Xanther, you don't remember SL well enough to be commenting on it. Sett, please take Xanther's comments with a grain of salt, he's (unintentionally) muddying the waters.

It doesn't help that Settembrini is being contrary. If you have a point, Herr S., why don't you, like, MAKE IT?

What is a great squad-level game according to you, or do I hear you say all squad-level games are shit?

No, no, I´m not contrary.

But as my question after the purpose, or mission statement, of ASL wasn´t answered, I was uttering some of my questions, which I know stem only from lack of knowledge.

The squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

And as many people really love ASL, I´m sure I´m missing something. And as I don´t know what I´m missing, I can´t verbalize it.

Do you play tournaments?
Campaigns?
Published campaigns?
Self made ones?
GM or no GM?
Wouldn´t "realism" YELL for double blind play?
Is there a community?
Can you tell your tall stories from Scenario XY and everybody will relate to it?

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I´m not contrary.

But as my question after the purpose, or mission statement, of ASL wasn´t answered, I was uttering some of my questions, which I know stem only from lack of knowledge.

The squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

Tactical warfare.  Some folks, myself among them, enjoy the chaos and up front and personal nature of tactical gaming.  While SL/ASL do not recreate the actual fog-of-war from the battlefield, the system has tons of chaos and a bit of hidden placement/concealment that gives you some of that.  Winning in spite of all the random things that can go wrong makes for a great story.

Quote from: SettembriniDo you play tournaments?

You can, yes.  There are several national tournaments in the US, and quite a few in Europe.

Quote from: SettembriniCampaigns?

Yes.  There are modules for that purpose.

Quote from: SettembriniPublished campaigns?

Yes.  See above.

Quote from: SettembriniSelf made ones?

Yes.

Quote from: SettembriniGM or no GM?

None, but people do have their own double-blind systems that use GMs.  GMs are also used at tournaments for rules adjudication.

Quote from: SettembriniWouldn´t "realism" YELL for double blind play?

Yes, but the system's not about "realism."  It's about offering a complex set of choices.

Quote from: SettembriniIs there a community?

Yes, a very large, vocal and dedicated one.

Quote from: SettembriniCan you tell your tall stories from Scenario XY and everybody will relate to it?

Yes.

Quote from: XantherTobruk, the naval combat and base of operation Pacific theater game?  Man I'd forgotten about that one, a great game.

Errr...no.  Tobruk.  North Africa.  Nowhere near the Pacific.

MG-Btl 8 for the win!

Quote from: SettembriniWhat is the purpose of the game itself?
Why should I go to the lengths of ASL-Rulopedantry?
What do I get in return?

I'll try to start fresh.

The original game is tactical scenarios focusing on infantry combat; the main actors are squads and leaders; everything else (machine guns, tanks, etc.) is supplementary, though of course MGs are damn important. The main hooks of the game are, first, the morale & leadership system, and second, the interactive sequence of play (something that's often overlooked). While some other games have "pinned" or "disrupted" results for fire combat, SL elaborates on the concept by making it (generally) quite hard to kill a unit outright. Instead an effective attack (bera in mind this is tactical, therefore ranged, combat) is usually going to cause a "morale check" on the target. Different units (mainly a function of nationality and elite status) have different morale values, so some will break more easily than others. Breaking causes a unit to seek cover (if it isn't already in it) and to sit there, cowering, until a leader rallies it. Leaders are also rated for personal morale (they can break under fire, too), as well as leadership value. The latter gives them a bonus for rallying units; leaders can also improve the performance of units they're stacked with, though at some risk since if a leader breaks, the morale effect on stacked units is severe. Between basic fire values, morale, and the availability of (good) leaders, the tactical quality of German, Russian, and American armies is represented vividly, if somewhat "impressionistically". So the Russians are hordes with limited resilience due to a small number of leaders; Germans generally have good flexibility; Americans tend to wither away in the face of fire, but they have good leadership, excellent firepower themselves, and due to a special rule they also tend to rally more quickly.

Beyond that, the presence of various levels of crunchiness (from SL through the gamettes, and then on to ASL) in terms of representing terrain, hardware, types of troops, tactical options--such as snipers, land mines, calling in artillery, etc.--simply provides a very colorful experience. Heck, IIRC there's a Cross of Iron scenario featuring partisans, cavalry, and paratroopers!

Where I stepped off was around the third gamette; I'd already only been able to play the first two gamettes solitaire, and GI: Anvil of Victory reached the point where the rules were both overly complex and somewhat incoherent due to the introduction of concepts that overlapped or clashed with earlier design elements.

ASL basically takes the whole thing and re-engineers it from a clean sheet; however the cost is that you don't get a simple, basic (and reasonably priced!) game to start from. In my very biased opinion, the purpose of the game is to meld the basic SL engine, which in itself yields very dynamic play, with the historical miniaturist-cum-hardware-fetishist fascination with detail--so you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t). And also you simply get a huge variety of "stuff" to play with, so on the off chance you tire of scenarios based on the invasion of Belgium, you can play out an ambush in Yugoslavia, and it'll feel different because not only are Belgian troops different from Yugoslav partisans, there are even different counters for top-notch and lower-quality German infantry.

Quote from: SettembriniThe squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

No, but that's just it, at least for me who a) is coming to SL as a roleplayer, b) hasn't yet received his ebay copy so doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but still--yes, it does sound RPG-y. There's even a BGG thread on "Wargames with RPG elements," and SL is right up there. But that's a good thing!

I was going to start a thread about hybrid RPGs/wargames. What's the diff, really, between SL on one hand and a game like Behind Enemy Lines (by Keith) on the other? As soon as you have named counters you start caring for them.

The appeal to me is how an RPG-like adventure emerges from tactical play and randomness.

I'm sure that was part of the appeal of all those fantasy wargames as well. In Divine Right you get to be both Tolkien and Napoleon (if I may indulge in a little hyperbole ).

I don't think that makes these games either bad wargames or bad RPGs. They are their own thing.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenso you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t).

You say that as though it's a bad thing! :haw:

QuoteASL basically takes the whole thing and re-engineers it from a clean sheet; however the cost is that you don't get a simple, basic (and reasonably priced!) game to start from. In my very biased opinion, the purpose of the game is to meld the basic SL engine, which in itself yields very dynamic play, with the historical miniaturist-cum-hardware-fetishist fascination with detail--so you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t). And also you simply get a huge variety of "stuff" to play with, so on the off chance you tire of scenarios based on the invasion of Belgium, you can play out an ambush in Yugoslavia, and it'll feel different because not only are Belgian troops different from Yugoslav partisans, there are even different counters for top-notch and lower-quality German infantry.

This makes a LOT of sense. Now I can relate to it.
I know some model builders who´d kill for a game like this, and go on a killing spree for a game like this invloving airplanes.

PzKpfW IV variants, the military enthusiasts form of talking about vintage wine!

Quote from: SettembriniI know some model builders who´d kill for a game like this, and go on a killing spree for a game like this invloving airplanes.

I'd suggest they look into the Airpower series from GDW/Clash of Arms, and related games by J.D. Webster. (I have Speed of Heat myself.)

Quote from: KenHRErrr...no.  Tobruk.  North Africa.  Nowhere near the Pacific.

Sorry I'm thinking Truk and a Pacific naval game where it featured prominantly.

I'm not going to post anymore while sleep deprived or go off recollection, although I can recollect many games and strategies, at least Russian ones.

Basically if you see me posting at 3am after a 17 hour day at work, followed by waking up at 7:30am to do it all over and posting again, whatever I say should be ignored.  Since 17 hour work days are not unusual in my life that could be a common occurance.

Quote from: XantherSorry I'm thinking Truk and a Pacific naval game where it featured prominantly.

I'm not going to post anymore while sleep deprived or go off recollection, although I can recollect many games and strategies, at least Russian ones.

Basically if you see me posting at 3am after a 17 hour day at work, followed by waking up at 7:30am to do it all over and posting again, whatever I say should be ignored.  Since 17 hour work days are not unusual in my life that could be a common occurance.

I hear yah.

Truk...hmmm...it was very important, but there is one game where it can be utterly decisive...would that be Victory in the Pacific?  Great, simple, playable, but wonderful game based on War at Sea?  I taught my older brother how to play that a few years back when he wanted to see what my wargame obsession was all about.  We spent an entire summer playing it...until I started reading strategy articles like Alan Moon's infamous TKO In Three.  Jim didn't get that into wargaming, and when he saw me using those strategies, he stopped playing.

(We did work up a Scrabble obsession that persists to this day soon after, though...)

Hah, TKO in three is garbage! (Spoken in the same vein as a chess-geek arguing over the merits of the Nimzo-Indian.)

The wonderful thing about VitP: first you learn to play the game, then you think you've hit the perfect strategy, then you think you've found the perfect counter-strategy, then you realize that there's no perfect strategy that beats understanding the game. Sorta like Jeet Kune Do.

Hehehe, yeah, I have the rebuttal articles as well (General mags are collectible crack for me), and told Jim to read them.  He had no interest in it.