ASL 111 Balkan Sideshow

Jay White

my sh*t is so tight
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
7
Location
Vancouver BC Canada
Country
llCanada
The amount of discussion on this scenario definitely leads me think its a winner.

Can't wait to look over the actual scenario card!!
 

David Reinking

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
544
Location
Leander, TX
Country
llUnited States
apbills said:
Agreed. With just one real AT weapon, it needs to be reserved for vehicles until it whittles them down. For this reason I don't like it in a PB, that limits its usefulness, especially since it is only a +3 TEM. A stone building will protect it the same, and it can change CA.
.
Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.

I am still waiting for AOO, too, but have used and suffered from the above-noted tactic.

I would prefer the AT gun in Orchard or Brush (if applicable) personally.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Jay White said:
The amount of discussion on this scenario definitely leads me think its a winner.

Can't wait to look over the actual scenario card!!

I always say that a great scenario is one in which nobody thinks its balanced, but 50% say it favors one side and 50% say it favors the other.;)
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.
True enough; I once scored a CH on 1-5-7 PB with an ATR. The defense crumbled like a sand castle to the tide. Falling Like Dominos was the scenario, almost a foreshadowing!
 

BobO

Argentine Dove Hunter
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
77
Location
VA
Country
llUnited States
Another thing to consider is the fact that the Cavalry are 3 FP squads and it is difficult for 3FP squads to root out enemies from stone buildings on the other side of the bridge. The Yugos may have greenies but their 4FP squads are better suited to the short range fights that will occur later in the game.

also, (ok make it 2 things to consider) any scenario where the VCs are "clear all MMCs from x area" are much more difficult than most attacking players realise. There are plenty of tactics the defender can use to ensure at least 1MMC survives in the VC area.


yes, I won this scenario as the defender at WO against a good opponent.

bob
 

AdrianE

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
913
Reaction score
268
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Country
llCanada
David Reinking said:
Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.
Yes but there is a minimum TK number requirement. I'm NRBH but I think it is >2x the NCA TEM of the pillbox. That means you need a minimum TK of 15 to use AP versus grey pillboxes.

Anyone got the exact rule quote?
 

ross

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
355
Reaction score
14
Location
"Spring City", WI
Country
llUnited States
AdrianE said:
Yes but there is a minimum TK number requirement. I'm NRBH but I think it is >2x the NCA TEM of the pillbox. That means you need a minimum TK of 15 to use AP versus grey pillboxes.

Anyone got the exact rule quote?
sure, it's B30.35: "30.35 AP: Neither the CA nor the NCA Defense Modification nor other TEM applies to an AP/APCR/APDS attack against a pillbox/its-contents, provided the Basic TK# of that ammo type being fired is > twice the Defense Modification that would otherwise apply. An AP/APCR/APDS hit on a pillbox is resolved using the normal HE-Equivalency rules (C8.31)."

I never realized that, but then again, I haven't had occasion to try the above...

Can someone give an example of how B30.35 works then?
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
For the 1-3-5 pillboxes in Balkan Sideshow, the Toldis and Csabas (20Ls; TK# 6) would need to get to 6 hexes or closer to use the HE equivilency (to recieve the range increase to the TK#) of this rule. Given the Toldis ROF of 1 (Csaba has a ROF 2), this tactic might only see action if the pillbox is on the riverbank or, if placed back a bit, under a desperate situation for the Hungarians. IF the 37L is in the pillbox, I'd rate this exchange more favorable to the Yugoslav player.
 

Tork

Member
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
24
Location
Foxboro, MA
Country
llUnited States
AdrianE has it right.

So assume you have a Stuart with a 37LL and there is a 1-3-5 pillbox that you want to attack. The base TK of a 37LL is 11, which is more than twice the NCA TEM of that pillbox (5). So the AP fired has a TH number not modified by the pillbox TEM. That usually translates into a really good chance of getting the hit, further improvable by getting acquisition and possible pointblank range.

A hit would be resolved on the 1FP flat table for AP HE equivalency.

What makes this tactic great is that your odds of getting a CH on the ITT are nice, and with enough ROF shots one will show up eventually. The idea is for the final TH DR to be less than half of the required number. A Gun that eats a critical is automatically destroyed along with the crew. Excellent tactic for the Marines in BRT.

[Quick example. BU Stuart, two hexes from target 1-3-5 Pillbox, facing the NCA, no hindrances. Fire AP. Base ITT TH# is 8. Modified by +1 and -1, net zero. If you roll a 2 or 3, then you've got the critical hit. Now assume the Stuart has -2 acq. Now the net mods are -2, and a DR of 5 or less will yield the critical.]

It does require a Sherman with the 75 to punch through the 1-4-6 BRT pillboxes, with their TK of 14. Note that a Sherman's 75 does not have enough TK to perforate a 1-5-7 pillbox from the NCA, but can from the front. The rule states specifically the Basic TK#.

Sorry Fez, doesn't work that way. No mods for range penetration are applicable.
 
Last edited:

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
No mods for range penetration are applicable
...which is ultimately better for the situation under discussion, as it removes the threat of 20mm AP from the Toldis and Csabas from ricocheting around the inside of the pillbox absent the CA/NCA mods.
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Tork said:
A hit would be resolved on the 1FP flat table for AP HE equivalency.

The rule states specifically the Basic TK#.
For 37mm or better, HE Equivalency would be a 2FP flat.

For this scenario the 20L does not have enough punch (6) to qualify.

That Basic TK# got me at first. I was thinking just "Basic" and "Final" not "Basic" -> "Modfied" -> "Final".
No so fast ...

It's a good thing I hadn't tried to do that with one of my shermans in BRT to date. Of course they need to actually survive in order to fire.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
David Reinking said:
Another reason NOT to put the AT Gun in a PB is that any AFV firing AP ordnance at it can ignore the CA/NCA additional TEM for TH purposes. By achieving a "-2" Acquisition counter on the PB, the Hungarian can increase the chances for a CH-- which will Eliminate the Gun & crew.

I am still waiting for AOO, too, but have used and suffered from the above-noted tactic.

I would prefer the AT gun in Orchard or Brush (if applicable) personally.
Unfortunately, none of the Hungarian vehicles have this ability. Their TK #s are too low -- remember that some of the MAs are just ATRs.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
wrongway149 said:
I always say that a great scenario is one in which nobody thinks its balanced, but 50% say it favors one side and 50% say it favors the other.;)
Unfortunately the 50% that think it is balanced have not played it yet. :laugh:
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]Find me the EXC stating it's not, and I'd play it that way, too. I realise the effect the appearance of COWTRA has on any discussion, but excluding certain hand-picked fortifications due to a whim doesn't have a strong basis. If you're so concerned about the unpaid MF costs, where's the concern over entering/exiting any other fortification? I just don't see the congruancy there. Is any one unpaid MF more reasonable than another? It could be me, but there seems to be a hole in the logic.
Why specifically do you feel wire exit MFs are more heinous to A12.33 than foxhole, trench,cave or pillbox??[/QUOTE]

Look, if A12.33 truly applied to all fortifications there would be no need to have the exception for crossing a roadblock. The exception proves the rule; COWTRA back at you. The rule does not specify Location therefore don't assume that it does.

The problem with COWTRA;NOWTDSP is that people never include the second clause. Additionally, COWTRA can easily be used by both points of view to support their arguments. Finally, my point of view is consistent with both E1.16 and G.2 (which references E1.16), so if it makes you feel better you can invoke HANRCATP or E.2 (which sort of violates logic in any event).

However, it don't think it matters for this scenario as it was pointed out that the Yugo cannot really take advantage of this because of the whole Double Time problem. :nuts:
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Look, if A12.33 truly applied to all fortifications there would be no need to have the exception for crossing a roadblock. The exception proves the rule; COWTRA back at you. The rule does not specify Location therefore don't assume that it does.
The exceptions are for minefields (which attack you) and roadblocks (which can have LOS ramifications); wire is not mentioned. Wire itself is a Fortification counter, not a Location. Being above or below a wire counter has no bearing on location in the hex. I'm sorry, but I think you're still on shaky ground by excluding wire from A12.33. By the tack you're taking, neither would panjis be held to A12.33; I just don' t see where your basis is. I'm not trying to be argumentative, question your manhood or virility, only why you think wire is excepted from A12.33 :confused:

The problem with COWTRA;NOWTDSP is that people never include the second clause. Additionally, COWTRA can easily be used by both points of view to support their arguments. Finally, my point of view is consistent with both E1.16 and G.2 (which references E1.16), so if it makes you feel better you can invoke HANRCATP or E.2 (which sort of violates logic in any event).
Fair enough, an EXC in the intro to the ASLRB; funny I never caught that before :)
As for E1.16, yes, it specifcally mentions "...pillbox/entrenchment...", however the proviso "...in LOS of an Enemy unit..." has a far different meaning at night as they can be ADJ, yet still not have LOS to each other. The first sentence of E1.16 also specifically mentions fortification counters, of which wire is included.


However, it don't think it matters for this scenario as it was pointed out that the Yugo cannot really take advantage of this because of the whole Double Time problem.
The only 'fuzzy' area of this that I can see is if the units are not actually moving below the wire counter due to no Enemy LOS, would the CX prohibition actually apply?
 

David Reinking

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
544
Location
Leander, TX
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
Unfortunately, none of the Hungarian vehicles have this ability. Their TK #s are too low -- remember that some of the MAs are just ATRs.
Don't know the OOB, as I am still sans-AOO.
But, hopefully soon...
 

commissarmatt

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
477
Reaction score
229
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
Let's talk about the spirit of the rule for a moment. Why should wire be treated differently than say, panjis, or really any other fort regarding the hidden movement?
 

apbills

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
931
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]
The only 'fuzzy' area of this that I can see is if the units are not actually moving below the wire counter due to no Enemy LOS, would the CX prohibition actually apply?[/QUOTE]
I don't see how you could argue they are not moving below the wire, regardless of LOS or MF expenditure.

Not paying MF/MP to do so does not mean you do not do it.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
apbills said:
I don't see how you could argue they are not moving below the wire, regardless of LOS or MF expenditure.

Not paying MF/MP to do so does not mean you do not do it.
I wasn't 'arguing' it at all, just thinking out loud. I agree not paying the MF/MP does not mean it isn't happening (like being able to move INTO an entrenchment in this case), I only wondered if the CX prohibition would still apply. Given what the mechanic implies, I'd tend to allow CX movement through with no LOS; I'm only trying to acknowledge a possible counter point up front. ;)
 

Luutnantti

Recruit
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Helsinki/Finland
Country
llFinland
Example from real life...

This thread has been interesting. In real life we use method of "activating" fortifications. All the possible friendly troops are allowed to pass through the wire or minefield and then it is activated in minutes. Requires planning.

So, I understand the concept of running through wire, if retreating in front of enemy. Rules, I guess doesn't clearly state that...
 
Top