Hi
When we played last week, we found the rules for linear terrain a little odd, with respect to visibility. But we played RAW, now I've had a chance to review the rules for visibility I'm quite confused by the differences between the effects linear terrain has on visibility compared to Low Area terrain.
For visibility units are classified as Low or Average profile (supplementary question is Low Profile here the same as Low Profile in the army lists, along with the heights for visibility you get -1d6 on shooting attacks??)
Linear terrain, has very simple visibility rules. You cannot see a unit that is not in contact with the linear terrain - we could say this is 1cm visibility as that is the typical thickness of this type of terrain model.
For Low Area terrain, visibility for Low vs Low is 10cm, Low vs Average 20cm, and Average vs Average infinite.
This is massively different to Low Area terrain, considering that both are approximately the same height. And when you think of wheat fields or scrub land compared to a hedge or fence they feel of the same sort of density.
For high area terrain the visibility for Low vs Low is 5cm, Low vs Average 5cm, and Average vs Average 10cm, which is still much further than over Linear Terrain.
Is this intended that Linear Terrain should block LoS so effectively?
We found this odd in game, when tanks in the middle of field couldn't be targeted, unless the attacker was up against the hedge or fence around the field. The Low Area terrain distances feel much more useful to me.
I'd be OK to use the Linear Terrain rules for high walls or bocage. But neither of these are specified in the description
The Linear obstacle issue is one that comes up regularly across all 3 Commander rules as it's almost impossible to define and categorize every type of possible linear obstacle (in a rules book anyway).
Some examples of the issues:
A wooded 5 bar fence is a very different obstacle to a 6 feet high chain-link fence (for example) - both can potentially be seen through but one is all but impassable to infantry and both are a challenge to wheeled vehicles.
However, when considering walls, some are 4 feet high, some 6 feet, some 12 feet. Some are the unstable remains of a destroyed house (for example) others are purpose build defensive wall.
Some are at a height that infantry can shoot over them, others have to be loop-holed. The variants are almost endless.
Generally, we play a common sense WYSIWYG rule. But the intention is to make hedges and walls almost impossible to see through unless you are up close.
Also, if you are defending a linear obstacle and are up against it, you can see over/through it and so can see the tanks in the middle of the field.
To answer your supplementary question - on Low Profile - Yes. Certain units are inherently Low Profile - primarily Infantry and Infantry Support units.
Hope that helps?
Mark
Thanks, it clarifies the intention of the rule.
I think it is the major difference between the way Low Area terrain and Linear obstacles work for AFV visibility that jumps out to me.
Yes I understand that some linear obstacles are tall, but the narrative around the rule suggests that the rule is mainly considering the normal ones, a few feet high not 10' walls.
As to inherent Low Profile do all these units benefit from -1d6 when being shot at?
Yes - Infantry, Infantry Support, light vehicles, motorbikes, and AT guns (& any other unit specifically categorized as Low Profile in their army list notes - like a StuG for example) all get a -1d6 when being shot at by direct fire (so not Mortars in any circumstance, not on-table artillery shooting with direct Line of Fire, and not any area or template effect weapons). Some towed guns (not all fall into this Low Profile category as well - but would be specified as such in their army list.
This should have been stated clearly on page 14 in BKCIV, but is implied elsewhere throughout the rules, however for some reason didn't make the final edit.
Again it is the way it works in FWC and CWC as standard.
It will be corrected in the errata.
Hope that helps
Mark
Wow. That is huge.
One reason I really like BKCIV is the flexibility of the rules. Common Sense and WYSIWYG really sets BKCIV apart from many other rulebooks. Not every example can be illustrated and I think the Common Sense factor is key to examining those situations that seems to pop-up all the time. The dialogue between all parties on this Forum is respectful, helpful, and great!
Quote from: fred. on 07 May 2019, 09:39:53 PM
Wow. That is huge.
What is huge Fred? Is this a big change? If so, to what?
Cheers
Mark
Mark,
"Infantry, Infantry Support, light vehicles, motorbikes, and AT guns (& any other unit specifically categorized as Low Profile in their army list notes - like a StuG for example) all get a -1d6 when being shot at by direct fire"
Infantry are low profile for shooting and only hit on a 5 or a 6? AT guns are low profile? It's not in profiles on p8, unit types on p45, special abilities on p78 or in any of the lists, or the rules as far as I can see. Are you mixing low profile for shooting and low profile for spotting/cover? I think that's why Fred said it was huge.
The leIG18 is listed as low profile - and rightly so.
I think many (not all) AT guns should be low profile - they often seem too vulnerable in the games and we always added one to the 88 hits (hence 4 not 3).
Sorry, original reply was on my phone, so quoting is hard.
Quote from: Big Insect on 07 May 2019, 09:27:16 PM
Infantry, Infantry Support, light vehicles, motorbikes, and AT guns (& any other unit specifically categorized as Low Profile in their army list notes - like a StuG for example) all get a -1d6 when being shot at by direct fire
This is what is huge.
This is a major change from earlier versions of BKC (I get it may be a FWC or CWC thing).
It is a major change to the survivability of infantry etc.
My specific question was in Visibility (p 14) it mentions Low and Average profiles (this is also on p8). Neither of these mention anything about modifying attacks. Then in the special rules there is a Low Profile rule, which gives the -1d6 when being shot at (note -1d6, not -1 on the to hit score).
Mark, you seem to have confirmed that Low profile (as part of the unit definition) means that the Low Profile special rule applies to them.
From the comments posted by others, I'm not sure anyone else is playing this way.
There's low profile for visibility and then low profile targets when shot at. The latter case attracts a -1 die modifier for the shooter. I think (hope?) Mark has mixed them up in the question-festival since the rules came out.
Without wishing to be pilloried for referring back to a previous set, I quote BKCII - Page 6.
Profile
Command units, troops on foot, light vehicles, deployed guns, and dug-in troops* of any type are classified as having low profiles. All other troops are classified as having average profiles.
* so this also answers the 'dug-in' question from an earlier thread.
However, in BKCII the only thing that low profile did was not allow units to shoot over Average profile units or spot other low profile troop types in certain terrain (unless I've missed something dramatic?).
The -1d6 for low profile was introduced to give infantry (& other low profile units) a greater survival chance on the battlefield, as in my gaming Infantry have a historically inaccurate high casualty rate in BKC. This was also the view of the the play-testers, who felt that adding extra protection to Low Profile troops was actually much more realistic and none of the (global) proof readers and play-testers felt any different.
It is also designed to encourage Tanks to fight Tanks, as too many players seem to have worked out that if you use your Tanks to mow down your opponents infantry you can win the came as they are so very vulnerable.
So in that respect, yes it is a change.
Whether it is a major change is a matter of opinion but it made infantry (& other low profile units) a bit harder to target with Direct Fire but that I felt to be more realistic.
Mark
Quote from: fred. on 07 May 2019, 09:39:53 PM
Wow. That is huge.
Crikey. So all infantry are hit on a 5+, not a 4+ as before. :o
That's Fred's huge change. I think picking that out in the hit table on p35 would be a good idea. There's no mention of it in firing at all.
The paragraph on p14 PROFILES gives different units to the PROFILE table on p8.
p14 says deployed guns are low profile, on p8 they are average profile.
Its -1d6 so roll 3 dice to hit rather than 4 dice. Not a change to the score needed to hit.
Although from some rough calculations, the overall effect is much the same on the average number of hits.
I have to agree that this isn't at all clear in the rules. The only place I have seen the -1d6 to shooting attacks is in the Special Rules for Low Profile. If it applies to all infantry then I would have expected to see this in the shooting rules, and in the details of low profile at the start of the rules.
For the errata, I would suggest explicitly listing Low Profile against all units on the army lists that get Low Profile either by their class or as an exception, as this will make it very clear that this rule applies so widely.
Quote from: Big Insect on 08 May 2019, 08:20:02 PM
Profile
Command units, troops on foot, light vehicles, deployed guns, and dug-in troops* of any type are classified as having low profiles. All other troops are classified as having average profiles.
* so this also answers the 'dug-in' question from an earlier thread.
The above makes digging in pointless for Infantry, as they are already Low Profile, so they get no advantage for digging in.
Here's the low profile section in question, "All direct shooting at a low-profile target subtracts 1d6 from the attack value."
Here's the setup. Two US Infantry Platoons (AP 5/30 each) and one US Mortar (3/120) are successfully commanded to fire upon a German Infantry Platoon that is at 20cm (over 1/2 range) from both US Infantry Platoons.
All fire is combined. As I read the rules; there will be 3d6 from the Mortars (indirect fire) and 4d6 from each of the US Infantry Platoons (since it is direct fire a -1d6 for each unit). This results in rolling 11d6 against the German Infantry Platoon with results according to the cover status of the German unit.
It seems odd that mortar HE doesn't attract the modifier but tank HE does?
Quote from: fred. on 08 May 2019, 09:34:12 PM
The above makes digging in pointless for Infantry, as they are already Low Profile, so they get no advantage for digging in.
Low Profile results in -1d6 for the direct firing units. Digging In would provide light cover which would mean hitting only on 5/6 not 4/5/6. So both have benefits to the unit being attacked.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 08 May 2019, 09:59:50 PM
It seems odd that mortar HE doesn't attract the modifier but tank HE does?
Interesting, perhaps direct HE shots going long or falling short?
Quote from: Dr Dave on 08 May 2019, 09:59:50 PM
It seems odd that mortar HE doesn't attract the modifier but tank HE does?
Mortar fire is plunging fire, whereas APC HE fire will have a lot flatter tragectory. I'm no expert - maybe an ex-tanker can correct me if this isn't the case?
And as they are dug in they are hit on 6 as classed as hard cover. Personally I like the concept of low profile.
Yes, I think it has merit. But what is intended to be low profile. The rules say infantry and command units plus vehicles with the low profile special rule. But also a few IGs. Mark says AT guns as well, which makes sense - but which ones?
Not Pak- 43's or Flack 36's
Hi Kiwidave
From my experience as a Chieftain gunner I can say that the High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) rounds that we used to fire did have a slight elliptical flight to them (depending on the range), but nothing like the flight of mortar rounds. A different part of the gratical on the sight was used to aim when firing HESH as opposed to Armoured Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) rounds. And all though not relevant to BCK, I do remember back in 1976 the whole squadron firing at a large German bunker from WWII in the middle of Hohne ranges that was 8 kilometers away (maximum range for HESH) and the curve on firing at that distance must have been quite a lot!
As another aside I'm pretty certain I have seen film of Sherman's in Italy in WWII with what looked like the rear of the tank dug in (to give them greater elevation, presumably) and being used in a bombardment role. Again the 'arc' of flight of the round must have been considerable.
On the whole I think BKC IV has got it about right on this one.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: ianrs54 on 09 May 2019, 11:55:10 AM
Not Pak- 43's or Flack 36's
Clearly not, but 6 pdrs or pak 36s? Then again, there's no mention of this that I can find, so perhaps Mark has misremembered it?
Quote from: T13A on 09 May 2019, 01:50:41 PM
As another aside I'm pretty certain I have seen film of Sherman's in Italy in WWII with what looked like the rear of the tank dug in (to give them greater elevation, presumably) and being used in a bombardment role.
There was a lot of that going on in Korea too. Must be the mountains.
Paul,
Thanks for the info. :) Very informative.
The Shermans where probably at Casino; the nature of the terrain made shelling units on reverse slopes very difficult, and they needed a way to increase the arc .
KD
I am putting on a game at the club tomorrow
Having read this thread I am still not sure if infantry being shot at are hit on 5 and 6 or are hit on 4,5 & 6 but the firer uses one less dice as they are low profile
If it's the latter it makes it even harder for units to shoot at infantry in cover as they get cover and low profile bonuses
Please can someone confirm for me
Thanks
Infantry in soft cover (i.e. behind a hedge)
Attacker has one less shooting dice, hitting on a 5+
Thanks Fred
So I am hoping that means that infantry in the open are HIT on the standard 4,5,6
BUT
Each firer has one less dice per shot for the low profile
Thanks
Quote from: Jimbo94 on 16 May 2019, 09:08:50 AM
Thanks Fred
So I am hoping that means that infantry in the open are HIT on the standard 4,5,6
BUT
Each firer has one less dice per shot for the low profile
Thanks
Yes that's right.
Thanks
I've been thinking about the matter of 'Low profile' and the AP stat, for a bit. Especially as most soft targets are also low profile, with the exception of large guns and trucks.
I'm of the opinion that 'low profile' almost doesn't need to be a special rule and that the matter would be more clear, and involve fewer special rules in general game play, by reducing everything's AP stat by by 1* (except for indirect weapons) and having an 'average profile' rule for the large guns and trucks where the attacker gets a bonus D6.
*weapons with an AP of 1 should probably be left at 1, given the caveat at the start of the special rules that prevents attacks from being made useless.
(I did re-read this thread before posting, just to make sure that the low profile rule is what I think it is.)
Am I mad?
I spotted that as well. There was a house rule on the old forum that trucks, once empty, were simply removed (to stop the RASC charging around! ;D). That would make your suggestion even more useable. ;)
What about STUGS, etc?
Stugs should still be OK. They're attacked by the AT stat, so Low profile is fine there. Most vehicles are average profile.
My main thinking was that pretty much all the AP targets were low profile, to the point where the 'special rule' is the norm.
Ah yes! All Infantry, Infantry support HMG and Mortars, ATGs, except Flak 36 88, jeeps and motorcycles and designated low profile AFVs.
I am still stunned that this rule only appears in the Special Rules - how is it possible that it was missed for inclusion in the sections on Profile, Firing and on the QRS.
Was this a very late addition ? Has it been playtested ?
We now have Infantry able to suppress tanks with relative ease and with less chance of being hit too !!!
This looking more like a fantasy than reality.
Check the other thread on suppressive fire. You can only use if you have no chance of killing (causing a real hit) and with suppressive fire you only hit on a 6, so it's not that easy. .
Suppressive Fire thinking here Tony -
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,18680.0.html
AJ