[ASLML] Mopping-Up + Anomaly Reply

[Bruce Bakken]

Greetings,

All of what follows is only my opinion, of course.

>
> >And therein lies the anomaly, such as it is.  An ATTACKER may suffer a
> >Casualty dr if the Mopped-Up Location contains a Known ATTACKER 
>minefield;
> >but the ATTACKER *does not* suffer a Casualty dr if the Mopped-Up 
>Location
> >contains a Hidden ATTACKER minefield.
> >
> >So be it, but it strikes me as odd.
>
>It's no odder than an entrenchment that costs you MF to enter/exit when 
>it's
>known, but costs nothing when it's HIP.
>
>It's simply a game-balance rule to stop a player from being penalised when
>he has hidden things.
>

I understand your point here.  As a game convention, what you just pointed 
out for entrenchments seems a reasonable abstraction that stops a player 
from being penalized for using a hidden entrenchment.  Indeed, I have come 
to believe over the years that all movement costs should be reduced to a 
minimum amount if the moving unit is concealed and not in any enemy LOS 
(much like Cloaking).  But that's a different subject...

>No fault, no foul.
>

This is where I believe the analogy with entrenchments breaks down.  There 
*has* been a foul committed... against the DEFENDER if the ATTACKER 
minefield is Hidden; or against the ATTACKER if the ATTACKER minefield is 
Known.

We all know that a Casualty dr is a DEFENDER *option*.  However, of all the 
conditions listed that may cause a Casualty dr, all of them are de facto 
automatically known to the DEFENDER, simply because of their presence on the 
board.  When these conditions exist, the DEFENDER is always aware that a 
Casualty dr is an option.

All conditions, that is, except for the presence of minefields.  They may or 
*may not* be known to the DEFENDER.  This characteristic makes them unique, 
and in my view sufficiently distinguishes them from all the other conditions 
to justify making them a special case.

If there are Hidden ATTACKER minefields present, and the DEFENDER does not 
know about them... does the DEFENDER really have an option in that case?  
The answer must be a resounding "no".  Since the rule makes no distinction 
between which side actually placed the minefields, and therefore attempts to 
treat all minefields in this global manner, this penalty (denial of option) 
against the DEFENDER does not seem even-handed to me.

While I can understand the point about not wanting to penalize the ATTACKER 
by making him acknowledge the presence of Hidden ATTACKER minefields with a 
Casualty dr, in fact the ATTACKER *is* penalized when there are Known 
ATTACKER minefields.  And therein still lies the anomaly.

An ATTACKER minefield is *always known* to the ATTACKER.  To penalize the 
ATTACKER when they suddenly become Known to the DEFENDER seems... well, odd 
to me.  The minefields have always been there, but now the ATTACKER must 
mysteriously be affected by their presence?  His own minefield?  Is the 
DEFENDER digging them up and tossing them at the ATTACKER's Mopping Up 
units?  As a game mechanic it is far too simplistic and is not elegant.

Finally, it seems that an attempt was made at conciseness by lumping those 
Mopping Up conditions and Search conditions together, and giving them a 
common penalty (Casualty dr).  Clearly, it could be easily demonstrated in 
the case of minefields that *Searching* a Location containing a minefield is 
decidedly *not* the same as *Mopping Up* a Location containing a minefield.  
So why should the penalty be the same?

It seems unreasonably harsh, IMO.  And I think it could very easily be 
corrected without disrupting any existing rules or upsetting any scenario 
balance.

Okay, I'm done.  Thanks for listening...  Hello?  Is anybody still following 
this thread?...  :-)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken


>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
>Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
>"Joel, you magnificent bastard!  I read your menu!"
>ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. 
http://wine.msn.com/