MASL (Macro ASL) - a new style of ASL Module

[Paul Chicoine]

I've developed over the past 20 years a new ASL system called MASL (Macro ASL) that can model almost any Regimental/Divisional level WWII operational level battle, that seamlessly maps MASL battles into ASL scenarios and then maps the results seamlessly back into the MASL system. I'm looking for folks who would like to work to bring this to the next step by producing VASSAL maps and counters. MASL builds on the existing ASL modules and is an alternative to HASL modules. Whereas in a HASL module the battle space consists of huge maps and campaign scenarios that can get very large. In contrast, MASL scopes each 1200 meter MASL hex down to 3 ASL boards square, which means you can fight over a much larger MASL area using your existing boards (or VASL boards). Each battle dynamically generates a unique ASL scenario, and as ASL combat losses are sustained in previous battles they are now reflected in the units new composition. This means that if you play ASL like a "game" and assume everything is expendable, the ASL losses will degrade the MASL units strength. Players have to play ASL differently, by achieving what they are trying to accomplish on the MASL board within the ASL scenario, while trying to minimize combat losses. In the end, you play more like a real commander making many of the same decisions and tradeoffs.

The MASL game is real, not hypothetical. I've already created several modules (by hand) over the years, "Battle of the Chir River", "Budapest", "Chercassy Pocket", Operation Market Garden - Nijmegen" and now "Advance to the Moselle". In order to play it as intended, I need some VASSAL maps generated for the modules I've already created and counters. Once available in VASSAL format on-line play testing could start.

Why did I bother designing this? First I wanted to create limited intelligence scenarios that their results had consequences. I wanted a system that allowed all aspects of the Chapter E rules (all of them), plus I wanted to add Air and Navy rules that went beyond Chapter E. I also wanted to model historic operations in par with the fine work that went into the HASL modules. Then I wanted to tie it all together with logistical aspects of command and control. What I finally ended up with is a combat system that stands on its own even without ASL, but when coupled with ASL is very exciting to play. If you haven't played a double-blind game, this is something totally different.

Another thing I wanted to model well were reconnaissance units. To often in games they are used to just 'factor up' battles or to screen. Not in MASL, they take their rightful place and perform the actions they were designed for, gaining intelligence and being the Divisions eyes on the ground. The same holds true to HQ units, in MASL they control everything, yet when included in a battle, they augment the scenario with extra high-quality leaders as well as a mix of weapons and radios. MASL battles tend to utilize a lot of artillery, so OBA is present in many scenarios, so life gets interesting really fast with multiple radios. As a defender, just try to hold three boards with only 12 squads against an enemy of unknown strength attacking from a uncertain direction, in a scenario that you can't tell is (4, 7 or 10 turns) until it ends. This is no cake walk. There is no scenario card to study to death. You have to think on your feet.

Hopefully we can move this to the next stage. VASSAL maps and counters are what is needed next, all the hard stuff has already been done. Thanks.

 

[takai]

That sounds really cool. Could you provide an AAR of a campaign to understand a bit better how this will actually work?

 

[ASRomafan]

That sounds so very interesting Paul, and quite the endeavor.

We are just starting to work on expanding a current HASL to 8 maps we have already started to look at ideas regarding design and using some of the elements you have talked of there. Mainly command and control at this early design stage, but some of the other things you have mentioned could be excellent ideas to work into a mega-HASL design.

We are still in the preliminary stages (still doing the actual maps first) but hearing of your work is very welcome news. There is quite a nice, if perhaps small, community of big game ASL players out there and will surely find what you do to be of great interest.

 

[Paul Chicoine]

I'm fairly new to the forum, so I'll have to see how files are posted. I do have some AAR that describe the MASL and ASL actions and the thought process I was using to conduct the battle. Let me see what I can do about this.

As for right-sizing battles to the system, the MASL system is based on Companies, HQ, Batteries, vehicle platoons and assets. Assets are small units directly owned by the HQ and can be assigned (stacked) with Companies and/or vehicle platoons. In MASL, almost any military formation fits into the ASL counter mix nicely, it just comes down to the number of counters. Therefore MASL modules based on a Regiment would be small, a single Division mid-sized, and more than one Division are large.

MASL scales maps by supporting several different styles of battle maps, (a) traditional hexagon maps, (b) area (zone) maps, (c) linked area maps {like KP Indian War}, or (d) linked maps with HASL type maps. This allows the MASL game to abstract the key battles over a huge area, like the retreat in Russia 1943, or focus like a laser on a specific area such as crossing the Moselle River. Built on the same concepts as ASL (but at a higher level) it is by design "a system" that can model anything. This means that modules can be created with interesting tactical challenges, such as an invasion of an island.

So a few things have to occur, like getting some help making maps and counters, and some education/marketing on my part so that the community knows more about it.

 

[mryder]

I like the idea also. I was under the impression that Kampfgruppen Commander (HoB) was going to be along these lines.

 

[dlazov]

So this is a new game system, not based on ASL at all then?

Sounds like it if you need new maps, and new counters. I don't see how a MMC fits into the grand scheme of things with regards to a regiment. I mean a typical battalion would be four companies worth of squads (or about 48x counters, just for the MMC, not including any SW or SMC), just a battalion would be almost impossible to play in ASL terms, let alone an entire regiment or the unthinkable a division (13-20k men, literally thousands of MMC, SW and SMC).

Say you have two German Infantry Regiments attacking one Soviet Rifle Regiment, that would be 8 German infantry battalions versus 3-4 Soviet Rifle battalions. How would one German player control and move at the minimum 384 MMC and how many geo boards would that take? 10, 20 30?

But if you dispense with ASL (all the 384 MMC to play this one scenario) and create new counters and new maps then I can see some new system, but my mind is boggled if you saying that your going to be playing an ASL scenario with 100, 200 or 500 MMC on 35 geoboards.

 

[Vinnie]

This system could work but you would need two parallel combat systems.

In an operational game, much of the maneuver is to create the local superiority to increase your chance of victory. You want your Panzer Regiment to carry out a focused strike on a single company position. This would not make for a very interesting scenario unless you enjoy one sided blasts with strenuous time/exit VCs ( a la In The Bag)
Every so often you will get a more balanced fight and these would be interesting to game out but played properly,these should be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[dlazov]

Well this may be a good idea but I don't know, not enough details to understand it all.

However, per Chas post here:

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?116172-Gentlemen-Start-Your-DiceCups-Winter-Offensive-2014&p=1654928&viewfull=1#post1654928

 

[footsteps]

So this is a new game system, not based on ASL at all then?

Sounds like it if you need new maps, and new counters. I don't see how a MMC fits into the grand scheme of things with regards to a regiment. I mean a typical battalion would be four companies worth of squads (or about 48x counters, just for the MMC, not including any SW or SMC), just a battalion would be almost impossible to play in ASL terms, let alone an entire regiment or the unthinkable a division (13-20k men, literally thousands of MMC, SW and SMC).

Say you have two German Infantry Regiments attacking one Soviet Rifle Regiment, that would be 8 German infantry battalions versus 3-4 Soviet Rifle battalions. How would one German player control and move at the minimum 384 MMC and how many geo boards would that take? 10, 20 30?

But if you dispense with ASL (all the 384 MMC to play this one scenario) and create new counters and new maps then I can see some new system, but my mind is boggled if you saying that your going to be playing an ASL scenario with 100, 200 or 500 MMC on 35 geoboards.

Here's my interpretation of what's being proposed up-thread (the OP can correct my errors):

At the Macro level, you have 2 German IRs attacking 1 Soviet RR. Traditionally, the combat system would do something like comparing the relative strengths of the units, perhaps with modifiers for terrain, then dice are rolled and/or tables consulted, result determined, and onward to the next macro event.

With MASL, the macro combat is first broken down into a series of ASL scenarios that encompass parts of the overall battle. This could be a set of 'simultaneous battles' that occur across the frontline, or a HASL-like series of combat over several days by the same units. The results of these ASL scenarios are then fed upward to the macro level to (help) determine the outcome of the overall encounter.

Using the 2 German vs 1 Soviet example, the macro level combat system would abstract this encounter into a German win (every time). But, by going down to the ASL level, things could go quite differently. Perhaps the Soviets play 'lights out' ASL; or the terrain turns out to be more difficult for the Germans than anticipated; or the German SMCs turn out to be 6+1s in disguise. Thus, a string of Soviet victories at the ASL level filter up to the Macro level and turn an abstracted German win into a frustrating bloody nose, requiring more macro resources to be expended to deal with an unexpected local result. Kind of like warfare.

So, that's my interpretation.

 

[mryder]

Here's my interpretation of what's being proposed up-thread (the OP can correct my errors):

At the Macro level, you have 2 German IRs attacking 1 Soviet RR. Traditionally, the combat system would do something like comparing the relative strengths of the units, perhaps with modifiers for terrain, then dice are rolled and/or tables consulted, result determined, and onward to the next macro event.

With MASL, the macro combat is first broken down into a series of ASL scenarios that encompass parts of the overall battle. This could be a set of 'simultaneous battles' that occur across the frontline, or a HASL-like series of combat over several days by the same units. The results of these ASL scenarios are then fed upward to the macro level to (help) determine the outcome of the overall encounter.

Using the 2 German vs 1 Soviet example, the macro level combat system would abstract this encounter into a German win (every time). But, by going down to the ASL level, things could go quite differently. Perhaps the Soviets play 'lights out' ASL; or the terrain turns out to be more difficult for the Germans than anticipated; or the German SMCs turn out to be 6+1s in disguise. Thus, a string of Soviet victories at the ASL level filter up to the Macro level and turn an abstracted German win into a frustrating bloody nose, requiring more macro resources to be expended to deal with an unexpected local result. Kind of like warfare.

So, that's my interpretation.

My interpretation as well.

 

[dlazov]

Interesting, thanks Footsteps and Mryder.

I'd still like to see how this is implemented and the details of like say an AAR.

 

[jbru362]

I'm intrigued. I do not have the time to work on maps and counters (although I have updated quite a few VASSAL maps to the v5 colorscheme if anyone wants to look at them), but I might be willing to help playtest after hearing more

 

[Paul Chicoine]

As the designer, perhaps I can shed some more light. First is that this isn't a hypothetical experiment, I've been playing this system with friends for the last 20 years, it just has never been manufactured for the public. It would be the next logical extension in ASL akin to how HASL modules followed the core modules.

In the example of an operation that pitted two German IRs against a single Russian IR, these formations would be represented as a hierarchy based on the Regiment HQ, the Battalion HQs and the associated Companies. Now as I had previous stated, MASL counters are (Companies, Batteries, HQ, vehicle platoons and assets). So the regiment and all subordinate battalions and any attached units would be represented by its true complement of MASL counters. If your still with me… the next thing MASL does is have a inventory for each MASL counter of its associated ASL counters. This allows all MASL counters to be uniquely composed of varying strengths. For example a specific Russian company may consist of (9) 4-4-7 and (3) 4-3-6 squads with 2 LMG and a MMG and two leaders an 8-1 and an 8-0. Each company could be different, some could start depleted as most units are never at 100% at T/O&E.

To follow along with the example, the Russian might have artillery attached and had been improving their positions. The Germans might have some tough terrain to deal with that creates natural choke points (swampy areas or massively wooded areas) or have to do a forced river crossing. The Russians could take advantage of their defenses and fend off the Germans with artillery both in the MASL game and during the resulting scenarios (with OBA). The Russian (team) could also consist of better ASL players and just win most of the scenarios. So what I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of variables and things don't usually have an obvious conclusion. MASL is a great game of unknowns and you learn about the enemy's disposition and intentions during play, as it should be.

I would recommend not jumping to conclusions as my guess is that you haven't seen a game like this yet, its out-of-the-box. MASL doesn't need ASL to play it, but I designed it specifically so I could play limited intelligence fog of war scenarios. The advantage for MMP, should they ever decide to publish any module, is that the game sells into two markets (a) gamers in general and (b) those that want to use it in conjunction with ASL. You can resolve the combats either (a) on the MASL CRT or (b) through ASL scenarios. Either way works. So if you want to play an incredibly fast combat system where units gracefully degrade, feel free to roll on the CRT. But if your looking for kick-a$$ scenarios then play it as intended with ASL.

Maybe it is best if you ask specific questions and I'll try to describe how the system works, and perhaps I can take the guesswork out of this.

 

[Paul Chicoine]

I'm intrigued. I do not have the time to work on maps and counters (although I have updated quite a few VASSAL maps to the v5 colorscheme if anyone wants to look at them), but I might be willing to help playtest after hearing more

We need maps, counters and a VASSAL MASL module before play testing. I've already had many rounds of play testing, what we need now is the ability to virtualize it and play it on a grander scale (lots of players in the same game) split into teams.

 

[Paul Chicoine]

I'm going to try to upload an AAR of the last play test. As for the implementation (rules) its best these be published after we already have the VASSAL module done. I have to make sure I fully understand the Copyright rules. I don't want 20+ years of work to be scammed. I suspect you understand.

 

[Paul Chicoine]

So this is a new game system, not based on ASL at all then?

Sounds like it if you need new maps, and new counters. I don't see how a MMC fits into the grand scheme of things with regards to a regiment. I mean a typical battalion would be four companies worth of squads (or about 48x counters, just for the MMC, not including any SW or SMC), just a battalion would be almost impossible to play in ASL terms, let alone an entire regiment or the unthinkable a division (13-20k men, literally thousands of MMC, SW and SMC).

Say you have two German Infantry Regiments attacking one Soviet Rifle Regiment, that would be 8 German infantry battalions versus 3-4 Soviet Rifle battalions. How would one German player control and move at the minimum 384 MMC and how many geo boards would that take? 10, 20 30?

But if you dispense with ASL (all the 384 MMC to play this one scenario) and create new counters and new maps then I can see some new system, but my mind is boggled if you saying that your going to be playing an ASL scenario with 100, 200 or 500 MMC on 35 geoboards.

MASL isn't HASL, so there are no 35 geo-board configurations. As I said earlier, MASL hexagon-based maps will always (always) result in a three map square. Always. A Battalion consisting of four companies and a HQ even at full T/O&E could be around 48-54 squads. In most MASL games, it is hard to combine that many units into a killer stack, and it can be easy to defeat an attack like that. MASL plays more like a saber fight than a slugfest of sledgehammers. The system is designed for tactical finesse, rather than just brute force.

 

[Paul Chicoine]

This system could work but you would need two parallel combat systems.

In an operational game, much of the maneuver is to create the local superiority to increase your chance of victory. You want your Panzer Regiment to carry out a focused strike on a single company position. This would not make for a very interesting scenario unless you enjoy one sided blasts with strenuous time/exit VCs ( a la In The Bag)
Every so often you will get a more balanced fight and these would be interesting to game out but played properly,these should be the exception rather than the rule.

Your are correct, MASL has two systems. First is the MASL game (module) which has its own map and counters. Second is ASL which is used to resolve the battles through scenarios. Remember your trying to win the MASL game, winning at ASL just helps you get there. But the interesting thing in the resulting ASL scenarios is that there are NO VICTORY CONDITIONS! You do what your MASL commander has instructed you to do to the best of your ability, just like in real life. Battles aren't fair, and what's important to your commander, may be irrelevant to the enemy commander. MASL is a multiplayer game with players playing at both levels, theoretically there are many more subordinate ASL players to resolve the scenarios (just like in real life). The commanders would need to publish to their team the status of the MASL game. But we're getting way ahead of ourself...

 

[Chaim628]

Sounds interesting. We did something similar using OCS games to generate SASL missions for our GSASL campaigns. This one was DAK covering the 1941 Campaign in North Africa.
Afrika

 

[Paul Chicoine]

Sounds interesting. We did something similar using OCS games to generate SASL missions for our GSASL campaigns. This one was DAK covering the 1941 Campaign in North Africa.
Afrika

In a way that is how I started (back in the 80's) by using other games. The problem that I had run into was that they didn't map perfectly with ASL because the scale wasn't right either in the size of the hex or the right mix of counters. My next attempt was extending the Chapter-E DYO section by having pre-built units so you didn't need to spend the time buying them and making a mapped campaign. In essence this is close to the way HASL modules work but with a historical map and OOB. This was OK, but lacked what I knew could be achieved, hence I started on the true historical MASL modules. This allowed me to get the MASL map to ASL map scale to be 1:1, and it allowed the unit composition to be sized appropriately so that it didn't generate monster scenarios. Like the SCS and OCS system the rules are divided into the MASL Rulebook and the MASL Game Module Rulebook, where the module rules take precedence over the main MASL rules.

Now all we need is a level of excitement to VASSALize it and folks willing to contribute their time and energy to make this happen. Then we could be playing it, and MMP could have a whole new addition to the ASL product suite. The idea of playing a multiplayer double-blind historical campaign where the unit strengths gracefully track the ASL scenarios brings out the very best in ASL capabilities. The game is so much fun to play because of the (good) anxiety it introduces through limited intelligence. Good MASL players can just dance on an enemy that hasn't performed proper reconnaissance, or is not focused on a winning strategy.

I need map makers and counter makers to bring this to the next step. Step forward and answer the call!

 

[Sully]

Now all we need is a level of excitement to VASSALize it and folks willing to contribute their time and energy to make this happen.

This sounds like a great idea but I think you're getting ahead of yourself. The first question I have is... do you want to make money selling it? If so you're going to have to find MMP or other 3rd party game producer to sponsor it. Until you do that you will struggle to find people to help you out.


If this is a "labor of love" without commercial ambition I think you will need to amp up the level of transparency before people will be interested. Suggesting play-testing and VASSAL-ization is premature 'cause no one here understands it well enough to even know if they're interested. I don't anyway. Assuming the concepts are sound the project will sink or swim on the quality of the rules. I'd recommending publishing the rulebook if you're serious about getting others involved.