VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

36
V IEW F ROM T HE T RENCHES Britain’s Premier ASL Journal Issue 26/27 May-Aug ’99 UK £4.00 US $10.00 IN THIS ISSUE ASL AS SIMULATION - Thoughts on ASL's worth as a simulation MAD VET CON - the UK ASL Campaign Game gathering COMBAT! NORMANDY - Have CH designed an ASL replacement? A DC HELPER - a primer for DC use THE DANCE OF DEATH - Using mobility to defeat strength INTERROGATION - Gathering information in ASL

Transcript of VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

Page 1: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

VIEW FROM THE TRENCHESB r i t a i n ' s P r e m i e r A S L J o u r n a l

Issue 26/27 May-Aug ’99 UK £4.00 US $10.00

IN THIS ISSUEASL AS SIMULATION - Thoughts on ASL's worth as a simulation MAD VET CON - the UK ASL Campaign Game gathering

COMBAT! NORMANDY - Have CH designed an ASL replacement? A DC HELPER - a primer for DC use

THE DANCE OF DEATH - Using mobility to defeat strength INTERROGATION - Gathering information in ASL

Page 2: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

2 VIEW FROM

IN THIS ISSUEPREP FIRE 2

INCOMING 3

ASL, SIMULATION, REALISM, AND THE WAY AHEAD 5

A CALL FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM 7

AN ANALYSIS OF SQUAD FP VALUES 8

ARMOUR STUDIES REVISED 10

THE COWTRA MANTRA 16

TEN QUESTIONS WITH ... EDDIE ZEMAN 17

COMBAT! NORMANDY 18

COMBAT! ACCORDING TO CH 20

SECOND PLATOON LEADER, THIRD BRIDGE 21

MAD VET CON 25

SQUEEZING PEIPER’S BULGE 26

WESTWALL ‘99 27

WHERE ARE THEY NOW ... ? 28

INTERROGATION 29

BREAKING BAMBOO 30

BECKERS AND DICKIES 31

A DC HELPER 31

THE DANCE OF DEATH 32

ACHTUNG MINEN! 33

“THIS IS THE CALL TO ARMS!” 34

ON THE CONVENTION TRAIL 35

PREP FIREHello and welcome to this double issue of View From The

Trenches. I had hoped to get back on schedule during my time offfrom work during the July fortnight but ended up busier thanexpected. It didn’t help having some PC problems which took nearlya week to get sorted out either :-(

The one problem with doing this double issue is that I haveused up a lot of my reserve of articles. I’ve got a couple of pieces inthe pipeline for the next issue, but after that I’ve got very little leftfor VFTT28, the first issue of the new millennium (other than theusual the INTENSIVE FIRE ’99 report). So if you want to see VFTTcontinue well into the year 2000 you’re all gonna have to help meout a bit more.

Until next time, roll low and prosper.

Pete Phillipps

This issue is dedicated to the memory of the millions killed andinjured in World War Two. While we have fun and enjoy a beerplaying wargames, we should never forget the suffering real warcauses.

EMOTICONSWith the growth of the InterNet, emoticons have originated to allow people to show expressions in

text. I find these very useful for the printed word in general, so you'll see plenty of them in View From theTrenches.

An emoticon is created with keyboard characters and read with the head tilted to the left. Sometypical emoticons are:

:-) humour or smiley;-) winking:-> devious smile<g> grin:-( sad:-o shocked or surprised#-( hung-over

COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICEMost products are trademarks of the companies publishing them. Use of a product name without mention of the trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.Advanced Squad Leader, Beyond Valour, Paratrooper, Yanks, Partisan, West of Alamein, The Last Hurrah, Hollow Legions, Code of Bushido, Gung Ho!, Croix de Guerre, Doomed Battalions, Streets

of Fire, Hedgerow Hell, Red Barricades, Kampfgruppe Peiper I, Kampfgrupper Peiper II, Pegasus Bridge, Solitaire ASL, ASL Annual, and ASL Journal are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc.Copyright for all material printed within VFTT remains with its respective author, who can be contacted via VFTT if you would like to reprint his/her material.

Back issue prices are:VFTT Special Edition 98 £3.50 (overseas £5.00)VFTT '95 £4.00 (overseas £6.00)VFTT 7 - 9 £1.00 (overseas £2.00)VFTT10 - 13 £1.50 (overseas £2.50)VFTT14/15 £3.00 (overseas £4.00)VFTT16 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT17/18 £4.00 (overseas £6.00)VFTT19 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT20 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT21 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT22 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT23 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)VFTT24 £2.00 (overseas £3.00)Operation Neptune £2.50 (overseas £3.50)Shingle's List £5.000 (overseas £8.00)

VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES is the bi-monthly British ASL journal. All comments are wel-come. Even better, contribute. Write an article. De-sign a scenario. Share your ASL experiences with oth-ers. VFTT allows you to communicate with otherASLers. Don't be a silent voice.

Issue 27 should be out towards the end of Oc-tober.

VFTT costs £2.00 per issue (overseas £3.00),with a year's subscription costing £10.00 (overseas£15.00). Payment should be in pounds sterling, withcheques made out to PETE PHILLIPPS. Readers arereminded to check their address label to see whentheir subscription ends.

COVER: Tanks of the German 24th Panzer Division ad-

vance into the outskirts of Stalingrad in September 1942.

THE ASL MAILING LIST

The ASL Mailing List is devoted to discussion of Advanced Squad Leader, and is run by Paul Ferraro via a listservprogram at the University of Pittsburgh. To subscribe send email to [email protected] with the body of themessage reading:subscribe advanced-slYou MUST use lower case letters!You will get a message from Majordomo in reply asking for confirmation.To subscribe to the digest version send the following in the body of a message:subscribe advanced-sl-digestThe digest is mailed out whenever it has queued 100,000 characters of mailings. You may receive more (or less)than one mailing every 24 hour period. The digest is NOT sent at a certain time each day.

VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES49 Lombardy RiseLeicesterLE5 OFQ

Telephone:(0116) 212 6747

E-mail:[email protected]

World Wide Web Home Page:http://www .vftt.co.uk

Page 3: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

3THE TRENCHES

INCOMINGMMP GO TO ARNHEM,TARAWA, KAKAZU RIDGE

Work on Blood Reef: Tarawa and TheThird Bridge is progressing at a steady pace.Final play testing is being done on the sce-narios, while the counter sheets and scenariosare being laid out and the rules are undergo-ing final proofs. The maps are being printed,and both modules are on schedule for a re-lease at ASLOK.

Work is also in progress on the ASLJournal 2. The Kakazu Ridge map is doneand the scenarios are being worked on. JimStahler has updated the old COI scenario‘The Capture of Balta’, while Trial By Com-bat (GI301) and Sweep For The Boudj ToumBridge are also set for inclusion.

MMP are on the look-out for articles.In view of the forthcoming releases, they areparticularly interested in articles on seaborneassaults, caves, and city-fighting tactics ar-ticles.

The first components of the DoomedBattalions reprint were printed during theAction Pack #2 print run. The remainingcomponents will be done during the BR:Tand AbtF print runs and DB should be re-leased sometime shortly after those modules.

Although there are no concrete plansfor releases next year at the moment, numer-ous projects are being worked on, includingthe Axis Minors, Stalingrad, Italy,Guadalcanal and assorted magazines.

The future will also see the former AHgame series The Great Campaigns of theAmerican Civil War series published underthe Hasbro/MMP banner. The first fruits of

this collaboration will be the release of TheSkirmisher, a magazine along the lines of theASL Journal, which will see the publicationof the Standard Series rules among otherthings. It is not expected that this will haveany effect on ASL.

It has also been reported fromAmerican distributors that Hasbro will bedumping its remaining stock of Avalon Hilland Victory Games games in mid-September.It is anticipated that stockists will stock upon supplies in the short term, but thateventually AH/VG games will becomeharder and harder (and thus more expensive)to find.

CANADIAN HASLOrtona is a HASL module being

worked on by members of the Canadian ASLAssociation. Raging from 20 – 27 December1943, the battle consisted of a rural approachto the town and then some bitter street-fighting in rowhouses in Ortona itself.

Ortona sits atop a promontory juttinginto the Adriatic, and the KGP I sized mapincludes proper vineyard artwork,cobblestone, piazzas and a castle.

The main CG is a manageable 15 CGdates with typically around 35-45 Canadiansquads battling 25-35 German squads.

Play testing of the scenarios is halfcomplete, 2 CGs are good to go with a thirdin the works. When all is done, this projectwill be formally submitted to MMP. CurtSchilling is in contact with Jim on aconsistent basis regarding their play test andwork on Ortona.

CH’s GALORE ON TARGETCritical Hit have released details of

several new products they expect to ship inthe coming months.

As the name suggests, Euro-Pack V:Eastern Front Warfare contains eightscenarios set during the early stages of thewar in the east. The majority are German-Soviet clashes but there is one Finnish-Russian action included.

The map of Jerusalem for Genesis ‘48,CH’s forthcoming module on Israel’s 1948War of Independence, is finished, and CHexpect it to ship before the end of the year.As well as scenarios and PL CGs, the moduleincludes a set of new counters and copiousChapter H-style notes and data about the newcombatants, weapons systems and AFVincluded.

Randy Yeates’ Carnage at Cassinohas grown from the originally announcedOperation Diadem into the first half of a twopart module with linking maps. Carnage atCassino offers several scenarios and two CGcovering the Polish, French, American andBritish assaults against the German 90th

Panzer Grenadier Division on the MonteCassino Massif (just north of the MonteCassino monastery) in February of 1944. Inaddition, players may recreate the two PolishCorps attacks against elements of the German1st Parachute Division in the same area from12 – 17 May 1944 through additionalscenarios and two more CG.

Coming for September is the first partof a third part Okinawa series, Ordeal BeforeShuri. The culmination of three years ofresearch and development led by designer

Cover artwork for the forthcoming MMP ASL modules Blood Reef: Tarawa (left) and A Bridge To Far.

Page 4: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

4 VIEW FROM

Dave ‘Ogre’ Dally, the large map featuresnumerous terrain features including NishiBaru Ridge, Kakazu Ridge, Kakazu West,Urasoe Mura Escarpment and three separatevillages. The module will include eightscenarios (including some monsters), twoCG, play aids, and special rules.

Work is also well underway on thesecond game in the series, Item Pocket,which is slated for a 2000 release.

Darrell Andersen’s Uncommon Valorcovers the USMC actions against theJapanese at Iwo Jima’s Motoyama Airfield#2 and surrounding heights. The first part ofa two-game Iwo Jima series that will coverthe action, the module includes eightscenarios, a CG, and special rules. The mapis a standard 22 x 30 size and covers a largeportion on the centre of Iwo Jima, includingthe airfield, and the dominating terrainaround it, such as Hill Peter and Hill 199-0.

CH are also releasing an updatedversion of the old AH game Tobruk. Themost obvious change is that the firing systemhas been completely redesigned – now, foreach shot, you make one die roll whichdetermines the result, anything from a missto a burning tank. This single change willspeed up play dramatically. Other changeshave also been made to speed up play, andthe time scale is also a bit longer so there arefewer turns in a game.

The counters and maps have also beenre-done to give the players a better feel ofmoving “tanks that look like tanks on boardsthat look like desert”, to quote CH.

SEVENTH BUNKER MADEDispatches From The Bunker 7 is out

now and contains two new scenarios, aScenario Analysis of ‘J1 Urban Guerillas’,reviews of Hell On Wheels and Action Pack# 2.

Design, development, and initial in-house play testing for the two scenarios dueto appear in Dispatches From The Bunker 8is complete. ‘‘Smashing the Semovanti’ isthe latest in Tom Morin’s Tunisian Series andsees a mixed, mobile, armour/infantry forceof Italians trying to force their way past arelatively small French defensive position onboard 9.

The other scenario is the latest in theGross Deutschland Series, a fairly large ac-tion which sees elements of the division as-saulting a Russian blocking position atKamienka in the early weeks of Barbarossa.

Each scenario is also accompanied byan analysis article and designer notes.

Also due to be included will be a re-

THIRD PARTY PRODUCTUK AVAILABILITY

Following Neil Stevens’ retirement fromthe role, I am now acting as the UK distribu-tor for those third party products not gener-ally available in the shops over here.

The prices are as follows, and are effec-tive until the next issue of VFTT:

Schwerpunkt £8.00Schwerpunkt II £8.00Schwerpunkt II £8.00Hell On Wheels £13.50

O/S - Out of Stock O/P - Out of Print

Add 10% for postage and packing [EXC: Cru-saders are exempt P&P charges] and send yourpayment made out to PETE PHILLIPPS to TheCrusaders, 49 Lombardy Rise, Leicester, En-gland, LE5 0FQ.

For the latest on stock availability tele-phone me on (0116) 212 6747, or email me [email protected] .

UK SUPPLIERS OFOTHER THIRD PARTYPRODUCTS

To purchase goods produced by otherthird party producers such as Critical Hit, Inc.and Heat Of Battle, UK ASLers should con-tact the following shops.

LEISURE GAMES , 91 Ballards Lane,Finchley, London, N3 1XY. Telephone (0181)346 2327 or e-mail them atshop@l eisuregames.com.

SECOND CHANCE GAMES, 182 BoroughRoad, Seacombe, The Wirral, L44 6NJ. Tele-phone (0151) 638 3535 or e-mail them [email protected].

PLAN 9, 9 Rosemount Viaduct, Aberdeen,AB25 1NE. Telephone (01224) 624 467 or e-mail them at [email protected].

I shall endeavour to list all UK stockistsof third party ASL products here in the future.

view of ‘Red Storm’ from Action Pack 2,the usual tips for veterans and novices, ASLnews from around the globe, and a look atthe New England ASL scene.Four issuesubscriptions are available for $13.00($15.00 outside the USA). Issue one is avail-able free with a subscription or an SAE,while other back issues are $3.50 ($4.00outside the USA). Payments should be pay-able to Vic Provost and sent to Dispatchesfrom the Bunker, 209 Granby Road, Apt: 18,Chicopee, MA 01013. Tel (413)594-4301(evenings) or email [email protected] .

SCHWERPUNKT 4Schwerpunkt Volume 4 is in the final

editing stage and is due to be printed soon,ready for release at ASLOK. The format willbe similar to previous issues, featuring sce-narios SP37-SP48 printed on card stock.Also included is a booklet with an historicalarticle on the French and the usual analysesof the new scenarios.

The final phase of the play-test forSchwerpunkt Volume 5: The Medal of Honor,is also underway. Expected to be releasedearly in the New Year the pack contains 12tournament level scenarios which focus onacts of extraordinary heroism or leadership.Along with the scenarios will be a bookletcontaining analyses and an article on theMedal of Honor.

Play testing has also begun onSchwerpunkt Volume 6: The Victoria Cross.As with the MoH issue the pack will contain12 scenarios focusing on individual acts ofheroism in North Africa, the Mediterranean,Burma, and Northwest Europe). The issueis expected to be out sometime late next year.

Schwerpunkt Volumes 1, 2, and 3 arestill available.

Each issue of Schwerpunkt costs$12.00, plus $3.00 shipping and handling($5.00 outside the U.S.); add $1.00 for eachadditional copy ordered. Payment should bemade out to Sherry Enterprises and sent toSherry Enterprises, P.O. Box 3, Ruskin, FL33570. Note that Schwerpunkt Volume 4 willnot be available prior to 12 October 1999.

Ω

Page 5: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

5THE TRENCHES

ASL, SIMULATION, REALISM, AND THE WAY AHEADRandom thoughts on a the state of board wargaming

Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

we’d done on modelling the differencebetween first- and second-generationExplosive Reactive Armour he just noddedblankly. He didn’t become at all animated orexcited until we showed him the new graphicflourishes, such as an animated tankcommander, at which point the producerdeclared how “real” the game looked. Thisabsurd attitude, which has nothing to do withfidelity of simulation, is common in theindustry. One of the best and most authenticflight sims currently on the market isconsistently underrated by magazinereviewers simply because it isn’t prettyenough. It makes one want to pick thesepeople up and shake them until their eyeballsdrop out.

The fanbase can be worse, and after awhile one’s patience with them wears as thinas a bachelor’s underwear. As a defencemechanism, as much as anything else, onebegins to develop a healthy contempt for thefanboys. Here, “complexity = realism” istaken as an article of faith, and I have seenself-important “propellor-heads” argue thata particular flight model could not beaccurate simply because it was not difficultenough for them (in that instance, the aircraftin question was an Apache helicopter thatwe had painstakingly modelled the physicsfor. It did not occur to them that, as our armyaviation adviser pointed out, the AH-64 ispacked with flight software designed to makethe aircraft simple enough even for “dumbconeheads” like him — a Desert Stormveteran — to fly).

So, if one problem with the fans is thatthey wouldn’t recognise realism if it cameup and spat in their eye, another is that ifyou deliver them realism, they sometimesdecide they don’t want it. As an example, inour recent game release, “Team Apache”, weoriginally built in some quite sophisticatedartificial intelligence handling the player’swingmen. They would display more initiativein battle, and would show the effects ofmorale if things got hairy. Our playtesters,to a man, hated this. Their complaint wasthat their wingmen didn’t unhesitatingly doeverything they were ordered to, howeversuicidal. We suddenly twigged that theplayers would not accept any level of“realism” that reduced their level of controlover the game. Gamers play wargames to

control, not be controlled by events or factorsout of their direct influence. As a result, wehad to rip their AI out of the game and ‘dumbdown’ the wingmen to acceptable levels.

(As an aside, I wonder how manyplayers would appreciate it if ASL was turnedinto real C2 modelling tool? Would theyreally enjoy the very real loss of control andinfluence over the behaviour of units in thelowest echelons? Or the limited decisionmaking that would prevent themmicromanaging the battle as they do in ASL?I’ll leave the answer blank).

BOARD GAME DESIGNThe “complexity = realism”

assumption also passes over into boardwargaming. In my spare time I work with avery talented designer, Tony Valle, ondeveloping Birds of Prey (BoP), a next-generation air combat game. Generally, wehave aimed to nudge BoP closer to the “sim”end of the scale than the “game” end.

BoP has been a difficult project tomanage, in part because of the complexityof the subject matter and also because wehave had to sell some fairly radical newconcepts to the customer base on the list. Forexample, because we are having to modelflight physics as realistically as we can getaway with on paper, there was absolutely noway that we could design the game withoutgetting players to do some math. Predictably,there has been a lot of resistance to this,despite the fact that we have managed to limitthe math to four functions and no more thantwo decimal places (all the calculus ishandled in the charts and tables). However,players have come around, once wedemonstrated that the math wasn’t really toodifficult to get people’s heads around, andwas within the bounds of playability.

There is a perception that this level ofdetail in the modelling makes BoP“accurate”. Of course it isn’t — though wehaven’t compromised the physics too much,the fineness and level of resolution in themodel is still very crude. However, becauseof this perception, we have been showeredwith requests for adding detail.

This has put us in a bit of a bind. Therehave been individuals who contribute a lotof data and ideas and enthusiasm to BoP —usually in the name of authenticity andrealism. However, both Tony and I have

I once read that most board gamers’use of the term ‘simulation’ is not ‘reality-to-game’ but ‘less detailed/complex game tomore complex game’. This is a very astuteobservation that sums up one of the essentialgames design quandaries far more succinctlythan I ever could.

COMPLEXITY = REALISM?In my various careers in many

different media, I’ve encountered anincreasing tendency to either misappropriateor misuse the technical language of otherdisciplines. For example, in my days as acomic-book artist, terms such as “shot” and“scene” were stolen from movies and TV,and incorporated into the technical languageof comics, regardless of how appropriate theywere. In some cases, the use of these wordsin relation to comics actually became aperversion of their original sense, and couldcause confusion for someone moving fromone media to another. It is only in recent yearsthat a comics vocabulary has beenestablished that is independent of the jargonof other media.

We see something similar happeningin wargaming between simulations andgames. An epiphenomenon of applyingmisappropriated terms like “simulation” and“realism” to games is that many players havebegun to equate detail with fidelity ofsimulation. Sadly, there is no established orwell-defined games vocabulary anywherewhich could be used to correct theseperceptions. In the sim business,“simulation” and “realism” are terms that aremore closely related to statistical analysis(output of results within anticipated norms;reproducibility, etc). than games. Realsimulation design is far removed from thefreewheeling “design for effect” formula thatis applied to a wargame like ASL.

The ill-usage of the term “realism” canbe very frustrating. In the PC sim business,abuse of the word is rife. Here, “realism” isall too frequently equated with graphic detailand its misuse is perpetrated by people at alllevels of the industry. I remember one gamesproducer — a self-professed “sim-head” and“detail freak” — came into the office toexamine the helicopter sim that myself andmy team were developing for a publisher.When I explained to the gentleman the work

Page 6: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

6 VIEW FROM

fairly firm ideas about what we wish tomodel. We are trying to focus the game onthe key decision making and have devoted alot of our time to analysing the essentialelements in the O.O.D.A. loop. A game likeBoP, just like ASL, has almost limitlesspotential for adding detail and chrome to.But there becomes a point where the chromeeither:

(a) Increases the workload to the pointwhere the game loses gameplay value [i.e.becomes unplayable].

(b) Obscures the game’s key decisionmaking with trivia.

(c) Adds unwanted variables into themodel that produces undesired or unrealisticresults.

(d) All of the above. These considerations have forced us

to decline or ignore most of the suggestionsthat have been sent our way. In the case ofsome of the really insistent listers who won’ttake no for an answer, we have sometimeslost our tempers with them; a terrible thingreally, because they were only trying to behelpful, after all.

Interestingly, Tony hates ASL with apassion and cannot fathom my interest in thegame (as I’ve said before, it is the atmosphereand immersive experience that I find socharming). For him, ASL is a perfect exampleof what can happen when “complexity =realism” is taken to an extreme. In designingBoP he is moving right to the back of thebus in his attempt to distance himself fromwhat he percieves as ASL’s “bankrupt”design philosophy. I find it very hard to arguethis point with him.

ALL CHANGE?Having played SL/ASL for something

like sixteen years now, there have been timeswhen I have been dismayed by the increasingworkload that additional detail has placedon the player. I sympathise and generallyagree with those who wish to simplify andstreamline the system. I for one was quitehorrified by, say, the Chapter G rules andthey way in which they took simple conceptssuch as Wire and tried to reinvent them asthe much more complicated Panji. Thisseems like an application of detail for detail’ssake. Was it necessary? I think not. I couldhave designed something much simpler andfitted it all on the back of a fag packet.

But now that the damage is done, do Iwant to change it? Well, er, no. Most of thisis for quite selfish, rather than rational,reasons. I have a reputation as a radical, butas I trip lightly into middle age, ASL is onearea where I allow myself to act theconservative. ASL is an old friend, and I havebecome familiar with its idiosyncrasies. Theyhave become part of its rude charm, no less.

The various sleaze rules don’t bother me atall, because I don’t play the game that way.Indeed, I’d have a very dim view of anyonewho did, and would probably refuse to playthem again. So I don’t care about argumentson bypassing ponds or other minutiae; that’slike counting angels on the head of a pin.Frankly, I’ve got better things to do.

So, for me at least, the ASLRB arecanonical, as are the Q&A and errata.

I wouldn’t completely pooh-pooh anyideas on rulebook change though. Some ofthem have merit, but I think it might be toolate to implement them without anunacceptably thorough overhaul. If you wentthrough with such a project you would be indanger of losing your core audience for thesake of pleasing some fanboys and foiling aminority of sleaze merchants.

Think back on the development ofSquad Leader, and the terrible state it gotinto with the advent of GI: Anvil of Victory,I think that ASL is in pretty good shape rightnow, comparatively speaking. We don’t havethe migraines GI’s changes generated, andmost of the issues are, I believe, minor as faras the majority of casual gamers areconcerned (casual gamers please tell me ifI’m wrong!).

I think the next step would not be to‘fix’ ASL, but instead design a whole newsystem from scratch. This was pretty muchthe decision Tony and I made when wedecided to stop fiddling with a flawedmechanism like Air Superiority/The Speedof Heat, and build something better, startingwith a blank sheet. As a project it might takeyou years, but the result would be anevolutionary step towards the level of realismand/or game play you feel the subjectwarrants. If people truly want simulationfidelity, then they should be prepared to ditchthe paradigms that ASL is premised upon,do some research and formulate brand newones. It’s really the only valid approach.

In an era where quality self-publishingis not beyond the resources of many people,it doesn’t seem an unfeasable task to buildand market one’s own game (it’s more or lesswhat Tony and I are doing). I’m all for peopleempowering themselves and realising theirown creative vision. Anyone who tried thisI’d support all the way...

EMULATE, SIMULATE,GAME?

I like people to be clear about whatthey are talking about. Without precisedefinitions of technical terms, how can anyof us discuss concepts such as “realism”

intelligently?Broadly speaking, I employ three

primary classifications:

Emulation. Emulation is imitation.Emulation aims to reproduce andapproximate real-world experiences asauthentically as possible. Aircraft trainingsimulators come into this category.

Simulation. Technically, a simulationis a process for studying or solving problems,or for calculating the effects of a course ofaction. Simulations are usually solvedthrough some form of mathematicalmodelling, such as statistical analysis.

In the wargames world, the termsimulation has been misappropriated and hascome to mean something very different.There, it defines a game which seeks torepresent events through some form ofmodelling. Because it is a game, the modelhas frequently been compromised for thebenefit of the player’s enjoyment, though thesignificance of this is often lost on manypeople.

For most wargamers a “realistic”simulation is something that approximatesevents in a manner that satisfies theirperceptions of how the events should playout. I used the term “Hollywood” withreference to ASL because most people’sperceptions of WW2 combat (mine included)come from the media, rather than hardanalysis or experience (I’m beginning toregret making that connection).

Game. A game is a diversion; acompetitive pastime. Because the primarypurpose of a game is entertainment, it hasdynamics that are at odds with therequirements of simulation. Play balance, forinstance, is not a requirement of simulation,but is frequently an essential for a wargame.

When talking about wargamesimulations, gamers frequently makecomparisons with military wargames, whichare often tools used to test tactical knowledgeand decision-making ability. These sorts ofgames are not entertainment (they are rarelyplay-balanced, for instance) and the level ofapproximation and abstraction is usuallyfairly high. War-school wargames are usuallydesigned to test human factors rather thantechnical and environmental factors. Thelatter categories are generally left to themathematicians and computer modellers totest.

So where does our hobby stand in allof this? Even if ASL is not a simulation inthe true sense, surely we are simulatingsomething?

Well, my take on it is that we are

Page 7: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

7THE TRENCHES

closest of all to the military wargame. Ourtechnical and environmental modelling isusually too crude to be useful as a simulationtool. What is left is the decision-making. Thewargames we play are decision-making toolswhich try to approximate tactical situationsand outcomes. The key elements indetermining their simulation fidelity is howclose they come to the actual decision-making a battlefield commander might make.

On these criteria, I have to say thatASL falls down to a large extent. Theessential problem is that with ASL I amunsure precisely what level of command itis modelling. If, as I suspect, the game ispitched at the company commander level,then the player shouldn’t really be allowedto micromanage units down to squad and SWlevel. The game also seems to be tooconcerned with the minutiae of technical andenvironmental concerns - elements that canbe significant, but nevertheless impinge lessat the company command level (for instance,a company commander wouldn’t decidewhich weapon or ammunition a tank uses toengage particular targets. Or the type of shotemployed. This level of decision-makingdevolves to the lower echelons).

None of this affects our enjoyment ofthe game, of course. However it doesinfluence the simulation value of the game.ASL cannot be a company commander’sgame because so much of the decision-making is trivial compared to the level ofcommand.

AN ARTFUL COPYI think SL/ASL reflects aspects of

WW2 combat, and I don’t want to soundungenerous, but we should never lose sightof the quite “unreal” (for want of a betterword) compromises that have been made toproduce ASL.

As an approximation of the real thing,we should avoid thinking of ASL as asimulation. “Representation” would be afairer term, more appropriate to our hobby,as it doesn’t carry the technical baggage ofthe S-word. Also, in saying it is arepresentation, there is an implication thatthere has been a certain loss of sim fidelityin the transition to a game. I find it significantthat the term simulation has hardly, if at all,been used by the designers in the ASLRB.Crikey. I hope this doesn’t sound as if I’mpettifogging or splitting hairs...

Jon Mishcon, in one of his clinics,defined ASL as “not a simulation, but anartful copy”. One of the best definitions ofthe game I’ve ever heard.

Ω

A CALL FORCONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

Toby Pilling

for Stonne, Pointe Du Hoc and ThoseRagged Bloody Heroes really lookconsistently inferior to those connected toIan Daglish’s All American and Scotland TheBrave series? Why is that, if the computertechnology is available to ensure someconformity?

I am currently playing Stonne andenjoying it even if some of the scenariosaren’t currently the most balanced in theworld, but it has one glaring weakness – theeight different contour level colours areterrible. I’ve been playing board wargamessince the tender age of 11, and I’ve neverseen a map where it is so difficult to figureout the high and low ground at a glance.Some of the different level colours arevirtually the same, and there isn’t a consistent‘light to dark’ theme. Why couldn’tKampfgruppe Peiper have been used as amodel, moving from green to yellow, orangethen brown? Cost may be sited as an excuse,but we normally all manage to afford our ASLtreats and a coherent, visibly clear methodof differentiating levels would havedrastically improved to excellent what isalready a good product. It seems a shame toskimp on such a vital facet.

Anyway, that’s just enough for now. Ijust wanted to get off my chest a feeling thatwe are all treating game producers with kidgloves on when, to every ones benefit,sometimes we should be cruel to be kind.

Ω

I thought I would write with anobservation. It may just be me, but I havenoticed a tendency of most review articlesof ASL products being released to be rathergushing, disposing towards praise rather thancriticism.

It could be that all the products beingreleased really are superb and almost withoutfault.

I find this unlikely. I believe thereasons are perfectly understandable, butultimately self-defeating.

Let me elaborate.

Ours is a passionate, devoted hobby.Even if an independent reviewer trashed aproduct, I doubt it would have much effecton sales. Many of us don’t just play ASL, wevirtually collect it. In the bad old years whenAvalon Hill seemed to have forgotten it, ASLsupplements were produced by third partysuppliers much to the gratitude of us all.There was a feeling that whatever its faults,players almost had a duty to support theserelatively expensive and amateurishendeavours. Thanks to such supportproducers such as Heat of Battle and CriticalHit can now turn out perfectly polished andprofessional packages. However, the dutytowards unconditional support still remains.It almost seems like treason to pick out anyfaults.

But criticism does not have to be nasty.Constructive criticism suggests areas forimprovement and can give importantfeedback on what to do better next time.Without it the same oldmistakes can be made overand over.

What I actually feel isthat, for the good of ourhobby, it’s actually now ourduty to comment on parts ofproducts that we are unhappywith, honestly andconstructively, so that overallquality can improve.

Let me practice what Ipreach with a couple ofobservations.

First, is it myimagination or do the maps

Drinks all round during one of the Scotland The Brave CG played atthe recent Mad Vet Con. See page 25 for a full report and details on theKGP five map monster CG that was also played.

Page 8: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

8 VIEW FROM

EXAMPLE SQUADS

American (41-45 squad) 6-6-6Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 BAR rifle 0.76 0.811 M1 0.46 5.1

12 Men Total 5.9

American (paratrooper) 7-4-7Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 BAR rifle 0.76 0.82 Thompson M1928 1.04 2.19 M1 0.46 4.2

12 Men Total 7.0

German (39-43 squad) 4-6-7Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 MG34 LMG 1.35 1.32 MP18, MP28 0.62 1.27 G98 0.23 1.6

10 Men Total 4.2

German (44-45 squad) 5-4-8Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 MG42 LMG 1.95 2.02 MP38, MP40 0.91 1.87 G98 0.23 1.6

10 Men Total 5.4

German (44-45 SS squad) 6-5-8Weapon’s FP Squad Total

2 MG34 LMG 1.35 2.72 MP18, MP28 0.91 1.86 G98 0.23 1.41 Panzerschreck - - - -

11 Men Total 5.9

German (Assault Engineer) 8-3-8Weapon’s FP Squad Total

9 MP38, MP40 0.91 8.2

9 Men Total 8.2

Russian (41-42 squad) 4-4-7Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 SVT 40 Rifle 0.37 0.41 DP model 1928 LMG1.74 1.710 1891/30 Rifle 0.23 2.3

12 Men Total 4.4

Russian (43-45 squad) 4-4-7Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 PPSh-41 1.65 1.71 DP model 1928 LMG1.74 1.75 1891/30 Rifle 0.23 1.2

7 Men Total 4.5

Russian (41 SMG squad) 5-2-7Weapon’s FP Squad Total

1 PPD 1934/38 (25 rounds)0.67 0.71 DP model 1928 LMG1.74 1.710 1891/30 Rifle 0.23 2.3

12 Men Total 4.7

AN ANALYSIS OF SQUAD FP VALUESStéphane Nolet

the basis FP for each weapon (0.1)x 1 plus 25% for calibre (compared to the Gewehr)x1 plus the 50% for ROFx1 plus 25% for bullet weight and speed(compared to the Gewehr

For example, the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle is 7.62 mm divided by 7.92mm ofthe Gewehr G98 = 0.96212 x 25%= 0.2405303.

Then the M1 is Clip feed with 8 round clipsand being a semi auto rifle is multiplied by 1.5then 12 effective ROF/min then 12 = x50%= 6plus one = 7.

Finally the M1 fires the bullet at a speedof 855 meter/second giving a better damaging andstopping capabilities than a much slower bulletlike the G98, simply 855 divided by 640=1.3359375 x25% = 0.3339843 plus one =1.3339843.

These are then multiplied and added to oneand multiplied by the basis FP of 0.1 times theproduct of [0.2405 (Caliber)X 7(ROF) X1.3339843(Speed)] plus one = 2.2457625 plusone = 3.2457625 X. 0.1. Total Firepower for thisweapon gave the M1 a 0.32FP.

The rest is simple math and here are theresults and it match almost everywhere. Forcomparison I’ve put the ASL of some SW to seeif it work, although the MG were a real puzzle,being belt-fed most of the time; in my opinionthe PDH BAR with a 0.71 FP does not deserve aone FP counter.

SUMMARYAnyone who wants to recreate the counter

of a WWI period squad should take the SquadOrganisation Chart and Technical data of theweapons they were equipped with, and just applythe formula, and it will pretty well scale it downto ASL size. Range and Morale are another thing,although I’m not sure it will be as playable as aWWII period tactical warfare or at least as morefun.

Ω

I have always wanted to figure out thesecret behind the firepower values of the differentASL squads and corresponding SW. When I reada note by Jim Mcleod, which basically said give0.33 FP per rifle, 0.5 per automatic weapon, 0.45per semi-automatic weapon and 1 FP for aninherent LMG, I set about analysing it closer. Thatis about right, and I will prove it. Even so I stillhave some reservations, such as why does aninherent LMG have only 1 FP or so while the sameLMG as a SW has 3 FP? Since the LMG SWcounter represent a weapon alone (no crew to manit; see A9. and you will read that the LMG counterrepresents an additional LMG to complement theinherent FP of the squad), how can I explain that?

FACTORSWhen I read the SL designer notes (Page

31) I notice that the designers concluded that ROFwas far more important than calibre size foreffectiveness, so I bore that in mind in doing myFP calculations. But when you want to knowwhich weapon is more effective than another one,you have to take in consideration many factors.Calibre, ROF, feeding method (ammo clip, drumor bands), the weight and the initial speed of thebullet, even though the speed is directly relatedto the weight of the bullet.

When you have a FP factor for a weaponyou can apply it to the number of men using it tocalculate the squad FP, then modify that by theability of the squad to use them adequately (poortraining, for conscript troops etc...should befactors to look after for final FP allocation).

Suddenly I fell on a real problem,maximum ROF vs. real ROF (or effective ROF)of a weapon in real fighting situation, so the timescale has to be viewed. Again I referred to thebasis of the game in the SL designers note.Abstraction seems to be the word in SL/ASL andby far they were right because of the so manyfactors. So for a two minute turn I assumed halfof it (1 minute) was for loading, aiming and firingthe weapon. I then gave a 1.25 factor for ammoclip changing for a rifle, 1.5 for a semi-automaticweapon and 2 for a LMG (MMG and HMG wasanother business). This means an average fellowusing a conventional rifle with a 5 round ammoclip could fire it 6.25 times in one minuteincluding clip change, pretty realistic.

THE CALCULATIONSAs the basis of my calculations I used the

German Gewehr G98 Mauser Rifle and gave it aBase FP of 0.1 (before modifications). This is a7.92mm calibre capable of firing 6.25 round byminute (effective ROF based on what I presumedupper) and with an initial speed of 640 meter persecond. The basics were:

Page 9: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

9THE TRENCHES

Weapon Maker Nationality Type Introduced Calibre (mm) Band Clip/drum ROF/min metre/sec FFP ASL FP

AMERICANM16, M16 A1 Armalite American Auto Rifle 1962 5.56 30 45 1000 0.67M1 Garand American Auto Rifle 1933 7.62 8 12 855 0.32M1, M1 A1 Winchester* American Auto Rifle 1933 7.62 15 22.5 600 0.46

M2, M2 A1 Winchester* American Auto Rifle 1933 7.62 30 45 600 0.80M2HB Browning American Heavy Machinegun 1918 12.7 200 200 300 884 8.24 8BAR M1918 A2 Browning American Light Machinegun 1918 7.62 20 40 808 0.76

M1919 A4 Browning American Medium Machinegun 1919 7.62 150 150 225 854 3.74 4M1903 A1 Springfeild American Rifle 1903 7.62 5 6.25 855 0.23M3 A1 GM American Sub Machinegun 1941 9 30 45 280 0.84

M3 GM American Sub Machinegun 1941 11.43 30 45 280 1.04M1, M1 A1, M1928 Thompson American Sub Machinegun 1941 11.43 30 45 280 1.04

BRITISHVickers Mk 4 Vickers British Heavy Machinegun 1938 12.7 200 200 300 744 7.91 8Bren Gun Mk 1 Enfield British Light Machinegun 1937 7.7 20 40 744 0.76Vickers-Berthier mk 3 Vickers-Berthier British Light Machinegun 1926 7.7 30 60 745 1.07

Vickers G.O. Vickers-Berthier British Light Machinegun 1940 7.7 96 192 745 3.14Vickers Mk1 Vickers British Medium Machinegun 1912 7.7 150 150 225 744 3.66Carbine Delisle Delisle-Ford British Rifle 1944 11.43 7 8.75 253 0.31

N°4 Mark I Lee-Enfield British Rifle 1941 7.7 10 12.5 751 0.33N°1 Mark III SMLE Lee-Enfield British Rifle 1895 7.7 10 12.5 751 0.33Sten Mk II Enfield British Sub Machinegun 1940 9 32 48 365 0.91

FRENCHModele 1914 Hotchkiss France Heavy Machinegun 1931 8 250 250 375 850 6.44 6Modele 1931 MAS France Light Machinegun 1931 7.5 150 150 850 2.50 2Modele 1924/29 Chatellereault France Light Machinegun 1929 7.5 25 50 820 0.91

Modele 1914 Hotchkiss France Medium Machinegun 1931 8 150 150 225 850 3.92 4Model 1886/93 Lebel-Berthier France Rifle 1893 8 8 10 725 0.29MAS 36 MAS France Rifle 1936 7.5 5 6.25 823 0.23

Model 1907/15 M34 Lebel-Berthier France Rifle 1934 7.5 5 6.25 823 0.23Mas 1938 MAS France Sub Machinegun 1938 7.65 32 48 350 0.79

GERMANSturmgewher 44 Schmeisser German Auto Rifle 1943 7.92 30 45 650 0.84Fallshirmjagergewehr 42 Rheinmetall German Auto Rifle 1942 7.92 20 30 761 0.62

Maschinegewehr 42 Mauser German Heavy Machinegun 1942 7.92 50X6 300 450 755 7.42 7

Maschinegewehr 34 Rheinmetall German Heavy Machinegun 1934 7.92 50X6 300 450 755 7.42 7Maschinegewehr 42 Mauser German Inherent Squad LMG 1942 7.92 50X2 75 112.5 755 1.95

Maschinegewehr 34 Rheinmetall German Inherent Squad LMG 1934 7.92 50 50 75 755 1.35

Maschinegewehr 42 Mauser German Light Machinegun 1942 7.92 50X2 100 200 755 3.37 3Maschinegewehr 34 Rheinmetall German Light Machinegun 1934 7.92 50X2 100 200 755 3.37 3Maschinegewehr 42 Mauser German Medium Machinegun 1942 7.92 50X4 200 300 755 4.99 5

Maschinegewehr 34 Rheinmetall German Medium Machinegun 1934 7.92 50X4 200 300 755 4.99 5Gewehr 98 Mauser German Rifle 1898 7.92 5 6.25 640 0.23Karabiner 98k Mauser German Rifle 1898 7.92 5 6.25 755 0.23

MP 38, MP 40 Schmeisser German Sub Machinegun 1938 9 32 48 365 0.91MP 34, MP 35 Bergmann German Sub Machinegun 1935 9 32 48 365 0.91

ITALIANModello 37 Breda Italian Heavy Machinegun 1937 8 20X12 240 360 790 6.08 6Modello 37 Breda Italian Inherent Squad LMG 1937 8 20X2 40 60 790 1.12Modello 37 Breda Italian Light Machinegun 1937 8 20X3 60 120 790 2.12 2

Modello 30 Breda Italian Light Machinegun 1930 6.5 20 40 629 0.64Modello 37 Breda Italian Medium Machinegun 1937 8 20X8 160 240 790 4.10 4Modello 1938 A Beretta Italian Sub Machinegun 1938 9 30 45 420 0.88

JAPANESEType 99 Nambu Japan Light Machinegun 1922 7.7 30 60 730 1.07Type 38 Arisaka Japan Rifle 1905 6.5 5 6.25 731 0.21Type 100 Nambu Japan Sub Machinegun 1940 8 30 45 335 0.77

RUSSIANAVT Tokarev Russian Auto Rifle 1940 7.62 10 15 830 0.37DShK 1938 Degtyerev- Russian Heavy Machinegun 1938 12.7 50X4 200 300 843 8.15 8SG 43 Stankovi- Russian Heavy Machinegun 1943 7.62 50X5 250 375 744 5.95 6

DP model 1928 Degtyerev Russian Light Machinegun 1928 7.62 50 100 863 1.74 2SG 43 Stankovi- Russian Medium Machinegun 1943 7.62 50X4 200 300 744 4.79 4Model 1891/30 Mosin-Nagant Russian Rifle 1891 7.62 5 6.25 811 0.23

Model 1938 Mosin-Nagant Russian Rifle 1938 7.62 5 6.25 766 0.23AVS 36 Tokarev Russian Semi-Auto Rifle 1936 7.62 10 15 830 0.37SVT 38 Tokarev Russian Semi-Auto Rifle 1938 7.62 10 15 830 0.37

SVT 40 Tokarev Russian Semi-Auto Rifle 1940 7.62 10 15 830 0.37PPSh-41 PPSh Russian Sub Machinegun 1942 7.62 71 106.5 488 1.65PPD-1934/38 PPD Russian Sub Machinegun 1935 7.62 71 106.5 488 1.65

Page 10: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

10 VIEW FROM

ARMOUR STUDIES REVISEDCharles Markuss

in the USA] (Arms & Armour Press,London, 1960 and 1970). A number ofsources make the point that ordinary, ieunsophisticated, AP projectiles [‘solid shot’]are more effective against steeply-slopedarmour than APCBC, APCR or APDSrounds, but APCR types are never singled-out as being any worse than the others.

Certainly all the data that I haveaccumulated on armour penetration supportsOgorkiewicz rather than Bird, and if APCRdid suffer from a significant performancedeterioration against sloped armour wewould expect to see it in the penetrationfigures themselves. As a general rule ofthumb, an AP shell will penetrate about125% more armour sloped at 90 degrees tothe horizontal [‘normal impact’] than at 60degrees to the horizontal [‘30 degreeimpact’]. Most armour penetration figuresare expressed in one or the other, andoccasionally but never always, in both.Conversely, the 30 degree inpact figurenormally represents about 80% of the normalimpact figure. More on this later whendiscussing some of Bird’s other points. IfBird’s thesis is correct, we would expectAPCR’s normal impact, 90 degree, figuresto be greater than this 125%: 100% ratiodescribed above, or conversely the 30 degreeimpact figures to be less than the 80%: 100%ratio. The best test would be to look at figuresfor penetration at acute angles only, say 30degrees from the horizontal, but such figures- to my knowledge - do not exist for mostweapons. I have tested Bird’s thesis againstall the data in my possession that cite both30 and 90 degree impact figures; data forthe western Allies uses only 30 degree impact

as a rule, whereas that for the Soviets tendsto use 90 degree impact only. Many, but notall, German guns have data for both anglesof impact and this does not support Bird, orat least suggests that there was no significantdifference in game terms; we are talkingmillimetres here rather than centimetres.

If we compare the ratios for APCR andthe standard APCBC, then to prove Bird’stheory valid we should see 30 degree impactfigures for APCR to be below 80% of the 90degree impact figures. The German 37L isremarkably consistent between 100 and 500yds, even though 37L APCR this is alightweight, small-calibre, shell that shouldmake it a prime candidate for ‘the Birdfactor’ against sloped armour. APCR comesout at 84.31- 86.07%, whereas APCBCvaries between 73.91 and 75.0%! Round oneto APCR!

For the 50L the APCR performanceis also better below 250 yds at 86.66 - 77.3%depending on range, compared to 73.73 -76.13% for APCBC. For the 75L Pak 40 theAPCR performance is worse than APCBCwith 77.84 - 63.85% for APCR over 0 to2000 yds as against 81.2 - 74.48% forAPCBC.

For the ex-Soviet 76L in Germanservice the APCR performance is againalmost as good as APCBC at close range;80% at 0 yds for APCR compared to 81.2%for APCBC, but is worse at greater rangeswith 74.68 - 66.15% between 500 and 2500yds, whereas APCBC scores between 81.66and 82.05% over the same distances.

For the 88LL APCR is also worse atlonger ranges; 85.2 - 71.69% between 0 and2500 yds compared to APCBC 88.0 -87.93%. But for the 75LL, APCR is aboutthe same with 86.88% at 2000 m comparedto between 85.57 - 88.0% for APCBC(figures vary). In any case, neither the 75LLnor 88LL appear ever to have fired APCRin combat due to tungsten shortages; thefigures so often quoted by authors were testfigures.

The performance of the low-velocity75* firing basic AP shot is a respectable80.39% at 500 yds, while the more powerful50 with APCBC scores only 78.87% at thesame range. The APCBC performance of the75L L/43 varied between 73.55% and67.53% over 500 to 2000 yds, which isactually worse than the 75LL and 88LLAPCR rounds! That for the 75L L/48 firingAPCBC at 500 yds is only 72.44%!

For those of you who are unaware ofCharles’ work in the ASL field, he has beenthe author of some of the best articles onnationality distinctions in The General (on theBritish) and the ASL Annual ’91 (on theJapanese). He was a major contributor to thedesign of the British AFV counter set with BobMcNamara. He is a co designer of publishedscenarios. This is missing out lots of othercontributions he has made to our hobby at thedesign and development stage that would filla page. It makes interesting reading. Enjoy! –Pete.

At the risk of sounding rather negativeand over-critical, I would take Lorrin Bird’sarticle ‘ASL Armor Studies’ (The GeneralVol. 24 No 4) with a large pinch of salt as itcontains some errors, untested assumptions,half-truths and is over-selective in itsapproach, as will be revealed. Although wellintentioned, it seeks to further complicate thegame in the name of realism - and succeedsonly in the former. My main objections tothe piece have not changed since I first readit, and are as follows.

APCR Hits on SlopedArmour

There is no real evidence, and Birdfails to cite any, that APCR suffered to anysignificant extent against sloped armour. Justwhat is this German and US data? Onemodern authority on armoured vehicletechnology is Richard M. Ogorkiewicz,author of Design and Development ofFighting Vehicles (MacDonald, London1968) (henceforth cited as Design). On page82 he makes the following point; “The exacteffect of sloping of armour depends on theprojectile, sloped plates being more effectivein the case of APDS [not APCR, you willnotice!] shot than in that of full boreprojectiles with caps, or with blunt noseswhich have been used with Russian tankguns”. Although the performance of APCRdoes fall off quicker than APDS overdistance, it is/was a more complicatedprojectile with the outer, lightweight, caseaiding penetration by lubricating the area forthe solid inner core to then strike. Nowheredoes Ogorkiewicz single out APCR for beingless effective against sloped armour, eventhough he is not slow to dwell on itsshortcomings in other areas both in Designand in his earlier Armoured Forces [Armor,

Page 11: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

11THE TRENCHES

What all this suggests to me is thatthere is not enough firm evidence to provethe Bird thesis, and that performance variesso much from gun to gun and at differentranges that it is too sweeping to lump all theperformances of APCR into the same basket,although I do admit that the test sample usedabove is only a small one. Moreover, Birddoes not mention in his article whether ornot APCNR, as fired by ‘Squeeze-bore’ guns(also known as either ‘Cone-bore’ or ‘Taper-bore’ weapons), should also be included inhis exercise. Strictly speaking they shouldhave been included too, as to all intents andpurposes they fire a projectile which is nodifferent to a normal APCR round in shape,appearance and performance after being firedfrom the gun.

If we examine data for these weaponswe find only evidence to support what I havealready stated above; the German 28LL’sratios reveal that at short ranges the APCNRround is actually worse at 30 degree impactthan at 90 degree impact, 73.4% at 100 yds,75.5% at 200 yds, 75.9% at 300 yds, and77.7% at 400 yds. You will notice that it isapproaching, over range, our 80% baseline.But between 500 and 800 yds, the sort ofranges when APCR/APCNR is beginning tofall-off in power and the ‘Bird factor’ shouldbe revealing itself, the performance at 30degree impact significantly improves, with78.78% at 500 yds, 80% at 600 yds, 81.48%at 700 yds, and 83.67% at 800 yds. TheGerman 40LL does exactly the same thing ;at 0 yds the ratio is 76.61%, but then steadilyimproves to 79.04% at 250 yds, 82.75% at500 yds, 88.57% at 750 yds, and 88.33% at1000 yds.

Another APCNR weapon excludedfrom ASL because it was fairly rare and short-lived because of tungsten shortages, theGerman 75mm PaK 41 L/55 (in ASLparlance it would be a 55L - my ‘L/55’ justrefers to the bore length expressed incalibres), also shows a similar performance,with 81.63% at 0 yds and slowly improving- in this context a relative term - to 82.25%at 2000 yds.

All these APCR-firing weaponsperform better against sloped armour thanBird would have us expect, adding weightto my argument that they cannot be arbitrarilylumped together in the way that Bird has.

Bird’s cosine formula is all very well,but he himself admits that it does not givethe whole picture and then fails to give morethan one example of how sloping affectsprotection. Many wargamers use the cosinemethod by default and in ignorance ofanything better (Ogorkiewicz’s books werenot exactly best sellers), albeit by the much

simpler method of drawing the armourthickness out on a sheet of paper and thenmeasuring a straight path through the linesat the relevant angle! The cosine formuladevalues the true protection given by slopedarmour and over-values that derived fromnear-vertical faces. TM 9-1914 is hard to gethold of and I have never seen it, butOgorkiewicz in Design gives us all the datawe need on p. 83 by supplying two graphsthat evaluate (respectively) the ‘horizontal’path (the cosine formula), and actualeffective thickness through plates at 0 to 90degrees. Bird’s cosine formula merelypublicises the former in a way guaranteed tobore all but the most avid mathematician.The cosine formula is a pessimisticassessment of the plate’s protective value,whereas Ogorkiewicz’s graphs give both theworst and best case values. Faced with thenightmare of calculating AF values forhundreds of vehicles with numerouspermutations for each depending on the typeof ammunition being fired, Bob McNamarasensibly just took the mid-point betweenOgorkiewicz’s two graphs, and this is thebest we can expect in a game of ASL’s overallcomplexity, especially as meaningful data onthe different performances of projectiles isnot that easy to come by and, in the finalanalysis, does not make a great deal ofdifference to the overall result.

If players really want to determine thefate of each shell being fired they should playTobruk rather than ASL, but even this cannotgive the whole true picture because itinvolves far fewer gun, vehicle and projectiletypes than ASL. Moreover, players are likelyto get Repetitive Strain Injury from all thedice-rolling in Tobruk. The more guns andvehicles, the harder it is to make the wholething fit into a reasonable approximation ofreality, and any tinkering with the systemmerely distorts the picture to suit a particularprejudice or fetish. As an example, there were5 different versions of the US 76L, with theM1A2 version at least having a slightly betterAP performance when firing APC shot at thelonger ranges. Similarly, there were twoversions of the vehicle-mounted Soviet122L, again with slightly different APcharacteristics, while the British 57LL camein two different barrel lengths (L/45 and L/52.1) with different characteristics,complicated yet further by the sheer varietyof AP munitions successively issued for thisgun; AP-T [T = tracer], APC-T, APCBC-T,APCR (briefly) and finally APDS. ASL’sGerman 75L also represents three differentguns with slightly different ballisticcharacteristics; the 75mm PaK 40 L/46, the75mm L/43 and later 75mm L/48. Even theUS 75 and 90L had different types of AP

ammunition available at the same time,giving slightly different performances. Bobhas already had to ‘weight’ some guns tomake them fit into the scheme of thingshistorically, and any further tinkering merelythreatens to undermine the whole system. Touse an American phrase: if it ain’t broke,don’t fix it!

The 17 pounderBird’s use of the British 76LL (17

pounder) is a bad example to quote asevidence in his thesis about sloped armour.He contends that this gun “could” penetratethe Panther’s glacis plate, worth 18 AF, whenin actual fact he should have said that it oftencould not! Alexander Mckee in Caen: Anvilof Victory (London 1984 ed, page 309) citesthe case of the 23rd Hussars in Normandyshortly after D-Day who were dismayed tofind that even at 300 yds, let alone 500, the76LL would “frequently” fail to penetratethe glacis plate, and a desert veteran whoalso served in Normandy, the South AfricanRobert Crisp [author of Brazen Chariots -which relates his desert experiences inStuarts], stated that the 76LL needed threegood hits to penetrate as shells tended tomerely scuff the surface and bounce off. Thisis cited in David Fletcher’s The UniversalTank: British Armour in the Second WorldWar Part 2 (HMSO, London, 1993) on pages111-112. As APDS was not available untilthe autumn of 1944 these tests must havebeen conducted with plain AP shot orAPCBC; the former penetrated 109mm at1000 yds 30 degree impact, 120mm at 500yds - say 150mm at normal impact - and149mm at 100 yds, but was probably betteragainst sloped armour than these figuressuggest. APCBC penetrated 130mm at 1000yds, and 140mm at 500 yds 30 degree impact,or about 175mm normal impact. I have neverseen normal impact figures quoted for thisgun, but I think Bird’s 180mm is a trifleoptimistic in the circumstances. It is alsopossible, if the user manuals are anything togo by, that 17 pounder APCBC was notavailable before June 1945 (!), so that thetests might well have only been with plainAP shot. The occasional penetrations in thetests add weight to the theory that AP andnot APCBC was being used. The quality ofthe Panther’s armour varied considerablyfrom tank to tank and was furthercompromised by a carbon content which wasmuch higher than the ideal (due to non-ferrous metal shortages), which madewelding extremely difficult. This, I believe,could explain why the 76LL couldsometimes but not always penetrate. UsingBird’s cosine formula, the Panther’s 80mm

Page 12: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

12 VIEW FROM

glacis plate gave 140mm of ‘horizontal’protection but in reality the plate gave up to224mm; Bob has therefore compromised at182mm = 18 AF. Bird also gives the T-34/76 with 45mm glacis plate armour as anexample and states that the armour sloped at60 degrees from the vertical gave 90mm of‘horizontal’ protection and 117mm ofeffective protection. Using Ogorkiewicz’sgraphs the latter value is actually as high as157mm, and Bob has again taken a mid-pointvalue of 123mm = 11 AF for all the T-34tank family.

Changing AFsFrom all the foregoing I see no

justification for changing the AFs for the T-34s, or indeed other vehicles; this is yetanother example of where someone with aparticular bee in his bonnet feels thatan(other) exception should be made to theASL rules for ‘his’ vehicle. In this, Bird isbeing highly-selective, for the samearguments he cites could be used to modifythe AFs of a host of other vehicles, includingthe Panther and Jagdpanther (and renderingthem impenetrable to APCR from the US76L and Soviet 85L on the upper hull front -an absurdity), the Japanese Type 97 Te-Ketankette, the Belgian T-15 LT, the IS-2m,Lee, Grant, and Sherman with 30 degree hullfront - to name just some. Where would allthis end? With a substantial change to all theChapter C and D rules and extracomplication to burden ASL players with! Aclassic case of where the ‘cure’ kills thepatient!

The IS TurretsBird is also wrong about the IS tank

turrets. The first batch of the IS-2, about 150vehicles, used the IS-1 turret with 100mmfrontal armour - see Steve Zaloga and PeterSarson IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-1973 (OspreyNew Vanguard, London 1994) page 6 (photocaption) and 7. The later, ‘standard’, IS turrethas a triangular chunk cut out of the lowerright-hand side of the gun mantlet whenviewed from the front, the earlier versionlacks this and has a protruding gun shieldwhereas the later version is more flush withthe turret front proper. Although Soviet datais still often sketchy or contradictory thereis a well-known photo of an early IS-2captured and examined by the Germans with,

as usual, the armour thicknesses and anglesstencilled on the vehicle in white paint aswas their standard practice. This photoappears in both Peter Chamberlain and ChrisEllis’ Soviet Combat Tanks 1939-1945(Almark Publications, London, 1970 page61) and, slightly smaller, in KennethMacksey’s The Guinness Book of Tank Factsand Feats (Guinness Superlatives, Enfield,1972 ed, page 156). The photo shows100mm for the turret front on either side ofthe gun mantlet, and what looks like 100mmfor the mantlet itself; the numbers are hardto read because of the collar round the gunbarrel. This 100mm is not in dispute withBird in any case. The IS turret mantlet is notonly curved very much like that on thePanther’s gun mantlet but is also of identicalthickness to the Panther’s, except that the ISturret is bulbous in shape on either side ofthe mantlet whereas the Panther’s armour isflat and angled at 79 degrees to the horizontal(ie almost vertical) and worth about 104mmon the Panther D and 114mm on the PantherA and G, because it was slightly thicker at110mm on these last two versions. So, ifanything, the IS turret front on either side ofthe mantlet would, because of this curvature,deflect projectiles more readily than aPanther turret struck in the same place. InASL the Panther turret front is rated at 14AF because the 100mm rounded mantlet isworth about 133% more in effecticethickness on account of its curvature - as isthe IS gun mantlet - giving a notionalthickness of 133mm = 14 AF. The small,weaker, areas on the Panther turret front toeither side of the gun mantet are ignored inASL because they were so small in size andconstituted another complication that theCritical Hit system already takes care of sowell. Note that some sources erroneouslygive the Panther’s gun mantlet as being120mm thick; it was not.

Bird, in his eagerness to downgradethe armour on the IS tanks to an 11 AF value,also ignores the fact that the Panther gunmantlet was also more likely to deflectprojectiles hitting the gun mantletdownwards through the hull roof because thePanther turret was set much further back onthe hull than the IS turrets. Balanced againstthis, the Panther’s sloping upper hull frontwas more likely to deflect projectiles clearof the turret front because of this morerearward position - you cannot have it bothways! Again, these situations are best leftfor the Critical Hit rules and I would arguethat the same should apply to any lucky shotson the IS tanks. Again, where would all thisend otherwise? Most IS-2 tanks had the sameturret as the IS-2m, and I cannot believe thatthe Soviets would armour the front of the

turret to 160mm and then foolishly leave themantlet at just 100mm. I do not know whathis sources are, but I suspect that they areGerman rather than Soviet, and many of theformer are demonstrably poor in theirobjectivity. All my sources state that the laterIS turret was 160mm thick at the front andso I see no reason to single out the early IS-2 mantlet for special treatment, but if twoplayers agree that the early version of ISturret is to be used in the game for their IS-2s, then fine - it can be given 14 AF on theturret front. It should not be rated at 11 AFunder any circumstances. Bird talks of givingit just 11 on the gunshield, but as we haveseen he forgets about both the Panther’s100mm gun mantlet (which gets 14 AF), andthe deflective qualities of curvature! Thecurved 160mm plates on the ‘standard’ ISturret merit 18 AF because of their deflectivevalue.

Targeting at long rangeWhen talking about the Germans’

supposed ability to actually target the IS gunmantlet for special and precise attention, Birdclaims that an 88LL penetrated the gunshieldat 1.61 miles. So what? Is he claiming thatthis was a common event? This is just anotherexample of a Critical Hit situation being usedto justify something. At such ranges thetarget would just be a dark smudge in thegunsights, and the idea of targeting themantlet at other than very close range isabsurd. It was/is standard practice to aim atthe turret ring when targeting a tank not somuch because this is a Critical Hit weak spot,but because it is essentially the centre of thetarget and thus offers the best chance of a hitsomewhere. To quote from Colonel Gordon-Hall in his Armoured Fighting Vehicles inthe Mediterranean Theatre 1939-1945, asecret report compiled in 1946 for the BritishArmy’s School of Tank Technology andcopied to me through the good offices of theBovington Tank Museum, “At the ranges ofmodern engagements A/T gunners do notand cannot aim at a small point on a tank:they aim at the tank itself and hope that thecross wires will not entirely obscure thetarget. “Aiming marks” are hardy annualswhich come up periodically when a tank hasany conspicuous feature, but no one has sofar produced any evidence in support of thetheory that they lead to increased casualties.Examination of battle damage to Churchillsin both North Africa and Italy showed that,in proportion, the mantlet received no morehits than any other part of the turret frontand sides”. So there! Certainly Bob initiallyconsidered making some special rules forvehicles whose mantlets allegedly cast

Page 13: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

13THE TRENCHES

shadows that could be used as aiming-points,especially British tanks with their internalgun mantlets set behind a rectangularopening in the turret front. However, Ireminded Bob that nervous British Shermancrews often painted their external gunmantlets and lower portions of the gunbarrels white - most commonly seen onSherman Fireflies - in order to minimise theshadows cast, and that tanks like the Panther,IS series, T-34 series and a host of othersalso had external mantlets that cast shadows.Where would all of this have ended?

The difficulty of aiming at a specificpoint on a tank is illustrated further byOgorkiewicz in his Design, page 135, whichcontains a diagram ‘Pattern of hits on astationary target under ideal conditions,where ‘A’ represents the aiming point [centreof target on the turret ring] and ‘B’ the meanimpact point’. ‘B’ is slightly below and tothe right of ‘A’, and of ten hits shown, 3 wereon the turret above ‘A’, another just to theright of ‘A’ on the turret ring, and the other6 on the hull front, all grouped together rightof centre. Now, if modernish (1968) firecontrol systems cannot hit a chosen areaunder ideal conditions, then I am sure mostWorld War Two gunners - Germans included- could not, and this makes Bird’s case forthe IS tank turret invalid. Or do we giveBalthasar Woll, Wittmann’s sometimegunner, special ASL status? I think not. Themuch-vaunted German 88LL could, whenthe gunner knew his job and under the bestcombat conditions, achieve a first-round hitat 500 metres against a target 2 x 2.5 metressquare. See Tom Jentz, Hilary Doyle andPeter Sarson King Tiger Heavy Tank 1942-1945 Osprey New Vanguard, London, 1993,pp. 23 and 24. That means, a hit somewhere,not on Bird’s mythical IS tank mantlet toorder. 2 x 2.5 metres is, after all, a muchlarger target area than the front of an IS turret.I therefore reject Bird’s whole thesis aboutthe IS tank turret (he means turrets because,as we have seen, there were two types).

Certainly German accounts at meetingthe IS tanks for the first time (presumablywith the earlier, thinner turret front armour)are full of bleatings at the inability of theirown guns to penetrate the Soviet tanks atthe traditionally long ranges that the Germanssought to fight their actions, and to open fireat 1.61 kilometres, let alone Bird’s miles, wasjust inviting trouble. The Panther’s 75LLcould not guarantee to penetrate at over 600metres, so the Tiger I’s crews rightlybemoaned the 88L being powerless to replyto the IS tanks, which often opened fire atup to 3000 metres, or more than treble the

mean/average World War Two engagementrange (according to Ogorkiewicz, Design,page 68). Certainly IS tanks appear to havebeen invulnerable to Tiger Is above 1500metres, see Zaloga & Sarson IS-2 Tank,pages 9-13 and Steven J. Zaloga and JamesGrandsen Soviet Heavy Tanks (Osprey,London, 1981, pp. 28-9).

Split Armour RatingsSome of Bird’s comments do have

merit, particularly his points about thethinner lower hull front armour but he isagain advocating the introduction of over-selective exceptions that just furthercomplicate the rules, since in certainsituations the lower hull front could not beseen/hit due to intervening obstacles orobjects, or because the firer had a significantheight advantage relative to the target. Birdalso forgets that the lower hull front armourusually slopes away from the projectile’spath, and this must also increase the tendencyof shot to bounce off and down rather thanthrough the armour. After seeing the firstdraft of this article Bob McNamara replied,“As I recall (dare I trust my fading memory?),Ogorkiewicz said that the very reason lowerhull front armor was thinner than that on theupper hull was due to the fact that at normalcombat ranges the lower front was almostalways masked by undulations in the ground[I cannot find the comment]. And your otherpoints about it being affected by the firer’sheight advantage and its slope are welltaken”.

As to AFs, the whole problem withsplit armour ratings revolves around the lackof space on the vehicle counters in ASL. Idid suggest to Bob that to increase the ‘fogof war’, keep costs down and allow for moredetailed AFs, he use generic rather thanvariant-specific vehicle counters in ASL, withseparate off-board cards/data sheets toidentify the particular sub-variant vehicle inplay and showing all the AFs and other data.Bob’s response was that US gamers wouldfind this unacceptable; they preferredeverything to be on the vehicle countersthemselves. Well fine, but the price of this isthat the AFs have had to be condensed/simplified and counter symbology problemsprevented the use of split AF ratings wherethe turret and hull values, respectively,differed by more than one step in ASL’s scaleof armour ratings. Andy Daglish, replyingto the first draft of this article, suggestedvarious symbology solutions; so did I at thetime, Andy, but Bob felt unable to use them.Personally, I mark the relevant armour factoron the counter with a small red dot, alertingme to the fact that it is not quite right for the

purist. If I and my opponent then wish to bemore precise and use the true value, we havean aide memoir built-in. Certainly theDeacon’s turret front is over-AF’d, as is theBelgian T-15 LT, and there would be similarproblems with vehicles like the Porsche-turreted King Tiger, the ‘LT’ reworkedChurchill tanks, among others, if they wereto be also now represented in the game.

Cast Armour vs. RolledPlate

Bird is also correct about cast armourbeing softer than rolled plate, but forgets thatits often rounder shapes tend to deflect shellseasier. Cast armour is softer but also lessbrittle - ie stronger and less prone to shatter;if it severely compromised protection itwould never have been used so much. If wemake a specific exception in ASL for the KV-1 side armour then we should also apply itto the Sherman M4A1 side AFs, to theMatilda II entirely, and indeed to every tankthat has a significant portion of cast armouron the turret or hull. Again, where is this toall end? At the end of the day the armourrules in ASL are of necessity the bestcompromise in an already very complicatedgame. Remember that complexity alone doesnot guarantee realism, and that total realismleads to total unplayability. Bird’s article isinteresting to read but at the end of the day itis tinkering to no real purpose save gildingthe proverbial lilly. All the points he raiseswith evidence to support them (as we haveseen, this is not always the case) wereconsidered at some point during ASL’screation and rejected, sometimes veryreluctantly. If people really want all this detail(judging by the negative feedback given in alater issue of The General to his article, mostplayers do not) then they should either playtank-heavy games with miniatures and ditchall the non-armour rules, or they should playother board games that address this particularissue better. Few games do, except perhapsTobruk, and this covers only part of WorldWar Two armoured combat. Even here thepurists will fall foul of what is reallypracticable for even a computer, let aloneboard, game if present software that I haveseen is anything to go by. The Steel Pantherssystem, for axample, merely copiesinaccurately ASL’s AF system in electronicform. I cannot comment about Talonsoft’sEastern Front and Western Front as I do notown them.

Bird’s Vital ContributionBob has this to say about Lorrin Bird’s

contribution to the ASL armour rules as I had

Page 14: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

14 VIEW FROM

no knowledge of it, and he was nevermentioned to me by Bob in our voluminouscorrespondence. “I want to point out that thecurrent To Kill system in ASL was conceivedby Lorrin Bird, so he should get the propercredit and thanks for it. I believe it was backwhen Don Greenwood and I were developingthe SL gamette GI: Anvil of Victory thatLorrin and I struck up a correspondence andhe presented me with his ideas on improvingthe original TK system. What he suggestedwas far superior to the existing method, andI lobbied Don successfully to incorporate it.Lorrin’s suggestion remains essentially whatASL uses today, so we all owe him a tip ‘o’the hat for it. And if I ever failed to give himfull credit for his contribution when I shouldhave, I accept full blame for not doing so.Thank you, Lorrin!”.

Schürzen vs. ATRsLastly, schürzen. This is actually the

German word for ‘aprons’, not skirts; it losessomething in translation. They were madeof 8mm mild steel for the turrets of PzKfwIII and IV, and the hull plates were 5mmthick. I would dearly love to know the sourceof a quotation mentioned to me aboutschürzen “saving the Panther I” from an ATRas this really is an absolute gem ofmelodramatic nonsense! Even at point-blankrange the Soviet PTRD and much rarer PTRSATRs could not penetrate the 40mm verticallower hull side armour of the Panther; the

best they could manage was about 37.5mm,assuming a perfect strike angle. On lightervehicles, making schürzen from only mildsteel rather than armour plate would stillmake some sense even if they were intendedto defeat just ATR projectiles as even mildsteel offers some increase in protection forthe weight involved. To quote Bob, “Strikinganything of even medium density during itsflight can cause a small projectile to tumble,definitely diminishing its penetrativecapability. (I have a video that shows howeven a few small twigs can cause .50-cal MGbullets to tumble). To be honest, I wasn’taware of this when I wrote the schürzen rules;however, when I did learn of it I decided toleave the rule alone due to its generic natureanyway. As you pointed out [see below],individual schürzen plates were oftenmissing or misaligned, and an ATR gunnerwould generally have little trouble shootingat where the schürzen weren’t”. The SovietATRs could just about penetrate the sidearmour of the PzKfw III and IV if the strikeangle was good, although the IV E had 20mm+ 20mm applique side armour that wouldoften defeat it, and such vehicles reworkedto later variants’ standards during overhauland/or repair would be encountered now andagain right to the end of the war. Again, ASLhas no real place for these. How oftenschürzen defeated ATR is difficult to assess,but for ASL purposes it does not really mattersince ATR are at best marginally-effectiveweapons.

As the ATRs would not penetrate thePanther’s lower hull sides, and as the latter’ssmall schürzen did not extend up to protectthe upper hull sides from HEAT rounds, therewas no point in including them in ASL; yetanother example of a neat way to avoidpointless complication. If there was spacein ASL for lower hull AFs, the Panther’shypothetical 4 AF could, in theory, bepenetrated by ATRs at 0 or 1 hex range, sinceSoviet ATRs get a modified 8 TK value, butthis would be both unhistorical and wouldalso ignore the protective value of thePanther’s interleaved road wheels. Thesituations covered in footnote 13 to theChapter C rules on page C20 are to my mindwell covered by the Critical Hit rules anyway;this provides opportunity enough for ‘specialcases’. Certainly the Soviets would routinelyfire at all German tanks, even Panthers andTigers, with ATRs because hits on the glassvision blocks or periscopes would help toimpair vehicle visibility and occasionallykilled or injured German crewmen - theCritical Hit system suffices!

To guarantee the defeat of ATR roundsthe schürzen on PzKfw III and IV tanks ortheir SP cousins would need to have beenmade from armour plate, but this would havemerely added to the weight burden ofvehicles with suspensions that were alreadygroaning under their existing loads; thePzKfw IV H and J retained the thin 50mmturret front armour because the 80mm hullfront plates were about as much as thesprings could bear, and the Panther wasalready about 8 tons heavier that desired. Allmy sources, including Ogorkiewicz, indicatethat schürzen were designed to minimise (notdefeat) the effects of HEAT rounds, as mildsteel is almost as effective against thesemunitions as armour plate is, but is lighter,cheaper and quicker to make/cut to size, spot-weld (remember my comments about thehigh carbon content of late-war Germanarmour plate) and, perhaps, replace - thusplacing less strain on strategic materials andwar production capacity. Also note that late-war PzKfw IVs and other AFVs got wiremesh hull screens instead, and these wouldhave been less effective against ATR, whilethe Soviets and western Allies alsosometimes improvised such mesh screensfrom old bed-springs in order to augment theprotection against the HEAT rounds fromPanzerfausts or Panzerschrecks. No,schürzen were introduced, like Zimmeritanti-magnetic paste, merely as a quick, cheapand useful means to protect German vehiclesfrom an anticipated Allied response toGermany’s own introduction of HEATammunition. With hindsight we now knowthat the Soviets, too, had been experimentingwith a Bazooka-type infantry ATW before

A StuG III with four plates of Schuertzen armour. The different pattern on the rear platesuggests it was added at some point after the other three.

Page 15: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

15THE TRENCHES

the war started, and this could have seenaction, but in reality this was yet anothervictim of the upheavals after Stalin’s purges- see Terry J. Gander The Bazooka: Hand-held Hollow-charge Anti-tank Weapons(Pargate, London, 1998, pp. 10-12).

Schürzen, HEAT and HESHFirst bear in mind that these were

easily and quickly lost in combat; just drivingthrough low vegetation could misplace ortear them off, and unless we keep a detailedrecord of which vehicle is intact and whichhas lost the odd plate, we need to make somesweeping assumptions. Effectively, we haveall or nothing - less than ideal, but the bestcompromise (again). Moreover, after hittingthe schürzen, a HEAT round detonatingproperly would remove a large chunk of thisouter skirting, creating a gap that the nextHEAT round would benfit from, and this isone reason why the PZKfw IVs are beingtoasted so easily; in effect they are being hitmore than just once in the same general areaand no Schuertze remains to ward-off thesubsequent shot(s). Remember that an ASLgame turn represents two minutes of realtime, and that one roll of the dice does notnecessarily equate to one shot from a PIAT.Most infantry ATW had a reasonably goodROF, even if ASL dos not give them multiplerates (see also footnote 30 to Chapter C onpage C21) and one attack on a PzKfw IV inPegasus Bridge actually represents twominutes of trying to knock the thing out witha PIAT. This is just one of many reasons whyschürzen appear to be so ineffective; theyare sacrificial plates intended to pre-detonatethe HEAT round before it reaches the ideal/critical ‘stand-off’ distance from the mainarmour plate in order to achieve maximumpenetration. But the side armour of the PzkfwIII, ‘IV and many SP derivatives was a verythin 30mm, so that even with schürzen aHEAT round would have a largish marginof ‘overkill’ against the side armour,although even that is not the whole story. Iinclude an interesting snippet received fromBob: “In 12/44 the U.S. National Defense

Research Committee published the Reviewof Principles Involved in Protecting ArmoredVehicles against Shaped-Charge Weapons byEmerson Pugh. One of the observationsmade in this memorandum was that spacedarmor achieved only “some success” indefending against HEAT projectiles. It wasmost effective against “rotated projectiles [iefired from rifled guns] and those of poor orslightly unsymetrical [sic] construction”. Itthen went on to say: “However, thepenetrating power of many of the modernunrotated projectiles [ie rockets/missiles] isactually increased by spacing a thin plate ashort distance in front of the basic armor.Thus spaced armor may in some cases bedetrimental. Since most of these unrotatedprojectiles explode at values of standoffsmaller than their optimum the added spacingimproves their standoff”. This little-knownfact - that schürzen could actually “increase”the effectiveness of HEAT by making itexplode at a more optimum distance fromthe armor plate (the “standoff” distance) wasone of the major reasons that they are onlymildly effective in ASL. And to myknowledge no other game system take thisinto account”.

The optimum stand-off distance willof course vary somewhat according to thecalibre and construction of the HEAT round,and also according to where it actuallystrikes, hence Bob’s “could” rather than“would”. schürzen were intended to augmentthe thin side armour of the PzKfwIII and ‘IVfamily quickly and cheaply, not to make thetanks invulnerable to, especially, the largerHEAT rounds under any but the mostfavourable circumstances. I can only repeatthat if players find this too abstract, thenperhaps ASL is not for them, and I defyanyone to come up with a workable,playable, alternative to the existing rules.Remember that schürzen double the scoreof the lower die roll for TK purposes, andalthough this will often not suffice to savethe target from destruction, it will save theodd vehicle now and again - that was thereal-life purpose of schürzen.

HESH was first developed for use

against concrete fortifications (Ogorkiewicz,Design, p. 71), and like HEAT is a versatileprojectile that is also effective against ‘soft’targets. Unlike HEAT, HESH’s performanceis not degraded when fired from a rifledbarrel (which spins the projectile to enhanceaccuracy but breaks up the explosive jet froma HEAT round and thus roughly halves thepenetration). It is also more effective thanHEAT against armour - although thedifferences are relative and should be keptin perspective. In fact, most nations preferto retain HEAT, which is testimony enoughto its effectiveness regardless of the claimsmade for HESH. Both are easily defeated byspaced armour (schürzen being merely oneform of this) or sandwiched armour likeChobham because, again, the sacrificial outerarmour pre-detonates the projectile either toofar, or at least further away, from the mainarmour than is necessary to inflict significantdamage.

Anyone feeling aggrieved aboutWorld War Two HEAT rounds should bearin mind that they were far less effective thanmodern ones. For un-spun projectiles, apenetration depth of up to 4 times theprojectile calibre is the order of the day, forspun projectiles without the device used bythe French AMX 30 (to prevent the HEATwarhead spinning with the shell’s outercasing), twice the calibre equivalent can beexpected. Because World War Two infantry-fired HEAT rounds were un-spun they couldpenetrate to about double the calibre of theprojectile, even if the quality of the munitionswas poorer than the case today. HEAT roundsfrom rifled weapons usually only managedtheir calibre equivalents, or at little more -the German 88mm guns managed 90mm, theBritish 95mm howitzer on CS tanks 110mm,the US 105mm howitzer 100mm and theJapanese 70mm gun about 70mm.

Ω

Page 16: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

16 VIEW FROM

“rowhouse bypass” for split-level buildings wasconsidered and rejected is, in my educatedopinion, about nil. As far as I’m concerned,COWTRA doesn’t even apply here. It’s a clearquestion for Q&A, and until one is submitted andanswered I’ll play that it’s allowed.

Some might argue “If a woods or buildinghappens to be in a hex then I can move along thehexside, but if the woods or building is removedthen I can’t??”.

Counter-argument: Again a game issue.The only reason why one would WANT to do thisis to avoid an enemy LOS. As such, allowing theplayer to do this would be too much of anunrealistic game tactic - it would allow the playertoo much ability to avoid enemy fire.

Again “If I look down an adjacent hexspineat a wall/hedge vertex, then my LOS is blockedbeyond two hexes, but if I ADD another obstacleto LOS in the form of a wall along that adjacenthexspine then my LOS is clear even beyond twohexes?? Adding an obstacle makes LOS clear??”.

I would have agreed with you on this one;it seems absurd on the surface, and I could neverfigure out why they wrote the rule that way. Butwhile thinking about the question I finally had abrainstorm that I think explains their reasoning. Ithink this is the designers’ way of solving the“straight wall, crooked hexsides” issue. If you lookat the B9.1 EX and picture both the X5-X8 walland the Z7-Z8 hedge as being real-world straightlines, you will see that the two units reallySHOULD be able to see each other. Yes, therewill be situations where the results are stillunrealistic, but not that many.

FINALLYSome think of COWTRA as “Consider

Only What The Rulebook Allows”, but this isincorrect - and the difference, while it may seema trivial one, can also be an important one. Theactual statement is: “Concentrate on what the rulesdo allow...” The former way is a firm injunctionagainst considering any other possibilities. Theway it is actually stated, it is much closer to beinga guideline of the best way to gain anunderstanding of the rules.

Ω

THE COWTRA MANTRA“Concentrate on what the rules do allow...”

John Brock

statements in the ASLRB to the effect of, “Note:This rule represents a major change from the SLversion!”]

PROBLEM 2The second reason why people ignore

COWTRA is that they see a rule which strikesthem as so blatantly wrong and unrealistic thatthey honestly can’t believe the designers intendedthings to work that way. And in fact, they have aperfectly valid point! The biggest flaw with bothCOWTRA and the policy of “only writing whatthe rules ARE” is the underlying assumption that‘the designers thought of everything’.

The US Constitution doesn’t discuss TV,radio, airplanes, steamships, or dozens of otherthings that simply weren’t imaginable in 1787.In the same way, the ASLRB only discusses thosesituations the designers foresaw during the designprocess, or which were encountered during theinitial play tests. They couldn’t write rules aboutsituations that had never even crossed their minds.[EX: why do rules O.1 to O.8 exist? Because theyall deal with situations which the designers didnot consider when they wrote the original rulesfor Sewers, Fortified Buildings, Rubble, Factories,and so on; and until the play test of RB, thoserules were so little used that the questions hadnever been raised before.]

But now toss COWTRA into this mix.Roughly put, it amounts to saying, “Don’t try toread between the lines.” As the literalists interpretthis, it means, “Only that which is specificallydiscussed in the ASLRB is legal.”

What this amounts to is saying that if thedesigners failed to mention it in the ASLRBbecause they didn’t think of it, then no matterhow obvious and logical it may be, it’s presumedillegal.

This is patently absurd; the intent ofCOWTRA is not to prevent people from comingup with reasoned, logical answers to questionsthat the designers never even thought of. And thisis one of the reasons I say the ASLRB has to beread in context and with an open mind. It’s theonly way one can hope to figure out what thedesigners left out intentionally, and what they justdidn’t think of.

SOME EXAMPLESIn context and with an open mind, it’s easy

to recognise that the rowhouse rules are full ofthings that the designers didn’t consider. And it’seven easier to recognise that split-level buildingswere so little used that no one would have foundANY holes in them. Board 15 isn’t part of theASL modules, leaving 24U4 as the only split-levelbuilding that would have been encountered duringthe early play tests, and it’s only actually a split-level building in ONE Paratrooper scenario! Sofor example the possibility that the idea of

The COWTRA shibboleth. Perhaps theworst accidental evil perpetrated on the game ofASL short of VBM Freeze itself, COWTRA fellvictim of its own success and has become anexcuse for the most literal-minded ASLRBinterpreters.

Like everything else in the ASLRB,COWTRA must be read and understood incontext.

WHY?Why did the designers put that paragraph

in the rulebook? Because they wanted to be ableto just write what the rules WERE, and not whatthe rules WERE NOT, in order to save space. Theywanted to be able to just write:

“Count to three before throwing the HHGOA,”instead of writing:

“Thou shalt count to three before

throwing the Holy Hand Grenade of

Antioch. Thou shalt not count to four;neither shalt thou count to two,excepting as thou then passest on tothree. Five is RIGHT OUT!”.

On the surface, it’s a very good idea.Without it, we might easily have a 1200 pagerulebook. And its value is not diminished by thefact that people so often ignore COWTRA, or thata large percentage of the Q&A sent to the rulesmeisters would not have needed to be asked ifthe person asking the question had simply appliedCOWTRA.

PROBLEM 1So, why ARE there so many people who

don’t apply COWTRA? Well, probably for tworeasons. One is that, like Marx’s version ofcommunism, COWTRA turns out to be awonderfully idealistic concept that doesn’t workso well in the real world. The massive, sprawling,poorly cross-referenced nature of the ASLRBmeans that unless the page you are looking atspecifically prohibits the action you want to take,there is always the possibility that there’s someother page out there that specifically allows it,which you simply haven’t found yet. It becomesmuch simpler to send in a Q&A, rather than to goover every page of the ASLRB making sure thatyou haven’t missed the appropriate reference.

[This is also why it’s so hard to exorcisethe ghosts of SL from our minds. As theIntroduction puts it, “if a distantly recalled ruleisn’t found herein... it has been removed!” Well,guess what you have to do to be sure the rule youdistantly recall was an SL legacy that wasremoved, rather than a valid ASL rule that you’vesimply misplaced? You have to go through all theplaces it could possibly be in the ASLRB, to makesure that it is not found therein! How much easierit would have been on the grognards to see a few

Page 17: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

17THE TRENCHES

Ten Questions With ... Eddie ZemanBrien Martin

BRIEN: What is the process that you gothrough to choose the subject matter of eachmodule?EDDIE: The first step is a secret, but steptwo requires that we check to make sure wehave enough materials to accurately portraythe battle. Then it’s define the battle “time-sequence”. Then we work on the ‘feel’ ofthe battle. Next, its getting the OB for theforces involved. If all of these things ‘lineup’ then we go for it.

BRIEN: From start-to-finish, what is theapproximate time it takes for HoB tocomplete a new module?EDDIE: An HASL module takes about 12-15 months. We work on them concurrentlysince much of the work creates some lag timethat we fill with research into anotherproduct. But once we get going and start thedesign process, it’s about a year. Recentlywe have designed some scenario packs(although I won’t ‘plug’ them here) and wehave been able to knock those out in about3-4 months. They are VERY rewarding forour creative side.

BRIEN: Errata has received a lot of “badpress” lately. What steps does HoB take toreduce/eliminate the really “dumb” errorsfrom its products (like typos and simpleomissions)?EDDIE: HOB is plagued with many ‘typos’simply because we put out many more pagesin our product than most others do. Basically,simplifying and streamlining really havehelped us over the years to keep such errorsto a minimum. Fortress Cassino is proof ofthis. At the final stage of production, we letseveral new sets of eyes go over the product.Sometimes we have ‘parties’ where severalof us get together and look at the material.Our newest protection against errors is tohave our play-testers use a scenario cardformatted sheet to play-test from. In the pastwe used to give them a regular sheet of paperthat might say: 658 x3, 8-0 x2, LMG x2, etc.When we would transpose that into ascenario card format we would loose all ofthe ‘eyes’ that had play-tested the scenarioand we would be starting from scratch tryingto weed out the errors.

BRIEN: What, besides declining sales, doyou feel is the biggest threat to a smallcompany like HoB?EDDIE: Competition. In the past years wehave had to battle with Ray (and others) at

Eddie Zeman is one of the owners ofHeat Of Battle, one of the third partymanufacturers of ASL products. Their recentrelease, Waffen SS II: The Fuhrer’s Firemen,has received numerous good reviews. Irecently sent my “Ten Questions” survey toEddie and asked if he would take a fewminutes to reply. Here is the transcript of thatexchange that followed.

Name: Eddie, er...I think....is this a trickquestion?City: Los AngelesASL Club affiliation (if any): SouthernCalifornia ASL Club (thanks Kent)Born: September 25, 1963.Birthplace: Denver, Colorado.

BRIEN: How did you get involved playingASL?EDDIE: In 1986 I moved to Chicago to startmy Pro Football career with the Bears andsaw Bob Bendis’ name on a hobby shop wall.Bob taught me a lesson during the off-seasons and during the cold winters when Icouldn’t do any running. Two months afterour first SL game I fell in love with his sisterand almost married her, but she was too smartfor that and dumped me after two years. Isigned with the Rams, moved to LA and thendidn’t see much of Bob or any other ASLersfor about 3 years....then all hell broke loose!

BRIEN: What led you to designingscenarios and modules?EDDIE: My career ended in 1990 with ablown out knee. For the next three years Idrank my way through my post-careerblues...in 1993 I stopped drinking andpartying, and went stone cold straight foranother 2 years. During the first few monthson the ‘wagon’ I entered my “blue stage”.Very depressed. On Saturday nights I wouldstay home and indulge myself in creativethoughts to keep my mind off of the partiesgoing on around me. Friday, Saturday andSunday nights- up ‘till 2 AM- no shower-no shave, all weekend- big bummer....but Idrew a lot of ASL maps and read a lot ofbattles. I met Steve D in 1994 and I guess hehad been doing the same thing since he gothome from the Gulf War (but he was startinga family while rather anything destructive).Steve earned a lot of medals in that war, frontline officer, and he is one of my heroes butdoesn’t know it.

CH in their attempts to compete with us. Wehave had to fend off many disgusting acts ofselfishness (disguised as “normal businessprocedures”) in order to protect ourselvesfrom his attempts to copy our designs. Manyother designers have had the same problembut I will let them speak for themselves.Currently, we are about to be confronted bythe Hasbro/MMP people in their attempts toharness/contain HOB as a contributingresource to ASL. We don’t know how thatwill end up, but it looks grim.

BRIEN: Who are your modules designedfor? Casual ASL players? Or the realFanatics?EDDIE: They are designed for neither. Wedesign our games for the routine player. Aplayer who does not have to be incrediblyastute with the rules in order to play (or playwell) one of our games. We use Night, Glider,PTO, etc for designs in which we are tryingto round out a scenario pack by offering abit of difficulty.

BRIEN: What is your all-time favourite ASLscenario and why?EDDIE: ‘Hill 621’. It never ends till the veryend.

BRIEN: What types of “toys” do like to seein scenarios you play and why?EDDIE: I like 8 ML troops because you cango for it whenever you want and you canpush the envelope of the unimaginable. I likethe Tiger I because it has such a greatreputation and because, in ASL terms, it isnot the ‘dominant’ tank that it was crackedup to be. Its 88L gun does not always meanthat you are making a TK DR just to see ifthe target is a burning wreck or not (like the88LL). It’s always a competitive fight withone of those babies.

BRIEN: Final question: Wilma Flintstoneor Betty Rubble?EDDIE: Pebbles....in 10 years.

I would once again like to thank Eddiefor his time and for his answers. Here’shoping that he and the other TPMs continueto produce quality ASL components, wellinto the future.

Ω

Page 18: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

18 VIEW FROM

Combat! NormandySquad Leader II?Norman Smith

I will not be supporting Combat! in thepages of VFTT, because this is an ASL mag.However I am included this review and theaccompanying article by CH as they may be ofinterest to ASLers who want to see howCombat! compares to ASL - Pete

Many years ago, I bought andenthusiastically played and replayed AvalonHill’s Squad Leader. The next module Crossof Iron equally captivated me but the twomodules that followed that made ruleassimilation difficult with successive rulebooks revising earlier rules.

When Advanced Squad Leader wasannounced, I thought this would be a newedition, bringing all the (now disjointed)rules of the system together into one orderlyrulebook. Well it wasn’t; ASL surprised manyby essentially totally replacing the earlierstuff (except for the boards). In mydisappointment, I wrote to Avalon Hill,suggesting that they do a ‘Captain’s Edition’of ASL, by updating the basic game with newstandard counters for all nations from the firstfour modules and updating the rules fromthose games into a single volume. The resultwould allow the captain’s edition to serve asan introduction to the world of ASL. It neverhappened and as ASL became progressivelybigger and basic SL became unsupported, Istopped playing both. I say all of this becauseCombat! Normandy strikes me as being thecaptain’s edition of the game that I alwayswanted.

THE RULESIt is difficult to discuss Combat!

Normandy without making direct referenceto SL/ASL because this game is a very close

relative to those two systems. Obviously theydeal with the same subject, that is, tacticalWorld War Two, using squads and individualvehicles with a scale of 50 metres to the hex.

The good news is that all of this iscontained in 16 pages of rules with goodclear print, although the page count of latereditions will almost certainly grow aspresently many of the rules are not explainedin sufficient depth. The down side is that the‘programmed learning’ system of SquadLeader has been dropped so those who havenever been exposed to the SL/ASL systemwill have a lot of detailed rules to digest inone go. As the game covers the actions ofthe 82nd Airborne, some rules (such as rivercrossings, fortified buildings, bunkers) arenot present, although they will appear in latermodules when appropriate.

The rules are similar to the originalSquad Leader with bells and whistles fromthe later modules added. Certainly thelanguage of SL is here. Squads, half squads,support weapons, NCOs (read leaders),bypass movement, stairwells, line of sight,Morale Check (MC), defensive fire, AFVoverrun, smoke, wall, hedge, close combat(CC) and fire for effect (FFE) are just someof the many terms that are to SL/ASL friendly.As a consequence, the rules of Combat!Normandy are more easily read, or should Isay interpreted. I say interpreted because therules in their present form often fall short infully explaining a procedure, leaving theplayer having to check against other rules orusing SL experience to compensate. The rulewriter has assumed the reader has someknowledge of the SL system rather thanensuring that the rules have absolute clarity.I used to own 4th edition Squad Leader andeven then questions were still being raised,

but in Combat! Normandy, the underexplanation is so prevalent that to fullyaddress the problem the rules are in need ofa rewrite, probably only expanding thesystem by a couple of pages or so. I am ledto believe that a new rulebook (v1.2) is beingprepared.

On the positive side, the rule brevitydoes appear to evidence an ethos of wantingto make the rules tight and to eliminate allthose dreadful ‘rule exceptions’ that appearto follow so many ASL rules. I am left withthe impression that the intention of the designwas to take an ASL type of design and stripout all the ultra detailed chrome to present asystem more in keeping with the originalSquad Leader system. If that is so, I am at aloss to understand why the actual combatresolution of the game uses such aconvoluted process.

THE COMBAT SYSTEMTo test the system, I set up the first

scenario ‘The Milling Crowd’. It has fewunits and does not use artillery or vehicles,yet within moments of play, I became aconfused victim of the rulebook, charts andcombat process. Play shuddered to a halt asI flicked between rules and game charts tosimply bring on a unit and subject it todefensive fire. The squad and supportweapon counters do not display anyinformation, rather, each player has a playaid card, where everything has it’s own lineof factors.

For example, a German squad has arange of 12 hexes with a different level offirepower for each of those hexes. The squadalso has an inherent machine gun with arange of 16 hexes and different levels offirepower for each of those hexes. Lets say

Page 19: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

19THE TRENCHES

two German Squads and a MG42 combinetheir fire against a stack of two Americansquads in a building six hexes away. Thenthe following process is typical:

1. Total fire factors at six hexes (33 foreach squad + 16 for each inherent MG + 54 forthe MG42) gives 152 fire points - I know thisbecause I had to work it out on my calculator!

2. Go to the fire table and cross index thefire factor with a percentage die roll. The die roll,say 33, is modified with a +25 for fire at abuilding, giving a result of C/M+20.

3. C/M+20 means one American squad isflipped to a half squad and the other must take amorale check but add 20 to the dice roll.

4. The basic troop quality of an Americansquad is 55. It gets a +10 for being in a buildingand a +5 for being with another unit (there are 19possible modifiers altogether on this chart) so it’smodified troop quality is now 70. Roll the diceand add the 20 point penalty. If the score is lessthan the troop quality then the unit has passed. Ifit fails by 1 - 20 the testing unit would be pinned,if it failed by more than 20 it would instead bedisrupted.

As you can see, there is quite a bit ofmaths involved. Some may like the idea ofweapon ranges being always measurable,frankly, certainly when taken across thewhole game, I think its too much maths andnot enough fun.

I have not tried combat with vehiclesor guns yet, each of these have their ownchart for each target. That is for example,there are 3 different German vehicles in thegame, so there are 3 bazooka charts (1 foreffects against each vehicle), 3 Sherman tankcharts, 3 x 57mm anti tank gun charts (getthe picture). Each chart is substantial, havingat least 5 lines of information/figures on themto co-ordinate facing, range and the degreeof kill.

THE SEQUENCE OF PLAYIt’s a shame that the combat side of

the game is so unfriendly because thesequence of play is actually very good, givinglots of very interactive play. The sequence isdivided into 3 main phases.

1. Command phase. A sort of jointadmin phase in which all yellow markers(pin, disrupt and casualty) can be removedor reduced i.e. a disrupt reduces to a pin.

2. Fire & Movement phase. A jointphase using alternate impulses. The firstplayer selects a unit to move and/or fire (ora group of units if platoon move/fire is used).The impulse then goes to the other playerwho does the same and then the first playergoes again etc. etc. This continues until bothplayers pass consecutively. Units are markedafter movement and fire, multiple fire isallowed when appropriate and of course one

or both players may be desperate to end thephase early in an effort to try and recoversome units in the next command phase beforethey degrade into actual losses.

3. Melee Phase. Also a joint phase andvery reminiscent of the Close Combat Phasein Squad Leader.

THE COMPONENTSThe quality of the components is fine.

All the counters are the small ½” type andare presented on one sheet, squads have theirhalf squads printed on their reverse and thecounters are clean as all unit information ispresented on a separate quick reference card(small print) rather than the counter face. Thelack of information on the counter facesmight even encourage some to develop theirown rules and charts to make their ownunique game.

There are three maps (16" x 25" each)in total, each using over size hexes (nice,apparently to encourage miniatures to beused but mainly helpful when dealing withstacks), basically, if you’ve seen a SL boardyou will know what to expect.

There are three play aid cards (plusthe free replacement for one of them), againnicely set out though the print is smaller thanI would have wished for.

The 15 scenarios come in their ownbooklet (called a firefight booklet - which istypical of the many examples in this gamewhere new labels are used rather thanrecognised dialogue, i.e. firefight instead ofscenario). The scenario’s are set out instandard SL format, although a nice touch isthe drawing on each scenario has beenreplaced by a real photo, showing a terrainfeature and naming the hex number that thepicture relates to.

The artwork on the box is very good,it is an artists painting, showing a group ofPara’s huddled around a Sherman tank and Ican well understand the frustration of thosewho have complainedthat their boxes havebeen damaged in thepost throughinadequate packaging.

Whilst the coverartwork is strong, therear of the box is a letdown. It does not givethe buyer the valuableinformation needed tomake an informeddecision on purchase.

All in all, 15scenarios and threemaps does provideplenty of replay valueto those who are happy

with the system.

CONCLUSIONSThe first time that I played this game,

I was forced to stop early on turn 1. I hadread the rules and felt quite comfortable withthem, assuming that since much sounded likeSquad Leader, that it would roughly play thesame - it doesn’t. My grasp on the rules wasactually much less than required. I reread therules, especially concentrating on the fullpage that gives examples of play and thenon one of the maps, then set up a smallfirefight with a couple of squads and amachine gun on each side and re ran thatabout half a dozen times. Even with thispreparation, my opening moves of thescenario creaked along.

I have a preference towards lowcomplexity and playable games (which iswhy I bought Combat! Normandy in the firstplace) and in that context, I find the excessiveuse of charts and mathematics in Combat!Normandy somewhat tedious.

I imagine the game will mostly appealto those who want a tactical game but shyfrom the size of ASL. In it’s present form itis probably comparable in terms ofcomplexity with The Gamers TacticalCombat Series, although I expect a secondedition rulebook will make this the lesscomplex of the two games. An earlyappearance of a second edition rulebook mayencourage me to return to this game.

As a final thought, many of thetrappings of this game are rooted in theoriginal Squad Leader game by John Hill;that game was an amazing step forward ingame design. I think it would have beenappropriate for Critical Hit to recognise inthe game credits the contribution that JohnHill made to games of this ilk.

Ω

The map for CH”s forthcomng Okinawa module Ordeal Before Shuri.

Page 20: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

20 VIEW FROM

COMBAT! ACCORDING TO CH

the main appeal for players will be a richarray of battles to experience, based on onereasonable, well-developed rules set.

The game was also designedspecifically to play well solitaire as our focusgroup research revealed a significant portionof you play solo.

Combat! is going to be quite a seriesas we have so many modules in hand already.We’re going to support this game system tothe hilt and our next steps include Combat!Diary magazine, Volume 1, No. 1 (in mid-August); Combat! Normandy expansionmodule, Shanley’s Hill (also ready for mid-August), and Combat! Stalingrad (well onits way to being finished for a late summer‘99 release).

The Combat! rules will doubtlessmorph as they move forward, although theyalready represent a huge amount of researchon tactical combat solidly based on ‘the in-fantry reality.’ With this in mind, the goalwill be to continually tweak the rules to makethem easier to understand and use. Changedsections will be marked with bullets. Eachlatest version will supersede the previous(i.e., never more than one rulebook worth oferrata and that will diminish as the seriesmatures).

A lot changed during the developmentof this game following since the articlepublished in Critical Hit Volume 5, Number2. We replaced the Combat Cards with theGFET tables, concentrating them on thePlayer Aid Cards (PAC) for ease of use. Onthe rules side, the concept of “interrupts” wasreplaced by the ebb and flow inherent in theuse of impulses. Because of theseimprovements we actually scrapped theoriginal counter-set and made all new onesto meet the changes. When we did THATwe decided to go with the ½” AFV counters;use of these helps reduce stacking in largehexes as you can ‘park’ a tank next to yourinfantry stack.

The feedback coming in has me al-ready drawing up a new card-based effectstable format to replace the current GFETpresentation. We have the data and the goalis keeping the easy part: target - firer - range- roll two ten-siders (i.e., no need to calcu-late just what the “To Hit” or “To Kill” num-bers are) while limiting the number of chartsyou’ll need to use.

Other suggestions for future versionsinclude a “To Hit chart for 11.645; convertingthe MST modifiers were converted into

The following comments have beentaken from numerous emails that Ray Tapioand Kurt have Martin posted to theConsimWorld Discussion Board regardingCombat! and the CH Web Site. I thought Iwould include them here for your interest –Pete.

When I see guys in my basementaround an ASL game session there’s a lot ofhooting and hollering, occasional high-five’ing during team play, etc. In a nutshell -the kind of fun and excitement I believe youget when “your” tank is firing at “mine” inthat crucial last turn compared to ‘watching’me move pieces for three hours while youstare at my book collection. It is that excite-ment that I want to provide as a publisherand the Combat! playtest saw plenty of it.

Combat! makes it easy for normalfolks to play historical battles at the squadlevel. That means individual tanks, sergeants,machine gun crews and bazookas. At thislevel we can take the fascinating historicaldetail of individuals in specific battles andput the players very close to the action. Whenyou move a bazooka (or PIAT orpanzershreck or molotov thrower) into thebuilding by the side of the road, you’re likelydoing exactly what some young men did 50-some years ago at the same spot.

Combat! is a new game on the samescale as ASL and comments as regards “copy-ing” are off base. Three phases, all three inuse by both players as they swap impulses.Linear progression of damage to squads.Count the range between gun (AFV) andAFV and roll two dice (i.e., no determiningwhat the “To Hit” or “To Kill” numbers arewith dozens of modifiers. That is the core ofCombat! and it has been lost on some. Findme these concepts in ASL. You can’t.

Our approach for Combat! is very dif-ferent than ASL. Each Combat! module willbe fully self-contained: you need buy no pre-vious module. They will work off the previ-ous rules-set with extra rules for specificmodule situations. For example, Combat!Stalingrad will add air support, commissars,sewers, factories, fanatic resistance, etc. Witha smoothly playing system, adding chromeis relatively painless. Since each game willstand on its own, players will be free to fol-low the battles that most interest them with-out having to buy the whole ball of wax. Thus

morale check drm modifiers to make it easierto resolve a morale check; and adding sometype of random events generator for thebattlefield that could include snipers, shortrounds and bad rations (not to mention lice,cholera, the occasional minefield or flyswarm). Feedback?

I note with interest some commentsabout the difficulty in learning Combat! Cer-tainly, undue difficulty is not intended andwe anticipated some growing pains as thesystem is first ‘born’. It was intended to takesome effort to master; in the absence of sucheffort, interest in a series would likely fade.The rules will get easier to digest and withmore players to instruct, it will be mucheasier for new players to get started. Sug-gestions such as Quick Start and Pro-grammed Instruction from you guys don’tfall on deaf ears - CH is already deep intothe possible additions and changes for thenext rules set. With that in mind, please letus know whenever anything isn’t clear!

The presentation of the GFET tablesfor individual firers and targets may look likea lot of data (and they are produced as a re-sult of the analysis of a hell of a lot of data),but they are very simple to use. Simply pickyour table, count the range between firer andtarget and apply the result of two ten-sidersto that target facing. Gone are all the calcu-lations to determine the correct numberneeded for hitting or causing a specific ef-fect. In practice, the system used in Com-bat! proved quite simple.

But despite the simplicity of individualrules subsystems, the interplay between allthis is quite complex. That’s why we cameout of the box with the Airborne inNormandy; easier to assimilate these criti-cal play interactions with a limited OB.

A key element of Norman’s review isthat he finds the math entry point set fairlyhigh but the sequence of play solid and easy.In a nutshell, play testing found two old gam-ing truths to hold - it’s much easier to learnplaying with someone who already knowshow, and it’s much easier to play the secondtime. What happens is that the same shotsand morale checks get taken over and over.References to the charts become less frequentand play moves much faster.

As regards the use of GFET tables andsame getting onerous in future releases, re-member they are for ordnance vs. AFV only

Page 21: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

21THE TRENCHES

and each COMBAT! module will only in-volve a specific group of such weapons.Once again, the trade off is lots of easy touse data instead of a one size fits all approachwith tons of modifiers (and resulting rulesarguments).

Our goal is to grow the game systemand everyone’s feedback assists that goal andis much appreciated. We cannot promise youwill become the ultimate company com-mander your first time out but our play testexperience proved once you knew how tomaneuver your men and machines about thebattlefield, most of the common tasks (e.g.,machine-gun strongpoint reduction) camesecond nature. You then can concentrate ondefeating your opponent’s moves andcounter-moves.

While there may be complaints aboutthe rules layout or language, the cool fact ofthe matter is that the system works. It’s agreat game to play, and we’re working on anumber of ways to make it easier to learn.Because this is a series, each subsequent re-lease will incorporate any changes and im-provements. Everyone will have a chance totry the system by actually playing it and see-ing others play it - then the very real andimportant differences from games such asSquad Leader will be apparent.

You can find the Combat! errata andQ&A up at http://www .criticalhit.com/comclar .html . For those wishing to playlarger battles, extra counter sheets are avail-able for $5.00 each. You may also purchaseadditional Play Aid cards for $2.00 each (besure to specify which PAC you want). Add$1.50 S & H per order world-wide and sendyour check or international money order toCritical Hit, Inc. PO Box 279, Croton Falls,NY 10519. We’re also interested in hearingfrom you if you want to playtest for futuregames using this system.

Ω

SECOND PLATOON LEADERTHIRD BRIDGEKurt Martin

rules barriers. Check out the wholesalechanges to PL in the latest releases - Scotlandthe Brave II and Arnhem: The Third Bridge.In both cases they simplify things quite a bitto make for tidier and more accuratesimulations.

Q&A, ERRATA, NOTESI’m not especially fond of

Redeployment as a general rule, but it isoptional and I concede that in certain CGsit may be a better representation of thesituation than the “Case B” option)

The new approach is to allow forgamers (read as ‘designers’ also) who do notlike the redeployment approach whilecontinuing with it for situations ideally suitedfor such restrictions.

I consider the Leader Generationrules to be a show-stopper; the potential toskew a CG by a few lucky (or unlucky) DRsby one side is enormous.

There is always the possibility that oneor more lucky DRs will skew a scenario inthe ASL system, whether it be a ‘12’ on thatkey gun taking that key shot to stop the AFVfrom exiting and piling up those last neededVP for your opponent or what have you.We’ve all been there. As 2.362 provides forleader limits (i.e., only one 10-2, etc.) thereis no way your opponent can ‘show up’ witha pile of 10-2’s staring you down. Thus, Imust assume you did not read 2.362 or yourconcerns are as regards the lack of any ‘good’leaders for one side or another.

Yes, a strong series of die rolls canput you in trouble, but CGs give you a breakby letting you dissipate the effect overvarious groups and time (I was mostdismayed to face two 9-2’s with two 8-0’slately, but my RGs were whole and those ofthe 9-2s were Depleted...)

2.3 “Note that a side may neverpurchase more than 3 infantry platoons (RGwith an ID beginning with ‘I’ and identifiedas a ‘Platoon’ or ‘Pltn’) unless specificallyallowed by that CG.” Is this limit per RePhor per CG?

Section 2 outlines the steps takenduring one RePh.

Firstly, allow me to point out why Ibelieve so strongly in Platoon Leader - I’vebeen taking everyone’s comments on thissystem for two years now. I know that we’vetaken a look at every single complaint,suggestion, problem, hang-up and proposal.I’ve heard from the people who were neversatisfied with anything after RB, who wereannoyed by PL 2.0, pleased/bored by PB -you name it. The result really does worknicely, as the folks who are writing to meabout their current experiences shows. Notperfect, but better every time out, compatiblenow with just about every CG, and still free.

CGs under development includeKursk, Guadalcanal, Cassino, Poland 39,Okinawa and Wake Island, among others.Difficulties range from intense, monster PTOto quick play ETO. Players will see the fullrange of duty from the RB-type workload(lots of planning, purchasing and setup) tothings more like the original PL 1.0 series(with lower unit densities and shortcampaigns).

I trust you will note the original intentof PL, to encourage the publication ofnumerous modules, by different authors andon different topics, is also moving ahead.

The free on-line versions will neverbe released along with the versions availablein stores - it would be patently unfair to thegame stores. But, there will always be arecent version of PL available for free. Yes,it will tend to be quite up to date, as I’vebeen churning versions fairly rapidly to addnew features and insert Q&A.

I’m also focusing a good bit on findingways to ease the workload of people whowant to play a campaign but just can’t findthe time for extensive inter-game work (thechallenge of buying for and setting up thosehuge, intricate fortification networks, for onething). At any rate, the new PL stuff will havesomething for everyone, to be sure, and withthe quality bar up where Arnhem: The ThirdBridge pushed it this winter.

The specific CG special rules arewhere the nuances of that particular smallunit action are ‘dialed-in’ and that is theintent - provide a framework for historicaldesigns and allow designers the flexibilityto work within and around any perceived

Robert Murphy’s account of his actions duringthe D-Day landings as a member of the 82nd

Airborne Division, available now from CH.

Page 22: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

22 VIEW FROM

should be added to Footnote 2 of 2.381.Yes.

2.74 The DRM chart seems to havebeen duplicated.

My mistake - two different formats forthe on-line edition. Fixed.

3.15d) Pin & TI counters will alreadyhave been removed by this time (since theplayer turn ended before the Firefight Enddr was made).

Just a reminder for the forgetful.

When are concealment/dummycounters removed?

When dictated by normal concealmentloss and during some Redeployment steps.

Some are retained .

3.202 A shame if you’re trying to playone of the early PL CGs that has no“reduced-size map” to photocopy!

But these are easy to create yourself,photocopying the map, at least untildemand forces me to do it... Requests?

3.21 “Dismounted Armor Leadersmay redeploy as infantry to anothervehicle and re-mount.” If this is meantto be an exception to the general rulethat Armor Leaders may never takecounter form, it should be very clearlystated as such! Are ALs redeployed inthis manner subject to CasualtyReduction and/or Replacement, and ifso, how is that handled?

This is simply an item that manyplayers wanted included. The specificcase is to allow him to change out of animmobilized vehicle. In all cases, theArmor Leader shares the fate of his crew,and thus doesn’t need to take counterform.

“(i.e., a truck could move, pick upinfantry and move again as during theMPh)” Uh, that would NOT be allowed inthe normal MPh rules — a transportingvehicle may not move prior to embarkingpassengers/riders (D6.4).

A. Hit me! Duh! No, I really haveplayed ASL before. All MPh rules apply tosaid movement; I’ve changed the last twoitems to read: “Dismounted Armor Leadersmay redeploy with their crew as infantry toanother vehicle and re-mount. Infantry mayonly combine their Redeployment with thatof a conveyance by following normal MPhMF/MP restrictions (i.e., a truck could pickup infantry then move as during a MPh).”

3.219 REDEPLOYMENT DRM: Iassume the DRM for leadership does not

2.32 “Units purchased for anyfirefight after the Initial CG Firefight maynot set up in entrenchments which were alsopurchased during that RePh.” This seems aharsh (and odd) restriction; presumablymost such units are costing extra for theluxury of on-map setup, but regardlessyou’re only allowed to place them in pre-existing foxholes? I have trouble seeing thelogic of this.

I know what you mean and manypeople agree with you. In this case, it’s a rulethat was inserted after much debate withplaytesters. It will be altered by CGSR butthe intent is to avoid a trench-line or bunkersuddenly appearing ‘from the sky’ in themidst of a heated firefight. In game terms,your opponent can get an annoying ‘creepingfoxhole disease’ effect by diggingentrenchments at the edge of hisPerimeter during each RePh. These pokethe Perimeter out a couple more hexeseach time without him having to allocatetroops to dig them. We also avoidconscript Company A digging a nicefortification line for Company R’sAssault Engineers...

2.33 This rule says Reserve unitsmust setup > 7 hexes from the nearestenemy-controlled Location or EntryArea, but the 1.4 “In Reserve” definitionsays ≥ 7 hexes.

A. This is a typo! Yow - it’s prettymuch always been ≥ 7.

2.34 The setup cost table does notsay what the “In Reserve” costreduction (if any) is for “HW” units(allowed to setup In Reserve in 2.33),but does list “V” units which are notallowed to setup In Reserve (again,according to 2.33).

No penalty or cost reduction.

2.36 So an Infantry companycould start with a 10-2 and a 9-2, or two6+1s, but on average will have two 8-0s?This table seems way skewed. Better, I wouldthink, to have “sets” of leaders rolled foreach x no. of platoons, so that you get abetter spread of leader types. An entire CGcould be won or lost just on this table!

Once again, a specific design choiceto avoid the ‘army’ of 10-2 phenomenon.We’ve had plenty of discussion on this onefrom the various players and testers. Allagreed in the end that this was a tidy way ofgiving both ‘some’ chance for greatness/terribleness with a strong likelihood of‘Army Average.’

2.362 The rule refers to the “2.361table” but in the rules there is no 2.361.

The 2.361, “Leader/Armor LeaderTable” is directly above 2.362.

2.37 “Each Leader must set up/enterstacked with a MMC ...” So it’s not possibleto have a lone leader off doing HIP Radioduty, for instance? Or even more likely,hiding in the back line, ready to rally brokentroops who come his way? I grant you thatyou don’t often want your leaders off bythemselves ... but sometimes you do.

Good point. I added a line we haddiscussed previously: [EXC: ... OR a leaderin possession of a Radio/Field Phone.] Aleader, of course, could ‘drop back’ and‘hide’ anywhere he wants after entering buthe is not going to gain HIP status unless setup on-board.

2.381 Footnote 2, at first glance,appears to directly conflict with the Note atthe end of the table, but I assume what youmean is that you may purchase dummycloaking counters, but you may not purchasedummies and then cloak them, correct?

Correct.

2.42 “Cloaked units must dm allpossible SW while cloaked.” This isredundant.

Fixed.

The last sentence — should that read“... may NOT be used as Dummy non-Reserve Cloaking Counters”? If it’s ablanket restriction, than an appropriate note

Page 23: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

23THE TRENCHES

apply for a leader moving alone.Unless a Hero.

3.31 OK, so burning buildings becomerubble when they are extinguished; butburning rubble becomes Open Ground?!

It is quite linear, eh? But yes is theanswer.

3.44 BATTLEFIELD PROMOTIONTABLE The drms are listed twice.

Web version - Fixed.

3.46 “Ammunition Shortage DRMapply.” What is an Ammunition ShortageDRM? “Leadership, Inexperience, CapturedUse DRM apply.” I assume only for thoseunits stacked with/possessing the weapon inquestion?

If Ammo shortage is in effect,apply “Ammunition Shortage (A19.131)DRM, “...all B# and AmmunitionDepletion numbers are decreased by oneduring an Ammunition Shortage”, i.e.,apply a -1 DRM. Yes.

Leadership can apply torepairing an Immobilised vehicle.Armor Leaders in that vehicle only, orwhat?

Yes.

“Captured malfunctionedweapons are removed from play.” Iassume this is after you have attemptedto repair them?

Yes.

3.461. Again, the mysteriousAmmo Shortage DRM is invoked. Also,what are the Captured Use andInexperienced DRMs when applied toRecalled vehicles?

Apply “Ammunition Shortage(A19.131) DRM, “...all B# andAmmunition Depletion numbers aredecreased by one during an AmmunitionShortage”, i.e., apply a -1 DRM.Inexperience is +1 (D3.45).

Let’s say you are hellaciously lucky -you capture a King Tiger with a conscripthalf squad. Then Mr. Sniper lays a shot onyour CE conscript Soviet King Tiger crew.You are now Recalled, and subject to A21Captured Equipment, and will have a hardtime rolling ≤ 2 for purposes of 3.461 withall of those + mods (+4)...

3.47 The ELR Change DRM lists“friendly side won last CG Firefight (ifpossible)”. What does “if possible” mean?!

If there is no related EXC in the CGSR. Some do not allow a Firefight victory.

CG1 Bocage. These rules arenonsense, in that they do not “clarify” theexisting Bocage rules, they contradict them!I strongly suggest that you leave well enoughalone and let Bocage be handled where itshould be handled, in the ASLRB.

E.G.: You say “Units may not claimWA, fire in the PFPh, then drop it before theenemy can return fire in the DFPh.” Yes, theycan — that’s what Bocage is all about. Youcan say that your rules “only apply to PL”but in reality people who learn your rule willtend to apply it to all their ASL games. Andthey will be playing it wrong.

First answer - the ‘official’ Bocagerules are a source of a great deal of confusionand contention among ASL players. Since agood number of CH CGs deal with Bocage,

we worked with developers, players andtesters to come up with a standard thatincorporates official Q&A with practicalsolutions and historical fact.

We knew we’d get a response to theserules. The ambiguity communicated to us byour customers in these rules - we have a lotof modules in publication using Bocage - ledto the choice to provide a way to play themthat can be agreed upon by both players -‘we’ll use these’. They are optional, ofcourse, but they have been welcomed as asolution by the players that have used them.

Now for the designer’s intent, blameme. However, before you level another“nonsense” comment, be advised the PLresearch did not just include the historicalinfo, such as “Busting the Bocage” and such.

We have interviewed a number of veteransof hedgerow fighting, including William “L”Rod Petty of Pointe du Hoc fame and BobMurphy, 82nd combat vet and the author ofthe new CH book, “No Better Place to Die”.

The result of this work was torepresent two types of fire from behindBocage - sustained (full FP) fire, such asrepresented by Prep/Defensive Fire, andAdvancing Fire, which is handled with itsown restrictions and in the main representsa shorter burst of fire after moving (½ FP).The vets are clear on these points: Could anenemy machine-gun open up, place effectivefire, then disappear before return fire couldbe brought to bear? Yes to effective fire, butnot sustained. Bob Murphy is adamant thatthe 57mm gun simply “could not” even be

concealed behind Bocage.Note the rule only applies to units

marked with a Prep Fire/Final Firemarker. There are plenty of ways thatshort, surprise bursts of fire aresimulated within the ASL rules-set; wehave chosen not to represent that HMGthat gets ‘hot’ and fires burst after burst(>1 ROF) as capable of avoiding anyreturn fire. Now you can make a choiceif you get ROF with a MG; stay andcontinue to lay in the fire or avoid therisk of placing a Prep Fire marker byskipping that next shot.

It still simulates the function of ‘time’spent firing on the enemy as same relatesto the ability of said enemy to pick outthe location of the firer and respond witheffective fire. As for “that’s what Bocageis all about” I do not know if BobMcNamara or Don Greenwood wrotethat rule; we’ll check with them!

CG4 OBA. I think this makes OBApurchases too much of an “easy” option(“it can’t go wrong!”) but I won’tdispute it too much.

Artillery was the ‘big killer’ and isunder-represented in ASL as such. This rulessection was largely provided by the input ofJim Thompson, 254th Regiment, a MasterGunnery Sergeant and you can read morefrom Jim in his article “Steel Rain” in CHVolume 4 No. 1.

The CG effect of this rule is terrific -as the owner of a module, you know thatthere’s always some chance of getting amission, although the odds can turn againstyou steeply with red draws. As an opponent,you can never be sure that more shells won’tcome down. The Grainfield is never safe. Thetension is accordingly higher, as it shouldbe, but a bad module (one that always drawsred) still sucks.

Page 24: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

24 VIEW FROM

COMPATIBILITY ISSUESPeople have asked about PL2.5 as

being “fully backward compatible”. Theywant to play some of the very first PL CGsthat were designed with PL1.0. PL2.0changed a lot of the “nomenclature” (for lackof a better word). For example, concepts likeMLR aren’t around in PL1.0. So can thePL1.0 CGs still be played with this newversion?

This from the CH clarifications page:

Use Redeployment option B.All reference to Battle Hardening (1.6114)should now refer to Battlefield Promotion(3.44)SSR are now FSRCPP are now CPFPP are now FPPL CG SSR = CG SR “Scenario” is now referred to as “Firefight” “determine leaders as per 1.6205” nowshould read “determine leaders as per 2.36” “must enter as reinforcements on the CGdate of purchase [EXC:1.6194]” should nowread “must enter as reinforcements on theCG date of purchase [EXC:2.34]”.Intensity Levels determine the maximumnumber of ‘I’ type RGs that may bepurchased by each for each CG Firefight: 3for Low, 5 for Mid, 7 for High.

Part of the PL2.5 mission was to allowits use for these older guys. It works prettyseamlessly with Option B, which is prettymuch the old ‘wipe the board clean at theend of the scenario’ method of CGing. Yes,there are others like this planned, includingDien Bien Phu and some other things muchin the vein of PL1.0 ...

THE THIRD BRIDGEOn the subject of Arnhem: The Third

Bridge, the first historical map we did forwas very straightforward and played fine.But it really lacked flavor. The next map (theA Bridge Too Far map by Don Petros) wasmuch better but was still too simple and notaccurate enough.

There followed a long process ofadding and subtracting historical and gamedetail, looking for a mix that was bothsatisfactory from an historical perspectiveand good to play on. This map has that mix.

Oh yes, it has lots of things to makeyou raise your eyebrows, but it was designedto be played on, not analyzed. So playersinevitably come to this conclusion “Oh, it’sa little funky at first, but it’s cool to play on.”That was the goal and the gist of the lettersand e-mail I’ve received from people thathave played on it.

Now it’s true that I could have madeit a lot easier. But it wouldn’t have been asinteresting to play on, and it’s just not thathard. So yes, perhaps I’m giving people toomuch credit to work it out, but if you sit downto play a scenario, I think you’ll find thingssettling down nicely.

Rule 2 MAP DEPICTIONS says thatstray building parts do not block LOF/LOSto/from a building if they are part of the samebuilding. Does this include an LOF/LOStraced directly along the hexspine? Forexample: - Is there LOS between CC19 andDD17? - Between I10 and K10? - BetweenM4 and O4?

Each of these is blocked. Rememberthat the rule of thumb on all of these LOSquestions is common sense - of course youcan fire from N3 to N5 but L4 to N4 is clearlyintentionally blocked.

The same rule says that stray buildingparts deny Bypass along their hexsides. Thisis clearly logical for the building that thestray part belongs to. But may a unit Bypassthe obstacle that does NOT cross thehexside? For example: - Can a unit movefrom L5 to M7 by Bypassing the L6 buildingalong the L6/M6 hexside? - From I10 to K10along the J9/J10 hexside?

In both cases infantry could, but avehicle could not.

Can a unit perform “Rowhousebypass” by way of a vertex which is coveredby the building-depiction/black-bar, such as:- Vertex N7/O7/O8?

Due to the depiction, they would haveto enter O7 for 1 MP.

Vertex X6/Y6/Y7?The unit would have to enter X6 or

use ‘rowhouse bypass’ on the east side - Y6-Y7, where the black bar doesn’t extend pastthe vertex.

If LOS traced along the hexspine of astray part is not blocked (per the abovequestion), does the presence of a black barcause it to become blocked? For example: -Is there LOS from P19 to R19?

No.

Is hex A8 a building hex or merely astray part?

Not a building hex.

Is hex R16 a building hex or merely astray part?

This hex was actually an error on mypart during a late stage of the game. It shouldhave been a building hex, but as depicted isnot.

Roads....Yes, they are unconventional, but they

work well, and should only take a minute tograsp. Again, rather than belabor the rules,a dive into playing it works out better.

We specifically ruled out (no punintended) the half-Orchard and Narrow Roadrules as too ugly to contemplate. Some wouldargue, but half-orchard is much harder andless clear than what we have here - Orchardhexes and decorative hexes, with no halves.

Finally, regarding the Narrow RoadEX (following the 2.814 section), I found thefirst part quite clear but the second partconfused me thoroughly. Can you check itfor errors and also explain it in more detail?

I included this one because it’sprobably the hardest road on the map. Ofcourse, few if any vehicles ever go that way...Still, the example is correct. It helps to thinkof these roads as not having buildings. I alsofind the vehicle bypass CAFP difficult tograsp at first.

If a HIP AT Gun in G6 (CA at F4)wants to wait until the vehicle has spent >3MP in LOS before it starts shooting, wherewill the vehicle be and what facing will ithave on the 4th MP in LOS? On MP 5?

Vehicle expenditures in the example:0MP - C6 1MP - D6 2 - Turn left 3 - E6 4 -F5 (now in Gun LOS) 5 - Turn left (2MP inLOS) 6 - Turn left (3) 7 - Turn right (4) 8 -F4 (5) 9 - G4 (Out of LOS). Just like drivingin Boston.

Several scenarios give the GermanOB is given two different ELR ratings. TB 3.states that Germans “follow the SS ELR list-ings in the Firefight Chart.”

I guess I could have made this morebrain-free! My apologies - the basic rule issimple: the 6-5-8 and 5-4-8 units are SS andget Elite ammo status and the higher ELR,usually 4 or 5. Everyone else (usually 4-4-7s) gets the lower ELR - usually 3. That’s it.

The German OB for many of the sce-narios, as well as the CG, provides 5-4-8 SSsquads However, there is no information Ican find in the rules that gives these countersan underlined Morale and a higher brokenside Morale.

This is a method I’ve used for lots ofSS scenarios. For Arnhem in particular, it’sway too generous to make all of the SS 6-5-8s. At the time of Market Garden, the twoSS divisions in the area were at roughly 30%of establishment manpower. Some of theinfantry units were at more like 10% or hadbeen combined. The dragnets andregroupings which followed the British land-

Page 25: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

25THE TRENCHES

MAD VET CONIan Daglish

On the weekend of 18th June (WaterlooDay!), a rather remarkable meeting was held inWybunbury, Cheshire. Mad Vet Con was thebrainchild of Iain McKay, the antipodean MadVet himself, encouraged by the success of the GoldBeach extravaganza organised last year by DaveSchofield. Once again, a number of the top playersin the country assembled for a weekend spentplaying the sort of monster Campaign Games thatmost of us have neither the time or the space for.

One group plunged into “SqueezingPeiper’s Bulge”, the monster CG published inVFTT24 which utilises all five of the KGP mapsheets. The group was extremely well preparedand launched straight into the play (moral: if youare going to play a CG at a Conference, do all thepreparation you can before the event, even up topurchases and set-up plans. Otherwise, you willend up wasting valuable meeting time with yourhead in the rulebook! Besides, it is much morefun to ponder strategies and tactics at leisurebefore the Wind Change DR rather than in a paniconce play has started!).

The other two groups played CG3 fromScotland The Brave II, both played with the luxuryof photo-enlarged maps (40% increase, yieldingRB-size hexes accommodating two half inchstacks). Each involved three players a side, which

is comfortable so long as all three were ready towork hard. The two games were remarkablydifferent: one was a close run thing, very close tothe historical event; while the other was a totallyhistorical German walkover. Guess which one thedesigner of the game played, as the British!

Three pieces of advice for CG designers:ONE: avoid playing your own work in

public. It can be embarrassing.TWO: avoid even being present when they

are being played. You see, people will inevitablyturn to you with rules queries. Anyone else presentwho has read the CG rules will probably give theright answer, whereas the designer will rememberall the different rules he experimented with… andhalf the time will not for the life of him rememberwhich treatment he settled for!

And THREE, if you absolutely have to bethere and playing (and to be honest, it is veryrewarding to witness your creation being playedout on a seven foot long map), try using alcoholto make them think your inability to respond ispurely temporary. Fortunately, the three Britishplayers on the losing side of our CG had all comemost appropriately equipped with bottles of veryfine malt whisky.

Ω

The action on one of the enlarged Scotland The Brave CG maps.

ings sometimes re-built these units usingwhoever was available.

A 5-4-8 is a great replacement, andmore accurately reflects the state of the SSunits.

As the ASLRB says: “SS crews andSMC do not receive the increased MoraleLevel on their broken side, and are thereforerepresented by normal German crew andSMC counters. SS are entitled to Assault Firecapabilities in any scenario during 1944-45.”Add 5-4-8s to that first sentence and youhave the standard ‘other SS’ scenario designapproach.

Along the river there is a one-leveldrop off with a retaining wall, which issupposed to use wall rules (although theChapter G Seawall rules might be moreappropriate). But, the depiction of this dropoff does NOT follow any sort of hexsides,instead just wandering all over the map,including at least one hex which contains aroad above the wall, the wall itself, AND theriverside road below it. I freely admit thatthe absence of any rules to cover this stuffprobably isn’t a big deal, because I suspectthe river road is of little importance to thegame. However, it is possible that units couldwant to rout to it when all other options areclosed to them, since the wall would preventit from being Open Ground.

Oops. We failed to make this clearenough in the rules, I suppose, but it is simplya Seawall-type drop-off that very rarely seesactivity, including for Rout.

The counters were to give players whoonly own WOA and BV enough to play theCG. They cover quite a variety, Red Devilssquads, leaders and SW, same for theGermans, various terrain markers, controlmarkers, Random Event Markers [could behandy]; the Cleared Fire-Zones and JapaneseControl Markers are for TRBH.

Anyway, play A:TTB and let me knowwhat you think. A lot of folks have alreadyhad a lot of fun with those 8 scenarios andthe CG...

Ω

Page 26: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

26 VIEW FROM

SQUEEZING PEIPERS BULGEPlaying the biggest ASL CG

Pete Phillipps

When our resident Aussie vet, Mad VetIain Mckay announced he was going to playhost to a group of ASLers in his local village sowe could attempt to play the monster KGP ‘CGV Squeezing Peiper’s Bulge’, I jumped at thechance.

Produced by Australia’s PaddingtonBears and reprinted in VFTT24, this is a 4 CG-Date CG running from 20PM to 21PM, whichlinks all three of the KGP map groups to formone massive CG. Although the action on thethree map groups is pretty independent, thereis scope for units to move between map groups,and for the German side their reinforcementsare purchased from a central CPP pool and al-located to each map group as the German play-ers see fit.

The players for each side were allocatedby Iain himself, and I found myself as theAmerican player on the Cheneux map, upagainst Paul Case. I’ve played against Paul anumber of times before, and our usual modusoperandi is to get some beers in and then de-cide on a scenario to play - needless to say ourgames tend to be about enjoying ourselvesrather than winning at all costs!

To clear Cheneux I was given three pla-toons of paras, a captured SPW251/9, and 24CPP to augment that. I used the CPP to buyanother two platoons of paras, a jeep sectionand an M36 GMC. My plan for 20PM was toadvance to contact using the Very Heavy Mistas cover, and smash my way through the outerGerman lines. I aimed to be on the edge ofCheneux by the end of the CG-Date and readyto storm the village in the Night CG-Date. Thiswould set me up to grab the rest of the village

on the 21AM CG-Date while reinforcementsentering on the south edge of the map wouldseize Monceau. After that it would be a matterof mopping up and grabbing the bridge atCheneux in the final CG-Date.

The opening CG-Date went pretty muchas planned, and given another turn or two Icould well have made some headway into theoutskirts of Cheneux. As it was I had to settlewith control of the three buildings along theroad to Cheneux and the area to either side ofthe road. With hindsight (this being only myattempt at a third CG, the previous two being acouple of years ago now, and both ending un-finished), I should have been a bit more ag-gressive in choosing Objective Hexes and sentHS probing the flanks and digging foxholes toexpand my set-up area even further.

It took everyone all of Saturday to fin-ish the first CG-Date so both sides decided todo their RePh activites and set up the gameready to start afresh on Sunday morning. Asexpected, the Night CG-Date brought DualAttacks on all three map groups. I had broughtthree more platoons of paras, setting two ofthem up onboard, increased my SAN by 2 andpurchased some Recon, which enabled me todiscover the contents of his forward stacks -two stacks consisting of a pair of squads withLMGs, a third stack of two HS manning a HMGand a MMG, and two more stacks consistingof a sqaud with a PSK. With both sides linedup facing each other two hexes apart (and un-able to see each other due to the NVR of 1!), itlooked like a scene from an ancient battle.

The first turn consisted of the Germans

placing a concealment counter on one of theirvehicles which was out of my LOS, and myparas moving into position to launch their at-tack.

As the first paras Assault Moved adja-cent to the Germans they were met by a 16FP+1 attack which broke both squads and theirleader, a situation that was to be repeated foralmost every other stack that moved adjacent.By the time he had finished his Defensive Fi-nal Fires I had just one unbroken squad out of12 that had closed to contact with the enemy.It’s not often I claim I was diced, but this wasone of those moments, when every roll he madeseemed to be under 6 and every roll I madeover 8. Things were marginally better in thenorth-west corner of the village, but with halfof my attacking force gone in the first momentsI knew I faced an uphill struggle to force theSS out of the stone buildings they occupied.

And that was the case. Rally attemptsfailed abysmally, many not even being lowenough to remove DM. Only the timely arrivalof the third reinforcement platoon on the front-line that stopped the Germans from recaptur-ing one or two of the houses they had lost inthe earlier CG-Date. A brief surge from a Fa-natic squad in the north-west corner of the vil-lage allowed me to take a few of these build-ings and eliminate several of the Flak truckshe had, but every approach to the other build-ings was repulsed. Then I inadvertently movedinto LOS of his reserve squads and activatedfive squads and a 10-2 which led a counter-attack to recapture much of the north-west cor-ner of the village.

As the game was drawing to an end, myluck briefly changed. A squad and an HS man-

The early action at Chenuex. My ‘Amsterdam Special’ OBA cardsare not quite visible, but went down quite well with everyone -shame neither me or Paul used any OBA in our CG-Dates!!

Trev Edwards (left) and Paul Sanderson come to grips with thebattle for La Gleize. The sound of battle could frequently be heardin Cheneux!

Page 27: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

27THE TRENCHES

aged to get into the victory building occupiedby his MMG and HMG HS and 8-1 who wereall CX. I Ambushed him, and split my attacks,the squad attacking the leader and HS with theHMG, my HS attacking his other HS with theMMG. I promptly rolled snake-eyes with thesquad, creating an 8-1, and then eliminate theother HS without loss. I now controlled theadditional building I needed to win the CG-Date. Unfortunately I was surrounded by Ger-man units.

However my luck continued to hold outduring his turn. His first Prep Fire managed tobreak the 8-1 and the HS, but the squad rolleda snake-eyes, went Fanatic and created a Hero.His next shot encircled the stack, eliminatingthe leader and HS, but the Hero and squad bothrolled snake-eyes, and the HoB roll created yetANOTHER Hero, this one Fanatic coming froma Fanatic squad! They then proceeded to Breakthe 10-2 as he moved adjacent, which led tothe three SS squads moving with him failingtheir LLTC, and for their Defensive Final Firethey broke another couple of squads for goodmeasure. Despite this he was still able to bringthree squads and a Heroic 8-1 in for CC, andhe just managed to Ambush me. With a 2-1and a -3 DRM it was no surprise that my troopswere eliminated, and at that point we ended theCG-Date.

It had taken me and Paul eight hours tofinish the CG-Date as the date had gone on thelongest. By now it was gone 5pm and we hadto be out of the hall within the hour, so we onlyhad time to had a brief discussion about theprospects for each side in the next CG-Date.Despite my horrendous losses, it was felt that Iwas in a strong position as I had a set-up areathat almost had Cheneux in a pincer just wait-ing to be closed, and with 65 CPP I would beable to make good my para losses quite easily.

Paul’s situation looked less healthy ashe had lost a number of squads and most of hisvehicles, and with 40 CPP (minus a DR) ofreinforcements to be spread around three mapgroups it didn’t look like he would be gettingmuch to replace those losses (especially as anSS platoon cost 8 CPP). It would have beeninteresting to have been able to continue theCG but all three map groups had agreed earlierin the day that we wouldn’t fight the two re-maining CG-Dates, and me and Paul didn’thave time to record the details on our map groupso we could continue it alone.

Anyway, congrats to the Vet on a jobwell done, and it’s nice to know that the expe-rience hasn’t put him off planning on doing itagain next year!

Ω

WESTWALL 99Derek Tocher

The first weekend in July saw the firstWESTWALL ASL tournament in Germany. Thevenue was the youth hostel in Saarbrucken. Myregular opponent, Dominic McGrath, and I hadtravelled out from Heathrow mid-morning onThursday for Frankfurt, hoping to make a quickrail connection to the Saarbrucken about 200 kmaway. Times must have changed in Germanyhowever as the first train was cancelled and thenext two we travelled on ran late. We finallyarrived at the venue around 6.30 pm to find around20 gamers already getting into the dice action.

On the Thursday night I played a warm-up game of ‘SP11 Pomeranian Tigers’ withMichael Maus. My Russians got lucky with the57L taking out the three lighter tanks very earlyin the game and seeing off 1.5 squads. My Russianinfantry proved too tough for their Germanopponents and Michael conceded with a coupleof turns to go as he clearly would not exit 40 VP.

First game of the tournament proper was‘ASLN 58 Nemesis’. This is an unusual scenariodesign by Ian Daglish as it is set in East Sussexafter a successful ‘Sealion’ invasion. The armouron both sides died early and this was a particularproblem for the British (who have a CS tank withinfinite smoke capability) as they must attackthrough the German help Board 12 village andexit one MMC through a single hex (only) on theopposite side of the village, but now with nocovering smoke. My British got close but fourMMC broke in or adjacent to the exit hex on thelast turn netting a loss. This was a great gamewith both sides living on their nerves throughout.

Next up, an old OAF scenario ‘Firefightfor Breakfast’ featuring SS attacking Americanson board 10. I think this has great potential butmy German opponent, Michael Sachau, clearlythought 8ML SS were tough enough to stack.However my hot dice quickly showed him theerror of his ways.

Friday afternoon was a Critical Hitscenario ‘Long Minutes’ involving a crossing ofthe board 22 canal on rafts. My opponent PhilippeBriaux played an excellent game as the Germanbut in truth there is nowhere for the Belgiumdefenders to hide from the truly massive Germanfirepower which covers the crossing. This scenariois a true dog - avoid it like the plague. At thatstage I was well out of the running and just playingfor fun.

My Saturday afternoon game was a secondplaying of ‘Pomeranian Tigers’, this time againstFrenchman Jean- Pierre Cillufa. I again had theRussian but this time gave up the balance (addtwo 548s to the German OOB). I think we bothhad a great time playing this despite the fact thatJean spoke only a little English and found myScottish accent virtually incomprehensible.

The game was very tight and after losing aSTUG early to a known AT mine Jean played

extremely well and should have won. Howeveron the last turn he became fixated on trying toeliminate the last JSII rather than running hisinfantry of-board. This backfired as he rolledabout 4 consecutive 6s on PF checks. When hedid get one he rolled boxcars on the effects rolland doubles on the random selection for thecasualty reduction (a leader directed the fire)! Hethen followed this up with a boxcars on his CCattack vs the JSII. This resulted in the Germansonly getting 34 of the 40 points needed of-boardand my Russian picking up a somewhat lucky win.

Final game of the Saturday was a matchof Schwerepunkt’s ‘Raiders at Regi’ vs FrancoisBoudrenghien . This came down to a Japanesehalf-squad ambushing a marine unit on the lastturn and withdrawing into the victory area to claimthe win.

While I was just scraping by with a prettyeven win/loss record Dominic had recorded threewins in the first three rounds. However on theSaturday afternoon he lost in ‘Death Knell atKalach’ to Christain Koppemeyer, one of only twoother 3-0 players. However with one round to playon Sunday he was still in with a shout of a minorplacing.

My Sunday morning game was againstRay Wolosyn who I had previous met attournaments in the UK (BERSERK!) andCopenhagen. Our previous game had been verytight (Ray effectively winning on the last DR) butRay comprehensively beat me in ‘Brioch Bash’this time around as my American attack developedtoo slowly for fear of being gunned down beforereaching the board 24 village.

4-3 for the weekend was ok but my reportcard says ‘should have done better’!

Back at the part of the tournament wherewin/loss record was going to make a differenceto who got to take the silverware home, Dominichad beaten Peter Ladwein in ‘Brioch Bash’, whileChristain Koppemeyer had lost to Philippe Briauxin the same scenario. This meant three playersfinished the tournament with 4-1 records. Theorganisers went into enclave behind closed doorsto analyse the records of the opponents of thesethree, and after an appropriate interval announcedthe results.

1st Dominic McGrath2nd Christain Koppemeyer3rd Philippe Briaux

A warm congratulations to the organisersPeter Ladwein, Christain Spies and StephanJakobi for hosting an excellent event. Thanks alsoto everyone else for making two Brits feelwelcome, and particularly for making a great effortto speak in English!

Ω

Page 28: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

28 VIEW FROM

Where are they now ... ?Mark S Walz

It seems like only yesterday when I read those words “A shot disturbsthe eerie silence of a deserted city street ... Seconds later the sharp staccatoretort of a Russian machinegun concludes with the assertiveness of deathitself that this time Kruger was wrong.”

When I read those words as a fifteen-year-old boy I was hooked. It’shard to believe that I first set up ‘The Guards Counter Attack’ twenty yearsago. Enough reminiscing. The list is not complete, as I have not coveredscenarios from third parties: all remain unconverted to the best of myknowledge.

SQUAD LEADER1 The Guards Counterattack Published as ASL Scenario A2 The Tractor Works Published as ASL Scenario B3 The Streets of Stalingrad Published as ASL Scenario C4 The Hedgehog of Piepsk Published as ASL Scenario D5 Hill 621 Published as ASL Scenario E6 Escape From Valikiye Luki Published as ASL Scenario H7 Bucholz Station Published as ASL Scenario I8 The Bitchie Salient. Published as ASL Scenario J9 The Cannes Strong Point Published as ASL Scenario K10 Hitdorf on the Rhine Published as ASL Scenario L11 The St. Goar Assault Published as ASL Scenario O12 The Road to Wiltz Published as ASL Scenario P

CROSS OF IRON13 The Capture of Balta Submitted to MMP. Status Unknown14 The Paw of the Tiger Published as ASL Scenario F15 Hube’s Pockett Published as ASL Scenario G16 Sowchos 79 Submitted to MMP. Status Unknown17 Debacle at Korosten Published as ASL Scenario A10618 The Defense of Luga Published as ASL Scenario W19 A Winter Melee Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest20 Breakout from Borisovo Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest

CRESCENDO OF DOOM21 Battle For the Warta Line Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest22 The Borders are Burning Published as ASL Scenario A01023 Silent Death Published as ASL Scenario A01124 Action at Balberkamp Published as ASL Scenario A06325 Resistance at Chabrehez Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest26 Assault on A Queen Published in VFTT7. Probably won’t be published

by MMP. for lack of historical basis.27 The Dinant Bridgehead Published as ASL Scenario A06528 Counter Stroke at Stonne Published as ASL Scenario A06629 In Rommel’s Wake Published as ASL Scenario A09630 Ad Hoc at Beaurains Published as ASL Scenario A04031 Chateau de Quesnoy Published as ASL Scenario A06432 Rehearsal for Crete Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest

GI: ANVIL OF VICTORY33 A Belated Christmas Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest34 Climax at the Nijmegan Bridge Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest35 The French Decide to Fight Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest36 Weissenhoff Crossroads Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest37 Medal of Honor Published as ASL Scenario A07538 The Factory Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest39 Sweep for the Bordj Toum Bridge Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest40 The Dornot Watermark Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest41 Swatting at Tigers Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest42 Bridgehead on the Rhine Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest43 Action at Kommerscheidt Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest44 Prelude to Breakout Published as ASL Scenario A07845 Hide and Seek Published as ASL Scenario A07746 Operation Varsity Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest47 Encircling the Ruhr Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest

SERIES 100101 Blocking Action at Lipki Published as ASL Scenario A044102 Slamming the Door Published as ASL Scenario A007103 Bald Hill Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest104 The Penetration of Rostov Published as ASL Scenario A017105 Night Battle at Noromaryevka Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest106 Beachhead at Ozereyka Bay Published as ASL Scenario A026107 Disaster on the Dnieper Loop Submitted to MMP. Status Unknown108 Block Busting in Bokuisk Published as ASL Scenario J008109 Counterattack on the Vistula Published as ASL Scenario A021110 The Agony of Doom Published as ASL Scenario A008

SERIES 200201 Sacrifice of Polish Armour Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest202 Under Cover of Darkness Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest203 Bitter Defense of Otta Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest204 Chance D’Une Affaire Published as ASL Scenario U205 Last Defense Line Published as ASL Scenario A094206 Fighting at the Worlds Edge Converted Need to Submit to MMP.207 The French Perimeter Converted Need to Submit to MMP.208 Road to Kozani Pass Published by CH in Volume One. Also converted

Need to Submit to MMP.209 The Akroiri Peninsula Defense Published as ASL Scenario T15210 Commando Raid at Dieppe Published as ASL Scenario T13

ROGUE SERIES211 Auld Lang Syne Published as ASL Scenario V212 On the Road to Andalsnes Published as ASL Scenario A031213 Traverse Right ... Fire! Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest214 The Front in Flames Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest215 Hasty Pudding Converted Need to Submit to MMP.216 A Small Town in Germany Converted Need to Submit to MMP.217 The Whirlwind Published as ASL Scenario S218 Operation Switch Back Awaiting Conversion219 Scheldt Fortress South Awaiting Conversion220 Clearing the Breskins Pocket Awaiting Conversion221 Vitality I Awaiting Conversion222 Infatuate II Awaiting Conversion223 Night Drop Published as ASL Scenario A076

SERIES 300300 Trial by Combat Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest301 The Clearing Awaiting Conversion302 Stand Fast Awaiting Conversion303 Thrust and Perry Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest304 Riposte Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest305 The Duel Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest306 The Rag Tag Circus Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest307 Point D’ Appui Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtest308 Han Sur Neid Awaiting Conversion309 The Roer Bridgehead Awaiting Conversion

THE GENERALA Burzevo Published as ASL Scenario RB Hill 253.5 Published as ASL Scenario T07C The Bukrin Bridgehead Awaiting ConversionD Delaying Action Published as ASL Scenario A049E The Niscemi-Biscari Highway Published as ASL Scenario T09F The Pouppeville Exit Published as ASL Scenario T05G Devil’s Hill Published as ASL Scenario T10H The Attempt to Relieve Peiper Published as ASL Scenario T11I Hunters From the Sky Published as ASL Scenario T12J Semper Paratus Awaiting ConversionK Fast Heinz Submitted to MMP. Scenario in playtestL The Long Road Published as ASL Scenario A095M The Dead of Winter Published as ASL Scenario T06N Faugh A’ Ballagh Published as ASL Scenario A093P Aachen’s Pall Published as ASL Scenario T08Q Gambit Published as ASL Scenario T14T1 First Crisis at Army Group North Published as ASL Scenario MT2 Pavlov’s House Published as ASL Scenario TT3 Land Leviathans Published as ASL Scenario QT4 Sodiers of Destruction Published as ASL Scenario N

Ω

Page 29: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

29THE TRENCHES

INTERROGATIONScott Jackson

The interrogation rules (E2.) are areally neat section! It makes capture of enemyunits an actually worthwhile goal. Personally,I recommend that players agree to use thissection before each game. Players shouldkeep in mind that this section usually helpsthe Attacker—so the Defender may need theBalance to even things out. Further, if ascenario hinges (for the Defender) on just afew units or just a couple of HIP Guns/AFV,then players may want to add an additional+1 DRM for playability/balance. Since I playfor fun, I don’t worry about it too much—Iuse the section and take my chances and mylumps. It will often change your playingstyle...

THE BASICSLet’s start with a layman’s description

of this section.Basically, a captor can immediately

interrogate a just-captured or just-surrendered enemy Personnel unit[Personnel are all SMC and MMC counters,including those mounted as Cavalry orPassengers/Riders, but excluding inherentcrews since they are not in counter form], orif SSR allow Civilian Interrogation then aWind Change DR of 3 [in hostile/neutralcountry] or 4 [in friendly country] can helpthe ATTACKER [player whose Player-Turnit is currently] out.

Just make a DR (dr for CivilianInterrogation [CI]), check and add anyapplicable DRM, and if you get a 5 (6 forCI) or less you have learned something! Easy,

yes? Yes!

A few caveats:If you get a result that is NA (such a

revelation of HIP Attackers), just use thenext-higher DR result.

Multi-hex Fortifications get revealedin their entirety if even just one hex isrevealed by Interrogation.

Civilian Interrogation still applieseven if there is no ATTACKER’s SniperCounter currently on-map (though whathappens if there are no ATTACKER’s unitson-map at the time??? Common Sense saysto ignore the Civilian Interrogation...).

Units/fortifications can only berevealed if they are both within 8 hexes andare in LOS of the Interrogated unit; thoughfor LOS purposes, that Interrogated unit canbe assumed to be in any Location within it’scurrent hex that it could reach in the nextMPh (and no, it does not have to move tothat Location in the next MPh!). Note: thisrule (E2.3) only specifically applies toInterrogation as opposed to CivilianInterrogation. Oversight? Maybe...

SMC are almost useless to Interrogatesince they by definition (A1.11) are Elite(EXC: Partisan SMC, per MMP Q&A) andwill thus have an automatic +2 DRM.

POSSIBLE HOUSE RULESInterrogating unit(s) immediately

become TI until the next CCPh (so counteris not removed at the end of this CCPh ifInterrogation was done during a CCPh; i.e.,

capturing an enemy unit in CC and thenimmediately Interrogating it means theInterrogating unit will be TI during the entirenext Player-Turn).

Wounded SMC prisoner receives a -1DRM

Broken prisoner units receive a -1DRM

DM prisoner units receive a -1 DRMSurrendering units receive a -1 DRMDisrupted units receive a -1 DRMInterrogating unit is Squad/Crew —

+2 DRM (hey, these guys aren’t trained ininterrogation! On the other hand, crews“represents picked men who are the best oftheir company.”)

Interrogating unit is HS — +3 DRM(same, but fewer skills to draw on)

Interrogating unit is SMC — add his(/her?) leadership modifier

Any Final Results DR of 7 is “FalseInformation. Units being informed are TI”(and CX if using the “Interrogating unitsbecome TI” house rule).

Rule E2.3 is applied to CivilianInterrogation as well, but is applied as if to atheoretical captured Defender’s unit in thesame hex as the “informed” Attacker unit. Istrongly recommend using this House Rule(HR)...

Civilian Interrogation is NA unlessthere are ATTACKER Player’s units on-map.Again, this really should be a rule...

Page 30: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

30 VIEW FROM

BREAKING BAMBOOShaun Carter and Charles Markuss

refuelling cells for man-pack flame-throwersI did not realise that they were part of theestablishment of each battalion. Given thefact that Chindits were light infantry whosemachine guns and mortars were the mainsources of firepower it is not surprising thatthey were supplemented by the use of por-table man-pack flame-throwers.

In the scenario they are very useful fordealing with the Japanese bunkers. The mor-tars gives the Allied player extra firepowerand the ability to use smoke at a distancesomething - which should be part of any ASLplayer’s armoury.

The Japanese player has the benefitsof terrain, concealment and fortification tobolster his defence. We’ll let others passcomment on how best to play it. We are bothgreat believers in letting people find out forthemselves.

The victory conditions are based uponcontrol of the buildings on mapboard 47 torepresent the importance of the stated ob-jective in capturing the village.

I’d like to thank Phillippe Leonard forproviding me with a draft copy of themapboard for design and play-test purposes.We hope you enjoy playing it.

BibliographyFighting Mad, Mike Calvert. Airlife Lon-don 1996, p 150-154Prisoners of Hope, Mike Calvert. JonathanCape London, p 67-69Chindits: Long Range Penetration, MichaelCalvert. Pan/Ballantine London 1973, p93WO172/4920 War Diary of 1st BattalionSouth Staffordshire Regiment January - De-cember 1944

Ω

Given mine and Charles’ reputationfor producing ‘heavy metal’ tank scenarios(as the amount of good-natured stick I get atASL tournaments will easily attest to) wehave felt for some time now we had some-thing of a point to prove – that we coulddesign a scenario without any AFV’s!. Bro-ken Bamboo, from the newly-released Ac-tion Pack 2, allowed us to fulfil that goal.

Some time ago Carl Fago, scenario co-ordinator for MMP, mentioned to us thatthere was a new ‘dry river bed’ board in thepipeline. While on a research trip to the Pub-lic Record Office at Kew, England, I cameacross a reference to a chaung (dry river bed)in the description of a Chindit action involv-ing Gurkhas and Japanese. Thus the germ ofan idea was born.

The Chindits are a good source ofpossible scenarios in that their operations arewell documented, particularly by Brigadier‘Mad’ Mike Calvert - a brigade commanderwho wrote extensively on the subject. Theycover a wide range of infantry battles in theBurma theatre.

The basic proposition of the scenariois typical PTO with Allied troops versus te-nacious, well dug in, Japanese defenders.The challenge was to design something thatwas just a little different.

I have to admit my own personal per-ceptions of how Japanese troops behave inbattle has probably been too strongly influ-enced by a literal reading of the ASL rules;they fight and die in place. However the de-scription of this particular action clearlystates that the Japanese troops broke and ran.So how best to simulate this result? I haveto thank my good friend Iain ‘Mad Vet’Mackay for suggesting the use of Japanesehalf squads in this instance. This way theyare vulnerable to CC and will break whenfailing an MC.

The Gurkhas were easier to define;although they are described as having losttheir temper, I reasoned that the berserk ruleswould cover this situation better than usingany SSR to simulate their mental state.

A surprise discovery on my part wasin the Chindit weaponry used. I had seenreferences to the use of flame-throwers. Un-til I read the war diary of the First Battalion,Staffordshire Regiment, which itemised 24

Finally, to re-introduce uncertainty,change the results as follows:

“Concealed Unit(s) Revealed” nowmeans that only the size (Squad/HS/Crew/SMC) and number of SW (but not specificson type) are verbally revealed [alternatively,unit and specific SW are temporarilyrevealed].

“HIP Unit(s) Revealed” now meansthat the player must point out a hex that eitherhas a HIP unit in or adjacent to that hex.Note that the HIP unit is not placed on mapat this time (nor is unit type [½” or 5/8"]revealed)...

“Hidden Fortification(s) Revealed”now means that the player must point out ahex that either has a Fortification in oradjacent to that hex, and must state whetherit is part of a multi-hex Fortification System,as well as stating what general type ofFortification it is (Cave, Entrenchment,Minefield, Panji, Pillbox, Roadblock,Tetrahedron, Wire—but not revealing anyother information, nor placing any Fort.counters on the map at this time).

Interrogator is not allowed to makenotes or place counters of any kind...

Got a gooooood memory???

Ω

Page 31: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

31THE TRENCHES

BECKERS AND DICKIESScenario Designer NotesShaun Carter and Charles Markuss

Beckers BatteryThere is a plethora of weird and won-

derful German AFVS in ASL. The GSW39H(f) and GSW 39H(f)Pak designed byMajor Becker are amongst some of the moreeffective examples, hence their inclusionhere. Rather than being mechanical lostcauses both were cost effective conversionsmounting the powerful Pak 40 L/70 75mmanti tank gun and 105 mm howitzer onFrench AFV chassis’. Their claim to famein the anti tank role comes from their effec-tiveness in helping to prevent a tank breakoutin ‘Operation Goodwood’. Contrary to theclaims of Mr Barker in the Imperial WarMuseum Review issue 10, I find it hard tobelieve that the defending German forces didnot take any casualties from the advancingBritish tanks, 3RTR being one of the mostexperienced armoured regiments in the Brit-ish army of the time. Unfortunately the lackof German strength returns is a problem incorroborating this argument.

This tank versus tank encounter is anattempt to give a realistic feel to the use ofmass armoured tactics of the period. It putsthe British player in the driving seat, seek-ing to exit his AFVs off the southern boardedge of the playing area. A full squadron ofBritish tanks in represented, as is a batteryof German guns. It would be good if thosenice people at MMP Hill would give us adecent number of Sherman and Churchillcounters to pit against all those Panthers andPanzer IV’s which have become availabledue to the success of KGP. The addition ofrubble to the scenario is at the request ofplaytesters and nicely represents the aerialbombardment prior to the assault.

Dickie’s BridgeBefore you exclaim “not another

Normandy scenario!”, the design rationalefor this one is to show the use of armouredcars in a more realistic light i.e. trying toavoid combat and penetrate behind enemylines. Given the extensive coverage of theaction provided by Alexander McKee andthe regimental history of the Second House-hold Cavalry Regiment, finding the back-ground was a fairly straightforward task.

Snipers are omitted for the sake of playbalance as they can be regarded as having adisproportionate effect in such a small sce-

nario. In effect this action is a sequence ofencounters between the rapidly movingarmoured cars and variety of German oppo-sition.

Your objective as the British player isto bypass enemy forces using speed and notto fight them. Thus the victory conditions ofgetting to the bridge. Any delay in Alliedmovement is penalised by the arrival of Ger-man reinforcements emphasising their abil-ity to respond quickly to Allied attacks.

The German forces are deliberatelyhandicapped to reflect the omnipresent al-lied air power. German AFVs moving indaylight were subject to constant Allied ar-tillery and aerial bombardment, somethingthat our cardboard heroes in ASL are rarelysubject to. This is the rationale behind theSSR regarding the movement of the Panther.

We would like to thank everyone whohas helped with playtesting without whichthese ideas would be stillborne. To mentionjust a few Andrew Saunders, Ian Brown,Nigel Ashcroft, Brian Hooper, PeteKettlewell, Nick Edelsten, Bob Eburne andSteve Crowley. Not to forget DavidSchofield’s proof reading contributions.Apologies for any omissions you can alwaysseek redress at the next UK tournament whenI’m looking for more volunteers.

A footnote: change to‘CH95 Shambles’

We’ve discovered that the Canadiansdid not have the normal equipment duringthis scenario (published in CH Vol. 5 No 1),so we suggest the following (little tiny)changes:

Delete the Sherman FirefliesIncrease the number of Sherman V(a)

from 15 to 19Increase the number of Achilles from

1 to 4“Shermans? Yeah, I got a few more

out back. How many ya need?”

Ω

DC PRIMERMartin Moser

The following is probably not of much usefor the more experienced players around, but asthere are always some newbies (like me) lurkingin the shadows, I thought I post this.

Below is something like a Quick ReferenceData Card for Demo Charge attacks some of youmight find helpful the first 2-3 times you comeacross scenarios with DCs in them. It is basicallythe memos I took from the RB when preparingfor a scenario with DCs. They do not save youthe time to read the rules proper but afterwardscan save playing time and avoid mistakes in theheat of battle when it comes to actually try andplace those things (something I always seem tofail to do, being KIAed, broken or pinned in theprocess sooner or later). Also remember I left outthe Thrown, vs AFV and Set DC rules here. I amjust aiming for the very basic DC usage for thetime being. If anybody finds any mistakes below,please point them out to me so I can correct thelist below. Hope this helps some guys out therestruggling with their first couple of scenarios.

30FP in AFPh, 15FP against Concealment noLeader modifiers, Defender TEM applies, CXplacing unit adds +1 to attack DR

User must be Elite, otherwise the captured SWX# penalty (A21.11) applies

Expend MF necessary to enter target hex to placeDC; move is considered to take place in hexoccupied by the placing unit, so defensive fire isPBF, not TPBFPlacement vs. AFV: PAATC is necessaryDC is operably placed if placing unit survives allDFF, SFF & FPF (i.e. does not break or get pinned)up to the time of the MF expenditure necessaryfor placement inclusive (any MC/PTC failedthereafter has no effect on the DC placement)

Original attack DR (in AFPh) = 12: malfunction,remove DC

Rubble Creation: Original attack DR = KIA: ifsubsequent dr (+1 drm for stone building) ≤ KIA#:rubbles level and all above (B24.11)Falling rubble (upper level buildings): new DR:coloored dr (+1 per rubbled level above groundlevel) ≥ 7: rubble falls in direction of white dr(chain reaction possible, B24.121)

Flame Creation: Original DR = KIA result on IFT(check Rubble Creation first, if rubble is created,flame is NA [B25.13]). NA if caused rubble): newDR + EC DRM ≥ Kindling # = Flame

Ω

Page 32: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

32 VIEW FROM

THE DANCE OF DEATHJ. R. Tracy

The purpose of the Dance of Death isto gain a favourable target facing on anotherwise-impervious opponent. The idea isto get the other guy to burn off his cover-arcchanges as you zip around his hapless pin-wheeling AFV. Tank Destroyers areparticularly vulnerable to this as they don’thave the option of pivoting a turret and sufferterrible VCA change DRMs. Blowing rightthrough his hex induces maximum CAchanges; for some reason a lot of ASLers arereluctant to do this, perhaps because theydon’t realise it’s legal.

For the DoD to work you need to startfairly close and have a pretty swift vehicle,preferably more than one. Gyro-stabilizedHVS Shermans are the ultimate DoD tool.

The key is to draw his fire withunfavourable modifiers, and hold your ownuntil you are guaranteed a side or rear shoton hull or turret, preferably both. It is not asure thing, and on a bad day might cost youa couple of tanks with nothing to show forit. It is also not recommended if the opposingvehicle has some support. But, when you pullit off, it is most glorious. In addition toremoving a key enemy piece, you havedazzled your opponent with your deftmanoeuvring and mastery of the game,thereby seizing the psychological highground.

The Dance of Death in actionThe following is an example from a

recent game of ‘Acts of Defiance’ when Ihad the Russians. I have only shown the unitsinvolved; the German actions look like this.Z5 (CA AA5/AA6) BU JagdPanzer IV/70CC4 (CA CC4/DD4 T44 w/malf MADD8 (CA CC8/DD7) T44V8 (CA V7/W8) T44

DD8 T44: goes CE, moves CC8, BB7,AA7, Stops.

TD changes VCA one hexsideand fires BMG at CE crew, NE.

W8 T44: Start, go CE, W8, X7, X6/Bypass Y7, Stop.

TD turns again, fires MA,misses (+4 VCA change, +2 Movingtarget, +1 BU, -1 PB: +6 TH DRM,needed a four).

Start, Y6, Z5, AA5 (TCA Z6), StopTD turns counter-clockwise two

hexsides, Intensive Fires, misses,

marked w/No Fire (+4 VCA change,+2 Moving target, +1 BU, +2 IF, -2 PB, -1 Acq: +6 TH DRM, needed afour).

Start, turn VCA two hexsides counter-clockwise, ESBs for two MP - successful,Z5, Y6 (TCA AA6), Stop, Fire

Being a clever sleaze artist and knownmaximiser of idiosyncratic Special Ammorules, I chose APCR (depletion of 6) - rolledseven, no APCR! Agh! (+4 BFF, +1 targetsize, -2 PB: +3, needed a 7).

AP, roll a 10, miss, cannot IF as I donot have any MPs remaining.

Now this story should have had ahappy ending, if I had just used AP on thefirst attempt; I didn’t need the APCR since Ihad a butt shot, but figured the extra rolloffered by the special ammo increased mychances for a hit. Ah well, got too clever byhalf and it bit me in the ass. Fortunately Godis a Bolshie, so my 9-1and a 458 were ableto slip up to the TD and kill it via StreetFighting in the ensuing CCPh. So there isjustice after all.

Try the DoD sometime when theopportunity presents itself.

Ω

Page 33: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

33THE TRENCHES

ACHTUNG MINEN!In any scenario in which you get AT

mines, the question is should you place themall together or spread out?

Let’s look at some numbers based onattacking minefields. There is a 16.7%chance that a 1 factor minefield will attackyou on entry (either immobilising or killingyou; B28.52). There is a 30.6% chance itwill get you when you run through (enterand exit) the location, as there is a 5/6 chanceit won’t get you when entering and a 5/6 itwon’t get you when exiting.

AT factors % KIA/orper location Immob. achieved1 30.6%2 55.6%3 75.0%4 88.9%5 97.2%

Now if you run through more than one1 factor mine locations:

2 level 1 factor locations: 51.7%3 level 1 factor locations: 66.5%4 level 1 factor locations: 76.7%5 level 1 factor locations: 83.8% chance thatyou will be immobilised/KIA.

That means that four attacks from 1factor AT mines (2 locations entered andexited) are slightly inferior to entering andexiting a 2 factor AT minefield location. Youlose more to higher level locations, e.g.entering/exiting five 1 factor AT Locations

has a 83.8 % chance to bag a tank, while a 5factor hex gets you 97.2 % of the time.

The problem with minefields is thatonce your opponent rolls, you know you arein a minefield, thus you will tend not enteragain. If your opponent rolls high you donot know about the strength.

My advice would be to put out 1 ATmine fields, both in this scenario and ingeneral. Most players, when they drive intoa minefield, tend to avoid it in the future andnot try to rush through it, and would not doso even if they knew it was 1 mine factor.The 30% chance is usually just too great.

In a scenario with the bottlenecks it isof course great to make bigger AT mine hexesto get the first vehicle that enter, otherwise,laying out 1 factor minefields will make theopponent very nervous, as you check moreoften.

