• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias?
03-06-2014, 09:11 AM,
#17
RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias?
(03-06-2014, 06:22 AM)JDR Dragoon Wrote: It is definitely not a "last resort", but since the use of snorkeling requires the presence of engineers (for reconnoitering the banks and riverbed through the use of divers, for preparing the approaches and exits from the riverbank in order to make it possible to run large number of tanks over them etc.), it is represented abstractly already in the games routine for river crossings. If you were really anal about it, I guess you could argue that the capability of engineers to ferry units across hexside-rivers should be extended to tanks as well (at least in the MC series), but then we hit the problem that not all tanks were snorkel equipped (Centurion would be one example)

It is a last resort, the commander comes up to the river and the last thing he thinks of is snorkeling, first he thinks amphib capabilities, ferrys and pontoons and when all that is out the window he might think snorkeling and in alot of cases it wouldnt be feasible anyways.

Aaron
Rangers Lead the Way
Quote this message in a reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias? - by Aaron - 03-06-2014, 09:11 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)