Ant rule

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ant rule

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Ant rule

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ant rule - 3/10/2014 5:06:58 PM

HeadlessHessian

Posts: 231
Joined: 12/29/2013
Status: offline

Is there a rule which will prohibit the use of 'ant' units. An 'ant' unit is where an opponent will create a ton of one factor, or even no factor (truck by itself for example) units and put them in your way in order just to slow you down. Seems like a waste of PPs but if you are in deep trouble?!?!?
Anyhow is there a way to add such a rule to a scenario?
Or maybe even a situation where a unit X strength can 'overrun' a unit of X- stregnth making that X- unit not even relevant...ie not lose APs etc.

< Message edited by HeadlessHessian -- 3/10/2014 6:08:46 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 5:44:36 PM

lion_of_judah

Posts: 2113
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

I see no problem with a player using small units as blocking units or rear guard units in order to slow down an enemy there by giving your troops more time to create a new defensive line. Real world armies use this delaying tactic all the time

< Message edited by lion_of_judah -- 3/10/2014 6:45:54 PM >

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 2

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 5:53:20 PM

HeadlessHessian

Posts: 231
Joined: 12/29/2013
Status: offline

OK and I respect your opinion. However, I do. It is totally unrealistic. Seen them created in 'silly' quantities.
My question still stands, is there a way?

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 3

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 5:53:29 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

According to what Vic wrote earlier, somewhere on this board, not sure where...

If a unit uses less AP to defeat a unit than the movecost to enter a hex, it will use that value to enter the hex. Sort of an overrun.

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 4

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 8:17:53 PM

lion_of_judah

Posts: 2113
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

I don't see how you can say this is unrealistic. there has been actions with very small rear guards which have held up an a drive delaying enemy forces long enough for forces to setup a second line of defense. I find this very realistic and find that not having these delaying forces "VERY UN-REALISTIC"

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 5

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 8:27:24 PM

HeadlessHessian

Posts: 231
Joined: 12/29/2013
Status: offline

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 6

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 8:29:35 PM

lion_of_judah

Posts: 2113
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

we'll that makes sense to a point

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 7

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 8:33:48 PM

HeadlessHessian

Posts: 231
Joined: 12/29/2013
Status: offline

hey Lion...Are you really in Israel ?? Just asking.

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 8

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 8:51:21 PM

lion_of_judah

Posts: 2113
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

Nope, but wish I was. That is my dream too someday live there

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 9

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 9:03:52 PM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

If a player has deployed forces in that manner, is he not admitting defeat and simply trying to delay the inevitable? Would not cavalry and/or armored cars chew through them like a lawn mower cutting grass?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeadlessHessian

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 10

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 9:18:18 PM

Josh

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeadlessHessian

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic

That's absurd. And it doesn't do anything. Any fast moving unit will move through them like ...well they won't stop anything let me put it that way. An utter waste of PP's. I've seen WitE players use that tactic...and it's not a pretty sight. Still nothing to prevent players to use that tactic...or should I say; use that madness. Or maybe your opponent wasn't sure what to do? Maybe he didn't know how to put up a proper defense?

(in reply to HeadlessHessian)

Post #: 11

RE: Ant rule - 3/10/2014 9:33:19 PM

lion_of_judah

Posts: 2113
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

I have used a unit with anywhere from 11 infantry, 1-3 anti tank guns and a machinegun unit and it has stopped an advance for one turn, but one turn is better than nothing. i have put units with only 1-6 infantry on a cross-roads or strategic hex to impeded the enemy advance just so they will use movement points to fight me there by wasting their movement. so in some ways it isn't bad.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 12

RE: Ant rule - 3/11/2014 6:54:50 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Small forces, even a single infantry SFT, can be usefull as delaying forces....primarly in preventing an occupied hex from flipping to enemy control when a hostile unit moves adjacent to it. In this way they can act as screening or picket forces. I see it as a valid tactic...and it's self-limiting since dispersing those troops over a wide area render them ineffective from a combat standpoint. The only thing I'd object to would be an empty unit with no SFT's assigned to it.

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 13

RE: Ant rule - 3/11/2014 6:57:25 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Even then, an Empty HQ, has a purpose. But I too would object to an empty non-hq unit...

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 14

RE: Ant rule - 3/11/2014 8:08:43 PM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

It is my understanding that an empty unit container costs the attacking unit zero AP when it attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Small forces, even a single infantry SFT, can be usefull as delaying forces....primarly in preventing an occupied hex from flipping to enemy control when a hostile unit moves adjacent to it. In this way they can act as screening or picket forces. I see it as a valid tactic...and it's self-limiting since dispersing those troops over a wide area render them ineffective from a combat standpoint. The only thing I'd object to would be an empty unit with no SFT's assigned to it.

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 15

RE: Ant rule - 8/15/2014 10:28:25 PM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

The "ant" can stop or slow the attacker, but in most cases it stops or slows only one small attacker's counter (unit), not whole attacker's stack. Not only defender can use many small units.

< Message edited by Madlok -- 8/15/2014 11:28:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 16