IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
firstly, in mid war FITE scenarios for example, where both sides might want the Dniepr defensive bonus, you have a 10 kilometre gap between the two front lines, rather than the width of the river if they want to achieve this. It becomes a dead series of hexes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JAMiAMWhich is as it should be, since this will prevent pesky zoc's from influencing movement, creating disengagement attacks, etc. Precisely as it should be, for two sides passively taking advantage of the defensive aspects of a river.
Yes, but surely issues with the disengagement rules shouldn't be an influence? Wouldn't river hex sides with rules negating ZOC across the hex side do the trick more efficiently? in other words, the issue you're highlighting is with the ZOC rules not rivers. Are we using another feature (rivers) to cover ZOC issues rather than addressing the root cause itself and amending ZOC?
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Secondly, sides not wanting to waste movement points moving into the river hex to launch an assault on the assault turn have to pre-stack in the river hex and are much more vulnerable to counterattack than they would ever have been on their own side of the bank because stacked in the river hex, they won't get a defensive benefit if attacked.
quote:
If a side is on the river, it is assumed to be in transit to, or a position in which to attack, or occupying some small bridgehead on the enemy side of the river. They shouldn't have full use of time as the crossing of a river in the face of the enemy is a logistical and operational hurdle.
Yes, but then a unit is losing clock time moving onto the river and clock time crossing it. In real life, poised in the trees on the friendly side as the turn started, canoes at the ready, they surely shouldn't lose 10 or even 20% of the clock moving into position. The crossing time is surely reflected in the clock time lost during the combat?
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
This is completely unhistorical because in real life, any counterattack would have had to cross the river to get at the attackers and suffer the penalties associated with that.
quote:
No, any attacks against units on the river are assumed to be local counterattacks against crossing parties and bridgeheads.
But this means that a unit on a river is behind it if attacking, but in front of it if defending. The same unit has multiple conflicting rules applied for and against it depending on what it attempts to do. Or rather, when attacking the unit has to cross the river because it is assumed to be behind it, but the same unit when defending (without doing anything else) is assumed to have already managed the feat of crossing in the face of enemy fire without incurring any casualties whatsoever because movement into the river hex was free.
Does this mean we need combat modifiers that restrict unit losses when they are attacked on a river hex, on the basis that small crossing parties are the only ones likely to be shot at? We wouldn't want to see entire regiments occupying river hexes being badly mauled because their crossing parties were annihilated by a counterattack.
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Thirdly, defending behind the river hex (to get your defensive bonus) gives the attacker the ability to seize bridges in the river hex and repair them unhindered. In real life, how many bridges can we think of that were repaired whilst the far bank was infested with enemy machine gun and AT emplacements?
quote:
Only if they're held are they of any use, and if the hex is held, again it is assumed to be a suitable bridgehead covering the hex and its features. Like bridges, for example.
But this means the defender has to defend the bridges from the far side in effect, or concede a bridgehead without firing a shot. They effectively defend from the far side because to hold the bridge hexes, they have to be in river hexes and are therefore deemed (for defensive purposes) to be on the enemy's side of the river. Additionally, a bridge hex defender is presumably open to flanking modifiers in addition because the only way a defending unit can cover its flanks is to place further friendly units on adjacent river hexes which are in turn deemed to be on the opposing side if attacked and are therefore unable to get any defensive benefits.
In other words, to prevent bridge hexes you are defending being flanked, you have to fight on the other side of the river. the only alternative is to give the hex up and concede the bridge.
Regards,
IronDuke
< Message edited by IronDuke -- 9/28/2007 1:54:25 AM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Defending a river line - 
. 
Patton of anyone. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread