how ferocity works ?
can you attack and move at the same time in assault phase?
Transporting Artillery
-
crap! :-P
-
Yeah I came across that “loophole” once, but it didn’t seem to make sense to me, so I didn’t do it.
-
Read the full transportation rules on pg.31. It specifically says that infantry with the subtype artillery cannot be transported. The rules forbid transporting artillery, unless you want to make a house rule.
Ah, they tuck it away in the Glossary instead of on page 12 or 13 with the actual Movement Rules. I hadn’t even read the Glossary.
-
That is unfortunate. What is to say that a Jeep doesn’t have a trailer hitch?
Maybe a future expansion will have a piece with the special ability to transport anti-tank guns.
It’s because of it’s expense, stats, and lack of movement that I rarely ever play with the anit-tank guns. The only situation where I think they might come in handy is the assault scenario for the 80 pt. defender team because you can place your units anywhere. Get 3-4 of anit-tank guns in the right spot and you’ll be firing on the attacking armor at least 2-3 times every turn.
-
That is unfortunate. What is to say that a Jeep doesn’t have a trailer hitch?
Maybe a future expansion will have a piece with the special ability to transport anti-tank guns.
It’s because of it’s expense, stats, and lack of movement that I rarely ever play with the anit-tank guns. The only situation where I think they might come in handy is the assault scenario for the 80 pt. defender team because you can place your units anywhere. Get 3-4 of anit-tank guns in the right spot and you’ll be firing on the attacking armor at least 2-3 times every turn.
Since it isn’t in the actual rules, but found in the Glossary we’re still going to allow Transporting Artillery pieces w/ vehicles that have Transport. I think it’s silly not to allow it, the Rules designers didn’t take into account larger map configurations and armies beyond 100 points. My group plays 300 point armies and we use terrain instead of maps. Typically a 3 ft. by 4 ft set-up.
-
Wow, how long do your 300 pt games last?
-
Wow, how long do your 300 pt games last?
We usually set-up some objectives (like capture 3 or 4 locations) and the typical game lasts 2 to 3 hours.
-
That is unfortunate. What is to say that a Jeep doesn’t have a trailer hitch?
Maybe a future expansion will have a piece with the special ability to transport anti-tank guns.
It’s because of it’s expense, stats, and lack of movement that I rarely ever play with the anit-tank guns. The only situation where I think they might come in handy is the assault scenario for the 80 pt. defender team because you can place your units anywhere. Get 3-4 of anit-tank guns in the right spot and you’ll be firing on the attacking armor at least 2-3 times every turn.
Since it isn’t in the actual rules, but found in the Glossary we’re still going to allow Transporting Artillery pieces w/ vehicles that have Transport. I think it’s silly not to allow it, the Rules designers didn’t take into account larger map configurations and armies beyond 100 points. My group plays 300 point armies and we use terrain instead of maps. Typically a 3 ft. by 4 ft set-up.
I think the idea behind not letting anti-tank guns get towed was that although they were towed in real life, maybe not so much in the “thick of battle”. I would think one consideration in making a house rule for towing anti-tank guns would be to reduce movement of jeeps by one. I would also allow halftracks and maybe even all armor tow the cannons. If not, the Americans would get a HUGE advantage of being the only ones allowed to tow artillery.
-
The American would be the only ones that would be allowed to tow for cheap. There is a German half-track in Set I. Also the Soviet tanks can carry units.
But I do see your point about the “thick of battle.” Also, if you really want to get those anti-tank guns moving, put an Inpiring Lt. commander on your army. Movement 0+1 = 1. :-D
-
in the rules or not when my buddies and i play we have the house rule that says any vehicle with a transport option can carry a anti tank gun. but it dose take a roll of 4, 5 or 6 to achieve it, thats 1D for each hex you try to drag one of these things along. We ususally don’t use it anyways, unless were playing a 500 pt or higher game.
-
i think that jeeps not being able to carry artillery has more to do with how much time passes in each phase. i mean, a jeep couldn’t just drive up and within seconds have an artillery ready to be pulled into battle and then fired in that same round. anti-tank guns are pretty big, no? that they move 2 reflects that they can move far (as far as an infantry who moves and moves) and not being able to move in the movement phase means they can move and attack, since it takes time to prepare a gun to be fired.
-
Yes… no unit with subtype artillery in this game can board a vehicle with Transport ability because they have 0 speed in Movement phase. Inspiring Lieutenant doesn’t affect this rule. (He allows artillery to move in movement phase with +1 speed special ability).
In World War II, most German artillery was transported to the front by horse, according to renowned historian John Keegan.
German half-tracks would carry PAK-38s. But not in this game.
-
Hmm, German half-tracks carrying PAK38s. Sounds like a new special ability for a “Veteran Crew” half-track.
-
In World War II, most German artillery was transported to the front by horse, according to renowned historian John Keegan.Â
German half-tracks would carry PAK-38s. But not in this game.
Keegan was the man, i took a couple classes based on his work recently.
Pak-38s were also transported by trucks, they would load the AT gun on a sled (known to the allies as “rosebud”) on this sled the At gun would be locked down in a fireing postion, so not only could other units carry that beast of gun, but they could carry it in a wy that made it possible to fire( not while in motion though, the truck would stop, and stabalizers would lift the truck a fraction of an inch to steady it for the recoil of the AT gun. like it or not, but that info came from Keegan.
-
I read Keegan’s Second World War. An excellent book, of course. At first I found it surprising how great a role horses played in transporting guns for the Wermacht, but then again, they are cheaper than building vehicles and require no…. oil.
In the book, there is a photo of German soldiers whipping horses that are pulling an artillery piece in Poland 1939. The caption reads Most german artillery remained horse-drawn until the end of the war.
How many german horses died in Russia??? I can’t imagine.
-
lots of horses im sure, the allies used thier bodies to make temporary road blocks. pretty effective to agansit most things, other than tanks, that would just be messy. :-P
-
Yes, horses played a definite role in the WWII. As a matter of fact, many messenger used them too in Europe because it was “cheap”, required no oil and was able to go pretty much anywhere. As a matter of fact, in Set II, they even created the polish cavalrymen. Even if most people think those guys were just crazy stupid foolish guys, we must remember that most fuel tank were easily targetable back in 1939. So those cavalrymen would used bombs attached to spears and they would target the fuel tank, destroying the tanks. As well, a horse is far more hard to hit, because of it’s mobility, than a tank or a regular soldier.
So my point is . . . horses rock ! -
The Polish were not fools. They were just not prepared to defend themselves against a modern army. Neither was France, Belgium or any other nation on mainland Europe in 1939.
-
Yes, horses played a definite role in the WWII. As a matter of fact, many messenger used them too in Europe because it was “cheap”, required no oil and was able to go pretty much anywhere. As a matter of fact, in Set II, they even created the polish cavalrymen. Even if most people think those guys were just crazy stupid foolish guys, we must remember that most fuel tank were easily targetable back in 1939. So those cavalrymen would used bombs attached to spears and they would target the fuel tank, destroying the tanks. As well, a horse is far more hard to hit, because of it’s mobility, than a tank or a regular soldier.
So my point is . . . horses rock !You are forgetting a few key things in your analysis…
1. German tanks were diesel. It was the American’s that had the exploding gas tank problem.
2. Horses may not require gas, but they do require GRASS. Combat zones are not the best place to put your horse out to graze, and hauling enough food to feed a horse is equivalent to feeding 8 men subsistence rations.
3. A horse that is hit virtually anywhere on its body is now a casualty, where a vehicle can keep going after being riddled with bullets, depending on the location of those hits.
4. Speed… horses are good compared to men, but suck compared to vehicles.And last but not least, you need to remember the one weapon that DECIMATED the Polish Cavalry in 1939: the machine gun. Hit the horse OR rider, and it is game over for cavalry.
The horse stopped being a viable military vehicle just after the turn of the 20th C. As late as the mid 20th C. they still had some value as a Quartermaster vehicle for a defeated army. Now… How many horses can you put on a C-5 for use in Iraq? And how many C-5’s of grain will you have to ship to feed those horses once they get there? And how does a horse hold up to a roadside bomb?
-
I’m preaty sure that Otto didn’t refer to the exploding gas tank problem but the fact that a well placed bomb can rupture a fuel tank. With no more fuel, the thank stops.
The Horse was used alot and not just by germans. It’s true that you have to feed it but it came a time when fuel supply became a real problem for the germans, they were not after the soviet oil fields for nothing. Another thing to keep in mind is that a horse can turn into food for the troops, a thing that a jeep cannot do. And a starved horse will keep on doing his job a while before he dies, vehicules can’t.
I agree that horses are not used in modern armies. But WWII happed over 60 years ago, a time when horse was a reliable transportation method. I must say that if I had to go to war, I wouldn’t like the idea of going on a horses’s back.
Suggested Topics
