Question about scenario #40

[keif149]

Greetings,

In scenario #40 Ia Drang: LZ X-Ray, the US player is assessed the artillery penalty as the scenario is classed as Meeting Engagement.
The scenario was designed probably in 2006. Should this have been changed to Assault or should the US oob have been modified as not to incur the penalty. Or is the penalty intended?
From the scenario description, it sounds the heavy amount of artillery was intended.
I’m playing it as a pbem game.

Many thanks in advance.

Keif149

[Mobhack]

1) Message moved to the correct sub-forum

2) If it was to be redesigned as an assault,then the defenders would be dug-in. Also, the AI behaves completely differently in the defend/delay mission as opposed to a meeter. Especially if Victory Hexes are not all held by the defending side!.

So - any of the new artillery overload penalty for the USA side accrues to the (presumably weaker) VC side, as it really probably should in Vietnam type battles.

The new artillery overload rules may have some slight effect on existing scenarios, but probably not that much. If the original designers want to come back and tune these then they can of course do so. But we won't be revisiting any existing ones, especially as we cannot ourselves "telepathically" get inside the head of whatever a particular designer wanted to do with the scenario.

So we can fix broken OOBs and other clerical stuff pointed out to us is really all.

Andy

[keif149]

Thanks. Just wanted the "official" stance on it. We'll play it out as it unfolds.

[Suhiir]

X-Ray is actually a very good example of how the overwhelming US fire support assets (artillery, air, helo gunships) were used in the few large battles that happened in Vietnam.

The USA (and particularly the US Army) relies heavily on fire support. What do you think the fire support penalty would be for D-Day? Iwo Jima? The Battle of the Bulge (once the fog lifted)?