Upper Levels and OBA

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,475
Reaction score
1,512
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I always thought that the extra +1 for an upper level required a full uppwr level not merely a roof but the Corregidor example of a roofless building has me wondering.
"EX: A Japanese 4-4-7 squad at ground level in Roofless Building hex GG11 is subjected to an OBA attack. They would receive a +4 TEM to that attack (+3 TEM for Stone building and +1 TEM for the floor between Ground Level and Level 1, since the "roof" is now the floor between Level 0 and Level 1. If the 4-4-7 was instead located at Level 1 in GG11 it would only receive the +3 TEM benefit being in a Stone building. Direct fire vs. units in a Roofless Building location are resolved normally. "

This sugests the roof gives a +1 tem so a first level unit is normally affectewd with a +4 tem and the ground a +5 as opposed to +3 and +4 respectively. I am assuming GG11 is a ground and first floor only building.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
335
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
You are right to be confused. Ordinarily, there is no additional +1 for indirect fire vs. units in the upper-most level of a building (i.e. with only a roof above their heads):

23.32 INDIRECT FIRE: Indirect Fire is resolved simultaneously with the same Original Resolution DR vs each level of a building (provided it is not an Interior Building Hex), but there is an additional +1 DRM for each non-rooftop level of the building above it (even if in the Marketplace [23.73], or if being attacked by WP); if an Interior Building Hex is hit, only the rooftop and highest level of that building hex are affected [EXC: Rubble; 24.11-.121].​
However, the Corregidor rules text reads:

1.3 INDIRECT-FIRE TEM: Units subject to Indirect fire, OBA, NOBA, Aerial attack, bombs, and Napalm attacks while located in the topmost level of a Roofless Building may not claim the additional +1 DRM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level...."​

This strongly implies that there would have been had the topmost level been roof-covered. Not true. Unless I am missing something, this text needs rephrasing. The example, on the other hand, is correct as per the rule given, the +1 provided being a major difference described between a roofless upper level and a traditional rooftop.

And I can accept that a Roofless Building still has enough of an intact level that it can still provide the additional +1 to the level below despite acting largely like an ordinary rooftop. An interesting variant (in addition the other specifications).
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,402
Reaction score
1,134
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The rules seem to be writtena bit differently than those provided for Roofless Buildings an VotG where there is only a +2 TEM for indirect fire against the building and an additional +1 for every non-rooftop location above the target location. However, IIRC most topside large buildings on Corregidor were rather robust structures with reinforced floors or as Binchios has stated may take into account only a partially collapsed/damaged roof. I'm not sure of the intent, but perhaps asking for a possible errata ruling on the BFP sub-forum may be in order.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
440
Reaction score
67
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
The rules seem to be writtena bit differently than those provided for Roofless Buildings an VotG where there is only a +2 TEM for indirect fire against the building and an additional +1 for every non-rooftop location above the target location. However, IIRC most topside large buildings on Corregidor were rather robust structures with reinforced floors or as Binchios has stated may take into account only a partially collapsed/damaged roof. I'm not sure of the intent, but perhaps asking for a possible errata ruling on the BFP sub-forum may be in order.
Agree w/ Binchois that this rule for Corregidor is poorly constructed as a result of over-tinkering and misinterpreting the efficacy of rooftops for OBA. Agree with Eagle clarification is mandatory from BFP.

This is the first I've heard that buildings of Corregidor were so ruggedized that plunging fire from artillery shells were repulsed by extra concrete on roofs and ALSO floors! It seems unlikely that floors would be additional enhanced yet the overall building TEM stays the same -- why not the walls also?? In fact, if the floors are also ultra strong, they should in and of themselves also offer yet an additional +1 TEM for OBA.

I'm not inclined to cut the designers slack for some kind of brilliant 'roof/floor variant' here. Cmon. Unless, of course, they've explained such in the designers notes about these special characteristics. I'm curious where you got your 'recollection' of this information, Eagle!

I'm not sure it's worth smacking down $122 to get this product shipped over to England and verify all this personally. Unless someone tells me this is well worth it. I like the idea of a historical campaign for Corregidor But that's pricey. I don't even know if that includes VAT and shipping!
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
335
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Agree w/ Binchois that this rule for Corregidor is poorly constructed as a result of over-tinkering and misinterpreting the efficacy of rooftops for OBA. Agree with Eagle clarification is mandatory from BFP.

This is the first I've heard that buildings of Corregidor were so ruggedized that plunging fire from artillery shells were repulsed by extra concrete on roofs and ALSO floors! It seems unlikely that floors would be additional enhanced yet the overall building TEM stays the same -- why not the walls also?? In fact, if the floors are also ultra strong, they should in and of themselves also offer yet an additional +1 TEM for OBA.

I'm not inclined to cut the designers slack for some kind of brilliant 'roof/floor variant' here. Cmon. Unless, of course, they've explained such in the designers notes about these special characteristics. I'm curious where you got your 'recollection' of this information, Eagle!

I'm not sure it's worth smacking down $122 to get this product shipped over to England and verify all this personally. Unless someone tells me this is well worth it. I like the idea of a historical campaign for Corregidor But that's pricey. I don't even know if that includes VAT and shipping!
I don't agree that the rule is poorly constructed at all. Plus there's a bit more detail in the rules for Roofless Buildings beyond the above point. I am only saying that the above-cited sentence needs a rewrite simply because it implies something that isn't actually true in the base RB. Simple error, I believe.

As for the effect, OBA and other indirect fire drops (typically) from an angle. If the upper-level, Roofless walls were largely intact (and reinforced, for that matter, as Eaglety recalls), I could understand that they could help absorb the blow and scatter the blast from such attacks. Even bombs dropped "straight down" might concievably strike the top of an upper-level wall thereby blunting its effect on the floor below (and the level(s) beneath it).

Although I have yet to play Corregidor: the Rock, or even to have given it thorough scrutiny yet, the product seems up to BFPs usual high standards (extraordinary standards, in my opinion). The map is beautiful, the new rules seem both interesting, yet constrained (only a few pages), and there is a large number of scenarios beyond the two campaigns. Moreover, the company is quick to respond to questions and maintains Errata that are easily retrieved from their website. I can't speak for what, I am sure, is a steep price and shipping increase for non-U.S. purchasers, but in the states, at least, I find BFP products to be well-worth the cost.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
440
Reaction score
67
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
@ Binchois

If there is confusion about the rule, and clearly there is if one such as Vinnie questions it, I don't see how you can argue that it's not poorly constructed and even you say it needs rephrasing -- although now you endeavor to mitigate that by saying a rule is not poorly constructed but still needs rephrasing umm, -- sorry, not convincing ;) either it is well-written or not and needs rephrasing or not. If it needs rephrasing or rewritten and is causing confusion, it's poorly written, period.

I'm not a big fan of BFP's MMC counter designs but overall I agree with your assessment of their product quality. Even if saying as I have that it's a bit pricey, I paid the piper for their Polish module, also extra pricey, so I may whinge at the moment, but I'm sure I'll wind up paying for Corregidor :)
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
187
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
It’s possible that the amount of rubble over the roof from upper structure combined with the non-rubbles parts of the original roof add this additional modifier. It’s not at all equal to an original roof. In fact, being architect I see more complicated the +3 against OBA of normal factories roof usually constructed with lighter structure than walls..
I agree with the +1 for a roofless level above even if not intended.. just my opinion
 

ASLSARGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
293
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
I always thought that the extra +1 for an upper level required a full uppwr level not merely a roof but the Corregidor example of a roofless building has me wondering.
"EX: A Japanese 4-4-7 squad at ground level in Roofless Building hex GG11 is subjected to an OBA attack. They would receive a +4 TEM to that attack (+3 TEM for Stone building and +1 TEM for the floor between Ground Level and Level 1, since the "roof" is now the floor between Level 0 and Level 1. If the 4-4-7 was instead located at Level 1 in GG11 it would only receive the +3 TEM benefit being in a Stone building. Direct fire vs. units in a Roofless Building location are resolved normally. "

