IFT is an odds chart?

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Ok, this post got lost in the melee at the end of the other thread, but I'm still curious how people see this interpretation of the IFT:

Something hit me the other day looking at the charts. I want to put forth the idea that the IFT is really just an odds column written against the base 4FP "standard squad". The topmost result for that column is the pinnacle of the 2d6 pyramid at DR=7.

If you look at it that way, things start to make a little bit more sense. The one and two columns are for instances where a standard squad has area fire penalties, allowing for two such instances while still resolving something. After that, you're looking at multiples of 4 up to the 24 column, with a single instance of "half a standard squad" having columns in between the multiples of 4 (i.e. the 6 column). Or perhaps the 6 column was included with the 6FP US 1st line squads in mind.

Once you get to six squads (half a company!), another single squad won't make an appreciable difference. But other than that wild ass guess, I really can't say why the 30 and 36 columns aren't the 28, 32 and 36 columns instead.

I can understand stopping at 36FP. At that point, no matter how bad the +DRM are, you will always get a result.

Food for thought, don't look at it as a "base 1 FP" chart, look at it as a "base 4 FP" chart.
If the game mechanics were written that all units had a "defense rating" of 4, then a base 4 FP squad vs a 4 defense squad would be a 1:1 ratio. Since each defending unit gets it's own "save" DR to shrug off the effect (EXC: the low results K/# and #KIA), perhaps it's not so odd to look at each unit having a "defense" of 4.

Ok, so the premise is that the 4 column equates to the 1:1 column in other games that use ratios for their combat results table.

At zero DRM, the effectiveness drops off quickly at 2:1 (2 FP), which loses 6 chances in 36 compared to the 1:1 (4 FP) column. Going from 21:36 to 15:36 is a loss of about 28% of it's effectiveness. And then a bit more at 4:1, the 1 FP column, losing an additional 5 chances in 36. Going from 15:36 to 10:36 is losing a third of it's effectiveness over the 2 FP column. In total, 1 FP is about half as effective as 4 FP.

Working your way up, the 6 column (or 3:2) is significantly better, gaining 5:35 chances for an effect (21:36 -> 26:36). That's about a 23% improvement for having an extra half-squad worth of FP. Fairly close to the opposite of the 28% loss for half of the squads firepower. (An attribute of the 2d6 "pyramid", with a base squad FP of 4 "centered" on DR=7).

The 2:1 (8 FP) gains another 4 chances bringing the total up to 30:36, about a 42% improvement for double the firepower. Again, because of the 2d6 pyramid, this resembles the 1/4 FP loss ~ 2x FP's gain.

After that, the return on investment of an additional squads worth of FP is not so great, diminishing returns are in effect up to the 20 chart (5:1 odds), where any fire (still talking about 0 DRM) will result in at least a PTC. The next additional squads worth (now 6:1 odds) gets "all MC", which is clearly better than a plain old PTC at the top. Just looking at the MC end of things, forcing the possibility of ELR and broken units rather than NE or PTC (pass or fail) results is a "good thing".

After that point, you need to add a squad and a half of FP for some reason to get the next level of effect (the 30 and 36 columns, or 7.5:1 and 9:1 odds.) I still haven't come up with a good reason why its not the 28-36-36 columns at the end of the chart...
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
good points, Peter.

the upper end of the IFT is what is, at base, what keeps me from embracing the iIFT--there is something about the philosophy of the creation of the IFT which leads me to believe it's not about 'bullet counting' it's about something else, something you're touching on. This philosophy is quite plain in the CCT--where a 5-4-8 is much better at surviving that a 4-6-7; better by far than the 1-fp would lead us to believe when counting bullets.

While what you've posted has been at the back of my mind when thinking about ASL fire-table design, I've never seen it written up quite like this before. Don't think it'll change anyone's mind, but good ideas!
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I would see a shade of difference between the IFT and an odds chart.
The number of targets can vary, but you keep the same attack column.
I haven't made the maths, but I believe that the results of an attack vs 6 HS gives different results than vs 3 squads, for an example.

I find this reflection interesting, but I would hestitate to put too much into the original designer's minds (people tend to consider them as unfaillible geniuses who guessed all the developements and discoveries that players would make about the game, a quarter of a century after the game was designed)...
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
good points, Peter.

the upper end of the IFT is what is, at base, what keeps me from embracing the iIFT--there is something about the philosophy of the creation of the IFT which leads me to believe it's not about 'bullet counting' it's about something else, something you're touching on. This philosophy is quite plain in the CCT--where a 5-4-8 is much better at surviving that a 4-6-7; better by far than the 1-fp would lead us to believe when counting bullets.

While what you've posted has been at the back of my mind when thinking about ASL fire-table design, I've never seen it written up quite like this before. Don't think it'll change anyone's mind, but good ideas!
I don't want to change anyone's mind about the IIFT with this thread, just talk about the foundation of the IFT, and it's possible "methodology" as it's analyzed. It might change some opinions on the IFT, but that's not the goal.

I would see a shade of difference between the IFT and an odds chart.
The number of targets can vary, but you keep the same attack column.
I haven't made the maths, but I believe that the results of an attack vs 6 HS gives different results than vs 3 squads, for an example.

I find this reflection interesting, but I would hesitate to put too much into the original designer's minds (people tend to consider them as infallible geniuses who guessed all the developments and discoveries that players would make about the game, a quarter of a century after the game was designed)...
But each target unit has it's own subset of resolution parameters, some of which are dependent on another unit passing or failing it's own check before another unit even tries. Depending on the result (box MC for the leader and a failed wound roll) you could even end up with two #MC rolls for each other unit in the target location.

Effective ML can and does change during the game, either with ELR/BH/Fanatic or with the inspiration of a -DRM leader. That whole end of the MC/PTC pass/fail game mechanic is a step removed from the "severity of the fire". Everyone (all units with ML) is basically the same to the "odds chart" when comparing FP to the target. Once the severity of the firepower is determined, the flexibility of the system comes out in that the 10-3 will motivate even low quality troops to stand fast in the face of danger. When he takes and passes a 3MC, it's effectively reduced to a NMC for the rest of the troops in his location.

Other game systems don't usually have this sort of granularity, with dependencies on the leaders themselves. Any company/battalion/larger-formation type wargame usually just has attrition levels or outright destruction. Most other tactical systems seem to have a ML for the unit as a whole, without the dependent leaders. (I've got limited exposure to squad level games.)

I don't need to get confirmation of the designers intent, but this does look like a reasonable solution as to "how was the IFT designed to function?" question. I think it was based on one squads 4 FP as the standard building block. That squad exerts these chances on however many targets are in the location they are shooting at. One squad can fire at one hex without any penalties. When they do, the targets have to survive based on the "effectiveness" of the fire exerted, but based on their own morale levels at the time.
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
674
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
Food for thought, don't look at it as a "base 1 FP" chart, look at it as a "base 4 FP" chart.
I thought I asked the question in the other thread if the whole game was based around the base 4fp squad and why. I think it got lost in the wholmess.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
I thought I asked the question in the other thread if the whole game was based around the base 4fp squad and why. I think it got lost in the whole mess.
Lots of reasonable posts got lost towards the end of that other thread. Perhaps that's where I got the idea from. Read it one day, and the pattern comes clear some time after that (EXC: the 30 and 36 charts not being the 28-32-36 charts... I still don't have a good reason.)
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
I thought I asked the question in the other thread if the whole game was based around the base 4fp squad and why. I think it got lost in the wholmess.
I think if you look at the John Hill interview Pitman did in Schwerpunk, you will see John had a bunch of 4 counters or something like that.
 
Top