Desperation Morale Update - Where oh Where are You!

[Tuomo]

Remember Tet was a military disaster for the Viet Minh/Cong but a long term political success.

As are most of my games.

 

[JRKrejsa]

I’ll buck the trend.

I like the Korea expansion.

But I do agree expansion into US involvement in Vietnam, or to trench warfare in WW1, seems like a stretch.

 

[macrobo]

Hi All

When is Mark chiming in !!!!?

Anyway - I played my first Korea one - Hard ROK ASL203 - and well it had a funny feel

A bit like Russian Elite! vs Chinese Nationalists

The NK's swept down through the town - the lights woods restricted easy escape for the South Koreans and conscript after conscript became a prisoner

A narrow victory point of a bridge makes it tough for them - I had really bad luck and even though I put the majority of my Firepower on that approach - after he anhilated my fall back defence - he just strolled across wearing Umbrella's

Sooo - First feel for this - OK but really strange armies at present - onto next one!

Rob

 

[von Marwitz]

I’ll buck the trend.
I like the Korea expansion.
But I do agree expansion into US involvement in Vietnam, or to trench warfare in WW1, seems like a stretch.

No you don't buck the trend. You go with it.

Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't think he was enthusiastic about Korea and I'm fairly certain he was dead against anything later.

The 'trend' within this thread says: "Nothing later than Korea."

Cheers,
von Marwitz

 

[GeorgeBates]

I will paraphrase a recent statement by Ken Katz about the applicability of ASL to other conflicts:

• The combatants' doctrine and tactics must be based on squad-level maneuver and firepower (as opposed to individuals or higher-echelon units)
• The conflict's combatants should be uniformed military formations representing national entities (not (counter-)terrorism or guerrilla actions)
• The conflict must apply military technologies of the early- to mid-twentieth century (or at least develop additional rules for later technologies)

I'm sure Ken will pop in to correct me on any misstatements or omissions.

To stay on topic - I believe it has been reported that in the current chaotic atmosphere of American society and politics Mark has been very preoccupied with his work at the Anti-Defamation League. Perhaps we will see him again once the situation is less charged.

 

[xenovin]

I will paraphrase a recent statement by Ken Katz about the applicability of ASL to other conflicts:

• The combatants' doctrine and tactics must be based on squad-level maneuver and firepower (as opposed to individuals or higher-echelon units)
• The conflict's combatants should be uniformed military formations representing national entities (not (counter-)terrorism or guerrilla actions)
• The conflict must apply military technologies of the early- to mid-twentieth century (or at least develop additional rules for later technologies)

This is interesting as John Hill was more focused on how a company commander would deal with a threat to his front knowing the skill level and morale of his troops using "design for effect" over the more data-centric work of say Tobruk: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyMDEyc3F1YWRsZWFkZXJ0b3Vybnl8Z3g6NDgwYTJjZjkxZTVjYTkyMA

 

[Robin Reeve]

This is interesting as John Hill was more focused on how a company commander would deal with a threat to his front knowing the skill level and morale of his troops using "design for effect" over the more data-centric work of say Tobruk: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyMDEyc3F1YWRsZWFkZXJ0b3Vybnl8Z3g6NDgwYTJjZjkxZTVjYTkyMA

I don't see how this applies to the limits evoked by Ken Krantz.
They are not data centred, unless you advocate that John Hill paid no attention at all to military equipment in his SL design (he certainly opted for a more approximate approach than Tobruk, but he still intoduced SW, guns and tanks of WW2).
The topic here is the limits of the period and/or the specific conflicts that ASL can cover well.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

• The conflict's combatants should be uniformed military formations representing national entities (not (counter-)terrorism or guerrilla actions)

And what do we think A25.24 is supposed to represent?

In fact, Mark has discussed creating an entire core module of its own to represent "terrorism or guerrilla actions" in ASL.

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/what-happened-to-the-partisan-module.99347/

And his comments on what partisans are:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/does-asl-do-the-partisans-justice.63919/

Actually, in most countries where significant partisan movements arose, they evolved fairly complex military organizations. Typically, they would start off as independent groups (called by different names depending on the country), then the groups would tend to merge and form higher level organizations and so on and so forth. The partisan movements of many countries had partisan divisions divided into brigades or regiments, divided into battalions or companies. Poland evolved a highly organized and complex divisional structure, with divisions numbered after pre-war military units. Yugoslavia developed a system that evolved all the way up to the corps level, then finally transformed itself into a regular army. Albania had a similar form of organization up to the divisional level. Greek Communists also had divisions, though they were less well-organized overall. In Bulgaria and in the Czech and Slovak regions of Czechoslovakia, they did not evolve beyond the brigade level. The Soviet Union had brigades, and if I remember correctly, they did not have divisions per se, but often grouped brigades together for tactical purposes. But I could be misremembering and they had brigades as well. In Italy, they had divisions, brigades, etc. Of the countries where partisans actually fielded field forces that engaged in real combat, only France never evolved a true hierarchy, and this was largely because they were in operation as military units for such a short time (less than a year).

Moreover, they were not just Joe Blows. Many of the countries had partisan movements with significant participation from the pre-war officer corps. Many countries had professional officers parachuted in--the Soviet Union did this on a large scale, but other countries did, too. For example, well over 300 Polish SOE agents parachuted into Poland during the war, many of whom would go on to be prominent leaders in the Home Army.

Moreover, lots of partisan movements set up officer training schools. Mao's communist partisans did in China. Poland had an officer training school system that graduated more than 8500 officers. Yugoslavia had officer training schools, and in fact, set up a prominent training area on the island of Vis where they would be trained by British and American officers. And so on and so forth.

Of course, many of the best partisan leaders gained their experience the hard way--through years of fighting.

Sounds like the Viet Cong to me. Or in other words, Mark has already eloquently put forward one reason why a Vietnam module would be appropriate for ASL. Particularly in the 1945-54 era where World War II-era weapons were still common to the inventory on both sides.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

They are not data centred, unless you advocate that John Hill paid no attention at all to military equipment in his SL design (he certainly opted for a more approximate approach than Tobruk, but he still intoduced SW, guns and tanks of WW2).

While JH definitely was The Man for SL, from what I gather he had less to do with SL as it progressed via CoI, CoD and GI and had practically washed his hands of it by the time ASL had emerged. SL only had about half a dozen types of AFV and guns, combined, per nation. He was more interested in the SW side of the toys and their overall effect.

 

[xenovin]

I don't see how this applies to the limits evoked by Ken Krantz.
They are not data centred, unless you advocate that John Hill paid no attention at all to military equipment in his SL design (he certainly opted for a more approximate approach than Tobruk, but he still intoduced SW, guns and tanks of WW2).
The topic here is the limits of the period and/or the specific conflicts that ASL can cover well.

The initial design was focused more morale and leadership and more “fudgey” on the weapons and SW variables thus I don’t buy that the system can’t represent other actions.

 

[PabloGS]

On a related note, I believe an action like the Siege of Jadotville would very much allow itself to be represented by ASL. As I watched the movie I kept associating the things happening with ASL.

 

[JRKrejsa]

On a related note, I believe an action like the Siege of Jadotville would very much allow itself to be represented by ASL. As I watched the movie I kept associating the things happening with ASL.

Please enlighten the luddites.

Not familiar with the history or the movie.

 

[jrv]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville. Even luddites use wikipedia.

JR

 

[Robin Reeve]

The movie is nice.
And as WW2 gear was used, there could be an adaptation with the ASL system.

 

[bendizoid]

This is interesting as John Hill was more focused on how a company commander would deal with a threat to his front knowing the skill level and morale of his troops using "design for effect" over the more data-centric work of say Tobruk: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyMDEyc3F1YWRsZWFkZXJ0b3Vybnl8Z3g6NDgwYTJjZjkxZTVjYTkyMA

Lol, Hill says Squad Leader is too cruel and complicated to be a 'classic'. "One turn of mental laxness and 'Wham' you take 70% casualties." Frick'in a.

 

[xenovin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville. Even luddites use wikipedia.

JR

and Netflix as that's where I watched it.

 

[JRKrejsa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville. Even luddites use wikipedia.

JR

Not when they are leaving for work....

 

[JRKrejsa]

But thanks for the link.

 

[Ric of The LBC]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

I resemble that remark.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The movie is nice.
And as WW2 gear was used, there could be an adaptation with the ASL system.

It wasn't "WW2 gear" in the film. The L4 was a post-war adaptation of the Bren dating from about 1958 (it used the standard NATO round of the time, 7.62 x 51). The Irish soldiers are armed with FN semi-automatic rifles, also in 7.62 NATO. This was a not-insignificant upgrade from most Second World War rifle squads. Even more firepower than the Americans, who used the M-1 with 8-round clips while the FN was a 20-round mag that was interchangeable with the L4 LMG. In ASL terms, not sure what the difference would be as I would guess Irish troops had better fire discipline in line with what ASL believes the British had - you actually see that hinted at in the movie clip posted above.