This sugests the roof gives a +1 tem so a first level unit is normally affectewd with a +4 tem and the ground a +5 as opposed to +3 and +4 respectively. I am assuming GG11 is a ground and first floor only building.
A fair question Vinnie, presented in a reasonable fashion so I will endeavor to answer as best I can.
First, we will take a closer look at the sentence in question, and if it does indeed need rewording we will do so and post a sticky note for updating your rules. Thank you to those who pointed this out.
Secondly, the rules are what they are. Many of the rules in Corregidor are variations off the "generalized" rules in the ASLRB....most notably the rules for paradrops. This was done to try to reflect the uniqueness of the Corregidor terrain and battle. To get to your point, the major buildings on Corregidor were stronger than your average European rowhouse, or factory, or large department store or office building. They had to be. Corregidor was a military base, not downtown Stalingrad. The Philippines are subjected to numerous typhoons and earthquakes on a regular basis. The buildings on Corregidor were constructed out of reinforced concrete and steel to prevent serious damage from those natural events.
For four months the Japanese bombed and shelled Corregidor 24/7 prior to their landing in May 1942. Even under constant attack those buildings still stood. Then beginning in late 1944 the Americans continued the barrage with aerial bombing for two months and naval shelling for several days prior to their return. Still the buildings stood. Then the Japanese tried blowing up everything on the island. Still the buildings stood. The Americans countered by shelling right back. Still those buildings stood. That is the basis I used when I modified the OBA Indirect Fire rule for the buildings on Corregidor. Even though it does not meet the requirements in Chapter B to have an intact roofed level above it, those floor made of reinforced concrete and steel rods were much stronger than wooden beams and planks as was used in many typical "civilian" structures. If you look at photos of the city of Manila after the battle, most of the buildings are mere piles of rubble. The city was flattened except for the few buildings made of reinforced concrete and steel (the US built Post Office is a good example). So yes, the Corregidor rules do not always line up with the generalized rules in the grand tome, but they were done for specific reasons. The ground on Topside was 500 feet above sea level so even the NOBA / OBA trajectories had to be adjusted to even hit targets in those locations.
I made three trips to the Philippines and walked the Manila Bay area battlefields to see first-hand what happened so I have a pretty good idea of what was involved.(Heck, I even got interrogated for almost an hour by the head of Manila City Hall Security when I asked if I could take photos from the City Hall tower). I hope I was able to translate that information into a game we can play and enjoy. If a tweek or different phrasing will "fix" any issues than that is good. We will work on it and post any updates as they become available. If there are any more questions or concerns please post them. Time permitting, I will try to address them. Thank you.
Sarge
 

rcarter

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
656
Reaction score
61
Location
knoxville
Country
llUnited States
A rewording suggestion may be

"Due to the reinforced concrete and heavy construction of the buildings on Corregidor, the +1 TEM for additional levels above the target level in a multilevel building (B23.32) includes the rooftop level or in the case of a roofless building the topmost level."
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,475
Reaction score
1,512
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
1.3 INDIRECT FIRE TEM: Units subject to Indirect fire, OBA, NOBA, Aerial attack, bombs, and Napalm attacks while located in the topmost level of a Roofless Building may not claim the additional +1 DRM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level. They do receive the +3 TEM for being in a Stone Building.

Here is where my problem stems. Units on the top floor (level 1 here) of a stone building, with a roof, do not get an extra +1 for the roof, only +3. This is normal. I'm not certain if Corregidor is intended to act differently and there is at least one roofed building on the map. Units on the ground floor of a two level building get +1 for the level above and I believe this would still be the case for roofless buildings on Corregidor as per the example. "A Japanese 4-4-7 squad at ground level in Roofless Building hex GG11 is subjected to an OBA attack. They would receive a +4 TEM to that attack (+3 TEM for Stone building and +1 TEM for the floor between Ground Level and Level 1 ".

This being the case, there is no difference between a normal stone bulding under OBA fire and a roofless one. That may be what was intnended and if so, fine but then the whole section is not required.

My suspicion is that the intent was to make units in a roofless building ,more vulnerable, but the rules do not do this.

Secondly, can you place a 5/8th counter on the upper floor of a non-fortified roofless building?

1.2 All stone building rules apply normally except as amended herein. Contrary to C2.7, both AA Gun (≤ 20mm) and Mortar (≤ 82mm) fire is allowed from within a Roofless Building as long as the AA Gun/Mortar is located in the uppermost level of the Roofless building. Mortars on the topmost level of a Roofless Building or in the ground level location of a Roofless single story building may use Indirect fire as if they were on the roof (B23.85).

