IFT or IIFT: Which Do You Like?

[Portal]

Which infantry fire table do you find yourself preferring these days?

For myself, I've been a strict believer in the IFT, based upon ease of memorizing each of its columns and knowing the respective result right off the dice roll. However, I've tried the IIFT w/ CTC variant lately just to see what it's like and I find it more fun (gasp, a change of ways!). I also like the fact SWs are used more during Advancing Fire etc. as a result of the different fire chart.

BTW - This thread is not intended to debate which table is the appropriate ASL rule. For this discussion, we will assume both tables have a role to play in ASL as already outlined in the rules.

 

[SamB]

Which infantry fire table do you find yourself preferring these days?

What?? No poll? Who's going to track this?

I prefer the IFT. See no reason whatsoever to use the IIFT. What's more, there are design reasons to go with the IFT or a table even LESS incremental.

Before you ask, the US Army did a study after WWII and found that you had to double the fire power being directed at a target to increase your chance of doing harm / forcing them to take cover / etc. Of course, this study was based on observation, not math - so ... argue away.

 

[chris_olden]

hey,
I honestly don't give a sh*t.
co

 

[Glennbo]

Neither. I consult a stopwatch and record how many seconds it takes me to get hard "down there" while contemplating the attack to determine the outcome of that attack. Orgasm = KIA. Flacid = No Result.

 

[Roger R]

I just cannot understand why this question hasn't been asked before?

 

[cujo8-1]

I prefer the IFT, but insist on using the IIFT when I play bridge scenarios.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I played IIFT for about 15 years, then switched back to the IFT.
I am lazy, so I prefer to play with a table with most of the results memorized.
My only regret is the artificial choice not to use that LMG which does not move the FG up one non-incremental column.
But this only is a preference : I play the table my opponent wants to play.

 

[King Scott]

hey,
I honestly don't give a sh*t.
co

Word!

Semper Fi!
Scott

 

[Darrell Andersen]

"Word!"

Ditto to KS.

Portal, you are seriously trolling lately.

 

[Psycho]

hey,
I honestly don't give a sh*t.
co

Word!

Semper Fi!
Scott

"Word!"

Ditto to KS.

Portal, you are seriously trolling lately.

Triple word to yo mutha G! IMP:

Played both and just don't care either way. When you only got a dozen games under your belt it doesn't matter that much.

 

[swellington]

The IIFT is obviously less abstract and gamey so i use that one, but i can see design reasons to use either. But I dont give a crap i would play either!

 

[MrP]

hey,
I honestly don't give a sh*t.
co

Amen. Rep to you. And if this isn't trolling what is?

 

[trevpr1]

I just ignored the IIFT when it was published in the ’89 Annual, it belonged with mine dogs and pipers. I only became aware that people were actually using it once I got on T’internet via Consimworld in the mid nineties. What acrimony!

I then spent a little time thinking and reading, mulling things over. I decided I didn’t want it. The single greatest reason is that I do know the IFT in a rough fashion without looking. I can play a game of low FP shots without consulting the table unless there’s a KIA or similar. I know what a net five is on the 8FP without looking. I have no idea what a net five is on the 9FP column. I’d be looking things up all evening, what a bind. Also, I find the IIFT to be just a sea of figures. My older eyes struggle to read the columns, further causing delay.

Then there were the folks who were IIFT advocates. Particularly in the endless heated exchanges in the ASLML in the late nineties the IIFT advocates were the least likeable, trolling self important gits there. Enough to put me off.

But what finished all consideration of IIFT for me was a spectacular analysis by some guy whose name escapes me. He’d computer modelled the columns and produced a graphical presentation. Along the bottom of the graph the FP columns, including the IIFT, on the vertical axis the likelihood of an effect on a flat DR divided by the FP of the column. The graph would show those DR where the FP were being used to their greatest effect. Two plots were there, one IFT and one the IIFT. On the IFT the peaks appeared exactly where you’d expect, o the 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 and so on columns. However the peaks on the IIFT were about the same intensity, just moved one column to the left on thee IIFT. So now the 1½, 3½, 5, 7 , 11 and 15 and so on columns become the best bang-per-buck. I’m used to building (or trying to build) FG which hit or only just exceed the columns on the IFT for best effect. Knowing the secret of the IIFT as revealed by maths, it would become hard not to be trying to build FP to hit 5, 7, 11 and 15 during a game. Its also obvious that the US paratroopers were going to be massive gainers with 7 FP (and 11 if armed with an MMG, both one of these good columns.


then there was the need to create yet another version of the IIFT because the original wasn't any good. More variants are more strife.

And there’s always the fact that the default is the IFT.

So there it is.

Respect though to those who don't give a damn. Happier are you perhaps.

 

[Mister T]

Comfort, accuracy, fairness, the case for the iift is compelling

I could not switch back to the normal ift.

I find it strange that people playing a 200-page rulebook game suddenly feel unable to remember some additional columns :surprise:

 

[Portal]

I'm curious: how exactly is stating clearly up-front that this thread is not for debate of which chart is the "right" way to play the game, but to discuss your current preference only, an example of trolling?

I'm actually interested in hearing what people are finding they prefer these days for whatever reasons they care to share. I've discovered a recent preference change for myself, and I'm wondering if others are encountering anything similar. Looks like Blackcloud has been in a similar boat as me lately, for example.

 

[Toby G.]

Blackcloud is that some new brand of toilet paper?

 

[SamB]

The IIFT is obviously less abstract and gamey so i use that one, <snip>

It is not at all obvious.

 

[Chameleon]

The IIFT is for heretics, unbelievers, blasphemers, and newer players wanting to taunt long-time players about the one thing in the game they haven't memorized.

In all seriousness, I could give a rat's a**. Play whichever makes you feel all warm and gooey inside.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

... I also like the fact SWs are used more during Advancing Fire etc. as a result of the different fire chart...

sustained fire?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

...oh, yeah... there is only One True Moose, erm, One True Fire Table, all others are for lazy players...:bigfire:

...do they desire, oh say, More Control????:stirthepot: