$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 79.96

5,371 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
33.8% of Goal | 27 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

PanzerBlitz» Forums » Variants

Subject: When units use triple AF mark them as "Can't fire" instead of Elim them. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
There is a rule that says that units can use 3x AF, but then they are elim for all purposes.

Instead mark them so they can't fire because they used almost all their ammo.

However, let Inf./Cav. types still make close assaults [CAT], because this uses hand-grenades and much less MG and rifle ammo.

Art. and AFV would still be useless after they use triple AF, but they might survive the game [especially AFV].

......................................................................
If you are playing with the rule that I-class are x2 at half range or less, then x2 and x3 becomes == x6*.

Now a Ger. Inf. Plat. AF =3 becomes a 15. Add in a 3 AF mortar and 15+3 =18, which is 1-1 on a Gd. Inf. Comp. Or, 3 Plat. = 3x3 =9x6 =54, which is 3-1 on the Gd. Inf. Comp.

And now a Rus. Rifle Comp. AF =5 becomes a 30, which is almost 4-1 on a Ger. Plat.


. * . You might make this x5, but this change helps the Rus. more than the Ger.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Jornet
Spain
Valencia
Comunidad Valenciana
flag msg tools
The sword is the mind. If the mind is right, the sword is right.
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello Steve

Wasn't this rule for artillery type units?

Regards
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
1974vertigo2009 wrote:
Hello Steve

Wasn't this rule for artillery type units?

Regards

Yes, it has been a while and I forgot.

It applied to H & M types only, but including AFV [but not if they are overrunning].

I guess I'm suggesting that it be extended to at least I-class, but probably not to A-class too. They can fire off all their ammo like Art.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Jornet
Spain
Valencia
Comunidad Valenciana
flag msg tools
The sword is the mind. If the mind is right, the sword is right.
mbmbmbmbmb
So it would be some kind of "Banzai" in ammunition terms.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Sorry I don't grok the question.

The intent is the same as it was for Art., sort of.

Here, Inf. has been undervalued when it fires at soft units, like Inf. advancing to make a CAT.

Inf. can't stop enemy Inf. from advancing. It can rarely even slow them down. It is my understanding that commanders wanted a 3-1 advantage to guarantee victory. And that Inf. found it hard to come to grips with enemy Inf. because the small arms fire killed and wounded so many of them during the approach. In PB getting an X result requires 2-1 odds and a 1 roll. A D just slows them down. 2-1 odds is 4 entire Comp. of Ger. Inf [= 11 Plat. firing on 1 Rus Rifle Inf. Comp.; 12 Plat. on a Gd. Inf. Comp.]. For the Rus., 2-1 odds is 4 rifle or 3 Gd. firing at 1 Ger. Plat. And remember they also need to roll a 1, a 17% chance. This amount of concentrated firepower would slaughter the target Inf. unless it found some holes to crawl into.

Like I said elsewhere, Dunnigan may have done it this way because the attacker can't suppress the defender's fire because the defender is almost always in cover [town or woods] and so they would need a spotter to be able to fire at them at all. So, it is possible that Dunnigan just assumed that the defender's fire was much suppressed without the attacking player having to actually set aside some units to actually do the suppressing. This is simple, but it is not accurate.

But then, Dunnigan thought it was OK for trucks to drive around in the open 2 hexes away from enemy Inf. with impunity. In fact, the trucks would be riddled by fire if they tried to do that.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The original optional rule is a bad one and shouldn't be used. No artillery unit would deliberately fire off ALL its ammunition like that. I don't know where Dunnigan got the idea, but I never heard of it and as an artilleryman I would never have considered such a thing. Ammo would be rationed long before that point. It seems like a gamey tactic. In real operations ammunition might start to be rationed once it starts to fall below certain levels, but it seems unlikely to come up in the kind of tactical fights represented by PB. A unit would always retain a minimum amount of ammunition for self defense.

I could see some ammunition tracking or shortage special scenario rule to account for a specific historical occurance but not as a standard feature.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert McConnell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Seth that's a good answer. Within armor units, one of the keys to consolidating the unit on an objective is to cross load ammunition from vehicles that have more main gun ammo to vehicles that have fired off more than half their original load (it does happen). So ammo conservation is always a consideration at the platoon level (actually all levels). I think this rule would mostly apply to the German Maultier and Nebelwerfer units and possibly the Russian rocket artillery (although they never seemed to lack for rockets). That's my observation. The only possible exception would be if you needed to call for Final Protective Fire (FPF), but the Fire Direction Center determines whether you even get it.

Bob

wargamer55 wrote:
The original optional rule is a bad one and shouldn't be used. No artillery unit would deliberately fire off ALL its ammunition like that. I don't know where Dunnigan got the idea, but I never heard of it and as an artilleryman I would never have considered such a thing. Ammo would be rationed long before that point. It seems like a gamey tactic. In real operations ammunition might start to be rationed once it starts to fall below certain levels, but it seems unlikely to come up in the kind of tactical fights represented by PB. A unit would always retain a minimum amount of ammunition for self defense.

I could see some ammunition tracking or shortage special scenario rule to account for a specific historical occurance but not as a standard feature.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert McConnell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve, I can't help but think that having regular units expending all of their ammunition is- as a general rule- a bad idea. I mentioned the rocket artillery units on all sides are really the most likely to fire a big salvo and then scoot ("shoot and scoot"). Regular infantry, armor, etc.: they try to keep a firm handle on how much ammunition is on hand and won't fire off too much unless they are close assaulted and then it's a free for all and "Devil take the hindmost". ;-) So (as you know) certain variants of PanzerBlitz already take direct and indirect fire effectiveness into account and multiply the attack factor appropriately.

Bob

Steve1501 wrote:
Sorry I don't grok the question.

The intent is the same as it was for Art., sort of.

Here, Inf. has been undervalued when it fires at soft units, like Inf. advancing to make a CAT.

Inf. can't stop enemy Inf. from advancing. It can rarely even slow them down. It is my understanding that commanders wanted a 3-1 advantage to guarantee victory. And that Inf. found it hard to come to grips with enemy Inf. because the small arms fire killed and wounded so many of them during the approach. In PB getting an X result requires 2-1 odds and a 1 roll. A D just slows them down. 2-1 odds is 4 entire Comp. of Ger. Inf [= 11 Plat. firing on 1 Rus Rifle Inf. Comp.; 12 Plat. on a Gd. Inf. Comp.]. For the Rus., 2-1 odds is 4 rifle or 3 Gd. firing at 1 Ger. Plat. And remember they also need to roll a 1, a 17% chance. This amount of concentrated firepower would slaughter the target Inf. unless it found some holes to crawl into.

Like I said elsewhere, Dunnigan may have done it this way because the attacker can't suppress the defender's fire because the defender is almost always in cover [town or woods] and so they would need a spotter to be able to fire at them at all. So, it is possible that Dunnigan just assumed that the defender's fire was much suppressed without the attacking player having to actually set aside some units to actually do the suppressing. This is simple, but it is not accurate.

But then, Dunnigan thought it was OK for trucks to drive around in the open 2 hexes away from enemy Inf. with impunity. In fact, the trucks would be riddled by fire if they tried to do that.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
voyager2lcats wrote:
Steve, I can't help but think that having regular units expending all of their ammunition is- as a general rule- a bad idea. I mentioned the rocket artillery units on all sides are really the most likely to fire a big salvo and then scoot ("shoot and scoot"). Regular infantry, armor, etc.: they try to keep a firm handle on how much ammunition is on hand and won't fire off too much unless they are close assaulted and then it's a free for all and "Devil take the hindmost". ;-) So (as you know) certain variants of PanzerBlitz already take direct and indirect fire effectiveness into account and multiply the attack factor appropriately.

Bob

Steve1501 wrote:
Sorry I don't grok the question.

The intent is the same as it was for Art., sort of.

Here, Inf. has been undervalued when it fires at soft units, like Inf. advancing to make a CAT.

Inf. can't stop enemy Inf. from advancing. It can rarely even slow them down. It is my understanding that commanders wanted a 3-1 advantage to guarantee victory. And that Inf. found it hard to come to grips with enemy Inf. because the small arms fire killed and wounded so many of them during the approach. In PB getting an X result requires 2-1 odds and a 1 roll. A D just slows them down. 2-1 odds is 4 entire Comp. of Ger. Inf [= 11 Plat. firing on 1 Rus Rifle Inf. Comp.; 12 Plat. on a Gd. Inf. Comp.]. For the Rus., 2-1 odds is 4 rifle or 3 Gd. firing at 1 Ger. Plat. And remember they also need to roll a 1, a 17% chance. This amount of concentrated firepower would slaughter the target Inf. unless it found some holes to crawl into.

Like I said elsewhere, Dunnigan may have done it this way because the attacker can't suppress the defender's fire because the defender is almost always in cover [town or woods] and so they would need a spotter to be able to fire at them at all. So, it is possible that Dunnigan just assumed that the defender's fire was much suppressed without the attacking player having to actually set aside some units to actually do the suppressing. This is simple, but it is not accurate.