C2.7 PROHIBITED HEXES: A Gun cannot occupy an upper building level [EXC: Fortified Buildings and mortars on Rooftops], nor can it occupy a Water Obstacle, crag [EXC: mortars; B17.4], marsh, or Irrigated-paddy (G8.12) unless dm and possessed or in/on a vehicle/boat. Small-Target-Size Guns and AT/INF Guns that are not large targets are the only 5/8" non-vehicular Gun counters that may ever occupy a building/rubble hex [EXC: Rooftop mortars (B23.85); Fortified Building (B23.93)].
I think you can but wish it had been specifically made unambiguosly clear.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
335
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
1.3 INDIRECT FIRE TEM: Units subject to Indirect fire, OBA, NOBA, Aerial attack, bombs, and Napalm attacks while located in the topmost level of a Roofless Building may not claim the additional +1 DRM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level. They do receive the +3 TEM for being in a Stone Building.

Here is where my problem stems. Units on the top floor (level 1 here) of a stone building, with a roof, do not get an extra +1 for the roof, only +3. This is normal. I'm not certain if Corregidor is intended to act differently and there is at least one roofed building on the map. Units on the ground floor of a two level building get +1 for the level above and I believe this would still be the case for roofless buildings on Corregidor as per the example. "A Japanese 4-4-7 squad at ground level in Roofless Building hex GG11 is subjected to an OBA attack. They would receive a +4 TEM to that attack (+3 TEM for Stone building and +1 TEM for the floor between Ground Level and Level 1 ".

This being the case, there is no difference between a normal stone bulding under OBA fire and a roofless one. That may be what was intnended and if so, fine but then the whole section is not required.

My suspicion is that the intent was to make units in a roofless building ,more vulnerable, but the rules do not do this.
I think ASLSARGE makes the intention of this rule quite clear. As I said above, I think the only real problem with C:tR 1.2 is what it implies about the core RB. The intent as described by ASLSARGE and the provided EXample tell me that you should not visualize the uppermost level of these buildings to be a rooftop. They are truly a level without a roof. I believe the indication in 1.2 was mistakenly written as if the +1 would have apply had the uppermost level possessed a roof. Accept that they made this mistake and the rule is true (just unnecessary). The intent seems clear: in regards to the Indirect Fire +1, these buildings are no different than if the building had a roof (+0 additional for the uppermost level; +1 for the level below that; +2 for the level below that...)
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,475
Reaction score
1,512
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You may well be right. It just seems very odd to include it if it changes nothing. It's going to raise queries like mine.
The example is clear, albeit wrong in threat it assigns the extra tem modifier.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
802
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
@ Binchois

If there is confusion about the rule, and clearly there is if one such as Vinnie questions it, I don't see how you can argue that it's not poorly constructed and even you say it needs rephrasing -- although now you endeavor to mitigate that by saying a rule is not poorly constructed but still needs rephrasing umm, -- sorry, not convincing ;) either it is well-written or not and needs rephrasing or not. If it needs rephrasing or rewritten and is causing confusion, it's poorly written, period.

I'm not a big fan of BFP's MMC counter designs but overall I agree with your assessment of their product quality. Even if saying as I have that it's a bit pricey, I paid the piper for their Polish module, also extra pricey, so I may whinge at the moment, but I'm sure I'll wind up paying for Corregidor :)
My recommendation is to get it from LFT then and save on the overseas shipping, plus you'll be helping out Xavier.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
802
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Secondly, can you place a 5/8th counter on the upper floor of a non-fortified roofless building?

1.2 All stone building rules apply normally except as amended herein. Contrary to C2.7, both AA Gun (≤ 20mm) and Mortar (≤ 82mm) fire is allowed from within a Roofless Building as long as the AA Gun/Mortar is located in the uppermost level of the Roofless building. Mortars on the topmost level of a Roofless Building or in the ground level location of a Roofless single story building may use Indirect fire as if they were on the roof (B23.85).

