View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:10 am




Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Romanian expansion 
Author Message
Private
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:19 pm
Posts: 13
Hello people!

I've been working on an expansion pack for the Romanians over the past few months, inspired by the Hungarian one already existing (http://www.wwpd.net/p/bolt-action.html)

find it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ApW ... sp=sharing


Last edited by Cynical on Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:14 pm
Profile
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:55 am
Posts: 168
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Oooh, you beat me to it! I had made a start on this. Well done! This is excellent.

Some initial observations:

Army rules:
Agree the forward artillery army rule makes no sense.
The tank hunter one is a good idea, but a bit over-powered? Romanian infantry weren't tank hunters par excellence, they always struggled against armour. Maybe have free Tank hunter for the two compulsory squads?
Like the discipline rule! This is a negative of course, but is a very good idea IMO.
Agree on 6 infantry squads, like that a lot!

Romanian troops tended to be poor on the offensive, but very good defensively. Something like the
Italian fortification army rule perhaps?


Air observer:
Bit dubious on air observer added. Air force was VERY small and thus the Luftwaffe had to do a lot of close air support. If you really want one, you can take it in the axis support slot instead? (I do this to field a Romanian proxy one in my paratroop force.)

Early war veterans:
Agree with this, but not a critical change as you can field late war as proxy.

Pioneer section:
Hmmm. They did have them, but they weren't very common. I'm assuming one unit only as per German list? I feel adding the flame thrower to is army is appropriate but would lean maybe towards a 2 man team being added rather than a full pioneer unit?

Paratroop section:
Agree fully with no stubborn. Also agree with the equipment section, except the panzerfaust. I've never seen any evidence they had these, and a lot of panzerfausts that Romanian troops had were "supplied in field" from the Germans, and would thus have been seen at the front lines only. As the paratroops were rear echelon until Romania switched sides, I suspect they wouldn't have access to these? (Though it would suit me if they did!)

Marines/AA troops:
Fully agree. Replacement units would also be inexperienced. (Marines fought against soviet naval landings in 1941 on the Black Sea coast too.)

Cavalry section, Flamethrower team, AT team, 75mm Vickers, FT tank, R-35:
Agree with all these!

TACAM R-2:
Disagree with this one a bit. The TACAM T-60 is only armour 7+, even though the T-60 itself is armour 8+. The TACAM is worse because the fighting compartment on top isn't terribly well protected. The R-2 would be the same, and thus should be 7+? Agree with the MMG, 2" HE shell is also a nice way to differentiate from the TACAM T-60.

R-1:
Broadly agree but would consider adding vulnerable (+1 extra for armour penetration on sides on back) to represent the extra-thin armour of the Romanian version. It's how I play mine and it works well, makes even AT rifles very dangerous indeed!

The OA vz30 probably needs its own entry as it's wheeled, and the turret machine gun would be light also, not medium like the R-1.

A couple of things are missing, especially the Renault UE Chenillette/Malaxa and the Laffly S15R/T. (Armies of France for both. Written sources say the Lafflys were S15T prime movers but the only photo I've seen clearly shows S15R recon versions, which can also tow a gun of course.) edit: Sorry, you said you still had to add these! Just saw that now.





Very impressive! I have modelled a lot of these units, if you needed photos.


Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:04 am
Profile
Private
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:19 pm
Posts: 13
I impressed someone, get in!

Thanks wight, some good observations I will address below.

I like your idea about the two compulsory squads only gaining tank hunter. The idea behind the rule is to encourage people to take larger squads. I'm a big fan of the 'great patriotic war' rule since it benefits all russian armies but particularly encourages fluffy inexperienced lists, and this is my attempt to do something similar, encourage big infantry squads. Perhaps in combination with the change you propose we could add the old italian defensive position rule? (Can react to assaults from over 6" away even if already activated)?

Air observer: this unit really shouldn't be in the vast majority of Romanian armies, but annoyingly the bessarabia campaign appears to have had enough air support for infantry to mean I can't really exclude it. Played in any other theatre air observers are a no and shouldn't be used.

Pioneers: will be one per army when I do the theatre selectors

Paratroopers: hmm, very good point on the panzerfaust. I'll have to think more on that one. As an aside the limitless smgs are only limitless as I could find no data on the actual proportions, you wouldn't happen to have any idea about the smg:rifle ratio would you?

Marines: thanks for the tidbit, I will add it in

TACAM r2: on reflection, you're probably right. The marder tank destroyer is another example, that was even built on 35(t)s sometimes! It's a bit of a shame because I reckon that it'd be less fun to play as armour 7 but I agree that would be more in keeping with the current rules for similar vehicles.

R1: I have thought about that, and decided against it. Two reasons for that, the first is historical, the R1 even with its thinned armour is still better protected from the sides than many armoured carriers, like the bren carrier for example. The second is a gameplay consideration. Costing it up (especially if you also add the one man turret rule as is appropriate) gives you a real cheap tank, especially considering it can use recce to stay alive.

Other things: yes, those things should both be added. I'm open to adding the vz30, I figured just do the same as with the india pattern carriers but you make a good point about the mg. One thing I decided not to include was the vz27 because there were three and they don't appear to have done anything. Are there any other units you know of I should include?

As for pictures, I know of your work and would be delighted to include it. I won't get to that stage for a while yet though.


Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:52 pm
Profile
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:55 am
Posts: 168
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Well if you want pictures, when the time comes I'll photograph them properly, and also see if I can spruce up the painting on the relevant units first!

Completely agree about taking lots of big infantry units, that's what a Romanian force should be! (I would usually take at least 4 10 man squads at a minimum.) Thinking about that and the idea of giving a defensive bonus, how about re-roll for Romania to be defender, as per Italian rule, and then also give one 6" linear obstacle/wall to the Romanian player for each infantry squad of ten or more men, which can be placed within 12" of table edge. Encourages bigger units and plenty of them? Your reaction rule idea is good too.

Fair comment on observer, I think we broadly agree!

Paratroopers and SMGs? Hard to tell! The best image I have is a unit of 30 marching. You can clearly count 12 rifles sticking up, so looks like about 18:12 or 3:2. Another after action photo clearly shows a smaller platoon with a good mix of both, plus 2 LMGs.
(Incidentally I would allow 2 LMGs in a squad. If motorised troops can have them, paratroopers definitely can!)

Of course you could argue that they might deploy as 2 squads of SMGs and a squad of riflemen in support? Equally British paras for example do not have the option of going "All SMG", yet Soviet do. Hard to call. Given a late-war Romanian squad unit currently can have 4 SMG in a seven man unit, I feel it should be better than that. Maybe allow NCO and 4 additional men to have SMGs and set squad size at 5 minimum? Thus you can have an all-SMG squad if you want but it will be small and brittle. There's thus almost a built in incentive to take a few riflemen, even if just to take as casualties!

TACAM is a surprisingly effective vehicle despite armour 7+. It's very cheap, but with a medium AT gun more expensive medium tanks have to be careful around it.

R-1 I agree about not giving one man turret as it does make it over-cheap. I think vulnerable Is worth looking at. A 9+ armour vehicle is -20 points if vulnerable, an 8+ is -10 points. Thus a 7+ would make sense to only apply -5 points for vulnerable? It just feels fluffy to do that as a penalty for the armour being thinned out compared to a "regular" AH-1V. (Bren carrier is 7-10mm armour, R-1 is 5-12mm, so the thinnest armour on the R-1 is worse.) I accept you don't want to make it over-cheap as 2MGs, fully enclosed and Reece makes it a decent vehicle.

Agree fully about vz27. Even the vz30 is a stretch. Some sources suggest it was deployed on the eastern front, but are far from clear. The only definite use they were put to was with the Polesti oilfield security forces. Whether they saw action against the Germans in August '44 doesn't seem to be known? However given they were deployed, and in decent numbers, I would include it. (On my modelling to-do list.)

In terms of other units, I think you have it fairly well covered to be honest! I'm looking forward to the theatre selectors.


Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:56 pm
Profile
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:55 am
Posts: 168
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Sorry, couple of things worth adding would be the Horch field car and for very late war only, the SDkfz 251/1 halftrack.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:12 am
Profile
Private
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:19 pm
Posts: 13
Oh no, the half tracks...

i'm digging up information on them currently, it's... somewhat less than easy...

looks to me like they had some 250/9s as well as some command variants, i'm trying to work out if the numbers are significant enough to warrant their inclusion.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:41 am
Profile
Private
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:19 pm
Posts: 13
First post updated with the final version! I'll link it here too https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ApW ... sp=sharing


Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:05 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

33,890,824 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y