Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Palindrome wrote:
The fair fight missions require you to cross the table to win.

No they don't, you can win by breaking your opponents army. Yes, advancing in open ground under fire against opponents that are more manoeuvrable doesn't work. That' not really a surprise is it? I've always seen that as one of the game's strengths.

Of course yet the tank crews seem very unconcerned about the significant risks involved. In a game where infantry have to take a skill check to enter an unoccupied building its more than a little strange where tanks can literally drive through buildings occupied by enemy infantry, or happily drive through woods filled with panzerfaust toting grenadiers or......

Unconcerned? It's a skill check (sometimes worse) to avoid bogging in forests or buildings every time you move. On average they'll lose every second tank every time they move to failed skill check bogging. You're never stuck in combat for more than one round, If you're losing combats to tanks in buildings with infantry you're doing something very wrong somewhere.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Unconcerned? It's a skill check (sometimes worse) to avoid bogging in forests or buildings every time you move..

Yes, but its exactly the same skill or bog check no matter the tactical situation and that's the issue.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
The fair fight missions require you to cross the table to win.

No they don't, you can win by breaking your opponents army. Yes, advancing in open ground under fire against opponents that are more manoeuvrable doesn't work. That' not really a surprise is it? I've always seen that as one of the game's strengths.

Its not every game where you opponent actually attacks you in fair fight games, sometimes you just have to leave your shell scrapes. I don't have an issue with infantry being vulnerable to tanks in the open, it after all accurate, but its inaccurate to allow tanks free reign to attack infantry in close terrain which is something that tank crews were not fond of doing. A morale check and a bog check would be perfectly reasonable, realistic and it would strongly encourage the use of assault infantry.

 Palindrome wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Unconcerned? It's a skill check (sometimes worse) to avoid bogging in forests or buildings every time you move..

Yes, but its exactly the same skill or bog check no matter the tactical situation and that's the issue.

Not true. You've got Difficult checks and Very Difficult checks.

The former require anything but a '6' to beat. The latter are a skill test.

Eumerin wrote:

The former require anything but a '6' to beat. The latter are a skill test.

Which don't change no matter the tactical situation. Difficult terrain bog checks fail on a 1.

 Palindrome wrote:
Which don't change no matter the tactical situation. Difficult terrain bog checks fail on a 1.

It's not relevant, you won't be taking bog checks. It's skill checks each and every time you move a vehicle in woods forests or buildings, they'll soon rack up over the course of a prolonged combat.

There's a skill check and a round of defensive fire before tanks even get to roll attack dice in an assault into very difficult going. If you bog/bail/destroy two tanks the combat doesn't even happen. After that the tanks are stuck out in the open in a perfect spot to take another round of fire, maybe even an assault without the opportunity for defensive fire.

Fixed!

It is not a skill check for woods. It's is a 'fail on a 1' bog test only.

It is a skill test for buildings and crossing bocage or rivers (but not at a ford)

I don't have my book with me but I'm certain it's a skill check for woods/forests.

[edit]

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=109&art_id=3158

Checked, forests are very difficult, woods are difficult. My mistake for using woods/forests interchangeably.

'Forest' is an optional use of Woods (Under Varied Use of Terrain), and I've never seen it used.

AndrasOtto wrote:
'Forest' is an optional use of Woods (Under Varied Use of Terrain), and I've never seen it used.

Then use it.

The terrain is there to be used. If you think that the tanks are getting off too easily, then designate some areas on the board that are "forests" as opposed to merely "woods". Play on a map with snow (slow going except on roads which are cross country) or in terrain like Market Garden (same thing, except for the elevated roads that block line of sight). Use ice (roll d6 +4; if the result is less than the tank's front armor, then it falls through the ice).

Battlefront seems to be using the term 'woods' for 'woodland' which Wikipedia defines as "... a low-density forest forming open habitats with plenty of sunlight and limited shade..." It would probably be best if you have large areas of woods on the board to count the center of these areas as forests instead. If you're recreating a specific battle, it would be best to do a little research into which would be more appropriate, woods or forests.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Fixed!

Its really not. Skill checks for moving in terrain are fairly rare, nearly all the woods I see are simple bog checks, and defensive fire against tanks generally isn't effective (but that obviously depends on a whole range of factors). Tanks can clear infantry from any type of terrain that isn't impassible with about the same success rate as infantry (again this is very situational) simply because they are much harder to 'pin', much harder to kill and they force tank terror checks; this is an area where tanks should be very weak, just like infantry should be very weak in the open.

A severe disadvantage to pure tank armies would be beneficial to the game and more to the point it would be more realistic. It could be argued that realism isn't the point of FoW yet FoW already includes lots of 'flavour' rules.

In essence anything that promotes combined arms is a good thing.

 Palindrome wrote:
Its really not. Skill checks for moving in terrain are fairly rare, nearly all the woods I see are simple bog checks, and defensive fire against tanks generally isn't effective (but that obviously depends on a whole range of factors)...

Fixed was a reference to correcting my terminology. Anyhow Eumerin's last post covers the solution fairly well, depending on your theatre of battle you may also want to consider Bocage terrain or slow going hills. Just because you're not using forests doesn't mean the game doesn't support it, though this may all be irrelevant since you also seem to think buildings are an easy ride for tanks in assault and defensive fire is lacklustre. I can't agree that this is the case and I play both Soviet and German armour.

A severe disadvantage to pure tank armies would be beneficial to the game and more to the point it would be more realistic. It could be argued that realism isn't the point of FoW yet FoW already includes lots of 'flavour' rules.

In essence anything that promotes combined arms is a good thing.

Like it being beneficial to take some tanks in an infantry list? I'd be all for an 'infantry terror' test for armour assaulting into terrain but it wouldn't be a severe disadvantage for pure tank armies because it's already a risky proposition.

Im guessing Palindromes point is that in the real war, and still to this day, urbanised areas are a tanks worst nightmare unless it has close proximity infantry protection.

In WW2 tank crews just wouldn't go into urban areas unless they had infantry support. When they did try, it would end badly.

Whether FoW models that well enough im guessing is a key point. I dont know the game to comment, though its interesting to see the discussion.

Big P wrote:
Im guessing Palindromes point is that in the real war, and still to this day, urbanised areas

No we're talking about a single building. An urbanised area would be another level entirely.

The only 'easy' way to clear buildings is to employ Bunker Buster direct fire artillery.

Well a tank would be no use in building clearance... unless you drive through it!

Whether its one or ten buildings the key is that tank crews generally avoided such things unless supported by infantry to protect them.

Big P wrote:
Well a tank would be no use in building clearance... unless you drive through it!

Whether its one or ten buildings the key is that tank crews generally avoided such things unless supported by infantry to protect them.

Ergo, the tank escorts that both the Soviets and Germans have access to in certain lists.

Eumerin wrote:

Big P wrote:
Well a tank would be no use in building clearance... unless you drive through it!

Whether its one or ten buildings the key is that tank crews generally avoided such things unless supported by infantry to protect them.

Ergo, the tank escorts that both the Soviets and Germans have access to in certain lists.

The U.S. get Tank Escorts in Bridge at Remagen.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4505

If you integrate AT guns into your infantry platoons and defensive positions (which you should be doing if you're up against tanks), your defensive fire against tanks is going to be anything but lackluster.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Big P wrote:
Im guessing Palindromes point is that in the real war, and still to this day, urbanised areas

No we're talking about a single building. An urbanised area would be another level entirely.

The only 'easy' way to clear buildings is to employ Bunker Buster direct fire artillery.

Actually I am talking about all kinds of difficult terrain, anything that forces a tank to slow down and which offers concealment to infantry should be difficult for tanks to assault through. FoW makes no distinction between a single building and an urban area. I have German and British armour and while assaulting into terrain is risky it also works more often than it should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Like it being beneficial to take some tanks in an infantry list?

Its not beneficial, its all but mandatory. The same can not be said for infantry in tank armies however and all tank armies were far less common than pure infantry armies, even at a company level. My central point is that the rules make playing a pure infantry army extremely difficult (at least some of the time) while pure tank armies can muddle along fairly happily in most/all situations and that is something that I find unacceptable both from a realism perspective but also from a game play perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
If you integrate AT guns into your infantry platoons and defensive positions (which you should be doing if you're up against tanks), your defensive fire against tanks is going to be anything but lackluster.

That's fine as a general rule but AT guns can be suppressed relatively easily, more so than their accompanying infantry and AT guns tend to come in limited and fairly small platoons. My Finns for example can get 2 of them, they aren't really going to do all that much.

Have tanks ever engaged into melee without infantry? I always thought tanks where used as infantry support or to break lines but even then with infantry.

I read so many stories about tanks at the mercy of close range infantry with little way of defending itself as infantry usually take out the tracks and its a sitting duck. Since the easiest way to get the tracks is by sneaking up on the tank going into anything that can hide infantry was a bad idea.

From a game perspective I think it would loose a lot of players who play for all tank armies but its never made sense to me that tanks would ride into woods or any form of dense terrain. Its just there to keep tank players happy I thought.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Have tanks ever engaged into melee without infantry? I always thought tanks where used as infantry support or to break lines but even then with infantry.

I read so many stories about tanks at the mercy of close range infantry with little way of defending itself as infantry usually take out the tracks and its a sitting duck. Since the easiest way to get the tracks is by sneaking up on the tank going into anything that can hide infantry was a bad idea.

From a game perspective I think it would loose a lot of players who play for all tank armies but its never made sense to me that tanks would ride into woods or any form of dense terrain. Its just there to keep tank players happy I thought.

If troops had the proper equipment and training, then it was a really bad idea. But without that, it's not as much of a problem. Assault pioneers, and you're probably dead. Assault a platoon with a panzer knacker team, and you can start writing off tanks. Assault a US platoon, and the same thing happens. On the other hand, if you assault a platoon that's had minimal training *cough*Soviet Conscripts*cough* and has to use improvised anti-tank weapons (which could be just as dangerous to the user as they were to the tank), then it's another matter entirely. The tanks probably won't kill even half of a platoon of infantry, but they will scatter the survivors to the four winds.

Finally, the stories I've read about Bulge have lots of incidents involving US infantry stumbling across unescorted German tanks in the middle of the various towns that they were fighting over (including one guy who apparently saw down the gun barrel as a shot from the main gun was being fired at him). Yes, the infantry usually kill the tanks in question (using bazookas). But the one-sided nature of the stories are probably because infantry who go after tanks and fail usually don't have anyone left to tell their story.

Soviet 'conscripts' were justly feared by Panzer crews.

Their liberal use of anti tank rifles led to schurzen being developed. Dug in they were very annoying at Kursk, able to target vision ports. Two Tigers had to be withdrawn after rifle hits on optics on the first day. Easily repaired, unless it injured a crewman, but out of action till its fixed...

You dont even need to destroy it just damage or drive it off.

Around Bolougne, Calais and Dunkirk, Bren Guns drove off several panzer attacks as the gunfire forced them to close up, reducing visibility and driving off supporting infantry. The tanks then withdrew unable to see and fearing close attack.

Finnish 'motti' tactics and terrain rendered Soviet tanks useless.

Its all depends on terrain, motivation and training of those involved.

Wittmann and his company went through an occupied village in Russia in their Tigers. They were swarmed with enemy infantry on their back decks and used MGs and HE rounds to clear the infantry...

Eumerin wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Have tanks ever engaged into melee without infantry? I always thought tanks where used as infantry support or to break lines but even then with infantry.

I read so many stories about tanks at the mercy of close range infantry with little way of defending itself as infantry usually take out the tracks and its a sitting duck. Since the easiest way to get the tracks is by sneaking up on the tank going into anything that can hide infantry was a bad idea.

From a game perspective I think it would loose a lot of players who play for all tank armies but its never made sense to me that tanks would ride into woods or any form of dense terrain. Its just there to keep tank players happy I thought.

If troops had the proper equipment and training, then it was a really bad idea. But without that, it's not as much of a problem. Assault pioneers, and you're probably dead. Assault a platoon with a panzer knacker team, and you can start writing off tanks. Assault a US platoon, and the same thing happens. On the other hand, if you assault a platoon that's had minimal training *cough*Soviet Conscripts*cough* and has to use improvised anti-tank weapons (which could be just as dangerous to the user as they were to the tank), then it's another matter entirely. The tanks probably won't kill even half of a platoon of infantry, but they will scatter the survivors to the four winds.

Finally, the stories I've read about Bulge have lots of incidents involving US infantry stumbling across unescorted German tanks in the middle of the various towns that they were fighting over (including one guy who apparently saw down the gun barrel as a shot from the main gun was being fired at him). Yes, the infantry usually kill the tanks in question (using bazookas). But the one-sided nature of the stories are probably because infantry who go after tanks and fail usually don't have anyone left to tell their story.

Really? Because soldiers used to pelt all the vision sites with bullet fire and render tanks blind, imagine a platoon of infantry all firing at 5 tanks vision slots?. Soviet soldiers used to destroy tanks with molotovs in the city ruins. Imagine charging your tank into defensive and dense terrain only to be halted, and while you cant move the infantry simply avoid all your machine guns. All they need to do is smoke you out and pull apart anything and everything they can find. The best thing tanks can do is stay out of close quarter fighting unless it has infantry alongside it. Going into combat really destroys any advantage the tank has which is mobility and fire power. Buy heading into combat they are revealing all their vulnerabilities, eliminating mobility and reducing most of their fire power. Even on paper it doesnt make sense.

Also the incidents you recited clearly had the infantry stumble unprepared against tanks only to be attacked (but not charged...). Which is fine, but we are talking about tank formations using their hulls to clear buildings and so on of infantry forces. Which shouldnt happen, or at least not without plenty of risks.

And if the tanks survive such odds and manages to kill the infantry in close quarters, then they would be alive to tell the story and they probably would too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found one example of tanks actually charging enemy positions. The 1939 Khalkhin Gol battle Japan successfully charged and routed soviets from their positions. Although it was heavy losses and the enemies guns couldn't actually hit them. Japan wasn't know for its tactics so I wouldnt call it a good example.

Big P wrote:
Im guessing Palindromes point is that in the real war, and still to this day, urbanised areas are a tanks worst nightmare unless it has close proximity infantry protection.

In WW2 tank crews just wouldn't go into urban areas unless they had infantry support. When they did try, it would end badly.

Whether FoW models that well enough im guessing is a key point. I dont know the game to comment, though its interesting to see the discussion.

Agreed, and this has remained exactly the same doctrinally to this day. Even modens AFVs with parascope sytems and optics are blind as hell in urban environments and there is still no better protection for them than a set of eyeballs mounted in a body with two legs. Furthermore, I'm having a difficult time imagining how a tank would engage in melee with a group of infantry to begin with. They are not bulldozers. Sure it may be the case that a particularly Ill equipped unit might not have basic explosives or other AT weapons, but in dense terrain they could still just...you know...hide.

I know in war desperate times call for desperate measures, it just bugs me a bit to see all tank armies. I don't mean to be counting rivets. I know we are playing with toys not making documentaries, but missing the importance of combined arms just leaves my eyebrow a bit raised.

 Palindrome wrote:
FoW makes no distinction between a single building and an urban area.

You're talking specific game mechanics right? Because the actual game you play would be significantly different. Odd that your solution is a single 'terror' roll and you think this would change things but the multiple skill checks don't. Not that I'm in any way against a change to the tank terror rule to a general terror rule that applies to infantry in the open and tanks in concealing terrain (both the initial test and the always test morale rules).

Its not beneficial, its all but mandatory. The same can not be said for infantry in tank armies...

We may want to define what we mean by 'pure tank' and 'pure infantry' before we go in to this because you can apply the same point to artillery. Either you want the mechanics to promote combined arms or you don't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in FoW Great War.

 George Spiggott wrote:
You're talking specific game mechanics right? Because the actual game you play would be significantly different. Odd that your solution is a single 'terror' roll and you think this would change things but the multiple skill checks don't. Not that I'm in any way against a change to the tank terror rule to a general terror rule that applies to infantry in the open and tanks in concealing terrain (both the initial test and the always test morale rules).

My suggested solution is a morale check to simulate the crews willingness(or otherwise) to engage infantry in close terrain and bogging/skill checks to represent the drivers skill at not getting stuck. So as it is now with the addition of a morale check.

 George Spiggott wrote:
We may want to define what we mean by 'pure tank' and 'pure infantry' before we go in to this because you can apply the same point to artillery. Either you want the mechanics to promote combined arms or you don't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in FoW Great War.

I don't think its possible to actually make an army using nothing but infantry at 1750 points, except Strelkovy of course. By pure infantry I mean no armored tanks teams at all and by pure tank I mean no infantry platoons at all, gun teams are neutral.

@Palindrome: So the addition of a morale ("terror") test over the current rules then. Regarding 'pure infantry' those are some bizarre and rather arbitrary decisions you've made there. I'm not convinced that, for example, Universal carriers and Panther tank should be treat as part of the same 'problem'.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Regarding 'pure infantry' those are some bizarre and rather arbitrary decisions you've made there. I'm not convinced that, for example, Universal carriers and Panther tank should be treat as part of the same 'problem'.

A Bren carrier and a Panther are both the same classification according to the rulebook so unless the classifications are broadened both need to be treated the same way.

Except that one of them can assault into our hypothetical house and the other one can't, add in the UC's 4" movement in difficult/very difficult going while we're discussing assault options. One is an armoured tank team and the other is a fully armoured tank team, so they're not even the same category.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Except that one of them can assault into our hypothetical house and the other one can't, add in the UC's 4" movement in difficult/very difficult going while we're discussing assault options. One is an armoured tank team and the other is a fully armoured tank team, so they're not even the same category.

I never was talking about a hypothetical house and something like a carrier with exposed crew shouldn't be able to assault at all, or at least it should be subject to pinning. Both the Panther and the carrier are tank teams.

You are getting lost in the weeds here. As I said before the rules currently make running a pure infantry army all but impossible while a pure tank army can do essentially everything. That's bad no matter how you look at it. My suggestion is simple but would make combined arms highly desirable, do you have an alternative?