Battlefield Integrity (revisited, again)

DO you use Battlefield Integrity?


  • Total voters
    73

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
Jazz had made some good points in the "Rules I dont like" thread; rather than hijack the thread i thought i would explore his points separately.

We are discussing Battlefield Integrity A16, an optional rule.


Jazz said:
Problem is, most scenarios these days (or in any days for that matter) are not playtested using it. I can think of a number of scenarios that would become unbalanced if it was use. Most of the scenarios with '39 Poles come to mind off the top of my head.
I have played BI with JP ever since we started with ASL, so it is just second nature - we play VASL mostly now that we live in different cities, but every time we send a log we also include the info sheet (I have included the current one for the ABtF CG we are playing). This makes the book-keeping very simple, and with 12+ years of practice we have it down pat!

I make it even easier by the use of my matchbox storage system that lists the BPV of all units (and their HSs) on their containers

We have played it even with scenarios (remembering that there must be >10 squads) and while i will certainly agree that it does tip the balance of a scenario or CG, i think it is rarely gong to unbalance the odds too much.

Think of the odds here: the best leadership modifier is added to the ELR drop DR, as are modifiers for things like lack of sufficient AT support and unopposed enemy air-cover - all things that you would have to agree are pretty devestating to a soldier.

In a scenario too the time is limited and if a side is getting hammered enough to drop ELRs than there is little chance that they have much chance of recovering anyway!

I beleive that it is in CGs that BI comes into its own... for instance in our current ABtF CG JP's SS now have ELR 0! (-1 to the ELR 1 due to being Night Defenders) This has a MASSIVE effect on his strategy (any break is an ELR reduction at the moment) and is actually serving to check the phenomenal strength of the Germans. It also makes the player who is suffering the ELR drops think about his reinforcements, as these can positively affect the ELR (A16.3)
This is, i feel, historically accurate (the Germans were slow to co-ordinate and effectively respond despite their overwhelming strength because of the battles taking place in the landing zones), and that leads to Jazz's other point...



Jazz said:
I suppose an argument could be made for historical accuracy....but then one needs to ask why they play the game. To simulate history or to enter into a competition with your opponent where each player has an equal chance of winning based on the quality of their play.
Well, while i do say that BI is an eloquent way to sink the boot in when the opponent is down, i also do not play for blood-lust.

I do enjoy playing a game that is close and does have a sense of 'history' to it - and i admit that whilst i am kicking JP's lederhosen right now i will feel mightily happy if the Brits manage to hold on despite the odds and ammo depletion etc, OR if the GFerman's can rally and mount a strong enough offensive to flush my valient men out.

Using BI gives us both an ally and threat that must be factored into our strategy - it benefits neither of us more than the other apart from the initial CG position of an over-whelming British attack flooding inexperience German defenders...
 
Last edited:

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
I have voted for 'Only with big scenarios and HASL/CG' - it rarely has any effect on any small scenarios or in scenarios with limited Turns - i would play it for ASL10 The Citadel for instance.
 

Mike Murphy

Cat's servant
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
686
Reaction score
68
Location
Westland, MI
My vote was for Yes, when-ever, where-ever but strictly speaking, that's not completely true. I used BI for the longest time in every scenario listing the BPV totals. Then, a couple of years ago I stopped, not seeing any great enhancement to my play. I've started using it again within the past couple of months, but don't ask me why. I guess because it is part of the ASL experience.

Mike :confused:
 

Jay White

my sh*t is so tight
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
7
Location
Vancouver BC Canada
Country
llCanada
I never think about using it, and never do. Used it back the the Crescendo of Doom/Cross of Iron days.

But the latest discussion has me thinking about it again.
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
The Purist said:
This has the effect of making players think twice before making risky moves(or moves a real squad would be unlikely to do, ie. suicide attacks) ,...a pseudo casualty cap, if you will. Besides, in small scenarios (< 10 squads per side) BI is not used so it won't effect the micro games.
Yes, this is the essence of BI, and also why it is essentially an integral part of HASL/CG. The use of BI makes a commander start to be aware of the effects of a war of a attrition.

