Which rule do you want to change?

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
There is some merit to consider that a 24 MP Chaffee should not receive more hits during its MPh than a 5 MP FT-17.
Speed is not an advantage in ASL from that viewpoint.
However, the question mostly applies about one Gun pumping successive shots against a given vehicle.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Start like this, and you'll soon have different MP expenditures during Assault Movement, or only count par of multiple MP expenditures when an AFV goes from out of LOS to in LOS...

The fire restrictions by MF/MP are obviously a concession to playability. They work fine; anything different would likely imply more complex bookkeeping. What might work OK for a computer game, would not necessarily function on a paper-and-cardboard wargame.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Start like this, and you'll soon have different MP expenditures during Assault Movement, or only count par of multiple MP expenditures when an AFV goes from out of LOS to in LOS...
At least, the system makes a difference between AM and NAM movement...

The fire restrictions by MF/MP are obviously a concession to playability. They work fine; anything different would likely imply more complex bookkeeping. What might work OK for a computer game, would not necessarily function on a paper-and-cardboard wargame.
We always can say that everything is fine in the best of worlds.
I am fine with the RAW.
We know that this thread is not about serious suggestions to actually change the rules.
They won't ever change - and it is what guarantees the stability of our prefered wargame.

What this thread could test, is rather our capacity of moving out of a traditionalist and purely defensive posture and of suggesting some "chrome" adaptations - with absolutely no risk to see them implemented.
Officially anyway : some TPP did dare some innovations that would have made people scream if MMP had (e.g. BFP's PiF additional leader values and canister ammo added to some early war vehicles).

That said, the "bookkeeping" would be minor (if not inexistant) if a rule stated that a defender were allowed maximum one shot per 1/4 (no need to round the number) of a vehicle's MP expenditure : we already have to count how many MPs it expends in LOS of the defender to see if case J1 or J2 apply or have to count half the MP expended by a tacked vehicle entering woods or a building.

As much as abstractions are necessary, ASL doesn't present pure abstractions in all domains and one can question the design choices - unless one thinks that Don Greenwood was unfallible.
The system could go further along the path of abstraction and allocate the same armor factors and the same MP to all vehicles : I am sure that most ASL players would state that it "works fine" that way (quite like SL base game didn't have TCA differentiated from VCA).
The fact is that a FT-17 crawling along 5 hexes is less vulnerable to defensive fire than a Chaffee moving 24 - under the sole aspect of successive shots by the same defender.

Now, as the terrain in ASL is quite restricted, that doesn't weigh a lot upon most of the situations encountered (not speaking of the fact that a ROF tear is quite with ROF 1 or 2 Guns)... and a Chaffee still will be able to peep out of a place under cover to rush towards another one, while the FT-17 is so slow that it will get a lot of fire during the next DFPh and PFPh...
And of course there are many factors which will make a difference between firing against a FT-17 and a Chaffee...

But in DTO or Steppe, it has some consequences.
 

Spencer Armstrong

Canard de Guerre
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
8,624
Reaction score
1,682
Location
Gainesville, FL
First name
Spencer
Country
llUnited States
I'll probably get "flamed" but the three rules I would change are as follows:
1. I would only allow units to "advance" if they are trying to go into close combat. It would slow down the tendency of units to move too quickly and end "skulking".
2. I would abolish all bypass movement. I think it adds very little to the game yet adds a ridiculous level of complexity when mixed with other mechanisms (eg bailing out, snap shots, wreck creation etc etc). It would also neatly "end" the VBM sleaze.
3. In a similar vein to 2. above, I don't think double time really adds all that much to the "game" (basically every second turn you can move a little further), yet it add some complexity (albeit not too much) and more counters.
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 ;) ):

1. It's too big a change now and I have no issue with skulking. It has enough cost it makes for good game design, but it's the least of my issues here. If the system had been designed with this in mind, it wouldn't be damning (unlike the next two).

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.

3. You're not kidding? Do you not understand how important the decision is between extra speed and the sacrifice of the +1 of CX? It's an absolutely beautiful bit of design that is integral to ASL. Lose this (and especially if you throw bypass out with it) and you're just one of a thousand generic and forgotten game systems.

S
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Those are so basic rule changes that they would wreck most scenarios, as they would require very important changes - needing to add turns would be the first one.
I don't know what your playing experience is, but I would suggest that you played SK only. At least there would be no bypass.
Limiting the APh to entering CC only, without allowing some more mobility during the MPh (perhaps a last "cautious movement of one hex") would severly slow down manoeuvres.
Eliminating Double Time is strange, unless you believe that soldiers will keep with a Sunday stroll rythm and ignore any forced march (or running) tempo.
I don't think that you have measured the real consequences of your modifications.
You won't be flamed for your suggestions - this thread is a joke anyway.
Rationally opposed certainly.
Why can't he have a suggestion that is not a joke??
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Effect of (big) guns in buildings increased...
 

Paul S NJ

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
603
Reaction score
524
Location
New Jersey
Country
llUnited States
Major
1- Foxhole exit (MF expended in next hex and no concealment loss if next hex in not open ground)
2- FT vs AFV (needs a total re-do)
3- Pleva OBA rule
4- leaders and sw of a scenario defender set up HIP with a MMC (nice add by DTF pack)

Minor
1- no MOL use against empty hexes if kindling is NA (avoid nefarious kindling)
2- advancing to Crest (current mechanic is broken)
3- half squads manning a SW mortar should be a small target (since an 81 MTR/crew is a small target)
4- minimum range of 1 for non-AFV night vision
5- my personal pet peeve, all Stuarts should be small targets
6- crews don't have ATMM/PF except by SSR

YMMV
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
My choices are

FH exit same as shell-hole exit, IE vulnerability as per hex entered.

VBM Freeze still allows fire into adjacent hex.

Pleva OBA variant as a official and recommended but optional rule.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
FRU or FRD? We could include gas points in EVERY scenario too :) One Gas Point == 1 MP. Go ahead, move to higher ground. -- jim
Actually, I kind of like the idea of gas points, at least for certain situations - 1945 Germans, units part of larger encircled formations, or which were historically badly supplied. What's another hour of bookkeeping to us?

More seriously, someone once suggested that you could drop the access number for special ammo by one in exchange for one guaranteed usage. This would be a huge deal in scenarios where you need that smoke cover for the first rush, and if you don't get it, everyone dies.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
....

More seriously, someone once suggested that you could drop the access number for special ammo by one in exchange for one guaranteed usage. This would be a huge deal in scenarios where you need that smoke cover for the first rush, and if you don't get it, everyone dies.
Never heard of that one...but yes that is very interesting...even has a bit of the Gor-Gor flair about it. (Or to your point you need that APCR shot...etc.) +1
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
More seriously, someone once suggested that you could drop the access number for special ammo by one in exchange for one guaranteed usage. This would be a huge deal in scenarios where you need that smoke cover for the first rush, and if you don't get it, everyone dies.
It's a good start to imagine that there is, game-wise, some trade-off between special ammo availability and number of shots. If you absolutely need your special ammo, you have to pay insurance in the form of a lower overall number of shots using that ammo (which create some interesting player dilemma). Owning to small ammo depletion numbers, the odds to get one single special ammo shot might be low. Therefore availability of special ammo can be envisaged scenario-wide (i.e a budget of special ammo available per side per scenario, of course special ammo would still need to be fired by eligible ordnance). This would make for deliciously-grudgy SSRs or a more ambitious revamp of ammo depletion rules.

Anyway you'll see that, at least imo, there is much room for improvement on that specific issue.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
It's a good start to imagine that there is, game-wise, some trade-off between special ammo availability and number of shots. If you absolutely need your special ammo, you have to pay insurance in the form of a lower overall number of shots using that ammo (which create some interesting player dilemma). Owning to small ammo depletion numbers, the odds to get one single special ammo shot might be low. Therefore availability of special ammo can be envisaged scenario-wide (i.e a budget of special ammo available per side per scenario, of course special ammo would still need to be fired by eligible ordnance). This would make for deliciously-grudgy SSRs or a more ambitious revamp of ammo depletion rules.

Anyway you'll see that, at least imo, there is much room for improvement on that specific issue.
It could have been one of your TPC?...maybe it is...I don't have them memorized....
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
One could consider that a DR for depletable ammo affects the next shot - DRs could be made upon set up before the ordnance fire their first depletable ammo.
 

JAGgamer

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
109
Reaction score
103
Location
Indiana
Country
llUnited States
A Tiger (Mk-VI) perhaps could reasonably be deployed to a couple of Mk-IIIs (III+III=VI, you get the drift; 50L of course) no way should a Mk-V get that much of a benefit, but pretty sure if replaced a Tiger would go to a Mk-IV (looks similar) [EXC: King Tiger > Panther].
This kind of sounds like some rule from Star Fleet Battles.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Malfunction only by enemy fire effects on weapons.. actual B number transformed in ammo problems.. and ammo problems adding a new die as DRM and no ROF.. or something similar allowing weapons to keep firing all the game and eliminating enemy knowledge about no ammo.. and of course, a new treatment of CH (vs vehicles specially) based on final to hit number needed allowing better chances on high to hit Numbers
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
A serious analisys on vehicular movement phase.. EX to avoid moving first a vehicle 10 hexes away to frozen a hex adjacent to a non moved yet vehicle that it will move now safe for victory..
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I think a lot about vehicles and guns.. and minor ones for infantry game.. about OBA, Pleva rule and no malf for radios, maybe reducing contact number if needed to reflect radio contact problems.. anything to eliminate enemy knowledge on OBA avaibility -I mean the non OBA available knowledge... it destroys any game with OBA-
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Or maybe a bunch of 'Health Pack' counters scattered randomly about the mapboard, sort of like 'Doom'.

That would be SO realistic.
 

Cult.44

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
827
Reaction score
451
Location
Minneapolis
First name
Mark
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 ;) ):

1. It's too big a change now and I have no issue with skulking. It has enough cost it makes for good game design, but it's the least of my issues here. If the system had been designed with this in mind, it wouldn't be damning (unlike the next two).

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.

3. You're not kidding? Do you not understand how important the decision is between extra speed and the sacrifice of the +1 of CX? It's an absolutely beautiful bit of design that is integral to ASL. Lose this (and especially if you throw bypass out with it) and you're just one of a thousand generic and forgotten game systems.

S
Agreed.

Re 1, I can see where Advance seems wonky to some but I think it's kind of John Hill brilliancy and goes a long way toward keeping games from becoming static shooting matches. Also, without skulking there'd probably have to be rule that would allow units to forego Prep Fire for an increased TEM (i.e., seeking deeper cover and not returning fire).
 
Top