From: miversen@vbrocon.ping.dk (Morten Iversen) Subject: Re: FB in KGP Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 01:03:40 MEZ In <2EDCB0D3@fsdsmtpgw.fsd.jhuapl.edu> you ("Conklin, Ross E." ) wrote : >Does anybody think it is worth buying FB for the first scenario with >the hopes that they will be retained into the second scenario? Those fighter bombers can really be a pain in the neck! We are currently playing the second scenario of the first day and everything is going great. Before getting the mist down to V. light. Our total vehicular losses were 1 Pz IV and a few Halftracks. When the mist cleared and the americans got one FB in, our situation are starting to change for the worse. In spite of the two americans (we're playing two on two) only having 1 FB, they've nailed a Wirbelwind and a PZ IV in two turns. There's no chance of getting it, as he not gettting it close to the surviving Wirbelwind if it's not moving. These flyboys are killers, as they've got a 6 TK + areal hits. If they strafe, there's a 50+% chance of knocking out a PV IV and only slightly less for a Panther. >Also, it is >my understanding that there is NO penalty to Heavy AA fire when using a >captured weapon or manning an AA Gun with an unqualified crew since damage >is caused by Original DRs. Does everyone agree with this? If true, AH >really dropped the ball on this one IMHO. If not, the german can forget all about nailing those FB's. I shudder just thinking about what would've happened if they had got three FB's. Morten -- Why seek stability when you can have "Wool-in-mouth" Morten Iversen - miversen@vbrocon.ping.dk (Copenhagen, Denmark) ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:14:45 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: Concealment loss question Hello! I guess I`ll join the OG debate and make even more mess of it :-) > Dave Ripton wrote: > Here's that annoying Q&A. (How I love having the Q&A and Index online. > I bet JR typed in his ASLRB but won't admit it... :-> ) > > >>> B9.34 Versus a mortar attack, is moving Infantry claiming a +1 wal > >>> TEM in a hex that is otherwise Open Ground subject to FFMO? > >>> A. No (nor would it be subject to RtPh Interdiction in that hex by > >>> that mortar), even if the mortar's LOF does not cross the wall > >>> hexside; however, FFMO would still apply for "?"-loss purposes vis > >>> a vis the mortar firer's LOS (as well as for an Interdiction > >>> attempt by that unit possessing the mortar, but not by the mortar > >>> itself). {93b} > This QA does _NOT_ in any way make any difference between interdiction and Concealment OG. What it says is that if a unit possessing a mortar have LOS to a squad in an OG hex that`s claiming a wall TEM, the mortar _NEVER_ treats the hex as OG, but the unit possessing the mortar _ALWAYS_ treats the hex as OG if the LOS doesn`t cross the wall. [stuff deleted] > > Okay, I'll bite. Are you revealed when making an Assault Move into > a foxhole in an otherwise OG hex? You're susceptable to FFMO, but > FFMO OG is not the same as interdiction / concealment loss OG. > A strict reading of the rules says that A10.531 is the place to go > for concealment OG, and A10.531 says that it's only OG if any > Interdictor could apply FFMO during a hypothetical DF shot. But > an Interdictor couldn't apply FFMO, because routing units can pay > combined MF costs. But units in the MPh can't pay combined MF > costs. But Interdictors don't interdict during the MPh, so we have > dueling hypotheticals. AARGH! > Noone have yet came up with an example of a difference between interdiction and Concealment OG. Also, an Interdictor _could_ apply in an OG Foxhole hex since the routing unit could chose not to combine the two MP, or if having only one MP left, he`ll have to rout only to the OG part, and will suffer interdiction. My conclusion is, as Patrik suggested, to think of advance as assault movement that`s taking place in the APh. That`s making things a lot easier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:29:49 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: Re: The eyes have it Hi! [lots of stuff about Hob of a 10-3 deleted] Here`s (hopefully) a conclusion of this subject. The following will happen with the 10-3: If the result is Hero Creation, he will become a 10-3 hero, but this is actually a BAD result. What do the 10-3 gain? He is not subject to Pin anymore, and that`s good, but the first instance he fails a MC (and my 10 morale leaders always fails a NMC), he is wounded for the rest of the game, and becomes a 9-2, instead of just breaking and probably rallying the next turn. In addition he gets a -1 Heroic DRM, but that cannot be used in combination with his -3 DRM, so the -1 DRM will seldom (if never) be used. The reason the cannot be combined, is that for the -1 to apply, the SMC must use its 1 FP (in normal range) in the attack, and a leader can never use its (-3) DRM to affect itself. Battle Hardening is actually a better result as the leader becomes fanatic. According to some rule (probably A10.something) a unit`s morale can _never_ be higher than 10, so the fanatic status will not have any immediate effect on the morale. However, if he should become wounded, or suffer a unit replacement, he will still be a 10-2 leader because of the fanaticm. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:33:02 +0100 From: oleboe@idt.unit.no Subject: re: INFILTRATION/CC Question > Les Kramer writes: > > > I think this is a bit unclear as the order in which you roll the dice for a > > simultaneous close combat is not specified. In my local group, we roll out > > all the attacks regardless. Any 2/12 is resolved first and any attacks from > > units affected are resolved as if the unit didn't exist. Leaves open the > > situation where both sides rolls 2, who gets to infiltrate then? Only time > > I can remember this happening we resolved it with both sides being eliminated > > and no one left to infiltrate. When sequential CC already applies eg ambush, > > the rolling sequence is determined and the ambiguity is reduced. > > Wait a second... I thought the rules said that the ATTACKER always resolved > his attacks first (except in Sequential cases), even though they're > simultaneous. Have I been playing incorrectly? > > -Doug Gibson > dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu > As several people on the list have already written, the above statement was actually wrong. The rules says, even clearly written, that the ATTACKER always resolves the attack first (unless sequential). This only matters if a 2/12 is rolled, however. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cut off my head, what do I say: Ole Boe Me and my head or oleboe@idt.unit.no Me and my body? ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:37:54 +0100 From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) Subject: Re: Re[2]: Demo Charges (fwd) Tim S Hundsdorfer writes: > You could try to create a breach, but I would stand by the > conviction that a DC cannot be placed in a fortified location > because it is not ADJACENT B23.922 Are adjacent, unpinned, Good Order opposing squads inside and outside a Fortified building Location considered ADJACENT? A. Yes, despite the fact that the outside unit could not normally advance into that building Location. {93a} In other words, being ADJACENT is only a function of the Locations, not of any particular units that happen to be there. Bas. ----- From: N.G.Piggot@bristol.ac.uk (NG. Piggot) Subject: Ladder Games... Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:31:01 +0000 (GMT) Well, finally getting settled into my new job; I think I can lay down a challenge for a ladder game or two... I'm open to suggestions for scenarios; I have Beyond Valour, Paratrooper, Yanks, Partisan, West of Alamein, Streets of Fire, Hedgerow Hell, Red Barricades and Kampfgruppe Peiper I. Oh yes, and Annuals 89, 90, 93a and 93b. Cheers, Neil ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:16:36 +0200 (METDST) From: J|rgen Vasshaug Subject: Re: RB Questions > > > Do the Pioneers really ELR to 436's? If so: What do you call a Pioneer > > > Coy. in a Rocket OBA FFE? Really expensive conscripts. > > > > I think it is ridiculous to have them ELR to conscripts [stuff deleted] > The author states that these jobs (FT's, DC's) were often filled by 'volunteers' from > penal battalions. My point is, perhaps we have an overly romanticized > view of these 'elite' troops and maybe ELRing to a conscript wouldn't be > unreasonable historically. Does anyone have any information to support > or reject this theory? As the FT's and DC's only need one man to operate, would the 'conscript' status really apply to a whole squad (10 men) ??? I.e. they would get volunteers from th penal battl's to carry and use the flamethrower for the rest of the squad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jorgen Vasshaug Computer Geek & Wargame Freak e-mail adress : db60@oliven.lhg.hib.no Computer Science Dept, Bergen College of Engineering, Norway ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: problems with lysator hello all, has everyone been having problems trying to access lysator, or just me? did they change the access there, or something like that. whenever i try to ftp there, either with ftp or through mosaic, i get the error message: "user anonymous access denied". wow, that makes a less than useful anonymous ftp server. i guess i'm curious as to what happened. did they move the site? is it under maintenance? closed for the season? any info would be helpful. kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 08:39:23 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Bouncer Guys, Q. What do you call a bouncer in a gay bar? A. A flamethower! Doug ----- From: Patrik Manlig Subject: Re: Concealment loss question Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:03:38 +0100 (MET) Hi, > Here's that annoying Q&A. (How I love having the Q&A and Index online. > I bet JR typed in his ASLRB but won't admit it... :-> ) [ deleted ] Nope. These are the Q&A I was thinking of. They also answer somebody else's question about why ?-loss/gain OG differ from interdiction OG. > A10.531 Does an Infantry unit lose its "?" if it > Assault-moves/advances into Open Ground (into a hex devoid of TEM and > SMOKE, with no intervening Hindrance and no Height Advantage) in the > LOS and within 16 hexes of a Good Order enemy ground unit, even if it > is beyond the Normal Range of all such enemy units? Even if out of the > CA of all Guns/AFV manned by those enemy units? > A. Yes to all. The viewing unit's Normal Range, CX status and Gun CA > are irrelevant to "?" loss/gain. {27-3} > > A10.531 May an Infantry unit in Open Ground (in a hex devoid of TEM > and SMOKE, with no intervening Hindrances and no Height Advantage) > three hexes away from a 6-2-8 declare a Dash across an ADJACENT road > to another such Open Ground hex since, as per A10.531, those two hexes > would be considered non-Open Ground due to their being beyond the > 6-2-8's Normal Range? > A. No. The 6-2-8's Normal Range is irrelevant to the determination of > whether or not those hexes are Open Ground. {27-3} -- m91pma@student.tdb.uu.se /Patrik Manlig "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!" ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 07:38:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: Asad For all of you who didn't get Asad's address the first time: SGT 1CL BA03 0995 ASAD RUSTUM UNPROFOR NORDBAT2 8TH MECH INF COY, 2ND PLT P.O. BOX 42 411 50 ZAGREB AIRPORT CROATIA I hope it gets there faster than the stuff I send my brother (MP-US ARMY) at Guantanamo--and at least he's protected by ML8 MARINES! ----- From: "Henderson, Tom (MCH)" Subject: RE: problems with lysator Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 10:58:00 AST I haven't been able to get thru to lysator yet either - I can get to the other archive site but unfortuneately Its all compressed using Z (unix format) and I don't know how to uncompress that format on an IBM clone. Anyone? Also has anyone done up a set of Canadian Scenarios - There was a set of scenarios entitled the Rogue series for SL - have these been converted? We did have the 4th largest allied army in WW2 (although the AH fools think we're British! As if another colour would destroy the integrity of the system.) Sorry about the ranting - touched on my pet peeve of ALL time and I sort of lost it.... Any People From the Royal Military College at Kingston here? Tom Henderson Fredericton, NB ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 09:15:05 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: rejected tank names: US, UK, Ger Guys, After much research, I have finally gathered a bunch of important documents pertaining to tank design in World War Two. Among these are several memos and crumpled sheets of paper proposing names for these vehicles, which of course never really caught on, and different names were chosen. So with that in mind, I give you the Top Ten Rejected Tank Names of World War Two -------------------------------------------- 10. Burnsides (rejected in favor of Sherman) 9. Firetrap (changed to Firefly) 8. Wanda (changed to Matilda) 7. Sloth (rejected in favor of Elefant) 6. Rook (changed instead to Bishop) 5. Stiff breeze (rejected in favor of Whirlwind) 4. McClellan (changed to Grant (US) or Lee (UK) ) 3. Infidel (changed instead to Crusader) 2. Adidas (rejected in favor of Puma) 1. Brewster (also rejected in favor of Sherman) Cheers, Matt "not as funny as Tuomo since 1965" ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:46:28 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: concealment + khamsin + sangars hello again, i am about to undertake a pbem game of khamsin, and i have a few questions dealing with concealment/fortifications/and right of inspection. here is the catch. in khamsin, setup is simultaneous. because of the heavy dust, neither side will have los to each other. so, according to the rules, we would both get concealment counters. now, my question is, do we get to inspect each other's stacks before we put the concealment counters on them, or do we just put the concealment and go from there? i'm not really sure. i looked in the concealment section, and it didn't give a clear cut answer. also, does your opponent have right of inspection for units in sangars? i'm not sure of that either. (and what effect the concealment counters have there....) as an aside, there are no assigned concealment counters in this scenario, so there won't be any dummy stacks/counters. thanks a lot, kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 12:30:02 EDT Subject: Re: PBEM Methods >>A batch or shell script could search this using "grep" or >>"awk" to pull out the appropriate record, and perhaps even >>perform random selection on the units. There might be two: >>enter_hex and hit_hex. What is a grep? Was that "Get a grep?" What is an awk? Was that an auk you're talking about? That's a pelagic bird! Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:23:37 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: Re: rejected tank names: US, UK, Ger shouldn't there be another sherman entry? 10a. Peabody (changed to Sherman) dunno.... kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:50:47 +0100 Subject: Re: problems with lysator >has everyone been having problems trying to access lysator, or just me? It could be down temporarily, but I think you use the wrong address. ftp.lysator.liu.se is the correct address. (lysator.liu.se is our fileserver and you can't ftp to that one). /Mats Persson ----- From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) Subject: Need Squad Bleeder rules Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:00:51 -0800 (PST) Hi everyone, I wanted to send the 'Advanced Squad Bleeder' rules (from Oktoberfest?) to a friend in the service on an overseas deployment. All I have is a short example some kind soul posted a while back - where can I find a 'full' version of the rules including values for the different units? many thanks, -Nadir ----- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 12:01:00 -0500 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: RE: problems with lysator At 10:58 AM 12/1/94 AST, Henderson, Tom (MCH) wrote: > >I haven't been able to get thru to lysator yet either - I can get to the >other archive site but unfortuneately Its all compressed using Z (unix >format) and I don't know how to uncompress that format on an IBM clone. >Anyone? A utility that can both compress and uncompress is available for the PC compatibles from your favorite PC FTP site. I get my stuff from oak.oakland.edu. Check the /SimTel/msdos/compress directory and pick one. >Also has anyone done up a set of Canadian Scenarios - There was a set of >scenarios entitled the Rogue series for SL - have these been converted? We >did have the 4th largest allied army in WW2 (although the AH fools think >we're British! As if another colour would destroy the integrity of the >system.) Well, no other nationality has a "set" of scenarios. But the latest General has two more Canadian scenarios. Backblast #1 had a couple also. Oh, and why not have the Canadians share the British counters? They are, after all, a British Commonwealth I believe. ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:21:21 -0500 From: Mailer-daemon@aol.com Subject: Returned Mail: Undeliverable The mail you sent could not be delivered to: 551 jayr225336 has a full mailbox The text you sent follows: >From matpe@ida.liu.se Thu Dec 1 12:21:07 1994 ----- From: Mats Persson Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:50:47 +0100 Subject: Re: problems with lysator >has everyone been having problems trying to access lysator, or just me? It could be down temporarily, but I think you use the wrong address. ftp.lysator.liu.se is the correct address. (lysator.liu.se is our fileserver and you can't ftp to that one). /Mats Persson ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:20:15 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cle.ab.com Subject: RE: concealment + khamsin + sangars Kevin Serafini wrote: >i am about to undertake a pbem game of khamsin, and i have a few >questions dealing with concealment/fortifications/and right of inspection. >here is the catch. in khamsin, setup is simultaneous. because of the >heavy dust, neither side will have los to each other. so, according to >the rules, we would both get concealment counters. now, my question is, >do we get to inspect each other's stacks before we put the concealment >counters on them, or do we just put the concealment and go from there? Inspect? No. See the top unit before the concealment counter is placed? Yes. You only have right of inspection of a stack when you have LOS to it with a good order unit - and in Khamsin there's no LOS immediately following setup. Of course the Brits setup on board will have Sangars on top of them so the German player won't even have the luxury of seeing the top unit anyway. >also, does your opponent have right of inspection for units in sangars? I don't think any entrenchments can be inspected. >i'm not sure of that either. (and what effect the concealment counters >have there....) Concealment counters do halve any fire at you and make it tougher on to hit rolls...Definitely a plus. The other thing to remember is units who setup in Scrub may setup HIP but the Sangar is revealed when there's LOS to the scrub hex. So when the Germans get close they'll get to see that a unit's there, but they still won't know what the unit is since the unit remains HIP. Hope that helps... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 13:22:45 EDT Situation: A Tiger is ADJACENT to an enemy squad that has Wall Advantage in Bocage. Can the Tiger use its BMG to fire at the squad? If the Tiger had WA then the answer is NO because the BMG can't be used while HD or through hedge hexside. Is this an example where the squad might not want WA so as to lessen the MG attack of the tank? Cheers, Jeff jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) Dr. Jeffrey Shields (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 13:48:49 EDT Subject: Canadian Scenarios >>Also has anyone done up a set of Canadian Scenarios - There was a set of >>scenarios entitled the Rogue series for SL - have these been converted? We >>did have the 4th largest allied army in WW2 (although the AH fools think >>we're British! As if another colour would destroy the integrity of the >>system.) Check out the scenarios archive at carlo.phys.uva.nl. I believe there are a number of canuk scenarios embedded in one of the packs there. If not there then try the old Digests. I recall seeing one totally dedicated to canooks. Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:05:32 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: RE: problems with Brits & Canadians > Oh, and why not have the Canadians share the British counters? They are, > after all, a British Commonwealth I believe. Oh s---! Quick, everybody, entrench! ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: HILDEBRANB@iccgcc.cle.ab.com Subject: RE: Need Squad Bleeder rules nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) writes: > I wanted to send the 'Advanced Squad Bleeder' rules (from >Oktoberfest?) to a friend in the service on an overseas deployment. All >I have is a short example some kind soul posted a while back - where can >I find a 'full' version of the rules including values for the different >units? I think I posted the short example following Oktoberfest. I should have the complete rules somewhere and will attempt to type them up and post them presuming they're not copyrighted or anything of course. I should get the chance over the weekend to compile themn so hopefully I'll post the complete rules plus the 2 scenarios I played by Monday... Bret Hildebran hildebranb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:07:50 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: "PBEM METHODS" JR- I think you have some good ideas here, but none of them would do it for me. I don't ask for concealment files from my opponents. I reckon that if I'm trusting them to roll the dice, I might as well trust them not to hose me by screwing around with what is concealed or hidden. If I shoot at a concealed unit, I either continue with the rest of the fire phase (if the results aren't crucial), or I send a partial move and wait for a reply as to what was in the hex that I revealed. PBEM is fast enough that the extra mailings aren't the concern they would be in pb-snail-mail. I have used a program similar to the one you're talking about (called CIPHER, available on GEnie, I think). The one big problem I had with it was that you had to syncronise your concealment ID letters. With four or more pbems going on at once, this wasn't possible. However, using hex IDs solves this problem, but then you have to include a new concealment file each MPH. j> This proposal isn't implemented yet. I wanted to get j> people's comments on how useful this would be, and ideas j> for improving it. Are there other features that could j> easily be incorporated? Is this likely to be useful to you j> PBEM-ers? Still, it's an interesting idea and I wish you well with it. Another reason I won't be able to use it is it will undoubtably be for MSDOS or UNIX only. (CIPHER was available for MSDOS and AMIGA- I have an Amiga and a Mac). OTOH, if your program proves to be so amazingly useful, I have a DOS emulator that I can fire up on the Amiga. It's slow, but I run a couple of things on it (like Kitchen's DYO proggie). -Grant. ... "That's entertainment," - Vlad the Impaler. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:52:58 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: RE: problems with lysator > >At 10:58 AM 12/1/94 AST, Henderson, Tom (MCH) wrote: >> >>I haven't been able to get thru to lysator yet either - I can get to the >>other archive site but unfortuneately Its all compressed using Z (unix >>format) and I don't know how to uncompress that format on an IBM clone. >>Anyone? > >A utility that can both compress and uncompress is available for the PC >compatibles from your favorite PC FTP site. I get my stuff from >oak.oakland.edu. Check the >/SimTel/msdos/compress directory and pick one. > >>Also has anyone done up a set of Canadian Scenarios - There was a set of >>scenarios entitled the Rogue series for SL - have these been converted? We >>did have the 4th largest allied army in WW2 (although the AH fools think >>we're British! As if another colour would destroy the integrity of the >>system.) > >Well, no other nationality has a "set" of scenarios. But the latest General >has two more Canadian scenarios. Backblast #1 had a couple also. > >Oh, and why not have the Canadians share the British counters? They are, >after all, a British Commonwealth I believe. > Someone beat this man senseless. Actually, it doesn't make much difference to me, but he has a point in that if the damn French get their own set of counters for what, three weeks of fighting, and all the other minors do too, Canada deserves something - but I have noticed that the shoulder flashes on ALL elite British inf say 'CANADA'..' look real close, you'll see, I swear it..... Anybody want to get in on a custom counter sheet order? Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- From: "Henderson, Tom (MCH)" Subject: RE: problems with lysator Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 16:30:00 AST ---------- From: cdf1 >Also has anyone done up a set of Canadian Scenarios - There was a set of >scenarios entitled the Rogue series for SL - have these been converted? We >did have the 4th largest allied army in WW2 (although the AH fools think >we're British! As if another colour would destroy the integrity of the >system.) Well, no other nationality has a "set" of scenarios. But the latest General has two more Canadian scenarios. Backblast #1 had a couple also. Oh, and why not have the Canadians share the British counters? They are, after all, a British Commonwealth I believe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- The Rogue Scenarios were a set of 8 Scenarios written up to use the orig. SL counters and attempt to recreate some of the actions of the Northern Europe campaign to free Holland. While there may not be a set of Scenarios that are named for a particular nationality there are sets out there that deal only with a specific counterset(s) 1-10 (BV) for ex. Now - on to the real fun - why the fools at AH think Canada is part of Britain... First the history : (some small details could be wrong, dates etc. - try to contain the flames to a dull roar) In WWI the Canadian army was under the direct command of a British General and were treated much like any unit in the British army - at the end of the conflict the Canadians - on the Strength of their victories at Vimy Ridge etc. - were able to demand the right to sign the Armistice separately from Britain. This was opposed by the other allies (France and the USA) because they were afraid that all the commonwealth countries - Australia and New Zealand for ex - would also want a seat at the table and a vote. The Commonwealth would have controlled the Armistice negotiations and France would've been outa luck on reparations. I don't believe Canada got a separate vote on the negotiations ( to keep things even) but we did get to sign. In 1931 Canada and Britain jointly repealed a set a laws that allowed the Brits to overturn any laws the Canadians made - This (the Statute of Westminster) made Canada completely independent from Britain. In 1939 Canada Dow's Germany on September 10th - 6 days after Britian - Just to make the point that we were independent (not that it was in doubt that we would support Poland). Second the WW2 activity and differences from the Reg Brits whom we hastened to assist : The First Canadian Army was always under the command of a Canadian General throughout WW2 - much to the disgust of the brits who wanted to break them up and use the Canadians to improve the quality of their forces. The Canadians who saw active duty were ALL volunteers - the Draftees (a.k.a. Zombies) were left home to rot. The Canadians had a high percentage of US equipment - we got a lot of stuff before the US joined the was by walking across the border and driving trucks that were amazingly left there; loaded up with gear; and with the keys in them - we returned the trucks - empty ( this is according to several sources including my Uncle who was with the Canadian equivalent of the Quartermaster). The Elite Canadian Units got the choice of the best of both worlds as well as some of their own gear (My Dad was a Para and had American gear augmented with some Brit SMGs). Most equipment was produced in the USA due to the high production capacity there - we built planes - Lancaster etc. and AFVs - a version of the sherman with a real gun and special vehicles like the Kangaroo ( an armored personnel carrier). Any Module for the Canadians would reflect the volunteer morale (8) of the erg infantry - the elates 'might' qualify for 9 on the broken side - this would have to be researched by the designers. The firepower and Range should be equiv. to the Brits for the reg inf and the Americans for the Elites. SW would be a mix of US and Brit with the Canadian only items as well. Armor would be mix of US and Brit with emphasis on the Canadian specialties. The RCAF would have Typhoons and Hurricanes for FBs. This would be a one or two sheet module - most of the ordinance and armor were copies of the us and Brit. stuff so those counter would be used where appropriate. The Boards would be most appropriate if they were to reflect the Italian mountains or the Netherlands.(one of each?) The Canadians had the 4th largest allied army and left 60,000 dead in the cemeteries in the European, African and Pacific Theaters (Winnipeg Rifles in Hong Kong). At the end of the war we had the 3rd largest navy in the world (granted the German at its peak was numerically equivalent and certainly more powerful) and were # 2 in merchant ships (the Liberty design was mass produced). The size and quality of the Canadian contribution helped to keep the war in Europe alive - If a French counterset is justified then surely a Canadian one should be produced. Tom Henderson ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:34:26 PST From: erimli@systems.caltech.edu (Bahadir Erimli) Subject: RE: Need Squad Bleeder rules What IS Squad Bleeder ?! take care, Bahadir ----- From: Chris Farrell Subject: ASL anomoly of the week Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:03:16 EST Say you're in a Panther. Say there are two vehicles a little ways a way, a Sherman and a jeep, 20 years from each other (in the same hex). You have a better chance of destroying the Sherman if you fire at the Jeep than if you fire at the tracks on the Sherman. Hey, makes sense to me. Chris -- Chris Farrell | If all we told was turned to gold, Programmer/Analyst, Genetics | if all we dreamed was new, ckf2@po.cwru.edu | do I believe the sky above is Carribean Blue. http://chimera.gene.cwru.edu/~farrell/chris.html | - Enya ----- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 15:00:52 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: RE: problems with canadians Hmm, I thought Canadians already HAD their own counters. Isn't that what the "C" stands for on the Brit 436's? Tom do 10 i = 1,100 10 write "I will NOT mess with Canada :-)" ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 15:04:23 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: New module ANG As long as we're on the subject, if the French have one and now the Canadians want a module of their own, what about the Arizona National Guard. These guys were the 'creme de le creme'. My dad used to tell me stories, well, gee, they had special equipment that nobody else had. Their morale would be 9 (broken morale 10), as when and if they ever broke, they always came back. There'd only be one kind of squad, the 889, as there's only one type of soldier in the ANG. :-) :-) :-) :-) Don "and let's not short the SpudState and their 325(broken morale 4) squads either" Hancock ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 14:44:14 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: ASL anomoly of the week > > Say you're in a Panther. Say there are two vehicles a little ways a way, a > Sherman and a jeep, 20 years from each other (in the same hex). You have a > better chance of destroying the Sherman if you fire at the Jeep than > if you fire at the tracks on the Sherman. Hey, makes sense to me. > > Chris > This doesn't sound right even if they are 20 _yards_ apart (love those spell checkers). What are the numbers that you are using. Fred > -- > Chris Farrell | If all we told was turned to gold, > Programmer/Analyst, Genetics | if all we dreamed was new, > ckf2@po.cwru.edu | do I believe the sky above is Carribean Blue. > http://chimera.gene.cwru.edu/~farrell/chris.html | - Enya > ----- From: Chris Farrell Subject: Re: ASL anomoly of the week Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:58:39 EST > > Say you're in a Panther. Say there are two vehicles a little ways a way, a > > Sherman and a jeep, 20 years from each other (in the same hex). You have a > > better chance of destroying the Sherman if you fire at the Jeep than > > if you fire at the tracks on the Sherman. Hey, makes sense to me. > > > > Chris > > > > This doesn't sound right even if they are 20 _yards_ apart (love those > spell checkers). What are the numbers that you are using. > > Fred Years, yards, what's the difference? No, my unix box doesn't have ispell and as soon as I figure out how to install it, I will. Trouble is, if you use deliberate immob., you get a 0 chance to actually kill the sucker (hit = immob., miss = squat). The overstacked vehicle thing gives you a miniscule chance to kill the *other* vehicle in the hex, even if it is as point blank (40 yards) and the angle between the two vehicles could be as much as 60 degrees or so. Later, Chris -- Chris Farrell | If all we told was turned to gold, Programmer/Analyst, Genetics | if all we dreamed was new, ckf2@po.cwru.edu | do I believe the sky above is Carribean Blue. http://chimera.gene.cwru.edu/~farrell/chris.html | - Enya ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:26:23 -0800 From: gsutton@pangaea.ca (Greg Sutton) Subject: RE: problems with lysator >> >>At 10:58 AM 12/1/94 AST, Henderson, Tom (MCH) wrote: >> >>Well, no other nationality has a "set" of scenarios. But the latest General >>has two more Canadian scenarios. Backblast #1 had a couple also. >> >>Oh, and why not have the Canadians share the British counters? They are, >>after all, a British Commonwealth I believe. >> > Someone beat this man senseless. Actually, it doesn't make much >difference to me, but he has a point in that if the damn French get their >own set of counters for what, three weeks of fighting, and all the other >minors do too, Canada deserves something - but I have noticed that the >shoulder flashes on ALL elite British inf say 'CANADA'..' look real close, >you'll see, I swear it..... > > Anybody want to get in on a custom counter sheet order? > >Ian There is no need for a custom counter sheet. The late war marine counters work very well(with no cower of course). In fact I think that AH was really modeling the Canadians when thy designed Gung-Ho. Greg gsutton@pangaea.ca ----- From: "Granville, Tycho" Subject: Globus Raid Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 12:33:00 PST Hey... I'm not sure where the Record is kept, but you can chalk up a win for the Germans in Globus Raid ( actually a loss for the Partisans from my point of view :( ). The game was much closer then I thought it would be as I'd been told this scenario is a real dog (hi Dade!). When the smoke cleared at game end I was only 2 points shy of a win .... I really should have tried to capture, rather then kill, those conscripts in CC.... Anyway, an interesting scenario with no snipers or SW.... Tycho ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:38:13 -5 Subject: Canadians & WWII (was RE: problems with lysator) > In 1939 Canada Dow's Germany on September 10th - 6 days after Britian - > Just to make the point that we were independent (not that it was in doubt > that we would support Poland). Lots of interesting history. First, why would Canada declare war on Germany anyway? I mean they owed no national allegiance to Poland to begin with. I would have expected them to have the same attitude as the US in that regard. Sounds like the Canadians at the time weren't as independent as they wanted to seem. Who did the Canadian divisions report to? Did they have a whole corps or army who's head reported to Eisenhower? If I remember correctly, the Canadians participating in the D-Day invasion took part as part of the British force, not an independent force nor part of the US forces. Could they be likened to the Polish division (s?) that served under US command during that time, except that maybe they were under the British command structure? +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:43:15 -5 Subject: Re: ASL anomoly of the week > From: Chris Farrell > > > Say you're in a Panther. Say there are two vehicles a little ways a way, a > > > Sherman and a jeep, 20 years from each other (in the same hex). You have a > > > better chance of destroying the Sherman if you fire at the Jeep than > > > if you fire at the tracks on the Sherman. Hey, makes sense to me. > Trouble is, if you use deliberate immob., you get a 0 chance to actually kill > the sucker (hit = immob., miss = squat). The overstacked vehicle thing gives > you a miniscule chance to kill the *other* vehicle in the hex, even if it is > as point blank (40 yards) and the angle between the two vehicles could be as > much as 60 degrees or so. Chris, I don't understand what you are talking about. The overstacking penalties only allow a chance to _hit_ the other vehicle, not _kill_ the other vehicle. Seems to me, that if your in that Panther, your better off popping a shot off at the Sherman and then machine gunning the jeep. Kill both at the same time. I have no clue why a Panther would want to even try to immobilize a Sherman rather than kill it. Oh, I get it, play with it a little before killing it...tease it first. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 21:08:33 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Rommel's Rules of Desert Warfare Hey Guys, I've taken the liberty of enclosing Rommel's Rules of Desert Warfare. While Rommel's rules are mainly aimed at the operational and strategic level, they do have some validity in the tactical ASL environment. My annotations are enclosed in [brackets]. Ignore my comments or clip them out if you find them obvious or unnecessary. I've thought about taking the "rules" of chess strategy and applying them to ASL. Some are pretty cogent like (1) develop your pieces early, (2) control the center, (3) don't move too many pawns in the opening, (4) when ahead make even exchanges. Of course the SSR and the VCs make some of this irrelevant. However, Rommel's rules may be a useful start to developing our own "praxis." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rommel, E. 1953. The Rommel Papers, (ed. Liddell Hart, B.H.), Harcourt, Brace, and Co., New York. 545 pp. (pages 199-201). In motorised warfare, material attrition and the destruction of the organic cohesion of the opposing army must be the immediate aim of all planning. Tactically, the battle of attrition is fought with the highest possible degree of mobility. The following points require particular attention: (a) The main endeavor should be to concentrate one's own forces in space and time, while at the same time seeking to split the enemy forces spatially and destroy them at different times. [Concentration of force, the schwerpunkt, was the hallmark of the German offensive tactics. I suspect that most of the good players attack in force, and have a schwerpunkt for the attack. This also translates into don't make piecemeal attacks.] (b) Supply lines are particularly sensitive, since all petrol and ammunition, indespensable requirements for the battle, must pass along them. Hence, everything possible must be done to protect one's own supply lines and upset, or better still, cut the enemy's . Operations in the enemy's supply area will lead immediately to his breaking off the battle elsewhere, since, as I have indicated supplies are the fundamental premise of the battle and must be given priority of protection. [While supply lines aren't really represented in ASL, lines of communication (for advance, rout, etc.) are important. Once the enemy is in your rear area, you've usually had it.] (c) The armour is the core of the motorised army. Everything turns on it, and other formations are mere auxiliaries. The war of attrition against the enemy armour must therefore be waged as far as possible by the tank destruction units. One's own armour should only be used to deal the final blow. [Again, the Germans developed an "offensive" role for their anti-tank guns. Rommel refers to these tactics as the "sword and shield," where the sword was the armor and the shield was the anti-tank screen that was deployed _right_ up front. Of course with guns like the 88L you can understand their forward deployment to blunt the enemy tank threat.] (d) Reconnaissance reports must reach the commander in the shortest possible time; he must take his decisions immediately and put them into effect as fast as he can. Speed of reaction decides the battle. Commanders of motorised forces must therefore operate as near as possible to their troops, and must have the closest possible signal communication with them. [I guess the analog of this is to take advantage of all of the information available during play. Count concealment counters, remember stack strengths, use Searching, etc., but also react to the information in a way that gives you the edge. Also be sure that your 10-3 sees action. He shouldn't be back rallying the conscripts when the elite squads with the HMG need some direction. Rommel was famous for being up front, directing the action. Some might have called this micromanagement, but it worked well.] (e) Speed of movement and the organisational cohesion of one's own forces are decisive factors and require particular attention. Any sign of dislocation must be dealt with as quickly as possible by reorganisation. [Don't let your attack falter by not supplying enough leaders to the main effort. They speed up the squads with the big support weapons, and they keep rallying those stacks of broken units when you're attacking. Watch your flanks and your diversions.] (f) Concealment of intentions is of the utmost importance in order to provide surprise for one's own operations and thus make it possible to exploit the time taken by the enemy command to react. Deception measures of all kinds should be encouraged if only to make the enemy commander uncertain and cause him to hesitate and hold back. [Rommel was a master of deception, and his British opponents were uncertain or hesitant enough to keep giving Rommel the initiative. Don't telegraph your intentions right away, unless necessary. A little fog of war can go a long way to winning the game.] (g) Once the enemy has been thoroughly beaten up, success can be exploited by attempting to overrun and destroy major parts of his disorganised formations. Here again, speed is everything. The enemy must never be allowed time to reorganise. Lightning regrouping for the pursuit and reorganisation of supplies for the pursuing forces are essential. [Exploit weaknesses with quick action. This is where a little aggressive play with those tanks can make a win into a glorious victory! The trick is knowing when the time is right, and in knowing your own strength.] Bold decisions give the best promise of success. But one must differentiate between strategical or tactical boldness and a military gamble. A bold operation is one in which success is not a certainty but which in case of failure leaves one with sufficient forces in hand to cope with whatever situation may arise. A gamble, on the other hand, is an operation which can lead either to victory or to the complete destruction of one's forces... If you know the battle is lost, then a gamble may be worthwhile.... ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Subject: ASL anomoly of the week From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 20:45:00 -5 Howdy, Chris Farrell writes: >Say you're in a Panther. Say there are two vehicles a little ways a way, a >Sherman and a jeep, 20 years from each other (in the same hex). You have a >better chance of destroying the Sherman if you fire at the Jeep than >if you fire at the tracks on the Sherman. Hey, makes sense to me. It is correct that the simulation breaks down under these circumstances, but I think in games terms this doesn't matter. If you don't need a CH to kill your opponent, you are almost always better off choosing to fire than to use Deliberate Immobilization. To see this, consider the odds of affecting an opponent if the TK number is 2 and 4 better than the armor under various TH values and the corresponding chance of a deliberate immobilization: TH Chance of Chance of Chance of (w/o +5 DRM) Effect Effect Deliberate Immob (TK = AF + 2) (TK = AF + 4) 12 6.9 21.91 33.33 11 6.78 21.36 25.00 10 6.53 20.26 16.67 9 6.18 18.61 11.11 8 5.7 16.42 5.56 7 5.1 12.67 2.78 6 4.38 10.38 0.0 Note that this table does not make any adjustments for range effects on the TK DR; the differences in all calculations are as shown. Also assumed is that the shot can achieve a CH and that a CH is a kill on a TK DR of 11 or less. The discrepancy between the chances of an effect and the chances of a deliberate immobilization get progressively worse as the net TK number increases. Except under extremely high TH chances or when the TK chances are small, you are better off firing to kill. What this means is the Deliberate Immobilzation rules can assume that the chances of a TK penetration are nil or nearly so. Any stray rounds that hit the glacis are assumed to bounce off. The rules can assume that anyone using Deliberate Immobilization is in such a situation. Deliberate Immobilization is not meant to simulate what would happen if a Panther shot at a Sherman's treads. The Panther, first of all, would never do that. It would shoot at the Sherman. Second, even if it did aim at the treads, it would frequently miss by hitting (and killing) the tank. Deliberate Immobilization makes no provision for this fact. If it did, there would be a way to calculate the chance of a kill on a Deliberate Immobilization, and this would probably patch the anomoly you note. In sum, I claim that the anomoly you note will arise only when you choose to use Deliberate Immobilization when you would have been more likely to affect the target using a normal shot. The Deliberate Immobilization breaks down as a simulation, but only outside the range of situations that you would rationally use it to maximize your chances of obtaining a result. Put another way, if you want to use Deliberate Immobilization to attack Shermans with Panthers, please come play me, soon and often :-) So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 02:40:22 -0500 From: Drosner@aol.com Subject: Re: 2 days till the Annual! I actually thought that maybe Avalon Hill would try to push the annual back to January, rename it as the '95 annual and say something like... "gee guys, look how EARLY we got the '95 Annual out..." Dave in L.A. ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 02:55:11 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: RE: problems with canadians > > >Hmm, I thought Canadians already HAD their own counters. Isn't that what the "C" >stands for on the Brit 436's? > OK, as soon as the guys who are going to beat that Fago character senseless are done, they are taking a long bus trip to Idaho. On a serious note, I am working on a scenario for the only encounter between Canadian units and the Japanese - trivia question: Where was this action? Ian (you Americans are just jealous 'cause you break on a 7) -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 03:18:23 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII (was RE: problems with lysator) > > >> In 1939 Canada Dow's Germany on September 10th - 6 days after Britian - >> Just to make the point that we were independent (not that it was in doubt >> that we would support Poland). > >Lots of interesting history. > >First, why would Canada declare war on Germany anyway? I mean they >owed no national allegiance to Poland to begin with. I would have >expected them to have the same attitude as the US in that regard. >Sounds like the Canadians at the time weren't as independent as they >wanted to seem. No, we were more cosmoplitan;) Basically, isolationism never took in Canada becuase we needed to have someone to defend us from the US -> Canada became a nation-state as a reaction to US threat. But we had agreed to a mutual defense and support with other Commonwealth-> so when Britain went, we went. But you are right that there was never any question, though wrong in assuming similarity of attitudes with the US. > >Who did the Canadian divisions report to? Did they have a whole >corps or army who's head reported to Eisenhower? If I remember >correctly, the Canadians participating in the D-Day invasion took >part as part of the British force, not an independent force nor part >of the US forces. Could they be likened to the Polish division (s?) >that served under US command during that time, except that maybe >they were under the British command structure? > You see, this is what happens when you have neither academics, nor Hollywood. The 1st Canadian Army landed at Juno Beach - almost exclusively Canadian forces, against some of the stiffest opposition of D-Day. As bad as Omaha was for the US, it would have been worse had 9 SS Panzer been able to fulfill its first orders, which were to proceed west (past juno area) to attack the Omaha beachhead. 1 Canadian was the only force asked to repeat one of the problems of Dieppe, amphibious attack on a town. It is exasperating that about half as many Canadians as Americans landed in Normandy on D-Day, and neither the British nor the US has ever really acknowledged us. We get as many scenes in 'The Longest Day' as the Poles do. 1 Canadian was responsible to Montgomery, then Eisenhower, and anchored the Allied flank along the sea. I am currently working on a scenario set for the fall of Hong Kong, and it is infuriating to read the British accounts of Canadian action(as well as that of Indian troops). One historian compares the Winnipeg Grenadiers unfavourably with that of the British Middlesex regiment for abandoning after getting no supplies for three days. He fails to mention that i) the Middlesex were able to trade for food because they were not at the 'hot' part of the front, and had been posted in HK for two years, ii) the WG had been thre for a week before the Japanese attack, had been used in futile offensive operations and were now holding the 'hot' section of the front, hence no Chinse farmers to trade with and iii) the Middlesex were in secured pillboxes in a line and the WG were all but cut off. I guess if you write the history or make the movies, you get the counter sheet. Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: Re: Rommel's Rules of Desert Warfare Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:27:18 -0500 (EST) > > [Stuff deleted] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Rommel, E. 1953. The Rommel Papers, (ed. Liddell Hart, B.H.), > Harcourt, Brace, and Co., New York. 545 pp. (pages 199-201). > > [Other Stuff deleted] Another excellent book is The Art of War, A translation of Sun Tzu by Samuel B. Griffith (ISBN and such to follow). This is the best translation of TAOW I have seen. The author wrote it as a thesis back in the fifties and even goes as far as to descibe the different Chinese characters and how their meaning may have changed over the years and translations. -bob "Worst dressed sentient being in the known universe" lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov ----- From: pabl@im.se Subject: Bad ASL humor Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 9:21:44 EST Nothing you do will stop my ten two. (10-2). Anything you see will be killed by the ten three (10-3). Fast as a butterfly sting like a bee... Muhammad Ali plays ASL. Hey this should go to the list... then again maybe not. Paul Blankenship pabl@im.se ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:15:14 -0500 (EST) Grant/JR et al, Currently I am developing a PBEM program for Windows (Grant I admire your conviction in keeping your Amiga, but alas all my work needs to be on Intel platforms so I sold mine. TRAITOR! TRAITOR! TRAITOR! KILL THE TRAITOR! But we digress) for tracking PBEM games and their progress. So far the way concealment works is that when the mail file is created any concealed unit (or stacks of units) will be written out as a '?' with its hex location and a designation for counter size (a 5/8" '?' or 1/2 '?'). I hope to have a reasonably working copy by ASLWO in February. Any input from the list would be greatly appreciated. Some prelims about the program: 1) Selection of currently published scenarios for play (ie, Module, Annual, General) In the future(BB, Tactiques, & ASLUG). 2) Option to let the computer roll the dice or input the dice results (this is for those people who need to feel the dice before rolling) 3) Creation of a mail file containing all actions performed by a player for that session (a session being each time he/she sat at the computer to work on the scenario). 4) Tracking of multiple PBEMs. 5) Read opponents results from file and apply them immediately. Options being considered: 1) Integration of a DYO program. > > JR- > > I think you have some good ideas here, but none of them would do it for me. > I don't ask for concealment files from my opponents. I reckon that if I'm > trusting them to roll the dice, I might as well trust them not to hose me > by screwing around with what is concealed or hidden. If I shoot at a > concealed unit, I either continue with the rest of the fire phase (if the > results aren't crucial), or I send a partial move and wait for a reply as > to what was in the hex that I revealed. PBEM is fast enough that the > extra mailings aren't the concern they would be in pb-snail-mail. I have > used a program similar to the one you're talking about (called CIPHER, > available on GEnie, I think). The one big problem I had with it was that > you had to syncronise your concealment ID letters. With four or more pbems > going on at once, this wasn't possible. However, using hex IDs solves this > problem, but then you have to include a new concealment file each MPH. > > j> This proposal isn't implemented yet. I wanted to get > j> people's comments on how useful this would be, and ideas > j> for improving it. Are there other features that could > j> easily be incorporated? Is this likely to be useful to you > j> PBEM-ers? > > Still, it's an interesting idea and I wish you well with it. Another > reason I won't be able to use it is it will undoubtably be for MSDOS or > UNIX only. (CIPHER was available for MSDOS and AMIGA- I have an Amiga and > a Mac). OTOH, if your program proves to be so amazingly useful, I have a > DOS emulator that I can fire up on the Amiga. It's slow, but I run a > couple of things on it (like Kitchen's DYO proggie). > > > -Grant. ----- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 08:35:11 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII Ian grouses: > OK, as soon as the guys who are going to beat that Fago character > senseless are done, they are taking a long bus trip to Idaho. Hint: it's farther west than Iowa, about 1500 miles in space and 20 years back in time. > > I guess if you write the history or make the movies, you get the counter > sheet. > OK OK OK. So we see the pressing need for you Canucks to do your own thing. So what we got? British Canadians are very similar to Brit units, French Canadians use French counters and six pages of rules describing the complex interaction between French Canadians leaders and British Canadian MMC's and vice versa: "Feche la vache" "Huh?" "Feche la vache!" "Psst-get the cow" "Oh". Inuit Canadians get to use Gurkha rules, get normal movement through snow, and can construct Ice Sangars (aka igloos). And American leaders only provide an extra 1.76 MF to Canadian units, the exchange rate being what it is. Tom "Did enjoy several trips to Windsor, though" ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 10:37:44 -0500 (EST) > > Go Bob, go! > > Does this mean graphic display/manipulation of units? > > Tim Van Sant > Kinda sort of. List boxes that display hexes, units, unit status, etc. Something like this: > - Indicates selected row in List Box Locations on Play -----> Units in Location Hex Location ID Unit Status Posessed by ______________ ____________________________ >|01AA05 Level 0| >|A 4-6-7 GO - | |01X02 Level 1| |B HMG GO 4-6-7 A | |. | |. | |. | |. | |______________| |____________________________| A third listbox shows all the available actions for those units in that location based on what part of the turn you are in. The Main screen lets you track all the pertinent scenario specs such as EC, Current GT, Player Turn, etc. If you're asking whether or not it will be drag and drop, well sorry to disappoint you but not in the cards at the moment. Maybe V2 or something, mostly it depends on time. I hope it will eventually become something along those lines. I'm currently developing the prototype in VB 3 and MS-Access V2. With enough inspiration (and a supply of junk food) I might even port it to the MAC provided someone can supply me with one. Do they make VB for the MAC? While I don't think ASL should be turned into a computer game as it were, I do think that some nifty utilities would make life much easier. I would be in favor of a CD-ROM hypertext version of the rules, maybe as a Windows help file or something along those lines. -bob "Don't quote me on that!" lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 11:39:14 EST From: earle@cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII A bunch o points on this thread: why did we declare war in 1939? A. In 1939 much of Canada's population were immigrants from the British Isles who still thought of themselves as British. It would be impossible to stay out of the war as these new Canadians had the vote. People whos families had been in Canada for generations were much less supportive of the war. who did the Canadian army report to? A. In NWE the Canadian army (commanded by Cearar (misspelt for sure)) was under Montgomery's army group. FYI the Canadian army often had significant British and other forces attached (ie the Poles). what counters should the Canadians be represented by? A. Since we used British style TO&E and were a all volunteer force the elite commonwealth counter (458 648) will do. The Canadian army was organized along very similar lines to British formations. Shawn Kenny has worked on an article to map the Canadian forces into ASL. Its a much better job than the article in the annual which I regard as inaccurate. One thing to note is that the Canadian soldiers in NWE had years of training. With the exception of the Dieppe raid the Canadian forces were not committed anywhere until Italy. So they had nothing to do but train. Canadian boot camp apparently lasted twice as long as that of the other allies. The result: On June 6 1944 the Canadians at Juno actually achieved most of their objectives for the day. Regulars deserve and ELR of 4 (5 for Paras) when fresh and 3 when depleted. In terms of equipment we used the sherman V and firefly V, vickers MGs and Bren lmgs. British SW seems right. Of course there were the particlarly Canadian vehicles (Kangaroo and Badger). I'd love to see a scenario with these toys. More thoughts later Adrian ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 12:10:15 -0500 From: Brian SPENCER Subject: Canadians and WWII While I generally feel that Canadians got the shaft in terms of recognition for their independant actions during WWII, I don't believe that exclusive Canadian units are necessary for ASL. Hell, would you want to give AH another reason to jack up the price of another module $20 just to give you the Canadian OB with their own colour. Brian Spencer, a fiercely proud Canadian ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 09:33:20 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: ASL Open Hi Does anyone know when and where the ASL Open will be. I have heard some time in January/Febuary in Las Vegas. Thanks Fred ----- From: Pedro Alexandre Simoes dos Santos Subject: somewhere in the Ardennes Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 18:37:23 MEZ - Bloody fog! I cant'see a damn thing! Shutttt! Hey! did you hear that? - What? Humm... yeah it's a engine no ...two or three! These aren't ours! - Guys we have company! - Shut the hell up and listen! I can ear them clearly now. They should be a couple hundred yards up the road. - But they driving in hasty way, aren't they aware of our presence here? They are singing captain, and with that speed they are going to have an accident. Too much schnapps for sure! - Nobody moves... they have just entered O51 - Schhhhh... What 's that! - We're sure its an halftrack but no visual yet! - O52, quiet ! since this is a vehicle with no passengers let's stay down a see what happens before frying these bastards! Let them go and see what happens when those drunks crash at our roadblock! iiiiiiiiiiiih,iiiiiiiiiiiiih, brumn pank, pang, catrapong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Captain , Captain ! they slided of the road on the bend at O52 and are heading rigth to us on O53 but we are HIP what should we do? Take cover!!!!!!! these m.......... are crazy, Are they trying to run over us? Do we lose our HIP Status and become ?, Does he lose is ? status in O53 or O52? These situations seem a little complicated. Let's freeze the action so i can clarify my ideas.....Corporal.... Wheres the #@!@ **@ ASL rulebook? Check A12 and ..... While playing chapelle Sant Ana from KGP the above situation happend: I drove my concealt HT just to the hex where my opponent had his HIP troops, which is a brush Hex. As he never revealed his units up to my entrance of the hex, what happens in this situation (Do i have to do an OVR, for instance)? Any help would be much appreciated Pedro ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:06:26 -0500 (EST) > [Stuff deleted] > I would be happy > to suggest specifics if you want to hear them, but otherwise I will > just butt out and wait for the final product and be happy with whatever > you grace us with - if you don't change your mind after being deluged > with reuqests (and demands)! > > Peace, > Darrell Please indulge yourself! And that goes for the rest of you as well. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated. Hmmm there seems to be interest in this project after all. RAMMING SPEED! (your pill Mr. Lyman) Oh, Sorry. I will try in the next week or so to post a more detailed description of the project and how far along it is, level of detail, etc. You know all the fun stuff. Even though it is a Windows program I have learned over the past few years the a suitable keyboard interface is also good from the standpoint that some users feel they can work better or faster without the mouse. Too each his own. -bob "Quotes? We don't need no stinkin' quotes!" lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov ----- Subject: SCENARIO OF THE YEAR From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 11:06:00 -5 Howdy, In the spirit of end-of-the-year celebrations of what has past, I would like to nominate "Witch's Cauldron" as Scenario of the Year. This French vs. German armor meeting engagement is, IMHO, a classic. Both sides have difficult tactical problems such as Platoon Movement for the French and thick French armor and an awkward starting postion for the Germans. The VC promote a down-and-dirty fight from start to finish. No weapon dominates the battlefield, so no shot is a sure thing and every shot counts. I also think it may be fairly balanced, not a prerequisite for Scenario of the Year, but certainly a good feature. Rules for nominating and voting: 1) There is no voting. I'm just interested in what people think are the most interesting new scenarios. Since many people don't own all the new scenarios, voting would be skewed by distribution of the material. 2) The scenario ought to have been published this year, but since this is the first year we've had nominations, anything goes. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 12:01:56 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Re: somewhere in the Ardennes > While playing chapelle Sant Ana from KGP the above situation happend: I > drove my concealt HT just to the hex where my opponent had his HIP > troops, which is a brush Hex. As he never revealed his units up to my > entrance of the hex, what happens in this situation (Do i have to do > an OVR, for instance)? > > Any help would be much appreciated Here's my understanding. The HIP unit is placed on board concealed and from an overrun flowchart I wrote awhile ago, 2.0 ENTRY INTO HEX 2.1 If CONCEALED DEFENDER (A12.41) Units exempt from PAATC may remain concealed. Units in a location being bypass or on a woods-road may remain concealed. EITHER: Defender may choose to voluntarily drop concealment. OR: Take a PAATC(or 1PAATC) If passed, retain concealment If failed, lose concealment and pin 2.2 OVERRUN DECLARATION If Vehicle decides not to Overrun, do as desired, Bounding Fire, Defensive Fire, and CC Reaction Fire (as allowed per A12.41) If Vehicle decides not to Overrun, do NOT do OVR PREVENTION (C5.64), OVERRUN (D7), Non-CC Reaction Fire (D7.22) Expend entry cost plus 1/4 MP [FRU] (D7.1) Don Hancock ----- From: Bob Lyman Subject: Re: "PBEM METHODS" etc. Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:46:25 -0500 (EST) > Agreed. I just want something that facilitates PBEM. Nothing else > really (i.e., no or minimal automatic rules checking). That's what drove me to do this. There will be MINIMAL rules checking as is required for the combat resolution and morale and such. Mostly as little as I can get away with. Per the most recent thread about HW attacks, probably not. -bob "Quote me I dare ya!" lyman blyman@mailstorm.dot.gov ----- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 15:08:28 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: ASL Open This year's ASL Open has been canceled. Rather it was never actually scheduled. In April 1996 it is to be resurrected in Chicago as a combination of Winds of War and the Chicago ASL Championships, courtesy of the Windy City Wargamers. ....Perry ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 13:30:40 -0800 Subject: Re: SCENARIO OF THE YEAR Alright, then. My nomination for scenario of the year is Brandenburger Bridge. This early Barbarossa scenario pits Germans against Russians in a truly desparate struggle. Both sides have glaring weaknesses: for the Russians, there's a critical shortage of leaders, and troop quality is poor. For the Germans, there is a need to get the reinforcements through the forest ASAP before the Brandenburgers collapse. Both sides have impressive strengths: the Russians OBA can be trained right on the bridge, forcing the Germans to run the FFE guantlet, the German Stukas can decimate the Russian reinforcements before they can have any effect on the game. The scenario also necessitates that each player attack as well as defend. Setup is critical on both sides of the bridge. It's not a forgiving scenario, one mistake can make all the difference. And also, I've got a personal fondness for it: I won as the Russians to become champion of the NW Gamefest ASL tournament. Dade ----- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 14:39:25 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: scenario of the year Two nominations: Panzers Marsche (Tactiques TT3). Bit of a stretch time-wise since it was uploaded to the archives in the middle of December 1993, but has enjoyed wide popularity. Acts of Defiance (Critical Hit CH5). Also perhaps a stretch on the date; wasn't this previously published before CH redid it? Still, a chock full o' fun scenario. Hard hitting. Lotsa fun toys. Good map. 6 turns, even. Tom ----- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 15:19:38 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Canucks Thus spake Carl: c> I would have expected them to have the same attitude c> as the US in that regard. That's always the first mistake you friends to the south make about Canadians- that you expect us to have the same values, ideas, etc. as you. We may be quiet, but we're _different_ and quiet! -Grant. ... A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:04:56 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: RE: problems with canadians >> On a serious note, I am working on a scenario for the only encounter >> between Canadian units and the Japanese - trivia question: >> >> Where was this action? > >Hong Kong I would imagine. The unit should be the Winnipeg Rifles? > Well, close. It was Hong Kong, and there were two units, the Royal Rifles of Canada and the Winnipeg Grenadiers. Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:09:01 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: Re: Canadians and WWII > > >While I generally feel that Canadians got the shaft in terms of recognition >for their independant actions during WWII, I don't believe that exclusive >Canadian units are necessary for ASL. Hell, would you want to give AH >another reason to jack up the price of another module $20 just to give >you the Canadian OB with their own colour. Especially becuase you might need another counter sheets for the Quebec units... would poutine be a SW? Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:14:59 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII > > >Ian grouses: > >> OK, as soon as the guys who are going to beat that Fago character >> senseless are done, they are taking a long bus trip to Idaho. > >Hint: it's farther west than Iowa, about 1500 miles in space and 20 years >back in time. I thought it was one of those little things that hangs around Alberta. >> > >OK OK OK. So we see the pressing need for you Canucks to do your own thing. >So what we got? British Canadians are very similar to Brit units, French >Canadians use French counters and six pages of rules describing the complex >interaction between French Canadians leaders and British Canadian MMC's >and vice versa: "Feche la vache" "Huh?" "Feche la vache!" "Psst-get the cow" >"Oh". Inuit Canadians get to use Gurkha rules, get normal movement through snow, >and can construct Ice Sangars (aka igloos). And American leaders only provide >an extra 1.76 MF to Canadian units, the exchange rate being what it is. > Also, French-Canadian units get to use poutine as a SW, whereas English ones use the doughnut. Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:46:42 -5 Subject: Re: Canucks From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) > Thus spake Carl: > > c> I would have expected them to have the same attitude > c> as the US in that regard. > > That's always the first mistake you friends to the south make about > Canadians- that you expect us to have the same values, ideas, etc. as you. > We may be quiet, but we're _different_ and quiet! > ... A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure. Grant, I love your signature routine! It knows just which one to pick! :-) BTW, I've enjoyed reading the notes on the history generated by my faux pas. Very interesting. Another source of interesting history has been To Lose A Battle, France 1940 by Alstair Horne. While a little weak and error prone on the German side of things, Mr. Horne spends a lot of time describing the political situation in France leading up to the war and France's subsequent collapse. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 20:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: SCENARIO OF THE YEAR > My nomination for scenario of the year is Brandenburger Bridge. This early > Barbarossa scenario pits Germans against Russians in a truly desparate > struggle. Both sides have glaring weaknesses: for the Russians, there's a > critical shortage of leaders, and troop quality is poor. For the Germans, > there is a need to get the reinforcements through the forest ASAP before the > Brandenburgers collapse. Both sides have impressive strengths: the Russians > OBA can be trained right on the bridge, forcing the Germans to run the FFE > guantlet, the German Stukas can decimate the Russian reinforcements before they > can have any effect on the game. Sheeeez, I only played one scenario published this year (I think), and this was it. It was a really fun time. I'd play either side again.... ----- Subject: somewhere in the Ardennes From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 20:06:00 -5 Howdy, Pedro Alexandre Simoes dos Santos While playing chapelle Sant Ana from KGP the above situation happend: I >drove my concealt HT just to the hex where my opponent had his HIP >troops, which is a brush Hex. As he never revealed his units up to my >entrance of the hex, what happens in this situation (Do i have to do >an OVR, for instance)? To follow up on Don's answer, the pertinent rules are in A12.41. The DEFENDER loses HIP and has to roll a PAATC if not immune and he wants to retain concealment (actually the rules don't say you lose HIP, but since you have to make a PAATC, your opponent will know someone is there). A vehicle can enter an opponent's hex without OVR at all times. HT & Open Top vehicles, even OT, are vulnerable to TPBF when in the same hex, so one possible move for your opponent is to DFF. Once DFF is resolved, you may declare an OVR, or you may use BFF, or you may stop and use BFF, or you may just keep on rolling. On further reflection, I think if you enter a HIP unit's hex with a vehicle it doesn't lose HIP. If the HIP unit has to take a PAATC, it effectively loses HIP, but if it is immune to PAATC, the vehicle would never know. At least that's how I read the rules as written. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 21:59:32 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: More HT OVRing HIPsters >Howdy, > >Pedro Alexandre Simoes dos Santos >>While playing chapelle Sant Ana from KGP the above situation happend: I >>drove my concealt HT just to the hex where my opponent had his HIP >>troops, which is a brush Hex. As he never revealed his units up to my >>entrance of the hex, what happens in this situation (Do i have to do >>an OVR, for instance)? > >To follow up on Don's answer, the pertinent rules are in >A12.41. The DEFENDER loses HIP and has to roll a PAATC if >not immune and he wants to retain concealment (actually the >rules don't say you lose HIP, but since you have to make a >PAATC, your opponent will know someone is there). > >A vehicle can enter an opponent's hex without OVR at all >times. HT & Open Top vehicles, even OT, are vulnerable to >TPBF when in the same hex, so one possible move for your >opponent is to DFF. Once DFF is resolved, you may declare >an OVR, or you may use BFF, or you may stop and use BFF, or >you may just keep on rolling. A couple of comments/questions. D7.2 last sentence "Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR." A12.41 (92) near the middle "If the Location contained no Known enemy unit when the vehicle entered it, OVR expenditure is NA until the combined PAATC (if any) has been resolved, after which the vehicle may conduct an OVR if able to (D7.1)" A7.211 TPBF vs PRC middle "The moving units may attack first as part of an OVR ..." So, I believe the moving player has the option of declaring an OVR after the PAATC, and executing the OVR before the defensive fire by the defending unit in the OVR hex. The question of what to do with a HIP unit, immune to PAATC (SMC, fanatics and berserks) is a good one. I'd say, sure, let them keep their HIP, though I'm not sure it's covered in the rules. Don Hancock > >On further reflection, I think if you enter a HIP unit's hex >with a vehicle it doesn't lose HIP. If the HIP unit has to >take a PAATC, it effectively loses HIP, but if it is immune >to PAATC, the vehicle would never know. At least that's how >I read the rules as written. > >So long, > >JR ----- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 01:33:24 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII (was RE: problems with lysator) >> You see, this is what happens when you have neither academics, nor >> Hollywood. The 1st Canadian Army landed at Juno Beach - almost >> exclusively Canadian forces, against some of the stiffest opposition of >> D-Day. As bad as Omaha was for the US, it would have been worse had 9 SS > >I don't think this is true. I think the opposition at Gold and Sword was >greater than that at Juno (you can convince me of the errors of my ways >though). How else to explain the fact that the Juno exploitation was >deeper than any of the other beaches. In the main, because of the extremely effective performance of the Canadian forces - I don't necessarily mean they were better fighting men, but of Gold-Juno-Sword, only the first wave at Juno got a significant portion of the DD Shermans to shore. This allowed a breakthrough with armour support almost immediately. As well, the key bridges were seized, whereas at Utah, where the landing was clean, the flooded conditons allowed more of a bottleneck to form. One thing to recall was just how much blood Canadians paid to learn why amphibious landings were difficult, especially against prepared positions. Veterans of Dieppe didn't repeat the mistakes that cost 3/4 of their unit, while the British at Gold/Sword did, though to a lesser extent. But if you look at the invasion map, only Juno is centered on a town, which made the attack in the center of the beach critical. Actually, there was a cameraman for the CBC in the first wave of this attack, and the footage is just hairy. > >> Panzer been able to fulfill its first orders, which were to proceed west > >I think you mean 12SS Panzer. Quite so, I was confusing it with the SS Panzer division they fought at the end of July and first week of June. >> (past juno area) to attack the Omaha beachhead. 1 Canadian was the only >> force asked to repeat one of the problems of Dieppe, amphibious attack on >> a town. It is exasperating that about half as many Canadians as Americans >> landed in Normandy on D-Day, and neither the British nor the US has ever >> really acknowledged us. > >Absolutely correct. There's not much acknowledgment of the British >contribution to D-Day in this country (US) if you ask me. A sad >reflection of American insularity and ignorance. > It could be worse..... the Australians and the New Zealanders were the heart and soul of the Pacific theater effort on the Asian continent, which was where the bulk of Japanese force was, yet Burma is all but ignored. Island-hopping is no fun, but the Marines a generation later just how much fun the Southeast Asian jungle can be too. Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- From: bprobst@melbpc.org.au (Bruce Probst) Subject: Re: Human Wave questions Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 18:44:15 -1000 In article <9411281751.AA04905@mica.inel.gov>, tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) wrote: >> 2) Is there any restriction on the target of the elements of a Wave or the >> direction the wave can move? "Toward" an enemy unit is kinda vague. >> >> 2a) Must all elements of a wave move so as to not increase the distance between >> themselves and the specified target of the Wave? It seems like it should be this >> way, but the second-to-last sentence in the text accompanying the example at the >> bottom left of page A40 seems to say that you can move AWAY from a target as well, >> which brings up a few more questions. The way I read the rule (and the example on A40) is that the target hex establishes the _direction_ of the Wave, but not necessarily the _focus_ of the wave (if that makes sense). In other words, picking an enemy hex to the north of your units means that the wave will move north; if elements of the wave catch up to the original target hex, the rest of the wave can "curve around" to head for that hex or it can continue moving north. What the wave _can't_ do is suddenly decide that moving south or east or west is a good idea, unless such a change in direction is taking the units closer to the original target hex. I agree that the language in the rule is not especially explicit, but in combination with the A40 example the general intent seems to come across pretty well. Bruce Probst bprobst@melbpc.org.au MelbPC User Group CIS: 100033,3661 Melbourne, Australia ----- From: Shawn Kenny Subject: Re: Canadians & WWII Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 12:27:57 AST > who did the Canadian army report to? > A. In NWE the Canadian army (commanded by Cearar (misspelt for sure)) Yep :-). Crerar. There is a very interesting story on how Crerar became the Chief of Defence in usurping McNaughton - Crerar was much more a political beast than McNaughton who was, from what I have read, naive politically. > was under Montgomery's army group. FYI the Canadian army often > had significant British and other forces attached (ie the Poles). Also, the Dutch and Belgian Infantry, Czechoslovak Armoured, and Newfoundland (which was separate dominion until 1949) Heavy Artillery Regiment. > what counters should the Canadians be represented by? > A. Since we used British style TO&E and were a all volunteer force > the elite commonwealth counter (458 648) will do. The Canadian army > was organized along very similar lines to British formations. > Shawn Kenny has worked on an article to map the Canadian forces into > ASL. Its a much better job than the article in the annual which I > regard as inaccurate. Thanks for the plug :-), though I still believe I have smooth some rough edges and polishit up a little. > One thing to note is that the Canadian soldiers in NWE had years of > training. With the exception of the Dieppe raid the Canadian forces > were not committed anywhere until Italy. So they had nothing to do but > train. Canadian boot camp apparently lasted twice as long as that of > the other allies. The result: On June 6 1944 the Canadians at Juno > actually achieved most of their objectives for the day. Regulars > deserve and ELR of 4 (5 for Paras) when fresh and 3 when depleted. Yeah almost too much training and thus the political pressure which came to bear in devising the Dieppe raid. Shawn ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 12:19:27 -5 Subject: TPBF & PBF I was looking through the TPBF & PBF rules and came across what I think is a hole... An enemy squad bypasses the building with a unit of yours on Level 3 or 4 (1 or 2 for that matter.) You decide to shoot at the bypassers taking advantage of their moving in the open. What do you use? TPBF, PBF, any adjustment? Back up your answer with the ASLRB. I can't find that the rules cover this case as I would expect!! +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Subject: More HT OVRing HIPsters From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 94 10:23:00 -5 Howdy, donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) writes: >D7.2 last sentence "Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is >resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR." >A12.41 (92) near the middle "If the Location contained no >Known enemy unit when the vehicle entered it, OVR expenditure >is NA until the combined PAATC (if any) has been resolved, after >which the vehicle may conduct an OVR if able to (D7.1)" >A7.211 TPBF vs PRC middle "The moving units may attack first >as part of an OVR ..." >So, I believe the moving player has the option of declaring >an OVR after the PAATC, and executing the OVR before the >defensive fire by the defending unit in the OVR hex. One of the great dis-services in the ASLRB is to emphasize Reaction Fire in the section on OVR. It almost makes it seem that when the hex is being OVR, the only DFF option for the DEFENDER is Reaction Fire. This is not the case. The DEFENDER can DFF prior to the OVR, and can in fact RF afterwards, too (depending on the situation, it may be required to RF). From the Q&A: D7.1 "When a vehicle declares an OVR, may its DEFENDER target attack it before the OVR is resolved? If yes, would that DEFENDER have to use Reaction Fire? A. Yes. No -- it would be Reaction Fire only if conducted after the OVR resolution (see the last sentence of D7.2). {93a}" This clearly states that the DEFENDER can DFF _before_ the OVR is resolved. Note that as per D7.11, even if the ATTACKER is Immobilized or destroyed by the DFF, the OVR is still completed, albeit at half FP. The note in A7.211 is very strange and indeed contradictory. I don't know how to integrate it into the other rules. The Q&A is so on point that I suspect A7.211 may be an error, or it may be intended to refer to Reaction Fire. I agree with what you say about when an OVR is declared. When a vehicle enters a Location with only unknown enemy units, it does not have to declare the OVR outside the hex. It can wait until after the PAATC to decide whether to declare an OVR. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Alain Chabot" Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 14:22:07 AST Subject: Re: Canadians and WWII > > > > > >While I generally feel that Canadians got the shaft in terms of recognition > >for their independant actions during WWII, I don't believe that exclusive > >Canadian units are necessary for ASL. Hell, would you want to give AH > >another reason to jack up the price of another module $20 just to give > >you the Canadian OB with their own colour. > > Especially becuase you might need another counter sheets for the Quebec > units... would poutine be a SW? > No but because of our world famous swearing, German get a +1 to any MC within 5 hexes of French-Canadian (from Quebec) troops. As for the Italians, good Catholic that they were), they must always roll DM under the same circumstances. For those not cognizant of the special Quebec brand of swearing, let us say that profanity is used strictu senso when describing it. Alain Alain Chabot Universite Sainte-Anne Spiders are social animals. Invite one over for dinner. ----- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 15:12:35 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Re: More HT OVRing HIPsters JR speaketh :-) >Howdy, > >donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) writes: > >>D7.2 last sentence "Reaction Fire vs an OVRing vehicle is >>resolved immediately after the resolution of that OVR." > >>A12.41 (92) near the middle "If the Location contained no >>Known enemy unit when the vehicle entered it, OVR expenditure >>is NA until the combined PAATC (if any) has been resolved, after >>which the vehicle may conduct an OVR if able to (D7.1)" > >>A7.211 TPBF vs PRC middle "The moving units may attack first >>as part of an OVR ..." > >>So, I believe the moving player has the option of declaring >>an OVR after the PAATC, and executing the OVR before the >>defensive fire by the defending unit in the OVR hex. > >One of the great dis-services in the ASLRB is to emphasize >Reaction Fire in the section on OVR. It almost makes it >seem that when the hex is being OVR, the only DFF option for >the DEFENDER is Reaction Fire. This is not the case. The >DEFENDER can DFF prior to the OVR, and can in fact RF >afterwards, too (depending on the situation, it may be >required to RF). From the Q&A: > >D7.1 "When a vehicle declares an OVR, may its DEFENDER >target attack it before the OVR is resolved? If yes, would >that DEFENDER have to use Reaction Fire? A. Yes. No -- it >would be Reaction Fire only if conducted after the OVR >resolution (see the last sentence of D7.2). {93a}" Good catch on the QA. Here's an example of modifying rules via QA, that weren't broken. To me, it makes complete sense to force units in the hex to wait until after the overrun (which is exactly what A7.211 says to do). If they're all alone, with no support, they deserve what they get :-) Of course, a completely reasonable argument can be made (using common sense) to support the opposite. However, as the QA is quite clear on how it's supposed to work now, I will do it that way. >The note in A7.211 is very strange and indeed >contradictory. I don't know how to integrate it into the >other rules. The Q&A is so on point that I suspect A7.211 >may be an error, or it may be intended to refer to Reaction >Fire. Don ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 16:32:00 UTC Subject: Re; Deliberate Immobilization > [JR's analysis of Deliberate Immobilization vs. TK attempts...] > In sum, I claim that the anomoly you note will arise only > when you choose to use Deliberate Immobilization when you > would have been more likely to affect the target using a > normal shot. The Deliberate Immobilization breaks down > as a simulation, but only outside the range of situations > that you would rationally use it to maximize your chances > of obtaining a result. As an example of appropriate use of Delib. Immob., consider "North Bank," where the Brit's primary AT weapon vs. the Tiger IIs is the PIAT. Not much use if the German player is cautious enough to avoid giving you a side shot; but if you can immobilize one or both of those behemoths early in the game with a Delib. Immob. shot to the front facing and then fall back out of LOS, you've given yourself a significant advantage by effectively eliminating a good chunk of the German player's offensive punch. Given the -2 TH DRM for the Tiger II's very large size, and maybe even application of a -2 or -3 leader DRM if you're willing to risk exposing them to return fire from the Tiger, and you've got a pretty good chance of keeping themn from having any effect on the end-game. > Put another way, if you want to use > Deliberate Immobilization to attack Shermans with Panthers, > please come play me, soon and often :-) Here, here. Me too. !B) Later, Bob Schaaf ----- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 13:46:42 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Cabucks Thus continues the ensuing battle between cdf1@psu.edu and Grant over: "Re: Canucks" GL> ... A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure. c> Grant, I love your signature routine! It knows just which c> one to pick! :-) I know. It can sometimes be pretty deflating, can't it? Course in this case, where the pretension/manure belongs depends on one's point of view ;^) c> BTW, I've enjoyed reading the notes on the history c> generated by my faux pas. Very interesting. Another c> source of interesting history has been To Lose A Battle, c> France 1940 by Alstair Horne. While a little weak and c> error prone on the German side of things, Mr. Horne spends c> a lot of time describing the political situation in France c> leading up to the war and France's subsequent collapse. That sounds good. I haven't read any mil. hist. from the French perspective. Would make a good Xmas gift for Dolan, as well! -Grant. ... Black holes are where God is dividing by zero. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==-