Question to Glenn S regarding AT units

[Xaver]

Well, my idea is that the "disengage" feature can work as the assault resolution, select the unit and move to the hex that you want to retreat and then select the disengage button... or select the unit, push the button and then if all go fine you can see the retreat hexes.

Travel mode... well, i think that a retreat unit have 2 options, retreat to run to another place (evasion in travel model when you retreat) or retreat only one hex to a new defensive position (no travel model) both are posible but the first option means that the AT unit isnt ready to fight in the next turn and second it is ready to fight again.

Of course, if you want retreat an AT unit you need full movement points to disengage from enemy, cant shoot and retreat, or you save your AT unit or you dont save it (if retreated unit dont do it in Travel mode is a way to prevent a fighting retreat with AT).

Increase AT defensive value... well, in PzC terrain+seconday unit can stop a full division, add more defensive value to AT units may convert then in "bunkers" and AT units are defensive units BUT not the best units to defend against important attacks.


The point in retreat AT units is give then at least the option to survive when they are in contact whit a strong enemy, now AT unit are points sources for enemy because arent much efective against infantry (even armor can defeat then without important losses and if you use the "show the bunny" trick is worst... move first infantry to force AT unit expend shoot against then and move after the tanks) and need travel mode to retreat it means that you have an important chance to be Disrupted in the process and cant change formation in an AT unit D in enemy front means dead for the unit.

Well, leave the "old" boys talk about this, they have many wars in their backs

[Glenn Saunders]

> Travel mode... well, i think that a retreat unit have 2 options,

Ya - but I have to tell you that won't happen.

There is a chance we can get something here but if we do it won't be too fancy. It won't have a new button - nor will it have two options. I say this just based on 10+ years working with John Tiller on things.

We can make suggestions but ultimately John decides how he resolves the issue and experience shows this if we get it will be something very simple without any bells and whistles.

Glenn

Glenn

[Mr Grumpy]

Sounds hopeful maybe (just maybe) this could be the last Old Chestnut AT gun thread?

Any change that allows movement when in contact with the enemy without having to go into T mode or suffer the effects of that rule would be very welcome, as far as any potential rule is concerned often the simple solutions are the best anyway. ;)

[Tanky]

The issue is the Campaign games not knowing if they are tactical or operational level.

Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with the 1 hex movement even for 88mm and 17pdr guns. I don't think anyone would think they are manhandling the guns - 1 hex movement would be an abstraction.

One of the most important considerations in combat was siting these guns with a thought to extraction. They didn't just unlimber them, stick them in the open and drive the towing vehicle 2 kilometres to the rear.

If you think about motorised infantry in Campaigns...if we were to use the AT example they should have to enter travel mode before they obtain greater movement range than when they are 'on foot'. But they don't - they're deemed to have abstracted access to their transport at a tactical level and don't need to enter T mode. AT guns are not treated the same way; for them to use their transport they have to enter T mode. It's a contradiction.

[Strela]

Tanky,

Great point and essentially why I started this thread. I believe T mode was originally meant to represent strategic movement not the tactical movement we are talking about here.

Strela

[Volcano Man]

Yep, good point. It is all a matter of how you look at it. You are correct too, an AT gun crew went through great lengths to position the gun with a quick egress route available, otherwise it would be like digging your own grave if you just stuck the gun out somewhere, sent the prime mover away, and did not have a pre-determined tactical egress route/plan. With that mindset, it does make sense to allow all AT guns and HAA gun units to move one hex at full expense of MPs (as long as it is a legal move).

Thinking about it, it would cost the unit's full MPs to do so, so it is not like it would be able to do anything else (fire before or after or move again), and you are essentially surrendering the terrain. On the other hand, it does provide the defender with the power to just keep falling back one hex again and again, with the guns firing on the opponents turn, so maybe it is too powerful and that is probably where the other idea comes in (the auto T mode displacement move idea). So I guess all the ideas revolve around two possibilities: allowing non T mode movement at full expense of MPs or some sort of auto deploy into T mode as it moves away idea. I do think it is an important issue (I did not mean to imply that it wasn't -- this is the one topic of discussion that has reoccurred over the years many times in the forum). Anyway, more talk for Tillercon! ;)

[Mr Grumpy]

-- this is the one topic of discussion that has reoccurred over the years many times in the forum

Indeed, i think that is a good indication that despite players coming and going over the years this issue still rumbles on and IMO that is due to frustration at not being able to use these units without paying a disproportionately high price in VP point loss compared to the combat value they bring.

