Daniel Schulz
United States
Saint Michael
Minnesota
-
Series rules say that TEM modifies Fire Rating, not Defense Rating. In regards to Bravery Checks, are Defense Ratings modified by TEM for defenders, attackers or both?
-
Daniel T.
Germany
Pew! Pew! Pew! KABOOOM!
-
This was clarified in the CSW forum and the last FAQs. The Bravery Check uses defense rating modified by TEM and/or by marker (f.e. Bocage).
I'm not sure if this affects the attackers as well.
-
Adam Starkweather
United States
New York City
New York
-
Hi Daniel S...I'll have a more comprehensive explanation of this on the next errata/Q&A go round but TEC does not impact the bravery check for attacking (assaulting) units - just defenders.
-
Daniel Schulz
United States
Saint Michael
Minnesota
-
Got it - thanks!
-
Kevin Croskery
United Kingdom
Copthorne
West Sussex
-
If there are going to be changes of this magnitude I would like to see living rules being made available a lá GMT.
-
Stephen Parker
United States
Ellisville
MO
-
sillygamer69 wrote: If there are going to be changes of this magnitude I would like to see living rules being made available a lá GMT.
+1
-
Chris K
United States
Katy
Texas
-
So if I understand this correctly TEM affects the defensive value of the defending units when doing assault bravery check. So as an example lets look at a (-2) WN in a city hex with a minefield defending a gap on one of the defensive displays (a common occurrence).
Defending unit Def. Value with mods;
WN def value: -2
Minefield: -2
City hex TEM: -2
Net -6
Attacking unit Def. Value with mods;
Generic British infantry Def value (Base TQ 6): 0
TQ modifier: -1 for beach not cleared
In Column: +2
Net: +2
Final TQ for bravery: 6-1-6-2 = -3 Impossible to pass.
So it is impossible for an infantry unit to assault off of a beach through a gap defended by a WN.
Now Assuming the best unit available assaults (AVRE w/TQ of 7 and base def value -4)
Final TQ for bravery: 7-1-6-(-2) = 2 low probability of passing.
Am I missing something?
-
Adam Starkweather
United States
New York City
New York
-
I didn't double-check your values, Chris, but sounds about right. Remember, a 0 always passes and perhaps you want to get rid of that minefield first, maybe fire at the German position a little, or use some artillery to reduce the defenders? You know, like your historical counterparts did.
-
Chris K
United States
Katy
Texas
-
adamant wrote: I didn't double-check your values, Chris, but sounds about right. Remember, a 0 always passes and perhaps you want to get rid of that minefield first, maybe fire at the German position a little, or use some artillery to reduce the defenders? You know, like your historical counterparts did.
Thanks for the quick response, but not quite sure I appreciate the sarcasm. I just wanted to make sure that this is what was intended and that I was applying the TEM correctly. Of course you have to prep the defender with as much firepower as you can, but even a 0-step unit cannot be eliminated in an assault if you can't pass the bravery check (assuming it's not suppressed). Also, can't remove the minefield until you take the hex.
For what its worth I like the GTS system, own WED, but not TDC.
-
Rob Davidson
United States
Orland Park
IL
-
Getting thru a strongly held position like this comes down to a #'s game. I can speak from personal game experience in that having a unit in column on a beach waiting to attempt movement/assault thru a gap is merely going to attract artillery fire until it leaves..probably resulting in the elimination of the unit.
As the minefield is in the defending hex, it can't be removed from the equation; so, barring sitting in column trying to roll a '0' to assault a un-shaken position that will probably repulse you anyhow I would recommend the following:
A. As much 4+ firepower naval artillery fire as possible on the target. W/O company bonus, you're looking for 0 for a CHit. Getting the bonus merely adds some S? results, but it puts the German in the position of spending (if in command range or phone) CP's to avoid rolling suppression. If you were able to roll a '0' earlier on the overlay, that's a phone cut which is quite handy.
B. During landing, after ResistanceNests are reduced to '0', every Landing Craft that disembarks troops within 2 of target should shoot at it. Again, for '0'/CHit results. You could do this before the nests are reduced, but it's sub-optimal IMO.
C. After landing, purple fire infantry next to target fire upon it (if DivAct, allowed for this type as a 1st Action w/no cost in CP) If no bonus, looking for '0', if bonus, adds in the S? as in para A.
D. using either FormationAct or spending points get DP(white) fire upon position; ideally, one of the '7' value units in the 2nd wave on each Beach. With a bonus, they actually have a 10% chance of eliminating a 1step unit.
E. Finally, by using another gap, move units to flank this position from the landward side; either to assault or fire upon it.
Of course, your mileage might vary....sequencing and luck do come into play. And the A-E thing is not sequential; depending on the draws and situation etc., things will be different for everyone. One might take 3 actions against a STP/WN and succeed; another take an entire turn and 30 plus actions...
-
Adam Starkweather
United States
New York City
New York
-
No sarcasm meant - you seemed incredulous that it might take some work to remove a prepared position...merely stating what was actually happening in the real event.
Rob's advice is, as always, sound.
-
Chris K
United States
Katy
Texas
-
adamant wrote: No sarcasm meant - you seemed incredulous that it might take some work to remove a prepared position...merely stating what was actually happening in the real event.
Rob's advice is, as always, sound.
Not incredulous, I fully expect to loose a lot of units assaulting such a position, but I now see it as a design choice vs player preference. I would much rather have a unit die in the assault than to have the unit fail to make the assault and die in column opposite the gap. I have been following most of Rob's advice already.
-
|
|
