 |
|
Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units (/showthread.php?tid=54980) |
Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Strela - 03-07-2010 Glenn, There have been a number of threads around anti-tank units and their strengths and weaknesses. At the moment once an AT unit is committed to the defense it is going to either die in place or take serious losses on disengagement due to the need to limber up. Has there been any consideration to two classes of AT units (eg light and heavy) and allow any weapons systems classed as light AT to move like mortars. Mortar class units currently can move one hex with out the need to limber up and if applied to light AT weapons would allow it to move one hex deployed. This would represent the fact that the AT unit could be man handled into position without the need to move a vehicle forward etc. Obviously, I can bastardize the system and set my 'light AT' units as mortars without indirect fire but that causes problems with symbology etc. I have looked at possibly using either the heavy weapon or machine gun category but I believe that then gives the AT units a ZOC etc, something that I don't want. Thoughts, comments? RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Mr Grumpy - 03-07-2010 (03-07-2010, 06:14 PM)Strela Wrote: Obviously, I can bastardize the system and set my 'light AT' units as mortars without indirect fire but that causes problems with symbology etc.Obviously i am not Glenn.....;) Yup that would work, in fact in Volcano's _alt desert scenarios Ed changed the 2pdr Portee units to a LAA to allow them to move deployed which we felt was a more historical representation of the weapons abilities and prevented them suffering heavy casualties when adjacent to a Axis stack and changing into T mode, as usual their limited combat value was not worth the losses in VP points when they were AT units. Of course this meant they had the LAA symbol on the counter which is the big downside. I believe this issue was discussed at a Tiller Con and the result was the new rule where AT guns which lose an assault automatically go into T mode and lose an additional 50% of their guns, although that sounds a clever way round the issue (and it does work as intended) the losses you still suffer in guns (in VP terms) balanced against their combat ability means that my 1 hex range AT guns still dig trench's. So a rule that would allow smaller AT guns to be manhandled one hex would be very welcome. Sorry to high-jack your thread........ 
RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Strela - 03-08-2010 Hey Foul - didn't notice any hijack :) Had a look at the AA type as you mentioned - same issue as Machine Gun - they can move further than 1 hex when deployed. Mortars are limited to one hex which is what we were trying to get. Obviously we want them to have their full movement ability if limbered up whether they be horse drawn or motorised. I have the ability to adjust symbology if desperate but was looking for a class (existing or new) that had the same characteristics as the current mortar class. As far as forced moves due to assaults, I think that works absolutely fine. The concept we were looking for was to give the player the control to move their guns up or back in a less vulnerable state. RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Glenn Saunders - 03-08-2010 There has been many discussions on various things on AT Guns. But the basic problem is that only the smallest caliber guns were even possibly able to be man handled and more often that not it is larger caliber, 76mm Soviet and up that cause comments like yours on the issue. I can't recall if a second class or a light AT was ever considered, but if it were implimented it might only affect German 37mm, Russian 45mm ect, would require a change to all the OOB and not really correct the issue. The problem is, it is not easy to limber up a gun and load up all the associated ammo and move it while in a position open to fire. For that matter we could adjust the AI easily to not take OP Fire shots at any guns that change mode, but that doesn't seem right either. Anyway - if your goin to the Tillercon you can raise it there if you like. Glenn RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Mr Grumpy - 03-09-2010 Maybe just bite the bullet and make them all mortar class units? I know this is not what you want to hear but from all the discussions we have had on this forum in the last 5 years i have been here there has never been a good solution to this issue within the existing engine and unit categories. :conf: I for one would be happy to suffer the unit symbols being incorrect to gain the ability to be able to use my AT guns in the knowledge they will survive more than one meeting with the enemy. ;) BTW the reason we used the LAA class for the 2 Pdr Portee was because this best represented the units ability to move being a AT gun on a truck, so you are 100% correct the mortar class is the best within the game as it is now to fix this AT issue. RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Volcano Man - 03-09-2010 Well, someone at one time made the suggestion that all AT guns (not HAA guns) be allowed to move one hex at the expense of all its MPs. It is a pretty good idea, imagine what the defender could do it he could fall his AT guns back under cover of other units, to set up secondary lines. Or, he could pull them back (again, under cover of other units) and then next turn put them in T mode to fall back rapidly. IMO moving while not in T mode does not necessarily mean the guns are being man handled (we don't know what they are doing at this scale), I would like to think that they are limbering up in their tactical formation and just moving rearward a little bit, which of course would take a lot of time because they would be moving very slowly. Oh well, as Glenn said, if someone wants that -- bring it up at Tillercon (for those able to attend of course). That is the best way to make the idea known and put it forth to a discussion. :) RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - von Schwarze - 03-09-2010 (03-09-2010, 06:47 AM)Volcano Man Wrote: Well, someone at one time made the suggestion that all AT guns (not HAA guns) be allowed to move one hex at the expense of all its MPs. It is a pretty good idea, imagine what the defender could do it he could fall his AT guns back under cover of other units, to set up secondary lines. Or, he could pull them back (again, under cover of other units) and then next turn put them in T mode to fall back rapidly. IMO moving while not in T mode does not necessarily mean the guns are being man handled (we don't know what they are doing at this scale), I would like to think that they are limbering up in their tactical formation and just moving rearward a little bit, which of course would take a lot of time because they would be moving very slowly. I entered the last reply in error. Sorry Ed, I cannot see what "this scale" has to do with it, you are either in Tmode or they are being manhandled. That being the case, 1 KM is a long looooong way to haul a gun and ammo. RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Volcano Man - 03-09-2010 (03-09-2010, 08:59 AM)von Schwarze Wrote:(03-09-2010, 06:47 AM)Volcano Man Wrote: Well, someone at one time made the suggestion that all AT guns (not HAA guns) be allowed to move one hex at the expense of all its MPs. It is a pretty good idea, imagine what the defender could do it he could fall his AT guns back under cover of other units, to set up secondary lines. Or, he could pull them back (again, under cover of other units) and then next turn put them in T mode to fall back rapidly. IMO moving while not in T mode does not necessarily mean the guns are being man handled (we don't know what they are doing at this scale), I would like to think that they are limbering up in their tactical formation and just moving rearward a little bit, which of course would take a lot of time because they would be moving very slowly. No, it is a matter of interpretation. This is a pseudo-operational level game of sorts, one that resides in the middle of something like Squad Battles and something like the TWE series. We don't really know what the heck is going on down there "on the field", we just have the general knowledge that a higher commander has access to. The importance of Travel Mode is that it is a strategic mode of movement, both formation wise and as a general method of movement (ie. to utilize road networks, column formation, traveling movement techniques). My point about the scale is, that everything in PzC is *abstract* when it needs to be, because it is a pseudo-operational level game. And that is actually the beauty of the series and what has allowed it to be successful with rule tweaks; this allows a large amount of freedom. So, a unit in T mode is in column formation using roads sure, but allowing a unit to move one hex out of T mode doesn't necessarily mean that they *are all being manhandled*, they could be quickly limbered up and displace *tactically*. At this scale everything is not black and white, for a tactical game like Squad Battles sure, it has to be black and white because it is such a small scale. But really, I don't care if anyone wants that rule or not, it is not like I am crying for it myself, my point was that it was a reasonable rule suggestion from the past and it could be justified if it was added out of necessity, since we can justify just about anything a game at this scale, as long as it produces realistic results in the long run. And isn't that the problem we have here? Which is more realistic at the operational level: AT units that are rooted in a hex and die all the time because they cannot withdraw because in order to do so they must exercise strategic movement, or AT guns that have the capability of displacing tactically? I would say the latter, otherwise "they" would of had penal unit personnel manning every AT gun. The fact of the matter is, AT units as they are largely turn out to be a one shot asset, something you commit to some place once, and then leave behind when you have to fall back because they are going to die anyway. But that is just my opinion on the matter. Again, the point is people can suggest what they want at Tillercon. ;) /////////////////////////////////// One more thing, everyone tends to think in a limited scope on such things. Lets take the approach that everything is black and white in PzC for a moment. I mean, I agree that allowing AT guns to move away one hex may make them too powerful and nearly impossible to eliminate. Ok, no problem, so lets say that an AT gun unit that is in Travel Mode is always limbered up, and an AT gun unit that is not in Travel Mode is not. Within those limitations a suggested rule could be: Allow AT gun and HAA units (which cannot normally move when not in T mode) to move one hex at the expense of 1/3 of their MPs for entering travel mode, then an additional amount of MPs expended for the terrain in the hex that they enter, at which time they are automatically put in T mode in the hex they move to. A bit of rather crappy pseudo code to maybe illustrate it more clearly: Code: {This would then allow them to move away on a road and disengage, albeit not very far. It would essentially be a method to allow such units to withdraw tactically by avoiding the devastating opportunity fire which currently prevents withdrawing from being a viable option. The devastation of AT gun units caught in T mode could still be an option as well, since it would depend on the terrain and where the defender positioned their guns. If a defender's AT/HAA guns are not located near a road, and he is attempting to displace up hill and through a forest, then chances are they will only make it once hex, and the attacker will be able to put direct and indirect fire on the visible unit (up hill) on the attacker's turn. Some of the guns may get away, maybe not. However, a situation where the defender positions these units near roads with quick lines of egress available, then the defender could fall back, and then be on a road to move away. Oh well, there are hundreds of other potential ways to address the issue I am sure, everyone just has to open their minds... ;) RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Mr Grumpy - 03-09-2010 FWIW i agree with Ed that this should be looked at in an abstact way, i could ramble on but the reality of the situation with AT guns is that experienced players just will not use the units in a historical way because the benefit they give you is totally outweighed by the penalty for their loss, hence they end up digging trench's. :conf: I am certain this was not the intention of the game designers and is just a quirk of the game system, however until this issue (as we see it) is resolved AT guns will continue to be a non entity in PBEM games. Please don't think this is a moaning post, i just find the situation frustrating and i hope that those who attend TCIII might be able to demonstrate to JT why AT guns are so vulnerable with the present rules. :) Whatever the outcome it is good to see the "Old Chestnut" of AT guns back on the forum!
RE: Question to Glenn S regarding AT units - Glenn Saunders - 03-09-2010 I think the person you need to convince on this is John. One would need to make the case that the German 88 would not be affected because these could be classed a HAA, but there were 88's that were mounted as an AT Gun, and Brit 17 Pdr ect - they are all big Guns and John doesn't or didn't agree that they should be able to moveone Hex at a cost of all MPs. Would he reconsider? I don't know. But as I said, Tillercon would be as good a place as any to try - as timing is everything when it comes to changes. Glenn |
){kind=link}