B28 Mines

[von Marwitz]

So A-T Mines seem fairly useless: as soon as one fully tracked AFV makes it through an A-T Mine hex (B28.51), then all future vehicles can cross that hex with impunity by using the TB so placed?

Well, go for the math:

How are the chances to enter/exit a 1 A-T Minefield without triggering it? (83.3% / 69,4%)
How about a 2 A-T Minefield? (66.6% / 44.7%)
And a 3 A-T Minefield? (50.0% / 25.0%)
A 4 A-T Minefield? (33.3% / 11.4%)
A 5 A-T Minefield? (16.7% / 2.8%)

I should warn everybody that I suck at maths. So maybe someone will tear these numbers to shreds and put shame on me.

In any case, some things hold true:
You might have decent chances to pass trough a 1 A-T Minefield unharmed and even place a Trail Break.
With a 2 A-T Minefield, chances to survive drop drastically - and if you are dead, no Trail Break.
With a 3 A-T Minefield, you must be desperate to risk a tank and expect to survive with a Trail Break.
I don't consider 4 or 5 A-T Minefields as they are extremely deadly, but never happen, as the 2,2,1 or 3,2 combo is more effective as you can cover more locations.

There is a big difference in a 1 A-T and a 2 A-T minefield. You'll likely pass through the former, you likely won't through the latter.

von Marwitz

 

[The Purist]

I'm surprised that a VCA change does not trigger a mine attack. Neutral steering was not common in WWII AFV, with only a few types having the ability. Reversing out should be the norm but the rules allow a VCA change so...

As for a minefields value being reduced if a trail break is in place, that's not a real so far fetched. Infantry would follow vehicle tracks.

And as the old military saying saying goes..."an obstacle not covered by fire is no obstacle"...

 

[Chris Bryer]

And as the old military saying saying goes..."an obstacle not covered by fire is no obstacle"...

Realistic tactics apply in ASL very often. Of course, within it's phased structure of play.

 

[Juan SantaX]

I think that a partial trailbreak isn’t a trailbreak and you cannot reverse and go without another attack... there is a Q&A about a partial trailbreak...but I‘m not sure what meant “into the minefield”.

B13.4211 & B28.61 An AFV carrying Riders entered a hex containing both A-P and A-T mines. The A-P attack had no effect, but the A-T mine attack was successful. A very high roll on the IFT, resulted only in immobilization (crew passed their Immob. TC and remained in the AFV). The same IFT roll was used as the half-FP collateral attack against the Riders which scored a PTC. The Riders failed the PTC and were forced to Bail Out. They broke on the Bail-Out MC and passed the 2MC they suffered when subsequently attacked by the A-P mines in the hex. Is there a TB into the A-P/A-T minefield? A. No. B13.4211 indicates that a Wreck or Immobilized AFV on a TB counter removes that TB (this is in the case of Woods). The Minefield rules are silent on whether a Wreck or Immobilized AFV have any effect on a TB into a minefield (B28.61). In the case of the broken unit now on the ground in the mine hex, if they rout away via the hexside the AFV used to enter the hex, are they attacked by the A-P minefield as they leave? A. Yes

So I think that if there isn’t a trailbreak into the minefield, there isn’t a trailbreak out of the minefield... but maybe it is because the immobilized vehicle...

 

[Bill Kohler]

So I think that if there isn’t a trailbreak into the minefield, there isn’t a trailbreak out of the minefield... but maybe it is because the immobilized vehicle...

I would think that the AFV--had it survived the A-T mine attack--could've reversed back out the way it came by traveling along its own TB (e.g., back down its own tracks) and avoided a second A-T Mine attempt. That partial TB, though, would've been removed the moment he exited that way (B24.74).

 

[Actionjick]

I haven't used a secret DR/dr for some time but I would never ask my opponent to verify the strength of the minefield, You get some intell but if the DR/dr is low enough it still maintains a healthy FOW.

FOW? OMOOT.

 

[Juan SantaX]

I would think that the AFV--had it survived the A-T mine attack--could've reversed back out the way it came by traveling along its own TB (e.g., back down its own tracks) and avoided a second A-T Mine attempt. That partial TB, though, would've been removed the moment he exited that way (B24.74).

The issue is that I think that a partial trail break don‘t give trailbreak benefits, but maybe I’m wrong.

I think you get trailbreak benefits when it is fully finished.... Once that AFV leaves the hex via another hexside, a full TB counter is placed in the hex, showing the vehicle's path of movement. Thereafter, any fully-tracked vehicle may use the TB to traverse those hexsides at half its MP allotment without threat of Bog...

 

[Eagle4ty]

FOW? OMOOT.

FOW=Fog Of War

 

[Actionjick]

FOW=Fog Of War

Thanks! FOB. Fog on brain.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Thanks! FOB. Fog on brain.

We had another for that one, "Full of B......." (OK, officially it was Forward Operating Base)

 

[Actionjick]

We had another for that one, "Full of B......." (OK, officially it was Forward Operating Base)

Lol!

 

[Chas]

These are poor examples to your point.
In both cases the Trail Break is removed because the AFV is Immobilized.
They have nothing to do with an AFV creating a Partial TB and stopping in the hex.
You are essentially arguing that there is no such thing as a "Partial TB". If this is the case why would the term be in the ASLRB.
Just sayin'

I think that a partial trailbreak isn’t a trailbreak and you cannot reverse and go without another attack... there is a Q&A about a partial trailbreak...but I‘m not sure what meant “into the minefield”.

B13.4211 & B28.61 An AFV carrying Riders entered a hex containing both A-P and A-T mines. The A-P attack had no effect, but the A-T mine attack was successful. A very high roll on the IFT, resulted only in immobilization (crew passed their Immob. TC and remained in the AFV). The same IFT roll was used as the half-FP collateral attack against the Riders which scored a PTC. The Riders failed the PTC and were forced to Bail Out. They broke on the Bail-Out MC and passed the 2MC they suffered when subsequently attacked by the A-P mines in the hex. Is there a TB into the A-P/A-T minefield? A. No. B13.4211 indicates that a Wreck or Immobilized AFV on a TB counter removes that TB (this is in the case of Woods). The Minefield rules are silent on whether a Wreck or Immobilized AFV have any effect on a TB into a minefield (B28.61). In the case of the broken unit now on the ground in the mine hex, if they rout away via the hexside the AFV used to enter the hex, are they attacked by the A-P minefield as they leave? A. Yes

So I think that if there isn’t a trailbreak into the minefield, there isn’t a trailbreak out of the minefield... but maybe it is because the immobilized vehicle...

 

[Chas]

FWIW I am having difficulty in thinking that an AFV could change VCA and drive back out in the opposite direction through the TB.
B13.4212 references One Lane Bridge B6.43 for moving on a TB. This might help the discussion.

 

[The Purist]

Reversing out would make sense, turning around would not. Even a neutral turn will (potentially) expose a vehicle to an AT/AP mine attack as the vehicle pivots. It is not hopping up in the air to spin 180 degrees and landing back in own tread marks before driving out of the minefield.

 

[Bill Kohler]

Reversing out would make sense, turning around would not. Even a neutral turn will (potentially) expose a vehicle to an AT/AP mine attack as the vehicle pivots.

The additional surface area of land that is traversed would be negligible compared to what has already been covered driving in.

A hex is 40 meters across, so the tank has driven 20 meters into the minefield. A tank is, what, maybe 3 meters wide by 5 meters long? So it has swept out 3x20 square meters = 60 m2 in driving halfway into the hex. If in making a neutral turn it sweeps out a circle 5 meters in diameter, that circle is 19 m2, at least half of which has already been covered by the tank, so add say 10 m2 of additional area, for 70 m2. That's not the same risk as there would be in covering another 60 m2 to exit the hex via a different hexside.

So forward/backward shouldn't really matter.

Neutral steering was not common in WWII AFV, with only a few types having the ability.

If I were the driver who suddenly found himself in a minefield and couldn't reverse out, I think I'd work real hard to cut as small a turning radius as possible, jinking forward and backward as needed.

 

[Actionjick]

The additional surface area of land that is traversed would be negligible compared to what has already been covered driving in.

A hex is 40 meters across, so the tank has driven 20 meters into the minefield. A tank is, what, maybe 3 meters wide by 5 meters long? So it has swept out 3x20 square meters = 60 m2 in driving halfway into the hex. If in making a neutral turn it sweeps out a circle 5 meters in diameter, that circle is 19 m2, at least half of which has already been covered by the tank, so add say 10 m2 of additional area, for 70 m2. That's not the same risk as there would be in covering another 60 m2 to exit the hex via a different hexside.

So forward/backward shouldn't really matter.

If I were the driver who suddenly found himself in a minefield and couldn't reverse out, I think I'd work real hard to cut as small a turning radius as possible, jinking forward and backward as needed.

IMO I would think that the only area that has been cleared is the width of the tracks, not the width of the tank. Any movement outside of the track of the tracks, no matter how negligible that movement is, presents the possibility of hitting a mine.

Even reversing out presents hazards unless the driver stays exactly in the trail break.

 

[Bill Kohler]

IMO I would think that the only area that has been cleared is the width of the tracks, not the width of the tank. Any movement outside of the track of the tracks, no matter how negligible that movement is, presents the possibility of hitting a mine.

The percentages stay roughly the same if you use the track width instead of the tank width. Sure, there will be an increased risk in turning around, but it'll be small compared with driving another 20 meters through an untried part of a minefield, and therefore doesn't justify rolling another dr.

Besides, aren't you guys the same ones who were just arguing "It's all abstractions anyways so what's it matter? Just go with what the rules say!" over in the sleaze thread? So why are you bringing up real-world arguments here?

 

[Actionjick]

The percentages stay roughly the same if you use the track width instead of the tank width. Sure, there will be an increased risk in turning around, but it'll be small compared with driving another 20 meters through an untried part of a minefield.

Besides, aren't you guys the same ones who were just arguing "It's all abstractions anyways so what's it matter? Just go with what the rules say!" over in the sleaze thread? So why are you bringing up real-world arguments here?

Lol. Touche!

Well one reason to bring up real world arguments here is because at present the real world really sucks and this unreal world is a great diversion!

 

[Bill Kohler]

Lol. Touche!

Well one reason to bring up real world arguments here is because at present the real world really sucks and this unreal world is a great diversion!

I think players can't help but bring up real-world argument because--as I asserted over in the sleaze thread--ASL models WW2, and players who enjoy the game enjoy the immersion it gives. We use real-world arguments in discussions like this whenever we spot a rule that mars our sense of how WW2 should be portrayed because that rule "weakness" weakens our immersion. And that's precisely the problem I have with sleaze--it weakens my immersion, it breaks my "willing suspension of disbelief".*

*--It's like when reading a novel and the writer suddenly addresses a remark straight to the reader, or when watching a drama and the actor looks straight into the camera. Suddenly you remember you're reading or viewing, and you lose that splendid bliss of being IN the story.

 

[Actionjick]

The percentages stay roughly the same if you use the track width instead of the tank width. Sure, there will be an increased risk in turning around, but it'll be small compared with driving another 20 meters through an untried part of a minefield, and therefore doesn't justify rolling another dr.

Besides, aren't you guys the same ones who were just arguing "It's all abstractions anyways so what's it matter? Just go with what the rules say!" over in the sleaze thread? So why are you bringing up real-world arguments here?

Btw it really is all abstractions.