|
lilljonas posted:For me the line goes between being hard on myself for painting my first Nappy french jackets in a much too bright blue, and being hard on others for painting their Nappy french jackets in a much too bright blue. Also an important point, that there's a big difference between informing a newbie that some detail is ahistorical and why and possibly sparking a conversation about it and having them go read interesting stuff and possibly change their mind, and being an rear end in a top hat about it without even citing sources because "muh authority". When I was first looking at historicals I met a few of the latter types. Like, a new guy posts photos of his troops on a forum and someone replies "Those Hungarian caps should be all yellow, you must repaint them." That's it. The very first answer. No "hello", no "welcome to the forum", no "go gently caress yourself noob", no explanation nor naming of any reference to confirm the answer, just that. Another situation, another guy, same thing just with Swedish reiters' collars being white/blue/whatever, again just "repaint it", possibly even with "or you won't play with us" (not sure though and I don't wanna just assume such assholery happened), the worst thing was that it happened IRL and was said to the newbie's face, not on some anonymous corner of the internet. These two jerks basically turned me off historicals for a good few years, and even off painting historicals unless a client provided me with detailed reference pictures. On the upside, they also provided a nice example of what not to do and why.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Pierzak posted:Also an important point, that there's a big difference between informing a newbie that some detail is ahistorical and why and possibly sparking a conversation about it and having them go read interesting stuff and possibly change their mind, and being an rear end in a top hat about it without even citing sources because "muh authority". It's amazing how differently you can phrase it. "Wow, that's a cool Knights Hospitaller force! Did you know they switched to red cloaks pretty late? I have a book about it you can borrow if you want" vs "re-paint your incorrect Hospitallers or I won't play you" Guess which one grows the hobby more and attract people that are not awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Why is it that tabletop gaming, a hobby absolutely chock full of abstraction, seems to cultivate a community utterly devoted to simulation? This has always been my take as well, w/r/t painting as well as rules structure. Old grogs that absolutely refuse to accept anything less than a well defined ground scale, obsess over the number of troops in a formation (720 man battalions MUST have 36 figs because we're playing 1:20 scale), mandate figure removal or formal casualty tracking, poo poo about formation changes, generals represented on the battlefield, etc. etc. Meanwhile all those factors are incredibly fuzzy and fluid on an active battlefield and adhering to that grogginess actually produces a LESS realistic game, despite claiming to desire a "better simulation".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Small aside but a T-34 model 1941 in 1943 is not impossible You see what's commonly known as a model 1941 in post-war service. There was even a more or less recent image of such a tank with T-55 running gear in North Korea. 1943 is more than possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:06
|
|
.
|
lenoon posted:No I am not getting another box of 60 virtually identical guys to the 60 I’m slowly and painfully painting so that I have perfectly accurate models. I’ll just paint the top of the epaulettes green or red. Mods?!?!?! hot cocoa on the couch posted:This has always been my take as well, w/r/t painting as well as rules structure. Old grogs that absolutely refuse to accept anything less than a well defined ground scale, obsess over the number of troops in a formation (720 man battalions MUST have 36 figs because we're playing 1:20 scale), mandate figure removal or formal casualty tracking, poo poo about formation changes, generals represented on the battlefield, etc. etc. C.f., Advanced Squad Leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
ASL is absolutely a better simulator than any other game known to exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
It's a great if you're into reading and remembering rules. I suppose it's an impressive simulation of wargaming. It has very little to do with WWII infantry combat, but its an impressive achievement in gaming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It's a great if you're into reading and remembering rules. I suppose it's an impressive simulation of wargaming. How is WW2 infantry combat supposed to go?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
This is a really good summary of why ASL isn't a historical simulation https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2020/07/farewell-advanced-squad-leader.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
lenoon posted:This level of grog research never seems to apply to the wehraboos as well It sort-of does - BUT they're uncritically consuming second-hand nazi propaganda as filled through captured soldiers. Ie: they're looking just as hard at getting things "right" according to liars. Until the USSR collapsed and opened up the old military records, that's most of what we had. To be charitable, they're believing stories scripted to deceive. There's better information out there, but truth will always struggle against a compelling fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
