The use of HE

[martin goddard]

I have observed the use of the HE asset over the last few months.
Half of all players use HE as an asset.

In the games I have played over those recent months.
Assets in order of popularity.Most popular first.

1. HE
2. Smoke
3. Sniper
4. Surprise
5. Excellent PC
6. Tank hunters
7. Rapid arrival
8. Dug in

I see no problem in having some assets more popular than others but would like to see the all  in general use.

Dug in seems not popular.Possibly as it can only be used by defenders and also is only really wanted for the partial objective.Maybe it needs to be template sized?

martin

[John Watson]

I usually use the assets with the biggest chance of success.
John

[Smiley Miley 66]

The list does seem right and as John says, you use what seems best for your game at that time. Sometimes as a defender I will want Dug in, Rapid Arrival and maybe a sniper ? Where as attacking I might want Surprise, Excellent Officer and Tank Hunters( mainly as the PIAT  isn't as good as its rivals? So if the opponent has some big tanks ) . Obviously Artillery can be used and quite a lot. But I know reading a lot of WW2 accounts it is commented that there is never enough Artillery to do everything asked of it ?
So I think the list is big enough and got enough options to choose from ?
But yes Dug in should be optional on making either a single square or a double square Dug in ?
Miles

[martin goddard]

Thanks  John and Miles

I will look at the dug in asset.
Anyone else have thoughts on this asset?

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

I usually use the assets with the biggest chance of success.
John

Likewise.

The use of Dug In does seem rather limited, as there are usually enough buildings etc. to hide in. Also we now have Taking Cover, which serves a similar (if less effective) purpose.

Maybe eliminate Dug In...?

Simon

[Nigel_s]

Dug-in asset is one used a fair degree in the games I play.

As stated, this is usually to make the road objective more resilient.

The defending player has to decide between that (passive?) benefit vs more "aggressive" or proactive assets which they can use to influence things in-game.  It is good to make players decide between options.

Making it a two square asset world make it more valuable. Linking this to the other discussion on choosing scenery due a more open table one could choose fewer closed scenery pieces and then select dug-in asset to give protection to one of their platoons.

I would like to see the asset retained. It does add to the period feel. Making this two squares would open up greater tactical use which I feel would be an enhancement.
 

[martin goddard]

Maybe we can try it as a full template?
A complication would be if it were placed on a marsh or gully?


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

When we say "full template", presumably we mean "2 adjacent squares" in the context of the road objective (since the latter is a single square)?

And by extension, maybe this could be any 2 adjacent squares, not necessarily coinciding with a template as such (e.g. one square wood and one partial)?

Simon

[martin goddard]

Yes it could be any 2 squares but  will that bring some complication for players?


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Possibly, but then how do we word it for the road objective? Might be something like "Dug-in can be applied to both squares of any standard 2-square template - unless one of the squares is the road objective, in which case the second square can be any one touching one of the objective's four faces"?

I think saying "Dug-in can be applied to any two adjacent squares" is simpler

Simon

[martin goddard]

If a player achieves 2 or more dug ins is that too many?
I would not be too concerned, but every rule change needs to consider extremes.
I also assume that the dug in can be applied if only 1 square contains foot bases?


martin

[John Watson]

I would leave the dug in as one square. Make the asset dice low (say a max of 4) so that the chances of getting a second square are remote, but not impossible. I don't see a need for a dug in to be template sized and as has been said with buildings and taking cover available it is not as useful as it used to be.
John

[Smiley Miley 66]

However you interpret the word and Asset "Dug in" ? It is definitely needed. Isn't one of the main infantryman complaints is how much they how they always had to "Dig in?" If you stayed there for more and 5 minutes we had to dig a bloody hole ! I ve heard that or variations of that on so many of the old veterans on YouTube!
The ability to either put it into one square (objectives) or across 2 squares either the same templates or adjacent ones I am happy to play ? The ability to Dig in and create a temporary "fighting position " is of great use.
Miles

[Moggy]

As an alternative how about making the dug in effect morale rather than saves. Troops well dug in are far more likely to stay in the face of adversity than those not. Also this would allow for it to be placed on a building square with a benefit. Possibly troops dug in can discount 1 or 2 casualties in that square. Casualties outside dug in square are treated as normal. This would also encourage more use of the asset as a way of prolonging the time before taking morale tests.

Derek

[Smoking gun]

Derek, a good point that "dug in" can be a positive moral effect. I like it.

Best wishes,
Martin from Grimsby