Ok, here's the big question: What's the difference in the sculpting between reg. Italian and the Bersaglieri infantry? Is there much of a difference?
Second question (almost specifically for JB), would there be any difference between these two types of units in game terms? Would the Bersaglieri have better morale and/or movement rates?
I would like to hear your collective thoughts on this.
Bersaglieri vs regular Italian infantry c. 1942
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
- E5
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am
- Location: South Bend, IN
- Contact:
Bersaglieri vs regular Italian infantry c. 1942
I wish I had something witty to say...
-
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
I have not bought the Bersaglieri units myself, but I have seen other folks' Bersaglieries. I believe the only difference is the plume worn on the side of the helmet.
The Italians always did have a sence of fashion, even in war. Alpini also wore a feather plume (I think it is a crow's feather?), and were known to have special adaptors to affix them to the outside of their white winter covers, rather fully reversing the low-visibility benefits of the covers, but retaining most of that somewhat rakish look that meant so much to the Alpini.
As to unit benefits ... the Bersaglieri should probably get some form of morale advantage, but not a whole lot. They were the motorized troops, and were known to be somewhat more aggressive than run-of-the-mill formations, but they were not truly elites.
Or so I've read.
The Italians always did have a sence of fashion, even in war. Alpini also wore a feather plume (I think it is a crow's feather?), and were known to have special adaptors to affix them to the outside of their white winter covers, rather fully reversing the low-visibility benefits of the covers, but retaining most of that somewhat rakish look that meant so much to the Alpini.
As to unit benefits ... the Bersaglieri should probably get some form of morale advantage, but not a whole lot. They were the motorized troops, and were known to be somewhat more aggressive than run-of-the-mill formations, but they were not truly elites.
Or so I've read.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
- E5
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am
- Location: South Bend, IN
- Contact:
-
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
Re: Bersaglieri vs regular Italian infantry c. 1942
...well Jason,it all depends on the skill rating you give the individual fireteams,according to the rules we use. Remember the skill ratings 1 through 5?Pitfall wrote:
Second question (almost specifically for JB), would there be any difference between these two types of units in game terms? Would the Bersaglieri have better morale and/or movement rates?
I would like to hear your collective thoughts on this.
I think that for this campaign we should give skill ratings for a whole platoon,this would ease most of you guys spending time tagging or marking each team. Now you just need to decide which platoon would get which rating.
I believe that the UK troops I am assigned all have 1 skill rating. I will not tell you what it is. (Military secret ,you know,old chap).
I would like to see commander teams have individual skill ratings,this would make it more interesting,and I don't think play would be slowed at all. Also if we did this you might just be screwed playing I.T.s,their leadership is what really got them in trouble (I read that ,and a lot of times at a lot of places). Of course this was higher up probably Battalion and higher.
Remember when your recon team failed morale in our last game ,and then I think you had a class 2 Company grade that couldn't rally them? I would bet that the I.T.s had a lot of class 4 commanders. Don't really know.maybe Mk1 could enlighten us to company grade leadership of the I.T.s
John