ASL Veteran

Yes, I am with Bullethead. This must mean that BTS will be coming out with CM5 - The Rising Sun!!! I can hardly wait - Banzai Charges, Tank Hunter heroes with Demos strapped to their bodies, and Leaders wielding Samauri Swords instead of just pointing the way. We would also have to introduce the Rice Paddy terrain tile

I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. More than likely those are the reasons for the crests as cover issues. While there are good reasons that have been put forth as to why crests should give a cover benefit, strident demands are not likely to get a 'positive' reaction from BTS. State your case, assume that BTS has taken notice (because either they, or a beta tester, probably have), take a deep breath and move on. If this one issue makes the game unplayable for some individuals, then stick to scenarios with no crest lines - or don't play anymore. Strident demands for change will accomplish very little and will only cause the eruption of flame wars that nobody benefits from. For now, just adapt your tactics to match the way the game does crest lines until a correction is made (if one is made).

I just wanted to make sure that some of you who have downloaded both Franko's version of the battle of Stoumont, and my version which is a conversion of HASL's Kampfgruppe Peiper I do not get our two operations confused. Franko did not use HASL's Kampfgruppe Peiper I - he did all his own research (from what I gather) and his work is original. My version is a simple conversion. If you got an e-mail that described all the various limitations that I had involving the conversion and the force selections along with the actual operation file - then you are playing my (converted HASL) version.

In CM I would guess that the terms Bunker and Pillbox are used interchangeably. In ASL a Bunker is basically a pillbox that is incorporated into a trench network, while a pillbox is not. A pillbox would be a stand alone fortification.

Sounds like this is a popular topic and a lot of different people were working on this. I am sure that the various operations made by others on this topic are different enough that they can all coexist peacefully Yes, Kampfgruppe Peiper is the Stoumont operation. I followed a 2 days followed by one night format per the ASL campaign. Yes, it was impossible to pick fog for the weather, but I found that the system usually picks something that limits visibility sufficiently to get the overall situation right. I will send you all a file when I get home from work today

I have nearly finished a straight conversion of ASL Kampfgruppe Peiper I into a Combat Mission Operation. For those of you not familiar with Kampfgruppe Peiper I, this is an operation about the very tip of Peiper's forces near Trois-Ponts between 19 and 21 December 1944. I would characterize this operation as one where the irresistable force meets the immovable object and is not for the faint of heart. The operation is rated as Huge, and I have yet to type up the briefings or name the various objects on the map. The map is around 2200m by 1800m and is a hex by hex conversion of the ASL historical map. I purchased all the reinforcement groups using the purchase points and tables for each day. This is as close a conversion as I could make. If you would like to do some testing for me and give me some feedback I would appreciate your input.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Sounds like a pretty accurate method. Have to admit that I've never played VASL - always had enough local opponents. Haven't tried any of your scenarios yet - although I've downloaded them. I don't have any of those scenarios to compare so I can't judge them. From the comments that I have seen you make though I am sure they are as accurate as can be. You strike me as a 'purist' like me In our 'gaming group' I was the holder of the sacred SL. I didn't buy ASL - my friend bought it and has every scenario ever published. Recently he has stopped buying them though because he feels that CM has made ASL obsolete. I only have the KGP module because I borrowed it from my friend.

I was going to post this on your message board Col Klotz, but I couldn't get registered I am also posting this out of a deep sense of disappointment so you can take this with that in mind. Anyway, I was going to urge the ASL scenario converters to think of a few things when doing their conversions: 1. ASL purists (like me) are probably going to be trying your scenarios, and any deviations from those scenarios will be noted. 2. HASL scenarios are just that - HISTORICAL. You probably should not be tweaking balance in a historical scenario except in terms of game length, victory flags, etc. The OB should be slavishly adhered to though. 3. If you don't know the rules of ASL or if you don't fully understand the SSRs then you may want to check with someone who does because these SSRs can be very important to the way the scenario is supposed to play out. Naturally, these conversions are your own work and you can ultimately do what you want with them. However, some of us crusty ASL veterans may want to play those scenarios as a plain vanilla straight conversion. Some modifications can be justified if you explain those reasons in your briefing somewhere because some scenarios simply wont work without some modifications. Some might say - well ASL Veteran, go make your own scenario if you want to convert scenarios to your liking - and I may do a few. But, if you are posting an ASL scenario conversion to a website as spectacular as Col Klotz's, just keep in mind that the 'publics' expectations may differ from your expectations and that some may not appreciate a 'loose' conversion as much as you - especially when I see the attention to detail that the Col has demonstrated in his maps and scenarios - very high quality work. Not to pick on anyone, but I am simply going to use two scenarios as an example. I just want to preface this by saying that I am sure these converters did a lot of hard work on their scenarios and have a sense of pride in their work. Mad Minute is a scenario that I enjoyed immensely in ASL and played it numerous times. I still remember the time I got a critical hit on a TD, but since he was HD behind a roadblock my friend said I missed because I rolled doubles. Later it was revealed that a critical hit would have hit him regardless of the HD status I was pretty fired up when I saw Mad Minute on Col Klotz's website. I thought my friends and I could relive fond memories playing Mad Minute in CM. Well the Mad Minute that is on the website has absolutely nothing to do with the ASL scenario Mad Minute. In defense of the person doing the conversion he did say that he thought the ASL maps were boring so he 'spruced them up' a bit (quite a bit actually) and that's fine. Just don't try to sell an ASLer on that scenario being Mad Minute because it isn't. Some of us like the 'boring' maps. Call your scenario something else. Beast at Bay was another disappointment. There were extensive modifications to the OB for both sides. Well, Beast at Bay is a historical scenario and I don't think the OB should be tampered with. If play balance is a concern then make minor adjustments in the victory conditions or objective placement. Also, the SSR says that the weather is clear and that mist DR are NA so the addition of fog (while neat to look at) is also incorrect. Once again, if these modifications are going to be made - note them somewhere so we all know the rationale behind it. One last thing about play balancing. You should only have to modify one side to play balance something - if you are modifying both sides then you aren't balancing a scenario you are making a new one. Okay, now you can all tell me to stuff it and make my own scenarios

A while back I said that I couldn't lose as the Germans in the scenario All or Nothing. Well three individuals took up the challenge - one honorably excused himself on turn 4. The other two are attacking with great elan, but they are doing nothing to alter my opinion that the scenario is 70 percent pro German (worthy opponents both). However, fighting those battles has shown me that I could tighten up a few areas of the defense. Random chance also went against me in small ways in both of the remaining games. Since we are doing AARs, I will not have the same opportunity to have a perfect game against the British that I do now, so I am looking to add another opponent or two. Let me know if you are interested in taking a beating and writing about it while it happens.

Thanks for the response BTS. As always, we are humbled by your vast knowledge and research on all subjects related to WW2 Must have been pretty cool firing a flamethrower

I think my biggest thing is the accuracy of the weapon as modeled in CM. Sometimes it feels like the thing is firing everywhere but where you want to fire it. I have had occasion to use them numerous times in CM - I don't know why, but I always seem to have them in the scenarios I play. As far as the effectiveness goes - I suppose it could be argued that maybe the casualties are more or less in line, but (and this is a big but) we are making several assumptions about what is going on. The squad is not going to be dispersed over the entire 20x20 square that is a tile in CM. Just looking at one squad standing in one square should be sufficient to see that this is a false assumption. To say that the flames only cover a 2x2 meter area is also questionable. Now I've never used a FlameThrower before, but from the newsreels of Marines flaming Japanese bunkers, the flame that is spewing forth is very robust in size, and easily exceeds 2m x 2m.

I have to say that I am a little disappointed in the performance of the Flame Thrower - especially the man pack version. First you only get eight or nine shots (reasonable), second you have to be within 32 meters (historically accurate), and third you have to stay alive long enough to use the dang thing (true enough). The problem is that after you have managed to work your way into position to use the thing, it seems like your chances of hitting are very low. I've had an enemy squad directly in front of me and the Flame Thrower team shoots its fiery fingers of death off to the extreme left or right - as if the guy using the thing was cross eyed. To top it all off, after securing one of those rare hits you might kill a man or two from the enemy squad if you are lucky. Now the morale effect is pretty severe (as it should be), but really - is the average flame thrower in CM really worth all the effort? It seems to me that the Flame Thrower is more of an area 'fire' device. Does it matter if your troops are hiding behind a tree or hiding in a foxhole when the fingers of flame are searching for you? No, I don't think it matters - so I believe that a squad's exposure should make NO difference in the accuracy of a Flame Thrower. The protection that you gain from being in a foxhole or in the woods should be reduced too for the same reasons as stated above. I welcome all flames that are added to this thread

Roster war Ceasefire? I think this thread was more like Roster War Open Fire!!

Personally, I really wish that the "last known location" marker would go away after about one minute or so and not remain until that unit is 're sighted'. This is especially bad when defending because you may want your troops to 'hide' but what is the point if you have the big iron cross or US star sitting on top of your location for the next 1000 years. Those last known location markers are also a little too 'spot on' for my tastes too ... just aiming at the little symbol with area fire is usually sufficient to destoy the unit. I know, I know, you can always shift your location, but sometimes when defending it can be difficult to do. You also can't confuse the enemy as to which unit they are looking at since the old 'last known location' marker only goes away when that specific unit is re sighted. Actually, I would rather not have a last known location marker at all. I think that is one item we can do without entirely.

Sorry Babra, while you may (or may not) be correct about WW2 doctrine etc, I know of several instances where infantry fought from half tracks. For instance, a rapidly advancing column who encounters light or scattered resistance can drive through or attack this resistance while remaining mounted if dismounting will slow the advance. You may not need to take the time to dismount and plan a deliberate attack. Sometimes speed of advance is more important than jumping out of your tracks everytime a minor roadblock is encountered. The bottom line is that, rather than 'legislating' that infantry may not fight out of halftracks, give the player the option to do so if he wants to. If he pays the price by using them that way, then he pays the price. Let me point one other thing out .. fighting from a halftrack does not necessarily mean firing out of it while moving. firing from a stationary halftrack is possible too you know.

I have to say that 'Gamey' tactics don't bother me too much. I think it really just depends on who you are playing. I usually play against life long friends and I know their tendencies and behaviors. Knowing your enemy is the key. When you are playing against strangers in a pick up game then I wouldn't assume anything unless an agreement has been made beforehand. Naturally these tactics can be effective if not anticipated. However, all of the 'gamey' tactics that have been described can be countered effectively if they are anticipated. My usual response to something 'gamey' is to demand a rematch so I can teach my 'gamey' opponent the folly of his ways. You don't like jeep rushes but your opponent uses them? give him some bait and bushwack his jeeps when he tries it again. The enemy buys nothing but King Tigers? buy nothing but AT assets and take him down. I do agree that the points should be adjusted for rarity though ... that is a significant flaw in the game I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Winchester really isn't comparing like to like. Either it is an unfortunate oversight or he is twisting facts so as to support his own hypothesis ( unforgiveable IMO).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bear in mind that you are only reading a small slice of his discussion on this topic. I believe that it was his purpose to show that the raw materials were not being efficiently turned into war making machines in a general sense, not just in terms of tanks and artillery. He was pointing out that there was a bottleneck in the system. For instance, he detailed how the French aircraft industry could produce around 5000 aircraft per year before the occupation, but only produced 2500 aircraft during the whole of the occupation of France.

I have been reading “Ostfront” by Charles Winchester and he raised some points that took me by surprise. I felt this to be a relevant topic in light of the recent discussions about the various qualities of the (cough) so called “Aryan” male I will take a few slices from his relatively short but precise work and elicit comments from our esteemed readers here. “The Red Army’s greatest quantitative advantage lay in its vastly superior numbers of tanks, aircraft, and (above all) artillery. This was not because the USSR enjoyed greater economic resources, but because its war economy was far better managed. Despite conquering so much of Europe, Germany signally failed to exploit this industrial windfall for military production. In 1943 Germany produced about FOUR TIMES as much steel and THREE TIMES as much coal as the USSR. Nevertheless, the Russians built 33 percent more tanks, 50 per cent more aircraft and vastly more heavy artillery pieces.” He also points out that “By the time Hitler attacked Russia, HALF the German industrial workforce was working on military orders – a greater devotion to military production than achieved by the USA in World War II. By every indicator of economic strength, Germany should have out – produced its opponents, enabling the Wehrmacht to face not just the Red Army, but the Western Allies invasion of France with every confidence. (snip) Yet, until 1943, even the much smaller British economy was out – building Germany in aircraft and warships, and closely matching its production of guns and tanks.” He raised another interesting issue which is related to this one, but I will include that one in another post. I added the caps for emphasis.

Oh, I have no doubt that the British force is a very powerful one ... especially in stand off fire power. I also have no doubt that the British can steamroll even a fairly good German defense plan. The trick as the German is to ... no, I will not reveal anymore Okay, perhaps I was overly critical in my initial assessment. I will now say that it is 70% pro German - maybe 50/50 with a British engineer platoon replacing a regular platoon. However, I will still stick to my guns (literally in this case). Okay Kwazydog, you are on. I will e-mail you when I get home. You too Grunto. That's it though .. I am now maxed out. Who knows, perhaps I will learn something too

Yes, I would even take Kwazydog on in this - he would naturally be more difficult to defeat, but defeat him I believe I could. First things first though - I will e-mail hoosier treadhead. Darwin, you are on the list - e-mail me when you are done. Preacher, sorry I didn't put Spoiler on this - I didn't think my comments warranted a notification. I can't seem to find an edit button anywhere, otherwise I would oblige you.

Spoilers may follow < < < < < < I have been looking over 'All or Nothing' after the issues I had with it when I played as the British. I examined the German forces and have come to the conclusion that for PBEM purposes this scenario is maybe 80 to 85 percent pro German if the British can't clear the minefield in front of the secondary bridge. One engineer platoon added to the initial OB for the British would reduce it to maybe 60 percent pro German. The only variables here being how effective the British artillery is and how lucky the British get with bogging. So here goes ... I am publicly announcing that I can't lose as the Germans in All or Nothing. Are there any intrepid souls out there that are willing to try to prove me wrong (and boast about it afterwards) in a PBEM match? Don't worry, I won't sweat it if you want to pack it in early ... just let me know when you have had enough. If you are a crusty veteran who wants to teach this newby a few manners ... bring your A game and be humbled. If you are new to wargaming and love abuse, let me know and I will heap it upon you. If you haven't played the scenario before you will probably want to try it first - although playing it blind might actually be an advantage in this case. I will reveal no more! Let me know if you are interested. [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 07-28-2000).]