Robert Brown
United States
Winston-Salem
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Hi Mark,

Could you tell a little about the design decision regarding rule 10.3.6 Adjacent Defensive Fire Support?

Given neither unit is in an eZOC, I don't get the reasoning where a unit 2+ hexes away could make a Ranged Attack as Defensive Support against a unit in a non-field hex, but a unit adjacent could not.

Pretty sure I'm reading the rules correctly.. I'm just wondering the reasoning.

Thanks,

Robert

ps...I did post this on Consimworld, too.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Felsher
United States
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I'm curious to Mark's answer....but here is what I thought while playing the game.

First off, if adjacent defensive support against non-field hexes were allowed, then logically offensive adjacent support should be allowed as well. That would make battles quite confusing, from a game perspective.

In a Combat (as in most games), the attacker holds the initiative which is an attacker advantage. In Operation Dauntless, this is the case, as he is allowed to attack from multiple hexes. A defender MORE than 2 hexes away could have been attacked by ranged fire BEFORE the combat. The attacker has no restrictions on that if he so chooses. The defender therefore has the same right during the combat itself, but not the attacker since he gave up the option.

I believe (especially since we are dealing with Companies and Platoons) that it is assumed that adjacent attackers/defenders are somewhat engaged (abstractly maybe) in combat at the moment combat is declared with just about even tactical advantage if both are in non-field hexes.

However, if the attacker has units in a FIELD hex, then adjacent defenders hold an obvious tactical advantage. Hence, they are allowed to range fire Adjacent Defensive Support.

Anyhow, that's what I thought when reading the rules. I always try to think of a logical reason behind a rule, because it helps me remember them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mokszycki
United States
Snohomish
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bryan's assessment is pretty accurate.

When adjacent support is allowed in all situations, the game becomes excruciatingly slow and cumbersome. It also makes the CRT-based combat feel somewhat pointless. On the other hand, if no adjacent support is ever allowed, the attacker has too much of an unrealistic advantage in situations where he is attacking from field while adjacent to multiple hexes of enemies. Without this rule, he can effectively ignore those units--be they armored cars, heavy machine gun platoons, or even tanks--and attack from field as if attacking from good cover. The rule is a compromise to achieve the "correct" effect.

fwiw, this rule has its origins in Red Winter. In that game, Friction Fire only appears as an optional rule, and it typically isn't used. The Adjacent Defensive Support rule nicely covers situations where units (usually Soviets) are attacking from the open ice of the frozen lakes.
4 
 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.