'Rules' Question Re: Squad Range & Capability Reductions

[DeHammer]

We noticed while playing that half squads ranges are less than the full squad. For instance: German Para Full Squad 2-3-4-6 (with assault move) has a range of '3'. But broken down to a half squad it becomes 1-2-4-6 (range '2' with no assault move).

What's the rational in reducing the range & removing assault move capability? I can understand firepower reducing, but don't understand the rationale behind the troop quality (range, capability) being reduced.

Also, when a hero (single guy?) was generated he has 1-6-6-6. Why do hero's get such good range? What's the rationale behind that?

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Those design decision were taken a long time ago, by the original designer. The questions would have to be asked to him for the real answers. But you could rationalize that less men means less courage, hence less élan to assault move. And the range reduction might represent the fact that the inherent MG42 team has been affected or that, with less men, there are less people firing at threats that are away; they all conentrate on closer threats. As for the hero...he is a hero. He is very good and focus. I've read somewhere that not more than 15% of the troops would fire their small arms in a firefight; most of them would simply hide.

The real questions with the Germans Para is why the small range? And I suspect this has to do with balance (they have a lot of FP) and the designer will to have them always engage at close range; it was a way to make them very dangerous in Melee, before the M superscript was thought of.

Experience has told me that most design decisions are for effect or to balance things out, rather than a strict pursuit of realism (which is sure to fail IMO).

Me I just enjoy the game the way it is, cheers when a hero comes up and get into close range with my German Paras. I play the game, without too much concerns for realism, and use the stats provided on the counters to try to beat my opponent and generally enjoy myself. A bit like chess; I don't try to rationalize why the bishop move the way it moves; I just play it the way it is allowed to.

 

[DeHammer]

Those design decision were taken a long time ago, by the original designer. The questions would have to be asked to him for the real answers. But you could rationalize that less men means less courage, hence less élan to assault move. And the range reduction might represent the fact that the inherent MG42 team has been affected or that, with less men, there are less people firing at threats that are away; they all conentrate on closer threats. As for the hero...he is a hero. He is very good and focus. I've read somewhere that not more than 15% of the troops would fire their small arms in a firefight; most of them would simply hide.

The real questions with the Germans Para is why the small range? And I suspect this has to do with balance (they have a lot of FP) and the designer will to have them always engage at close range; it was a way to make them very dangerous in Melee, before the M superscript was thought of.

Experience has told me that most design decisions are for effect or to balance things out, rather than a strict pursuit of realism (which is sure to fail IMO).

Me I just enjoy the game the way it is, cheers when a hero comes up and get into close range with my German Paras. I play the game, without too much concerns for realism, and use the stats provided on the counters to try to beat my opponent and generally enjoy myself. A bit like chess; I don't try to rationalize why the bishop move the way it moves; I just play it the way it is allowed to.

Thanks for the reply! I kind of wondered if it might be something like that. One of the thoughts I had was that perhaps 'range' was looked at as more 'effective shooting distance', and not just the base the distance a gun can fire, but the 'blended' capability of the squad to track and 'effect' a target at distance. Example: fewer men = fewer eyes to spot more distant targets. The 'echelon' squad formation is a good example of how simply re-arranging the relative positions of sets of eyes can greatly impact the ability of the squad to detect enemies.

I'm not sure it's strictly about a perception of realism, because 'truth is stranger than fiction' at times. For instance, with regard to heroes... anyone that questions the ability of one man to make such an impact, can read up on someone like Audie Murphy. People often bash stuff for being 'Hollywood', but sometimes it's just that Hollywood likes to tell some fantastic stories... some of which might be more truth than fiction.

I like your chess analogy.

 

[Diesel_Kurt]

Those design decision were taken a long time ago, by the original designer. The questions would have to be asked to him for the real answers. But you could rationalize that less men means less courage, hence less élan to assault move. And the range reduction might represent the fact that the inherent MG42 team has been affected or that, with less men, there are less people firing at threats that are away; they all conentrate on closer threats. As for the hero...he is a hero. He is very good and focus. I've read somewhere that not more than 15% of the troops would fire their small arms in a firefight; most of them would simply hide.

The real questions with the Germans Para is why the small range? And I suspect this has to do with balance (they have a lot of FP) and the designer will to have them always engage at close range; it was a way to make them very dangerous in Melee, before the M superscript was thought of.

Experience has told me that most design decisions are for effect or to balance things out, rather than a strict pursuit of realism (which is sure to fail IMO).

Me I just enjoy the game the way it is, cheers when a hero comes up and get into close range with my German Paras. I play the game, without too much concerns for realism, and use the stats provided on the counters to try to beat my opponent and generally enjoy myself. A bit like chess; I don't try to rationalize why the bishop move the way it moves; I just play it the way it is allowed to.

agreed, although I was wondering the same thing, I guess at the end of the day.... it is a game. and a very good one at that !!!