AFV tweaks thoughts

[Joelist]

I hope this is in the correct forum - mods feel free to move if it is not.

I have been pushing around in my brain some thoughts about AFV play in ASL and ways to enhance the realism with minimum added overhead. Here are a couple I came up with:

a) Crew Quality - this would be a general reflection of the quality of the crews of AFV of a particular nationality. It would be assigned to each nationality in a scenario much like SAN is currently.

My thinking is it would be expressed as a number with the range going as follows: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. The rating would function sort of like an Armor Leader in that it would be a To Hit DRM. It would also be a Repair DRM and would apply to Gun Duels. Obviously the -2 would be reserved for Elite units and the +2 for really poor or green units.

b) Late war German reliability and armor quality issues. Again this would be by SSR only and only after 8/44 but has two parts:

- All German AFV are treated as if they have Red Movement Allowances.

- Possible faulty armor on German V and VI series AFVs. Include an additional die when rolling To Hit against these tanks. If that die result is 1 or 2 the AFV in question has substandard armor - for this shot use the armor value two less than the printed value (EX: A Panther is hit frontally and the die comes up a 1 - instead of 18 armor for this shot they have 11 armor).

 

[Vinnie]

Be cool ssr. The crew mods are best represented by armour leaders.

 

[Joelist]

I thought about Armor Leaders. However they do not come in the '+' variety leaving no way to represent poor or green units. Plus a force grade is better for showing actions where an entire side was more or less proficient. An example would be Smolensk 1941 where you might assign the Soviets a +1 CQ and the Germans a -1 CQ. Another going the opposite direction would be Arracourt where the Germans would likely get the +1 and the US the -1.

 

[BattleSchool]

I thought about Armor Leaders. However they do not come in the '+' variety leaving no way to represent poor or green units.

Yes and no.

D3.45 INEXPERIENCED CREWS: A SSR may specify certain armed vehicles to have Inexperienced Crews. Each such crew is treated as if it contains an inherent 6+1 Armor Leader, which is not shown in counter form. Usage of this "quasi-" Armor Leader is the same as for any normal Armor Leader [EXC: his leadership modifier must be used whenever it is optionally usable by a normal Armor Leader; and the quasi-Armor Leader can never be eliminated or removed from its crew].

An SSR could reference D3.45, and stipulate that the DRM is +2, for example. One could also compel German AFV, for instance, to use red TH numbers.

Maybe I missed something, but don't see how a positive drm for weapon repair would work, except to Disable a weapon easier and make repair impossible.

Re the red MP allowance for vehicles/AFV, one could again reference an existing rule and modify accordingly. For example, "All German AFV/vehicles are considered to have red MP allotments (D2.51/D2.52) not unlike the rules for early-war American forces in Korea (W2.14).

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I did some playtesting for a gent named Kevin Conley in 2016 who has a nice new conceptual model of how AFV rules can be changed. One of the things we played with is Crew Quality .. with a chart that details how that affects different aspects of a tank's operation. I had a lot of fun with that. He's on FB.

 

[Joelist]

Sounds like Kevin and I have been having some similar thoughts.

Mine started when looking at Yanks scenarios and reflecting on the reality that, by the time of the Cobra breakout, the US Army tank forces were, crew quality wise, equal to and frequently better than the Germans. Also the reality that German AFVs ALL had real mechanical reliability issues that persisted through the entire war and that the Panther and Tiger both suffered from serious issues with armor quality (which typically caused the front armor to shatter when impacted by AP). The causes were many including sabotage by the slave labor. Now the sheer number of known impacted tanks was not massive but it was real.

 

[BattleSchool]

- Possible faulty armor on German V and VI series AFVs. Include an additional die when rolling To Hit against these tanks. If that die result is 1 or 2 the AFV in question has substandard armor - for this shot use the armor value two less than the printed value (EX: A Panther is hit frontally and the die comes up a 1 - instead of 18 armor for this shot they have 11 armor).

Or have the magnitude of the defect correspond to the value of the third dr, e.g. 1 = a drop of three AF strengths, a 2 = a drop of two AF, and a 3 = a drop of one AF (or the other way around, if that's easier to remember).

There might already be a die that you could use for this purpose.

 

[Gordon]

In general, I think the overall US representation in game is appropriate for the early US involvement period but I think unduly penalizes the US during mid-to-late war. But that's just my opinion and that ship has sailed.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I'd be inclined to leave the crew quality mechanism as is: with -2, -1 and +1 (Inexperienced) already available either by counter (AL) or SSR (Inexperienced). Due to the limited granularity of a 2D6 system, just a +1 or -1 often represents a significant difference in proficiency. A +1 AL counter would be useful (a few came with something, TPP?) where not everyone on a side was dumb/untrained.

German late war AFV reliability: Again assigning Red MP to some or all German AFV by SSR should cover that. As usual the applicability of such a SSR should be guided by the historical narrative (AARs, etc). From '44 onwards, fuel shortages can hit and long spells conducting defensive cover of retreats often go hand in hand with lack of maintenance and recovery vehicles (they are getting the hell out of Dodge).

German late war armour: Thicker German armour did get harder and more brittle towards the end, but from what I have read had little impact on fighting. Either a plate cracked but was held in place by its attached surroundings or the joint welding failed on one side or top/bottom, rarely both. The failure causing round more often than not did not penetrate. Subsequent rounds might get lucky and penetrate fully or force spall (splash) into a (narrow) gap, but mainly the effect was need for welding and extended maintenance. That quality issue was nothing near the problems the Germans had with the high hardness Czech armour on the Pz 38(t) and Pz 35(t) where whole plates could sheer off after being hit (Pz I & II also). Such apparent weakness only came under the spotlight in post combat testing, from what I have read. In my opinion, for what it's worth 70 years later, is that it can be safely ignored within ASL.

 

[BattleSchool]

I'd be inclined to leave the crew quality mechanism as is: with -2, -1 and +1 (Inexperienced) already available either by counter (AL) or SSR (Inexperienced). Due to the limited granularity of a 2D6 system, just a +1 or -1 often represents a significant difference in proficiency. A +1 AL counter would be useful (a few came with something, TPP?) where not everyone on a side was dumb/untrained.

Four such counters are included with Festung Budapest.

 

[Yuri0352]

I'd be inclined to leave the crew quality mechanism as is: with -2, -1 and +1 (Inexperienced) already available either by counter (AL) or SSR (Inexperienced). Due to the limited granularity of a 2D6 system, just a +1 or -1 often represents a significant difference in proficiency. A +1 AL counter would be useful (a few came with something, TPP?) where not everyone on a side was dumb/untrained.

German late war AFV reliability: Again assigning Red MP to some or all German AFV by SSR should cover that. As usual the applicability of such a SSR should be guided by the historical narrative (AARs, etc). From '44 onwards, fuel shortages can hit and long spells conducting defensive cover of retreats often go hand in hand with lack of maintenance and recovery vehicles (they are getting the hell out of Dodge).

German late war armour: Thicker German armour did get harder and more brittle towards the end, but from what I have read had little impact on fighting. Either a plate cracked but was held in place by its attached surroundings or the joint welding failed on one side or top/bottom, rarely both. The failure causing round more often than not did not penetrate. Subsequent rounds might get lucky and penetrate fully or force spall (splash) into a (narrow) gap, but mainly the effect was need for welding and extended maintenance. That quality issue was nothing near the problems the Germans had with the high hardness Czech armour on the Pz 38(t) and Pz 35(t) where whole plates could sheer off after being hit (Pz I & II also). Such apparent weakness only came under the spotlight in post combat testing, from what I have read. In my opinion, for what it's worth 70 years later, is that it can be safely ignored within ASL.

All very good points.

If the issue of crew quality needs to be more specifically addressed, as mentioned upstream, designers could consider invoking the provisions of D3.45 Inexperienced Crews, or include armor leaders on a more regular basis. When was the last time you played a scenario with an Italian AL for instance?

As Paul so eloquently pointed out, there are many factors to be considered regarding the armor quality of German vehicles (and for that matter, other nation's AFVs as well). Why stop with the Germans? Should designers begin to 'tweak' the system to address the 'brittle' armor plate of Italian AFVs, or the less than uniform casting/welding characteristics of Soviet tanks? Although this subject could be addressed with SSR's, I would suggest that the printed armor factors as they now exist be adhered to, if for no other reason than for 'playability'. The proposed inclusion of additional DR's/DRM's to address the abstractions of metallurgy and industrial quality control for different nationalities is a descent in to a rabbit hole which in my opinion, is unnecessary and will not in any way enhance or improve the ASL AFV combat system as it now exists.

 

[BattleSchool]

Bottom line is, wherever possible (and provided it is warranted), use an SSR based on the current rule set to model a particular effect. The main exception to this is a HASL publication that develops a specific rule to meet a specific need. The best of these specific rules have since migrated to the ASLRB proper. But for the most part "specialist chrome" ought to remain so.

 

[Joelist]

Hi!

My research is showing that the armor plate issues were isolated to Pz V and VI and while infrequent were still a real factor. The automotive issues for the V and VI were both widespread and persisted till end of war (OKW for example on more than one occasion had roughly half its Panther force in repair for breakdowns).

Of these two the red movement is more important than the armor plate in ASL terms. The crew quality ideas are all good and do fill a gap in the ASL armor system.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I would suggest that the printed armor factors as they now exist be adhered to, if for no other reason than for 'playability'. ... is a descent in to a rabbit hole which in my opinion, is unnecessary and will not in any way enhance or improve the ASL AFV combat system as it now exists.

ASL while not diving into, has actually shoved its arm a bit down that hole. As examples: The Pz 38(t) E had frontal hull armour of 50mm, the same as Pz III H & J, yet only rates 4 AF compared to the Pz III's 6 AF due to Czech armour brittleness. The Italian M13/40 with 30mm of armour had many curves and slopes that might merit a 4 AF, yet was left at 3 AF.

While I might bitch about the lack of granularity of AF 14 and above, ASL does quite well and I am inclined to go with the published values, not just for playability, but because more tinkering may well make things worse/ahistorical in terms of overall effect.

I agree whole heartedly with BattleSchool about using adaptations of existing rules as SSRs wherever possible and applicable. If nothing else such adaptations are less likely to cause confusion and subsequent rules questions.

 

[WuWei]

The automotive issues for the V and VI were both widespread and persisted till end of war (OKW for example on more than one occasion had roughly half its Panther force in repair for breakdowns).

In ASL, this is usually represented by a Panther not being in the scenario, because it broke down before it got there.

 

[AdrianE]

ASL is a tactical game representing a short action. The mechanically unreliable vehicles broke down on the way to the ASL scenario and are not in the scenario. Mechanical reliability only needs to be addressed in a campaign game.

The simpler solution to the brittle late war armour issue is to increase the probability of a CH. ie make a CH happen on a 3 not a 2.
This or something like it is done with one of the french tanks.

 

[AdrianE]

(OKW for example on more than one occasion had roughly half its Panther force in repair for breakdowns).

Do you have a source for that? I have Jentz' Panzertruppen books and they show the low operational readiness of the panthers but I suspect that is due to a combination of factors (like the Allies putting holes in them) not just mechanical reliability.

 

[Joelist]

There is both primary and secondary source material for it. Jenz is indeed one so are Doubler and Freissner. As to leaving it to saying they broke down en route I am not sure that is sufficient - they need to be unreliable in the scenario as well to properly show the scope of the issue.

I am simply trying to devise a simple way to show the realities of some things, like force wide crew quality and also the reliability and quality control issues of both the Panther and Tiger families. Using them as SSRs is likely how it starts because obviously people would not be open to altering the basic rules without scenario experience that the changes are not problematic to the system - as it should be.

On the crew quality, I have valued the input here and think it may be simplest to express the SSR as the units in question having an inherent armor leader with the desired DRM that MUST be used. On reliability perhaps just simple that vehicles on the affected side are all treated as if they have red movement allowances.

 

[wrongway149]

A good one would be crew shortage. Tanks often stayed in the line, even if short a loader (no ROF/ACQ) or radioman (No BMG or road movement rate?)

 

[Justiciar]

...When was the last time you played a scenario with an Italian AL for instance?

Last Wednesday night...LFT "Gallium Pro Rege et Patria." 8-1 AL.