alg posted:This is a really good summary of why ASL isn't a historical simulation There is command and control in platoon movement, in calling for stuff like banzai charges or human wave attacks. The article is incorrect about "losing 40-50% of your forces has no impact", there is specifically a chapter about Battlefield Integrity, a thing that calculates your total force value and checks against losses to decrease your ELR, making further breaks and drops in quality much more likely. How someone played the game for decades and forgot about BI is strange. I don't have the two scenarios this guy apparently made, so I can't confirm if he even used BI there. Every game is based off of a rigid phase system, but ASLs makes sense when talking about laying down suppressing fire before moving, then being shot at, before arriving at your destination and firing in the following phase. How that seems unrealistic, I will never know. Complaints about forgetting to fire smoke is something you can talk to your opponent about, and doesn't matter unless specifically in a tournament setting against a pedant. quote:“The frictions of war – chance, bad weather, mistakes and ill fortune – are the only certainties of combat, along with death, injury and destruction........war is a random and bloody business, where the weird geometry of chance has its play and its frictions and human fallibility and fragility abound. Combat is fast moving, confusing and often bewildering. There is no perfect science, only perfect intent that is unlikely to withstand first contact with the prevailing realities on the ground once battle is joined, and the enemy also gets a vote in the outcome." Chance, bad weather, mistakes, ill fortune - All things that occur on a regular basis when playing ASL, aside from the weather. Play ASL and tell me that your perfect intent continues through to your last move and I'll call you a liar. Everyone gets their fair share of 4 down 2's that absolutely wreak havoc on an attacking group. There's a specific footnote on the Japanese that talks about the use of snipers and LMGs, although omitting the "concentrated number of knee mortars". Not saying that part is false, but the author didn't check the footnotes either. There's literally a rule on how to deal with a situation that may not have come up in the rules, or that isn't properly explained. It involves a die roll. This day and age many people go on facebook, discord, or forums to attempt to get a "proper" answer, but apparently the author doesn't know about the rule for it. The only takeaway I have from that article is that the person struggled to develop scenarios based on written actions, for reasons that are unclear, and that the lack of a Command and Control framework leaves the game woefully adrift in a sea of better "simulation games". I disagree with his statements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Yeah, ASL has some problems, but it's a game built around a design philosophy. I will say, it uses a more rigid phase system than, say, Combat Commander, or other modern tactical games, like Last Hundred Yards, but they all come with their distortions. Chad Jensen(RIP) came up with a really slick mechanism when he made Combat Commander, and people can rationalize that as true command and control if they like, but it feels like coming after the fact- it's a more approachable game, easier to teach and learn, but more limited than ASL in a lot of ways(for example, Combat Commander doesn't have any kind of vehicles, and it's really not feasible to try to expand it to include them). I agree that pretty much every tactical game is unrealistic, but generally it's to accomodate a game- to prevent outcomes like "this assaulting company just got stuck under fire after a few mortar shells and machine gun fire" and well, that happened a lot, but it's terrible in the context of a tactical game to really have that, so, of course, ASL armies can send attacks home and move better under fire than the real soldiers did, but then, that's pretty much every tactical game. If they want to say ASL is antiquated game design, that's fine, it kinda is, but to call it uniquely unrealistic is bizarre to me. Every tactical game has its abstractions and choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:How is WW2 infantry combat supposed to go? Squad Leader – the game Avalon Hill originally released in 1977 - goes out of its way to acknowledge that it is, in fact, a very abstract "holistic/big picture" view of small unit infantry tactics. There are all sorts of abstractions inherent in the design that were included to make the game flow better and make it more playable. This was a marked contrast to their previous entry in WWII small unit warfare, Tobruk, a game which took a completely different approach, making combat an exercise in sterile mathematics. It is a game where combat takes place on a featureless blank plane and everything was all about the proving ground statistics of weapons. It’s all percentages, and messy things like “morale” or “leadership” aren’t really factored in. Squad Leader pushed in the opposite direction. It was all about the FEEL of infantry combat. It was intended to give players the impression that they were making moves and decisions that a unit leader would make. Take a look at one of the maps:  That’s supposed to represent somewhere in Stalingrad for the first three scenarios of the game. But nowhere in Stalingrad – or any other city in the world – looks like that. The proportions are absurdly off. Stalingrad didn’t have 40 meter wide streets with 60 degree intersections. It also didn’t have 40 