I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

I cannot agree to your opinion.



First of all not always are the rules right and not always designers made their thoughts up to the end and do have reasons for the rules they made.



Yes, units in towns are somewhat protected against enemy fire. So far the designers are right in counting all targets stacked together in one town hex as one target for DF. But what logical reason is there that the same counters count as four different targets for IF ?

Vice versa I think could be the more realistic way. By shooting with DF towards a town hex, especially from a very short distance, units are able to aim towards a special target e.g. the 88 mm gun or one of the two hetzers.



So I would prefer fire against targets against town hexes should be against the totaled defense factor of all units stacked together for IF and DF with the exception for DF when the firing unit is adjacent to the hex fired upon.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

Thanks for providing an alternate view. I have no issue with your first point. Certainly, the rules are the rules and it is true that the designers had something in mind when they wrote those rules. My asking the question is based first on the vagueness of the original rule book on this question (hence the need for the Q/As). Second on the fact that the Q/As are sometimes dependent on the person that responded to them and some (but not this one) were changed over time. Third, with the addition of new rules like barrage fire, I think there is a need to review how a rule impacts the game. Over the years I have seen many different interpretations of various rules. I generally don't mind playing by any special meaning of rules as long as all players are in agreement on how the rules will be used at the start of play.

I look forward to more inputs on this issue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

I prefer to allow attacks vs individual pieces stacked in towns. The effects of the incoming fire varies widely acorrding to the type of defender. A towed artillery battery is inherently more vulnerable than a StuG III battery. The buildings of a town disrupt more LOS than you have in opean ground but unless the cannon are emplaced in the buildings themselves there is not that much more inherent protection against projectiles and shell fragments. Emplacing the cannon, or armored vehicals in buildings is a much different matter, but that is where the Fort counters are called for. On the other hand it is fairly easy for infantry to move into the cover of the buildings, which suggests the characteristics of infantry changes between a field and buildings.

There is another aspect which has not yet been addressed in this discussion. the effectiveness of A class weapons against the masonry construction of Western Europe is far greater than it should be. Solid AP shot, HEAT, shaped charges are mitigated by masonry walls. The HE projectiles fired by the tanks & TD have less explosive than artillery projectiles of the same caliber. Sticking infantry or cannon amoung these stone & brick buildings does not actually turn them into armored targets. And the MG of the tanks are no more effective against these buildings than the infantry MG.

Conversely the greater explosive in the HE artillery shells are significantly more effective than the tank ammunition against masonry buildings. The reduction of H class attackers, both IF & DF is too great vs towns in the PB/PL rules.

So while I'd argue for allow seperation of targets I'd also argue for a revision of the WEC where towns are concerned. particularly in the case of A class attack factors and infantry as the defending piece.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Thanks for providing an alternate view. I have no issue with your first point. Certainly, the rules are the rules and it is true that the designers had something in mind when they wrote those rules. My asking the question is based first on the vagueness of the original rule book on this question (hence the need for the Q/As). Second on the fact that the Q/As are sometimes dependent on the person that responded to them and some (but not this one) were changed over time. Third, with the addition of new rules like barrage fire, I think there is a need to review how a rule impacts the game. Over the years I have seen many different interpretations of various rules. I generally don't mind playing by any special meaning of rules as long as all players are in agreement on how the rules will be used at the start of play.

I look forward to more inputs on this issue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

I like the logic in Carl's arguments. I wonder if the logic is different for IF as compared to IF. I would think if the units should be separate for IF, it would make more sense for them to be separate for DF where the firing unit can see the target it is firing at. I guess my main issue is that the game treats the two (IF and DF) differently making planning a defense using towns that much more complex. Maybe that was what the designers had in mind when the rules were put in place. Keep the discussions going. The more the better!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I prefer to allow attacks vs individual pieces stacked in towns. The effects of the incoming fire varies widely acorrding to the type of defender. A towed artillery battery is inherently more vulnerable than a StuG III battery. The buildings of a town disrupt more LOS than you have in opean ground but unless the cannon are emplaced in the buildings themselves there is not that much more inherent protection against projectiles and shell fragments. Emplacing the cannon, or armored vehicals in buildings is a much different matter, but that is where the Fort counters are called for. On the other hand it is fairly easy for infantry to move into the cover of the buildings, which suggests the characteristics of infantry changes between a field and buildings.

