Hatten In Flames available for pre-order

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,782
Reaction score
5,806
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
What could be interesting, would be a feedback about Platoon Leader as a generic CG rules system: does it work well, better than CG rules inspired by RB with some adaptations?
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,542
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
What could be interesting, would be a feedback about Platoon Leader as a generic CG rules system: does it work well, better than CG rules inspired by RB with some adaptations?
Well, it went through several versions; the backwards compatibility of each version is up for debate. If I want to play a v1 CG, is it OK to use the v3 rules? I don't know the answer, but I do know that they changed a lot of the terminology between versions, so there's the potential for confusion, I guess.

I think there's a "scaling" problem, in that the rules about, e.g., leader generation between scenarios, are not tied to the size of the particular CG. I remember back in the days of the ASLML about complaints with relatively small forces generating vast numbers of new leaders over the course of the CG. That might have been fixed in later versions?

The last version that I looked at in any depth was "v2.5a", which still had many vague areas and unresolved issues (and included a patently ridiculous "we don't understand bocage so here's how we think those rules should work" blanket SSR!). I think v3 was the last version released, but since CH didn't make it available for download I never looked at it. (Note that there was next-to-no "official errata" for the older versions; you just had to get the most recent version and hope that it fixed whatever the previous problems were.) Maybe that version solved all of the previous problems, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the PL concept, but CH were never the company to "crack" it and make it work, and after a certain point they stopped even trying. I wouldn't tell anyone to not play one of the PL CGs, if the subject matter looks interesting to them, but I would say that you and your opponent need to have a thorough discussion first and reach agreements beforehand. I wouldn't recommend that anyone attempt to design a new CG based on those rules.
 

Jeffrey D Myers

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
965
Reaction score
395
Location
ABQ, NM, USA
Country
llUnited States
I think there's a "scaling" problem, in that the rules about, e.g., leader generation between scenarios, are not tied to the size of the particular CG. I remember back in the days of the ASLML about complaints with relatively small forces generating vast numbers of new leaders over the course of the CG. That might have been fixed in later versions?
I've played a number of the PL 1.0 CGs solo with the newer rules, and did not encounter any particular problems. I don't recall noting the excess leader problem, but then I am a relative newbie compared to many here....
 

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
1,551
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I have played with PL 3.0. Jon and I did a Berlin thing for a bit. I also played a few other CG with them.

Here is the rub.

It's CH.

They are not polished.

It takes two determined ASL aficionados that know the normal rules quite well, really want to play on the HASL maps provided for that campaign and two fellows (cause there really is not many if any woman folk that play this thing) that really want to get a feel for the CG portrayed and that know each other well enough that if anything is unclear, murky or not well composed that they can figure things out on their own.

As most know CH has a few quality issues, so you have to take things with a grain of salt, make some logical sensible conclusions, determinations and agreements.

I know from personal experience that play testers can be found for 'normal' things like the zillion tourney sized to mid sized scenarios. In the CG world its a whole nother world that is very hard to find play testers for. In the groups I have been in we have done some CG play testing for BFP mostly for PTO stuff. But it takes a lot of effort. At ASLOK (the one year I went) Brian M. and I playtested his Narawa CG, I don't think we got through more than two CG scenarios. It was a monster. That was just one Saterday.

So PL 3.0 is just slightly different (not by much, mostly presentation and some rearrangement but the proofing sucked cause later on in the 3.0 rules it references 2.5, lol) than 2.5.

So look at PL as a kit that two fellows have to work at or build together to get it to work.

IMHO
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
998
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Random +1 for Hatten. Two out of two scenarios so far have been highly enjoyable. Scope, presentation, and playability have all been delivered. Most like Hatten in the future, I hope.
 

Hutch

Curator of the ASL Armory
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
2,027
Location
FL
First name
Hutch
Country
llUnited States
What's the Armor Factor on those Big Red Cylinders?

Red Barricades!
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,782
Reaction score
5,806
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
HF1 T2 US RPh
Low visibility and WP helped US move towards the first buildings.
K11 VC building was taken by two US squads HtH, killing the German 548 and its leader - but Sgt Reynolds was wounded in the process.
As the American mortars haven't depleted their WP, Germans pulled out from G11 and E11 - in the latter case, breaking under DFPh firing US squad...HF1 T2 US RPh.jpg
 

newege

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
31
Reaction score
33
Location
MAGA: Make ASL Great Again
Country
llUnited States
At some point, I would like to see a "standard" set of CG rules, possibly in a future edition of the rules. That would make it possible to cut on the length of any HASL rules; instead of explaining the whole concept of the "RePh" again and again, they'd just concentrate on anything specific to the HASL at hand. It would even make it easier on the reader to spot the differences with the previous one (not to mention make TPP's life easier).
Not official but the Lone Canuck Publishing CG rules are pretty well baked certainly less issues to work through than CH versions.
 
Top