+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Question on Strongholds (/showthread.php?tid=430)
RE: Question on Strongholds - RLW - 12-27-2012
Now that I am asking questions on PG rules, here is another question I have had for some time... but on a different topic from stronholds.
If one has a stack of units in a hex, two being tanks and say one infantry and one of the tank units takes a step loss due to AT fire, does either the other tank unit or the infantry unit in the hex have to make a M2 check?
RE: Question on Strongholds - Michael Murphy - 12-27-2012
Off the top of my head, no. AT fire only affects one unit, the target of the fire. This is similar to Opportunity Fire in that regard.
RE: Question on Strongholds - campsawyer - 12-27-2012
(12-27-2012, 10:40 AM)Michael Murphy Wrote: Off the top of my head, no. AT fire only affects one unit, the target of the fire. This is similar to Opportunity Fire in that regard.
Mike is right on.
AT fire only effects the target unit, not the whole hex.
RE: Question on Strongholds - vince hughes - 12-27-2012
The answers as given in case you were wondering RLW are on the combat charts themselves.
You'll see that in the AT fire section it shows that on a result of 10-12 the target loses a step and the surviving step (if any) takes a M2 check.
On the direct fire chart it shows that an X result as well as removing a step (and a transport) causes an M2 check to all other units in the hex and an M check to any closed top AFV's in the hex.
Airborne Strongpoints - rerathbun - 12-27-2012
The Airborne strongpoints are indeed very weak. I picture them not as bunkers, but as local squads of defenders assigned to man checkpoints and block roads in case of invasion.
Quite a few of the Normandy defenders were Ost (East) Battalions -- POW's from the Eastern Front given the choice of enlisting or going to a camp. They were notoriously unreliable. The 'unoccupied' strongpoints are not necessarily dummies, but can represent checkpoints abandoned when the shooting started.
See:
Ost Battalion Reenactors
RE: Question on Strongholds - waynebaumber - 12-27-2012
(12-27-2012, 04:54 AM)vince hughes Wrote:(12-27-2012, 01:45 AM)RLW Wrote: That leads me to another question. Can strongholds be entrenched or dug in?
Srongpoints can indeed be entrenched or dug-in.
And in your example of comparing a strong-point to a unit when both demoralised, I don't think the two are comparable at all.
A unit is a whole platoon, a strongpoint is not supposed to be such and may be just a handful of fellas in whichever 'strong-point' they are in.
I have used a lot of strongpoints in the Westwall and Siegfried battles. Believe me, they do their job well and can make good stacks devastating stacks.
Can strongpoints be dug in and entrenched? Now I am writing this from work so if it states this clearly in the rule then so be it. But surely strongpoints are already sort of dug in/entrenched by their very nature.
I can understand them getting the advantage of terrain but do not understand them getting dug in and entrenchment enhancements as well. I am sure Vince has not dug in entrenchments in any of our game as I would have objected, they are very effective particualy in towna and I can assure you Herr Hughes used them very well in his defence of the West Wall
RE: Question on Strongholds - vince hughes - 12-27-2012
(12-27-2012, 06:20 PM)waynebaumber Wrote: [quote='vince hughes' pid='4416' dateline='1356548085']
Can strongpoints be dug in and entrenched? Now I am writing this from work so if it states this clearly in the rule then so be it. But surely strongpoints are already sort of dug in/entrenched by their very nature.
The dug-in and entrenched rules clearly state what can NOT be dug-in or entrenched.
RE: Question on Strongholds - waynebaumber - 12-28-2012
(12-27-2012, 09:37 PM)vince hughes Wrote:(12-27-2012, 06:20 PM)waynebaumber Wrote: [quote='vince hughes' pid='4416' dateline='1356548085']
Can strongpoints be dug in and entrenched? Now I am writing this from work so if it states this clearly in the rule then so be it. But surely strongpoints are already sort of dug in/entrenched by their very nature.
The dug-in and entrenched rules clearly state what can NOT be dug-in or entrenched.
The rules don't mention strongpoints at all. It does say cavalry and transports can't dig in. I have checked the strongpoint rules in West Wall and the last line seems to infer that they cant be dug in or entrenched. I quote "Strongpoints get first fire against enemy units assaulting them (other units in the same hex with them do not unless they are dug in or entrenched,)"
I agree that it does not say strongpoints can't dig in or entrench but I just don't believe that its logical that they do so being as they are already are by definition prepared defenses.
RE: Question on Strongholds - RLW - 12-28-2012
I have been wondering if the rules don't mention something as either as being included or excluded which trumps the other, i.e. does no mention mean a type of unit (e.g. strongholds) does that mean they included (albeit not mentioned) or not included (by the fact that they are not mentioned as being included)?
That said, I would think that if a stronghold can benefit from the terrain in its hex it should also be able to benefit from being dug in or entrenched, else the stronghold would be a second class citizen vs a normal unit (since it has no survivability benefit on its own except for not counting against stacking).
[edit] Also, the wording of the rule about other units being dug in seems to me to be ambiguous as to how it applies to the stronghold. It could mean that the stronghold gets first fire regardless of whether dug in or entrenched while the other units only get it if dug in or entrenched, or it could mean that being dug in or entrenched only applies to other units.
However, I have yet another question... once again on a different topic.
Rule 12.51 states
Only leaders in an assault hex may influence units there. Leaders in adjacent hexes may not. Leaders in the assault hex may direct units in adjacent hexes to enter the assault hex, but may not influence them in any other way if they don't enter the assault hex.
Does that mean
1. if a leader adjacent a assault hex can provide a moral check or rally bonus to a unit in an assault hex?
2. Can a leader in the assault hex provide a moral check bonus or rally bonus to a unit adjacent an assault hex.
3. Can a leader in an assault hex activate a unit adjacent the assault hex to do anything other than enter the assault hex?
RE: Question on Strongholds - vince hughes - 12-28-2012
(12-28-2012, 04:46 AM)RLW Wrote: I have been wondering if the rules don't mention something as either as being included or excluded which trumps the other, i.e. does no mention mean a type of unit (e.g. strongholds) does that mean they included (albeit not mentioned) or not included (by the fact that they are not mentioned as being included)?
That said, I would think that if a stronghold can benefit from the terrain in its hex it should also be able to benefit from being dug in or entrenched, else the stronghold would be a second class citizen vs a normal unit (since it has no survivability benefit on its own except for not counting against stacking).
[edit] Also, the wording of the rule about other units being dug in seems to me to be ambiguous as to how it applies to the stronghold. It could mean that the stronghold gets first fire regardless of whether dug in or entrenched while the other units only get it if dug in or entrenched, or it could mean that being dug in or entrenched only applies to other units.
However, I have yet another question... once again on a different topic.
Rule 12.51 states
Only leaders in an assault hex may influence units there. Leaders in adjacent hexes may not. Leaders in the assault hex may direct units in adjacent hexes to enter the assault hex, but may not influence them in any other way if they don't enter the assault hex.
Does that mean
1. if a leader adjacent a assault hex can provide a moral check or rally bonus to a unit in an assault hex?
2. Can a leader in the assault hex provide a moral check bonus or rally bonus to a unit adjacent an assault hex.
3. Can a leader in an assault hex activate a unit adjacent the assault hex to do anything other than enter the assault hex?
1. NO. Units in an assault can not be helped by a leader outside an assault. This is clearly covered by the "Only leaders in an assault hex may influence units there. Leaders in adjacent hexes may not." part of the rule.
2. NO. The leader in an assault hex can only call in non-AFV units IN to the assault. He can not help them with morale or anything else. This is covered by the " Leaders in the assault hex may direct units in adjacent hexes to enter the assault hex, but may not influence them in any other way ".
3. NO. As per point 2 above