Also, if possible, try putting 2minefields close together, the second locatedin the most likely “detour” hex. And ofcourse, the minefields are best in hexes wheredetours are a pain, or where the presence ofa burning wreck screws up further enemymoves. Best of all is an AT mine in a hexthat that the enemy wants/needs to bypass.

Something some players forget aboutminefields and fully tracked vehicles is thatif a fully tracked vehicle stumbles into a

minefield, it places a trailbreak, and can exitthe minefield using that trailbreak withouttriggering another minefield attack. Thislessens the 30% chance of a result to roughly16% for a 1 AT factor minefield.

Don’t forget Daisy Chains. There isprobably no good place to use them in “ABreezeless Day”, but they can be usedeffectively in other scenarios. For example,HIP defenders in areas with paved road/woods hexes effectively gives you HIP ATmines on a paved road.

Finally, don’t forget that, like allobstacles, minefields are most effective if youcan cover them (or the detours) with fire.

Ω

Page 34: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

34 VIEW FROM

THIS IS THECALL TO ARMS!

Graham Forster, 1 Dalston Drive, Bramhill, Stockport, Manchester, SK71DWIan Daglish, 5 Swiss Hill Mews, Alderley Edge, Cheshire, SK9 7DPPeter Bennet, 84 Littlebrook Avenue, Burnham, Bucks., SL2 2NNDominic McGrath, 59 Upper Village Road, Sunninghill, Berks., SL5 7AJSteve Crowley, 58 Portlock Road, Maidenhead, Berks., SL6 6DZRobert Hartwell, 40 Brambledown Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 0TFAdrian Catchpole, The Malting Barn, Top Lane, Whitley, Melksham, Wilts.,SN12 8QJJon Williams, 17 Larch Road, Colerne, Chippenham, Wilts., SN14 8QGBill Gunning, 14 Eagles, Faringdon, Oxon, SN7 7DTChris Riches, 3 Bernwood Grove, Blackfield, Southampton, Hants., SO451ZWJohn Fletcher, 191 Trent Valley Road, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, ST45LEHugh Kernohan, 6 Parklands Road, London, SW16 6TDJulian Blakeney-Edwards, 1 Elmbourne Road, London, SW17 8JSLee Brimmicombe-Wood, 57 Arnal Crescent, Southfields, SW18 5PXChristopher Chen, Flat 11, 14 Sloane Gardens, London, SW1W 8DLJonathan Pickles, 115 Wavertree Road, Streathem Hill, London, SW2 3SNJean-Denis Martin, 33 Rothesay Avenue, London, SW20 8JUJonathan Wollen, 2 Inglethorpe Street, London, SW6 6NTDavid Otway, Department of Chemistry, Imperial College, SouthKensington, London, SW7 2AYChris Courtiour, 17b Hargwyne Street, London, SW9 9RQPaul Case, 4 Ponsford Road, Minehead, Somerset, TA24 5DXCarl Bedson, 5 Allerton Meadow, Shawbirch, Telford, Salop, TF5 0NWNick Law, Flat 4, 12 Boyne Park, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN4 8ET Flerg, 38 Park Avenue, Hounslow, London, TW3 2LXIvor Gardiner, 27 Taylor Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4EBSimon Morris, c/o 6 Milton Road, Ickenham, Middx., UB10 8NQPhil Nobo, 6 Milton Road, Ickenham, Middx., UB10 8NQBob Nugent, 49 Thornhill Road, Ickenham, Middx., UB10 8SONick Quinn, 21 Roxwell Road, Shepherd’s Bush, London, W12 9QEDave Booth, 47 Dunnock Grove, Oakwood, Warrington, Cheshire, WA36NWMike Kerfoot, Rugby Tavern, Rugby Street, London, WC1Robin Langston, 105 Little Bushey Lane, Bushey, Herts., WD2Andy Ralls, 11 Edridge Close, Bushey, Watford, Bucks., WD2 3PFPaul Ryde-Weller, 44 Farm Way, Watford, Herts., WD2 3SYSandy Goh, 12 Mornington Road, Radlett, Herts., WD7 7BLMichael Murray, 34 Bell Road, Walsall, West Mids., WS5 3JWIan Price, 19 Upper Green, Yettenhall, Wolverhampton, W. Mids., WV68QNWayne Baumber, 22 White Rose Close, Linton On Ouse, York, Yorkshire,YO6 2TR

SCOTLANDJohan Flatseth, Kelvin Lodge, 8 Park Circus, GlasgowIan Percy, 1 Polmuir Road, Aberdeen, AB11 7SPSteven Trease, 2 Charlestown Circle, Cove, Aberdeen, AB12 3EYPaul Saunders, 59 Grampian Gardens, Arbroath, Angus, DD1 4AQGarry Ferguson, 30E Forrester Park Avenue, Edinburgh, EH12 9AWMark Chapman, 6 Quarry Foot Green, Bonnrigg, Midlothian, EH19 2EJNeil Stevens, 14 Riverside Road, Craigiehall, South Queensferry, Lothian,EH30 9TPRichard Kirby, 20 Dawson Avenue, Howden, Livingston, Lothian, EH546AJBill Finlayson, 19 Taymouth Road, Polmont, Falkirk, Stirlingshire, FK2 0PFAndrew Kassian, Flat 14/2, 20 Petershill Court, Glasgow, G21 4QAEllis Simpson, 4 Langtree Avenue, Whitecraigs, Glasgow, G46 7LWOliver Gray, 117 Upper Dalgairn, Cupar, Fife, KY15 4JQJonathan Swilliamson, Da Croft, Bridge End, Burra, Shetland Islands, ZE29LE

WALESKev Sutton, 1 Gorphwysfa, Windsor Road, New Broughton, Wrexham, LL116SPC. Jones, Deer Park Lodge, Stepaside, Narbeth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8JL

If there are any mistakes, please let meknow so I can correct them for the nextedition.

Ω

Steve Balcam, 1 Cornwall Street, Cottingham, N. Humberside, HU16 4NBMichael Rudd, 52 Woodbine Road, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon TyneRuarigh Dale, 13 Swinemoor Lane, Beverley, Humberside, HU17 0JUTony Maryou, 41 Benton Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 4AUNeil Clark, EAATM, Badingham, Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP13 8LAPaul Legg, 21 Grimsey Road, Leiston, Suffolk, IP16 4BWLee Bray, Flat 4, 13 Kingston Hill, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT27PWAndy Smith, 31 Egerton Road, New Malden, Surrey, KT3 4APBen Jones, 72 Church Road, Hale, Liverpool, Merseyside, L24 4BAAndy Ashton, 62 Earlston Drive, Wallasey, The Wirral, Merseyside, L455DZGareth Evans, 29 Hillfield Road, Little Sutton, South Wirral, Merseyside,L66 1JAPatrick Dale, 28 Bancroft Road, Cottingham, Market Harbourgh, Leics.,LE16 8XANick Brown, 53 Henley Crescent, Braunstone, Leicester, Leics., LE3 2SAPete Phillipps, 49 Lombardy Rise, Leicester, Leics., LE5 0FQChris Tomlin, 19 Moorgate, Lancaster, Lancs., LN1 3QFKarl Bown, The Games Store, The Manor House, Lincoln, Lincs., LN6 9DGBob Groves, 56 Hall Orchards Avenue, Wetherby, W. Yorks, LS22 6SNJohn Elwen, Vine Cottage, Main Street, Walton, Nr. Wetherby, W. Yorks.,LS23 7DJJohn Truscott, 28 Bracken Edge, Leeds, W. Yorks, LS8 4EESantiago Lopez, TF 1.7 Owens Park, 293 Wimslow Road, Fallowfield,Manchester, M14 6HDJ. W. Overton, 12 Didsbury Park, Manchester, M20 5LJBernard Savage, 73 Penrhyn Avenue, Middleton, Manchester, M24 1FPSimon Sayers, 21 Barlea Avenue, New Moston, Manchester, M40 3WLBob Eburne, 33 Whitton Way, Newport Pagnell, Bucks., MK16 0PRPaul Layzell, 5 Sparsholt Close, Emerson Valley, Milton Keynes, Bucks.,MK4 2HJNorman Melvin, 11 Jerome Court, 59 The Limes Avenue, London, N11 1RFDr. Mike Batley, Doctors Mess, North Middlesex Hospital, Stirling Way,London, N18 1QXJamie Sewell, 115 Cresent Road, Alexandra Palace, London, N22 4RUMike J. Harker, 22e Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BHMartin Legg, 51 Beacon Glade, South Shields, Tyne & Wear, NE34 7PSGeoff Geddes, 30 Sheepwalk Lane, Ravenshead, Nottingham, Notts., NG159FDGeorge Jaycock, 51 Burleigh Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, Notts.,NG2 6FQChris Gower, 7 Boxley Drive, West Bridgford, Nottingham, Notts., NG27GQL. Othacehe, 17 Russel Drive, Wollaston, Notts., NG8 2BADuncan Spencer, 33 St Anthonys Road, Kettering, Northants, NN15 5HTA. Kendall, 12 Hunsbury Close, West Hunsbury, Northampton, NN4 9UEPeter Fraser, 66 Salcombe Gardens, Millhill, London, NW7 2NTNick Hughes, 15 Layfield Road, Hendon, London, NW9 3UHTony Hayes, 11 Upper Fisher Row, Oxford, Oxon, OX1 2EZDarren Clahanne, 40 Atwell Close, Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 0LJToby Pilling, 30 Alexandra Road, Botley, Oxford, Oxon, OX2 0DBWilliam Eaton, 42 Princes Street, Oxford, Oxon, OX4 1DDJohn Sharp, 3 Union Street, Oxford, Oxon, OX4 1JPAlan Anderson, Penmareve, Maddever Crescent, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL143PTPaul Rideout, 5 Fisher Close, Stubbington, Fareham, Hants., PO14 3RASimon Strevens, 14 Teddington Road, Southsea, Hampshire, PO4 8DBKeith Bristow, Flat 7, 41 Nightingale Road, Southsea, Portsmouth, Hants.,PO5 3JJJustin Key, Flat 7, 41 Nightingale Road, Southsea, Portsmouth, Hants., PO53JJTrevor Edwards, 18 Conway House, Samuel Street, Preston, Lancs., PR14YJSteven Thomas, 19 Derwent House, Samuel Street, Preston, Lancs., PR14YLMartin Vodden, 21 Cheshire Park, Warfield Green, Bracknell, Berks, RG126XAMichael Strefford, 3 Walton Way, Shaw, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 2LLRoger Cook, Toadhall, 1 Westmead Drive, Newbury, Berks., RG14 7DJPaul Sanderson, Flat 9, 24a Southcote Road, Reading, Berks., RG30 2ABKevin Croskery, 3 Crockham Close, Southgate West, Crawley, W. Sussex,RH11 8TPBill Hensby, 32 The Vineries, Burgess Hill, W. Sussex, RH15 0NFA. J. Barton, 194 Chanctonbury Road, Burgess Hill, W. Sussex, RH15 9HNKeith Graves, 51 Humbar Avenue, South Ockenden, Essex, RM15 5JLTom Burke, 96 Great Oak Road, Sheffield, S. Yorks, S17 4FRAndy Osborne, 42 Atlantis Close, Lee, London, SE12 8REMartin Edwards, 127 Pepys Road, London, SE14 5SEMichael Rhodes, 23 Ash Grove, Melbourn, Royston, Herts., SG8 6BJRoger Underwood, 34 Woodside Lane, Poynton, Cheshire, SK12 1BBAndrew Dando, 52 Redhouse Lane, Disley, Cheshire, SK12 2HPMartin Mayers, 38 Syddall Street, Hyde, Chesire, SK14 1JH

ENGLANDDavid Ramsey, 8 Kerr Close, Knebworth, Herts, Al7 1HEF. B. Dickens, 62 Yarnfield Road, Tyseley, Birmingham, W. Mids., B11 3PGSteve Grainger, 23 Winterton Road, Kingstanding, Birmingham, W. Mids.,B44 0UUGarry Cramp, 25 Ferndale Road, Hall Green, Brimingham, W. Mids, B928HPJeff Hawarden, 9 Laburnum Road, Helmshore, Rossendale, Lancs., BB4 4LFCraig Ambler, 2 Queensbury Square, Queensbury, Bradford, W. Yorks.,BD13 1PSWilliam Roberts, 1 Kiln Close, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 3URDavid Schofield, 11 Longfield Drive, West Parley, Ferndown, Dorset, BH228TYShaun Carter, 3 Arnside Grove, Breightmet, Bolton, Lancs., BL2 6PLCharles Markuss, 23 Melrose Road, Little Lever, Bolton, Lancs., BL3 1DXMike Standbridge, 31 Hunstanon Drive, Bury, Lancs., BL8 1EGIan Kenney, 53 Withdean Crescent, Brighton, W. Sussex, BN1 6WGAaron Sibley, 13 St Paul’s Close, Swanscombe, Dartford, KentAndy Tucker, 78 Constance Crescent, Hayes, Bromley, Kent, BR2 7QQNeil Piggot, 2 Beechmount Grove, Hengrove, Bristol, Avon, BS14 9DNNigel Ashcroft, 21 Morley Road, Southville, Bristol, Avon, BS3 1DTBrian Hooper, Basement flat, 125 Redland Road, Redland, Bristol, Avon,BS6 6XXRasmus Jensen, 17 Berkeley Road, Bishopston, Bristol, Avon, BS7 8HFChris Foulds, 35 Parkside (upstairs rear), Cambridge, Cambs., CB1 1JBGaute Strokkenes, Girton College, Cambridge, CB3 0JGPaul O’Donald, 13 Archway Court, Barton Road, Cambridge, Cambs., CB39LWAndrew Daglish, 7 The Spinney, Cheadle, CheshireJohn Kennedy, 2 Hawthorn Road, Hale, Altrincham, CheshireAlan Leigh, 190 Hurdsfield Road, Macclesfield, CheshireDerek Cox, 25 Cramphorn Walk, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2RDRobert Harris, 64 Wedgewood Drive, Church Langley, Harlow, Essex, CM179PYNick Ranson, 34 Mill Lane, Witham, Essex, CM8 1BPAlistair Fairbairn, 3 School Lane, Brantham, Manningtree, Essex, CO111QEMartin Johnson, 16 Wick Lane, Dovercourt, Harwich, Essex, CO12 3TADerek Tocher, 19 Tyrell Square, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 3SDDerek Briscoe, 129b Melfort Road, Thornton Heath, Croydon, Surrey, CR77RXJoe Arthur, 33 Cedar Close, St Peters, Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 3BUPeter Wenman, 12 Clementine Close, Belting, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 6SNAndy Back, 21 Elmwood Court, St Nicholas Street, Coventry, W. Mids.,CV1 4BSHubert Noar, 39 Rugby Road, Cifton, Rugby, Warks., CV23 0DETim Collier, 71 Kinross Road, Leamington Spa, Warks., CV32 7ENTony Wardlow, 6 Beech Tree Avenue, Coventry, W. Mids., CV4 9FGIain Mckay, 8 Southfields Close, Wybunbury, Cheshire, CW5 7SEIan Pollard, 8 Fiveash Road, North Fleet, Kent, DA11 0RECarl Sizmus, 53 Singlewell Road, Gravesend, Kent, DA11 7PUBill Durrant, 10 Coopers Close, South Darenth, Kent, DA4 9AHSean Pratt, 19 Premier Avenue, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1LHNeil Brunger, 72 Penhill Close, Ouston, Chester Le Street, Co. Durham,DH2 1SGM. W. Jones, 1 Cheviot View, Front St, Dipton, Stanley, Co. Durham, DH99DQPhilip Bohin, 2 Manor Road, Northorpe, Gainsborough, Lincs., DN21 4AAChris Bunyan, 89 Hallcroft Road, Retford, Notts., DN22 7PYRoy Quarton, 8 Bassey Road, Branton, Doncaster, S. Yorks., DN3 3NSDavid Farr, First Floor Flat, 259 High Road Leyton, Leyton, London, E105QEMichael Chantler, Flat 7, Pickwick House, 100-102 Goswell Road, London,EC1V 7DHAndrew Saunders, 22 Douglas Avenue, Layton, Blackpool, Lancs., FY3 7ALNigel Brown, 3 Chepstow Road, Blackpool, Lancs., FY3 7NNArthur Garlick, 23 St. Annes Road East, Lytham St. Annes, Lancs., FY81TAMichael Davies, 36 Heyhouses Court, Heyhouses Lane, Lytham St Annes,Lancs., FY8 3RFRussell Gough, 4 Berrells Road, Tetbury, GL8 8EDJeff Cansell, 24a Upper Queen Street, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1DQGiuilo Manganoni, 111 Kings Road, Godalming, Farncombe, Surrey, GU73EUTristam Maclean, 9 Carlyon Mansions, Carlyon Road, Alperton, Middx.Kevin Beard, 36 Oxford Road, Harrow, Middx., HA1 4JQSimon Croome, 1 Bowling Parade, Bridgewater Road, Wembley, Middx.,HA10 1AJJackie Eaves, 1 Bowling Parade, Ridgewater Road, Wembley, Middx., HA101AJLee Winterbone, 47 Locket Road, Wealdstone, Harrow, Middx., HA3 7NQChris Littlejohn, 214A Field End Road, Eastcote, Pinner, Middx., HA5 1RDBob Runnicles, 34 Albury Drive, Pinner, Middx., HA5 3REScott Greenman, 2 Oak Avenue, Killinghall, North Yorks., HG3 2RTPaul Kettlewell, 15 Willowherb, Watermead, Aylesbury, Bucks., HP19 3FHNick Edelsten, 22 Wey Lane, Chesham, Bucks., HP5 1JHGary Headland, 35 Grammar School Yard, Old Town, Hull, Humberside,HU1 1SEMalcolm Holland, 57 Westfield Rise, Barrow Lane, Hessle, Humberside,HU13 0NA

This is the latest edition of the UK ASL PlayersDirectory.

It is broken down by country. Within the country,players are listed according to the county they live in.

Page 35: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

35THE TRENCHES

ON THE CONVENTION TRAILThere are more and more ASL tournaments cropping up all over the world. In fact, it is possible to be involved in an ASL tournament at least once a month,often more, if you were so inclined (and had the financial means to live such a life - I wish!).If you plan on holding an ASL tournament, please let me know and I’ll include the details here, space permitting.If you contact anyone regarding these tournaments, please tell them that I sent you!

OCTOBEROKTOBERFEST ASLOK 1999

When: 5 - 10 October.Where: Radisson Inn, 7230 Engle Road, Middleburg Heights,

Ohio 44130. Telephone 440-243-4040. Room Rates are $79.00 for 1-4 occupants before September 12th. Be sure to mention “ASLOktoberfest” when reserving.

Fee: $20.00 before September 12th, $25.00 thereafter.Format: Same as always. Weekend Tournament plus numerous

Mini-Tournaments.Notes: Further details to be announced.Contact: Mark Nixon, 443 Richmond Park West, #201D,

Richmond Heights, OH 44143, or by telephone on (440) 473 1680.You can also email Rick Troha at [email protected] , or visit theASLOK Home Page at http://www .nwsup.com/aslok/ .

INTENSIVE FIRE ‘99When: 29 - 31 October.Where: The Kiwi Hotel, West Hill Road, Bournemouth, England,

BH2 5EG. Telephone (01202) 555 889 or fax (01202) 789 567.Fee: £5.00, free for members of The Crusaders, the UK ASL

association.Format: Two divisions of Fire Teams of three players compete

over three rounds on Saturday and Sunday. There may also be somesingle day mini-tournaments. Open gaming is available for those whodo not wish to take part in the tournament. Shaun Carter will be runninga number of playtest games of scenarios for possible inclusion in futureissues of VFTT or a possible Brit Pack scenario pack.

Notes: Prizes are awarded to winning Fire Team players and the Convention Champion, who isthe player judged to have had the most successful tournament with all games played over the weekendbeing taken into consideration.

Contact: David Schofield, 11 Longfield Drive, West Parley, Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 8TY.Phone (01202) 573 482 or email [email protected] .

NOVEMBERGRENADIER ‘99

When: 19 - 21 November. Play starts at 1000 hrs. on Friday and finishes at 1600 hrs. on Sunday.A Thursday start is on offer if enough players are interested.

The INTENSIVE FIRE 99 Tournament Scenario List

PRIORITY SCENARIO NAME SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Sat AM 1 IC112 Monty's Mess British vs. German; Boards 1, 23; HIP, OBA

2 NQNG4 Noble Craft of Warfare British vs. German; Boards 42, 43; Mines; British 'Funnies'

3 PB2 Howard's Men British vs. German; Board PB; Night

Sat PM 1 A110 Shanghai In Flames Chinese vs. Japanese; Boards 1, 20; Blazes, FortifiedLocations

2 TOT17 Last Stand At Wesen British vs. Hungarian; Boards 40, 42; Water Obstacles, OBA,TOT SSR

3 SoN2 Criniti's Escape Ethiopian vs. Italian; Boards 26, 30, 31, overlays H4, H6, H1,H2, H3, S8, D3; Desert; Cavalry; Tank Hunter Heroes

Sun AM 1 DeluxeA3 Back To School Russian vs. German; Boards b, d; FT; DC; Commandoes;Scaling

2 SP36 Desantniki Russian vs. German; Boards 17, 18; Riders

3 AP13 Shielding Moscow Russian vs. German; Board 46, overlays X16, X17;Factories; Steeples; MOL; Falling Snow, Ground Snow,Extreme Winter

Where: The “Jugendlandhaus” in Hergarten, near Zülpich in the Eifel (the German part of theArdennes), near the famous “Hürtgenwald” (near the location for ‘CH76 Hürtgen Hell’). The buildingwill be opened on Friday at 10:00 CET. The country house is rented for three days and provides 40beds, several showers and a kitchen. For playing we have two large rooms. We plan to provide Coffeeand rolls for Saturday and Sunday mornings breakfast.

Fee: DM 100.00 (US $55.00 / •50) for three nights accommodation, breakfast and entrance. ADM 40.00 deposit (US $25.00 / •20) is required (this will be returned if you cancel before October 1st.

Format: The tournament will be played in three rounds with victory points awarded for eachgame won. The opportunity to play campaigns or longer scenarios will be provided as well.

Contact: Christian Koppmeyer, Hagebuttenweg 9, 41564 Kaarst, Germany or by email [email protected] .

The maps for the forthcoming Critical Hit modules Genesis ’48 and Carnage At Cassino.

Page 36: VFTT26/27 (1804 Kb)

36 VIEW FROM

Heat Of Battle presents:Our first issue of

RECON48 PAGES OF PURE ASL!

This first issue of RECON will focus on the new HASL re-lease of BLOOD REEF: TARAWA (coming soon!) by the MMPguys.

Inside, you will find a fascinating article about how theBRT Campaign Game Victory Conditions weredesigned...and why the CVP Caps were set so deadly high!

Also included within these 48 pages of pure ASL is aTerrain Chart for your soon-to-be-blood-covered BRT HASLmap (art by Don Petros). This chart will increase yourTARAWA killing time exponentially!

Rich Summers and Rob Banozic have provided us withCROSSFIRE featuring the ASL scenario Blazin Chariots.This article alone will teach you more about Armor vs Ar-mor tactics than ten scenarios will!

Rob Seulowitz shares with us some interesting insightson how to prepare for an ASL tournament!

In addition to many interesting articles from some ofyour favorite ASL writers HOB has put together a set ofeight cool scenarios. To give you a great variety in thisinaugural issue of RECON, we have included scenarios designed by some of your favorite ASLgroups such as The Paddington Bears, the Bounding Fire boys, and, of course, Heat Of Battle.

These scenarios cover the full spectre of ASL with actions taking place with the Australiansvs. the Africa Corps in the desert, to the GIs attacking Italians in Italy, to the Russians steam-rolling through the German lines in the summer of 1944.

RECON magazine is by the ASL player, and for the ASL player.Send only $17.50 plus $2.50 S&H ($5.00 S&H if outside the US or Canada) to Heat of

Battle, PO BOX 15073, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA