Abandon tank sleaze and "immobility"

labelcd6

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
79
Reaction score
12
Location
Kentucky, United States
First name
Carl
Country
llUnited States
Can I have a tank crew voluntarily abandon their AFV and then run around taking control of buildings?

If a tank crew voluntarily abandons their AFV, is the AFV considered "immobile" for VC?
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
First question : yes (that is why many SSR prohibit crews from voluntarily abandoning their vehicle).

Second question : the Index is your friend.
Here is its entry on the question : Immobile (any vehicle which is Abandoned, Bogged, Immobilized, Shocked, or Stunned)
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Easiest solution...
Crews control of objectives is equivalent to leaders.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Easiest solution...
Crews control of objectives is equivalent to leaders.
What about Infantry crews? They didn't abandon an AFV. Have to be careful with un-intended consequences when proposing rule changes. -- jim
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
Make it the same
Crew. Would mean infantry and vehicular as is the normal convention of the rules.
The specificity is crew, whether vehicular or otherwise.

Just as SMC is all inclusive to the various SMC in the game, including Piper's.
If a rule said, " Crews may not gain control..." It would obviously include all crews.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Easiest solution...
Crews control of objectives is equivalent to leaders.
Some SSR do that too.
I don't see anything "easier". It just is another way to obtain a comparable result.
The difference being that you could use the crews to contest control of a building, like leaders...
I presume that the SSR not allowing vehicular crews to voluntarily abandon their vehicles is partly motivated by the fact that in real life, tank crews kept within their vehicle and didn't play infantry.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
If you’re truly desperate drive one into a building and hope for a ‘6’ colored dice on the bog check to fall into the cellar. If your crew survives, it ain’t voluntary so it will be placed on the map and could control the building by a miracle sleaze play. My guess is Valhalla Bound.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Make it the same

Crew. Would mean infantry and vehicular as is the normal convention of the rules.
The specificity is crew, whether vehicular or otherwise.

Just as SMC is all inclusive to the various SMC in the game, including Piper's.
If a rule said, " Crews may not gain control..." It would obviously include all crews.
It would be a horrific rule, but you're right. It would be a rule. Why stop at crews? Half Squads may not gain control. They're both 5-man units and consistency must be maintained. ;) -- jim
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
If you’re truly desperate drive one into a building and hope for a ‘6’ colored dice on the bog check to fall into the cellar. If your crew survives, it ain’t voluntary so it will be placed on the map and could control the building by a miracle sleaze play.
Been there, done that...

von Marwitz
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Been there, done that...
Not clear enough. Did you attempt it? Did you attempt it for the specific purpose of sleazing control through the cellars incident? Did you succeed at it? Did you ever win a scenario because you attempted that, and succeeded?

We need more info to place you on the sleaze scale!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Not clear enough. Did you attempt it? Did you attempt it for the specific purpose of sleazing control through the cellars incident? Did you succeed at it? Did you ever win a scenario because you attempted that, and succeeded?

We need more info to place you on the sleaze scale!
I can't remember the name of the scenario, but it was some British with Shermans attempting to secure an airfield held by Germans (or vice versa). I seem to recall that some aircraft wreck were littering the area.

Anyway, in my last turn (moving last) I was lacking the control of one building to win and the only way I could do it was by driving a tank into a building in the hope of falling into the cellar and the crew surviving to take control. Surprisingly, I even remembered this possibility, so I tried to pull it off. Could have been that my opponent did not even bother to fire at my tank on its way to the building while it crossed his LOS to avoid triggering a Sniper with theoretically disastrous outcomes.

I ran into the building and 'successfully' crashed the Sherman into the cellar. The needed Crew Survival roll was probably a 5, so I had a 27.8% chance. Alas, the crew did not make the roll, so I lost the scenario.

Nevertheless, the expression on the face of my opponent when my plan dawned on him and especially after falling into the cellar was priceless...


von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Not clear enough. Did you attempt it? Did you attempt it for the specific purpose of sleazing control through the cellars incident? Did you succeed at it? Did you ever win a scenario because you attempted that, and succeeded?


We need more info to place you on the sleaze scale!
I believe one of the JRs successfully did this at least once. I’ll let you figure out which one.
 

MajorDomo

DM? Chuck H2O in his face
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Fluid
Country
llUnited States
It would be a horrific rule, but you're right. It would be a rule. Why stop at crews? Half Squads may not gain control. They're both 5-man units and consistency must be maintained. ;) -- jim
I agree!

If I could change one thing in building control, it would say the control requires a full squad equivalent. You could then exclude vehicle crews at your pleasure.

The reality today is two halfsquads can defend a two hex, two story building much better that a full squad.

Also, two halfsquads can gain control of more buildings faster and easier than one full squad.

There are exceptions, of course, but the balance is on the side of the halfsquads.

I shudder when some tourney has an older, pre-2005 scenario on the list with many buildings to control. These older scenarios often have too many turns and the designer did not envision the halfsquad ant swarm attack.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
4,992
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
I agree!

If I could change one thing in building control, it would say the control requires a full squad equivalent. You could then exclude vehicle crews at your pleasure.

The reality today is two halfsquads can defend a two hex, two story building much better that a full squad.

Also, two halfsquads can gain control of more buildings faster and easier than one full squad.

There are exceptions, of course, but the balance is on the side of the halfsquads.

I shudder when some tourney has an older, pre-2005 scenario on the list with many buildings to control. These older scenarios often have too many turns and the designer did not envision the halfsquad ant swarm attack.
What would you consider to be too many turns? Just curious.
 

Cpl Uhl

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
862
Reaction score
476
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Country
llUnited States
I can't remember the name of the scenario, but it was some British with Shermans attempting to secure an airfield held by Germans (or vice versa). I seem to recall that some aircraft wreck were littering the area.

Anyway, in my last turn (moving last) I was lacking the control of one building to win and the only way I could do it was by driving a tank into a building in the hope of falling into the cellar and the crew surviving to take control. Surprisingly, I even remembered this possibility, so I tried to pull it off. Could have been that my opponent did not even bother to fire at my tank on its way to the building while it crossed his LOS to avoid triggering a Sniper with theoretically disastrous outcomes.

I ran into the building and 'successfully' crashed the Sherman into the cellar. The needed Crew Survival roll was probably a 5, so I had a 27.8% chance. Alas, the crew did not make the roll, so I lost the scenario.

Nevertheless, the expression on the face of my opponent when my plan dawned on him and especially after falling into the cellar was priceless...


von Marwitz
Well a Ritterkreuz for even thinking about doing that!!
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
625
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
It would be a horrific rule, but you're right. It would be a rule. Why stop at crews? Half Squads may not gain control. They're both 5-man units and consistency must be maintained. ;) -- jim
Why stop at crews? Because that would be the rule.
Read the rule.
Submit a question to Perry if you have difficulty identifying a crew and hs
 
Top