251/16 HT Obosilete under new assualt rules

[Huib Versloot]

I may be in the minority here, but I'd actually prefer to keep the rules for FT vehicles as they are, although I'd love to have some improved animation to accompany their use.

I've always found 251/16s and their ilk, ie lightly protected close-combat vehicles, to be of limited utility. One should never assault a hex with them without attaching an infantry platoon to the assault. In CS, as it probably was in real life, one should only employ these assets with care and forethought if one wishes to preserve them.

The point is actually that in real life these vehicles were not used to assault, but rather to make assaulting not necessary by using burning fuel from a distance. That's why a high attack value at 1 hex range is a better representation of how these vehicles work.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The point is actually that in real life these vehicles were not used to assault, but rather to make assaulting not necessary by using burning fuel from a distance. That's why a high attack value at 1 hex range is a better representation of how these vehicles work.

When we look within the game's scale they should actually be able be used only within the 250 meter hex?
Bazookas, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, Piats, flamethrowers should either all be modeled for the assault mode.
Or, maybe go wild and not give them a "hard place" on the map and allow the enemy to enter their hex freely (without assaulting) to get opt fired (in ambush) upon by the flame or AT's?
Unfortunately, giving them a higher assault value would not ensure a successful assault, under the new extreme assault rules. Unless they had some role in the formula for determining the morale of the defender? If they have no "ZOC" they would attack by fire and not assault? And, if they use assault they are open to the counter assault from their enemy?
Giving them a range of one (1) and increasing their fire value may show some of the impact flamethrowers had?
Let's face it, can you give a flamethrower a large enough value to attack a pillbox's "hard attack value" but, keep it from attacking tanks with the same? It was not done with artillery that fired directly at pillboxes?

All in all we have a compromise to the game scale that, at present, does not solve the issue for either the "historical" or "fun" gamer?
It seems another area where we will all have personal a belief of how it should work but, we play with it as is and "make do"?



RR

[umbro]

Perhaps the solution is not so difficult after all. To paraphrase:
1) Assault is too effective (predictable) to represent an accurate simulation.
2) Changing the assault rules makes some historically effective units useless.
3) Altering such units so that they have a very fire Attack at one hex makes them ahistorically useful for defeating AFVs.

Perhaps 1) can be addressed without creating 2) and 3)

In reading posts on assault (and house rules affecting assault) it seems that folks think that it is too easy to surround disrupted units with ZOCs so that they are captured when assaulted. Some have argued that better defensive postures negate this. However, having a situation where a leader can run 750m behind a disrupted unit so that his squad can perform an assault and capture the enemy does strike one as a little too Gary Cooper.

The issue seems to be the ZOC. What if not all units possessed ZOCs (transport, leaders, etc.) Furthermore, what if ZOC did not extend into certain terrain types (City, Forest, Swamp, etc.)

Retreat from Assaults becomes easier to manage, superhero effects are negated and no need to mess with the rest of the game.

Just a random thought...

umbro

[Von Earlmann]

Seems like a good thot to me :-)

[Jason Petho]

Remember on the old Talonsoft boards how "they" stated there were no Zone's of Control being used in the game? Amusing indeed.

Jason Petho

[Von Luck]

Ok guys thanks for all the input hopefully someone will come up with a fair solution to this unique prob.