Engineer assault ratings and elevation queries

[Geomitrak]

I'm playing Get Off The Beach ( West Front's Omaha Beach scenario ) by PBEM and a couple of questions have arisen:

1) In the Talonsoft 'Rising Sun' paper manual,Page 47, it states that the assault value of an engineer infantry unit is doubled when assaulting a hex containing a pillbox or bunker.

There is no mention of this in the Matrix pdf manual, as far as I can see. Is this double assault value true , and does it apply to engineers in all three games ?


2) I might be getting mixed up with another game here, but I'll ask the question anyway...

Imagine an Improved Position or Trench hex, with an adjacent hex that is a higher elevation. Can a unit in that higher hex fire down into the IP or TR hex and bypass the protection given to the enemy unit by the fortification because you are looking down into the hex from above ? I'm sure I read somewhere this is true, but I can find no reference to it now

Thanks for any help..

Regards

Paul

[R_TEAM]

Hi,

>>
2) I might be getting mixed up with another game here, but I'll ask the question anyway...

Imagine an Improved Position or Trench hex, with an adjacent hex that is a higher elevation. Can a unit in that higher hex fire down into the IP or TR hex and bypass the protection given to the enemy unit by the fortification because you are looking down into the hex from above ? I'm sure I read somewhere this is true, but I can find no reference to it now
<<

Intresting theorie ... not without sense ..
By trensch it is difficult, but by improved positions, you have only a bunch of sand-bags around you, so if the shoter high enough to fire over the bags, the defence bonus musst be much lower ..

Regards
R_TEAM

[Geomitrak]

R_Team, yes, that's what I think. I'm sure I've read this somewhere.

[Geomitrak]

And another query: the command platoon within a company, the one with the little radio icon in its Unit Info box...

I know that it signifies that the company command element 'resides' within that platoon, but can't find the explanation of how it influences the other two platoons. The icon isn't even listed with the other icons starting on page 35 of the pdf

I've been through all three Talonsoft paper manuals, and the JTCS pdf manual, and still can't find it. The daft thing is, I KNOW its in there somewhere, because I've read it before.

Jason, once again I know your busy, but is there any chance of some feedback on this, and the two questions in the opening post ? I'm helping a friend with this game, and I'm finding out there are many gaps in my knowledge.

Regards

Paul

[TJD]

Regarding the assault effectiveness of engineers, the new manual does say on p. 159 that "Engineers have a higher Assault value ... that normal rifle platoons", and experience certainly confirms that. I think the Rising Sun manual may still be regarded as correct that engineers have twice the assault value. But only Jason can pronounce ex cathedra. [&o]

As for negating entrenchements and the like by shooting down at them for an adjoining, higher hex, I'm not sure that could work as a general rule. It would depend on the delta and the angle of the slope rather than on simply being "higher".

My .02.

Best,

Tim

[Geomitrak]

Tim, thanks for that.

I know engineers have a higher assault value than normal rifle platoons...its the specific doubling of that value when assaulting pillboxes and bunkers that I need to clarify.

As for the elevation change rule, regardless of its merits , I'm trying to establish whether it is actually implemented in the game. I swear I've read it somewhere...

Tim, you're good with the manual...point me to the page that covers command platoons with the little aerial icon in their Info Boxes, will you ? I'm tearing my hair out trying to find the section that deals with it.

Regards

Paul

[TJD]

ORIGINAL: Geomitrak


Tim, you're good with the manual...point me to the page that covers command platoons with the little aerial icon in their Info Boxes, will you ? I'm tearing my hair out trying to find the section that deals with it.

Regards

Paul

Paul, I thnk what you're looking for is on page 97, the paragraph bolded "Command".

HTH,

Tim

[TJD]

A further thought about the elevation issue, Paul. You might be conflating two ideas, (1) negating the defensive benefit by firing from a higher elevation and (2) gaining a fire benefit by firing from a higher elevation. The latter is certainly correct, despite what the parameter data says (I have that from Jason himself). The fire benefit gained from a height advantage certainly offsets any defensive advantage from an entrenchment but I'm not sure it's enough to cancel it entirely.

HTH,

\Tim

[Geomitrak]

ORIGINAL: TJD

Paul, I thnk what you're looking for is on page 97, the paragraph bolded "Command".

HTH,

Tim

Ah, Tim ! Well done ! Why the heck can you find these things and I can't ? It was the same with my query about beach obstacles. [&o]

ORIGINAL: TJD

A further thought about the elevation issue, Paul. You might be conflating two ideas, (1) negating the defensive benefit by firing from a higher elevation and (2) gaining a fire benefit by firing from a higher elevation. The latter is certainly correct, despite what the parameter data says (I have that from Jason himself). The fire benefit gained from a height advantage certainly offsets any defensive advantage from an entrenchment but I'm not sure it's enough to cancel it entirely.

HTH,

\Tim

Bingo! I bet thats what I'm thinking of. Tim, is there a table anywhere that quantifies the advantage gained when firing from a higher elevation ?

Okay, that just leaves the the question of engineer's double-assault value when attacking bunkers and pillboxes to resolve.

Regards

Paul

[TJD]

Tim, is there a table anywhere that quantifies the advantage gained when firing from a higher elevation ?

The only table I'm aware of, Paul, is in Parameter Data under Terrain Combat Modifiers. There it lists Uphill/Downhill both at .9. This is apparently a misprint; according to Jason it should read .9 when firing uphill and 1.1 when firing down.

Best,

Tim

[Geomitrak]

Excellent! Great info Tim, thanks for your help so far.

Regards

Paul

[Geomitrak]

ORIGINAL: TJD

The only table I'm aware of, Paul, is in Parameter Data under Terrain Combat Modifiers. There it lists Uphill/Downhill both at .9. This is apparently a misprint; according to Jason it should read .9 when firing uphill and 1.1 when firing down.

Best,

Tim

Tim, I'm sure you've got better things to do with your day, but where is that ? In the pdf manual ? F3 in the game ? Can't find it.

[TJD]

ORIGINAL: Geomitrak

ORIGINAL: TJD

The only table I'm aware of, Paul, is in Parameter Data under Terrain Combat Modifiers. There it lists Uphill/Downhill both at .9. This is apparently a misprint; according to Jason it should read .9 when firing uphill and 1.1 when firing down.

Best,

Tim

Tim, I'm sure you've got better things to do with your day, but where is that ? In the pdf manual ? F3 in the game ? Can't find it.

Hi Paul:

Yes, it's F3 when in the game, which brings up Parameter Data. Scroll down to the Terrain Combat Modifiers, Full Hex and you'll find it.

Funny, I'm still using an ancient print copy of this which has the error of making Uphill/Downhill equivalent at .9. But I just checked in the game itself and the error has been corrected. Time to reprint!

Best,

Tim

[Geomitrak]

Found it. Thanks again, Tim. [:)]

[TJD]

ORIGINAL: Geomitrak

Found it. Thanks again, Tim. [:)]

FYI, there seem to be inconsistencies in the Parameter Data from one module to another. The parameter data in EF stiill lists Uphill/Downhill as being the same at .9; both WF and RS have been updated to show .9 Uphill and 1.1 Downhill.

There are inconsistencies also in the values given for Bunker/Pillbox. WF and EF say the modifier is .75; Rising Sun puts it at 1.0. Both Rising Sun and WF say that bunkers/pillboxes add 10 to the defense strength; EF says 20.

Jason, any thoughts on these inconsistencies? Do they accurately reflect differences in the games, or is it just a matter of the Parameter Data not being well-edited?

Tim