First day of Decision at Elst

[daveramsey]

So, on Friday I got to play the first day of Decision at Elst. We played "full rules" (there are other posts summarising the essentials, but basically, SANs of 2/3 and the steeple is a level 4 location, all other buildings are ground level).

First things first, if you didn't know this was a starter kit product you'd never tell, either from counter density (which was medium) or decision making in tactical challenges.

The Germans have to defend a very wide stretch of board with just 13 squads and 2 panthers. The British come on with 22 squads, 5 Sherman Vs and a firefly. The terrain offers some good approaches for not taking too many open ground losses, but it's also slow going for the tanks who have to be careful of the boggy ground due to the polder hexes.

The post isn't so much to say how well or badly I did (British inflicted about 50% casualties losing 3 Shermans and the Firefly along with 3 squads, pushing up to about the centre of the map by scenario 2) but more to say how enjoyable and viable the campaign is for "seasoned" players.

There'll be better reviews/AARs of this I'm sure, but don't discount the campaign because of its Starter Kit stigma, if that does exist. The length is about 5 hours per scenario, and you'll probably play for 5 scenarios if it goes the distance (there's a chance of a 6th if the German buys an attack chit on the same day the Brits go idle).

I was impressed by the map, the scale - you could certainly play it over the course of a weekend if you were dedicated enough, and there were plenty of tricky choices to make for both sides up through to the start of the second day - which is where we called it due to time.

I haven't seen very much chatter about it - is any one else playing it?

 

[Delirium]

Not the CG, but I'm playing a scenario (Bend in the Road) using the SK rules only as my opponent is learning with a view to moving up to full ASL.

Enjoying it - I like the polder rules which are simple yet add an extra level of decision making. Also, it's a classic AFV battle - Shermans, including the odd Firefly, vs Panthers.

Looking forward to trying the CG.

 

[Honza]

Really pleased to hear that the CG plays well - at least for the first scenario. Perhaps it will become an ASL lite CG for seasoned players?

 

[Gunner Scott]

Designed a Jap vs Russian 1945 scenario on the Elst Map.


Scott

Really pleased to hear that the CG plays well - at least for the first scenario. Perhaps it will become an ASL lite CG for seasoned players?

 

[Honza]

Designed a Jap vs Russian 1945 scenario on the Elst Map.

Scott

Is it available for us rabble?

 

[JOKippe]

I was looking at DaE last week, and trying to decide if it was worth acquiring. I'd only want to play with the full rules, and I wasn't at all sure how well the game would hold up when played that way. Keep us up-to-date on how the CG goes with the full rules, I'm interested!

 

[daveramsey]

At this point I'm of the opinion that the game is indistinguishable from full asl when you add snipers, concealment and bypass. If you avoid it because of the starter kit tag you're missing out on a very viable campaign experience.

I doubt we'll continue the campaign as we played out the first day through to refit and purchases to see how it would start to shape up, but I'd be keen to restart it again and play it to completion.

 

[GeorgeBates]

the steeple is a level 4 location, all other buildings are ground level

Why should the steeple be L4, and not L2? The counter is yellow, after all. And why mandate other buildings as single story only? Was that your judgment call, or did other sources influence that determination?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Why should the steeple be L4, and not L2? The counter is yellow, after all. And why mandate other buildings as single story only? Was that your judgment call, or did other sources influence that determination?

The "all other buildings are ground-level only" was a suggestion from Perry (in another thread) I believe.

I'd play the Steeple as Level 3 (or maybe 4) - since it did provide a good LOS.

 

[Srynerson]

The "all other buildings are ground-level only" was a suggestion from Perry (in another thread) I believe.

I'd play the Steeple as Level 3 (or maybe 4) - since it did provide a good LOS.

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?109087-Decision-at-Elst-HSKASL-update&p=1683347&viewfull=1#post1683347

Level 4 sounds about right. I might consider keeping all the other buildings single-story.

 

[daveramsey]

The steeple being level 4 helps with the sight over all the orchards.

We didn't really consider the other levels of that building. With all the extra levels it might make the defence of it easier but it really was a small consideration, there's enough going on to worry about that at a later point.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Level 4 is a very tall structure. There are not many of them in ASL. I'm coming up empty on the exact height of St. Martin's Church, but my estimate from the photos I see it can't be much more than 50m/160ft, or 10 - 11 storeys tall. Not sure that qualifies for level 4 given the height of other level 3 buildings in other campaigns.

Looking at contemporary photos of Elst and its environs it's clear there are plenty of two- and three-storey buildings which would qualify as having a 1st level and being at least 1.5 level obstacles.

Of course, it's possible to argue that ASL abstraction makes structural and natural heights differ in relation to each other on different maps. One country's building storey could be shorter than others; a common tree in a certain area could be taller than other species. Don't intend to make an issue of it, but I do try to find consistency wherever I can in this game... Silly me? :clown:

 

[Srynerson]

Level 4 is a very tall structure. There are not many of them in ASL. I'm coming up empty on the exact height of St. Martin's Church, but my estimate from the photos I see it can't be much more than 50m/160ft, or 10 - 11 storeys tall. Not sure that qualifies for level 4 given the height of other level 3 buildings in other campaigns.

Looking at contemporary photos of Elst and its environs it's clear there are plenty of two- and three-storey buildings which would qualify as having a 1st level and being at least 1.5 level obstacles.

Of course, it's possible to argue that ASL abstraction makes structural and natural heights differ in relation to each other on different maps. One country's building storey could be shorter than others; a common tree in a certain area could be taller than other species. Don't intend to make an issue of it, but I do try to find consistency wherever I can in this game... Silly me? :clown:

Levels in ASL have to be relative, not absolute; otherwise urban combat makes no sense in the game. If this particular church is substantially taller than everything around it, it deserves the level 4 designation.

 

[von Marwitz]

Levels in ASL have to be relative, not absolute; otherwise urban combat makes no sense in the game. If this particular church is substantially taller than everything around it, it deserves the level 4 designation.

While I agree to the relativity you propose, any level 4 structure is rather exceptional if not singular if not accompanied by other terrain with comparable height on such a large map as Elst. Thus, I think level 3 would be more appropriate.

von Marwitz

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Whilst, by any ASL standard, level 4 is excessive, it does mean the effect of the ASLSK DaE 1.1 rules with their simplified 'overlook' LOS get turned into their ASL equivalents with the same effect (IE only 1 'dead' hex maximum behind a building) with least room for disputing. There might be some problems with extra 'dead' hexes at the margins of the map in ASL but with a 3 level advantage over everything these really won't matter much.

I feel that it is nothing to do with physical reality per se but designed to correlate the DaE 1.1 rule with ASL. While I have not been to Elst, I assume that the designers decided that the church was such a dominant terrain feature that the simplified DaE 1.1 was a sufficiently good match to reality. Thus when playing with ASL the same tactical considerations should apply, thus the "Eye of Sauron" in ASL rules terms.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

... While I have not been to Elst, I assume that the designers decided that the church was such a dominant terrain feature that the simplified DaE 1.1 was a sufficiently good match to reality....

I think it was a pretty dominant building, but my guess is that the rule is also written the way it is for simplicity - i.e., to avoid introducing the concept of "blind hexes" increasing/descreasing due to distance - but this is just me speculating.

 

[FargoGamer]

Finally picked up a copy from Infinity games. I've been re-reading the Expansion pack SK rules in anticipation, and yes there's still allot of flexibility in the SK rules to make for an enjoyable tactical game. I had a blast learning the rules on SK a few years ago. I understand most of the reasons MMP stripped out Bypas, Concealment ect, but I do miss Snipers in SK and considering how simple the sniper rules are it seems odd not to include them.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

... I understand most of the reasons MMP stripped out Bypas, Concealment ect, but I do miss Snipers in SK and considering how simple the sniper rules are it seems odd not to include them.

I guess they had to draw the line somewhere - but adding in the Sniper rules (and assigning SAN) from ASL should be easy enough. I remember when I still played SL/COI/COD/G.I. I added in the ASL Sniper rules.

 

[Justiciar]

.... I remember when I still played SL/COI/COD/G.I. I added in the ASL Sniper rules.

This back in the day when Klas was a heretic, believe it or not, and before he became a keeper of the orthodoxy. Now he sits just behind the throne of the Grand Inquisitor himself.

IIFT anyone?

 

[trevpr1]

Designed a Jap vs Russian 1945 scenario on the Elst Map.


Scott

How many Tiger tanks?