GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
9,505 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
16 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

Bastogne: Screaming Eagles under Siege» Forums » Rules

Subject: Anti-Tank Unit Modification rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
The W. G.
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
The War Gamer (YouTube) Check it out.
badge
It's our imagination that is responsible for the quality of a game, not the game itself.
Avatar
mb
When a mechanized force encounters an AT unit, the increase in offensive (Mech) and in turn defensive (AT) value seems to correctly portray the individual values each bring to the battle.

Should an AT unit still have that same high Defensive AT value when encountering a Non-Mechanized infantry unit? An easy solution seems to be that whenever a non-motorized infantry unit engages an AT unit the AT unit should be reduced in strength by 1/3rd. This then would reflect the reduced effectiveness of an AT unit in combat with a pure infantry unit and show that it's not just another unit on the battlefield.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
chris gammon
United States
Elk Grove
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If any of those US AT units included 37mm AT guns, they also used canister ammunition. That would make it handy against infantry.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
chris gammon
United States
Elk Grove
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Apparently M10s didn't have it. Carl Fung hopefully will chime in with a rational why AT units are just as good against infantry as they are against armor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Austin Richards
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Because it's SCS?
3 
 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.