Hi just wondering if armoured units are going to retreat by reversing instead of turning and showing their vulnerable rear (when armour facing rules are on )in the new ME edition or if this has been already done. I know the asdn patch for ef2 had this feature. Maybe others have opinions on this as well ? Thanks
Regards simon
I do not know if it is a proposed chaged. Jason can asnwer that.
As it stands, armour turns 180 degrees and exposes their rear in Matrix. Many feel (Don Fox is a proponent I know) of leaving armour facing off. I agree this should be the case, particularly in tank heavy scenarios
Ultimately, I would like to see this feature as an Optional Rule that can be accessed in the Optional Rule dialogue at the start of a scenario.
Jason Petho
Thanks Jason, i suppose i was thinking without the armour facing rule it denies the tactical option to outwit the opponent and strike from side or rear. what was historically the case in tactics? Shoot and scoot i believe was one.
Regards
s
the rattler Wrote:Thanks Jason, i suppose i was thinking without the armour facing rule it denies the tactical option to outwit the opponent and strike from side or rear. what was historically the case in tactics? Shoot and scoot i believe was one.
Regards
s
I have to agree, I prefer the Armoured Facing Rule ON. Tanks in a platoon generally operated in the same manner, utilizing formations during transit and combat. Most of these formations were generally facing the same direction - with the exception of turret facing. Of course, not all of the armoured vehicles represented in the Campaign Series have turrets.
Jason Petho
ive always tried to justify the turning of the units as the platoon is being routed and basically is overwelmed. I too would like to see an option for the turning. I am sure the boys will surprise us with some of these goodies we all would like to see.
If you ever played CM you'll notice that individual vehicles rarely face in the exact same direction and are rarely hit on the same spots from the same direction in six turns (CM respresenting 1 min turns and CS 6 min turns; the latter even being subject of debate as too short). In six minutes there will be a lot of reversing, turning and moving going on. IMO CS is unsuited to have the tactical options of AF forced upon it. Since I play CM as well as CS I became aware how good CM models AF and how ugly it is in CS. I prefer general armor settings and the dice roll...
Huib
This will be no suprise for those who have been around awhile and witnessed this thread before: I completely agree with Huib. The scale of the CS game makes armor facing a fanciful feature in most of the tactical situations presented in the game.
Playing with the armor facing rule on is fun, but makes the whole experience a lot more "gamey" and detracts from the simulation value
Yeah!....what Huib and Don said :-)
Ok I don’t want to beat this up again but didn't get in on discussions of the past. Can someone tell me where my thinking is off on this? I never once believed that AF reflected the thickness of armor from a platoon where all vehicles faced a direction in unison. But thought AF rules as a way to model a statistical chance that fire coming in from an unexpected direction will have an effect on the crews and may actually hit more exposed vehicles. In that case, maybe rather than tossing AF rules, all units should be vulnerable to real/side shots.
When you voluntarily pull back a unit, you spin it around to face the front. In reality I think the platoon is falling back by half covering the retreat of the second, then leapfrogging back. I can’t imagine all vehicles driving together backward over a distance of at least 250 m through a built-up area. When displaced by an assault, the unit looses this cohesion and can’t maintain cover. Some crews panic, take the fasted route out, or bail. I personally think it makes more sense to take more casualties in the route phase than in the actual assault. -read a book on it, so it must be true;)