Red Factories miscellaneous stuff

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
11,940
Reaction score
912
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
I'd rather drop and anvil on my foot than play a 30 date CG. :p OK that was hyperbole. But still, I am OK with no mammoth (date wise) CG game. From what I hear (my RO has been "packing" for a week so I do not have it yet) the four mapper is impressive. But would require a complete re-do of the gaming room to fit the 8' (or whatever it is) map.

Peace

Roger
Should one have a craving for a mammoth RO CG you could always tie CGI with the Operation Hubertus RO CG with some additional RG for both sides and extra CG dates. It would not be official but it could be simply done. Then you double up the OOB of course.
 

Den589

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
87
Reaction score
28
Location
Waterford, MI
Country
llUnited States
No - you can enter the rooftop Location in V14 and W15 from upstairs in V13 and W14 - see last sentence of rule B23.8.


Yes, though the LOS from Level 2 in V13 to W20 is blocked, since the LOS goes through W18 - at range 5 creating a second Blind Hex.

Ok, thanks. Those hexes can be very useful to the German as he attempts to take Hall 4 the "Martin Ovens." I'd love to hold Hall 4 as long as possible for the "extra" sniper attacks.
 

Gwinnell

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
169
Location
Darlo
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Not really. It's one man's way of doing things.
I have no problem with that, it is the statement that using the IIFT somehow makes you a lesser player (I make no claims to be anything but a below average player) that I think is bollocks.
Using the IIFT is optional but not because you are lazy or stupid and that is what he seemed to be saying.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
900
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I have no problem with that, it is the statement that using the IIFT somehow makes you a lesser player (I make no claims to be anything but a below average player) that I think is bollocks.
Using the IIFT is optional but not because you are lazy or stupid and that is what he seemed to be saying.
Most (note: qualifier) folks that use the IIFT don’t care about the math. In many (qualifier) cases this can be directly related to laziness.
In (some) other cases, it is due to inability to grasp that there is a difference and one that can affect performance in the game.

In other cases it’s due to the “don’t care, I just like it”. IMHO, this is the only excuse for such sloppiness. YMMV.

In 100 years nobody will give a damn what chart was used.
 

olli

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
7,154
Reaction score
692
Location
Scotland
Country
llGermany
Should one have a craving for a mammoth RO CG you could always tie CGI with the Operation Hubertus RO CG with some additional RG for both sides and extra CG dates. It would not be official but it could be simply done. Then you double up the OOB of course.
There is a combined CG to play on both maps and also a Scenario also using the scenario from RB and Ro combined already
 

Gwinnell

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
169
Location
Darlo
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Most (note: qualifier) folks that use the IIFT don’t care about the math. In many (qualifier) cases this can be directly related to laziness.
In (some) other cases, it is due to inability to grasp that there is a difference and one that can affect performance in the game.

In other cases it’s due to the “don’t care, I just like it”. IMHO, this is the only excuse for such sloppiness. YMMV.

In 100 years nobody will give a damn what chart was used.
I fall into the last category as does my playing buddy.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
11,940
Reaction score
912
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
There is a combined CG to play on both maps and also a Scenario also using the scenario from RB and Ro combined already
What I meant was only using the RO map and CGs. You combine the two RO CGs into one long mammoth CG by adding dates between them and extra RG. If I have done my math correctly you would end up with a CG that is 25 scenarios long. Starting with the double scenarios on the 23rd and extending until the end of Hubertus (15th November I think).
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,681
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Most (note: qualifier) folks that use the IIFT don’t care about the math. In many (qualifier) cases this can be directly related to laziness.
In (some) other cases, it is due to inability to grasp that there is a difference and one that can affect performance in the game.

In other cases it’s due to the “don’t care, I just like it”. IMHO, this is the only excuse for such sloppiness. YMMV.

In 100 years nobody will give a damn what chart was used.
I am interested enough in the math to have read the (endless) debate about IFT vs. IIFT several times over.
As the IIFT and IFT are not identical, I wonder how anyone could believe that using one or the other could not affect the performance in the game. This is a no-brainer.

Even if the IFT with all its consequences is considered a design decision, I find it a hardly convincing one. That is, why I prefer the IIFT.

You can build your optimized FP stacks around any set of rules, be it the 548+LMG or the dreaded 15FP column on the IIFT to name but one example for IFT/IIFT applications. It is just a matter of habit or practice.

For most scenarios, I consider the potential impact of the difference between the two tables minor. Just one of the factors that we accept without even losing a word about it: There is no real 'established' balance for scenarios. We play them. The Sniper attack. We resolve it. The skill level of you opponent. We don't send him off if it does not match. The occasion, in which you roll your boxcars. We just apply the result. The list goes on.

Remarkably, it is only some of these factors, that people get heated about. IFT vs. IIFT (again). Or - really absurdly for their minimal impact - precision dice. Some others could be added.

So calling a particular reason to use the IIFT an 'acceptable excuse' or its application altogether 'sloppiness' is bollocks.

Such tags are merely a rationalizations for one's personal preferences. The same guys that are all anal about the 'design decision' and the 'math' of the IFT are still mostly (qualifier) fond of and users of the Pleva OBA rule. Is, for some reason, the original design of the OBA rule of lesser consequence, despite the Pleva rule being not even considered 'optional' in the ASLRB?

The point is, they prefer it. That's why they use it. That's all there is to it.

Some need to rationalize their preference, some need to convince themselves that their 'official optional rule' or ' house rule' is superior and thus the other view inferior. Most (qualifier) accept Perry Sez as ultimate judgements, less (qualifier) only those that are printed in a Journal or published on the MMP website.

What it boils down to:
This whole thing is not really about 'right or wrong', 'superior or inferior'. It is about your attitude towards the game and your personal preferences. I believe one should simply accept that preferences are not 'better' or 'worse'. They are different.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Philippe D.

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
482
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Thanks vonM. Couldn't have said it better.

There is at least one objective argument in favor of the IFT, in addition to its anteriority (and I say this as an adopter of the IIFT): it's much easier to have the IFT memorized - or at least the columns that you use 95% of the time, say columns up to 16FP. This will speed up play.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
7,947
Reaction score
2,718
Location
Dublin
Country
llIreland
First we must remember that any fire result table is totally the outpouring of John Hill's mind. It is not based upon any scientific study of weapons and casualty results from battle. It was JH's impressions of combat, nothing more. Having said that, it mustn't be too bad giving the continued success of the game.

I have a moderately strong preference for the IIFT. A little bit of that is laziness but it's mainly I can't see weapons being left out in battle. "Dimitri and Ivan's squads will fire at the Fascists, but Pavlov ... here's some tobacco and a page from Pravda, have a smoke, your DP-28 will not make a difference!". Telling Pavlov to hold fire as there are more Fascists off to the left and they might try to flank is one thing, but holding off on the only Fascist squad because Red Army Regulations 1941 page 7 paragraph 3 says it's a waste of ammo sticks in my craw. It partly breaks my illusion of combat.
 
Top