After 40 Years of Gaming, is it Necessary to Change ASL?

[PresterJohn]

Maybe somewhat on the side but maybe within topic to some extent. The necessary changes have taken place through evolution over several years as I see it:

1 Non-MMP persons design scenarios and modules
2 introduction of starter kit
3 last but not least: VASL

I don't see any way to roll back the changes that have already happened. It's evolution in action and the non-beneficial mutations die out, along with the old ideas that can't compete.

 

[Dwindham]

OK I'm slow. Take which girl?

No prob. Click the link in the text. It is the color green

 

[Bjoernar]

I don't see any way to roll back the changes that have already happened. It's evolution in action and the non-beneficial mutations die out, along with the old ideas that can't compete.

I implicitly meant that with the already evolution taken place it is not necessary to aim for new big changes, rewrites or similar, outside those that happen slowly over time.

 

[PresterJohn]

Yes, slow changes are best. But it would be nice to embed collected Q&A into the pdf rule book.

 

[Bjoernar]

Yes, slow changes are best. But it would be nice to embed collected Q&A into the pdf rule book.

This would be great, these give so many hints on how to play and apply principles.

 

[BHBillett]

That's funny, But I'll bet it would work.
Still don't like A.I. but that is good!

 

[Sparafucil3]

This would be great, these give so many hints on how to play and apply principles.

I have rolled my own. It can display Q&A alongside but I am not happy with how it works. Perhaps someday soon I will change it.

 

[FJCruiser]

It is time to change ASL. A new rule book with no abbreviations. Don't be so lazy MMP. Do away with all the abbreviations so new people don't have to learn the rules plus a new language. Maybe then they will understand all the questions and answers posted here without having to look up what all the crap means.

 

[Kijug]

I think I posted this before, but in 1985 when I received my ASLRB is was missing the Glossary. Not knowing what was missing, boy was I having a hard time (AH eventually sent me the missing pages). Heh. =)

 

[footsteps]

It is time to change ASL. A new rule book with no abbreviations. Don't be so lazy MMP. Do away with all the abbreviations so new people don't have to learn the rules plus a new language. Maybe then they will understand all the questions and answers posted here without having to look up what all the crap means.

Advanced Squad Leader Rule Book, without abbreviations.



It had to be said.

 

[BHBillett]

Advanced Squad Leader Rule Book, without abbreviations.

View attachment 35785

It had to be said.

And this is the software version!

 

[Yuri0352]

After 40 years of gaming, is it necessary to change ASL and/or change the rules of the game?

With a rapidly aging and diminishing player base, is this the logical thing to do?

What miraculous updates will draw enough new players to justify product print runs and to replace us as we leave the hobby?

1. No

2. No

3. I really couldn't care less what happens with ASL after I've 'left the hobby'.

 

[FJCruiser]

Advanced Squad Leader Rule Book, without abbreviations.

View attachment 35785

It had to be said.

It looks like that now.

 

[Barking Monkey]

While there are a few things I'd ideally like to change, I agree that none are worth altering the rules or counters to amend. One of the big things I'd like to change involves neither. I strongly believe the non-elite US squads are 'broken'. The original concept back in SL was that Americans were "quick to break and quick to rally". Decades of reading military history leaves me at a loss where this notion comes from, but whatever - it gave the Americans a different 'flavor' and added interest to the game. The problem was they went too far and the original 6-6-6 guys were overpowered supermen, not only the higher broken side morale but also no desperation morale,etc. The development team rightly decided this needed fixing, but over-corrected (imo) and now non-elite US squads are porcelain dolls that have to be kept from even the lightest morale checks whenever possible. They lost the "...quick to rally" part of their flavor due to ELR degradation. A '6' morale tied to only average ELR levels means they're quickly going to break to 2nd line and have no better chance of rallying than any other nationality.

I believe a partial solution is for scenario designers to give even non-elite US squads (at least the 1st line ones) an ELR of '5'. This significantly reduces the chance of 1st line squads breaking to 2nd line and thus keeps their '8' broken side morale. It has the virtue of not requiring any changes to the printed rules or any already-published material (I'm certainly not proposing it for retro-active application.)

This doesn't fix the problem of US squads being inexplicably worse than (almost) every other nationality at performing actions that require task checks - at least one or two of which have nothing to do with steadiness under fire, but some things you just have to live with.

