I do believe that we played Hill 621 in SL. Several times in fact. One of our favorites.Well we are talking about a game which was released in four parts between 1977 and 1983 - and last printed in 1998 (assuming AH continued printing CoI, CoD, and GI up to the end, which I doubt they did.
When you cut through all the nostalgia BS, OSL is fatally flawed due to its lack of opportunity fire. Using the rules as written, I move all my units in the movement phase, then in the defensive fire phase YOU MOVE MY UNITS BACK and fire at them. I would love to see proponents of OSL try this in a scenario like Hill 621, with 26 squads for the Russians. Totally unplayable and broken IMO using the RAW.
There is an optional rule hidden in the back of the rulesbook which restore playability by having the defender fire at the attacker as the attacker moves. The problem with this is that there is no ROF, SFF, FPF, residual fire, etc - the defender gets one shot and that's it. This restores playability, but without residual fire you can rush as many units as you want through a hex and the defender gets only one shot. Playable but still irretrievably broken IMO.
So what accounts for OSL continued popularity? In one word, actually two, nostalgia and solitaire. There are lots of reclusive gamers who actually enjoy playing solitaire where they don't have to be concerned about social interaction, and they can maintain the fallacy of believing their "perfect plan" is indeed perfect without having to test it, or their actual knowledge of the game in general, against a real opponent. And of course, the few times they have played against a real person, and realized their "perfect plan" was build upon a house of cards, this only makes them more reluctant to play ftf again. For people like this OSL is the perfect game - the chaotic organization of the rules across 4 rulebooks does not matter since when playing solitaire they are the sole interpreter of the rules, the broken defensive fire system does not matter since when playing solitaire there is no real winning player, only a winning side, and the fact that these games have been out of print for over two decades does not matter since there is no need for another person to play the games with anyway.
However, the Model T has something going for it:Compared to a 2021 auto the Model T is almost laughably archaic yet where would today's cars be without building upon the innovations of it and it's contemporaries?
Very nice! There are people here who acquire older cars, machinery and technological devices for reasons like hackers and more importantly a coronal mass ejection. A coronal mass ejection would have global consequences and unlike hackers cannot be prevented.However, the Model T has something going for it:
No software problems and no security issues caused by software.
I am not making a stand for stone age technology, but against thoughlessness while introducing new one.
Read this - notably reality in 2015 - while now cars get crammed with ever more software:
No country is more vulnerable to cyber threats than the US (even before the rest of the West). It is already possible to take down critical infrastructure in many ways. Adding the vulnerability to take out fleets of cars does add another.
I'd wish for a new car that is unable to connect to the net above one that is anytime.
IIRC in ancient Rome/ and or/ Greece you were considered a barbarian if you didn't mix your wine with water. My barbarian roots are deep.Very nice! There are people here who acquire older cars, machinery and technological devices for reasons like hackers and more importantly a coronal mass ejection. A coronal mass ejection would have global consequences and unlike hackers cannot be prevented.
Bitsa ( back in the Stone Age) when Fish and I would be gathered together in a cave with several species of small furry animals and our Pict friend we would play SL and discuss the future of gaming. We would bang a few rocks together trying to come up with new ideas all the while keeping a wary eye out for CBOBA. Cave bear offboard artillery.
Oddly I don't remember us having problems with the defensive fire rules and we played hundreds of Squad Leader scenarios. Probably close to a thousand.I do believe that we played Hill 621 in SL. Several times in fact. One of our favorites.
As to it's irretrievably broken nature all I can say is when you're young(er) love is blind.
The optional rule may have been used at some tournaments. None that I recall though and Fish never mentioned it being used and he attended almost every SL event held back then.Oddly I don't remember us having problems with the defensive fire rules and we played hundreds of Squad Leader scenarios. Probably close to a thousand.
Apparently we were just too ignorant to realize the game was broken.
Mark Nixon was surprised that we didn't use the optional rule. It wasn't used at tournaments so we didn't use it.