Why ASL scenario's are better than CM

[StellarRat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lars:

Months was more like it. Remember War in Europe?

And you forgot to mention the joy of sorting through all those chits just to set up the game.<hr></blockquote>

I never played War in Europe, but I did play Third Reich which took days to finish. Yes, the joy of finding and setting up those stupid counters was another thing I don't miss. I did organize (by type and country) my counters in those tiny plastic bags to make it easier to find them.

[Clubfoot]

WiE and 3rd Reich were two biggies, to be sure. But I think the most long-winded wargaming experience I ever had was World in Flames. We started the game (1939) the summer of my 8th grade year in school and ended (it drug on to almost '47) close to the end of my freshman year.

Oh, and my reason why CM is better than ASL. Your mom can't vacuum up an entire battalion of panzergrenadiers when you're playing CM.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Clubfoot ]</p>

[L.Tankersley]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cauldron:<hr></blockquote>

1) The perimiters are indescribably bad, two infantry platoons for example CAN lead to the enemy achieving an end board result in a campaign even when Panthers and the like are still very much alive

There are some fairly well-recognized problems with certain types of CM operations, this being one of them (if I understand your point aright). If you're looking to recreate Red Barricades or KGP in CM, then you're going to run into some problems. Standalone scenarios, however, are quite doable (and you could probably do operations if you're careful about the type of operation and size of no-man's land).

2) The reinforcements number only 5. This is VERY limiting and leads to a hoilus bolus addition of forces, frequently nothing like what the designer is wanting.

I can't think of any official ASL scenario that uses more than 3 or 4 reinforcement groups per side. It's true that CM just sort of plonks reinforcements down in a blob instead of letting you set them up just how you want them before they enter, but if that's a real problem for you have the reinforcements enter a few turns earlier to give the player time to get them organized.

3) The lack of flags or some sort of "focusing force" in campaigns is extraordinary. One of the major reasons campaigns are not as popular as battles is because they are hardly catered for. I have to give the computer (AI) 25% more forces just to achieve what a non- expert human could.

The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless.

Here I feel compelled to echo an earlier comment and say that I find ASL's AI to be quite a bit less capable and more predictable than CM's. ASL's AI just sits there.

Here's another way to look at it. If you want to tweak the "victory conditions" in CM, go ahead. Just ignore the engine's built-in scoring system and make up your own rules. We won't tell on you. Promise. If you want to decide that victory depends solely on which side controls a key building - knock yourself out!

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: L.Tankersley ]</p>

[windstarz]

I am just thankful you have CM to bitch about. Although not perfect it is a game that many of us had been waiting on for years and for the vast majority it didnt disappoint. I found SL much more tedious and completing a game was a real test of perserverance sometimes. Both are great games. Just be glad there are options.

[Andrew H.]

CM is better than SL/ASL in almost every way, although I am somewhat sympathetic to Cauldron's point: SL/ASL had some great scenarios. I can remember lots and lots of nail-biting fun as the the last turn comes up with the VL (usually a building I had to occupy) still in doubt. Sometimes you had to resolve a close combat in the building in the last phase to determine the winner. It also seemed like every unit really mattered.

With a couple of exceptions (The Road to Wiltz (the same name as an old SL scenario, IIRC) comes to mind), I haven't found CM scenarios to have that sort of nail-biting ending. I think it might be a feature of FOW, though: its absence in SL probably made it easier to design more balanced scenarios because the designer could assume that both players knew what the other player had, and where it was located.

The absence of FOW in SL/ASL is completely unrealistic, of course. (And dummy units or hiding units under ? counters doesn't count).

[Louie the Toad]

What Jason C said, plus this:

Come on, isn't CM action the visual of what we only could imagine playing those board war games?

Isn't CM what we saw with our mind's eye as we moved the cardboard counters over the flat printed terrain?

And then when we played miniatures with micro armor, isn't CM the answer to all of those LOS problems, the endless die rolls, charts, calculations and exceptions to the rules. And the arguing.

That is why when I saw CM the first time, I told everyone I knew:

This is what we have been waiting for.

IMHO based upon 45 years of wargaming, this is the most thrilling wargaming experience since throwing rocks at plastic soldiers.

No skipping allowed Toad

[Lars]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

IMHO based upon 45 years of wargaming, this is the most thrilling wargaming experience since throwing rocks at plastic soldiers.<hr></blockquote>

Oh! Oh!

Don't forget the firecrackers!

[El Griz]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

IMHO based upon 45 years of wargaming, this is the most thrilling wargaming experience since throwing rocks at plastic soldiers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh! Oh!

Don't forget the firecrackers!

<hr></blockquote>

We preferred bb guns. You could really get some nasty wounds on the little green soldiers with a well placed pellet...

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by El Griz:

We preferred bb guns. You could really get some nasty wounds on the little green soldiers with a well placed pellet... <hr></blockquote>

I prefer the shotgun. An entire company could be wiped out with one blast. Or who can forget hair/bug spray flamethrowers?

[Louie the Toad]

A BB gun !

Hey, you'll shoot your eye out!

Also used multi load of BBs for the MG effect.

Old Toad

[StellarRat]

Firecrackers, hairspray flame-throwers, BB guns...I knew I was in with right crowd! One of my favorites was the Wrist-Rocket slingshot. They made great artillery pieces (good blast area in the sand.)

[Cauldron]

Cool comments...

Although quite a few answers are about the comparision of ASL and CM I did not intend that.

Instead I was describing how scenario's: the placement and use of forces (+ reinforcements), as well as the perimiter fought out within the battle ( al la Red Barricades)is too limiting or just done plain wrong CM.

It was a scenario design issue not a ASL Vs CM one.

The points that followed were my ideas of the "limitations" that if they were improved would make scenario design better ( for both designer and player).

In essence, if enough people are interested in getting campaigns to work the way they should all of us will be happier.

ta

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not so sure you can describe CM as being incorrect for portraying something differently from ASL. Both gaming systems are attempting to recreate the same level of combat. Both gaming systems attempt to tackle the problems of simulating this combat environment within the constraints of said gaming system. It would be more fruitful to compare each system to reality rather than to each other. In such a comparison I think that both games will shine in some areas and not shine so brightly in others.

Perhaps you should say "CM is so much better when I am playing an ASL scenario converted to CM." . If you need any assistance in this area, then I have about 34 scenarios you can try. :cool: