An action point system (like the WW2 series) might be the best solution to a weak defence. See my last post at the topic <i>1/2 Defence - Full Offence - Right - Wrong?</i>
With the current system, an attacking unit can use up its full movement allowance, then fire and then melee too! But with an action point system, if a unit used up more than 2/3 of its allowance it wouldn't be able to fire. Also, in order to melee, a unit (or at least infantry) normally requires most of its action point allocation - so an attacking unit would need to start out adjacent or maybe one hex away from the defender in order to melee.
Adopting an <b>action point </b>system would thus:
1./ Reduce attacker firepower in proportion to movement expended.
2./ Give the defender more time to respond before getting meleed.
3./ Allow defending artillery the chance to limber up and fall back without getting rushed from a distance and then meleed.
4./ Permit retreating defenders to fire and then fall back, rather than having to fire <i>after</i> falling back at long range. Alternatively, the retreating unit could chose to sacrifice firing in exchange for 1/3 extra movement.
An action point system is a more flexible system and a more logical system. I'm convinced it would be a better system than the one we've currently got.
Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
|