The "ASL is a game of maneuver" theory.

[Honza]

So, before entering this conversation, I have to ask if you are still playing solitaire only Jan? I do seem to recall you saying that sometime in the past? Or have you picked up the habit of playing other human opponents?

The most telling reply to your question on FB was from Mike Sennigan, a very accomplished player in his own right. To wit:

I have to strongly agree with the implication of Mike's answer. You can argue philosophical points to your heart's content, but results shout while philosophical points merely whisper.

Yes, still playing solo. This answer has made the biggest impression upon me.

 

[Honza]

As you asked the same question on FB, Jan, I will answer as I have over there.
You have been playing ASL for years now.
What would your answer be to the question?
Is ASL to you mostly based on firepower?

Hi Robin,

The way I play I would put the balance at about 50/50. Which judging by most peoples response means that I have not quite grokked it yet. The impression I get is that most players feel the balance is about 80/20 in favour of movement.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The way I play I would put the balance at about 50/50. Which judging by most peoples response means that I have not quite grokked it yet. The impression I get is that most players feel the balance is about 80/20 in favour of movement.

Can you name a single scenario the attack can win by sitting there? -- jim

 

[Robin Reeve]

Funny how everyone talks up maneuver but give them an OB with a 9-2 and three HMGs and the Death Star will almost always result.

Sniper bait.
And they will only cover a sector of the battle.
It can be the choice to make, however, depending on the situation.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

For me this is so highly dependent on the scenario/situation at hand....it's a game of fire and movement...knowing when to do what is the key.

 

[Sparafucil3]

For me this is so highly dependent on the scenario/situation at hand....it's a game of fire and movement...knowing when to do what is the key.

I agree the two are inextricably inter-twined. But-as I am alluding to in my question to @Honza--I don't know of a single scenario where the attacker can win by just sitting still. The defender can usually win this way, but not always. As such, maneuver--either on the part of the attacker to fulfill the VC, or on the defender seeking to deny it--will be a major part of winning any game. Show me an attacker that doesn't--or can't--maneuver, and I will show you a defender who is winning the game. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I agree the two are inextricably inter-twined. But-as I am alluding to in my question to @Honza--I don't know of a single scenario where the attacker can win by just sitting still. The defender can usually win this way, but not always. As such, maneuver--either on the part of the attacker to fulfill the VC, or on the defender seeking to deny it--will be a major part of winning any game. Show me an attacker that doesn't--or can't--maneuver, and I will show you a defender who is winning the game.

Yes, the Attacker will (most probably) always have to do some moving in order to fulfill the VC.

 

[Honza]

Can you name a single scenario the attack can win by sitting there? -- jim

No obviously. My question was really about the ratio between fire and movement. One cannot win a game by just moving with no firing either.

 

[von Marwitz]

Funny how everyone talks up maneuver but give them an OB with a 9-2 and three HMGs and the Death Star will almost always result.

It is a matter of perspective... Being on the wrong end of the HMGs' barrels you will maneuver as hell.

von Marwitz

 

[Jazz]

Yes, still playing solo. This answer has made the biggest impression upon me.

Have you ever considered playing other folks? In this day and age of VASL there really is no practical reason not to?

It really will expand your understanding of the game and expand your ASL universe exponentially.

 

[Jazz]

Funny how everyone talks up maneuver but give them an OB with a 9-2 and three HMGs and the Death Star will almost always result.

If they are on the attack the only purpose said death star will serve is cover/support for maneuver.

 

[Augie]

ASL rewards the US WW2 small unit tactics of 4F: Find, Fix, Flank, Finish.

Find, Fix, and Finish can be done by Fire, Engagement Maneuver, or Both. Flank is Maneuver only. Fire and Maneuver are not mutually exclusive for good tactics, but Maneuver is essential and key to execute good tactics.

 

[Actionjick]

I would say when you fire it is a matter of hope which is dependent on the dice and chance.

When you maneuver you are taking direct measures that you control to influence an outcome.

Chance may affect your maneuvering but at least you have a greater influence than rolling the dice.

 

[Actionjick]

No obviously. My question was really about the ratio between fire and movement. One cannot win a game by just moving with no firing either.

While almost always true ASL does offer some scenarios where one side may not do any firing. Escape From Velikiye Luki may fall into that category. That's one of the factors that makes ASL such a great game, the enormous amount of possibilities it offers.

 

[Sparafucil3]

No obviously. My question was really about the ratio between fire and movement. One cannot win a game by just moving with no firing either.

Rarely will you be able to win without firing but it is possible. What's the one trail scenario where both sides come on in column and if they don't bump into one another, the attacker wins? It is possible--although unlikely--to win an exit scenario without ever firing. I have won on the defense without ever firing against a weaker opponent. I tried to help him but he was set on his deliberate attack so I left him to it. After the game I gave him some pointers on how to time an attack. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

I wouldn't presume to know the intent of Squad Leader's designers but the fact that Escape From Velikiye Luki is Scenario 6 might indicate the importance they placed on maneuver.

 

[bendizoid]

I’ll tell you one thing that inspires maneuver, a SR in your hex.

 

[Philippe D.]

(About Escape from Velikiye Luki being scenario #6)

Not sure about this logic. Fighting Withdrawal is scenario 1, and it's far from a good learning scenario.

Of course the matter is highly situation dependent. Whenever you have lots of Guns, you have important units with little mobility, and will tend to use Prep Fire with them if you have any targets.

What I am sure of is that almost all new players I meet tend to do way too much Prep Firing than they should. Sometimes they'll use their entire OB firing in Prep Fire, often breaking some key units but then with no possibility of exploiting these breaks - the broken units will rout away, be replaced by others in the same or the next positions while the first get rallied.

When defending, it's often simple arithmetic that you'll be better off skulking and advancing back than Prep Firing - this will let you retain some measure of concealment, and Prep Firing will almost always be trading blows against much higher firepower.

So is it a universal truth that you should be moving and not Prep Fire? Sure no. But it's a very frequent one that the best path to victory will involve very little Prep Fire an much more movement.

Of course some part of the attacker's job is to maneuver so as to get into a position where he'll finally be able to Prep Fire a lot - surrounding that victory building, or breaking units that won't be able to rout away. But there's very few scenarios where this is likely to happen without a healthy dose of maneuvering in previous turns.

 

[bendizoid]

(About Escape from Velikiye Luki being scenario #6)

Not sure about this logic. Fighting Withdrawal is scenario 1, and it's far from a good learning scenario.

Of course the matter is highly situation dependent. Whenever you have lots of Guns, you have important units with little mobility, and will tend to use Prep Fire with them if you have any targets.

What I am sure of is that almost all new players I meet tend to do way too much Prep Firing than they should. Sometimes they'll use their entire OB firing in Prep Fire, often breaking some key units but then with no possibility of exploiting these breaks - the broken units will rout away, be replaced by others in the same or the next positions while the first get rallied.

When defending, it's often simple arithmetic that you'll be better off skulking and advancing back than Prep Firing - this will let you retain some measure of concealment, and Prep Firing will almost always be trading blows against much higher firepower.

So is it a universal truth that you should be moving and not Prep Fire? Sure no. But it's a very frequent one that the best path to victory will involve very little Prep Fire an much more movement.

Of course some part of the attacker's job is to maneuver so as to get into a position where he'll finally be able to Prep Fire a lot - surrounding that victory building, or breaking units that won't be able to rout away. But there's very few scenarios where this is likely to happen without a healthy dose of maneuvering in previous turns.

Treat the DFP like the PFP. So basically, use maneuver and a little cover fire for a few AdFP attacks and a scary advance that in turn sets up nasty DFP attacks the following turn. One nice thing, usually this nasty DFP attack can be followed by a immediate PFP attack (two attacks in a row).

 

[Actionjick]

(About Escape from Velikiye Luki being scenario #6)

Not sure about this logic. Fighting Withdrawal is scenario 1, and it's far from a good learning scenario.

Of course the matter is highly situation dependent. Whenever you have lots of Guns, you have important units with little mobility, and will tend to use Prep Fire with them if you have any targets.

What I am sure of is that almost all new players I meet tend to do way too much Prep Firing than they should. Sometimes they'll use their entire OB firing in Prep Fire, often breaking some key units but then with no possibility of exploiting these breaks - the broken units will rout away, be replaced by others in the same or the next positions while the first get rallied.

When defending, it's often simple arithmetic that you'll be better off skulking and advancing back than Prep Firing - this will let you retain some measure of concealment, and Prep Firing will almost always be trading blows against much higher firepower.

So is it a universal truth that you should be moving and not Prep Fire? Sure no. But it's a very frequent one that the best path to victory will involve very little Prep Fire an much more movement.

Of course some part of the attacker's job is to maneuver so as to get into a position where he'll finally be able to Prep Fire a lot - surrounding that victory building, or breaking units that won't be able to rout away. But there's very few scenarios where this is likely to happen without a healthy dose of maneuvering in previous turns.

The thought about Escape From Velikiye Luki being an early scenario and one highly dependent on maneuver was the point I was trying to make. Sorry, as I posted on another thread the brain is kinda fuzzy today so I'm not expressing myself clearly.

Although the brain is clear enough to recall that The Guards Counterattack is SL Scenario 1. Squad Leader was what I was thinking of when referring to the designer's intent. Sorry, fuzzy and not myself today.

Fighting Withdrawal a great scenario.

The SR reference upthread as an incentive for maneuver was hilarious!