Of course if it were not for their ability to fire indirectly over several hex's and have the time to change into T mode and move away, artillery units would be in a similar position. ;)

[Dog Soldier]

I have to agree with Ed on this point that allowing the one hex movement without some penalty makes towed ATG just slow, soft target TD units. TD vehicles appeared later in the war, IMHO, because of the issue that towed ATG were usually lost or abandoned in the fluid battles of the 1939 - 1942 period. The concept of towed ATG was based on a more static combat situation; thinking left over from the first world war. Only a lack of available chassis prevented large numbers of TDs to be produced until after 1942.

The auto T mode displacement move idea does force some consideration on the player moving the ATG unit as to the when and where questions of employing ATG.

Another very good point in this thread is the ability, in most all titles, to target the ATG unit individually in a stack, thus ignoring the protective friendly infantry in the stack. In titles like N44 and F40, where the ALT fire rules are all used, I have observed ATG have a better survival rate when stacked with friendly infantry from direct fire, defensive fire and bombardment attacks. Only when assaulted, thus defeating the friendly infantry in the stack, do the ATG units suffer higher losses, which makes sense, since the gun crews die or abandon the guns when the assault is lost.

Dog Soldier

[Al]

...Another very good point in this thread is the ability, in most all titles, to target the ATG unit individually in a stack, thus ignoring the protective friendly infantry in the stack. In titles like N44 and F40, where the ALT fire rules are all used, I have observed ATG have a better survival rate when stacked with friendly infantry from direct fire, defensive fire and bombardment attacks. Only when assaulted, thus defeating the friendly infantry in the stack, do the ATG units suffer higher losses, which makes sense, since the gun crews die or abandon the guns when the assault is lost.

Dog Soldier

A discussion I'd like to have at Tillercon with anyone that cares to is what exactly is the impact of the alternate direct fire/indirect fire/assault rules on combat. I know what happens when these rules are used, but I can't get a grasp on what the is overall impact on a scenario. Which army/side does it favor? It seems that given the WW2 setting these 3 rules would make sense, but I know a lot of people aren't too fond of them & they're not standard rules in most games.

Of course, this doesn't address the AT movement issue but DS makes a good point about AT gaining a defensive benefit from the units they are stacked with and, IMO, AT units in the front lines should be stacked with infantry.

[Volcano Man]

Actually, it is baffling why the ALT fire resolution rule is not the standard way that PzC controls soft target combat resolution, IMO the reason it is not used is simply because it is not a default setting in these games. This in turn comes from the fact that the rule was added later on in the series and under the "Optional Rules" menu, which comes with some sort of stigma. It does make sense to use Alt fire resolution rule in PzC as standard but I think it is because it was added later in the series it has restricted its acceptance.

The other answer to your question on who it benefits, well, the answer is it benefits both sides, and neither. What I mean is, it is something that hurts both sides so that you shy away from creating "large stacks" of soft targets. So, on the defense, as we know the tendency in PzC is to create the mondo-mega stack of units (especially the practice of splitting down into companies) because you want to force the attacker to have to disrupt all the units in the target hex. IMO, this is unrealistic when done like this, but this is common practice and we all do it if the occasion calls for it. The ALT fire resolution rule makes this a minimal factor because all those split off companies would be getting residual effects, so it hurts the defender. On the other hand, the attacker is discourage from creating those huge assault stacks for the same reason so here, it hurts the attacker. The point is, there really isn't a clear cut benefactor when the rule is used, it just changes the way the game plays out. But if you want to look at it in great detail then you could probably give a slight nod to the attacker as the benefactor because it does negate the effect of the defender from creating the mass stacks to hold objectives.