Red Factories miscellaneous stuff

[Aaron Cleavin]

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

The one thing you don't mention here is around scenario balance, if a scenario was playtested on the IFT there is at least some chance (Especially with 3 or 5 FP squads vs 4 or 6 FP ones that balance is materially
affected (>5%) when played using IIFT.

 

[Cult.44]

The Germans also tend to be aided by their 3, 5, 7 FP MGs.

 

[jrv]

The one thing you don't mention here is around scenario balance, if a scenario was playtested on the IFT there is at least some chance (Especially with 3 or 5 FP squads vs 4 or 6 FP ones that balance is materially
affected (>5%) when played using IIFT.

We playtest with the iift. Perhaps the material change will be when playing with the ift.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

The one thing you don't mention here is around scenario balance, if a scenario was playtested on the IFT there is at least some chance (Especially with 3 or 5 FP squads vs 4 or 6 FP ones that balance is materially
affected (>5%) when played using IIFT.

For most scenarios, I consider the potential impact of the difference between the two tables minor.

I think I had the situation that you point out covered: For most scenarios, I would consider the impact of the difference between the two tables minor. In particular cases such as those that you name, it might be more significant.

Cheers,
von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

We playtest with the iift. Perhaps the material change will be when playing with the ift.

JR

Same for me. I also playtest with the IIFT. Though I don't do much playtesting. But who knows - maybe just enough for some to find reason to burn some otherwise respected TPP-publications.

von Marwitz

 

[ColinJ]

IMHO, the IFT/IIFT is a head game and that is all.
I use the IFT, period. If my opponent wishes to use the IIFT that's fine with me, they can, but I still use the IFT for my side. I have the bulk of the IFT memorized and don't see myself memorizing the IIFT.

In the past playing this way, the only difference in the medium sized scenario was one IIFT/2MC (had I had added the LMG into the FG), which was an IFT/1MC. The MC result DR was a 9, so they broke anyway and wouldn't have ELR'd under either MC. In the end, through an entire scenario, there was no difference. Played half a dozen scenarios like this, with no substantive difference, pretty much the entire Operation Mercur CG.

Odd FP units etc. might be affected, but the difference would likely be negligible. If a game is won/lost on a slight difference in a couple of results due to the IIFT/IFT difference, I'd still call it a good, close game!

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

You are correct.
There is one scenario in "Red Factories" with NKVD squads.

RO3 Defenders of Stalingrad

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Odd FP units etc. might be affected, but the difference would likely be negligible.

The issue lies here, a bit. Odd FP units present a nuance in usage, strength and quality not only in combination with the IFT, but qualitatively within the construct of the game. Some are inferior, some are superior, especially with aggressive usage.
I wouldn't presume to lecture on the specifics, but most can figure these things out quite capably on their own. The iift can minimise these nuances, or erase them altogether.

 

[mi80j]

RO3 Defenders of Stalingrad

Sorry - I did not remember the name of the scenario, else I would have posted it (RMNAH - Relevant Module Not At Hand!).
Thanks!

 

[clubby]

Sorry - I did not remember the name of the scenario, else I would have posted it (RMNAH - Relevant Module Not At Hand!).
Thanks!

I played this one this weekend, or at least 2.5 turns of it. LOL I got absolutely diced. In 2.5 turns, my opponent rolled 3 snakes, 8 3s (which was my SAN) and got two smoke stack sniper checks which were both successful. To start the game, I would say he rolled 2 snakes and 3 3s in the first 10 rolls.

 

[Fort]

IMHO, the IFT/IIFT is a head game and that is all.
I use the IFT, period. If my opponent wishes to use the IIFT that's fine with me, they can, but I still use the IFT for my side. I have the bulk of the IFT memorized and don't see myself memorizing the IIFT.

In the past playing this way, the only difference in the medium sized scenario was one IIFT/2MC (had I had added the LMG into the FG), which was an IFT/1MC. The MC result DR was a 9, so they broke anyway and wouldn't have ELR'd under either MC. In the end, through an entire scenario, there was no difference. Played half a dozen scenarios like this, with no substantive difference, pretty much the entire Operation Mercur CG.

Odd FP units etc. might be affected, but the difference would likely be negligible. If a game is won/lost on a slight difference in a couple of results due to the IIFT/IFT difference, I'd still call it a good, close game!

Where you find the major differences is in firing weapons that have an almost negligible difference when lumped together on the IIFT, loss of that LMG on an IIFT FG shot that had no real chance of doing much vs where on the IFT it would have been held back and perhaps used on another shot at something else.

The difference in an IIFT 10 shot (two 457+2-7LMG) and an 8 IFT + LMG shooting elsewhere is huge, especially with low or negative modifiers. I'm not saying IIFT users can't choose to break their FG up in similar fashion, but there are quite a few much harder to discern trade-offs hidden in that table.

 

[Oberst Hausser]

I tried the rubble rule a few years ago an found it bothersome,the Russkies essentially die more easily because of the fact that they can't
get back quick enough. If you can't set fire to the factories there are of course other ways...

Singing " On a dry day you can't see very farrr"....

 

[Joelist]

After trying the new RB10 and seeing the Russians being vaporized by German small arms firepower again even with a fortified building I am getting convinced the fortified building rules need to be redone. Ultimately I think the issue is the Germans have two -2 leaders and their fire directions neuters the defensive terrain.

So, in the next playing of RB10 it is time for an experiment. There are currently two candidates which will need to be tried one at a time:

a) Instead of the extra +1 DRM, fortified buildings are still +3 but all fire that is not ordinance, FT or DC is treated as Area Fire.

b) On the RB maps leadership DRMs only affect IFT rolls versus targets where the TEM is 0 or +1.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

After trying the new RB10 and seeing the Russians being vaporized by German small arms firepower again even with a fortified building I am getting convinced the fortified building rules need to be redone. Ultimately I think the issue is the Germans have two -2 leaders and their fire directions neuters the defensive terrain.

So, in the next playing of RB10 it is time for an experiment. There are currently two candidates which will need to be tried one at a time:

a) Instead of the extra +1 DRM, fortified buildings are still +3 but all fire that is not ordinance, FT or DC is treated as Area Fire.

b) On the RB maps leadership DRMs only affect IFT rolls versus targets where the TEM is 0 or +1.

Lol.

 

[Sully]

After trying the new RB10 and seeing the Russians being vaporized by German small arms firepower again even with a fortified building I am getting convinced the fortified building rules need to be redone. Ultimately I think the issue is the Germans have two -2 leaders and their fire directions neuters the defensive terrain.

So, in the next playing of RB10 it is time for an experiment. There are currently two candidates which will need to be tried one at a time:

a) Instead of the extra +1 DRM, fortified buildings are still +3 but all fire that is not ordinance, FT or DC is treated as Area Fire.

b) On the RB maps leadership DRMs only affect IFT rolls versus targets where the TEM is 0 or +1.

The fortification rules are fine. Sounds like you might have been diced.

If you want to create your own version of ASL instead try limiting leadership mods on IFT attacks (only) to -1. I've thought about that when playing RB CG where the Germans typically manage to collect an academy's worth of -2 and -3 leaders.

 

[Joelist]

That is also a good thought. Our thinking about Area Fire was to make it actually plausible for Russian MMC to stand toe to toe in a firefight.

 

[Fort]

After trying the new RB10 and seeing the Russians being vaporized by German small arms firepower again even with a fortified building I am getting convinced the fortified building rules need to be redone. Ultimately I think the issue is the Germans have two -2 leaders and their fire directions neuters the defensive terrain.

So, in the next playing of RB10 it is time for an experiment. There are currently two candidates which will need to be tried one at a time:

a) Instead of the extra +1 DRM, fortified buildings are still +3 but all fire that is not ordinance, FT or DC is treated as Area Fire.

b) On the RB maps leadership DRMs only affect IFT rolls versus targets where the TEM is 0 or +1.

I’ve always thought that a cap on leadership DRM of -1 to IFT DR results should be implemented...but, that’s just me.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I’ve always thought that a cap on leadership DRM of -1 to IFT DR results should be implemented...but, that’s just me.

I just wish 10-3s plain didn’t exist. They’re far more breaking than -2s, IMO.

I generally avoid scenarios that include them, but that’s obviously not possible in CGs.

 

[von Marwitz]

I just wish 10-3s plain didn’t exist. They’re far more breaking than -2s, IMO.

Well, in the rare cases in which I had a 10-3, they inevitably seemed to break...

von Marwitz

 

[Eagle4ty]

Well, in the rare cases in which I had a 10-3, they inevitably seemed to break...

von Marwitz

Mine are sniper magnets. If I have one survive a 5 GT RB day I consider myself VERY lucky.