SaF(Manila) / Initial Scenario (All CG) / Perimeter 20.606 Front Line Location

[Tater]

Based on my reading of the CG "set-up" instructions, SF20.606 and Front Line Location definition I have concluded the following:

1. There is not a "perimeter" specified in the initial scenario of each CG. The set-up areas are never described as a "perimeter" nor is there any reference to 20.606. There won't be a defined "perimeter" until after the first RePh of each CG.
2. Given 1 above, the only Front Line Locations in an initial scenario are board edge hexes.

This is significant for fortification set-up in the initial scenarios.

Maybe this was intentional...maybe not...however, the terms I've referenced have very specific rules and/or definitions. If the intention was that the "set-up area" (undefined in SaF) was to be treated as a "perimeter", then it should have been explicit in the CG rules. If the "set-up area" is to be treated as a "perimeter" then I think an errata/clarification is in order.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Out of curiosity, is there an issue with this?

When I look at the different maps for the different CGs I don't see that the Japanese can set up adjacent to American entry/setup hexes (non-map edge hexes).
I could of course be missing something.

 

[Tater]

Out of curiosity, is there an issue with this?

When I look at the different maps for the different CGs I don't see that the Japanese can set up adjacent to American entry/setup hexes (non-map edge hexes).
I could of course be missing something.

"Front Line Location: Each Location that belongs to a (Alternate) Hex Grain of a Perimeter marked in RePh step 20.606. Each Front Line Location is part of a "loop" of adjacent Front Line Locations. Each map-edge hex is a Front Line Location."

Taking CG3/Ph-1 as an example..hex 2Z78...if the IJA setup area is treated as a perimeter, there are several fortification types that could not set-up in this hex since it would fit the definition of a "FLL". As it is, there is no limit since it doesn't fit the "FLL" definition as no perimeter has been "marked" owing to the fact that there has been no RePh or step "20.606". There are 61 potential hexes in the example CG that would be affected by this. Does that qualify as an issue...YMMV.

My question is really whether this is intentional...or was just missed and that the "set-up" areas should be treated as perimeters. I'm not married to either option, but would just like to clarify.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Taking CG3/Ph-1 as an example..hex 2Z78...if the IJA setup area is treated as a perimeter, there are several fortification types that could not set-up in this hex since it would fit the definition of a "FLL". As it is, there is no limit since it doesn't fit the "FLL" definition as no perimeter has been "marked" owing to the fact that there has been no RePh or step "20.606". There are 61 potential hexes in the example CG that would be affected by this. Does that qualify as an issue...YMMV.

This looks somewhat similar to Red Barricades, CG I - where the Russians "set up ≥ two hexes from all allowed German entry hexes". No mention of Perimeter in that CG either (as far as I can see). This difference here is that the American set up on board instead of enter, but they do so "≥ two hexes" from the Japanese setup area.

My question is really whether this is intentional...

I am sure it's intentional - there's nothing in the submitted rules (that I can see) indicating otherwise.


Are there manny other HASL CGs spelling out that the initial setup are is treated as a "Perimeter" - I've only checked a few, and I could not see that is that case. Again, I could very well be missing something.

 

[Tater]

This looks somewhat similar to Red Barricades, CG I - where the Russians "set up ≥ two hexes from all allowed German entry hexes". No mention of Perimeter in that CG either (as far as I can see). This difference here is that the American set up on board instead of enter, but they do so "≥ two hexes" from the Japanese setup area.



I am sure it's intentional - there's nothing in the submitted rules (that I can see) indicating otherwise.


Are there manny other HASL CGs spelling out that the initial setup are is treated as a "Perimeter" - I've only checked a few, and I could not see that is that case. Again, I could very well be missing something.

I think it is more the definition of "FLL" rather than whether it is called a perimeter. The "FLL" definition is tied specifically to the "marking" during a specific step of the RePh. Neither of which has happened, yet.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think it is more the definition of "FLL" rather than whether it is called a perimeter. The "FLL" definition is tied specifically to the "marking" during a specific step of the RePh. Neither of which has happened, yet.

I agree, so those hexes that the Japanese can set up in - north of Herran Street, >= 2 hexes from the hexes the Americans can set up in "south of Herran Street on/between hexrows 3K and 4G" (only one RG I2, btw) are not Front Line Locations.

Seems to me like this situation is not uncommon in HASL CGs.

 

[Tater]

I agree, so those hexes that the Japanese can set up in - north of Herran Street, >= 2 hexes from the hexes the Americans can set up in "south of Herran Street on/between hexrows 3K and 4G" (only one RG I2, btw) are not Front Line Locations.

Seems to me like this situation is not uncommon in HASL CGs.

I didn't conduct an exhaustive review...but at least all previous MMP CG used terminology that invoke FLL from the start.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I didn't conduct an exhaustive review...but at least all previous MMP CG used terminology that invoke FLL from the start.

Out of curiosity, where is it stated for RB CG I?

I am not seeing it, so I must be missing something.

 

[Tater]

Out of curiosity, where is it stated for RB CG I?

I am not seeing it, so I must be missing something.

In I.4...
"All map-edge hexes in the German entry area are considered German-Controlled at Initial Scenario start; all other hexes are Russian Controlled. Before set up begins, the German player places one friendly Perimeter marker in hex A9 and another in U1. Point the arrow on each directly along the map edge (Alternate) Hex Grain to the northwest corner of the map. This indicates the German-Controlled map-edge hexes at Initial Scenario start. Similarly, the Russian player should place friendly Perimeter Control markers in A10 and V1 (pointing southwards and eastwards, respectively) to indicate his friendly-Controlled map-edge hexes at CG start."

I would say the use of "Perimeter markers" would be used to "mark" a "Perimeter".

In CGII set-up instructions reference the German "Perimeter".

 

[klasmalmstrom]

But those Perimeter markers are all on the map edge, IIRC.

So there is nothing preventing the Russians from e.g., placing mines in the hexes they can set up in (which is >= 2 hexes from German entry hexes).

A situation that seems similar to the Manila CG.

Unless I've missed something.