ATS and ASL ... part 2

[Brien Martin]

Continuing our comparison of ATS and ASL ...

DRM/TEM
Oh, you know all about DRMs if you play ASL. Only game I ever played that had more was Siege of Jerusalem. So, you know that ATS couldn't possibly get away from DRM. But they have, in a way.

ATS uses column shifts. Left shifts bad, right shifts good (for the attacker). Which is really what the DRM accomplish in other games ... pushing a specific-strength attack into another "column" without the need to change columns. So, whereas a stone building embues a +3DRM in ASL ... it embues a 3L shift in ATS. We can argue whether the "3" is ripped off ... again, SL/ASL and ATS share a common ancestor ... Tobruk ... so you'd have to suspect that the genetic material is gonna match at some points and some levels.

Now, ATS retains DRM in ordnance combat, just as ASL does. There are fewer DRM in ATS, but they are there, just the same. So, in some respects, the two ordnance systems are the same from a "to hit" perspective. Given that SL was derived from Tobruk, and ATS came from the same paternal line, I don't think it's one ripping off the other ... they share a common ancestor.

Again, we prove the nay-sayers wrong, at least from the infantry side of things, by showing that the two DRM systems are not the same (and you'll really understand why later on in this post).

LEADERSHIP
ASL has a dazzling and sometimes dizzying array of leaders. Morale levels from 6 thru 10, and leadership modifiers from +1 thru -3. Leaders all have names, most of them the names of people who have proofread, playtested, or had something to do with a module. [Yours truly is represented by the Sgt. Brien counter in OVHS ... maybe it's not Sgt ... but it's there ... and it's me!!]

ATS has but two flavors of leader ... officer and NCO. They both carry a 1|1|x rating, the officer's ML is one higher than the NCO. An NCO offers a 1R shift for fire he directs, and an officer adds a 2R shift. By the way, shifts are cumulative ... so, a fire attack led by an officer against units in a stone building would be a 1L shift (3L for the building, 2R for the leader).

ASL leaders need to be casualty-reduced to possibly be wounded, or they need to fail an MC while already broken to possibly be wounded. So it takes a lot, sometimes, to hurt a leader in combat.

ATS leaders are wounded upon taking their first casualty, killed upon taking a second. The flip side is the wounded side. Pretty simple ... and probably pretty frustrating, trying to keep a leader in good health. Let's just say that you probably don't want a leader running around the board by himself (you'll understand more in a minute).

So, another "rip-off" myth is destroyed ... the leadership systems in ASL and ATS aren't even close.

INFANTRY COMBAT
Because you really play out twice as many turns as there are game turns in ASL, combat isn't nearly as bloody as it probably should be under the circumstances. Part of the reason that it isn't as bloody, sometimes, is the fact that ASL focuses on the morale of units.

Units do die from straight KIAs, that's true. But what messes up more good plans than anything else is the failure of MC by units. And quite a few units die because they break, break, break ... bye-bye, unit.

In ASL, there are five things that can happen on a given shot:

-- KIA ... one or more units is dead, right now ... survivors are all broken

-- K/x ... one or more units is reduced to a HS (or eliminated if already a HS) ... survivors all have to pass a "x" morale check

-- xMC ... units take a "x" morale check ... pass and stay safe ... fail and break

-- PTC ... units take a pin check ... pass and stay safe ... fail and become pinned

-- nothing ... the other guys "missed"

Units in ASL have two "steps" ... full squad and half-squad. Each step has a good order side and a broken side. Only when a full squad is reduced to a half-squad does the unit suffer any reduction in ratings (there are special exceptions, but this is true for the most part).

A unit in ASL can run across open ground, right into an opposing machine gun nest ... and, with bad dice by the defender, and good dice by the attacker, end up safe and sound, right up adjacent to the MG nest. So, he could take an xMC result every time ... pass them all ... and be "ok". Of course, he could also end up dead or broken.

In ATS, there are two things that can happen on a shot:

-- Cx ... unit takes "x" casualties, then must take an "x" morale check to see if the unit breaks because of the casualties

-- nothing ... the other guys "missed"

Units in ATS have four steps. Whenever a "Cx" result occurs, "x" casualties are distributed among the target unit(s). Two casualties flips a unit to its reduced side ... four casualties kills it. So, a C4 result is the same as ASL's KIA ... but only if there is a single unit being shot at. Two casualties kill a leader (first one flips, second kills). In addition, the "odd" casualties (the first and third) reduce a unit's FP and morale level by 1. So, a 7|5|9 becomes a 6|5|8 with one casualty. When it flips, it has a reduced factor, which is further reduced on the third casualty.

So, that same unit I mentioned earlier ... if he gets hit four times as he makes his way across open ground ... in ASL, he may survive unscathed. In ATS, he dies.

Thus, ATS infantry combat is bloodier. This makes sense because a five-turn game is really only five turns, not ten. You have to have more action because you have "less" time. However, the reality is that ATS captures a little more of the sense of danger in sending units on missions. One quick C4 result on the squad you're sending out to take that building over there ... and he's dead. He's not coming back.

These two systems are so vastly different ... it's really hard to see where the word "rip-off" even remotely comes into play. Well, I *do* know ... it's ignorance of what ATS is versus what ASL is. It's blind hatred of ATS and blind devotion to ASL. It's the kind of "radical fundamentalism" that is no different than that which we see in various groups of people around the world.

More to come as the rules start falling in place ...

Brien

[Johnny Canuck]

"That's the spirit." - Roy Batty










.

[DaveStory]

Though I haven't read your first part in this series, I think there's enough here in the second part to see what you're getting at.

(As a disclaimer, I own all of the ASL series of modules and about half of the ATS modules. I play them both and enjoy them both - unless I lose horribly to stupid tactical decisions!)

Ultimately ATS is, without a doubt, a rip-off of ASL. Every major concept in ASL has been moved over into the ATS system and either renamed, tweeked or revamped. The number of comparisons you make proves that point. How else would you be able to make so many point-to-point contrasts between the two systems if one didn't derive all of it's core concepts from the other?

