Motion Vehicle Affects ATT To Hit

aslwynn

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
439
Reaction score
23
Location
Vernon, BC, Canada
Country
llCanada
I feel silly asking this, but this fails my personal 'realism' check:

An ATT hit on a hex hits everything in it, but C6.1 seems incontrovertibly to indicate that an additional +2 is added to the TH DR in order to hit a vehicle in Motion, correct?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I feel silly asking this, but this fails my personal 'realism' check:

An ATT hit on a hex hits everything in it, but C6.1 seems incontrovertibly to indicate that an additional +2 is added to the TH DR in order to hit a vehicle in Motion, correct?
Correct.

JR
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I feel silly asking this, but this fails my personal 'realism' check:
The idea is you are blanketing fire at the area, but any individual shot may not strike an unit in that hex. Some targets are easier to hit than other (like the squad "standing still" while the AFV is in Motion). The Final DR will decide which eligible targets are hit in that hex.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
If you are thinking that Area Target Type either hits all units or none, that is wrong. There are other TH DRM that might apply to individual units so that Area Target Type might hit some units in a hex/location and not others. Concealed vs not concealed and different target sizes both might cause some units to be hit and others not. If there are multiple locations (e.g. levels in a building), the units at ground level might have hindrances while the units at upper level don't. An Area Target Type attack can potentially hit all targets.

JR
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
And, even if hit, the effects IFT DR may generate a "-" result (which is affected by the TEM of the target).
From a design for effect perspective, such a (non-)result is about the same as a miss.
So targets in different situations are differently affected even if "hit".
 

Pacman Ghost

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
590
Reaction score
298
Location
A maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Country
llAustralia
An Area Target Type attack can potentially hit all targets.
I was mulling over this in a game the other day. A mortar DFF's on a moving squad in Open Ground. It has to use Area Target Type, which is essentially splattering the entire hex with rounds, rather than specifically targeting the squad, yet it can only affect the moving squad, but not anything else in that hex.

Since aslwynn brought up the question of realism, this didn't feel right. Am I missing something...?

I never got the -2 TH DRM for FFMO/FFNAM, either. You'd think moving infantry would be harder for a mortar (or Gun) to hit, not easier. -2 on the IFT effects roll, sure, but not the TH.
 

Bad Dice

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
348
Reaction score
115
Location
Chico
Country
llUnited States
You might think that it'd be harder to hit a moving target, but if you think of a mortar as a sort of single-barrel OBA, which is striking an area and not a specific target, then a moving unit is no more or less vulnerable to being affected by a shot from a mortar as any other unit in (or about to enter) that hex might be. RFP also covers that eventuality by allowing for an effective hit to potentially affect other units which were not specifically targeted, which decided to use the same hex as part of their travels.

BD
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
rather than specifically targeting the squad, yet it can only affect the moving squad, but not anything else in that hex.
I believe that's a side effect of ASL's way to make ASL more WEGO while still actually being UGO-IGO.
 

Pacman Ghost

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
590
Reaction score
298
Location
A maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Country
llAustralia
then a moving unit is no more or less vulnerable to being affected by a shot from a mortar as any other unit in (or about to enter) that hex might be.
That's the point I was making. The DFF attack can only affect the moving unit, but anyone who happened to be in the hex already is completely immune.

If someone moves into the hex after the DFF attack, yes they can be affected by the RF, but someone who's in the hex prior to the attack, and doesn't move at all, is completely safe. Just feels wrong :) As you said, a non-moving unit should be, more or less, equally vulnerable to an ATT attack as a moving unit ?
 
Last edited:

Gordon

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
2,940
Country
llUnited States
Sure it's not part of the YUGO aspect of ASL?

10802

;)
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,361
Reaction score
10,215
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I never got the -2 TH DRM for FFMO/FFNAM, either. You'd think moving infantry would be harder for a mortar (or Gun) to hit, not easier. -2 on the IFT effects roll, sure, but not the TH.
FFMO:
Moving about in an area without cover makes you easier to be hit by bullets and shrapnel.

FFNAM:
Moving about upright rather than crawling presents a larger area that can be hit by bullets and shrapnel.

Pretty easy to understand the concepts behind FFMO/FFNAM IMHO.

von Marwitz
 

Pacman Ghost

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
590
Reaction score
298
Location
A maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Country
llAustralia
FFMO:
Moving about in an area without cover makes you easier to be hit by bullets and shrapnel.

FFNAM:
Moving about upright rather than crawling presents a larger area that can be hit by bullets and shrapnel.

Pretty easy to understand the concepts behind FFMO/FFNAM IMHO.
If you're being targeted by infantry fire, sure. But if you're firing a Gun or mortar, it's less clear.

The German 4-6-7 is standing motionless in Open Ground when it's attacked by the Russian mortar. The 8-3-8 is running across Open Ground ground when it is attacked.
10803

Why is it so much easier to hit the 8-3-8 than it is the 4-6-7? The mortar (or Gun) has to track a moving target, surely that would be harder than hitting a stationary target. Once you've been hit, then the effect would be more lethal (certainly for FFMO), but you would think that being hit in the first place should be more difficult.

I think you're talking about "moving about in an area without cover" vs. "moving about in an area with cover" and "moving about upright rather than crawling", whereas I'm talking about moving vs. not moving at all. And the difference between being attacked by infantry fire, where FFMO/FFNAM applies to the effect DR, but for Guns and mortars, it applies to the TH DR.

You might say that the mortar is attacking the entire hex, and so the 8-3-8 has to run a gauntlet of shells, making it more likely to be hit, which is maybe possible, but replace the mortar with a 150mm Gun. That argument surely doesn't apply any more, but it still gets a -2 TH DRM. And in any case, however many rounds the Gun or mortar might be able to get off, it would be the same in the attack on the 4-6-7, and in all likelihood, more of them would be on-target since the poor suckers aren't moving :)
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
That's the point I was making. The DFF attack can only affect the moving unit, but anyone who happened to be in the hex already is completely immune.

If someone moves into the hex after the DFF attack, yes they can be affected by the RF, but someone who's in the hex prior to the attack, and doesn't move at all, is completely safe. Just feels wrong :) As you said, a non-moving unit should be, more or less, equally vulnerable to an ATT attack as a moving unit ?
Lying down makes a soldier much less vulnerable.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
And firing at... hexes !
Who on earth would fire at hexes ?
This game is so far from reality...
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,361
Reaction score
10,215
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Why is it so much easier to hit the 8-3-8 than it is the 4-6-7? The mortar (or Gun) has to track a moving target, surely that would be harder than hitting a stationary target. Once you've been hit, then the effect would be more lethal (certainly for FFMO), but you would think that being hit in the first place should be more difficult.
The shrapnel of a MTR shell travels more than 40 meters. And it travels faster than anything can run. This leaves the 838 more vulnerable presenting more surface. Of course, the 838 is easier to discern for the firer because he moves.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I feel silly asking this, but this fails my personal 'realism' check:

An ATT hit on a hex hits everything in it, but C6.1 seems incontrovertibly to indicate that an additional +2 is added to the TH DR in order to hit a vehicle in Motion, correct?
Yes, you are correct it may not be able to hit the vehicle itself because of its Moving/Motion status but may still have Collateral effects against PRC simply because it will hit the hex (D.8...The first is via an attack that does not have the vehicle as its predesignated target (e.g., Small Arms Fire, OBA, or use of the Infantry or Area Target Type... & D.8B.. .just as if the Vulnerable PRC were the only target being attacked.). Since there is a target in the location of the attack (albeit moving or In-Motion) there is no requirement to add the additional TH DRMs for moving/motion (or the lack of a valid target) to hit the hex/location and effect the vulnerable PRC collaterally, but must apply those DRMs to hit the vehicle itself (and perhaps effect those units that were not previously vulnerable [EX: BU Passengers/crew of an OT vehicle hit by indirect fire]). This is the salient difference between a General and Specific Collateral attack.
 

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
386
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
I think the +2TH DRM sort of balances the higher chances of shock/immobilisation for AFV hit on the ATT.

An 70-150mm MTR ATT hit would need a 4 or less on the IFT to immobilise/shock. If the AFV is thinly armoured and OT it is even more of an issue with 6 or less causing problems.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Yes, you are correct it may not be able to hit the vehicle itself because of its Moving/Motion status but may still have Collateral effects against PRC simply because it will hit the hex (D.8...The first is via an attack that does not have the vehicle as its predesignated target (e.g., Small Arms Fire, OBA, or use of the Infantry or Area Target Type... & D.8B.. .just as if the Vulnerable PRC were the only target being attacked.). Since there is a target in the location of the attack (albeit moving or In-Motion) there is no requirement to add the additional TH DRMs for moving/motion (or the lack of a valid target) to hit the hex/location and effect the vulnerable PRC collaterally, but must apply those DRMs to hit the vehicle itself (and perhaps effect those units that were not previously vulnerable [EX: BU Passengers/crew of an OT vehicle hit by indirect fire]). This is the salient difference between a General and Specific Collateral attack.
So if I understand this, if a vehicle is hit by an Area Target Type attack but is only hit because of its large or double-large vehicle target size (i.e. if the vehicle had been normal size, it would not have been hit; assume the vehicle is not affected by the attack), then vulnerable PRC are not attacked by a general collateral attack because they do not share the double-large target size and so would not be hit if the only target being attacked because PRC don't have a target size. Is that right?

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,780
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Wasn't there a thread/discussion - not so long ago - whether a vehicle needs to be hit to incur a Collateral Attack vs its PRC?
 
Top