War In Peace ASL Post WWII

[Michael Dorosh]

""If the words 'Left Flank' and 'F**k' were removed from the English language the Canadian Army would be left immobile and speechless"

Field Marshall B.L. Montgomery .

Just wondering what your source for that quote is. Jack Granatstein mentions a variation on that in his book THE GENERALS but doesn't attribute it to anyone; he simply says it is "an old Army saw", whose inspiration was probably Chris Vokes. Montgomery did command 8th Army when Vokes was running 1st Cdn Div at Ortona, so its possible, but I've never seen the connection made before.

Where did you hear that Montgomery was the one to say it? Just curious.

 

[tlclouse]

MASL=Mainly About Squad Leading

What about if we stuck to infantry, and SW's?

Take tanks, heles, etc out. Would that make it better? I guess at the moment i am thinking of iraqu or bosnia house-clearing type excercises with special weapons etc ... mainly infantry .... but if its only INF then its not really MASL anymore is it???

Slightly off topic, if MASL will struggle, what wargame does do a good job of this type of thing or is MBT the best there is???

My initial (and cynical) reaction to MASL is that it is all about hardware nuts using M1s/Challengers/Leopard 2s/AMX-30s/Merkavas to blow the turrets off of Russian tanks. However, I now think that underestimates the tolerance of ASL players for new and unusual situations. Considering that there is much joy now that we have the Bulgarian heavy artillery counters and some of most popular scenarios are not garden-variety situations (Totsugeki! and Italian Brothers, for example), a fair number of ASL players may also be interested in British Paras attacking Argentine conscripts in the Falklands or U.S. Marines having it out with the Viet Cong in Hue.

So if MASL keeps the focus on infantry actions (where it belongs anyway) it may have potential. Of course, I would still whine about things that my Superior Wisdom tells me are wrong, such as the GL rules and the effectiveness of the M72A2 LAW (any player who inflicts an LATW check on his squads for this weapon is a danger to himself and others).

Modern tactical games were more popular during the mid to late 1980s, but the end of the Cold War took away the possibility of a NATO/WP fight and interest waned. In addition to Fire Team and MBT, Main Battle Area by Omega Games was pretty good.

I would stilll want to have the Davy Crockett SW, though (can you imagine the non-qualified use penalties?)...

 

[JoeCleere]

Perhaps the key to enjoying MASL is the mental trick called "suspension of disbelief" (remember Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct using that line?).

Seriously, though. A modern tactical wargame would probably look something like Main Battle Tank by Jim Day, which used squads and individual vehicles, but the hexes were 100 meters. ASL could probably be adapted to the modern era if it used 80-100 meter hexes. Modern units operate in more dispersed formations than in World War II because of the increased lethality of contemporary weapons.
If the hex scale was kept at 40 meters, then the fire team or half squad would have to be the main maneuver element in the game.

 

[tlclouse]

Changing the map scale

ASL could probably be adapted to the modern era if it used 80-100 meter hexes. Modern units operate in more dispersed formations than in World War II because of the increased lethality of contemporary weapons.
If the hex scale was kept at 40 meters, then the fire team or half squad would have to be the main maneuver element in the game.

Which is why Fire Team used 80 meter hexes. Now that I think about it, another option would be to cut all movement allowances and ranges in half . Would make for a slow infantry game, but we could at least keep the boards.

 

[Glennbo]

Glenn,
Have you taken your medication yet?

You are talking in an "unintelligent" language again.....

Hearing voices again?:whist:

And the "KK" in my acronym tirade stands for Kevin Kenneally!

 

[Frank]

So if MASL keeps the focus on infantry actions (where it belongs anyway) it may have potential. Of course, I would still whine about things that my Superior Wisdom tells me are wrong, such as the GL rules and the effectiveness of the M72A2 LAW (any player who inflicts an LATW check on his squads for this weapon is a danger to himself and others).

MASL should and will focus on infantry actions with tanks in the support role - that's what ASL is about...

I totally agree with the GL and M72 rules in "War in Peace". The MASL rules are completely different than WiP and considerable reserach went into equipment stats. E.g. the M72 is about as effective as a PF with a greater range.

Frank

 

[Brave Lion]

I think you are overrating the FP of assault rifles. Squads with 10-12 FP due to being equipped with M-16's or AK-47's is simply not realistic. Depending on the number of troops in the squad the FP values are only about 5 FP to 8 FP (tops). They are basically the same FP-wise as 1945 squads. The big difference with M-16/AK-47 armed troops is that a) assault fire bonus is more prevalent, b) spray fire is almost universal, and c) even half-squads should get spray fire at the very least. The other big difference between 1945 troops and their modern brethern is the greater use of Inherent SW in the modern squads.

 

[Brave Lion]

WWII era ASL would make for good stuff (Korea, Early AI wars). We're more or less using the same counters with only a few updated SWs and vehicles, so we're not obscoleting & adding a bunch of new rules.

Modern ASL wouldn't make for balanced & fun situations, since the unit types are so lop-sided. Iraq is a good example, M1 tanks vs T72/82 tanks are roughly equivalent to Tiger IIs vs T26, and who would want to play a scenario like that? Not I. As someone pointed out earlier, modern squads have much more firepower than their WWII era counterparts. Scenarios with squads sporting 9-12 fp vs guerilla squads with 4-5 fp don't appeal to me for the exact same reason mentioned above. We would need to create a completely alternate countermix to cover MASL, squads & SWs as well as vehicles.

Sure, there are exceptions. Vietnam ambushes with HIP NVA squads and no vehicles & air support in dense jungle/PTO type terrain would probably make for some exciting & well-balanced scenarios.

Outside of the point mentioned above Modern ASL would need to add a slew of new rules: Helicopters, ATGMs, Wire guided missiles (TOW), Laser-missiles, night-vision equipment, smart bombs, new AA rules & counters .... The rules are long enough & adding 50 pages of new rules to cover these things wouldn't add anything substantial to the game IMO. I think MASL would best be served by creating a totally different game (seperate from ASL).

I think you are overrating the FP of M-16/AK-47 armed squads. They are only about 5-8 FP depending on the number of troops in the squad. The same thing applies with most modern MG's which are derived from WWII models, modern MG's are roughly equivalent in FP to their WWII counterparts.

You are ignoring the tank battles that ocurred in Vietnam during 1968, '71, '72, and '75. You are also ignoring the tank battles that are prevalent in the AIW wars. Post-WWII warfare has ran the gamut from guerrila war to full-scale conventional war. Thankfully, the only WWII weapon not used (so far) is nukes.

Here's a fascinating "what if" for you: Both the Germans and Americans had operational helicopters in WWII, what if they had been used as battlefield troop carriers and fire support in 1944-45? The Germans had tested (and probably used in 1945) anti-tank and anti-aircraft guided missiles (the X-7 and X-4 programs), what if these weapons had been fielded in 1944 and in greater numbers? The Americans developed the electric driven gatling gun MG in 1946, what if this weapon had been developed in 1944-45? Chemical weapons had been developed in WWI but not used in WWII, what if these weapons were used on European or Pacific battles in WWII? The MASL project at least provides some answers for these fascinating "what if" questions.

 

[Brave Lion]

Now, there may some cases that don't fit that pattern such as Vietnam jungle ambush, which are infantry-only, type engagements.

This is only true of early Vietnam battles before 1968, during the Tet Offensive and thereafter the communists used T-54's and PT-76's in greater numbers. For example, during the 1972 Easter Offensive the NVA attacked Quang Tri city with 3 infantry divisions of about 45,000 troops, 4 separate regiments, 2 T-54 and PT-76 tank regiments, supported by 130mm artillery, 120mm rockets, and SA-2 SAM's. The US/South Vietnamese defended the city with 2 infantry divisions, an armor brigade (including an M-48 tank battalion), 2 USMC brigades, and various RF/PF forces. This clearly is not a "jungle ambush" but a major battle. The Quang Tri battle lasted about a month and this was only one of many division sized battles that ocurred throughout South Vietnam during April 1972. Major tank battles ocurred during Lam Son 719 in Laos 1971, in the Easter Invasion 1972, and the Ho Chi Minh Campaign in 1975.

