Is this unit no good anymore with a value of 5 why risk it when its not worth the cost.IE talking about ver 1.03 where i assualt with 12 Panthers and 3 A/Cs against a disrupted MG units twice no effect.Had to kill the unit before i could move through the hex.Thoughts on this and way to get round it.
Von Luck Wrote:Is this unit no good anymore with a value of 5 why risk it when its not worth the cost.IE talking about ver 1.03 where i assualt with 12 Panthers and 3 A/Cs against a disrupted MG units twice no effect.Had to kill the unit before i could move through the hex.Thoughts on this and way to get round it.
You are correct. The same goes for other flamethrowing units. There are plans to create new additional units where flamethrower units have a very high attack value at one hex range instead (or in addition to) of a high assault factor.
The Churchill Crocodile in real life for example was not typically used in assaults. It would rather park just out of range of hand held AT weapons and use its powerful flamethrower.
Now some may say that this is still a range less than 250 meters... True but also true for the bazooka and panzerfaust.
As for your question, how to use them. I will use them even less than I already did probably. Only when i'm confident that my assault has a good chance which is a little easier to predict in 1.04 than in 1.03.
Huib
Yeah well in my games now i just pull them to the back of the map so valuable point wise to risk them.Flamethrower tanks i might use with other units only because they have a higher defence value.And your correct they didnt actually assualt so maybe the new attack factor might be better.
Would anyone be against adjusting the attack factor for 1 hex for these types of units that are currently in the game, as opposed to creating a whole new series of units?
These would be created or adjusted for the 1.05 UPDATE.
Jason Petho
Jason Petho Wrote:Would anyone be against adjusting the attack factor for 1 hex for these types of units that are currently in the game, as opposed to creating a whole new series of units?
These would be created or adjusted for the 1.05 UPDATE.
Jason Petho
Jason:
I think that would be a good idea. Re-introduce "some" versatility and usability for these units.
As long as both Allied and Axis flame units are included I do not see it as a problem.
Maybe I'll get my Tesla Death Ray yet? ;)
Ed
MrRoadrunner Wrote:Maybe I'll get my Tesla Death Ray yet? ;)
Ed
Look if we are creating new stuff I still want the battle ax that is +10 against orcs & small woodland creatures.
That "hammer of assault" (+10 in urban areas) would solve John's problem.
<soapbox ON>
I may have mentioned this before :-) but I think that the primary design simulation of assaults is being missed.
Assaults in CS are NOT supposed to represent crushing the life from your opponents troops under the tracks of your Tigers.
IMHO, assaults were initially designed to represent the surrender of troops whose position was compromised - surrounded, low on morale, etc...
A quick estimate of german losses versus captured reveals approx 5M killed, 6M wounded and 11M captured. Ratios from double this (France 92K:50K) to quadruple this (Belgium 7000:1800) exist for other occupied combatants. The ratio for victorious combatants is in the range 3:1 (Britain), 5:1 (USSR), 7:1 (USA) and 50:1 (Japan). I would argue that capture was thus an important aspect of WWII tactics and the only way that this is represented in CS is via assault.
I would further argue that the original assault rules represent this state of affairs more accurately (it IS a forgone conclusion that when the enemy surrenders I capture him!) than the newer style assault rules, and thus units such as the 251/16HT can have their place restored.
umbro
<soapbox OFF>
It's ok Umbro.........you can leave the soapbox on :-)
Hmmmm ... :soap: ... :chin:
Jonathan, you left this? :smoke:
