Armored Assault (D9.31)

Velocette

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
109
Reaction score
16
Location
Heart of Dixie; nose in ASLRB
Country
llUnited States
I am a bit confused by the wording of this rule. Is the AFV MP expenditure tied exactly to the Infantry MF expenditure? IE... the AFV can NOT expend more MP than the what the Infantry expends as MF during the move?

EX: An AFV and 6-6-6 Squad move together for a total of 6 MP / 6 MF / and 6 hexes; can the AFV then attempt to fire an sM (or SN if German) for a 7th MP while still meeting the rule "wording" of D9.31 of: 1) moving together as a stack and 2) the AFV has not moved (measured in hexes) further than it could have moved while accompanying the Infantry... 6 hexes.

Thanks
Velo
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
I think it's independent of MP... everything depends on the MF the infantry had available jn its mph.. The AFV must reach a location the infantry could have reached by using the actual amount of MF the infantry had in that Mph (iow the afv cant move to a location the infantry "could" have reached with double time if it didnt actually declare double time). That's what I think... I'll be corrected if Im wrong.

Iow's smoke.vca changes, etc. Those are all fine so long as the infantry are able to follow the tanks footsteps hex by hex. (Even if they <dont> follow the tanks footsteps.) I don't think I'm actually being clearer than the rule book lol I think the rulebook is pretty clear for once.
 
Last edited:

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,468
Reaction score
529
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
The MF and MP do not have to be spent in the same amount per hex. But once Armored Assault is declared, the AFV can move no further (in hexes) than the accompanying Infantry move (or could continue moving after the Infantry stop/separate.

For example, the AFV may need one MP to start before the Infantry even expend 1MF. Once in the next hex, the AFV may need to expend MPs to change VCA. None of these extra expenditures effect how many MFs the Infantry have. However, if the accompanying Infantry is just a squad, and that squad attempts smoke placement, the attempt will limit how many MFs the Infantry have remaining to move - and thus how many more hexes the squad and AFV, or separately moving AFV, can move.
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
However, if the accompanying Infantry is just a squad, and that squad attempts smoke placement, the attempt will limit how many MFs the Infantry have remaining to move - and thus how many more hexes the squad and AFV, or separately moving AFV, can move.
Thats the tricky part! If the AFV and Squad are moving in a stack the smoke expenditure would restrict the AFV just like you say -- but if the AFV and Squad had already separated before the squad smoke placement attempt then it wouldn't matter, the AFV is able to go as far as if the infantry had spent its MF entirely on movement to 'hypothetically' accompany the tank --

then the really tricky part -- if the stack takes defensive fire and the infantry breaks, the AFV can continue moving as far as it could have moved if the Infantry hadn't broken. (That's from a Q&A. I didnt just make it up.)
 
Last edited:

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,951
Reaction score
1,786
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I .I've the idea of an M8 spending some 29 delay MP then tearing off down the road at 60mph while the poor infantry squad sprints to keep up!
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,178
Reaction score
1,135
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
It goes the other way, too. If you're using AA with a FT-17, the infantry is limited by where the Tank can get to.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
5,063
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It goes the other way, too. If you're using AA with a FT-17, the infantry is limited by where the Tank can get to.
I don't think this is so. D9.31 says only the AFV is limited. I think infantry could move two hexes open ground with a FT-17, then split the stack and move up a hill, which the FT-17 could not do, although it could move two more hexes of open ground at its current level.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
1,417
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I agree with JRV that the infantry are not limited in the number of hexes they could travel. EX: A Sqd & Ldr declare Double-Time and Armored Assault with a FT-17 while moving along a road. The Armored Assault movement would only take the combined stack up the road 5 hexes assuming no additional MP spent for the AFV (Start/Stop/VCA-change/etc.) whereas the infantry could conceivably travel another 4 hexes along the road (assuming no additional MF expenditures required) but would not be considered using Armored Assault.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
I about **** my britches when I saw this question 'cause I can provide a first hand Perry sez for an answer. Don't let my GS experience rating fool you boys, I asked Perry this question at Winter Offensive four years ago. Mine was similar enough to the OP to serve some value....

An assault move is declared by a StuG with a MMC rider and MMC in same hex. The MMC declares CX and moves 6MP with the Stug in Assault Move across clear terrain. IN the last hex the StuG unloads the passenger using 1/4 its MA. What, you say? How is that possible if the turn defined by the MMC's max (non-leader assisted) move has passed in clear hex number 6. How can there be time left for the Stug to unload? Perry said yes the StuG can Assault Move with the CXing MMC and still unload the rider MMC in hex 6 of the Assault Move.

The answer made no sense to me given the implied dimensions of time and space in ASL's universe. But Perry stood by his ruling when I pointed this out.

I hope I understood the OP correctly and this Perry Sez applicable.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
5,063
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The answer made no sense to me given the implied dimensions of time and space in ASL's universe.
ASL does not always try to map real world percentages of time spent to ASL game MF & MP. In each hex units using Armored Assault spend their normal MF/MP. There is no attempt in the game system to "spread them out evenly" or the like. A MMC and a M18 GMC (twenty-four MP) move down the road both using road movement rate. After moving five hexes, the infantry can move no farther (ignore late double-time). The M18 GMC has spent two-and-a-half MPs, and has twenty-one-and-a-half MP remaining. Because it is restricted by armored assault the M18 GMC can't enter a new hex, but it can use all twenty-one-and-a-half MP in other ways if it likes.

There are other simplifications where reality is overlooked to make the game easier to play. As an example consider the case J¹ & J² DRMs for limited time in LOS. These are based on a fixed number of MPs and not on percent of time in view. An FT-17 gets the same DRM for spending only three MP in LOS, which is sixty percent of its MP allotment, as a M-18 GMC, where three MP is twelve-point-five percent of its MP allotment.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
1,417
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Yes, most of the time the vehicle rules work well enough but it is one of the more glaring failures of the ASL system that vehicular movement TH DRMs aren't based upon a percentage of MP spent basis. One of the reasons I rarely, if ever, play "Armor only" scenarios in ASL.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
3,222
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Yes, most of the time the vehicle rules work well enough but it is one of the more glaring failures of the ASL system that vehicular movement TH DRMs aren't based upon a percentage of MP spent basis. One of the reasons I rarely, if ever, play "Armor only" scenarios in ASL.
In addition they don't take into consideration the direction of travel relative to the gun. An AFV travelling directly towards or away from a gun will always be easier to hit than one crossing the line of sight. Aircraft are a different matter due to their much greater speed.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
1,417
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
In addition they don't take into consideration the direction of travel relative to the gun. An AFV travelling directly towards or away from a gun will always be easier to hit than one crossing the line of sight. Aircraft are a different matter due to their much greater speed.
Great point! The current system works well enough with tracked vehicles that have MPAs around the 8 to 15 mark but it starts to fall apart when there's a mix of slower and faster vehicles in the OBs or what were usually very effective ground mount gun A-T assets. The difficulty as I see it is in presenting a system that is elegant and fairly simplistic (as much as ASL can be called simplistic) for play-ability yet retain at least a modicum of practicality towards realism. Add in things like Flat earth mapboards, Armored Assault, Platoon Movement, etc. coupled with a player's perception of how things "should" work and one begins to become aware of the system's limitations. It is one part of the rules that has changed very little from the original SL days for whatever reasons, just too bad it couldn't have bee revisited when ASL was released. JMHO of course.
 

gideon8t8

Recruit
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
Country
llUnited States
Because it is restricted by armored assault the M18 GMC can't enter a new hex, but it can use all twenty-one-and-a-half MP in other ways if it likes.

There are other simplifications where reality is overlooked to make the game easier to play.

JR
But why must the ruling be to allow an AFV to unload riders (or perform other tasks) after participating in Assault Movement. Why can't it be that the AFV has also depleted its MPs. That is the more rational ruling, which I argue should be the goal of the rules set. I realize you cannot create realism, but shouldn't the rules strive to be rational?

AM is a choice where mobility is intentionally traded for a protective modifier for MMC. IF the MMC are pushed to the limit in the time allowed in a turn (by CXing) and the AFV is required to stay with them the entire time the AM modifier is in effect, the tactic is a realistic trade of the AFV's speed for it to act as a slow moving barrier. If it spends the MMC's entire turn protecting it while it moves where does the extra time come from in the turn for the AFV to be allowed to perform other tasks? AS it moves it can fire MG or MA (restricted by TCA or VCA) so the primary purpose for an AFV is still available to the player.

