| Prep Fire | Tim Hundsdorfer |
| Keep it Simple Stupid | Tim Hundsdorfer |
| Thor's Hammer | Terje Sparby |
| Snudl | Tim Hundsdorfer |
| Whither the Japanese | Jeff Shields |
| Check Out Time | Jeff Shields |
| Unless | Tim Hundsdorfer |
| Wanted Quality ASL Writing | Tom Repetti |
| Scenario Suggestions | Wild West Guys |
| Final Protective Fire | Tim Hundsdorfer |
Old business: The concensus seems to be "shut up and write". No more whining about whether the digest fits a niche or not, nor whether it's reaching the right people. The list grows by about three or four people per month, and this is generally the newer people who benefit most.
Jatkosota: Open mouth, insert foot. After getting pumped in the last issue over Jatkosota, CH's Finnish scenario pack, I'm going to backtrack. After playing a scenario: Forests of the North, I'm going to say that this scenario has a serious problem, and I hesitate to play the others. Unfortunately, this problem has put me off Jatkosota (no easy task, readers know what a Finnophile I am.) If you can't get enough Finn scenarios, check it out (buy Boulder Games or a discount outlet or you may feel taken). If winter rules don't appeal, this is no longer on my "must buy" list. From here on out, I'll play something before recommending it.
New Business: this issue is going to be a truly group effort. I talk about the simple issue of victory conditions, and meshing nicely with that, Terje Sparby contributes another in his fine series of Norway scenarios. In fact, we have two well-researched, historical scenarios: Jeff Shields adds his Check Out Time, a Hong Kong scenario. And, to go with that, some food for thought on Japanese weapon procurement and development during the war. Tom Repetti issues the call for more scenario analysis from the amateur producers and, of course, I rant.
I'm going to run a list of scenarios with my suggestions and the suggestions of five other regular joe ASL players. This is how their ranked, and you can see who's doing the ranking: gotta play (++), play (+), do not play (-), do not play even when very drunk (--). Send me your suggestions and we'll develop a list. This isn't about balance, it's about scenarios you want to play and those you don't. In this issue, the WWF Crue lays out there impressions, but submitt a list of your recent plays and you could be next issues guest reviewer.
So print this baby out (on recycled paper) and leave a copy in the john.
Basic Tactics: Maintaining objectives vs. Seizing opportunities
"Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing." Vince Lombardi
"Whining isn't everything...it's the only thing." Brian Youse
It's a fine line every squad leader must walk. At the start of a scenario, you lay out your general strategy. You've mapped out your opening moves, know exactly what you are trying to accomplish and have scripted your position for the end-game. Every squad leader knows that things will not work out according to plans, but even the most novice player has to recognize that a plan is necessary to meet the victory conditions.
But somewhere along the line, a 9-1 appears with a cx447, to rally that broken 527. A golden opportunity to inflict some CVP. Your 467 is poised to take a victory location, but that 9-1 is too juicy and you advance in for CC, miss the ambush, and only succeed in reducing the 447 (the 527 gets away.) The 237 will not be CX in the next CCPh, and he's roughly your equal (getting a 1:2 attack with a -1 leader mod vs. your 1:1.) Or worse, you could fail to get a result against the 447 at all.
You are now faced with reinforcing the melee in hopes of ending it quickly, or leaving a valuable unit tied up in melee.
Opportunity turns into a new tactical problem. In fact, you are now spending time trying to solve a puzzle which is not truly relevant to your goal: meeting the victory conditions. The game almost always hinges on these microcosms--the game within the game.
On the other hand, occasionally, missed opportunities can mean the difference between winning and losing. In the above example, consider: Your 467 forgoes the CC and presses on to take the victory location, the 527 rallies in the next CCPh. The CVP from the 527 would have helped provide you the margin you needed to win--and although CVP did not figure into your original plan of how to win the scenario, during the course of the scenario the CVP figure moved up to become very attainable.
Are players really this myopic? I've done this myself, and I'm sure other players have as well. There is a fine line between distinguishing opportunity which you did not expect to arise and getting sidetracked from your original plan.
There are a number of maxims which I could quote, many of which are mutually contradictory, but in game terms, you want to follow a few rules of thumb:
The most crucial thing to remember is that ASL is a GAME, not a battle. You have a set of victory conditions which you are trying to meet. While crushing your enemy may be gratifying--indeed, it may be the victory condition--it doesn't necessarily win you the scenario. In fact, many times you will finish a scenario with a narrow win, after having taken a sound beating.
Opportunity or Goal? You'll continually be called on to decide between the two. A good squad leader seizes opportunities, but does not forget his goals.
AASTA, NORWAY, 21 April 1940: The Germans where advancing quickly north in eastern Norway, while the Norwegians where fighting a retreat, ambushing the German advance many times. When the Germans reached AAsta in April 20, they encountered heavy fire from the woods behind a river. This was going to be the longest battle fought in Oesterdalen, lasting 18 hours. The Germans withdrew from the ambush and reorganized to attack during the night, but the attack was repulsed by the Norwegian snipers hiding in the woods. In the morning both the Germans received Artillery support, and the lines where bombed all morning. In the afternoon the Germans where ready to cut through the tired Norwegian defense.
Board Configuration:
------------- | | | ^ | | | N | | | | | | | | | |____5|____7|
Victory Conditions:
Before Norwegian set-up, the German player records a choice of the
following victory conditions:
Balance:
German Norwegian OBA is 100MM, Normal Ammo
Norwegian Exchange 9-2 for an 8-1
Norwegians Sets Up First. Germans Moves First. Turns: 8.5
NORWEGIAN OB
Elements of Norwegian Battalion Sandvik I/IR5 and Kp Sandgerg [ELR 3]
Set up North of stream overlay {SAN 4}:
10x457, MMG, 2xLMG, 9-2, 7-0, Radio
Set up on hill 5P1 (see SSR):
French 81mm mortar w/crew, 457, HMG, 8-1 w/skis, 1S Foxhole x2
Set up in overlay building 5AA7 (overlay X13):
2x237, LMG,6+1
GERMAN OB:
Elements of German Battalion III/IR 340 [ELR 4]{SAN 2} Set up south of river:
10x468, 2x237, HMG, 2xMMG, 2xLMG, Radio, 9-2, 8-1, 8-0, 7-0
SSR
Aftermath: The Germans suffered heavily under the Norwegian snipers. The snipers wounded a leader who was returning to the artillery with information about the Norwegians positions. He made it to the artillery and eventually the Germans broke through the Norwegian position at the east bridge. They approached the farm in a gully, and outgunned and outnumbered the Norwegian reserves. At this time the Germans also broke through the west bridge and took position at the hill behind, in good range to the farm. The Norwegians retreated and found new positions a few kilometers north.
Snudl awoke with a snort. This time, he smelled a pillow. As his eyes focussed, he saw the tank destroyer's stripe pinned to the pillow. He ached in various places, but rolled over to get a good look at the divisional hospital. Next to his bed, Werner was sleeping, still with his helmet on and his rifle in his arms.
Snudl was amazed that German cleanliness and effeciency stretched all the way across Russia, the hospital was clean and the linens were fresh.
The surgeon had noticed that Snudl had awoken and came over.
"So, Herr Snudl, you are back with us and ready to give up your bed to someone who really needs it, eh?"
"Ach, so I'm not hurt badly?"
"Not badly enough to go home, I'm afraid," said the surgeon, grasping the gist of Snudl's question immediately. (Indeed it was a question he answered several dozen times a day). "You'll have to clear out within the hour."
"Uhhh." Snudl managed. By now, Werner was awake, rubbing his eyes. "Why did you get time off? You slacker."
"The Feldwebel said I was to bring you back right away. We are going directly to B company to join the attack on the train station. Jump off is tomorrow morning and we have about five miles to walk."
"First lesson I taught you, and you forget it already," Snudl said. "You don't walk anywhere."
Wars often see significant advances in weapons and tactics. World War II saw major achievements in tank design, atomic weapons, and rocketry to name a few. One of the neat things about ASL is its attempt to catch different national characteristics at the tactical level. The obvious comparisons can be made between the Germans with their outstanding leadership and high-powered SWs versus the Russians with hordes of manpower and little else. Early versus late war scenarios show significant differences in how forces are armed, led, and how they respond under fire.
Primary developments in tactics flowed from organizational changes in the basic unit, the division. Each country experimented with manpower, the number of brigades or regiments in the division, coordination between units, mobility, and organic vs. unattached artillery and other special units, especially AFV support. The Germans perfected the ultimate coordination between different branches of their military and thus perfected the Blitzkrieg. Many of us forget, however, that by 1943, the blitzkrieg was being used against the Germans. While not the first to develop defensive measures to stop the blitz, the Germans developed tactics that were very effective at countering the effects of the blitzkrieg.
Books have been written that highlight tactical developments in military history. Note that ASL often catches the essence of these developments using special rules or abilities. Examples include the plentiful use of OBA by the Americans, the defensive techniques of the Japanese, and the plethora of special AFVs developed by both the British and the Germans. Indeed the game even accounts for differences between early war and late war developments in the weaponry of the squads of several countries (German 468 vs 548), and of course, developmental changes in the AFV. In short, most combatants saw signficant changes in their weapons, tactics and doctrine throughout the war, most, that is except for the Japanese.
By 1941 the Japanese were at the height of their game. They had been at war for 5-6 years, and had conquered vast tracts of China, and eventually SE Asia. Their tactics called for bayonet charges against poorly trained troops, and the infiltration of enemy lines to surround and annihilate positions. Tanks were used to attack strongpoints or for short armored thrusts.
The 1941 Japanese division was comparable to a British division of the same period. Japanese tanks were roughly equivalent to any of the early war tanks, and their artillery and guns were surely equal to their counterparts. The Japanese division did, however, have fewer artillery pieces than their opponents, but they made up for the deficiency with mortars.
Other weapons were superior to their Western counterparts. Japanese torpedos were certainly the best in the war, and coupled with the navy's night fighting ability, it's not surprising that the US and Britain lost so many warships to the Japanese. Too, the Zero was a remarkable technical achievement early in the war, but it saw little development thereafter.
Curiously, after 1941 Japan did not pursue major changes in weapon, weapon systems, tactics, or, for the most part, doctrine. No new tanks were designed. Aircraft and ships saw few design changes. Until 1944 Japanese infantry tactics remained the same. They used coordinated attacks to develop a position, banzai charges to reduce or eliminate defensive lines, and infiltration to reduce strong points or cut off retreats.
On the defence the banzai charge was overemployed and resulted in many, many Japanese casualties. In 1944, especially at Peleliu, and Okinawa, the Japanese replaced the banzai charge with a determined defensive doctrine to make their opponents fight for every inch of ground. Curiously, during the course of the war the minor countries like Finland, Hungary, and Rumania showed more apparent improvements in their art of war than did Japan. One can only speculate that after 1941 Japan lacked the resources or the necessary foresight for advancing their tools of war, or that the AFV and aerial superiority werefar more important in driving technical developments between warring countries.
While the nature of the war was different between theaters, it's interesting to compare briefly the Japanese with the Germans. The Germans made refinements or new developments in virtually every weapon system throughout the war. Their LATW, the Panzerschreck, while designed after a captured bazooka, was significantly better than the American design. Indeed the Panzerfaust can arguably be considered as one of the most influential developments driving tank design even today; lightweight, disposable, deadly to all but the most heavily armored tanks. No doubt the need for anti-tank weapons drove much of the development in the European theatre, nonetheless, there were also improvements in German tactics, aircraft, uboat design and tactics, to name a few.
This occasionally backfired as the Germans produced many different AFV designs and thus made it difficult at times to supply their critical Panzer divisions with adequate parts and tanks.
So why, at the height of their power, did the Japanese military-industrial complex not advance the nation's art of war? Definitely some food for thought.
ED: Jeff wanted me to add some thoughts on Japanese weapon development:
Remember, the Japanese realized they were not prepared for war in 1941--the very reason they attempted a crippling blow at Pearl Harbor followed by a quick grab against Western possessions in the eastern Pacific.
They were also imitators, not innovators. The Japanese improved on adopted Western designs, and the War ended this option.
The neo-Bushido code also held the man over the tool--meaning that costly (in both time and resources) retooling of factories for upgrades was held as unnecessary. Production in Japan never reached levels where large-scale changes were possible.
Finally, Japan was the only power run ostensibly by the military. Japanese manufacturers found it was more than their life was worth to propose major changes in such a structured political climate. Even in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the military needs were assessed by civilians, or by civilians in cooperation with military personel.
Great read, Jeff! It is indeed, food for thought.
Repulse Bay, Hong Kong, December 21, 1941: The battle for Hong Kong was short but intense. The allied troops were a motley force of Indians, British, Canadians, and the local Chinese. The hodge podge of units were expected to hold off the Japanese 38th Division for several months, but with the quick fall of the Gin Drinker's Line, the island's fate was sealed. As the Japanese army assaulted the island, battles erupted in every outbuilding and hill. The hotel at Repulse Bay saw intense fighting as the Japanese strove to split the island's forces in two.
Aftermath: For three days the Allied forces kept the Japanese at bay. Near the end of the battle the defenders were rolling hand grenades down the halls of the hotel to wipe out a pesky machinegun position. With their position tenuous, the soldiers were ordered to withdraw, and leave the hapless civilians to their fate.
Victory Conditions The Japanese player wins by controlling buildings 6M5 and 6J8.
Mapboards
+---+---+ |39 |6 | <-N | | | | | | | | | +---+---+British setup first. Japanese move first. The game is 8 turns long.
British OB Mixed elements of 5/7 Rajput Rifles, Royal Canadian Rifles, and Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps [ELR: 3] set up on board 6: {SAN 4}
4x457, 4x447, 4x436, 9-1, 8-1, 8-0, 7-0, 2xLMG, MMG, 50* MRT, 8x"?"
Element of the Armored Recce Platoon, Hong Kong Defense Corp. enter west edge of board 6 on Turn 2:
Carrier A
Elements of the British Middlesex Regiment enter west edge of board 6 on Turn 4:
2x457, 9-2, LMG, MMG, 2x 15-cwt Truck
Japanese OB Elements of the 228th Regiment, 38th Division [ELR: 3] set up on board 39 east of hexrow P in any hex number > 2 {SAN: 4}
14x447, 2x228, 9-1, 9-0, 8-1, 8-0, 2xLMG, MMG, DC, 2x50* MRT, 70* MRT
SSR:
What is the recycled content of the counters, mapboards and hoardes of paper ASL'ers routinely buy. Why don't we know what it is?
I firmly believe that 100% recycled content is a very attainable goal. Recycled paper today is of equivalent quality and value as paper carved from U.S. forests--and cardboard (our stock and trade) is particularly conducive to the use of recycled fibers.
I applaud Critical Hit for supplying old SL counters for mounting Jatkosota counters, but what about all the printing done for this hobby?
Loggers have set their sights on Colorado's last old-growth forests, and it's time to say "no". I don't want to see them go, my daughter never having had a chance to see them, in order to engage in a hobby.
I won't buy further ASL amatuer or professional products unless: 1) They contain at least 50% recycled fibers (with 100% as a goal). 2) They are clearly marked as such.
I strongly encourage other ASL players to join me. If people think this is too political--tough, send me a note and I'll gladly drop you from the list. This is such a moderate, basic and simple issue that there shouldn't be any problem asking publishers to use recycled content (or soy-oil ink, for that matter).
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot... It's not going to get better, it's not."
There's lots of ASL products out there on the market. These are not the Dark Days of ASL that we had a few years ago; there's something out there for everybody to long for and drool over. Which would seem to be a Good Thing. And yet, in a way, we're seeing a kind of dilution of the ASL Experience because people are not buying and playing the same stuff.
Not that this is the Death of ASL As We Know It, nor am I pointing the finger at CH in particular. I like their products just fine, I wish them well, etc etc etc.
But it occurs to me that from a purely business standpoint, it behooves the makers of ASL stuff to support their products with AAR's and scenario-specific tactics articles which get the word-of-mouth going and force us to beg our wives for permission to buy their stuff.
Case in point - I'd love to read more about CH's Leatherneck Pack of Marine scenarios. I'm predisposed to buy it but I'm holding off, waiting to be pushed over the cliff by some kind of positive review or more in-depth information coming over the net. But I'm still waiting, and with each passing day it gets easier to back away from the purchase. Same goes for CH's Cemetary Hill Platoon Leader campaign - I wanted to hear more about it (besides "it's cool") and would still be holding off if I hadn't had a chance to look at a friend's copy. Having seen the coolness first hand, now I'm hooked and I'm thinking of ways of sneaking the purchase past the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Who'da thunk that there could be a problem with having too much quality ASL stuff out there? But there it is, IMO. With so much ASL stuff to play, who has time to become an expert in any one scenario or campaign game? Who wants to do more than just knock off an AAR now and then? And how many AAR's really give you insight into the scenario?
I wish we could see more in-depth quality articles on scenario-specific
tactics
Again, no rocks directed at CH in particular. The proliferation of ASL
material in recent years has come from a variety of sources. My point is
that from a business sense, and from an ASL Brotherhood sense as well,
it would seem worthwhile to do more for new products than just announce
their releases. For the ASL producers, this means supporting those
products with good and detailed information on their web sites. For the
rest of us slugs on the net, this means taking time to write about
scenarios and campaign games in more depth than "this sucks" or "this
roolz". If you want to hear other people's opinions on things, set the
tone by contributing your own.
Before you pick out a scenario, check it against our list of cherries
and dogs:
We may be hitting our stride. We're starting to get lots of
submissions, perhaps enough to go bi-monthly (that's bi-monthly, not bi,
monthly). They are improved quality articles, too.
In the next issue: I hope to have a copy of an excellent article on
Denmark's brief fight from Magnus Hindsberger (an excellent moniker,
i'faith). Also, Nadir will fight back to contend that the Parker's
Crossroads product isn't just another Bulge product.
Copyright is retained by original author. Contact the author
before making any use of any articles in the Digest.
Tim Hundsdorfer
Scenario Gourmets
These are the opinions of the Wild West guys. Next month, we're looking
for guest opinions, so send me in your latest scenarios (within the last
month) and if picked, you'll win a fabulous prize.
++ ya gotta play it
+ play it
- don't play it
-- don't play it, even under the influence
Reviewer: (MS) Matt Shostak, (TH) Tim Hundsdorfer, (TEDMS) Marty Snow,
(TW) Tim Wilson, (DC) Dade Cariaga, (TR) Tom Repetti
Scenario Rating Judge
Abandon Ship + (TEDMS)
- (TW, TR)
Acts of Defiance ++ (MS, DC)
Alligator Creek -- (TEDMS)
Ambush! - (MS)
The Army at the End of the World + (MS)
Beyond the Pakfronts + (MS)
Black Friday + (MS,TH)
Blocking Action at Lipki ++ (MS, TW, DC)
Boom Town -- (DC)
The Bridge at Cheneaux + (TW)
Carnage in the Night ++ (TW)
Chance d'une Affaire + (MS, DC)
++ (TH)
Cibik's Ridge ++ (TR)
To Clear a Roadblock + (MS)
The Corridor + (MS)
Crossing the Gnoli Tikish ++ (TW, DC)
Cushman's Pocket + (DC)
Cutting out a Strongpoint ++ (TW)
Dangerous Crossroads + (TW)
Double or Nothing! + (MS)
- (TW)
Dorsett Wood in the Rain - (TH)
+ (TW, TR)
Drive for Tzierchung + (DC)
Eye of the Tiger ++ (TW, TR)
Faugh A'Ballagh - (TW)
+ (TR)
Franzen's Roadblock + (TH)
Forests of the North -- (TH)
High Danger -- (MS)
In Front of the Storm + (MS, TW)
++ (DC)
The Long Road + (MS)
- (DC)
Mayhem in Manila + (DC)
Nel Nome Di Roma + (MS)
++ (TH, TW)
Ninety Minute War + (MS,DC)
The Noose ++ (DC)
Operation Nordwind + (TW)
On Silent Wings - (DC)
A Parting Blow -- (TW)
Peiper's Last Gasp + (TH)
Pyrrhic Victory + (TW)
The Red Wave ++ (DC)
Road to Gora ++ (TH, TEDMS)
+ (DC)
Rockets Red Glare + (TR)
Scouts Out - (TW, DC, TR)
Sea of Tranquility + (DC)
Smith and Weston ++ (DC)
+ (TR)
Shanghai in Flams + (TW, DC)
Smoke the Kents + (DC)
Soldiers of Construction + (MS)
Stand and Die ++ (TEDMS)
+ (DC)
Steel Eyed Boys - (TW)
Surrender or Die - (MS)
They're Coming - (TW)
Victoria Cross + (MS)
Will to Fight...Eradicated + (MS)
Wintergewitter ++ (MS, TH)
Witch's Cauldron + (TEDMS)
Final Protective Fire:
University of Colorado at Denver
hundsdor@colorado.edu
(303) 556-4061