meter wide wood houses set up on the other side of a 40 meter street from an 80 meter wide factory. No city works like that. But that’s not the point. It FEELS right. The idea the game is trying to convey is legit – that if you want infantry to move out of the cover of a wood building, across a street, and into another building it’s a risky move and they’re going to be exposed to fire in that street when they do so. It’s a realistic idea, but it is conveyed through unrealistic means. The problem is that people get so intent on the "feel" that they don't step back and think about the foundational assumptions which are, in fact, flawed. And this is just one example. I can go on and on about how it is impossible for the game to model, say, how a German rifle squad was set up or how their platoon was organized without running into problems, or how soldiers fleeing from combat don’t follow predictable paths, or any number of other groggy rabbit-holes. But my main point here is that Squad Leader is a big giant pile of abstractions intended to convey a feel in a game. ASL takes these foundational abstractions, adds a lot more, dumps a gigantic pile of seemingly important but meaningless details on top of them, and then tries to pass itself off as some sort of hyper-accurate scientific treatise. That's just silly, in my opinion. If you enjoy it, great. Have fun. But if you think it is simulating anything beyond big broad stroke ideas like “having cover is better than not having cover,” you’re mistaken. Jobbo_Fett posted:Chance, bad weather, mistakes, ill fortune - All things that occur on a regular basis when playing ASL, aside from the weather. Play ASL and tell me that your perfect intent continues through to your last move and I'll call you a liar. Everyone gets their fair share of 4 down 2's that absolutely wreak havoc on an attacking group. The problem here is that ASL makes things that were crucial decisions for a unit leader and turns them over to dice rolls and random chance. I realize that real combat is very much driven by chance and happenings outside of a unit commander's control, and his ability to react to it is what makes the difference between his and his men's living or dying. But ASL is a GAME, and way, way too much of it is left to chance - including far too many things that should not be. For example, ASL models ammo usage in a random manner - which is, pardon my language, bullshit. The example counter in the upper right has a “Low Ammo Breakdown” number:  A die roll is not a good simulation of anything except a die roll; using total randomization as a representation of the things a commander/player can control is sloppy game design. It leads to two very bad effects: it heavily and unjustly penalizes a player who has bad luck for things a real commander would know about and control, and it takes the "flow" of the game out of the hands of the players and gives it to the dice. Say you're a tank platoon commander and you start a battle (scenario) with tanks that are have a limited supply of ammunition. First and foremost, only you should know the state of your ammo but your enemy should not. In ASL both players can figure the rough odds of any unit running out of ammo. But in reality there's no way an enemy can look into your tanks and check your ammo. In ASL, if your tank runs out of ammo, both you and your opponent know it instantly. Real combat doesn't work like that. A real tank is going to try very hard to look like it's in fighting shape - it might withdraw when it's low or out of ammo, but then again it could withdraw anyway; an enemy won't KNOW it is pulling back because it's out of shells. And it might just save one last main-gun round for a "surprise" for the enemy. There’s no little flag that pops up announcing “hey, this tank is empty!” Second, a real platoon leader is going make a decision beforehand to divide up your ammo where it is needed. If you've got a tank that you know is going to be in the thick of things - seizing an objective, springing an ambush - you are drat well going to make sure that tank does not run out of shells after the first shot. You're going to make your tankers portion out their ammo accordingly. ASL just doesn't deal with this. If your most important tank rolls badly on its first shot, it's empty, too bad. Equally, tanks that have very limited ammo capacity can - if the dice favor them - shoot indefinitely. An SU-152 carried at most 20 rounds of Main Gun ammo; in ASL it can shoot until it misses a roll. That's just as silly. Now, again, ASL is trying to convey a “feel.” “My tanks have limited ammo.” That’s great, especially as they do so without a lot of record keeping. But again, the problem is that the implications here (you know instantly when an enemy tank runs out of ammo) aren’t realistic at all. And this sort of thing carries through seemingly everywhere in the design, but it tries to pass itself off as realistic. That's a real problem with ASL. It's an ornate mess - built on an abstract, slipshod system – trying to look like it’s realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If they want to say ASL is antiquated game design, that's fine, it kinda is, but to call it uniquely unrealistic is bizarre to me. Every tactical game has its abstractions and choices. This I agree with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Squad Leader pushed in the opposite direction. It was all about the FEEL of infantry combat. It was intended to give players the impression that they were making moves and decisions that a unit leader would make. Take a look at one of the maps: Ok but what does an "actual simulation" game