Paths Not Taken

Carln0130

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,137
Reaction score
1,206
Location
MA
Country
llUnited States
I'm curious - does anybody know of rules or game mechanics the SL or ASL designers/developers tried out but opted against for one reason or another? Sure, ASL left some SL ideas behind (Scouts, Near Misses, etc) but I'm curious about basic things that Don Greenwood, Bob Macnamara, John Hill, etc, played around with but ultimately didn't think were worth keeping.

The thought came to mind when I was thinking about how Walls and Hedges are handled in the game, and how it's pretty impossible to represent a narrow walled city street, as in Old European cities.
Oh, you must mean like an old Spanish town. We should really talk. ;-)
 

FrankJ

Cap'n Crud
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
139
Reaction score
20
Location
Castle Rock Co.
Country
llUnited States
I thought there was some talk about opportunity fire during the movement phase, but did not make the cut. The idea was for the attacker to have the use of Op fire declared during Prep to use in both the movement and Adv. fire phase.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,996
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I thought there was some talk about opportunity fire during the movement phase, but did not make the cut. The idea was for the attacker to have the use of Op fire declared during Prep to use in both the movement and Adv. fire phase.
Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,533
Reaction score
517
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...
A semi-simultaneous MPH/DFPH certainly would have been viable: allowing the defender the ability to use their CX capability (2 MF) in lieu of dfire would have allowed a more fluid situation with increased decision points.
 

FrankJ

Cap'n Crud
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
139
Reaction score
20
Location
Castle Rock Co.
Country
llUnited States
Interesting....but evidence of this...??? By that I mean reference in some old school mails you have or some General passing reference, or your connection to ASLRB v1 as PTer or "helper"... etc.... Be a very interesting "road not paved"...
I have to come clean, this was my own idea some years ago. Sorry for the fabrication. I envisioned more of a fluid fire and maneuver during the movement phase. Can you imagine that with AFV bounding fire.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,996
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
A semi-simultaneous MPH/DFPH certainly would have been viable: allowing the defender the ability to use their CX capability (2 MF) in lieu of dfire would have allowed a more fluid situation with increased decision points.
Not saying nor suggesting it would not be viable.
I was after the "evidence" that this was* a discussed path by the powers that be...even if it was a path not taken.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,996
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I have to come clean, this was my own idea some years ago. Sorry for the fabrication. I envisioned more of a fluid fire and maneuver during the movement phase. Can you imagine that with AFV bounding fire.
The OP was after what paths "the designers" looked at but did not take. Not home rules, as interesting as yours is.
Please in future on an answer like this come clean outright, better a slight de-rail for an interesting tropic, than creating misleading chatter that this was discussed by the "designers" when it was patently not. Thanks.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,533
Reaction score
517
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
The OP was after what paths "the designers" looked at but did not take. Not home rules, as interesting as yours is.
Please in future on an answer like this come clean outright, better a slight de-rail for an interesting tropic, than creating misleading chatter that this was discussed by the "designers" when it was patently not. Thanks.
There was conversation, informally as I recall, about exploring a semi-simultaneous aspect beyond the Mph/DFph amalgation we have in place. Given the, what, nigh 40 year run of this game, I can't place the "Who, What, Why, or When" beyond the recollection.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
1,996
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
There was conversation, informally as I recall, about exploring a semi-simultaneous aspect beyond the Mph/DFph amalgation we have in place. Given the, what, nigh 40 year run of this game, I can't place the "Who, What, Why, or When" beyond the recollection.
Understood. Thanks.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
775
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Late to the party here... (is there still a party here...?)

Responding to "What Was Your First Computer Wargame" thread got me to research (and actually play) an early attempt to recreate Squad Leader for the computer: Avalon Hill's Close Assault. The game's designers aren't named on the package (simply designated as "National Microcomputer Associates"... looks like it's Gary Bedrosian), but the playtesters include some of our usual suspects. Here's the full list:

David Kuijt, Don Greenwood, Jayson Gralewicz, Wm Bradford Anderson, Bill Tricomi, Tiff Hudson, Charles Kibler​

This got me thinking about the current thread... Because of the overlap in creative minds, I wonder whether some of the novelties present in this computerized version of SL reflect some unwieldy - thus abandoned - plans for the original boardgame/"gamette" expansions. The year for the "microcomputer game"'s release was 1982, and given the overlap of personnel, I think the game's design features could reflect possibilities - more like imagined "ideals" - that ultimately were not workable with a physical boardgame. No proof here, just a little circumstantial evidence. One could imagine the quickly squashed conversation... "wouldn't it be great if we... YEAH!... But... nah...."

Specifically, in the computer version, a unit's FP in the AFPh is reduced proportionally per MF expenditure during the MPh. So a unit which expends 0 MFs is, essentially, Opportunity Firing, while a unit which expends full MFs are given no FP in that phase. It's a solid idea from a realism standpoint, though it would be extremely cumbersome for a boardgame.

Possibly this just reflects a clever twist someone thought up while creating this SL adaptation. But considering just how faithful the game attempts to be, I think it may well reflect yet another sequencing variation that the designers considered during the boardgame's development and playtesting.

The Close Assault game plays rather like vanilla SL - with very basic LOS rules - across Board 3. Naturally, it allows for fully HIP play (units can even move HIP until finally spotted by the enemy). A few other novelties are the computer's randomizing the duration of Smoke; an accounting of each soldier within a squad (men die individually, and it takes a specific number of men to carry each weapon type); the computer routs all units; and you do not know whether the enemy is broken except by its behavior. These all seem to be nods towards "realism" made easily exploitable with a computerized "Game Manager." But one further choice also catches my attention: Attacks must be declared against a specific unit or else against an entire hex. Only the latter is considered "Area Fire." In conjunction with the idea of Advancing Fire FP being inversely proportional to the number of MFs expended, this creates an interesting - and plausible - re-conception of the game's fundamentals. Again, I wonder, if this was an idea ultimately abandoned - however swiftly - for the boardgame itself.

...just food for thought for Tuomo. This thread's a very interesting path to wander down - I hope you're planning on publishing a book after your research is complete!
 
Top