New bocage SSR?

[wrongway149]

Has anyone seen an SSR similar to this one?

"The German may pre-record up to six hexsides as breached (B9.541). When a German unit crosses a breached hexside, the breach counter is placed on board only if at least one vertex of the hexisde is in LOS of a US unit. If the breach counter is on board, both sides may use the breach. Otherwise the German may continue to use the breach."

 

[von Marwitz]

Has anyone seen an SSR similar to this one?

"The German may pre-record up to six hexsides as breached (B9.541). When a German unit crosses a breached hexside, the breach counter is placed on board only if at least one vertex of the hexisde is in LOS of a US unit. If the breach counter is on board, both sides may use the breach. Otherwise the German may continue to use the breach."

Not that I know of.

But how should I picture this?

The US have LOS to a Bocage hexside which contains a hidden German Breach, so the Americans see nothing. Then they observe a German half-squad slinking through using the Breach. Now the Americans can use tanks to cross the Breach?

If that's the case, then I wonder how the Germans could hide a Breach large enough to be used by vehicles. And this even if American units would move along / across such a hexside with Germans not having previously used them in US LOS.

Probably, what you are trying to picture is that the Germans dug positions / small tunnels, that allowed them to cover the fields on both sides of the Bocage and use that same position to move through beneath the Bocage as well.

To mirror this, your SSR might need to address the issues of vehicles maybe adding that such Breaches are NA for vehicles. In that case, however, one would need to think of how to differentiate these types of Breaches from other possible "regular" Breaches, i.e. what counter(s) would you use to signify the two types, as the system provides only one type of Breach counter.

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

I like it. It makes the defence of bocage that bit easier.
You might need 2 sorts of breach counters but only if the US side has the ability to create breaches.

 

[Hutch]

I see more Culin SSR's in the future.

 

[sswann]

Could Breached Bocage be found by opposing units by Searching?
If Not... then why not?
A breach large enough to let a vehicle through would be easy to see and use by both.
But a "Infantry size Breach" could be small enough , that a Search would be necessary.
Therefor two Breach Counter would be needed.
Kinda like the difference between a Bridge and a Footbridge.

 

[Tesgora]

Has anyone seen an SSR similar to this one?

"The German may pre-record up to six hexsides as breached (B9.541). When a German unit crosses a breached hexside, the breach counter is placed on board only if at least one vertex of the hexisde is in LOS of a US unit. If the breach counter is on board, both sides may use the breach. Otherwise the German may continue to use the breach."

I like the SSR for its attempt at historical realism. In practice, however, the knowledge of these breaches by the Allied player will be easy, irrespective of LOS and the wording of the SSR, by the fact that A4.2 requires a player to state aloud the MF\MP expended during movement or activity and this will reveal that the hedgerow hexside crossed no longer incur the original cost but reduced one due to the breach. I also agree with the other comments wrt to vehicular vs. infantry breach sizes and the issue of searching. It might be simpler to just allocate /pre-record six breached hexsides specifying their size (infantry or vehicular) and putting them on boards as soon as they are used or an Allied unit has a los to it (vehicular-sized) or is adjacent to it (infantry-sized breach).

 

[wrongway149]

In this particular scenario, there are no vehicles.

But the suggestion is noted for future use.

And allowing a US unit to search for a breach seems reasonable, although there would not be much time to do it a lot.

 

[Sparafucil3]

In this particular scenario, there are no vehicles.

But the suggestion is noted for future use.

And allowing a US unit to search for a breach seems reasonable, although there would not be much time to do it a lot.

Why not just let the defender cross bocage as if a hedge? Simplifies the SSR a lot. — jim

 

[MajorDomo]

Has anyone seen an SSR similar to this one?

"The German may pre-record up to six hexsides as breached (B9.541). When a German unit crosses a breached hexside, the breach counter is placed on board only if at least one vertex of the hexisde is in LOS of a US unit. If the breach counter is on board, both sides may use the breach. Otherwise the German may continue to use the breach."

I played J208 - Panzerpioniere which allows the Amis to place breaches in bocage.

 

[pensatl1962]

Any historical photos of what this small infantry breach looked like? Would it be visible to an opposing unit from real-world distances of say 3, 4, or 5 hexes? Or would they need to be very close (e.g., adjacent search radius) to see it?

 

[Paul John]

You could also use mouseholes to permit infantry but not vehicles to use them...
Those rules already exist, so no need for an SSR.

 

[Gordon]

Would it work something like this?

 

[Tuomo]

I played J208 - Panzerpioniere which allows the Amis to place breaches in bocage.

Yes, the SSR for that in J208 is a good and interesting one. Pete's variation sounds like it's also good and interesting.

 

[Robin Reeve]

You would only need a counter to show the "infantry" breaches, as the other ones would be as defined by the rules.

In that case, however, one would need to think of how to differentiate these types of Breaches from other possible "regular" Breaches, i.e. what counter(s) would you use to signify the two types, as the system provides only one type of Breach counter.

Only one counter type would be needed, to designate the "infantry-only" Breaches.
The regular Breaches would need specific counters more than they do presently.

 

[Old Noob]

That Wile E. Coyote is a good artist!

 

[von Marwitz]

irrespective of LOS and the wording of the SSR, by the fact that A4.2 requires a player to state aloud the MF\MP expended during movement or activity and this will reveal that the hedgerow hexside crossed no longer incur the original cost but reduced one due to the breach.

Good point!

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Why not just let the defender cross bocage as if a hedge? Simplifies the SSR a lot. — jim

Good idea.

Or something in between:
"The Germans may cross up to #name the number# of Bocage Hexsides, as if it were a Hedge. Each time he does so, he places a Breach counter above the given Hexside, which can subsequently be used normally by both sides."

The above SSR could work for scenarios without vehicles.
Pre-recording hexsides would not be necessary, which will also give the Germans more (and possibly too much) flexibility.

von Marwitz

 

[sswann]

"The Germans may cross up to #name the number# of Bocage Hexsides, as if it were a Hedge. Each time he does so, he places a Breach counter above the given Hexside, which can subsequently be used normally by both sides."

The above SSR could work for scenarios without vehicles.
Pre-recording hexsides would not be necessary, which will also give the Germans more (and possibly too much) flexibility.

von Marwitz

Quick, simple and easy to remember!
Great Idea.

 

[Robin Reeve]

The scenario Hide and Seek - adapted from GIAoV - has a rule where foxholes are also entrances of tunnels that cross bocage hexsides.

 

[Chas]

BtB 7 Blood on Hill 192

SBR 3:
The Germans set up as if the Americans enter from offboard. The Germans may secretly designate <= 2 Tunnels (B8.6) and secretly record <= 5 Breaches
(B9.541) across Bocage hexsides. A Breach counter is revealed only if its movement benefits are used or if either hex formed by the Breach hexside is
successfully searched.

Then again, what do we know?