Change the foxhole rule? (B27.4)

[Jim McLeod]

I'm sensing there is some reaction to the fact that broken troops can rout out of foxholes without being subjected to defensive fire (which is a factor of the phased game system itself).

Ok, that's a bit of design inelegance, but what does one have to do with the other? Troops leaving cover are ... no longer in cover!

Not to mention that once you're in an entrenchment, you're in a fixed position. To get out of it, there's only one way out. And if the enemy has your positions in his sights - well, I guess that is naturally called a "death trap." It seems perfectly reasonable to me, to be honest.

Fair enough Michael, I buy into the FH as being a 'stand or die' position.

What I do not buy into is that brokies get a free ride from the FH. IMO, they should be subject to Interdiction if they are routing into and out of a FH.

And they should pay normal movement costs in moving through the FH. I may be mistaken here but as it stands, don't brokies expend 2 MF going into a same level OG hex containing a FH from an ADJ same level OG hex containging a FH? GO guys would have to expend 3 MF doing the same thing.

Doesn't seem right.

JMO.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Fair enough Michael, I buy into the FH as being a 'stand or die' position.

What I do not buy into is that brokies get a free ride from the FH. IMO, they should be subject to Interdiction if they are routing into and out of a FH.

And they should pay normal movement costs in moving through the FH. I may be mistaken here but as it stands, don't brokies expend 2 MF going into a same level OG hex containing a FH from an ADJ same level OG hex containging a FH? GO guys would have to expend 3 MF doing the same thing.

Doesn't seem right.

JMO.

IANARL (I am not a rules lawyer) but off the top of my head, a common sense fix to what you are saying, if true, might be to make interdiction applicable if expending 2MF and not applicable if expending 3? And give the routing unit the option of which to expend?

I take it a routing unit does not have to end its rout inside of a foxhole then?

Shouldn't it?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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!

Understood completely, nothing against you either! I never saw it discussed in The General, for example. It is interesting to hear that a well-respected game tactic has evolved to be viewed as "sleaze" over time. Would be fascinating to go back in time and see what the original-original playtesters thought about it - if anything. Thanks for your insights, as always.

 

[Jim McLeod]

IANARL (I am not a rules lawyer) but off the top of my head, a common sense fix to what you are saying, if true, might be to make interdiction applicable if expending 2MF and not applicable if expending 3? And give the routing unit the option of which to expend?

The best and easiest fix for the "why do brokies receive more protection from FH than do GO units?" situation is to make broken units expend MF in the same manner as GO units do when entering/exiting a FH.

I take it a routing unit does not have to end its rout inside of a foxhole then?

Shouldn't it?

Don't get me started on the routing rules ... :nuts:

No there is a rule section I would like to refurbish. :devious:

 

[Treadhead]

... don't brokies expend 2 MF going into a same level OG hex containing a FH from an ADJ same level OG hex containging a FH?

No.

B27.41: "A unit expending one MF to leave a foxhole in Open Ground is subject to Interdiction in that hex only if the MF is expended without being combined with the MF cost of another hex being entered."

 

[Robin Reeve]

And they should pay normal movement costs in moving through the FH. I may be mistaken here but as it stands, don't brokies expend 2 MF going into a same level OG hex containing a FH from an ADJ same level OG hex containging a FH? GO guys would have to expend 3 MF doing the same thing.

Routing units spend 3MF, see B27.41 example : "However, if it followed the blue rout and expended three MF in D7 (one to enter D7, one more to move beneath the foxhole, and one to exit the foxhole) and two MF to enter D8 (one MF to enter the hex and one MF to move beneath the foxhole), it could not be Interdicted - though it could not reach the woods during that RtPh."

 

[Tater]

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

That's a strange thing for a "military" guy to say! If not for people figuring things out we would still be fighting war with sharpened sticks and clubs. :nuts:

 

[Tater]

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.

Your opinion is overly complex. You are trying to FIND problems where they don't exist because you don't like the idea.

 

[James Taylor]

:clown: LOL :clown:

McCleod wants to make FH even worse than they already are!

IANARL... er... I mean Dorosh... wants to make every terrain as bad as FH!

Damn this game is broken! :clown:

JT

 

[Tater]

Has it always been viewed with the same level of tolerance and acceptance?

Yep...

Is it something you practice/have always practiced?

Yep...

Have you known anyone not to practice it on principle?

Yep...similar attitude as Pitman's about black SS counters (i.e., emotional and unreasoning).

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

Sounds about right...

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

The fact is that, when you are stuck in a foxhole in OG, you risk FFMO and/or Interdiction when trying to move from it.

usage, my friend...usage. placement of a fh is just as important considering how/when you'll leave as any other. voluntary break (and its' "benefits") always remains an option.


forgive my terse messages of late, i'm restricted to one hand typing...under percoset, no less.

 

[Jim McLeod]

If not for people figuring things out we would still be fighting war with sharpened sticks and clubs. :nuts:

Now that might not be such a bad thing.

I will assume one's lust for war diminishes in relation to one's physical proximity to one's enemy.

 

[richfam]

I never saw it discussed in The General, for example. It is interesting to hear that a well-respected game tactic has evolved to be viewed as "sleaze" over time. Would be fascinating to go back in time and see what the original-original playtesters thought about it - if anything.

The earliest published mention of skulking that I know of appeared in The General Vol 27, No 3:

Pulling Old Chestnuts from the Fire, Part II
by Jim Stahler

The Russian infantry must fire at the Germans when given the
opportunity, but should forego Prep Fire if they can assault move
to hide from the defensive fire (and then advance back into their
previous positions).

An earlier article in Vol 17, No 6, Squad Leader Clinic: The Advance Phase by Bruce J. Degi, does not mention skulking at all (one would think that a in-depth discussion of the Advance Phase would include at least a mention of the skulking tactic).

I'm not sure if the actual term "skulking" ever appeared in a General article.

 

[Dave Olie]

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?

Speaking for myself, I figured out skulking playing "The Tractor Works" in SL. In other words, my second scenario, back in 1978. Actually, it might have been my buddy Chris who figured it out. Given that I can't remember for certain, he should probably get the credit.

In any case, yes, I've always practiced it. I've only ever run into one (PBeM) opponent who had an issue with it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The earliest published mention of skulking that I know of appeared in The General Vol 27, No 3:



An earlier article in Vol 17, No 6, Squad Leader Clinic: The Advance Phase by Bruce J. Degi, does not mention skulking at all (one would think that a in-depth discussion of the Advance Phase would include at least a mention of the skulking tactic).

I'm not sure if the actual term "skulking" ever appeared in a General article.

Driving home from work today, I was wondering if the Streets of Fire replay in the General would have had any examples of skulking...Haven't had a chance to look them up yet, but this is extremely good detective work - much appreciated, thanks. Rep given.

 

[Jazz]

forgive my terse messages of late, i'm restricted to one hand typing...under percoset, no less.

I noticed the deviation from your usually impecable punctuation and capitalization.

You gonna be using all of those?

 

[L'Emperor]

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.

Yes you can. Just state it is an official variant and can only be in play if specified as an SSR. No problem with old scenarios, nice for new ones.

I agree that FH really do suck as is. Would add they are OK for defending the edge of a woods.

 

[Treadhead]

[quote='Ol Fezziwig]... i'm restricted to one hand typing... [/quote]

Wow. Gotta be careful, I thought that only made one blind...

 

[Blackcloud6]

I voted keeping the rules as written.

I was going to say change 'em with "assualt mvt" but thought about it and decide not too.

First off, routing and normal movment are too different things so it really does not matter if the rules for getting out of the FH for a route is the same as movement, certainly not worth changin a n existing rule because it simply does not matter.

Allowing an assualt movement to use the TEM would make "skluking" even wieder, I get an image og uys slithering out of foxholes to avoid firing and slithering back in in the AdPh. Seems odd, eh?

Soemone mentioned it above. Foxholes need proper use, placement and fit into your battle plan. Maybe the ASL foxhole is the deliberate well thought out and properly dug kind (and they take a lot of time prepare, I've dug many) and not he hasty fiighting position that one would scrap out.

 

[Tater]

usage, my friend...usage. placement of a fh is just as important considering how/when you'll leave as any other. voluntary break (and its' "benefits") always remains an option.

Usage is important...the problem is that smart usage of foxholes involves NOT putting troops in them. For example, I more often than not set-up foxholes with dummies in them...as soon as the enemy has LOS I pop down the fxh...helps hold the mystery of the dummies a little longer.

Sorry but...I just don't think honest usage of fxh was so that your troops would have a good excuse to voluntarily break. :nuts: