The gaminess of VBM and AFPh

[Mr Incredible]

another simple suggestion is to ALWAYS include a AFVs lost cap in the VC.
If you lose all or most of your AFVs in a CC situation you could also achieve the objective, but you lose the scenario anyway!

Have played a couple lately, that put the emphasis on AFV loss in the VCs. Lose too many to the bypass "sleaze" and it's game over.

Quite a simple fix and changes the use of AFVs.

But at the same time, does not prohibit their use as such if the risk of loss of the AFV is outweighed by the reward and won't lose you the scenario.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

But that will stop my favorite pastime - TRUCK OVERRUNS!!

(Yes - I yell that every time I do it - you HAVE to ..)

One thing I have done is to increase the CVP of halftracks (and trucks as well) to include an additional CVP penalty if they have a towing capability and an additional CVP penalty for each 10PP carrying capacity (FRU), but allow the vehicles to be exited from the playing area without a CVP loss. This allows the owning player a choice of still utilizing these type of vehicles for some wild purpose, but at a substantial increased penalty in most instances, a choice a commander on the spot would have to make as the potential usefulness of these vehicles far outweigh their immediate value in many instances-in other words a calculated risk. The same approach could be applied to abandoning those type of vehicles and stripped of any armament (in other words a mission kill per se if they were not still mobile at scenario's end). I have not addressed the use of other AFV's to reduce the frequency of the "BP Freeze Sleaze", but perhaps increase the CVP value of an AFV destroyed by CC would be a thought. Of course these approaches only work where a CVP Cap is in effect, but may offer some food for thought.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Yeah, once won the Scenario "Night Drop" with a truck overrun of an American Paratrooper blocking the road net. Fun, but suspect tactic. I guess rather than just having empty trucks or ht's leave the board automatically, or use say use an unarmed ht for a cheap VBM freeze, I like giving players an option albeit at a cost and with some bit of trepidation for their use in such a manner. In effect, the more options a player has for the use if his assets and in a reasonably tactically correct behavior, the better I like the scenario normally. But Yes, TRUCK OVERRUN is an attention getting remark during the game.:nod:

 

[cooljrunner]

Don't forget your defending infantry has a very good chance of ambush come Close Combat phase. Attacker has +2 drm for Vehicle, and likely additional +1 drm for Button Up on their ambush roll. Sure you can stay and fight but say no leader or a HS. Then Withdraw (and move/away in your Mph). If you've got a rout path, voluntary break. Or lay RFP as others suggested. I think there's plenty the defending infantry can do. Credit to Peter Struiff and his great article in Journal 12 for these ideas.

 

[WuWei]

Hi,

I am noticing the following account of basically how to conduct combat with "excess" AFV and MMC/ SMC that can keep up.

It goes like this, ? enemy in woods or building...

Any AFV bypasses and STOPS in the hex
( now I think) ? is removed
( why OVR, instead 1.5 MG's in AFPH at un ? targets)
and why stop there..

extra infantry rolls up adj to said "trapped" enemy and also hose them down in AFPh, even better use a single leader to encircle the poor sods. ( I think FT and DC at this point just effect the enemy).

The only issue is in fact does the ? remove on the stopping of the AFV/ HT? AC

It kinda gets pretty boring if the above become the "tried and true" way to achieve fast results.

The reason being that baring enemy ATG's or AFV ( that can effect the attacking AFV) they can't do anything about it.

Really, it's not so bad:
The AFV moves into bypass.
The enemy ? rolls it's PAATC and passes, keeps concealment.
AFV stops. Enemy drops concealment and declares CC reaction fire. The AFV is eliminated on a 6 or less.
AFV bounding fires with perhaps an 8 plus 2 shot. Totally survivable.
Infantry moves adjacent. In the AFPh it fires, perhaps a 4 plus 2 shot. Totally survivable.

In the CCPh, the AFV is attacked again, and again is eliminated on a 6 or less.
If the infantry also advances into CC, it gets even worse. Now there is an ambush roll, and the enemy gets a +3 (+2 vehicle, +1 BU), and it's automatically sequential, because a vehicle is involved.

