Rules I dont like

[Treadhead]

How about if all of the units in a multihex fire group belong to the same platoon, the platoon leader can add his leadership modifier to the attack roll. In ftf ASL that would be a hassle to keep track of which unit belongs to which platoon, but in VASL the note feature makes it simple -- just code them all the same. Plus this would reward more 'realistic' play. Realistic in the sense it rewards players for following C&C doctrines instead of imposing a penalty.

This is an intriguing idea, I like the concept a lot. As you point out, it would be extremely difficult to easily keep track of squads and platoons, especially when squads start reducing to HS, or are replaced by a lower quality unit.

I have always been somewhat amused that various and disparate units can combine into one large FG. Mind you, I appreciate a FG is a game mechanic that represents the cumulative effects of a large volume of fire being directed at one target, and not necessarily an indication of cooperative action.

It would be interesting to reward units for operating within their formation: bolstered morale, enhanced FP, etc. I am not advocating that ASL be changed to do this, because it would be well-nigh impossible to implement in ASL without a lot of added complexity.

However, I would like to see scenarios that are tilted toward play using VASL.

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but my initial reaction to this is negative. In what ways would that change a scenario? Could it be played FTF without any repercussions?

ASL is a board game, fundamentally designed to be played across the table from a live opponent. VASL can handle an ASL scenario, but I'm not sure a "VASL scenario" wouldn't suffer somehow in a FTF setting.

JMO.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[WaterRabbit]

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but my initial reaction to this is negative. In what ways would that change a scenario? Could it be played FTF without any repercussions?

ASL is a board game, fundamentally designed to be played across the table from a live opponent. VASL can handle an ASL scenario, but I'm not sure a "VASL scenario" wouldn't suffer somehow in a FTF setting.

I don't see this as any more or less of a problem versus ASLSK scenarios. They could still be played FTF, but the onus of bookkeeping might become a chore in FTF.

For example, in VASL you can make SW/leaders hidden until used. Vehicle passengers can always be 'cloaked', etc. Using VASL you can increase the Fog of War aspects (i.e. keeping information hidden from the omniscient player) while preserving playability. You can also create mechanics that reward force cohesion without punishing the players who don't use it.

The same scenario played ftf would have to rely on the tried and true random mechanics to represent FOW, etc. Most people don't use the optional PF rules because the bookkeeping is a pain. However, using VASL you are just moving around another HIP counter. When used it is deleted. Using VASL you could dispense with rolling for smoke grenades and just make a note when they are used. In ftf it would still rely on a dr.

The real question is how much removing FOW random elements from the game and replacing them with 'bookkeeping' FOW would shift the balance of a scenario would have to be determined through playtesting. This is why I think these items fall into the scenario designer's sphere. However, we as a community could come up with a consensus on what VASL SSR might be appropriate and playtest them.

Additionally, since we are talking about VASL OPTIONAL SSR, we won't have Ron manning the barricades against us. :laugh:

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

It would be interesting to reward units for operating within their formation: bolstered morale, enhanced FP, etc. I am not advocating that ASL be changed to do this, because it would be well-nigh impossible to implement in ASL without a lot of added complexity.

The problem becomes at what point does the line get drawn? Platoon/company/battalion? I'm not being smarmy or anything, I happen to agree this'd be a good idea. But, I think it'd be best to limit what can or cannot be done within formation: FG, rally, leader direction/movement bonus, etc., as opposed to increasing capabilities. It might be best to penalise operating outside formation instead. But, as many new scenarios seem to be of the company size, it may be of lesser import than in larger actions.

 

[WaterRabbit]

One way without restricting the formation size is to designate your leaders by formation. For example, 1st Platoon of Alpha company only benefits when under the direction of the platoon leader. If you want to FG elements of 1st Platoon and 2nd Platoon, you would have to have the Alpha Company commander direct, and so on.