Grenade bundles

[gimp]

I threw this out talking about walkers, but to get feedback from people that might not be following that thread:
Currently, normal infantry can do nothing to an armored car in close combat without making a focused attack, and even that doesn't give much chance.

To give infantry more teeth against vehicles, why not allow a model with grenades use a grenade bundle in close combat with a vehicle? It was a tactic every army used.

If the model makes a drive test, they can get up the nerve to put a bundle where it will do some good, and cause 8+2d6 damage. If they fail, they have to use the normal strength damage rules.

That gives infantry a chance to do what infantry could, looks very heroic on the table, and still limits the option if troops start taking drive losses or aren't that high on drive to begin with.

While infantry could swarm a tank, and fire through vision slits, etc, that would take a more extensive shift in rules structure to apply.

Adding a drive based special close combat attack option would let a player skip taking anti-tank units, and still have a chance to be viable on the table against vehicles.

Thoughts? Curses? Cries of, "Heretic?"

[mechaace]

Again I've put this in the walkers section but just out of completeness.

Why not allow units if possible to take something similar to sticky bombs. Again this could be in place of something like upgrading a unit with a BAR or something similar.

Though I like the idea of making it more of a drive thing, as it's more about getting up the nerve to go right up to a tank more than being able to hit it really.

[malkcntent]

There's been mention of this before and I think it's a good idea. We'll have to come up with an 'official' rule at some point but until then feel free to devise your own stuff and let us know how it works!


-Matthew

[bsantucci]

i would say a straight drive roll might be a little too easy. Maybe a drive roll plus a neg -1 modifier for attacking a armored vehicle(Frightening) ?

[pixelgeek]

I think that they should be an Upgrade that you can buy for a unit to give it sticky bombs or Teller mines and that this ability should cost you an upgrade/detachment slot.

[gimp]

I'd thought about going the upgrade route, but also thought how all infantry could close assault vehicles.

While 'grenade bundles' was a simple way to describe it and limit it through drive tests, I pictured it as the gamut of actual grenade bundles through climbing on board and firing and grenading through every opening they could find.

Infantry that get close are still a tanker's nightmare.

[mechaace]

It's either that or allow an upgrade to something like sticky bombs, giving infantry a good piece of tank assaulting equipment, or if they don't upgrade they can still assault a tank etc but it's not as effective.

[gimp]

The problem being that infantry currently can't do much of a close assault against vehicles. In close combat, S 2 doesn't give good damage against a jeep (max 3+ save), and has no chance against an armored car without a focused attack. Even that gives at worst a 2+ save for an M20, and a 3+ against the others.

The best odds infantrty has are backing away and throwing grenades, but that isn't a close assault, nor does it leave much room if armor values go up with actual tanks.

Armor did not completely rule the battlefield in WW2. Close assaults from infantry were a tanker's nightmare. Keeping enemy infantry at a distance was important for survival. Tank shock was for WW1, green troops, and 40K.

Special equipment like teller mines or satchel charges could be an upgrade, and should have more power against vehicles, even to the point of a thrown range.

I just like the idea of mirroring the actual heroics of a close assault to take out a tank, and giving the PBI a chance they should have.

[hannibal]

While I agree, and actually have suggested rules about grenades being used in close combat against vehicles, let's certainly not make vehicles out to be stronger than they are.

If you read through the batreps we've played, vehicles are very very fragile. Sure, if you don't bring a bazooka or a panzerschreck, then you might be in a bit of trouble. But, that's kinda your own fault then. Because once you do bring a bazooka or panzerschreck, all it takes is one hit. Generally one hit and even the M20 is toast.

And you should always bring a bazooka or panzerschreck. Since cover stacks to armor, a guy in medium cover can be almost immune to small arms fire. A bazooka ruins a machinegun nests day, for sure.

A bazooka, a hankerchef, and a canteen, never leave home without 'em.

[gimp]

I'm not saying vehicles are too strong. I'm coming to AE from a historical perspective, where vehicles in WW2 really had to worry about infantry.

Not just about anti-tank weapons, but simply infantry.

If an armored car didn't have to worry about a bazooka, I'd be really disappointed. I think vehicles should be needing infantry to protect them from infantry, because they did.

I'd like to see players willing to risk not taking a bazooka, because they think they can take out the vehicles they might face with infantry and some guts.

Since the current official stance is that a loader can't pick up a support weapon when the gunner is dropped, requiring a bazooka to take out vehicles reduces the game to who takes out what single model first.

The Germans also gain a significant advantage, because they can equip multiple squads with panzerfausts, while the US and Soviets are more limited.

[hannibal]

Since the current official stance is that a loader can't pick up a support weapon when the gunner is dropped, requiring a bazooka to take out vehicles reduces the game to who takes out what single model first.

Sometimes, yes and sometimes no. In game play, its been my experience that most times the bazooka guy hunkered down in medium cover can be pretty hard to kill.

The converse is that the bazooka is has a medium range, is only so-so accurate out to that medium range, and isn't likely to get off a lot of shots.

So really, it's this sort of dance that goes on. However, even if one side wins, there's always special orders. Keep Moving, Stragglers, and Artillery strike are special orders that can be used by both sides.

I'd like to see players willing to risk not taking a bazooka, because they think they can take out the vehicles they might face with infantry and some guts.

Yeah see that's not gonna happen. It's a foolish vehicle that lets itself get charged by infantry. Now, if you read through our battle reports, you'll see we've been foolish a number of times. But if you look for a Soviet vs Russian one ("Glorious Offensive" I believe) you'll see how Jeff used his vehicle very cleverly and I could never get a shot with my anti-tank rifle much less get close in combat.

I agree there should be a "stuff the grenade in the tracks" option (and I think I'll pester Malckntent to put it an Over the Wire) but even with that, the only real way you're gonna kill a vehicle is with a bazooka.

The Germans also gain a significant advantage, because they can equip multiple squads with panzerfausts

Not as much as you'd think. While yeah on paper the PFs are nice, they are really hard to use. Being a 1:2 weapon means you can't manuever to get a shot, so if the vehicle ducks behind a building it's a no go. Then there's the short range which means only hitting on a 5+. The PF is scary if it hits but very hard to use.

[skorzeny]

Might be a good idea to restrict 'grenade bundles', satchel charges and those nasty five-headed potato smashers to certain units. I'm thinking engineers, pioniertruppen, and possibly commandos and panzergrenadiers. The run of the mill grunt shouldn't have access to this kind of excessive explosives.

[gimp]

Jun 6, 2008 19:34:32 GMT -5 hannibal said:

Since the current official stance is that a loader can't pick up a support weapon when the gunner is dropped, requiring a bazooka to take out vehicles reduces the game to who takes out what single model first.

Sometimes, yes and sometimes no. In game play, its been my experience that most times the bazooka guy hunkered down in medium cover can be pretty hard to kill.

Unless you use weapons that negate that cover. Otherwise, most infantry weapons have a harder time taking on infantry in cover, though vehicle machine guns can do reasonably well.

Four shots with a 4+ RC and a 21" short range will average two hits with an MG 34, with a chance at damage on a 4+ roll against armor 3 in medium cover. That will force a save 75% of the time. The chance doesn't drop that much out to 42".

The converse is that the bazooka is has a medium range, is only so-so accurate out to that medium range, and isn't likely to get off a lot of shots.

Which is another reason I'd like to see regular infantry with better teeth. A bazooka has an 18" range tied to a 3" move. Either SdKfz has a 42" range with an 8" move.

So really, it's this sort of dance that goes on. However, even if one side wins, there's always special orders. Keep Moving, Stragglers, and Artillery strike are special orders that can be used by both sides.

And special orders are very limited in number. Having to take specific SO's as back-up negates the variety available, which it shouldn't. Some players may prefer certain orders, but the game will suffer if players feel they have to limit their choices in every game.

What good are the cool special orders if you feel you have to back up your bazooka with the few you can bring?

Yeah see that's not gonna happen. It's a foolish vehicle that lets itself get charged by infantry. Now, if you read through our battle reports, you'll see we've been foolish a number of times. But if you look for a Soviet vs Russian one ("Glorious Offensive" I believe) you'll see how Jeff used his vehicle very cleverly and I could never get a shot with my anti-tank rifle much less get close in combat.

Which also depends on the scenario and the terrain. A vehicle with an infantry screen and luxury of maneuver can stay out of range. A vehicle that has to help take an objective, or close for good fields of fire, has to risk more.

A vehicle that faces a force that has lost their only limited anti-tank options (even artillery strike is far from assured) faces no risk.

I agree there should be a "stuff the grenade in the tracks" option (and I think I'll pester Malckntent to put it an Over the Wire) but even with that, the only real way you're gonna kill a vehicle is with a bazooka.

The easiest way is rarely the only way. The threat alone can add a lot to a game, as well.

Anti-tank weapons are the best defense against armored vehicles. That's what they are made for.

Infantry in WW2 were not solely dependent on specific anti-tank weapons for anti-tank defense, however. Nor were infantry anti-tank options limited only to specialized units like engineers, though those units were better equipped.

The Germans also gain a significant advantage, because they can equip multiple squads with panzerfausts

Not as much as you'd think. While yeah on paper the PFs are nice, they are really hard to use. Being a 1:2 weapon means you can't manuever to get a shot, so if the vehicle ducks behind a building it's a no go. Then there's the short range which means only hitting on a 5+. The PF is scary if it hits but very hard to use.

Panzerfausts take time to learn to use well, but that applies in every game I've played with them. The same tactics apply, even if the mechanics have been different.

The panzerfaust also drifts if it misses, and vehicles can be a big target to drift on, even using 1/72nd scale models. The 'faust is not as good for range as a bazooka, but it can add a heavy punch to every Wehrmacht and Volksturm squad, as opposed to a limited supply of bazookas.

Two squads 12" apart cover a line 36" long with a heavier punch than a bazooka, with a nasty crossfire between the squads.

That's not bad if they're in a position the enemy has to try and dig them out of, or approaching a set position themselves.

That also gives the German player a more viable option for taking a mortar to eliminate enemy anti-tank weapons.

[hannibal]

Four shots with a 4+ RC and a 21" short range will average two hits with an MG 34, with a chance at damage on a 4+ roll against armor 3 in medium cover. That will force a save 75% of the time. The chance doesn't drop that much out to 42".

You can qoute the numbers at me all day. I know them too. Experience is how I'm basing my opinion.

Some players may prefer certain orders, but the game will suffer if players feel they have to limit their choices in every game.

Well, if you don't want to take a bazooka to deal with vehicles, you can take a special order. That is variety in my mind. I consider special orders to be like another unit in my army: they fulfill a specific role contextually based on the other units I have in the detachment.

The panzerfaust also drifts if it misses,

Ah, no not at all. It's not an Indirect weapon so there's no drift. It's a point-to-point weapon. You roll, you hit or miss.

but it can add a heavy punch to every Wehrmacht and Volksturm squad, as opposed to a limited supply of bazookas.

Yeah, I know. My point was the utility of that when compared to their effectiveness and the StG44 you give up makes them not "a significant advantage" like you said. It's an okay trade.


Right so we're getting off on tangents and I think I've said my piece on this. Rather than debating it endlessly, why don't you playtest a version and give your feedback to Matt. Also check out the grenades idea I had for using ggrenades in close combat. Not combat satchels or things like, but every model that has grenades can use them.

[gimp]

Jun 7, 2008 8:30:29 GMT -5 hannibal said:

Four shots with a 4+ RC and a 21" short range will average two hits with an MG 34, with a chance at damage on a 4+ roll against armor 3 in medium cover. That will force a save 75% of the time. The chance doesn't drop that much out to 42".

You can qoute the numbers at me all day. I know them too. Experience is how I'm basing my opinion.

Statistics and probability are experience. I know that from over 30 years of gaming, as well as higher education.

Basing rules concepts on individual player experience, or even a small group of players, is too small a sampling for good results.

Probability governs games that roll dice, regardless of whether players want to believe that. Some players will be on the lucky end of probability consistently, and others on the unlucky end to balance that, but probability governs the whole group. Have a group roll 1200 d6, and you'll wind up with close to 200 of each result. Increase the number of rolls, and the division will become closer to an even distribution.

Games wouldn't work if the dice weren't fair overall.

A game should be built based on the entire group that will play it, and not only on the results a few players can get.

I've thought for some time that many of the issues people have with 40K are due to player experience trumping probability in the game design process.

Well, if you don't want to take a bazooka to deal with vehicles, you can take a special order. That is variety in my mind. I consider special orders to be like another unit in my army: they fulfill a specific role contextually based on the other units I have in the detachment.

Take a bazooka, a bazooka with an SO back-up, or just an SO to protect against armor is the lack of variety choice I'm talking about.

Ah, no not at all. It's not an Indirect weapon so there's no drift. It's a point-to-point weapon. You roll, you hit or miss.

That's true. We started using the deviation rules for both AOE's and Indirect fire, because short ranged explosives still have to go somewhere, and wouldn't dud on every miss. If the rocket could leave the battlefield, it would have a longer range.

Mortars are designed as indirect fire only weapons. With all other tactical weapons, indirect fire is a choice.

Grenades aren't always lobbed high indirect, even if they can be. In fact, they rarely are. It wouldn't make sense if sometimes the blast disappeared, and sometimes it didn't.

When bigger tank guns do arrive, most will not be indirect fire capable, because they weren't designed with enough elevation to do so. A tank will get a near miss, or even a near miss that doesn't catch anyone in the blast, much more frequently than they will fire so high the shell leaves the battlefield. A tank gunner that fired like that would get fired.

Disappearing explosions is one of the consistent complaints I hear about 40K.

but it can add a heavy punch to every Wehrmacht and Volksturm squad, as opposed to a limited supply of bazookas.

Yeah, I know. My point was the utility of that when compared to their effectiveness and the StG44 you give up makes them not "a significant advantage" like you said. It's an okay trade.

With the Wehrmacht, you have the choice of the Kar98k, StG44, or 'faust. With the Volksturm, you choose only between the GeW43 and 'faust.

The Volksturm's running a lower chance to hit, but also only giving up a shot every other turn.

The Wehrmacht gives up rate of fire, but also adds a solid punch against other models in cover, even without adding drift to the 'faust.

Right so we're getting off on tangents and I think I've said my piece on this. Rather than debating it endlessly, why don't you playtest a version and give your feedback to Matt. Also check out the grenades idea I had for using ggrenades in close combat. Not combat satchels or things like, but every model that has grenades can use them.

Grenades as they are would not make good close combat weapons against armor if the ratings go up when tanks arrive.

At best, Germans can get a 4+ save against an M20. I'd hope a Tiger had better armor.

What does the infantry do against a Tiger, when historically regular infantry took out a lot of them in close assaults?

As for playtesting: I did, or I wouldn't have suggested the idea in the first place. Run an urban fight, and it's much easier to get close to a target to try it.

I'm not a designer for this game. I won't say something must be done, I'll ask, or suggest, but the only games I can alter are the ones I play when my opponent agrees.

Even if I throw out an off the cuff suggestion, I'll try it. I have the luxury of being retired, so I have time. If I found it non-viable, I'd post the fact, rather than leave the idea to waste other people's time.