Love-Hate Relationship with ASL

[ericmwalters]

CAVEAT: I was one of the original playtesters for the ASL Rule Book. I also have nearly everything produced for the game by AH, MMP, Critical Hit, Heat of Battle, and a slew of other "third party" producers. I love this game...but I also hate this game. Here is the source of my schizophrenic reactions:

WHAT I LOVE:

The richness and detail of the tactical system--there is nothing else like it, nothing else that models the interaction of men, weapons, weather effects, and terrain. The tapestry is colorful and dense. You can spend hours just looking at it...who hasn't savored the Vehicle and Ordnance Notes for all the nationalities for hours at a stretch?

The variety of nationalities and settings--where else can you model Italians fighting Ethopians in Abyssinia at the tactical level? From Finns on skis slicing up slow-moving Soviet armored columns lumbering over muddy roads in deep snow to Marines debarking from landing craft and amphibious tractors to storm ashore against Japanese tropical island defenses to urban fights in Aachen and Stalingrad, the system can cover it all. All we're waiting for is the last module, ARMIES OF OBLIVION, which will give us Rumanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian ordnance and vehicles....

The tension of gameplay--the fog (Hidden Initial Unit Placement and Concealment, scouting, etc), the friction (perhaps the greatest aspect of ASL--if it can go wrong, it will go wrong, at the worst possible moment, and in ways you can't imagine), and the complexity of it all (with so many variables it is very difficult to calculate everything).

The scalability. There are scenarios involving platoons and companies on half-boards as well as massive regimental-sized actions on large recreations of actual terrain that take months to play (HASLs like KAMPFGRUPPE PIEPER and RED BARRICADES). Everything in between is covered. There are hundreds of scenarios, if not thousands, available....

The graphics. From the boards (which seem so realistic) to the well-designed counters (that pack A LOT of information into a small space) and to the play components (not a lot of charts...and most are on one double-sided card), it's impressive. The rulebook, as dense as it is, is very well illustrated and laid out.

The stories. Usually these revolve around the named leaders in the game and certain locations on the map. One identifies very quickly with both...and they have a psychological significance that cannot be readily explained to non-Role Playing Game players. Indeed, in other forums I describe ASL as a "comic book come to life as a wargame"--ASL is not a realistic portrayal of ground combat, but it is so gripping in drama, you have to keep with it.

The support for the game system and the players by the companies, the conventions, and the players themselves. It's fantastic.

WHAT I HATE:

The richness and detail means a huge rulebook that is--even with the ASL Starter Kit #1--relatively inaccessible without a coach. It's very hard to remember everything without constant play...and even then, things that should be done are forgotten or done incorrectly.

The expense. Not in terms of money--which is admittedly quite considerable--but in the time it takes to both learn and maintain skills needed to play the game well enough to enjoy it.

Debates on how to best store the huge amount of counters now available...I won't say anything more about this.

It's just so convincing that you forget it's so unrealistic. I'm a lifelong wargamer and a professional military officer--the game has very little in common with what ground combat involves, but the illusion is so compelling. Granted, some things that work in the real world can work in the game...but there's far more that works in the game that can't work in the real world. You have too much intelligence and too tight control--despite the high levels of friction the game portrays--for it to be otherwise.

And lastly...I'll never be able to play every scenario ever made for the game. Sigh.

What are your trials and tribulations with this game?

--emw

 

[freightshaker]

Yeah, it's really something else! The ordinance section makes for great bathroom reading. I was able to use the boards and some counters when giving NCOPD. The SGM was pretty impressed and after I found out he was a player himself.

"if it can go wrong, it will go wrong, at the worst possible moment, and in ways you can't imagine" ie. trying to scoot your only panther past a bazooka crew, losing it even when the crew was firing at a moving target at the limit of it's range.

The rulebook is daunting and I usually try to sit down once a year and read the whole thing (oofdah). The things you've forgot due to non-use can be surprising.

Think my favorite way to play is on a half board with an understrength company or a couple platoons per side. Makes for nice firefights and still allows some decent manuver room.

I store my counters in plastic storage cabinets, the kind they use for nuts and bolts. It works pretty good and is transportable. The maps for the campaign games I have mounted to card stock and stored in cardboard sleeves.

I've seen alot of "game tactics" also, like map edge creeps. Those will always be around because people play for different reasons.

Like you said, fantastic game system and it only seems to get better.

 

[Pete G]

The fine line between love and hate is an LOS string running five hexes across PTO terrain.

I've been at ASL for over a year now, although my SL pedigree dates back to 1980. Not surprisingly, it was a particularly engaging solitaire play of SL scenario #3 that finally pushed me over the edge -- and just in time, too. I think I purchased the last copy of the ASLRB in town.

Flash-forward about 18 months and now there are 15 Plano containers worth of admin counters and OBs on the shelf, lovingly organized per my own personal madness. Earlier this year, my regular opponent and I cracked the PTO rules and haven't looked back. ASL is a hell of a system in that it can cater to almost any jones I get for World War 2 tactical combat. There are days where want to push around PzII's and there are other times where I want to skulk some Japanese infantry through jungle terrain. ASL delivers it all.

The massive rules don't daunt me so much as I lean heavily on my SL foundation and play against some experienced opponents. In all, there's a certain awareness of the rules set at the table. We may not know the exact rule for a certain situation, but we are able to identify those cases where we should look something up ... such as when an AFV rolls between two buildings where at least one contains an infantry mmc.

I have to agree that the board-edge runs evoke a gamey feel, which is why I generally dislike scenarios that have exit conditions. Give me a scenario like "The Hedgehog" or "Ranger Stonghold" any day where I have to take some building objectives or simply winnow down the enemy force pool.

