le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by Truscott Trotter »

I am all for tweaking the values of support in a PSC to reflect rarity, but in the standard lists they should be based on characteristics alone.
My 2 kopeks worth.

User avatar
7dot62mm
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:17 am

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by 7dot62mm »

Alexander Wood wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:02 am
Interestingly, despite calling it an Infantry Gun the 76-27 is much more like the 75mm Pack Howitzer in performance having roughly twice the range the the le.IG18*. The payoff is it's about twice the weight of the latter.
One complaint against the 76-27 was that it weighed too much. Later in the was it was replaced in production with a model which used the carriage of the 45mm ATG. Despite similar performance, the 76-27 is not a howitzer because it does not fire high angle fire.

chris cornwell
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:33 pm
Location: Richmond, Surrey

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by chris cornwell »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:23 am
I am all for tweaking the values of support in a PSC to reflect rarity, but in the standard lists they should be based on characteristics alone.
My 2 kopeks worth.
I agree, way too big a can of worms otherwise. However, the pricing for a tripod belt fed MG versus an infantry gun still doesn't work.

MMG = 4 points of firepower more
IG= AT capability, gun shield, HE effect, Junior Leader, Always hits at close range.

Plus the relative rarity of the Ig irrespective of the scenario

That is not an equal trade off.

Levi the Ox
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:57 pm

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by Levi the Ox »

chris cornwell wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:35 am
I agree, way too big a can of worms otherwise. However, the pricing for a tripod belt fed MG versus an infantry gun still doesn't work.

MMG = 4 points of firepower more
IG= AT capability, gun shield, HE effect, Junior Leader, Always hits at close range.

Plus the relative rarity of the Ig irrespective of the scenario

That is not an equal trade off.
I believe that's what Truscott is saying, they are backing up my point about the inconsistent valuation of MMGs in standard lists compared to other fire support options.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Indeed

I rarely choose a MMG if I can take another section or an IG etc.

In RL they were probably THE most common support option.

Why?
Cos they were cheap - partly
But mainly cos they were effective at area denial esp on fixed lines.

The Infantry of WW2 didn't think "Oh OK its only 10 shots, there are 10 of us, so 8 of us are going to make it across that field lets go!" (only the individual nutter thought that.)

They thought "Oh I am going to die now, unless - hmm that dirt tastes good!"

Captain W Martin
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:35 pm

Re: le.ig 18 use against vehicles

Post by Captain W Martin »

Just some thinking I've been having recently on the IG vs the MMG option.

To me also it seemed curious that often the MMG is priced the same as an IG but doesn't have the JL or often the gunshield, this is a big disadvantage!

However...the lack of JL gives the MMG a curious advantage when it come to BtH rolls as there is no JL to be killed / wounded or indeed rout. It can be eliminated and at the worst its -2 to FM, where as the IG could be -4 or even more if there is a JL wounded, then he is killed / routed and the IG is destroyed.

I would perhaps like to see the ability for a JL from the native platoon to use CI to activate a MMG or shift shock that is within 4" however. The inability for anyone bar the Sl to tidy shock of feels a bit of an oversight to me at times.

Post Reply