Do you feel your respective Nationality is Represented Well?

['Ol Fezziwig]

No, there can be no valid case made for giving USMC a higher morale than other elite US troops.

...channeling Douglas MacArthur are we?...

 

[sswann]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]...channeling Douglas MacArthur are we?...[/QUOTE]

Except:... after Bougainville, even MacArthur want to keep his Marines as Assault Troops.

SS

 

[Neuralman]

No, I don't feel my Nationality is represented well.

I haven't seen any "Arkansas Redneck" counters yet.

 

[Jim McLeod]

Jim, first of all, don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. When you get a Ph.D. in military history, then you can lecture me about it--but not before.

Secondly, your sourceless and baseless generalizations 1) don't hold much water, and 2) don't address the ASL-related issue. Perhaps they would if every ASL scenario involving Marines actually involved an amphibious attack, but that is hardly the case. The Marines were in many actions in which they were not "aggressive," and/or in which they were not on the attack at all.

In any case, your position is utterly ridiculous because it implies that Rangers and Airborne were not trained to be aggressive, which, of course, is not even remotely the case.

No, there can be no valid case made for giving USMC a higher morale than other elite US troops.

I heard you retired from the Forum ...

Oh well, I knew it was too good to be true.

Blah, blah, blah mr. phd in military history.

I will lecture you any time I see fit thank you very much. Contrary to your own widely held belief, you are not the know all and be all of ASL as you often cast yourself as being.

Remember, this is a game. You lose sight of this fact a little too often.

:devil:



=Jim=

 

[Tater]

I haven't seen any "Arkansas Redneck" counters yet.

They will be in the "True Grits" Ap...along with the Alabama "Good 'Ol Boyz" counters.

 

[Schrapnellls]

Hi,

The French troops are correctly represented in ASL.
A various quality in 1940 (E, 1st and G). the Green status is very fair. All the french men are a basic training (but the oldest have a poor morale and a badly equipments!) during 1 year or more.
The only minor error is the French Foreign Legion, the broken morale of 7 is too less (but many SSRs corrected this factor in Journal 2, merci Laurent!).
the Heavy weapons usage are necessarily very near to the reality (AFVs, Guns). The French AFVs are very difficult to play, but it's realistic.

The Free French are correctly represent with the British troops (even in 1944/1945, The French Army had US equipments). The better moral of French troops (than the US for Elite) represents (for me), the difference between the US tactics and the French Tactics.

the french troops used more the clash than the firepower (Furia francese!), the US troops used more firepower than the clash.

The cases of Special Troops (rangers or SSF) are correctly represents with SSR (like French Foreign Legion in 1940) or with Marines MMC (like the SSF in few Scenarios). These troops used the clash too (and very strongly!!!!)

My 2 cents

Schrap

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

Yep, i am happy with the Aussies being portrayed as Elite British with stealthy capabilities, i think that for a large degree of our forces in WW2 this is true.

I do question whether the Aussies were all Elite to start with, for instance in the Kakoda battles we used militia forces who started out gutsy, but of poor quality and ended up being gutsy and excellent soldiers. But that is easily corrected by SSR

I think that they have done well with all the nationalities

I also like the counters for the Aussie's that have them wearing the "Indiana Jones hat" into cardboard combat.....:whist:

 

[wrongway149]

Jim, first of all, don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. When you get a Ph.D. in military history, then you can lecture me about it--but not before.

Secondly, your sourceless and baseless generalizations 1) don't hold much water, and 2) don't address the ASL-related issue. Perhaps they would if every ASL scenario involving Marines actually involved an amphibious attack, but that is hardly the case. The Marines were in many actions in which they were not "aggressive," and/or in which they were not on the attack at all.

In any case, your position is utterly ridiculous because it implies that Rangers and Airborne were not trained to be aggressive, which, of course, is not even remotely the case.

No, there can be no valid case made for giving USMC a higher morale than other elite US troops.

Well, Mark I think you are wrong on this one, and it has far less to do with Military History than with the game of ASL. You mention "addressing the ASL issue", but yet you don't do all of the math. Playtest proved that 8 ML Marines were a good thing, and this is the determining factor when the history can go either way.

USMC morale relative to US Army paratrooper morale is irrelevant, as they have very little contextual relationship to one another in the game. What counts is how much better Marines fare against their opponents- the Japanese- than non-Marines in the same situation. Providing them with an 8 ML instead of 7 is a simple and easy way of depicting exactly that.
:salute:

 

[Legion]

I also like the counters for the Aussie's that have them wearing the "Indiana Jones hat" into cardboard combat.....:whist:

They are 'slouch hats' you heathen, and Aussies soldiers were wearing them before Indiana Jones' grandmother taught him to suck eggs. An Aussie soldier not wearing one seems naked!

 

[Pitman]

Well, Mark I think you are wrong on this one, and it has far less to do with Military History than with the game of ASL. You mention "addressing the ASL issue", but yet you don't do all of the math. Playtest proved that 8 ML Marines were a good thing, and this is the determining factor when the history can go either way.

I'm sorry, Pete, but you can assign any values you want to a counter and create scenarios in which "playtests" will work with those values. That doesn't mean that those are the values that should be on the counters. The exact same results, in any case, could have been achieved with a rule giving Marines a higher morale or fanatic status during amphibious landings, without creating the false impression that Marines somehow had better morale than other elite U.S. troops.

USMC morale relative to US Army paratrooper morale is irrelevant, as they have very little contextual relationship to one another in the game. What counts is how much better Marines fare against their opponents- the Japanese- than non-Marines in the same situation. Providing them with an 8 ML instead of 7 is a simple and easy way of depicting exactly that.
:salute:

That doesn't even make sense. USMC morale relative to US Army paratrooper morale is extremely relevant, because the whole notion of ASL is that it is a comprehensive, universal system, not the wargaming equivalent of moral relativism, whereby A = 5 when B is around, but A = 7 when C is around instead.

As for your second sentence above, the 11th Airborne Division performed quite well in World War II; it was certainly an elite division. Its soldiers certainly had as high a morale as the soldiers of the 6th Marine Division. So either the first should be higher or the second should be lower. Marines were not better troops than paratroopers, so their counters should not pretend that they were.

 

[Jim McLeod]

That doesn't even make sense. USMC morale relative to US Army paratrooper morale is extremely relevant, because the whole notion of ASL is that it is a comprehensive, universal system, not the wargaming equivalent of moral relativism, whereby A = 5 when B is around, but A = 7 when C is around instead.

Mark, the example you give already exists in ASL. Greeks have their Broken Side ML increased by '1' when facing Italians.

And to throw some realism fuel on the fire, it may be fair to state that Americans 'hated' the Japanese more than the Germans during WWII since the Japanese attacked first at Pearl Harbour.

Add in the racial factor as well and we have another cause to the morale effect.

As for your second sentence above, the 11th Airborne Division performed quite well in World War II; it was certainly an elite division. Its soldiers certainly had as high a morale as the soldiers of the 6th Marine Division. So either the first should be higher or the second should be lower. Marines were not better troops than paratroopers, so their counters should not pretend that they were.

Jim's bottom line, US para's and Marines should both have a ML of '8'.




=Jim=

 

[Pitman]

I agree with that bottom line (in the "if ASL were invented all over again" sense).

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

The most shocking thing about the paras v MARINE morale level debate is noone seems to notice the vacuum in which it takes place. Taking an individual component of a squad type's factors and trying to base any sort of conclusion on the whole, without taking the unit's entire capabilities into account, is sketchy at best, misleading (and agenda-driven) at worst.

Bottom line: the MARINES were in existence long before the paras were laying the groundwork of their reputation. The MARINE way of war and the Army way of war are/were completely different. If you can't discern that...:whist:

 

[FourDeuceMF]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]The most shocking thing about the paras v MARINE morale level debate is noone seems to notice the vacuum in which it takes place. Taking an individual component of a squad type's factors and trying to base any sort of conclusion on the whole, without taking the unit's entire capabilities into account, is sketchy at best, misleading (and agenda-driven) at worst.

Bottom line: the MARINES were in existence long before the paras were laying the groundwork of their reputation. The MARINE way of war and the Army way of war are/were completely different. If you can't discern that...:whist:[/QUOTE]

Harumph!

That indeed was what I was trying to say awhile back, but not as clearly.

NOTHING in ASL exists in a vacuum...you have to look at the whole package to see the interactions, THEN realize that National Characteristics (and sub-National in cases such as this) are STEREOTYPED.

They are also what provides some of the 'flavor' in the game...if you want homogeneous counters to represent, may I suggest 'Sniper' or 'Firepower' (both good games in their own right, but NOT ASL).

Also, I'll agree with the Jarheads that they're just a bit 'touched in the head' and 'psycho' enough to laugh in the face of the enemy & deserve the '8'...

So, what would you use for Jack Nicholson in 'A Few Good Men'??? A berserk 10-2 SMC??? ;-)

 

[Pitman]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]The most shocking thing about the paras v MARINE morale level debate is noone seems to notice the vacuum in which it takes place. Taking an individual component of a squad type's factors and trying to base any sort of conclusion on the whole, without taking the unit's entire capabilities into account, is sketchy at best, misleading (and agenda-driven) at worst.

Bottom line: the MARINES were in existence long before the paras were laying the groundwork of their reputation. The MARINE way of war and the Army way of war are/were completely different. If you can't discern that...:whist:[/QUOTE]

This is kind of a wistful, alternate reality version of the history of the Marines. The Marines certainly were in existence for a long time, in an embassy-staffing, boat-guarding, Nicaragua-hiking kind of way. They had no "Marine way of war." In terms of their modern characteristics, i.e., amphibious doctrine, this was a relatively recent development of the pre-war era.

 

[Gunner Scott]

This is kind of a wistful, alternate reality version of the history of the Marines. The Marines certainly were in existence for a long time, in an embassy-staffing, boat-guarding, Nicaragua-hiking kind of way. They had no "Marine way of war." In terms of their modern characteristics, i.e., amphibious doctrine, this was a relatively recent development of the pre-war era.

Mark, why not go through Marine Corps boot camp and actually find out for yourself what the training is like.


Its pretty damn brutal.


Scott

 

[Maedhros]

Well, the Confederacy only got the one shot. For some reason, the French keep getting chance after chance to go down (pun intended) in defeat. Also, there is a difference in fighting and being defeated, as opposed to just being defeated.

I seem to recall that Napoleon received at least passing marks in this regard...

 

[sswann]

This is kind of a wistful, alternate reality version of the history of the Marines. The Marines certainly were in existence for a long time, in an embassy-staffing, boat-guarding, Nicaragua-hiking kind of way. They had no "Marine way of war." In terms of their modern characteristics, i.e., amphibious doctrine, this was a relatively recent development of the pre-war era.

Mark

I like you and I enjoy your scenarios, BUT! You have just showed your complete ingorance on the Marine Corps. I was shocked that someone with your intellegence would actually say this above. I respectifully request that you take some 'real' history courses on the Marine Corps.

Semper Fi Marines!
Steve Swann

 

[Maedhros]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]The most shocking thing about the paras v MARINE morale level debate is noone seems to notice the vacuum in which it takes place. Taking an individual component of a squad type's factors and trying to base any sort of conclusion on the whole, without taking the unit's entire capabilities into account, is sketchy at best, misleading (and agenda-driven) at worst.

Bottom line: the MARINES were in existence long before the paras were laying the groundwork of their reputation. The MARINE way of war and the Army way of war are/were completely different. If you can't discern that...:whist:[/QUOTE]

From what I have read, the Marines faced much more savage combat conditions than did their Paratrooper counterparts. Not to denigrate the Paratroopers, but I don't think Normandy, Holland or Belgium (i.e. Bastogne) quite measure up to the horrors of Tarawa, Peleliu or Iwo Jima.

So I have no problem with the 8 ML for Marines. Were I to argue, I would make the claim that the Paras should have 8 ML as well.

The problem, IMO, is that the game was designed and calibrated for Russian v. German battles - 4-4-7s versus 4-6-7s (which is also why, IMHO, the Russian v German scenarios are the best). As the system was expanded to include the Americans, it started to "reach" a bit. American squad morale (6 unbroken/8 broken) is the ASL interpretation of the old Squad Leader "Americans-do-not-suffer-DM" characteristic, which was an attempt to address the vast psychological and doctrinal differences between the American soldier and his European counterparts. The current argument, like thousands that have preceeded it, follows from this early Squad Leader interpretation of the nature of the American soldier.

With the release of Code of Bushido and Gung Ho, the system was stretched almost to the breaking point by the addition of the Japanese - units which by and large operate according to their own rules. The oft-debated "problems" with the Marines in ASL are for the most part simply a response to the stress put on the system by the Japanese. Pete Shelling is, essentially, entirely correct in stating that the Marine ML is a play-balance factor. The Marines needed to be 7-6-8s in order to have a chance when swarming the beach at Tarawa, digging the Japanese out of cave complexes on Peleliu or assaulting Nishi Ridge on Iwo.

 

[Pitman]

Mark, why not go through Marine Corps boot camp and actually find out for yourself what the training is like.


Its pretty damn brutal.


Scott

How would going through Marine Corps boot camp in 2006 have the remotest thing to do with Marine Corps amphibious doctrine or training in the 1930s, or the morale of Marine units in the 1940s?

Hint, that's a rhetorical question, because the answer is "it wouldn't."