What does ASL do better/worse than any other Game?

[Jo.B]

The Assault series LOS chart was cool:smoke: but to say ASL is CHEAP!!
P.S. is there any way we can make a los chart similar to the Assault one without infringement violations?:smoke:

I think you cant. It simple would be not offical. :angry:
When I see other guys buying things and not finding their game
I have the impression it is cheapest to play ASL.

Dummys in other games are handled in a manner that when they are
removed you can put them in later on a conceald stack. Than move the real stack and the dummy stack in different directions.
What I would realy like to know how this can take place in ASL.
Do I need a SSR for this ? Or do I have to put in the ?s as reinforcements ?
Thats a realy simple gamemechanic.

Tankbattles:
Asume there is mud in effect. And there are long rows of Level 1 hills with some woods on the summits something like a tankdungeon.
Seriously , would this leed to a more fun tanker Scenario ?



I am sorry about my broken english, please

J.B

 

[Jo.B]

What is it about ASL that makes it particularly better suited for double-blind than, say, PanzerBlitz or ATS or any other tactical game system? Sounds like another fanboy comment to me.

games where the reverse side of a counter is a dummy do better with FOG.
These ones need no doublelinde. So why dont we try to plot moves
like Flat Top ? :yummy:

 

[WaterRabbit]

ASL's success it based upon one primary factory: Time.

An ASL scenario can be knocked out in easily in a evening's play. A game of 3R takes at least a weekend -- and even then it won't go to completion because one side of the other will quit before the end of 1943. No strategic game of any value can be completed in an evening. Thus, ASL will beat all of them hands down.

Other tactical games are more successful than ASL -- Warhammer being the best example. Game of equal or perhaps greater following (depends on the year) are Battletech and Star Fleet battles. Tactical games that were good but lacked the neccessary support to get them ASL's level of success were Firepower and Sniper -- both of these were man-to-man and Firepower was doomed from the get to because it was based upon post-WWII combat.

With respect to Double-Blind, of the games that I have played, neither Battletech nor Star Fleet battles benefit from moderated games. Battletech works benefits from a "gamemaster" in the same way a RPG works. Starfleet battles does a much better job with fog of war than ASL -- it is built right into the system. Starfleet Battles is basically naval combat and Battletech is essentially armored combat.

All of them have difficultly with combined arms to more or less degrees. ASL does the best job of combining all of the different elements of a 3D battlefield (i.e., less clunky rules for the integration with infantry).

Despite claims to the contrary, in all of the other major games systems (Warhammner, SFB, Battletech) DYO is a big part. The only real question about ASL is why are so many players wedded to scenarios as opposed to DYO? All of the other systems have scenarios, yet DYO play dominates. Warhammer, which by the way has a much greater following than ASL has ever had by perphaps a much as 10:1, is almost exclusively DYO.

ASL does tactical infantry combat well. I cannot think of a single tactical infantry combat game that is as authentic to the situation it is trying to model -- not even Lock&Load. It is clear that John Hill had spent quite a bit of time reading WWII tactics since all most all of ASL's game concepts come out of Infanry tactical manuals (or at least the ones I have read).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

ASL's success it based upon one primary factory: Time.

An ASL scenario can be knocked out in easily in a evening's play. A game of 3R takes at least a weekend -- and even then it won't go to completion because one side of the other will quit before the end of 1943. No strategic game of any value can be completed in an evening. Thus, ASL will beat all of them hands down.

ASL isn't a "strategic" game, it's a tactical one, though. I'm not sure that time is really an issue - that all depends on the player, and the scenario, no?

Other tactical games are more successful than ASL -- Warhammer being the best example. Game of equal or perhaps greater following (depends on the year) are Battletech and Star Fleet battles. Tactical games that were good but lacked the neccessary support to get them ASL's level of success were Firepower and Sniper -- both of these were man-to-man and Firepower was doomed from the get to because it was based upon post-WWII combat.

Firepower was based on Close Assault, which was Second World War combat, and Sniper included both - as did Hetzer, the sequel to Sniper. I remember them being quite popular, not doomed. As for ASL's level of success, that's not a realistic yardstick in my opinion. If you have to have 20 modules, a 30 year history, and a 500 page rulebook to be considered a success, that rules out every other game.

ASL does tactical infantry combat well.

Which aspects? Command and control are non-existent, support weapons usage is mostly fantasy, and the amount of sleaze outweighs the number of real life decisions a commander would make - skulking being just one example (how many infantry commanders would deploy to a building, run outside the building, then advance back into the building 30 seconds later? ) The omniscience of the player is another issue - I think Combat Mission on the PC handles these issues much better, due to being a PC game, but of course if you want to scale a wall, swim across a river, ride in a glider, drop by parachute, drive a captured truck, and/or interrogate some civilians it lacks the detailed rules to do all that stuff, which 99.9% of the time no one did anyway.

Squads in battle routinely deployed into fire teams (even if they didn't call them that) but in ASL this tactic is disadvantageous if it separates one from a leader helpful in making a fire attack, or from a "killer stack" in close combat. Perhaps this is a function of the hex scale - is 40 metres really a reasonable space for a squad? So much time has passed since 1977 that to question the core foundations of the game is not heresy, but really pointless - you kind of accept ASL for what it is - a game - and run with it. Reading some of the comments in the thread, it would seem many are convinced ASL has transcended its own intent.

 

[Portal]

WaterRabbit,

Not knowing much about SFB these days, I'm curious to know how its Fog of War rules are inherent to the game and how they work as a whole. Do you mind sending me a PM with a brief explanation of how they function?

 

[AdrianE]

In the tactical gaming world ASL's weaknesses include:
command and control:
In ASL our cardboard soldiers obey every order far too willingly. You need a conscript to charge a HMG, in ASL its no problem.

unit morale:
An ASL company will usually fight to the last man when a real world company would have pulled back to avoid annihilation.

correlation between accurate fire and rate of fire:
In ASL, if you hit you have a greater chance of getting to shoot again. This is due to the fact that the coloured die determines ROF. Get a 1 (or 2 or 3) on the coloured die and you get to shoot again, plus you were more likely to have gotten a hit (or an effect on the (i)ift). I'm not sure this is a valid correlation.


However its part of the simulation vrs playability dynamic. Games with command and control and unit morale rules tend to be boring and not much fun. As a game, ASL has it right. However as a simulation ASL has factored out some facets of tactical combat.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There is a certain logic between accuracy and rate of fire, though, if you're arguing against it; at the very least, being on target increasing the likelihood of effecting that target.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

So would a plus for ASL be that the game appears to be so realistic we confuse it with a simulation, or at least have the expectations of a simulation?

I see a lot of posts where it appears con's are related to its simulation ability which is difficult for any game trying to be realistic but fun to play. Is that really a valid expectation in a non PC game? Are their any good board games that are simulations and fun?

 

[Earthpig]

So would a plus for ASL be that the game appears to be so realistic we confuse it with a simulation, or at least have the expectations of a simulation?

I see a lot of posts where it appears con's are related to its simulation ability which is difficult for any game trying to be realistic but fun to play. Is that really a valid expectation in a non PC game? Are their any good board games that are simulations and fun?

It all depends on what you consider fun I have friends who want to track ammo like the Assault series did. I have friends who like playability. I personally think ASL has A good balance of both:smoke: Like the armor/gun/mobility/production balance of tank design. you could get a big slow protective Tiger(super realism) or a fast nimble unable to penetrate cardboard tankette(super playability) or you get a adequate armed & armored, fast enough, and easily produced tank(ASL) IMHO:smoke:

 

[Earthpig]

I am sorry about my broken english, please

J.B

Your English is FAR better than mien Deutsch:smoke:

 

[Honza]

unit morale:
An ASL company will usually fight to the last man when a real world company would have pulled back to avoid annihilation.

Don't forget the Battlefield Integrity optional rule which many people avoid like the plague (because its extra effort?) As your unit takes casualties their ELR goes down, so they can still fight to the death but their efficiency as a unit diminishes the less there are of them.

 

[Honza]

Many people mention skulking as a form of unrealistic sleeze. But its not dissimilar to units just 'keeping their heads down'. Unfortunatley to skulk you have to move back (sometimes out of the building altogether) which is not realistic, but making yourself a much lesser target to the opponent is realistic. So one could interpret skulking as an abstracted form of 'keeping ones head down'.
It would be of interest to have an ASL rule that allows Infantry to minimise their target status, with the penalty of not being to fire while in that state. Sort of a 'taking cover' staus which minimises their vulnerability but reduces their ability to shoot back. Skulking actually is that status, in a sense.

 

[McFinn]

.It would be of interest to have an ASL rule that allows Infantry to minimise their target status, with the penalty of not being to fire while in that state. Sort of a 'taking cover' staus which minimises their vulnerability but reduces their ability to shoot back. Skulking actually is that status, in a sense.

See this thread

http://forums.gamesquad.com/asl-tactics-strategy/66165-skulking-strategy-sleaze-6.html

Page 6 for a discussion of "taking cover" status.