 

[Mr Incredible]

Reading this thread I got around to playing with squad FP using the articlae from VFTT 26/27.

Looking at say a USMC squad in Vietnam (9 riflemen, 3 firetem leaders and one squad leader) it is interesting to see what FP this squad would come out at.

Going through the math a value in the range of 8 could be expected (assuming the squad leader is countered as a separate leader and the 3 FT leaders are armed with AR-14's and assumed that the AR-14 is the same as a M-16).

This does not include a M-60 but if it came with a crew of 2 then this would add approximately 4FP for the bipond mounted arrangement.

So the FP's are not too far off say the WWII USMC toting a MMG.

The tricky part is to add all the chrome. M79 Grenade lauchers, RPG's, Helicopters etc etc.

The basic system would appear at first glance to be easily transported to the 1960's at least.

For comparison against an NVA squad consider the following:

Got a structure of:

1 x sergeant
1 x corporal
1 x RPD 7.62mm
6 Riflemen

Assuming the RPD is manned by a gunner and assisted by the corporal and the sergeant either inherent or represented by a leader counter, this squad would have a FP about 6 or 7. So not such a discrepancy between squads.

But even if forces are not balanced in FP the whole way the most scenarios are developed is that they should be balanced. I'm sure there were plenty of engagements in WWII that were very lopsided due to 6FP SS killing a whole lot of 337 partisans but what is the fun in playing those? There are fun balanced scenarios with 658 SS versus 337 partisans which can be fun.

In the same vein there could be lopsided Vietnam scenarios with 868 USMCup against 757 NVA or even balanced.

Later.............

 

[Ronnblom]

The Swedish Carl Gustav RCL rifle is popular and in use worldwide. Effective range is around 700 meters.

When firing the (ineffective) HE rounds, sure. But I remember having trouble hitting a moving tank-sized target on anything beyond 200m. And that was with the improved gunsight.

 

[zgrose]

For those of you keeping tabs on the MBT system, there is a WW2 version out now as well.

http://www.lostbattalion.com/t-pz_panzer.aspx

Definitely more suited for the mass armor actions and/or North Africa type engagements than the "clear this village building-by-building" scenarios that are the hallmark of ASL. But distinctly more detailed than operational games.

 

[rglesing@indot.]

DESIGNING an MASL is one thing, SELLING it to a wide audience is another thing entirely. If you think you could sell it to current ASL'ers consider some of the problems:
1) A large percentage of current ASL'ers buy only MMP products EXCLUSIVELY (so you would have to convince MMP to find the time and resources in their already- full agenda to produce and market a MASL game),
2) A LARGE percentage of ASL'ers will only play HISTORICAL scenarios, EXCLUSIVELY (so you couldn't sell them stuff such as was found in MBT),
3) A large percentage of ASL'ers seldom, if ever, play Pacific theatre because they don't like to play infantry-only scenarios, with dense (non-urban) terrain and short ranges of engagement (so you would probably have a hard time convincing them to play Vietnam MASL),
4) Most ASL'ers demand a game which includes all the "bells and whistles" (technologies) typically used in the historical situations they are attempting to simulate (so anything representing modern combat would have to integrate, fairly seamlessly, rules which would surely be rather complex in order to include the planes and helicopters, and all the miriad types of artillery usage and other ranged weapons which have become available),
5) For many ASL'ers our playing time is quite limited (especially us older codgers) and we already have a game we like very much which takes so much of our available time.

With a lot of hard work someone might develope a good MASL, but for the above mentioned reasons, as well as a lot of other individual and personal reasons, I just don't think you could ever expect to interest any significant portion of current ASL'ers.

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

DESIGNING an MASL is one thing, SELLING it to a wide audience is another thing entirely. If you think you could sell it to current ASL'ers consider some of the problems:
1) A large percentage of current ASL'ers buy only MMP products EXCLUSIVELY (so you would have to convince MMP to find the time and resources in their already- full agenda to produce and market a MASL game),
2) A LARGE percentage of ASL'ers will only play HISTORICAL scenarios, EXCLUSIVELY (so you couldn't sell them stuff such as was found in MBT),
3) A large percentage of ASL'ers seldom, if ever, play Pacific theatre because they don't like to play infantry-only scenarios, with dense (non-urban) terrain and short ranges of engagement (so you would probably have a hard time convincing them to play Vietnam MASL),
4) Most ASL'ers demand a game which includes all the "bells and whistles" (technologies) typically used in the historical situations they are attempting to simulate (so anything representing modern combat would have to integrate, fairly seamlessly, rules which would surely be rather complex in order to include the planes and helicopters, and all the miriad types of artillery usage and other ranged weapons which have become available),
5) For many ASL'ers our playing time is quite limited (especially us older codgers) and we already have a game we like very much which takes so much of our available time.

With a lot of hard work someone might develope a good MASL, but for the above mentioned reasons, as well as a lot of other individual and personal reasons, I just don't think you could ever expect to interest any significant portion of current ASL'ers.

Count me OUT. I won't buy it....

I think the ASL world will stop at the 1956 Sinai invasion..... Other than that, too much "kwibbling" over what FP value to give modern units.....

And I thought 8-3-8 Finns and 7-6-8 Marines were powerful....

Has anyone ever thought of breaking a '45 Marine squad into 3 HSs?

 

[Pitman]

I am a "buy everything ASL related" type of guy, but I wouldn't touch a "modern" version of ASL with a ten foot pole.

 

[kdalton]

Has anyone ever thought of breaking a '45 Marine squad into 3 HSs?

You really are an evil man. :dead:

 

[macca]

You said....

3) A large percentage of ASL'ers seldom, if ever, play Pacific theatre because they don't like to play infantry-only scenarios, with dense (non-urban) terrain and short ranges of engagement


I wonder what the percentages are?

Would this also be due to the fact that not everyone has the PTO rules/OB due to it being OOP?

I think PTO is a winner simply because it is so close-quarters and unpredictable.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

You said....

3) A large percentage of ASL'ers seldom, if ever, play Pacific theatre because they don't like to play infantry-only scenarios, with dense (non-urban) terrain and short ranges of engagement


I wonder what the percentages are?

Would this also be due to the fact that not everyone has the PTO rules/OB due to it being OOP?

I think PTO is a winner simply because it is so close-quarters and unpredictable.

I tend to think just the opposite: that most players tend to play infantry-only. Now sure, not as many play PTO, but that's not the reason for it (infantry only & dense terrain = not playing PTO). Instead, the reason is that PTO involves a whole new set of rules (chapter G). I like chapter G, but most players (especially new ones) aren't motivated to go beyond D, in my experience anyway .. because it's just too many new rules added to an already rules-heavy game system .. some new players downright shy away from F & G altogether.

btw: imo all the new rules needed for MASL (for one thing) is just going to excacerbate the above situation.

 

[Harold]

I will be fair and say I'd try it but only someone else's copy first. If it looked and gamed good then maybe I would get it myself. The two greatest reasons why I would be reluctant to purchase it without seeing it first are I'm not interested in hypothetical situations and I don't like armor heavy or all armor scenarios in ASL. Those IMO are two things that MASL will have to rely on to sell itself. Somehow I don't see Guerilla battles in Central America and Africa as generating a whole lot of buzz. Another thing is please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Grounding Noriega, the only MASL scenario I know of was ahead of its time but bit off more than it could chew in some respects. The night vision goggles section was overkill. Good luck.

 

[zgrose]

BTW, is the MASL being referred to the same as/descendent of the VNASL rules? I believe there was a chapter YY that was about 2 pages long.