[ASLOK 23]

I wish we Americans were less unfriendly at the border. I also wish the Swedish contingent were coming over in 2023. I need to know when you do come. I will do my best to get there so we can catch up. -- jim

[VCA change on a woodsroad - MP cost]

On 7/19/2023 at 10:48 AM, M Söderberg said:

It appears that Perry now have revised his previous Q&A.

Jim Bishop is writing about it. 
https://jekl.com/2022/03/09/learning-from-my-mistakes-afv-and-woods-road/?fbclid=IwAR0G9j4fAmkMbpNr1iWU1mQdaKhjpV-py-VDoxMW1_OYD7bKRB2Tm_bbhIE

 

I try to keep my articles up to date as errata and Q&A are posted. Sadly, I am not infallible in this task either. I am glad this issue was resolved.

[MG attack vs concealed AFV]

5 hours ago, Bergwall said:

 - If 5/8 dummies - dummies not removed due to hit is secured (but could maybe be removed due specific collateral attack? not sure however....)

By rule, 5/8" Dummies are removed as if Infantry. I don't think VTT is even a valid Target Type for them. Would be an interesting question for @Klas Malmström. I am not sure how I would handle it if an MG could fire TH/TK against a Dummy stack pretending to be an AFV. That is one of the positive aspects of the Q&A. It side-steps this issue. Doesn't mean I like it though

[MG attack vs concealed AFV]

2 hours ago, carlsson said:

I think the Q&A is definitely wrong in this instance. 

I agree, and between friends, I would consider playing without it. But if we showed up to play a tournament, I would expect we would use the Q&A unless it was outlined in the tournament rules. JMO though. 

[MG attack vs concealed AFV]

For what it is worth Melvin, this is a perfect example of a Q&A I happen to disagree with. I do believe an MG firing a TH/TK vs a concealed target is covered with the +2 Case K TH DRM and SHOULD be allowed to affect a concealed AFV. But I don't play it according to my beliefs because the Q&A exists. 

I am not trying to change your mind, this just provided me a chance to point out I don't always agree with the Q&A. 

[VCA change on a woodsroad - MP cost]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:45 PM, CTABKA said:

You must be an odd exception, only played the way we thought Don Greenwood and his crew wrote the rule, could be better written of course, but a great majority readers of the rules have concluded that 1 MP / 2 MP is correct.

This is the natural order of things. People play it how they think it should be played and then they get exposed to the "right way" and begin again. As I said, I played it this way because I am aware of the Q&A. I was made aware playing a game with Steve Pleva at ASLOk. He showed it to me. I have played it this way ever since. 

I don't believe Q&A or Errata are infallible. Far from it. But I do agree to be bound by them because it is the only way we have a reasonable chance to be playing the same game. I travel far and wide to play ASL with folks. Seems only fair to be trying to play the same game.

[VCA change on a woodsroad - MP cost]

I played it this way (2/4) in the past because I was aware of the Perry Sez. 

[Mortars och Height advantage]

5 hours ago, carlsson said:

Well, I had no other explanation. 😝 🤪

I think the Q&A is wrong. But we live with it

[Mortars och Height advantage]

7 hours ago, carlsson said:

Only one Unit can interdict. A Mortar is not a Unit, therefore you are not interdicted if you have HA from the enemy.

 

* That's how I'd play it, but it MAY be that HA doesn't count for the shooter, since MTR Fire is Indirect. But it sounds strange.

A .50 is not a unit but I bet you would properly point out a unit manning an HMG can interdict out to 16 hexes.

[Mortars och Height advantage]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:18 PM, Fredrik Thylin said:

Mortars använder area fire. Height advantage räknas väl som TEM.

I så fall är det på effekt som det gäller?

I submitted a Perry Sez on this. There is no Interdiction. You can find it in Klas' collection. 

[Supporting Fire 2022, 18-20 November]

14 hours ago, carlsson said:

Thank you to all organizers and participants for this year's Supporting Fire!

Congratulations to Christoffer Peyre for narrowly winning the final against Melvin Falk.

I will return with a list of results shortly.

Congratulations Christoffer! 

