Definitely on the right track here…ASL has excellent foundational elements with many areas of ‘that’s the best I’m going to do’ mixed in, for example: 1- skulking is an artificial exploitation of an oversight …full effect fire into a move origin hex is completely logical 2- ‘Design intent’ is very often actually ‘limit of the current designer’s commitment/imagination/patience/developmemt timeline, etc’ (the IFT was not some subtle creation, but a product of the # & size of player aids to be included in the box…the IIFT is superior) 3- the entire Movement-Def Fire-Off Fire IGo-UGo structure should be a single phase variable initiative impulse system 4-Dispersal of squad members was doctrinally mandatory in WW2, thus HS’s are entirely logical and there should be more counters for them 5-the idea that a mob of squads runs around outside of Platoon/Company structure is fundamentally mistaken & a very shallow implementation (the squads are ID’d and should be operating as groups of Platoon’ed squads w individual leaders assigned to specific Platoons) 6-the idea that an entire Plt of 3 US squads (36 men) can occupy a single hex building while simultaneously enjoying its full cover benefit & exerting their full FP thru the 4-6 openings in a given building facing is just broken beyond words…a HS + 1 SW is the most that could fire thru that facing and enjoy full cover 7-there should be no loss of FP/Range/etc for HS operating with (within 1 hex) the other HS of its squad, someone still has the BAR/LMG/etc…this was a weak ‘design for effect’ to discourage the historical use of the units in order to limit the need for more countersheets (this will not be a popular take but goes back to SL & the justifiable uncertainty of future success imo) 8-as former infantry, the concept of the ‘rubber rout’ is perhaps the most egregious…rout at the individual level are the ELR/KIA reduction effects, the concept of squad rout & rally by junior officers/ncos behind the lines is so grossly counter to doctrine (junior officer casualties were very high in the ETO, as they were leading from the front) *this section was edited out of respect for John Hill's memory*…in 40yrs+ of WW2 reading & active service this is simply not a thing, squads simply did not run away helpless and 2-4 minutes later have their diapers changed by a butter bar Lt and get back in the fight…a squad is pinned down by fire & either returns fire & maneuvers to eliminate the firer, falls back to covered terrain while maintaining fire, or is rendered combat ineffective due to casualties sustained in the above…at no time does it run pell mell and out of control to the solace of a SSgt/Lt/Capt 80-120yds in the rear to be told ‘it’sgonna be alright little bucky…’ Contrary to the above strongly expressed opinions, I love the game (began playing SL Christmas 1983), I’ve just matured and desire the game to do the same and do better 😊
1. agree 2. debatable but I prefer IIFT 3. ugg such games are awful to play I don't like impulse boredom 4. disagree/don't care these are 40 meter hexes 5. agree 6. no we can't assume what the buildings look like although there are some sheds out there :) 7. no makes the game too hard to play at scale who wants to be tracking positions of HS for God's sake 8. TL:DR 9: you love it eh? lol great :) thanks for the comments.
I've been thinking about this issue and I've come to the conclusion that Skulking isn't the problem, just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the sequence of play. Since skulking is something that the scenario defenders normally do, what is happening is that the attacker is shooting the defender with "Defensive Fire". IOW, the Defensive Fire Phase is just an additional Prep Fire phase for the scenario attacker. And while you might be able to come up with an optional rule to outlaw it, the only players who will agree to play with such a rule can just agree to not skulk in the first place. With Skulking, the defender is giving up their Prep Fire, Movement, and Assault Phases just to avoid being shot at. So giving defenders an option, such as Hunkering Down, makes logical sense. However, there is already a mechanic in ASL to represent troops keeping their heads down and that's Concealment. Since, in the Defensive Fire Phase, non-moving Concealed units aren't doing anything anyway, they would always be Hunkering Down. Is +2 TEM on top of 1/2 FP too much?
The first problem is that units can skulk without concealment. They also skulk with it. The idea is to penalise skulking as the unrealistic tactic it is, while giving an extra incentive to hug the dirt under heavy fire to keep defense viable.
I like fix #1. Skulking makes sense, and really isn't skulking, when a unit pulls out of a hex to avoid fire. For example, an infantry unit comes out of a woods hex into a clear hex, triggering fire from concealed enemy units. The unit survives and immediately "skulks" back into the woods. It is reasonable for the hex that took fire and was retreated from to be off limits to other friendly infantry units. I wouldn't apply the rule to tanks or other armored vehicles moving into the hex.
good observation/thinking to showcase when this new fix could break down -- because th unit(s) could not now go back to the original hex due to the skulk marker. But leaving good cover to take a shot from something else really isn't the purpose of gamey skulking., which is to avoid fire from superior forces in front. in this case you mention, it would have been better to stay and Hunker Down. I should say something about routing though, that should still be possible into a Skulk hex. Also, yes, the rule proposed does not affect vehicles, because they cannot skulk, it's only infantry spending MF that are to be prohibited. Thanks for the comment, highly welcome :) cheers.
Skulking- Not horrible, once one develops tactics to counter it -- such as the mentioned snap shot. I have played a few scenarios that were just skulk-fests, and those are admittedly no fun. But I think this can be addressed at the scenario design level. In support of that, I am thinking about a third solution and will test with an SSR: RFP remains on board through the advance phase. So a unit that skulked might think twice about skulking back into RFP. Has some trade-offs for the firer as well so meets the 'design for effect' working principle.
Yes, any 'problem' rule can be addressed at the scenario design level, but I'm interested in a fix for all scenarios. The sticky RFP sounds feasible for that, indeed.
I always thought it would play "better" if First Fire could be taken against the hex being "abandoned" at 1/2 FP like a Snap Shot. The tactic would still be effective but not an absolute defense.
HI Jack, nice idea, and similar to the proposal of "Hunker Down." A 'rear of the hex' snap shot would mitigate the abandonment for free, but wouldn't prohibit the skulking effect of coming back into the hex in the APh. One issue that is bound to come up is an imbalance for the defender in spite of the +2 Hindrance for Hunker Down. The attacker already has the edge in a scenario, all other things being equal. thanks for commenting.
Adding 2 to an attack effectively 1/2’s the FP. Simply allow a snap shot while leaving hex. It’s the same overall effect, just add whatever tem is present.
I agree overall that VBM freeze is bad (AFV play is where the ASL system has the most cracks) -- but this can also be addressed at the scenario design level. (Losing AFVs is bad for victory conditions)
I know good players who do use them a lot. More than I think the original intent of squad leader. Now, I can't say I only play the top 25 players. There are disadvantages, but not overly severe. Again, my issue is not only about gameplay, but historicity. Teams (HS) weren't used regularly in line units until the late 50s, so allowing overuse in WW2 isn't historical.
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Definitely on the right track here…ASL has excellent foundational elements with many areas of ‘that’s the best I’m going to do’ mixed in, for example:
1- skulking is an artificial exploitation of an oversight
…full effect fire into a move origin hex is completely logical
2- ‘Design intent’ is very often actually ‘limit of the current designer’s commitment/imagination/patience/developmemt timeline, etc’ (the IFT was not some subtle creation, but a product of the # & size of player aids to be included in the box…the IIFT is superior)
3- the entire Movement-Def Fire-Off Fire IGo-UGo structure should be a single phase variable initiative impulse system
4-Dispersal of squad members was doctrinally mandatory in WW2, thus HS’s are entirely logical and there should be more counters for them
5-the idea that a mob of squads runs around outside of Platoon/Company structure is fundamentally mistaken & a very shallow implementation (the squads are ID’d and should be operating as groups of Platoon’ed squads w individual leaders assigned to specific Platoons)
6-the idea that an entire Plt of 3 US squads (36 men) can occupy a single hex building while simultaneously enjoying its full cover benefit & exerting their full FP thru the 4-6 openings in a given building facing is just broken beyond words…a HS + 1 SW is the most that could fire thru that facing and enjoy full cover
7-there should be no loss of FP/Range/etc for HS operating with (within 1 hex) the other HS of its squad, someone still has the BAR/LMG/etc…this was a weak ‘design for effect’ to discourage the historical use of the units in order to limit the need for more countersheets (this will not be a popular take but goes back to SL & the justifiable uncertainty of future success imo)
8-as former infantry, the concept of the ‘rubber rout’ is perhaps the most egregious…rout at the individual level are the ELR/KIA reduction effects, the concept of squad rout & rally by junior officers/ncos behind the lines is so grossly counter to doctrine (junior officer casualties were very high in the ETO, as they were leading from the front) *this section was edited out of respect for John Hill's memory*…in 40yrs+ of WW2 reading & active service this is simply not a thing, squads simply did not run away helpless and 2-4 minutes later have their diapers changed by a butter bar Lt and get back in the fight…a squad is pinned down by fire & either returns fire & maneuvers to eliminate the firer, falls back to covered terrain while maintaining fire, or is rendered combat ineffective due to casualties sustained in the above…at no time does it run pell mell and out of control to the solace of a SSgt/Lt/Capt 80-120yds in the rear to be told ‘it’sgonna be alright little bucky…’
Contrary to the above strongly expressed opinions, I love the game (began playing SL Christmas 1983), I’ve just matured and desire the game to do the same and do better 😊
1. agree 2. debatable but I prefer IIFT 3. ugg such games are awful to play I don't like impulse boredom 4. disagree/don't care these are 40 meter hexes 5. agree 6. no we can't assume what the buildings look like although there are some sheds out there :) 7. no makes the game too hard to play at scale who wants to be tracking positions of HS for God's sake 8. TL:DR 9: you love it eh? lol great :) thanks for the comments.
I've been thinking about this issue and I've come to the conclusion that Skulking isn't the problem, just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the sequence of play. Since skulking is something that the scenario defenders normally do, what is happening is that the attacker is shooting the defender with "Defensive Fire". IOW, the Defensive Fire Phase is just an additional Prep Fire phase for the scenario attacker.
And while you might be able to come up with an optional rule to outlaw it, the only players who will agree to play with such a rule can just agree to not skulk in the first place.
With Skulking, the defender is giving up their Prep Fire, Movement, and Assault Phases just to avoid being shot at. So giving defenders an option, such as Hunkering Down, makes logical sense. However, there is already a mechanic in ASL to represent troops keeping their heads down and that's Concealment. Since, in the Defensive Fire Phase, non-moving Concealed units aren't doing anything anyway, they would always be Hunkering Down. Is +2 TEM on top of 1/2 FP too much?
The first problem is that units can skulk without concealment. They also skulk with it. The idea is to penalise skulking as the unrealistic tactic it is, while giving an extra incentive to hug the dirt under heavy fire to keep defense viable.
Good discussion, Marc.
Thanks for all your comments as well. I hope you see all my replies -- using a phone the replies come out differently.
I like fix #1. Skulking makes sense, and really isn't skulking, when a unit pulls out of a hex to avoid fire. For example, an infantry unit comes out of a woods hex into a clear hex, triggering fire from concealed enemy units. The unit survives and immediately "skulks" back into the woods. It is reasonable for the hex that took fire and was retreated from to be off limits to other friendly infantry units. I wouldn't apply the rule to tanks or other armored vehicles moving into the hex.
good observation/thinking to showcase when this new fix could break down -- because th unit(s) could not now go back to the original hex due to the skulk marker. But leaving good cover to take a shot from something else really isn't the purpose of gamey skulking., which is to avoid fire from superior forces in front. in this case you mention, it would have been better to stay and Hunker Down. I should say something about routing though, that should still be possible into a Skulk hex. Also, yes, the rule proposed does not affect vehicles, because they cannot skulk, it's only infantry spending MF that are to be prohibited. Thanks for the comment, highly welcome :) cheers.
Skulking- Not horrible, once one develops tactics to counter it -- such as the mentioned snap shot. I have played a few scenarios that were just skulk-fests, and those are admittedly no fun. But I think this can be addressed at the scenario design level. In support of that, I am thinking about a third solution and will test with an SSR: RFP remains on board through the advance phase. So a unit that skulked might think twice about skulking back into RFP. Has some trade-offs for the firer as well so meets the 'design for effect' working principle.
Yes, any 'problem' rule can be addressed at the scenario design level, but I'm interested in a fix for all scenarios. The sticky RFP sounds feasible for that, indeed.
Another anti-skulking SSR: "All buildings are huts. All woods are light woods"
Perhaps okay at a scenario level if that makes sense in context. But I wouldn't like that SSR just to fix skulking.
I always thought it would play "better" if First Fire could be taken against the hex being "abandoned" at 1/2 FP like a Snap Shot. The tactic would still be effective but not an absolute defense.
HI Jack, nice idea, and similar to the proposal of "Hunker Down." A 'rear of the hex' snap shot would mitigate the abandonment for free, but wouldn't prohibit the skulking effect of coming back into the hex in the APh. One issue that is bound to come up is an imbalance for the defender in spite of the +2 Hindrance for Hunker Down. The attacker already has the edge in a scenario, all other things being equal. thanks for commenting.
Adding 2 to an attack effectively 1/2’s the FP.
Simply allow a snap shot while leaving hex. It’s the same overall effect, just add whatever tem is present.
Yeah vbm freeze needs to go away.
Restrict tpbf restrictions to enemy infantry in hex only
Moronic rule implementation.
Vbm only applicable to non bypassed vehicles.
Risk vs reward. That’ll reduce the troll move.
It’ll stop ht from doing it
Agree on the hs. Should limit to deployed up to 10-20% total
Maybe TI for attempt
I agree overall that VBM freeze is bad (AFV play is where the ASL system has the most cracks) -- but this can also be addressed at the scenario design level. (Losing AFVs is bad for victory conditions)
It's bad because it's an intrinsic game design flaw, not the flaw of scenarios. You can fix it that way, but only one new scenario at a time.
The FIX is ON
RE: half squads? I don't know many good players who do that often. Too many disadvantages to HS.
I know good players who do use them a lot. More than I think the original intent of squad leader. Now, I can't say I only play the top 25 players. There are disadvantages, but not overly severe. Again, my issue is not only about gameplay, but historicity. Teams (HS) weren't used regularly in line units until the late 50s, so allowing overuse in WW2 isn't historical.