Passive Defense??

Passive Defense?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room

Message

TOCarroll -> Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 3:31:54 AM)
In a COW scenario (Operation Blau) the notes state that armour units have been adjusted to "Passive Defense" so that, unless accompanied by infantry, they can be easily infiltrated. What does passive defense mean in this conotation? It looks like the defense factor against a pure infantry attack is low, but does it also imply that units moving adjacent will not suffer a disengagement penalty? Tom OC

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 6:20:54 AM)
This can only be done with an equipment editor, by changing an attribute of the equipment. This would then require the use of the modified executable in order to play. Since it is a CoW question, that's as far as I'll go on about it for now, since after all, I'm not here to sell you CoW, or support it...[;)]

TOCarroll -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 2:42:06 PM)
I don't want to know how to change an attribute. I just want to know what is the difference between an active defender and a passive defender.[&:]

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 4:42:27 PM)
Oh...I misunderstood the thrust of your question. You were asking about the connotation of equipment being changed to passive defender in a CoW scenario, so I assumed that you were interested in the hows, and whys, of doing that (changing of the attribute) as opposed to a simple definition that you missed by not searching the terms "passive defender" and "flank" in the manual. The section on flank attacks should answer the question of what's the difference between active defenders and passive defenders.

a white rabbit -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 5:04:02 PM)
..in defence: active defenders counter-attack (sort of) passive defenders don't, also passive defenders get chopped up more in flank/rear attacks, a useful fact for representing the rear ranks in pike phalanxes... ..in attack: passive defenders don't

golden delicious -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/22/2006 9:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..in defence: active defenders counter-attack (sort of) passive defenders don't, also passive defenders get chopped up more in flank/rear attacks, More to the point, passive defender's don't count toward the active defence strength of the unit. Units with low numbers of active defenders are more vulnerable to RBC (I think this is the intention of the designer in this case) and they will also contribute less to the density penalty. quote: ..in attack: passive defenders don't You're wrong. I don't think passive defenders fight any differently at all on the attack.

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 1:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ...in attack: passive defenders don't You're wrong. I don't think passive defenders fight any differently at all on the attack. I'm not quite sure what Richard was trying to say here, but passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty.

TOCarroll -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 2:08:23 AM)
Yeah! The scenario in question had tanks as passive defenders. However, their attacking stats were impressive. Not only that, but the were sheilded unless flanked. I think (based on JamiAm's input) that the attempt to make pure armour more vulnerable to infiltration by infantry actually made it more powerful.[X(] A good example of Murphy's Law of Unintended Consequences! [:-]

golden delicious -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 2:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM I'm not quite sure what Richard was trying to say here, but passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty. OK. Just so long as Richard's wrong. That's the main thing.

golden delicious -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 2:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TOCarroll Yeah! The scenario in question had tanks as passive defenders. However, their attacking stats were impressive. Not only that, but the were sheilded unless flanked. I think (based on JamiAm's input) that the attempt to make pure armour more vulnerable to infiltration by infantry actually made it more powerful.[X(] I expect you'll find that passive defenders attacking alone will take casualties.

rhinobones -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 3:39:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM . . . passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty. Let’s see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that the passive defender equipment is embedded in a unit (which also contains active defenders/attackers I presume) that is conducting an attack. The passive defender equipment is shielded from direct fire unless the unit (that would be the attacking unit) suffers a flank penalty. Is this right? If so, under what circumstances does an attacking unit subject itself to a flank penalty? Thought only defending units were subject to flank penalties. Regards, RhinoBones

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 3:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM . . . passive defender equipment, when in an attacking unit, is shielded from direct fire casualties, unless the unit subjects itself to a flank penalty. Let’s see if I understand this correctly. You are saying that the passive defender equipment is embedded in a unit (which also contains active defenders/attackers I presume) that is conducting an attack. The passive defender equipment is shielded from direct fire unless the unit (that would be the attacking unit) suffers a flank penalty. Is this right? That is correct. quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones If so, under what circumstances does an attacking unit subject itself to a flank penalty? Thought only defending units were subject to flank penalties. When I revised the manual section on "Flanks and Rear Areas" I did include the criteria for the penalty being assessed, both for attackers and defenders. If there is anything in that section that, after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions.

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 3:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious OK. Just so long as Richard's wrong. That's the main thing. roflmao!

rhinobones -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 6:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM . . . after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions. Guess you're not in the mood tonight. Regards, RhinoBones

JAMiAM -> RE: Passive Defense?? (8/23/2006 8:09:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM . . . after reading, needs further clarification, I'd be happy to answer those questions. Guess you're not in the mood tonight. Maybe tomorrow night, honey. I've got a headache...[:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6879883