More home grown house rules

[RLW]

This is more of a special scenario rule than a standard rule but I am finding that when both sides have nearly equal armor that both sides tend to keep their armor in limited terrain and not fire waiting for the other guy to fiore first. Meanwhile the infantry are fighting and dying. And I have read accounts where this is what indeed happened where the armor stayed back and waited for the infantry to clear the way. But I imagine that the infantry commander would not look favorably on such  tactics and might insist (or order if he has the authority to do so) those tanks forward to help out the infantry. This may particularly be the case when the commander does not know for a fact that there are even any enemy tanks  out there to begin with.

So this  house special scenario rule is what i call, no tankers, you can't just  stay back and let the infantry fight it out rule. So a way to give a player impetus to do this (when he, himself, might totally agree with those tankers and choice to keep his armor back so as not to risk loosing them (and thus allow the enemy armor to maul his infantry with no armor to stop them)  the rule might be something like this.

After turn x (where the scenario would define what turn x is)  the player will be penalized  n  VPs for each turn that his armor does not fire at the enemy or move closer to them (and not just move other tanks up forward to the lead tanks but actually close in the range between the lead tanks and the enemy). 

However, every turn it fires that n VP penalty could be  reduced by 1 or more factors. If enemy armor is spotted n could be reduced to 0 or some other  value. Once  the first friendly armor loss  n could then be  reduced  to zero. HTs may  exempted from that as by the special scenario rules.

So yes, one may need to send out a armored car or a junk tank (and maybe in doing so giving them an actual useful purpose)  and risk it dying or find some spot where the tanks can shoot at the infantry without being shot back with deadly AT fire to satisfy that commander bent on having the tankers share in the dying along with his poor infantry. 

So this rule in effect imposes role playing via VP penalties to reflect either a dare devil armor commander or an indignant infantry commander or such that is not content for the armor to hold back most if not all the game or too chicken to stand up toa  high command that thinks that it is cowardness or such to hold back some of one's forces until they can be best employed. And maybe the  player may just take the VP hits and employ his armor when he thinks best or i good and ready to do so... one more tactical decision backed into the game full of many such decisions.

BTW (as a matter of humor), one might also call this The Americanization of Emily rule, if one has ever seen that movie, where instead of the line from the movie as said by the Admiral wanting  the public relations stunt for the Navy, "the  first casualty at Normandy must be a sailor"  it is "one of the early casualties in this battle must be a tanker". 

BTW, my rule  that allows gun duels can somewhat compensate for having to do this in that at least his AFVs with turrets can swap shot for shot.