Having never played ASL without BI i cannot see how it can be an addition and therefore some external and extra influence on the game - one just naturally figures its effects in like one would the DR, SAN or OBA chits!
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
No wonder you think the Brits have a fighting chance. :rolleyes: Maybe you have discovered the hidden balance condition.

I would especially not play BI in a CG unless you had some mechanism for regaining ELR. It doesn't seem like you do unless your opponent really rolled pooly on BI checks in a given scenario.

Again a poll that doesn't have all of the options. My vote is simple - Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. :p
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
WaterRabbit said:
Again a poll that doesn't have all of the options. My vote is simple - Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. :p
Just like BI - voting in polls is entirely optional. :laugh:

Pity end of game dr's in CG's are not, right? :devil:
 

Roy

Living in Brownbackistan
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
1,347
Reaction score
643
Location
Wichita
Country
llUnited States
Well, I voted.

Although the option that fits me best is not there. I have never played with BI. I won't ask anyone to do it. But if someone asks me to play a game with BI, I won't turn them down. Hell, throw any chrome you want in there, lets just play! :nuts:
 

cujo8-1

The Earl of Burgundy
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
31
Location
ThunderDome
Country
llUnited States
I voted "no way", but in reality my vote should have been "I ignore it because I don't undertand it".

None of my opponents here in Oklahoma City have ever mentioned using it and some of them have been playing the squad leader system(s) for over 20 years.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
I didn't vote, since none of the options was correct for me:

I started out playing ASL with BI, and did so for the first couple of years, but then found out that there simply wasn't much reason to do so.

It didn't make the games more fun, and it potentially unbalances scenarios (since they're generally playtested without BI).

So a correct option for me would be something like:

Have used BI, but see no reason to do it now (unless my opponent wants to).
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
I like the point made about using BI in CGs; it would seem that would be the best realm for force morale, though an arguement could be made for the larger (ie 10+ turn) scenarios. I also believe the point about it not being playtested as well, though that could be mitigated somewhat by those running the PT to ask that it be used.
For those who are looking for the elusive 'realism' BI isn't a bad bet: you may lose alot of the silliness seen in ASL, particularly those done by players who have berserked their personal HOB roll. The last turn craziness won't disappear in a regular scenario-hey, we're all out to win, after all, but some of the mid- to late game open ground rushes may be thought better of. I honestly can't see a good reason for not using it, but as it's an option, personal choice rules.
 

da priest

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
10
Location
Lebanon, Mo., turn r
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]...For those who are looking for the elusive 'realism' BI isn't a bad bet: ...[/QUOTE]
Funny, I find all the optionals are just chrome that adds nothing in the way of "realism", just an appearance of same if you take the events being "simulated" as relevent to the time spent playing, not the time being "simulated" by the scenario.

Take a 10 turn scenario, in the 4-8 hours you spend playing, yes the troops could have contact with all their fellows finding out each one's situation. But in the 20 minutes of bleeding edge combat, the right flank knows what is happening to the left? they all know when the three tanks, out of most of their LOS, are knocked out? Well if your "real world" includes telepathy, maybe.:shock:

Same arguement goes for the Interrogation silliness, in 2 minutes, you capture a squad of enemy soldiers, find the one English/German/Italian/Russian/Japanese speaking one, convince him to cooperate, get the data on a Fortification/HIP unit, whatever..and then disseminate it to all your troops on the battlefield, all in bloody 2 minutes! Telepathy again.:smoke:
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
da priest said:
in 2 minutes ...
All the question is if we must stick to the old presupposition an ASL turn simulates 2 minutes of combat.
If you take in account the time to rally, repair, crawl, issue orders, etc. an ASL turn would be nearer to the time gamers actually take playing it, than to those "mythical" two minutes...
Another example : does one believe the 8 turn "day" in a CG equals a quarter of an hour of combat?
An ASL turn (and scenario) depicts the most intense parts of a situation that lasted quite a long time.
Note, also, the lapses of time in real combat where people do... nothing! :cool:
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
da priest said:
Well if your "real world" includes telepathy, maybe.:shock:
Da Priest,
If your mythical right flank has LOS to a unit then telepathy allows it to be Known to the left flank too; i find that a much harder concept to wrap my poor brain around than a force's cohesion under sustained and obviously assault.

