Contested Lands (1948 Arab Israeli) module

[sswann]

Actually, just write up a new game for team combat for Nam.

 

[ParaMarine]

I don’t mind it being core. You can always use the new guys to represent something not yet covered in the main game.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Does "core" have any special meaning anyway?

 

[GeorgeBates]

Does "core" have any special meaning anyway?

It seems to for the "hardcore."

 

[Steve H]

Does "core" have any special meaning anyway?

I think the only reason they call it core is because it would have the full OoB and their special rules/characteristics of those nations, rather than just an HASL. It would allow either expansions or HASLs of that conflict in the future if people wished to pursue it. Just like FW. I don't think there are any counters/rules introduced in FW that are used anywhere else in the system except Korea.

 

[ibncalb]

I would argue that the only things in FW that are really core are the rules. I can see steep hills and VT arty occurring in other theatres easily enough.

So a simple purchase of the easlrb would supply the "core" elements.

 

[von Marwitz]

Does "core" have any special meaning anyway?

Yes.

"Core" means that the product contains rules or components that will used for other purposes other than the product it came in.

I.e. "standard" (as opposed to for example unit-specific) counters, geo-boards that are likely to be used by scenario designers, or rules that find general application (as opposed to HASL specific rules).

At least this is my personal definition of "core" components / modules that contain such.

von Marwitz

 

[ParaMarine]

I still haven’t even tried the searchlight special rules from KWASL although I have used the hill boards. I also probably should have used the new Rangers in a DYO or solitaire. I don’t know what new rules this module will have but eventually I’m going to use it in some form. I actually expect typical ASL terrain to apply better here, since it’s med and hilly.

 

[ParaMarine]

Another thing to consider. We haven’t yet seen the eastern med really done in ASL. I guess maybe there are some bizarro scenarios I haven’t played with the 1941 campaign but even as mostly an eastern front appreciator, I have come to enjoy the oddball stuff like Souljas of the Negus.

I don’t even know if we are going to get all new nationality counters but I figure there will be some variation. By all accounts, the Jordanian army was the best one opposing the Israel armies. Also to consider, Israel isn’t even a singular army in the beginning of the war so that might mean some more variation. This is all a positive thing. More to get out of the game but not really more complication. National distinctions and ELR replacement is the easiest thing to shift in the entire rules.

 

[kynken]

I don't care what format, I am just looking forward to pre-order.

 

[bendizoid]

How about a module from another forgotten war: the 1919 commy/Polish war?

 

[dieneuner25]

I was surprised MMP decided to take ASL into the Arab-Israeli conflict because it offers little if anything new for the system. (The same argument can made against KTFW, I realize.) But defining "new" is tough. Other than terrain, HASL modules don't offer anything new. That made me ponder the question: is "new" what ASL needs? I passed on KTFW for cost vs. benefit reasons, but I buy HASL modules because I like historical maps. To date I have only played scenarios on them, not CGs. So, are they worth the cost? I really started to wonder while playing DZ:SME scenario SM01. The "real" terrain is cool, but was it enough of an improvement over ASL 17 to justify the module cost? The bottom line is, do I buy Contested Lands just to play an HASL version of CH57? What about a module on the 1947-8 Indo-Pakistani War? The answer is probably not. It's personal taste. But I'll buy Ortona when (if) it appears, so to each their own. I agree with the comment that ASL is a big tent. Play what you like and let others do the same.

 

[Robin Reeve]

At that level, people will play Contested Lands if they are interested in the 1947-48 Israeli independence war.
Besides core module, I believe that this is the most current reason to buy an ASL product.
I personally am not looking for "newness" at all costs when it comes down to rules - even though I do like some adapted SSRs (Cows and Sturm units in DZSME etc.).
As CH products will never be on my purchase list, I am quite interested in MMP covering the same topic.
YMMV.

 

[Hutch]

Still waiting for the other direction: Spanish Civil War

 

[wrongway149]

I suppose one could argue the conflicts are two groups of people fighting over ownership of the same lands and leave religion out of it.

It's been mostly about water all along.

 

[wrongway149]

Only the War of Independence of 1948.

Are they taking scenario submissions? Or I can just wait and then do some follow-up.

Got enough on my plate(s) anyhoo.

 

[David Goodwin]

There should be no problem in going up to 1980 for ASL because there was no update in weapon systems that get things past WW2. Most conflicts that involved weapons that included WW 2 hardware. It wasn't until 1991 during the Gulf war that people saw things had grossly changes from what we actually saw. The threat was not what we thought is was and the Russians were not 10 feet tall. Europe is not the rest of the world and it seems that that is not even the current case. Computers and sensors made a difference, but that does not seem to matter if you have a corrupt government.

 

[PresterJohn]

I don't think VASL works/doesn't work because of the weapons systems in use. It's the command level and scale that is important. ASL doesn't work for a platoon level action. The scale needs to be on a company or battalion level action. Otherwise the function of SMCs needs to be changed a lot, and that will change the game.

 

[David Goodwin]

I am a proponent of expanding ASL into the 1970s. Technology did not expand that much from the Sherman to the Patton tanks, just bigger guns-thicker armor. ATGMs work best in desert terrain where the signal lines of the missiles cannot be broken by rubble and water First and second-generation system don't make that much difference. Sensors and fire control were mostly analog in that time period. The major battles fought in the fifties, sixties and seventies use a lot of WW2 weapons because they were available. There are only so many WW2 battles that can be fought, expansion into other wars are inevenable.

 

[Carln0130]

Still waiting for the other direction: Spanish Civil War

It's been submitted.