Some reasons why MASL=Messy ASL
kcdusk said:
Can anyone tell me specifially, why MASL wouldnt work post 1950?
So why is post 1950 an issue, whats the obsticle to be overcome?
The simplest description of the problem is this:
What can be detected will be detected.
What is detected will be hit.
What is hit will be killed.
Now go forth and make an entertaining game of that.
The longer answer, as I see it, has to do with trying to fit modern combat (combat where at least one side has reasonably modern weapons, anyway) into ASL’s nominal 40 meters/hex and 2 minutes/turn. All-infantry scenarios are probably feasible with various rules adjustments, but fire support (OBA, helicopters, aircraft) and vehicles are not going to fit.
Fire support is considerably more responsive, accurate, and deadly. Improved Conventional Munitions (like the M483 projectiles I discussed above) are pretty much going to automatically KIA infantry caught without overhead cover (yes, I know it is already attacking to 30 FP column—but that is straight HE and without enhancements) and vehicles would be subject to a shower of small SCW that would be hitting engine covers, hatches, and other things that could very well mission-kill the target. Ratchet things forward to the late 1980s and the artillery can add antiarmor/antipersonnell instant minefields, active seeker antiarmor weapons, and other exotica. Air support is going involve the use of cluster munitions starting in the early 1960s. These have been shown to be very effective against infantry: the Vietnamese, Egyptians, Syrians, Afghanis, and Iraqis have found this out the hard way. While having a section of A-10s or AC-130s would be fun for the owning player, I think the entertainment value for the other guy is probably a little low.
Non-infantry weapon accuracy, weapon effects have undergone considerable improvement since 1945, and trying to shoehorn them onto ASL-size mapboards would be difficult. Some examples:
The primary U.S. ATGM (the TOW and successors) has a minimum range of around 100 meters and maximum range of around 3,000 meters; In ASL terms figure a minimum of three hexes and a maximum of around 75 hexes. The TH is uniform throughout the range. Doctrine calls for engaging targets outside their engagement envelope while being inside yours, so a TOW launcher is going to start engaging at 75 hexes. I’ve played a fair amount of ASL, and the longest shots I’ve ever seen were in KGP II, and those were 30-40 hexes at most.
The Russian AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher has a high rate of fire, a maximum effective range of 700 meters against point targets, and uses ammunition similar to U.S. Mark 19. In ASL terms, it would probably have a range of 17 hexes, ROF 3, attacks on the 2 FP column (at least), and have multiple hit possibilities. In short, it is something like the U.S.50 caliber HMG but would be much more common.
The Swedish Carl Gustav RCL rifle is popular and in use worldwide. Effective range is around 700 meters. It is lightweight, popular with troops, and a typical platoon will have two or three. In ASL terms, it would probably be a 1 or 2 PP weapon with a range of 17 hexes and attack infantry targets on 16 FP column.
While what I’ve given are nominal/proving ground values, all three weapons have been used extensively in combat and their actual values are probably not too far from what has been published.
Vehicles have undergone similar improvements in speed and reliability. At the moment, the U.S. M18 TD is one of the fastest AFVs in the system, with 24 MP. My experience has been that that is enough MP to just about teleport around playing area (until it is hit, anyway)—try playing Under the Noel Trees to get a feel for this. Now assume that most (if not all AFVs) in a scenario have similar movement allowances. A typical two or three board ASL scenario is not going to give them enough room to maneuver and force engagements to take place at ranges that are now to short to be historical (this sort of thing is not an issue for WW II ASL—a fairly large number of AFV-on-AFV kills took place at ranges of 200 meters or less).
As with speeds, fire control has also improved and the TH numbers should be much higher. At the end of WW II, the Germans were in the process of designing a Panther that would use a stereoscopic rangefinder to improve accuracy. This idea was subsequently adopted by AFV designers worldwide, and led to major improvements in tank gunnery. Couple this with improved ammunition and the closer ranges forced by the scale of ASL, and AFV combat becomes mostly a matter of figuring out who is going to been seen (and die) first. Not much entertainment value there.
Sorry about the length of lecture—got happy fingers or something.
If you have actually read to the bottom of this, I have another suggestion for a SW that should be included in any NATO/WP MASL scenario-click
HERE for the link.