Many say that the mark of a true ASL'er is to play a Red Barricaides campaign, but I'll have to wait until my kids are in college before that status is bestowed upon me. In the meantime, the greatest satisfaction comes from scenarios that run around six turns and have a low counter density. Give me the chance to really move around on a single map and consider my options without a half-turn taking 45 minutes and I'm happy.

Despite the strikes against it, ASL is probably the best investment in time and money I've made in my gaming career. No doubt about it.

-Pete

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Thanks, Eric! You eloquently put into words what has been on my mind for years--both the love and the hate of it.

Well--except for one thing. I never did pore over the unit/vehicle/weapon data tables for the various nationalities. That's one part of the ASL rulebook I only glanced at. And the reason is, WWII has never been my favorite period. I got into SL/ASL *despite* the fact that it's a WWII game. I've never cared for mechanical or electronic gadgetry; I much prefer more primitive eras.

I also tackled SL (in January 1980) despite the fact that it was a complicated game. I'd had my fill of complicated games at that point, and I'd begun to prefer ultra-simple games like Westwall, Island War, and Napoleon at War. But thanks to "programmed instruction," I made myself play scenario 1: "The Guards Counterattack." At first I was expecting to quickly get fed up with the game; I planned to play the scenario through once or twice and then say to myself, "OK, it's a popular wargame because there are so many 'tank nuts' out there; but it's far more complicated than it's worth, and it's not for me."

But something was different about this game--different than the hundred-odd other wargames I'd played since 1968. I felt compelled to try the scenario again. In the middle of it, I sat back amazed and said to myself, "This is the most exciting wargame I've ever played!" I spent the rest of 1980 working my way eagerly through the twelve scenarios, then tackling Cross of Iron. I'd glance at other games in my closet, but no other game could hold a candle to SL.

But by 1982 or '83, I was in over my head. I barely struggled through Crescendo of Doom and played maybe one scenario of GI: Anvil of Victory--then gave up in despair.

In 1984, IIRC, Up Front was released, billed as "The Squad Leader Card Game." I had my doubts, but I bought it anyway. After the first couple games, I decided I'd been ripped off; it seemed like a poor excuse for a wargame. But I made myself play it one more time--and somehow something magical happened. Suddenly I got it--and it turned out this was another great game. Very different than SL, yet brilliant in its way. And since I was fed up with SL+extensions, I decided UF was the new way to go.

But the next year (IIRC), the ASL rulebook came out. I let it sit on the store shelf for months before I finally gave in. Then I bought it and Beyond Valor, and buckled down to tackle the magnificent beast once again.

The next five years or so, it was on-again, off-again. I think I admired ASL more than I really enjoyed it; and the BV scenarios did nothing to pique my interest. I was grateful for Paratrooper and the "programmed instruction" article in the ASL Annual, because it got me back to basics, taking ASL one bite at a time.

Still, I just didn't have as much time for wargaming as I did in my younger days. And if I let ASL sit on the shelf for a couple months, it was hell trying to refresh my memory when I pulled it down again. I could only take so much of that frustration.

Yet, I still found the game absolutely fascinating. Instead of giving up, I disciplined myself to leave a game set up all the time. I'd make a point of playing at least a turn or two every day, to keep it all fresh in my mind. And I'd carry the rulebook to work and on errands where I knew there might be some waiting time, so I could brush up on VBM and other esoteric rules at every opportunity.

But in 1994 or so, the bottom fell out of it all. I can still clearly remember the moment. I was hovering over an ASL scenario, doing the usual thing and having some fun, when all of a sudden the scales fell from my eyes. I said to myself, "Wait a minute; this isn't warfare--it's chess!" For years I had hoodwinked myself into believing that there was a "redeeming virtue" to ASL--that all the effort I was putting into it was worthwhile because I was learning so much about how WWII tactical battles really worked. Now, in that instant, I saw that ASL was really just "a comic book come to life"--and that objectively speaking, it's really just a very elaborate chess variant with dice. If real combat is at one end of a scale, and chess at the other, ASL falls *much* closer to the chess end of that scale.

So, why was I doting over this game? All of a sudden, I realized it was *just* a game after all--primarily entertainment, with just a smidgin of educational value. Sure, the entertainment value was high; it had been a wonderfully absorbing game for many years. But it wasn't worth all the work I'd been putting into it.

If the whole purpose was just to have fun, I was failing--because I'd been forcing myself to play every day, like it or not, just to keep the rules fresh in my mind. And I could only justify doing that as long as I believed the game was an educational model of WWII tactical combat.

From that point on, all the gaps & flaws in ASL started jumping out at me. Mainly the lack of command-control rules. No way could any battlefield commander micromanage his units like ASL players can! I even made up a command-control house rule to make the game tolerable for a while.

But in the end, I just gave it up. Realizing I'd never play it again, when we moved in 2000, I sold all my SL/ASL stuff. And I've never regretted it. If I had any of it today, it'd still just be gathering dust and reminding me of all the time I wasted.

Spectacular game design, but IMO not worth the effort one has to put into it. Not if it's mainly just entertainment.

 

[jguritza]

Back in the late 80’s I got into SL and really enjoyed it. When I saw the rule book for ASL I will admit I was extremely overwhelmed. To me it was always one of those games that I kept in the back of my head wondering if I should attempt to get involved.

I have watched countless games and talked to so many players but no one was able to really persuade me to get over that last hurdle and learn the game. I picked up the ASLSK#1 at Origins and I have not looked back. I have played through about half the scenarios played a few of them more than once to get a feel for the game.

I purchased the big rule book finally but I have not cracked it open yet. Time with work and life has forbidden me right now.