Case A DRMs cumulative or not

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
:) Really not that much of a sleaze if you take the time to rationalize the circumstances. As a former Tank Commander I've had a little expirence in this field and I would assume basic amored tactics haven't varied considerably since WW-II (or at least our tactics are predicated upon tactics derived during the conflict).

A tank (read that armed AFV) is normally given a sector of fire as its primary engagement area. When a target unexpectedly emerges from your primary sector you traverse/bear on the target, but there's a slight hesitation because it's out of your normal engagement area...hence the initial CA penalty. After you have eliminated the target, you immediately go into a "search, Traverse and engage" mode for additional targets outside of sector. Hence you are more aware of targets appearing outside of your assigned engagement area, and would thus be quicker to react to these appearing targets...thus paying the decreased CA (TCA/VCA) change costs.:cool:

The biggest problem I see here is not for turreted AFV.s, but NT ones. However, a vehicle using neutral steer (where the tracks move in opposite directions, thus allowing a rather rapid pivot) can bear on a target almost as fast as a powered turret. A normal pivot steer (stopping one track and moving the other to pivot and turn) is not quite as fast or accurate, as your vehicle would actually change its relative location somewhat, but if accomplished at high speeds, can be rather rapid (though the possibility of throwing a track is greatly enhanced). Given the framework of ASL, these tactics are fairly well applied without adding to much additional complexity into the situation.:yummy:
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
:) Really not that much of a sleaze if you take the time to rationalize the circumstances.
Dang it....someone names a sleaze for me, and you tell me it's not a sleaze at all....fine....:(
 
Last edited:

JOS

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
315
Reaction score
58
Location
abcdef
Country
llUnited States
I've always felt this example would have been clearer if it had used a ST tank (say a PzIVJ) rather than a fast-turreted PzIVH. While I've played as per the above, I can envision some people interpreting the +1 DRMs in some cases as not being the initial +1 turn of a FT tank, but one of the subsequent ones in the +1,+1,+1 sequence. If the example used an ST, the relevant +2 would have made it clearer.


Enoy, Joshua
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Dang it....some names a sleaze for me, and you tell me it's not a sleaze at all....fine....:(
I will still call it the Jazz sleaze. It matters not this "reality" thing. -- jim
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
EX2: During its PFPh, the Pz IVH in 19X5 fire its BMG at the 4-4-7 in Z5. The CA change related DRM for the two hexspines change with a NT type change is +4 (Case A). Then the Pz IVH fires its MA at the 4-4-7 in Z3. What is the Case A related DRM for the MA shot?
+4
Not sure I understand this example. To turn the VCA and fire the BMG vs. 19Z5 only requires one hexspine change - Case A = +3.
Then the TCA would need to change two hexspines to get 19Z3 in the TCA for another Case A of +2 for a total of +5.

Am I missing something ?
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Not sure I understand this example. To turn the VCA and fire the BMG vs. 19Z5 only requires one hexspine change - Case A = +3.
Then the TCA would need to change two hexspines to get 19Z3 in the TCA for another Case A of +2 for a total of +5.

Am I missing something ?
I may have seen wrong, I thought it was only one hexspine TCA change. If it's two, then the DRM is indeed +5.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I may have seen wrong, I thought it was only one hexspine TCA change. If it's two, then the DRM is indeed +5.
I think the initial example was wrong, as it indicated a two-hexspine VCA change to fire the BMG - but only a one-hexspine change is needed.
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Not sure I understand this example. To turn the VCA and fire the BMG vs. 19Z5 only requires one hexspine change - Case A = +3.
Then the TCA would need to change two hexspines to get 19Z3 in the TCA for another Case A of +2 for a total of +5.

Am I missing something ?
It should have said "one hexspine" and "+3".
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
A tank (read that armed AFV) is normally given a sector of fire as its primary engagement area. When a target unexpectedly emerges from your primary sector you traverse/bear on the target, but there's a slight hesitation because it's out of your normal engagement area...hence the initial CA penalty. After you have eliminated the target, you immediately go into a "search, Traverse and engage" mode for additional targets outside of sector. Hence you are more aware of targets appearing outside of your assigned engagement area, and would thus be quicker to react to these appearing targets...thus paying the decreased CA (TCA/VCA) change costs.:cool:
I don't think it's the higher initial (ie first hex spine) cost that people find surprising. It's more the situation where you fire at one "unexpected" target outside your start CA with the coax MG, and then if another shows up, it's harder to hit with the MA if it's within the same CA as the first target.
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
EX3: A T-34 enters hex X3. The Pz IVH fires its CMG as defensive first fire and changes TCA to X4/Y5. Then the T-34 enters hex W4. What is the CA change related DRM if the Pz IVH would turn its TCA and fire its MA? D3.51 says "another target" but this is "the same target". Does it literally have to be a different targets?
+1 (No - it makes absolutely no sense that it is worse to track the same target than to fire on a new target)
So you don't think it needs to be different target, even though D3.51 says "another target"? Why?
 

Jazz

Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
12,188
Reaction score
2,739
Location
The Empty Quarter
Country
llLithuania
+1 (No - it makes absolutely no sense that it is worse to track the same target than to fire on a new target)
Agreed. That is how I've always seen it played and the interpretation you present makes sense....to me...I think that is a good thing.

The fact is that if someone is to read the rules *literally* (hard to believe, I know) the application of the rule does not make sense for all the reasons that Matthias has raised.

Do you at least accept that the wording of the rule should be changed to reflect that?
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
I'm with Mattias here. I think the application of the Case A DRMs is goofy. I'll game the rules as necessary (and credit Jazz), but I don't think an intermediate stop to fire a CMG should lessen the DRM for a MA shot. However, I hold little hope for a favorable ruling so I will just slip a few new pages into my book of sleaze...
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Jazz, with Steve now on board, I believe you can truly :cry:. Well done sir. -- jim
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
So you don't think it needs to be different target, even though D3.51 says "another target"? Why?
Because I don't think the designer thought of the situation of firing at the same target outside the CA, and if they had done so, they would not have excluded it.

In other words, the "another target" is just sloppy phrasing.

But the bottom line is that it makes absolutely no sense with a literal interpretation of "another target".
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
I'm with Mattias here. I think the application of the Case A DRMs is goofy. I'll game the rules as necessary (and credit Jazz), but I don't think an intermediate stop to fire a CMG should lessen the DRM for a MA shot. However, I hold little hope for a favorable ruling so I will just slip a few new pages into my book of sleaze...
I don't think this rule fits into the sleaze category at all. If you read D3.51, you'll see that the mechanism is indeed intentional by the designers, and they have even made a special restriction to avoid using it in a sleazy way.

The restriction is of course that if you don't fire on a Known enemy unit when changing your CA, then you're not allowed to change CA again that Player Turn.


So this is a rule with an onbviously intended mechanism that has an important restriction to avoud sleaze. Thus the rule is in no way a sleaze.
 

Mattb

Recruit
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
Location
Manchester
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Just re-learning the rules after quite a long break.

I don't see using the CMG shot to spin the turret as sleaze. In this example, you've given up a perfectly good 5FP CMG shot in Defensive fire and passed up the chance for acquisition with the MA. And you're giving the T34 the chance to announce a gun duel, laugh as your MG does nothing and then blow you to kingdom come with a BFF shot.

What you get in return is a +1 instead of a +2 on the case A TH provided the T34 moves into a new TCA. Circumstances would dictate whether that was a good idea, but I think the T34 might be getting a good deal there.
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Because I don't think the designer thought of the situation of firing at the same target outside the CA, and if they had done so, they would not have excluded it.
They would not have excluded it, even though, by your own words, the effects of it don't make sense. You don't think much of the original designer, do you? :)
But the bottom line is that it makes absolutely no sense with a literal interpretation of "another target".
Well... In a way, it make sense, because it will limit the number of situations where the rules don't make sense.
 
Last edited:

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
They would not have excluded it, even though, by your own words, the effects of it don't make sense.
It's the effect of excluding the same target (that has moved outside the CA), that doesn't make sense.


You don't think much of the original designer, do you? :)
I think very highly of them, especially after having written ASL rule pages myself, and actually experiencing how easy it is to write something, knowing exactly what it is supposed to mean, and then have proofreaders tell you that they read something different.
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
I don't think this rule fits into the sleaze category at all. If you read D3.51, you'll see that the mechanism is indeed intentional by the designers, and they have even made a special restriction to avoid using it in a sleazy way.
I disagree completely. Take two parallel situations in the DFPh:

1) A TD with no CMG wants to fire at a tank changing the TCA three spines. The DRM is +3.

2) A tank with a CMG wants to fire at a tank changing the TCA three spines. The tank spins two hexspines and fires at a squad in a stone building first. Then spins the last spine to shoot at the tank with the MA. The DRM is now +1. The only downside to this scenario is the chance of breaking the CMG and the chance to generate a sniper - on average that's say 3/36 chance of something bad. The extra +2DRM could take you from a 6TH to 8TH. That's an improvement of 11/36. Usually (not always), a tank that is hit is more devastating than the loss of a CMG or a sniper result. Therefore, 99% of the time, the choice is a no-brainer.

Given all that, are you saying it makes sense that the tank in the second case is more accurate firing at the enemy tank because it stopped in the middle to shoot at infantry with the CMG? To me, that is completely illogical and gamey. Things that are illogical and gamey are sleazy. JMHO...

Steve
 
Top