Which rule do you want to change?

[Mister T]

One reason could be because an onboard 81mm MTR attacks on the 8-FP column whereas 80mm+ OBA attacks on the 16-FP column. The difference in +2 roughly accounts for the two column difference.
Not saying this is the reason, but it could be.

This may account for the fact that OBA has no ROF and may have access to more rounds than those allocated to close support.

 

[Mister T]

D 8.23 DEEP SNOW/ MUD BOG.. as ruled the defender knows if the AFV will be bogged or not and he may adjust his D1F according at this knowledge of a future event.. A better rule is make only a secret dr to know when the moving AFV will check BOG.. once the AFV reaches this numbered hex the defender shows the secret dr and the moving AFV roll a BOG check as usual for entering hexes not crossing a road hexside. It’s exactly the same but the defender doesn’t have any knowledge of the BOG result until the hex is reached.. besides a set of numbered 1-6 cards may be used in place of a secret dr. IMHO a needed and easy rule change

EDIT: to eliminate any defender adv roll a dr per each hexside crossed without using a road.. if the number is equal or less than the number of hexsides crossed during this MPh the vehicle has to roll immediately for BOG.. again same prob but neither attacker nor defender will know anything until the bog roll is checked for.

EDIT. To avoid any attacker adv once the BOG is passed -ie he will know the vehicle may move without risking bog - once the first roll is passed a new secret dr is done counting the new entered hex as 1 and so on.. ie as minimum a BOG DR will be done per every 6 hexsides crossed.. normally an attacker will know nothing will happen when moving the 7th hex. Key here is no one will know how many hexes will move without risking BOG and if the BOG check will be passed or not in advance..

Remember that, although the defender knows the potential outcome of the secret DR, for DFF purposes, he does not know where the attacker will stop moving. The current mecanism seems okay to me.

 

[Justiciar]

The next question is: Would we look at foxholes differently if there were no OBA in ASL? (I might, as they would be designed to a different purpose.))

Not sure I quite get where your headed, but I think no, b/c we would still want the +4 for OVR...??????

 

[Paul John]

But however it's done, it would be nice to have a CH strike the hull for a change (which could now happen).

A critical hit does hit the hull. Only gets the turret if hull down (C3.9).

 

[jrv]

The best place to fight is the place where one can also find a way to leave without being stuck in a suicidal place (EXC: Japanese).

You and I may think that. I'm not sure armies think that.

From the US Army FM 5-15:

1-3. Use of Field Fortifications

a. On the Offense. During offensive operations periodic halts may be required to regroup, resupply, or consolidate positions gained. Where the enemy threat is known to include a counterattack capability (or probability), offensive units should seek available cover or should dig hasty emplacements as described in paragraph 2-4a.

b. On the Defense. A defensive position is built around a series of organized and occupied tactical positions. Positions are selected for their natural defensive strength and the observation afforded. Fortification measures include clearing fields of fire, digging weapon emplacements and positions for personnel, strengthening natural obstacles, installing artificial obstacles, and providing camouflage.

I have not read the entire FM, so perhaps there is a section covering how to run away. And perhaps that is on the mind of soldiers without being stated. My impression is that armies hope that when fortifications are set up the troops will stay put in them.

JR

 

[mgmasl]

Remember that, although the defender knows the potential outcome of the secret DR, for DFF purposes, he does not know where the attacker will stop moving. The current mecanism seems okay to me.

But defender knows which important hex the moving unit will never reach this movement phase and exactly where it will be bogged if entering.. IMO too much important info.

 

[Tater]

A foxhole is intended as cover from artillery fire. Being as you don't want to be moving around outside of the foxhole when under artillery fire, a foxhole serves its purpose well in ASL as in real life. If you could exit with quickness and agility, would it then be something robust enough to provide +2/+4 cover? Not likely.

So only broken units have the "quickness and agility" to move through foxholes as though they were shellholes?

Given that...
...foxholes appear in as many (if not more) scenarios without any OBA than otherwise...
...the odds of OBA coming down right where one places one's foxholes is low...
...the OBA (if present) might not come down anywhere at all...

