Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

[Treadhead]

What I would appreciate is a detailed system analysis by someone who advocates this sort of change.

I think that some would-be redesigners seem to forget the "design for effect" aspect of the game system. The tendency seems to be to focus on a particular instant of time, the precise moment when an individual crawls out of the hole to move away.

But there's a big picture involved. To really appreciate the game system, you should look at the situation at the end of a player turn, or game turn. All the bits and pieces in between are just abstractions to reach that end. You should not be counting every bullet and timing every foot-fall.

Anyway, the real problem you guys seem to be having is the ability of broken units to use Foxholes the way they do. You want all movement to have this ability, but maybe don't recognize that the routing mechanism may be flawed in this instance.

From a game system perspective, it seems to me that it would be better to take this ability away from broken units, rather than to give this ability to regular movement. To allow combined MF costs in this way would cause real problems with Defensive First Fire, US#, Recovery and Possession...

With sincerity and all due respect, I surely do hope that none of these ideas become incorporated. "Fix this, fix that." Ha. There's been too little thought expressed about possible (or unintended) consequences to any such changes.

Ah, Hypothetical ASL at its finest.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

What I would appreciate is a detailed system analysis by someone who advocates this sort of change.

I think that some would-be redesigners seem to forget the "design for effect" aspect of the game system. The tendency seems to be to focus on a particular instant of time, the precise moment when an individual crawls out of the hole to move away.

But there's a big picture involved. To really appreciate the game system, you should look at the situation at the end of a player turn, or game turn. All the bits and pieces in between are just abstractions to reach that end. You should not be counting every bullet and timing every foot-fall.

Anyway, the real problem you guys seem to be having is the ability of broken units to use Foxholes the way they do. You want all movement to have this ability, but maybe don't recognize that the routing mechanism may be flawed in this instance.

From a game system perspective, it seems to me that it would be better to take this ability away from broken units, rather than to give this ability to regular movement. To allow combined MF costs in this way would cause real problems with Defensive First Fire, US#, Recovery and Possession...

With sincerity and all due respect, I surely do hope that none of these ideas become incorporated. "Fix this, fix that." Ha. There's been too little thought expressed about possible (or unintended) consequences to any such changes.

Ah, Hypothetical ASL at its finest.

One day they will learn(myself; inclusive):laugh:
I'm all out of Reps for you Bro.

 

[bendizoid]

I don't like the foxhole rule because they are death traps. I don't like changes in the rules either but, there have been changes in the past to try and make the game better. Therefore, I agree to some kind of foxhole fix (maybe by SSR?(for a test run)). I am confident the great MMP prosnosticators will act or not act wisely.

Yep,
Bob

PS my last sentence was not intended to be a double eun'taun'dra. hehehehe

 

[Tuomo]

The more I look at the rule and read this discussion, the more I see Michael's point. The rules were written deliberately different-it's no accident that movement from a foxhole is different than routing from one.

Wait, what? A bunch of guys running for their lives can move through foxholes more safely than a unit under good order command? I don't get it.

Regardless, Pete, I appreciate you asking the question. I think the world needs envelope-pushers and people who ask "why not".

Tom

 

[wrongway149]

Wait, what? A bunch of guys running for their lives can move through foxholes more safely than a unit under good order command? I don't get it.

Regardless, Pete, I appreciate you asking the question. I think the world needs envelope-pushers and people who ask "why not".

Tom

Well, Tom I was genuinely curious about reasons pro/con. As one who always sees the shades of gray, I have to use the status quo as the 'default choice' but appreciate of a good discussion of the issue.

The members of this forum did not disappoint.
IFT/IIFT debate, anyone :devious:

 

[RobZagnut]

I enjoyed reading Michael's and Bruce's eloquent statements, so there's not much to add. But, I have a couple of questions.

If Foxholes are changed:

1) Will this make them too powerful?

2) How much will it affect the balance of the existing scenarios?

3) Will this change ASL into a 'digging' game? As I agree with Fish that it's currently too easy to dig a Foxhole.

 

[Tater]

I think this is a classic example of something that, while it is admittedly broken, is not worth fixing on its own.

Platoon movement is used far less than foxholes are. Didn't stop the powers that be from rewritting the whole d@mn platoon movement rule.

Of course, we probably don't have the same group of vocal "insiders" complaining about foxholes that we did about platoon movement.

 

[Tater]

You can't change the foxholes rules in such a substantial way now... It's way too late. It would be like, say, changing the TEM of some important terrain type.

They rewrote the entire platoon movement rules well after the fact. They rewrote the wall/hedge (WA) rules well after the fact.

Foxholes are simply not that devastating of a fortification...being little more than heavy weight shellholes.

 

[sswann]

Sangars would better represent the type of entrenchment that could be completed in "short order".

 

[Tater]

As usual, it would appear the guys doing the most complaining have the least actual military experience.

And as usual we have MD being his usual arrogant, pompous self.

BTW, ASL is a game...it's actual relationship to anything military is, at best, illusionary. :nuts:

My problem with foxholes is that the rules are inconsistent and create an inconsistency of use:
1) inconsistent rules: broken units are able to utilize the foxholes more effectively than GO units.
2) created inconsistency: as the rules stand now, foxholes are not used much for protection...which is odd for a fortification that has the same TEM as a wooden building or stone wall.

 

[Tater]

Bruce decides to try and make it more complicated than it is...

How do you account for Defensive First Fire?

A foxhole in a woods hex...to enter the foxhole costs 3MF...DFire would be just like if the unit had moved into a rubble location...

The unit could still decide to do it the old fashioned way...move into the woods...DFire...then move into the foxhole...DFire...

For the most part DFire remains unchanged...

How does a unit break in the Location, but outside the Foxhole?

*If the move was a combined movement then the unit breaks in the Foxhole...just as when a unit enters a woods hex while crossing a wall...if the unit breaks on the first MF it isn't broken "on the wall" is it? No...it isn't. In any other type combined MF cost the unit reaches the location/position where it suffers DFire based on the number of MF's spent and what ever results occur are suffered in the location/position moved to.

What about a KIA? Where do the surviving SW end up?

*See above...

Same principle...a unit crossing a wall into woods...if it KIA's on the first MF is it's SW on the wall or in the woods hex?

Can a stack of three MMC enter the Location using the Foxhole TEM as a MF, even though it may only be a 1S Foxhole?

No...units moving as a stack are expending MF together. If 2-3 squads entered a woods/foxhole location as a stack they would all be spending 3MF but only one gets the +2 TEM. There are plenty of examples of units receiving different TEM in the same location vs the same shot so we already understand how to handle such. If units break on the move the one claiming the +2 breaks in the foxhole...the other don't break in the foxhole.

Doesn't seem that complex to me...

 

[Treadhead]

Tater,

If your response truly represents your conclusions after deliberating the effects on the game system, then I shall have to count us fortunate that you are not on the rules committee.

Your answers to my rhetorical questions are too ... simplistic.

In my opinion. Your opinion undoubtedly varies.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't believe the myth that original designers had omniscient perception of all the implications of the set of rules they created.
They did their best, but I don't think they were able do guess all the interactions of the rules.

But that's just it; 20 years of people figuring out ways of doing things they never dreamed of causes all kinds of problems.

I want to look at skulking again, just because it is a much clearer example (to me, anyway). Did the original developers "skulk"? Two-bit would be the one to ask about this, having gained a reputation for competitive play "back in the day". I'd be really interested in the answer to that one. Maybe I was just naive and stupid and in the minority in thinking it unsporting to do something like that back in Streets of Stalingrad. But in my rare foray into FtF play this year with Portal, I didn't bat an eye in Wetlet when he skulked every turn with his Japanese defenders. I didn't like the idea, but I wasn't going to ruin the game by whining about it, or asking why he was doing it. The rules allowed it, and it gave him an edge. I didn't feel the need to rationalize beyond that.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Foxholes aren't an impediment to skulking, bringing this slightly back onto topic?

I could definitely see some kind of rule change necessary, but to make ALL terrain more like foxholes, not the other way around, as far as troops leaving terrain - so that even if you leave a building to go out the "back door", you get hit with FFNAM penalties in the hex you just left (and if entering an OG hex, FFMO), to prevent that idiot skulking bit (unless you actually use AM, which would still be problematic). That way, staying in place to "take your medicine" gives you more benefit than slinking out and slinking back in, without the need for cumbersome rules like "you can't ADVANCE back into a hex you vacated in the previous MPh". Which would still be necessary if you simply AM out of a building.

Anyway, I'm digressing, but only a little. I agree completely that game play styles have transformed the game and altered the original intent of the designers - it had to have. But how much is simply in the interpretation, and how much is remedied by actual rules changes to "keep up" with those changes in game play?

The answer, as you have all suggested, is of course community discussion, so this is definitely healthy.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

This is true as well.

Go out to your back yard and dig a hole 24" deep, 48" long and 24" wide.

Better yet come over to my yard and do it! :laugh:

 

[FJ_MD]

Maybe working on B2.4(relative to shellholes) and on B27.42 (relative to foxholes) U can give the right dimension to both of the two.

I still cant believe that shellholes may give better chances than foxholes relatively to the FFMO.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

Skulking has been around since the beginning of SL.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Skulking has been around since the beginning of SL.

Has it always been viewed with the same level of tolerance and acceptance? Is it something you practice/have always practiced? Have you known anyone not to practice it on principle?

Or is it simply a non-issue, and I'm simply not getting it?

 

[2 Bit Bill]

I don't believe the myth that original designers had omniscient perception of all the implications of the set of rules they created.
They did their best, but I don't think they were able do guess all the interactions of the rules.

From my point of view, you could not be more correct.
Have a rep! I'm feelin' generous

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I still cant believe that shellholes may give better chances than foxholes relatively to the FFMO.

It could be that the shellholes are considered to be all over the 40m hex whereas the foxhole represents only a couple of dug holes and you would have to move more in Open Ground inside the hex to get there.
But that is of course only a reality consideration.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

Has it always been viewed with the same level of tolerance and acceptance? Is it something you practice/have always practiced? Have you known anyone not to practice it on principle?

Or is it simply a non-issue, and I'm simply not getting it?

No. It seems people are less tolerant nowadays(nothing on you, Bro).

I haven't played for 12 years and it was only recently did I find out about skulking(terminology and apparent sleaze).

Maneuver to minimize!