Wrapping up old Armored Assault threads

[Ole Boe]

Hi,
I thought I could wrap up a couple of old Armored Assault threads, specifically Armoured Assault and Platoon Movement where it was discussed whether two or three infantry stacks could all use Armored Assault at the same time, with different AFV using Platoon Movement, and armoured assault clarification? where it was discussed whether the AFV could move extra hexes after splitting from the Infantry based on the Infantry's possibility to become CX.

I haven't asked Perry specifically about those, but the new Impulse Movement rules that has been sent to MMP contained an example where both of those were done. In a comment about the new Impulse Movement rules, Perry indicated that he liked them, but was insistant on removing the possibility for the AFV to move the extra hex based on the Infantry's CX possibility.

So if you want to play according to what Perry indicated, then multiple Infantry stacks using AA is OK, but it is illegal to let the AFV move one additional hex just because the Infantry can become CX - the Infantry actaully has to go CX.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

Ole, could you post or have a sticky placed here for the revised AA rules?

I look forward to the new rules and much thanks for the hard work.

Now I can do that AA Banzai charge!


Scott

 

[Corporal Kindel]

I haven't asked Perry specifically about those, but the new Impulse Movement rules that has been sent to MMP contained an example where both of those were done. In a comment about the new Impulse Movement rules, Perry indicated that he liked them, but was insistant on removing the possibility for the AFV to move the extra hex based on the Infantry's CX possibility.

Good job. btw, were you able to include in that example the recent question about the armor-assaulting bypassing vehicle in which the assaulting Infantry moved INTO the building while still maintaining their armor-assaulting behavior? Just though that would be good to include in any AA example, as well as being easy to so incorporate.

 

[Jim McLeod]

So if you want to play according to what Perry indicated, then multiple Infantry stacks using AA is OK, but it is illegal to let the AFV move one additional hex just because the Infantry can become CX - the Infantry actaully has to go CX.

That all makes a great deal of sense Ole.

However, IMHO the allowing of multiple stacks of infantry using AA with PM'ing AFVs will open the door to an entirely new set of tactics in the Game.




=Jim=

 

[Ole Boe]

Ole, could you post or have a sticky placed here for the revised AA rules?

No. The rules were developed for, an in accordance with MMP, and I consider them a property of MMP. So they will not be published by anyone but MMP.

I look forward to the new rules and much thanks for the hard work.

Now I can do that AA Banzai charge!

Yes, it will (if MMP keep the rule as is) finally be possible to do something similarily to the introduction to "The Red Wave", where the Russians is said to do a HW including AFV.

 

[Ole Boe]

However, IMHO the allowing of multiple stacks of infantry using AA with PM'ing AFVs will open the door to an entirely new set of tactics in the Game.

After the playtesting and analysis I've done, my conclution is that this will open up some new possibilities in a number of scenarios, but nothing that will be unbalancing or radically new. Doing this, just has too many disadvantages in most cases.


First, note that it is not giving HW capability to all nations (none of you wrote that, but I just wanted to stress the point). The units don't get the increased morale, immunity to Pin, increased MF, or ability to enter enemy-occupied Locations. They only get the ability to move as a multi-Location stack.


The main benefit of this is of course that two radioless AFV can now give TEM to two infantry stacks, instead of only one. Radio-equipped AFV is of course allowed to do this as well, but they can already do this individually, so there's little reason for them to use PM to achieve this.

The only additional possible benefit, is if you're going to cross a very short OG distance (typically 1 hex) in the LOS of a high-ROF weapon. By moving individually, the high-ROF weapon will get more fire opportunities, since it can fire at each stack, but if they move using Impulse Movement, the weapon gets only one attack per combined MF.
This requires a situation where
1) There is a short distance to cross, that
2) Has at least two parallell hexes (one for each stack) in the DEFENDER's LOS, and where
3) There is a high-ROF weapon that doesn't get to use all its fire capability due to this.

From the analysis, I don't see that as too powerful, compared to the disadvantages, which are:

1) Movement restrictions: The Infantry and AFV will typically move slower using Impulse Movement than if they moved individually, since the AFV must all expend the same number of MP, and the Infantry the same number of MF, as the one AFV/Infantry that expended most.

2) The ATTACKER gives away much info to the DEFENDER by moving the units at the same time. The DEFENDER doesn't have to hold its fire in fear of the second stack's possible actions when the two stacks move together.

3) The ATTACKER also gives away much of his possibility to react according to the Defensive Fire. He doesn't get to see what happens with the first stack before he decides where to move the second.


So, in conclution, my personal view is that this is something that will seem natural to use in some cases, but no radically new tactics.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Excellent reply Ole, one question though, Why not make it where AFV's that are radio equiped PM is N/A?

I mean, if ya have a radio, why the hell would you stick your head out the tank and start using hand and arm signals? Make no sense.

