Halftracks... (again?)

[Skryabin]

Everyone is saying about "gaming the system". Does everyone agree on what is means? And if yes, can we have a list of such actions instead (in addition to) of personal ROEs? I think it would be very helpful.

[Otto von Blotto]

Everyone is saying about "gaming the system". Does everyone agree on what is means? And if yes, can we have a list of such actions instead of personal ROEs? I think it would be very helpful.

No I don't think we do all agree that is why my rules are for me alone not to impose on another, for some all is free in love and war so a legitimate delaying action for one is a non historic use of assets for another.

Personally I can't see that blocking an exit hex or bridge with wrecked half tracks or other useless items is fair if your opponent that has battled that far and I would say it really make no difference to the battle (apart from the game says you have to use that hex to win) if they exit that exact hex or the one next to it. ? Blowing the bridge is ok but blocking it with wrecks is not really playing the game unless there is another possible crossing.

Spotting and scouting by death of close up trucks / carriers or non-firing assets is just silly and a waste of points.

Half track use in the game is subjective and if there was a single sensible answer then that rule would be written in stone by now.

Personally if you see my half-tracks in a game I'm in trouble as I feel I have to last resort use them rather than want to use them they are just worth to much to lose and are too easy to kill.

I suppose if it comes down to a short snappy line "things that you do other tactical moves or killing the enemy that denies your opponent the chance or opportunity to fight for a draw of better."

I will be glad to see what other think.?

[PawelM]

I personally do not use HTs for scouting and solitary assaults as this makes the game less interesting by giving an advantage to one side which does not have them ( see Eastern front when Russian side only occasionally have some Lend Lease ones). So purely for this disadvantage for one side I do not like to see HT's used this way. In some scenarios it really does make a difference.

I think the best way to make their use prohibitive is to make their point value twice what it is. Then perhaps some players using them would contemplate 6VP for 1 SP? Is it really worth it? And the need for ROE would not be there then. Also to be fair noone in the battlefield used HT's in such a manner anyway. In addition, they did not grow on trees and were to valuable an equipment for any army to sacrifice them easily.

I have seen many discussions on HT over my couple of years at the club and in my view there is one thing which in my opinion is being overlooked by many. The game designers for their own reasons gave some HT's (not all of them) assault factor of more than 0. It is not high but nonethless is zero. And this is very interesting. Take scores of other units which have not been given option to assault (you name it soviet ATR infantry, AT guns etc). I would love to know what was the logic behind it. I am sure this was not roll of dice decision and there was thought put to it....

Apart from increasing HT point value I would love them to have a "conditional" assault factor. I mean 0 when they are empty and 1 if they have infantry on board ( obviously infantry would add to the assault as it is at the moment).

Oh my, oh my.... don't we all love those halftrack discussions

[John Given]

I have seen many discussions on HT over my couple of years at the club and in my view there is one thing which in my opinion is being overlooked by many. The game designers for their own reasons gave some HT's (not all of them) assault factor of more than 0. It is not high but nonethless is zero. And this is very interesting.

Take scores of other units which have not been given option to assault (you name it soviet ATR infantry, AT guns etc). I would love to know what was the logic behind it. I am sure this was not roll of dice decision and there was thought put to it....

An interesting observation Pawel, but in the vast majority of games players won't be using HT's this way, because the HT losses outweigh any benefits of using for assaults. (IMO) I personally don't mind HT's used for assault, and the reason is because I can destroy them...

Apart from increasing HT point value I would love them to have a "conditional" assault factor. I mean 0 when they are empty and 1 if they have infantry on board ( obviously infantry would add to the assault as it is at the moment).

Another interesting idea, but I'm not sure the game engine will allow for this (to get the HT to 'convert' to a different assault value when loaded).

My only regret about HT's is the vast majority of interesting types are a no-show in most scenarios. There are some great AT HT's, AAA HT's, and rocket-armed HT's that almost never appear in scenarios That's a shame.

I'd like to throw this in real fast too; all German 251/1 (and the smaller 250/1 HT's) had radios in real life. The transport HT's of other nations almost never did. The only way I can think of to simulate this would be to make the spotting ability of an allied HT the same as a truck (i.e. it would show a question mark '?' symbol, and require another unit to spot for it).

However, I'm not sure the game engine will allow for this (having another unit spot for you) - it may be hard-coded in the program that an armed unit must automatically have standard spotting abilities, but it would be interesting is this were not the case - we could begin to take away the spotting abilities of units that should not otherwise have them (i.e. units without radios - because you can't shoot a question mark icon! ).

Lastly, because of this spotting issue (afforded by radios), and because of their rarity, I'm in favor of axis HT's having a victory point value of 4 points each for the 251/1 (as opposed to the current 3 points). Just my opinion.