Does anyone have designer notes on why Avalon Hill accepted the IFT as official? It was changed from SL to ASL, adding in PTC's, the idea that a KIA didn't simply kill everything in the hex, adding numbered Morale Checks. Seems rather capricious to me and I need to see the designer notes to accept it. -- jimDoes anyone have any designer notes on why MMP accepted the IIFT as an Official Option, all the way to including the chart with the ASLRB2?
You don't need designer notes to get to the bottom of this. All you need do is ask yourself: "Are there instances where I can determine that one table would tend to produce a result I would find more favorable when compared to the other". You need to DASH across a road. The road is guarded by a 2-4-7, HMG, and German 7-0 leader. You are in normal range. Can you determine if one table would tend to produce a more favorable outcome when compared to the other? What if you were instead the shoot? Same question but instead, the German HS is now manning a 50mm mortar. What if booby traps are in effect? There are no need for designers notes to answer these questions.Jim,
You're one of the ones complaining about an official rule in the game being fundamentally broken. I'm trying to ask the right Qs to help get to the bottom of this.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Portal. -- jimI guess you're just trying to troll as much as Tater. :laugh:
Perhaps check out the intro and the footnotes for Chapter A.Does anyone have any designer notes on why MMP accepted the IIFT as an Official Option, all the way to including the chart with the ASLRB2?
He says from underneath his bridge...:laugh:I guess you're just trying to troll as much as Tater. :laugh:
No, I call them cherrys because they are none contextual and meaningless to an ASL scenario as a whole. You pick them because they support a preconceived notion and you ignore any counter balancing factors.You call them cherries because you can't refute them and you know the facts are against you.
The only serious claim I have made is that no ift'er has proved that the IIFT changes balance...which you haven't. Cherry picked, none contextual factors do not prove anything. This whole thread is based on ift'er claims that the IIFT unbalances scenarios...I don't have to bring anything to the table...you do...and you have yet to show up with anything realistic.But if you want to tell us its just them same/no different/doesn't affect balance/etc, you're going to have to bring more to the table than you have so far.
You call them cherries because doing so denigrates them and obviates you from the need to address them. You attempt to place them beneath your contempt for the same reason.No, I call them cherrys because they are none contextual and meaningless to an ASL scenario as a whole. You pick them because they support a preconceived notion and you ignore any counter balancing factors.
Plenty has been brought to the table, all of which you revert to one of four patterns: belittle it because you can't refute it; obfuscate your response so following along are not aware of the vacuous nature of your response; ask "why do you care since you never have to play it"; or attack the poster asking them to "have another fish".The only serious claim I have made is that no ift'er has proved that the IIFT changes balance...which you haven't. Cherry picked, none contextual factors do not prove anything. This whole thread is based on ift'er claims that the IIFT unbalances scenarios...I don't have to bring anything to the table...you do...and you have yet to show up with anything realistic.
Congratulations, you just described balance considerations everyone makes whether they put a specific percentage to one side or not.I acknowledge them...I just don't think they mean what you think they do relative to actual ASL play. The difference between you and I is that you seem to believe that ASL is a game of mathematics. I, OTOH, KNOW that ASL is much more than the sum of the mathematics.
Otherwise why even play a scenario...just add up the FP, calculate turns vs movement capability, run a couple of formulas, spit out the statistical analysis and viola...side "B" has a 61.9% chance of winning so no need to play. :nuts:
I really try not to take it to a personal level. If I have to resort to a personal attack to make my point, I've gotten too frustrated with someone who doesn't listen.Sure, but aren't you all better than that? At least that is what you seem to think, right? As you accuse one another of "arguing like Tater". :laugh:
It cuts both ways. He will have to accept his ordnance (like his Sherman guns) will be artificially less effective as well... If the IFT would not sport a 1 column he would have even be more convinced...:nuts:I'm doing a setup of BRT vs an opponent who strictly uses IIFT right now. I noticed during setup that the Japanese 50* mortars are halved vs LVTs in water, so they would fire on the 1 column using IFT and the 1.5 column using IIFT. The LVTs are OT with thin armor for a -2 to the effects roll. With IFT, the LVT gets shocked/immobilized on a 4 or less. With IIFT, they get shocked/immobilized on a 5 or less. That's changing the probability of getting an effect from 17% to 28%. That's a huge increase when you're talking about a ROF2 weapons.
There are a LOT of 50* mortars in BRT and a LOT of LVT targets. When I pointed this out to my opponent, he immediately decided that he didn't want to use IIFT in this CG, at least for ordnance...
I think you mean if he used the IIFT that his ordnance would be "artificially" INFLATED as well.It cuts both ways. He will have to accept his ordnance (like his Sherman guns) will be artificially less effective as well... If the IFT would not sport a 1 column he would have even be more convinced...:nuts:
I would not start playing with two tables but at least you have less game play impact if you use the IFT for ordnance alone.
Just because both sides "benefit" does not mean the effects are cancled out. -- jimAgain, 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.
I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.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.
Let’s see. In terms of IIFT columns, the Americans have 768s, 348 HS, 75mm guns, and the odd LC attacks, probably ¼ to ½ firepower due to being constantly in motion. That’s if they don’t button up which they may want to do with all the Japanese firepower. The 75’s get a decent benefit, especially since a hit results in 0 TEM. The rest of the shots on the 3, 7, and 10 columns don’t mean as much since the extra results are mostly ptcs, and TEM will probably be +2 to +5 against any Japanese targets, and most of the effective American shots will be during Defensive fire when a pin result is fairly worthless.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.
I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.
Let’s see. In terms of IIFT columns, the Americans have 768s, 348 HS, 75mm guns, and the odd LC attacks, probably ¼ to ½ firepower due to being constantly in motion. That’s if they don’t button up which they may want to do with all the Japanese firepower. The 75’s get a decent benefit, especially since a hit results in 0 TEM. The rest of the shots on the 3, 7, and 10 columns don’t mean as much since the extra results are mostly ptcs, and TEM will probably be +2 to +5 against any Japanese targets, and most of the effective American shots will be during Defensive fire when a pin result is fairly worthless.
The Japanese have the 50* mortars, 347 squads, striped 44x squads, and purchased 75/76 guns, and 140 guns, plus long range shots. They also have booby trap capability. If the 50* mortars get a shock/immobilize result vs the LVTs, that’s probably going to result in dead passengers since they would be sitting ducks. The other 3 fp shots are generally going to be more effective than the equivalent American 3 or 7 column shots since they’ll usually be taken at 0 to -2 drms and the “extra” results are more likely to come into play. Also the extra ptc results can generate booby traps.
All in all, I just don’t see the Americans getting the same benefit from IIFT as the Japanese in the CG.
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.I have no idea how good you are, your opponent is, whether his setup was good, or whether the luck was lopsided.
I hesitate to put words into Gary's mouth, but I don't think he, I, or anyone else ever hesitated to accept the IIFT was just one part of the overall equation. What you have failed to accept is that it does have the potential for upsetting balance. Even if the the odds are on ~5% (a figure you threw out earlier), why would you willingly give up that competative advantage? There-in lays the difference. Gary recognizes it, and is willing to play with the IIFT. Fort, Wolkey, Peter Ward, myself, and others also recognize it and reject it out of hand. I would not allow you to add a d20 to your DR and any time a "1" comes up allow you a flat -1 DRM to a shot either. Accepting that the IIFT can affect ~5% of your shots (1 in 20) is accepting the same paradigm. -- jimNow 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.