Hummel Clarification Please

Whiterook · Hummel Clarification Please

I can't wrap my mind around something, and I'm wondering if anyone else has the same thoughts on this:

The Hummel - It has the Indirect Fire capability, where "If a friendly spotter is within 8 hexes of an enemy Soldier and has Line of Sight to it, this unit's (the Hummel) attack against that Soldier ignores LOS"

So basically, the Hummel can fire with Indirect Fire at a Soldier as long as a spotter had LOS to the target at the appropriate distance. Simple enough.

What I'm having issues with is: Why just a Soldier unit (infantry or artillery) and not vehicles??? This makes no sense to me!

If I had to guess, I would venture that perhaps the designers decided that a lone Hummel's spotting support would be less so than say an Artillery squad's network; the latter having a more prevalent (read: larger) spotting presence on the battlefield.

Anyone have a clue what's up with just Soldiers as "Target Worthy"?

Does anyone play it (the Hummel) capable of hitting vehicles?

Thanks!!! Confused

Sharpe

Our best guess is that soldiers are a lot slower than vehicles.

tw252

My guess is that artillery fire is generally ineffective against armour, so Indirect Fire is not allowed against vehicles.

Whiterook

Thanks for the response....I appreciate it. I'm not sure I wouldn't want to Home Rules something on this, but I can understand there was some thought process behind it. I know systems such as Battlefront World War II have fire on vehicles as being inclusive in there rules, and probably other rules sets as well I would bet. Anyway....thanks for the guesses!

LuckyE77

tw252

lýkos

You didn't need a direct hit with an artillery shell. The sheer force of the explosion or even shrapnell could damage tracks etc. of a tank.
Also tanks aren't the only vehicles. Trucks and even Half-Tracks were very vulnerable to artillery fire.

Whiterook

I really appreciate everyone's chiming in on this subject....thank you! Very Happy

I understand tw252's point, and it's a valid point on the battlefield. The argument I would make to it though is, Axis & Allies Miniatures is absolutely nothing like real world mechanics on the WWII battlefield entirely; it's extremely (IMHO) 'stylized' in many of it's concepots and play. Remember, this game is made for "fast" play, by the companies' own press. For it to be so, it would need to simplify a lot of things, which it has I believe. And that's fine 'cause it a very cool game....for what it is.

Think of another line of thought here: Ask a Flames of War or Battlefront WWII player (don't hate me) their thoughts on Axis & Allies Miniatures being on the same grognard-par and they'll most likely not agree....and I'm not so sure they'd be wrong in it. I don't really know FoW rules, but a friend who plays it religiously was shocked at the Hummel not having Indirect Fire capability against vehicles. And BTW...I couldn't agree more with lykos....a truck or motorcycle hit with even the weakest sell from a Hummel is gonna be painful, if not deadly!

To say it can't be done in A&AM is to say it's probably wrong in the others? Hmmmmm....big can of worms, eh?

Take BF for instance, which makes sense once you know why things happen the way they do with indirect fire. They take into acoount a much more detailed view of Indirect Fire:

1. A spotter has to roll to call in.
2. A dedicated spotting unit has a good chance.
3. A non dedicated unit not so good. Only commanders of units can call in artillery (indirect fire - includes planes for non strafing missions too). This makes sense as a squad or single tank wouldn't have the ability to call for fire support - wouldn't have the net frequencies otherwise every bugger would be calling, and wouldn't necessarily have the radio system required anyway.
4. Indirect fire can always be called in on anything including vehicles BUT - and this a big BUT: Vehicles are fired on with a minus to hit as they move faster than infantry. Armoured vehicles also get the defence value of their flank armour. So artillery plusses are negated by movement and armour - in other words it's hard to damage a tank with artillery which again makes sense because it was a lucky shot that did and then usually on the engine deck. Dug in troops or troops in emplacements or cover should get a bonus as well.

The above italicised bit was a fairly direct quote from a friend that is an Avid Battlefront WWII player, and an EXTREMELY knowledgeable Gamer from down under. He shows not only is Indirect Fire used in that system, but also a lot of the limitations other posters here have eluded to. He points out that it does stop artillery from becoming something that can rule the battlefield. It is fair that artillery can wallop soft targets easily and can keep other targets heads down but having spotting requirements (dedicated or commander) and minuses for certain targets stops this omnipotent see all shoot all problem from occurring. THAT makes sense.....again, IMHO Smile

I posted the same original question at the Wizards web site, and no answer yet.....hmmmmmmm Confused

Am I the only one who feels WotC is a tad disinterested in us AAM land lubber players? I feel I can ask that question as I own well over a 1000 units (a sparse amount compared to some, but it ain't a cheap buyer, I be LOL!)

Hey....just food fr thought here, and I'd really love to get a true feel for the reasons, even if it's a "Hey, what do you want from a fast playing dice game". I think it's much more than that, BTW Very Happy