Which rule do you want to change?

[boylermaker]

I think one thing that might help potential alternate rules take off is a VASL extension. If my opponent said "hey, I'm interested in playing with alternate CH rules; please read this handout", then I would be pretty resistant to it even if (as this proposal does), it had a bunch of elegant statistical properties.

On the other hand, if my opponent said "hey, I'm interested in playing with alternate CH rules; just put this extension in your VASL folder, press the "VTT TH" button, and it will do all of the work for you and just tell you whether you have a CH or not"--that's something I would be more open to.

Of course, the limits of what VASL can and can't do means that you might have to build the rule around VASL. So, for instance, @Binchois' original rule is out, since VASL doesn't know what the TH number is for the follow-up roll. On the other hand, you could just have VASL roll a subsequent DR for every VTT TH, and if it is a 1,1, then print "If hits, is a critical hit" or similar. This (I think) has all the desirable statistical properties of the original method, but is a bit easier to implement in VASL.

 

[Robin Reeve]

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.

I would add the creation of rout paths across open ground (including non paved roads).
And places to skulk in, when behind a wall or a hedge, without changing Locations.

 

[wrongway149]

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.

None of which I am disagreeing with. I just think too many players are asking foxholes to be something they're not-- and are not supposed to be. Don't blame the foxhole rule for that!!! (Especially when we already have a rule for shellholes.)

A major design principle of ASL is that you don't get many situations where you get to 'have it both ways'. The good-excellent TEM of a fortification you can obtain during a game PLUS the flexibility for such movement options would be just that-- and that's not ASL. You want that cover? Then deal with the movement issues. You want to be able to move? Forego the +2/+4 TEM.

Instead, maybe use an SSR that allows shellholes to be dug instead of foxholes. (Or use Mr. Hershey's 'two-tier' system. First successful roll = shellhole. Continue digging to replace with a foxhole.)

To dig a fortification like the one shown in the diagram above within a two minute time frame- possibly while under fire- does seem a bit specious when you think about it that way. But if that part is broken, it's a different fix.

 

[Mister T]

The foxhole flaw is so profound that a two-line SSR won't probably do the job (or if it were it would have to be incorporated straight into the RB).

The idea of a trade-off between protection and 'escapability' can work.

For that to be effective options for players, the current rule can be split into two partially-integrated subsets (+common provisions for both categories of course):

- hard/deep foxholes should see their protective advantages slightly increased from baseline;

- shallow/hasty foxholes should be more accessible with slightly lower protection; as Tater put it, currently only brokies master the art of navigating effortlessly between then.

 

[wrongway149]

; as Tater put it, currently only brokies master the art of navigating effortlessly between then.

I'd rather 'fix' the rule on the rout end. Take your interdiction like a man!!?

 

[Robin Reeve]

Why do so many scenarios have foxholes in their OB or SSR that eligible units may set up entrenched, while there is no OBA?
I blame the designers for not knowing for what foxholes are used and for enticing a non historical use of those fortifications.
There should be much less foxholes in scenario set ups.

 

[Jacometti]

Why do so many scenarios have foxholes in their OB or SSR that eligible units may set up entrenched, while there is no OBA?
I blame the designers for not knowing for what foxholes are used and for enticing a non historical use of those fortifications.
There should be much less foxholes in scenario set ups.

Look around our 30+ published scenarios and you will find very, very few foxholes and many more Trenches.

 

[mgmasl]

In CGs reduce proportionally cost on CPP when groups arrive depleted.
So more CPP for next date. No idea why the cost is the same. I may accept the group has arrived reduced but I think absurd not reduce the cost accordying to the troops received.

 

[jrv]

In CGs reduce proportionally cost on CPP when groups arrive depleted.
So more CPP for next date. No idea why the cost is the same. I may accept the group has arrived reduced but I think absurd not reduce the cost accordying to the troops received.

When there are a large number of purchases the number of times groups that deplete will approach the average, and this change will approximate having a fixed cost whether the groups reduce or not. If it makes you feel better, by all means, but unless there are a very small number of purchases in most cases you are just pushing numbers around without changing the net effect.

When you make a purchase of, say, an infantry company there is an expected cost per squad. If you pay the same price depleted or not, the cost per squad is [RG Cost]/([Number of undepleted squads]✕[Chance of not depleting] + [Number of depleted squads]✕[Chance of depleting]). After a number of purchases this approaches a single number. When you pay different costs, you use a different formula. The average cost per squad is [RG Cost undepleted]✕[Chance undepleted]/[Number of undepleted squads] + [RG Cost depleted]✕[Chance depleted]/[Number of depleted squads]. Again on the average that produces a single price per squad. If you then adjust the values so the price per squad is the same (because you aren't trying to sneak a price reduction in), the net result is the same.

JR

 

[Paul M. Weir]

In CGs reduce proportionally cost on CPP when groups arrive depleted.
So more CPP for next date. No idea why the cost is the same. I may accept the group has arrived reduced but I think absurd not reduce the cost accordying to the troops received.

Think of it this way: You (the higher HQ) sends in a company and it gets a bit chewed up on it's way to the front line or due to previous combat has been worn down. It's still a company from your battalion or regiment, you only have 3-4 (battalion) or 9-12 (regiment) to spare. The cost to you is still a fixed chunk of your force regardless of whether all or part of it reaches the front line.

 

[mgmasl]

Think of it this way: You (the higher HQ) sends in a company and it gets a bit chewed up on it's way to the front line or due to previous combat has been worn down. It's still a company from your battalion or regiment, you only have 3-4 (battalion) or 9-12 (regiment) to spare. The cost to you is still a fixed chunk of your force regardless of whether all or part of it reaches the front line.

Fully agree with the intent.. but for game purposes the cost is the same for diff groups.. i’m not saying CPPs must be returned for Stukas doing nothing or guns rolling 12 on first shot, but IMHO it’s a way to broke the teorically equilibrated CG.. there are rolls to receive CPPs and then to transform those CPPs on real units and then again to get leaders with those groups.. it’s supposed that so many DR tend to equilibrate but I think too many things depending on luck when the interesting thing is having an equilibrate engagement.. this kind of events unbalancing from the very start of each CG Date are IMHO absolutely unnecessary, specially in 2-5 dates CGs. The combat by itself with its lot of DRs and red and black chits will create enough randomness to have an uncertain and interesting battle result..

Idea is reduce the effect on balance by receiving less troops compared to the enemy in a teorically balanced battle. It’s similar to those scenarios starting with MC DR without any way to compensate excessive bad DRs on the pre-game. Obviously those arriving depleted on last CG Date will not be compensated because no next CG Date to spend the returned CPP..

 

[jrv]

In CGs reduce proportionally cost on CPP when groups arrive depleted.
So more CPP for next date. No idea why the cost is the same. I may accept the group has arrived reduced but I think absurd not reduce the cost accordying to the troops received.

Note also that this greatly changes the way a historical DRM, e.g. O11.6161, applied to depletion numbers affects the game. For RGs that have large availability it makes no difference to your overall cost per unit whether you purchase on a good DRM day or a bad. Cost per unit is the same for depleted RGs as for full-strength (I'm assuming). There's no benefit to waiting for a good DRM day or avoiding a bad one.

Then as a minor point there is the question of whether the CPP that were unspent because the RG depleted are immediately available this CG date. If enough CPP are available after depletion is rolled to make another purchase, can it be done now? Or can I make purchases beyond my available CPP, assuming that depletion will get me back under my current total?

JR

 

[Tater]

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.

So you are saying that the design/rules for foxholes in ASL intended for players not to use foxholes? Well, they definitely succeeded!!!

If you want to try use them for something else, go ahead --just don't complain when things don't work out.

The only time foxholes don't work out is when you use them.

 

[mgmasl]

My idea is returned after doing all buys and rolling all depleting DR.. so are CPP per next CG Date.. historical drm are valid per the number of groups and the level of depletion.. asume this CPPs as an extra help because too many depleted thing last Date.. Returned CPP may have limited use if wanted, but in small CGs is a clear way to avoid excessive effects of initial DR on CG balance for sure..

 

[Binchois]

Here's something I just thought of (and yes, I'm pausing a game just to type this!):

The Brits are firing ATT at the Japanese...Why is my Japanese Year-11 Type 70* MTR with crew a small target, while my 50*, "knee" mortars with crew are "standard" size (so easier to hit)?

Another reason for target modifiers on the ATT to drive us nuts! (See Case K, Case P, Smoke shots...)...

 

[Robin Reeve]

You would have the same problem firing on the ITT.
The small Gun is more difficult to hit than the light mortar.

 

[Binchois]

You would have the same problem firing on the ITT.
The small Gun is more difficult to hit than the light mortar.

Understood. But why? Particularly when the "small gun" is just a bigger mortar?

 

[Robin Reeve]

Understood. But why? Particularly when the "small gun" is just a bigger mortar?

Well, I don't know. ?

 

[Binchois]

Well, I don't know. ?

Exactly!

BTW, for a thread that was dead for half a year, this one's gotten quite lively as of late - and very enjoyable, informative, and thought provoking! Pairs nicely with the "Paths not Taken" thread. Bon appétit!

 

[jrv]

The Brits are firing ATT at the Japanese...Why is my Japanese Year-11 Type 70* MTR with crew a small target, while my 50*, "knee" mortars with crew are "standard" size (so easier to hit)?

My guess is that this is a simplification to allow ordinary squads/halfsquads to use them rather than having them be crew-served. I don't think a 50mm MTR would be easier to hit than a crewed small gun, but if you made them (and their possessing infantry) small targets you would make them useful to possess as a defensive shield. That would not work out right. So you could make them crew-served, but adding crews for silly MTRs has the same problem that adding crews for MGs has and possibly worse: the crews are co-opted for other purposes. So you could make a special, much less-likely-to-be-co-opted MTR (or MG) crew, say a [1]-0-7 which can't bump scout and perhaps half-a-dozen other patches to make them only useful as MTR crews. But a light MTR crew is likely to take to their heels when the rest of the squad goes, unlike a gun crew, which is likely from a different part of the org chart. So perhaps when the rest of the squad goes, they take a squad-loss-task-check. Or you could say, forget the whole thing and go with the simple solution.

JR