Tanks Versus Infantry

[Cavalry_Charge]

I wanted to open a thread on this topic, even though no rule is currently being considered. I personally believe this is an area that is broken.

During a game I played recently, I had one tank and some cavalry. Once the cavalry was slaughtered (big surprise), I spent the remainder of the game running away from massed infantry...I had no way of stopping them. Clearly, that's not particularly realistic.

In WWII, the vehicles that were vulnerable to Infantry attacks were the SP AT platforms...no defensive MG's. The Elefant was particularly prone to massed infantry attacks...they were slaughtered by Russian infantry. Regular tanks, on the other hand, did have defensive MG's installed firing along the frontal arc of the tank...they were, though, vulnerable from the rear unless the turret were facing that direction, using the coax MG. Extremely unlikely

Also, tanks were frequently used to overrun infantry positions at times, a fearsome sight for a dug in infantry unit.

Here is a suggestion for each of these areas:

Enhanced Defensive Fire for Tanks:

1. A Tank may use Defensive Fire against infantry who enter a hex adjacent to the tank along its front facing.
2. Defensive fire attacks use close range infantry attack numbers plus 2 additional attack dice (accounts for coax MG and Bow MG)
3. Infantry entering hexes in the rear arc of the tank are immune to defensive fire and may enter the tanks hex as usual.

I suppose you could give the turret a facing different from that of the front of the tank. Not sure if it would be cumbersome or not. If you did, the enhanced defensive fire could be modified to:

1. Infantry entering frontal arc of the tank and the arc of the turret are subject to defensive fire attacks Plus 2 dice.
2. If entering only the firing arc of the turret, unit is subject to defensive fire +1 dice.

As for overrun attacks by tanks against infantry, here is where the morale factor could be introduced.

1. When a tank enters a hex adjacent to an infantry, that infantry must make a morale roll. Roll 1 dice...unit passes morale check on a dice roll of 5-6 when in the open, on a 4,5,6 when in cover.
2. If the unit fails its morale check, place a face up disruption counter on that unit which is not removed at the beginning of the turn's casualty phase.

One more thing to consider...all tanks had anti infantry rounds aboard. They were basically giant shotgun shells. Perhaps an additional characteristic to add to tanks against infantry would be a +1 to all attack dice against adjacent infantry...regular fire only.

Of course, this is an initial stab...just my thoughts on how to make this work. Morale check could be used just if the tank enters the same hex...could be done if tank enters adjacent hex and same hex.

I believe this is workable. Post your thoughts

[Eisenheim]

My group has instituted front arc defensive fire for tanks, and it's definitely been positive for our play. We've also given a blanket upgrade to those 7/7/6 tank values, but if you're not doing that, the bonus dice seem like a great idea.

I think it would be a little cumbersome to worry about turret facing, but if you want to that's your choice.

[Vikingwarrior]

I do agree that tanks VS. Infantry is not nearly scary enough. Especially the german tanks. A ranger can pretty much walk right up to a Tiger tank with impunity. Not very realistic. However I am not sure what the solution to this would/should be. I do think it is something that needs to be addressed in the advanced rules.

[Uncle_Joe]

Try playing with elites at 4/4 SR:2 and see if vehicles still feel weak. Even 7/7/6 is playable with that change. Heck, 6/6/4 vehicles like the Hetzer have a reasonable chance of a hit.

The game becomes about combined arms again. Place an MG to cover your armor and there wont be too terribly many infantry that survive long to CA your vehicles.

In the base game, I totally agree that the vehicles were outclassed by (elite) infantry. But that one change will address that. Giving vehicles defensive fire vs infantry is just going to create all kinds of problems with the vehicles who dont need any help (try to CA a Croc, Vet Tiger, Brummbar, Sherman 105, or AVRE if it gets to shoot at you as you move into its hex...). The same goes for giving tanks additional dice or bonuses against infantry. Its overkill for many of the tanks that are being played.

Once infantry defense is in the realm of the believable, armor feels a whole lot more fearsome (unless you are playing with the Urban Combat or somesuch where armor should be vulnerable).

[Cavalry_Charge]

Try playing with elites at 4/4 SR:2 and see if vehicles still feel weak. Even 7/7/6 is playable with that change. Heck, 6/6/4 vehicles like the Hetzer have a reasonable chance of a hit.

The game becomes about combined arms again. Place an MG to cover your armor and there wont be too terribly many infantry that survive long to CA your vehicles.

In the base game, I totally agree that the vehicles were outclassed by (elite) infantry. But that one change will address that. Giving vehicles defensive fire vs infantry is just going to create all kinds of problems with the vehicles who dont need any help (try to CA a Croc, Vet Tiger, Brummbar, Sherman 105, or AVRE if it gets to shoot at you as you move into its hex...). The same goes for giving tanks additional dice or bonuses against infantry. Its overkill for many of the tanks that are being played.

Once infantry defense is in the realm of the believable, armor feels a whole lot more fearsome (unless you are playing with the Urban Combat or somesuch where armor should be vulnerable).

As you might guess, I completely disagree.

In the game I played, I was opposed by 4/4 Infantry with my tank. Cover was closely aligned, and my tank was set up to cover open terrain beyond. Towards the middle of the game, when I had a few cavalry left to defend with, my tank was gang charged by a line of infantry.

Now...I am not disagreeing that infantry and MG's can protect a tank from this type of charge; however, there are times when this is not around and it is just tanks and infantry. In such instances, it is insane to think that the 4/4 infantry, or any infantry for that matter, can chase that tank around the board...where the tank becomes useless.

It cannot overrun what is in front of it, it cannot defensive fire for itself at a unit in its frontal arc one hex away, despite having MG's mounted in the hull and coaxially in the turret (not all peices have these MG's mounted...just illustrating my point). Of course the Tank is vulnerable in its rear arc, but in the front???? I think not.

I am sorry, but changing all Infantry to 4/4, 5/5 going to 4/4 SR2, is not going to address this issue.

[Uncle_Joe]

Of course its not going to address the issue of improper tactics, nor should it. If you are trying to use armor alone against a mass of infantry, you should have problems. Combined arms is the key in reality and in the game.

The 'problem' you are seeing is the fixed objective and the time limit that requires the armor to come to the infantry within 'x' time. Given unlimited time, it should be child's play to kill off infantry with an AFV (or at least be able to drive them away from whatever areas you want). But for the game to work in any reasonable time, the objective and the time limit are necessary. So, it behooves you to include enough infantry or anti-infantry in your own force to be able to cover you armor.

[Cavalry_Charge]

Of course its not going to address the issue of improper tactics, nor should it. If you are trying to use armor alone against a mass of infantry, you should have problems. Combined arms is the key in reality and in the game.

The 'problem' you are seeing is the fixed objective and the time limit that requires the armor to come to the infantry within 'x' time. Given unlimited time, it should be child's play to kill off infantry with an AFV (or at least be able to drive them away from whatever areas you want). But for the game to work in any reasonable time, the objective and the time limit are necessary. So, it behooves you to include enough infantry or anti-infantry in your own force to be able to cover you armor.

Well...Of course you are correct about combined arms...I need no reminder about that :-) ;however, in the same way that it is insane to move forward in any type of charge against a combined force, whether infantry, MG's or whatever, it is equally insane to charge a tank in its frontal firing arc whether it is covered by fire from infantry/MG's or not.

Most other forces have defensive fire, so should tanks for the reasons I have outlined...game dynamics or not...whether it is actually used in a game or not. It is a broken aspect of the game I personally think should be addressed; however, I know that Colonel_Coo opposes such changes from an earlier post in a different topic.

My rule suggestions are written earlier...perhaps they'll be considered, maybe not...that's OK. The discussion is very stimulating and I enjoy it as much as I enjoy playing the game...either as written or modified.

[shadowhooch]

The discussion is very stimulating...

Whoa! Settle down there partner!:D

Anyway, I agree that vehicles should get frontal arc defensive fire - it only makes sense. But I would hesitate to give them any extra dice. Their normal attack abilities are fine - especially if 5/5s are converted to 4/4 SR2.

As to Uncle Joe's point about Crocs and Vet Tigers being a beast to kill with a CA......if your plan on dealing with those units is to CA them with infantry - then YOU are tactically inferierior, not the other way around. You need AT guns or swarm tank tactics to take down heavy armor like that. And if you get lucky with a CA - more power to you. But, you should bring more than just infantry to the table or face the consequences.

As far as the Brummbar and 105 go - a squad would be INSANE to run straight at a Howitzer (frontal arc).

Not to mention the Scout Cars and Halftracks - which are mounted with ONLY MGs but can't stop a squad from running up to them as they are then "stuck" in the hex and dare not move for fear of CA defensive fire.

So, all in all, I am in favor of simply frontal arc defensive fire for vehicles.

[Uncle_Joe]

IMO, if AFVs are to get any form of defensive fire vs infantry it should be if the the infantry is moving FROM an open terrain hex TO the AFVs open terrain hex.

That would prevent infantry from 'overrunning' armor in the open but doesnt give tanks the ability move near close terrain and be safe. It also preserves the balance of the game's objectives and time limits that would go out the window if tanks could park adjacent to the objective and blow away any infantry that tries to CA them.

[Uncle_Joe]

One thing that puzzles me greatly is how you all are getting your AFVs (halfracks etc) CA'ed to death by infantry IN THE OPEN? I rarely if ever lose a vehicle to a close assault.

Tanks are MOBILE. Why in god's name would you get close enough to infantry to let them get in your hex unless you have some sort of covering fire to peel them off? The only exception would be if you are trying to contest the objective at the end of the game. But you'd have had 7 turns to blast infantry to hamburger from range (which is quite possible if not for the elite problem).

I just cant fathom what occurs in your games that causes your tanks to be taken down frequently IN THE OPEN by infantry. And if you are moving around close terrain and infantry get you, well, that is the whole point of infantry...to control close terrain. If they cant do that, then they might as well not even be in the game and we can have tank orgies instead of a light WW2 tactical game.

[OldBloodandGuts]

I also agree that tanks should be stronger vs. infantry, but don't think extra dice - especially at close range - are the answer.

With infantry at close range, that tank would be "buttoned up," negating the bow MG and limting the coaxial by restricting vision.

If anything, tanks should have bonuses at medium and/or long ranges vs. infantry, because a commander could fire an HE shell. I think I read a rule suggestion to represent this on another thread in here, but I can't find it just now...

[shadowhooch]

One thing that puzzles me greatly is how you all are getting your AFVs (halfracks etc) CA'ed to death by infantry IN THE OPEN? I rarely if ever lose a vehicle to a close assault.

Tanks are MOBILE. Why in god's name would you get close enough to infantry to let them get in your hex unless you have some sort of covering fire to peel them off? The only exception would be if you are trying to contest the objective at the end of the game. But you'd have had 7 turns to blast infantry to hamburger from range (which is quite possible if not for the elite problem).

I just cant fathom what occurs in your games that causes your tanks to be taken down frequently IN THE OPEN by infantry. And if you are moving around close terrain and infantry get you, well, that is the whole point of infantry...to control close terrain. If they cant do that, then they might as well not even be in the game and we can have tank orgies instead of a light WW2 tactical game.

It's all because of the forced objective contesting in Turn 7 that tanks die to CA. And, yes, I do like the rule of objective contesting in Turn 7. That is necessary for game speed and fun and should not be changed. Here are 7 points FOR defensive fire:

1) You will NOT get 6 turns to fire on the opposing infantry as, if your tank's AI is threatening enough, they will duck and hide behind terrain and do "the dance" to hold your infantry at bay.

2) Also, your vehicles have to be wary of AT guns and enemy tanks - so they can't just flank the hiding infantry to get shots on them. Consequently, the games are simply....2 infantry squads approach in cover and face off or hide as the tanks spin their tires around the board. Then it becomes Turn 7 and your tanks are meatballs.

3) Take a look at your games as you play them. If you have a Brummbar, or Sig, or 105, count how many shots your opponent lets you get on their infantry until Turn 7. So what good are tanks?

4) Also, even IF you could fire on infantry every turn, there is no way you will kill the 15 potential targets by Turn 7 - when your tank will be toasted and you will lose massive amount of points compared to the 4 or 5 that you get to pick off each time you actually kill an enemy soldier.

5) If tanks are merely medium to long range AI support - why even spend 20+ points on one. It is a WASTE as MGs, Snipers, and Mortars are ALL better, more survivable, and cheaper options.

6) Like I said, take away 4 Units from this game (Brummbar, 105, Vet Tiger, and Croc) and there is NO REASON TO EVER FIELD A TANK. Right now, you only field a tank to counter those 4 and ONLY those 4 units. Everything else is not much of a threat to your infantry and you can hide or ignore them until Turn 7 when they sacrifice themselves to your infantry hoard. Is that really why tanks were built - to be used merely as a counter Howitzer and Flamethrower tanks? I think not.

7) And no, taking the 5/5s down to 4/4 SR2 will NOT change that fact. It will still be prudent to build 15 infantry, hide and hold back the enemy, and overwhelm them in Turn 7. There is NO incentive for this so called "combined arms" UNLESS vehicles can defend themselves vs infantry. Take tragicmishaps championship build as a perfect example of where this game leads you if you want to be competitive.

Defensive fire allows vehicles to actually stand and fight instead of ******* all over themselves when 1 infantry squad approaches them.

[shadowhooch]

Oh, and counterpoint to the "the tank is buttoned up and can't see approaching infantry argument".....

If it is SOOOOOOO hard for the tank to see a moving squad of infantry men approaching their vehicle....
How come they can fire on them during the assault phase at all?
How come they can fire on infantry 8 hexes away in cover standing still?
How could they ever spot a plane coming at them?

I understand the logic of being buttoned up. But it doesn't apply to this game. All units are visible and in the open. There is no fog of war in this game.

[shadowhooch]

Sorry, I'm on a roll/rant here...

And if defensive fire DOES encourage some all tank builds.....GOOD! That is cool. Diverse tactics and builds and not knowing what you are going to face is half the fun of playing this game.

Go ahead, bring your 4 105's. I betchya my all infantry squad will STILL have a chance against you as I hide most of them until Turn 7. But the all infantry squad will actually have a weakness and force to me to bring a couple of Bazookas, AT guns, or tanks to counter that threat. That's called "ENCOURAGING combined arms". And that combined arms squad will BEAT an all infantry squad or an all tank squad most of the time. Currently, the all infantry squad wins more than 50% of the time.

All this talk about limits is FORCING combined arms. But maybe we should just balance each type of unit through the rules to ENCOURAGE combined arms instead of forcing it down people's throat. Pumping up vehicles through Defensive Fire will HELP vehicles compete. But they will be FAR from dominant in the game.

okay....I think it is out of my system now....until someone comes up with some more points I can counter or until someone convinces me I'm wrong.;)

[OldBloodandGuts]

Oh, and counterpoint to the "the tank is buttoned up and can't see approaching infantry argument".....

If it is SOOOOOOO hard for the tank to see a moving squad of infantry men approaching their vehicle....
How come they can fire on them during the assault phase at all?
How come they can fire on infantry 8 hexes away in cover standing still?
How could they ever spot a plane coming at them?

I understand the logic of being buttoned up. But it doesn't apply to this game. All units are visible and in the open. There is no fog of war in this game.

I'm just saying...there's a reason why armor was more effective against infantry on the vast, open Russian steppe than it was in the claustrophobic hedgerows or Pacific jungles.

It's not an issue of visibility or fog of war, but of weapon efficacy. Why, for example, do mortars have poor short range attacks against infantry? Not because the mortars can't see infantry up close, but because their weapons aren't designed for that range of attack.

Same with tanks. No veteran tank commander would want to engage infantry at close range, because it nullifies the range advantage of his weapons. He'd much rather engage them at medium or long range, where his risk is minimal and his HE rounds can wreak the most havoc.

And don't get me started on planes... :)

[Uncle_Joe]

Like I said, take away 4 Units from this game (Brummbar, 105, Vet Tiger, and Croc) and there is NO REASON TO EVER FIELD A TANK. Right now, you only field a tank to counter those 4 and ONLY those 4 units.

Well, I think this is exactly why the system WORKS. AFV evolution started with the need to take out MG positions. Many early war AFVs were armed only with MGs or low velocity guns (ie, for anti-infantry work).

The same dynamic is going to apply in-game. If someone keeps bringing AFVs that can kill infantry and you dont bring something that can kill or threaten them, you'll likely lose. Units like the sIG-33 and StuG are custom made for this role.

If you think that MGs and Mortars are superior, then field them. But I would wager that they wont hold up long to Shermans, StuGs, Elite Pzr IVs and the like. Sooooo, you'll bring AT guns or anti-tank AFVs of your own. And thus you get WW2.

In the end, WW2 tactics centered on infantry. Even the mighty blitzkrieg consisted of MANY more infantry divisions than panzer or pzgr divisions. Everything in WW2 comes down to who can control the ground. And infantry does that best. The things that kill infantry the best (artillery, MGs, mortars, assault guns) are vulnerable to tanks and AT-oriented AFVs. So, you cant just bring MGs and mortars to kill the infantry without some sort of plan to protect them from opposing AFVs.

If tanks can all of sudden exist without infantry support, then half the game goes out the window. Why bother with infantry and thus why bother with MGs or mortars? Tanks dont do well without infantry support any more than infantry will do well against MGs and mortars without tank support.

The biggest limiting factor on tanks in the game is the fixed objective and turn limit, not any inherent imbalance between tanks and infantry (again, if you remove the elite screw). The biggest mitigating factor for tanks is the 15 piece limit.

Go ahead, bring your 4 105's. I betchya my all infantry squad will STILL have a chance against you as I hide most of them until Turn 7.


Of course. Four Sherman 105s as your force would be stupid. Its MEANT to be stupid. But ONE Sherman 105 supporting your infantry is easily worth it if can deny the enemy from using his MGs to shred MY infantry. That IS combined arms. And if it faces no threats from opposing AFVs, then its going to be a lot more effective. Hence, the opponent is encouraged to bring tanks to oppose that assault gun and there you are....right back to the role that tanks should have in the game.

And no, taking the 5/5s down to 4/4 SR2 will NOT change that fact. It will still be prudent to build 15 infantry, hide and hold back the enemy, and overwhelm them in Turn 7. There is NO incentive for this so called "combined arms" UNLESS vehicles can defend themselves vs infantry.

Sure, until the enemy has 2 MGs and you have no way to remove them and no way to cross the open to get to the objective. Are infantry going to be dominant in a city fight (or something like knife-fight)? Of course they are...thats the point. But you arent supposed to know what map you are on before you build your force. Try using that all infantry (with 4/4s) on Tiger Heaven or some of the other slightly more open more maps. If the opponent has MGs or mortars, you are likely gonna struggle.

Take tragicmishaps championship build as a perfect example of where this game leads you if you want to be competitive.

No, his championship build was an example of abusing what EVERYONE and their dog knows is huge balance screw in the game....the effectiveness and cheap cost of 5/5 infantry. If those infantry were all 4/4 SR:2, I seriously doubt he would have done anywhere near as well as he did with that build (but to his credit, I dont think he would have been dumb enough to try such a build if the elites werent so clearly broken).

Armor is just fine against infantry (if you are using the right tools for the job). The problem was the elites that rendered armor much less useful (in multiple ways).

[Cavalry_Charge]

Quite the discussion going here...didn't expect that :-)

I've read through this and believe there are solid arguments on both sides; however, the problem in the game remains IMHO...Infantry can walk right up to a tank without any penalty, whether supported by Infantry or not. Current rules in this area are inadequate.

I initially proposed defensive fire in the frontal arc at +2 dice. I agree that this is too much...there are limitations imposed by being buttoned up...limitations, not impossibilities. So I would offer a correction (quotes below are my own to highlight the proposal):

Tanks may defensively fire in their frontal arc out to one hex at +1 to each dice roll against entering units. Units entering a tanks hex are unaffected by defensive fire (e.g. a tank may defensively fire into the adjacent hexes, not its own hex

Personally, I don't really care what the rule is for tank defensive fire...only that it is added. MG's in the hull and coax need to be taken into consideration for point blank defenses. The plus to the dice roll only reflects the added firepower of these MG's (short range only for tank protection)...removing the blast of an HE round from defensive fire makes a rule like this more playable, though not necessarily realistic.

PLUS DON'T FORGET THAT INFANTRY, UNDER THIS PROPOSED RULE, CAN ENTER THE REAR ARC OF THE TANK WITHOUT ANY PENALTY...JUST LIKE THE REAL MCCOY.

Now here is the second part from earlier. What do you guys think about this:

As for overrun attacks by tanks against infantry, here is where the morale factor could be introduced.

1. When a tank enters a hex adjacent to an infantry, that infantry must make a morale roll. Roll 1 dice...unit passes morale check on a dice roll of 5-6 when in the open, on a 4,5,6 when in cover.
2. If the unit fails its morale check, place a face up disruption counter on that unit which is not removed at the beginning of the turn's casualty phase.

One more thing to consider...all tanks had anti infantry rounds aboard. They were basically giant shotgun shells. Perhaps an additional characteristic to add to tanks against infantry would be a +1 to all attack dice against adjacent infantry...regular fire only...not defensive fire.

[Uncle_Joe]

As I said, in the complete open? Perhaps tanks could be accorded defensive fire vs infantry moving to attack them. I dont believe its really necessary, but I dont think it would be a bad idea for game balance at first brush. But as I said, BOTH the hexes should have to be open ground in order to draw the defensive fire.

One more thing to consider...all tanks had anti infantry rounds aboard. They were basically giant shotgun shells.

No, most tanks, not all had HE rounds (High-Explosive). Many Brit tanks didnt even carry HE rounds.

What you are referring to with the 'giant shotgun shells' are 'Cannister' rounds and most AFVs did not carry them. The Stuart did, many early MkIVs did and there is some evidence that T34s were supposed to carry them but it was not a very widespread round to carry.

As for overrun attacks by tanks against infantry, here is where the morale factor could be introduced.

I dont really see a need for overrun for attacks in the game. But again, if something were to added, then a relatively flat number could be used for attack dice (maybe 8) and it could be used in place of an attack once that turn. Perhaps adjust the dice up or down for cover. So perhaps 9 or 10 dice for infantry in the open, but only 6-7 for infantry in cover. And infantry should get some sort of defensive CA if the 'overrun' takes place in covered terrain.

Hollywood and videogames notwithstanding, unsuppressed infantry would rarely be 'overrun'. Very few sane tank commanders would voluntarily drive his tank towards good order enemy infantry. Its not a question of simply 'driving over' enemy troops which would be the exact result of any such rule added to the game (hence why I'm not in favor of adding such things).

ASL had some pretty detailed CA/Overrun rules. IIRC, what it came down to was the sequencing of the attacks. If it took place in the open, then the AFV was allowed first shot in the exchange. If it too place in cover, then the infantry go first crack. Of course ASL had a just a few more phases and whatnot in which to make the rules work. ;)

[shadowhooch]

Alas Uncle Joe,

We are both "entrenched" in our beliefs and I beleive we will never agree on this one. You think vehicles are plenty powerful and don't need a defense besides the speed and range they already have. I believe that tanks and vehicles (which make up 50%) of the available units, should be used for more than just support and need a larger role in the game Right now, they are a side show.

Ahh well. I respect your comments but will stick by my guns on this one. I don't know who you play against. But I'd love to see you play Tragicmishap a few times so that you might be convinced of the vast superiority that infantry has over vehicles in this game. There is NOTHING more scary than facing a 15 unit, infantry dominated force. And to be competitive, the closer you are to that, the better off you'll be. I'd LOVE to see more diversity in builds - even if they aren't 100% historically accurate (which this "game" is far from anyway).

[shadowhooch]

Calvary Charge,

I'm with you on the concept; but I'd just as soon keep it simpler by just giving frontal arc defensive fire (as per normal rules).

You propose D fire one hex away; but tanks can already fire on infantry in their own hex. This game deals in the abstract more than the literal. So, I'm not sure if it is necessary to change the general defensive fire rule except to extend it to vehicles front vs infantry.

But, like you, I'd like to see something done and I'm not a big fan of giving OverRun to all tanks. That seems counter intuitive to me. When a tank enters an infantry's hex, everyone is scared? But they have no fear when running straight at it from 100 yards away? Silliness to me.

[Uncle_Joe]

I believe that tanks and vehicles (which make up 50%) of the available units, should be used for more than just support and need a larger role in the game Right now, they are a side show.

Well, that runs contrary to trying to make the game a little more historically or realistically based. If its just a matter of getting to use the 'cool toys', then that is just a matter of taste and nothing more. There are plenty of games that are 'tank games' that are successful and fun to play.

Personally, I enjoy A&AM because it actually DOESNT feel like a 'tank game' like so many simplified WW2-esque games do. It actually makes infantry into their historically important role rather than making them only so many targets that the treadheads prefer.

Ahh well. I respect your comments but will stick by my guns on this one. I don't know who you play against. But I'd love to see you play Tragicmishap a few times so that you might be convinced of the vast superiority that infantry has over vehicles in this game. There is NOTHING more scary than facing a 15 unit, infantry dominated force. And to be competitive, the closer you are to that, the better off you'll be.

Our games are fairly infantry-heavy too. But with the 4/4 solution and the 15 unit limit I cant see infantry being anywhere NEAR as dominant as they were with the 5/5. That is a HUGE change and it really has to be experienced to be understood. It exceeded my expectation when put into practice.

I'd LOVE to see more diversity in builds - even if they aren't 100% historically accurate (which this "game" is far from anyway).

I think you'll see that once the infantry dominance stranglehold is broken by fixing the elites. I really do. I too got tired of having to plan EVERY build around the need to take out infantry that were just too damned hard to kill. EVERY German build included a Brummbar and EVERY US build had to include M4(105)s and/or 81mm Mtrs. That got OLD and in fact is what originally caused me to lose interest in the game...it was the same old same old even with restricting elites to 6 in our games.

With the change to the elites, it opens up whole new realms of viable units. I'm not delusional enough to think that every unit is going to find a place, but its a heck of a lot more fun knowing that you dont have to worry about that core of elite pain in the arse infantry every game.

[Uncle_Joe]

shadowhooch,

If I could make a book suggestion, if you haven't already read it, pick up a copy of Achtung, Panzer! by Guderian. Its an EXCELLENT read on the evolution of armored combat.

link:
http://www.amazon.com/Achtung-Panzer-Cassell-Military-Classics/dp/0304352853

It explains very well the capabilities and liabilities of mechanized warfare.

[Cavalry_Charge]

Perhaps tanks could be accorded defensive fire vs infantry moving to attack them. I dont believe its really necessary, but I dont think it would be a bad idea for game balance at first brush. But as I said, BOTH the hexes should have to be open ground in order to draw the defensive fire.

I'm with you on the concept; but I'd just as soon keep it simpler by just giving frontal arc defensive fire (as per normal rules).

Perhaps there is a blend here that would address what I see as a Problem...can't forget how I ran from Infantry with a tank because I could do nothing else.

As a compromise, grant the tank frontal arc defensive fire...it can make defensive if the infantry unit crosses two hexes of open terrain. I think that might work.

Its not a question of simply 'driving over' enemy troops which would be the exact result of any such rule added to the game (hence why I'm not in favor of adding such things).

I'm not a big fan of giving OverRun to all tanks. That seems counter intuitive to me. When a tank enters an infantry's hex, everyone is scared? But they have no fear when running straight at it from 100 yards away? Silliness to me.

I didn't think that one through very clearly...yup, I remember ASL and its rules...I also think you're both right on Overrun.

I would personally like to see armor play a slightly larger role when attacking infantry positions...just not sure if that can work in AAM. I confess I may be somewhat biased as well...my personal playing style is aggressive maneuver wherever possible.

Oh Duh!!! That's what Assault Guns are for, whether a Sig33, Brumbar, M4A3(105), StugIII, Crocodile, and so forth.

[shadowhooch]

Well, that runs contrary to trying to make the game a little more historically or realistically based. If its just a matter of getting to use the 'cool toys', then that is just a matter of taste and nothing more. There are plenty of games that are 'tank games' that are successful and fun to play.

Personally, I enjoy A&AM because it actually DOESNT feel like a 'tank game' like so many simplified WW2-esque games do. It actually makes infantry into their historically important role rather than making them only so many targets that the treadheads prefer.


I hear ya. Yes, your arguments are much more realistically and historically based. But if you want to go down that road, there wouldn't be planes, Motorcycles, Calvary, Headshots, or anything of that sort even in the game. Realistic yes. Borderline boring.....yeah, I think so.

You've got me pegged right. I like a historical basis; but I care more about game balance than anything else. To me, that is what keeps the game going as you can always try new things and tactics with a balanced game. I'm not THAT interested in a "historical recreation" if it means I can't use all my "cool" pieces.

I just hate that if I get an inkling to use a PZIV G or even an Elefant, that I've essentially alreay thrown in the towel.:(

[Uncle_Joe]

I just hate that if I get an inkling to use a PZIV G or even an Elefant, that I've essentially alreay thrown in the towel

Definately agree here. I'm hoping that the Platoon idea can do something about that. The problems with units like that are their horrid pricing rather than some inherent imbalance in the game.

So, if the PzIVg can be part of a 'package deal' that makes it a little more cost effective, I'm all for it. It was probably the most numerous German tank on the Western Front in '44 and I think the only times I've ever played or faced one have been when its someone with a limited collection of models.

One thought I did have that is quite obvious is to simply increase the points played with BUT keep the unit max intact. That automatically shifts the balance away from units that are point-effective towards units that 'slot'-effective. 150-200 points and 15 units should produce some tank battles and downplay the effects of infantry in the game (again, assuming 4/4s).

In retrospect, that is probably the easiest way to throttle the armor up or down in the game.

[mattertoenergy]

I'd like to see vehicles get limited defensive fire principally for historical reasons. This defensive fire should be limited to the frontal arc and to clear hexes. This in my mind does not solely simulate the tank firing it's MG's against the attacking soldiers, but also the fear that a squad of soldiers would have charging a tank. After all, how often were units willing to charge tanks (at least in the open).

[boersma8]

The proble with allowing tanks DF is, that a 7/7/6 German tank might just as well not even bother firing at a Ranger or paratrooper or any other 5/5 infantry unit for that matter..... Furthermore, I think the explanation given in the rulebook why vehicles DON'T get DF against soldiers is a very sustainable one!

[Grenzewolf]

Remove any personal bias and it is more than evident that armor is castrated in this game currently, Especialy german armor. Several of the late war German tanks included mortars in the turret roof such as the Royal Tiger or Panzer IV Auf J. It doesnt take much effort in research to know that tanks could and did decimate infantry formations on a regular basis.

If tanks were given their just due in the AI role perhaps we would see more cheaper infantry and armor variations in play. Granted, if tanks are depolyed in heavily wooded or built up areas where Blocked LOS and available cover is to the advantage of defending or advancing infantry the tank deserves it's fate.

Below is a link to a solution I posted many moons ago. Give it a look and a try. It works.

NOTE: Red platsic paper clips work great for "HE" markers on the card of the tank that purchased them.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=14706&highlight=Rounds

[shadowhooch]

NOTE: Red platsic paper clips work great for "HE" markers on the card of the tank that purchased them.

Interesting solution. So you would use your AV value when you use this attack or would all HE rounds be equal no matter which tank you use it with? Any die modifyers (-1 perhaps)? Ignore cover? How much would each HE attack cost (2 or more)?

[Grenzewolf]

Interesting solution. So you would use your AV value when you use this attack or would all HE rounds be equal no matter which tank you use it with? Any die modifyers (-1 perhaps)? Ignore cover? How much would each HE attack cost (2 or more)?

Oops forgot the link,,,,,,,,,, Ok its posted now.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=14706&highlight=Rounds

[shadowhooch]

Oops forgot the link,,,,,,,,,, Ok its posted now.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=14706&highlight=Rounds

I'm very cool with that rule. What about cover? Still eligible?

[Grenzewolf]

I'm very cool with that rule. What about cover? Still eligible?

Being as it would be an LOS attack rather than "High Angle Hell" cover rolls would still apply.

[shadowhooch]

Being as it would be an LOS attack rather than "High Angle Hell" cover rolls would still apply.

Look out Nashorn! Kinda makes it a bit playable if you can use it's SA too!

Is 16/14 dice a bit too much? Maybe get a -1 to attack?
Same goes for those Marders.

[Grenzewolf]

Look out Nashorn! Kinda makes it a bit playable if you can use it's SA too!

Is 16/14 dice a bit too much? Maybe get a -1 to attack?
Same goes for those Marders.


Discription is HE (tanks only) Tank destroyers are stuck with their specialty design.

[Cavalry_Charge]

Remove any personal bias and it is more than evident that armor is castrated in this game currently, Especialy german armor. Several of the late war German tanks included mortars in the turret roof such as the Royal Tiger or Panzer IV Auf J. It doesnt take much effort in research to know that tanks could and did decimate infantry formations on a regular basis.

If tanks were given their just due in the AI role perhaps we would see more cheaper infantry and armor variations in play. Granted, if tanks are depolyed in heavily wooded or built up areas where Blocked LOS and available cover is to the advantage of defending or advancing infantry the tank deserves it's fate.

Below is a link to a solution I posted many moons ago. Give it a look and a try. It works.

NOTE: Red platsic paper clips work great for "HE" markers on the card of the tank that purchased them.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=14706&highlight=Rounds

I've looked this over, and in principle, I agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I am not clear why an additional card would be necessary to resolve this issue. Strikes me as an unnecessary complication when perhaps a simpler solution would suffice.

Now...before I say anything else here, it is clear to me that opinions vary on this topic. All participating in this thread are well informed on the mechanics of real life WWII...all interpret these facts differently as to whether or not they should be accounted for or not, how they should be accounted for. I seriously doubt WOTC will take this issue on for now...clearly stated opinion from Colonel_Coo...vote to keep it the same.

Just the same, I believe this is a problem, and I would like to see a solution. HE rounds, Bow and coax MG's are not taken into consideration for defensive fire. Arguments have been presented that a buttoned up tank cannot effectively defend itself against infantry...When I look at the scale of the game, I find I cannot agree.

Each Hex represents roughly 300ft. In the tanks hex alone, there is 150 feet surrounding the tank if you assume it is in the middle of that hex. So for the distances we are talking about, the tank has 450 ft. to identify infantry approaching. Now obviously we must take into consideration cover...infantry would easily approach a tank, front or rear, from a position of cover; however, in the open, I think not, whether the tank is buttoned up or not.

Now, don't crucify me too badly on this point as I am not intimately familiar with every WWII tank; however, looking at it this way, when buttoned up, there are at least two sets of eyeballs looking forward...the driver through his vision port, and the tank commander through his 360 degree view ports on the cupola. I do not know if the bow gunner had a view port or not. My point here is that a buttoned up tank was well capable of identify long range armored targets without too much difficulty. It seems unreasonable to me to say that in this state, infantry could not be seen approaching across the open at 450 ft.

Now Grezenwolf, I am not in any way diminishing your suggested solution here; however, I think a simpler approach is to assume the HE rounds are on board, then grant the tank forward arc defensive fire. The real question then becomes at what strength...at what dice modifier. +2 dice, +1 to dice rolls...either of these, plus others as well. The real querstion, assuming players believe this should be fixed, is how to do this as cleanly and simply as possible.

[Uncle_Joe]

Not giving vehicles defensive fire vs infantry is a game mechanic...nothing else. They arent saying that AFVs cant attack infantry. They ARE saying that they have a harder time reacting to infantry in close quarter than say, other infantry.

Nothing prevents a vehicle from blasting away at infantry within 1 hex (or even the same hex unless you have Fixed Howitzer). But its the reaction to the movement only that is restricted.

Its also a necessary mechanic IMO. Without it, certain vehicles would dominate the game against all but the best of the best of cheesily broken elites.

[Cavalry_Charge]

Not giving vehicles defensive fire vs infantry is a game mechanic...nothing else. They arent saying that AFVs cant attack infantry. They ARE saying that they have a harder time reacting to infantry in close quarter than say, other infantry.

Nothing prevents a vehicle from blasting away at infantry within 1 hex (or even the same hex unless you have Fixed Howitzer). But its the reaction to the movement only that is restricted.

Its also a necessary mechanic IMO. Without it, certain vehicles would dominate the game against all but the best of the best of cheesily broken elites.

Wow...when you put it like that, in that context, I find I cannot disagree.

Gosh...that pretty much shredded my most brialliant argument above :-) For the existing game mechanics, you've convinced me that Defensive Fire for Tanks in the frontal arc would fundamentally change this aspect of the game for the worse.

[shadowhooch]

Wow...when you put it like that, in that context, I find I cannot disagree.

Gosh...that pretty much shredded my most brialliant argument above :-) For the existing game mechanics, you've convinced me that Defensive Fire for Tanks in the frontal arc would fundamentally change this aspect of the game for the worse.

Well, I guess I'll pipe up again on my favorite subject. Yes, some vehicles will be much less prone to CA assaults like the Brummbar, Croc, 105, and such. But that just means that there is NOW a more legitimate role for the Tank Destroyers. No longer would you be able to get away with using infantry to counter any tank you see. You'd HAVE to address the threat of AI tanks with an AT vehicle.
To me, that promotes game balance and build diversity and would go a long way in getting some of those pieces out of the box again that have been collecting dust.
Completely historical? Maybe not. But completely out of context of the game? I think not. This game is abstract and I see no reason why the frontal arc doesn't make SOME logical sense within the confines of the abstractness of the current game rules.

Anyway, like I said before, I am more about better game balance than a dead-on accurate historical recreation. So I PERSONALLY wouldn't mind seeing all-tank builds for those that want to try it. I guarantee this wouldn't be the death of the mighty infantry. They would still be the best unit. I just like playing a game where there is more than one way to win. Come back to the dark side Calvary Charge (I think you were my only supporter in this topic).;) Don't be swayed by the historical logic and reason of Uncle Joe (even though I'm on his side in just about every other topic):o

[Cavalry_Charge]

Come back to the dark side Calvary Charge (I think you were my only supporter in this topic).;) Don't be swayed by the historical logic and reason of Uncle Joe (even though I'm on his side in just about every other topic):o

Your response here made me laugh...thank you.

What swayed me here was the context in which he placed it...the rules account for the fact A TANK reacts more slowly to infantry than other types of units...no matter what historical context you place that in, whether his or mine or anyone else's, I can't disagree.

If by not allowing defensive fire for tanks, you capture that one simple fact, then the rule as it stands is actually just fine.

I will add, though, that if done correctly, defensive fire along the frontal arc for specific types of tanks would be workable provided it were kept simple...no modifiers, no special ammo, just simple defensive fire.

Now is not the time, though. Perhaps later.

[Uncle_Joe]

Anyway, like I said before, I am more about better game balance than a dead-on accurate historical recreation. So I PERSONALLY wouldn't mind seeing all-tank builds for those that want to try it.

I enjoy game balance too. That why I'm a huge advocate of cutting the 5/5s down to a level somewhere in the realm of the believable. And I think if that were to occur (officially) through some miracle, you'd see an awful lot more variety in the units being field.

I (again, personally) would detest seeing an all-tank build be viable, just I cant stand seeing all-infantry builds as being so dominant. Neither is remotely historical and neither is good for game balance or replayability. I once watched a game where one player won with 4 AVREs in a 100 point game. The opponent had a fairly mixed force for the Germans, about half was rendered utterly useless (MGs, Mausers, Mortar). From there, it was a simply dice rolling contest to see if he could kill of 4 bricks before time ran out. He failed and that game as about as exciting as watching fruit go bad. Little maneuver, little tactics...just move up and roll dice.

To me, both all-tank and all-infantry forces should be very vulnerable. At the moment, I think infantry definately dominate. If tanks received defensive fire, it wouldnt likely change the vehicles played or the number of options, it would simply magnify the power of the 'select few' AFVs and again, virtually guarantee the extinction of the non-elite infantry.

So, I'll beat my favorite drum and insist that tweaking the 5/5s to the 4/4 SR:2 would do exactly what you want it to do as well...break the dominance of the all-infantry builds and reward players who made more balanced builds consisting of units that arent necessarily the current 'best' units.

[Vikingwarrior]

Just thinking out loud but how about for tanks, that defensive fire on infantry comes after the assault phase. Any infantry in the forward arc two hexes or less (not zero) not in cover can be fired upon at +1 on the dice. Disrupted marker lasts for one full turn. That would take away the rediculous 5/5 infantry charging through the open head on over two turns at a Panzer tank. Bringing tactics back to the game we all love.

[Uncle_Joe]

That would take away the rediculous 5/5 infantry charging through the open head on over two turns at a Panzer tank. Bringing tactics back to the game we all love.

Broken record here, but that is attacking the wrong problem.

[Vikingwarrior]

Actually it is the same problem if it is 4/4 infantry. They can charge the front of a tank with no defensive fire. And even in the assault phase tanks only get 7 dice against one unit. Less then a 50% chance of even disrupting one unit. Not very realistic is it?

[shadowhooch]

Actually it is the same problem if it is 4/4 infantry. They can charge the front of a tank with no defensive fire. And even in the assault phase tanks only get 7 dice against one unit. Less then a 50% chance of even disrupting one unit. Not very realistic is it?

Yes, whether it is a Mauser or an SSPG, the threat is the same.:(

Ahh well. We each have our agendas. Mine is better objective contesting ability by tanks. Uncle Joe's is lowering Elite Dominance. Yours is HHR historical fixes. It's fun to discuss.

[Uncle_Joe]

Actually it is the same problem if it is 4/4 infantry. They can charge the front of a tank with no defensive fire. And even in the assault phase tanks only get 7 dice against one unit. Less then a 50% chance of even disrupting one unit. Not very realistic is it?

No the problem is very different. The Mauser IS disrupted 50% of the time. The elite? less than 25%. And then, once the two units are successfully CA'ing the vehicle, the elite enjoys a much better chance of success there too.

Plus (and this is a big one here), the elites can generally ignore fire from covering units (that arent elite). See how long those Mausers last in the open against MGs or even Rifle fire. If they leave cover to attack an AFV in the open, the Mausers are at extreme risk from many battlefield targets. The elites? Much less bothered by other non-specialized infantry killers.

Again, I dont know what possesses people to leave their vehicles adjacent to enemy infantry (and alone). To me, that is asking for them to be killed. If you keep friendly infantry with them they'll have less problems. If you remove the 5/5 from the elites, moving into the open to try and CA a vehicles becomes FAR more dangerous than it currently is.

[shadowhooch]

I'll say this...if vehicles are incapable of defensive fire, all but the Heavies are completely useless for objective contesting - which is how you win games in AAM (realistic or not, it is a fact).

So spending 20+ points on a unit that loses most of it's power in Turn 7 and on (the MOST important turns) is a complete waste of points in my mind. No matter what you do with Elites, that fact will remain.

Anyway, we are chasing our own tails at this point as everyone has made their wishes and points known in this forum. Hopefully WotC will "save" the day with some details on their Expert rules (now 5 days late) so we can discuss and bicker over a new subject.:D

[Vikingwarrior]

Yes, whether it is a Mauser or an SSPG, the threat is the same.:(

Ahh well. We each have our agendas. Mine is better objective contesting ability by tanks. Uncle Joe's is lowering Elite Dominance. Yours is HHR historical fixes. It's fun to discuss.

Actually I don't care what the fixes are as long as it makes the game better. And by better I mean more balanced where it pays to have a mixed force, where planes can be a factor, where a spotter has some value, and where there can be a reason to use all my units at some point without me knowing if I field that one unit I may as well hoist the white flag.

The reason I say use HHR is because it has been play tested and works. But if someone else play tests they're rules and they work even better I'm all for it. I just don't want one fix that may break others.

[Grenzewolf]

For the record: I actually have no problem with tanks being denied defensive fire. Tanks are not at their best in a knife fight with infantry. If you look closer at my proposal for HE (which actually is a blanket for all available anti-infantry assets available) you'll note that it only gives the tank more bite at medium and long ranges. This is the stand-off distance in which tanks excel against infantry. Any idiot that attempts to move against a tanks position without properly using terrain and cover deserves to have his butt shot out from under him.

The impact of this addition to the game is clear.

1. Field more but cheaper infantry. A tank can still only kill or disrupt one unit at a time. It worked for the Russians and Chinese. But then, we know what kind of losses they were willing to accept. I have accounts of Russian infantry having Vodka distributed till they were plastered. Then Commissars would have them lock arms as the charged forward enmasse at German held Armor positions. Hence the term "Liquid Courage" .. but I digress.

2. Alternatively transports will have more value to get the troops stuck in quickly by means of the carriers maneuver and speed.

3. If tanks are indeed a threat, then we can expect to see the Tank destroyers & AT Guns become viable.

4. Next enter close air support.... Followed by fighters or AA to counter.

Now that every one has a job and a function... EEK it looks like WWII out there!!! Wow I guess there was a reason for all that weapons development. So much for Infantry Box formations and volley fire ;) Welcome to the 20th century where Infantry is only part of the combined arms equation.

Bottom line is if we allow tanks to represent what they really were/are then all the other stuff collecting dust will find it's niche in the game. Now you have to use some tactics and not just crunch numbers to win.

[Autarch]

Again, I dont know what possesses people to leave their vehicles adjacent to enemy infantry (and alone).

I know, it's that pesky thing called the objective. :)

I liked the idea of giving tanks defensive fire against infantry in open hexes in the forward arc.

[Rick]

Now, don't crucify me too badly on this point as I am not intimately familiar with every WWII tank; however, looking at it this way, when buttoned up, there are at least two sets of eyeballs looking forward...the driver through his vision port, and the tank commander through his 360 degree view ports on the cupola. I do not know if the bow gunner had a view port or not. My point here is that a buttoned up tank was well capable of identify long range armored targets without too much difficulty. It seems unreasonable to me to say that in this state, infantry could not be seen approaching across the open at 450 ft.

Ok, a bit on tank design and ability for the commander to 'see' the battle field.

Yes, the driver and the bow gunner (if there was a bow gunner position) had view ports. Those view ports were about 8"-12" in length and about 1" wide. Some tanks, like the M4's, the R-35's, and T-34 series, had driver 'hatches' that could be propped open to some degree and allow a wider field of vision. This was done at the serious risk of bullets and shrapnel wounding or killing you, so it was not done frequently. I think it would quite fair to say that the driver and possible bow gunner generally had very limited fields of vision.

The tank commander on the other hand..... If he was standing in the open hatch, head, shoulders, and upper chest exposed THEN he had a commanding view of the battlefield. The natural consequence of that being, he had a huge tactical advantage over the assulting tank commanders who were a bit gittery about infantry gunnery.

It is human nature to see what we want to see. Tank commanders genearlly look for other tanks, as it is commonly held that where the tanks go, that is where the big push will likely be. So, on his high perch, that tank commander generally will be looking primarily for other tanks, and vehicles indicating a push by the enemy. The assumption being, that those vehicles are there to support infantry.

Now, once the artillery and small arms fire start landing near his tank, genearally (though not always) the commander will take a more secure position, either completely inside the tank, or certainly crouched lower using the hatch as some cover for himself. Most German tanks had a single piece hatch cover that opened generally towards the rear of the tank. The American M4 series generally had a split hatch cover. Picture the commander facing forward in the hatch opening. The two hatch halves would open to his left and right, providing some side cover.

One more thing to consider here is that the lower one's eyes are to a flat surface, the less one can see around himself. Try this, sit at you dining room table. You have an excellent view of your forward area. Now, lower yourself till your eyes are about 6" above the table surface. Now, you view is much more restricted. It is much the same with tanks and the view from the command hatch. The lower you are to the top of the turrnet, the less you can see of the battle. Now imagine that tank on the battlefield. The ground is not necessarily level. Wherever your tank is pitched, you are a bit more blinded on the opposite side. So if the tank is pitched with the high side to the left, the left side will have a more restricted view than the right side.

Some German tanks [the Mrk IV's, Panthers, and Tigers series] had a command cupola that had vision slits in it. Think of the cupola as a mini turrent on top of the main turrent. The commander could raise it to expose his vision slits. Those vision slits did cover 360 degrees of vision, but each slit was only about 4" - 6" long further, each had a support between the slits. If you added up the total field of vision of the slots, my bet would be that of 360 degrees, the commander would see perhaps half of that.

So, beginning with that half, now add in the fact the commander's eyes are only about 6" above the turrent top, now add in communication with his crew, selecting priority targets to fire upon, maintaining communication with the other vehicles in the field, anticipating enemy movements, oh, and yes, by the way, keep your eyes open for those pesky infantry too...... The commander would have his hands full.

All this to say that yes, tanks could and often were devestatingly effective against infantry if infantry could be attacked from a distance, or if the infantry were on vehicles, or in brick buildings. BUT, if the infantry came close to the tank, often, because of the lack of vision and lack of being aware of them being there, infantry would gain the upper hand against the tanks. Bottom line, tanks really need infantry then and now to keep other infantry at bay.

As for me, I'd like to see the game adjusted a bit to better reflect the threat tanks represent against infantry at a distance. At the same time, I'd like to see the game better reflect the vulnerabilities of a infantry close assult upon a tank too. Something like Grenzwolf suggested might be just the ticket ( a 2pt. HE round which could be purchased prior to start of the game perhaps) Another possible solution could be to allow a Double shots against infantry at medium and long ranges while still allowing the tank to fire it's AT shot. The two AI shots must be in the same direction as the AT shot, and the double shot could only be against those infantry units in the same hex as each other.

But we could explore that latter in a different thread.

[shadowhooch]

Good info Rick....well put and described. So defensive fire might not make much sense.

I don't mind the sneaking up ability of the infantry as much as the fact that the tank is STUCK as soon as an infantry enters its hex. It can't move due to the high risk of defensive fire.
In real life, if the tank commander got wind that infantry are around his tank, wouldn't he tell the driver to "step on it" and high tail it out of there? Would that infantry platoon REALLY be able to prevent that tank from speeding off? Could you really CA a tank that is speeding by? (I don't know, I'm asking.)

Maybe a good rule would be to keep defensive fire soldier vs soldier and vehicle vs vehicle? Of course, that would mean more rediculous objective circling at end game - which isn't cool. So nix that idea.
So I don't have a ready solution for it; But the STUCK mechanic seems unrealistic. I'd like your viewpoints on that.

As for your last suggestion, I threw that suggestion up for commentary a few months back. I suggested that vehicles should be able to make an AI and an AT attack each assault phase. But the "historians" also shot that down saying it was near impossible to be firing the AI guns with any accuracy if the big AT gun was firing. I accept that.

So I guess, so far, Grenzewolf's idea floats the boat the best so far. But maybe the "stuck" mechanic can be fixed too (unless that is a realistic and historical probability that a tank couldn't move with infantry around it).

Interested in further thoughts and commentary.........

[Y2UAsk]

Hollywood and videogames notwithstanding, unsuppressed infantry would rarely be 'overrun'. Very few sane tank commanders would voluntarily drive his tank towards good order enemy infantry. Its not a question of simply 'driving over' enemy troops which would be the exact result of any such rule added to the game (hence why I'm not in favor of adding such things).All this to say that yes, tanks could and often were devestatingly effective against infantry if infantry could be attacked from a distance, or if the infantry were on vehicles, or in brick buildings. BUT, if the infantry came close to the tank, often, because of the lack of vision and lack of being aware of them being there, infantry would gain the upper hand against the tanks. Bottom line, tanks really need infantry then and now to keep other infantry at bay.As is often the case, there's a high degree of misinformation out there about how various weapon systems were used and interacted in WW2. It's good to see posts like these that actually contain factual information.

Because we call the whole thing "WW2," there's an easy tendency to think of it as all one thing. But WW2 was many different wars, because of the wide variety of terrain and the enormous technological changes that occurred as it was being fought. The war in the Soviet Union was a whole different thing from the war in the Pacific, and the war of 1944 was a whole different thing from the war of 1940.

Even "overrun" is not what many people think it is. Yes, sometimes tanks drove right into infantry positions and squashed people with their treads, but not very often. First, the infantry had to be in the open, not in heavy cover or prepared positions. Second, the attackers hammered the position with lots of MG fire before and during the overrun. Only after it was "softened up" (in AAM terms, the infantry was disrupted) would they drive in to finish off the defenders with MGs or simply to get through the position to wreak havoc behind. And that was early in the war. By '44, driving tanks directly into any infantry position was fraught with risk, because man-portable anti-tank weapons were so plentiful.

Of course, that's all 'in general'. There were exceptions to every rule.

Steve

[frogczar]

I think this problem could be addressed with my upgrade card idea. Simply make a card that gives tanks the "All Guns Blazing" ability. The player using the card pays for the extra AI firepower and the problem is solved. I think the abstract functionality of this game is what makes it easy to play. Extra rules only complicate things, lets use the formula we have of miniatures and stat cards. See my thread in the advanced rules forum.

[Grenzewolf]

So I guess, so far, Grenzewolf's idea floats the boat the best so far. But maybe the "stuck" mechanic can be fixed too (unless that is a realistic and historical probability that a tank couldn't move with infantry around it).

Interested in further thoughts and commentary.........

Shadowhooch, and the rest,

Here is a German Propoganda film on how to earn your tank destruction badge(One guy in the film has at least five on his right sleeve). Seems I was told or read that they actualy used Russian POW's to make this film <shrugg> either way it shows several teqniques and different explosive devices.

These guys destroy several T-34's and finish it off by snuffining a KV-1 with only one guy getting wounded by his own explosive. :rolleyes: did I mention its a propaganda film?

I have posted it in two parts, so watch them both. If you have seen it before,,,, well watch it again,,, it Rocks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STQHH_hJlhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7SixS9PAw&mode=related&search=

[warspite]

I don't have a problem with Close Assault. It is entirely accurate. At range, however, tanks aren't threatening enough, esp. vs def 5 soldiers. So, I think the simplest fix is just to give tanks (vehicles?) and MG's +1 to hit against soldiers with no cover (I've also said this elsewhere, but I can't remember where). In cover, soldiers have the advantage. In the open, they don't. That doesn't mean tanks suddenly become porcupines of destruction, because they can still only engage a limited number of targets. But, they should still be able to do what they were built for - mowing down infantry in "no man's land," and rushing past/around fixed defenses to attack the rear.

[Autarch]

Great video. In game terms the tanks were assaulting a trench/shellhole hex.

[Uncle_Joe]

esp. vs def 5 soldiers

Bingo! Problem numero uno rears it head again. Tanks vs elites is laughable unless you are one of about half a dozen select vehicles.

[Uncle_Joe]

Great video. In game terms the tanks were assaulting a trench/shellhole hex.

Yep, excellent videos. The most amusing part? You-Tube has them categorized under 'How-to and Do-it-yourself'.

Gee, honey, lets get a 'How To' video on how to destroy Russian tanks. :)

[boersma8]

1.) What are those Russian planes? In which set are they? They're not Sturmoviks...;)

2.) In which set is that maxim MG they have? ;)

3.) How did they get so many ultra rare T 34/76's? ;)

[Latro]

1.) What are those Russian planes? In which set are they? They're not Sturmoviks...;)

2.) In which set is that maxim MG they have? ;)

3.) How did they get so many ultra rare T 34/76's? ;)

1. no idea ... maybe it's a conversion!

2. They proxy'd a Vickers of course.

3. They bought more boosters than you did.


:D

[boersma8]

1. no idea ... maybe it's a conversion!

2. They proxy'd a Vickers of course.

3. They bought more boosters than you did.


:D


I suppose you're right!

I forgot one important thing:

Did you see those transported soldiers getting shot at?! That's not fair! It's not allowed to fire at units being transported! ( unless the unit has the " Blast SA" ) There you have those sldiers thinking they're perfectly safe and then see what happens: someone doesn't stick to the rules! :D

[Latro]

I guess the germans were using HHR-rules, the cheating gits!


;)

[frogczar]

Please see my thread on my proposed rule for "Tank Shock" as requested/suggested for the expert rules by WotC. I think a lot of the discussion in this thread has to do with needing a good "tank shock" rule.

-Frog

[boersma8]

Movement rolls to enter hexes with tanks in them would also help a lot! If for no other reason, it would make tanks more playable.....

[Dr.Cornelius]

One thing that puzzles me greatly is how you all are getting your AFVs (halfracks etc) CA'ed to death by infantry IN THE OPEN? I rarely if ever lose a vehicle to a close assault. Ever faced the BMW motorcycle? The bike has a huge threat range and eats Greyhounds, Stuarts, T-70s, etc for breakfast. For that matter, the 5 point bike has a 30% shot to disrupt a 21 point Sherman.

[Uncle_Joe]

Ever faced the BMW motorcycle? The bike has a huge threat range and eats Greyhounds, Stuarts, T-70s, etc for breakfast. For that matter, the 5 point bike has a 30% shot to disrupt a 21 point Sherman.

This is not the problem that people seem to be complaining about (although the BMW as an ATGM is a COMPLETELY ridiculous and stupid effect).

Again, if there are INDIVIDUAL PROBLEMS with unit 'x' or 'y', fix those units. Dont use those unit's examples to screw over all of the other 'normal' units or else those normal units will disappear from play.