Question to Glenn S regarding AT units

[Al]

I am playing the M41 Vyazma scenario (as the Soviets) with the ALT fire resolution settings checked. I've taken some big losses as one would expect but I don't know if the loss numbers would have changed if the ALT fire resolution rules weren't changed. As you mentioned both my opponent & I discovered early on not to overstack in a hex as it make a plump target & drew all available artillery fire.

But, this is veering away from the AT unit discussion.

[Glenn Saunders]

Not really Al. Those Soviet AT units have a number of guns in the unit and at 10 men per Gun, Stacked with a larger Btln Unit - this could account for some of teh reported losses. And the first stage in correcting anything is understanding the root of the problem.

Glenn

[Al]

Not really Al. Those Soviet AT units have a number of guns in the unit and at 10 men per Gun, Stacked with a larger Btln Unit - this could account for some of teh reported losses. And the first stage in correcting anything is understanding the root of the problem.

Glenn

Agreed - I was just separating out the AT disengagement/movement issue - which I'm not sold on - from what I think is another option. That is, stacking AT units with infantry & using the 3 ALT fire rules to minimize losses to those AT units.

[Dog Soldier]

The Alt set of fire / assault rules were created with the second title in the series, Normandy 44. They were not introduced "later".

It is not entirely true that the alt set of fire / assault rules are neutral compared to the default rules.
The alt fire rules create a huge disadvantage to the side who has the relatively larger "organic unit sizes". I define "organic unit sizes" meaning units that can not break down any further into sub-units.
This translates into a "firing squad" kind of game for Russians units of battalion or regiment size that can not breakdown into units of roughly equal size to the German units. Smolensk 41, Moscow 41, Kharkov 42 are excellent examples of this disparity. While some will argue that the result of casualties are roughly equal over the long term, my experience is that large units will suffer accelerated fatigue accumulation using the alt set of rules compared to the default rules. This creates a very brittle force. In K42 for example I have seen Russian units breaking in three turns or less using the alt fire rules.

Now it is true, that the alt fire rules do less damage to the ATG unit stacked with infantry which is two or three times the size of the ATG unit. Stacking with infantry of roughly (in terms of men equivalents) with ATG units offers no special protection under the alt set of fire rules in my experience. This is due to the way the alt fire and barrage rules proportion out the results according to unit sizes. While this use of the alt fire optional rules and stacking tactics will help ATG not be unduly targeted, it comes at a price of the large infantry formations being easily broken and stripped from the position.

Such a handicap far out weighs the advantage gained.

Now consider France 40 or Normandy 44 as an example where the alt fire rules work well. With both sides able to break down into companies and break down the ATG units into smaller packets, the Alt fire rules can make the game play change quite a bit.
In the N44 _alt game being played out in the team game tournament, (where the -alt default optional rules use only the alt assault optional rule) German ATG units are being pasted with six or seven barrage attacks (Allied artillery or naval fire, even air strikes) so they are worthless in defensive fire when the swarms of Allied tanks move up to chew on what is left in the hex. the Allied infantry can then easily mop up with assaults. If the German ATG are placed in BUNKERS / bunkers with their infantry, they are then targeted by barrages and Allied armor with two hex range HA. Only the German 88mm stand a chance to make a defensive fire attempt to disrupt Allied armor due to the unit's greater than one hex range.

I would think in the close, congested terrain of Normandy and Northern France, the default design of using the alt fire rules make a lot of sense.

I am not so sure what can be done for more open country in some of the Russian titles or the North African desert titles.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

The Alt set of fire / assault rules were created with the second title in the series, Normandy 44. They were not introduced "later".

Well, yes, actually. By "later" I meant after PzC #1, 1.0, thus it was added as an "optional rule", therefore it was added "later" so that it was not a standard rule (well, "later" in the logic that I was using). ;)

In the N44 _alt game being played out in the team game tournament, (where the -alt default optional rules use only the alt assault optional rule) German ATG units are being pasted with six or seven barrage attacks (Allied artillery or naval fire, even air strikes) so they are worthless in defensive fire when the swarms of Allied tanks move up to chew on what is left in the hex. the Allied infantry can then easily mop up with assaults. If the German ATG are placed in BUNKERS / bunkers with their infantry, they are then targeted by barrages and Allied armor with two hex range HA. Only the German 88mm stand a chance to make a defensive fire attempt to disrupt Allied armor due to the unit's greater than one hex range.

Well, to give the _Alt some credit, only the Alternative Assault Resolution rule that is *required* for the _Alt to work properly because it uses some range 0 hard attack factors (that is why the rule is highlighted in yellow wherever you see the screen shot showing what Optional Rules to use with the _Alt). Anyone can pick whatever alternative resolution rules they desire beyond that. I am only stating this because you make it seem like the _Alt breaks something here with AT gun survivability in Normandy '44, which might be true if you play with Alt Fire Resolution off, but the AT guns in the _Alt have much greater defensive values as well, so even though they can be targeted - they can indeed hold some ground if you don't allow "swarms of tanks" to challenge an AT gun company. Consider too that this is small potatoes compared to what the disablement of the Alternative Fire Resolution rule does to the defender's (the Germans) chances in Normandy '44; turning it off allows them to hold hexes without getting residual fatigue applied with each artillery bombardment, allowing resting and making it actually possible to hold ground. This is the primary culprit to the problems that exist in that title. The Germans in Normandy '44 get no breaks, and if the lack of the Alt Fire Resolution rule hurts the AT guns survivability, then it repays it ten fold to the defender's ability to hold ground. So, it is not as if the lack of the Alt Fire Resolution in N44 breaks it from its perfect harmony it had going on before, but sure, OK, it certainly comes with a consequence but not too with an added benefit. ;)

The great big secret about France '40 (I remember this intimately) is not that the Alternative Fire Resolution rule was actually needed, it wasn't, it was the Alternative Assault Resolution was needed for the early war tanks to survive in assaults, and the powers that be didn't want just one single Alternative resolution rule to be used: it had to be all or none. The irony here is that it happens to work, and that you justify its inclusion as if it were something that was taken under great consideration. It was added as the default, because all the Alt Resolution had to be, and we accept it as holy ground. There is nothing wrong with that, but it speaks volumes that you could simply turn it on in the other games and it could work, and hurt, in the same exact ways that it does in F40 and N44, nothing more, nothing less. I just want to avoid the tendency of... overvaluation, or whether or not we are just justifying something simply because the egg came out of the chicken.

*edited for typos*

[Tortue Agile]

The great big secret about France '40 (I remember this intimately) is not that the Alternative Fire Resolution rule was actually needed, it wasn't, it was the Alternative Assault Resolution was needed for the early war tanks to survive in assaults, and the powers that be didn't want just one single Alternative resolution rule to be used: it had to be all or none. The irony here is that it happens to work, and that you justify its inclusion as if it were something that was taken under great consideration. It was added as the default, because all the Alt Resolution had to be, and we accept it as holy ground. There is nothing wrong with that, but it speaks volumes that you could simply turn it on in the other games and it could work, and hurt, in the same exact ways that it does in F40 and N44, nothing more, nothing less. I just want to avoid the tendency of... overvaluation, or whether or not we are just justifying something simply because the egg came out of the chicken.

That's right , try to play F40 without the alt assault resolution and you will see how fragile the tanks are when attacked by infantry.

But to go back to the original subject, I have to say that I love your idea VM (all mvt point cost for one hex in deployed status), it does make sens and, like you I do agree it doesn't mean that they move the guns without trucks, it just mean that they move them with caution.

The PzC are not a tactical game, so we don't have to model exactly the unit to what they were, but more to what we think they should be able to do.

[Dog Soldier]

Anyone can pick whatever alternative resolution rules they desire beyond that. I am only stating this because you make it seem like the _Alt breaks something here with AT gun survivability in Normandy '44, which might be true if you play with Alt Fire Resolution off, but the AT guns in the _Alt have much greater defensive values as well, so even though they can be targeted - they can indeed hold some ground if you don't allow "swarms of tanks" to challenge an AT gun company.

I can see your point about adding additional alt fire rules to an _alt sceanrio if the title plays better with them. I may have been, (like many others) mistaken to believe the required _alt optional rules set was inflexible.
The analysis presented is correct for a CG. I think in the shorter two day sceanrios there is a different dynamic at work requiring the use of the other alt fire optional rules. The problem is more of an undue concentration of firepower by the Allies on a specific unit, the ATG unit in this discussion) which virtually guarantees its disruption in the first Allied turn following the ATG unit being spotted. Disruption of the ATG defenses , then leads to the Allies being able to easily close with the defenders with "swarms of armor". Disruption of the remainder of the stack is then achieved. As our Allied opponents have said, once the defending hex is disrupted "old ladies with brooms can clear it by assault".

Consider too that this is small potatoes compared to what the disablement of the Alternative Fire Resolution rule does to the defender's (the Germans) chances in Normandy '44; turning it off allows them to hold hexes without getting residual fatigue applied with each artillery bombardment, allowing resting and making it actually possible to hold ground. This is the primary culprit to the problems that exist in that title. The Germans in Normandy '44 get no breaks, and if the lack of the Alt Fire Resolution rule hurts the AT guns survivability, then it repays it ten fold to the defender's ability to hold ground. So, it is not as if the lack of the Alt Fire Resolution in N44 breaks it from its perfect harmony it had going on before, but sure, OK, it certainly comes with a consequence but not too with an added benefit. ;)

Again, I would agree with this analysis for the long term in a CG, not in the medium scenarios of two to three days in length.

Finally, the stock France 40 game is correct as the _alt versions to use the alt assault optional rule. Infantry just did not have sufficient organic ways of dealing with the tanks on both sides this early in the war. Tactics used by the Fins in the Winter War against the Russian armor were more inventive (and effective) than any used on the western front in 1940.
Even German infantry was at a loss to stop Allied armor without help. Examples would be the initial French attack on the GD regiment at Stonne, and the Matilidas at Aaras which overran an SS regiment completely panicking the German SS troops. Only the intervention of Rommel, personally directing 88mm guns stopped the British armor that day.

Dog Soldier