Case A DRMs cumulative or not

[Ole Boe]

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.

No disagreement here...

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?

Yes, I'm saying that, and so does D3.51, and it even has an example showing this.

To me, that is completely illogical and gamey.

I don't think it is illogical. Assume the TD chose to fire at the enemy squad instead (and that this was its DFPh). In the upcoming PFPh (or already in the same DFPh if ROF was retained), the TD would get away with a +1 DRM because it changed its CA only one hexspine - just as the tank with CMG could do. It is just easier for the more flexible tank, just as it is easier for it to change CA to avoid being swarmed on defense or to check LOS before using the MA.

So in this case we see that turning the CA a short distance from where it fired last time gives less DRM than turning it a long distance. Whether it happens in the same phase, or with the same weapon doesn't matter. This doesn't seem more illogical or gamey than the average ASL rule to me, and certainly less illogical or gamey than the fact that the AFV with a CMG can change its CA one more time than one without when being swarmed on defense.

Things that are illogical and gamey are sleazy.

YMMW, but in this case, it is a game mechanism that is intended by the designer. In my vocabular, a sleaze is an unintended side effect of a rule.

 

[Steven Pleva]

YMMW, but in this case, it is a game mechanism that is intended by the designer. In my vocabular, a sleaze is an unintended side effect of a rule.

If the rules said that tanks could jump over buildings that would be gamey and sleazy to me, even if it were allowed by the rules. I consider VBMf sleazy because it was not a standard WWII tactic. Never was and never will be. No amount of post-publication group rationalization will change that.

I don't think the rules were written this way because they are more realistic. I think they were written this way because it was easier to write and easier to implement. IMHO, the logical way to do this rule would have only involved a tiny bit of overhead.

I don't expect the rules to be changed WRT to this issue so I'll just think about all the dopey ways I can game the system in the future...

Steve

 

[Brian W]

... I'll just think about all the dopey ways I can game the system in the future...

Do you really need more ways to kick everyone's ass? Oh, I can see by your avatar that you won't be satisfied until you destroy Tokyo.

 

[Ronnblom]

I don't think the rules were written this way because they are more realistic. I think they were written this way because it was easier to write and easier to implement. IMHO, the logical way to do this rule would have only involved a tiny bit of overhead.

Are you sure it needs to involve more overhead? This would be my first take on a new rule text:

3.51: MAINTAINING CA: Once a vehicle fires any bow- or turret-mounted weapon, any of its other bow- or turret-mounted weapons which fire within the current respective CA must pay the same CA change penalty as the first weapon which fired. If, after firing, another bow- or turret-mounted weapon wishes to fire at a target outside its current CA, the Case A TH DRM would be based on all previous changes of the VCA/TCA during that fire phase [EXC: Case A DRM for a MA which has retained Multiple ROF would applicable only based on the move from the CA of its last shot to its new CA (C5.12).] If the VCA is changed, the TCA changes the same number of hexspines while retaining its position relative to the VCA. A Bounding First Firer does not pay CA change DRM (C5.13). Once any vehicular weapon fires, its other weapons may fire in that phase only from that same hex [EXC: OVR; and a MA retaining Multiple ROF may fire again from another hex if the previous shots were Bounding First Fire].

In the D3.51 examples, I would replace the Pz IVH with a Pz IVJ and update it accordingly.

I would add an example where the Panzer fires its MA, gets ROF, turns a hexspine to fire its CMG, and then turns more to fires again its MA again. Since the above rules text is about 20% shorter than the original, it should fit.

The intention would be a change which wouldn't affect scenario balance, and not to any degree how people play (since the tactic/sleaze is still somewhat obscure) or understand the rules. For 99% of the players, for all practical matters, its not a rule change.

The reasons for something for this slight rules change would be:

To simplify the rules.

To improve the "internal consistency" of the system. Basically, to surprise fewer people. Like the "principle of least surprise" of programming language design.

Eliminate an aspect of the rules that didn't make sense. Eliminate a sleaze, if you will.

 

[Steven Pleva]

Are you sure it needs to involve more overhead? This would be my first take on a new rule text:

I completely agree with your rewrite of the offending rules section. The overhead is not so much in writing the rules (as you've just shown). The overhead is how do you keep track of the CA changes if you've got a big scenario with a ton of CA changes. It could get confusing. I've never had that problem in the past and I always played the way you have the rule rewritten.

Sigh, twenty-one years of ASL in the toilet...

 

[Stacks]

--------------------------

 

[Bret Hildebran]

How often does this come up? Since the "Jazz Sleaze" came up (don't worry Jazz, I still think of you as sleazy ), I think I've only been able to take advantage of it once over the intervening year or two. And that's playing weekly & looking for the opportunity to use it at every turn since I'm playing "Wild Bill" normally & well he deserves to be sleazed! OK - it's more that he's a connoisseur of the sleaze & would appreciate it...

You basically have to have a fast traverse gun for this to help, plus there has to be a secondary target that's one TCA off your real target and you can't have anything more important to do with your CMG either. It's not like that combo pops up every scenario. Now in one game in 20, it may pop up & change the results, but is it that big a deal?

Yes, I don't see support for it historically at all. Yes, it simplifies "remembering" a little, of course the more common case where a 2nd turret mounted weapon fires w/i changed CA requires remembering the prior spin, so I'm not sure this one is that much worse. I've chalked up it as an esoteric rule that seldom comes into play, but could benefit (or hurt) you. Guess I wouldn't be upset were it to be changed, but I think there are much bigger fish to fry regarding rules reform. :hush:

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

cough...bridge TEM...cough

 

[Larry]

The age old trade off between playability and realism. During the movement phase, an AFV turns the TCA and fires the CMG. Now it is the DFPh, did it turn, how many did it turn ... ? I forgot about a unit under a wire counter in my last game only to have my opponent slap the pin counter on it two turns later for a 2 SAN result.

There doesn't have to be a realism cause, playability even if it comes up rarely is justification enough. There is less justification in prep fire or advancing fire, but a concession to playability in the M/DF Phases and a need for some level of consistency in a simple game mechanic fits well with the system as a whole.

 

[Brian W]

How often does this come up?

Actually, if you are playing non-sherman swarm tactics, it should come into play quite a bit. I was playtesting a scenario last week and had a panther swarmed by three KV-85s and a T-34. The first two tanks spun my panther completly around twice with my MGs. The third tank got a 75LL round up its nose because my total TH DRM were only +4 instead of the +14 it would be if we had to track every spin.

 

[B.Lizt]

I never thought of this as a sleaze. The rule is there - in the book - for everyone to read. This is how the rule is designed to work, not some unintentional side-effect.

Whether it might be gamey depends on the situation.

Say you have a T-34 and in your opponents MPh he moves a PzIV around to come up on your tank from the rear. If the T-34 has LOS to the PzIV moving at some point, he might fire his CMG at it to turn his TCA, and thus when the PzIV comes up from what used to be behind it, the T-34 does not have to pay the large TCA DRM - he is prepared because he has tracked the PzIV on its way.
If on the other hand, the PzIV moves outside the T-34 LOS, or if the T-34 does not fire on it during its move, the T-34 is caught from behind and unaware, and has to pay the larger DRM, with a greater chance to lose the gun-duel.
I find this very realistic ....

The part about only being able to change your CA further if you fire at Known (in-LOS and unconcealed) enemy units fights sleaze pretty well.

 

[Jazz]

I never thought of this as a sleaze. The rule is there - in the book - for everyone to read. This is how the rule is designed to work, not some unintentional side-effect.

Ah, methinks you slightly misunderstand the meaning of "sleaze" in the ASL context.

"Sleaze" in the ASL context is something that is perfectly legal and in the book, but that people think is somehow "gamey" and unrealistic. VBM Freeze is the classic "sleaze".

In fact, somebody compiled all of these "sleaze" tactics (as well as some sleazy things that are NOT legal) into the Great Black Book of ASL Sleaze.

Find it at:

http://www.ths85.net/zekesaslparadise/sleaze.html

I try to read through it at least once a year....

 

[Ronnblom]

Actually, if you are playing non-sherman swarm tactics, it should come into play quite a bit. I was playtesting a scenario last week and had a panther swarmed by three KV-85s and a T-34. The first two tanks spun my panther completly around twice with my MGs. The third tank got a 75LL round up its nose because my total TH DRM were only +4 instead of the +14 it would be if we had to track every spin.

D3.51 says "Any further changes of the TCA incurs normal TCA Case A DRM in addition to the NT Case A DRM of the VCA change". So if your spun your Panther around using it's BMG, you're paying plenty of NT Case A DRM for all subsequent shots with turrent-mounted weapons (except ROF/IF). You could argue there are ways to avoid that DRM, but it says "any" (as oppose to "a").

I could see this rule being discussed a lot when this tactic comes into circulation.

 

[Ronnblom]

The age old trade off between playability and realism. During the movement phase, an AFV turns the TCA and fires the CMG. Now it is the DFPh, did it turn, how many did it turn ... ? I forgot about a unit under a wire counter in my last game only to have my opponent slap the pin counter on it two turns later for a 2 SAN result.

Actually, it's not much of a trade off. Even with the current rules you need to, during DFPh, remember if and how much your TCA changed as a part of first fire. Otherwise, how do you know how much Case A you're going to pay if you fire another turrent-mounted weapon in the current TCA?

But it's very rarely (if ever) an issue. I've never had any trouble remembering, and I have a very bad memory.

 

[B.Lizt]

I read the Great Black Book of ASL Sleaze once in a while, too -
many good laughs -:clown:
and I've picked up some frequently used tactics.

Jazz - if you find I am misunderstanding the meaning of sleaze, that might be because we have slightly different definition of what sleaze is.
Mine is like "something that is legal but should not be" - either because it is unintentional or wrong.

But this is legal - and intentional - that is clear from the original rule, and from the example. Whether it is wrong is the subject of this debate.

This is no sleaze in my book.

Regards
Olav

 

[B.Lizt]

I find Brian's point about swarm tactics a valid one in this debate.
If you change this rule to reflect how you have always played it, or how you like it to be that will have inpact on swarm tactics.
With Mattias' suggestion, a lone Tiger, Panther or or similar vehicle sure would have a harder time keeping his front armor in front considering gun-duels.
That might do more than slightly unbalance those scenarios.

Olav

 

[Ronnblom]

I find Brian's point about swarm tactics a valid one in this debate.
With Mattias' suggestion, a lone Tiger, Panther or or similar vehicle sure would have a harder time keeping his front armor in front considering gun-duels.
That might do more than slightly unbalance those scenarios.

If a majority of scenarios were playtested by players who knew about this tactic, that would be the case, yes.

Otherwise, a rule change which would not be a change in the eyes of the majority of players would actually improve balance. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[B.Lizt]

This would be my first take on a new rule text:

3.51: MAINTAINING CA: Once a vehicle fires any bow- or turret-mounted weapon, any of its other bow- or turret-mounted weapons which fire within the current respective CA must pay the same CA change penalty as the first weapon which fired. If, after firing, another bow- or turret-mounted weapon wishes to fire at a target outside its current CA, the Case A TH DRM would be based on all previous changes of the VCA/TCA during that fire phase [EXC: Case A DRM for a MA which has retained Multiple ROF would applicable only based on the move from the CA of its last shot to its new CA (C5.12).]
......
The reasons for something for this slight rules change would be:

To simplify the rules.
QUOTE]

Still some things you need to clarify here.
What CA DRMs would subsequent CA changes pay?
Should they pay NT +3 or ST +2 only once and all subsequent changes as additional +1, or would you add up the full NT/ST for each change?
And what if you change a slow turret relative to the VCA after a VCA-change - do you pay both +3 and +2 and then all subsequent +1 or what?

Might be the small size of my brain, but I fail to see the simplicity in some situations.

Olav

 

[B.Lizt]

If a majority of scenarios were playtested by players who knew about this tactic, that would be the case, yes.

Otherwise, a rule change which would not be a change in the eyes of the majority of players would actually improve balance. Wouldn't you agree?

I would not know if a majority play it like you do. I doubt 99% do, as you suggested earlier. I think I would have come across it earlier, having played close to a 100 different opponents.

Olav

 

[mgmasl]

Sorry, a question about this rule

The case A DRM is applied in Def Ph if the firer change TCA/VCA during the enemy movement ph? I mean if enemy movement Ph and Defensive Ph are the same Ph, and so I have to use a piece of paper to take notes about the case A modifier used in last movement ph.

Thanks a lot,
Miguel

PS nice thread