4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Brett Nicholson]

I suppose a few things that I would like to see defined more are: Minefields; whether lone leaders count as units and are affected the same and if minefields affect friendly units as well, especially in the case of fleeing friendly units. Also, what defensive direct fire modifiers units get against air attacks, especially when hills are concerned. I know units can be spotted but whether they get a -1 defense modifier or not. Also concerning leaders in entrenchments, if their recovery gets a bonus as well. I guess there is some confusion to differentiating leaders from actual units in some cases.

[vince hughes]

Brett,

These are not official answers but I will tell you how our group plays all those rules you listed:

1. Minefields = Trucks can not be used to reveal enemy minefields. In that way, they can not be used for cheap scouts. However, if they were carrying men or ordnance, then they do activate the minefield. Similarly, a lone leader does not neccesarily activate an enemy minefield. The owning player of the mines can elect to use them or not. In this way therecan be no gamey attempts at revealing enemy mines. Note that APC's DO reveal mines.

Minefields DO affect friendly units fleeing or not.

2. On air attaks all terrain effects modifiers DO affect the attack BUT not hills. We only play that the hill -1 col DF affects only upward fire.

3. Entrenchments: Leaders DO get the recovery bonus.

4. none of us use special events

[campsawyer]

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...

[vince hughes]

Alan,

As the defender in most of the Westwall or Invasion of Germany scenarios, I hear the pain of the inability to use fausts etc against attacking tanks. As I said above though, if INF etc get to use them all the time, it may tip the balance too far the other way.

I know that is not what you are proposing, but for now the balance is about right. Otherwise AFV's are going to become almost obsolete.

Going with your idea where both sides can use them and then gain columns. I would modify that idea (as its swinging both ways) to having to roll a 6 and not 5,6 for each INF/GREN unit etc. However, where this is unfair is that column shifts then effect the INF involved for absolutely no reason.

I say keep the rule the same OR if both sides to get it, then AT weapon checks should be a rolled 6 (per unit checking) and not 5,6

[Matt W]

"I say keep the rule the same OR if both sides to get it, then AT weapon checks should be a rolled 6 (per unit checking) and not 5,6"

Vince,

I like that idea best. That way the defender with such weapons doesn't have to sit there and say "Don't shoot the Bazooka, Ames, we haven't been activated." I don't mind a reduced chance as long as there is a chance. As you mentioned the column shift penalizes the accompanying infantry who presumably are not shielding the AFV with their bodies.

[Matt W]

Bikes and Motorcycles

In most cases the DF capabilities of these units are completely identical to their footbound brethren. All that we need are some counters indicating where they left their transport when they dismount. No one can shoot while pedaling a bike and the ability to shoot from a sidecar while motoring around at full speed on a motorcycle seems to preclude any effective fire at all.

Due to the ease of remounting I would suggest that such remounting be free of MP cost. Luckily such units generally do not show up in large batches so we can probably get by wtih 3 abandoned transport units (if you need more use inverted wagons). The abandoned transport has a movement factor of zero and can be destroyed by an enemy unit entering its hex.

Cavalry,

Short of using the Infantry Attacks model of giving each unit a compatriot unhorsed I don't have a good solution. Cavalry does not have the same DF profile of their corresponding infantry (elite such as Romanians and Soviets have higher DF but shorter range whereas Germans and Finns have shorter range and in the case of Germans lower DF). All of them, however, suffer from a high profile and would certainly seek to lower that profile at some point in battle. If I remember, Fronte Russo has specific rules about dismounting and I found them very useful and reasonable. That might be a place to look.

[campsawyer]

Alan,

As the defender in most of the Westwall or Invasion of Germany scenarios, I hear the pain of the inability to use fausts etc against attacking tanks. As I said above though, if INF etc get to use them all the time, it may tip the balance too far the other way.

I know that is not what you are proposing, but for now the balance is about right. Otherwise AFV's are going to become almost obsolete.

Going with your idea where both sides can use them and then gain columns. I would modify that idea (as its swinging both ways) to having to roll a 6 and not 5,6 for each INF/GREN unit etc. However, where this is unfair is that column shifts then effect the INF involved for absolutely no reason.

I say keep the rule the same OR if both sides to get it, then AT weapon checks should be a rolled 6 (per unit checking) and not 5,6

I understand you issues with this however I don't think the infantry if penalized. First, if the usage rolls fails, no shifts are applied. Second, the first step loss would be required to be taken on the AFV. Third, typically a AFV/INF combo had the AFV's going first, if they were hit that would have a effect on the INF. Loss of AFV's was a very demoralizing factor to accompanying INF's.

[Matt W]

Going back to the infantry AT weapons. If I, as a defender in a hex under the current rules, have survived the initial assault in good order can I merely activate to fire the AT weapon? I have played it that I have to activate to move or fire and that to fire the AT weapon I would have to use a fire activation. Since the AT weapon is listed as an additional but not a primary fire activity I have played it that such an attack can only be as part of a counterassault.

I would be very comfortable permitting the defenders an activation to try their AT shot without committing the defense to a counterattack. I could accept that approach which means that the defenders would have to survive at least the initial assault in good order or use a turn or two to recover morale (while continuing to be assaulted one presumes). This retains the shock value of the AFVs while permitting the defense to use their AT capability without necessarily putting the entire defense on the line.

[vince hughes]

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.

[campsawyer]

I would be very comfortable permitting the defenders an activation to try their AT shot without committing the defense to a counterattack. I could accept that approach which means that the defenders would have to survive at least the initial assault in good order or use a turn or two to recover morale (while continuing to be assaulted one presumes). This retains the shock value of the AFVs while permitting the defense to use their AT capability without necessarily putting the entire defense on the line.

I am intrigued by this statement, but what about defensive first fire? This would presume that a dugin unit would still get the chance to knock out the AFV's with a personal AT weapon before the assaulting units get a chance to fire.