 |
|
need fanaticism rule - 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: need fanaticism rule (/showthread.php?tid=58565) |
need fanaticism rule - bwv - 04-08-2011 thinking some random probability that a unit would become immune from disruption and defend to the last man, would apply to Russians and SS units (and Japanese if they ever show up in the series) the same quality ratings would apply, so if a D unit goes fanatic it would not necessarily inflict much damage, just slow an offensive the Russians are too weak on defense, the low quality ratings mean they get disrupted after getting hit a few times and can be easily pushed aside - much different than the history of Brest, Sevastapol, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc RE: need fanaticism rule - raizer - 04-08-2011 I think a fanatic rule would be a great tweak-how bout simply a random chance for an eligible fanatic unit to flip to A morale for assault combat either attacking or defending for entire the turn, ignoring fatigue? x2 fatigue expended...etc RE: need fanaticism rule - bwv - 04-08-2011 thinking in situations like Brest, parts of Stalingrad, Sevastopol etc where often poorly equipped and trained units decided to fight to the last man. Eliminating disruption would accomplish this. Increasing the quality rating to A would imply improved tactics, reliability of weapons etc, eliminating the fire and assault penalties with lower quality units, which would not be realistic IMO RE: need fanaticism rule - Lien Leposh - 04-09-2011 (04-08-2011, 04:50 AM)bwv Wrote: thinking in situations like Brest, parts of Stalingrad, Sevastopol etc where often poorly equipped and trained units decided to fight to the last man. Eliminating disruption would accomplish this. Increasing the quality rating to A would imply improved tactics, reliability of weapons etc, eliminating the fire and assault penalties with lower quality units, which would not be realistic IMOThere could well be a downside to it though as I see it. Those units that held fast could well have been annihiliated when , under normal conditions , they might retreat and live to fight tomorrow. It might be worthwhile reducing their defence values somewhat to represent the greater losses they would take standing fast. RE: need fanaticism rule - Aditia Holdem - 04-09-2011 All I would do is to let fanatic units not get their morale influenced by being isolated. Making them harder to force to surrender. But tbh, I think the games don't need it. Even isolated units take time to destroy and never surrender en masse completely. It always takes a few attacks to force those last stubborn defenders to surrender/become kia RE: need fanaticism rule - Jazman - 04-09-2011 I always liked the Berzerker rule in Squad Leader. A real wild card that could pop up anytime and cause some havoc. |
){kind=link}