Which rule do you want to change?

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
ASL is a good an intense game but it has some problems I personally dislike a lot because the dicey effect of some rules. Accordying to my experience the dicey aspect of some rules is the worst enemy of a good afternoon playing a good scenario with a good friend. ROF and CH on VTT and ATT are two of them. The impact on vehicular battles are greater because once killed vehicles are gone completely, there are no broken/rally effects on vehicles but only KIAs.. I try to reduce dicey effects when playing because I like the game, not because I don´t like. It´s only a comment about a rule I think is not as good as all the others and a way to resolve what I think is not ok, Obviously thinking in friendly games between average players playing frequently and wanting to resolve some of the dicey effect to get a better game experience. Fortunately a lot of new scenarios are including SSR to reduce dicey effects.. maybe some scenario designer will check my table and it will be taken in account for his next design ?.

STAVKA has made his own House rules for a better enjoyment of Red Barricades after a lot of CG games completed. If a ever get time to play this CG I know I will play using this rules. And I thank him a lot for taking the time to write them.

BTW, from the INDEX:
House Rules (any mutually agreed upon method for speeding up play, or adjusting the oficial rules for a particular group´s own enjoyment or convenience)
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The impact on vehicular battles are greater because once killed vehicles are gone completely, there are no broken/rally effects on vehicles but only KIAs.
So wouldn't the fix be to have broken vehicles that can rout away and rally? We already have armor leaders for just such a rule. Vehicles are just as dead when they die on a normal hit as when they die on a critical hit. Changing the frequency of critical hits doesn't really seem to do much to address what you say is the reason for your change.

JR
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I maintain the frequency of CH in the global game.. only increment the probability of CHs with higher numbers to hit by decreasing equally the probability of low numbers..

In vehicles every dicey event - example a chain of snakes to hit with CHs and ROF- has more importance in the game result because the nature of the vehicle warfare in ASL.. not trying to change the nature of vehicle warfare at all. Only commenting the main reason to resolve the ROF and CH question in vehicles.. sorry about my problems to explain my POV using this language.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but one of my preceding posts (now modified and replaced with this one) had a pretty serious logical flaw that crept in while I was translating my CH idea into words (you guys are pretty kind to not jump on me for it!). I return to it - just for the record - since I agree with mgmasl that CH probability in relation to the odds for a hit is pretty out of whack in ASL. I also think this is a pretty good way of improving the CH process/odds without increasing complexity or slowing the game down.

My method in brief (we're talking ATT and VTT shots only): an original TH DR2 is still a hit, but only a "CH possibility." A follow-up CH DR must now be made using the original TH numbers and DRMs. If this CH DR now results in a "hit", a CH has been scored. If this follow-up DR results in a "miss" then the result is a regular hit.

Statistically this should lead to exactly 1/36 of all hits being critical hits. But rather than requiring an extra DR after every successful hit, it works by, essentially, reversing those two DRs so the second DR will only be required whenever a DR2 (a "CH possibility") has already been scored.

It shouldn't complicate any existing rule, though it may need a little refining. For example, malfunction would not be possible on the follow-up DRs after an original TH DR2 (only on the original TH attempt).

On the other hand, the new rule streamlines (and I think improves) how CHs interract with other rules: For example, the follow-up DR could still determine location of hit, so CHs could now be scored against the turret or hull (though I guess doubles on a follow-up DR should now count as a turret hit). TH attempts where only a DR2 would hit the target, now require no "special rule," just the same TH DR as a follow-up to the aforementioned "CH Possibility." And Multiple hits can still happen on the follow-up DR, perhaps with only the first TK DR being counted as a CH...

Improbable Hits are the one sticking point. But since the original method is rather unfair to the DEFENDER, I would suggest something as follows: If the TH attempt required less than an original DR2 to score a hit in the first place, than you still need the original DR2. Once achieved, the RB's "subsequent dr" becomes a subsequent DR that replaces the original TH attempt. You're given a new TH#=7 with no DRMs applicable. A final TH# is found by adding the original number that was needed to hit to that TH#7. In other words, if you originally would only hit on a DR1 or less, your "Improbable TH#"=8. If you needed a -1, the Improbable TH#=6. If the Improbable TH# is still less than 2, then a hit CAN'T HAPPEN! In all other ways, this counts as a brand new TH attempt - including the possibilities of a DR2 "CH Possibility", multiple hits, and location of hit.

And needless to say...YMMV
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
941
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
The TPBF needs to change. If you are on a 3rd level and the enemy is on ground level...the freeze is just play F@#$ing stupid. Both parties should have to be eligible for TPBF for it to have freezing effects.
To Freeze you at that level he has to be CE (I think), so its not without risk as you will get PBF for firing down and he will not (firing up).

At least I think that's how it works.

But I am wrong all the time.

Roger
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
941
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
Late to the party.....

The one that drives me the craziest is the whole, spend a MP to exit a FH or Trench (there are exceptions for trench of course).

I think that if you AM out of a FH/Trench you should get the TEM as you move to the new location/hex.

Roger
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
To Freeze you at that level he has to be CE (I think), so its not without risk as you will get PBF for firing down and he will not (firing up).
The PRC of a CE closed-top or BU/CE open-top AFV are target with TPBF rather than PBF by units in the same hex at a higher level [A7.211]. The TPBF is important because PBF does not cause target selection limits [A7.212]. A unit in a cellar can't be VBM-frozen in general, although SFF/FPF against units outside the hex would be taken away. An open-top vehicle is also treated as an unarmored vehicle for fire from a higher level in the same hex [D5.311]. If a halftrack bypass-freezes an ordinary four FP squad at an upper level, it can be attacked at twelve FP, which eliminates it on a seven or less.

JR
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
941
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
Let me be the first to flame (and by that I mean criticize without personal attacks because it's just a game and at least you're not suggesting the IIFT ;) ):

2. No. Oh, please no. This was one of the biggest improvements from SL and is one of the biggest losses in SK. There is no way I'd want to play ASL with this level of constraint. Bypass is a huge step to breaking the arbitrariness of hexes and a key to what makes ASL great.
I cannot tell you how much I agree. Been playing some non ASL tactical (LnL/Conflict of Heroes/Last 100 yards) and I cannot tell you how much I hate no bypass.

Roger
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Except for the odd case of Spraying Fire (which does not happen very often), you still need a moving target to attack in order to place Residual FP in a Location. So I am not sure what you are referring to.
I am considering an SSR: RFP markers remain on board and in effect until the end of the player turn.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I would allow armored assault only for those units designated Armored Infantry/Panzer Grenadiers/ Mechanized, etc. or by SSRs.

In reality tanks were (and still are) noisy, scary things that draw lots of attention--and unless troops were specifically trained to work directly with them, they preferred not to as much as possible.

I would keep foxholes as is (They are simply not intended for maneuver.) but allow entrance/exit via lower elevation like trenches.
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
941
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
Oooh, I like this idea. Alternatively, you could add the wdr of the TH DR to Gun Duel determination. This would require that both players commit to the shot...
Steve
yes I like this one as well.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Wall advantage. Get rid of it completely.
What would you use instead for opposing units adjacent that are ADJACENT across a wall/hedge hexside? No body gets the hexside TEM? Both get the hexside TEM?
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
A few I threw together some years back for the Heretical Mini at ASLOK. I especially like 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11. 11 should be a standard rule - many players use it as a house rule...

  1. Suppressed – When a Good Order unit fails a MC by exactly one it becomes Suppressed instead of broken. Mark the Suppressed unit with TI and Pin counters. The effects of TI and Pin both apply during the CCPh.
Instead of creating any entirely new category, how about just expanding PIN results. On the IFT, what is currently a PTC would instead be a '1 PTC'; the lowest numbered '-' result would change to a PTC.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
A 7.212 Only aplicable vs ADJACENT units and firing always allowed vs other ADJACENT units…
This will reduce freezing a lot, and it will eliminate freezing 2nd level units by OT vehicles on ground levels. It looks strange that units IN cellar can´t be freezen while units at 2nd or higher level can easily be so affected by any vehicle CE in bypass..
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I for one have never been too upset by the "freeze" rule. It's a bit clunky - casting too wide a net - but in general I feel like units in the same Location - especially when one of those units is a well-armed vehicle - would realistically be preoccupied and unable/unwilling to engage distant units effectively. I am happy to leave it unchanged.

If it were to be tinkered with, perhaps treat "frozen" units as Pinned units, but only for purposes of firing outside of their current Location. So half FP, no ROF, FLs, etc...
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I for one have never been too upset by the "freeze" rule. It's a bit clunky - casting too wide a net - but in general I feel like units in the same Location - especially when one of those units is a well-armed vehicle - would realistically be preoccupied and unable/unwilling to engage distant units effectively. I am happy to leave it unchanged.

If it were to be tinkered with, perhaps treat "frozen" units as Pinned units (for all fire purposes), but only whenever they wish to fire outside of their current Location. So half FP, no ROF, FLs, etc).
Yep-as I said upthread … Tanks are scary!! I would be hiding my ass off if one were nearby.

But tank crews were also not too keen on getting close when their weapons were effective from a safer distance.
 
Top