look like. When you play a scenario of Tobruk and it comes out in written form of a turn, what does that look like, and what does that text look like versus ASLs turn breakdown? Cessna posted:The problem here is that ASL makes things that were crucial decisions for a unit leader and turns them over to dice rolls and random chance. I realize that real combat is very much driven by chance and happenings outside of a unit commander's control, and his ability to react to it is what makes the difference between his and his men's living or dying. But ASL is a GAME, and way, way too much of it is left to chance - including far too many things that should not be. What crucial decisions are we talking about here? Is the crucial decision of Leader Direction down to dice rolls and random chance? Are we talking about rallying squads? Why is it sloppy game design to portray chance or bad luck when that's something that an earlier poster's referenced criticism claims is a real part of combat? How do you achieve any sort of simulation beyond "everyone is completely rested, healthy, and topped up on supplies" if running out of shells is a side-effect of life, or the gamefication of life? The ammo depletion is specifically for special ammo, not regular stuff. That's why you never roll depletion on, say, AP shells for a Panther tank, or HE shells for an SU-76. What is the basis for, say, an urban tank scenario and one tank "withdraws to look like it might be faking out its opponent"; how does one "accurately" represent that if not by way playing it with those random chance events? Why not fix the issue with the Fog of War knowledge by making hidden rolls or having trust in your opponent to not dick you over on that? The idea of knowing something on the battlefield vs not knowing something is strange when we're creating scenarios out of whole cloth as well. For example, should you know what exists in a giving portion of the map after the sole unit in that area explodes into bits? Obviously the answer to fix that problem would include fog of war, but does that mean that ASL isn't a simulation? Rate of Fire is also under scrutiny? Are there any other games that include that concept? Would it be unrealistically to not allow for multiple shots? Could the argument not be that a good crew would fire rounds faster within a shorter period of time? Also, no, the SU-152 doesn't have Rate of Fire. Plenty of Tanks/Guns don't get Rate of Fire, and so don't get to "shoot indefinitely". Again, "basic" ammo doesn't run out, ever, unless you're specifically running an SSR for Low Ammo, and even then that seems to me like "There is a specific scenario where this did occur, and we came up with a rule to accommodate that rather than making all units check for limited ammunition."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Ok but what does an "actual simulation" game look like. When you play a scenario of Tobruk and it comes out in written form of a turn, what does that look like, and what does that text look like versus ASLs turn breakdown? I’m not saying Tobruk is an “accurate simulation.” Like was said above, every game makes compromises, and they often go in different directions. I mentioned Tobruk as a useful contemporary counter-example to Squad Leader – Tobruk tended towards making the game more “strictly math-y” while Squad Leader went more towards “holistic feel.” Either approach has advantages and disadvantages. ASL is not somehow superior here, it’s just using a different set of wonky assumptions. I don’t think it’s really possible to accurately simulate the decisions a small unit leader like an infantry platoon commander makes in a tabletop wargame. There are just too many limitations, the environment is too different, etc. This doesn’t mean that tabletop games are bad, or that we shouldn’t have fun playing them, or that they’re a waste of time or anything like that. Lord knows I’ve spent way, way, way too many hours playing wargames. But recognize them for what they are – a game that broadly emulates some select and curated aspects of small unit warfare in WWII, no more. Jobbo_Fett posted:What crucial decisions are we talking about here? Is the crucial decision of Leader Direction down to dice rolls and random chance? Are we talking about rallying squads? I cited the example of a tank platoon commander deciding how to distribute ammo among the tanks in his platoon. That’s a platoon commander’s job at a very basic level – to say, for example, “we’re low on sabot [or whatever], so make sure A23 has at least 10 in the racks.” That’s the sort of thing that is NEVER left up to random chance. But in ASL it is ONLY handled through random chance. Jobbo_Fett posted:Why is it sloppy game design to portray chance or bad luck when that's something that an earlier poster's referenced criticism claims is a real part of combat? Because, like I said, it takes “things that were crucial decisions for a unit leader and turns them over to dice rolls and random chance.” Distribution of ammo is just an example, and there are many, many more baked into the ASL rules at a foundational level. Jobbo_Fett posted:The ammo depletion is specifically for special ammo, not regular stuff. That's why you never roll depletion on, say, AP shells for a Panther tank, or HE shells for an SU-76. And a tank platoon commander would be even more cognizant of where the few “special ammo” shells are distributed within his platoon. Jobbo_Fett posted:What is the basis for, say, an urban tank scenario and one tank "withdraws to look like it might be faking out its opponent"; how does one "accurately" represent that if not by way playing it with those random chance events? Why not fix the issue with the Fog of War knowledge by making hidden rolls or having trust in your opponent to not dick you over on that? The idea of knowing something on the battlefield vs not knowing something is strange when we're creating scenarios out of whole cloth as well. For example, should you know what exists in a giving portion of the map after the sole unit in that area explodes into bits? Obviously the answer to fix that problem would include fog of war, but does that mean that ASL isn't a simulation? For what it’s worth, I entirely agree that “fog of war” is a necessary part of any wargame that purports to be any sort of simulation. Personally, my solution to this is to play with a referee who limits the information that is available to each player. (I can tell of a really good Vietnam game I played once if you like.) (Often computers are used fill this role in sims, but that’s a different topic.) I understand that it isn’t always possible to get a third player. But, that said, I think you get a far more interesting game with a referee than you do without. Jobbo_Fett posted:Rate of Fire is also under scrutiny? Are there any other games that include that concept? Would it be unrealistically to not allow for multiple shots? Could the argument not be that a good crew would fire rounds faster within a shorter period of time? Also, no, the SU-152 doesn't have Rate of Fire. Plenty of Tanks/Guns don't get Rate of Fire, and so don't get to "shoot indefinitely". No, I cited the SU-152 as an example of an AFV with very limited ammo capacity. If it can only carry 21 rounds total, is it realistic for it to fire more if it gets good dice rolls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I’m not saying Tobruk is an “accurate simulation.” Ok, but I'm asking about what DOES count in terms of a "simulation" and what are the random die rolls or checks in its place. Saying a tank commander knows what his platoon has if fine and well, but it abstracts or omits what happens before a fight, getting to said fight. What if the action mentions that the group is ad-hoc with the implication that they don't necessarily have special ammo? I'm trying to get to roots to understand if ASL applies or not. Which still doesn't tackle the issue of an infantry commander versus a tank commander. quote:No, I cited the SU-152 as an example of an AFV with very limited ammo capacity. If it can only carry 21 rounds total, is it realistic for it to fire more if it gets good dice rolls? I'm stating, from a definitive point of view, grounded specifically in the rules of the game, that tanks or guns that have ammunition that weighs a ton, or have cramped turrets, or simply low rates of fire, specifically will not have rate of fire, in order to remain within that realistic scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Small aside but a T-34 model 1941 in 1943 is not impossible There's a picture of one driving through a side street in Berlin, even, flanked by T-34-85s (I think post-conflict).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Ok, but I'm asking about what DOES count in terms of a "simulation" and what are the random die rolls or checks in its place. Rather than make every weapon with limited special ammo check to see if they run out each time they shoot, you could do something like "you get 1d6 shots of special ammo per game for all of your tanks" or the like. I know it's a little more record keeping, but it more accurately represents what a platoon commander is thinking. So - let's step back and look at ASL, or any other wargame that is trying to be a simulation. What, exactly, are you trying to simulate? I think it's a good idea to start with some sort of "mission statement" level look at the game you're creating. For example, this game is about "infantry combat in WWII." Squad Leader says this right on the cover: /pic232451.jpg) Okay, cool. It's about infantry combat. But what does that really mean? Because of the limitations of the medium there's only so much you can really simulate. You won't simulate, for example, trying to give first aid to your friend who just got hit by shrapnel. That sort of thing IS simulated in contexts like USMC School of Infantry, but not in tabletop games. Equally, a game that is based on "how fast can you dig a hole while taking mortar fire, grab a shovel and run to your back yard" would probably be a much better simulation of the kind of poo poo infantry really experienced in combat in WWII, but it's not a game anyone would want to play. As a result of this you have to heavily curate and focus on exactly what you’re showing. In very, very broad terms I think a wargame on this level is going to be at its best if it’s very broadly making the player make decisions - within their limited scope - that are reminiscent of those a unit leader would face. (And, again, this is a VERY limited, focused view. The overwhelming majority of decisions a platoon commander faces are going to be a lot more mundane than those in a game. It’s more like “did my troops get enough food” or “do we need a quick break to get water and have someone else carry the mortar base-plate” or “WTF was the CO thinking when they told us to march down this road?” Once that unit is in combat there’s a very limited amount that he can actually DO. He can call in fire support and give orders like “First squad go north and flank them,” but in practice much of the way the fight goes is up to his sergeants.) So – what sort of decisions is an ASL player making? In very, very broad terms they should be along the same lines of what that platoon commander is thinking of. “Don’t expose troops to fire unnecessarily” or “fix them with fire, then flank them” or the like. But past that? Well, the vast majority of ASL’s decisions are based on getting the best result out of the game’s statistical mechanics. I won’t re-state ASL strategies here, but I’ll link to the first thing that popped up when I googled “ASL strategies:” Link. Just read that poo poo. quote:Most of the time, we all move into the building. We want the ability to take our Advancing fire, right? And we believe a +2 wood building is enough cover. Holy poo poo. Do you think any infantry leader in WWII thought like that? But, Cessna, isn’t this how any game goes? Players play the game within the rules? The problem is that there are many, many other games that are simpler, that present players with the same broad-stroke decisions (“shoot at Nazis Y/N?”), that present just as much of a representation of the basics of infantry combat (“Don’t expose your troops unnecessarily”) – but that do it with VASTLY less decision making which is driven by rules alone. And, well, these games don’t try to pass themselves off as “accurate simulations” as ASL does. This isn’t to say that there aren’t decent tabletop simulations out there. Just off the top of my head, AH’s Flat Top, for example, does an excellent job of simulating the decisions made by a carrier Task Force commander – or, more accurately, it simulates the decisions they talk about in their memoirs about battles. I.e., “Did my scout planes really spot the enemy task force, or is that just a couple of supply ships? Should I send out another scout plane? Or load up everything and go for an attack? What if I get caught with loaded planes on deck?” Even though the rules are complex, the basic decisions are based on decisions a commander would make – do I send a scout plane, do I arm my bombers – they are not about how to wrangle in-game statistical mechanics. That sort of decision-making lines up with the accounts of WWII carrier warfare I’ve read. In contrast, I’ve NEVER read of an infantry commander saying “don’t take cover in this house, boys, some of you may get killed but there’s a good chance that your Advancing Fire will be worthless!” Ask yourself this. If you took a decorated veteran WWII platoon commander through time and dropped them into a game, do you think they’d be as good as a tournament level ASL player? How long would it take for them to figure out the in-game paths to success? How much of their knowledge of WWII infantry combat would even apply to ASL? Again, if you like ASL, have fun with it. I genuinely mean that. It’s just not to my taste. Jobbo_Fett posted:Which still doesn't tackle the issue of an infantry commander versus a tank commander. I cited a tank-based example because that's what my job was in the service. I did go to grunt school; it wasn't WWII combat, but if you'd prefer to talk about infantry in the game I can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:
The SU-152 actually had unofficial extra ammo racks built for it, so a roll to determine if your crew was prudent enough to bring these makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The SU-152 actually had unofficial extra ammo racks built for it, so a roll to determine if your crew was prudent enough to bring these makes sense. Handled by my "roll 1d6 to see how many special shots you get pre-game" rule, above. That's the sort of thing that you would know before an engagement and incorporate into your planning, not the sort of thing that surprises everyone in the middle of a fight and is instantly known to all. Edit: "Vassily, does our gun have those extra ammo racks?" "I don't know, Comrade Leytenant, and won't know until the next time we shoot!" Cessna fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
So random ammo chance is substituted for random ammo chance?Cessna posted:
I have no clue what this means in the context of ASL. Are you arguing that not taking the cover is better for your Advancing Fire, or that you would should choose cover because Advancing Fire is worthless? Edit: Like, the example provided is a bunch of numbers but the context of it implies that a squad may risk advancing towards an enemy position and getting shot at, there type of movement making it riskier to approach the target location. I'm sure there's an infantry leader in the world at the time of World War 2 who's thinking "How many windows does that house have and what kind of movement, or suppressing fire, should we attempt to get at it. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So random ammo chance is substituted for random ammo chance? No. Random ammo chance [that you know about before the game, can incorporate into your planning, that your opponent does not know] is substituted for random ammo chance [that you don't know about even though your historical counterpart would, that your opponent also equally knows about even though their historical counterpart wouldn't. Please don't think I'm hung up on this specifically. It's just one of hundreds of odd abstractions that ASL folds into the rules while simultaneously claiming to be more accurate to history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So random ammo chance is substituted for random ammo chance? I'm arguing that a platoon commander who tells their soldiers to stay exposed to enemy fire and avoid available cover to get a slight hypothetical statistical advantage would be either relieved of command or shot from behind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'm arguing that a platoon commander who tells their soldiers to stay exposed to enemy fire and avoid available cover to get a slight hypothetical statistical advantage would be either relieved of command or shot from behind. So do you think that the like... timeframe of a turn in ASL isn't fluid? That people are just standing in this stop-go board game world? Edit: I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your view on ASL. Might as well stop making GBS threads up the thread. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So do you think that the like... timeframe of a turn in ASL isn't fluid? That people are just standing in this stop-go board game world? Okay, picture this. You're a lieutenant in France in 1944. Our of nowhere a bunch of Nazis a hundred yards away start shooting at you. Your men are getting cut down. There's a house right next to you. Do you: a. Take cover in the house and shoot back b. Advance across open ground towards them Due to the oddities of the game as that strategy guide points out, "b" is the right choice in ASL. And, again, you can find hundreds of examples of this sort of thing without looking hard. Jobbo_Fett posted:Edit: I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your view on ASL. Might as well stop making GBS threads up the thread. Yeah, you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
What referee'd games would you recommend, Cessna? I've basically never touched any. All my historicals gameplay's always been of the "bring what you've got to club" sorts, even where they were prearranged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Is there any US distributors for Too Fat Lardies? I want to get What a Tanker but the shipping for a single book is painfully steep. Alternatively, what other books are recommended? I don’t have a club or even a gaming group so most if not all of my games will be solo/2 player skirmishes. I’m leaning towards chain of command and sharp practice
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
best bale posted:Is there any US distributors for Too Fat Lardies? I want to get What a Tanker but the shipping for a single book is painfully steep. BrigadeGames has all their stuff: https://www.brigadegames.com/Too-Fat-Lardies-What-a-Tanker--WW2-Rules-for-Tank-Combat_p_5425.html?amp=1 I would definitely pick up Sharp Practice also, it's really a great game
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 04:58
|
|
|
best bale posted:Is there any US distributors for Too Fat Lardies? I want to get What a Tanker but the shipping for a single book is painfully steep. A lot of rulebooks, including TooFatLardies stuff is on scribd.com. I usually go there to peruse stuff before buying. I think it's kind of a gray zone where some of the stuff on their site is legitimately licensed and some is  uploaded by users.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
Speaking of all the uniform chat recently, can anyone say what colour(s) were worn by Italian tank crews in WW2, preferably in the Italian theatre? (Or at least not Africa. Since it's to go alongside my Alpini) All I can find are pics of a tanker wearing a blue suit (no idea what period/theatre this is for, or even if it's for an Italian tanker) and references to tan uniforms in Africa, which aren't super helpful to me. I'm not overly concerned about 100% accuracy, but I figure I should probably try to be roughly in the ballpark, if I can help it! Major Isoor fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
spectralent posted:There's a picture of one driving through a side street in Berlin, even, flanked by T-34-85s (I think post-conflict). Yes I wrote this wrong, it was the other way around. Using a 1943 model t34 in a 1941 game. I now feel intense shame about not buying 60 grenadiers to go with the 60 chasseur a pied but that would add enough to the pile of shame to stop me making my completely ahistorical “what if L’Overture had been respected by the French and Napoleon had supported the emancipation of Haiti” 2eme Haitian Voltiguers at Austerlitz so sod it. I don’t know if I even want complete “accuracy” in my war games, the abstraction is what allows me to reconcile my own politics with playing them. True “accuracy” would have rules for soldier suicides, hunger, dysentery, distraction from looting, or raping and killing civilians, all things that have happened mid-battle. Im writing these articles on the ECW at the moment, and thinking about it wouldn’t want “accuracy” when playing the new model army at Naseby, because I’d prefer to play the pursuit of the king without rolling dice to see if my cavalry massacre a group of welsh women they think are Irish. We aren’t simulating war, thank gently caress, we’re playing games that have the elements of war that have lodged themselves in our consciousness as interesting and challenging. Perhaps in societies less built on militaristic histories these games would be so abstracted as to not even resemble war anymore - chequers rather than chess. Plus the concessions to fun are often some of the best bits - who honestly doesn’t like putting divisional level artillery 24” off the front line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Yes I wrote this wrong, it was the other way around. Using a 1943 model t34 in a 1941 game. My view is that accuracy is a tricky concept in wargames, and that it helps to consider what kind of accuracy you are looking for. The kind of accuracy that you mention, as in "what kind of experience was it to fight in a 19th century war", is IMHO much better left for other mediums, like movies, books and roleplaying games that are better at portraiting nuances. For me, the kind of accuracy I'm usually looking for is that tactics