[Rules] Leader effect on APC's morale

[Philippe]

Can a regular leader use his morale modifier to assist an APC morale check or recovery ?

Rule 6.8 seems to interdict that : Regular leaders may not use their morale modifier to assist AFV morale checks or recovery.
But it's seems strange that a regular leader of a mechanized infntery company can assist infantry platoons but not the APC's transporting the platoons.



And I've the same question for combining fire :
Can a leader stacked with an infantry + APC and adjacent of another stack of infantry + APC, use his combat modifier to combine the DF of the two infantry + the two APC ?

[plloyd1010]

The answer to both questions is yes. I always thought that APCs have been the unrecognized step child of the game. Apart from 4.3 and 16.23, they don't seem to be seriously considered. As such we fell back on the guideline that if a leader can activate it, influence modifiers also apply.

[zaarin7]

I agree transport class items should be able to supported by there passengers. I'd also say armored transports should be able to be supported by armored leaders.

[Matt W]

zaarin,

APCs can be activated by armor leaders. Since that is the only function available to such leaders it ends there...

[Poor Yorek]

The answer to both questions is yes. I always thought that APCs have been the unrecognized step child of the game. Apart from 4.3 and 16.23, they don't seem to be seriously considered. As such we fell back on the guideline that if a leader can activate it, influence modifiers also apply.

As a corollary, this principle would seem to apply in 4th edition to regular leaders activating SPA's.  Thus, a regular leader could add his morale bonus to SPA's and (presumably) also combine fire for SPA's and/or regular artillery units (in an adjacent hex(es)) should the leader have a combat bonus.  

[plloyd1010]

As I said,

... APCs have been the unrecognized step child of the game.

It is good Philippe saw him in the room. The 4th Ed. adds an interesting dimension. Combining would certainly be permitted, though I think there is little precedent of SPA and towed artillery working that closely. Is there an artillery officer in the house to comment on the technical feasibility?

[Coniglius]

As I said,

... APCs have been the unrecognized step child of the game.

It is good Philippe saw him in the room. The 4th Ed. adds an interesting dimension. Combining would certainly be permitted, though I think there is little precedent of SPA and towed artillery working that closely. Is there an artillery officer in the house to comment on the technical feasibility?

I never really paid attention... although I am a Radioman, and called in some artillery, gunships/airstrikes, and Medevac, I was never really focused on what was going on in the heat of the moment. I was just kind of on auto-pilot reacting to the situation at hand. I know we did try to coordinate some of what would be considered OBA, but much of that was actually pre-planned. Most of the firepower that was brought to bear, in my experience, was based on very fluid tactical situations and close in support was typically provided by fixed and rotary wing assets. 

[thomaso827]

Sort of difficult to sort out WW2 stuff. I could see an assigned leader, not just a neighbor unit leader, having some impact on SPA and towed guns. The arty folks would have some sort of fire direction control element and the assigned leader would be helpful there. In some Pacific games, I have placed the Marine Colonel or LTC with the guns if I could afford taking a leader out of the line, more to give the guns a morale bonus with his presence, but the combat modifier can make a difference too if I understand that correctly. SPA was sometimes used in an assault gun role, so using a leader directly attached might work in some scenarios, where the gun's presence as on-board arty might find the morale assist helpful should the gun line come under attack, but since they can already fire as a group if up to 3 arty units are located together, same hex or adjacent (my understanding), they don't need the leader to coordinate the fire. If there is a chance that limbered guns are going to come into range of an enemy unit before being set up, particularly when their value is more for exit points rather than taking the time to deploy, having a leader with them for morale is very important. My limited time in recon ('74-'78) calling in arty in exercises would likely be considered obsolete by today's standards but still advanced over WW2 standards due to the constant changes of technology. In my solo play, I have played both ways, depending on circumstances. In face-to-face play, it might be something for players to discuss prior to play, or to roll off if there is a difference of opinion. I don't really see it as a 'wrong way to play' thing.

Tom Oxley

[plloyd1010]

The point of the inquiry is, who does the firing calculations? I think in WW2 it was mostly the battery staff, and a little to the gunners. That makes mixing batteries fairly easy. In WW1 I think it was a battalion/regimental staff problem. That makes different or dispersed battery coordination much more difficult.

Since I think it was the responsibility of the battery staff, there shouldn't be any technical reason why 2 batteries of any type, from anywhere within range, could not fire together. Since I am a 4F guy, it's an academic exercise me. Being in technical development, I want to know how things work after they leave the lab. So if we had an artilleryman's perspective, it would firm up the discussion.

[larry marak]

We need to remember we are not talking coordination today, or even the the Vietnam era, but coordination in 1943-44. I can see a lieutenant getting one transport driver to shake it off and haul ass, but a platoon of drivers, each in their own vehicle, with no communication other than follow the leader while a battle is going on???

I kinda think Rules as Written is appropriate here.