(09-14-2013, 11:45 PM)vince hughes Wrote: The infantry do suffer because you are rolling on a higher column. Therefore their chances of an M2 check increase.

2 x INF and tank advance into a hex with a 2 x GREN and Leader.

2 x GREN and leader would usually be a 13col (6+6+leader) when defending unless leader adds 1 from a fire mod he might have.

They roll for fausts and roll a 5 & a 6 (one roll each)

This now puts them on the 24col instead of 13col.

On the 13col, the attacking INF had a 1 in 6 chance of No Effect against them, then M, M1, M2 with a kill on 5 or 6 (or 1 in 3).

Now, they will be on M1 minimum with a double chance of a kill, half of which are a double kills too !).

Even if the INF don't get take a hit, they have a 87% chance of suffering an M2 as opposed to a 50% chance under previous rules.

They'd actually be better off not taking an AFV with them. In fact, if the attackers were 2 x US INF and an M4, they would have 21pts for a 18col. If they took 3 x INF, it would still be an 18col. You may argue that the tank gives them a +1col, but the risks of this far outweigh reward. That is not historical as combined INF and tank in Westwall battles in the town were very common. Yes there was risk, but balanced with reward. These proposed column shifts upwards for defenders are too drastic.

No, this is not working for me at all.

(09-14-2013, 12:59 PM)rerathbun Wrote:

(09-12-2013, 07:13 AM)Matt W Wrote: Something that does bother me, however, is the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. In the SSRs this usually requires the infantry unit to be activated. That means that the defender in an assault hex can't use the AT capability. I would expect that such weapons could be used once per turn where the units are involved in assault combat (if neither player assaults at all I could see not firing the weapons).

At the very least, I'd propose that defending infantry anti-tank weapons should be usable each turn they are assaulted in town hexes, and on the first assault turn if entrenched (and maybe dug-in). That simulates the anti-tank teams hiding in buildings, or set up in cover to ambush the tanks.

Disclaimer: All I know about anti-tank tactics I learned from watching Band of Brothers and documentaries showing 14-year-olds with Panzerfausts in the streets of Berlin.

(09-14-2013, 06:12 PM)vince hughes Wrote: MTC's

John, at the end of post 86 you mentioned keeping MTC movement as foot. It is motorised, not foot.

Another small anomaly with the Bicycles v MTC is that bicycles attract an extra +1 mod when fired at by DF in Opp Fire (though max is still +3). May be worth adding to Opp shots at MTC's.

Good catch on MTCs Vince. I think MTCs are travelling fast enough to warrant not being easier to hit. Bicycles on the other hand, seems like a juicy target to me.

Retreat VC's

John, perhaps that is best left to new scenarios that have some kind of SSR and how to use it written in it. There are campaigns and the like now if people wish to play them.

(09-14-2013, 09:31 PM)campsawyer Wrote: Defensive personal AT weapons

I have also thought that only allowing assaulting units to get the benefits of personal AT weapons seem a little odd. As there are many documented instances of them being used against attacking units. But I also feel the simple solution of allowing defensive AT shots in assaults does tip the balance of the assault. I believe that a more radical change my need to be considered as the use of a AT shot is limiting.

My thought is to continue to have only certain infantry units and must roll a 5 or 6 to use. If successful, instead of getting an AT shot, there would be a +1 column shift to the assault table. This +1 would be cumulative for all successful 5 or 6 die roll and the first step loss must be taken on an AFV.

My reasons for such a radical change are these are a few. First, the personal AT weapons rule is one I feel is still a bit odd and not complete, much like the M18 move and shoot rule, and can be reevaluated for a better approach. Second, this would allow for both offensive and defensive use. Both sides can use this against AFV's but it is not guaranteed that is will work. By changing from a assault result and AT shot to just an assault result this keeps the attack in the method that it started with. The assault table is good for resolving close combat, let's keep the results there. Third, this is scalable to use personal AT weapons against fortifications. There are many documented instances that American bazooka's being used against pillboxes. With this the use of personal AT weapons can be used for this by adding a rule allowing the qualified infantry units to roll for there use. If successful they can get the +1 shift on entrenchments and strongpoints, with the first step loss taken on a unit in either of those two.

I know this might be radical, but I feel something like this needs to be done as the current rule feels like it is a dead end if we try to modify in some way for other uses and I also feel that something needs to be done for this.

Let the discussion begin...

(09-14-2013, 12:51 PM)Airlifter Wrote: Plenty of commander's have sent unit after unit to destruction. If you do, you lose. But, we don't currently have a mechanism that directly affects morale of an army. Sure, you lose initiative after losing xx number of steps, and that gives the opponent the chance to mop you up, but that's not the same as everyone getting jittery because their division commander keeps sending battalions forward in dribs and drabs to destruction on a battlefield littered with corpses.

Does anyone use a house rule for this? Say every two initiative steps lost = 1 morale step loss? What would the implications be on games? Would this make players more sensitive (too sensitive?) to losses, much as if in a campaign where every step lost hurts you for the rest of the campaign?
John