 

[Honza]

See this thread

http://forums.gamesquad.com/asl-tactics-strategy/66165-skulking-strategy-sleaze-6.html

Page 6 for a discussion of "taking cover" status.

Thanks Keith that was very interesting. And I thought I'd had a bright, new idea! Lol.

 

[Jo.B]

Your English is FAR better than mien Deutsch:smoke:

but you are wise enough not to use


ASL is a Wargame. But as a wargame it has forgotten its maintask.
This should be showing military manouvers / actions.
Most scenarios do this 'all out' style. Take that VC at all cost or yust exit VPs.
That is realy booring. (I will try to do better in my upcoming 'Singling'.)
I think the influence from the verry experienced players is responsible for this
non wargame style. It tends in direction of chess or profigaming.
As an excample: When you find this Leader less (meatless) scenarios in AoO what do you feel ?
Maybe "Oh, nice that is a 18 Squad Company with only 2 Squadleaders " , I would not.

so back to the roots!

jo

 

[afelix1]

Traversing the mapboard

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned it but the ability to bypass obstacles and the LOS rules that take into account that type of movement is one area that ASL may be unique in. I am not aware of any other hex based game that allows this. I can't honestly remember if SL had this option.

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

Jo writes,

"ASL is a Wargame. But as a wargame it has forgotten its maintask.
This should be showing military manouvers / actions."

Do you have any examples of why you think ASL is not a game of maneuver/military actions?


"Most scenarios do this 'all out' style. Take that VC at all cost or yust exit VPs.
That is realy booring. (I will try to do better in my upcoming 'Singling'.)"

There are many, many different types of VC's in ASL scenarios. A lot of scenarios have casualty caps in the VC's.

What is a non-boring to you?

"I think the influence from the verry experienced players is responsible for this
non wargame style. It tends in direction of chess or profigaming.
As an excample: When you find this Leader less (meadless) scenarios in AoO what do you feel ?
Maybe "Oh, nice that is a 18 Squad Company with only 2 Squadleaders " , I would not."

I'm not sure i understand what you mean by non-wargame style. As to a scenario that has 18 squads and only 2 leaders, that might very well represent a poorly led force. If you really expect there to be an accurate count of squad leaders, then you would have 22 leaders or more with 18 squads as each squad has a squad leader, plus a platoon leader for each platoon, plus a company commander, plus a company SGT., etc.

Leaders are not represented this way in ASL.

"so back to the roots!"

What roots? Squad Leader?

 

[2 Bit Bill]

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned it but the ability to bypass obstacles and the LOS rules that take into account that type of movement is one area that ASL may be unique in. I am not aware of any other hex based game that allows this. I can't honestly remember if SL had this option.

Without checking, I get the feeling by-pass movement was introduced in Crescendo Of Doom rule 106, 110?

 

[Jo.B]

Do you have any examples of why you think ASL is not a game of maneuver/military actions?

There are many, many different types of VC's in ASL scenarios. A lot of scenarios have casualty caps in the VC's.

What is a non-boring to you?

oh ok, "military actions" seams not to be the right therm , I want to say "military Operations"
such as :

- reconnaissance
- relief
- combat patrol
- probe
- retreat (maybe, like fighting withdrawal)
- retreat in to a line (in german: 'Aufnahme' New Page 1 )
- what about this Band of Brothers adventure. take prisinors behind the river,


In other words, I would prefere more focus on the motiv and less in the art of balance and havy playtest.
Yes, I know, it is hard to paint in that style. aperbag:

I'm not sure i understand what you mean by non-wargame style.
As to a scenario that has 18 squads and only 2 leaders, that might very well represent a poorly led force.
If you really expect there to be an accurate count of squad leaders,
then you would have 22 leaders or more with 18 squads as each squad has a squad leader,
plus a platoon leader for each platoon, plus a company commander, plus a company SGT., etc.

no, no, I dont want/like this one to one. I am beleaving
that this less leader Scenarios are for very good for experince players.
And are playtested down to this amount of leaders by thouse players.
But is this a fun thing to play with leaders only for rally task ?

Maybe you are right and they want to represend the poorly led forces.
Ok, but nearly all on of this large/medium size scenarios do in that way.
I get fear, when I think about two well placed sniper shoots.
Do you really like that style ? :upset:

"so back to the roots!"
What roots? Squad Leader?

no,back to what it was, a wargame far away from profigames like chess

 

[Honza]

Jo - your comment on leaders has given me a thought that perhaps a scenario with maybe 10 or so leaders per side (for about 15 squads) would be an interesting development in the ASL scenario genre.

I.E. to have more than enough leaders for you force and see how it plays.