at least somewhat relates to the depictions of battles that I've read. So my measuring stick for a Napoleonic game is whether or not I can just wing it ruleswise and apply somewhat contemporary tactics, and get a result that's not wildly different from what I'd expect from reading about such a battle in a history book. I.e. a good, "accurate" historical wargame to me is one where I don't even need to know the rules to be able to play out a game, and a general intuition of the period tactics is enough to be at least somewhat close to an even level to someone who knows the game mechanics much better. Major Isoor posted:Speaking of all the uniform chat recently, can anyone say what colour(s) were worn by Italian tank crews in WW2, preferably in the Italian theatre? (Or at least not Africa. Since it's to go alongside my Alpini) I'm far from an Italian expert, but what I've seen have been very similar to the cover of this Miniart kit:  So blue or beige overalls and leather jackets. I think as long as you go with the blue overalls and leather jackets you'll be somewhat safe, I'm not sure if the beige was specificially for Africa or not. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
That’s a good point and especially on the tactics thing - the knowledge of how X did Y during Z should give you an edge in an accurate war game. I think for me I enjoy the creative side of this incredibly groggy hobby - I love the research and the nitty gritty, but then don’t enjoy being shackled by it. For me it’s a creative process, both in the modelling and painting and in the creation of histories - what if the battle went this way, or what if our campaign setting took this aspect of society and twisted it a little. I like the games to be structures in which the players can futz about. There’s a role for accuracy there (CoC provides this more than BA I would say as an example), but to me any form of simulationist accuracy is secondary to providing a mental space to play with what little toy figures can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
lenoon posted:That’s a good point and especially on the tactics thing - the knowledge of how X did Y during Z should give you an edge in an accurate war game. True. It's also the case that a more accurate game is not always a more entertaining game, and there's space in one's life for both accurate and entertaining games. For example, Saga is a wildly "inaccurate" historical game, something it's not trying to hide, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to play and enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
Major Isoor posted:Speaking of all the uniform chat recently, can anyone say what colour(s) were worn by Italian tank crews in WW2, preferably in the Italian theatre? (Or at least not Africa. Since it's to go alongside my Alpini) Ive got a couple books on italian uniforms, ill do some digging later tonight if you dont have an acceptable answer by then
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I'm far from an Italian expert, but what I've seen have been very similar to the cover of this Miniart kit: Huh nice - I think I've got a greyish blue that's faaiirly close to that blue, already. So that should work OK, with what I've got! It might look good with nuln oil maybe, to make him look a bit grubbier. (Maybe soot up his hands and facewith drybrushing too, seeing as he's in a flamer tank. Probably lights his cigs with the pilot light  )Jobbo_Fett posted:Ive got a couple books on italian uniforms, ill do some digging later tonight if you dont have an acceptable answer by then Oh, thanks for the offer! If you don't mind me asking, what are the books called? I actually wouldn't mind checking em out myself sometime, if they're not super rare
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
Major Isoor posted:Oh, thanks for the offer! If you don't mind me asking, what are the books called? I actually wouldn't mind checking em out myself sometime, if they're not super rare Off-hand one would be Handbook on the Italian Army in World War II 1940-1943 but the others would be some mish-mash of Osprey books or whatever I have lying around... I have too many books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:For me, the kind of accuracy I'm usually looking for is that tactics at least somewhat relates to the depictions of battles that I've read. So my measuring stick for a Napoleonic game is whether or not I can just wing it ruleswise and apply somewhat contemporary tactics, and get a result that's not wildly different from what I'd expect from reading about such a battle in a history book. I.e. a good, "accurate" historical wargame to me is one where I don't even need to know the rules to be able to play out a game, and a general intuition of the period tactics is enough to be at least somewhat close to an even level to someone who knows the game mechanics much better. lenoon posted:I love the research and the nitty gritty, but then don’t enjoy being shackled by it Yep this is my feelings too. I'm also a passionate amateur historian who's done more than their fair share of research over the years into inconsequential minutae, and loved every minute of it, but at the end of the day when I hit the table top I just want to push little mans around and have the experience feel right. Not knowing the rules but still being able to give effective commands - knowing what a historical commander might think/do - and have it turn out in predictable way is a good barometer for if the rules are representing the period well. That's a good way of putting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 14:17
|
|