Patrolling

[cavalry corps]

The patrolling new rule is pretty ( very ) good but a bit simple and blunt . Now i am in a bit of a muddle as to why we have recon spotting and patrol seems like one rule would do .

It seems to me patrolling has much better uses than looking for partisans !


How about these modifiyers

Not allowed in storms ?

Not allowed across rivers ?

I assume patrolling will work against LRDG in EA42 those units are way too powerful

The patrolling feature seems better then recon spotting . Is it ??

Maybe a similar rule should be allowed for recon units or real recon designated units including cavalry to work like this and maybe the spotting feature should be governed by the movement category


say foot 2 hex

horse , bikes , motorbikes 3 hex

motorised / recon units say 4 hex

BUT chance of spotting reduced by terrain % that the defending unit is in say woods -20 entrenched - 40% = - 60% . Patrolling is not the same in the desert as in dence woods is it ?

Current Vis 1 hex -50% ( Rain, Fog and night are not the same as sunny days are they ? )

Quality modifiyer for patrolling unit A , B +10% / E , F -10%


Just some ideas


Michael

[Glenn Saunders]

[Mr Grumpy]

When i realised that the patrolling rule extended over rivers it did not strike me as unrealistic, my first thought was the episode of Band Of Brothers where they crossed the river to obtain intel and prisoners, so i think it works OK IMO.

[Dog Soldier]

Do not forget binoculars. I would have a OP at the river bank to warn of any crossing attempts. The driving of "hard" units along the river was unrealistic since the counter was to place AT to harass the "hard" unit patrol recon.

Patrolling comes down to the issue of whether you believe information garnered by a patrol could be sent to the unit inside the time frame of two hours. Not every patrol in WW2 had radios.

Seems patrolling should be restricted to uses on partisan activity as intended in Minsk 44. The ability to send a small worthless unit ( 3 guns or small flak units) into the woods or up against the hill to "see the bear" hiding to ambush you on the other side are some of the gamey things patrolling could do. This could make the proper tactic of reverse slope defenses worthless.

I have not fully tested this out, but I think patrolling increases the recon opportunities and removes the FOW along the front lines at least. I guess I am conflicted still if this rule is good as is or can be abused.

Dog Soldier

[Glenn Saunders]

I guess I am conflicted still if this rule is good as is or can be abused.

I checked the rule tonight and it seems fine to me. I can;t see where it might be being used beyond what it was designed for but I have not seen a case where there has been anything I could call abuse.

Nor do I see any conflict with the Recon Spotting option rule, which occurs in the phasing players turn.

I don't see the merit in extending the recon range to Horse, Bike or mot units. I could potentially see a Storm exception but until I see this in a game file where it creates an undesirable game effect, I would ask John to write code to create an exception. I mean there is no reason to create work for the hell of it.

And if somebody has a file which they think we should see that might change our minds on any of this, well, send it on to us at HPS Support.

Thanks Guys.

Glenn

[cavalry corps]

First of all I value all improvements to the game and patrolling is an improvement



As far as EA42 goes I have just played a full campaign right to the last turn

Whilst playing this game PBEM remember not against the AI . I would say that 50% or more units are disrupted when in T mode EACH TURN . So I had to expect whilst ,moving forward in T mode all units were disrupted after two turns and remember that means movement of one hex often . This means there is no point the allied player using them truly in the rear areas instead post them in your own lines or just behind the axis lines . I would say that disruption from these units defeated me in the game . I especially had trouble trying to move artillery . I do however understand from my opponent only one was left at the end of the campaign . So to test it see how many axis units get disrupted when in range of the LRDG units over two turns , I reckon its 90% or more . Locking at it now a lot of Italians will be patrolling and that may drive off the LRDG and will have a very big effect in that game . Maybe that's what it needs .



Now on patrolling . Patrolling is not an optional rule .Its best use will be in games ( not Just Minsk ) where an attacker has to sneak up on a defender 1 hex away during the night turn , or storm or whatever . I can accept units patrol and detect other units at two hex - ok . In fact use like this is not gamey . But I think as it will apply to all games it needs to have modifiers such as I earlier suggested . Detecting 100% of the enemy AT TWO HEX in a storm or heavy rain,fog B44, EA42, R42, M41 etc seems to be unrealistic . So you can have units patrolling for the defence you will see all approaching attackers .



I still think quality and unit types should have some bearing on the matter as well



BUT I like the rule perhaps it should have been an optional



Regards

michael

[Glenn Saunders]

[FLG]

BUT I like the rule perhaps it should have been an optional

Well, that is unlikely to happen. Once John adds something he doesn't remove it. There are a few things that came with S41 v1.0 which I would like to have undone myself but that won't happen either.

You could always agree an honour rule with your opponent not to use the feature, should you wish. Not quiet the same as optional but if you trust your opponent it should suffice.