Forums

I am playing a nice guy who I brought to the Blitz from the Matrix site. He played the AI for years (sounds familiar), but now is interested in playing PBEM.

We discussed the use of empty unmanned halftracks, and I pointed out it was frowned upon to send the empty halftracks swarming into the rear of the enemy.

In our game he sent a scout AC and a Puma into my rear. (This is starting to sound like a sick porn movie.)

Anyway, I had a AA halftrack positioned to support my Greyhound AC adjacent to a victory hex in my rear. (There I go again, but I am just trying to paint a picture, guys.)

The Allied Greyhound AC and the AA halftrack shoots the Axis Puma AC. No foul as the AA halftrack does not carry infantry, and has a quad .50 cal AA gun on top.

The question was raised (and I think it is a very good question) when I sent an unmanned empty Allied halftrack about a dozen hexes toward the Puma. This halftrack never fired because it ran out of points, but it did occupy an adjacent hex.

He raised a good question. I attacked the scout that was in my rear (DOH!!), but I had to move a dozen spaces to do so.

He is not raising a stink, but he raised such a good question I thought I would ask fellow Blitz members if this was acceptable being it was my rear I was protecting (#@$%&!!!), or a cheesy use of halftracks.

Thanks ....Jack

PS. I travel to Tuscaloosa, Alabama Saturday for the Georgia vs Bama game. Am taking my 13 year old son.

It's your rear area Jack you can protect it as you see fit I've used HT's for the same situation ;)

I believe the rule was designed to prevent HT swarms from being used to infiltrate the rear without protection or support..(now this is looking REAL bad I know but..Jack started it..)

I do not believe there is reason to feel that one is abusing the HT unspoken ROEs when they are used to protect/defend their OWN areas, except where they are used in assaulting Armor without other supporting units or using them to draw OPP fire from armor that has broken thru, and this is only if your OPP has pre-agreed to avoid such tactics.

All other aspects of defending your own area with your HTs should be considered legit tho IMHO.

I think this could be avoided if the scope and breadth of ROE's was changed to more specific criteria, such as:

Empty HT's cannot make unsupported overrun attacks on enemy armor.
Empty HT's cannot be used to deliberately and repeatedly draw enemy opfire (the emphasis on repeated as there are circumstances where HT's may move and unbenownst to them draw fire from hidden enemies).
No empty HT can scout towards hidden enemy positions without being accompanied by its infantry, or being within a 3 hex radius of (its) infantry.
Empty HT's can be used as rearguard sentries.

Problem solved.

Cheers!

Leto

This is a good point - is there somewhere on this site/forum that sets out 'house rules' or 'ground rules'?

Thanks

Leto's ROE above seems to be the way to go.

when u r protecting your own backyard , i think the kitchen sink could be thrown in protect it with what u have at your disposal

That's exactly right Reb. Your not scouting or trying to draw fire your protecting your operational area. Leto has valid points when it comes to offensive use of those pesky devils.

Dev's rules are on the money IMO.

My preferred ROE are:

1) No HT swarms;

2) No intentional use of empty HTs to draw op fire; or even repeated use of the same armored unit/tank to draw op fire (i.e.: "pinball wizard; use of a single unit's full APs to draw repeated op fire);

3) No HT assaults on armor unless supported by infantry or tanks;

4) HT scouts into enemy territory acceptable as long as they move with other combat units and/or try to stay within 5 or so hexes of their infantry. HT scouts on defense behind your own lines no problem.

Those ROE may be slightly more liberal than true "realists" prefer, but allow for more flexibility in use of HTs than stricktly "transport-only" ROE do.

Plus, I gotta believe that HTs were used for scouting, or assisting in assaults in some cases, especially as the war progressed.

Thor

Hey gang,

If HT are being used ahistorically why weren't half tracks assigned a higher VP cost? If the VP value of HT was higher, it would make them too expensive to risk in such activities right? My understanding is that that was the problem in WWII. The HTs were so valuable as transports, they were not risked. How high a VP would they have to be to prevent people from wanting to abuse them. (What if they had their on-board MGs modeled correctly?)

Thanks,
Duncan