More from Wild Bill

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,056
Reaction score
914
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
:D

If that were true there weren't be enough hours in the day for my productivity. Then again, there wouldn't be any talent to meet the demands, so it would be disappointment all around.

Come to think of it, I'm surprised you didn't jump into the thread after the first reference to your scenarios. When did you stop searching the forum for your screen-name? :p
I noticed it and it led me to tighten up some of my scenarios. I didn't like the look of some of them. Didn't change anything in the OOBs, just the look of each page. :thumup:
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,595
Reaction score
1,031
Country
llLithuania
Me, I just have no interest in ASL for Nam, Korea, Golan Heights, Iraq, etc...can't really explain beyond the fact that the idea just doesn't grab me. Particularly when I still have so much current ASL I want to play.
I would agree with all that, with the exception of Korea. Korea was essentially fought with tactics and weapons that were developed during and using the lessons of WWII. Indeed, many of the same commanders were in leadership roles. As a playtester for the Korea module, the Chinese nationality characteristics make it a different breed of ASL, much like the Japanese did. Still ASL, but with a distinctly different flavor. I look forward to the MMP release.

A similar case could be made for Indo-China '54 and Sinai '56. Indo-China would be a better product, being more of an infantry war. Sinai....<shrug>, I dunno.

Anything later than that and weapons/tactics are changing way too much to represent within an ASL framework without changing that framework to the point were it wasn't ASL any longer.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
391
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Still, ASL could be the 'engine' in a similar way computer games bolt onto 'mother' game engines. There are alot of good concepts in the way ASL presents tactical combat (and a few things that could be added or modified, admittedly) and it could be a seed for a newer era of presentation.
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
6,328
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
I personally think that Korea and the Middle East circa 1956 would work for ASL as a module, but once you hit Vietman or the early 1962/64 India/Pakistan wars then ASL will fall apart. Think helo's SAM, TOW and other things.

I think that is why Avalon Hill created Firepower and MBT back in the day.
The only thing that can't be done is the thing you convince yourself can't be...

Certainly, ASL could provide the framework for modern combat, but changes to the IFT, TH/TK charts and the introduction of newer weapon systems would need be folded into the system. Likewise, some sections of ASL may need to be revamped/excised appropriate for the era, but to say it can't be done?....:(
The trick, I think, to making ASL work in later conflicts is to design the components for the combatants relative to each other, not relative to WW2 combatants. That would mean that you couldn't create a "what if" scenario pitting a King Tiger vs M1 Abrams, as the values for each would not be compatible with each other. Same goes for infantry units: Vietnam-era Marines would be valued vs Viet Cong etc, not vs WW2 Japanese, etc etc etc.

Alan
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
391
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
The trick, I think, to making ASL work in later conflicts is to design the components for the combatants relative to each other, not relative to WW2 combatants. That would mean that you couldn't create a "what if" scenario pitting a King Tiger vs M1 Abrams, as the values for each would not be compatible with each other. Same goes for infantry units: Vietnam-era Marines would be valued vs Viet Cong etc, not vs WW2 Japanese, etc etc etc.

Alan
Precisely. The framework isn't invalid, but the relative values would be.
 

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,545
Reaction score
870
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
To one extent that is true, but in the 1956 and 1967 Middle East battles there were up gunned Shermans and still T-34 and some Pz IV in some of the Arab armies fighting with Pattons and T-62 and T-55.

Then throw in the saggers and tows and then things change quite a bit (3-4 range missiles with high TH and TK numbers).
 

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,545
Reaction score
870
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
In my experience and opinion mind you, ASL works great for 1935-1956 combat, not so much (in its present form) for 1910-1918 or 1960-2000.

I can't think of any series that does a good job of 1900-1919 combat (a few board games have come out such as SPI Soldiers and DG Blood on the Marne) and there have been several modern board games but no real good series (I have not tried the Lock n Load series but it looks like a lot of eye candy).

For me the best PC modern combat game is WinSPMBT from SP CAMO.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,595
Reaction score
1,031
Country
llLithuania
Precisely. The framework isn't invalid, but the relative values would be.
Maybe, but I am skeptical as to just how ASL-like it would need to be. Possibly my problem is one of semantics?

Hellicopters, IR sensors, modern ranging equipment could all be modeled in a very ASL-like system through moderate modifications to the aircraft, NVR, and ordnance TH structure of ASL.

I think something that would need to be re-visited is the whole concept (granted the most ephemeral and hazy abstraction of the system) of 3 minute turns. All of a sudden, the flight time of an appreciable portion of the available weapons suite starts to expand to take up a bigger and bigger chunk of the theoretical turn length.
 
Last edited:

footsteps

Just visiting
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
6,328
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
Whoever eBay user x**2 is must really, really want Wild Bill's stuff.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
ASL can be extended to deal with modern weapon systems and vehicles.

I'm in complete agreement that it's just a case of the relative numbers you want to have in play. If you can get reasonable data for armor thickness/composition and armor penetration capabilities, working out odds isn't all that hard.

I've suggested before that helicopters should behave like trucks, spending movement points as a truck, restricted from hex entry as a truck etc. With the understanding that they can climb levels and get to "above terrain" where they could go full throttle and behave as if they were on a road. Balancing the MP values would be the trick, while allowing cautious movement close to the ground, and fast movement when there is less risk from running into things. Give them damage points like other aircraft (or LC), and add some rules allowing a TC to simulate autorotation in the event the damage points are lost.

SAMs can be modeled as SW/Guns, or as a variant to OBA type activity. The tactical combatants (i.e. on the board) might have a SAM umbrella from off board, as well as a ZSU or other gun-track and/or man-pack/vehicle SAM tubes on the map. Classify as light or heavy AA, and run with the original rules for those effects. Fast moving targets might get designated as small targets, instead of adding new rules. The effect is still that they are harder to hit, just for different reasons.

WGM can be modeled in ASL scale as any other SW/Gun/Vehicle-armament. With the two minute time frame, most missiles will have run their course during a turn. (TOW Wikipedia article says 20 seconds to reach max range.) If you wanted some reaction possible, then fire in prep, followed by the terminal phase at the end of advancing fire (with the shooter stationary and surviving d-fire of course). Defender fired WGM might shoot in d-fire (MPh/DFPh) and resolve after all Attacker WGM have resolved at the end of AFPh. Gives both sides a chance to deal with the incoming missiles before they hit. As opposed to "hah hah, I blew up your tank from 30 hexes away with a TH=8, and there's nothing you can do about it!"

Or make them one shot resolve type affairs like current guns/LATW. Factor in the "response" to the WGM launch with a minimum of rules. Extra MP expended reduces the TH number (vehicle maneuvers to avoid missile), or based on range (more reaction time) the TH number goes down; or both...

Increased effectiveness in weapons might mean you need a "modern TK" chart, and "modern armor values", but think of all the third world countries still using tanks with WW2 era technologies. You might have to come up with a set of conversion factors, or just extend the numbers to reflect current lethality and protection. A modern sabot round will go in one side and out the other on most steel only WW2 tanks. (Worst part is that this needs a bunch of research time with various reference manuals, easier to stick to infantry only if possible.)

For squads, if the new paradigm really is "firepower", perhaps most standard first line squads get 6 FP instead of 4. True fire-breathing-lead-slinger type units (for whatever reason, say under-rifle GL) get 8 out of the box. If the nationalities tactical doctrine favors movement during a firefight, you get assault fire. With (semi-)automatic weapons becoming standard at the squad level, spraying fire may be a default for all modern units, or may be a nationality distinction based on training/doctrine.

If the lowest maneuver element is a fire team by doctrine, then you get self-deploy/recombine capability. (Which might also need adjustments to the Smoke being NA for HS rule... but maybe that's chrome.)

LAW/RPG can be an inherent SW like MOL/PF, or take counter form if necessary. AGL should be SW/MA class items, with HE/(HEAT?) and possibly AP/SMOKE type munitions available to them. Deciding on ROF and ammo would be the sticking points. (Again more research.)

Want to model SMOKE from GL inherent to the squad, then that class/nationality doesn't pay the extra MF to place Smoke Adjacent. (But this is seeming like a chrome rule to me.)

Etc. etc. etc.

Design for effect!
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,188
Reaction score
970
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I won't throw my two cents in again on the adaptability of ASL to modern eras other than to say I agree with Peter and Don all the others who think it can be done. Ken Katz had a good recent post on the subject. For anyone curious, I'll direct those interested to the Tags where ASL: Alternate Eras will take you to past discussions - though there is nothing wrong with this one, either.

As an aside to Peter, don't you hate it when you misplace a perfectly good blog posting by putting it onto the forum instead? :) I enjoyed reading that.

That said, I also understand the objections of the purists who would like to see the system remain dedicated to the Second World War. There isn't a compelling reason from where I stand on why it should be, as far as game mechanics and real world modelling, and Kenneth and Peter and others have presented some good posts on why that is, but from a purely instinctual level, I can see where they are coming from as well.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
86
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
As an aside to Peter, don't you hate it when you misplace a perfectly good blog posting by putting it onto the forum instead? :) I enjoyed reading that.
Thanks, it would make a good blog post, perhaps I shall cut and paste...

I was thinking towards the end of the massive missive, that perhaps it was a bit overboard, but I didn't want to pull anything because there are so many places to put "design for effect" into practice.
 

