4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[campsawyer]

The infantry do suffer because you are rolling on a higher column. Therefore their chances of an M2 check increase.

2 x INF and tank advance into a hex with a 2 x GREN and Leader.

2 x GREN and leader would usually be a 13col (6+6+leader) when defending unless leader adds 1 from a fire mod he might have.

They roll for fausts and roll a 5 & a 6 (one roll each)

This now puts them on the 24col instead of 13col.

On the 13col, the attacking INF had a 1 in 6 chance of No Effect against them, then M, M1, M2 with a kill on 5 or 6 (or 1 in 3).

Now, they will be on M1 minimum with a double chance of a kill, half of which are a double kills too !).

Even if the INF don't get take a hit, they have a 87% chance of suffering an M2 as opposed to a 50% chance under previous rules.

They'd actually be better off not taking an AFV with them. In fact, if the attackers were 2 x US INF and an M4, they would have 21pts for a 18col. If they took 3 x INF, it would still be an 18col. You may argue that the tank gives them a +1col, but the risks of this far outweigh reward. That is not historical as combined INF and tank in Westwall battles in the town were very common. Yes there was risk, but balanced with reward. These proposed column shifts upwards for defenders are too drastic.

No, this is not working for me at all.

Points taken. The column shift might be too much. But I still believe that it needs to be resolved on the assault table rather than as an AT shot as I think giving the defender the AT still changes the balance under the AT shot rules. Willing to entertain thoughts on the resolution on the assault table.

[Matt W]

If the defense had a first fire I would not permit the AT shot in the "activation" approach. In essence the defender has to absorb the shock of the assault prior to firing their weapon. Of course, they have a much greater chance of surviving the shock in the event that they have first fire which is enough of an advantage.

Alan, I understand your desire to manage this on the assault table but that thoroughly changes the metric as Vince has suggested. Perhaps instead of increasing the defender's column you would consider decreasing the attacker's column since the presence of such weapons would be likely to make the AFVs a little more skittish, or if nothing else to take away any combined arms column shift. I don't like the approach but if that is the one we have to take I would err on the side of making the attack less powerful rather than the defense more powerful.

[campsawyer]

Matt, I understand both your points. I am still not keen on the AT shot as a different attack in an assault as well as I struggle with reflecting a increase risk to AFV's by personal AT weapons on both offense and defense.

Also, my post are also to prompt others to throw out ideas for this as sometimes someone has a truly innovative idea, such as Ottavio's first fire for tanks. The more the better for discussion.

[vince hughes]

Being totally boring .... I'm happy with assaults as is.

If there was a need to bring in defensive AT fire, my only concession would be for both sides to roll a 6 for each unit to be enabled.

Thats as far as I go LOL

Main vote: Leave alone :-)

[Airlifter]

Something that does bother me, however, is the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. In the SSRs this usually requires the infantry unit to be activated. That means that the defender in an assault hex can't use the AT capability. I would expect that such weapons could be used once per turn where the units are involved in assault combat (if neither player assaults at all I could see not firing the weapons).

At the very least, I'd propose that defending infantry anti-tank weapons should be usable each turn they are assaulted in town hexes, and on the first assault turn if entrenched (and maybe dug-in). That simulates the anti-tank teams hiding in buildings, or set up in cover to ambush the tanks.

Disclaimer: All I know about anti-tank tactics I learned from watching Band of Brothers and documentaries showing 14-year-olds with Panzerfausts in the streets of Berlin.

We could write a standard rule for INF with at weapons that supersedes SSRs. i would thin the players should have to choose--either the AT fire or the INF strength for the assault, not both. An AFV should not either.
Thoughts?

[Airlifter]

MTC's

John, at the end of post 86 you mentioned keeping MTC movement as foot. It is motorised, not foot.

Another small anomaly with the Bicycles v MTC is that bicycles attract an extra +1 mod when fired at by DF in Opp Fire (though max is still +3). May be worth adding to Opp shots at MTC's.

Good catch on MTCs Vince. I think MTCs are travelling fast enough to warrant not being easier to hit. Bicycles on the other hand, seems like a juicy target to me.

Retreat VC's

John, perhaps that is best left to new scenarios that have some kind of SSR and how to use it written in it. There are campaigns and the like now if people wish to play them.

You may be right. I just wanted to throw the idea out to the gang.

[Airlifter]

Defensive personal AT weapons

I have also thought that only allowing assaulting units to get the benefits of personal AT weapons seem a little odd. As there are many documented instances of them being used against attacking units. But I also feel the simple solution of allowing defensive AT shots in assaults does tip the balance of the assault. I believe that a more radical change my need to be considered as the use of a AT shot is limiting.

My thought is to continue to have only certain infantry units and must roll a 5 or 6 to use. If successful, instead of getting an AT shot, there would be a +1 column shift to the assault table. This +1 would be cumulative for all successful 5 or 6 die roll and the first step loss must be taken on an AFV.

My reasons for such a radical change are these are a few. First, the personal AT weapons rule is one I feel is still a bit odd and not complete, much like the M18 move and shoot rule, and can be reevaluated for a better approach. Second, this would allow for both offensive and defensive use. Both sides can use this against AFV's but it is not guaranteed that is will work. By changing from a assault result and AT shot to just an assault result this keeps the attack in the method that it started with. The assault table is good for resolving close combat, let's keep the results there. Third, this is scalable to use personal AT weapons against fortifications. There are many documented instances that American bazooka's being used against pillboxes. With this the use of personal AT weapons can be used for this by adding a rule allowing the qualified infantry units to roll for there use. If successful they can get the +1 shift on entrenchments and strongpoints, with the first step loss taken on a unit in either of those two.

I know this might be radical, but I feel something like this needs to be done as the current rule feels like it is a dead end if we try to modify in some way for other uses and I also feel that something needs to be done for this.

Let the discussion begin...

I'm not opposed to radical changes like this, but i must say I do not like making it work sometimes and not others. Can't we come up with a change that works all the time? I do like the idea of potentially destroying Entrenchment Counters, but I think we need to work this out a little more. THAT would be radical--making us reconsider a lot of scenarios that rely on the defender bunkering up in seemingly indestructible bunkers.

[waynebaumber]

Having been out of the UK for some time and deliberately not taking the laptop with me I arrive late to this discussion. I will not add any new suggestions to those that have been posted on this thread but I will add a note of caution.
Like Dr's, John's main rule should be "do no harm". The 4th edition rule book should be more about clarification than whole scale rule changes. This in it's self is a challenge eg The Hill LOS controversy which has has engaged our minds since the beginning of time (well since I started playing PG).
I agree that some Scenario special rule should be included in the main rule book e,g pushing guns, Inf A/T capability etc. However I do not believe that making AFV's stronger in Assault and faster would be a welcome rule change for most players.
That said I am looking forward to seeing the 4th edition rule book and the numerous threads on this forum and others which no doubt will appear bemoaning various aspects of it.
The very best of luck John S.

[enrique]

Plenty of commander's have sent unit after unit to destruction. If you do, you lose. But, we don't currently have a mechanism that directly affects morale of an army. Sure, you lose initiative after losing xx number of steps, and that gives the opponent the chance to mop you up, but that's not the same as everyone getting jittery because their division commander keeps sending battalions forward in dribs and drabs to destruction on a battlefield littered with corpses.

Does anyone use a house rule for this? Say every two initiative steps lost = 1 morale step loss? What would the implications be on games? Would this make players more sensitive (too sensitive?) to losses, much as if in a campaign where every step lost hurts you for the rest of the campaign?
John

Maybe you could apply the special rule 14 ("Formation Morale") of Beyond Normandy:
"The morale of the units belonging to a formation is affected by losses. Each step loss or leader lost counts as a step. All units of the formation have their morale reduced as follows when the losses equal the noted number:

Lost Steps 8 Morale Reduction -1/0
Lost Steps 15 Morale Reduction -1/-1
Lost Steps 23 Morale Reduction -2/-1

Thus a Regiment that began a scenario with a morale of 8/7 would be reduced to a morale of 7/7 when step and leader losses totaled 8, to 7/6 when step and leader losses totaled 15 and 6/6 when step and leader losses totaled 23".

This rule would be easily applicable in scenarios where in the same side are various formations (eg German SS and Heer, Heer and Luftwaffe...), or in large scenarios (eg units in sector A begin the battle with 5 losses and units in sector B without losses).

[JayTownsend]

All I can say is lets don't add too many rules. Also Hidden Rules need to be optional. It kills SOLO play other wise.