Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Armoured Regiment 1.5
epilgrim
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 18 2007,21:44)
QUOTE
I'm also not married to 6-strong tank formations for the Minervans.

If consensus is against them, then they can go.

the understrength company as an Ind-For is a good idea, but M is right, it should be locked as Russ only and it should cost 400 points.

the Mech Inf platoon should be 6 inf, 3 chimera and available as a company upgrade.

the Stormhammer should be the Collector's section profile.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria

(epilgrim @ Sep. 21 2007,03:54)
QUOTE
the Mech Inf platoon should be 6 inf, 3 chimera and available as a company upgrade.

Totally disagree

This never fits the background of a tank company. Infantry has clearly other tasks

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Why doesn't it fit? Infantry in Chimeras accompanying a Tank Company reminds me of Panzergrenadiers.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
I would say that there has to be some mechanised inf in there just to make the list viable.  

Fluff wise- given that IG regiments seem more akin to modern day divisions or brigades in size (at least thats how ive always seen it) it would make sense for there to be say a battalion of armoured infantry to be divided up as seen fit amongst the tank battalions.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
What's wrong with the Mechanised Infantry Support Formation that's already in the list?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Id say that the current implementation is fine.  

Well, now I think about it it may be a bit on the large size at 10 units plus chimeras- that size of formation is going to be able to fulfil basically the same role as a SL mech company.  If the size was 6-8 inf units this would be more akin to attached platoons rather than a full company and would limit the efficacy of infantry in the army, moving them very much to a supporting role.  I think that they definately need to be a support formation rather than attached upgrades- it just better fits the armoured regiment feel that wa.




_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 21 2007,10:41)
QUOTE
What's wrong with the Mechanised Infantry Support Formation that's already in the list?

IMO as is, the Ind-For Mech Inf is an understrength company that cannot get any support or augmentation. Points wise they are not worth taking when compared with any of the other Ind-For choices.

With Storm Troopers, Vultures, Arty batteries and understrength tank companies available this choice becomes significantly underwhelming.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

(Soren @ Sep. 21 2007,08:36)
QUOTE
This never fits the background of a tank company. Infantry has clearly other tasks

Which tank company background are you referring to?

As far as Inf go they usually do everything- assault, take and hold, rearguard, support and not surprisingly combined arms.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Regarding the infantry and the Minervan list in general, I think we need to look at what the focus is, which is obviously that this is an armored variant of the IG list.

With that said, I can think of very few battles that ran exclusively tanks (actually I can think of only one but I am not the world's expert on tank battles so there may be others that I don't know of).  Even the Germans in Africa who tried to overrun the Desert Rats had infantry crawling between their tanks.  

While I don't think there is anything wrong with the mech infantry support right now (we didn't play with it but it looks okay on paper), I'm not sure it needs to be there.  If the goal is to truly keep the focus on the tanks, then having Infantry in a support formation role could dilute the effect of the the core formations.

As it stands, I can field 2 full formations of MechInf for every core formation.  Compare that against a platoon sized MechInf upgrade that MUST be attached to a core formation (undoubtedly a major portion of these will be Russ and SHVYs).  Now the only time you see infantry is with tanks.  To me that keeps the focus on this being an armored list far better than having infantry as a support company.  It also makes the tank companies more realistic, not less.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
You could make it true WW2 style Panzergrenadiers. Upgrade of 6 Infantry units (= 1 Platoon) for TankCompanys but no Chimeras. But they can ride on the tanks.

But this would need a new specialrule because eg Leman Russ can't transport anything.

Panzergrenadiers
A unit with the Panzergrenadier special ability is tranied tu use any armoured vehilce as a transport vehicle. They simply crawl on the hull of the vehicle and grap whatever structure they can get a grip on and ride along.
The drawback is that every hit onthe transporting vehicle also inflicts an automatic hit on the transported unit which are allowed its saving throw against this hit or a 6+ cover save.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.5
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria

(epilgrim @ Sep. 21 2007,11:21)
QUOTE

(Soren @ Sep. 21 2007,08:36)
QUOTE
This never fits the background of a tank company. Infantry has clearly other tasks

Which tank company background are you referring to?

As far as Inf go they usually do everything- assault, take and hold, rearguard, support and not surprisingly combined arms.

You cannot send them guarding something if you attach them to the company. Epic rules do not allow that. Combined arms is also better fulfilled if they are 2 separated formations, as infantry can work their way through cover to get some protection. If you attach them to the company, they will never see a cover save and be simply cannonfodder, because every AP hit the tank company recieves kills em automatically. nobody will take this. Makes them completely senseless, sorry.

I agree that infantry is attached to the tank company, but the EA rule system makes it imho impossible to let them fullfill their support role when attached. Also they raise the vulnerability of the company, which normally cannot be hit by AP weapons. Every time I try to avoid this mixture, and here it will get unavoidable?




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net