When you play, how often do you use the IIFT?

How many of your games use the IIFT?

  • None - Almost never use it.

    Votes: 105 41.2%
  • 0-10%

    Votes: 31 12.2%
  • 11-20%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 21-30%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 31-40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 41-50%

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • 51-60%

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • 61-70%

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • 71-80%

    Votes: 13 5.1%
  • 81-90%

    Votes: 16 6.3%
  • 91-100%

    Votes: 63 24.7%

  • Total voters
    255

Chaim628

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
526
Reaction score
10
Location
Zurich
Country
llSwitzerland
We used the IIFT for our BRT CG III, and I was able to score a strong victory with the USMC. For every improved Japanese MTR, the USMC had more effective FG FP.

Again, picking at non-debated snippets of Fire Table math which actually end up hitting both sides in the end is not proof significant balance change is taking place.
Same here, played with 2 experienced players and 1 inexperience Marine player like 6 years ago and the USMC won at the start of the second CG date, with the Japanes conceding at CVP 301-239. I would not know if that would be high compared to other CG III games after a good day of fighting...

Seems like there is somewhat of an advantage for the Marines (7-5 on ROAR) and the IIFT not making much of a difference, not particulary balancing it for the Japanese in any case...
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
Gary M,



Now you're recognizing the Fire Table by itself has relatively little impact to who is winning and losing in comparison to all these other factors, including those you identified above.

Let's admit this once and for all: you're sticking with the IFT because you prefer it. It has nothing to do with the IIFT being fundamentally broken.
It's not going to allow an average player to beat Steve Pleva if that's what you mean. However just think about it for a moment. Each hit by a 50* mortar now has better than 1 in 4 chance of zapping a LVT. That's a pretty big balance shift when there are a dozen of these 50* mortars shooting each with a ROF 2.

To paraphrase a previous question that I've asked REPEATEDLY with no answer, why do you think that American IIFT advantages from things like 75 MAs are enough to balance Japanese 50* mortars vs LVTs and Japanese 3-2 shots vs wading infantry and booby traps, but magically don't affect balance in the many Japanese Marine scenarios where these factors aren't in play?
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
54
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Jim,

Even if the the odds are on ~5% (a figure you threw out earlier), why would you willingly give up that competative advantage?
That ~5% I threw out there was a guess that both sides will get hammered slightly more from using the IIFT. And that has no correlation on what an overall percentage of scenario balance is being thrown from a potential 5% deviation in fire table results both sides are getting hit with.

I find the IIFT more fun. If that means a particular side has ~1% greater chance of winning a scenario because of the Fire Table (once considered with all game factors involved, not just isolated instances of particular fire shots), I'll take the more fun, thanks. YMMV.

I play ASL for intense fun. I'd return to competitive basketball if this game was all about every last competitive element.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
54
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Gary M,

Each hit by a 50* mortar now has better than 1 in 4 chance of zapping a LVT.
You're exaggerating a ~10% increase of overall fire effect for a weapon that still needs to hit before it does damage. You also have two ROAR-style reports that the USMC can score solid victories in BRT CG III using the IIFT. Take them for what their worth. :)

American IIFT advantages from things like 75 MAs are enough to balance Japanese 50* mortars vs LVTs and Japanese 3-2 shots vs wading infantry and booby traps, but magically don't affect balance in the many Japanese Marine scenarios where these factors aren't in play?
The only thing I've said is that the slightly increased violence from the IIFT generally tends to hit both sides. I've never drawn any direct correlation between this trend and scenario / CG balance. This is because nobody has done the rigorous analysis on the macro trends, and I have no reason to believe scenario balance is being thrown at a high enough percentage to be concerned. We're too busy throwing around non-contextual minituae. :)
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
Gary M,



You're exaggerating a ~10% increase of overall fire effect for a weapon that still needs to hit before it does damage. You also have two ROAR-style reports that the USMC can score solid victories in BRT CG III using the IIFT. Take them for what their worth. :)
Day 1 has a dozen 50* mortars. The 6 on Red Beach can fire immediately. The 6 on Green Beach can be in a pillbox and moved into a trench on Japanese movement or advance phase 1 and can start firing turn 2. Given a proper Japanese defense, it takes about 3 movement phases for a LVT to hit the beach, and maybe a 4th to unload. That's about 4-7 fire phases per mortar, each one with 1.5 shots on average unless the Americans use precious firepower to suppress the mortars rather than dangerous stuff like .50 cals or 37Ls or 75AAs or unless some of the mortars malf. You're going to get a lot of shocked/immobilized LVTs, especially since the Japanese will have some acqs on their prep fire phases. And when the 1st wave lands, the mortars can start shooting up the 2nd wave.


The only thing I've said is that the slightly increased violence from the IIFT generally tends to hit both sides. I've never drawn any direct correlation between this trend and scenario / CG balance. This is because nobody has done the rigorous analysis on the macro trends, and I have no reason to believe scenario balance is being thrown at a high enough percentage to be concerned. We're too busy throwing around non-contextual minituae. :)
That may be true in many/most scenarios, but that's not the case in certain scenarios/CGs such as many 747 vs 467 scenarios, many 548 vs 437/457 scenarios, and VOTG CG4.
 

