In a couple of months I'll have the opportunity to run a SG scenario for a
bunch of Squad Leader players, and it occurred to me that we ought to have a
scenario that will be familiar to them, but will show off SG. (We could do the
same thing for Warhamster but since I don't think I've even seen Warhammer
being played, I can't help much).
And this brought to mind the second question. ASL is more complex
than SG--but the introductory "Guards Counterattack" has a couple of
companies per side. In SG, that would be an all day event. Aside from the
difference of moving 1 counter vs moving 10 minis, what makes it possible to
play that scenario in a few hours in ASL when you can't
> In a couple of months I'll have the opportunity to run a SG scenario
Are these Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader types? It does make a
difference.;)
> And this brought to mind the second question. ASL is more complex
That's the reason right there. The resolution of the units. In ASL you are
handling squad sized units with the occasional special counter thrown into the
mix (MG, Leaders, Vehicles, etc). In SG you are moving each man of the squad:
that takes time.
The Guards Counterattack sounds like it's from Squad Leader (not ASL) and if
memory serves it's a bloody scenario. The action really peaks around turn 5 or
6 (it's a 7 turn scenario) when it becomes a mad dash to fulfill victory
conditions.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:18:25 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> And this brought to mind the second question. ASL is more complex
This is the thing I have against SG2's pace of play. A fairly short scenario
(say a couple of hours) is about a platoon per side. Even then, I've run
scenarios at GenCon where a platoon per side plus vehicles has taken 3 hours.
Two platoons per side works out to about a good sized game, as far as the
number of maneuver elements and time to play is concerned. But two platoon
just strikes me as an odd level of play. I would prefer up to a company per
side, but SG2 just takes too long. So, there isn't enough detail for a platoon
per side (unless you adopt house rules and model fire teams) but the game is
too slow for a company per side.
Squad Leader's main difference is the sequence of play. If I remember
correctly it's something like Rally (Player 1, henceforth called P1), Prep
Fire (P1), Movement (P1), Defensive Fire (Player 2, or P2), Advancing Fire
(P1), Rout Phase (P1), Advance Phase (P1), Close Combat Phase (P1 and P2). In
other words, a player rallies, then fires his guys who aren't moving. He then
moves his guys, the other guy fires at them (either during movement or
afterwards), then the active player gets to fire anyone left over. He handles
figures that rout, can move any of his guys one hex, and then both sides do
hand-to-hand combat. ASL adds more to this, though...
Why is SL faster?
The sequence of play is one, and probably the main thing. A player decides
what he's going to do and does it. Prep fire means that those squads that fire
don't move. Once Prep Fire is done, those squads fall out of the decision
loop. The player then moves his squads, but he's already pretty much decided
what he's doing for the turn. No reaction. He's already figured out what he's
doing for the turn. By the time he's prep-fired and moved, he's
committed most of his guys.
In SG2, I've noticed that players tend to react a lot. They decide what to do
in a turn, but end up having to react to what happens per activation. The
"sitting back and thinking about what they will do" process happens more
frequently in SG2 than in SL.
A second reason is the combat resolution system. SL uses 2D6 and a combat
results chart. Now, for the most part the speed of the two systems is similar.
SG2 requires you to hunt up dice. It also requires a tape measurement, some
mental work for die shifts, and then finding the right dice out of all the
different polyhedrals. The dice are rolled and compared. In SL, there are more
modifiers (and _way_ more in ASL). However, this is offset by the fact
that you count hexes on a board and roll 2D6. You can give both players two
dice and they will always roll those. In fact, you can roll dice then work out
the results. In SG2 you have to work something out to find out which dice to
roll.
Once the dice are rolled, the combat results are much faster in SL. The chart
tells you what happens. In SG2 you have to roll for armour penetration, then
roll for which guys are casualties and mark them. Then you have a morale
check. In SL the range of results is less.
The third big reason is that SL isn't a miniatures game. A whole squad is
moved as one little cardboard chit. LOS is usually a lot easier to figure out
just by looking at the board. Measuring movement is easier, as you don't need
a ruler (you just add up hexes). It would be interesting to find out how
quickly SL plays as a miniatures game (lots of folks play it as such). I'd
guess it's still faster than SG2.
_Hardtack_ (or what will probably be called "The Hardtack Plug-In for
SG2"),
plays much more quickly than SG2. Even though I converted the figure scale
from 1:1 to 1:3 or 1:5, I can still play a game with 100 figures a side in
_Hardtack_ in two to three hours.
The reasons for this, using essentially the same system as SG2, are as
follows: regimental formations, wound resolution, no suppressions. Regimental
Formations allow a player to activate all the companies (think squads) at
once, as long as they meet certain criteria. This means there is one big point
of decision, then the player activates almost all of his figures at once. As
for wound resolution, figures that are wounded are simply removed (which is
more in keeping with the American Civil War). Finally, by replacing
suppressions with Confidence Tests, morale drops more quickly while players
don't have to make suppression removal tests.
