Armor Facing Effect?

[Jason Petho]

Although I have an infinite amount of respect for both Don and Huib, I have to disagree.

My preference is to use the Armour Facing Effect rule.

The primary reasons for this are:

1. Like John, I believe that the general facing of the platoon is being represented. Those familiar with World War II armoured warfare understand the concepts of typical platoon formations such as "Line", "Column", "Double Column" and "Wedge". Although the turrets may all be facing different directions to cover their allocated Field of Fire, the platoon is still facing a general direction.

While I agree, a lot is happening in a six minute turn in regards to moving and firing, I believe there is more often order than chaos.


2. I tend to play East Front II a lot, and more of the early war scenarios than anything. As we all know, early infantry for Germany and the Soviets has little effect on most armour, unless you can ambush them and attack from the side or rear. Even the light tanks will use the front armour strength (their base defence value) if not using Armour Facing Effects - virtually nullifying any chance of success.

A brilliant example of this would be try playing D. Bevards "Zhukov Strikes at Yelnia" as the Germans against a human opponent first with the Armour Facing Effects off and then with the Armour Facing Effect on.


3. Speaking of ambushing, I am a huge fan of it and use it as often as I can when playing larger scenarios. Hiding an anti-tank gun with a machinegun in a position that will give a side or rear shot against armoured vehicles generally brings more joy than not against impatient opponents.


4. I would argue that using Armour Facing Effects provides a more realistic simulation, tactics wise.

Leaving ones armour in a position where it can be fired upon and then retreat into a hex that is still in LOS of ones opponent could be regarded as poor tactics. Is this always possible to avoid? No, of course not, but can be minimalized by using the terrain to the best of ones ability.

With the inherent weaker armour in the rear and sides of vehicles, it teaches the players how to use manuever (flanking, surrounding) to overcome obstacles. The T-34, KV-1 and KV-2 come to mind.

As noted by John above, one would tend to be more cautious with their armour as they realize they have weaknesses in themselves. Unsupported armoured assaults tend to be rarer.


Anyway, my two bits.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho