ASL 111 Balkan Sideshow

['Ol Fezziwig]

A unit cannot enter wire.

By the same token, does a unit 'enter' a minefield? I think the meaning of 'fortification' is being too closely identified with some sort of beneficial TEM. Of course, you 'enter' and 'exit' wire; it's mentioned many times within the body of the wire section! I think the greater question would be one where a unit is in a 'ignored' wire hex when an enemy LOS to the hex is gained: above? below? I'd be leaning to above the wire, if only for the fact that it was the terminus of the units' movement.

 

[David Reinking]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]By the same token, does a unit 'enter' a minefield? I think the meaning of 'fortification' is being too closely identified with some sort of beneficial TEM. Of course, you 'enter' and 'exit' wire; it's mentioned many times within the body of the wire section! I think the greater question would be one where a unit is in a 'ignored' wire hex when an enemy LOS to the hex is gained: above? below? I'd be leaning to above the wire, if only for the fact that it was the terminus of the units' movement.[/QUOTE]

sounds like a job for Superman, er...Perry Sez

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Sitting around waiting for the game, so I'll lob a few ideas around. I don't have the maps handy, so I'm going to be fairly generic.

It seems all that it would be realistic for the Yugoslavs to get across the bridge are 3x457/LMG and a leader. Which leader would be a matter of personal taste. I'll say the 6+1 gets across the river, the 8-0 stays and leads the rest. The remaining 7 squads do NOT blindly tramp down the central road; they pick a flank (I'll say the right, basing around the wooded hill) and wage a guerilla fight against the arriving Bulgarians. By staying on the wooded hill, they can force the cavalry to either accept battle in favorable defensive terrain OR to shift to the left, more open flank. Either way, you have already forced them to make a decision based on your actions.

I am not worried too much about the Armored Cars just yet; I figure prudence will force them to enter or move to a position to recon the bridge and any wire on it. You can attempt to trap them with the 37L in this case, or save it for the end game and more meaningful targets. Speaking of the wire, while putting both on the bridge may become the de riguer placement of it, it has been noted that the Bulgarians don't have to cross the bridge to win. On that basis, one of the wire counters can reasonably be placed unexpectedly on one of the flank road hexes to hinder the entry of the Bulgars.
Time.
Make them pay the coin of time.

The MMGs should be able to hit or be near enough to move quickly to the bridge approaches or large swaths of the potential river crossing sites. One of the reasons I'd pick the Yugoslav right for the 7 squads left north of the river is the hope the cavalry swerves to the left of the bridge and its more easily seen river locations. I would also refrain from placing the AT Gun in the woods close to the bridge-I am a contrarian, after all. An alternative spot would be in a pillbox 6 hexes from the far bridge hex; if any brazen AFV attempts to run the bridge, it can run the risk of one bog check from a wire counter and the two hexes (4 mine rolls) of AT mines. THEN it can face a 3 ROF tank killer after all that. Without HE it is reduced to popping 1 FP shots on any infantry in LOS; I prefer to save it for the armour in this instance. The other pillbox could be placed in or near to the three hex VC radius or near enough to disgorge a MMC into it. Preferably without a wide open field of fire to it, but still with a LOS to the bridge or its approaches.

Care should be taken to make the walled compound north of the river uncomfortable for any ART/FG trying to set up shop there. This will require one or more of the fortunate 457s from turn 1. The LMG that was carefully secured by this group should be used with the other two squads as a fire platoon to oppose any cavalry crossings of the river, especially if done without proper fire support from the Bulgarians. The need to properly cover any crossing, set up any guns in anything resembling a useful, though not suicidal position, wearing down the bridge defenses and subduing the guerillas will cost the Bulgarians time. Skulking by the southern defenders will also reduce fire opportunities to whittle down the defenders in the VC area. Any breaks (by either side) will also take recovery time. Time spent on approaching the battlefield will take time. Armour chasing down or engaging the guerillas will take time and resources from the ultimate goal. Is 10 turns a long time? Yes, it is, but the Yugoslav must endeavour to make it seem too short for the Bulgars. Reducing exposure of your defenses while forcing the Bulgarians to operate in the open is the best defense. Most shots over the river are going to be at long range to most attacks for either side. The Bulgarians will have the disadvantage of taking their attacks in mostly open ground or lesser TEM while firing back into stone buildings. Is the Yugoslav position tenable? I think it just may be, though the toolbox may get a workout.

 

[WaterRabbit]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]Of course, you 'enter' and 'exit' wire; it's mentioned many times within the body of the wire section![/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. Go back and reread the rules. Wire Location is what is referenced not Wire. A unit enters a Wire Location. A unit exits a Wire Location. A unit is either above a Wire counter or below it. A unit is never in it.

B26.32 A unit on a Wire counter and one beneath a Wire counter in the same hex are in the same Location...

A12.33 ...A unit entering/exiting a hidden Fortification pays no MF/MP to do so...

It does not state that a unit entering/exiting a Location containing a hidden Fortification.

Also a unit does not enter a Minefield it enters a Minefield hex. Though this hardly applicable since there is not additional cost to enter the Minefield hex. Additionally, a HIP minefield would still attack units that entered/exited it.

 

[WaterRabbit]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]Sitting around waiting for the game, so I'll lob a few ideas around. I don't have the maps handy, so I'm going to be fairly generic.

[/QUOTE]

You seem to be forgetting two problems for the Yugo player. The bulk of the units are Green and disrupt when they ELR. Trying to fight a Gurilla war in the Woods/Hill with Green units (that only move 3 MF) gets them CX and disrupted. Additionally if the Hungarian can get into the walled area in front of the Bridge, then the Yugo must fight his way back into it.

The second problem is that the Yugo cannot keep the Cavalry from crossing the river. It takes three turns for the Cavalry to cross (assuming they go through the 2 hex wide areas). The Yugo left is where they are more likely to cross since they can defend their units better as they cross.

However, I mostly believe that 10 turns is too much time for the fragile Yugo force to hold out.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Also a unit does not enter a Minefield it enters a Minefield hex. Though this hardly applicable since there is not additional cost to enter the Minefield hex. Additionally, a HIP minefield would still attack units that entered/exited it.

It is entirely applicable: a minefield is a fortification. Following the logic of being "in" a fortification somehow defining "being" a fortification, this gives another example of a fortification not being some sort of earthwork (another being panjis). I think the prevailing line of thought as to what constitutes a fortification needs be broadened.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

You seem to be forgetting two problems for the Yugo player. The bulk of the units are Green and disrupt when they ELR. Trying to fight a Gurilla war in the Woods/Hill with Green units (that only move 3 MF) gets them CX and disrupted. Additionally if the Hungarian can get into the walled area in front of the Bridge, then the Yugo must fight his way back into it.

I do no such thing.

I am fully aware, having had no little experience with ASL, the penalties associated wuth Green troops. Just because the Yugoslav will have 6 Green squads available doesn't mean he should use all six up front in an immediate attack on any Hungarians, tempting the sort of foolishness you attempt to foist on me. THAT is a ploy for the Green ASL player. The mission of these squads is to annoy, in perhaps 2 squad teams (8 FP, Green or no), the Hungarians and attempt to force him to chase after the entire force with squads or armor that is best used elsewhere. They don't have to occupy, indeed I would not recomend it at all for the Yugoslav, the walled area; they need just put fire into it.

The second problem is that the Yugo cannot keep the Cavalry from crossing the river. It takes three turns for the Cavalry to cross (assuming they go through the 2 hex wide areas). The Yugo left is where they are more likely to cross since they can defend their units better as they cross.

They don't have to prevent the cavalry from doing so totally; only enough to make the force that gets across the river small enough to handle once it gets across. Still, any Hungarians foolish enough to rush to the waters edge and attempt to cross immediately without any sort of fire support (from the ACs,AFVs, LMGs etc) is the sort of player I want to play against.

Because he'll lose.

Setting up the river crossing will require the cavalry, and their -2 DRM, to line up in the open on the river's edge (at least for the initial Mph, AFV hindrance can neagte this in following turns) under the sights of a MMG in a pillbox, 457s, LMGs and likely long range fire from a 437 or two. Then they must drag that -2 DRM into the river where they will be subjected to full FP from all the aforementioned sources- for two more turns! At the very earliest, the waterlogged survivors will get across on turn 3.

Three turns-9 potential fire phases- of accepting fire with a -2 DRM. :crosseye:

Any support for the crossing also takes away from the defenses at the bridge itself. Those pukes with the large "G" in the upper right hand corner of their counters will, unless forces/AFVs are diverted (and the attendant effect on the crossing) have a little more freedom to move or interdict the arriving assault engineers (certainly at least a couple will head to help cover the cavalry, no?) and howitzers. The job of the guerillas is not so much to survive, but to delay by any means the Hungarians.

However, I mostly believe that 10 turns is too much time for the fragile Yugo force to hold out.

Yes, it is a long time. But it certainly is staring the Yugoslav player in the face when he looks at the card; he must endeavor to use his time well.

It should not be a surprise.

He will have to delay the Hungarians by any means possible. Fire attacks are not always the only-or best- way to do so. The Yugoslav IS brittle, but so is the Hungarian, who must, in his efforts to clear the bridge area from the fragile Yugoslav, do so from open ground or lay back and fire from long range to benefit from cover. Every decision, every effort the Hungarian must make in response to, or because of, the Yugoslav tactics, is another turn in the bank. If the Yugoslav attempts to fight it out on the front lines, in normal range of Hungarian weaponry with the bulk of his force, he will lose eventually.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

No, it isn't. Go back and reread the rules. Wire Location is what is referenced not Wire. A unit enters a Wire Location. A unit exits a Wire Location. A unit is either above a Wire counter or below it. A unit is never in it.

I've resisted the predilection thus far to respond in a manner such as that. However, if you must persist in chasing your tail in a circular argument, then I can no longer restrain my hereditary tendencies.:halo:

Noone, down to the greenest newbie, thinks you 'enter wire' at least in the manner you imply. (resist impulse to mention "Barb Wire"...) That's just plain lunacy. You DO, however, enter a wire Location. Which is, of course, a hex that contains wire. Hexes, and their Locations, are entered and exited causing the expenditure of MF/MP. Wire requires, as befitting the nature of what it is intended for, a variable MF cost be associated with it. Wire also is a fortification counter, allowing a flexiblity in placement randomly across our mapboards, mapsheets and map-like substances that cannot be done by printing them on the playing surface of choice (or foist). I do not, and cannot for the life of me, fathom why or how you persist in trying seperate a wire Location and wire. To even be considered a wire location, a hex must contain wire, no? It does not exist by itself, it turns the hex it is placed in into a wire Location (unless I cannot merely, read, but neither comprehend what I read). I completely understand entering foxholes, trenches, AT-ditches, caves and pillboxes. But I also understand entering minefields, panjis, tetrahedons and WIRE, as well. I think there is a tendency, after the 20+ years of ASL, to sometimes hold the page too close to the eyes to try and find something that is not actually there.

The rulebook says you can enter a hidden fortification without additional MF/MP cost if no enemy unit has a LOS to said fortification (EXC: minefield). This tends to be a fleeting advantage to the defender which is often easily cancelled by the attacker on entry and/or LOS out to 16 hexes. With the sole noted and specific excepting of minefields, which, by the definition you cleave to, is not "entered", there is no prohibition against this applying to any other previously mentioned fortification.

None.

Zip.

Nada.

Certainly, if wire was to be included in this exception, it would clearly have been noted.

It was not.

As has been mentioned, in the context of Balkan Sideshow, this only applies within the first turn of the scenario, granting a savvy Hungarian use of the ACs. Allowing the bridge to be unobserved for more than this, allows the Yugoslav the potential of getting more units across the bridge into the safety of their comrades arms. However, since the Hungarians must clear Yugoslavs from within 3 hexes of the bridge, why not make them do it from both sides, instead of just one? Seperately, they aid the whole.

This really is but a minor part of the larger whole; the more interesting part is what happens from turn 2 on...

 

[ross]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]He will have to delay the Bulgarian by any means possible. Fire attacks are not always the only-or best- way to do so. The Yugoslav IS brittle, but so is the Bulgar, who must, in his efforts to clear the bridge area from the fragile Yugoslav, do so from open ground or lay back and fire from long range to benefit from cover. Every decision, every effort the Bulgar must make in response to, or because of, the Yugoslav tactics, is another turn in the bank. If the Yugoslav attempts to fight it out on the front lines, in normal range of Bulgar weaponry with the bulk of his force, he will lose eventually.[/QUOTE]

Interesting discussion. I only have my playtest version of this scenario (and I never did find any time to playtest it), but according to the playtest version, the Axis forces are Hungarians, not Bulgarians. Was this changed in the final version? Did any Bulgarian troops invade Yugoslavia during Operation Merita in April 1941?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

er, no, my bad. Of course, they're Hungarians. Perhaps it's the funky two-tone counters confusing me. I'll go back and fix it.

 

[WaterRabbit]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]It is entirely applicable: a minefield is a fortification. Following the logic of being "in" a fortification somehow defining "being" a fortification, this gives another example of a fortification not being some sort of earthwork (another being panjis). I think the prevailing line of thought as to what constitutes a fortification needs be broadened.[/QUOTE]

Uh, what? A minefield is revealed when a unit susceptible to that type of attack enter that minefield Location or an MMC discover it by Searching. If you run a squad through 'your own' minefield Location, it will be attacked regardless of Enemy LOS. A12.33 doesn't exempt this. A minefield Location incurs no additional cost -- thus it is not applicable.

By the same token, you do not pay MF/MP to 'enter' Wire. You pay additional MF/MP to exit a Wire Location.

If you and your opponent agree that Wire is covered by A12.33 go ahead, but I would not assume that Wire is covered by this rule. IMHO, it is not.

 

[WaterRabbit]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]I do no such thing.

I am fully aware, having had no little experience with ASL, the penalties associated wuth Green troops.[/QUOTE]

Hungarian Advantages:

Time 10 turns
Unit quality
Unit numbers
Leadership
Armor
Artillery
The abilty to enter anywhere along the north edge
Infantry smoke on a 3 or less

Yugo Advantages:
AT gun
Defending a river crossing
Not much cover for the attacker (plowed fields are in effect)

The Pillboxes will probably be revealed on turn 1 (since this isn't PTO). The PBs cannot cover the entire river, so they can also be avoided forcing the MMGs out into the woods/open making them more vulnerable. You are also assuming a lot that the Hungarian player would attempt the river crossing without support.

The problem I see with the gurrilla force is that the Hungarian player can enter right on top of them. The Hungarian player does not have to chase them, he just enters on top of them and destroys them. Unless you have changed your mind again, we are only talking about 6 green units that have 3 MF. Doesn't require much chasing anyway. If you disperse them they are easily defeated in detail. If you bunch them up they aren't much of a harassing force and easily dealt with by the Assault Engineer force with a FT and a 9-2 leader.

Let's just say I am not convinced. I am not saying that these are good ideas -- I am just saying I don't think they are enough.

Let us know how they worked out for you.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Uh, what? A minefield is revealed when a unit susceptible to that type of attack enter that minefield Location or an MMC discover it by Searching. If you run a squad through 'your own' minefield Location, it will be attacked regardless of Enemy LOS. A12.33 doesn't exempt this. A minefield Location incurs no additional cost -- thus it is not applicable.

I think we're talking in circles around each other, here. The point I'm trying to make is that a minefield (aka: a fortification, and one specifically not entered INTO a la a trench, foxhole, cave or pillbox), while not a beneficial TEM fortification, is specifically mentioned in A12.33 as being EXC from non-LOS effects. Wire isn't.

By the same token, you do not pay MF/MP to 'enter' Wire. You pay additional MF/MP to exit a Wire Location.

Circles again, m'boy. On this we've agreed from the outset.

If you and your opponent agree that Wire is covered by A12.33 go ahead, but I would not assume that Wire is covered by this rule. IMHO, it is not.

Find me the EXC stating it's not, and I'd play it that way, too. I realise the effect the appearance of COWTRA has on any discussion, but excluding certain hand-picked fortifications due to a whim doesn't have a strong basis. If you're so concerned about the unpaid MF costs, where's the concern over entering/exiting any other fortification? I just don't see the congruancy there. Is any one unpaid MF more reasonable than another? It could be me, but there seems to be a hole in the logic.
Why specifically do you feel wire exit MFs are more heinous to A12.33 than foxhole, trench,cave or pillbox??

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Hungarian Advantages:

Time 10 turns
Unit quality
Unit numbers
Leadership
Armor
Artillery
The abilty to enter anywhere along the north edge
Infantry smoke on a 3 or less

1. time: yes, a decided advantage. We both agree it's a long time. It is mitigated by the prep time required to perform a river crossing (if, indeed it is even attempted) without it turning into a bloodbath. The approach march to contact will take a couple of turns for the AEs at least, less for the cav/armour. The Yugoslav must look for ways to counter this advantage in particular.

2. Unit quality is a lesser advantage, given Yugoslav ability to hide on their own side of the river in greater TEM holes. Also, they should look to minimise their exposure at every opportunity; a close look at the terrain will show that to be possible often. And, once broken, these guys are nearly as useless as Green Yugoslavs.

3. Numbers I Agree there are a lot of Hungarians; but the battle devolves to a small area of the battlefield, which negates the numbers due to the congested area around the bridge. It's nice to have guys to rotate back into the fold when other break, though.

4. Leadership yup, better leaders. Good thing, too. Long range fire into +3 TEM needs help or it'll be a long time for those shots to bear fruit.

5. armor Always nice to have the edge here, but again, reduced due to the nature of the fight. Excepting any Yugoslavs left across the river, they are reduced to mobile MGs; not a bad thing, but not as dominant as typically seen on an ASL battlefield. I don't think, unless late in the scenario and _very_ desperate, they're going to run the AT mine gauntlet. (and I ask: how many times have sappers actually cleared mines in a scenario?)<Okay, I've done it twice >

6. Arty: Potentially huge, but if the Hungarains are lax in how they enter them, a hungry Yugoslav will make every effort to destroy them at their weakest: being towed. The arty can force the Yugoslav to either skulk or abandon positions, though this can be lessened a bit by how the Yugos defend:indirectly or up front. The big guns (20FP hurts!) must be taken into account from the outset.

7. Entry: eh, not a big deal unless the Yugoslavs want to hurt any Hungarians on entry. Ultimately, you know where they're going to end up, generally around the bridge, so defenses can devolve back there. The cavalry, IMO, are most problematic in regards to this advantage, the AEs, less so.

8. smoke: Always nice to have, but infantry smoke is of a transitory nature. Open ground in the DFire phase is still open ground. You do lose any FFMO/FFNAM, but the increased MF costs to place and move through smoke adds...time! It won't help the cavalry in the water, but will help set up the AFV screen that will help them prepare to enter the water next turn.

Yugo Advantages:
AT gun
Defending a river crossing
Not much cover for the attacker (plowed fields are in effect)

1. AT Gun: Nice to have but once located can be heaped on by angry Hungarians with guns. No HE, so the 1 FP attacks on infantry are not as appealing, espicially if the gun should malf on one of those shots. Does it cover the bridge or the approaches to the bridge? Interesting choice for the Yugoslav beyond merely placing on the riverbank in view of every Hungarian in Yugoslavia.

2. River crossing: Probably one of the biggest advantages. Broken cavalry IN the river are dead. The Hungarian must carefully undertake this operation with adequate fire support.

3. Open approach: Another advantage that must be exploited. Broken Huns will stay that way for several turns.

I'd also give the MMGs (long-range FP over the open approaches), TEM, point defense, AT mines, and skulking as advantages, too.
Yes, the Yugoslavs are brittle; they must be handled with that in mind. They must have a 'reaction force' to oppose any river crossing shenanigans as well as as some reserves to replace any broken units covering the bridge. I never said it'd be easy, only possible.

The Pillboxes will probably be revealed on turn 1 (since this isn't PTO). The PBs cannot cover the entire river, so they can also be avoided forcing the MMGs out into the woods/open making them more vulnerable. You are also assuming a lot that the Hungarian player would attempt the river crossing without support.

Yes, they will be revealed fairly soon. And, no, they cannot cover the entire river. I would pick the Yugoslav left for one, the other to cover the bridge by a sneaky-type spot. One MMG in the PB covering the river on the left (the best side for the Hungarian we've both agreed) will not halt, by itself, a river crossing (especially, heavens forbid, it malfs/breaks!) but it will force caution on any such activity. I also don't mean to imply the Hngarian will not support the crossing, I only point out that any rash crossings will likely be hurt-badly. Any efforts to support the crossings will, by its very nature, take time, which the Yugoslav wants.

The problem I see with the gurrilla force is that the Hungarian player can enter right on top of them. The Hungarian player does not have to chase them, he just enters on top of them and destroys them. Unless you have changed your mind again, we are only talking about 6 green units that have 3 MF. Doesn't require much chasing anyway. If you disperse them they are easily defeated in detail. If you bunch them up they aren't much of a harassing force and easily dealt with by the Assault Engineer force with a FT and a 9-2 leader.

Well, this is true...in part. the Hungarian can enter almost on top of them. Let's suppose I enter on the wood road near the hill. I leave 3x? on the board edge; one in the road and the others on either side. You attempt entry in the Mph and are forced back...or are you? The wire (please set aside our wire discussion for the moment!) you entered on forces you to take the exit dr which you may fail. Or, if you wait until the Aph, my Green ambush DRM will be decreased by the concealed DRM and your wire TEM will hurt you in the CCph. I have also delayed the deep penetration of your best troops by a whole turn. Also, by its very definition, I would not allow my whole guerrilla force to become engaged initially. Ultimately, Hungarian leadership and MF advantages will prevail but at what cost? More time! I do not expect the guerrillas to survive long, but every turn they do ties up squads, leaders and weapons that could be pounding my hapless bridge defenders. If I were to draw the 9-2 and the FT into a guerrilla hunt, I'd count that as a victory, indeed.

Let's just say I am not convinced. I am not saying that these aren't good ideas -- I am just saying I don't think they are enough.

Well, you didn't (thank goodness!) ask for gar-RON-tees (Justin Wilson mode, OFF), you asked for something to give them a chance. I think it will be hard on the Yugoslav, regardless, but not impossible. MG malfunctions, AT Gun malfunctions...these can railroad the Yugoslav to defeat quickly. An active, though savvy defense is called for; this is a difficult skill to master.
As for this particular scenario, I like the makeup of it: it isn't a cookie cutter affair, but rather one with many layers and facets to it. Options abound for both sides, which I always like to see in a scenario. It's just quirky enough to intruige, I'd hate to see it quickly passed over.

 

[ross]

"Crossfire" this discussion

Again, let me say this is a fascinating discussion. Almost reminds me of the Crossfire articles in the ASL Annuals in which Mark Nixon and Rob Banozic (sp?) would takes turns hashing out the advantages of one side or the other in the featured scenario.

So flesh out your ideas and arguments fellas and submit them as a possible Crossfire article to MMP.

 

[apbills]

Some points on this discussion.

1). Swimmers and the -2 mod. Once into the river, the cavalry no longer gets the -2 FFMO/FFNAM mods (E6.3). If they were Fording (B21.41) they would be considered using Hazardous Movement, but that is not the case here.

2). It will take the Cav a minimum of 1 turn to reach the bank, (T2), It then takes 2 turns to get to the far side (T3-4), and then they need to move out of the river on Turn 5. If any crossing is not backed up by some sort of FP, the Yugo will turn the river red.

3). Not sure why you would think a unit in a Wire Location would be considered ON the Wire if exposed. Since it takes 0 MF to go under, I would assume any unit that moved into the Wire while HIP would move under the wire at that time.

4). Yugo AT Gun. Not sure why you think this has no HE capability. None of the Hungarion 20L's have HE, but the PaK 35/36 has HE.

5) Clearing the mines on the bridge is fairly simple, given you have a MMC. No clearance is required, just a simple extra MF, by any Infantry. (B28.53) I think this pretty much means you need to place Wire on the bridge to help protect the mines.

6) Those L3/35's are a bit on the weak side, and may be expendable for cover. Run them across the bridge and gets some wrecks on there to cover your troops later. This could be more important if the Yugo sets up a PB with MMG for a firelane down the road to cover the bridge and approaches.

 

[paulkenny]

You pay additional MF/MP to exit a Wire Location.



actually no, you pay MF to get under a Wire counter, only then may you exit the wire location, subtle difference, but difference nonetheless.

 

[BobO]

Some points on this discussion.

1). Swimmers and the -2 mod. Once into the river, the cavalry no longer gets the -2 FFMO/FFNAM mods (E6.3). If they were Fording (B21.41) they would be considered using Hazardous Movement, but that is not the case here.

Alan,
I though Cavalry alway suffer from Haz Move (-2) and not from FFNAM and FFMO? If so, they still get -2 DRM when in the river.

bob

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

1). Swimmers and the -2 mod. Once into the river, the cavalry no longer gets the -2 FFMO/FFNAM mods (E6.3). If they were Fording (B21.41) they would be considered using Hazardous Movement, but that is not the case here.

Cavalry is always subject to a -2 modifier (FFNAM/FFMO and Haz Mov are NA)

3). Not sure why you would think a unit in a Wire Location would be considered ON the Wire if exposed. Since it takes 0 MF to go under, I would assume any unit that moved into the Wire while HIP would move under the wire at that time.

That was considering a second stack of infantry which will need to CX to reach the bridge in the first place. I wasn't sure if the CX prohibition would be enough to put them on top of- or below the wire. In any event, I found a 'better' use for that second stack and leader

4). Yugo AT Gun. Not sure why you think this has no HE capability. None of the Hungarion 20L's have HE, but the PaK 35/36 has HE.

Dammit! I pulled the wrong 37L AT! Like the bewildering array of 75 ART in the Axis Minor countermix, I guess the correct 37L AT will have to carefully eyeballed. In that event, a 4 FP attack ain't shabby, but I'd still reserve the Gun for the armour primarily.

5) Clearing the mines on the bridge is fairly simple, given you have a MMC. No clearance is required, just a simple extra MF, by any Infantry. (B28.53) I think this pretty much means you need to place Wire on the bridge to help protect the mines.

Yes, this is correct. But alot of FP is going to be protecting the bridge and the wire will hamper efforts to clear. I'm still of a mind to place the wire in the first bridge hex, but use the other elsewhere. Certainly, it helps to change things up now and again. I can see where the Hungarian could look at one wire on the bridge as a moral victory, though.

6) Those L3/35's are a bit on the weak side, and may be expendable for cover. Run them across the bridge and gets some wrecks on there to cover your troops later. This could be more important if the Yugo sets up a PB with MMG for a firelane down the road to cover the bridge and approaches.

Good point and always something to keep in mind for the defense. I don't like to throw away assets so lightly, but it is a game after all. This is something that might stretch the Yugoslavs in conjunction with the cavalry crossing the river should things start to look bleak for the attackers.

 

[apbills]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig] Cavalry is always subject to a -2 modifier (FFNAM/FFMO and Haz Mov are NA)
[/quote]
Ouch - got me on that one. Not sure why I was thinking FFMO/FFNAM. A13.5 is pretty clear on that.
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]
That was considering a second stack of infantry which will need to CX to reach the bridge in the first place. I wasn't sure if the CX prohibition would be enough to put them on top of- or below the wire. In any event, I found a 'better' use for that second stack and leader [/quote]
You are correct in that regard - if you use CX, you may not go below the wire, even if it costs 0 MF. In that respect, it is 8 hexes to the approach. You will need to CX the first stack to get there, so it would be stuck on the bridge, ON wire. I'm not sure if I like that move, but you never know.
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]
Dammit! I pulled the wrong 37L AT! Like the bewildering array of 75 ART in the Axis Minor countermix, I guess the correct 37L AT will have to carefully eyeballed. In that event, a 4 FP attack ain't shabby, but I'd still reserve the Gun for the armour primarily.[/quote] Agreed. With just one real AT weapon, it needs to be reserved for vehicles until it whittles them down. For this reason I don't like it in a PB, that limits its usefulness, especially since it is only a +3 TEM. A stone building will protect it the same, and it can change CA.
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]
Yes, this is correct. But alot of FP is going to be protecting the bridge and the wire will hamper efforts to clear. I'm still of a mind to place the wire in the first bridge hex, but use the other elsewhere. Certainly, it helps to change things up now and again. I can see where the Hungarian could look at one wire on the bridge as a moral victory, though.[/quote] I kind of like placing one on the bridge and one on that first approach hex. Any infantry will need to go through 2 to cross the bridge. However, if you do this, you will not be able to get any squads across, although I am a bit reluctant to expose 3 squads to FFMO getting across the bridge.
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]
Good point and always something to keep in mind for the defense. I don't like to throw away assets so lightly, but it is a game after all. This is something that might stretch the Yugoslavs in conjunction with the cavalry crossing the river should things start to look bleak for the attackers.[/QUOTE]I think that once the support for the Cav is completed and they are across the river, those LTs are expendable and will help press the bridge crossing. THey might not survive till then, but you never know.