Introduction

Put bluntly, ASL is not real. It is a game. Do not pretend it is a simulation or a re-creation. It is neither. It is a highly abstract model of combat in World War II, and it's best simply to think of it as an extremely complex strategy game. Thus, it is more closely related to Chess, "Stratego", or "Axis and Allies" than to real combat. Think about it: the essence of ASL is the same as those games. You have different pieces representing different things, all with unique abilities to move and fight. Nothing more. ASL was not designed as a simulation for instruction or for advancing our knowledge regarding how to make war.

"So what", you might ask? "I know it's a game...it's got dice and game pieces!" you might say. Well, it's my opinion that far too many players get sucked into reality arguments because they're duped into thinking that ASL is (or should/could be) a simulation. This makes them question existing rules, propose house rules, or get upset at "gamey" tactics, and when their "real life" tactics fail miserably during a scenario.

Too often, people make reality arguments based on very sketchy evidence. Most often, I think, these arguments are based on no evidence at all, but rather are based on "what feels right". Well, let me tell ya, ones man's reality is another man's B.S. And for every reality argument taking one position, there is a reality argument to counter that position. So, in the end, you get nowhere.

"Gamey" Tactics

"Gamey" tactics include such things as skulking, AFV freeze, the "halfsquad rush", and purposely entering a hex containing a concealed enemy to strip his concealment. Are these "real-life" tactics? Maybe, maybe not (you could form a reality argument for and against each of these). Are they tactics that work well in ASL. Absolutely. Should you use them? Yes! If you are one who gets upset when these are used against you, then you need to realize that this is a GAME. I have heard people who have said that since skulking is so "fakey", they'll never do it in a game. All I can say is that with that attitude you are going to lose consistently at this game. In any other game would you knowingly and willingly choose the wrong strategy? That's what you're doing when you reject these tactics. I don't like the way the hotel pieces look in Monopoly (they're only marginally bigger than the houses), but that sure doesn't stop me from buying as many of them as I can to stick it to my opponents. Remember that ASL is a game, not a reflection of reality. As a simulation of war, it is a poor offering. But it was never intended to be a simulation. Rather, it was designed to be a playable game based on small-unit actions in World War II.

"Real Life" Tactics

Just what are these anyway? There are so many "real life" tactics that when people propose reality arguments along these lines, they end up being countered by somebody else's "real life" tactics. Too often I here people repeat things like Patton's line that the way to defeat your enemy is to "grab him by the nose and kick him in the pants" implying a holding force and an important flanking force. Guess what? Except in the largest of scenarios (and CGs), this just isn't going to work all that often. ASL punishes, for the most part, players who split up their forces. This is because command and control as well as knowledge of enemy forces in ASL is complete. You the player can divert forces quite easily to the known threat on your flank.

 In short, don't worry about real life tactics. Focus on what will win you the scenario. More often than not, it's nothing fancy. The place where most people get caught, I think, in the "real life tactics" trap is in Campaign Games. There's something aesthetically pleasing about expanding your perimeter, and seeing your front lines move across the map. But frankly, CGs are almost never won by taking terrain. Rather, they're won by killing enemy squads without incurring too much damage to your own forces. That more than anything is going to cause problems for your opponent and give you the win. Screwing around with fancy diversionary or flanking attacks may get you some strategic locations, but a good old-fashioned assault is going to be better in the long run.

This also applies to the mistaken belief that players can help their game by reading up on military theories of tactics.  This is not true.  What happens on the ASL mapboard is an application of the ASL rules.  It is only very indirectly an application of real life tactics.  Good players know when it's appropriate and allowed to self-break and rout squads out of trouble rather than knowing the finer points of how a real company commander gets his men to fall back when pressured.  If you're looking for stuff to read to improve your ASL game, turn to things like examples of play, rules articles, series replays, and AARs.  Things like Rommel's "Infantry Attacks" or Clausewitz's "On War" are interesting, but don't expect them to be useful in improving your game.

 House Rules

We all at some point need to ask how a rule works (routing is a sticking point for many, for example) but players should not question the validity of rules. See my comments on House Rules.

The Point of my Argument

My intent on this page is to argue that ASL should not be treated as a simulation, in order to preserve the integrity of the game. It is folly to state that ASL should be a simulation, because this breeds an attitude that the game is broken in places (e.g. the various "sleaze" tactics). Therefore, I argue that a definition of "simulation" needs to exclude commercial wargames since all such wargames have "sleaze" elements. Those in the ASL community who see ASL primarily as a simulation will consistently try to alter the rules to remove "gamey" tactics. Tinkering with ASL in order to advance one man's vision of reality, the use of house rules, or the rejection by players of perfectly legal (but "gamey") tactics only hurts the game. I'm interested in ASL the game and preserving it in such a way so that any two players can hook up and play without being surprised by different interpretations.

Back to my ASL Page