Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7066
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:54 am

Yup apparently only Rich can delete the spammers accounts or change the password to register.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7066
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by Truscott Trotter » Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:01 am

As all the spammer account names follow the same format shouldn't be too hard to spot them?

Slynx
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:01 pm

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by Slynx » Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:35 pm

I almost feel embarrassed to ask this ...... but does a squad of infantry skirmishing out in front of the AFV give the AFV an "Obscured" target benefit?

ie a low hedge gives this benift to the AFV, it doesnt seem that outlandish that a squad moving about ... laying down cover fire, grenades going off etc might give an equivalent level of distraction. This would also lend some credence to that fact that infantry did give close support to armour and in the game this is reflected as only a response to an attack and no other effect

OldNick
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:59 am
Location: Coventry UK

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by OldNick » Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:00 pm

No.

A squad of infantry doesn’t do those things, unless it does those things. Just being there it really doesn’t affect atgs and similar.

Levi the Ox
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:57 pm

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by Levi the Ox » Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:25 pm

Does the effect of Covering Fire apply to anti-vehicle attacks? It isn't listed as a modifier in that section of the rules, and even if it does apply, a -1 modifier is less impactful than on infantry fire. For towed guns that's probably fine, almost all have gun shields anyway, but it does seem to be an ineffective (or at least highly inefficient) deterrent to IAT teams.

All that being said, I think there's a structural weakness to the infantry>AT>AFV interaction, which is that the defender's assets aren't tied to specific positions and so can't be located before they fire. If the defender had to commit units to a specific location (i.e. assigning them to a specific jump-off point, and requiring them to deploy if that point was threatened) then infantry could potentially identify and neutralize those threats by pressuring those locations ahead of the armor advance. Such a mechanic would require some more record-keeping, so whether it's worth the trade-off is up to you.

siggian
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Targeting Tanks with ATG's of Bazookas

Post by siggian » Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:32 pm

I do apply the -1 for cover fire against an AT attack. But it's generally more effective to fire to try and wipe out the AT team and cause a BTH roll as well as removing the asset.

As far as not allocating units to a JOP, it's a two way street. The attacker is also free to completely change his axis of attack. The JOPs just represent the ability for the commander to move troops freely and easily from one point to another to deal with a threat or to strike at a target of opportunity. As an attacker, I usually have a good idea where the defending AT units are going to show up anyway, so I can work to minimize those areas even without them being on the board.

Post Reply