUnited States
Have any of these modern ASL packs shipped from CH!?
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,421
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Hi All

Experimenting is so cool and CH is the "primordial swamp" from which arises the ideas for the future
As an example - this was really cool discussion on their communication email about what the recent tanks would look like compared to current ASL labelling - very experimental early days but very interesting - enjoy! Rob :)
View attachment 20758
What does FC,NBC,CIS and TS mean ? Is one of those things night vision ?
 
Top