C2.7 PROHIBITED HEXES: A Gun cannot occupy an upper building level [EXC: Fortified Buildings and mortars on Rooftops], nor can it occupy a Water Obstacle, crag [EXC: mortars; B17.4], marsh, or Irrigated-paddy (G8.12) unless dm and possessed or in/on a vehicle/boat. Small-Target-Size Guns and AT/INF Guns that are not large targets are the only 5/8" non-vehicular Gun counters that may ever occupy a building/rubble hex [EXC: Rooftop mortars (B23.85); Fortified Building (B23.93)].
I think you can but wish it had been specifically made unambiguosly clear.
Short answer to your question, "...can you place a 5/8th counter on the upper floor of a non-fortified roofless building?" is 'yes'. C2.7 does not allow for a Gun to be on an upper level building location (unless fortified on the level below, or a MTR on a rooftop). 1.2 allows an exception for this for AA Guns <= 20 mm and MTRs <= 82mm if on the topmost level of a roofless building. The rest of 1.2 defines the rules for firing Indirect MTR fire from these uppermost level (non-rooftop) locations to be equivalent to the rules for firing from a rooftop.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
802
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Agree that the first sentence of 1.3 could have been better worded. In the end, TEM DRM for a unit in a roofless building is unchanged from what is defined in B23.32. We'll come up something either sticky errata or Q&A related that will clarify.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,475
Reaction score
1,512
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
It's not wrong but an explanatory note might avoid people having a "have I got the rules wroong again" moment like I did!
 

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
340
Reaction score
29
Country
llUnited States
It's not wrong but an explanatory note might avoid people having a "have I got the rules wroong again" moment like I did!
It is wrong, in the sense that it implies something that is not true in the RB and therefore not true for this product absent a special rule: that there is an additional +1 TEM for a rooftop level overhead.

Easily corrected, however. Add a special rule to the effect that contrary to the RB, because of the reinforced construction employed on the Rock the rooftop level, as well as other intervening levels, of buildings qualifies one for an additional +1 TEM for indirect fire, etc. (EXC: roofless buildings, 17.3).

Or is that special rule there already? I don't have the product so I am relying entirety on the other posts for my information.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,424
Reaction score
802
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
It is wrong, in the sense that it implies something that is not true in the RB and therefore not true for this product absent a special rule: that there is an additional +1 TEM for a rooftop level overhead.

Easily corrected, however. Add a special rule to the effect that contrary to the RB, because of the reinforced construction employed on the Rock the rooftop level, as well as other intervening levels, of buildings qualifies one for an additional +1 TEM for indirect fire, etc. (EXC: roofless buildings, 17.3).

Or is that special rule there already? I don't have the product so I am relying entirety on the other posts for my information.
No, ultimately it needs to simply state that the roofless buildings are treated no differently than the usual DRM treatment of units in buildings.
 

rcarter

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
656
Reaction score
61
Location
knoxville
Country
llUnited States
No, ultimately it needs to simply state that the roofless buildings are treated no differently than the usual DRM treatment of units in buildings.
Ok, sorry to belabor this but I am just trying to be clear.

So the example and rule text Vinnie quotes above suggests that indirect fire on the roofless location of stone multistory bldgs without a roof is subject to +3 TEM. But it also states that a unit on the Ground level in this presumable 2 story bldg would receive +4 TEM (+3 for Stone and +1 for the location above it). I agree this is not different than a normal treatment of roofed bldgs (B23.32). The only difference is that the topmost level in this building is roofless.

But it is different, as stated above, than the RB (O5.45) and VOTG rules (V7.7) on gutted/roofless factories and bldgs in that there is only a +2 TEM to indirect fire to units in the roofless location. Though even in the VOTG rules you get the additional +1 TEM if you are in a non-roofless location of the bldg for all levels above it, including the roofless level -- at least, I think that is implied by saying "non-rooftop locations."

The problem I am seeing is simply that phrase "Units subject to indirect fire ... while located in the topmost level of a roofless building may not claim the additional +1 TEM since there is no "intact roof" above the topmost level."

I think Vinnie's point is that there is no rule that states there is an additional +1 TEM in the topmost level of a building for an "intact roof" -- unless there is an SBR in CtR.

I don't have the ruleset in front of me, but would it be enough to simply state that Indirect fire on a roofless location is subject to the normal stone building +3 TEM. Further, there is an additional +1 TEM for all levels above units in non-roofless locations, including the roofless level.

I think that given the RB and VOTG rules it might still help clarify things.

Again, sorry to be pedantic about it -- I'm just trying to clarify it for myself (and maybe some others).
 

ASLSARGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
293
Location
Arizona
Country
llUnited States
A rewording suggestion may be

"Due to the reinforced concrete and heavy construction of the buildings on Corregidor, the +1 TEM for additional levels above the target level in a multilevel building (B23.32) includes the rooftop level or in the case of a roofless building the topmost level."
We will certainly take a look at it.....thanks for the suggestion as well. Always good when the task is made easier.
 
Top