Bloody Red Beach

[Vinnie]

30.113 NCA DEFENSE MODIFICATION: This is the TEM applied to ordnance and FT attacks against the pillbox which do not originate from within the CA of the pillbox [EXC: AP; 30.35] or are made by Indirect or Aerial fire.

Since bombs are aerial fire I would imagine it would apply.

 

[Honza]

Since bombs are aerial fire I would imagine it would apply.

What is confusing is that the chpt. G rule (which is the later rule) states that HITS are treated as a 24FP flamethrower attack (which is halved if using the ATT) except as stated otherwise. It then goes on to state various differences to a normal FT attack.

 

[Vinnie]

But a normal FT attack through the nca of a PB are subject to tem.

 

[Honza]

But a normal FT attack through the nca of a PB are subject to tem.

That is true but I'm thinking of an attack vs the CA of the pillbox. Since the answer is so obscure I have sent it to MMP Q&A for resolution.

 

[Vinnie]

I don't see it maturing whether it is from the ca or nca. It's an aerial attack.

It dkesxmake sense as an aircraft pretty much has to shoot through the armoured roof of the PB.

 

[Honza]

It is also confusing because the ATT TEM of a cave would not apply to the resolution DR (I believe).

 

[Honza]

Yes it is an aerial attack; but it is treated as a FT attack.

 

[Honza]

I'm pretty sure that Perry will say the TEM does apply to the resolution DR but I just wanted to check.

 

[jrv]

With the napalm vs pillboxes using the ATT question resolved, napalm using ATT vs. a pillbox is still a decent attack because of the side effects. Napalm vs. caves is going to be ok, but typically not quite as good because the blaze will not force units to leave nor random SW destruction. Bombs vs pillboxes & caves (and MG vs caves too) are going to be more miss than hit, but once in a while something dramatic will happen. Looking at the likelihoods, there's little reason to hide from the aircraft. If they concentrate on pillboxes & caves, I guess that maybe they'll get two or three good attacks out of nine attempts. The aircraft will probably cause some casualties, but spread over three turns so most Japanese guns will get their shots in too. On the other hand nothing good will come of waiting because the marines will be ashore in large numbers.

If the Americans attack only one of the two hills--which will be fairly common--the Japanese should be rushing infantry reinforcements to the targeted hill. The Japanese should avoid presenting any long strafing opportunities, but these reinforcements may bear some of the air attacks. The 90mm MTRs (and maybe even some 50mm MTRs) are also more vulnerable to air attack, especially from the non-napalm FB.

JR

 

[GeorgeBates]

The scenario is also in the "early" style: there is a long development before there's any face-to-face, smash-mouth action

This is one of the most notable changes to the game over the past couple of decades.

 

[jrv]

This is one of the most notable changes to the game over the past couple of decades.

Are you sure? How about a quick game of "Flying Turrets"?

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

This is one of the most notable changes to the game over the past couple of decades.

It does seem that the movement to contact element of tactics has been cut down considerably with newer scenarios. Most of the more recent scenarios appeal to the gamer side of us, concentrating on the actual engagement aspect which is usually more exciting, bringing main force elements from each side together much quicker. John Hill (and probably a lot of the earlier scenario designers) explored more of the total range of tactical battle drills to be experienced. As most are aware, Hill was also working for government agencies that required a a full exploration of capabilities and tactics for game designs and this may have bled over into his "civilian" game design and was picked up as his vision for the game by other scenario designers. I think that with the advent of a wealth of tournaments and especially vasl (both PBEM & live interactive), the shorter scenarios became preferred. The advent of ASL and continued popularity of the system that grew more complex in presentation and play further reinforced this tendency. That is not to say the longer scenarios do not exist, but the tendency is certainly towards offering the "shock and awe" portion of the engagement as the major presentation. (JMHO)

 

[Honza]

Are you sure? How about a quick game of "Flying Turrets"?

JR

BFP seem to be the only designer group who still produce many scenarios in the 'early style'.

 

[xenovin]

BFP seem to be the only designer group who still produce many scenarios in the 'early style'.

Reflective of Chas’ military career?

 

[djohannsen]

I think that with the advent of a wealth of tournaments and especially vasl (both PBEM & live interactive), the shorter scenarios became preferred.

Though I've only got about 20 scenarios under my belt (thus, am just a babe in the woods of ASL), I tend to prefer scenarios with some opening maneuver. This period allows the defender to react to the attack and have some time to reposition, thereby eliminating the pressure on the defender to have to "guess right" about the attacker's intentions.