While I have only skimmed the FW stuff, just so many ASL items in my last delivery, the one thing I will not complain about is the mix of nationalities covered by scenarios. The existing mix (16 FW, 1 WO2018) gives a good taste of the major combatants while providing the material and toys to portray the others. That to me is the most important part of a core module, it enables other forces that can be covered in other publications, MMP or TPP. If you wish you can now dream up a Canadian or Turkish action from a history while still being in the official ASLverse, something you could not do a month ago.
The lack of C/G and E for some of the combatants is something I am not quite accepting in my gut. For example, no G for the British (or French, Turkish, etc) I might accept, we're not talking about WW2 mass conscription so a higher degree of peacetime professionalism would be at play. The Chinese could afford to send a better class of troops than average from their vast manpool, so no C, OK. But no E troops, that I find a bit harder to swallow. It means that their highest effective morale will be 8 whilst the NK and British can hit 9 (Fanatic E) and most of the time just 7 vs 8. No problem with striping, though I suspect that is a bit of a simplification but generally OK.
I also find the Chinese limit of -1 as a leadership DRM a bit off. While I knew about the lack of formal rank structures and the use of appointments rather than ranks, I don't think that that translates right to ASL. One of the first things that was mentioned for SL is that SL (and later ASL) leaders are not rank dependant. You might have a 9-2 that was a sergeant but his captain might only be an 8-0 or not even represented. Leadership in ASL is supposed to represent performance, not rank. Saying that Chinese troops and leaders could not accumulate experience to bring them to E status or -2 leadership, I find a bit unpalatable. I would have been less upset with a Japanese rank system than the existing Finnish style.
I suppose that will fade in time.
One question I have is that while the Partisan 337s were about the best representation of pre-WW2 and WW2 Chinese Communist forces, do the FW designers think the FW Chinese should be applicable to post-WW2 Chinese Civil War PLA units?
The lack of C/G and E for some of the combatants is something I am not quite accepting in my gut. For example, no G for the British (or French, Turkish, etc) I might accept, we're not talking about WW2 mass conscription so a higher degree of peacetime professionalism would be at play. The Chinese could afford to send a better class of troops than average from their vast manpool, so no C, OK. But no E troops, that I find a bit harder to swallow. It means that their highest effective morale will be 8 whilst the NK and British can hit 9 (Fanatic E) and most of the time just 7 vs 8. No problem with striping, though I suspect that is a bit of a simplification but generally OK.
I also find the Chinese limit of -1 as a leadership DRM a bit off. While I knew about the lack of formal rank structures and the use of appointments rather than ranks, I don't think that that translates right to ASL. One of the first things that was mentioned for SL is that SL (and later ASL) leaders are not rank dependant. You might have a 9-2 that was a sergeant but his captain might only be an 8-0 or not even represented. Leadership in ASL is supposed to represent performance, not rank. Saying that Chinese troops and leaders could not accumulate experience to bring them to E status or -2 leadership, I find a bit unpalatable. I would have been less upset with a Japanese rank system than the existing Finnish style.
I suppose that will fade in time.
One question I have is that while the Partisan 337s were about the best representation of pre-WW2 and WW2 Chinese Communist forces, do the FW designers think the FW Chinese should be applicable to post-WW2 Chinese Civil War PLA units?
