From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 03:05:34 -0400
Subject: DS2 Answers from Beth
G'day Tom, > 1. Can vehicles close-assault infantry by Fuzzy line there as it says vehicles can 'support'... so may be they're 'supporting' they're internal crews. So I'd say yes - given DS states vehicles in close assaults use fire APSWs. [Tomb] It is kinda fuzzy. It implies vehicles can be involved in assaults but never says if they can go it alone (and what is more, I can't imagine a RL reason they couldn't... it might not be wise, but it is possible). > If so, should being assaulted by tanks May be. At first I thought yes and then I thought may be not as tanks aren't as agile as PA. [Tomb] True, but I think having a pile of APSWs to meet the attack with and heavy armour gives you a lot better chance of surviving than line infantry, so standing should be easier (I'd think). > 2. Can vehicles be close-assualted by If you define specific spots/tanks to attack, maybe define a location and if there happens to be a vehicle sitting on said spot.... [Tomb] That's essentially what happened. > If so, shouldn't being in armour give the Watching size 4 > GEVs run from PA was funny, but Well PA assaulted by line infantry don't get any bonuses, so maybe vehicles shouldn't either. [Tomb] Good point. I'm gonna have a real good rethink about both these morale tests and see if I can come up with some compact/sane values to use for test levels that actually reflect the situations. > 3. Should odds factor into your morale I would've only allowed a single stand to attack a single tank, not the entire formation. How you allocate attacks after that, whether they all mob one (and thus numbers counting comes back into play) or they spread out (like CC in SG) is more open unless you've defined a single location to attack (which DS says you should really do). [Tomb] Well, except that the defender has to make a confidence test to stand, and IIRC these are made per UNIT not per ELEMENT. So attacking one tank (which is effectively what happened) can drive them all off the objective.... > 5. Reaction fire seems automatic. Should I'm having a complete mental blank... reaction fire? Do you mean opportunity fire? [Tomb] Yes. By an artifact of unit numbers one side was able to have an unactivated unit in front of a woodsline waiting for the enemy to show his head. Now, he knew the enemy was there, the enemy knew he was there. In real life, he'd drive to the edge and acquire targets and fire while they would acquire him as he appeared and fire - kind of a shootout. But in the game, all fire from the sitting unit (opportunity fire) would occur before any from the moving unit. That's what bugged me. > 6. If you have shaken infantry, and they I've always assumed it was covered in the TL+3 for the CA test. [Tomb] I might have missed something... will look again. > 7. What happens if you are shaky and try I've always treated it like blowing an Under Fire test... you can't do that CA or move. If it was a move action and you haven't already done a combat action and you have valid targets then you could still do a combat action. [Tomb] Okay, is this how it is commonly done by DS2ers? (Or is there some errata that clears up how this is meant to work?) You'll find it plays a bit different once you've done that... less CAing with infantry unless they're dug-in ;) [Tomb] My infantry never saw combat. They debarked about 20" out from the objective, their APCs ended up getting vaporized, and the only things that got to CA were the PA because a double PA move + 2" is 14" and a double infantry move + 2" is only 6" which is a huge difference. So my 7 stands never saw combat (neither did his conventional stands) and only the PA moved/assaulted (it is hard to kill, moves fast, and forces huge penalties on those it CAs).