okay thanks for responding.
1. I disagree quite stroingly with lumping ATGMs into a single category; the differences between 1st gen weapons such as Sagger, 2nd gen such as Swingfire, HOT and TOW, and third gen Fire and Forget targeting vis a vis the relative vulnerability of the operator to defensive fire, target defensive reaction and the flight times is pronounced. I do not see how using the current SOP you can show those significant differences easily if at all.
2. ASL armour ratings are based on relative thickness in cms for homogenous armour. Given that the various types of armour have different effectiveness vs not HEAT but sub-calibre penetrators, HESH type rounds, it's a little much to think that a single AF rating will be able to offer a meaningful differentiation against the various types of rounds to a degree where the feel of modern advances in ammunition types is a given. as an example, the French 105mm smoothbore as used in the AMX-30 used a Fin stabilised HEAT round that was far more effective against
all types of armour than its APDS round was at similar ranges (and a subsequent APFSDS had to be developped) yet I'm not sure that this could be modelled at all using already established.
- the available effective ranged firepower of a modern 4 man fire team is far superior to that of any 8-12 man WW2 section/squad
- I cannot parse the opening sentence in relation to command and control as those are force multipliers and support assets.
6. I thought you might go with just increasing the FP - but the empty battlefield also entails a much reduced effective lethality - the IFT is a brute force solution, the higher the column, the easier it is to mission kill - increasing the FP doesn't change that it just exacerbates the effectiveness of any shot regardless of cover. I think an emphasis on suppressive fire results is far more important than mission kill KIA results and the frequency of such should increase comparatively. Especially if you intend to model low intensity conflicts.
There are enough high intensity conflicts- albeit of shortish duration - within the last 35-40 years alone (ie since the Falklands) to require consideration of this level of detail - ASL is a detail oriented game, that is a large part of its attraction and also one of its flaws.
Cold War Gone Hot hypothetical conventional conflict has always been a huge selling point subject wise - in the 70s and 80s we had SPI's Central Front, GDW's Assault and Third World War series, the 90s in miniatures was very strong with Command Decision (GDW), Challenger (TTG) and WRG's 1950-1985 and 1950-2000 rules sets, and now in miniatures the popularity of FOW's team yankee rules is at a high point.
The thing is, many of those miniatures rules sets are set at the same level as ASL in terms of company level plus supporting assets and they have significant systemic differences from their WW2 brethren rules sets because those systemic changes are required in order to more effectively model and resonate with the changes in modern warfare at the tactical level.
At the level of ASL, what we now call low intensity conflicts are very much high intensity tactical situations.
anyway we're obviously coming from a different understanding of what modern tactical warfare entails and involves so I'll cede the floor