What makes ASL Forgotten War feel another time-period?

[Akashi]

So I was wondering, since I am kinda new and all, what makes the new ASL module feel different from ww2? I understand the scenario description will reflect the time and place of Korean war, but what else? Are the units different (probably not since old modules are used), the map looks different but not particular like Korea (I think), perhaps some unique rules will ruff up the gameplay? What do yo think?

 

[Carln0130]

So I was wondering, since I am kinda new and all, what makes the new ASL module feel different from ww2? I understand the scenario description will reflect the time and place of Korean war, but what else? Are the units different (probably not since old modules are used), the map looks different but not particular like Korea (I think), perhaps some unique rules will ruff up the gameplay? What do yo think?

Hello, actually, the units in many cases are different. The North Koreans, ROK's and Communist Chinese all have their own distinct characteristics. The weaponry used in the war was WW2 vintage almost without fail. The exceptions to that are covered. As for will that work out to it feeling different? Time will tell. What I was able to view and read from early playtesting was that it did a nice job capturing the period. That is always something ASL as a system has done, so I don't think Korea will swing and miss there either, but the ultimate arbitrator of that is time.

 

[jrv]

One of the reasons that the Korean War can be covered by ASL is that there is not a lot of difference from WWII. The weapons and tactics are very similar. There will be some new Nationalities (Korean Peoples Army, Republic of Korea, Chinese People's Volunteers Army, Other UN Commands) and some new rules (steep hills, Infantry Platoon Movement). I don't think there is anything that will be an extraordinary leap, in the way that early WWI or Yom Kippur might need (never mind US Civil War).

The Journal 11 has a preview article, so when you get it, you can read more details. Forgotten War has more changes than, say, the Dutch Trucks module, but it is still solidly ASL.

JR

 

[ParaMarine]

I'm interested in seeing how bayonet charges work their way into the game. A lot of the fighting from late 1951 onwards was quite different from the war of maneuver before.

My predictions:
CCF play unique in that they reduce like Japanese, but don't generally have no quarter in effect and actually want to take prisoners. Also I think that for both historicity and game balance, they will generally have a high casualty threshold which is offset by UN weaponry. So sort of a combination of early war Russian and Japanese. Also, I know we all hate CH, but they did have a solid idea with the grenadier squad. Instead of suicidal Japanese tank hunter heroes, these could be simulated by a new SMC which could dramatically change the OBA rules for the CCF, making them even more unique and making OBA (of which there will be a lot in hill assaults) less of a hassle or at least new and fun.

NKs are like Soviets with no quarter. Maybe a higher broken side morale. They did have less men and they did make a lot of continuous attacks. Even if we did defeat them by superior generalship and by sending the First Marine Division to war, they were no joke and deserve a little better than to be written off as second rate Russians.

RoKs and Turks = no quarter. Other UN = pretty mundane.

Bayonet charges should make the near attrition/static warfare of late 1951 onwards more interesting. People are complaining about the hills but I think they're looking at it wrong. First off, I've never seen anyone complain about high ground in scenarios before. In fact these are normally a lot of fun. Now if we are going to have these grindfests, it would be interesting if both sides had a little more to do than the normal ASL method of massing multi-hex firegroups and preventing routs by positioning of certain MMCs. I think there is a lot of potential in this and it is a good move. I also think it fits the theme. Not just the Communist forces but the RoKs and even the American forces made a lot of these bloody assaults with a lot more success and purpose than what you would find in Hurtgen forest, to make one example. Another benefit is that this eliminates the need and penalty for the inevitable Low Ammo situations that are the result of the terrain and logistical situation. Finally it brings home the personal nature of the war for the two primary combatants in the war - both DPRK and RoK armies are a combination of long service professionals and amateurs, but keeping in mind that this is a war on the asian mainland, an emphasis on hand to hand is to be expected. On the surface it seems anachronisitc and even foolish but I think that misses a lot of points to write it off: Terrain based objectives may be contrary to US doctrine but this was a war where that became the center of gravity for both sides, so it makes sense to incorporate this unique circumstance into the scenario design.

For Early War I look at it like this: DPRK's war is core ASL stuff. You have a war of maneuver, city fighting, crucial battles, and the robust Soviet equipment without a lot of the hard to employ weird stuff that they kept hanging onto from pre-ww2. Potentially early war is more new player friendly than the majority of ASL. PTO isn't really a thing other than rice paddies.

From winter 1950 until the static phase, it is the Chinese war. All of their unique playstyle will be in full effect but it will still be a war of maneuver, with at least three more major urban battles to go and a whole host of unique scenario objectives.

Once this game comes out I will probably play it more than WW2 ASL, at least for a good while.

 

[Justiciar]

As others have noted there are many similarities...and some key differences. Nationalities being one of the important ones and I think one which ASLers will find adds that different feel.

I would add, as one of the designers, there are some rules that make for differences too. VT artillery...think airburst without trees. Air Support guided to attack in the Friendly Prep Fire Phase..via Tactical Air Control Parties and Airborne Controllers...Bayonet Charges has been mentioned...there are other surprises too. But I do not* want to spoil the surprises.

The module will thus have a familiar feel, which is good in one sense, and yet new flavors which is a nice spice in another way.

And best of all...it is just the beginning of the ASL journey in this conflict. You all out there are going to contribute new maps, and scenarios, and HASLs, and articles, and find new tactical tips for play to pass on and so forth...

 

[Akashi]

Wow, that was really massive and solid set of replies! Thank you all for that, it has sure gotten my excitement up for this module!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I would expect some changes to Canadian troops, perhaps by SSR. The Korean War caught the Canadian Army in the midst of a massive reorganization that never happened. They were supposed to adopt American weapons across the board, but the war required them to go into action with their World War II equipment, and there was no opportunity to change over. However, a number of American weapon systems were used in Korea, from the excellent .50 calibre MG to individual small arms - one battalion of The Royal Canadian Regiment reported that half their small arms had been swapped at one point for M2/M3 carbines, etc. Of no small significance is the fact Canadian officers got hard liquor rations while the Americans were "dry." Thus, lots of trading going on. Reports by Canadian patrol commanders apparently commented on the fire superiority the Chinese had - especially in the dark - with their massed submachine guns against Canadian troops armed with bolt-action Lee-Enfields.

 

[ParaMarine]

Glad things are going well! Lets make this the Good KWASL thread. ( :shock:

Updated Canadians make sense but especially so for French. I will say again that everything is here to portray the Indochina War. Just have the CCF stand in for the VM, add some PTO and En Avant!

 

[Vinnie]

Can we get a few pointers towards good books on the subject from overviews to unit history?

 

[ParaMarine]

Can we get a few pointers towards good books on the subject from overviews to unit history?

Ignore Max Hastings is step one. Bad detail, usual bias, generalizations that aren't true, and the same old insignificant anecdotes which are just there to make the story seem compelling but are usually tangentially related.

Good general history: John Toland. His WW2 books are a real example of nuance, objectivity, and skilled writing. Same thing here.

Best general history (if you can find it):
http://www.amazon.com/The-Korean-War-Volume-1/dp/0803277946
Three volumes, loads of information, and plenty of vignettes which demonstrate what the combat was actually like and what the stakes were. Also, unlike almost everything else you'll read, this doesn't leave the Koreans as a footnote in a war between the US and China. The RoK is center stage here and it actually explains what the KPA was up to after we shattered it. (they regrouped and mostly fought Gainst RoKs and army units in the more mountainous regions of the front line) There were more battles than you'd realize if you rely on books like those from someone like Max Hastings.

Battle stories there are plenty of but they are limited in focus. You can get something general like "Hey Mac, Where ya been?" which is a collection of quality personal stories of Marines in the war. You can find stuff very specific, like "Hearts of Iron" by Jerry Ravino, which is just about Marine flame tanks. Yes there is a trend here: Marines have more books on the subject but there are a few army stories out there. Not as much luck on finding things about the RoKs in English. People like Max Hastings like to dismiss them entirely or grossly oversimplify them, but the truth is that they were a huge mixed bag and they did take the majority of the casualties on our side. Also, unlike in Vietnam, they were involved in most of the major operations in one way or another, and usually more significantly than you'd think if you read a bad book (like one by Max Hastings.)

