Crossfire PingPong -- 2 Questions

[cjsiam]

Oh, and Rules Lawyering .....
Someone has to do it...cause clearly many do not....
so there.

[Sonora]

. . . . and hairs must be split!

[ACav]

Hmmm....
Interesting differences in perspective on this....

A few things have to be kept in mind....
A) This is a 15min period of Gun fire, involving identifying a]we are under fire(or new fire); b] where fire is coming from; c] do we face that fire with our vehicle..
B) There are 4 or 5 "Tanks" in this one unit....not all might do the same thing---thus, the universal facing one direction could break down --- exposing some, but not others...
C) Doctrine at the time, based on Time and current National Armor (or Armour for some of you) doctrine, should probably be the determinate...
D) Presence of Leaders?

The RAW say NO to B getting +2....
A Few players seem to think Once a Crossfire is set up, any/all further shoots at that unit that turn will result in a Crossfire (that's reflect perspective, yes?)

I'm not sure how to Proceed other then to House Rule, pregame disclosure to both players...
As it stands RAW says no.

Only to a rules lawyer.

[Blackcloud6]

This is a 15min period of Gun fire, involving identifying a]we are under fire(or new fire); b] where fire is coming from; c] do we face that fire with our vehicle..

The dice decide this.  If the third shot from the AT gets a step loss on the KV-1 , the one or two of the commie tanks turned towards the Panzer and got zapped in the side or rear.  if not, then the KV-1s didn't turn, or the AT guns couldn't aqcuire them, or didn't see them or missed.  It is all below the resolution of the game and out side the purview and command of the player.

[leonard]

My answers to the questions would be yes and yes.
When the first unit (A) fires, it sets up the crossfire situation even if it has no chance to hit the target.
Unit C gets crossfire bonus (+2) on both shots.
Unit B gets crossfire bonus (+2) thanks to the firing of unit C.
I’ve never played like multiple crossfire could be cumulative giving + 4 bonus.

Hmm, I'm confused, where did the +4 come from?

Sorry, I read the messages too fast… When seeing « 4AT », I thought it was a claim for + 4 AT because of two cumulated Crossfire bonus.

[treadasaurusrex]

Thanks!

[NBGB]

Consider the attached Eastern Front situation....a KV1 has wandered itself into the fire area of 3 different German AT units.(Image attached)
(To be fair ... they would have not all been visible in limiting terrain using our Double Blind...so...there is that...)
The German participants in our little vignette: 
A-- a 222 recon AC with a 0AT at 4hexes...
B-- a 37mm AT gun with a 2AT at the same 4hexes
C-- a PzIIIG with a 3AT at it's 5hexes....

Clearly to get any kind of good odds on the KV1 Crossfire is highly recommended....
Since all the units are separated, they cannot activate at one time---thus it's going to take 3 activations....
Say it's beginning of the Turn and MIRACulously the Germans roll and get 3 activations--...so...the shooting begins...

A takes a shot--- and that would be a -5....now...
  ...FIRST QUESTION.... Confirm, even though there is NO CHANCE of a hit--it can take a shot--setting up the first Crossfire shot?
C then takes a shot... it would be a 3+2=5AT on the KV1 at this point.....Assume it is not successful with either shot....Desperation rises in the German camp...
SECOND QUESTION.... 
At this point with the 3rd Activation--- B would like to shoot---is it a 2AT or a 4AT??
4AT because the KV1 was attacked by C...and considering ONLY that, the 37mm would get Crossfire...
or
2AT because the first shot in this turn's ambush came from A, and it went through the same hexside that B would as well????....

Thinking about this, and wanting to progress the game, we agreed that the "Tank would react to face the first fire...thus only C gets crossfire, B is confronted with the
Full armor of 5, not a reduced inferior side or rear"....thus the tank platoon is NOT spinning around to face each shot--it responds to the first shot, and that sets the Crossfire for
That turn...Thus the B unit fires at only 2AT...

HOW do those who care decide this? Does this align with how others have/would resolve it, did we miss something or has anyone some other rationale to offer giving B a 4AT?

*One might make the case that given it's a platoon, some vehicles would turn to face the C threat
--thus exposing their soft behinds to the vagrancies of B...(as yet unknown perhaps...)...

[NBGB]

The ultimate arbiter.  Our computer overlords.


  crossfire chatgpt.docx (Size: 20.03 KB / Downloads: 6)

[plloyd1010]

Looks more like an example of why AI should not be trusted. In summary it said.

1. Shot A, first shot, goes through hex 0607. No bonus.
   
2. Shot B, subsequent shot, goes through hex 0607. Gets bonus. Because? 0607 is not adjacent to itself, because it is itself?
   

That reminds me of an old joke about a helicopter. ride.

[NBGB]

I think the key is that AI picked out the RAW delineated between action segments and turns. This showed as written that the crossfire is a continuous action throughout the turn from multiple positions if applicable through non adjacent hexes. That seemed to be the issue. At least that’s my interpretation.

In practice if you have a killing zone with multiple AT gun positions triangulated to enfilading fire from multiple positions then the group of tanks being fired at would have at least some of them getting hit from the side of behind resulting in losses. AI at least doesn’t have a bias.

Looks more like an example of why AI should not be trusted. In summary it said.

1. Shot A, first shot, goes through hex 0607. No bonus.
   
2. Shot B, subsequent shot, goes through hex 0607. Gets bonus. Because? 0607 is not adjacent to itself, because it is itself?
   

That reminds me of an old joke about a helicopter. ride.