Ant rule

Advanced Tactics is a versatile turn-based strategy system that gives gamers the chance to wage almost any battle in any time period. The initial release focuses on World War II and includes a number of historical scenarios as well as a full editor! This forum supports both the original Advanced Tactics and the new and improved Advanced Tactics: Gold Edition.

Moderator: Vic

Post Reply
User avatar
HeadlessHessian
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:58 pm

Ant rule

Post by HeadlessHessian »

Is there a rule which will prohibit the use of 'ant' units. An 'ant' unit is where an opponent will create a ton of one factor, or even no factor (truck by itself for example) units and put them in your way in order just to slow you down. Seems like a waste of PPs but if you are in deep trouble?!?!?
Anyhow is there a way to add such a rule to a scenario?
Or maybe even a situation where a unit X strength can 'overrun' a unit of X- stregnth making that X- unit not even relevant...ie not lose APs etc.
User avatar
lion_of_judah
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

RE: Ant rule

Post by lion_of_judah »

I see no problem with a player using small units as blocking units or rear guard units in order to slow down an enemy there by giving your troops more time to create a new defensive line. Real world armies use this delaying tactic all the time
User avatar
HeadlessHessian
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:58 pm

RE: Ant rule

Post by HeadlessHessian »

OK and I respect your opinion. However, I do. It is totally unrealistic. Seen them created in 'silly' quantities.
My question still stands, is there a way?
User avatar
ernieschwitz
Posts: 4246
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Ant rule

Post by ernieschwitz »

According to what Vic wrote earlier, somewhere on this board, not sure where...

If a unit uses less AP to defeat a unit than the movecost to enter a hex, it will use that value to enter the hex. Sort of an overrun.
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
  • Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.
Try this Global WW2 Scenario: https://www.vrdesigns.net/scenario.php?nr=280
User avatar
lion_of_judah
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

RE: Ant rule

Post by lion_of_judah »

I don't see how you can say this is unrealistic. there has been actions with very small rear guards which have held up an a drive delaying enemy forces long enough for forces to setup a second line of defense. I find this very realistic and find that not having these delaying forces "VERY UN-REALISTIC"
User avatar
HeadlessHessian
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:58 pm

RE: Ant rule

Post by HeadlessHessian »

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic
User avatar
lion_of_judah
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

RE: Ant rule

Post by lion_of_judah »

we'll that makes sense to a point
User avatar
HeadlessHessian
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:58 pm

RE: Ant rule

Post by HeadlessHessian »

hey Lion...Are you really in Israel ?? Just asking.
User avatar
lion_of_judah
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

RE: Ant rule

Post by lion_of_judah »

Nope, but wish I was. That is my dream too someday live there
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Ant rule

Post by Tac2i »

If a player has deployed forces in that manner, is he not admitting defeat and simply trying to delay the inevitable? Would not cavalry and/or armored cars chew through them like a lawn mower cutting grass?
ORIGINAL: HeadlessHessian

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
Josh
Posts: 2568
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Leeuwarden, Netherlands

RE: Ant rule

Post by Josh »

ORIGINAL: HeadlessHessian

In my response I said 'in silly quantities'. I have no issue with one or two or evern 1/2 dozen in strategic areas...but I have seen it to be absurd..all over the board, in almost every hex...and that is unrealistic

That's absurd. And it doesn't do anything. Any fast moving unit will move through them like ...well they won't stop anything let me put it that way. An utter waste of PP's. I've seen WitE players use that tactic...and it's not a pretty sight. Still nothing to prevent players to use that tactic...or should I say; use that madness. Or maybe your opponent wasn't sure what to do? Maybe he didn't know how to put up a proper defense?
User avatar
lion_of_judah
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

RE: Ant rule

Post by lion_of_judah »

I have used a unit with anywhere from 11 infantry, 1-3 anti tank guns and a machinegun unit and it has stopped an advance for one turn, but one turn is better than nothing. i have put units with only 1-6 infantry on a cross-roads or strategic hex to impeded the enemy advance just so they will use movement points to fight me there by wasting their movement. so in some ways it isn't bad.
GrumpyMel
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:37 pm

RE: Ant rule

Post by GrumpyMel »

Small forces, even a single infantry SFT, can be usefull as delaying forces....primarly in preventing an occupied hex from flipping to enemy control when a hostile unit moves adjacent to it. In this way they can act as screening or picket forces. I see it as a valid tactic...and it's self-limiting since dispersing those troops over a wide area render them ineffective from a combat standpoint. The only thing I'd object to would be an empty unit with no SFT's assigned to it.
User avatar
ernieschwitz
Posts: 4246
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Ant rule

Post by ernieschwitz »

Even then, an Empty HQ, has a purpose. But I too would object to an empty non-hq unit...
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
  • Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.
Try this Global WW2 Scenario: https://www.vrdesigns.net/scenario.php?nr=280
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Ant rule

Post by Tac2i »

It is my understanding that an empty unit container costs the attacking unit zero AP when it attacks.
ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Small forces, even a single infantry SFT, can be usefull as delaying forces....primarly in preventing an occupied hex from flipping to enemy control when a hostile unit moves adjacent to it. In this way they can act as screening or picket forces. I see it as a valid tactic...and it's self-limiting since dispersing those troops over a wide area render them ineffective from a combat standpoint. The only thing I'd object to would be an empty unit with no SFT's assigned to it.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
User avatar
Strategiusz
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Upper Silesia, Poland
Contact:

RE: Ant rule

Post by Strategiusz »

The "ant" can stop or slow the attacker, but in most cases it stops or slows only one small attacker's counter (unit), not whole attacker's stack. Not only defender can use many small units.
Post Reply

Return to “Advanced Tactics Series”