Carrier Rifle Sections

[Afro Thunder]

Yeah, speaking of other statistics that don't make much sense, how about US Ranger Infantry and German early-war Engineer units? Why do the rangers have a defense of 6, when they're supposed to be elite units? Also, why do early-war German engineers have a hard attack factor of 18, when they shouldn't have any ranged anti-armor weapons that other infantry units don't have at that point in the war (panzerfausts and 'shrecks)?

[John Given]

I agree about the german engineers - early war, they are devastating to armor. :conf: There should be a difference in their effectiveness as the war progresses. Must have been a lazy programmer. :rolleyes:

I disagree about the russkie AT platoons though. Even though they have no assault factor and have a lower defense strength than other russian infantry, their specialty is killing light armor. :smg: In a pinch, they can kill heavier armor, but you have to turn off op-fire and shoot the rear armor of the enemy (this is the perfect armor ambush unit). Also, they are only worth 2 victory points per sp, making them a decent spotting unit. I tend to think of them as a russian carrier rifle platoon, as max platoon size is a smallish 4 sp.

I'm not sure about the volksturm though - can't remember ever playing those.

[Abatis]

I disagree about the russkie AT platoons though. Even though they have no assault factor and have a lower defense strength than other russian infantry, their specialty is killing light armor. :smg: In a pinch, they can kill heavier armor, but you have to turn off op-fire and shoot the rear armor of the enemy (this is the perfect armor ambush unit). Also, they are only worth 2 victory points per sp, making them a decent spotting unit. I tend to think of them as a russian carrier rifle platoon, as max platoon size is a smallish 4 sp.

Completely agree John. I love using them in tandem with a mg pltn to guard flanks, remote obj.'s etc...usually, those "far and away" places are battles of light armor, perfect for ATR's...and they are great against loaded trucks when you have the chance....I wish they had a nominal assault factor though...at least against armor! That's why I'll pair them with a mg pltn, or a light armor unit or something...too easy to over run them...I don't usually use them for a spotter though unless they have really good cover...prefer armored units backed by AA for that role.

On early war engineers, they still have explosives and such so I guess that is the rationale for the hard attack factor...even so, that does seem high when you take the 'shreks and 'fausts out of the equation.

Maybe some of this will be addressed by Matrix? I wasn't over optimistic about them getting any of this Talonsoft stuff done, bu they just re released Operational Art of War...mayhap we are next? Hope so.

[Askari19]

A thought, regarding the ratings of these oddly armed or small-sized units. Dean Essig of the Gamers once made an excellent argument, in his 'Tactical Combat Series' boardgames, for the unusual mechanic in which the firepower of an infantry platoon (typically 5 steps of strength) did not diminish as steps were lost. A former inf platoon leader himself, he pointed out that the firepower of an infantry platoon is based (more so perhaps in the days before assault rifles & grenade launchers) upon its machineguns, typically 2 or 3 of the Browning, MG- 42, or such-like MMG's. As long as the guns are functioning the highest priority of the platoon is to keep them shooting, and if the crews take casualties, other men take over to 'feed the pig'. As long as those guns are firing the platoon's effective firepower does not diminish much, even as its numbers decline.

This does argue for a better attack strength for the carrier sections... but defense strength is another issue. That's where the small size of the unit really should give it less ability to absorb fire and remain in action.

[Von Luck]

Dont know about ugly but useless expensive cannon fodder.

[Norry]

I use them for assaults with their carriers. They are quite useful in this capacity.

[Abatis]

I use them for assaults with their carriers. They are quite useful in this capacity.

especially raiding HQ's in the rear, arty parks etc...they are a very versatile little raider!

[Abatis]

.....This does argue for a better attack strength for the carrier sections... but defense strength is another issue. That's where the small size of the unit really should give it less ability to absorb fire and remain in action.

The smaller target/ lesser density should be a factor in this though I would think?...isn't the ability to absorb fire and remain in action abstracted directly into the SP losses incurred by fire?

[Askari19]

Defense strength can be set by several different logics... I'm not sure how the EF designers looked at it, but I'm a mite skeptical about giving too much credit for the small-or-dispersed-target consideration.

You're right that the steps in the unit do a good job of representing its lack of staying power, but whether dispersal really counts is something else.

I think that a typical 6-step infantry platoon has plenty of room to disperse in a 250 meter hex; when you start stacking them you can pay the price when artillery & mortars come into play: and that's density effect.

A unit smaller than 6 steps isn't necessarily doing to disperse more widely across the hex they occupy, in fact usually that won't happen. It might be a nice touch to make it slightly harder to spot, but assuming it's been spotted, an independent section or squad is likely to be occupying the same amount of ground that a section or squad would as a component of that larger, 6-step platoon, and be just as vulnerable to fire (i.e. same defense strength) as the larger unit. It will run out of steps quicker, is all.

That's how I'd approach it anyway...

[Steelrain60]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't density effects only apply to direct fire?