When you play, how often do you use the IIFT?

How many of your games use the IIFT?

  • None - Almost never use it.

    Votes: 105 41.2%
  • 0-10%

    Votes: 31 12.2%
  • 11-20%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 21-30%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 31-40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 41-50%

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • 51-60%

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • 61-70%

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • 71-80%

    Votes: 13 5.1%
  • 81-90%

    Votes: 16 6.3%
  • 91-100%

    Votes: 63 24.7%

  • Total voters
    255

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Does anyone have any designer notes on why MMP accepted the IIFT as an Official Option, all the way to including the chart with the ASLRB2?
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Does anyone have any designer notes on why MMP accepted the IIFT as an Official Option, all the way to including the chart with the ASLRB2?
Does anyone have designer notes on why Avalon Hill accepted the IFT as official? It was changed from SL to ASL, adding in PTC's, the idea that a KIA didn't simply kill everything in the hex, adding numbered Morale Checks. Seems rather capricious to me and I need to see the designer notes to accept it. :rolleyes: -- jim
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Jim,

You're one of the ones complaining about an official rule in the game being fundamentally broken. I'm trying to ask the right Qs to help get to the bottom of this.

I guess you're just trying to troll as much as Tater. :laugh:
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Jim,

You're one of the ones complaining about an official rule in the game being fundamentally broken. I'm trying to ask the right Qs to help get to the bottom of this.
You don't need designer notes to get to the bottom of this. All you need do is ask yourself: "Are there instances where I can determine that one table would tend to produce a result I would find more favorable when compared to the other". You need to DASH across a road. The road is guarded by a 2-4-7, HMG, and German 7-0 leader. You are in normal range. Can you determine if one table would tend to produce a more favorable outcome when compared to the other? What if you were instead the shoot? Same question but instead, the German HS is now manning a 50mm mortar. What if booby traps are in effect? There are no need for designers notes to answer these questions.

I guess you're just trying to troll as much as Tater. :laugh:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Portal. -- jim
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Does anyone have any designer notes on why MMP accepted the IIFT as an Official Option, all the way to including the chart with the ASLRB2?
Perhaps check out the intro and the footnotes for Chapter A.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
I guess you're just trying to troll as much as Tater. :laugh:
He says from underneath his bridge...:laugh:

BTW, the whole point of the ift vs IIFT debate is a trolling exercise by ift'ers. What else could it be since ift'ers never, EVER have to use the IIFT.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
You call them cherries because you can't refute them and you know the facts are against you.
No, I call them cherrys because they are none contextual and meaningless to an ASL scenario as a whole. You pick them because they support a preconceived notion and you ignore any counter balancing factors.

But if you want to tell us its just them same/no different/doesn't affect balance/etc, you're going to have to bring more to the table than you have so far.
The only serious claim I have made is that no ift'er has proved that the IIFT changes balance...which you haven't. Cherry picked, none contextual factors do not prove anything. This whole thread is based on ift'er claims that the IIFT unbalances scenarios...I don't have to bring anything to the table...you do...and you have yet to show up with anything realistic.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
No, I call them cherrys because they are none contextual and meaningless to an ASL scenario as a whole. You pick them because they support a preconceived notion and you ignore any counter balancing factors.
You call them cherries because doing so denigrates them and obviates you from the need to address them. You attempt to place them beneath your contempt for the same reason.


The only serious claim I have made is that no ift'er has proved that the IIFT changes balance...which you haven't. Cherry picked, none contextual factors do not prove anything. This whole thread is based on ift'er claims that the IIFT unbalances scenarios...I don't have to bring anything to the table...you do...and you have yet to show up with anything realistic.
Plenty has been brought to the table, all of which you revert to one of four patterns: belittle it because you can't refute it; obfuscate your response so following along are not aware of the vacuous nature of your response; ask "why do you care since you never have to play it"; or attack the poster asking them to "have another fish".

FWIW, I almost feel compelled to yield the point on "cherry picking" because German HMG's shooting on the 3.5 column or the 7 column are such a rarity in ASL. Same for OBA hitting the intermediate columns (50mm mortars anyone?). Randomly breaking extra units or reducing them for no reason is also not likely to affect the outcome of a game either. :rolleyes: -- jim
 

rcornwell

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
281
Reaction score
16
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Tate,

Would adding an extra 8-1 to one side make a difference to balance? Would adding in a couple of extra squads?

The math conclusively proves that in scenarios where one side benefits from the IIFT and the other doesn't that this can be roughly the effect (sometime bigger in my view, but we'll keep the impact small in this case).

So if your opponent wants an extra few squads you are cool with that as 'so many other things affect balance' that you can't prove that the balance is changed by changing the OB (in the same way that it's 'unprovable' that fire table doesn't change balance?
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
I acknowledge them...I just don't think they mean what you think they do relative to actual ASL play. The difference between you and I is that you seem to believe that ASL is a game of mathematics. I, OTOH, KNOW that ASL is much more than the sum of the mathematics.

Otherwise why even play a scenario...just add up the FP, calculate turns vs movement capability, run a couple of formulas, spit out the statistical analysis and viola...side "B" has a 61.9% chance of winning so no need to play. :nuts:
Congratulations, you just described balance considerations everyone makes whether they put a specific percentage to one side or not.

Sure, but aren't you all better than that? At least that is what you seem to think, right? As you accuse one another of "arguing like Tater". :laugh:
I really try not to take it to a personal level. If I have to resort to a personal attack to make my point, I've gotten too frustrated with someone who doesn't listen.

If you're smart enough to play ASL, you should be smart enough to recognize the difference between the fire tables can (and eventually will) make a difference in a game. I've explained it enough times that you should recognize established principles are the foundation of my argument. The odds favor certain units on the IIFT, more than they deserve. Those skewed odds will eventually make a difference. Maybe not this game, maybe not the next 10 games; but when it does, it was completely avoidable.
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
I'm doing a setup of BRT vs an opponent who strictly uses IIFT right now. I noticed during setup that the Japanese 50* mortars are halved vs LVTs in water, so they would fire on the 1 column using IFT and the 1.5 column using IIFT. The LVTs are OT with thin armor for a -2 to the effects roll. With IFT, the LVT gets shocked/immobilized on a 4 or less. With IIFT, they get shocked/immobilized on a 5 or less. That's changing the probability of getting an effect from 17% to 28%. That's a huge increase when you're talking about a ROF2 weapons.

There are a LOT of 50* mortars in BRT and a LOT of LVT targets. When I pointed this out to my opponent, he immediately decided that he didn't want to use IIFT in this CG, at least for ordnance...
 

Chaim628

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
526
Reaction score
10
Location
Zurich
Country
llSwitzerland
I'm doing a setup of BRT vs an opponent who strictly uses IIFT right now. I noticed during setup that the Japanese 50* mortars are halved vs LVTs in water, so they would fire on the 1 column using IFT and the 1.5 column using IIFT. The LVTs are OT with thin armor for a -2 to the effects roll. With IFT, the LVT gets shocked/immobilized on a 4 or less. With IIFT, they get shocked/immobilized on a 5 or less. That's changing the probability of getting an effect from 17% to 28%. That's a huge increase when you're talking about a ROF2 weapons.

There are a LOT of 50* mortars in BRT and a LOT of LVT targets. When I pointed this out to my opponent, he immediately decided that he didn't want to use IIFT in this CG, at least for ordnance...
It cuts both ways. He will have to accept his ordnance (like his Sherman guns) will be artificially less effective as well... If the IFT would not sport a 1 column he would have even be more convinced...:nuts:

I would not start playing with two tables but at least you have less game play impact if you use the IFT for ordnance alone.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
We used the IIFT for our BRT CG III, and I was able to score a strong victory with the USMC. For every improved Japanese MTR, the USMC had more effective FG FP.

Again, picking at non-debated snippets of Fire Table math which actually end up hitting both sides in the end is not proof significant balance change is taking place.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
It cuts both ways. He will have to accept his ordnance (like his Sherman guns) will be artificially less effective as well... If the IFT would not sport a 1 column he would have even be more convinced...:nuts:

I would not start playing with two tables but at least you have less game play impact if you use the IFT for ordnance alone.
I think you mean if he used the IIFT that his ordnance would be "artificially" INFLATED as well.

