Which rule do you want to change?

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
My idea is returned after doing all buys and rolling all depleting DR.. so are CPP per next CG Date.
This means that it is possible and perhaps even likely that the last CG date will end with unspent CPP. Now I know this won't bother you, but there is a spanish player on gamesquad that finds little accounting irregularities like this intolerable, so he will argue that unspent CPP need to be usable on the date of depletion. Or perhaps depletion rolls need to be made in advance of purchases so all the CPP can be used by CG end.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
May I remind everyone that ASL is a wargame, not a procedure book for the finance department. War is chaotic and unpredictable, IE shit happens.
I thought your preference was for a tidy battlefield. I seem to remember someone in your direction of the earth's rotation saying something like that.

JR
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
My guess is that this is a simplification to allow ordinary squads/halfsquads to use them rather than having them be crew-served. I don't think a 50mm MTR would be easier to hit than a crewed small gun, but if you made them (and their possessing infantry) small targets you would make them useful to possess as a defensive shield. That would not work out right. So you could make them crew-served, but adding crews for silly MTRs has the same problem that adding crews for MGs has and possibly worse: the crews are co-opted for other purposes. So you could make a special, much less-likely-to-be-co-opted MTR (or MG) crew, say a [1]-0-7 which can't bump scout and perhaps half-a-dozen other patches to make them only useful as MTR crews. But a light MTR crew is likely to take to their heels when the rest of the squad goes, unlike a gun crew, which is likely from a different part of the org chart. So perhaps when the rest of the squad goes, they take a squad-loss-task-check. Or you could say, forget the whole thing and go with the simple solution.

JR
The problem is not that the light mortar is manned by a HS or a crew, but that a small Gun is marked with a white circle which indicates that one applies a +1 DRM when firing as ordnance against it.
Trying to change the rule here will open a can of worms, as one could also argue that a squad manning a light mortar should be easier to hit than a HS, etc.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
May I remind everyone that ASL is a wargame, not a procedure book for the finance department. War is chaotic and unpredictable, IE shit happens.
Not a problem of ASL itself... Only a way to look for the more challenging match when played vs two equally average players.. Trying to start the game with same options for both sides and avoid unbalancing DRs before to even start moving. It they are avoidable.. Why not?
 

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
I thought your preference was for a tidy battlefield. I seem to remember someone in your direction of the earth's rotation saying something like that.

JR
I think you are referring to one of the neighbouring Germanic hooligans who still infest our attic. They've been barred from most of the places they visited, the Indian Curry House, the Chinese Noodle Shop, the Saudi Petrol Station, the African Vegetable Emporium and now they are leaving Le Escargot Restaurant in a huff complaining about the garlic. They are trying to get pally with the wannabe Mafiya Meth head across the river, but he doesn't know what day it is, is getting divorced and is wanted for child cruelty.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
My idea is returned after doing all buys and rolling all depleting DR.. so are CPP per next CG Date.. historical drm are valid per the number of groups and the level of depletion.. asume this CPPs as an extra help because too many depleted thing last Date.. Returned CPP may have limited use if wanted, but in small CGs is a clear way to avoid excessive effects of initial DR on CG balance for sure..
Sounds like an easy House Rule to implement when playing a CG - the players just have to agree on it beforehand.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Sounds like an easy House Rule to implement when playing a CG - the players just have to agree on it beforehand.
I don't think it's as simple as that. You have to re-calibrate all the purchase costs, or you end up reducing the cost per unit. If you don't re-calibrate, more units can be purchased over the course of the CG.

It also means that there are CPP that won't be spent on the last CG date. That penalizes the side that gets more CPP on the last CG date (and/or has saved CPP until the last CG date). For instance in the Riley's Road CG the Germans get 50 CPP on the last date while the British get only 25 CPP.

JR
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
The problem is not that the light mortar is manned by a HS or a crew, but that a small Gun is marked with a white circle which indicates that one applies a +1 DRM when firing as ordnance against it.
Trying to change the rule here will open a can of worms, as one could also argue that a squad manning a light mortar should be easier to hit than a HS, etc.
A single gun has a specific location within the hex - thus it is more difficult to cause casualties to crew, vs a squad or HS spread over the entire hex means a greater chance of hurting/scaring SOMEONE. (what a K/MC result really means.)

(Anyway, that is how I would justify the reality -->abstraction decision if I were the system designer. ):p
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
So you are saying that the design/rules for foxholes in ASL intended for players not to use foxholes? Well, they definitely succeeded!!!

The only time foxholes don't work out is when you use them.
No. I am saying that players who use them as intended receive the advantages and disadvantages as designed. You use them for something else-- you get something else.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I don't think it's as simple as that. You have to re-calibrate all the purchase costs, or you end up reducing the cost per unit. If you don't re-calibrate, more units can be purchased over the course of the CG.

It also means that there are CPP that won't be spent on the last CG date. That penalizes the side that gets more CPP on the last CG date (and/or has saved CPP until the last CG date). For instance in the Riley's Road CG the Germans get 50 CPP on the last date while the British get only 25 CPP.

JR
Those special cases may get extra units with those CPPs entering as new reinforcements.. only as a comment about possible options.. anyway I know is a always possible House Rule per CGs..
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Why do so many scenarios have foxholes in their OB or SSR that eligible units may set up entrenched, while there is no OBA?
I blame the designers for not knowing for what foxholes are used and for enticing a non historical use of those fortifications.
There should be much less foxholes in scenario set ups.
It is something GOOD scenario designers consider thoroughly (I typically provide them if the defensive positions will include enough grain or brush.)
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
No. I am saying that players who use them as intended receive the advantages and disadvantages as designed. You use them for something else-- you get something else.
Except there is no advantage to using them as intended. One is better off in any +1 terrain rather than a foxhole because of the ability to skulk...and/or make a quick exit to reposition...not talking extensive maneuver (i.e., running half way across the board) but simply changing a hex maybe two. You seem to think that the intent of a foxhole is for a stand and die defense, which strikes me as ahistorical.

The simple truth is that experienced players don't use them, regardless of the design intent, because foxholes are death traps. I believe the affects of foxholes within the ASL rules is an unintended consequence and not what the designers were looking for.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I don't think it's as simple as that. You have to re-calibrate all the purchase costs, or you end up reducing the cost per unit. If you don't re-calibrate, more units can be purchased over the course of the CG.
Between to players who agree it should be easy to implement as a House Rule is what I meant. I.e., if they agree - then go for it - no need to change anything in current rules - it's not as if a CG is going to show up on a tournament venue vs an unknown player.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
. You seem to think that the intent of a foxhole is for a stand and die defense,
which strikes me as ahistorical.
It's not. Name a battle in which the troops involved were expected to maneuver out of foxholes regularly, fighting as they went-- and dug them with that in mind. If there is one, I will design a scenario around it and SSR the new foxhole rules accordingly.

The simple truth is that experienced players don't use them, regardless of the design intent, because foxholes are death traps. I believe the affects of foxholes within the ASL rules is an unintended consequence and not what the designers were looking for.
I think original game designers were expecting more OBA in scenarios - not less (as has happened over the years).
I'd be surprised if they even considered how popular and tactically reasonable 'skulking' would become.
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
It's not. Name a battle in which the troops involved were expected to maneuver out of foxholes regularly, fighting as they went-- and dug them with that in mind. If there is one, I will design a scenario around it and SSR the new foxhole rules accordingly.



I think original game designers were expecting more OBA in scenarios - not less (as has happened over the years).
I'd be surprised if they even considered how popular and tactically reasonable 'skulking' would become.
Tend to second that observation. I have toyed with a few changes for Foxhole/Trench effects during some homemade scenario designs (mostly PTO). Dependent on the situation or the side a couple of approaches are:
  1. Units in Foxholes [EX: Spider Holes or well camouflaged positions] in concealment terrain to lose concealment as Guns when firing. This approach seemed to work well as an SSR for engagements in especially rough terrain or with/against troops of vastly differing experience levels in jungle warfare.
  2. Allow units in Trenches (mostly) in concealment terrain to gain concealment as if the unit were behind Bocage. (This I think worked quite well even in German vs Russian engagements where a side had sufficient time & resources to dig in over an extended period of time [EX: Kursk, The Little Land, or even 1944 AGC at the outset of Bagration]).
I have yet to see such an SSR in a published scenario that I have played but I expect someone will come along sooner or later and publish something in a fairly similar in approach. One thing I have noticed with this approach is that attacker to defender ratios must be increased more toward realistic odds to achieve the same goals as without such an SSR and that the game moves along a bit faster because there is less unnecessary movement (skulking) during turns.​
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Tend to second that observation. I have toyed with a few changes for Foxhole/Trench effects during some homemade scenario designs (mostly PTO). Dependent on the situation or the side a couple of approaches are:
  1. Units in Foxholes [EX: Spider Holes or well camouflaged positions] in concealment terrain to lose concealment as Guns when firing. This approach seemed to work well as an SSR for engagements in especially rough terrain or with/against troops of vastly differing experience levels in jungle warfare.
  2. Allow units in Trenches (mostly) in concealment terrain to gain concealment as if the unit were behind Bocage. (This I think worked quite well even in German vs Russian engagements where a side had sufficient time & resources to dig in over an extended period of time [EX: Kursk, The Little Land, or even 1944 AGC at the outset of Bagration]).
I have yet to see such an SSR in a published scenario that I have played but I expect someone will come along sooner or later and publish something in a fairly similar in approach. One thing I have noticed with this approach is that attacker to defender ratios must be increased more toward realistic odds to achieve the same goals as without such an SSR and that the game moves along a bit faster because there is less unnecessary movement (skulking) during turns.​
These both sound like excellent SSR ideas ;)
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Heros drm cumulative… I will like a -1 limit hero drm even if added more than one.. ie only one hero maximun affecting the roll.
 
Last edited:
Top