Who has room for this much ASL?

[larrymarak]

Per today's emailer CH now has all their WW2 era ASLComp counters in stock. That's 38,000 counters! I can't imagine how many cabinets it would take to deploy these.

 

[footsteps]

Per today's emailer CH now has all their WW2 era ASLComp counters in stock. That's 38,000 counters! I can't imagine how many cabinets it would take to deploy these.

Olli in 3... 2... 1...

 

[footsteps]

Just did some quick math. One set of all the counter sheets I currently have in production is just shy of 16,000 counters. And that doesn't include USMC, Japanese, Chinese.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

OK, as the math nerd here, let me give it a rough calculation.

I use matchbox inners glued together in 4x4 arrays/trays. I can get either 6 or 8 such arrays in an ASL box, depending upon depth (2/layer, 3 or 4 layers). Let's take 6 giving 96. I can fit 78 1/2" or 54 5/8" in each inner tray. Let's assume a 50/50 mix, so 48 matchbox inners of each size. So each box takes 48 x 78 = 3,744 of 1/2" and 48 x 54 = 2,592 of 5/8" for a total of 6,336. So 38,000 counters = 5.997 boxes. As there usually is some side space for single 5 inner strips (more often 37 inners per layer than 32 per layer) and some boxes take 4 layers, I bet I could get it down to 5 ASL boxes without sweating.

So 5 or 6 BV/FW war sized boxes. Not filling every inner to capacity, for sorting/type/access reasons, might add a box or two at worst. The downside is that such boxes approach a light to medium weight wood in density.

 

[Sparky]

Just did some quick math. One set of all the counter sheets I currently have in production is just shy of 16,000 counters. And that doesn't include USMC, Japanese, Chinese.

or the doing same nationality in ... several color schemes haha.

The overall number is impressive but I couldn't imagine who would buy all of them. I do like what CH is doing there, offering choice I suppose. If wants to have red Russians.. well there you go.

Critical Hit counters really are a ASL chapter in themselves. The single best ASL counters anyone has done were CH, but true to CH form, the worse ever done were also CH. The trick and fun early on prior to the nationality sets was the box of chocolate quandry one got with their counters in the individual products. You had the art gallery quality of their French counters in Stonne, those things were beautiful, yet could then also get the Peleliu Japs that I remember my father angrily told Tapio that looked as if he had urinated all over them prior to shipping it haha. Oh he was a pistol. I found it more funny than he did but I had to agree. Not only were they god awful looking, you felt sort of odd just touching them.

As far as the nationality. I've bit hard but selectively on them. I am not a fan of the variant colors with one exception. I do think the Mustard Japs look stellar and far better than the official, hence I've ordered 3 sets of them to fill out my CG/HASL counter requirements and will decide what do with an entire Raaco box of MMP Japanese (CoB, RS, plus all the offical PTO HASL). Might give it away though with RS having come out, I suppose no one really needs them. Perhaps I'll toss it out on ebay and see who might want it and for whatever the market thinks is a good price.

It is funny though, with all those variant colors. The one nationality that SCREAM variant color has not been done, not yet at least. Finns.. white Finns. CH does that and all the grey Finns get shitcanned.

 

[Dave Lamb]

When another TPP did their variant counters, Swedish Volunteers in white, there was a huge brouhaha over that. Does CH really need that? Only info. counters should be white (I guess).

 

[Robin Reeve]

White shark fins would be an interesting option.

 

[larrymarak]

If WW1 ASL ever takes off I'd like to see Boshevik era White and Red Finns. Maybe someday MMP will do a Russian Civil War module with a 6 or more factions. For me WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1923. Likewise WW2 started at the Marco Polo bridge in 1937 and ended in 1945.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I look at the 20th Century as having 2 classes of wars, the anti-colonial wars and the major power war. The major power war, the World War, started in August '14 and ended in August '45 with a longish ceasefire in between. The anti-colonial wars include the 2 Balkan Wars (1912-13), Irish Independence War (1916-22), Ethiopia, China (1911-49) and the dozens in the Middle East, SE Asia, Korea, Africa post the World War. China, in it's later stages coincided with the major power war but it itself was not a major power until much, much later. My definition of a major power war is a war between states that could and did project military power a significant distance from their borders. I regard the "minor" post-WW conflicts, eg India-Pakistan, Arab-Israeli, Iran-Iraq, Rwanda, even Yugoslavia as the often much delayed results of arbitory colonial divisions of subject territories and/or from the lack of development of real political evolution within the former colony/colonies.

 

[Sparky]

When another TPP did their variant counters, Swedish Volunteers in white, there was a huge brouhaha over that. Does CH really need that? Only info. counters should be white (I guess).

wow man. A huge brouhaha? Really? Shame to have missed that one. Must have been some real beer and popcorn viewing. It wasn't like it was an official core module or some jazz like that. Oh well, from the little I've picked up in the last couple of months about the ASL community I'd suspect the same people who might be so easily having their panties twisted by the white Swedish counters are not likely CH's target audience or much of fans of it in general. I do think the point made above is valid, it is all about choice. If one wants white Finns, you would have the choice, if not, don't buy them and stick with the grey.

 

[Sparky]

excellent post Paul. Agree completely with that.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

excellent post Paul. Agree completely with that.

Thank you for that.

Many history orientated people have agreed on WW1 & WW2 as being a war interrupted and it's an idea that has enjoyed at least some exposure and acceptance by the general public.

Some might take the view that the Korean War (1951-?) was an internationalised post (Japanese) colonial civil war, just like my country (Ireland) had.

Very few would regard the Yugoslavia mess as such, but Serbia was an Ottoman colony and Croatia+Bosnia was regarded by the Austria-Hungarian Empire as a close colony as were the Czech lands and Slovakia. Prior to the WW there was some talk of making AH a tripartite crown with German, Magyar and Slavic entities replacing the German and Magyar entities. Yugoslavia was as much a result of the fear of Italian '20s colonialism than mutual affection.

I try to look at deep, long rooted currents as well as more immediate incidents and grievances to explain political/social clashes and other interactions. My own country's tangled history has pushed me into the necessity of that type of analysis.

However, as I often do, I have wandered off the thread's subject, so apologies.

 

[larrymarak]

The troubles TODAY in the Ukraine are a direct expression of the division of Galicia into Austro-Hungarian and Imperial Russian terrotories. Look at the voting results in the last 3 elections there. They conform to the Roman Catholic Russian Orthodox lines of demarcation.

 

[Sparky]

hah. No apologies needed Paul. It ain't my thread and besides, the best threads often go off topic to different and more interesting topics.

Let me ask you this Paul, do you think the book is closed per se on that 20th century conflict. Could it not be said we are possibly just in, have been for half a century of not merely a ceasefire but a 'cold' war. Take for example if events in the Ukraine, or more likely under Trump the Baltics and Estonia lead to a direct confrontation between Russian and NATO/US? Could one regard that is a mere extension of the 20th century conflicts? If not, what might you see as the differences.

I can completely dig what are saying about drinking from the deep long routed currents. That is how I try to look at what is going on here politically.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Hmmm, good question, very good question! Not one I have thought enough about. OK, I'll give a stab at it.

I'll deal with the "small wars" first. Those will continue, though I suspect with decreasing frequency. There are still post-colonial division types like India-Pakistan and the Middle/Near East. While none will reach finality like Yugoslavia or Vietnam did, there seems to be a realisation amongst many of the combatants that such conflicts gain little or nothing. It's not that the participants run out of resources or even martial will, but more a feeling amongst them that war has lost it's decisiveness. The Southern part of Africa has remained quiet this millennium, ditto West, North West and East Africa. It's the blob starting with the 2 Congos to the South all the way up to Libya (Nigeria, Chad, etc) that are going to continue having problems. Though equatorial Africa still grizzles on with low level fighting, it's still a bit better than before, but it will be some long time before that settles down. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are in a similar but far more intense boat.

The scary one is India-Pakistan. Though Pakistan has eased on its guerilla war with India, both are nuclear powers. Though an outright conflict is currently unlikely, an exchange between those two alone would have very bad effects on the whole world. They have enough warheads between them to cause a year or two long mini-nuclear winter. See:

, most enlightening and frightening.

The Great War (1914-'45) is long over. That one anyway. The Western and Central European powers are not going to start anything. Indeed the likelihood of the Cold War going hot would have most likely been triggered by something not really to do with Europe per se. Neither side seriously wished to change the borders, unlike the run up to 1914. The post war ethnic cleansings of much of Eastern Europe had the positive side effect in removing many conflicting territorial claims (eg no more antsy Sudeten Germans, all expelled to Germany). Cuba or Able Archer 83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83) were close calls, but those were closer to accidental or misinterpretation triggers than real intent. The Cold War was the most stable and peaceful era in Europe's history that I can think of, despite being the most fraught in terms of potential destruction. The '90s saw the Balkans go postal, yet again, but the breakup of Yugoslavia seems to be the end of that.

So what is left? I would class the remainder as post-colonial-power or post-superpower angst issues.

The obvious case is Russia. The former USSR lost large chunks of territory. It also faces an ongoing islamic threat that proceeded the one that the west faces. Russia is less worried about the ex-USSR "stans" as most have Russia amenable thugs in charge. That also applies to Belarus, but not Ukraine or the Baltics. Russia is somewhat paranoid and that is based on historical experience (Varangians, Germans, Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes, 57 varieties of Turks, more Germans, British, French, Yanks, Japanese, more Poles, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks and yet even more Germans). No Irish though. It also feels humiliated, somewhat castrated. So there is a certain element of pre-1914 France about Russia, Revanche!. The difference is there no longer exists the spider webs of rivalries and shaky alliances of '14, anyone of which could trigger war. For all practical purposes it's all down to Russia alone. Because a lot is down to internal Russian politics and resentment and how adventurous Putin feels and how NATO as a group holds together, it's very, very hard to predict. The cohesion of NATO is going to be key here. Russia can afford a covert (Ukraine) or proxy (Syria) war but not even a limited 'proper' war to the west.

The less obvious case is the US. "What!!! That was unexpected!" you say. I didn't expect it either until I mulled things over in response to your question. Let's list post-'45 US wars: Korea - stalemate, Vietnam - rout, Cuba - rout, Nicaragua - fail, most other banana wars - short term success but long term failures, 1st Iraq - success, Somalia - bit of a quagmire, 2nd Iraq - quagmire, Afghanistan - currently not looking too good. The only successes were 1st Iraq, Panama and ... Grenada. Like Russia the US has a sufficient part of the population that feels under threat and humiliation (in this case mainly internal causes) with a feeling that it is not getting the respect that it feels it is entitled to internationally. Having an ... undiplomatic ... leader is not a good portent.

China will not be a problem for quite some time. It will do a bit of jostling with its neighbours, growl a little, but mainly concentrate on economic development. In time who knows, but I will likely be dead by then.

So in summary the last "big one" is totally kaput. If there is to be a future big one it will be a bit like 1914 in that something minor will blow up in everybody's faces. My guess the trigger will be either the US or Russia deciding to show the world that its dick is still sooooo big by poking someone like Ukraine, the Baltics, North Korea or Iran. The US will not be trying to annex anyone or gather reparations, Russia will have no ambitions beyond the old USSR and neither will want to fight the other but they will poke someone that in turn draw in others and eventually fight each other. There will be excuses, suppression of Russian minorities, nuclear proliferation, etc but the real reason will be dick measuring. Is such a clash inevitable? I don't think so and if that is put off for a decade or so then the risk will greatly decrease as the current leadership goes or ages.

All the above projections are just my guesses, gut feelings and tingles in my toes.

 

[Yuri0352]

Good stuff Paul... as usual, more objective and entertaining than the editorial pages in my state's newspapers.

I would however beg to differ on the assessment that the first gulf war was a 'success '. (Saddam Hussein still in power, no-fly zones etc.). More like a 12 year rain delay with the U.S./coalition ahead by several runs at the break, followed by a limited victory which devolved in to a tragic quagmire.
JMO of course.

 

[Vinnie]

One major area missing is India Pakistan. Both a big countries with territorial claim a inn the other. Both have a large young population and although democratic, demagoguery is not far off.

 

[Sparky]

whoo wee!!! That is enough to really get a man thinking Paul. Your reputation is well earned indeed. I did ask that as an open ended question. It just came to me reading your earlier post along with Larry's. I'm not really sure what I think of it myself. I'll be chewing on that reply of yours for a spell and try to do up a reply worthy of the response.

 

[Sparky]

Hmmm, good question, very good question! Not one I have thought enough about. OK, I'll give a stab at it.

I'll deal with the "small wars" first. Those will continue, though I suspect with decreasing frequency. There are still post-colonial division types like India-Pakistan and the Middle/Near East. While none will reach finality like Yugoslavia or Vietnam did, there seems to be a realisation amongst many of the combatants that such conflicts gain little or nothing. It's not that the participants run out of resources or even martial will, but more a feeling amongst them that war has lost it's decisiveness. The Southern part of Africa has remained quiet this millennium, ditto West, North West and East Africa. It's the blob starting with the 2 Congos to the South all the way up to Libya (Nigeria, Chad, etc) that are going to continue having problems. Though equatorial Africa still grizzles on with low level fighting, it's still a bit better than before, but it will be some long time before that settles down. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are in a similar but far more intense boat.

The scary one is India-Pakistan. Though Pakistan has eased on its guerilla war with India, both are nuclear powers. Though an outright conflict is currently unlikely, an exchange between those two alone would have very bad effects on the whole world. They have enough warheads between them to cause a year or two long mini-nuclear winter. See:

, most enlightening and frightening.

The Great War (1914-'45) is long over. That one anyway. The Western and Central European powers are not going to start anything. Indeed the likelihood of the Cold War going hot would have most likely been triggered by something not really to do with Europe per se. Neither side seriously wished to change the borders, unlike the run up to 1914. The post war ethnic cleansings of much of Eastern Europe had the positive side effect in removing many conflicting territorial claims (eg no more antsy Sudeten Germans, all expelled to Germany). Cuba or Able Archer 83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83) were close calls, but those were closer to accidental or misinterpretation triggers than real intent. The Cold War was the most stable and peaceful era in Europe's history that I can think of, despite being the most fraught in terms of potential destruction. The '90s saw the Balkans go postal, yet again, but the breakup of Yugoslavia seems to be the end of that.

So what is left? I would class the remainder as post-colonial-power or post-superpower angst issues.

The obvious case is Russia. The former USSR lost large chunks of territory. It also faces an ongoing islamic threat that proceeded the one that the west faces. Russia is less worried about the ex-USSR "stans" as most have Russia amenable thugs in charge. That also applies to Belarus, but not Ukraine or the Baltics. Russia is somewhat paranoid and that is based on historical experience (Varangians, Germans, Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes, 57 varieties of Turks, more Germans, British, French, Yanks, Japanese, more Poles, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks and yet even more Germans). No Irish though. It also feels humiliated, somewhat castrated. So there is a certain element of pre-1914 France about Russia, Revanche!. The difference is there no longer exists the spider webs of rivalries and shaky alliances of '14, anyone of which could trigger war. For all practical purposes it's all down to Russia alone. Because a lot is down to internal Russian politics and resentment and how adventurous Putin feels and how NATO as a group holds together, it's very, very hard to predict. The cohesion of NATO is going to be key here. Russia can afford a covert (Ukraine) or proxy (Syria) war but not even a limited 'proper' war to the west.

