Prev: Tonk Pictures Next: Re: [FT] Mixing Tech

Re: AAR (April 7, 2001)

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: AAR (April 7, 2001)


--- Noel Weer <noel.weer@verizon.net> wrote:

>The points may have been balanced but most of the
>convoy's were tied up in combat ineffective units, so
>the attack clearly over powered them. 

I never count the points of the escorted units, only
the escorts.  The armored cars, combat cars, and
engineers sounded like the only thing that really
counted in the fight.

>I recommend convoy attacks - and will try it again
>some time with better force balance.

I have fun with them--I've done two or three.  I've
also worked convoys into a lot of other games I've run
as random events or 'reinforcments'--ie there's a
chart for what one side gets and if he rolls a 1 he
gets a convoy of ammo that's gotten lost.

>We did not use any hidden units... would have been
>fun.

Infantry especially.

>This gave the combat cars a real fighting chance -
but >the longer range  weapons of the enemy (and more
of >them) and relatively open terrain (remember no
>woods) countered that nicely.

I dislike DFFGs for the range reason.  I'll use them
for a portion of my force (my tank companies are 2/3
MDC or HKP, 1/3 DFFG), or for supporting infantry
(short range anyway, lots of anti-armor punch in small
weapon) but not as a rule.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 


Prev: Tonk Pictures Next: Re: [FT] Mixing Tech