Fixes for the VBM sleaze -> or not?

[ON TOP ASL]

I made it a multiple choise poll, I figured some want to make several selections. Any solutions to fancy - or leave the VBM freeze as is?

[Tater]

I made it a multiple choise poll, I figured some want to make several selections. Any solutions to fancy - or leave the VBM freeze as is?

I voted "No Change"...mainly because I am opposed to any such drastic changes until they fix the foxhole rules.

BTW, your wording, I think, is wrong. The +2 CCV DRM is for "motion/non-stopped"...not just "motion".

Also, the only real change that makes any sense would be to just do away with the +2 for the "motion/non-stopped" for VBM vehicles and leave everything else the same. Changing that would make the risk high enough to give players "realistic" pause before attempting VBMf.

[ON TOP ASL]

And I guess this poll will see a leave 'as is' result!

[Mister T]

I welcome this poll, and voted whole-heartedly for the sound option previously suggested by Steve Pleva in another thread (remove +2 for motion and allow fire ADJACENT).

VBM Freeze is outrageous from a realism point of view, is an undue quick fix to tactical issues, is not penalised enough in the current rules, although the effective distance between the target and the bypassed obstacle is very small and makes the AFV very vulnerable.

It is the most urgent rule defect that would need to be fixed in one way or another (more than the foxhole defect, although this one could be valuable too).

That the balance of some (bad) scenarios changes as a result is not an issue for me.

[Earthpig]

1. Give Infantry +1PAATC early war, normal PAATC midwar, -1PAATC late war(to reflect a "familiarity" with AT techniques as war went on).

2. -1 PAATC for unit with AT weapon i.e. Pf, PSK, BAZ, PIAT, ATMM etc. allow them to fire at vehicle only.

3. Allow street fighting bonus' versus bypassing vehicle.(when bypassing a woods/building you are very close to enemy grunts with a limited view of the battle area)

BOTH infantry and vehicle are marked only with CC counter (unless Opposing infantry are also in hex and only target to be fired at by Infantry is at AFV as per #2).

these are VERY rough draft ideas with the desired effect of allowing armor to close with and disrupt enemy infantry but making it less one sided.

[tppytel]

For the sake of consistency and continuity, I would leave it as is, even though I agree it feels pretty strange. This is the kind of rule change (like those for foxholes and, say, bridges ) that would be best left for a third edition after some opportunity for public discussion and testing.

[L'Emperor]

An immediate street fighting CC attempt by the unit.

I like the idea of a motion vehicle does not qualify. There is precident; motion vehicles do not get the range benefits on TH DR.

[Tater]

1. Give Infantry +1PAATC early war, normal PAATC midwar, -1PAATC late war(to reflect a "familiarity" with AT techniques as war went on).

These techniques were a matter of experience. Experienced personel are usually represented by elite counters. These techniques didn't flow out to replacements per say.

2. -1 PAATC for unit with AT weapon i.e. Pf, PSK, BAZ, PIAT, ATMM etc. allow them to fire at vehicle only.

One doesn't need to make a PAATC (of any kind) to fire at an AFV with a PF, PSK, BAZ or PIAT...just fire away. Passing a PAATC would be required before one could use an ATMM.

BTW, if an AFV has ended it's movement in one's location...when the CCPh roles around there is no PAATC required in order to attack said AFV. A PAATC is required before advancing into CC with an AFV...or for CCRF during the AFV's MPh. If the AFV is already there with you...attack away.

3. Allow street fighting bonus' versus bypassing vehicle.(when bypassing a woods/building you are very close to enemy grunts with a limited view of the battle area)

???

Uhm, this is already part of the rules.

BOTH infantry and vehicle are marked only with CC counter (unless Opposing infantry are also in hex and only target to be fired at by Infantry is at AFV as per #2).

Huh???

these are VERY rough draft ideas with the desired effect of allowing armor to close with and disrupt enemy infantry but making it less one sided.

You need to do some more reading of the ASLRB.

[BruceC]

snipped..
2. -1 PAATC for unit with AT weapon i.e. Pf, PSK, BAZ, PIAT, ATMM etc. allow them to fire at vehicle only.

3. Allow street fighting bonus' versus bypassing vehicle.(when bypassing a woods/building you are very close to enemy grunts with a limited view of the battle area).

Re: #2 - Why not fire the LATW?
Re: #3 - I think it is already allowed [A11.8 last sentence].

I wonder how many others are missing this?

B-

[Blackcloud6]

Gadz. We tackling this non-issue again?