(08-05-2021, 08:51 AM)cjsiam Wrote: So I'm having some trouble with a few aspects of this:
1) if AT Fire is allowed, without ASSAULT---it is not simultaneous----the Russian tanks could take out the PZ without any retaliation---whereas if it
was considered AT Fire under an ASSAULT it would instigate an ASSAULT fire-fight and the PZ could shot back, either individually or in combined assault.
So allowing AT Fire independent of assault---the dynamic of simultaneous fire is broken...
That is a problem for me....
2) In your example the problem is exacerbated...
a) The Russians Fire AT while in the Assault square---not subject to any retaliation
b) The Germans decide to ASSAULT -- PZ either AT fires or combines DF
c) the Russians (you suggest) get to AT fire AGAIN in their Assault retaliation.....
I think that breaks the mechanic....
I'm cooped up in 14day quarantine in Bangkok....my opinion also might change in a week when I breath free beach air....
I'm not sure why you would have the expectation of simultaneous action with AT fire to begin with. It really is an oddity in the PZG world to have simultaneous fire. The Assault procedure is the sole exception to the norm in that it could be simultaneous depending on if the defender has first fire or not.
If one is of the opinion that AT fire within the same hex is not engaging in an assault, it doesn't seem abnormal that it is one at a time, just like AT fire outside of the same hex.
As for the second example, unless this was added in 4th (maybe it was? im still playing through 2nd/3rd edition modules, and have only played a handful of 4th) I don't see where the Soviets are getting the ability to retaliate with AT fire on C. They would retaliate on the assault table against whatever Germans chose to assault. If the PZ chose to AT fire on its activation, it would not be in the assault to begin with, only the INF would be (if they chose to assault). If they choose to assault together, they would all face retaliatory fire on the assault table.
It seems any mention of the possibility of melding of AT fire and Assault was added in 4th entirely. 3rd only says that you can AT fire in the same hex, which I treat just like any other AT fire attack with different modifiers. I'm guessing this is why we are starting from the opposite sides of the coin when interpreting these rules.
