Japanese Infantry Guns

[Huib Versloot]

To facilitate discussion of the changes made by the Matrix version of CS, is it possible to post the list of changes at the Blitz? I have not been following them as much as I possibly should.

A couple changes that I am not sold on so far are AT teams and adding assault strengths to HQ's, guns and cannons. Glenn Saunders wrote an article called "Thoughts on Command and Control in West Front."

https://www.theblitz.club/articles/strat....php?id=43

There are some excellent reasons given in the article on why separate company CP's were not created. I think those same reasons can be applied to some of the units players are clamoring for now.

This is a platoon level game. A lot of the units players want can be integrated into the ratings of the platoons. IMO, this includes AT teams and FT teams.

I am not sure adding the above as separate teams adds anything. IMO, it just makes it more of a pain in the butt to move and clutters the map. They also probably will result in the creation of house rules.

For example, Russian ATR teams do not have an assault strength, but all the new units do (assault strength 1). Since the new units now have an assault strength, should they be allowed to surround and assault platoons? Well, they now can whether they should or not.

I have seen AT teams (which I assume are 6-9 men whose main armament is an AT weapon) hold up the advance of a platoon by being the sole occupants of a hex. I have seen AT teams used to surround and capture platoons. People think HT's are bad, wait until you see a swarm of panzershrecks coming at you.

Why give these teams (including HQ's, guns and cannons) any assault strength to begin with? Russian ATR's don't have an assault strength. Neither do .50-cal MG's. I don't want to create a stir about what assaulting means, but I think it's because it's hard to assault carrying big bulky weapons.

I know people will argue that there are men armed with rifles and LMG's in the teams, so realistically they should have an assault strength. Try using ATR's and .50-cals to assault a platoon in CM. It may work once in a million, but it ain't gonna work enough to justify adding it.

Then there are people who will argue that not having an assault strength makes the above units too vulnerable. Possibly, but I would argue it's because the players are not employing the units properly. If you give everyone an assault strength, I guarantee that players will begin using those units for reasons they were not meant for.

I say, if you allow the bad guys to get close enough to your above units that makes them vulnerable to assaults, then shame on you for doing so. Don't ask the designer to fix shortcomings in tactics. This brings up the employment of HT's, but that's for another thread/post. :)

Also, someone needs to write an article on how to use ATR teams. I think they are effective, but everyone else seems to think they're only good as scouts. And if the AT and FT teams are going to stay in, I think they should have ratings similar to Russian ATR teams (lower defense strength and 0 assault strength). Otherwise, I know they will create balance issues.

All of the above are my own opinion. Feel free to disagree. Normally I do not comment too much on things because I know people are passionate about the game, but I'm not sure I'm happy with the direction the game is heading. The game is already fine IMO. Scenarios are what will prolong the life of the game. Not new features and units.

Jim

Jim,

Good points you are making, but here's my opinion.
I think again it depends on the designer. For example I will not use new units unless I can add more realism and more historical accuracy with them. In one of the upcoming scenarios I was confronted with the fact that the town of Hamich was held by 14/48: the regimental AT company. This company had lost their 75mms in the days before and were therefore now equipped with Panzerschrecks and MP44s. They held the town for half a day against an entire US Infantry Batallion. To be able to represent their formidable defense and assault power, I even had to add some VG units to the company. In the old situation I would have had to represent this company solely as a "regular" VG company, making them unrecognizable as being an AT company. Personally I'm glad with the new choices I have with the new units, but I use them carefully.
I agree with you that players should employ units in their historical role, but I don't think we should try to force player behaviour by making less new units and changes in the game. Some of the new features actually solve old issues (crewed boats for example).

Huib