Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

sid
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:32 am
Location: Sunny Swansea

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by sid »

The cinematic image of infantry walking crouched behind a tank is great and under certain circumstances very effective. However if some random corporal tucks his section behind a Sherman and the Sherman does not see them the results could be disasterous. If that tank came under fire or spotted a tiger it is likely the first thing it would do is reverse and then......

I'm sure we have looked at this previously. Search against "Thoughts on how to move infantry behind a tank".

It simply requires a gentlemans agreement withnyour opponent that the tank provides hard cover from the front or a close angle and possibly soft cover from within say 45degrees but the fact nfantry need to be close say 4" to the tank. They might be some penalties such as no cover whatsoever from HE to reflect the bunching effect.

Such house rules are quite common with us and agreed beforehand to see if it feels right for the period. For example we always give cover for tanks who declare they are hull down on a hill but deny them the use of the bow MG.

PatG
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:06 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by PatG »

Play the period not the rules. Was it done - yes. Was it a good idea? Not necessarily. If my opponent said "I am going to move this tank up with one die while moving this infantry section up simultaneously with another" - I'd let him. In fact I find the whole idea of making the tank move then interrupting before the infantry can follow to be distastefully "gamey".
Last edited by PatG on Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7419
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Truscott Trotter »

I'd let him. In fact I find the whole idea of making the tank move then interrupting before the infantry can follow to be distastefully "gamey".
Yet that was exactly the historical tactic used by the Germans Vs the Soviet infantry
The real issue is not that you can do it and cop the results but that you can do it and claim hard cover in an unrealistic manner.

So one persons gamey is another persons historical reality.

User avatar
Trailape
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Trailape »

PatG wrote:Play the period not the rules. Was it done - yes. Was it a good idea? Not necessarily. If m opponent said "I am going to move this tank up with one die while moving this infantry section up simultaneously with another" - I'd let him. In fact I find the whole idea of making the tank move then interrupting before the infantry can follow to be distastefully "gamey".
Yes
I agree
And the rules permit it to be so IMHO (from my reading)
If someone tried to prevent me doing so Id not "die in a ditch" over it
I'd also not play another game with someone like that either :)
I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER

User avatar
Trailape
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Trailape »

Truscott Trotter wrote:I'd let him. In fact I find the whole idea of making the tank move then interrupting before the infantry can follow to be distastefully "gamey".
Yet that was exactly the historical tactic used by the Germans Vs the Soviet infantry
The real issue is not that you can do it and cop the results but that you can do it and claim hard cover in an unrealistic manner.

So one persons gamey is another persons historical reality.
So you're seriously suggesting Russian tanks would drive off and the Russian Infantry just stood there?
Just waited a while whilst the tank drove away and then suddenly went "Oh look, the tank has left. I guess we should catch up"!
Seriously?
I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7419
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Truscott Trotter »

No of course no did you read the links I posted - reading some of the Stackpole books about infantry combat on the Eastern Front is very enlightening?

We are talking about firing at the following infantry causing then to slow or stop and the tanks rumble on without them or for a large gap to open up, quite a common occurrence and not just for Soviets.

In CoC there is a device called a COC die that you can use to interrupt your opponents turn and shoot etc. Pat G was saying to use that in this circumstance is akin to cheating or being gamey - something I took exception to on several levels. Firstly the rules allow it, secondly it is historic in combat not peacetime practice and thirdly I hate people using the "Play the period not the rules." as an attempt to stifle discussion in a derogatory way.

Pat I believe the rules were written to allow these situations AND I have backed up my argument with several first hand accounts. You on the other hand have not bothered you just resort to rote repeating of "Play the period not the rules."

Anyway as I seem to lack the skills to make my points clearly I am going to leave this thread alone now.

User avatar
Trailape
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Trailape »

Truscott Trotter wrote:No of course no did you read the links I posted - reading some of the Stackpole books about infantry combat on the Eastern Front is very enlightening?
Ahhh,.. :D
OK.
Right. Yes the links were excellent. :)

But again those links talk of a Battalion level assault with Artillery sweeping away accompanying infantry.
What I'm saying is at the level CoC is played at it would be gamey / cheesy / garbage to suggest that a CoC die be used to prevent a section / team of infantry closely moving along simultaneously with a tank
I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4070
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Seret »

Truscott Trotter wrote:did you read the links I posted
I did. I didn't think they added much to the conversion TBH. There were some references to infantry advancing "behind tanks" but that's so vague it could mean anything. Some bits specifically talked about "waves" of infantry, which sounds to me like infantry advancing in line abreast behind some tanks.

It's clear you don't like something about the idea of infantry using tanks as cover, but it's not totally clear to me what your objection is. It happens in real life, and CoC even allows for moving the two together, as pointed out by batesmotel34 way back on page 2. If you and your opponents want to play the game differently then go for your life, but I think the OP's question has been answered.

Personally I'd be happy if the rules made it a little riskier than it is right now. At the moment if the driver freaks out and reverses without warning the player gets to move the infantry out of the way. I'd prefer to see it impact them. Unpinned troops would still dodge, but those carrying shock would be at risk of getting run over. Just a thought.

siggian
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by siggian »

"At the moment if the driver freaks out and reverses without warning the player gets to move the infantry out of the way. I'd prefer to see it impact them. "

How about adding 1 shock to the unit for every two figures that need to move out of the way? Check for pinning or rout after the figures have moved. This would be a house rule, obviously, but it sort of fits with the "1 shock for 3D6 move" that represents a bit of disorder and confusion caused by the run.

Archdukek
Posts: 4820
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: Coordination AFV and Infantry movement

Post by Archdukek »

Another option would be to apply the existing rules for tanks overrunning infantry in section 13.2.1.
Bit harsh on them potentially if they are carrying shock, but might instil a degree of caution.

John

Post Reply