Scott

 

[Robin Reeve]

I mean, if ya have a radio, why the hell would you stick your head out the tank and start using hand and arm signals? Make no sense.

If you read (you have, no doubt! ) "Gunned up in the desert" (Annual '89 or '90?), you'll see that PM can serve to lay some Vehicle dust (+6 Hindrance).
If moving on low MP cost terrain (OG, road), you allow only one shot per MP per platoon per given enemy unit - that can help save some of your tanks.
But, you are globally right : most of the time it would not be a good tactic (I see more people attempting the PTC that alows a radioless tank move alone than using PM with radio-equipped tanks).
One could also question the use of HW : most of the time, it is a daring move.
But, on some occasions, it will overwhelm the DFF possibilities of the enemy (with reasons quite the same as PM).

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi

Does anyone know how the new rules will be published?
As replacement pages included in a module/Journal or will they only be present as a Sticky version?

I hope I get some new nice pages to include in my rulebook

Bjørnar

 

[Jim McLeod]

So, in conclution, my personal view is that this is something that will seem natural to use in some cases, but no radically new tactics.

Actually, this new rule will be very much in keeping with AFV and infantry tactics of the mid/latter part of WWII. Infantry advancing across OG with tanks in very close support would appear to be the same as AA and PM. I like this new rule Ole.

Now, imagine a company sized formation moving in the same manner as the platoon!

That would be cool!




=Jim=

 

[Count Belisarius]

Hi

Does anyone know how the new rules will be published?
As replacement pages included in a module/Journal or will they only be present as a Sticky version?

I hope I get some new nice pages to include in my rulebook

Bjørnar

I'm hoping they can be done as stickies. I've got three bound rulebooks and don't relish having to re-bind them to add pages.

Andy

 

[Ole Boe]

I'm hoping they can be done as stickies. I've got three bound rulebooks and don't relish having to re-bind them to add pages.

I must disappoint you, but there's no chance to issue the D14 changes as sticky errata. D14 is essentially rewritten alltogether, with a new D14.3 explaining the general rules for Impulse Movement, including the aforementioned example linking Armored Assault and Platoon Movement.

A25's errata could probably done in sticky form, as the rules here actually become a bit shorter, whithout much rewrite, but I'm fairly sure the intention is a new printed page here too.

The rest, some minor errata here and there (ex: A8.1's last exception is to be removed) will be suitable for sticky errata.


As for publishing, the last thing I heard was all options open, e.g. AoO, or J7 or HP (or maybe even VotG, but I'm not sure that was mentioned).

 

[Count Belisarius]

Oh well, at least I know in advance.

Suppose I could always just stick on a letter size sticky over the whole page!

Cheers

Andy

 

[Larry]

Does this mean that the start, pivot, move, pivot, stop -- ok that is the first impulse of the platoon's movement -- aka PM Sleaze will soon die?

 

[da priest]

Does this mean that the start, pivot, move, pivot, stop -- ok that is the first impulse of the platoon's movement -- aka PM Sleaze will soon die?

Well, if that was it --no problem..but just for laffs:

Larry,

How many games have you played and how many times have you used this dastardly sleaze?:halo:

 

[Larry]

Larry,

How many games have you played and how many times have you used this dastardly sleaze?

Digging way back in the memory banks to the current Worlds tournament, Howard's Men. Isn't that the way that the Germans get both AFV away from the hero with the PIAT?

:dead:

 

[da priest]

Digging way back in the memory banks to the current Worlds tournament, Howard's Men. Isn't that the way that the Germans get both AFV away from the hero with the PIAT?

Yep, and that was my second time to consider it over 20 years of play....:dead:

And with the new rules wouldn't you say there is a slight chance of balance change in Howard's Men?:dead: :dead:

 

[Larry]

And with the new rules wouldn't you say there is a slight chance of balance change in Howard's Men?

Not really. The forward AFV saunters into X13 now at a two hex range with DRM of motion and burning wreck. The rear AFV will have to setup in reverse and back away. I could not find anything in the rules that would prohibit setting up in reverse -- assuming that you have the reverse motion counters from WOA.

 

[da priest]

Not really. The forward AFV saunters into X13 now at a two hex range with DRM of motion and burning wreck. The rear AFV will have to setup in reverse and back away. I could not find anything in the rules that would prohibit setting up in reverse -- assuming that you have the reverse motion counters from WOA.

Love it when a plan comes together....:devil:

So in the only scenario that you've noted the famous "PM sleaze", it doesn't matter, just looks funny.:smoke: In our parlance old boy: QED....:cheeky:

 

[Larry]

QED for certain Ron. The problem for the German is that AA12 may be a safe haven for a moment, but it is not a very good tactical position. Ending up the first impulse in X12 and Y12 gives the Germans better options for the next two turns. Starting from AA12 and climbing up the slope puts the 35-S 739 out of position and gives the Brits a slightly better chance.