|
Post by apothecarybob on Mar 10, 2010 19:59:36 GMT -5
lets put it this way. How often, in 40k, do you see people use hellhounds/banewolfs, and/or redeemers?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 10, 2010 21:52:16 GMT -5
Flame tanks are one-use only. Once they shoot their flamethrower, they can either be removed (with no penalty) or stick around and take up space. They are also a bit expensive. However, I think they can be invaluable in one role: preparing a position for assault. Anything hit by a flamethrower is automatically Pinned, which drastically reduces the defensive fire of the platoon being assaulted. Moreover, saves are not allowed, so infantry die off with ease; they don't kill tanks easily, but they do 'bail' them, preventing them from any defensive fire...which is a tremendous benefit. My PzG company has some halftrack mounted flamethrowers available, which I'm eyeing with interest. I think they'd be very situational, but if you got them to work you'd giggle a lot
|
|
|
Post by RodTheCid on Mar 11, 2010 0:07:59 GMT -5
that's an interesting point is this something that can be use as a substitute for an already "purchase" weapon, let's say that I want to change one of the MG from the Sherman for a Flamethrower, is that valid?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 9:35:44 GMT -5
No, doesn't really work like that. In your company organization chart, it will list which platoons you can (or must) take, and what equipment is in those platoons. Flame tanks are a seperate weapon or support platoons for some companies. I didn't see any platoons that allows a mix of flame and regular tanks. Another thing about flame-tanks: they blow up easy....something about several hundred extra gallons of stuff that burns. There are also flame-thrower infantry teams, but I haven't looked in to them much. I believe 'Pioneer' or Engineer platoons can take a flamethrower guy.
|
|
|
Post by apothecarybob on Mar 11, 2010 9:42:15 GMT -5
hmm extra burny tanks....I like the sound of that. Speaking of tanks, do the US have the Sherman with the missile launchers on top of it? If so, I KNOW my army
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 10:00:20 GMT -5
Don't know, A-Bob...doubt it. Maybe in one of the special campaign books.
|
|
|
Post by apothecarybob on Mar 11, 2010 10:28:01 GMT -5
damn, well, still, american tank divisions FTW
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 10:36:23 GMT -5
I really am curious to learn more about how the game works, specifically things like: can a company that's all tanks work? Or all infantry/artillery with no tanks? Historically, I don't think either was able to do well without the other, at least in some small measure, so I'm assuming the same in game? We'll have to do some goofing around on the tables to see how an all-tank force can work!
|
|
|
Post by apothecarybob on Mar 11, 2010 10:41:04 GMT -5
well, lets look at the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers. There were a few times when Easy Company fought on their own, no other support to help. And they did pretty good, until reinforcements arrived, then they kicked ass. But there were also times where they just plained suck, due to incompetant commanders, but thats a different story
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 15:32:40 GMT -5
Yeah, those Fearless Veterans (in game terms) can help get away with a lot. The US has lots of man-packed AT weapons (bazookas!) that can help in an environment with little/no friendly tanks to help.
I think infantry heavy with little/no armour can work, based on what I've seen the Infantry are just so hard to kill! What I'm worried about is all-armour.
See, every platoon has to take a Platoon Morale Check if they take a casualty and are below 1/2 their starting strength. If they fail, the whole Platoon is removed. An Infantry Platoon of 8-10 teams has to take a fair amount of fire to actually take enough casualties to force a Morale Check. A platoon of three tanks, though, only has to lose two tanks.
Now that's bad enough...but then your whole Company (the army lists we make are supported companies, btw) has to take a Company Morale Check at the start of any turn where half your platoons are destroyed. If you fail, the game is over, you've lost.
So a beefy infantry company with 6-8 platoons has to lose a lot of stuff before a Company Morale check. OTOH, if you've got a tank company with 2 platoons of tanks and a platoon of supporting infantry, well, you can have one bad round of shooting and realize your whole force has given up and you've lost!
Note that from Flames Of War Forum readings, aiming to force your opponent to make a Company Morale Check is considered by some to be gamey and unsportsmanlike...take that for what it's worth. I still think it's very likely that a low-model/platoon-count army is very likely to lose enough quickly enough to be unable to continue. Those dice are fickle!
|
|
|
Post by Lord Victor on Mar 11, 2010 15:37:52 GMT -5
Wow, I really find it odd that using a basic rule device like that is considered gamey. The tactic of demoralizing a force by overwhelming parts of their line is as old as warfare gets...
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 15:53:10 GMT -5
Yes, but in this game we have the benefit of knowing exactly how many teams from each platoon we need to kill to start forcing morale checks...that's the gamey part.
|
|
|
Post by sugna on Mar 11, 2010 18:23:55 GMT -5
I read that too and thought; what about those do or die situations? you know the ones: Dunkrik for the brittish, Stailingrad for the russians, the battle of the bulge for the U.S., and the siege of berlin of Germany. What about those last ditch defenses where you must hold out, that moral only weakens your troops not making you flee the battle?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 11, 2010 20:45:27 GMT -5
I read that too and thought; what about those do or die situations? you know the ones: Dunkrik for the brittish, Stailingrad for the russians, the battle of the bulge for the U.S., and the siege of berlin of Germany. What about those last ditch defenses where you must hold out, that moral only weakens your troops not making you flee the battle? Those are examples of folks passing their morale check.
|
|
|
Post by sugna on Mar 13, 2010 13:30:44 GMT -5
Okay
|
|