There is another aspect which has not yet been addressed in this discussion. the effectiveness of A class weapons against the masonry construction of Western Europe is far greater than it should be. Solid AP shot, HEAT, shaped charges are mitigated by masonry walls. The HE projectiles fired by the tanks & TD have less explosive than artillery projectiles of the same caliber. Sticking infantry or cannon amoung these stone & brick buildings does not actually turn them into armored targets. And the MG of the tanks are no more effective against these buildings than the infantry MG.

Conversely the greater explosive in the HE artillery shells are significantly more effective than the tank ammunition against masonry buildings. The reduction of H class attackers, both IF & DF is too great vs towns in the PB/PL rules.

So while I'd argue for allow seperation of targets I'd also argue for a revision of the WEC where towns are concerned. particularly in the case of A class attack factors and infantry as the defending piece.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Thanks for providing an alternate view. I have no issue with your first point. Certainly, the rules are the rules and it is true that the designers had something in mind when they wrote those rules. My asking the question is based first on the vagueness of the original rule book on this question (hence the need for the Q/As). Second on the fact that the Q/As are sometimes dependent on the person that responded to them and some (but not this one) were changed over time. Third, with the addition of new rules like barrage fire, I think there is a need to review how a rule impacts the game. Over the years I have seen many different interpretations of various rules. I generally don't mind playing by any special meaning of rules as long as all players are in agreement on how the rules will be used at the start of play.

I look forward to more inputs on this issue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

Fred

I agree the two different treaments in PL are anoying. There is a difference with the tanks and their likleyhood of aiming at individual targets. Particulary at ranges under 1500 meters, or thereabouts. I suspose this makes up in part for the reduced effectivenss of tank ammunition vs targets amoung buildings. Once again this is a case where the AIW game had a much better treatment of the question.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I like the logic in Carl's arguments. I wonder if the logic is different for IF as compared to IF. I would think if the units should be separate for IF, it would make more sense for them to be separate for DF where the firing unit can see the target it is firing at. I guess my main issue is that the game treats the two (IF and DF) differently making planning a defense using towns that much more complex. Maybe that was what the designers had in mind when the rules were put in place. Keep the discussions going. The more the better!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I prefer to allow attacks vs individual pieces stacked in towns. The effects of the incoming fire varies widely acorrding to the type of defender. A towed artillery battery is inherently more vulnerable than a StuG III battery. The buildings of a town disrupt more LOS than you have in opean ground but unless the cannon are emplaced in the buildings themselves there is not that much more inherent protection against projectiles and shell fragments. Emplacing the cannon, or armored vehicals in buildings is a much different matter, but that is where the Fort counters are called for. On the other hand it is fairly easy for infantry to move into the cover of the buildings, which suggests the characteristics of infantry changes between a field and buildings.

There is another aspect which has not yet been addressed in this discussion. the effectiveness of A class weapons against the masonry construction of Western Europe is far greater than it should be. Solid AP shot, HEAT, shaped charges are mitigated by masonry walls. The HE projectiles fired by the tanks & TD have less explosive than artillery projectiles of the same caliber. Sticking infantry or cannon amoung these stone & brick buildings does not actually turn them into armored targets. And the MG of the tanks are no more effective against these buildings than the infantry MG.

Conversely the greater explosive in the HE artillery shells are significantly more effective than the tank ammunition against masonry buildings. The reduction of H class attackers, both IF & DF is too great vs towns in the PB/PL rules.

So while I'd argue for allow seperation of targets I'd also argue for a revision of the WEC where towns are concerned. particularly in the case of A class attack factors and infantry as the defending piece.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Thanks for providing an alternate view. I have no issue with your first point. Certainly, the rules are the rules and it is true that the designers had something in mind when they wrote those rules. My asking the question is based first on the vagueness of the original rule book on this question (hence the need for the Q/As). Second on the fact that the Q/As are sometimes dependent on the person that responded to them and some (but not this one) were changed over time. Third, with the addition of new rules like barrage fire, I think there is a need to review how a rule impacts the game. Over the years I have seen many different interpretations of various rules. I generally don't mind playing by any special meaning of rules as long as all players are in agreement on how the rules will be used at the start of play.

I look forward to more inputs on this issue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.

I guess that there is no right way to play. The starting point is always the rules as written but in each game the players have the opportunity to adjust the rules to whatever degree they feel comfortable with as long as all are in agreement at the start of the scenario. If playing one of our blind games the rules are as the Gamemaster calls them and it is the joint responsibility of both the gamemaster and the players to ask the right questions related to those rules that have historically been played in different ways. Perhaps a useful tool would be to create a "Rule Checklist" containing those commonly controversial rules for players to agree on at the start of any scenario. Thoughts?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Fred

I agree the two different treaments in PL are anoying. There is a difference with the tanks and their likleyhood of aiming at individual targets. Particulary at ranges under 1500 meters, or thereabouts. I suspose this makes up in part for the reduced effectivenss of tank ammunition vs targets amoung buildings. Once again this is a case where the AIW game had a much better treatment of the question.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I like the logic in Carl's arguments. I wonder if the logic is different for IF as compared to IF. I would think if the units should be separate for IF, it would make more sense for them to be separate for DF where the firing unit can see the target it is firing at. I guess my main issue is that the game treats the two (IF and DF) differently making planning a defense using towns that much more complex. Maybe that was what the designers had in mind when the rules were put in place. Keep the discussions going. The more the better!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I prefer to allow attacks vs individual pieces stacked in towns. The effects of the incoming fire varies widely acorrding to the type of defender. A towed artillery battery is inherently more vulnerable than a StuG III battery. The buildings of a town disrupt more LOS than you have in opean ground but unless the cannon are emplaced in the buildings themselves there is not that much more inherent protection against projectiles and shell fragments. Emplacing the cannon, or armored vehicals in buildings is a much different matter, but that is where the Fort counters are called for. On the other hand it is fairly easy for infantry to move into the cover of the buildings, which suggests the characteristics of infantry changes between a field and buildings.

There is another aspect which has not yet been addressed in this discussion. the effectiveness of A class weapons against the masonry construction of Western Europe is far greater than it should be. Solid AP shot, HEAT, shaped charges are mitigated by masonry walls. The HE projectiles fired by the tanks & TD have less explosive than artillery projectiles of the same caliber. Sticking infantry or cannon amoung these stone & brick buildings does not actually turn them into armored targets. And the MG of the tanks are no more effective against these buildings than the infantry MG.

Conversely the greater explosive in the HE artillery shells are significantly more effective than the tank ammunition against masonry buildings. The reduction of H class attackers, both IF & DF is too great vs towns in the PB/PL rules.

So while I'd argue for allow seperation of targets I'd also argue for a revision of the WEC where towns are concerned. particularly in the case of A class attack factors and infantry as the defending piece.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Thanks for providing an alternate view. I have no issue with your first point. Certainly, the rules are the rules and it is true that the designers had something in mind when they wrote those rules. My asking the question is based first on the vagueness of the original rule book on this question (hence the need for the Q/As). Second on the fact that the Q/As are sometimes dependent on the person that responded to them and some (but not this one) were changed over time. Third, with the addition of new rules like barrage fire, I think there is a need to review how a rule impacts the game. Over the years I have seen many different interpretations of various rules. I generally don't mind playing by any special meaning of rules as long as all players are in agreement on how the rules will be used at the start of play.

I look forward to more inputs on this issue.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't agree. I think the IF should be divided for two reasons:



1. That is what the rules say (and subsequent clarification in official Q&A).



2. It more realistically portrays what artillery is doing in the town to armor. The "soft" targets are getting the benefit from being in the town (being an "A" target, thus the IF is halved against them. Armored vehicles are just as vulnerable (or protected dependinng on your viewpoint) as if they were in any other hex. generaly the armor in the town/city are in the streets and not benefiting from terrain. it takes a direct hit to destroy armor with artillery and an very close hit to do damage. Disruption can occur from the buttoning up and confusion casued by the striek, but in my final view, armored vehicles are not really more protected being in the town than anywhere else from the IF.



Play by the rules, the designer had a reason for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So far everyone is in agreement that fire against targets in cities should be against a totaled defense factor of all the units whether by DF or IF. Is there anyone out there that is of the opinion that it should be the other way (not totaled in IF)?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree with Fred, and that's the way I play it. Combined DF in city.