All you need to do is step back a bit and get your nose out of the details. This is a prime example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Brien Martin]

Though I haven't read your first part in this series, I think there's enough here in the second part to see what you're getting at.

(As a disclaimer, I own all of the ASL series of modules and about half of the ATS modules. I play them both and enjoy them both - unless I lose horribly to stupid tactical decisions!)

Ultimately ATS is, without a doubt, a rip-off of ASL. Every major concept in ASL has been moved over into the ATS system and either renamed, tweeked or revamped. The number of comparisons you make proves that point. How else would you be able to make so many point-to-point contrasts between the two systems if one didn't derive all of it's core concepts from the other?

All you need to do is step back a bit and get your nose out of the details. This is a prime example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

C'mon, Dave ... I don't see how you can make that claim. You're smarter than that. Go back to every tactical, squad-level game ever produced ... you're able to compare quite a bit of each one to the other.

How many ways can you develop a tactical system that *doesn't* have very similar parts? Can you design a squad-level game and *not* have squads? Can you have a combat resolution system at the squad level that doesn't have some kind of fire table based on the squad's firepower plus the firepower afforded by support weapons? How else would you rate such unit strength?

How is it that even a game like Lock N' Load uses the exact same things ... leadership and modifiers ... individual squad FP ... individual SW FP ... rally ... morale ... terrain benefits, and yet has never been called an ASL rip-off?? Mark Walker has always said his game was not inspired by ASL, but by a different game ... another tactical game ... that used ... surprise ... squads, leaders, weapons. So, that game (whose name escapes me at the present) is a rip-off of SL? ASL?

Yes, there's some stuff that's "the same" ... but I don't know that you can design a tactical, squad-level game that doesn't contain some of the exact same elements of games that came before it. If so, someone would have done so, and, if it was any good, would have been competing head-to-head with ASL.

I stand by my claim that, so far, I haven't seen two things that were identical, save for terminology (and even there, I don't see much that's identical)... the combat system ... not the way that leaders are handled ... not the way that terrain modifies the roll of the dice.

Are the general, all-purpose game mechanics similar? Yes. But, are the details the same? No. Again, I ask you ... if you know someone who has LNL ... check that game out ... there is a lot more stuff in LNL that has the same feel and the same terminology as in ASL ... yet ... no one is suggesting, hinting, or outright claiming that LNL is an ASL rip-off.

LNL's designer has said ASL was not his inspiration, and that has been enough for most everyone, myself included. ATS' designer has said that Tobruk (an ancestor to SL/ASL) was *his* inspiration ... and so many people absolutely refuse to believe him.

Again, I have no agenda (so I'm not sure you can "see what I'm getting at"), I have very deep ties to ASL, and wish ASL no harm. So, I'm not trying to "get at" much of anything except pointing out that the word "rip-off" is loaded, pointed, and very wrong.

Brien

[Brien Martin]

I suppose the term "rip-off" means different things to different people. For some, it means that if you're even remotely close, you've ripped something off.

For me, calling something a "rip-off" goes further than that. It means that you've done pretty much the same thing that someone else did, but you call it something else, or you make it a different color. For example, a video game called "Bradshaw 2006" that had the exact same features as Madden 2006, but sells for a lower price.

When comparing ATS and ASL, Dave Story makes the comment that the systems are "the same", only tweaked. I disagree, respectfully, but not because Dave dared to "call me" on my analysis. No, I disagree because I don't think that what's happened in ATS meets my criteria for calling something a "rip-off".

Let's take a look at leadership. Based on Dave's comments, the fact that both games have leaders, and that both games have leadership modifiers, is enough for him to believe that ATS ripped-off ASL's concept.

However, what is a squad-level game *without* leaders? How many Civil War games do we see where leadership plays such an important role? Are all those games rip-offs of each other? No. They simply see the value in leadership in simulating the combat of the day.

Same with ASL and ATS ... at the tactical level, leadership is very important to unit cohesion (morale) and direction of duty (leadership mods). The facts are that ASL uses multiple morale and leader mod combinations to reflect all sorts of national and quality characteristics of their leaders.

ATS, however, has gone the more "generic" route, choosing to have two levels of leaders ... officer and NCO. Each nationality's leaders will have different morale levels (some may event be the same), but everyone's leaders will have the same impact on events on the battlefield. Less variety, to be sure.

But, are the two systems the same? No, they're not. Leaders in ASL provide DRM, leaders in ATS provide column shifts. Leaders in ASL are harder to wound. Leaders in ATS can be wounded or killed rather easily, especially if they stray on their own.

In ASL, leaders can't direct a firegroup unless there's a leader in every location of the firegroup. In ATS, a leader can direct a firegroup, regardless of the presence of other leaders. I'd say that's a pretty huge difference, righ there.

I could go on and on, but the point is that I don't believe that what ATS did was port over a bunch of ASL rules, change the terminology, and create a "new" game. There appears to have been a conscious effort to avoid that appearance, from what I can see.

Brien

[McFinn]

Brien,

Thanks again for the comparision for those of us that don't own both systems.

[DaveStory]

Let's see. On the boardgame front I'm thinking of titles like Beachead, Foxhole, Ambush, and War to Axis. Ok, they all have squads and vehicles and they... well, I'd be stretching it if I tried to make any more comparisons to ASL. Maybe you can help me with that.

Up Front (based on SL but plays nothing like it, what a concept!) uses cards to simulate WWII tactical gaming. Hey maybe Ray Tapio can think up an original card game!

At least M Walker dumbed his system down enough that there couldn't be any real comparison between ASL and his rip-off. Smart move. Or maybe his other 'inspiration' was ATS!

But, of course, I'm way off base. So you just continue along with your "non-agenda" insight and engaging discourse and keep us all abreast of what's going on (and more importantly, what ISN'T going on) in the world of tactial-level WWII gaming. I can't wait for the next installment!

[Brien Martin]

But, of course, I'm way off base. So you just continue along with your "non-agenda" insight and engaging discourse and keep us all abreast of what's going on (and more importantly, what ISN'T going on) in the world of tactial-level WWII gaming. I can't wait for the next installment!

Dave,

I guess some people dislike it intensely when their opinions are challenged. You seem to be one of them. I made my case without the need or use of sarcasm, and was trying as best as I could to address your comments.

You feel it necessary to answer these points with sarcasm. So be it. Regardless of your snide comment about my intent, I seriously have no hidden agenda. I think enough baseless bashing of ATS has been going on, and, to their credit, the real, hardcore ATSers are staying "above the fray".

You'll note that I have owned ATS for a grand total of three days (I got it in the mail on Saturday) ... so I am not an ATS fanatic ... I have yet to roll the dice in anger. I make these observations because I think it's important to start dispelling some of the rumor and innuendo that run rampant here on the boards with respect to CH products (ATS is the *only* CH product I own to-date).

I was hoping that you would respond with the various parts of ASL and ATS that you believe have been "ripped-off". I was hoping that you would go further than the blanket statement you made to address specific points that I have raised. I hoped in vain.

I said that I welcomed all comments in this thread, and so I won't go ballistic that you dropped some 'tude on me. But I will say that you had an excellent opportunity to enlighten people as to why you believe that ATS is an ASL rip-off ... citing specifics ... and you chose to drop the sarcasm on me and essentially walk away from a potentially interesting and detailed discussion on both systems.

I'm sorry that you couldn't express your ideas any more clearly than to simply state that ATS is an ASL rip-off. It would have been an engaging read.

Brien

[trauth116]

No kidding - I mean Good on ya - for being a ASL fan - really I'm serious - but this is actually an ATS area - so I mean, why not discuss ASL in the ASL area -and just leave this one alone.

Frankly that 'Tude' Brien spoke about is a turn off --- I'm happy for ASL guys that love their system -but that pretty much ends when it comes to them going out of their way to crap on other systems.

[DaveStory]

I'm discussing ASL here because some bonehead decided to dredge up a topic that has been exhausted over years of postings - and he decided to give everyone on the Boardgames Page a heads up that he was going to finally enlighten us all.

Maybe he should enlighten himself by looking into the history of Ray Tapio, his work with ASL, and his subsequent legal problems with Avalon Hill. You will see that Ray found out what he could and couldn't do in regards to copyright infringement; and what he could do was ATS.

I have no problems with the outcome of it all. Critical Hit has put out a good number of ATS and ASL-compatible products. The more the merrier.

I was only being sarcastic because I couldn't respond to this post seriously. This new messiah has decided that all of us idiots, who have seen all the developments regarding this over the years, have no clue and need to be enlightened. Come on!

But I have had an epiphany, oh messiah: some people take themselves too seriously!

[Aries]

Imitation is the height of flattery.

But in the end, there's only so many ways to do something.

I've tried designing Roleplaying games, and it will drive a person NUTS trying to use words NOT used in Dungeons and Dragons :)

But in the past, my bias has been more about the owner (of CH), and not much about the game.
The owner's actions likely have done him all the harm, not that he happens to have a game that looks similar.

In some cases, I don't want a new game, I want an old game that today is only a twinkle in the eye of a grognard.

I've seen the reworked graphics for Panzer Leader II which is likely going to take longer to arrive on the shelf than Matrix Games Combat Leader game eh.

Could someone make a case, that PanzerGrenadier is a Panzer Leader rip off?

But I like the old Panzer Leader, it was a simple and damn good game. It's only failing, I can talk about it till hell freezes over, but if you can't go out and buy a copy, what's the point in me mentioning it beyond having a nostalgia moment.

It's quite apparent that Hasbro couldn't care less if the world ever sees new copies of Panzer Leader on a shelf. Not enough millions in it I guess. But man you'd catch some hell if you had the gaul to merely clone it and call it something like Panzers at War.

My usual biggest complaint, is with people that own a title, refusing to let anyone bring the game back into circulation. "Oh but it's my game, not yours" line of thinking.
Not sure I have it correct (not being a lawyer causes that), but a person I know mentioned, if a copywrite is left to languish unsupported unwanted and not in production, the copywrite can be challenged (or something like that). But who's got that much cash to play hardball with something the size of Hasborg eh?

Bums me out that there are sooooo many classics of the past, and the only reason some small private operation isn't reprinting new ones, is because some greedy suit is more interested in saying "it's mine not yours".

The list of great board games NOT ON SALE, and not likely ever to be ever again either, is a long one.

[Brien Martin]

I'm discussing ASL here because some bonehead decided to dredge up a topic that has been exhausted over years of postings - and he decided to give everyone on the Boardgames Page a heads up that he was going to finally enlighten us all.

Maybe he should enlighten himself by looking into the history of Ray Tapio, his work with ASL, and his subsequent legal problems with Avalon Hill. You will see that Ray found out what he could and couldn't do in regards to copyright infringement; and what he could do was ATS.

I have no problems with the outcome of it all. Critical Hit has put out a good number of ATS and ASL-compatible products. The more the merrier.

I was only being sarcastic because I couldn't respond to this post seriously. This new messiah has decided that all of us idiots, who have seen all the developments regarding this over the years, have no clue and need to be enlightened. Come on!

But I have had an epiphany, oh messiah: some people take themselves too seriously!

Dave,

It's amazing ... you haven't got anything intelligent to add to the discussion, so you resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks, rather than show yourself to be an intelligent human being who can discuss their particular issues with the game (which you continually refuse to do ... makes me wonder how much ATS stuff you actually play).

I don't care if you do own ATS stuff ... you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I now understand your issues ... it's not about ATS ... it's about Ray Tapio. So, you're one of the people I've been referring to ... folks who hate because they can ... it's easier to do that than to actually engage someone in honest discourse ... because you haven't a leg to stand on, other than you despising someone else and your opinion of what they did or didn't do.

Again, you dodge the chance to illuminate the issue for anyone (and, judging by the number of supportive posts ... I am helping people understand the differences, one way or the other ... you had an attentive audience to "prove" me wrong). You seem to think I'm some kind of newbie who just crawled out of the woods. I've been a wargamer for 31 years ... and an ASL player for 14. I'm well-aware of the whole AH-CH issue, but I have tried to look at the two games with as neutral an eye as I can.

You called me a bonehead for posting over in the Boardgame section about this comparison. Who's the bigger bonehead? Me, for doing what I'm doing (and, I repeat, providing a service to some people ... just read the posts) ... or you for bothering to read it when your mind was already made up?

You only came here to beat down the messenger ... that much is now painfully obvious to me. You're really not much better than the guys who hide over in the ASL folder and bash ATS ... no matter how much sarcasm you throw my way.

I tried being civil ... civil doesn't work with some people. I offered you a chance to discuss the issue ... you chose to go on the attack. Thanks for playing ... we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Brien

[Brien Martin]

But in the past, my bias has been more about the owner (of CH), and not much about the game.
The owner's actions likely have done him all the harm, not that he happens to have a game that looks similar.


Aries,

I appreciate your comment. You are honest enough to state that your problem is with the person, not the game system.

Thanks for that ...

Brien

[stone156]

so can somebody start a "Bash Ray Tapio Thread" and keep the ******** there so we can get back to discussing ATS here!

Brien, I think you are doing an excellent job trying to wade through the differences between the systems. At least someone who really wants to know what the systems are about will get that info.

I can say if I had the time and energy I would play more ASL. I really like _some_ of the detail things that ATS is missing. But given that ASL is an all or nothing I just can't commit the time.

As well, another big issue is the impulse turn system. It captures the ebb and flow very nicely without all the DF rules. Move or fire, move and fire, fire and move or hold and opp fire. A ton of choices on force committment.

Thanks for your efforts.

[Roberts]

so can somebody start a "Bash Ray Tapio Thread" and keep the ******** there so we can get back to discussing ATS here!

Brien, I think you are doing an excellent job trying to wade through the differences between the systems. At least someone who really wants to know what the systems are about will get that info.

I can say if I had the time and energy I would play more ASL. I really like _some_ of the detail things that ATS is missing. But given that ASL is an all or nothing I just can't commit the time.

As well, another big issue is the impulse turn system. It captures the ebb and flow very nicely without all the DF rules. Move or fire, move and fire, fire and move or hold and opp fire. A ton of choices on force committment.

Thanks for your efforts.

Include anyone who has ever been sued by anyone for any reason. Also anyone who has ever started a company. Also anyone who has ever designed a brilliant game. Also anyone who is a great graphic desiger. Also anyone that somebody doesn't like for some very obscure reason.;)

[DaveStory]

Ok flyboy. It seems there is no end to how much bait you will take, but I've had my fill of fun. Thanks for obliging.

So if you really want an opposing opinion, I'll try a synopsis for you to chew on:

ATS was designed to simplify ASL. Every aspect of the game is a derivative or a necessary surrogate to fill in the gaps left from over-simplification. The major concepts of the core game include:

Leadership: In both systems, leaders give a bonus to movement, morale and combat; likewise they can be wounded and/or killed. The number of leader types were reduced both for "simplification" of the rules and for a lighter countermix.

Combat: In both systems units can be hit and they can suffer reduction. In ATS, this is Casualties, in ASL this is ELR. Units can also be broken or surrender. For "simplification", ATS has removed other unit status' such as Pinned, DM, etc.

Phases: The prep/defensive/advancing fire phases of ASL is a detailed system of allowing reactive fire during enemy movement and options for firing and moving in various combinations. ATS has "simplified" this concept into a fire and movement phase. Ultimately the same effect with less options. (If you don't feel like you're getting this ebb-and-flow with ASL, you're just haven't grasped the rules yet)

Movement: ATS has run/assault move/crawl, ASL has double time/move/assault move. Same concepts and essentially they work to the same affect, but again ATS has simplified its system by leaving out other options such as Hazardous Movement, Dashes, etc.

Other ATS mechanics such as Airborne Support, OBA, Banzai Charges, Courage(aka, Heat of Battle) etc. read like a reader's digest version of it's ASL counterpart both in concept and (simplified) execution.

And again, other 'differnt' nuances of the ATS system have simply arisen out of a need to fill in the gaps caused by the over-simplification.

I'd have to agree with you that the two systems do have different feels, but I attribute that to what ATS is lacking when compared to ASL, not how it's core concepts differ. For example, ATS has no Concealment, so it's easier to play it solo. ATS wasn't "designed" for easy solitaire play, it just doesn't have the ASL detail which made solitaire play less feasible.

...oh, and I'm sorry I got your panties in a bunch :cry:

[Roberts]

Ok flyboy. It seems there is no end to how much bait you will take, but I've had my fill of fun. Thanks for obliging.

So if you really want an opposing opinion, I'll try a synopsis for you to chew on:

ATS was designed to simplify ASL. Every aspect of the game is a derivative or a necessary surrogate to fill in the gaps left from over-simplification. The major concepts of the core game include:

Leadership: In both systems, leaders give a bonus to movement, morale and combat; likewise they can be wounded and/or killed. The number of leader types were reduced both for "simplification" of the rules and for a lighter countermix.

Combat: In both systems units can be hit and they can suffer reduction. In ATS, this is Casualties, in ASL this is ELR. Units can also be broken or surrender. For "simplification", ATS has removed other unit status' such as Pinned, DM, etc.

Phases: The prep/defensive/advancing fire phases of ASL is a detailed system of allowing reactive fire during enemy movement and options for firing and moving in various combinations. ATS has "simplified" this concept into a fire and movement phase. Ultimately the same effect with less options. (If you don't feel like you're getting this ebb-and-flow with ASL, you're just haven't grasped the rules yet)

Movement: ATS has run/assault move/crawl, ASL has double time/move/assault move. Same concepts and essentially they work to the same affect, but again ATS has simplified its system by leaving out other options such as Hazardous Movement, Dashes, etc.

Other ATS mechanics such as Airborne Support, OBA, Banzai Charges, Courage(aka, Heat of Battle) etc. read like a reader's digest version of it's ASL counterpart both in concept and (simplified) execution.

And again, other 'differnt' nuances of the ATS system have simply arisen out of a need to fill in the gaps caused by the over-simplification.

I'd have to agree with you that the two systems do have different feels, but I attribute that to what ATS is lacking when compared to ASL, not how it's core concepts differ. For example, ATS has no Concealment, so it's easier to play it solo. ATS wasn't "designed" for easy solitaire play, it just doesn't have the ASL detail which made solitaire play less feasible.

...oh, and I'm sorry I got your panties in a bunch :cry:


Seems like if everything is "simplified" then you have a whole different system

Anyway, please in the future, use the term "ripped-off" or people will think you are rational.

[DaveStory]

Hey, you ripped-off my technique of putting quotes around "simplified"!

[cjsloki]

Seems like if everything is "simplified" then you have a whole different system

Anyway, please in the future, use the term "ripped-off" or people will think you are rational.

Not my reading of Dave's counterpoint, it could be that it is a rip-off and a Simplifiction.

Charles

[Brien Martin]

Leadership: In both systems, leaders give a bonus to movement, morale and combat; likewise they can be wounded and/or killed. The number of leader types were reduced both for "simplification" of the rules and for a lighter countermix.

Right. But they do approach them in different ways. Any tactical system you could begin to imagine would probably need to address these same issues. And any idea you could imagine would be different. But the general concepts would be the same.

As relates to the term "rip-off" ... as I said earlier, I think you need more than "they both deal with the same issues", as design at this level would, by necessity, cause you to have to deal with them. But ... ATS may have simplified ASL ... but it's not like they just cut out certain morale/leadership combinations (like you might see in ASL Starter Kits) ... they created their own paradigm for doing so.

You can credit them for at least thinking of the whole leadership issue in a different light. They did jump from ASL's system to one of their own. ATS didn't just keep the 7-0/8-1/9-2 leaders and scrap the rest.


Combat: In both systems units can be hit and they can suffer reduction. In ATS, this is Casualties, in ASL this is ELR. Units can also be broken or surrender. For "simplification", ATS has removed other unit status' such as Pinned, DM, etc.

ATS has pinning, at least in Version 3.0 of the rules. ATS also has "Intimidation", a form of what we know as DM. Plays a bit differently, requiring adjacent status to trigger.

I'll beg to differ on the Casualties/ELR issue. In ATS, a unit that gets hit suffers casualties. ELR is based on how badly you fail a MC. I've played entire weekends without having a unit suffer ELR failure. ATS units will die quicker. And, as I admitted, the K result in ASL causes reduction.



Phases: The prep/defensive/advancing fire phases of ASL is a detailed system of allowing reactive fire during enemy movement and options for firing and moving in various combinations. ATS has "simplified" this concept into a fire and movement phase. Ultimately the same effect with less options. (If you don't feel like you're getting this ebb-and-flow with ASL, you're just haven't grasped the rules yet)


I'm hoping that the parenthetical element was a "you're" generic. 'Cause, after 14 years of playing ASL ... I have a great grasp of the rules.

That aside ... yes, there's a melding effect. Again ... you have to give some credit to the idea. There's nothing in ASL that looks and feels like what ATS has ... so the simplification has some innovation, even if it came from merging semi-simultaneous systems with ASL's system. I don't see that as a rip-off ... I see it as synergy. After all ... you can say what you like ... the ATS move+fire system wasn't stolen from any existing system ... it melded two systems. Innovation, not theft. Someone had to come up with the idea and ... more importantly ... make it work.


Movement: ATS has run/assault move/crawl, ASL has double time/move/assault move. Same concepts and essentially they work to the same affect, but again ATS has simplified its system by leaving out other options such as Hazardous Movement, Dashes, etc.

Some exceptions ... in ASL, you have "late CX", and you don't have to declare how the unit will be used. Many times in an ASL scenario, you hear guys say (after a player moves one hex), "Are you Assault Moving?" ... because there's a difference in DRM that depends on the answer. In ATS, there's no question, because you have to declare the move first.

I do ask you to think about the things you've said. You keep bringing up the term "simplification". And that's ok. I know what you mean. But think about this ... MMP worked for years to simplify ASL ... finally came up with the Starter Kits. They figured out a way to take out the "tough stuff" and create an ASL-lite. ATS did the same thing ... and, at the same time, changed the basic mechanics to create a different kind of game.

Yes, it's ASL at it's roots ... but the concepts that were modified still had to be invented or molded, and had to actually work. Is that stealing? I don't think so, because ATS did what many games have done ... took an existing system, found a way to switch them up and apply concepts from other game systems ... and came up with a new style of game.



Other ATS mechanics such as Airborne Support, OBA, Banzai Charges, Courage(aka, Heat of Battle) etc. read like a reader's digest version of it's ASL counterpart both in concept and (simplified) execution.

And again, other 'differnt' nuances of the ATS system have simply arisen out of a need to fill in the gaps caused by the over-simplification.


But, would you not agree that whatever systems were created to fill the gaps still required workable ideas and perhaps some synergy of various systems (including ASL, itself)? Is that creative license? Stealing? Or maybe a bit of ingenuity?



I'd have to agree with you that the two systems do have different feels, but I attribute that to what ATS is lacking when compared to ASL, not how it's core concepts differ. For example, ATS has no Concealment, so it's easier to play it solo. ATS wasn't "designed" for easy solitaire play, it just doesn't have the ASL detail which made solitaire play less feasible.


We can agree to disagree, Dave. And I do appreciate your taking the time to post your ideas. All I ask is that you consider that what was done may not have been theft or ripping-off ASL. It may appear that way, but maybe appearances are deceiving. After all ... the wargaming hobby is built upon the melding and synergy of concepts which came before.

Your Up Front analogy is proof of that ... taking a board game and moving it to cards. Look at how many card-driven games there are now ... now that people figured out ... taking someone else's idea and applying some creativity ... how to make cards work in a wargame.

I apologize for my earlier tone ... I tend to subscribe to the notion that "because I said so" isn't my kind of intelligent conversation. I like being able to actually discuss an issue as logically as I can.

Brien

[Roberts]

Not my reading of Dave's counterpoint, it could be that it is a rip-off and a Simplifiction.

Charles

But if things are generally simplified (or in many cases very different as with armor in the two games)...it is more reasonable to describe one system as having many aspects that are simpler, but no reason at all to say it is ripped off. The term in fact is just a meaningless insult.

[Keith Todd]

But if things are generally simplified (or in many cases very different as with armor in the two games)...it is more reasonable to describe one system as having many aspects that are simpler, but no reason at all to say it is ripped off. The term in fact is just a meaningless insult.

So the potato peeler is a rip off of the knife, does not make sense to me. I have been on the fence with ATS for quite sometime now. Berlin Red Victory is just really tempting me. These discussions are very interesting.

Brien's discussion's are mainly coming from an ATS novice. I was wondering if some of the ATS vets could get give some why's to their preference of ATS, especially in the fire-movement phase I guess it is called?

Berlin was a particularly nasty infantry fight, does the ATS system handle this well and how so?

Keith
(been playing ASL for twenty years)

[ELE]

... it's really hard to see where the word "rip-off" even remotely comes into play. Well, I *do* know ... it's ignorance of what ATS is versus what ASL is. It's blind hatred of ATS and blind devotion to ASL. It's the kind of "radical fundamentalism" that is no different than that which we see in various groups of people around the world.

The post was enlightening up till here. keep your focus bud.
C.G.C.
Skipped the rest, looked like the ww2 quotes in ASL.

[General Disaster]

The critisism of ASler's against ATS is also that CH seems to be more productive than MMP with their modules release .
A lot of ASLers believe that ATS modules are half baked and badly play balanced
and bacsically that's another reason for the ripoff reputation of ATS and CH.

[General Disaster]

... it's really hard to see where the word "rip-off" even remotely comes into play. Well, I *do* know ... it's ignorance of what ATS is versus what ASL is. It's blind hatred of ATS and blind devotion to ASL. .
C.G.C.


Let's say that CH started producing ASL products 10 years ago or more and that some of their products were considered lousy by a lot of ASLers (even if the general idea seemed to be interesting , final result wasn't to great ) and on top of it CH starts to produce a WWII squad level infantry tactical game that seems to be only there to compete against ASL and even remplace ASL.
That's the bone of contention.

[DaveStory]

I was wondering if some of the ATS vets could get give some why's to their preference of ATS, especially in the fire-movement phase I guess it is called?

Keith, Since I've been playing both systems for some time - something that should be obvious to "ELE", by my last post where I broke down the two systems - let me put in my two cents about why I haven't choosen one system exclusively over the other:

ATS was designed as an alternative to the complexity of the ASL system. Though not as detailed as ASL, it is by no means a lightweight. Most of the major concepts of ASL have been translated to ATS, giving the player much of the same feel of play with only a fraction of the rules.

If you want a great game with (much) less of a learning curve, go for ATS. If you're willing to put in the extra time and money, and want a more detailed game, go with ASL. I have choosen to go with both because they each fill a need for me: ATS for quick fun, ASL for deeper strategy.

As a side-note: The ATS fire and movement phase basically allows units to fire at each other while they are moving or taking other actions. It also allows both players to go back and forth with activating their units instead of having one side activating all his units at once.

ASL allows for reactions to other player's actions with the defensive fire mechanism, though it doesn't allow for the back-and-forth activation.

My personal feeling on this is that I prefer the ASL flow of the game. The back and forth that ATS provides is great for reducing down-time of either player, but gameplay has a tendency to become a string of action-reaction events. ASL retains the traditional flow of one player moving his units all at once, but still allowing his opponent to react. With this approach there is more of a feel of simultaneous events occurring all over the board.

As a final note on the ATS Berlin module: If it's anything like the city-fighting from the Arnhem module, I think you'll enjoy the intensity.

[Brien Martin]

My personal feeling on this is that I prefer the ASL flow of the game. The back and forth that ATS provides is great for reducing down-time of either player, but gameplay has a tendency to become a string of action-reaction events. ASL retains the traditional flow of one player moving his units all at once, but still allowing his opponent to react. With this approach there is more of a feel of simultaneous events occurring all over the board.


This is why wargaming is so much fun ... because we're actually on opposite sides of the fence on this issue :D

Seriously ... I love in-your-face wargaming. My favorite ASL scenarios of all-time are those where you start kickin' ass and takin' names from the first prep fire phase. City fighting, house-to-house. Get-your-hands-dirty-roll-up-your-sleeves action.

While ASL does have that, my initial impression of ATS matches yours ... that ATS is action-reaction, think-and-rethink, juke-and-jive. ASL captures some of that ... but it does so over the course of a scenario.

So, I would liken ASL to watching a slo-motion instant replay ... when you're done, you really felt like you had a great, back-and-forth match, even thought it slowly (in game terms) unfolded over the course of the scenario. There's ebb and flow, indeed, but it sort of sneaks up on you.

With ATS, I think I'll really enjoy the fast-paced nature of the scenario ... that feeling that for everything you do, there's always an immediate response, not next turn, but next impulse.

Don't get me wrong, I think I'll enjoy both games. I'll enjoy them for what they are, not what they should have been, or could be. I think, when all is said and done, that's why I really started these threads ... so that folks could share that sense of adventure that comes with discovering what's different, what's new, what's exciting, about opening the game box ... any game box.

Brien

[Drew Dorman]

What is 'ELR'?

I've played a few scenarios from ATS Berlin, and love it. Especially the fighting inside the Reichstag - very intense. Great game so far! :)

-Drew

[Brien Martin]

What is 'ELR'?

I've played a few scenarios from ATS Berlin, and love it. Especially the fighting inside the Reichstag - very intense. Great game so far! :)

-Drew

ELR stands for Experience Level Rating, and it measures the ability of troops to stand up to the rigors of combat (in essence).

Here's how it works. ELR ratings are from 0 to 5 (I've never seen an ELR0, but I understand they're out there). Elite troops usually have ELR5, but the ELR "degrades" for some nationalities as the war wears on. Germans, for example, have high ELR for most of the early war scenarios, but gradually decline until they're in the 2-3 range by war's end.

OK, ELR the represents the highest amount that a unit can fail a Morale Check by and still remain the same unit they are now.

So, a German 6-5-8 with an ELR of 3 has, in effect, become a 6-5-11 with respect to unit reduction. On a Final DR of 9, 10, or 11, the unit simply fails its Morale Check and is flipped to its broken side.

However, when the Final DR (original DR plus/minus modifiers) is 12 or more, not only does the unit break, but it degrades into a lower-quality unit (one in which one or more of the three factors is less than the original).

Dave's point that ELR is similar to ATS casualties was that ELR is what causes the unit to degrade in quality. My disagreement with that is that ELR may never rear its head in a given scenario ... so units never degrade (save for ASL's casualty reduction system). Whereas, in ATS, the unit degrades every time it takes a hit,

Brien

[Drew Dorman]

Thanks for the answer Brien!

-Drew

[DaveStory]

Dave's point that ELR is similar to ATS casualties was that ELR is what causes the unit to degrade in quality. My disagreement with that is that ELR may never rear its head in a given scenario ... so units never degrade (save for ASL's casualty reduction system). Whereas, in ATS, the unit degrades every time it takes a hit

Of course I glossed over this (and the other comparisons) because a lengthy discourse would probably be more confusing than helpful (to non-ASLers). But I'll elaborate on this point:

I'll assume that everyone on this forum knows about casualties ala ATS: Reduce GF and morale, reduce ROF, etc. With ASL, a squad is generally treated the same way with a slight bit more detail when it comes to combat effects:

1. It can pin
2. It can break
3. It can break and suffer ELR (again, ELR is a reduction to a low-level unit, basically where it's stats are reduced)
4. It can be Casualty Reduced (a squad gets reduced to a half-squad)
5. It can be Casualty Reduced and ELR'd
6. It can be Disrupted which is basically hitting rock-bottom with ELR.
7. It can be completed Killed (KIA)

So, it would probably be more accurate to compare Casualties in ATS to a combination of ELR and Casualty Reduction in ASL.

ELR effectively works out to be an effect just short of Casualty Reduction, not quite as bad but still a setback. Also these two effects can occur together, or independently of each other, so the sub-sets of a unit's degredation can be several.

[Drew Dorman]

So, is it possible in ASL that with enough gunfire (small arms) power, a lone (or even two) squad can be totally eliminated?

-Drew

[cjsloki]

So, is it possible in ASL that with enough gunfire (small arms) power, a lone (or even two) squad can be totally eliminated?

-Drew

Sure if you roll badly enough.

Charles

[zgrose]

Or if the firer rolls well enough. And MG firing on a squad moving in the open (say a 4-2 attack) can kill that squad outright on a 1,1 or 1,2

[DaveStory]

I've played entire weekends without having a unit suffer ELR failure.

I think you may be playing the rule incorrectly.

[From the ASL Rulebook, A19.13] "An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount > its ELR is immediately Replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality but the same size"

So, for example: a 4-6-7 squad with an ELR of 3 (a pretty common occurence) gets hit with a 3MC. In this example, if the morale check roll is greater than 7 (@40% chance) then that unit is ELR'd. The squad's Morale # + that side's ELR # - the MC modifier # = the target number to exceed for ELR to take effect (ie, 7 + 3 - 3 = 7).

Unless I'm playing entirely with shock troops (5 ELR), or my enemy isn't hitting me with more than a single squad at a time, I find that ELR is occuring on about 20-30% of my failed Morale Checks.

[Brien Martin]

I think you may be playing the rule incorrectly.

[From the ASL Rulebook, A19.13] "An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount > its ELR is immediately Replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality but the same size"

So, for example: a 4-6-7 squad with an ELR of 3 (a pretty common occurence) gets hit with a 3MC. In this example, if the morale check roll is greater than 7 (@40% chance) then that unit is ELR'd. The squad's Morale # + that side's ELR # - the MC modifier # = the target number to exceed for ELR to take effect (ie, 7 + 3 - 3 = 7).

Unless I'm playing entirely with shock troops (5 ELR), or my enemy isn't hitting me with more than a single squad at a time, I find that ELR is occuring on about 20-30% of my failed Morale Checks.

Dave,

I'm sure you mean well when you say that ... but I've been playing ASL for 14 years, and I know the rule well, thanks.

I have also experienced tournament situations (or game day situations) where I got lucky and didn't have an ELR failure all weekend. I'm not saying it happens every time I play ... but it can happen, and sometimes does happen. Luck of the dice, as you know.

I've played Italians ... and they ELR a lot ... as do those late-war Germans and some of the partisan and Axis Minors.

I still argue that a 20-30% ELR reduction rate is not comparable to a 100% reduction rate as found in ATS. In ASL, if you get hit, the dice have to fall just wrong to ELR. In ATS, if you get hit, there's no question about if you'll reduce.

Brien

[DaveStory]

I still argue that a 20-30% ELR reduction rate is not comparable to a 100% reduction rate as found in ATS. In ASL, if you get hit, the dice have to fall just wrong to ELR. In ATS, if you get hit, there's no question about if you'll reduce.

The 20-30% was noted just for ELR effects. Coupled with Breaking, Pinning, Casualty Reduction, KIAs and an opponent who knows how to use his resources (ie, using firegroups, encriclement, etc) combat in ASL can be very lethal to the player who knows how utilize all his options. It just a more detailed approach and a more intricate view of unit conditions.

Take away all those details and options and you'd probably come up with a chart similar to the ATS one, albeit a bit less lethal.

And to that, as far as the virulence of the ATS combat system, I would have to agree that when played by two equal opponents it is more deadly than ASL. Two evenly matched squads (even sitting in cover) can easily blow each other away in a matter of a few activations. Though how realistic is that? Well, that could be an entirely new thread; though I don't recall any memoirs along the lines of "in a matter of minutes, our squad was completely decimated by the small arms fire of an opposing squad", oh, unless it was the early-war French :hush:

[Brien Martin]

Though how realistic is that? Well, that could be an entirely new thread;

Heck, in ASL, you can have a situation where a stack of three 658 SS and a 10-3 leader wander into open ground in LOS of an American 8-16 HMG directed by a 10-2 leader ... making the shot 8-down-4 ... roll an 11 to get the 1MC result ... have the stack all pass their MC ... and move, unscathed, into a building.

How often do you see accounts that say ... "There were three squads and we all ran out into the street at once ... right under the scope of a nearby machine gun nest ... no one was hit"??

I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. I understand that no game can model exactly what happens in real life. ASL is less bloody, overall ... ATS is more bloody, overall. Both will, I think, fill your tactical needs.

You've admitted to owning and playing both ... I suspect that there are days when you want an ASL experience ... and days when you want a shoot-em-up style of game that ATS provides.

You know what the cool part is??? You and I both can have it both ways, if we want. To me, that's what makes wargaming so cool ... you can enjoy different systems that portray the same time frame ... and you can't "lose" either way. I love Paths of Glory ... and I also enjoy The First World War ... same subject, different ways to go about it (and from the exact same designer, too!!).

The pity, in some respects, is when we get into some of the "us vs. them" mentality where you're expected to be on one side of the fence or the other. I think *that's* where wargaming can get "creepy".

Brien

[Drew Dorman]

I'm finding it quite interesting reading about this ATS vs ASL debate. As I don't play ASL, it's interesting to see one system compared to the other, especially how they both go about moving, firing, morale, etc.

-Drew

[zgrose]

I think you may be playing the rule incorrectly.

[From the ASL Rulebook, A19.13] "An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount > its ELR is immediately Replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality but the same size"

So, for example: a 4-6-7 squad with an ELR of 3 (a pretty common occurence) gets hit with a 3MC. In this example, if the morale check roll is greater than 7 (@40% chance) then that unit is ELR'd. The squad's Morale # + that side's ELR # - the MC modifier # = the target number to exceed for ELR to take effect (ie, 7 + 3 - 3 = 7).

Unless I'm playing entirely with shock troops (5 ELR), or my enemy isn't hitting me with more than a single squad at a time, I find that ELR is occuring on about 20-30% of my failed Morale Checks.

I think it all depends on how often you are getting hit with those 3MCs. To score a 3MC with an 8FP attack you need to roll a 4 or less. In a typical +3 TEM city environment you need a minimum of 16 FP to score a 3MC on a 1,1.

I think the degree to which you experience really depends on the kind of scenarios and theater of operations in which you play.

[DaveStory]

"True that Z."

But even in those city environs, somebody usually has an objective to get to, and while he's making his way across those open roads (or even jumping from building to building, and there's a chance for a snap-shot), well, that's when the trigger finger gets all itchy and my heart skips a beat in anticipation!

..if I'm playing the defender, that is..

[alanp]

Alright, you guys are staying civil (for the most part:) ) here, which is appreciated.

Here's a question on ATS: (I don't own it) you've described the trading actions aspect of a phase. Are the units limited to one action per phase? (could you choose the same unit twice?) Do the sides generally have the same number of units in a sceanio? If not and one side 'runs out' of pieces to 'activate', does the other side continue firing/moving?

[stone156]

Here's a question on ATS: (I don't own it) you've described the trading actions aspect of a phase. Are the units limited to one action per phase? (could you choose the same unit twice?) Do the sides generally have the same number of units in a sceanio? If not and one side 'runs out' of pieces to 'activate', does the other side continue firing/moving?

A unit can perform one action per segment. To keep it simple, move or fire. If it has ROF it can fire later in the segment if it doesn't fire all it's ROF in its own impulse. An opp fire unit may only fire 1 ROF per MP of the target. A moving unit can only fire its inheirent Gunfire plus 1 ROF of an Light weapon, regardless of how many ROF that L weapon might have.

As far as I know there is no consideration for number of units when designing a scenario. They are generally fair in terms of what each side is trying to achieve. A side may make a pass instead of using a unit. If both sides pass 2 times in a row the segment ends. Keeping ROF or some GF on defense is key in not allowing an attacking unit to move up without regard. As well, Grenades attacks in the infiltration segment may be made by units that never fired in the Fire/Move segment.

The impulse nature of the turn is one of if not the best element of ATS. You are always involved acting and reacting.

[alanp]

Thanks for the response! I asked because it seemed that if one side out-numbered the other by a lot, or had many more units in a particular area, one side would be moving firing more that the other at some point in the segment.

I've got a Civil War game by Victory Games(?) which has a similar mechanism for determining who moves when and how much. It seems to fit that war well and could fit the tactical level well, too.

[Roberts]

A unit can perform one action per segment. To keep it simple, move or fire. If it has ROF it can fire later in the segment if it doesn't fire all it's ROF in its own impulse. An opp fire unit may only fire 1 ROF per MP of the target. A moving unit can only fire its inheirent Gunfire plus 1 ROF of an Light weapon, regardless of how many ROF that L weapon might have.

As far as I know there is no consideration for number of units when designing a scenario. They are generally fair in terms of what each side is trying to achieve. A side may make a pass instead of using a unit. If both sides pass 2 times in a row the segment ends. Keeping ROF or some GF on defense is key in not allowing an attacking unit to move up without regard. As well, Grenades attacks in the infiltration segment may be made by units that never fired in the Fire/Move segment.

The impulse nature of the turn is one of if not the best element of ATS. You are always involved acting and reacting.

One thing that strikes me about playing ATS is how fast the whole complexion of the battle can change. One burning tank or one machine gun knocked out and all the sudden the attackers can get in close very fast and once the attacker gets say 3-1 in squads in good shape on a small part of the front, the defense gets wiped out very quickly.