Yes, I quite like that. So you can only fire if someone engages you in cc?
A more complicated version would be that you could fire at any unit moving to within 25cm of your dug-in unit.
First version would be simpler of course.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Combat Engineers idea http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=26138 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Combat Engineers idea |
I don't really play or pay attention to historical games much, but for a while there I kept hearing good things about Flames of War and so took the time to look into it a little. One of the things that stood out from it for me was the ability of infantry to dig foxholes to take cover in. Later, when I was reading the NetEpic rules and came across the concept of Combat Engineers, I immediately thought of that ability as something combat engineers should be able to do. Do you guys think that is an action we could allow for combat engineers? Dig a foxhole that would provide a cover bonus to an infantry stand/detachment. On the positive side, it would provide more tactical options, but I don't know if it would be too powerful or open to abuse. Since a revision is underway, I thought I would toss it out as an idea. |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
The Epic : Armaggedon Rules has Sappers, which are basically assault combat engineers .... And in SM2 you could buy entrenchments, bunkers, concertina and minefields ... |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
I wouldn't be against allowing combat engineers or any other unit to dig-in as you describe; in SM2 that Legion refers to, I seem to recall there was a "Dig-In"option where anyone could spend the turn digging themselves into a foxhole/throwing down sandbags to better protect against attacks as you describe to gain a -1 on to-hit rolls against them. This could be used in addition to other cover modifiers, meaning that units firing at dug in troops in buildings/in trenches/fortifiactions would have -3 to-hit modifier. I'm not against it being allowed, but what I would say is that in practice you'd probably never use the dig-in option as it meant wasting a turn of movement/firing and I didn't see that it added much to the game. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
Hi! As Bissler mentions the options for "digging in" are available. It does take a turn, so it is quite onerous to use, although powerful since adding an extra -1 to hit (especially when in a building or similar structure) makes shooting at them very difficult, which is the point. Were you looking for something more? Primarch |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
primarch wrote: As Bissler mentions the options for "digging in" are available. It does take a turn, so it is quite onerous to use, although powerful since adding an extra -1 to hit (especially when in a building or similar structure) makes shooting at them very difficult, which is the point. Were you looking for something more? I'm pretty sure that rule was dispensed with for Net Epic Gold (possibly earlier, I don't know). |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
The Bissler wrote: primarch wrote: As Bissler mentions the options for "digging in" are available. It does take a turn, so it is quite onerous to use, although powerful since adding an extra -1 to hit (especially when in a building or similar structure) makes shooting at them very difficult, which is the point. Were you looking for something more? I'm pretty sure that rule was dispensed with for Net Epic Gold (possibly earlier, I don't know). Hi! Time to re-add it then? Primarch |
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
Do you remember why it was removed in the first place? My thinking was that it provides additional tactical choices. Do you dig in and fortify the objective you are on to make it easier to hold onto, or it there too much risk that the enemy is going to drive you off it anyway and then he'll get to use the defenses you set up? Is it worth playing defensively and giving up a turn of movement and shooting to get a bonus to survive? That sort of thing. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
ForgottenLore wrote: Do you remember why it was removed in the first place? My thinking was that it provides additional tactical choices. Do you dig in and fortify the objective you are on to make it easier to hold onto, or it there too much risk that the enemy is going to drive you off it anyway and then he'll get to use the defenses you set up? Is it worth playing defensively and giving up a turn of movement and shooting to get a bonus to survive? That sort of thing. Hi! Then the aforementioned "dig in" order is good enough in your estimation to achieve this? (I think it is). Primarch |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
primarch wrote: Time to re-add it then? Possibly, though I doubt I would use it. Spending a turn digging in is a massive disadvantage for the unit involved. I would find it handy being able to start dug-in at the beginning of an attack/defend scenario. On the other hand, I always thought -3 (when combined with defences) on To-Hit rolls was too extreme and quite dull. However, with NEE making rolls to hit easier, perhaps now the system is better prepared for dug-in units. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
The Bissler wrote: primarch wrote: Time to re-add it then? Possibly, though I doubt I would use it. Spending a turn digging in is a massive disadvantage for the unit involved. I would find it handy being able to start dug-in at the beginning of an attack/defend scenario. On the other hand, I always thought -3 (when combined with defences) on To-Hit rolls was too extreme and quite dull. However, with NEE making rolls to hit easier, perhaps now the system is better prepared for dug-in units. Hi! Unless we modify the order to give the cover immediately and only defensive fire when you get charged. Its purely defensive but rather good at it. Thoughts? Primarch |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
Yes, I quite like that. So you can only fire if someone engages you in cc? A more complicated version would be that you could fire at any unit moving to within 25cm of your dug-in unit. First version would be simpler of course.
|
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
primarch wrote: Then the aforementioned "dig in" order is good enough in your estimation to achieve this? (I think it is). That was pretty much what I was thinking when it occurred to me, but I don't know what impact it has on the game. If it is just a rule for the sake of adding a rule and no one will ever use it then it either needs changed or left out but if it actually adds meaningful choices to infantry maneuvering then I think its a good idea. Are we saying now that this is something any infantry detachment can do, not just combat engineers? And are we saying the sandbags and foxholes stay around and can be used by other infantry (friend or foe) later in the game if the original diggers get driven off? I do recall reading someone here saying they would like to see more actions allowed to detachments in the game. edit: Quote: Unless we modify the order to give the cover immediately and only defensive fire when you get charged. Its purely defensive but rather good at it. I don't quite follow this, what do you mean exactly? |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
ForgottenLore wrote: primarch wrote: Then the aforementioned "dig in" order is good enough in your estimation to achieve this? (I think it is). That was pretty much what I was thinking when it occurred to me, but I don't know what impact it has on the game. If it is just a rule for the sake of adding a rule and no one will ever use it then it either needs changed or left out but if it actually adds meaningful choices to infantry maneuvering then I think its a good idea. Are we saying now that this is something any infantry detachment can do, not just combat engineers? And are we saying the sandbags and foxholes stay around and can be used by other infantry (friend or foe) later in the game if the original diggers get driven off? I do recall reading someone here saying they would like to see more actions allowed to detachments in the game. edit: Quote: Unless we modify the order to give the cover immediately and only defensive fire when you get charged. Its purely defensive but rather good at it. I don't quite follow this, what do you mean exactly? The old rule was that when you used the Dig-In order, your unit (note this applied to vehicles as well as infantry) could not move or fire at all and, if memory serves correctly, the -1 on rolls to hit only started to be applied at the start of the following turn. I think what Primarch means is that the -1 cover modifier would apply as soon as the order was given. We're talking about giving the unit a defensive fire option to make using Dig-In more attractive; as you point out there's no point in designing a rule that no one is going to use. I wasn't around here at the time, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the reason the rule was canned was because it was too much to sacrifice movement and firing for an entire turn of the game. Certainly that's why I never used it. |
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
Ah, so a detachment can "dig in" as their action, they gain an immediate -1 cover modifier but cannot move for the turn and may only fire if they get charged (snap fire at the -1 penalty or not?). I like that, I think it makes sense. Not sure about allowing non-infantry to do so though. I can't really see a tank crew climbing out of their tank in order to place a bunch of sandbags around their tank. Really seems like something only the lowly footslogger would be doing. |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Combat Engineers idea |
Exactly!  I'm fine either way about whether the rule would apply to vehicles* and not just infantry. I'd impose the Snap Fire rule; i.e. -1 to hit... ...but for NetEpic Evolution I'd give the unit a +1 to hit (same as FF) to negate the -1 for Snap Fire!  *Note: Praetorians and Titans have never had access to this rule. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|