开云体育

According to the oracle in these matters (my father-in-law), even in late war, the anti-tank platoon when all else had failed would load up a Bren with AP rounds and try and hit the same spot on a

Am I a God or what?!! wrote: in late Bren Panthers). inside make the visors tank would

Probably a "What?!!" but I am sure that "we are unworthy" (this was typed whilst grovelling in front of the holy writ as received on my equally unworthy computer). Alan

Gents A pre-battle reconnaissance system has just struck me, that would allow for an attacker to have some prior knowledge of what he is coming up against. At the start of a game there is a facility

Richard What sparked the thought? Was it the fact that we have seen examples of attackers being thrown off balance by some "unexpected" forces/dispositions, if so I might argue that better use of

I would agree with Big Al. The spotting rules we have are pretty good. What you have suggested would be interesting but I would worry that it will slow the game up and may mean that it may not be

Nick and Al To reply to you both. I thought about spotting idea when contemplating the French and German motorcycle troops that I have to paint. I thought "Rather than paint these bloody figures,

Well, you've stolen my thunder. I thought "I'll just read the latest reply from Rich" before bringing up those fond memories of WRG "lose a dice roll and lose the game"! I agree with the umpire

The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is to use the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units in the organisation, don't represent them". Sadly

use recce and Well, yes and no. We are not wanting to game the initial recon. of every engagement. So, we need someway of feeding the results of that recon. into the engagement we do want to game.

The Fat Lad mentioned "skirmish", I would wish to point out that IABSM is not a skirmish rule set. We are not interested in the actions of individual men, other than Big Men, or what they are armed

I am putting together the supplement covering the Russo Finnish War of 1939/40 and the 1940 campaign in Norway. As such I am looking at petrol bombs and their effects. In Finland the Finns

A quick idea... We played an interesting game the other evening, with the Rifle Brigade attempting a fighting withdrawal through a built up area of Calais. To reflect the abilities of these

Richard First a site that you probably know - www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html this explains that the Russian tanks had a 50 gallon fuel tank on the rear deck, not something that you would wait around

Richard I agree with Alan morale first and the threat of permanent (in game terms) damage as a secondary consideration. I am pretty sure that even well trained and disciplined soldiers will have a

A conversation with a list member who is clearly too lazy to post his findings for the benefit of all would suggest that in conversation with a WWII veteran he discovered that flamthrowers would be

Okay, so under the rules a flamethrower firing at a tank would need 6 or more to hit on 2D6. So, its likely it will succeed. Then it has a 50% chance of knocking it out. This reflects the fact

Aynsley, Haven't got any hard facts or figures to back it up, but my gut (and I've plenty of that) feeling is that you are greatly overestimating the killing power of flamethrowers/petrol bombs

Richard, The other side of this also needs to be considered. If it takes guts to face a flamethrower in a tank it takes significantly more guts to stand around infront of a tank with a blinking great

I take your point. For petrol bombs the issue would be how the tank killer team got into position to deliver their attack, in Finland the Russian tanks suffered heavily when their tanks operated