Armored assault and OVR

[Treadhead]

Someone earlier in the discussion tried to make a case that the tank could not overrrun because the acccomanying infantry could not enter a hex with the enemy. I was trying to make the point that the rule is all about restricting the available MP of the vehcile (since it is supposed to be doing a simultaneous act of protecting it's own infantry) and NOTHING else.

I see.

Well, there is nothing in the rule about restricting the available MP of the vehicle.

It's all about restricting the distance the AFV may travel. Within that restriction, the AFV may any/all of its MP in any way it chooses...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Ole Boe]

Ole writes:
"And since that Infantry couldn't enter the Location in question, the AFV cannot move there either. "

The rules say nothing about taking enemy units into account when determining whether or not they could enter the location--the rules are talking in terms of movement points.

Right and wrong. The rules don't tell to take enemy units into account, but neither do they tell to take movement points into account they simply say that the AFV is not allowed to move farther than the Infantry could.
I of course agree with you that MF must be taken into account, but the distinction between MF and other reasons for the Infantry not being able to enter is only assumed by you.

By adding the wrinkle of enemy units, you are definitely needlessly complicating things. That would mean, for example, that a tank *could* overrun an enemy SMC, but not an enemy squad, or that it could overrun a disrupted squad, but not a broken squad.

I don't care for this interpretation at all.

I can relate to that. If you go back and reread my second post, you'll see that I also would find an errata that told to ignore enemy units when determining this, to be a good thing. However, I disagree that I add the wrinkle of enemy units as it is now. The rules say "no farther" without any distinction on why, and its your choise (albeit argually a good one) to exclude enemy units from the "no farther" calculation, but the rules does not exclude them.

 

[Ole Boe]

I see no restriction on the AFV's movement based on the Locations an Infantry may enter. The AFV may spend its MP as it will, as long as it does not move farther (in distance) than the Infantry hypothetically could.

First, I think we all agree that its the conditions of the specific hex the AFV wants to enter that counts, not any hex with the same distance. I.e. if the Infantry has 2MF left and therefore could move 2 hexes away in OG, it will still not allow the AFV to move two hexes away across a wall up slope etc.

The question is, is the MF cost, disregarding any enemy units in the hex the only thing that counts, or do all normal factors which restricts the Infantry's movement count?

Let me give an example before you draw your conclusions (as if that's not alreday done :wink: )
An infantry using AA crosses a wall into a dead-end street, and has only one MF left. Of its six adjacent hexes, one is across the wall (2MF), 4 are building hexes (2 MF) and the last in an OG hex (1 MF) with an enemy squad. Since the Infantry has only 1 MF left, it can move no farther.
Now, D9.31 says "that AFV cannot move farther than if it were accompanied by that same Infantry through the move".

The situation is therefore that the Infantry can move no farther, and the AFV cannot move farther than if it were accompanied by that same Infantry through the move - which is no farther than the current hex, and therefore one hex short of the OVR hex.

To allow the Overrun, you must simply stop following the rule literaly, and add your own interpretation, which is that any enemy units can be disregarded in the calculation.
We can both speculate on the intent of the rule - Don Greenwod tended to write rules that were less specific than desirable (Human Wave - "general direction" anyone ?) - so its possible that the intention was to disregard enemy units.

As said in my second post, an errata which cleared up the rule, and disregarded enemy units from the determination would be welcome by me, but until then, the example above shows that the Overrun is illegal.

 

[GVL]

Perry Cocke answered my question :

When an AFV and an infantry unit make an armored assault, can the AFV make an OVR during the same Movement Phase ( with or without the infantry unit)?

Perry :

Yes , presuming all the usual requirements are met, although the infantry would not ordinarily be able to enter the enemy-occupied Location during the MPh ( with various exceptions).

....Perry
MMP

 

[Pitman]

As I suspected!

 

[Ole Boe]

As I suspected!

I also suspected a "Yes" from Perry here, since that answer makes sense, and is how the majority - and Perry obviously - plays.

It doesn't make the rule clear though, and Perry's additional answer (besides the yes) doesn't help me. Its pretty clear from the answer that enemy units should be disregarded when calculating how far the Infantry can move - although I still cannot read this from the rule - but what about other factors ?

For instance, what if the Infantry and AFV has moved one hex together, expending 1 MF, and the player wishes to break up the AA, and move the AFV two additional OG hexes, but the first hex contains Wire. Should the wire be disregarded altogether, should it count as 1 MF, 6 MF or something inbetween?

This rule is IMHO an example of a typical Don Greenwod rule. The exact interpretation of special cases is not mentioned, and is up to the players to decide. This is both good and bad. Good because it helped keep the ASLRB from becoming even bigger, but it creates the need for Q&A.

 

[Pitman]

It is how far the infantry could "theoretically" move. Not how far the infantry could move until they got hung up on wire, or how far the infantry could move until a fire shot pinned them in the road, etc.

 

[Ole Boe]

It is how far the infantry could "theoretically" move. Not how far the infantry could move until they got hung up on wire, or how far the infantry could move until a fire shot pinned them in the road, etc.

I fully agree regarding hypothetical fire attacks etc., but I'm not sure how to handle wire. If I understand you correctly, you would count the wire as 1 additional MF, since that's the lowest theoretically MF cost?

Now, for how I would really like this rule to be. The "not move farther than..." concept should be ditched, and replaced by a concept where the AFV for each hex entered together with the Infantry, must pay 1/x of its MP allotment for each MF spent by the Infantry, and where x is the Infantry's current MF allotment (use the highest if they don't have the same).

Ex: If using AA with a squad (4 MF), the AFV will use 1/4 of its MP allotment for each MF the squad spends.

This would mean that if splitting after the Infantry has used 1/2 of its MF, then the AFV will have used half of its MP as well - which is pretty logical.

 

[Brian W]

Ex: If using AA with a squad (4 MF), the AFV will use 1/4 of its MP allotment for each MF the squad spends.

This would mean that if splitting after the Infantry has used 1/2 of its MF, then the AFV will have used half of its MP as well - which is pretty logical.

But it wouldn't work. First, there are some AFV's that would run out of MF when doing that calculation (assuming FRU); second, if the infantry somehow increase their MF (i.e. go CX), they will now have an extra MF. Where does that leave the AFV--unable to keep up with the infantry!

 

[Bill Durrant]

Ole,

Remember your name from years back on the ASLML and you always seemed to get the logical answers then.

Yet again you come up with the goods.

Yes - a pro rata MP expenditure is the logical way forward.

 

[Bill Durrant]

Ex: If using AA with a squad (4 MF), the AFV will use 1/4 of its MP allotment for each MF the squad spends.

This would mean that if splitting after the Infantry has used 1/2 of its MF, then the AFV will have used half of its MP as well - which is pretty logical.

But it wouldn't work. First, there are some AFV's that would run out of MF when doing that calculation (assuming FRU); second, if the infantry somehow increase their MF (i.e. go CX), they will now have an extra MF. Where does that leave the AFV--unable to keep up with the infantry!

But in some circumstances couldn't an infantryman outsprint a tank over 2 minutes (ie a game turn)

 

[Treadhead]

I fully agree regarding hypothetical fire attacks etc., but I'm not sure how to handle wire. If I understand you correctly, you would count the wire as 1 additional MF, since that's the lowest theoretically MF cost?

That's how I would play it. Based on the least amount of MF the Infantry could expend.

Now, for how I would really like this rule to be....

Well, go ahead and make your own house rule if you like...

... which is pretty logical.

... but I totally disagree that your approach is "logical".

IMO, it adds complexity and reduces playability with minimal net gain. Way, way too cumbersome. There could be a lot of ugly math involved. And believe me, it certainly wouldn't be any easier for some players to figure out... to make the rule clear would require it to be much longer than it currently is... and you'd still get questions anyway!

No, there are just too may combinations and permutations to consider to make it worthwhile.

I appreciate that your concept borrows from the rules for PRC, but there are important differences when considering the 1/4 MP allotment per MF concept. For starters, all PRC have 4 MF when conveyed. For some units, this is an increase; for others, this is a decrease. And for all, this eliminates the possibility of Double Timing.

Nope, to apply this concept to Armored Assault doesn't work for me.

I can agree that the intent and application of Armored Assault could be more clearly expressed. It would be quite simple to add a line to make it more clear.

But your suggestion actually changes the rule, not clarifies it.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Brian W]

But in some circumstances couldn't an infantryman outsprint a tank over 2 minutes (ie a game turn)

Yes, in some circumstances. In a system described it would be every circumstance. The exception would be the rule.

E.g., a squad uses Armored Assault (AA) with a T-34/85 (16MP). The squad moves through three open ground hexes. It then declared double time and moves into a grain hex. The T-34 could not follow it (without using ESB) because to do so would cost 7MP for a total of 19MP.

But all this is rather besides the point. MMP is not going to change the rule so significantly.

 

[Bill Durrant]

But in some circumstances couldn't an infantryman outsprint a tank over 2 minutes (ie a game turn)

Yes, in some circumstances. In a system described it would be every circumstance. The exception would be the rule.

E.g., a squad uses Armored Assault (AA) with a T-34/85 (16MP). The squad moves through three open ground hexes. It then declared double time and moves into a grain hex. The T-34 could not follow it (without using ESB) because to do so would cost 7MP for a total of 19MP.

But all this is rather besides the point. MMP is not going to change the rule so significantly.

Okay Brian, I surrender Seem to remember you trounced me in a PBEM many years ago before my ASL break.

I used to hate losing but now I'm getting used to it :wink: