Designers: Is the bypass sleaze freeze essential to your designs?

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
660
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
All,
If heard a lot of people who don't like this aspect of ASL, I've always argued that changing it would mess up a lot of scenarios. So I'm asking you guys. Are your scenarios designed so the attacker needs to do this in order to win many of them? I'm guessing yes for SP for sure.
 

chris_olden

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
5,207
Reaction score
562
Location
Room 429
Country
llUnited States
It's part of playing the game.
So, I guess it's part of scenario designing.
To mitigate it one could always require a pre-BPSF TC SSR.
Especially from '44 on when Psk/BAz/PF became more commonplace.
:smoke:
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
937
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Only if the number of AFV's, especially disposable ones, gets past 4 or 5, or the VC reward VBM...then the risk v reward of VBM becomes too attractive.
 

wrongway149

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
8,889
Reaction score
939
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Only if the number of AFV's, especially disposable ones, gets past 4 or 5, or the VC reward VBM...then the risk v reward of VBM becomes too attractive.
One of the reasons for a CVP cap, or that extra DC in the OB.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
937
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
CVP caps might make players think twice about VBM.
That is a solution widely used, however, you must be extremely careful when adding CVP caps. Too high and it's no deterrent at all, too low and it makes winning the scenario a steep uphill battle.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,702
Reaction score
537
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
All,
If heard a lot of people who don't like this aspect of ASL, I've always argued that changing it would mess up a lot of scenarios. So I'm asking you guys. Are your scenarios designed so the attacker needs to do this in order to win many of them? I'm guessing yes for SP for sure.
I've used it and I've had it used against me. Frankly, I think it's effects are way over estimated...it verges on the old battle field effect that every US soldier thought anything with tracks and a gun was a Tiger.

You just got to know how it works and what the limitations are. For example, every vehicle has to expend all it's MP's. If your opponents declares an entry for a certain amount less than all, force him to keep moving until he spends it all. Demand he prove that there is space enough on the hexside for VBM. Use upper level terrain to avoid the freeze. There are other points...bottom line, you just got to keep the possibility in mind.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,745
Reaction score
1,109
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I agree with CVP cap, also to avoid unrealistic suicide last-turn rushes of non-soviet Allied troops in the ETO.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
660
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Don't misunderstand me, I don't have a problem with this tactic at all. I use it and expect my opponents to use it. It seems like years ago, this wasn't such a widely used tactic, as many people didn't know about it. It also seems to me that older scenario designs are much longer, so I'm wondering if this tactic has had a huge effect on scenario design. For example, I'm wondering if the go, go, go style of SP design makes this tactic essential for winning as the attacker.
 

Gunner Scott

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,046
Reaction score
1,676
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Hi-

I use VBM sleaze some times, but most of the time, I prefer not to. An AFV in motion in bypass with a squad can still get wacked on a 4 or less (Bypass +1, motion -2, net 4 CCV to immob or 3 or less to kill) Low odds ya, but I prefer not to leave my luck to the dice if theres another way.


Scott
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,705
Reaction score
1,168
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
All,
If heard a lot of people who don't like this aspect of ASL, I've always argued that changing it would mess up a lot of scenarios. So I'm asking you guys. Are your scenarios designed so the attacker needs to do this in order to win many of them? I'm guessing yes for SP for sure.
Any designer wants to get his scenarios well-playtested. Any well-playtested scenario is going to have players using bypass sleaze--because it is a common tactic. Any player who doesn't like bypass sleaze should either play another game or simply admit that his scenarios are likely to play differently.
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,705
Reaction score
1,168
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
One of the reasons for a CVP cap, or that extra DC in the OB.
Unless facing off against latewar Germans, AFVs can bypass sleaze pretty easily in most circumstances, with little risk. First, a squad must pass a PTC for reaction fire, which will fail about 40% of the time for average morale squad. Even if it succeeds, CCV is 5, raised to 6, lowered to 4 for motion--a very poor shot. When the PTC passing chances are multipled by the AFV vehicular kill chances to get the true risk, it turns out to be very small indeed.

Obviously things may be different if there is a leader or hero, or a fanatic unit, or molotovs, or THH, but a basic bypass sleaze is pretty safe.
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
705
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
It's a tactic like any other.

However a good designer won't set up the situation where VBM absolutely MUST be extensively used in order to win. I've played scenarios like that and they suck. I don't want to be forced to use VBM. I want to be able to choose it as one option out of many.

I don't know of any designers who are unaware of the VBM tactic to the point where using it in their scenario makes it unbalanced. Playtesting sorts that out.

But I do know designers who make it the centerpiece of the scenario. Getting a just few squads and a whole bunch of little tanks to capture an infantry infested urban area makes for a stupid, boring scenario in my opinion.
 

Evan Sherry

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
442
Location
Tampa, FL
Country
llUnited States
All,
If heard a lot of people who don't like this aspect of ASL, I've always argued that changing it would mess up a lot of scenarios. So I'm asking you guys. Are your scenarios designed so the attacker needs to do this in order to win many of them? I'm guessing yes for SP for sure.
Your guess is incorrect. Experienced players, using good tactics, can anticipate and effectively reduce the effects that Target Selection Limits has upon their defensive positions. I cannot think of one SP scenario that depends exclusively upon the attacker using this particular tactic.
 
Last edited:

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,702
Reaction score
537
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Unless facing off against latewar Germans, AFVs can bypass sleaze pretty easily in most circumstances, with little risk. First, a squad must pass a PTC for reaction fire, which will fail about 40% of the time for average morale squad. Even if it succeeds, CCV is 5, raised to 6, lowered to 4 for motion--a very poor shot. When the PTC passing chances are multipled by the AFV vehicular kill chances to get the true risk, it turns out to be very small indeed.

Obviously things may be different if there is a leader or hero, or a fanatic unit, or molotovs, or THH, but a basic bypass sleaze is pretty safe.
If one's plan is the unimaginative tactic of waiting till one has an AFV in one's location before even considering the possibility...then yeah, you are probably correct.

One tactic I like to use is spraying fire on that incoming AFV to lay down residual in the two forward adjacent hexes. That means any follow-up infantry are going to take some resid if they want to get adjacent.
 

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
660
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
Your guess is incorrect. Experienced players, using good tactics, can anticipate and effectively reduce the effects that Target Selection Limits has upon their defensive positions. I cannot think of one SP scenario that depends exclusively upon the attacker using this particular tactic.
I didn't mean to imply exclusively, nor am I slamming SP (I have been buying them since the first issue came out.) but I know in scenarios where I have to move fast as the attacker, and I have AFV's available, this tactic or the threat of this tactic has enabled me to get there. Don't you think that the widespread use of this tactic has changed the game some over the years?
 
Last edited:

AZslim

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
660
Location
Joe's garage
Country
llUnited States
If one's plan is the unimaginative tactic of waiting till one has an AFV in one's location before even considering the possibility...then yeah, you are probably correct.

One tactic I like to use is spraying fire on that incoming AFV to lay down residual in the two forward adjacent hexes. That means any follow-up infantry are going to take some resid if they want to get adjacent.
The errata about halving spraying fire into an empty hex lessens this somewhat, A cower with a 4 or 5 FP unit doesn't leave residual in the empty hex, but this is a good one.
 

Jacometti

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,602
Reaction score
1,288
Location
Halifax, NS
Country
llCanada
Bypass sleeze as a regular tactic is the one thing I totally dislike about "A Polish Requiem", which is otherwise a great scenario.

Once a B11 German AFV malfunctions its MA, it no longer counts for the VC. So therefore, it will obviously go around freezing any Polish squad in sight (so his infantry can move unmolested).

I don't like VBM sleeze myself and I hardly ever use it - probably used it once in my last 50 games. I know opponents like to use it and I play tight against it - as indicated by Tater. If you know all the rules perfectly, you have more options than if you simply sit silent when your opponent picks up a tank and says "Now this KV is going to Freeze this squad of yours (pointing at a unit 8 hexes away)?"

I think the key thing for designers is not to include many "worthless" AFV in a scenario, without giving the defender something to fight them with. That is the problem in Polish Requiem.

One particularly excellent way to reduce the sleeze factor is to allocate a few Optional PF to late-war Germans. The best example from our side is "Bite of the Bassotto", where the Fallschirmjaeger have few troops at start, but may freely deploy and have 2 optional PF. The New Zealand AFV are Staghounds (large targets), which means that if you would cruise the big armored car into bypass of a 2-3-8, he might just have a pre-recorded PF ready for you. And hits you on a 9 in motion (7 avoiding backblast in building).

That is a pretty solid deterrent, I would think.
 
Top