...!halftracks!...

[Mr. Guberman]

...are Bren Carriers..."halftracks" or tankettes...what IS the concensus (?)...any educated (or heartfelt) response is requested...

er...halftracks...huh?...game?

cheers

curt

[Digger]

This old chestnut again..It's only been 6 months

They come under the Halfrack classification, like all transport vehicles, if they have a helmet icon, indicating a transport unit. Then that is their primary role.

Mat

[Mr. Guberman]

...indeed...

in reality..."rifle tanks", by ..d!

...after 42 years?...eh

and that my friends is the difference between the game and reality...ask a digger...,

cheers

[Mr. Guberman]

with great respect "Digger"...I did not look at the name of who I was responding too when I did respond, however...ask a digger anyway...for real.

...there is no way that the combo "carrier and carrier infantry" can be fought without the ability of "carrier halftracks" being used as aggressive entanties...no way...[indeed...are carrier infantry just crap? they are unarmed?...they are so small?]

...they were designed to do such and did...

...the halftrack crap that is passed around here involves the German Sd251s...not everything with an empty helmet...hell...a Panther that is not carrying somebody...has a de facto "empty helmet".

...and the halftrack stuff here...involves people who have been humbugged...unsuspectedly...indeed...prove me wrong...

sincerely...

[Digger]

[Mr. Guberman]

Digger, nice response...and agreed with, basically. Being a stickler for historical accuracy, I try to fight my forces realistically, too.

My concern was a situation like this: My small force of cruiser tanks and two squads of mounted carriers had advanced beyond the "main" front, in a fluid fight, part of a larger encircling maneuver. The carrier squads, dismount and deploy as rearguard against bypassed infantry; the carriers move proximal with the cruisers and an artillery battery is discovered and simultaneously the cruisers are knocked out (A9s, no less...but what's a poor boy to do), by the arty no less. On my next turn I overan the arty with one of the carriers. In my mind, that was a realistic move but could (would) have violated someone's ROE's. However I call it "fighting carrier squads".

Upon reflection, it occurred to me that possibly the carriers might be considered "halftracks" and with my turn offered a concession if he had been offended by the move. Graciously, he considered the move legal.

That is the kind of stuff that these "rules of engagement" lead to...it was a real nail biter of a game...and the overun appeared to be the obvious move. That is why I get real squeamish, when one starts talking "rules of engagement". However to each his own and one can choose his opponents, agreed.

However, the picture that comes to my mind when I think of someone preparing a list of "rules of engagement", and what it looks like...is terrible, if not frightening. But...se la vie, se la guerre.

Cheers

Curt

PS...what are LRDG trucks considered?

[Digger]

LDRG trucks, hmm I had forgot about them, They are rubbish though..I think the designers made a mistake giving them a defence of 1. They are just too brittle to be used in their historical capacity. The same mistake was made with those 60mm French Mortars and 25mm ATGS, a defence of 1 is just not warranted.

The game is way too tough on unarmoured transport units, indirect fire will kill hordes of motorcyclists, horses, bicycles. They should make the unit a bit more vulnerable, but not that vulnerable. The inability of the carrier unit to retreat, almost always leads to total extermination of teh passenger, NOT great to see those "reduced by 1, passenger eliminated results".

The LRDG trucks and jeeps should have a defense of at least 2 based on their size and therefore difficulty to hit. Otherwise they always get killed. When EF first came out the assault boats and rafts all had a defense of 1 this was changed so that the infantry carrying them didnt get mowed down. I am surprised that when this was changed the designers didn't address other units as well, especially motorcyles and horses.

As for the carriers in your scenario, I would have kept the carrier rifles with the carriers, myself, no problem with overruns with passengers loaded. Some may argue that the carriers should be loitering around the infantry anyway, not off with the tanks. But like I said, that all depends on what you decide with your oppponent. I rarely whinge about stuff like that as if I feel my rear may be threatened, then it is up to me to kept adequate units back for local defense.

In a recent scenario I played, I kept a company of Engineers and a couple of Panzer II's back to cover my artillery along with 50mm and 88mm ATG's. This allowed me to repel a two company sized armoured attempt at my rear area. If you don't defend your back, it is pretty lame to have ago at your opponent about what they use to stab it.

Rear area security is an important part of the game, commiting all your forces to the offensive, is historically inaccurate in most cases. If you play an opponent, who likes to slip units around your flanks, then leave them a greeting party. After all if they can afford to spare the units then so can you...

[Mr. Guberman]

Digger,

...want to do one?

cheers

curt

[Digger]

Curt,

How about "Battle for Stonne", "Panzer Thrust" or "The Fatal Scythes"

All are early war France scenarios, I haven't played any of these scenarios and would prefer to play blind.

Happy with either side.

Matt ~Digger

[majog]

Yeh, assault with just them alone... I am gonna design a scn with just tigers and half tracks for just that purpose, LMAO