Some issues?

[narwan]

Charles22 said:
Naturally, you're wanting to say that these guys are at 50m and not a 0m (but of course they're never truly at 0m, but for the hex description this will pass for an adequate description), such that there is little angle and the tank has to turn very little if any.

Wrong conclusion I'm afraid. You're assuming that although both units are in the same hex all the enemy are still in front of your unit. Not so. They can (and more often than not are) all around your tank, front, rear, side, possibly even up and under. So the tank has extreme angles to deal with at range 0.

Narwan

[Charles22]

narwan said:

Wrong conclusion I'm afraid. You're assuming that although both units are in the same hex all the enemy are still in front of your unit. Not so. They can (and more often than not are) all around your tank, front, rear, side, possibly even up and under. So the tank has extreme angles to deal with at range 0.

Narwan

I think I mixed you up on that one. I was triyng to make a point that gunning down men with a BMG, if they scattered, would not work as well as with pistols, BUT that would only be true at 0m. I was trying to then imagine that who I was responding to would then say "but we're not talking about 0m, we're talking about 50m."

In other words:

0m - good for pistols or rifles, no so good for BMG's.
50m - Not quite as good for pistols or rifles, better for BMG's.

[snake]

I suppose I should have mentioned that all the enemy infantry were routed. I would expect that AFV's chasing routed men at 0-50 meters would somehow have more effect than men shooting at them from 200-400 meters. I would expect more surrenders or dispersals from the remaning enemy squads from the tanks proximity and ability to pursue yet it's actually quite quicker to 'eliminate' the enemy by shooting at long range with infantry rifles rather than closing in and surrounding/overruning? them.

Certainly all the points mentioned earlier are excellent concerning infantry not running for the hills and only a fool would close with AFV's against entrenched/determined or well-supported infantry.

[narwan]

snake said:
Certainly all the points mentioned earlier are excellent concerning infantry not running for the hills and only a fool would close with AFV's against entrenched/determined or well-supported infantry.

Just to make it clear, routed units are not the equivalent of 'troops running for the hill', at least not if that means what I think it does. Casualties in this game are not just kills but also include WIA, MIA, those surrendering individually (so without the whole unit giving up), and those fleeing on their own probably without weapons anymore, being shellshocked, dazed, etc.
In other words, when units are retreating or routing, they are still exactly that, a UNIT, not a collection of individuals. They are still more or less functioning as a group of soldiers. The ones running off on their own, are part of the 'casualties' inflicted earlier.


Charles:
Okay, I see what you mean. I do think though that up to 10 rifles are probably more useful than a BMG for ranges up to several hundreds of metres when it comes to taking out multiple enemy troops per game shot.


Narwan

[snake]

Narwan Said:
Just to make it clear, routed units are not the equivalent of 'troops running for the hill', at least not if that means what I think it does. Casualties in this game are not just kills but also include WIA, MIA, those surrendering individually (so without the whole unit giving up), and those fleeing on their own probably without weapons anymore, being shellshocked, dazed, etc.
In other words, when units are retreating or routing, they are still exactly that, a UNIT, not a collection of individuals. They are still more or less functioning as a group of soldiers. The ones running off on their own, are part of the 'casualties' inflicted earlier.

I agree with you for the most part except routed troops (supressed enough to be listed as 'routing') can't move or fire without successful rally by their leader. So yes, they are still cohesive enough to be called a unit and any 'casualties' have already left but, are they not on the verge of collapse only salvageble by the possible force of leadership of the officer/NCO's? And if so, wouldn't the appearance of tanks chasing/firing at them from VERY close range make that rally a great challenge compared to taking cover from long range rifle fire?

What I'm hinting at is that given a 'routing' units state of existence, why does rifle fire from 200-400 meters cause more men to run away/surrender (become casualties) than tanks bearing down on them (scary enough if you aren't already retreating/routing)at 0-50 meters?

Let's remember these are not troops just supressed a little or retreating but routing. A retreat implies some rearguard retrograde movement to better cover/terrain as oppossed to rout which implies the unit is getting the hell out of Dodge City even if they are running close enough together to be called a unit. If left alone after army morale goes the units usually keep on routing right off the map!

It's just a game engine and you play with what can be accomplished - my hat is off to all the programmers and contributors.
I'm just trying to understand why there seems to be an inabilty for armor to 'persuade' routing infantry to give up either by surrender or fire (casualties) when the army is running and I'm all over these guys with my tanks. They give up just fine (casualties) from long range rifle fire, why not close range tank fire?
Where is the armor "shock value" factored in? I'm not seeing it. Perhaps I am but it does not have the effect that I thought blitzkrieg doctrine suggests.

Love the game BTW......