Boats!

[jrv]

Is this SSR justified by a special circumstance in the Dinant operation, or should this be considered a grudge rule?

I think the answer here is, "neither," although the first would seem to be more near the truth than the second. It seems to be a practical, game-play-based rule put in to resolve issues with one side having so many AFVs at one time when the other side has very limited or no anti-tank weapons. Footnote 5:

Each side has periods of virtually unopposed armor without being able to take full advantage of that fact. This deviation from the standard rule is intended to account for that. Extensive playtesting repeatedly revealed that without this special ru,e the side with unopposed armor was—unlike historically—virtually unstoppable. Without this special rule, the plentiful German armor in the game was entirely too powerful, ruining the experience. Other, lest drastic measures, were considered but discarded as insufficient or too convoluted.

My reading is that when one side had a large force of tanks it could use the game mechanism of VBM freeze to gain a giant advantage at little cost to itself. To counteract that a variation in the game mechanism was necessary. It was neither a historical difference at Dinant, nor blind opposition to the VBM freeze game mechanism in any and all circumstances that characterizes grudge rules.

JR

 

[Philippe D.]

OK, that seems pretty reasonable.

 

[Jacometti]

My reading is that when one side had a large force of tanks it could use the game mechanism of VBM freeze to gain a giant advantage at little cost to itself. To counteract that a variation in the game mechanism was necessary.
JR

In other words, the standard ASL rules are broken and lead to significantly ahistorical use of AFV assets in these circumstances.

Who would have thought of that?

 

[Robin Reeve]

Standard rules may work in many situations and not in specific ones...
That said, VBM freeze could suffer some accomodations.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Who would have thought of that?

Someone with a grudge -- jim

 

[jrv]

In other words, the standard ASL rules are broken and lead to significantly ahistorical use of AFV assets in these circumstances.

All ASL rules are broken and lead to significantly ahistorical use of assets. When did you ever read in a military manual that you should run a friendly 7-0 leader to the other side of a broken enemy squad while a friendly squad stays on this side to eliminate the broken enemy squad for failure to rout and/or capture it?

JR

 

[Carln0130]

All ASL rules are broken and lead to significantly ahistorical use of assets. When did you ever read in a military manual that you should run a friendly 7-0 leader to the other side of a broken enemy squad while a friendly squad stays on this side to eliminate the broken enemy squad for failure to rout and/or capture it?

JR

Leader abuse as Mr. Trezza used to call it.

 

[jrv]

Leader abuse as Mr. Trezza used to call it.

One of the first uses I was taught for a leader was performing a counting coup, i.e. sending it off to move ADJACENT to broken enemy units to keep them DM. Perhaps it is not as unrealistic as I thought:

Joe Medicine Crow (1913–2016) is credited with achieving the feat while serving with the US Army during World War II, as on one occasion he overpowered and disarmed a German soldier, and later stole horses from an SS unit.

Counting coup - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We may be missing coup sticks SW counters.

JR

 

[Carln0130]

One of the first uses I was taught for a leader was performing a counting coup, i.e. sending it off to move ADJACENT to broken enemy units to keep them DM. Perhaps it is not as unrealistic as I thought:

Counting coup - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We may be missing coup sticks SW counters.

JR

They were using Umpire clickers by WW2, I'm pretty sure. ;-)

 

[phlegm027]

No, not a grudge rule Philippe. It was not the tactics that German AFV’s utilized. They tended to,stay back and utilize their MG’s and Gun.

We also found out very early on (20 years ago) that allowing VBM Freeze would allow players to simply VBMF their way victory. This was especially true in the CG. When you buy a Lt Tank Co with 20 some PZ38t(a)’s and PzIII’s you can smother pretty much any where you want to go. This was also true in some of the scenarios that had a lot of tanks or Armored Cars.

We wanted to show that the troopers on both sides didn’t as a matter of routine drive their vehicles next to buildings and hope the 30 people inside don’t figure out a way to kill them. The fact is I was trying to show a Panzer Regiment crossing a major river. Carl came on and we both saw the need for this prohibition.

I looked at a lot of different ways to solve this and Ron Duenskie and I found the simplest way was to prohibit it except where a HIP unit appeared.

ASL is a game. As a designer of a HASL module I have to try to stay within the rules as much as possible. I don’t write rules very well. I’m more of an idea guy. If the rule is there but it is causing a MAJOR problem that can be solved by not using it in 11 scenarios and a CG. The rule goes. I haven’t ever done anything to prohibit VBMF in any scenario I ever designed. So I don’t think it’s a Grudge thing. I wanted to do 11 good, interesting and fun Scenarios and Carl had a great idea for a CG that is incredible.

Some very good ASL people worked on Dinant over the 20 years I’ve tended to it. I have always strived to stay within the rules. If there is any grudge that I would confess to it would be the Starshell rule. The +1 to attempts really limits the night is now day that I saw as the norm in large or even small scenarios. When every turn of a night scenario has every hex where both sides had troops is illuminated. Then it really isn’t a night scenario.

Philippe, I hope you enjoy CDG2 and Dinant. I’m sorry to have blathered on. I hope my explanation is satisfying to you.

Thank you for your interest and your purchase.

Phlegm

 

[CTKnudsen]

Ok, another Boats(!) Q:

If a boat is being manhandled into a shore hex, declaring that the boat will beach as part of the movement, and the final manhandling DR = the M#, does the boat still beach? If so, can the unit manhandling the boat then load if it has the MF to do so? Assume that only the regular non-Dinant boat rules are in effect.

The on-field decision is currently no, although I this is based more on a spirit of the rules thing than any concrete reading - in fact based on just reading the rules, I suspect the answer to both parts might be yes.

If the answer is then yes, and Dinant rules are in effect, can the unit both then load and then un-beach if it has the MF to do so?

 

[Jacometti]

No, not a grudge rule Philippe. It was not the tactics that German AFV’s utilized. They tended to,stay back and utilize their MG’s and Gun.

We also found out very early on (20 years ago) that allowing VBM Freeze would allow players to simply VBMF their way victory. This was especially true in the CG. When you buy a Lt Tank Co with 20 some PZ38t(a)’s and PzIII’s you can smother pretty much any where you want to go. This was also true in some of the scenarios that had a lot of tanks or Armored Cars.

We wanted to show that the troopers on both sides didn’t as a matter of routine drive their vehicles next to buildings and hope the 30 people inside don’t figure out a way to kill them. The fact is I was trying to show a Panzer Regiment crossing a major river. Carl came on and we both saw the need for this prohibition.

I looked at a lot of different ways to solve this and Ron Duenskie and I found the simplest way was to prohibit it except where a HIP unit appeared.

ASL is a game. As a designer of a HASL module I have to try to stay within the rules as much as possible. I don’t write rules very well. I’m more of an idea guy. If the rule is there but it is causing a MAJOR problem that can be solved by not using it in 11 scenarios and a CG. The rule goes. I haven’t ever done anything to prohibit VBMF in any scenario I ever designed. So I don’t think it’s a Grudge thing. I wanted to do 11 good, interesting and fun Scenarios and Carl had a great idea for a CG that is incredible.

Some very good ASL people worked on Dinant over the 20 years I’ve tended to it. I have always strived to stay within the rules. If there is any grudge that I would confess to it would be the Starshell rule. The +1 to attempts really limits the night is now day that I saw as the norm in large or even small scenarios. When every turn of a night scenario has every hex where both sides had troops is illuminated. Then it really isn’t a night scenario.

Philippe, I hope you enjoy CDG2 and Dinant. I’m sorry to have blathered on. I hope my explanation is satisfying to you.

Thank you for your interest and your purchase.

Phlegm

You guys have obviously done the right thing in your design.

It is high time that some kind of "no VBM sleeze" SSR is standardised, to show all these situations across all fronts where armor was considered precious.

The fact this is now in print in a MMP published CG is a breakthrough, in my view. Maybe we will finally end this misery.

 

[phlegm027]

I’m not looking to end anything. We wrote an SSR that was needed due to a situation where we needed to.

 

[Carln0130]

Ok, another Boats(!) Q:

If a boat is being manhandled into a shore hex, declaring that the boat will beach as part of the movement, and the final manhandling DR = the M#, does the boat still beach? If so, can the unit manhandling the boat then load if it has the MF to do so? Assume that only the regular non-Dinant boat rules are in effect.

The on-field decision is currently no, although I this is based more on a spirit of the rules thing than any concrete reading - in fact based on just reading the rules, I suspect the answer to both parts might be yes.

If the answer is then yes, and Dinant rules are in effect, can the unit both then load and then un-beach if it has the MF to do so?

Assuming that Non-Dinant rules are in effect, no, they still couldn't. Rolling = to the Manhandling number gets you to the next hex, but ends your move. C10.3 explicitly states that the GUN, or in this case, Pontoon Section, gets Pushed into the next hex but that movement for the Pushing units and GUN (Pontoon Section) ends there. Dinant does allow you to Beach the Pontoon Section specifically, since moving a Pontoon Section exhausts all the Pushing units available MF specifically per the Dinant rules. The farthest you are ever going in that case is one hex. In neither case, are you pushing it, beaching it and then getting on board it. Not that it is going anywhere until you make it into a Ferry anyway.

Now, as you were expressly mentioning Boats, that is slightly different only in that you can beach it, but you can't get onboard, as rolling even to the Manhandling # means your movement ended. There is no MF cost for beaching a boat in either the standard rules or Dinant. If you rolled less the Manhandling # and had MF left, you could get on the Boat, in both Dinant and the Standard rules. Remember that Dinant is the standard rules.............except when specifically mentioned that it is not. ;-) Hope that helps.

 

[Carln0130]

You guys have obviously done the right thing in your design.

It is high time that some kind of "no VBM sleeze" SSR is standardised, to show all these situations across all fronts where armor was considered precious.

The fact this is now in print in a MMP published CG is a breakthrough, in my view. Maybe we will finally end this misery.

It's really a case by case thing Peter and I am not recommending a blanket clause for same either. Actually working on a project right now where sleaze freeze fits, as the combatants frequently got too close to enemy infantry due to lack of indoctrination to the contrary. They paid for it, but that is handled in the Molotov section of the rules . It really depends on the situation. I give credit to MMP for allowing it in this situation as it simply was the right call in this case.

 

[Jacometti]

It's really a case by case thing Peter and I am not recommending a blanket clause for same either. Actually working on a project right now where sleaze freeze fits, as the combatants frequently got too close to enemy infantry due to lack of indoctrination to the contrary. They paid for it, but that is handled in the Molotov section of the rules . It really depends on the situation. I give credit to MMP for allowing it in this situation as it simply was the right call in this case.

OK, maybe I should be a bit clearer.

I am glad there is an official product with a rule prohibiting VBM Freeze, which can then be used by designers who feel it will improve either the playability or the historical accuracy of their scenarios, without being accused of "grudge rules".

That's all, really.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I am glad there is an official product with a rule prohibiting VBM Freeze, which can then be used by designers who feel it will improve either the playability or the historical accuracy of their scenarios, without being accused of "grudge rules".

How had that worked for the IIFT house-rule? Asking for a friend. -- jim

 

[Carln0130]

OK, maybe I should be a bit clearer.

I am glad there is an official product with a rule prohibiting VBM Freeze, which can then be used by designers who feel it will improve either the playability or the historical accuracy of their scenarios, without being accused of "grudge rules".

That's all, really.

With you on that. Not a fan of the "grudge rule" moniker to begin with. My understanding of a grudge SSR definition is when an SSR directly overrides an existing rule.

In that case, people who never play scenarios with grudge SSR'S likely have never played Partisan scenarios. There is a grudge SSR there that is so common, that many players think that is the standard rule for Partisans. Namely the no fire group, no deployment, no recombine, no entrenchment SSR. Partisans of course are allowed to do all those things in ASL per the rules, but the SSR is so common, that many believe they cannot.

Personally, I like that SSR. I feel it fits the situation with Partisans in most, but not all cases. That is the beauty of an SSR. Apply it where it fits, but not where it does not.

We have not played in ages Peter. If you are going to be around for a bit, we should get something in on VASL. Would love to see you at the Nor'easter too, 3/26-3/29. Let me know on either or both by PM please.

 

[CTKnudsen]

Assuming that Non-Dinant rules are in effect, no, they still couldn't. Rolling = to the Manhandling number gets you to the next hex, but ends your move. C10.3 explicitly states that the GUN, or in this case, Pontoon Section, gets Pushed into the next hex but that movement for the Pushing units and GUN (Pontoon Section) ends there. Dinant does allow you to Beach the Pontoon Section specifically, since moving a Pontoon Section exhausts all the Pushing units available MF specifically per the Dinant rules. The farthest you are ever going in that case is one hex. In neither case, are you pushing it, beaching it and then getting on board it. Not that it is going anywhere until you make it into a Ferry anyway.

Now, as you were expressly mentioning Boats, that is slightly different only in that you can beach it, but you can't get onboard, as rolling even to the Manhandling # means your movement ended. There is no MF cost for beaching a boat in either the standard rules or Dinant. If you rolled less the Manhandling # and had MF left, you could get on the Boat, in both Dinant and the Standard rules. Remember that Dinant is the standard rules.............except when specifically mentioned that it is not. ;-) Hope that helps.

Thanks Carl. I had noted that bit in C10.3, however I wondered if beaching, if declared when making the manhandling DR, might not constitute a separate movement in that sense. Since beaching doesn't require another manhandling DR once in the hex, I thought perhaps the beaching was implicit in the DR to get into the hex, so long as it's declared per E5.23. Glad you could clear it up for me!

 

[phlegm027]

These pictures might give some ideas as to why we decided to change the boat rules to have a 1MP cost to unbeach. In the area where most of the crossing happened there is a steep embankment along both sides of the river it is about 6’-8’ drop from the top of the embankment to the water. Getting men and equipment into rafts and boats was not an easy thing.