Polish_Cavalryman
|
Tanks no longer live in fear of soldiers!What do you all think of these ideas formulated on the old website... I think it could make for a better game. The standard capture the hex scenario is just an awful one for vehicles without this kind of change.
1. close assault cannot be used in any defensive fire attack.
then the bazooka can still use 9 dice as the Tiger rolls by. This is not as good as his 10 dice close assault but makes sense on 2 levels. First, the Tiger can still make cover as it should when it is a moving target. Second the bazooka is not getting as good or close of a shot as it would if the Tiger was sitting there not moving.
The common soldier can still fire at the half-track rolling by and maybe punch through the thin armor or hit the driver. And anything with short range attack like an AT rifle is still decent on light armor.
2. any close assault attempt triggers a preliminary defensive fire from the vehicle. apply the results of the defensive fire attack immediatly (place counter face-up).
Then tanks are no longer living in such fear of soldiers. Though soldiers still can get the job done it no longer becomes like shooting fish in a barrel when a Thompson gunner jumps on a Panzer IV G.
|
NeuralDream
|
 A very much needed house rule. That "throw the molotov" on a speed 5 vehicle and make it explode because it was in 100m range of a soldier is just too much. I think your house rule succesfully deals with this problem. Bazookas and ATRs can still be used.
|
Zeus
|
As I mentioned on the other forum, I like these, although not EVERY Vehicle should get a DF against enemies close-assaulting it...
At the ranges we're talking about, the main gun couldn't be used. The MG's a Vehicle was equipped with were meant for AI defense - and as such, a Vehicle not having those (like many tank destroyers) would be a sitting duck to infantry it let get too close.
But I guess in the standard rules it will be too hard to differentiate without rewriting all the cards...
|
Polish_Cavalryman
|
true... but as most Tank Destroyers have 5 or 6 dice at close range they would be lukcy to get a disruption on a 4 defense soldier anyway. This would only help the tanks with 7+ dice I think. Close assualting a Sherman in the open would then almost require your attacker to have 5 defense or you would need to have 2 units with 4 defense. But in cover you could always make a cover roll and disruption would go away.
|
Qmark
|
| Zeus wrote: | | and as such, a Vehicle not having those (like many tank destroyers) would be a sitting duck to infantry it let get too close. |
Would it?
"Herr Hauptman! There seems to be an Amerikaner sneaking up behind us."
"Wait until he gets close enough, then pop the Jagd into reverse."
|
Polish_Cavalryman
|
infantry would basically be able to "finish off" a disrupted tank. which I have less problem with than the current system where infantry deny a tank access into or through areas due to their lethal tank killing ability even without anti-tank weapons present.
|
TomServo
|
I like rule #1. That's a pretty good idea. One thing we do in our games is allow vehicles DF vs soldiers in specific situations. If the vehicle is in clear terrain, and the soldier enters from clear terrain, the vehicle can make DF against the soldier; provided the vehicle can fire in the direction the soldier is entering from.
This rule, I think, simulates the fact that in certain terrain like urban and forest, tank are vulnerable to infantry.
|
