Re: SL vs ASL -- Squad Leader Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:11:59 03/07/05 Mon
Author: Alan Yngve
Subject: Re: SL vs ASL
In reply to: Doughboy 's message, "Re: SL vs ASL" on 19:38:38 03/06/05 Sun

Doughboy wrote:
>I have been playing SL/ASL since the 1978 and to be
>fair I was really hooked with the whole system from
>the start. Part of it had to do with me really getting
>into that Sam Peckinpah film Cross of Iron. I
>basically brought every module and releases from
>official sources. The transition from GI to ASL was
>not really too bad as by the time I reached the GI
>rules the ruleset was everywhere and I needed a
>consolidated ruleset. Hence ASL did this and more by
>organizing everything in a logical manner. Now, the
>only issue I would have with the system for the last 5
>years is the inability for newcomers to get into the
>system smoothly. Before Avalon Hill folded I often
>recommended that they try SL first and then make the
>transition to ASL focusing on the first four chapters
>only. Avalon Hill tried to ease this a bit with their
>training chapter as well as Jim Stahler's Programmed
>approach to ASL (found on the MMP site). But, these
>were not really all that great for newcommers. Finally
>MMP came to their senses and developed a intro kit
>that focuses on the ASL basics otherwise known as
>ASLSK. From what I gather, it has been an amazing
>success and actually drew back alot of the former ASL
>players who given up on the system as well as drawing
>an army of people newly into it. While I don't
>personally need it, it is handy to have as a useful
>tool to train newcommers into the game system be they
>former SL, ASL or new people.

As this site is devoted to SL rather than ASL, I have
tried to stay away from comparisons. There are some
fundamental differences between the two rule sets, even
though they have a lot in common. After all, ASL did
"grow" out of SL, or should I say GI.

At some point I will post an SL versus ASL discussion
here on advancephase.com, but it is not a high priority.

The original poster said:

>>I really wanted a good WW2 tactical level game that
>>offered detail, and lots of armor action.

SL (pre-ASL) is primarily an infantry game. The armor
side is not as detailed as many armor-buffs would like,
although the CoI rules do fairly well. IMHO, if you
are interested in early-war armor actions, CoD leaves
much to be desired. ASL is not the "ultimate" answer
here, either. In a sense, CoI does a reasonable job of
the 1942-1944 period while ASL is a bit better in the
later 1944-1945 period (even Korea).

>>I wanted a good player pool which ensured opponents.

SL (with CoI) have a quite respectable internet player pool.
If you want to play, you'll be able to fins opponents. ASL
has more players, but do you need more than "enough?"

>>And I wanted a game that could accomodate the rest of
>>my gaming hobbies, my other hobbies/interests and my
>>life.
>>
>>It came down to SL vs ASL. And SL won. It seemed the
>>optimum solution, all things considered.

Biggest gaming advantage to SL/CoI is that the rules are
"small enough" (even though pretty lengthy) that a gamer
can easily spend time with other games, and be reasonably
competent in BOTH SL and those other games. ASL still
has the tendency of becoming a full-time passion, with
the disadvantages that such specialization bring. Fine
for some but not satisfying for all.

>>Now, who else here has made the decision, what did
>>they choose and why?

My own choice was to drop ASL and play SL/CoI. This web
site is a big result of that decision, as well. My prime
reasons have to do with the WAY that the rules of the two
games affect the player and the player's actions. Based
on my reading of WW2 infantry actions, I feel that SL does
a much better job of presenting the commander (player) with
the same connundrums that the commanders in the field faced.

IMHO, the big key to this is the treatment of MGs and MG
penetration. I think the SL method yeilds results closer
to historical concerns than does the GI/ASL method.

Either game will offer much enjoyment. Take your pick
and go out and have some enjoyable challenges!

-- Alan Yngve

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]