-
Keith Medlin
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
-
I'm going to take a break for a moment from my typical posting style and provide a little editorial just to see how well it's received. I've seen, on every discussion board and mailing list that discusses ASL, or wargaming in general, some form of topic about the realism shortcomings in ASL.
It's time to put this conversation to bed.
There is one hard and fast rule about ASL: Know the rulebook.
Section A.2 ERRORS has this great little footnote in it:
Quote:
To the unscrupulous, these mechanics for handling errors might
be viewed as a license to steal. We do not mean to insinuate that cheating is ac-ceptable behavior; rather, that backing up a game to accommodate a forgotten rule/unit is a drag on play. In essence, the player's knowledge of the system and methodical application of its benefits as opportunities present themselves becomes an added skill factor better reflecting the abilities of an experienced battlefield
commander. Ultimately, the only protection against a cheater is not to play him.
This is the first, and most important, rule of ASL because it reinforces that this is going to be a game and not a simulation.
Do I allow my opponent to go back and correct something? OF COURSE! Do I appreciate being given the same level of respect and sportsmanship? OF COURSE! That said, would I begrudge someone who would not offer that kind of mercy? NEVER!
Why focus on this particular passage as the keystone of my argument?
Games can enforce arbitrary execution of rules and sequence in a way that simulations cannot. Imagine an astronaut training for spaceflight (quickly, since that's about to end!) and forgetting a key step in the pre-launch sequence. The solution would not just be...well move on!
ASL is a game at its heart and it's a game through which players can re-create land battles of WW2 regardless of theater of war. Players are given a construct within which to execute this re-creation. Players are crafty, however, and a rulebook even as large as ASL's rulebook could never describe the universe in such a way that battles could be both re-created and simulated. Players are crafty.
In ASL, we call this player "crafty-ness" sleaze. It is accepted, loved/hated, and above all else...legal.
The most frequently executed, and widely known sleaze is skulking. The sequence of events (construct), called phases, allows defenders to retreat their squads out of the line of sight (and thus danger of fire combat) during the movement phase. The movement phase precedes the Defensive Fire Phase and the attacker is then unable to shoot at units who are perhaps defending key positions. A few phases later and you've got the Advance Phase which allows those retreated squads to advance, without consequence of fire attack, back into their original defensive positions to await the oncoming attacker during the next turn.
Simple in execution. Legal by the rules. Sleaze. Widely practiced and accepted.
In this case alone, you're looking at a number of factors that take ASL away from simulation and into game.
 Combat Occurring in Phases.
 Precise control over a potentially large geographic area in the absence (often) of direct leadership.
 Exploitation of the rules by players for their advantage.
 Inability for squads to recognize defensive stance opportunities.
So...why is everyone okay with this?
The rules.
Could skulking be justified or explained away through some "real world" practice? Perhaps. The problem is that this doesn't work for everything.
Consider this:
A squad is hidden in a building. An enemy squad advances into the building and discovers the squad. What should happen next?
The hidden squad should get the opportunity to obliterate the enemy that was just surprised by them.
The enemy should be bounced out of the building.
The enemy and squad should remain in the house together and fight hand-to-hand.
If you picked you are correct. Why? Because the rules say so.
There are plenty of other incidents where you can see this kind of "game logic" as I call it in ASL. The whole point of the construct to play a game like ASL is not to create realism, but rather to create tension. Watch more than a handful of ASL games and you'll likely be perplexed about who is winning and losing. Pieces aren't leaving the board with great frequency due to destruction. The overall "kill" rate in ASL is pretty low to be honest. The tension is achieved, instead, through the race against time and the structure of victory conditions for that particular scenario.
Above All Else, Know Then ASLRB.
With every playing of ASL, I find myself looking up new and interesting combinations of rules, concepts, and tactics. Situations come up that I've never seen before, or seem to contradict common sense. It's in these moments that I reach for the rulebook and am instantly reminded that this is a game and not a simulation where common sense would likely take precedent.
ASL isn't the perfection of Squad Leader. It isn't the holy grail of tactical WWII games. It's not the ultimate boardgame experience for history nuts with a penchant for WWII. It's a great game that has lasting appeal because it creates the impression of conflict through a unique system that focuses on tension between opposing forces.
There's no perfect game out there, but when you can point to ASL and show how people from all over the world are coming together in regular tournaments that have lasted for decades, you start to get the picture about what really makes ASL so special: The players.
Until Next Time... Roll Low!
|
|
