HASLS are the perfect tool to challenge the historical outcome. Many great military minds used war-gaming to test theories on dispositions, tactics, and campaign strategy. An HASL allows the player to take the tools given and develop their own outcome. In an tourney you have mostly scenarios, 5-7 turns in length that depend on planning but share one devastating problem.....one roll of the dice will spell the end for one of the players. It is okay for a tournament, but in a "reality" sense that scenario is most likely a component of a larger action. It is not to say, in all fairness, that that specific scenario could most likely be the sole engagement that day. I love perusing the OOB for each side and review the CG package for the specific details. As an example I am playing the Death Ride Kursk mega game right(Grognard simulations) and you really see the broad operational strategy of each nation right down to the individual platoon, company level. In the ASL HASL world it would break down an individual battalion level engagement to an even greater detail. The HASL brings what I call a Sub- Operational Level of game, so in short, via the Deathride Kursk game, you step into the role as a Corp/ Army group commander, and in the HASL your level is around Colonel to General Level(Brigade to Division) level for the games like Barricades, or VOTG, to Captain, Major for the smaller games. HASL s are an excellant way to look at the bigger picture. The individual scenarios are good to look at the tactical levels, but to broaden your mind and offer a means to know why the scenario happened the HASL campaign is the onlyway to really appreciate the five W's of both the campaign and the scenarios attached to it.
