| One shot wonder |
|---|
|
Don't you hate it when you spend the time to find the pieces, set up the games and it is over before you even get a chance to make sure you have the SSRs in mind? The Soviet gunboat is trying to make it across the map to exit into the Sea of Azov. The scenario narrative give you the idea that the Romanian horsemen lined up along the riverbank and fired away wildly trying to cause the loss of the boat. It leaves out the fact that the Romanianas have three AT gun sections (two door knockers and a 47mm), which, against the "0" armor of the gunboat are more than adequate. The gunboat enters the board and I decide to try at a 5 range one of the door knockers. It is Opportunity Fire and I roll a "10". Scenario over. As the summary mentions this is probably best for solo play and a whole bunch of them at once since it is likely that the Elusive Zheleznyakov will prove less elusive than it actually was... |
| 3 Comments |
Matt, is it possible you used the wrong counter for the monitor? The OOB lists it with an armor of "3", not "0".
The counter for the Zheleznyakov is a double sized counter included with Edelweiss. The counter in the database to date is the one included (I think) with the original Panzer Grenadier and is a generic gunboat (and is not double sided). The actual Zheleznyakov has a direct fire of 10-10 but an armor value of "0" leading to the result I had. It might be interesting to see what would have happened if the armor value was "3". I think it would have been a better scenario, but history was a "0".
I should note that the scenario conclusion indicates that the Zheleznyakov foundered upon its escape into the Sea of Azov, primarily due to damage resulting from this encouter so my result wasn't ahistorical, necessarily, merely not as exciting from a play perspective.
TheDoctor and I just played this, but prior to reading these comments. I do wonder now regarding a misprint on the counter. Note on the last paragraph of p.54 of the Edelweiss booklet: "They (the Zheleznyakov class) ... had far better protection than previous monitors, with 30mm of armor on the conning tower and turret ..." Since the previous monitors, the Udarnyi, has an armor rating of '0' then perhaps Hugmenot's suggestion of '3' for the Zheleznyakov has some validity.
Query to APL for clarification? An armor value of '3' certainly would increase (from asymptotically approaching zero) the likelihood of the printed assault rules being of some use.