Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Panzer (second edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Combined arms assault rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Randall Garlington
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Is there an advanced or optional rule allowing infantry to move with a vehicle as an escort on foot to fight off Close Assault attempts by enemy infantry or to use the vehicle as cover from small arms fire while moving towards an enemy position?

For those familiar with ASL this would be the Armored Assault option for the Movement Phase.

I am playing my first advanced rules game solo and just thought the rules seem to be missing this but I'm hardly an expert at this point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think those details are built in to the Fire tables as modifiers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eduardo
Brazil
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randall, I missed some rule about it too, coming from an ASL background.

Mark, I fail to see where are they build into. Can you elaborate, please?

If they are build into the fire tables, thats fine. If not, it would be cool to have a optional rule about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On the Close Assault table, there is a +30 against vehicles in unsupported hexes, namely, those that don't have leg units with them.

I don't think at this scale, there is any cover given for leg units with vehicles, other than the moving defensive modifier.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eduardo
Brazil
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh...that! Yep, there is it!
Thanks Mark.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie Carlson
United States
Clarksville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Its on page 50 of the rule book under the close assault rules. It's called vehicle in unsupported hex. Essentialy, it is a combat modifier on the close assault chart. If infantry attack vehicles with no infantry support, they get a positive modifier for the attack.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Garlington
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
OK but I am looking for a rule that allows the infantry some protection from small arms while they were assaulting a fortified position for instance. ASL has armored assault which means the vehicle moves with the infantry underneath at the infantry movement rate. This is useful for crossing open ground as it negates the modifier for moving in the open and provides a positive modifier to counter the -1 modifier for non-assault movement in that system.

Perhaps a rule allowing the tank to move with the infantry (and no further)
if they start in the same hex together would give a positive protective modifier to that infantry vs. small arms fire at the infantry while they are getting into position to say, go hand to hand against a enemy position.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie Carlson
United States
Clarksville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That is also 6.6.1.1.2 close assault modifiers, on page 49 - 50 talking about close assaults. It is a dismount attack modifier. Your troops ride into battle with the protection of the vehicle, and then dismount to assault. If they are not riding the vehicle, maybe count them as being in medium cover as they use the vehicle as cover.

At the scale of the game, I don't think that level of detail was normally needed as the infantry are using the terrain instead of the vehicle. These hexes are much bigger than those in ASL, so the terrain probable provides a better cover bonus.

So I don't see anything about using vehicles as cover when not riding, but do see the penalty when attacking from a riding status. Would not be a bad optional rule to have. I say just count as medium cover on the advance and apply the -10 when attacking.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Garlington
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Jaedrian wrote:
That is also 6.6.1.1.2 close assault modifiers, on page 49 - 50 talking about close assaults. It is a dismount attack modifier. Your troops ride into battle with the protection of the vehicle, and then dismount to assault. If they are not riding the vehicle, maybe count them as being in medium cover as they use the vehicle as cover.

At the scale of the game, I don't think that level of detail was normally needed as the infantry are using the terrain instead of the vehicle. These hexes are much bigger than those in ASL, so the terrain probable provides a better cover bonus.

So I don't see anything about using vehicles as cover when not riding, but do see the penalty when attacking from a riding status. Would not be a bad optional rule to have. I say just count as medium cover on the advance and apply the -10 when attacking.


That can certainly work though I would disagree that these hexes are a lot larger than ASL hexes. the ratio is approx. 2.5 ASL hexes to 1 Panzer hex. Good idea!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Day
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Expansion 3 adds a new optional rule providing vehicle cover for leg units.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Garlington
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Thank you Mr. Day! I didn't realize there were new rules in the expansions. I will go look at the playbooks over on GMT site and get a look at it.

I have always wanted to ask you what was the biggest challenge you have had with the Armor module through the years? Western Front armored warfare was a very different animal from the steppes and the Western Desert theaters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie Carlson
United States
Clarksville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wxman40 wrote:
Jaedrian wrote:
That is also 6.6.1.1.2 close assault modifiers, on page 49 - 50 talking about close assaults. It is a dismount attack modifier. Your troops ride into battle with the protection of the vehicle, and then dismount to assault. If they are not riding the vehicle, maybe count them as being in medium cover as they use the vehicle as cover.

At the scale of the game, I don't think that level of detail was normally needed as the infantry are using the terrain instead of the vehicle. These hexes are much bigger than those in ASL, so the terrain probable provides a better cover bonus.

So I don't see anything about using vehicles as cover when not riding, but do see the penalty when attacking from a riding status. Would not be a bad optional rule to have. I say just count as medium cover on the advance and apply the -10 when attacking.


That can certainly work though I would disagree that these hexes are a lot larger than ASL hexes. the ratio is approx. 2.5 ASL hexes to 1 Panzer hex. Good idea!


In my mind, 100 meter hexes is a lot more room than 40 meter hexes of ASL. with 100 meters to play with, your infantry could definitely find better cover than being with the vehicles. Unless it's flat desert, than yes, hide behind the tank. But then, depending on what is shooting at the tank, I might want to be 100 meters away
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie Carlson
United States
Clarksville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wxman40 wrote:
Thank you Mr. Day! I didn't realize their were new rules in the expansions. I will go look at the playbooks over on GMT site and get a look at it.

I have always wanted to ask you what was the biggest challenge you have had with the Armor module through the years? Western Front armored warfare was a very different animal from the steppes and the Western Desert theaters.


Unfortunately, you'll have to make your own rule for this, the next expansion may be a few months away still I say may, but I'm not sure, just speculating.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Garlington
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb

That can certainly work though I would disagree that these hexes are a lot larger than ASL hexes. the ratio is approx. 2.5 ASL hexes to 1 Panzer hex. Good idea![/q]

In my mind, 100 meter hexes is a lot more room than 40 meter hexes of ASL. with 100 meters to play with, your infantry could definitely find better cover than being with the vehicles. Unless it's flat desert, than yes, hide behind the tank. But then, depending on what is shooting at the tank, I might want to be 100 meters away [/q]

Good point Eddie!
 
 Thumb up
 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.