The fact remains that setting up in foxholes is a death trap...which, regardless of "real world" use and/or reasonings, means that foxholes in ASL are broken. Including them in scenarios where there is no OBA is useless...including them in scenarios where OBA is present is only slightly less useless.

 

[Binchois]

A critical hit does hit the hull. Only gets the turret if hull down (C3.9).

My apologies! (...but thanks for reading!) I expressed the idea backwards. You're right, when a vehicle is HD, a CH automatically hits the turret (by rule). But when a vehicle is not HD, the hit automatically hits the hull (since the two dice are equal). My idea would allow some flexibility here, since the follow-up DR to a "CH Possibility" doesn't have to be snakeyes.

 

[mgmasl]

My apologies! (...but thanks for reading!) I expressed the idea inaccurately. You're right, when a vehicle is HD, a CH automatically hits the turret (by rule). But when a vehicle is not HD, the hit automatically hits the hull (since the two dice are equal). My idea would allow some flexibility here, since the follow-up DR to a "CH Possibility" doesn't have to be snakeyes.

Anyway, it´s ok to get a probability of CH with a turret hit if not HD.. Sometime Panthers are inmune even to CH when not HD because a CH never hits the turret with the reduced armor factor..

 

[Tater]

I believe that a shellhole counter does not (in general) represent one shellhole. It represents many shellholes spread over the entire 40m hex, Passchendaele-style. A foxhole counter does not represent pock-marking the entire hex with holes. With shellholes it's possible to dash from shellhole to shellhole across the width of the hex. With foxholes, once you leave your hole, you are naked and afraid for 20m on average. I don't see being able to dig shellholes during the course of a scenario, any more than I see being able to dig trenches under fire. I also agree with the rules as written: foxholes are great to fight from but it is hard to get away from them cleanly except the wait for a lull in the enemy fire and then crawl away (Advance) or run like the dickens (voluntarily break).

Just reviewed several dozen historical pics of foxholes usage...

Looks to me like you could have a hex with 1-2 foxholes or a hex with a dozen or so foxholes. Also looks like you could have deep, almost pit like foxholes as well as relatively shallow (shellhole like) superficial foxholes. As with any game abstraction, the foxhole counter represents every conceivable instance/density/depth/etc of foxhole usage. As such, modifying the foxhole rules to allow entry/exit of foxholes as one combined move doesn't seem at all outrageous...nor does it seem likely that it would have much, if any, affect on balance.

 

[wrongway149]

. As with any game abstraction, the foxhole counter represents every conceivable instance/density/depth/etc of foxhole usage.

No, it doesn't. It represents a defensive fighting position (in which the user is not expected to move) that provides a moderate game effect advantage vs direct fire and more so vs. OBA and OVR.

If you are planning on utilizing maneuver extensively (as you will in most ASL games), foxholes may not be the best option. (although they work nicely in combination with hedges, wall, debris, etc.)

 

[wrongway149]

Not sure I quite get where your headed, but I think no, b/c we would still want the +4 for OVR...??????

True -- but another one of those events that happens rarely enough that it might not be worth the effort for a separate rule.

 

[Tater]

No, it doesn't.

Yeah, it does...because this is a game. The counter is a game mechanic that abstracts hole(s) in the ground. As such it is a totally generic representation of what that might be from a rules standpoint. Had the rule been written differently from the start you wouldn't know any different. So spare me the huffin and puffin of military jargon and lingo...again, this is a game that bares only a very superficial, exaggerated and abstracted resemblance to anything military.

BTW, do you think a 1sqd foxhole represents a single foxhole with 10-15 men in it? Or more likely, it is 4-6 foxholes each with 2-3 men in each foxhole? What about a 2sqd'r? Or how about a 3 sqd'r? Would a 3 squad foxhole represent a 40m hex containing anywhere from 10-15 foxholes in it? Wouldn't that mean the foxholes would only be a few feet apart, sort of like a shellhole hex? Yeah, a reality argument, but then that's my point, ASL foxholes are a game mechanic and not reality, which means as the game goes, if foxholes are useless then something is broken rules wise...reality doesn't matter, if they don't work in the game then they are a waste of space and effort...I got a bajillion foxhole counters and don't really need a one of them.

It represents a defensive fighting position (in which the user is not expected to move) that provides a moderate game effect advantage vs direct fire and more so vs. OBA and OVR.

Says you...so once a soldier dug a foxhole they were never, ever, ever expected to move again? What is the old adage...expect the unexpected.

If you are planning on utilizing maneuver extensively (as you will in most ASL games), foxholes may not be the best option.

Sigh...so, IOW, you agree that for most ASL scenarios they are broken...and they don't work well with any other terrain because you got to spend the extra MF to exit/enter separate from the hex. I can tell you this, I never setup in foxholes because the pause to exit/enter is never worth the exchange to give the opponent an extra FF shot without the +2.

If you believe foxholes work so well then, by all means, please setup in them. But having 30+ years of experience with ASL...I am betting your use foxholes like everyone else...i.e., you don't use them except to...

...create safe rout paths...
...strategic locations (where applicable)...
...dummies...

What you don't do is fight/defend from the death trap that are foxholes.

 

[Paul John]

My idea would allow some flexibility here, since the follow-up DR to a "CH Possibility" doesn't have to be snakeyes.

That is a very nice extra outcome of the extra DR. I like it!

 

[Jacometti]

That is a very nice extra outcome of the extra DR. I like it!

I hate all extra DR.....never in my life will I play again with a ROF die or in Desert Dust conditions. It hurts my brain not to "see" the result of a DR immediately.

 

[Binchois]

I hate all extra DR.....never in my life will I play again with a ROF die or in Desert Dust conditions. It hurts my brain not to "see" the result of a DR immediately.

Then you'll love my CH method! There's only an extra DR when the original TH DR is snakes. Small sacrifice, pretty big fix.

Otherwise, completely agree!!!

 

[mgmasl]

Hating dicey games vs hating rolling 3 dice and not 2 or some extra DR.. this is the main conflict.. I have a clear winner. Anyway with more time available to play and the possibility of playing a lot of CGs or big scenarios maybe I would have a diff POV .. IMHO there are a lot of small gems deserving some more DRs for a more probable enjoyment to the last turn.. I personally prefer not to play specific scenarios without a third die for ROF same as not playing scenarios with OBA without Pleva rule or a similar one -even only returning the red card not adding new red cards- and, of course, no radio malfunction.. not rolling contact when needed is bad enough to add the malfunction info to the enemy..radio malfunction is just a bad joke with all the needed steps to have a well placed FFE.. only thing added to a lot of disasters Is the excessive valious info to the enemy. Just seen excessive times.

Lot of gamers and lot of opinions..

 

[wrongway149]

If you believe foxholes work so well then, by all means, please setup in them. But having 30+ years of experience with ASL...I am betting your use foxholes like everyone else...i.e., you don't use them except to...

...create safe rout paths...
...strategic locations (where applicable)...
...dummies...

What you don't do is fight/defend from the death trap that are foxholes.

You're right-- I don't. Because that's not what they were meant for (in reality, or in the game) . Hence, they aren't broken. They function exactly as intended. If you want to try use them for something else, go ahead --just don't complain when things don't work out.

 

[Justiciar]

True -- but another one of those events that happens rarely enough that it might not be worth the effort for a separate rule.

I standby the 2 tier form I posted upstream. ASL is about separate rule/s...never mind EXC...which is another way of saying separate rule.

 

[Jacometti]

You're right-- I don't. Because that's not what they were meant for (in reality, or in the game) . Hence, they aren't broken. They function exactly as intended. If you want to try use them for something else, go ahead --just don't complain when things don't work out.

Sorry Pete, but have to completely disagree with you. My point is that in comparison with shellholes Foxholes are just useless. From both a reality and game aspect, that makes no sense to me.

At the end of a MPh, you automatically gain the +1 TEM of the Shellhole without spending a MF to enter them. You can Assault Move into them and stay concealed. You can leave them without loosing concealment. You can leave them without facing Interdiction (and possibly, surrender, as a result).

If you think in comparison Foxholes are what they are supposed to be, I really question that.

The best use I have ever had for Foxholes in ASL is to create artificial Strategic Locations in Pegasus Bridge and KGP Campaign Games, linking up various setup areas. I doubt that is the historical function you are referring to.