Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Silvanski
FYI The word program in the free Open Office can also create PDF'sORIGINAL: Curtis LemayORIGINAL: jmlima
Drop me your email by PM and I'll send you pdf version.
You're able to convert Word to PDF? If so, your services may be required - for King & Country (for King, read Ralph; for Country, read TOAW).
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: jmlima
Nothing received though...
First time I sent it to your 'e-mail.' This time I used the actual 'pm' button.
ORIGINAL: Silvanski
FYI The word program in the free Open Office can also create PDF's
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: jmlima
Drop me your email by PM and I'll send you pdf version.
You're able to convert Word to PDF? If so, your services may be required - for King & Country (for King, read Ralph; for Country, read TOAW).
ORIGINAL: Panama
"5.2.5 And if Ratio < 0.1, then further chance the attack will be treated as no more than a bombardment – with no artillery bonus, no defender supply cost, and counterbattery fire enabled. In this case, if the assault was supported, then the ground assault doesn’t even take place."
Reading this it seems to say it will be possible for the defender to fire artillery without using ammo? Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something?
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Panama
"5.2.5 And if Ratio < 0.1, then further chance the attack will be treated as no more than a bombardment – with no artillery bonus, no defender supply cost, and counterbattery fire enabled. In this case, if the assault was supported, then the ground assault doesn’t even take place."
Reading this it seems to say it will be possible for the defender to fire artillery without using ammo? Is this correct or am I misunderstanding something?
The attack would be converted into a bombardment and would function just like a bombardment works now: There would be no ground assault - rather, the attacker's directly assigned supporting artillery would just bombard the defender. The defender would not pay supply unless it was a ranged unit - then it may fire counterbattery at the bombarding attackers. If so, it would pay the same 10 supply as counterbattery costs now.
Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment, so it gets treated a little differently. The assault still takes place but, because it is so small and weak, the defender still pays no supply costs.
Remember, the purpose of this feature is to make the use of ant unit assaults useless.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment
ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment
What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.
Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment
What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.
Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...
Range 1 artillery now bombards instead of assaults (assuming it really consists of mostly artillery). So, it figures into the above the same as artillery directly assigned at other ranges.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Sekadegas
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now, if the attack didn't have any directly assigned supporting artillery, it can't be converted into a bombardment
What about range 1 artillery? Usually it shouldn't be used in direct support.
Or most probably I'm not getting what you meant at all...
Range 1 artillery now bombards instead of assaults (assuming it really consists of mostly artillery). So, it figures into the above the same as artillery directly assigned at other ranges.
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?
The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.
Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.
ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?
The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.
Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.
I would suggest in this case, the unit should have a generous helping of light rifle squads. This should "stiffen" the unit in a realistic fashion- and hopefully avoid triggering the automatic bombard in the case you're describing.
Anyway, definitely better than not having the rule. As it is, my Russians can't paste the enemy with masses of artillery before an offensive if the map scale is 20km/hex.
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What happens if you use range two (or longer) artillery to attack an adjacent unit?
The situation was admittedly unusual, but in the account of the 1942 Phillippine campaign I read, the heavily-American officered artillery often not only bombarded, but literally led counterattacks. It was the only way to get the less heavily-American officered Filipino infantry to go.
Point is, the artillery is definitely attacking, not bombarding.
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe there's something here I haven't considered, but...
I was mapping Eastern Anatolia, and getting mildly annoyed because, on the one hand, rivers cost movement points in OPART, but on the other hand, in reality, river valleys are usually the main avenues of movement -- even when there aren't roads.
Of course, generally, what costs movement isn't moving along the river, but crossing the river.
Wouldn't it work better overall if the movement penalty was charged for exiting the river hex rather than entering it? Pros, cons, and special cases of course, but it seems to me that this would still exact the cost for crossing the river without exacting a penalty for moving along it.
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
And while I'm on the subject...
How about treating wadi and river in a similar way? They do, after all, pose similar military problems -- yet one benefits from being on the wadi if one is the defender, while in the case of rivers, one benefits if the attacker is on the river.
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe there's something here I haven't considered, but...
I was mapping Eastern Anatolia, and getting mildly annoyed because, on the one hand, rivers cost movement points in OPART, but on the other hand, in reality, river valleys are usually the main avenues of movement -- even when there aren't roads.
Of course, generally, what costs movement isn't moving along the river, but crossing the river.
I don't see how moving along a river should be as cost free as moving along an open, flat plain. The river meanders, it has side tributaries, it cuts out gorges that may even need tunneling, etc. Think of the difficulty of putting in a road through a mountain gorge vs. through Kansas. The real reason the river is the avenue of movement in those cases isn't because it's so easy to move along the valley, but because it's so difficult or impossible to move by any other path. That needs to be effected by judicious use of alpine, escarpments, etc.
I didn't make it clear what I was proposing. There wouldn't be any cost for entering a river hex, or for leaving a river hex for another river hex; only for leaving the river hex for a non-river hex. It seems to me that this still imposes a cost for crossing the river without imposing one for moving along it.Wouldn't it work better overall if the movement penalty was charged for exiting the river hex rather than entering it? Pros, cons, and special cases of course, but it seems to me that this would still exact the cost for crossing the river without exacting a penalty for moving along it.
That, in and of itself, wouldn't accomplish anything. The cost of moving along the valley would be the same. Only if the game handled all the permutations of how the river hexes could be configured and associated together could what you want be effected. And that would be a huge task. It would even have to consider which side of the river the unit was moving on - the side with the branch or the side without.