 

[Zugführer]

While there are a few things I'd ideally like to change, I agree that none are worth altering the rules or counters to amend. One of the big things I'd like to change involves neither. I strongly believe the non-elite US squads are 'broken'. The original concept back in SL was that Americans were "quick to break and quick to rally". Decades of reading military history leaves me at a loss where this notion comes from, but whatever - it gave the Americans a different 'flavor' and added interest to the game. The problem was they went too far and the original 6-6-6 guys were overpowered supermen, not only the higher broken side morale but also no desperation morale,etc. The development team rightly decided this needed fixing, but over-corrected (imo) and now non-elite US squads are porcelain dolls that have to be kept from even the lightest morale checks whenever possible. They lost the "...quick to rally" part of their flavor due to ELR degradation. A '6' morale tied to only average ELR levels means they're quickly going to break to 2nd line and have no better chance of rallying than any other nationality.

I believe a partial solution is for scenario designers to give even non-elite US squads (at least the 1st line ones) an ELR of '5'. This significantly reduces the chance of 1st line squads breaking to 2nd line and thus keeps their '8' broken side morale. It has the virtue of not requiring any changes to the printed rules or any already-published material (I'm certainly not proposing it for retro-active application.)

This doesn't fix the problem of US squads being inexplicably worse than (almost) every other nationality at performing actions that require task checks - at least one or two of which have nothing to do with steadiness under fire, but some things you just have to live with.

I largely agree. But aren't most of the scenarios with Americans with the 7-4-7 and 6-6-7 guys anyway?

 

[Sparafucil3]

I believe a partial solution is for scenario designers to give even non-elite US squads (at least the 1st line ones) an ELR of '5'. This significantly reduces the chance of 1st line squads breaking to 2nd line and thus keeps their '8' broken side morale. It has the virtue of not requiring any changes to the printed rules or any already-published material (I'm certainly not proposing it for retro-active application.)

This doesn't fix the problem of US squads being inexplicably worse than (almost) every other nationality at performing actions that require task checks - at least one or two of which have nothing to do with steadiness under fire, but some things you just have to live with.

What I try to do is include a mix of unit types in the OB for the American Army. IMO, this better reflects the makeup of a division that was constantly in action and constantly receiving replacements. American units rarely got pulled out of the line for more than a few days. There was a constant turn over of personnell for all the suspected reasons. A mix of experienced and inexperienced troops seems to make a lot of sense.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I largely agree. But aren't most of the scenarios with Americans with the 7-4-7 and 6-6-7 guys anyway?

Not if they are done correctly. The plain Jane American 4-6-7 is the 6-6-6. The 6-6-7 is generally used for Elite formations like Army Rangers. The 7-4-7 is almost always associated with Airborne forces.

 

[Zugführer]

Not if they are done correctly. The plain Jane American 4-6-7 is the 6-6-6. The 6-6-7 is generally used for Elite formations like Army Rangers. The 7-4-7 is almost always associated with Airborne forces.

I know that. But aren't the most scenarios about those elite guys? What are the latest historical modules with Americans ... oh ... wait ... the Drop Zone ones with 7-4-7 paratroopers. And even in Hatten In Flames in the most scenarios are 6-6-7 guys in the regular infantry regiments.

 

[Barking Monkey]

I know that. But aren't the most scenarios about those elite guys? What are the latest historical modules with Americans ... oh ... wait ... the Drop Zone ones with 7-4-7 paratroopers. And even in Hatten In Flames in the most scenarios are 6-6-7 guys in the regular infantry regiments.

And I feel like that rather reinforces the point. If scenario designers have to enlist 747s and 667s just to make the Americans viable then there's something wrong. (Admittedly, there's more to it than this, elite squads from every nationality are more enticing, but even making allowances for that, it seems like the elite American squads get used more often than those from the other main combatants.)

 

[Sparafucil3]

And I feel like that rather reinforces the point. If scenario designers have to enlist 747s and 667s just to make the Americans viable then there's something wrong. (Admittedly, there's more to it than this, elite squads from every nationality are more enticing, but even making allowances for that, it seems like the elite American squads get used more often than those from the other main combatants.)

Is that the designer's fault or the player's fault? As a designer, I try to give people the things they want to play. Making something "accurate" that people won't play isn't the best use of my time.

It takes a deft hand to effectively use 6-6-6 in ASL and not everyone has that skill. Playing the Americans present a challenge and I personally love it.