[Supporting Fire 2022, 18-20 November]

I hope you all have fun. It was hard to choose between Supporting Fire and Bounding Fire, but I have never been to Bounding Fire and that means new people to meet. Perhaps next year. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

On 8/14/2022 at 8:18 PM, carlsson said:

I have now changed the settings, which means even guests can download attachments. Enjoy!

Thanks!

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

On 8/12/2022 at 7:12 PM, CTABKA said:

I read your blog https://jekl.com/

ASL Sweden is my type of blog.

My blog doesn't pretend to be able to teach good players how to play the game. I might occasionally surprise you with something but I don't expect that to happen very often, if ever. I am trying to help new players and middle-level players. Thanks for reading though. You are welcome to create and an article and I will post it for you. 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

3 minutes ago, carlsson said:

Or, two options:
- Make them available at aslsweden.com (ie, outside the forum).

- Allow guests to download files from the forum (which is basically a privilege set in the forum engine). The default is to not allow guest download, but I can't see the harm if spam bots download various ASL content? (Maybe we catch a new player from India that way!? 😂)

I don't think I would add too much traffic (not that many people are reading my blog) but I don't want to create problems for you. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

@CTABKA Do you have a link where your Leaflet House Rules are available outside of this forum? I don't want to flood the forum with people coming to look for the rules. If you do not have a link, do you mind if I post a copy of the most current on my blog? I am writing an article on OBA systems and I will be speaking about yours and I want to direct people to the rules if they would like to try them. I don't think it would be fair to expect them to sign up here, nor would it be fair to the forum members here to have to wade through a bunch of new people. Please let me know. Thanks! -- jim

 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

2 hours ago, CTABKA said:

No we did not, you admitted such a rule did not exist, the new OBA text writing layout have never been seen before on the Supporting Fire web site.

FWIW, you need to change the wording of your rule too IMO:

Quote

When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module and no more than one black and/or red chit(s) have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile and the second permanently-removed red chit is drawn, return it to the Draw Pile instead,

Red AND Black permanently removed and second red chit is drawn is a dead deck per this. Black OR Red and second red chit is also a dead deck per this. The same logic would hold for RED and/or RED. It is only your example which makes your intent clear. The rule should probably read something like: 

Quote

When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module, if the second permanently-removable red chit is drawn and less than two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile, return that red chit to the Draw Pile instead. Your OBA actions for this battery are done for this turn.

This is more in line with your example. Just my .02. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

2 hours ago, carlsson said:

Jim, welcome to the forums!

To add some words to this interesting discussion; I think it's important to know there is a *reason* we changed the original rules. Personally, I hate to change rules, but sometimes you just have to – you spend so many hours playing this game, and we play because we want to have fun. By adding extra red chits instead of ending Battery Access permanently, you still have the *chance* of getting OBA access, but it gets harder for every red chit you draw. In CG's especially, as Melvin pointed out above, you don't want to spend a lot of CPP's to just see your OBA go away after one mission. We decided that there will always be a chance – It's just more fun that way.

We started altering the chit pile 10-15 years ago. At first by adding one red chit with the first and upcoming red ones, and mix them back in the pile. When trying this we realized that it was way to steep – ie, after a couple of red chits the pile was too crowded with red ones, and it was unplayable (maybe that's not what the statistic says, but that is what happened for us). 

So we altered the process by adding a red chit with the second red instead. Still a chance to get OBA, and still fun. 

 

This is how we are playing today, and this is also the rules we currently have at Supporting Fire (you must have missed this last year Mel, the rules existed). 

With this said, I don't know what is best. I just know that OBA is fun!  

Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. I am working on an OBA article seeking to understand the various methods of altering the double-red issue. The one you use is one sometimes called "Modified Pleva" rules in the the US. 

Based on all my work, each of the systems are excellent protecting against double red. Each system can still pull nothing but red cards and still get no OBA. Systems that add red cards back into the deck are most likely to suffer from this. As the number of Red Cards becomes equal to half the black cards--for what ever reason--the decks become very chaotic. Adding Red cards to the deck makes this happen quicker. 

Each of these systems also do a very good job of staying close to the Standard model for 10 turn games or shorter. Systems that ADD Red cards break down from this point, significantly deviating from the Standard model. 

Which system is best depends on your design decisions. For these decisions, it comes down to your beliefs on how OBA "should" be done and there is no way to measure or quantify that. FWIW, all these systems try to protect the radio so I am not going to speak to that. It is worth noting that LHR won't even let the Radio malfunction, let alone break/X. 

PLEVA: I spoke with Steve. He had a couple of reasons for his method. First, he wanted to stop the double Red. But second, he didn't want OBA to EVER go away because once it does, the other side starts playing differently. He wanted the player facing OBA to always be under the threat of a new mission. His system accomplishes this. Steve is OK with the added red chits affecting EXTRA CHIT draws. His reasoning is there should be some price to pay for your OBA never going away. 

Borås: Based on your post, your reasoning sounds much like Steve's for his system. I did not include this system in my last graphic as it is not statistically different from Steve's system. The profile looks much the same and it responds much the same. 

LHR: Per Melvin's post above, there is a goal of stopping double red from stopping two Fire missions. It does this flawlessly. Melvin also worries about extra red cards effect EXTRA CHIT draws. His system accounts for this too. It is pretty elegant and, IMO, better than schemes which ADD cards to the decks. 

LHR1B: This system has all the same objectives of the LHR EXCEPT a belief that there should be two FFE at a minimum. Otherwise, it is exactly like the LHR rules. 

If you want to remain true to the "Standard" distribution of FFE, then LHR1B is the best system out there. If you think there should be 2 FFE, then the LHR is hands down better. If you worry about the effects of extra red cards on extra chit draws, then the LHR-based rules are best in class. If you want the OBA to ALWAYS be a threat, then either RED card addition system will work. The are relatively the same.

If I were designing OBA today, I would use LHR1B. It remains truest to the original rules without skewing the resultant number of FFE significantly compared to the standard model. It also sidesteps the extra card problem. I would probably also maintain Melvin's "Radios don't break" position as well. I think that makes a lot of sense for something this critical to the game. Perhaps I would allow the radio to malfunction, make the repair dr 1 - 3/4, and a 6 would not eliminate the radio. But IMO, making OBA even more dicey than it already can be is a bad design decision. 

 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

Melvin, 

Could you write me a couple of sentences about what you were trying to do with your OBA system? What were your goals? What was your intention? What do you want it to accomplish? I am asking because I am going to write an article discussing the merits of all these different OBA systems to expose them to a broader audience. I don't want to misrepresent your intentions. Thanks. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

9 hours ago, CTABKA said:

But only one Black chit as you suggest is not a good option, do not believe any scenario designer estimate only Fire Mission in the scenario, especially if Hvy Artillery 120+mm , 150+mm is involved.

IMO, you give scenario designers too much credit. I wish scenario designers would publish notes about how the OBA worked in playtesting. So many designers have said "you can win without the OBA". All that does is tell me the scenario is a dog if I get my OBA. Most designers I have met are not good players themselves. 

 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

3 hours ago, CTABKA said:

Not true, the Leaflet OBA rule is identical to the standard Greenwood OBA design 75% of the times

Only about one OBA module out of 4 OBA modules used, will the Leaflet rule make a difference, your stats implies (or not clearly written) that the Leaflet OBA rule is always a bit different than the ASL OBA rules.

LHR is much like car insurance: just because you didn't need your car insurance doesn't mean you aren't covered against accident. 

A simple statement like "75% of the time" doesn't cover it either. For ANY deck, the only failing pulls are RED RED, RED BLACK RED, or BLACK RED RED. Any other pull combination will have 2 BLACK before the second RED. So for a 5B/2R deck, the chance of failing to get 2 FFE is about 15%. For an 8B/3R deck its about 15%. For a 10B/3R deck, its about 11%. Now a 5B/3R deck--Russians with Scarce Ammo--has about a 28% chance of NOT/NOT getting 2 FFE.

Broadly speaking, every deck which has RED cards < half the number of Black Cards (FRD) is likely below your 75% threshold.  Any combination where the number of RED >= half the number of BLACK cards (FRD) is likely above your 75% threshold. Decks where the number of RED cards is equal to half of the BLACK cards come very close to your 75% threshold but are generally below it. 