As we bring up so often here, it is a game and all games make certain allowances for abstracted nature.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
da priest said:
Funny, I find all the optionals are just chrome that adds nothing in the way of "realism", just an appearance of same if you take the events being "simulated" as relevent to the time spent playing, not the time being "simulated" by the scenario.

Take a 10 turn scenario, in the 4-8 hours you spend playing, yes the troops could have contact with all their fellows finding out each one's situation. But in the 20 minutes of bleeding edge combat, the right flank knows what is happening to the left? they all know when the three tanks, out of most of their LOS, are knocked out? Well if your "real world" includes telepathy, maybe.

Same arguement goes for the Interrogation silliness, in 2 minutes, you capture a squad of enemy soldiers, find the one English/German/Italian/Russian/Japanese speaking one, convince him to cooperate, get the data on a Fortification/HIP unit, whatever..and then disseminate it to all your troops on the battlefield, all in bloody 2 minutes! Telepathy again.


I guess I should clarify the 'realism' tag. In no way should it be taken as a literal truth carved in stone. As a function of showing force morale degradation due to losses, I think BI works well enough. Do I think this implies omniscience to the entire force? No, but on the other hand, perhaps. We could split hairs over map area etc. but to what end? Decreasing player control, however subtly, increases the friction at this level.
The major problem, I suppose, is actually falling into the trap of saying "realism" in the first place. Who are we to declare what's realistic?
 

J P

Member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
188
Reaction score
1
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Country
llUnited States
As the German that had to drive a convoy straight down a road and into Legions attacking Brits (that was one base level lost!!) and then having a large number of troops under "no move" counters get anhiliated (there went more levels!!) i am against the B.I. rules for the opening game in ABTF - the German is not really given an option to either pull troops back and retain their B.I. and troops, or risk an ELR loss by defending blocks.
Although i do like B.I. rules the three CG's i have played (KGP,ABTF,PB) all start with overwhelming forces beating up a few troops and, obviously, the defender will always lose an ELR level or two which has a long term affect on the game.
In our current game my ELR is 1 while the Brits is still 5 so i must now declare attack every turn until games end i have no choice in the matter!! (why try to save an ELR of 1? - i may as well keep attacking and let both our ELR's drop to zero thereby balancing the game again) - The use of B.I. in a CG makes both sides think long and hard about attacking for a third game in a row and re-creates a units need to rest and re-organize etc. BUT the 17Night turn causing such a massive loss of ELR has changed the game to one of constant attack.
Basically, i like using B.I. but feel that the game designers need to think about the long term effects on the CG due to the ELR losses in the opening game of all CG's. (we are playing BRT next, i am sure that the Yanks will have an ELR of zero before they hit the beach - same problem as being the Germans in ABTF)
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
jp said:
(we are playing BRT next, i am sure that the Yanks will have an ELR of zero before they hit the beach - same problem as being the Germans in ABTF)
Dont worry mate, G14.21, BI never applies to Assaulting side in Amphibious Assault - anyway by the time my IJA have finished there wont be anyone left to have an ELR!
:violin:
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Let me get this straight: You are using B.I. as well as the ELR Loss/Gain chart (9.6202)? They are not intended to be used together. The ELR Loss/Gain rules are meant to reflect B.I. over the course of the campaign. Using both will seriously unbalance this campaign. The Germans are supposed to start out weak and get stronger; the Brits are supposed to start out strong and get weaker. If you are using B.I. and carrying it over into the ELR Loss/Gain...well sounds like either you have been suckered or you screwed yourself. ;)
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
WaterRabbit said:
Let me get this straight: You are using B.I. as well as the ELR Loss/Gain chart (9.6202)? They are not intended to be used together.
Hmmm... dont seem to say that in my rule book... R9.6202 right? Maybe you got a different edition or is that a house rule? ;)
 
Top