1-2-7 what to do?

[Gordon]

I can't imagine any tanks having room to stash a crate of 'fausts or that they'd even want to have a loose one lying around inside as a potential fire/explosion hazard. Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed to force AFV crews to be recalled (at no CVP cost if they make it off board). Japanese AFV crews would be the exception. MA repair should also be mandatory as I can't imagine a crew NOT trying to repair a weapon in combat. "Sorry Sarge, I'm not going to try to fix the gun because we might be recalled." Not buying it.

 

[Actionjick]

Ever have this happen? A tank drives up from the side and kills a panther point blank, crew (1-2-7) survives and finds a ‘faust and destroys sherman. Lol. Or panther drives up against a tank, gets killed and bails out, kills them in advancing fire or CC with a ‘faust or ATMM.

I have to say if I was in a Panther that had just been knocked out by a point blank shot from an enemy tank I might look for a faust as I was bailing out. My sidearm probably not very much good against an AFV whose intentions towards me seem unlikely to be friendly.

The question I have is did German AFVs carry Faust's and given the confined space how many would be on board? You would think ammo for the MA would be a higher priority.

 

[Actionjick]

I can't imagine any tanks having room to stash a crate of 'fausts or that they'd even want to have a loose one lying around inside as a potential fire/explosion hazard. Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed to force AFV crews to be recalled (at no CVP cost if they make it off board). Japanese AFV crews would be the exception. MA repair should also be mandatory as I can't imagine a crew NOT trying to repair a weapon in combat. "Sorry Sarge, I'm not going to try to fix the gun because we might be recalled." Not buying it.

You beat me to the punch on the storage question. Doesn't seem like a loose one bouncing around is a good idea. Besides it displays a defeatist attitude on part of the crew!!

While on the topic of defeatist attitude I thought the Germans blowing up the railroad car where their surrender in WW1 was signed after the French signed their surrender in WW2 showed a lack of confidence in ultimate victory. Just saying.

 

[Mister T]

Ever have this happen? A tank drives up from the side and kills a panther point blank, crew (1-2-7) survives and finds a ‘faust and destroys sherman. Lol.

It's not possible. If the Panther has defensive fired any weapon, the surviving Panther crew cannot fire at all in its Defensive Fire.

Or panther drives up against a tank, gets killed and bails out, kills them in advancing fire or CC with a ‘faust or ATMM.

And if the Panther is moving and is destroyed, advancing fire by the surviving crew is NA.

At least you may use an ATMM in CC...

 

[bendizoid]

It's not possible. If the Panther has defensive fired any weapon, the surviving Panther crew cannot fire at all in its Defensive Fire.



And if the Panther is moving and is destroyed, advancing fire by the surviving crew is NA.

At least you may use an ATMM in CC...

‘faust in prep fire.

 

[Mister T]

‘faust in prep fire.

That's allowed ?

 

[TopT]

I can't imagine any tanks having room to stash a crate of 'fausts or that they'd even want to have a loose one lying around inside as a potential fire/explosion hazard. Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed to force AFV crews to be recalled (at no CVP cost if they make it off board). Japanese AFV crews would be the exception. MA repair should also be mandatory as I can't imagine a crew NOT trying to repair a weapon in combat. "Sorry Sarge, I'm not going to try to fix the gun because we might be recalled." Not buying it.

I do agree that you should be forced to roll for MA repair with recall not counting against the CVP unless it is destroyed on the way out..

 

[The Purist]

I have to say if I was in a Panther that had just been knocked out by a point blank shot from an enemy tank I might look for a faust as I was bailing out. My sidearm probably not very much good against an AFV whose intentions towards me seem unlikely to be friendly.

Actually, you probably wouldn't. Your infantry is there to stalk enemy tanks if they can. If unwounded you might try to help wounded crewmates but otherwise you would be smartest to get out out of the frontlines as soon as possible. A spare tank is no good to you if your dead.

The question I have is did German AFVs carry Faust's and given the confined space how many would be on board? You would think ammo for the MA would be a higher priority.

Halftracks and trucks carried those possessed by their passenger infantry but I have never seen any mention of PFs being carried in a tank (I would submit they are far too clumsy to try and remove in a panic). Consider that you are using Hazardous Movement (near panic) when bailing out with the thought the tank may burst into flames at any second. Pistol, carbine (US) or submachine gun might be all you would have.

 

[bendizoid]

As defender, unless there’s a choice unmanned weapon laying around,usually the 1-2-7 becomes a ‘speed bump’ in the line. He picks a hex I don’t want the attacker moving into next phase allowing other forces to concentrate fire.
As attacker he’s probably a concealment bump dude, sniper bait or maybe takes control of a weapon. If I’m lucky and/or good he does all three!

 

[Actionjick]

Actually, you probably wouldn't. Your infantry is there to stalk enemy tanks if they can. If unwounded you might try to help wounded crewmates but otherwise you would be smartest to get out out of the frontlines as soon as possible. A spare tank is no good to you if your dead.



Halftracks and trucks carried those possessed by their passenger infantry but I have never seen any mention of PFs being carried in a tank (I would submit they are far too clumsy to try and remove in a panic). Consider that you are using Hazardous Movement (near panic) when bailing out with the thought the tank may burst into flames at any second. Pistol, carbine (US) or submachine gun might be all you would have.

Actually I would be on a ship where a swabbie belongs!!?

 

[FourDeuceMF]

The 'best' solution would be to place a crew that survived CS under Recall, and make PF N/A. Gets rid of 99% of the gaminess BS right there (and more accurately models tankers outside of their tanks).

That there may have been one or two instances in WWII where the crew stayed on, or happened to find a Faust, should be the exception (a SSR for that action), NOT the rule... Add that to a mandatory repair attempt for broken MA.

Other pet peeves with AFVs - not enough penalty for being BU. Anyone who has tried to drive an AFV through 'telescopes'/'vision slits' should know that. I'd make it a BOG check (a la Mud), causing the end of being able to expend MP for moving to a new hex. That, perhaps with a +1 to the ROF for being CE...yeah, that's the ticket. ;-)

And as for moving AFV at night, NOT on a road, without thermal sights? Damn sure better be CE...and perhaps extra MP per hex...

 

[Paul John]

I totally agree with the gamey nonsense of the attacking vehicle crew, but let's just say that when I get one, I have a pre-written letter home to their family.

 

[Gordon]

I totally agree with the gamey nonsense of the attacking vehicle crew, but let's just say that when I get one, I have a pre-written letter home to their family.

Dear <insert name here>
Your son <insert name here> died valiantly while <insert act here> after his tank was knocked out in combat.

 

[Hutch]

 

[Robin Reeve]

Dear <insert name here>
Your son <insert name here> died valiantly while <insert act here> after his tank was knocked out in combat.

Dear Frau Schmetterling,
Your son Heinz was a total coward and died crying like a baby, while he was fleeing the battlefield and had raped a farm girl.
He was shot in the back by a Soviet hero.
Signed : Comrade Comissar Petrov

 

[Eagle4ty]

The 'best' solution would be to place a crew that survived CS under Recall, and make PF N/A. Gets rid of 99% of the gaminess BS right there (and more accurately models tankers outside of their tanks).

That there may have been one or two instances in WWII where the crew stayed on, or happened to find a Faust, should be the exception (a SSR for that action), NOT the rule... Add that to a mandatory repair attempt for broken MA.

Other pet peeves with AFVs - not enough penalty for being BU. Anyone who has tried to drive an AFV through 'telescopes'/'vision slits' should know that. I'd make it a BOG check (a la Mud), causing the end of being able to expend MP for moving to a new hex. That, perhaps with a +1 to the ROF for being CE...yeah, that's the ticket. ;-)

And as for moving AFV at night, NOT on a road, without thermal sights? Damn sure better be CE...and perhaps extra MP per hex...

I agree with MOST of what you've presented here except the BU part (and I believe you mean looking through periscopes rather than telescopes). As I imagine it being BU in ASL does not necessarily entail being buttoned up (hatch locked down) throughout the phase as one may envision but may include the hatch being open but the commander just being down in his seat/compartment for most of the phase with several peeks outside to ascertain the situation. Having said as much however I do believe much of the movement restrictions on a BU vehicle as currently presented are too lenient. Forward daylight movement should probably be double for normal COT. Changing VCA or utilizing Reverse movement should probably entail a Bog check as well as additional MP cost penalty. Additionally, in regards to a TCA change to engage a target the TH DRMs for the TCA change if BU could be doubled rather than a just adding +1 TH DRM (the difficulty here is slewing to find the target and not really engagement of the same once the target is in your reticle).

As I see it the biggest difficulty in this area with ASL is limiting the number of times a Vehicle may become CE/BU. As with SL, and I have NO idea of why it was changed that I can think of, going CE/BU should be allowed during the RPh. Also, I believe it could be accomplished multiple times during the MPh, allowed after each MP expenditure after any defensive fire entertained by that MP expenditure would make sense as basically it's a simple procedure that could be accomplished several times over a 2 +/- min. time frame of a turn, as well as the current times allowed. If this simple change was made to the system it could possibly eliminate much of the perceived problems with AFV usage as presented in ASL. Once a dynamic system intent on exploring the intricacies of small unit combat, SL/ASL has by necessity become stagnated to accepting certain rules that while perhaps not excellent or perfect just work well enough to present a "game system" that remain fairly stable in its presentation to give one a feel for that type of combat simulation.

 

[Paul John]

Dear <insert name here>
Your son <insert name here> died valiantly while <insert act here> after his tank was knocked out in combat.

How did you get that file! Hacker?@#!?

 

[Tuomo]

FWIW, "Crew Survival" may effectively mean "the crew popped out of the vehicle and are pissed and ready to fight". If that happens, say, 28% of the time, then that vehicle has a CS5. If you rolled a 6 or more on the CS DR, that would encompass All Other Results, including:

• The crew popped out of the vehicle and is hightailing it for the Rear Areas
• The crew didn't pop out of the vehicle at all

Shrug?

 

[Actionjick]

FWIW, "Crew Survival" may effectively mean "the crew popped out of the vehicle and are pissed and ready to fight". If that happens, say, 28% of the time, then that vehicle has a CS5. If you rolled a 6 or more on the CS DR, that would encompass All Other Results, including:

• The crew popped out of the vehicle and is hightailing it for the Rear Areas
• The crew didn't pop out of the vehicle at all

Shrug?

An interesting way to consider the situation. The more I think about it the more I like it. Very nice!

 

[The Purist]

...,snip.... Having said as much however I do believe much of the movement restrictions on a BU vehicle as currently presented are too lenient. Forward daylight movement should probably be double for normal COT. Changing VCA or utilizing Reverse movement should probably entail a Bog check as well as additional MP cost penalty. Additionally, in regards to a TCA change to engage a target the TH DRMs for the TCA change if BU could be doubled rather than a just adding +1 TH DRM (the difficulty here is slewing to find the target and not really engagement of the same once the target is in your reticle)....

Hmmm,... agree to a point with the "may not be hatched locked" but if there is small arms or HE flying about the hatches may be dogged. Generally, visibility in most German and western tanks was not too bad, all things considered. I have only had the opportunity to get inside a Sherman, Grant, Crusader III, Pz III, IV, and V. Over all the CC positions in all gave a good view.

From my own time in more modern vehicles in the army, being hatches down did not tend to limit the speed but one quickly learned to brace. Depth perception through armoured glass can be tricky and one often hears the drive over the intercom say, "sorry about that last bump guys". Plenty of bumps, cuts and the odd black eye or broken nose. (one can laugh at these now).

...As I see it the biggest difficulty in this area with ASL is limiting the number of times a Vehicle may become CE/BU. As with SL, and I have NO idea of why it was changed that I can think of, going CE/BU should be allowed during the RPh. Also, I believe it could be accomplished multiple times during the MPh, allowed after each MP expenditure after any defensive fire entertained by that MP expenditure would make sense as basically it's a simple procedure that could be accomplished several times over a 2 +/- min. time frame of a turn, as well as the current times allowed. If this simple change was made to the system it could possibly eliminate much of the perceived problems with AFV usage as presented in ASL. Once a dynamic system intent on exploring the intricacies of small unit combat, SL/ASL has by necessity become stagnated to accepting certain rules that while perhaps not excellent or perfect just work well enough to present a "game system" that remain fairly stable in its presentation to give one a feel for that type of combat simulation.

I would agree here as well, provided a defender can 'first fire' at a tank coming around a corner CE before it can BU. If a tank can button up before having an LOS to an enemy unit that may be allowing too much omnipotence.