Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Too Many Support Weapons?

  1. #51
    See Dummies in the index Vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen , Scotland
    Posts
    16,109
    Blog Entries
    3
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by DerBlitzer View Post
    I consider "skulking" to be exactly this. Though of course a squad is moving an entire hex when it skulks, that's just the limitations of ASL's movement system. Skulking, in my view, is the abstraction of taking a full-cover position. In other words, just as in any ASL movement, a unit is not necessarily moving the entire length of a hex when it moves, but in the case of skulking, it's perhaps moving just a few feet, or even just ducking down.
    skulking also.neatly encapsulated the flanking effect. Once an enemy has flanked your position you can no longer skulk effectively and my have to withdraw. Bring flanked has no other effect in asl even tjoug it is constantly referred to in histories.
    What do we want? Time travel! When do we want it? It's irrelevant!

    Practice safe eating...always use a condiment!

  2. #52
    Forum Guru Paul M. Weir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,920
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
    I wonder how the parcelling out of Mgs and Mortars is best represented. I cannot see a unit only having one 81mm Mtr available since generally these weapons were grouped together. They should have 3 or 4 or none at all.
    It depends upon the army and the time frame.

    The German army originally had those as platoons of 6 in 3 sections with 2 81 mm tubes. Later the individual sections were made part of the infantry company and the mortar platoon in the heavy or MG company got 4 120 mm mortars. I strongly suspect that was in part a reflection of common practise (2 x 81 mm per company).

    The US infantry company had 2 later 3 60 mm mortar, reducing the need for breakdown of the battalion's heavy weapon companies 4 later 6 strong mortar platoon. In close country, like jungle or forest it might at times be more effective to break down, so I would not rule it out. The US mechanised infantry battalions only had 3 M4/M4A1/M21 mortar half tracks.

    The Soviets during the early mid war period centralised all mortars into companies, even the 50 mm, due to misuse by poorly trained infantry officers. As the officer pool improved they were parcelled out again. Again terrain and task would dictate keeping the 82 mm concentrated or in 2 or 3 tube sections. Urban terrain would tend to result in dispersal of sections.

    The British started with relatively few mortars, usually 4 per battalion (sometimes as low as 2 or 3). Later in the desert war each motorised company had 2 while the leg infantry battalion had 6. I would tend to allocate sections of 2 for motorised but keep them together (as OBA) for leg units. Again, though, terrain and task can override that.

    Summary of smallest
    US & British leg & Soviet '42: Mainly as (4-6 tube) OBA.
    US & British mechanised/motorised: 3 & 2 tube sections.
    German: 2 tube sections.
    Soviet (except '42): 2, more usually 3 tube sections.

    There will be occasions when 1 is on its own either for tactical reasons or only 1 is available.

    MMG/HMG would have been more usually allocated in 2 or 3 gun sections though 4 to 6 gun platoons would not be uncommon. However MG are more likely to be 'accumulated' by squads and platoons and single guns were sometimes part of a company's TO&E, so you have to be much more flexible about MG than mortars.
    The more you know, the more you know how little you know.

  3. #53
    The Swiss Moron Swiftandsure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St-Légier
    Posts
    12,323
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Even without SW counters in an OB, you have the ghost inherent LMGs.
    cf. introductory remark of chapter A9 :
    [A LMG counter represents a weapon additional to the inherent complement of such weapons present in a squad and accounted for by that squad's FP. The inherent LMG of a squad counter is not subject to any of the following rules, nor can it ever be turned into a LMG counter.]
    Tactical hint from about three millenia ago :
    The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the witless keep going and pay the penalty.
    King Solomon (Proverbs 27.12)

  4. #54
    Forum Guru wrongway149's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Willoughby, Ohio
    Posts
    10,833
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by jwb3 View Post
    Lots of good points by Skarper:

    Quite agree. From the beginning days of the game, SW allocations were based purely on design-for-effect. MGs in particular were allocated to give the game of infantry maneuver a certain feel, not based on TO&Es.


    I like to give one or both sides a DC or two to represent field-expedient explosives. Does that count against a TO &E based SW allotment?

    I say 'no'.
    'I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan"

    -Jayne Cobb
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  5. #55
    ASLOK Junkie synicbast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gosford Australia
    Posts
    1,384
    Blog Entries
    20
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by wrongway149 View Post
    I like to give one or both sides a DC or two to represent field-expedient explosives. Does that count against a TO &E based SW allotment?

    I say 'no'.
    Nice work, and that sort of touch can add enough narrative to take a scenario from plain vanilla to Neapolitan.
    Ladder Preference: 1. PBEM 2. Live VASL + Skype
    Attended Malaya Madness, Singapore '14: The inaugural Asia-Pacific ASL Tourney
    ASLOK XXIX


  6. #56
    See Dummies in the index Vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen , Scotland
    Posts
    16,109
    Blog Entries
    3
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by synicbast View Post
    Nice work, and that sort of touch can add enough narrative to take a scenario from plain vanilla to Neapolitan.
    What? Turn it into a pizza?
    What do we want? Time travel! When do we want it? It's irrelevant!

    Practice safe eating...always use a condiment!

  7. #57
    Vare, legiones redde! jrv's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Teutoburger Wald
    Posts
    8,029
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
    What? Turn it into a pizza?
    I believe he meant ice cream.

    JR
    Quintili Vare, legiones redde!

  8. #58
    Forum Guru Glennbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    11,054
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swiftandsure View Post
    Even without SW counters in an OB, you have the ghost inherent LMGs.
    cf. introductory remark of chapter A9 :
    This is what I'm thinking of when I say there are too many "extra" MGs provided in the OB. It's as if designers and players have forgotten what a squad counter represents.

    In any case what I've seen here so far is the notion that there AREN'T ENOUGH support weapons in scenarios today. I think you're all nuts!

  9. #59
    Forum Guardian
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    2,502
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
    I think you're all nuts!
    If you think everyone around you is nuts, maybe you are just paranoid ?

    My latest design has 4 SS squads defending a village with 4 HMGs, 2 MMGs and 2 PSK. They may freely deploy just to man the SW. They are attacked by 12 radioless early-war Polish AFV.

    Do you want to playtest it for me ?

    Great historical stuff you can find on Wikipedia, if you know where to look.
    "The only freedom that matters is freedom from fear."

  10. #60
    Chris: Managing Editor BattleSchool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ottawa GMT -5/-4
    Posts
    2,461
    Users Flag!

    Re: Too Many Support Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacometti View Post
    If you think everyone around you is nuts, maybe you are just paranoid ?

    My latest design has 4 SS squads defending a village with 4 HMGs, 2 MMGs and 2 PSK. They may freely deploy just to man the SW. They are attacked by 12 radioless early-war Polish AFV.

    Do you want to playtest it for me ?

    Great historical stuff you can find on Wikipedia, if you know where to look.
    Deploying would be a tough call. I like the assault fire capability and high CCV of the SS 8-3-8 AE in this one. But then, that is what ASL is all about: making tough decisions.

    Not sure what to do with the two bottles of Polish Sauerkraut (PSK) though. Can they be thrown, or just placed? Sorry, but with 16 SSR, I forgot already.
    Last edited by BattleSchool; 23 Apr 12 at 11:56.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Support weapons and Target Acquisition.
    By Jon Jackson in forum ASL Rules & Errata
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05 Sep 11, 13:32
  2. CREW and 1/2" support weapons
    By JG53_Jaguar in forum ASL Rules & Errata
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17 Mar 11, 18:08
  3. ABTF British support weapons
    By Cdn HIPster in forum ASL Rules & Errata
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29 Jan 11, 09:32
  4. Shock to Elimination & Support Weapons
    By James Taylor in forum ASL Rules & Errata
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19 Feb 09, 09:59
  5. Personnel and Support Weapons Counter size
    By JG53_Jaguar in forum Advanced Squad Leader
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 30 Jan 08, 15:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •