Game: Squad Leader

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

desultor — 2008-11-19T06:54:51+00:00

russ wrote:
Most of the reasons you love it are true of many other wargames published more recently, actually...
So true Russ. As yet I haven't experienced any other wargames, but as I wrapped up this little exercise I was thinking just what you said. The only advantage Squad Leader has is that its my first. Perhaps this is an indication that I would enjoy other wargames as well! (Though I suspect that with my personality I will want to dig deep into just this one for a few more years, before investing in others.)

TimothyP wrote:
to clarify his original intent.
Thanks for the encouragement, Timothy! As always, interpreting tone via the printed word can be tricky. Know that I took no offense, didn't feel attacked, and was happy to explore the reasons for my taste in this project. My "defense" of Squad Leader's #3 status was purely debate, not vindication.

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

TimothyP — 2008-11-18T16:26:04+00:00

Great review, J!

First of all, let me clarify that I wasn't asking for a defense. My words were:

TimothyP wrote:
I think it would be cool to hear about how Squad Leader made #3 in your top ten all time list.
I was just interested in hearing about your background with the game since I hadn't heard it before. There was no challenge there.

Having heard the story, it's cool to see how your youth and family background affected your taste for the game. Knowing how deep your mind can think (and how much you enjoyed reading as a kid), it doesn't surprise me that you ate up the rulebook.

Thanks for the write-up, bro.

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

Rammstein69 — 2008-11-18T04:35:55+00:00

Many good memories here too! This game filled many an empty evening and weekend during high school. Yeah...that says something about me.

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

russ — 2008-11-17T11:26:55+00:00

Most of the reasons you love it are true of many other wargames published more recently, actually... but Squad Leader was indeed the ground-breaker that paved the way for so many others. I haven't played it in years either, but I still have very fond nostalgic memories of one summer when a friend and I were getting together regularly for games of Squad Leader!

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

fatso — 2008-11-16T22:46:36+00:00

You can always jump back in.... It's a great system!

Thread: Re: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

mistermarino — 2008-11-16T19:40:09+00:00

It's my No. 1, and I haven't played in 20 years!

Thread: Why do I love Squad Leader, if I haven't played it in 7 years?

desultor — 2008-11-16T10:07:44+00:00

A few weeks ago my friend TimothyP encouraged me to develop my list of top ten board games. It was a fun challenge, and I am glad to have done it; I now appreciate a play of each game on the list a bit more.

He was surprised to see Squad Leader ranked as number three, and asked about it. After pondering a bit I've landed on three main reasons for my fondness of Squad Leader, despite not having played it for almost seven and a half years: theme, scenarios, and maps. Here's my answer to Timothy, based on my memory of the game.

]]> Theme.

Squad Leader has a rich theme that matches reality. This game has theme like no other game I know. Every rule is set up to replicate real-world situations in actual WWII combat. While this makes the rule-set more involved than most of the "Euros" that we play frequently (especially the further you get in the system), you can get started with a set of pretty simple combat rules.

The system is flexible enough to simulate most every situation that arose in WWII, with terrain, weather and visibility, and equipment, weapons and tanks included.

Fog of war is replicated well. The rules allow for the realistic unknown. Sometimes you know how many troops the other side has, but not where they are until you make contact. I'm over-simplifying here, but the idea is that of Stratego or the Lord of the Rings two-player game, from what I understand.

Tactics and strategy are very important, and the game rewards good decisions that correspond to combat. A win in the game is likely due to a plan that would have worked well in a real-world WWII situation. On the other hand, there is a significant role of luck in the game, which makes for unpredictable and exciting situations and plenty of replay value.

Military nostalgia plays into this particular theme for me personally, as my family has been pretty involved in the Services. My dad was in the Naval Air Reserves; my oldest brother retired from the Navy; my oldest sister was in the Army for a bit. I even seriously considered a military band career. In addition, having recently watched Band of Brothers gave me a new respect for the courage of these soldiers, and imagery for the reality that Squad Leader abstracts.

]]> Scenarios.

Each game play is like a mission to accomplish. The win condition is usually different for each side, and there are hundreds of scenarios. This allows for unlimited potential for variability, and a unique challenge every play.

Scenario-based play allows for a gradual learning curve as well. The rulebook is set up to only introduce you to the rules you need for the next scenario. There is also an unofficial (but excellent) graded scenario set that lets you get a feel for the rules, without jumping into the deep end and getting overwhelmed.

Scenarios can be extremely balanced, or ridiculously one-sided, depending on player preference, skill, or mood. They can be bite-sized and wrap up in an hour, or epic, spanning weeks of play. The sheer variety of scenarios available in this game system is incredibly appealing to me.

]]> Maps.

I've always loved maps, and the way Squad Leader draws in my imagination with them adds a lot of fun for me. I enjoy envisioning my squads traversing the terrain on the map, re-living childhood excursions in the woods behind my house.

The hex-based maps and movement allow for much more flexibility than other game boards. This opens up great potential for individual style and game play variation. It is rare to see the same maneuver twice, even when playing at the same scenario.

The shooting mechanic in the game is based on line-of-sight around and through terrain features. This adds a great degree of realism, and plays out as a unique and fun mechanic. I remember often squinting down the map board, trying to guess if my squads would be safe from the fire from the opposing army.

]]>

So, there you have them: my reasons for loving a game I haven't played in over seven years. My thanks go to Timothy for encouraging me to think through my top ten list of favorite board games, and then challenging me to defend Squad Leader's placement as number three on it. I look forward to more play in the next seven years!

Thread: Re: Squad leader: 30 años despues / Review in spanish

Juan Diego — 2008-11-14T09:57:14+00:00

Excelente post.

Thread: Re: Queston on rule 13.2 broken units next to each other

smaul — 2008-11-10T19:24:05+00:00

That has been what 3 out of 3 folks have told me so Ill go with that, thanks

Steve

Thread: Re: Queston on rule 13.2 broken units next to each other

_Kael_ — 2008-11-10T08:27:15+00:00

I remember a same question being asked on the Squad Leader Mailing list a few days ago. The answer was that the Germans can stay where they are, 'cause when it's their turn to rout, no enemy units are next to them. (So checking is done consecutively, not simultaniously.)
I don't have any rules reference for you, here at my work, though.

Thread: Re: Question on set up in buildings

smaul — 2008-11-10T00:18:29+00:00

To clarify Barry, I agreed with your interpretation before I saw the Q&A but I was playing another person who did not so I was looking for clarification since I now had 2 versions.

thanks for the great link.

steve

Thread: Queston on rule 13.2 broken units next to each other

smaul — 2008-11-09T23:07:19+00:00

Russian units are attacking German units

Russian units break out in the open, same turn German units break and are in a building

during the route phase they are both still next to each other but the Russians have to move first because they are the moving player and next to a unit (even if it is only a routed unit they must move to cover correct)

If they move to cover or die not being able to, does the German unit in cover still have to move away since it was by the Russian (broken Russian only unit) at the start of the route phase?

Just to clarify again, all units happen to be broken so neither one is beside an unbroken friend or enemy unit.

Steve

Thread: Re: need help with vassal question with squad leader and ? markers

smaul — 2008-11-08T19:23:33+00:00

Thanks Barry, can you change it mid game or not?

steve

Thread: Re: need help with vassal question with squad leader and ? markers

TommieSL — 2008-11-08T18:18:21+00:00

There is an option under - Preferences > General, where you can select a tick box called 'Let my opponent unconceal my units'

When checked - it does exactly what it says on the box ;o)

Otherwise you have to exchange files.

Thread: need help with vassal question with squad leader and ? markers

smaul — 2008-11-08T17:13:46+00:00

If I shot at them and they suffered MC how do I remove the concealed status to see if they are real or ??? counters?

Or can that only be done by the opponent?

Hope not since it would really slow down scenario 2 as I fire at the Germans and I need to know if I broke anything before firing my next stack

thanks

Steve

Thread: Re: Question on set up in buildings

TommieSL — 2008-11-07T23:44:44+00:00

I happen to be one of the opponents to which Steve refers.

Anyone reading this interested in the answer may find the following reference document an invaluable source of information with answers to questions about all things related to the play of Squad Leader.
Check here... http://www.wargameacademy.org/SQLA/Documentation/SqlSeriesQA...

For the specific answer to Steve's question on set-up, check ref 919, page 29 in the document linked above.

Those less inclined to clcik and read, see below...

919. Scenario 2: In Scenario 2, must you
deploy at least one unit in each listed
building or can you leave a building
unoccupied? A. No, you may leave some
of the listed buildings unoccupied.

Thread: Question on set up in buildings

smaul — 2008-11-07T17:03:57+00:00

Hey all,

Playing 2 guys via Vassal on Scenario 2 in Squad leader and have a questions for you all.

I am the Germans in the first game and I show that you can set up in about 6 different buildings as the germans (this would apply to Co A Engineers and Kampfgruppe Tienham.

the game where I am Germans my opponent corrected my set up and said I had to occupy all the buildings so I had to pull back a couple squads and occupy buildings CC3 and CC4, which I didnt have troops in.

Now playing another guy and being the Russians he set up his Germans the same way I did and only had troops in buildings AA4 and Y8

so my question is basically if it shows 4 different buildings for your element to set up in do you have to occupy them all or just what you want?

If someone can show me in the rules what would support or correct that I would be grateful. It doesnt matter to me, I just want to make sure I am learning this game right. If its a matter of opinion on setup that would be good to know too.

thanks

Steve

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

wwscrispin — 2008-11-07T16:13:06+00:00

hoop wrote:
wwscrispin wrote:
The rogue boards (9, 10, 11) are not required for anything SL related that I know of. Different boards were released with these number in ASL. They were also poorly rendered and their colors do not match the other boards.

AH released a set of "Rogue Scenarios" that used these boards. Several scenarios issued in The General also used them.

Thanks, I must have forgotten that in the intervening years.

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

hoop — 2008-11-07T15:37:52+00:00

wwscrispin wrote:
The rogue boards (9, 10, 11) are not required for anything SL related that I know of. Different boards were released with these number in ASL. They were also poorly rendered and their colors do not match the other boards.

AH released a set of "Rogue Scenarios" that used these boards. Several scenarios issued in The General also used them.

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

wwscrispin — 2008-11-07T01:54:13+00:00

The rogue boards (9, 10, 11) are not required for anything SL related that I know of. Different boards were released with these number in ASL. They were also poorly rendered and their colors do not match the other boards.

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

smaul1 — 2008-11-07T01:34:06+00:00

COD only has 2 maps

Interesting so to get maps 9,10 and 11 Ill have to just buy them separate someday on ebay?

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

gamer72 — 2008-11-06T23:37:48+00:00

SS units in Cross Of Iron. Squad Leader contained boards 1 to 4, Cross Of Iron had board 5, Crescendo Of Doom had 6 and 7 (and 8 ?), while GI : Anvil Of Victory contained boards 12, 13, 14 and 15 (and 8, if it wasn't in COD). The missing boards 9, 10 and 11 were known as the 'rogue' boards, and could be bought separately. Most of these older boards have been rereleased in ASL modules, except (I think) boards 13, 14 and 15.

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

smaul — 2008-11-06T22:02:39+00:00

Thanks guys, appreciate the quick response

I have a copy of COI on the way, I bought COD first cuz I like the Polish theater but I didnt know you had to buy them in order so I ordered a COI as well.

Steve

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

stampdog316 — 2008-11-06T20:37:14+00:00

If you decide to get into ASL, black SS counters are included with A Bridge Too Far.

Thread: Re: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

Peso Pete — 2008-11-06T20:23:17+00:00

All of the expansions have map boards but, as memory serves, I think it was Cross Of Iron that had the black-colored SS units. If you have SL, COI is practically a no-brainer anyway since it includes the important armor rules and has some terrific scenarios as well.

Thread: Re: logged in on vassal looking for a game of scenario 2

TommieSL — 2008-11-06T20:21:39+00:00

Send me a start-up file and we'll play - no problem.
Pick whatever scenario and whatever side takes your fancy.

ingrambj(at)aol.com

Thread: Re: logged in on vassal looking for a game of scenario 2

smaul — 2008-11-06T20:16:28+00:00

sorry I wasn't not able to Monday

besides, little nervous playing a game with a SL avatar

anyway Im open to PBEM of any of the 1st three scenarios, although Id have to read up on armor one more time.

also a guy got me playing the Alpha 0 scenario he wanted to refresh, so that is fun, didn't know there was user based basic scenarios out there.

my email if you want to ever email is maul(AT)cableone.net

Steve

Thread: Which box set do you get SS units or how do you get those?

smaul — 2008-11-06T20:10:58+00:00

Are there also other maps on that the ones in

SL
COI
COD
GIAOV

??

thanks

Steve

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

bolter — 2008-11-01T08:21:58+00:00

Well, I am happy playing SL and will probably never play ASL. SL is the right level of complexity, seems realistic enough (whatever realism is), and rewards the use of sensible tactics. I like the old maps more than the new ASLK ones and for some reason that is a big deal for me.

What I want is more small scenarios as I don't often have time to get through any of the larger ones (don't often = never, damn kids).

I have noticed a lot of comments about SL from ASL players but it hasn't all been negative. Also, I know that if I saw a post by people talking about second edition space hulk I couldn't help post that first edition is way better and that they should download the rule book and play it instead. Must be the same for ASL players.

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

_Kael_ — 2008-11-01T08:02:44+00:00

My wrong.

Thanks for the (more) civilized answer, although the last 4 sentences would have been enough.

to you

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

fubar awol — 2008-10-31T20:39:34+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:
I have no objection about anyone mentioning ASL. And I like the OP's post, for instance. I do find it curious, that so many ASLers seem to hang around on the SL forum.

Friend - you may have a bit of a "persecution complex" here... you might talk to someone about it.

However, I did recently comment in an article that was titled "Is ASL Better than SL?" which appeared on THE FRONT PAGE of BGG under the "Game Forums" heading just like all other articles on BGG do. I saw it on the front page, I felt I could provide some insight. I posted. I did not (and do not) "hang around" the SL forum. In fact, I don't ever remember visiting the Squad Leader Game Page of this website.

Foob

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

dude163 — 2008-10-31T16:55:51+00:00

Playtester Jon Mishcon described the new game rather more succinctly in Volume 21, Number 5 of The General Magazine, in relation to Squad Leader; he wrote that the game was "Closely akin to SL but NOT the same." ASL took longer to play, punished use of "cheats" that worked in the old game system (one example was flooding an isolated defending unit by moving multiple units towards him; in ASL, units could fire more than once at moving targets in certain situations, which was impossible in the original SL), and emphasized realism over playability. He clarified that while playability had in many cases increased with the new rules organization, there were still many "special" circumstances that called for special rules.

The new rules did, however, have a very strong systemic approach whereby, in his words, you could
learn a concept and it applies, with varying D (ice) R (oll) M (odifiers), in all similar situations. This makes the game easier to learn and play. The rules make more sense. Most of the old 'funny' rules that allowed 'cute' tricks have been deleted. Mostly, I guess, its a distillation of the best of SL....In short, there's a lot less crapping around in the rules. Most importantly, the vast majority of the rules really will tend to benefit the player who thinks as did his historical counterpart. (Sigh, an end to our torching most of the mapboard.)

In that same issue of "the General", Don Greenwood - developer of ASL and also editor of the magazine - responded to harsh criticism by consumers who felt that the redesign of the system was a cash-grab, or worse, a betrayal.

"The SL game system, for all its acclaim...was based on a flawed foundation. The subsequent gamettes, in building on that start, only complicated matters by attempting to patch that foundation rather than replace it altogether....here's how I rationalize it. A few years ago, ...I was so enamoured by (video cassette recorders) that I just had to have one. Two years later they were selling models for half the price with twice the features which mine had. Sometimes I regret buying that VCR so soon, but then I recall all the fun I had with it when it was new and eventually concluded that my money was well spent after all."

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

dude163 — 2008-10-31T16:53:28+00:00

By 1983 and the release of GI, there were four separate rulebooks with sometimes contradictory or poorly integrated rules. For one example, US forces with lower morale were penalized by the fact that morale ratings were used to determine at random the ability to push ordnance through snow or mud. Logically, morale should not have an effect on such an attempt.

James Collier, in a piece entitled "Glass Anvil: A Dissenting View of GI: Anvil of Victory", presented in Volume 20, Number 1 of The General, described the situation:
By now it should be recognized that the Squad Leader series is virtually unique among WWII board games by being a game in evolution. The succeeding gamettes have not been mere additions to the original, but instead have introduced substantial revisions to the original parameters. This is even more true with GI where the bulk of both components and rules represent revisions rather than new material. There are, for example, only 300 more counters than provided with CRESCENDO OF DOOM, and well over half the GI counters represent replacements for counters previously introduced (only a handful of the original SL counters are still usuable (sic) in their printed form)... Though one must pay the price of forfeiting obsolete materials above and beyond the purchase price, the loss can be accepted as the cost of progress. There are few who would quibble with the appropriateness of the added dimensions of the revised vehicle and ordnance counters presented in CROSS OF IRON. That process is, of course, carried forward in COD and GI to include the relevant nationalities. Now GI introduces a similar order of revision for the infantry counters in addition to a number of new maneuvers and capabilities. As this evolution continues, one is eventually compelled to ask where it is going and why?

It was clear that the system had grown in ways never dreamed of in 1977; large amounts of "nutmail" arriving at Avalon Hill convinced the developers of the need to streamline the rules. Originally this was anticipated as being a simple compilation of the rules in existence, possibly redoing the "To Hit/To Kill" system used to simulate armour protection and penetration in tank combat.

In the March-April 1983 issue of Fire and Movement, developer Don Greenwood stated that he saw the next project as being a hardcover or loose-leaf version of the rules, with the "entire game system ... rewritten and revised where necessary" to make one combined "advanced" version. Greenwood also, in one of the replies to Collier in the Volume 20, Number 1 issue of The General, described this project as "...a rewritten, succinct and complete compilation of the entire game system in one rulebook."

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

_Kael_ — 2008-10-31T16:21:55+00:00

keethrax wrote:
What an amazing display of inferiority complex.
keethrax wrote:
If your case is that you're psyche and it's inferiority complex is too weak to handle being on the internet "in public" Yep you've got a solid case. [..]
I'm done replying to you, you're too sadly delusional to deal with.
Well, I wouldn't mind you stopping the personal attacks, thank you.

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

keethrax — 2008-10-31T16:04:55+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:

But now about you, you rate ASL a 9, haven't played, rated or own SL according to your BGG history, but still hang around the SL forum. What's your SL experience, if you don't mind me asking?

Answered elsewhere already.

Played a ton of SL. It was before I discovered BGG. When I found BGG I rated everything I owned at the time. Which no longer included SL. So it slipped through the cracks ratings wise.

In fact, since I was playing SL when I was younger and had more free time, I'd be willing to bet I've played 3-4 times more SL than ASL.

Also answered elsewhere already, I think your current crusade is sad. So I'll be ingoring it from here on out. You seen to be laboring under the delusion that BGG forums are more separate than they are. There's this magical invention called the BGG front page.... I read everything on wargames I happen notice on the front page. ASL, SL, and everything else. God forbid someone be interested in a game they no longer play. Or even never played. The horror!

As for defending ASL, I could make a much larger list of flaws for ASL than you could. I assume you have no real knowledge of ASL because you have said as much. And your attempts at "facts" back that up. The best part: you seem to think that me taking you to task on your facts is a defense of ASL, when I'd be willing to bet my version is *more* critical of the game than yours.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

keethrax — 2008-10-31T15:54:01+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:
Thanks for your answers.

In this thread on the SL forum posted, within 15 hrs:
Felkor, rated neither SL nor ASL
bk_otj, rates 4 different ASL (related) entries all 10s, SL a 7
dude163, rates ASL and ASLSK1-3 all 9, SL unrated
fubar awol, rates ASL a 10, SL unrated

I think that sums it up. I rest my case.

Edit: hrs-correction

If your case is that you're psyche and it's inferiority complex is too weak to handle being on the internet "in public" Yep you've got a solid case. If it was anything else, you've failed to make your case at all.

Strangely you didn't include me in your list, I don't have SL rated. Because I generally forget to rate games that I don't own (or haven't owned since discovering BGG) I've played it plenty. Feel free to keep up the stellar work though. [For the record I rate it as a 7, then 8, then 6 depending on when I was rating it and exactly what products I was including]

You do realize that threads like this make the front page of BGG don't you? You further realize that the entire point of both the threads you have been vocally bitching about this in have been directly designed to tie SL/ASL together and thus *should* get people form both sides?

I'm done replying to you, you're too sadly delusional to deal with.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

dude163 — 2008-10-31T10:54:12+00:00

Like someone already mentioned, the title of this thread is

" Is ASL better than SL?"

and you are surprised that ASL players came here to answer your question?

or would you prefer a bunch of Puerto Rico players chiming in without any experience of either game?

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

nickp — 2008-10-31T09:55:32+00:00

These arguments (see posts above) are becoming more and more common on BGG - as everywhere else on the internet. It's a curious phenomenon though perhaps we shouldn't be too suprised that guys who enjoy fighting board wargames enjoy a bit of conflict on the web also.

It strikes me that my post above was based on a miscomprehension about movement and defensive fire but I find it hard to articulate or clarify for myself. nevertheless I will tackle SL and CoI one of these days months years.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

_Kael_ — 2008-10-31T09:23:31+00:00

Thanks for your answers.

In this thread on the SL forum posted, within 15 hrs:
Felkor, rated neither SL nor ASL
bk_otj, rates 4 different ASL (related) entries all 10s, SL a 7
dude163, rates ASL and ASLSK1-3 all 9, SL unrated
fubar awol, rates ASL a 10, SL unrated

I think that sums it up. I rest my case.

Edit: hrs-correction

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

_Kael_ — 2008-10-31T09:09:27+00:00

keethrax wrote:
And here you are again.Nope. The other thread was created after my response here. I could say the same about you, mr.ASL.

keethrax wrote:
Your history's close, but warped, but you're pretty clearly just whining that someone dare mentions ASL in the SL forums, so I'll not bother actually straightening it out for you.I have no objection about anyone mentioning ASL. And I like the OP's post, for instance. I do find it curious, that so many ASLers seem to hang around on the SL forum.

keethrax wrote:
You create a whole thread to complain about those with experience in both showing up in your precious SL forums, and yet feel OK spewing crap about a game you've not even played. You assume I don't have any experience with or knowledge about ASL.

I reread my post. I assume with 'spewing crap' you mean my 1 remark about a monster? Don't take it personal, any game which needs a binder for the rules is a monster to my taste. To each his own.

But now about you, you rate ASL a 9, haven't played, rated or own SL according to your BGG history, but still hang around the SL forum. What's your SL experience, if you don't mind me asking?

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

bk_otj — 2008-10-31T07:12:04+00:00

I think ASL is better.

After Cross of Iron, ASL is also easier to play.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

dude163 — 2008-10-30T20:38:36+00:00

Is the ASLSK series better than SL but inferior to ASL?
thats what I want to know

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

Felkor — 2008-10-30T18:34:06+00:00

fubar awol wrote:
Felkor wrote:
I think we can agree that discussing which is better, ASL or SL, is a valid discussion, and we can also agree that hijacking someone's thread to bring up this discussion is not appropriate.

Uh... the title of the thread is:

Is ASL better than SL?

I would also consider it inappropriate to respond to someone's post without reading it in its entirety. You can't judge a book by it's title, and you can't judge a post that way either.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

fubar awol — 2008-10-30T18:11:44+00:00

Felkor wrote:
I think we can agree that discussing which is better, ASL or SL, is a valid discussion, and we can also agree that hijacking someone's thread to bring up this discussion is not appropriate.

Uh... the title of the thread is:

Is ASL better than SL?

Thread: Re: Scenario 1: Meeting Squad Leader for the first time

keethrax — 2008-10-30T17:12:55+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:
bk_otj wrote:
ASLSK's are better than the SL series anyway. After COI, ASL is easier and the ASLSK rules mesh. the SL series development was stooped by AH for a reason. Check the history.I don't doubt that ASLSK is better than what's after COI, but I firmly disagree with ASLSK being better then SL.

They went for the extra bucks (as most compagnies do) by producing new expansions. Leading in the design decisions were the letters of the vocal minority. "We need half squads. We need exhaustion. We need..." This basically was pushing the Squad level game in a smaller scale straight jacket. Rules exploded. They created a monster. And called it "ASL". At least, that's what I found, after I checked the history.

And here you are again.

Your history's close, but warped, but you're pretty clearly just whining that someone dare mentions ASL in the SL forums, so I'll not bother actually straightening it out for you.

You create a whole thread to complain about those with experience in both showing up in your precious SL forums, and yet feel OK spewing crap about a game you've not even played.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

Felkor — 2008-10-30T17:11:41+00:00

I think we can agree that discussing which is better, ASL or SL, is a valid discussion, and we can also agree that hijacking someone's thread to bring up this discussion is not appropriate.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

fubar awol — 2008-10-30T17:04:39+00:00

fubar awol wrote:
This session report compares the two. Opinions follow in the discussion:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/351374

Oooops... sorry. I was trying to be helpful when I posted this in response to the Subject of this thread. Never mind.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

fubar awol — 2008-10-30T17:01:22+00:00

This session report compares the two. Opinions follow in the discussion:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/351374

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

keethrax — 2008-10-30T17:01:05+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:
This question, sometimes disguised as a session report, sometimes a genuine post, seems to pop up every now&then here on the SL.

For the new and looking4information SL-wannabees, let me counter that question with another one:

If ASL is better than SL, then why are there so many ASL lovers stalking the SL forum?

I mean: I love SL. And I never have the urge to go to the Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) or Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) Starter Kit #1 forums. But it doesn't matter what people post here on the SL forum, within hours there are ASLers telling then ASL is better.

It like posting a Puerto Rico review and people start telling you Settlers of Catan is better. It's very annoying and, IMHO, rude.

So. That's off my chest. I'll now game on. SL, that is.

What an amazing display of inferiority complex.

The games are clearly closely related (unlike the ones in your spurious example), and so overlap in both directions seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Thread: Re: Is ASL better than SL?

Felkor — 2008-10-30T16:58:27+00:00

Why are you even playing Squad Leader?

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942 is WAY better.

(and yes, I'm just joking around.)

Image

supersolid — 2008-10-27T01:27:45+00:00

Back cover 1st Ed SL rulebook

Image

supersolid — 2008-10-27T01:21:10+00:00

I'm told the purple box cover is the from the first couple hundred copies of SL ever printed

Image

bolter — 2008-10-10T13:03:41+00:00

Squad Leader for clumsy people - maps have been copied, enlarged, and laminated to reduce stacking.

Image

gittes — 2008-09-21T19:12:28+00:00

WarGame Processor

Image

Xookliba — 2008-08-14T14:06:14+00:00

Retro, 2nd ed. - alternative ruleset for Sl-style games published ny Minden Games

Image

Ectheow — 2008-07-24T20:18:14+00:00

First play, first scenario, last turn: After surviving defensive fire from the Germans, Russians are about to kick some butt.

Image

ekrommen — 2008-05-25T23:30:42+00:00

Hedgehog of Piepsk - T7/Germ - The Germans pulled back to the large stone building and also a building covering the road in front. The Russians take over the village center and set up a strong base of fire along the road, suppressing the HMG.

Image

ekrommen — 2008-05-25T23:30:02+00:00

Hedgehog of Piepsk - T4/Russ - Russians move out; Com. Dotski gets in range and LOS with his company's Maxim to put the large stone building under fire.

Image

race9 — 2008-04-02T05:48:06+00:00

Bright Image of Cover, Box and Components

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-03-07T11:35:08+00:00