Tactical Gaming

[Bison]

I picked up my copy of ASLSK1 used from a vendor at Prez con.  I now need ASKSK2 and the expansion scenario pack to round out the whole ASLSK series.

[GJK]

I picked up an extra set of 1, 2 and 3 as each came out.  I have them in shrink.  I picked them up thinking that my son might get into ASL one day.  We've played, it's not his favorite but I'll hold on to them just in case.  But on second thought, seeing SK1 going for three times the original price (at least), hmmmm......

[Mad Russian]

Discussing the game mechanics of ASL is completely different than talking about buying it in all it's iterations. I would think there are other threads that are concerned with the buying and selling of games.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Jack Nastyface]

@MR...off-topic postings, unrelated personal anecdotes, tangential points of interest, obscure historical references, endless discussions of armour penetration values, debate about the 5.56 vs the 7.62 round, thread wobble, inside jokes, partisan political punditry and pictures of ta-tas (the Indian motorcar  ;) ) are de rigeur in most threads here at Grogheads.  Take it as a compliment - it means you are family. 

P.S.  Personally I blame the Whigs for the lack of clarity regarding the intensive fire round.

yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

[Bison]

Well I would have an in depth conversation about ASLSK, but I've yet to even begin to comprehend the rules. 

[Ubercat]

I'll stay out of the thread from this point on. Sorry.

[Mad Russian]

Ah, my mistake.

Then, by all means, continue with the ASL sales promotions.

Who knows, I may promote a game or two while I'm here as well.

Good Hunting.

[Keunert]

excuse me if this is aquestioned already answered. MR are you thinking of making your own game? or are you more into modifying existing ones? or is this just about discussing different systems?
if you plan to do your own, yould you elaborate what you plan to do?

[Jack Nastyface]

Just re-reading some of this thread this morning and would like to submit a question:  Why the interest in Nationality based modifiers or activation?  Nationality (ie: doctrine) based capabilities I can understand (Banzaii charge for Japanese, human-wave attacks for the Russians, auto-surrender for the Italians (sorry...couldn't resist)) but what's the justification for "nationalizing" other game mechanics, unless you are using "generic" counters or melieu-specific rules.  Aren't things like unit specific morale and training perhaps more important than a national rating?

My personal experience with national modifiers actually comes from some Age-of-Sail games I have played, where the British might have a gunnery advantage over the Spanish.  Fine, I get that...it is also historically accurate...but why not just used a "crew quality" modifier instead?  Of course, many games do reflect national / historical capabilities, but I most often see that as a quantitative rating on unit counters themselves (ie:  US squad has an attack strenght 4; Brits a FP of 3; Italians of 1).

Just thinking out loud in a non-contentious way,

Yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

[Mad Russian]

Fire Team used national modifiers to show the differences in training and doctrine between the US and USSR forces in the 1980's. It didn't force a bunch of rules on you. It did it through activation costs for basic unit activities such as movement and firing at various unit sizes. I liked that well enough to apply to want to see it applied to other nationalities.

Good Hunting.

[ArizonaTank]

Just re-reading some of this thread this morning and would like to submit a question:  Why the interest in Nationality based modifiers or activation?  Nationality (ie: doctrine) based capabilities I can understand (Banzaii charge for Japanese, human-wave attacks for the Russians, auto-surrender for the Italians (sorry...couldn't resist)) but what's the justification for "nationalizing" other game mechanics, unless you are using "generic" counters or melieu-specific rules.  Aren't things like unit specific morale and training perhaps more important than a national rating?

My personal experience with national modifiers actually comes from some Age-of-Sail games I have played, where the British might have a gunnery advantage over the Spanish.  Fine, I get that...it is also historically accurate...but why not just used a "crew quality" modifier instead?  Of course, many games do reflect national / historical capabilities, but I most often see that as a quantitative rating on unit counters themselves (ie:  US squad has an attack strenght 4; Brits a FP of 3; Italians of 1).

Just thinking out loud in a non-contentious way,

Yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

This is one of the persistent questions in wargaming.  ASL for example takes some heat now and then for its use of national characteristics...US squads that break easily, but rally quickly...Japanese squads that do not break, but just take casualties...not to mention nearly unbreakable German SS units. 

For me, I would rather not have national characteristics...because they apply too broadly.  Did every British ship really have better gunnery training?  Did every SS unit even in April 45 fight nearly to the death? 

Instead, I prefer gaming systems that allow for variation in results due to training, readiness, equipment, quality of leadership and morale. 

But in the end, if I enjoy playing the game or not is the most important thing.  So while I am not a big fan of "national characteristics" I still enjoy many games that use them (I am a big ASL fan for example).

[GJK]

I think that the nationality based attributes can be broadly applied to each nationality but then specific characteristics can be uniquely applied to individual pieces or units.  The base attribute is broad based across that nationality but unique to it (to reflect the different training doctrines) and then unit specific characteristics could be applied depending on the situation or the unit(s) in the conflict, etc.  For example, while a regular US squad may break on a "6" and rally on a "8" (morale goes up when "broken", unique to the Americans), the "elite" US squads (airborne, USMC for example) will break on a "7" and rally on an "8".  And within those defines, you can have things leaders, the weapons, movement rates etc can all be unique to a nationality but can be individually defined based on the battle.  I would think that the nationality based attributes are just a simple starting point for the traits of unit/piece applied with a broad brush based on known historical data about the training and techniques of that nation, but then can be uniquely and individually defined based on several factors.

P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know.  ;)

[Bison]

P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know.  ;)

Yeah I really need to take you up on this offer at some point in the future.

[GJK]

P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know.  ;)

Yeah I really need to take you up on this offer at some point in the future.

Please do - I'm itching for some ASL(SK) action and I enjoy teaching new players!

[Mad Russian]

excuse me if this is aquestioned already answered. MR are you thinking of making your own game? or are you more into modifying existing ones? or is this just about discussing different systems?
if you plan to do your own, yould you elaborate what you plan to do?

I am modifying an existing game into a new version.

Fire Team, designed by Jon Southard, was one of the most innovative designs I'd ever seen. I did the expansion for that and had it returned with a note that West End games no longer sold wargames. I shelved that and went to converting ASL to the FT system but lost my wargaming group about that same time. So, for the next 20+ years, it sat on the shelf until my Grandson found it one day and we played.

That rekindled my fire and I began to look at board wargames again. I had left them and gone into computer gaming for the past 20+ years. Did some scenario work and got on a couple of development teams. Mad some money. Nothing great.

The board wargame market seems to be making a comeback so I'm taking a hard look at where the evolution of tactical gaming has gone.

I looked at all the tactical level games since I left and was surprised at the direction the hobby went. Not sure if that direction is for me to come back to. As stated before I despise card driven or assisted wargames. With the exception of Combat Commander.

I started this as a feeling out for what gamers like in their tactical games. I'm much more of an ASL lite gamers.  ASL depth but with about 40 pages or so of rules please. Charts and die rolls are just fine. Keep your cards out of my wargames.

I have been working on the board game update for about 2 years now. The toughest things are I'm not a graphics guru and I have to learn to create a Vassal module. I was, until this past Sunday, enmeshed in the release of a computer wargame. With that set for release, I can now take a little time off and see where I want to take my board game. Some publishers have shown interest in it. We'll see.

I have a thread on CSW that discussed the artwork and basic concepts.

I'll keep you posted.

That's the just of it.

Good Hunting.

MR