Let me ask you...with all the number cruncher types we have around the ASL kingdom and as long as the IIFT has been around...why is it no one has ever come up with a solid statistical analysis to back up all these accusations about the IIFT favoring certain nationalities/FP's? I would have thought at least one of these ift fans would have put something together by now. But, they haven't...the reason they haven't is because it's just not there.
Okay, let me settle this once and for all...
One cannot make absolute declarations about a fire table without having a context to talk about it. In philosophical terms, that's called abstraction and that will not work here. One cannot make a sweeping statement about feet unless one knows what animal the foot is attached to. For this discussion, the fire table is the foot and the animal is a scenario in question. (You are the "Big Toe", but that is another matter. If you didn't see the movie, you won't get the joke...)
Anyway, no one will ever come up with a proof about a fire tables effect across the board because it is practically impossible. This cuts both ways as it means that no one will ever prove the IIFT doesn't affect scenarios across the board. Most people will just keep it as an emotional argument.
Therefore, the only way you can practically talk about a fire table's effect is by analyzing it in the context of a scenario (or maybe group of scenarios, but I doubt that'll work). What one needs to do is to record all of the shots taken in a scenario using the IFT and what those same shots would be using the IIFT. One can then analyze the number of extra breaks/pins/concealment stripping/snipers the IIFT would give for each side. Then if one side gets a significant boost in performance relative to the other side, then one may be able to prove that the IIFT affects the balance of that particular scenario.
My intuition, which I'm sure many of you don't care about, is that if you had a lot of 3.5fp shots versus units in +1 terrain or better and/or versus concealed units, then that side would get a significant boost from the IIFT.
Now, even using the above methodology isn't necessarily fair because one might play the scenario differently if one was using the IIFT versus the IFT. For example, two 7-4-7's FG versus a concealed 4-6-7 in a wooden building.
Your IFT choice:
Two 2FP with a 20% chance to pin or break. 25% to strip concealment.
One 6FP with a 23% chance to pin or break. 39% to strip concealment.
Your IIFT choice:
Two 3.5FP with a 33% chance to pin or break. 43% to strip concealment.
One 7FP with a 24% chance to pin or break. 39% to strip concealment.
This example illustrates two points. First, it is better to take one shot using the IFT and two shots using the IIFT. Therefore, the firetable affects how one should play assuming one is rational. Second, if one side is getting many of these choices during a game, it could have a significant affect on balance as your chance of pinning or breaking the 467 went from 23% to 33%. That's a 43% improvement per shot. The chance to strip concealment goes up as well, but that is a smaller effect. If both sides are getting similar benefits, then the effects may wash, but not necessarily so. For example, if an attacker has a 2 to advantage in forces, then may be able to withstand the additional results easier than the defender. Theoretically, a bloodier table could benefit one side over another.
Let me state that I believe most scenarios will not be materially affected by the IIFT. I suspect that there are some scenarios (probably American paratrooper scenarios with MMGs) that may be materially affected. I don't have the motivation to try and prove that as I never have to play with the IIFT so I avoid the "problem" altogether.
I will respond to honest attempts at a rational discussion here. I will not respond to obvious trolling or emotional arguments. I save those calories for my wife... :bite:
Steve
