National Distinctions

[Nineteen Kilo]

Additionally, the ability of Second-Line Finnish units to Self Rally would help the Latverian cause provided the Latverians fielded a Second-Line squad (e.g. a 4-4-7).

Or am I confusing them with the Wachovians?

Come on Chris, everybody knows the Latverian 2nd Line troops are 4-3-7. What a Noob.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

I thought for sure in this "New Age" of ASL where nobody ever Prep Fires, someone would make a case that the Belgian ability to Assault Fire is a very useful National Distinction.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

My first choice for single national distinction to lay over the Latverians would be self-rally. My second choice would be US +2 to broken morale. If I could have two national distinctions I would choose those to add to the Latverians.

So who would come out on top Latverian 4-5-7 [7] or Wachovian 4-5-7 (9)? While I myself would go for the self-rally, I'm sure a case could be made for the 9 broken morale not only coming back to GO quickly, but also the ability to pass morale checks while broken can't be overlooked. The Wachovians would be very hard to "finish off".

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Yeah, I never knew Mao created super soldiers. I wonder how the Vietnamese beat the pants off them

Which battle and in what era are you referring to?

 

[Bob Walters]

Which battle and in what era are you referring to?

The Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

The Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

That's probably 'cause the Vietnamese got good practise off the Americans.

I believe I was referring to the Red Chinese in the prevailing ASL system, 1945 or before. I am looking forward to the changes made in the Korean module.

 

[BattleSchool]

Admittedly that chart is a little hard for me to decipher, but I think it is applying to one single shot. However spread over an entire OB, over the course of of an entire scenario, I would think the effects of not-cowering would be more profound. Or am I wrong?

Kunfused Kev

Keep in mind that Medrow's analysis is predicated on a target having a ML of 7. The effects of Cowering are a bit like the effects of a SAN 3. The longer the scenario, the more likely one or the other will have a significant effect on the outcome of the game.

If I understand Medrow correctly, he is saying the probability that Cowering will increase the likelihood that a given shot will have no effect on the target is marginal when low-FP shots are ignored. For instance, when a 8 FP attack is reduced to 6 FP for Cowering, the probability of the target not breaking or pinning as a result of the attack is not as pronounced as one my expect it to be. EX: A FG containing two 4-5-7 rolls double fours on an IFT attack. Normally, this would result in a NMC. But because the attack is now resolved on the 6-FP column, it is only a PTC. Medrow's data suggests that despite the shift, the unit taking the PTC will only succeed

Having said that, were the Latverians (or the Wachovians) force composed largely of First Line 3-4-7 squads, Cowering would presumably have a greater impact on play because the bulk of FP attacks would be in the lower range, where the effects of Cowering on outcomes are pronounced.

Look at it another way. There is roughly a 3 percent probability that Italian MG will malfunction when fired, whether directed by leaders, or not. It stands to reason that this will reduce an Italian player's ability to break or pin enemy units during the course of a scenario. But by how much? By enough to keep you from firing them unless a target is moving in the open? Probably not, because you need to fire on a target in order to get a result, and even a lousy NMC can be a game changer.

As I stated earlier, unless laying a Firelane is critical to the success of your plan, the risk of Cowering should not, in and of itself, deter you from firing. There are many more important things to consider, e.g. enemy units still to move, etc.

 

[BattleSchool]

Come on Chris, everybody knows the Latverian 2nd Line troops are 4-3-7. What a Noob.

A 4-3-7 is usually Inexperienced (Green), or in the case of the Finns, a Conscript. Finnish Conscripts have no Self-Rally capability. What a dinosaur!

 

[Brian W]

I thought for sure in this "New Age" of ASL where nobody ever Prep Fires, someone would make a case that the Belgian ability to Assault Fire is a very useful National Distinction.

If we talk of strength factors, than I think the 3 smoke grenade exponent of the 1st line US is the winner. And I never prep fire infantry; waste of time.

 

[BattleSchool]

So who would come out on top Latverian 4-5-7 [7] or Wachovian 4-5-7 (9)? While I myself would go for the self-rally, I'm sure a case could be made for the 9 broken morale not only coming back to GO quickly, but also the ability to pass morale checks while broken can't be overlooked. The Wachovians would be very hard to "finish off".

My money would be on the never-to-Lattie-to-rally guys.

By the way, the US don't actually have a +2 broken ML bump. It's more specific than that. All First Line and Elite US squads have a broken ML of 8. The rest have a broken ML of 7, or worse.

So the Wachovians would actually have a broken ML of 8, not 9.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

There is roughly a 3 percent probability that Italian MG will malfunction when fired, whether directed by leaders, or not.

A B12 will B 1/36 per shot = 2.7777%
A B11 will B 1/12 per shot = 8.3333%

So roughly 3% and 8% respectively.

Sorry but the maths nerd in me just can't resist.

 

[BattleSchool]

A B12 will B 1/36 per shot = 2.7777%
A B11 will B 1/12 per shot = 8.3333%

So roughly 3% and 8% respectively.

Sorry but the maths nerd in me just can't resist.

On the contrary, glad you intervened. I was on my way out the door to get a ride in before it rained again, and was going to delete that paragraph, but left it in. However, I think it's 5.6%, not 8.3%.

In any case, you simply underlined my main point re Cowering. The probability that Cowering will effect the outcome of play is usually less than the probability that weapons with a B11 will effect the outcome of play when they malfunction.

 

[RandyT0001]

My money would be on the never-to-Lattie-to-rally guys.

By the way, the US don't actually have a +2 broken ML bump. It's more specific than that. All First Line and Elite US squads have a broken ML of 8. The rest have a broken ML of 7, or worse.

So the Wachovians would actually have a broken ML of 8, not 9.

Latverians first line troops are rated as 4-5-7. First line US troops are rated 6-6-6 with a broken ML of 8 (according to national capabilities chart). Rule A25.3 states that 1st line US have a +2 broken ML bump. It seems that the Latverians would have a broken side ML of 9.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

Latverians first line troops are rated as 4-5-7. First line US troops are rated 6-6-6 with a broken ML of 8 (according to national capabilities chart). Rule A25.3 states that 1st line US have a +2 broken ML bump. It seems that the Latverians would have a broken side ML of 9.

Thank you for quoting this as now I don't have to run and get my rule book. You are correct the +2 bump to American 1st Line Squads is specifically mentioned in the A25 National Distinctions section. The broken Latverian 1st line squad would be 9 morale.

 

[Bob Walters]

Thank you for quoting this as now I don't have to run and get my rule book. You are correct the +2 bump to American 1st Line Squads is specifically mentioned in the A25 National Distinctions section. The broken Latverian 1st line squad would be 9 morale.

And they would still need a leader to rally them.

 

[Bob Walters]

That's probably 'cause the Vietnamese got good practise off the Americans.

I believe I was referring to the Red Chinese in the prevailing ASL system, 1945 or before. I am looking forward to the changes made in the Korean module.

Recent experience probably helped but really it was more due to poor Chinese logistical support. As I understand it that is still the Achilles Heel of the PLA.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

Keep in mind that Medrow's analysis is predicated on a target having a ML of 7. The effects of Cowering are a bit like the effects of a SAN 3. The longer the scenario, the more likely one or the other will have a significant effect on the outcome of the game.

If I understand Medrow correctly, he is saying the probability that Cowering will increase the likelihood that a given shot will have no effect on the target is marginal when low-FP shots are ignored. For instance, when a 8 FP attack is reduced to 6 FP for Cowering, the probability of the target not breaking or pinning as a result of the attack is not as pronounced as one my expect it to be. EX: A FG containing two 4-5-7 rolls double fours on an IFT attack. Normally, this would result in a NMC. But because the attack is now resolved on the 6-FP column, it is only a PTC. Medrow's data suggests that despite the shift, the unit taking the PTC will only succeed

Having said that, were the Latverians (or the Wachovians) force composed largely of First Line 3-4-7 squads, Cowering would presumably have a greater impact on play because the bulk of FP attacks would be in the lower range, where the effects of Cowering on outcomes are pronounced.

Look at it another way. There is roughly a 3 percent probability that Italian MG will malfunction when fired, whether directed by leaders, or not. It stands to reason that this will reduce an Italian player's ability to break or pin enemy units during the course of a scenario. But by how much? By enough to keep you from firing them unless a target is moving in the open? Probably not, because you need to fire on a target in order to get a result, and even a lousy NMC can be a game changer.

As I stated earlier, unless laying a Firelane is critical to the success of your plan, the risk of Cowering should not, in and of itself, deter you from firing. There are many more important things to consider, e.g. enemy units still to move, etc.

Does his analysis include being marked with Final Fire Counter (and the attendant loss of a possible shot) if your boys cower during First Fire? This is the kind of thing that I refer to as "increased firepower" given to non-cowering troops. Probably I should refer to it as "firepower preservation" but that's not as sexy.

BTW for purposes of this discussion I include the Japanese Step Reduction of G1.11 as falling under the National Distinction of A25 for our discussion purposes. Anyone want to argue for giving the Latverians Step Reduction?

 

[Paul M. Weir]

However, I think it's 5.6%, not 8.3%.

A B12 breaks on a 12 (6,6) for a P of 1/36
A B11 breaks on a 12 (6,6) and on 2 x 11 (6,5 & 5,6) for a P of 3/36 = 1/12.

1/36 = 2.777%
2/36 = 5.555%
3/36 = 8.333%

What you might be confused with is the case of a B11 (6,5 & 5,6), X12 (6,6) weapon which will B on 5.555% and X on 2.777%.

I'm in agreement about the relative effects of B# vs cowering though.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

If we talk of strength factors, than I think the 3 smoke grenade exponent of the 1st line US is the winner. And I never prep fire infantry; waste of time.

While the 3 smoke exponent of the GI's is not a National Distinction under A25 per se White Phosphorous grenades are.

 

[RandyT0001]

We need to know the LG (leadership generation) factor for the Latverians and their enemy, the Wachovians. The British have 4-5-7 1st line troops with a 7 broken ML. If we use them as the pattern for both sides should we use the British LG to determine the ratio of leaders? Or do the Latverians with self rally use the same LG as the Finns and the Wachovians with the +2 broken ML use the US LG for determining leader ratios?