+- 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/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? (/showthread.php?tid=2463)
Question/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? - Poor Yorek - 02-07-2021
I have a couple of questions regarding this scenario's details:
1. Special Rule #6 pertains to an ammunition shortage for the OBA and M7. Alas, no M7 (105mm SPA) is mentioned in the US OOB. There is an M12 (155mm SPA) mentioned, however. The question, of course, is which is the actual intended unit for play as the difference is effectively one column on the Bombardment Table.
2. The scenario "other" states to "ignore the 40-m elevation lines on Board 25." However, Victory Condition #2 (for the US) stipulates "control all hexes of the 40-m hill on Board 25 that includes hex 0606." Of course, this might be reconciled by assuming that the actual elevation line is to be ignored as a terrain feature, and that the area encircled by that to-be-ignored elevation line is the area to be controlled. Obviously, the question is: is that indeed how this was intended to be played or were the two statements simply never reconciled? It can be noted that Scenario #3, with the same boards covering the same ground also has the "ignore the 40-m elevation lines on Board 25" stipulation, albeit no VC related to that terrain.
I did check the scenario errata and other features, but saw no discussion of these two issues so thought to inquire here.
PY
RE: Question/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? - plloyd1010 - 02-08-2021
The best place to ask this would be on the APL support page on Consim, or Matt Ward sees this and gives an answer. That works too. Either way, I think we need an official word, at least on point 2.
On point 1: My thought is to apply the ammo shortage to the M12, because it applies to the OBA too, thus somewhat universal. On the other hand, the OBA is either 105's or M7's. Since the 105's did not have the ammo problem of the SPA's and armored divisions don't have towed guns in their TO&E, the OBA is probably made up of M7's. Maybe that M12 is supposed to be an M7, but that would drop its firepower by a column. If the play balance favors the Americans, I might go that route.
The 40-meter lines on board 25 are probably for territorial control. That would not recognize the incongruity of having the 40-meter lines marking an actual hill in scenario 3.
RE: Question/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? - Poor Yorek - 02-08-2021
(02-08-2021, 12:53 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: The best place to ask this would be on the APL support page on Consim, or Matt Ward sees this and gives an answer. That works too. Either way, I think we need an official word, at least on point 2.
On point 1: My thought is to apply the ammo shortage to the M12, because it applies to the OBA too, thus somewhat universal. On the other hand, the OBA is either 105's or M7's. Since the 105's did not have the ammo problem of the SPA's and armored divisions don't have towed guns in their TO&E, the OBA is probably made up of M7's. Maybe that M12 is supposed to be an M7, but that would drop its firepower by a column. If the play balance favors the Americans, I might go that route.
The 40-meter lines on board 25 are probably for territorial control. That would not recognize the incongruity of having the 40-meter lines marking an actual hill in scenario 3.
I had to chuckle at the Consim reference: I wonder if my ban there after all these years is still in effect?
Re #1: the OBA in this scenario is 3x18 which would be consistent with the text referring to the M7. I suspect that "M12" is just a typo, but as we have both noted, that change is a full col differential each time that unit would fire. That being said, in Scenario #7, the US has a very large force including both an M7 and an M12. The copious OBA (x6 factors in total) in that scenario are all '18' values. The "ammo shortage" language is the same as in the others citing the OBA and/or the M7 (not the M12 explicitly). I'm not well enough read to know whether US artillery ammunition shortages were specific to 105mm shot compared with 155mm or an editing issue that slipped through.
Re #2: yes, as noted in the OP that is the simplest explanation. I suppose any doubt (on my part) was that no other rationale was offered for why that area would be a VC e.g. like a rough airport/landing strip or supply depot or the area actually is a "hill," but not worth 20-m of hill in game terms (TEC effects).
Speaking of ammo shortages, the US was caught by an "ammo shortfall" from a Fog of War roll in my play of Scenario #1 yesterday. This was the first play I'd done thinking that I would try that optional rule. Certainly had an impact.
Thanks for the response.
RE: Question/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? - Poor Yorek - 02-08-2021
Just a note as I have set-up Scenario #2:
1. I decided to use the M12, but will apply the ammunition shortage to it as per scenario special rules (it seems the intent that the on-board piece, like the OBA, is suffering the same restriction).
2. This scenario's US OOB has a strange allotment of M3 (x9) vs. trucks (x4): that is, there are 2x81mm, 1x57mm for the transportable pieces; the remaining pieces are all "personnel" - viz. armored infantry (x6), HMG (x2), or ENG (x2). So either (just) one of those rides a truck or ... I just gave the US the tenth M3. As that is a not minor combat addition given the M3's DF and assault capability, I added another HMG (reduced) to the starting on-board Landeschutzen (4-5 with morale = 6) which will shore up one entrenchment's occupation.
RE: Question/Errata Spearhead #2 ?? - plloyd1010 - 02-08-2021
(02-08-2021, 01:39 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: Re #1: the OBA in this scenario is 3x18 which would be consistent with the text referring to the M7. I suspect that "M12" is just a typo, but as we have both noted, that change is a full col differential each time that unit would fire. That being said, in Scenario #7, the US has a very large force including both an M7 and an M12. The copious OBA (x6 factors in total) in that scenario are all '18' values. The "ammo shortage" language is the same as in the others citing the OBA and/or the M7 (not the M12 explicitly). I'm not well enough read to know whether US artillery ammunition shortages were specific to 105mm shot compared with 155mm or an editing issue that slipped through.In the drive across France and the Hürtgen Forest battles, the SPA commanders had poor coordination with their supply trucks. This left stacks of ammunition in the wrong places and supply trucks catching up late. I am sure it applied to the M12's as well as the M7's.