It could be possible to change SG2 to reflect a SL style turn sequence. I
think if that was done, you'd have a faster paced game. My personal belief is
that the alternating activations, which cause us so much grief in FMA as far
as modelling some real-world situations, is what slows down the pace of
the game.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:59:18 -0400, "Damond Walker"
<dwalker@syncretic.com> wrote:
> That's the reason right there. The resolution of the units. In
That's only part of the reason. SG2 is played at the squad level. You move
individual figures, but the centre of the squad is what's important for
movement and range distances. I've even taught newbies to play by having the
squad leader as the centre of the squad and just moving him. They measure for
the squad leader, move him, then group the rest of the squad around him any
way they want. One measurement at a time. This is fast and doesn't account for
the disparity between the two systems.
I forgot something. SL allows multiple squads to fire at the one target with
one combat resolution. That can speed things up considerably.
> The Guards Counterattack sounds like it's from Squad Leader (not
There's a version of the Guards Counterattack available for ASL, as per the
programmed rules for ASL that appeared in one of the ASL annuals. I played it
once, I think, as an ASL scenario.
I was ready to ditch my ASL stuff as I just don't have the one or two
lifetimes necessary to devote to a single game. I changed my mind when I
bought _Retro_, a rules system for playing a much, much, much stripped
down version of ASL. It looks like
> You move individual figures, but the centre of the squad is what's
I only measure the SL but it still takes time to move the other figs.
> I changed my mind when I
"Like..."?
Scale - as you pointed out, one game uses one counter to represent a
squad, the other uses individual figs. In ASL, terrain is more limited, you
can have a building plus one other terrain type per hex(plus maybe a road)
that affects the squad. In SG you can have various parts of the squad in
various types of terrain at the same time.
In ASL squads are either whole or damaged (top side of counter, flip
side of counter) in SG the squad could be down 1-10 guys.
If you re-scaled the Guards Counter Attack to where 1 ASL counter was
represented by 1-2 SG figure(s), so that a SG squad represents an ASL
platoon, I'm sure that you could finish the scenario in a few hours.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Are these Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader types? It does make a
These are ASL guys. The Guards Counterattack was Scenario1 for SL IIRC but
there's an ASL version of it. Good for starters because it's
all-infantry,
no vehicles or arty.
So we have these factors:
a. scale--moving one chit for a squad, vs moving 10 minis plus a couple
of chits b. hexes vs tape measure c. roll to hit plus any resulting morale
checks vs roll to hit, roll for fractional hits, roll for wound allocation,
roll for armor, roll for morale d. decisions for groups vs decisions per squad
So part of it is just the difference between boardgame and mini, and we don't
want to lose the visual appeal of the figures and terrain (although
I'm making up counters right now--primarily because they're more
discreet than minis at work).
If we use a randomized activation system--cards, for instance, with a
leader's option to override occasionally--that should speed things up.
If we use the alternate wound fire results in SG, that should also speed
things up a bit. Other suggestions?
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:30:10 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> I only measure the SL but it still takes time to move the other figs.
True, and that does slow things up a bit. Counters can be fiddly things, but
generally a board game is faster than a miniatures game at about the same
scale.
> I changed my mind when I
Oops. I'm not sure what I meant to say before I was interrupted.
It looks like I will actually get to play the ASL scenarios. You can add ASL
rules to Retro, but if you want to keep the game down to a bare minimum and
learn to play very quickly, Retro is an excellent starting point.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:50:31 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> If we use a randomized activation system--cards, for instance, with a
If
> we use the alternate wound fire results in SG, that should also speed
The alternate "Quick and Dirty" fire results would work, but there was always
something that bugged me about it. I think it's the fact that impact isn't
taken into account. Or, rather, you only take into account the firepower die.
I don't mind the fact that the total isn't divided by the range die for the
number of casualties. I always felt that the full version of the rules "double
counted" the range die (or, rather, the Quality Die triple counted, as the QD
is rolled, but is also the basis of the RD, which is also used to calculate
the total casualties).
What I'd like to do is go through the weapons list and come up with a combined
FP/Impact die for support weapons for use with the Quick and Dirty
option, and new FP ratings for some of the small arms. The problem weapons are
the extremes, like the plasma gun (D6 FP, D12 ID). If you only take into
account the plasma gun's FP, you don't get the weapon's full impact taken into
account.
One way to do this is to give some weapons the ability to shift the armour die
down one or two (when fired on their own, naturally), due to their inherent
nastiness. So, you'd roll QD + D6 with a plasma gun, but maybe give it a
-2
die shift to the armour die when calculating casualties.
Taking the activation sequence out of the hands of players is a bit dicey.
Some players don't mind the random activation card idea, others hate it. I'm
not sure how much it will speed things up. It takes away the choice of which
squad to activate, but in return you'll end up with players not deciding what
to do until a card is turned up.
One interesting option would be a single deck of cards. Mix cards for both
sides in together, and draw one at a time. This might result in one player
getting several activations in a row. To temper this, do _not_ add in
the command units. Let them activate whenever they want, including after an
opponent's card is turned up. Oh, and add overwatch rules. With overwatch and
command units able to interrupt, you could end up with a very tense game.
Actually, this sounds pretty interesting... I may have to give this a try.
Okay, I've posted a jpg with three platoons worth of Islamic Fed counters
(each platoon with 3 line squads, 1 HQ squad which looks no different, 1 Medic
team, 1 Heavy weapons team, and 1 independent
leader). Upper left is identifier, upper right is quality/leadership,
lower left is armor, lower right is movement. FP will have to be a separate
chit, I think. I may make separate counters for support weapons.
(I'm posting these mainly in the hopes that someone will say "look, if you
don't know how to make it look good, stand aside and let someone competent do
it. Here, I've now got on my website counters of the major powers plus IF, NI,
PAU, KV and some mercenaries...")
> Okay, I've posted a jpg with three platoons worth of Islamic Fed
Er...and now that your anticipation is up...
A randomized activation system does wonders for almost any miniatures game. I
first ran into it in The Sword & the Flame (new edition just came out) years
ago and I've been using it whenever my opponent will go for it ever since. The
two main variants are giving each unit its own card, and allowing the player
to choose where to spend each activation. The latter can let units be
activated only once, or more frequently.
Firepower (AH) [1] had an interesting twist on this idea. They gave each squad
a certain number of chits, and a certain number of activations per chit drawn.
Elite units had lots of chits, big and clumsy units had chits worth lots of
guys. Really bad units had more guys than chits. This is one of the games that
allowed you to freely reactivate your units, which made for a more realistic
pace to combat
-flurries of firing with everyone else staying low and looking around.
the game was killed by rules that made SFB look clean and simple, then the
grave was desecrated by keying all of the equipment on the OOBs by
the code numbers from the equipments sheets: an M-16 was listed as C6,
and the Mk48 grenade was the D8 [2]. That made the squad lists look like
a bingo call at best.
Firefight, by Alternative Armies, had an elegant system of actions based
on using dice as markers to represent actions. It also had a very involved
reaction system. They allowed you to react to a reaction, much like chaining
interrupts in MtG, and it worked as well in play. Firefight is optimized for
closer quarters, room clearing actions. Chains of reaction moves and fires go
off in one area, then the attacker
sets up to push into another area. I've had 40K players hopping up and down by
the end of a demo game as the unpredictability of the sequence gets the
adrenaline up. Since the game was backing a line of minis competing with 40K,
they got it balanced so that your heroes with melee weapons are almost viable.
And there are campaign rules.
Victory Games even used the concept in Panzer Command, are rare appearance in
a traditional wargame. Your division was made up of regiments, each of which
activated its member battalions when its chit was drawn. The German command
advantage appeared in the chrome of the system, but the fundamental concept
worked very well. Panzer Command made for a nice study in command structures.
[1] And Close Assault by Yaquinto, but you can still find Firepower.
[2] All numbers, designators and other specifics in the preceding
sentence were made up on the spot for rhetorical purposes.
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> If we use a randomized activation system--cards, for instance, with a
If
> we use the alternate wound fire results in SG, that should also speed
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:10:32 -0700, Michael Llaneza
<maserati@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Firepower (AH) [1] had an interesting twist on this idea.
I really liked FirePower, and didn't find it all that difficult to learn. A
lot of folk didn't like it, though. Their main objection was that if you got a
run of chits early, your opponent knew you were out of chits and could run
unopposed through his chits. This can happen in SG2 or FMAS, but to a lesser
degree. (I tried to sell FirePower on eBay recently, though my heart wasn't in
it. It didn't sell though I wasn't asking all that much for it, so I've
decided to keep it. One day, maybe, I'll get to play it again.)
> Firefight, by Alternative Armies, had an elegant system of actions
I have it, but only played it once. Not sure what bugged us about the system.
There was something that felt strangely artificial, but I can't remember what
it was.
From: Allan Goodall agoodall@att.net
> I really liked FirePower <snip> their main objection was that if you
I think what I'd do is use one deck for both sides, give my Ldr1 units three
cards each, my Ldr2's get two, Ldr3's get one, and I'd mix in a couple of "end
of turn" cards. Platoon leaders could use their reactivations any time a card
is about to be drawn.
Another possibility is to give one action per turn and use order chits. You'd
put the chit face down by each unit, then when all orders have been issued,
flip the chits and execute the moves. Borrowing FT arcs, you'd have "Move F",
"Move FS", "Move FP", etc, plus "Close Assault", "Planned fire", "Reaction
Fire", "Other" (comms, reorg etc)
You found the one big flaw of the Firepower system. One way around it would be
to put twice as many chits in the cup as called for, and 'reshuffle' after
you've drawn the normal amount of chits. Everyone gets
the same proportion of activations over the course of a game, but the
activation-by-activation results will be much less predicatable.
Firefight definitely has some dicey mechanics. I think they work very well for
close quarters action, such as a boarding action. If you try it
on an open field for a platoon-scale skirmish it'll break completely. If
you need to kill an hour, try a quick game of Firefight with a
half-dozen minis per side, ideally on a set of starship deckplans.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:10:32 -0700, Michael Llaneza