 

[WuWei]

Don't forget your defending infantry has a very good chance of ambush come Close Combat phase. Attacker has +2 drm for Vehicle, and likely additional +1 drm for Button Up on their ambush roll.

Ambush is only possible if infantry advanced into CC or with/against ?s.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Ambush is only possible if infantry advanced into CC or with/against ?s.

True, but the defending Infantry will get the Ambush modifier if only the vehicle remains in CC & I think he's stating should any ATTACKER's infantry advance into the hex, he has a very good chance of gaining Ambush. However, his thought process is somewhat flawed in that only very seldom do you have a single enemy infantry move up for the AFPh shot, and when more of them do most likely they will try to encircle the defender as well. Also, the vehicle's MGs will be available for the AFPh shot (modified of course to the extent of the status of the vehicle). Another item that I think he fails to take into account is that the vehicle seldom stops in BP when performing the VBM Freeze (if you move into BP not using all your remaining MP to do so, that's on you); now the defending Infantry's chance is down a couple more pips. If the defending infantry is still around or at least unpinned for the CCPh, you're VBM Freeze was probably poorly planned and executed in the first place.

 

[WuWei]

If the enemy unit manages to bind an AFV and multiple squads, it's probably doing it's job. In situations like that, I usually encourage my opponent to use even more squads, "just to be sure"!

 

[Oberst Hausser]

Hi,

Thanks for all the replies.

My post is not an attack on anyone's cunning attack plan etc. My ONLY point is that prior to uber anti tank weapons ( PIAT, PF etc) the rules of ASL and via the post I put above ( and maybe that is the way it is and whatever opposition exists better soak up this " rinse cycle repeat") bias also thanks to HK for what may be possible I always appreciate his posts and even subscribed to his channel.

HOWEVER if one has enough MMC and AFV/ HT ( not always the case) it is inevitable ( UNLESS THE ATTACKING PLAYER IS AN IDIOT) that doom is about 80% certain.

I am not disputing that if one has " satisfactory" ATG that this cycle is disrupted, the point IMHO remains that bypass - stop AFV ( AC, HT , Tanks) with supporting infantry ( assault fire etc) is a GAME CHANGER.

The main reason this has come up that this feature has disrupted to some point a mini CG I am developing that has to some degree had to be "redeveloped" because of it.

Lastly, thanks to HK comments it has been a decisive consideration how to ameliorate the effects ( by map creation) of this event.

I leave it to the many players of ASL how they consider the effects of such, for example the lack of any ill effects ( eg BOG) reduced CA, perhaps some immediate counter attack activity ( charge, human wave). It is a discussion not a criticism.

 

[jrv]

HOWEVER if one has enough MMC and AFV/ HT ( not always the case) it is inevitable ( UNLESS THE ATTACKING PLAYER IS AN IDIOT) that doom is about 80% certain.

I am not disputing that if one has " satisfactory" ATG that this cycle is disrupted, the point IMHO remains that bypass - stop AFV ( AC, HT , Tanks) with supporting infantry ( assault fire etc) is a GAME CHANGER.

This is true whether or not VBM works like it currently does. If one side has enough stuff, unless that player plays like an idiot that side wins. How does VBM freeze fit into what you are saying at all? One could say the same about any rule in ASL, and it would be equally correct. Concealment is a game changer. Double-time is a game changer. In fact, a game consists of a set of rules. Any time you change one of those rules, by definition it is a game changer. And given enough stuff, that side wins. So?

The questions for VBM freeze are:

1. Was the rule deliberate or did it slip into the game accidentally?
2. Does the game effect of the rule represent something that happens in the real battlefield that should be captured in the game?
3. Does the rule portray its game effect elegantly?

I think the rule is deliberate. I think the rule portrays something that happens in a real battlefield, i.e. that infantry that are being closely assaulted by a tank tend to focus their minds on that threat and ignore other things that are happening elsewhere. With regard to the third question, I could be interested in a different rule to replace VBM freeze, but for me it would have to accomplish what I said in my second answer: infantry would have to be distracted by the close proximity of armor. So far there have been a few attempts, but none that I like any more than VBM freeze.