I would give up the 14 column of the 75mm guns of a few shermans to lose the massive increase in the many many shots of lt mtrs that will result in a much larger number of kills vs LVTs/Passengers and the Japanese are in +TEM, the USMC are generally NOT. You would be a knucklehead to do otherwise. :p
 
Last edited:

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Again, picking at non-debated snippets of Fire Table math which actually end up hitting both sides in the end is not proof significant balance change is taking place.
Just because both sides "benefit" does not mean the effects are cancled out. -- jim
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
We used the IIFT for our BRT CG III, and I was able to score a strong victory with the USMC. For every improved Japanese MTR, the USMC had more effective FG FP.
I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.

Again, picking at non-debated snippets of Fire Table math which actually end up hitting both sides in the end is not proof significant balance change is taking place.
Let’s see. In terms of IIFT columns, the Americans have 768s, 348 HS, 75mm guns, and the odd LC attacks, probably ¼ to ½ firepower due to being constantly in motion. That’s if they don’t button up which they may want to do with all the Japanese firepower. The 75’s get a decent benefit, especially since a hit results in 0 TEM. The rest of the shots on the 3, 7, and 10 columns don’t mean as much since the extra results are mostly ptcs, and TEM will probably be +2 to +5 against any Japanese targets, and most of the effective American shots will be during Defensive fire when a pin result is fairly worthless.

The Japanese have the 50* mortars, 347 squads, striped 44x squads, and purchased 75/76 guns, and 140 guns, plus long range shots. They also have booby trap capability. If the 50* mortars get a shock/immobilize result vs the LVTs, that’s probably going to result in dead passengers since they would be sitting ducks. The other 3 fp shots are generally going to be more effective than the equivalent American 3 or 7 column shots since they’ll usually be taken at 0 to -2 drms and the “extra” results are more likely to come into play. Also the extra ptc results can generate booby traps.

All in all, I just don’t see the Americans getting the same benefit from IIFT as the Japanese in the CG.
 
Last edited:

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.



Let’s see. In terms of IIFT columns, the Americans have 768s, 348 HS, 75mm guns, and the odd LC attacks, probably ¼ to ½ firepower due to being constantly in motion. That’s if they don’t button up which they may want to do with all the Japanese firepower. The 75’s get a decent benefit, especially since a hit results in 0 TEM. The rest of the shots on the 3, 7, and 10 columns don’t mean as much since the extra results are mostly ptcs, and TEM will probably be +2 to +5 against any Japanese targets, and most of the effective American shots will be during Defensive fire when a pin result is fairly worthless.

The Japanese have the 50* mortars, 347 squads, striped 44x squads, and purchased 75/76 guns, and 140 guns, plus long range shots. They also have booby trap capability. If the 50* mortars get a shock/immobilize result vs the LVTs, that’s probably going to result in dead passengers since they would be sitting ducks. The other 3 fp shots are generally going to be more effective than the equivalent American 3 or 7 column shots since they’ll usually be taken at 0 to -2 drms and the “extra” results are more likely to come into play. Also the extra ptc results can generate booby traps.

All in all, I just don’t see the Americans getting the same benefit from IIFT as the Japanese in the CG.

Exactly! Rep to the man.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Gary M,

I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.
Now you're recognizing the Fire Table by itself has relatively little impact to who is winning and losing in comparison to all these other factors, including those you identified above.

Let's admit this once and for all: you're sticking with the IFT because you prefer it. It has nothing to do with the IIFT being fundamentally broken.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Now you're recognizing the Fire Table by itself has relatively little impact to who is winning and losing in comparison to all these other factors, including those you identified above.

Let's admit this once and for all: you're sticking with the IFT because you prefer it. It has nothing to do with the IIFT being fundamentally broken.
I hesitate to put words into Gary's mouth, but I don't think he, I, or anyone else ever hesitated to accept the IIFT was just one part of the overall equation. What you have failed to accept is that it does have the potential for upsetting balance. Even if the the odds are on ~5% (a figure you threw out earlier), why would you willingly give up that competative advantage? There-in lays the difference. Gary recognizes it, and is willing to play with the IIFT. Fort, Wolkey, Peter Ward, myself, and others also recognize it and reject it out of hand. I would not allow you to add a d20 to your DR and any time a "1" comes up allow you a flat -1 DRM to a shot either. Accepting that the IIFT can affect ~5% of your shots (1 in 20) is accepting the same paradigm. -- jim
 
Top