Barbed Wire - Infantry

[Superscribe]

In the terrain section it states that barbed wire is impassable to infantry (a change from BKC II) but the terrain table shows it as OD rather than I. Which is correct please?

[Cross698]

Good spot! I would treat as per v2 - stop on contact and -1 on next order. Which sees to be correct as per the Terrain Table P13 in v4.

[AJ at the Bank]

Yes - this is another one that needs clarification/correcting.

Comparing to BKCII.....Barbed wire impact on movement has been updated - to make Impassable to Infantry ..but not been updated to accommodate for new Tracked ability to breach with ease.


Personally I think this is a v big change....

I.e.
(1) In most games the Defender can use/purchase wire v cheaply (5 points for 20cm) ...and now with RAW ..no Infantry may pass through without engineers or vehicles with Tracked ability breaching the defence.

There goes taking Pegasus bridge for my Paras ...one section of wire at either end and its a no-go!

(2) In an odd balance vs the above issue - Tracked ability now allows selected vehicles to destroy as much wire as they like per move. You can destroy as much wire as you have movement range. Multiple sets of wire - no problem - clear that in 1 move. etc


Personally - I don't like it (or understand the change really)..and think it causes more issues than it could solve.

If the intention is to make it harder for infantry to get through wire than counting as a normal linear obstacle (hedge/wall etc) ...then perhaps only allow them to move from one side to the other in one move. Similarly with Tracked ability - if wanting to make it easier for certain vehicles to breach wire ….then limit the amount/breaches. E.g. Max 1 breach per 5 cms of movement rate  ...or max 2 breaches per move (otherwise may break-down or something).

As its written - both of these new rules seem tricky!


Welcome thoughts.   

[Cross698]

Barb wire isn't impassable to infantry it is OD as in v2, so stop and then -1 on next command page 13?

Yes the new change is fully tracked don't stop at wire, although as you pointed out the terrain summary page 13 has not been changed to show this.

I was thinking about using the breakdown test on each linear obstacle as a chance for bogged down.

[AJ at the Bank]

See separate post on Terrain Movement Table - which hasn't been updated for BKCIV...whereas the Field Defence rules on p11 have - for wire Infantry have been added to the Impassable list.


My poor Paras at Pegasus Bridge....stopped by simple roll of wire!

[Cross698]

Oh yes, missed it under field defences on page 11, seems odd, can't be right? If it is your Para engineers will have to clear a path across Pegasus instead of checking for charges on the bridge!

[Dr Dave]

In reality I think you’d encounter:
1. thinnish wire trip fence with “aprons” which should be stop on contact and -1 to cross.
2. Huge entanglements. Merville had the 12ft thick and 7ft high. Really stop dead stuff and need engineers to blow a gap with Bangalores.

Jerry had neither at Pegasus Bridge though. .

[Big Insect]

Gents ... you are being very 'granular' in your approach to something like wire.

1). this is not a single stand of wire, it might be a proper entanglement and in some depth. The Pegasus bridge wire was not an in-depth wire entanglement - more of a movable barrier.

2). a single tank model is a unit with multiple vehicles - yes - some get entangled by the wire - maybe - but there are plenty of film footage showing tanks just riding over wire - after all it was one of the primary things tanks were designed for. Placing a limit on the amount of wire a tank unit can destroy is impractical, because if they are under command and not suppressed the tanks can happily move through the wire.

I can see the issue with Infantry treating Wire as impassable. However, I doubt that it was that easy to pass through either - all my current WW1 reading on wire indicates that it was a massive barrier, both physically and psychologically to Infantry - especially in the open. In BKCII it was too easy to cross by infantry (in my opinion) ... I'll have a think about it but it will be very difficult for an Infantry unit to negotiate wire and they are often at their most exposed doing so.

AS A GENERAL NOTE - please can you split up your questions - I know that one thread often leads to another but it would mean that I can answer each specific question and not miss them - like the indirect fire from Infantry Guns.

Many thanks
Mark

[Cross698]

It still counts as linear, so infantry have to stop and then -1 to cv on next order, perhaps the answer is to allow wire in depth - so 12 foot wire as a -2 or 3, but change the cost. Not every battlegroup will necessarily have tracked AFVs and therefore will need a few engineers who will stop and wait until the Initiative Phase to clear the 50mm wide path, that is if not suppressed! Worth a few play tests to see how it could be achieved. A few play tests towards a scenario i have been working on for Queen sector, SWORD,  has shown that invariably the German defenders have some well placed entrenched MGs and Inf to OPP Fire as the infantry stop at the wire, before attempting to pass through. I find it slows them up, and delays but still allows them to make some headway if possible, but forces the defender to use OP Fire.

[Big Insect]

Good call - Crossfire - in Great War Commander (in my head still) I have wire entanglements on the same size bases as minefields and a requirement to cut paths through them - in the same way that mines are cleared in all the other Commander rules sets.
These entanglements would be more expensive to buy than just a 'normal' barbed-wire emplacement.

I'll have a think about the current wire rule - crossing wire exposes the infantry (even if they are crawling through it) so it might be a +1 to a to hit for direct fire etc.

Cheers
Mark

[Cross698]

OK

[AJ at the Bank]

Thank you Mark

Having another look at wire RAW a good idea

Adam