Which rule do you want to change?

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Boy, if there was ONLY one rule?
I guess I would go for the ability to (not) target buildings as a valid target in and of themselves and being an eligible target selection circumstance for a CH. It just seems too weird that one must have a target (gun, vehicle, infantry, etc.) or a lack thereof with an attendant DRM to effect a building. It just feels wrong that a current target-size/concealment makes it easier or harder to hit a structure regardless of the size of the structure. In as much as a C3.41 does mention that a building is a valid target, it seems a little circumspect that it cannot be selected for a CH if other targets are in the location/hex attacked as well.

I would probably go with an ability to directly fire at a building without adding another target DRM (or the +2DRM for an empty location/hex) using a target size TH DRM of 0 for single hex/level building, -1 TH DRM for a 1.5 two story building, and -2 TH DRM for a Level 2.5 or greater structure. If the building is hit any "current valid (as defined now in the ASLRB)" targets would be effected as Area Fire [EXC: CH] in addition to any other reductions for Area Target Type if applicable while the building would be subject to the FP of the final IFT TH resolution using the TEM of the building/building-location as an IFT DRM and the bombardment stipulations of C1.822 for buildings as its "morale" (i.e. wooden buildings=8, stone=9). Failure of a MC would result in Rubble creation (RS for building locations if using the ATT); an original IFT effects DR of KIA would result in Flame Creation regardless of passage or failure of the building MC while an original IFT DR of a "K/#" result would allow for "possible" Flame creation. Acquisition could be handled a little differently, but I've tossed around a few ideas on that as well in my head. This approach would also help it fall somewhat into line with bombardment effects which firing several high explosive rounds at a structure/location actually represents anyway (the normal direct fire in ASL actually represents several rounds going down range).

Hey, ASLers are like soldiers and kids, we like taking things apart, breaking things, and want to see what fire does (If you have kids/grand-children, soldiers or just remember your childhood, you should most probably agree). Not only do I think this would be more accurate a representation (meh), but it would be a heck of a lot more fun destroying terrain on our game boards.:rolleyes::eek::nod::D
 

fanatic+1

Ryan Kent
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
100
Location
San Rafael, CA
Country
llUnited States
COT to enter a building (in otherwise Open Ground) isn't doubled when moving across an elevation change but is rather +1. So 2 MF to walk into a building, 3MF to walk up a hill into a building. The walking uphill in rough/brush/grain/woods/etc makes a lot of sense but I just don't see it for buildings (and maybe some other structures).
I never knew this. Do you have a rule reference?
 

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
762
Reaction score
209
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
I barely see why a direct fire weapon like a AT rifle, INF gun, or AT gun should have less chance to HIT a target it can SEE through fields or brush, but OK let it stand. But why on earth is it more difficult for an indirect fire weapon like a mortar to hit such a target. I can only assume that your saying that 1 field or brush might actually be a total LOS block, but you waste a shot when not seeing anyone.
 

PTY

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
217
Reaction score
110
Country
llUnited States
Rolling for panzerfausts, molotovs, and ATMM. Either you have them or you don't.
 

Andrei Shhh

Recruit
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Location
Moscow, Russia
First name
Andrei
Country
llRussia
I'd remove Commissar execution rules completely. In Up Front a Commissar is shooting individual soldiers. In ASL he executes half squads. In Panzer Grenadier he exterminates platoons. In OCS he'd probably gets rid of whole divisions etc. It's another old German lie codified in wargames rules. The Germans were shooting Commissars whereby commiting war crimes, and in self defense they told it was done on humanitarian grounds (was there any doubts) because the Commissars were ruthless and prodded Red Army soldiers to continue "useless" resistance multiplying "unneeded" casualties.

Better make the Commissars like Red Chinese ones.:)

In Flames of War they got rid of shooty Commissars lately. And in older rules the soldiers could mutiny and shoot the Commissar!:clap:
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,359
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I never knew this. Do you have a rule reference?
That's the rule he wants to change to this effect.

Within the current set of rules, you can only sometimes archieve something similar by bypassing Woods / Building while moving uphill (which would cost only 2MF to bypass instead of 4MF to enter. But of course, you cannot end your MPh in Bypass and thus have to move on.

von Marwitz
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,359
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I'd remove Commissar execution rules completely. In Up Front a Commissar is shooting individual soldiers. In ASL he executes half squads.
Actually, I have played this wrong for a long time.

The Commissar first ELRs broken units that do not Rally under his inspiration. Only if they cannot ELR any further (i.e. already are or have become Conscripts) does he begin to shoot.

von Marwitz
 

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
451
Reaction score
164
Location
an Aussie in Falmouth, Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Foxhole Exit

If you Assault Move ONLY out of them. The DF is conducted in the hex You MOVE TOO ! (not from)
Any other exit is as normal



I believe this is a Steve Pleva Mod
And I was told it was going to happen with Journal 12
But Nope
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
A.5 needs fixing. While MC results make sense and are easy to handle, weird things can happen with great firepower and low DRs!

EXAMPLE: A 16FP stack led by a 9-2 leader fires into woods containing a Known enemy squad (A), a second in a foxhole (B), plus a third, HIP (C). 16FP -1 versus A; 16 +0 versus B; and 8FP -1 versus C.

On a DR 3, A, B, and C suffer separate KIA results (2KIA, 1KIA, and 1KIA respectively). All dead [EDIT: thanks to JR correcting my original math!].

It's a tricky problem to solve...Best I can think of is to score all MC results in the usual way, but to roll RS for each unit hit by a K/# or #KIA result. The IFT attack that would have applied to the unit with the highest dr applies instead to those units combined (with the usual, additional RS needed to correctly apply the resultant K/# or #KIA). The lesser IFT result applies in the case of ties.
 
Last edited:

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I have solved vehicle deployment: upon passing a TC, a vehicle can deploy into any combination of vehicles whose combined weight is <= to the original vehicle. Multiple vehicles can recombine as long as the resulting vehicle's weight is <= to the recombining vehicles.

Now we'll FINALLY get to use those carefully-research vehicle weights in chapter H.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I have solved vehicle deployment: upon passing a TC, a vehicle can deploy into any combination of vehicles whose combined weight is <= to the original vehicle. Multiple vehicles can recombine as long as the resulting vehicle's weight is <= to the recombining vehicles.

Now we'll FINALLY get to use those carefully-research vehicle weights in chapter H.
Makes sense. But is Armor Leader presence necessary to recombine?:readit:
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
EXAMPLE: A 16FP stack led by a 9-2 leader fires into woods containing a Known enemy squad (A), a second in a foxhole (B), plus a third, HIP (C). 16FP -1 versus A; 16 +1 versus B; and 8FP -1 versus C.

On a DR 3, both A and C suffer separate KIA results (2KIA and 1KIA respectively). B suffers a K/3. Best case scenario: the enemy has a very lucky, unbroken HS left in the Location.
Unit B is attacked at sixteen FP flat, not plus one. On a DR of three the result is a 1KIA. One of ASL's lessons is, "don't stack, and especially, don't stack with your HIP units."

JR
 

Cult.44

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
827
Reaction score
451
Location
Minneapolis
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
Using vehicles to freeze infantry is caused by AFV being under powered in ASL, as well as the artificial time limit. Changing the rules to cause TCs for vehicles to do it is just adding another layer of gaminess to an already gamey situation.

Now, if you want to change the effectiveness of AFV in relation to infantry, I have an alternative TH process that makes infantry much easier to get blown out of buildings before a tank runs out of ammo. You know, like in real life when an ISU-152 fires at a building 100 meters away and gives the enemy inside a speech impediment.
Agreed, AFVs should be more effective against buildings. Maybe a TH roll one or two above the needed hit # would cause a PTC. A regular hit would cause a PTC for any Adjacent infantry in the building.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Agreed, AFVs should be more effective against buildings. Maybe a TH roll one or two above the needed hit # would cause a PTC. A regular hit would cause a PTC for any Adjacent infantry in the building.
My proposed changes removes the TEM from the TH DR and puts it back on the IFT table unless a Direct Hit is achieved (which will work like the current CH for ITT); restricts ATT to mortars and SMOKE firing; removes the +1 BU modifier when firing at acquired, non-moving targets; and CHs would be only a DR2 for ITT, just like ATT and VTT.

Overall, it would make smaller Guns less effective against infantry in cover, while larger Guns would become deadly quickly once a target was acquired.

A 152mm HE shell's "wounding" blast radius is as large as an ASL hex. Yet suppressing infantry in a single hex building with an ISU-152 is difficult in ASL.
 

Jacometti

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
1,898
Location
Halifax, NS
Country
llCanada
Two rules I would change:

1) make MA repair Mandatory

and

2) change Control rules so there is no silly self-break win the scenario with only upper level brokies. For example, at game end Broken units are removed for Control purposes.
 

R Hooks

Smoke Break brb
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
762
Reaction score
209
Location
beaumont texas
Country
llUnited States
OK OK you have forced me to suggest a rule I'd like to see changed. I want tanks to not lose special ammo so fast.

When you fail a special ammo roll say A-6, it isn't gone, it just lowers to A-5, then A-4

You can't try another shot with that ammo on the same phase, but you can take one on the next phase you can fire again.

It's a bit book keepy.
 
Last edited:
Top