Faded 8-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
281
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I won't throw my two cents in again on the adaptability of ASL to modern eras other than to say I agree with Peter and Don all the others who think it can be done. Ken Katz had a good recent post on the subject. For anyone curious, I'll direct those interested to the Tags where ASL: Alternate Eras will take you to past discussions - though there is nothing wrong with this one, either.

As an aside to Peter, don't you hate it when you misplace a perfectly good blog posting by putting it onto the forum instead? :) I enjoyed reading that.

That said, I also understand the objections of the purists who would like to see the system remain dedicated to the Second World War. There isn't a compelling reason from where I stand on why it should be, as far as game mechanics and real world modelling, and Kenneth and Peter and others have presented some good posts on why that is, but from a purely instinctual level, I can see where they are coming from as well.
I also agree that it could be done. No reason why not. But I'm not sure it would be too marketable.

1. Modern games typically tank. They are just unpopular for some reason.

2. ASL is already a niche hobby. We are talking about a niche within a niche. An unpopular niche within a niche.

Not a recipe for a successful game (sales-wise).
 

Faded 8-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
281
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
A dozen or so years ago, I got ahold of an amateur Modern ASL thingy. I don't remember too much about it but I believe it was photocopied material including rules and counters for Vietnam-era ASL. It was experimental, not really a completed system. It was just called Modern ASL, or MASL.

Anyone else have that or remember where it came from? I think I got it at convention, but maybe it came with an issue of ASLUG or something (Fort?).
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
660
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
A dozen or so years ago, I got ahold of an amateur Modern ASL thingy. I don't remember too much about it but I believe it was photocopied material including rules and counters for Vietnam-era ASL. It was experimental, not really a completed system. It was just called Modern ASL, or MASL.

Anyone else have that or remember where it came from? I think I got it at convention, but maybe it came with an issue of ASLUG or something (Fort?).
It one scenario and a map. the scenario is "Grounding Noriega" MASL 1. It has a photocopies map with the airstrip. All the rules you need are included in the SSR's for the scenarios. The SF pieces were supposed to be mounted by the customer. I can't remember who put it out, you're right ASLUG might have been involved.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,595
Reaction score
1,031
Country
llLithuania
A dozen or so years ago, I got ahold of an amateur Modern ASL thingy. I don't remember too much about it but I believe it was photocopied material including rules and counters for Vietnam-era ASL. It was experimental, not really a completed system. It was just called Modern ASL, or MASL.

Anyone else have that or remember where it came from? I think I got it at convention, but maybe it came with an issue of ASLUG or something (Fort?).
There was a Yahoo Group (I think?) that I got involved with briefly through Steve Swann 3-4 (?) years back. As I recall there were general rules and a set of theater specific rules for The Falklands, and one other theater of operations that eludes me right at the moment. From what I saw, it looked like the rules were at a 2nd or 3rd pass level and seemed to have been thought out well. I wasn't involved for long, but the rules and few scenarios that I saw seemed to be focused on infantry actions, which is not surprising, ASL being a better infantry game than it is an armored game. My impression was there was a lack of critical mass?

There is a nominally active Viet Nam ASL Yahoo group. Last activity was someone knocking the wall to see if there was any activity in June of '07. Dec '06 was the last activity before that and the conversation seemed to revolve around using miniatures?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,188
Reaction score
970
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
There was a Yahoo Group (I think?) that I got involved with briefly through Steve Swann 3-4 (?) years back. As I recall there were general rules and a set of theater specific rules for The Falklands, and one other theater of operations that eludes me right at the moment. From what I saw, it looked like the rules were at a 2nd or 3rd pass level and seemed to have been thought out well. I wasn't involved for long, but the rules and few scenarios that I saw seemed to be focused on infantry actions, which is not surprising, ASL being a better infantry game than it is an armored game. My impression was there was a lack of critical mass?

There is a nominally active Viet Nam ASL Yahoo group. Last activity was someone knocking the wall to see if there was any activity in June of '07. Dec '06 was the last activity before that and the conversation seemed to revolve around using miniatures?
MASL is still going strong and encompasses Falklands, Vietnam, Third World War, etc. Yes, it is a Yahoo group.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MASL/

This group discusses and develop a rules set for ASL covering all eras from 1946 to 2000 and beyond...
Message history:

Code:
YearJan 	Feb 	Mar 	Apr 	May 	Jun 	Jul 	Aug 	Sep 	Oct 	Nov 	Dec
2009 	6 	32 	150 	88 	140 	113 	69 	39 	111 	37 		
2008 	33 	4 	1 	3 			28 	13 	4 	3 	7 	
2007 	1 		4 			1 						
2006 	7 	2 	109 	14 			4 	4 	54 	73 		
2005 	6 	48 	289 	85 	48 	27 		49 	14 	3 	3 	15
 
Last edited:
Top