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

[campsawyer]

with regard to afvs in assault, Ottavio Ricchi has put forward another option which looks interesting. Giving AFV's first fire in an assault. My assumption would be that it would work like entrenchment first fire.

I'd say it only applies in clear terrain though, not close terrain. Or Perryman's suggestion about INF having to test morale to initiate assault against an AFV in clear.

Agreed, open terrain only.

I still favor letting the assault manage the situation and no have a pre-assualt morale check.

[campsawyer]

Let's debate this:

12.11...This is called "assault movement." They may do this only if they start their activation adjacent to the enemy-occupied hex they wish to enter, even if the hex is vacated due to other results during the current activation (EXCEPTION: Cavalry Charges, 15.31), and must stop moving once they've entered the hex. This initiates an assault (or reinforces an existing one).

The purpose of the proposal is to permit assault movement in the odd situation that an assaulted hex becomes vacant due to direct fire or whatever during the current activation.

I'm not following your train of thought. please spell this out as an example.

There are two situations for this a pre-assault kill and a post-assault kill.

Pre-Assault kill.

Lt and INF in one hex FIRE active as well as a HMG and INF in an adjacent hex. All are next to an enemy INF. The HMG/INF DF into the enemy INF and completely destroy it. Matt is advocating that the Lt and INF can still assault into the now empty hex.

Post-Assault kill.

In an assault hex a LT and two INF activate to FIRE. There is and enemy INF in the assault hex. Only the LT and ONE INF assault and complete destroy the INF. The other FIRE activated INF could now assault into another hex adjacent to the now ended assault hex.

[Airlifter]

Let's debate this:

12.11...This is called "assault movement." They may do this only if they start their activation adjacent to the enemy-occupied hex they wish to enter, even if the hex is vacated due to other results during the current activation (EXCEPTION: Cavalry Charges, 15.31), and must stop moving once they've entered the hex. This initiates an assault (or reinforces an existing one).

The purpose of the proposal is to permit assault movement in the odd situation that an assaulted hex becomes vacant due to direct fire or whatever during the current activation.

I'm not following your train of thought. please spell this out as an example.

There are two situations for this a pre-assault kill and a post-assault kill.

Pre-Assault kill.

Lt and INF in one hex FIRE active as well as a HMG and INF in an adjacent hex. All are next to an enemy INF. The HMG/INF DF into the enemy INF and completely destroy it. Matt is advocating that the Lt and INF can still assault into the now empty hex.

Post-Assault kill.

In an assault hex a LT and two INF activate to FIRE. There is and enemy INF in the assault hex. Only the LT and ONE INF assault and complete destroy the INF. The other FIRE activated INF could now assault into another hex adjacent to the now ended assault hex.

Okay, I'm following now. So the player frustration comes in now because the player has committed the units to "fire" as that is the assault requirement, but as there is now no target, they lose the opportunity to move (or do anything other than perhaps fire at another target if present). And just allowing them to move would become gamey. Soldiers who were preparing to assault an enemy who thought they were subsequently wiped out would probably spend that time "clearing" the hex, check for dead or captures, booby traps, etc., not wandering off another 600m.

Seems logical. Alternative views anyone?
John

[Airlifter]

What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Combat Commander: Europe.

Is it good?
John

I will comment on it. It is a very good squad level game, nice tight rules and a scenario builder that is very simple. The play is different from PG and that is where people have trouble with it. It is card driven and can have a lot of variability to the games. If you like lots of FoW this would be for you.

As for the scenario generator is very simple to step through to create a scenario, but nothing too different from what the C&C supplements do to create scenarios.

From the reading of other posts on the build your own stuff, they are looking for something that can build formations and match them up rather that just buying individual units. At least that's what AH PB/PL/AIW did.

Interesting. Can anyone scan me a copy of these scenario builder rules to review?
I can see this maybe as a product unto itself, like the character campaign books but about building scenarios to play or mini-campaigns, with chapters for all major and many minor countries, featuring not just how to build a balanced and period-correct TO&E for a game using company sized building blocks, but also scenario variability (think something like Games Workshop scenario setup variations). It might go a long way to addressing one poster's issue concerning blase' armies/scenarios.
John

[campsawyer]

What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Combat Commander: Europe.

Is it good?
John

I will comment on it. It is a very good squad level game, nice tight rules and a scenario builder that is very simple. The play is different from PG and that is where people have trouble with it. It is card driven and can have a lot of variability to the games. If you like lots of FoW this would be for you.

As for the scenario generator is very simple to step through to create a scenario, but nothing too different from what the C&C supplements do to create scenarios.

From the reading of other posts on the build your own stuff, they are looking for something that can build formations and match them up rather that just buying individual units. At least that's what AH PB/PL/AIW did.

Interesting. Can anyone scan me a copy of these scenario builder rules to review?
I can see this maybe as a product unto itself, like the character campaign books but about building scenarios to play or mini-campaigns, with chapters for all major and many minor countries, featuring not just how to build a balanced and period-correct TO&E for a game using company sized building blocks, but also scenario variability (think something like Games Workshop scenario setup variations). It might go a long way to addressing one poster's issue concerning blase' armies/scenarios.
John

John, Let me get my email going again on the computer and I will get you something.

[Airlifter]

Alan, In post #4786 you posted this. I thinks its a valid idea to consider now.

"Bicyclists
I have been playing a long scenario with bicycle units in it and I mused about how the bikes can out distance most motorized and mechanized units on open ground as well as woods, fields and uphill. I found this a little hard to believe give that these are 1940's era, non-cross country, single speed bikes as well as years before performance enhancing drugs giving today's speedsters quite fast and enduring speeds.

I am seriously considering Motorized units for movement cost rather than foot. This would still give them fast speed on the roads but slow them down cross country where having these might be a hindrance.

It would be nice to have some sort of updated rule for mounted and unmounted units for bikes, motorcycles and horses. I know that some SSR's have rules for dismounted cavalry, but replacing units does not seem right either as most cavalry were mounted infantry that rode in, jump off to fight and the remounted again. Which seems reasonable for the scale and length of a lot of scenarios."

Proposal: We create either a Mounted or Dismounted Counter. Whatever is needed for the other side. Units that are mounted fire at 1/2, and only cav and MTC can assault but at 1/2 strength; not bicycles. Dismounted normal fire but move 3. And agree, bicycles as motorized, MTC and cav still as Foot. Thoughts?
John

[Airlifter]

Larry Marak posted this in the Rules Forum a while back:
"Retreat (Panic and Preservation rules)
As Matt indicated in a recent posting on the Avalanche company support forum, retreat only becomes a factor when playing linked scenarios, where losses in one scenario cripple you in the following scenarios. I'm only aware of one scenario in Heroes that requires retreat to score victory points, reflecting a general withdrawal on an operational level after the scenario had begun.

As assaulting force that takes heavy casualties (that still has leadership) does one of three things in order to preserve combat effectiveness; 1. dig in and wait for reinforcements (Russia, Germany), 2. call in heavy artillery or airstrikes (U.S.A.) or 3 conduct a fighting withdrawal (U.K., Italy, Russia). Provided the retreat was authorized by Stavka, the Soviets gave medals for conducting successful retreats.

PG doesn't really reflect or reward retreat, and I'm not sure how to interject that into a smoothly running machine. S.P.I. incorporated Panic and Preservation levels into their tactical games in the mid 70's We'd probably need to award v.p.s for exiting units to the rear after losses of a certain percent. Sounds clumsy though."

Vince Hughes followed up with thoughts on maybe awarding VPs for keeping a portion of the force intact and in good order.

Having fussed with a lot of VPs, I think the idea here has some merit, but I don't have a crystallized idea yet. Usually VPs focus on --did you achieve the objective you set out to, but did it cost you too much? So we reward the taking of objectives like towns, bridges, and hills, and eliminating enemy units or advancing off the map in the enemy rear. The defender gets rewarded for holding the ground and killing the enemy. I don't want, as a designer, to force the player's hand into retreating if he wants to send good troops after bad. Plenty of commander's have sent unit after unit to destruction. If you do, you lose. But, we don't currently have a mechanism that directly affects morale of an army. Sure, you lose initiative after losing xx number of steps, and that gives the opponent the chance to mop you up, but that's not the same as everyone getting jittery because their division commander keeps sending battalions forward in dribs and drabs to destruction on a battlefield littered with corpses.

Does anyone use a house rule for this? Say every two initiative steps lost = 1 morale step loss? What would the implications be on games? Would this make players more sensitive (too sensitive?) to losses, much as if in a campaign where every step lost hurts you for the rest of the campaign?
John

[rerathbun]

Something that does bother me, however, is the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. In the SSRs this usually requires the infantry unit to be activated. That means that the defender in an assault hex can't use the AT capability. I would expect that such weapons could be used once per turn where the units are involved in assault combat (if neither player assaults at all I could see not firing the weapons).

At the very least, I'd propose that defending infantry anti-tank weapons should be usable each turn they are assaulted in town hexes, and on the first assault turn if entrenched (and maybe dug-in). That simulates the anti-tank teams hiding in buildings, or set up in cover to ambush the tanks.

Disclaimer: All I know about anti-tank tactics I learned from watching Band of Brothers and documentaries showing 14-year-olds with Panzerfausts in the streets of Berlin.

[rerathbun]

Lets get clarified what constitutes a 'tank' for the +1 bonus in assault combat.

Agreed. Doubt we'll get new AFV types added to Panzer Grenadier (modern may be another story). Only two types of AFV provide the bonus.

We should be able to change the modifier on the Assault Table to read:

+1 -- side includes at least one undemoralized tank or closed-top assault gun and at least one infantry of any type except HMG . . .

[vince hughes]

RE- Inherent INF AT weapons:

I would be very careful here about allowing them (INF AT) to fire when defending in assault on top of the already written rule.

On the one hand, we have people complaining AFV's are too weak in assaults and on the other hand people who want them shot at with these majorly strong AT hand-held weapons.When attacked,these units still get the opportunity to add pain onto AFV;s and for my money,the balance here is about right.

Anyway, think of the poor old Sov's....They get none of these weapons anyway!

I believe that if you allow them to fire when defending, the balance is finally going to be seriously upset. Entrenchments and towns will become unassailable for AFV's whether accompanied by friendly infantry or not.

So put me on record for leaving that rule as is

MTC's

John, at the end of post 86 you mentioned keeping MTC movement as foot. It is motorised, not foot.

Another small anomaly with the Bicycles v MTC is that bicycles attract an extra +1 mod when fired at by DF in Opp Fire (though max is still +3). May be worth adding to Opp shots at MTC's.

Retreat VC's

John, perhaps that is best left to new scenarios that have some kind of SSR and how to use it written in it. There are campaigns and the like now if people wish to play them.