Was there ever an ease of play justification for with this ruling? There aren't any other rules I have been able to identify that would be complicated by limiting an AM'ing AFV's ability to perform tasks if it uses AM to the end of the MMC's movement. Yet, there are plenty of cases where tasks performed by vehicles hinder or reduce the unit's MP. Why shouldn't AM be limiting?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
5,063
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
But why must the ruling be to allow an AFV to unload riders (or perform other tasks) after participating in Assault Movement. Why can't it be that the AFV has also depleted its MPs. That is the more rational ruling, which I argue should be the goal of the rules set. I realize you cannot create realism, but shouldn't the rules strive to be rational?
There is no must. The rules simply do. The rules of a successful game do not strive to be rational; they strive to be enjoyable. The more enjoyable the game, the more successful it is likely to be. Simplifying the mechanics at the expense of apparent realism can make the game more enjoyable.

AM is a choice where mobility is intentionally traded for a protective modifier for MMC. IF the MMC are pushed to the limit in the time allowed in a turn (by CXing) and the AFV is required to stay with them the entire time the AM modifier is in effect, the tactic is a realistic trade of the AFV's speed for it to act as a slow moving barrier. If it spends the MMC's entire turn protecting it while it moves where does the extra time come from in the turn for the AFV to be allowed to perform other tasks? AS it moves it can fire MG or MA (restricted by TCA or VCA) so the primary purpose for an AFV is still available to the player.
There is no "time" in ASL. There are only MP and MF. You may think they are equivalent to time, but they are not. They are game mechanisms.

Was there ever an ease of play justification for with this ruling? There aren't any other rules I have been able to identify that would be complicated by limiting an AM'ing AFV's ability to perform tasks if it uses AM to the end of the MMC's movement. Yet, there are plenty of cases where tasks performed by vehicles hinder or reduce the unit's MP. Why shouldn't AM be limiting?
I don't believe the ruling was ever justified. The rules say that an armored assaulting AFV can move no farther than the infantry it started with. They don't say that the vehicle spends MP in proportion to the infantry. They don't say the vehicle ends its MPh when the infantry runs out of MF. That is how the rules read, and the ruling is within bounds of the rules and the design. You might ask if the design is good or bad, but that is a different question.

As for ending the vehicle's MPh with the infantry, then you say that as long as the Assault Move continues it's ok to spend MP. A vehicle with riders can move one, two or three open ground hexes assault moving with infantry, stop, drop off its riders, start and continue on into the last hex with the assault moving infantry, but can't drop the riders off in the fourth hex. Or can they if the infantry use late double-time? Or have the potential to use late double-time? Anyway it seems a rather more complicated without any real gain except more exceptions and complications.

One could try to design a rules system with "proportional" movement. There would be a number of problems you would have to solve if you decided to do that. Consider a squad moving with a French H35 tank (ten MP) up a road. The squad has five MF, including the road bonus, so that means the H35 will spend two MP per hex. They enter the first hex, then a second, then a third. Infantry has spent three MF and the tank six MP: so far so good. Then the Infantry changes its mind about the road and moves into Open Ground. Sacré bleu! The squad only has four MF, not five. Do you go back and redo all the previous moves as if the tank had spent two-and-a-half MP? Or does the last hex cost the tank four MP? Or what? And then the infantry late double-times. It did have five MF after all. How do you fix that?

You also have to consider that vehicles spend MP for things that don't seem on the surface like they slow the vehicle down a great deal. Changing VCA & firing smoke dischargers are two. If the AFV changes VCA or fires a smoke discharger, does that slow the Infantry down? Does it separate the two and cancel armored assault?

Feel free to design your own set of rules here. But don't be too surprised if it is not as easy as it seems like it should be.

JR
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Feel free to design your own set of rules here....
Totally agree with your remarks JRV, but I thought I'd take advantage of your last remark to post a first draft of a heretical rule I've authored. By the way, in writing this out... jeez... you are so correct it is so much harder to actually produce air-tight, quibble-proof rules, than one at first imagines... I'm not at all certain I've managed it! To anyone who complains about the RB (and it isn't perfect, not saying it is) try to write a few air-tight rules. I think you'll become more forgiving of the RB as it is.

Speed as Cover

Some vehicles are capable of speeds which make them more difficult to hit. A vehicle which is capable of expending MP greater than or equal to 16 in its Mph (inclusive of MP gained in its current Mph thru ESB) may declare Rapid Movement (RM) and receive a +1 DRM to any TH or IFT DR made against it so long as it maintains Rapid Movement. Rapid Movement does NOT negate FFMO. A vehicle which declares Rapid Movement must make a Rapid Movement Breakdown Check (RMBC) in the last hex it potentially received a RM DRM, subject to DRM given in chart below. OVR is NA for a vehicle while using Rapid Movement. Rapid Movement is NA for aerial units and units in water.

DRM for RMBC

Vehicle is on unpaved Road +1
Vehicle is using tracked/half-tracked movement on non-road terrain +3
Vehicle using wheeled movement on non-road terrain. +5
Non-SMOKE hindrance value of non-road hexes moved into (including LV hindrance, per hex, cumulative).
SMOKE Hindrance moved into. (*cumulative)
Buttoned Up. +1
VRM +1

A RMBC DR greater than 12 results in Bog

An RMBC DR greater than 14 results in Immobilization. Rapid Movement is NA in terrain which requires greater than 1MP (EXC. Grain, Plowed field, Elevation change).

A dr is made for a vehicle which fails an RMBC. Subtract MP equal to the dr from the vehicle's MP expenditure beginning from the last RM hex expenditure and work backwards. Place the immobilzed/bogged vehicle in the hex it would have reached using the diminished MP expenditure. If the diminished MP expenditure would exceed the MP actually expended in Rapid Movement, the RMBC does not fail. Any Defensive First Fire result obtained against the vehicle or it's PRC which came in a location subsequent to the one in which it is placed due to a failed RMBC is disregarded (eg. KIA, K, break, HOB, SA, etc.) as are any consequences to the firing defender (eg. Defensive fire status, weapon Malf etc.)

Defenders, including defenders which had results voided due to a failed RMBC, may fire at the bogged/immobilized unit, subject to all limitations of range, los, etc., with a new attack DR/dr. The MP expenditure in the location of a failed RMBC is equal to MP required to enter the bog/immobilization hex normally.

Rapid Movement status is lost when a vehicle: Voluntarily declares RM is ended; Expends for any purpose including VCA, (EXC elevation change) excess of 1 MP in any one hex; ends its Mph either voluntarily or due to bog/immobilization; or moves from a superior to inferior surface (eg. from paved road to unpaved road or non-road; or from unpaved road to non-road)

A vehicle may declare Rapid Movement as often as it likes in a single Mph so long as it passes its RMBC's.

Some vehicles are capable of Very Rapid Movement. A vehicle with 30 mp or more available to it (inclusive of MP gained in its current Mph thru ESB) may declare Very Rapid Movement and receive +2 to any TH or IFT DR made against it so long as it maintains Very Rapid Movement. VRM functions exactly like RM except VRM may not be declared or maintained on a non-road/bridge surface. A unit using VRM also incurs +1 on all RMBC DR.

=========
Come on, it's a good rule
 
Last edited:

Gordon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
523
Reaction score
435
Country
llUnited States
But I thought that AFV with all metal tracks are susceptible to loss of control on hard/paved surfaces. It's like driving a car on ice sometimes, just no traction.
 

Jacometti

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,587
Reaction score
1,250
Location
Halifax, NS
Country
llCanada
Totally agree with your remarks JRV, but I thought I'd take advantage of your last remark to post a first draft of a heretical rule I've authored. By the way, in writing this out... jeez... you are so correct it is so much harder to actually produce air-tight, quibble-proof rules, than one at first imagines... I'm not at all certain I've managed it! To anyone who complains about the RB (and it isn't perfect, not saying it is) try to write a few air-tight rules. I think you'll become more forgiving of the RB as it is.

Speed as Cover

Some vehicles are capable of speeds which make them more difficult to hit. A vehicle which is capable of expending MP greater than or equal to 16 in its Mph (inclusive of MP gained in its current Mph thru ESB) may declare Rapid Movement (RM) and receive a +1 DRM to any TH or IFT DR made against it so long as it maintains Rapid Movement. Rapid Movement does NOT negate FFMO. A vehicle which declares Rapid Movement must make a Rapid Movement Breakdown Check (RMBC) in the last hex it potentially received a RM DRM, subject to DRM given in chart below. OVR is NA for a vehicle while using Rapid Movement. Rapid Movement is NA for aerial units and units in water.

DRM for RMBC

Vehicle is on unpaved Road +1
Vehicle is using tracked/half-tracked movement on non-road terrain +3
Vehicle using wheeled movement on non-road terrain. +5
Non-SMOKE hindrance value of non-road hexes moved into (including LV hindrance, per hex, cumulative).
SMOKE Hindrance moved into. (*cumulative)
Buttoned Up. +1
VRM +1

A RMBC DR greater than 12 results in Bog

An RMBC DR greater than 14 results in Immobilization. Rapid Movement is NA in terrain which requires greater than 1MP (EXC. Grain, Plowed field, Elevation change).

A dr is made for a vehicle which fails an RMBC. Subtract MP equal to the dr from the vehicle's MP expenditure beginning from the last RM hex expenditure and work backwards. Place the immobilzed/bogged vehicle in the hex it would have reached using the diminished MP expenditure. If the diminished MP expenditure would exceed the MP actually expended in Rapid Movement, the RMBC does not fail. Any Defensive First Fire result obtained against the vehicle or it's PRC which came in a location subsequent to the one in which it is placed due to a failed RMBC is disregarded (eg. KIA, K, break, HOB, SA, etc.) as are any consequences to the firing defender (eg. Defensive fire status, weapon Malf etc.)

Defenders, including defenders which had results voided due to a failed RMBC, may fire at the bogged/immobilized unit, subject to all limitations of range, los, etc., with a new attack DR/dr. The MP expenditure in the location of a failed RMBC is equal to MP required to enter the bog/immobilization hex normally.

Rapid Movement status is lost when a vehicle: Voluntarily declares RM is ended; Expends for any purpose including VCA, (EXC elevation change) excess of 1 MP in any one hex; ends its Mph either voluntarily or due to bog/immobilization; or moves from a superior to inferior surface (eg. from paved road to unpaved road or non-road; or from unpaved road to non-road)

A vehicle may declare Rapid Movement as often as it likes in a single Mph so long as it passes its RMBC's.

Some vehicles are capable of Very Rapid Movement. A vehicle with 30 mp or more available to it (inclusive of MP gained in its current Mph thru ESB) may declare Very Rapid Movement and receive +2 to any TH or IFT DR made against it so long as it maintains Very Rapid Movement. VRM functions exactly like RM except VRM may not be declared or maintained on a non-road/bridge surface. A unit using VRM also incurs +1 on all RMBC DR.

=========
Come on, it's a good rule
Super rule. Can you make a flow chart?
 

Pyth

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
892
Reaction score
181
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
But I thought that AFV with all metal tracks are susceptible to loss of control on hard/paved surfaces. It's like driving a car on ice sometimes, just no traction.
Ah, that's makes sense and I didn't know that. I'm no expert on armor or anything military, just spit-balling some DRMs based on guesswork. As I said, a first draft. I'm not even particularly serious about using it myself -- I just suddenly saw JRVs remark about writing rules as an interesting challenge.... (and i really don't think some kind of 'speed defense' rule would have been a bad addition to the design) although it might be interesing addition in a scenario that includes many jeeps/halftracks/ACs. I'm totally open to any suggestions for improvement or correction (what would you suggest as DRM for full and half tracked vehicles?)

Super rule. Can you make a flow chart?
Thanks. But I think if it needs a flow-chart -- it would need to be simplified -- and it probably should be simplified if it were to be a practical 'heretical' rule. I do like the idea of the rule very much and I even like the idea of the bog/immob rule coming on the last terrain MP expenditure but the way I suggested that would work strikes me as awkward, unsatisfying, and occassionally creating a really bungled mess (proving JRV's point about these things not being so easy)... I don't think anyone wants to undo HOB's and weapon Malf's etc. because of some end of move Bog/immob roll that makes time go backwards... there has to be a better way to accomplish my intention there. Suggestions invited.

Finally I wonder if this the appropriate Forum for this discussion (if not, what would be the appropriate forum?). Sorry for hi-jacking your thread Velocette!
 
Top