1-2-7 what to do?

[The Purist]

FWIW, "Crew Survival" may effectively mean "the crew popped out of the vehicle and are pissed and ready to fight". If that happens, say, 28% of the time, then that vehicle has a CS5. If you rolled a 6 or more on the CS DR, that would encompass All Other Results, including...

Meehhhh. Not too sure about this. Crews had certain responsibilities upon abandoning a tank.

Besides, I thought CS#s were based on the tank design and ability of the crew to exit quickly. The Pz IV had one hatch or door for each crewman with the CS#s being higher than, for example, an early M4 where gunner and loader had to wait for the CC to leave, or clamber over/move his corpse, or try to get out the belly hatch.

Otherwise, I think I would go with the "we ain't grunts" and "specialist" argument. I don't really see a crew armed mainly with pistols deciding to go all Audie Murphy on the opposition.

US Army FM17-67 notes what a crew was to do if it had to abandon a disabled tank. Dependent on how much time a crew had they were remove the periscopic and telescopic sights, disable the main gun or recoil system, render the machine guns inoperable and so on. Given enough time they were to destroy the tank itself. If there was little time (fire, smoke, wounded), saving the crew was the main issue. I would not be surprised to find similar documents in other armies of the day.

 

[The Purist]

The 'best' solution would be to place a crew that survived CS under Recall, and make PF N/A. Gets rid of 99% of the gaminess BS right there (and more accurately models tankers outside of their tanks).

In order to avoid "all" gamey play I like the idea of simply removing the crew after/if it survives all fire attacks sent its way as a result of bailing out. This way the loop holes in Recall rules cannot be used to benefit the side with the crew. No CVP for the crew being removed, they got away.

It's clean and simple.

 

[TopT]

Man, you guys miss the forest because the woods are in the way.

These rules are abstractions. They are not pure rules and this game is only playing at real combat.

Tuomo hit it squarely:

-a failed CS could mean either the crew perished or they did indeed hightail it off the battlefield
-a passed CS means they are on the ASL battlefield. Most times they are going to have very little effect on the scenario but if they do, so what? The crazy stuff is what brings everyone back again and again. There is no way any of you are going to convince anyone that every single AFV crew (of any Nationality) headed for the rear instantly.

 

[The Purist]

Respectfully, I disagree.

If the CS#s were as you and Tuomo state then all CS#s would be the same,.... crews either took to the field to fight or they didn't. That is not the case and one needs to look no further than the CS#s themselves. Your suggestion would mean that the crew of an Elefant (CS 7) is more highly motivated to become infantry than a JgPz 38(t) (CS 4), rather than on the likelihood of an intact crew escaping a crippled/destroyed vehicle based on the vehicles design. On what can this argument be based?

Furthermore, just because the game does not claim to be a simulation does not mean it could not have the rules tightened up to better reflect those aspects of reality that it can. I would agree that we need to avoid bogging the rules down in minutiae but that is not what is being discussed.

The rulebook was written a long time ago with both the level of game play and our understanding of the history all having evolved and expanded over the past 35+ years. There is nothing wrong with wanting the game rules to evolve as well. We are not speaking of "would be nice" changes based on a 'feelings', old and tired WWII mythology or personal preference but rather those that can be grounded in as much historical fact as possible.

Tank crews playing scout for elite squads or running 300 metres to man a machine gun in order to free up a squad is 'gamey' and just as indefensible as passing prisoners around in order allow the Russian squads to deploy.

YMMV.

 

[Tuomo]

Why can't the CS# be a combination of physical survivability/escape-ability and willingness to fight? I didn't mean to imply that the former aspects were irrelevant. Just that the latter aspect could come into play too. "Not on the board in counter form" doesn't have to mean "dead", it can also mean "not willing or able to be part of the hugga-mugga anymore". I think the ASLRB itself says something along those lines, in terms of explaining why multiply-broken units are Casualty Reduced to the point where they're taken off the board.

Shrug.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Indeed! From the SL start it was emphasised that K/KIA results could mean anything from a Squad/HS being turned into pink mist to everyone hunkering down and wondering whether they had enough toilet paper to scrape out their underwear. Breaking meant that a unit needed an extra shot of brave pills and were temporarily out of the fight and might get back into it, K/KIA meant that they were out of the fight longer than the scenario, whether permanently (dead) or temporarily (running) didn't matter.

 

[The Purist]

Why can't the CS# be a combination of physical survivability/escape-ability and willingness to fight? I didn't mean to imply that the former aspects were irrelevant. Just that the latter aspect could come into play too. "Not on the board in counter form" doesn't have to mean "dead", it can also mean "not willing or able to be part of the hugga-mugga anymore". I think the ASLRB itself says something along those lines, in terms of explaining why multiply-broken units are Casualty Reduced to the point where they're taken off the board....

To be honest I am not particularly fussed over the CS#s one way or the other. The problem I have is how the 127 vehicle crew and their associated rules can be abused with historically indefensible tactics (scouts w/ self-rally, Gun/MG crews, blocking/preventing route paths, interdiction, etc.) when we have the necessary evidence to remove such abuses. The only role a CS# should have within the game is whether the additional 2 CVP are awarded or not.

We have all seen the well known 'abandon' tactic used to get a crew into a VC building. This has become such a problem that we are seeing more and more SSRs prohibiting this particular sleaze move. The only proviso I would extend here would be in regards to dedicated recce vehicles whose role actually involved fighting dismounted. In the main, however, this abuse is considered egregious enough to merit changes. This is not a bad thing.

It can get worse. With a CS 6, for example, and if desperate enough, one could run the mobile Pz III, IV and Vs (what have you) into suicidal positions next to a building(s) one needs to win but cannot otherwise reach in the hope that one or more of the crews will survive to enter said building(s). I am sure the problem associated with this potential abuse is readily apparent.

In the end, the rules are what they are at present and players will take advantage of these abuses because to handicap oneself is to offer the opponent and easier path to a win. This does not mean the rules are not in need of fixing.

 

[The Purist]

Indeed! From the SL start it was emphasised that K/KIA results could mean anything from a Squad/HS being turned into pink mist to everyone hunkering down and wondering whether they had enough toilet paper to scrape out their underwear. Breaking meant that a unit needed an extra shot of brave pills and were temporarily out of the fight and might get back into it, K/KIA meant that they were out of the fight longer than the scenario, whether permanently (dead) or temporarily (running) didn't matter.

I have no issues with the above, Paul. At the same time the 'infantry' combat mechanics do not translate well to the vehicle crews. Gun crews were known to to fight with small arms to defend or retake their guns. The only reason a crew leaves a tank is because things have gone very, very, very wrong.

 

[Tuomo]

The only reason a crew leaves a tank is because things have gone very, very, very wrong.

I think it's beyond the scope of the game to question their Life Choices.

 

[Eagle4ty]

To be honest I am not particularly fussed over the CS#s one way or the other. The problem I have is how the 127 vehicle crew and their associated rules can be abused with historically indefensible tactics (scouts w/ self-rally, Gun/MG crews, blocking/preventing route paths, interdiction, etc.) when we have the necessary evidence to remove such abuses. The only role a CS# should have within the game is whether the additional 2 CVP are awarded or not.

We have all seen the well known 'abandon' tactic used to get a crew into a VC building. This has become such a problem that we are seeing more and more SSRs prohibiting this particular sleaze move. The only proviso I would extend here would be in regards to dedicated recce vehicles whose role actually involved fighting dismounted. In the main, however, this abuse is considered egregious enough to merit changes. This is not a bad thing.

It can get worse. With a CS 6, for example, and if desperate enough, one could run the mobile Pz III, IV and Vs (what have you) into suicidal positions next to a building(s) one needs to win but cannot otherwise reach in the hope that one or more of the crews will survive to enter said building(s). I am sure the problem associated with this potential abuse is readily apparent.

In the end, the rules are what they are at present and players will take advantage of these abuses because to handicap oneself is to offer the opponent and easier path to a win. This does not mean the rules are not in need of fixing.

I have done this very thing with a Pz V with a Malf MA at game end running into a building with hopes of falling into the cellar and praying it would make its CS#. IIRC it didn't matter if the building rubbled or not. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Cpl Uhl]

In the spirit of abstraction maybe it's best to just no longer think of vehicle crews as vehicle crews once they've survived leaving the vehicle. Now they're just random infantry who showed up. As Mr T said, a bit of compensation for losing an AFV.

 

[FourDeuceMF]

In the spirit of abstraction maybe it's best to just no longer think of vehicle crews as vehicle crews once they've survived leaving the vehicle. Now they're just random infantry who showed up. As Mr T said, a bit of compensation for losing an AFV.

But why should that be 'rewarded'? ;-)

Outside of Halftrack and Carrier crews, AFV crews should be hors de combat once their vehicle is destroyed...only the cs# is necessary for VP determination...

 

[dwardzala]

But why should that be 'rewarded'? ;-)

Outside of Halftrack and Carrier crews, AFV crews should be hors de combat once their vehicle is destroyed...only the cs# is necessary for VP determination...

Why would it even matter for VP determination - the AFV + crew is worth X. If the AFV is eliminated and the crew is out of the combat by rule, you should still get credit for the crew whether or not the dice are high enough.

 

[Cpl Uhl]

I'm not saying it should be rewarded. I'm saying that one way of getting over the issues people are expressing in this thread about a piece of cardboard with an arbitrary value that doesn't correspond to their conception of the fantasy world that piece of cardboard operates in, is to fantasize that it is something else. In other words, get over it, play on! And if feeling rewarded helps with that, great!

 

[wrongway149]

-a failed CS could mean either the crew perished or they did indeed hightail it off the battlefield]

They will have no further effect on the potential outcome of the scenario for whatever reason. Just takin' care of crew business, as mentioned above.

-a passed CS means they are on the ASL battlefield. Most times they are going to have very little effect on the scenario but if they do, so what? The crazy stuff is what brings everyone back again and again. There is no way any of you are going to convince anyone that every single AFV crew (of any Nationality) headed for the rear instantly.

Affirmative. One of the the things that set ASL apart and continues to do so.

 

[FourDeuceMF]

I guess that what we're seeing is the difference between a global rule (crew survival), abuse of the rule in general (vehicle crews as fighting infantry), and then outlier conditions.

Right now, the rules tend to allowing the abuse, unless SSRed out. Hence the near-global application of the 'Vehicle Crews can't control VC Buildings' SSR to rule out one of the more common abuses of the rule (much like 'Kindling NA' is ubiquitous).

I'd rather see the 'edge cases' being SSRed 'in' for actions where that occurred (and you've read about in the source material, why you'd be designing the scenario...however, ASL being what it is, I would encourage the near-universal addition of SSRs to fight AFV Crew sleaze (tankers being inherently sleazy... ;-) ):

1. Inherent PF capability is NA for Vehicle Crews
2. Building Control is NA for Vehicle Crews (exc: Carriers/HT Crews)
3. Repair Attempts for Broken MA are mandatory (to this latter, a "Labor counter drm" for failed attempts would be a nice touch).

The top 2 things above rather well address most sleaze/gaminess when it covers vehicle crews in counter form; the third addresses the incongruity of inherent crews 'ignoring' MA breaks for fear of disablement...

The BU/CE discussion probably gets too deep into game mechanics, these SSRs are good nips & tucks, IMO.

 

[lightspeed]

Why can't the CS# be a combination of physical survivability/escape-ability and willingness to fight? I didn't mean to imply that the former aspects were irrelevant. Just that the latter aspect could come into play too. "Not on the board in counter form" doesn't have to mean "dead", it can also mean "not willing or able to be part of the hugga-mugga anymore". I think the ASLRB itself says something along those lines, in terms of explaining why multiply-broken units are Casualty Reduced to the point where they're taken off the board.

Shrug.

Exactly.

I think people mistake the S in CS. It's not, imho, about the five humans surviving.
It's about the game piece surviving to have an effect on the board.

A bit like a KIA does not necessarily mean everyone is dead, just that the unit in
question is no longer able to have an influence on the scenario.

Or a SMOKE attempt missing. The smoke went somewhere, just not in a concentrated
enough manner to cause a hindrance.

Design for effect folks, not design for cause.

As others have said, designers are free to put in whatever SSR they want to model a
situation, balance a scenario, or address their pet peeves.

jmho.

indy

 

[AdrianE]

Both the Russians and the Germans made tankers fight as infantry at certain desperate times

 

[Eagle4ty]

Both the Russians and the Germans made tankers fight as infantry at certain desperate times

Absolutely, but I don't believe that was not acknowledged in the gist of the conversation. Special circumstances such as a down and out dirt dog mean fight of Kursk or such could easily be SSRed in by the designer. As a matter of common practise however, AFV crew use would be better reflected in the game if they were immediately Recalled upon abandoning their vehicle, especially due to crew survival [EXC: Special Vehicles, SPW 251/2 or perhaps the M3A1 Scout Car for example]. Face it the 1st scenarios of ASL & certainly SL as well as their remakes weren't as historically researched as most current ones are today, nor were the rules ment to give us as much historical flavor as we may demand from our game today. One need only to look at the almost automatic inclusion of "Kindling NA" or "Voluntary Abandonment NA" included in recent SSRs (including the "Kindling NA" in the re-release of Red Barricades) to see that many of the assumptions of the original system while perhaps not broken were/are certainly flawed as players and the game evolve.

 

[Actionjick]

Absolutely, but I don't believe that was not acknowledged in the gist of the conversation. Special circumstances such as a down and out dirt dog mean fight of Kursk or such could easily be SSRed in by the designer. As a matter of common practise however, AFV crew use would be better reflected in the game if they were immediately Recalled upon abandoning their vehicle, especially due to crew survival [EXC: Special Vehicles, SPW 251/2 or perhaps the M3A1 Scout Car for example]. Face it the 1st scenarios of ASL & certainly SL as well as their remakes weren't as historically researched as most current ones are today, nor were the rules ment to give us as much historical flavor as we may demand from our game today. One need only to look at the almost automatic inclusion of "Kindling NA" or "Voluntary Abandonment NA" included in recent SSRs (including the "Kindling NA" in the re-release of Red Barricades) to see that many of the assumptions of the original system while perhaps not broken were/are certainly flawed as players and the game evolve.

Quite true indeed. In all fairness though any human endeavor subjected to thirty plus years of scrutiny by throngs of devoted acolytes is bound to reveal a few shortcomings. Tastes and attitudes do change.