SSR vs A7.55 Mandatory FG

[Robin Reeve]

During Defensive First Fire it could actually be a benefit; e.g., two 4FP, -2 attacks are often preferable to on 8FP -2 attack, and this SSR does not strike me as intended to give any benefits. The problem with FPF still remains though - could have been an exception for that.

But firing at a stone building, two 4 FP attacks are worse that one 8 FP attack.
So advantages and disadvantages are quite situation dependent.

 

[von Marwitz]

But firing at a stone building, two 4 FP attacks are worse that one 8 FP attack.
So advantages and disadvantages are quite situation dependent.

Right. As a rule of thumb, one can say this:

If the net modifiers are negative, go for two separate attacks.
If the net modifiers are positive, go for a single attack.

von Marwitz

 

[Robin Reeve]

Right. As a rule of thumb, one can say this:

If the net modifiers are negative, go for two separate attacks.
If the net modifiers are positive, go for a single attack.

von Marwitz

I put the threshold at +2 : under, divide attacks ; +2 or more : group them.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Right. As a rule of thumb, one can say this:

If the net modifiers are negative, go for two separate attacks.
If the net modifiers are positive, go for a single attack.

von Marwitz

This is a good rule of thumb for any negative DRM and for DRM's of +2 or greater. That math gets a little wonky on even and +1 shots. Those I still tend to play by feel. -- jim

 

[lightspeed]

Ok. It does not override the Mandatory FG rules, and I don't think it should either.

Klas,

I don't think it should either. However, how are you concluding the SSR does not override Mandatory FG?

By my read A7.55 (Mandatory FG) specifies that, the units must FG. The SSR seems to say the units
can never form a FG.

indy

 

[klasmalmstrom]

By my read A7.55 (Mandatory FG) specifies that, the units must FG. The SSR seems to say the units can never form a FG.

The must FG if both want-to/can fire - but the SSR forbids it - i.e., only one of them can fire if in the same Location.

The only issue that leaves open - IMO - is if both are in the same Location and subject to an enemy unit entering their Location. Then they must fire, and must form a FG, but the SSR forbids the latter.

 

[Stewart]

Ok. It does not override the Mandatory FG rules, and I don't think it should either.

During Defensive First Fire it could actually be a benefit; e.g., two 4FP, -2 attacks are often preferable to on 8FP -2 attack, and this SSR does not strike me as intended to give any benefits. The problem with FPF still remains though - could have been an exception for that.

It's also a detriment when firing on units in defensible terrain.
The SSR doesn't Prohibit fire since they don't qualify for the Mand. FG rule.

Mandatory FG is a FG, not a separate RULE.
A FG is a FG.
Multi-hex FG, same hex FG.
Bottom Line. ALL FG are prohibited.

Again, on the FPF, Berserk units and Ammo shortage units can do exactly the same thing...fire independently.
neither are GO.

IF the SSR said, multi-national units in the same hex are not considered GO in reference to FG's, how would that differ?

 

[Stewart]

Interesting point re berserkers. However, provided neither German nor Hungarian unit is berserk, I'd still argue that A7.55 prohibits firing at the same target during the same phase [EXC: on a separate MF/MP expenditure] as a consequence of the SSR, which prohibits multi-national FG.

No where does it say it prohibits the fire of other units.
It simply eliminated the multi-national FG in the same hex...or OTHER hexes as well.

 

[BattleSchool]

I believe the contradiction that Klas is referring to is the last sentence of A8.312. How does one square this rule with the SSR?

A8.312 TPBF: An armed, unbroken Infantry DEFENDER not in Melee must after all Residual-FP/minefield/OBA attacks then immediately attack any Infantry/Cavalry MMC unit that enters its Location during the MPh whether it uses Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF [EXC: A SMC with a MG/IFE already marked with a First Fire counter may not use Subsequent First Fire or FPF because it cannot use Sustained Fire; 9.3]. See also OVR; D7.2. All such FPF and any Defensive/ Subsequent First Fire must be combined into one Mandatory FG (7.55).

 

[Eagle4ty]

That's it exactly. COWTRA. Since they cannot be a single posssible FG how would mandatory FG rules apply to them in any manner. Thus both nationalities should be able to fire at the same same unit in the same location/situation sequentially as an SSR overides the normal ASL rules.

 

[SSlunt]

So Klasmalmstrom- not sure what you are saying.
A. they both make separate attacks against the same target
B, Are the forced to choose to fire at separate targets?

I did attempt to send the question to LFT from their website. I even attempted to use Google translate. Still no reply.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I did attempt to send the question to LFT from their website. I even attempted to use Google translate. Still no reply.

Probably the way to go - ask what their intents are.

 

[Stewart]

I sent a PM to Scott Holst...but I'm not his buddy.

 

[Stewart]

So Klasmalmstrom- not sure what you are saying.
A. they both make separate attacks against the same target
B, Are the forced to choose to fire at separate targets?

I did attempt to send the question to LFT from their website. I even attempted to use Google translate. Still no reply.

I've submitted a half dozen questions to them in the past..No answers.

 

[MajorDomo]

I always played the if an SSR forbid multinational fire groups, then they were free to fire separately upon any target. Much like an tank cannot firegroup with infantry, but they can separately fire upon a single location.

I think the SSR helps keep allied troops apart, which seems realistic to me.

 

[Vinnie]

It was only recently that I discovered how nasty well led assault fire troops were.
2 7-4-7 with a 9-2 spray fire. Instead of 8-2 for one shot, they get 6 -2 at 2 hexes

(7 hlaved movement 3.5, round up 4, add 1=5 two of them 10 down to 8)
(7 halved move, 3.5 halved spray fire 1.75 round up 2 2 of them 6)

 

[von Marwitz]

Maybe this is worth a 'Perry Sez', anyone?

von Marwitz

 

[Eagle4ty]

Maybe this is worth a 'Perry Sez', anyone?

von Marwitz

Not to me, I got it figgerd auht!

 

[Stewart]

Not to me, I got it figgerd auht!

Looks kinda clear to me...Crystal....

 

[dwardzala]

It was only recently that I discovered how nasty well led assault fire troops were.
2 7-4-7 with a 9-2 spray fire. Instead of 8-2 for one shot, they get 6 -2 at 2 hexes

(7 hlaved movement 3.5, round up 4, add 1=5 two of them 10 down to 8)
(7 halved move, 3.5 halved spray fire 1.75 round up 2 2 of them 6)

I think you left something out of your second calculation, or you do math differently on that side of the pond