Hello. In recent topics, notably the "M10" and "StuG III vs Panzer IV" ones, appeared the idea of concealing vehicles. To focus on this interesting topic - that may very well develop in a commonly used houserule - is the objective of this thread.

First, my ideas.

1. The vehicle concealment concept should apply on all vehicles.

- because you may succesfully hide a Hetzer and a Königstiger alike.

- because you may not justify a height over which it is "too difficult" to conceal a vehicle.

2. The vehicle concealment should be possible only in the game setup - i.e. not in the course of the game through the use of cards - and for the stated (defending) side only.

- because concealing vehicle is time consuming and requires vehicle to stand.

Broadening ideas are welcome. Keep in mind to make the resulting concepts rule friendly and as simple as possible.

In my opinion it would be best to limit Concealed Vehicles to SSR.

First reason for this is scenario playbalance. Being able to place tanks in good positions compleatly safe from the enemy, is a major change in the tactical parameters. Some of the scenarios where you defend a few hexes becomes very easy to win.

Second, wording is rarely Attacker/Defender in scenarios. Placing the rule in SSR would make it obvious which scenarios it applies to. It would also make it possible to have scenarios where either or both sides vehicles started concealed.

Third, placing it in SSR will allow it to mesh simpler with any rules regarding Hidden units.

There is one unit I would like to give the option to start any scenario as a Concealed unit. -- AT-guns. As vehicles they are just too vulnerable to tank fire.

Glad to see that more people thought that this was a good ide.

SSR= senario special rule??? If so I agree.

I think that concealed vehicles can be a could be handled by a regular operation card, or a secenario special rule. That way, only one sides spesified in the senario would have the concealed vehicles available. And maybe only to specified types of vehicles. If the senario was design for the option of concealed vehicles in mind, it could ofcourse be balanced.

As an other side, I would also like to see a slight upgrade to concealed units in general. I think concealed units should be able to use op-fire without putting an op-fire order on them. That way the enemy does not know wether you intend to use the op-fire or not, and the action of concealed units will be far harder to predict.

Grand Stone said:

1. I think this is logical and realistic. Concealed status should have op-fire capability embedded within.

2. WRT concealed vehicles:

a. Only in cover or outside of LOS.

b. For specific vehicle types such as American TDs and non-turreted assault vehicles this should be a characteristic capability v. SSR. Also, I think they should be allowed to retain concealed status while moving outside LOS.

c. Other vehicles via SSR.

3. If heavy vehicles such as Tigers/Panthers etc., attempt to remain concealed within LOS but no moving, a discovery roll should be allowed...also for air recon (Storks, P51s, Spitfires, etc).

concealing tanks just requires time and making scenario specific is probably best.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

I respect and concur for standard AFVs of all nations. Hiding a Tiger II in plain sight took time, imagination and effort. Standard AFVs should only be concealed at start of specific scenarios. Unlike infantry, they are much more difficult to maintain concealed when in direct LOS. There needs to be a range max for remaining concealed and an observation-discovery chance.

Certain vehicles, due to design, actual usage and/or doctrine were very difficult to detect until they revealed by fire. I think these vehicles should have a concealment ability incorporated into the model v. scenario specific. I'm all for simple, but not for bland...

Some might suggest that these options would give too much weight to heavy vehicles. To counter balance, I suggest allowing certain infantry types the ability to assault heavy vehicles in the same hex. Heavy vehicles were vulnerable without infantry support, regardless the thickness of the armor or the number of branches entwined in concealment netting.

Hefsgaard said:

I agree. AT guns were often used in ambush.

Observation discovery chance is an interesting idea. How would you incorporate it into the game?

As for the division between non-turreted vehicles and tanks. There seems to be certain tendency to give the former some advantages and handicap the latter in terms of concealment.

I am strongly against that. The only argument to support that thesis is the different (smaller) height of the non-turreted vehicles relative to the height of tanks. I disprove that and offer arguments in support of treating the self-propelled guns and tanks alike:

1. The non-turreted vehicles weren´t low. Both the Jagdpanzer IV and the StuG had 1,96 m height. That´s not really little.

2. They weren´t much lower than tanks. Panzer III and IV had 2,5 m and 2,68 m respectively. Now what difference does a 50 cm make. Not enough to justify a different rule concept.

3. Leaving aside the Jagdtiger, even other non-turreted vehicles were HIGHER than tanks. For example the Jagdpanther was 2,71 m tall.

4. Treating tanks and non-turreted vehicles as one group would mean making the new concealment rule as simple as possible - therefore having good chance to intrigue both the game designers and players - definitely higher than with complex rules made-to-measure to each AFV group.

von Stichen said:

Observation/discovery: Conceptually, a HV within LOS would be discovered via a simple die roll based on range. The shorter the range, the greater the chance of discovery. Anything less than three hexes would be automatic. A four hex range d6 on a roll 4-6; hex range 5-6 would d6 on 5-6; anything beyond 6 hexes would d6 on 6? Just a swag on the ranges to use as examples. Of course this applies to units at the edge of legal cover and not to units outside LOS. If a unit is in deep cover, opposing forces could still discover if also in the same cover and 2 or less hexes away (automatic). If not in cover or in within LOS (behing woods, hill or house), air recon can discover.

WRT assault gun v. turreted...in general very true regarding vehicle height, but I think assault guns were easier to conceal due to forward hull mounting of main gun. The gun could be exposed from cover while maintaining the hull within cover (like AT guns). Turreted vehicles need to place the forward hull at the edge of concealment in order to sight the main gun from the turret. WRT hull down, turreted vehicles have the advantage over assault guns.

BJaffe01 said:

But I wouldn't mind an official operations card ( which then of course would be scenario specific... )

PS: do you happen to know whether the cards that received errata in the base game have been included in FoTB? (Go to the ground etc.)

KlausFritsch said:

Good point. SSR or operations or tactic card would be a nice addition to the game!