The less obvious case is the US. "What!!! That was unexpected!" you say. I didn't expect it either until I mulled things over in response to your question. Let's list post-'45 US wars: Korea - stalemate, Vietnam - rout, Cuba - rout, Nicaragua - fail, most other banana wars - short term success but long term failures, 1st Iraq - success, Somalia - bit of a quagmire, 2nd Iraq - quagmire, Afghanistan - currently not looking too good. The only successes were 1st Iraq, Panama and ... Grenada. Like Russia the US has a sufficient part of the population that feels under threat and humiliation (in this case mainly internal causes) with a feeling that it is not getting the respect that it feels it is entitled to internationally. Having an ... undiplomatic ... leader is not a good portent.

China will not be a problem for quite some time. It will do a bit of jostling with its neighbours, growl a little, but mainly concentrate on economic development. In time who knows, but I will likely be dead by then.

So in summary the last "big one" is totally kaput. If there is to be a future big one it will be a bit like 1914 in that something minor will blow up in everybody's faces. My guess the trigger will be either the US or Russia deciding to show the world that its dick is still sooooo big by poking someone like Ukraine, the Baltics, North Korea or Iran. The US will not be trying to annex anyone or gather reparations, Russia will have no ambitions beyond the old USSR and neither will want to fight the other but they will poke someone that in turn draw in others and eventually fight each other. There will be excuses, suppression of Russian minorities, nuclear proliferation, etc but the real reason will be dick measuring. Is such a clash inevitable? I don't think so and if that is put off for a decade or so then the risk will greatly decrease as the current leadership goes or ages.

All the above projections are just my guesses, gut feelings and tingles in my toes.

been giving your post some thought while sifting through mounds of counters. I do agree with pretty much all you said leading up to your summary so I'll tackle that. And I would agree with you that I would classify the first Gulf War a success. We knocked baddie down and as events later proved, completely neutered him without destabilizing the entire regions. One could argue what our real goals were, the goodness of our hearts or pure economics but the result was the same. Hussein got bitchslapped and remained for the next decade with his tail between his legs till the Neo-Cons decided to settle a score and try their hands at nation building haha.

Anyhow. Yes. I would agree with you. The two greatest threats to the world peace right now are Russia and yes to a lesser extent ourselves. I think the overall jist of my question would boil down to Paul is a) have we indeed returned to a Cold War v.2. Instead of Captialism v. communism, West v. East, we have the old tired and true enemy of 1914 and 1939 nationalism where leaders ruthlessly using it and the glories of the past, spreading blame upon others all while whipping up the masses to help hold on to power while things otherwise are going to hell. As they are for Putin, and well could be for Trump.

so if we are back in a slightly different form of Cold War. Could one not argue that Cold War v. 1 was just a continuation of ww2 fought asymetrically. And now perhaps with a bit of gap, we have returned there. If that is the case one could argue I suppose that the book is not closed on the 20th century conflicts and what gave rise to them. The 24k dollar question is, does this cold war peter out or does a spark set off an inferno like 1914. Hard to say, that is why many many eyes are on little Estonia right now. I don't think many leaders, political and military sleep well at night there. The less so with Trump helping divide and weaken NATO.

 

[Sparky]

crap.. the key point and difference I wanted to point out I forgot as my better half was going Charlie Brown teacher in my ear.

If we are indeed in a Cold War v.2 the differences are substantial and extremely dangerous. Unlike the battle of ideology that allowed the west and east to combat each's ambitions through proxies in the cold war v.1 This is a simply matter of Russia and its territorial aspirations and our own economic and political ones. There are no Sudanie's running around the African jungles fighting for Russian dreams of breaking back imperial Russia and unceasing it's power, prestige aborad and self image domestically. It will be Russian troops doing so, and we don't have proxy states to combat that. Either we stop them directly or we don't.. and they win. That IMO is an extremely dangerous position we find ourselves in. Thus the incredulous reactions by the sensible majory here, of both parties. What the hell is Trump thinking encouraging Putin and yes.. does he really.... really have something over him. It makes no sense and when that is the case, the utterly unthinkable reasons become entirely possible.

thoughts Paul?