But then, Dunnigan thought it was OK for trucks to drive around in the open 2 hexes away from enemy Inf. with impunity. In fact, the trucks would be riddled by fire if they tried to do that.


I was reminded that the original rule only applied to M & H units. So, I looked at the rule [in my downloaded off the internet copy] this week. And yes, it did apply to just M & H units. However, there was an exception that said the rocket Art. H units could not use triple AF.

I supposed that this was because it took so long to reload all those rockets before you could fire again.

......................................................................
My rule for Inf. was intended for those who want to keep to the original game as much as possible. It lets Inf. kill soft units near it with 1 massive shot, but not over and over again. The Inf. can still CAT.

And then the game/situation ends and the Inf. gets more ammo delivered.

It doesn't seem that strange to me. After all running out of ammo was the reason that strong points fell, right?

Foot Inf. can't carry all that much ammo. If it fires its MG & rifles full out it will in fact run out pretty quickly. I asked over in "Wargames" how long it would take an 81mm mortar unit to fire off all the ammo it would normally carry [on foot] and the answer I got was like about 10 min.

I allowed the Inf. to still make CAT attacks so they still have some ammo for that. They are just not going to waste it firing at long range because they want to conserve it for self-protection, OK?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Above I said that James Dunnigann may have made Inf. so weak because it is normally defending in towns or woods [to avoid being Elim'd by fire attacks]. Therefore the attacker can't suppress the defender's fire.

Basically, the problem is to keep units in towns and woods from being X'd by fire without having a spotter.

One solution would be to allow blind fire [fire without an adjacent spotter] into towns and woods, but --
1] Add one more +1 DRM, for a total of +2 DRM.
2] Add 4 DF to all Art. units
3] Convert all X results into DD results.

Now, you can suppress the defender's fire by getting a D or DD result, but this is harder to do.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert McConnell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve, I still don't like firing off all of an infantry unit's ammo, but maybe that is just a pet peeve? Your rationale is good- light infantry rifle and mortar units can run out of ammunition pretty quickly (there is a reason WW1 infantry attacks often failed after taking the first positions in an enemy trench line!). I don't know that strong points come under that heading as they would probably have stocked LOTs of ammunition before the enemy attack (I assume you are referring to Germans, but any army would apply). But that is speculative and another conversation entirely. Your idea is actually quite novel in that it adds another conundrum to a beleaguered defender: the situation is already bad and it just got worse. I would stipulate that it is a last-ditch attack and can only be used on defense. But that's just me. On further reflection, it's not a bad idea.

Bob

Steve1501 wrote:

I was reminded that the original rule only applied to M & H units. So, I looked at the rule [in my downloaded off the internet copy] this week. And yes, it did apply to just M & H units. However, there was an exception that said the rocket Art. H units could not use triple AF.

I supposed that this was because it took so long to reload all those rockets before you could fire again.

......................................................................
My rule for Inf. was intended for those who want to keep to the original game as much as possible. It lets Inf. kill soft units near it with 1 massive shot, but not over and over again. The Inf. can still CAT.

And then the game/situation ends and the Inf. gets more ammo delivered.

It doesn't seem that strange to me. After all running out of ammo was the reason that strong points fell, right?

Foot Inf. can't carry all that much ammo. If it fires its MG & rifles full out it will in fact run out pretty quickly. I asked over in "Wargames" how long it would take an 81mm mortar unit to fire off all the ammo it would normally carry [on foot] and the answer I got was like about 10 min.

I allowed the Inf. to still make CAT attacks so they still have some ammo for that. They are just not going to waste it firing at long range because they want to conserve it for self-protection, OK?

1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert McConnell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, here is a potentially explosive reply: Dunnigan was wrong on the infantry attack values. Infantry are an attacker's best method of removing other infantry from towns and woods. Give them some indirect fire, armor, and engineer support and they can usually displace even the most heavily dug-in opponent (CAAT anyone?).
Yep, I like the "blind fire" rule. That kind of thing should be allowed in game terms.

Bob

Steve1501 wrote:
Above I said that James Dunnigann may have made Inf. so weak because it is normally defending in towns or woods [to avoid being Elim'd by fire attacks]. Therefore the attacker can't suppress the defender's fire.

Basically, the problem is to keep units in towns and woods from being X'd by fire without having a spotter.

One solution would be to allow blind fire into towns and woods, but --
1] Add one more +1 DRM.
2] Add 4 DF to all Art. units
3] Convert all X results into DD results.

Now, you can suppress the defender's fire by getting a D or DD result, but this is harder to do.

1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.