JR

 

[Mister T]

Designers understood what they were doing, but did not realize how extensively players would capitalise on that rule. Unintended consequences. Fully understandable in 1987. Less so in 2018

The OVR process was designed to correctly conceptualise the tank shock, with its strengths and drawbacks. It's a complex process and one can see that a lot of efforts has been put into it by designers. The parasitic VBM freeze process 'bypasses' the legitimate OVR process that was crafted, is illegitimate (and, for good measure, has no foundation in real tactics).

 

[WuWei]

Hi,
HOWEVER if one has enough MMC and AFV/ HT ( not always the case) it is inevitable ( UNLESS THE ATTACKING PLAYER IS AN IDIOT) that doom is about 80% certain.

In my eyes, it's not "inevitable doom is about 80% certain", but "decent chance of success, yet somewhat risky".

I am not disputing that if one has " satisfactory" ATG that this cycle is disrupted, the point IMHO remains that bypass - stop AFV ( AC, HT , Tanks) with supporting infantry ( assault fire etc) is a GAME CHANGER.

The main reason this has come up that this feature has disrupted to some point a mini CG I am developing that has to some degree had to be "redeveloped" because of it.

In a scenario that pitches tanks and supporting infantry against infantry without any proper anti-tank weapons, what is your expected outcome?
What was the historical outcome, and how did it come to pass?

 

[jrv]

Designers understood what they were doing, but did not realize how extensively players would capitalise on that rule. Unintended consequences. Fully understandable in 1987. Less so in 2018

The OVR process was designed to correctly conceptualise the tank shock, with its strengths and drawbacks. It's a complex process and one can see that a lot of efforts has been put into it by designers. The parasitic VBM freeze process 'bypasses' the legitimate OVR process that was crafted, is illegitimate (and, for good measure, has no foundation in real tactics).

I disagree. OVR is not sufficiently powerful to represent the distracting affect of vehicles on the battlefield. In my opinion if you dropped VBM freeze, you would have to make OVR many times more powerful than it currently is. A vehicle's mere presence in close proximity, especially a tank's, is very distracting. If you don't allow for that in the game, you are missing something that was very apparent on the real battlefield.

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Personally I don't have a general issue with these rules and the effects of them. I sort of see it as a combined arms assault. Sometimes I am even glad when my opponent "ties up" a tank and some infantry to take out a HS - that means they won't be making trouble elsewhere.

What I do find to be a problem is when the scenario provides one side (usually the attacker) with basically expendable halftracks to use in such a manner. But I chalk that up to a not-so-good-a-design rather than the rules.

As always, ymmv.

 

[jrv]

Personally I don't have a general issue with these rules and the effects of them. I sort of see it as a combined arms assault. Sometimes I am even glad when my opponent "ties up" a tank and some infantry to take out a HS - that means they won't be making trouble elsewhere.

What I do find to be a problem is when the scenario provides one side (usually the attacker) with basically expendable halftracks to use in such a manner. But I chalk that up to a not-so-good-a-design rather than the rules.

As always, ymmv.

This is generally where I stand. Tanks are scarey to infantry. Infantry that find such a vehicle in close proximity tend to keep their noses to the ground and pray that it goes away. Players that want superhero infantry that ignore the tank in hex want just that, superhero infantry.

Halftracks are especially vulnerable when they attempt VBM freeze. If the halftrack is CE it can be fired on from points outside the hex. If the halftrack is BU, it can be still be attacked from in-hex (TPBF even though BU) or CC. If a four FP squad (only) is up a level a halftrack in bypass is eliminated by fire from that squad 88% of the time (a rough calculation that ignores cowering). Might this sacrifice give the owning player an opportunity? Yes, but that is exactly what I want to see. Vehicles, particularly AFVs, can open a defense, or they can be killed attempting to do so. Be wary of what they can do, but don't be cowed. Tanks are like any other unit: they put on their treads one side at a time.

JR

 

[Mister T]

This is generally where I stand. Tanks are scarey to infantry. Infantry that find such a vehicle in close proximity tend to keep their noses to the ground and pray that it goes away. Players that want superhero infantry that ignore the tank in hex want just that, superhero infantry.

If one parks a Stug or a halftrack on the side of a a building like a SUV would do at a MacDonald's drive-in kiosk, the guys at the front windows are going to be only mildly impressed (experienced guys i mean).

Might this sacrifice give the owning player an opportunity? Yes, but that is exactly what I want to see. Vehicles, particularly AFVs, can open a defense, or they can be killed attempting to do so. Be wary of what they can do, but don't be cowed. Tanks are like any other unit: they put on their treads one side at a time.
JR

Unlike in a scenario, a commander never fully know the opponent's OB and, barring desperate situations, is not going to waste transport vehicles or tanks by using them in a unnecessary risky way.

 

[jrv]

If one parks a Stug or a halftrack on the side of a a building like a SUV would do at a MacDonald's drive-in kiosk, the guys at the front windows are going to be only mildly impressed (experienced guys i mean).

One shouldn't be hyper-literal in translating board position to what is being represented. A tank is prowling around outside! What is it up to? What can we do? Keep down! If you said it was perhaps not the most elegant way to make the rules represent what is happening, I would hear your alternative.

Unlike in a scenario, a commander never fully know the opponent's OB and, barring desperate situations, is not going to waste transport vehicles or tanks by using them in a unnecessary risky way.

This is a general problem in ASL: it is a game, and players have no incentives beyond the VC. Intensive Fire, FPF, ESB, speedbump halfsquad, zombie defense? Sure. I'm sure you have noticed many rules dealing with trucks. I am sure that is because trucks were well and truly abused on the first day that they were given to players. AFVs may be abused in some circumstances, but they were legitimately sent out to suppress infantry, and they did so very well. And they didn't have to fire to distract infantry. Just their presence--and it was hard to miss that presence--would be enough to do so. So while it might be appropriate to have a SSR that alters VBM freeze in some scenarios, it represents something that happened commonly (in a way that mis-use of trucks did not happen commonly) and ought not to be included in the standard rules. If you rely on SSRs to add it back in rather than take it out, you make the effect of AFVs in the game much less powerful, and I think much less powerful than they were in real life. Design for effect. If you take away VBM freeze you say that tanks are merely mobile pillboxes, and that is an effect I disagree with. Perhaps AFVs could be variable hindrances, depending on range. At range one they are +5 hindrance/+5 TEM. Then you don't have to use VBM freeze: being at range one is effectively VBM freeze. But unless you are willing to put a reasonable replacement on the table I am not willing to lose VBM freeze.

JR

 

[zgrose]

One shouldn't be hyper-literal in translating board position to what is being represented. A tank is prowling around outside! What is it up to? What can we do? Keep down! If you said it was perhaps not the most elegant way to make the rules represent what is happening, I would hear your alternative.

Couldn't the same case be made for an AFV on a road ADJACENT to a building though?

Per the OVR comment above, it seems to make more sense that if Infantry can keep their cool in Open Ground with an ADJACENT AFV (talk about a truly scary situation), the AFV should be required to "engage" the Infantry counter in some way to trigger the game mechanic that prevents any shooting out the Location.

Just seems to me that the DFE in this case is being exaggerated with respect to buildings.

 

[Craig Benn]

The best way to defend against VBM sleaze is...to not to defend against VBM sleaze.
See my article in View from the Trenches 77.

Once you know not to defend against it, it's much less powerful.

 

[ecz]

Designers understood what they were doing, but did not realize how extensively players would capitalise on that rule. Unintended consequences. Fully understandable in 1987. Less so in 2018

The OVR process was designed to correctly conceptualise the tank shock, with its strengths and drawbacks. It's a complex process and one can see that a lot of efforts has been put into it by designers. The parasitic VBM freeze process 'bypasses' the legitimate OVR process that was crafted, is illegitimate (and, for good measure, has no foundation in real tactics).

all depends on the point of view you take.
I think that is very realistic that infantry is paralyzed by the mere presence of a AFV in bypass. I think it is NOT very realistic that a tank commander parks his AFV under the windows of an enemy controlled building containing enemy infantry.

Hence this rule is half (ir)realistic.
As Klas says as nowadays all our best Designers know how VBM freeze works, so I tend to believe they should know how to disarm the problem in their scenarios if this tactic ruins the fun or the balance.