Sparafucil3

Elder Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,088
Reaction score
1,691
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
That ~5% I threw out there was a guess that both sides will get hammered slightly more from using the IIFT. And that has no correlation on what an overall percentage of scenario balance is being thrown from a potential 5% deviation in fire table results both sides are getting hit with.
The point you continue to miss is that even of both sides get an equal "bump/effect" in terms of results, the results will likely me more damaging to one side or the other. If you need to reposition or move forward to attack, getting "X" more PIN results may more adversely affect your side than the side which is everywhere it needs to be and is only shooting/skulking away.

I find the IIFT more fun. If that means a particular side has ~1% greater chance of winning a scenario because of the Fire Table (once considered with all game factors involved, not just isolated instances of particular fire shots), I'll take the more fun, thanks. YMMV.

I play ASL for intense fun. I'd return to competitive basketball if this game was all about every last competitive element.
Which is all well and good, and I fully support your right to chose as you wish, but this no place in a mathematical discussion on the differences between the tables. May as well tell me you prefer mashed potatos with butter vice sour cream. -- jim
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
96
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
You're exaggerating a ~10% increase of overall fire effect for a weapon that still needs to hit before it does damage. You also have two ROAR-style reports that the USMC can score solid victories in BRT CG III using the IIFT. Take them for what their worth. :)
The odds for hits and rates hasn't changed. For whatever number of hits you are going to get, a 10% bonus to smashed landing craft is noticeable. A 10% reduction to the forces that will make it to the beach is noticeable.

The only thing I've said is that the slightly increased violence from the IIFT generally tends to hit both sides. I've never drawn any direct correlation between this trend and scenario / CG balance. This is because nobody has done the rigorous analysis on the macro trends, and I have no reason to believe scenario balance is being thrown at a high enough percentage to be concerned. We're too busy throwing around non-contextual minituae. :)
But the side hit first loses their momentum first. Or one side gets the frequent shots on the "slightly increased violence" columns.

You might lose the scenario more often because you picked a bad plan, or didn't adapt when the dice went south, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the IIFT changes the odds significantly.

If you're worried about non-contextual minutiae, please define the context you would like to limit the discussion to.
 

Stacks

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
111
Country
llFinland
Same here, played with 2 experienced players and 1 inexperience Marine player like 6 years ago and the USMC won at the start of the second CG date, with the Japanes conceding at CVP 301-239. I would not know if that would be high compared to other CG III games after a good day of fighting...

Seems like there is somewhat of an advantage for the Marines (7-5 on ROAR) and the IIFT not making much of a difference, not particulary balancing it for the Japanese in any case...
Know of 6 playings of the BRT here in Stockholm and the end result has been 6-0 Japanese Victories (none reported to ROAR) and the conclusion has been that the CG favours the Japanese to much, the last two playings the Americans received three strong balances and still it didn´t help.
 

Chaim628

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
526
Reaction score
10
Location
Zurich
Country
llSwitzerland
Know of 6 playings of the BRT here in Stockholm and the end result has been 6-0 Japanese Victories (none reported to ROAR) and the conclusion has been that the CG favours the Japanese to much, the last two playings the Americans received three strong balances and still it didn´t help.
Are we talking about the same GCIII here ? Once the Marines are on shore there is not that much stopping them anymore and inflicting massive damage...

But it is a good example, since I presume you/they used the IFT, the choice of fire table would not make a difference at all. :)
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
54
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
I'd actually suggest the USMC are slightly favoured in BRT CG III. With varying viewpoints, it sounds like the playtesters did their jobs. :)
 

Stacks

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
111
Country
llFinland
Are we talking about the same GCIII here ? Once the Marines are on shore there is not that much stopping them anymore and inflicting massive damage...
But it is a good example, since I presume you/they used the IFT, the choice of fire table would not make a difference at all. :)
Of course, and of course it would make a difference - plenty more DRs (and drs) to see if Booby Traps and/or SAN is triggered...
 

Chaim628

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
526
Reaction score
10
Location
Zurich
Country
llSwitzerland
Of course, and of course it would make a difference - plenty more DRs (and drs) to see if Booby Traps and/or SAN is triggered...
Well, if IFTers have 6-0 for Japanese, and IIFTers get a majority of Marine victories, it does not look like the Japanese get advantaged by using the IIFT, now does it ? Maybe there are a whole range of other factors in play, than just a slight difference, in some instances, on one of the many tables ?
Like Marine freak gamey play when they have to play the IFT for example :p Sometimes it really helps to focus on your strategy :D
 

Stacks

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
111
Country
llFinland
Well, if IFTers have 6-0 for Japanese, and IIFTers get a majority of Marine victories, it does not look like the Japanese get advantaged by using the IIFT, now does it ?
You missing my point it would make a difference - plenty more DRs (and drs) to see if Booby Traps (vs wading troops/pathfinders that cannot be pinned) and/or SAN is triggered....if you consider that to be fun gaming, best of luck.

Maybe there are a whole range of other factors in play, than just a slight difference, in some instances, on one of the many tables ?
Do consider that a good Japanese set up, will break this CG (the large one).
Like Marine freak gamey play when they have to play the IFT for example :p Sometimes it really helps to focus on your strategy :D
? don´t know what to make of this reasoning, probably you have a long-term strategy that will prove your point.
i
 
Top