Again, broadly speaking, unless the deck is inflicted with Scarce Ammo, the chances of using protection against the three bad sequences is generally below 15%. 

Of all the rules I have examined WRT OBA, the LHR are by far the best I have seen. I intend to adopt them in my game play with the modification for 1 BLACK chit I outlined above. To me, that is the perfect balance between protecting against 2 RED cards without making OBA more effective than the standard model. 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

26 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Only one black chit converted into an FFE is not of much use if it shatters off target, or a string of DR- results in no effect. Two (or more) black chits is the best approach and what you should expect in a Scenario.

There is no doubt there are many things that can't be accounted for in a simulation. The real game is too complex. Accounting for those differences and the model are up to the player. After all, your second chit is not of much use if it too, shatters off target, or suffers a string of bad DR, results in no effect. 

I am not trying to measure results. Imagine all the possible combinations of TEM and OBAs column alone. Then add in LOS requirements, conversion requirements, accuracy DR's, malfunction DR, and any other rule applicable and it becomes impossible to predict the outcomes. That way lays madness. I am trying to measure opportunities (BLACK Cards drawn) and show the possible range of outcomes measured in possible fire missions for those conditions. What all of that means and how it gets integrated into an ASL game is on the player. 

Thanks everyone for the reasoned discussion. Much appreciated. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

So backing up my last post, here is one final table comparing Standard, LHR, LHR (allowing 1 BLACK), and Pleva Rules. 

Over long the long haul, the Pleva rules are unbalancing. The tipping point is somewhere between 8 and 15 turns. I do not know for sure if that tipping point is also deck dependent. The effect of adding cards on additional draws is also bad. 

The LHR do a good job of remaining close to the Standard rules for all ranges but one: 1 FFE fire mission. That is by design. But that design causes some variance relative to the Standard model. It does an EXCELLENT job making sure you get at least one mission (something like 1 in 10 billion chance to not get at least one). But in pushing for at least two missions, it does skew the expected missions to the right. You can see that in the graph below. 

The LHR +1B (using the LHR but allowing for only 1 Black). Is exceptionally close to the Standard model. 

You can clearly see how the Pleva model falls apart on long games. 

 

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

11 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Greenwood & Leaflet OBA rules are very similiar during play.

They are close. They are nearly identical when you allow for one BLACK rather than forcing two. IMO, the best OBA system would be one which used the LHR and allowed for a minimum of 1 BLACK card. Any second Red before the FIRST BLACK get's shuffled back into the deck. Any SECOND RED after one or more BLACK cards ends the module. I can now show that empirically. 

Interestingly, this is effectively the same as saying "First Card is automatically Black" by SSR. -- jim

[LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA]

1 hour ago, CTABKA said:

Find the different OBA stats rather similiar with few exceptions and ignore the more real issue, why? the OBA variants were created.

They were created due to Bad chits drawn, the only stats needed is the diffrences when that happens, and the differences will be clear and tangible.

Article should be based upon - bad chits drawn issue.

I know WHY they were created. I haven't talked about that because I agree with the reasoning and I thought it self evident. 

However, IMO saying the only comparison that matters is comparing the zero fire mission chance isn't fair at all. Take a look at the 8 turn game I showed above and look at the distribution of zero, one, two, three and four plus fire missions. There are nearly 14% more three mission games using the Pleva and Carlsson/Borås variant. The Carlsson/Borås is even worse in the 4+ mission line. Your Leaflet rules how ever show a very similar distribution to the Standard module in the three- and four plus mission lines. I would bet the 2 mission line would be very close too if you allowed the module to expire after 1 Black instead of 2 Black. 

IMO, for games under 6 turns long, any of these systems are pretty much interchangeable. The Pleva and Carlsson/Borås systems don't eliminate the chance of a RED card--which is their stated intention--but they do GREATLY diminish the likelihood. In that respect, both of these system CAN--but rarely will--fail with their stated intention.  

But at about 8 turns, the Leaflet system begins to emerge as the better system. I was pretty sure the "add RED cards" strategy would break down over time. Now I know where that is. I was not sure ANY system would be close to the Standard model but I now know that's false. The Leaflet system is a damn good change. I will try to run a comparison allowing elimination of the model after the first BLACK to see if it is even closer.