 

[samwat]

Ignore Max Hastings is step one. Bad detail, usual bias, generalizations that aren't true, and the same old insignificant anecdotes which are just there to make the story seem compelling but are usually tangentially related.
Good general history: John Toland. His WW2 books are a real example of nuance, objectivity, and skilled writing. Same thing here.
Best general history (if you can find it):
http://www.amazon.com/The-Korean-War-Volume-1/dp/0803277946
Three volumes, loads of information, and plenty of vignettes which demonstrate what the combat was actually like and what the stakes were. Also, unlike almost everything else you'll read, this doesn't leave the Koreans as a footnote in a war between the US and China. The RoK is center stage here and it actually explains what the KPA was up to after we shattered it. (they regrouped and mostly fought Gainst RoKs and army units in the more mountainous regions of the front line) There were more battles than you'd realize if you rely on books like those from someone like Max Hastings.

The last of those is actually the ROK army's official history. I'd say the best general history is Allan R. Millett's trilogy, including The War for Korea, 1950-1951: They Came from the North (Univ Press of Kansas, Modern War Studies) 2010

The US Army also has an official history, but only a couple volumes. Roy Appleman, who wrote at least one of those, then did several volumes on US Army ops that are pretty good (and more stimulating reading than the Greenbooks). There is a volume in the Leavenworth Series from the Combat Studies Institute titled Counterattack on the Naktong, plus an essay on artillery, etc. See http://usacac.army.mil/organizations/cace/csi/pubs for downloads. (Most Center of Military History pubs can also be downloaded as PDFs if you go to their site, including many if not all the Greenbooks and probably including the KW volumes.)

See also Kenneth W. Estes, Into the Breach at Pusan: The 1st Provisional Marine Brigade in the Korean War (Uof Oklahoma Press, Campaigns and Commanders Series) 2012. If you're willing to get a bit less tactial, and a bit more academic, there are a number of recent works on the Chinese side:

Mao's Military Romanticism: China and the Korean War, 1950-1953 (Univ Press of Kansas, Modern War Studies)Nov 28, 1995
by Shu Guang Zhang

Mao's Generals Remember Korea (Univ Press of Kansas) 2001
by Xiaobing Li, Allan R. Millett and Bin Yu

China's Battle for Korea: The 1951 Spring Offensive (Indiana Univ Press, Twentieth-Century Battles) 2014
by Xiaobing Li

And for you Commonwealth men, The Imjin and Kapyong Battles, Korea, 1951 (Indiana Univ Press, Twentieth-Century Battles) 2013.
by Paul MacKenzie

 

[Justiciar]

Can we get a few pointers towards good books on the subject from overviews to unit history?

For the USMC you can get free overview pamphlet histories here (just like WWII ones, and other wars), and the bibliographies within are also helpful.

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/historydivision/Pages/Staff/Publications.aspx

USA overview and its biblio is free via..http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/020/20-2/CMH_Pub_20-2.pdf

This post is for a free route to sources and its trails. Not meant to override Sam's or others suggestions.

[Edit. Michael Dorosh I thought supplied a link to Canadians in KW in another thread on KW here, but I can't find it at present... Hopefully he will be back on here and chime in with info. Michael was a big help with the Canadian side of things during KWASL development.]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This was discussed in another thread, but the Canadian official history is available online:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/oh-ho/detail-eng.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=35

Some other overall reviews from a Canadian perspective are Bercuson's BLOOD ON THE HILLS and FIND THE DRAGON: THE CANADIAN ARMY IN KOREA by Robert Heptonstall. The Bercuson one may be the weaker of the two; a (now-departed) online friend who served there sent me some very interesting information on what he felt Bercuson got wrong as far as his own experience with two separate battalions of The Royal Canadian Regiment there.

http://www.amazon.ca/Find-Dragon-Canadian-Korea-1950-1953/dp/096804140X

Ted Barris wrote a book about Korea as well called DEADLOCK IN KOREA: CANADIANS AT WAR 1950-53.

I haven't read Barris or Heptonstall, but did find the short precis by John Melady interesting (KOREA: CANADA'S FORGOTTEN WAR), when I read it many years ago.

Also useful are some of the corps histories - for example the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery has its own history, which sheds light both on the general operations as well as artillery-specific history. Likewise there are histories of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps which talk about the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) who operated a squadron of M4A2E8s in theatre.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Here is a good quote from BLOOD ON THE HILLS discussing Korean terrain and the difference from World War II:

(Brigadier Rockingham) then went on to Korea. He found the 'wartime atmosphere together with ruined villages and other evidence of devastation of war ... very strange after five years back in untouched Canada.' He went first to see 2PPCLI at the front...On a visit to one company's defended locality, Rockingham was impressed by the ruggedness of the mountain terrain: 'The approach to the company was through fairly thick cover of low trees and brush, then up a hill that was almost vertical. It was a far cry from the country I had fought over in Europe.'

Steep hills and brush - seems to me very much like the new mapboards that one or two here have expressed misgivings over...

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

Can we get a few pointers towards good books on the subject from overviews to unit history?

And an answer to that Korean War joke "How many hordes are in a Chinese platoon?"

Seriously, it's been mentioned before but Appleman's East of Chosin is an outstanding account of the American Army 31st Regimental Combat Team's last stand during the 1950 Chinese Offensive.

Also while not a 'unit history' SLA Marshall's Pork Chop Hill is a breezy read that's a real page turner.

For a down in the weeds first hand account I found Addison Terry's The Battle For Pusan to be simply amazing. He wrote it right after his tour so he could decompress, never with intention of publishing it. It has raw emotion, the thrill, fear and exhaustion of battle. Decades later a relative of his found it in the attic, gave it to a publisher, and they were smart enough to get it into print right away.

The Edge of the Sword by by Farrar-Hockley is another first hand account of being at ground zero at the Imjin River in 1951 - and its afermath. You can't help but say "You're a better man than me" after you read what this gentleman endured.

As for overviews I don't have one, but I have one I can "not" recommend and that is Michael Hickey's The Korean War. One of the few books I have ever started and never finished - I just couldn't make myself do it.

19K

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The big additions in the module are the Chinese (who are significantly different from the GMD and Red Chinese in Chapter G) and the terrain. There are lots of little things here and there and a variety of new units. The Americans are mostly the same as in World War II (a few minor changes including Early War US Army rules, plus the addition of 6-6-7 paratroopers and 6-6-8 Rangers). The Brits/Commonwealth add the Royal Marine Commandoes. The Other UN Command (French, Turks, Belgians, Ethiopians, etc.) and ROKs are fairly straightforward, with a distinctive nationality characteristics. The NorKs are use Russian counters, and a have propensity to commit cardboard war crimes. The American and Brit/Commonwealth have some new AFV, and the other nationalities get existing stuff in their new colors. Other new toys include the MAZ50 (3.5 inch bazooka), FB50 (jet fighter bomber) and AD (Skyraider attack aircraft).

The Korean War was fought only 5 years after World War II, so it fits in well into the system.

Even though the Chinese have a lot of rules, almost all of them are derivative of something already in the system, so they should be easy to learn. As for Steep Hills terrain, Steep Hill are to regular hills as Dense Jungle is to woods, more or less. As with everything in ASL, there are a lot of words because ASL rules are so precise, but the rules are basically not very hard.

So I was wondering, since I am kinda new and all, what makes the new ASL module feel different from ww2? I understand the scenario description will reflect the time and place of Korean war, but what else? Are the units different (probably not since old modules are used), the map looks different but not particular like Korea (I think), perhaps some unique rules will ruff up the gameplay? What do yo think?

 

[FourDeuceMF]

My predictions:
CCF play unique in that they reduce like Japanese, but don't generally have no quarter in effect and actually want to take prisoners. Also I think that for both historicity and game balance, they will generally have a high casualty threshold which is offset by UN weaponry. So sort of a combination of early war Russian and Japanese. Also, I know we all hate CH, but they did have a solid idea with the grenadier squad.

Good overview...they are definitively unique in the ASL universe.

However, just to clarify - the 'Grenadier Squads' are not an idea with its origin at CH (did they ever do anything 'original' in the past decade or two?), nor are they a response to that design...they've been part & parcel of our design since nearly the beginning...and do well to beef up the casualty count (on both sides)...

 

[Akashi]

Thanks for the book suggestions, I think I want to buy one or two on the subject. Without being provocative, are there any books (mentioned or otherwise) that have perspective that also covers the North/China side as well as the US/ROK/UN side? Their views, motives, justifications and such.

Thanks, this thread is very enjoyable.

 

[ParaMarine]

I don't know if it's possible to get an honest historical view from the DPRK. I have read extensively on the DPRK itself and while their later cold war and their military of today is easy enough to understand, I don't think you can read into the history of the war from their perspective unless you can read Korean. Even then, it would be really hard to seperate truth from embellishment from outright myth. Their official version of events is just so clown world that it is really just an exercise in historical fiction.

The official story is that the US subjugated the South using Rhee as a puppet and invaded the north. They won a major victory at the battle of Kaesong (the border city that was indeed lost as a result of redrawing the DMZ during the ceasefire talks) which fits into their narrative kind of like Kursk on steroids. The famous amphitheater sized painting in the Victorious Fatherland Liberation War museum is clearly patterned off of the famous Soviet painting of the battle of Kursk, but it is actually more impressive because of its scale. This battle never happened. The story then goes that Kim Il Sung devised a counterattack and pushed the allied forces to the Pusan perimeter but was betrayed by counterrevolutionaries and was forced to retreat. Also the story is that Kim was commanding at all of these victorious battles but the reality is very different. It was a plan drawn up mostly by Soviet advisors, a lot like the 1973 war between Egypt and Israel, and there is no evidence that Kim ever left his air raid bunker far in the north.

The battle of Seoul - which was a major battle which was actually contested quite hard - is mostly ignored while the Inchon landing is strangely centered around the defense of Wolmi Do(island.) There is a famous movie about this fortified island with an alamo like stand where several US warships are sunk. In reality the garrison surrendered quickly and the total in American casualties was a single wounded sailor. My only guess as to why they went with this story is to add some war mythology to their navy. From then on it's a story of attacks and counterattacks where they basically bled the UN forces white and won a victory but were restrained from conquering the peninsula by the rest of the Soviet sphere. There is some lip service paid to the Chinese volunteers in the same way we might acknowledge the Aussies in Vietnam, or the Belgians in WW2. This really pissed off the Chinese when they found out about it, but I think they were pretty well tuned in to just how cray cray those NKs are.

As for the Chinese, Korea was a turning point for their military. There was actually a backlash against the tremendous loss of life - this was before the cultural revolution but even after Mao's insanity reached its peak, there were Chinese leaders who reevaluated combat methods. Korea is one of the reasons that China's army modernized the way it did. China didn't have the same military development cycle as the west or even Japan. We in the west learned how not to do modern war in the trenches of the western front, and Japan learned it in 1904-5 and even moreso in 1942. China's wars were so much different in character that the overall military machine had a stunted development which was advanced in some ways but archaic in others. You can just read analyses of the PLA in every decade since to see how it evolved starting soon after the end of the Korean War. The major loss of life was a big part of that change. Some suspect that this led to Marshal Lin Biao's eventual fall from favor.

Again it's hard to get information on Chinese history in any era. I'm still trying to find a good book on China's greatest hero Yue Fei - think a medieval general whose character is like Robert E Lee and whose military exploits rival Julius Caesar...and not a thing in English except a footnote in boring general histories. I would like to get an honest appraisal and history of the war from them. NVA memoirs and histories are starting to appear in libraries here but still nothing from Chinese veterans. China isn't as wacky as NK but it's still frustratingly inaccessible in a lot of ways.

Good overview...they are definitively unique in the ASL universe.

However, just to clarify - the 'Grenadier Squads' are not an idea with its origin at CH (did they ever do anything 'original' in the past decade or two?), nor are they a response to that design...they've been part & parcel of our design since nearly the beginning...and do well to beef up the casualty count (on both sides)...

By all accounts, the primary task associated with these troops was with target marking, obscuration, and with interferring with our signal plans. Are they included by design with an ability to affect indirect fire weapons in game?

 

[jwb3]

Again it's hard to get information on Chinese history in any era. I'm still trying to find a good book on China's greatest hero Yue Fei - think a medieval general whose character is like Robert E Lee and whose military exploits rival Julius Caesar...and not a thing in English except a footnote in boring general histories.

One of the few things I know about Chinese history is that there's just so damn much of it. Seems like every time I read something about it, I either hear of a whole new dynasty, or perhaps just have it reinforced how little I know of the sequence of dynasties, and thus how hard it is for me to track them.

I mean, here in the US we've already reached the point where we're shortchanging the teaching of American history due to running out of time in the school year... and that's less than 500 years. Compared to that, the history of medieval/modern Europe alone covers almost three times as many centuries; I took an entire year college course just on English history alone. But China? That's all peanuts compared to China.


John