I will take a stab in the dark at this...
I imagine that the rule was put into place to allow the movement rules to
ignore turns. If fixed mount vehicles could move and then fire, they could do
a full movement, turn to bring the opponent into arc, and fire the fixed mount
weapon. This would
make a turret less cost-effective.
It may be a good house rule to allow fixed mount weapons to fire after
movement ONLY IF they move less than half of thier movement rating.
I would still allow opprotunity fire and overwatch fire (if you use that house
rule), but only if the enemy wanders into the correct arc.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
However,
> there must be a better way to reflect this?
> penalty to it's accuracy, charge it one of it's Base Movement Points,
Yeah, I pretty much understand why it was done in game terms. I was just
wondering if the restriction on action order actually jived with reality.
Any input? I know the Swedes had the S-Tank, and the Germans and Soviets
have traditionally used Assault Gun designs a lot more than other nations.
What were their experiences with them?
In game terms, I also prefer your idea of allowing them to move THEN fire
ONLY if they only half-move. In addition, however, I would also penalize
them one die code of accuracy (it HAS to be harder to slew a whole tank around
to track a moving target than it is to just rotate the
turret...).
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:50:44 -0500
I will take a stab in the dark at this...
I imagine that the rule was put into place to allow the movement rules to
ignore turns. If fixed mount vehicles could move and then fire, they could do
a full movement, turn to bring the opponent into arc, and fire the fixed mount
weapon. This would
make a turret less cost-effective.
It may be a good house rule to allow fixed mount weapons to fire after
movement ONLY IF they move less than half of thier movement rating.
I would still allow opprotunity fire and overwatch fire (if you use that house
rule), but only if the enemy wanders into the correct arc.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Yeah, I pretty much understand why it was done in game terms. I was
We had, yes. There are reasons why no-one else wanted it though, and
why we don't have it any longer :-/
> and the Germans and Soviets have traditionally used Assault Gun
Assault guns are mainly intended to support infantry against enemy infantry,
at a lower cost than you'd pay for real tanks. I think they work fairly well
for this in DSII... smaller (and therefore cheaper) than a turreted tank with
the same main gun, and enemy infantry can't
move very fast so they have a chance to shoot at something :-/
The S-tank OTOH was a tank destroyer, specifically built for
reverse-slope defences. Performed adequatly but not brilliantly in that
role, but not very good at all for offensive operations.
> In game terms, I also prefer your idea of allowing them to move THEN
It takes more engine power to turn the entire tank than to rotate the turret,
but it doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy when firing at a
stand-still.
What it does affect, or rather prohibit, is the ability to fire on the
move - the S-tank can't do that, no matter how fancy targetting devices
you equip it with. It has to stop, or move very slowly, to be able to aim. The
"only move half" house rule would probably work well to reflect this.
Regards,
Gee, why am I not surprised that Oerjan had a reply that I found accurate,
logical, and completely satisfactory? If they gave a Nobel Prize for war
(There's a thought that's just wrong...) He'd win it. LOL
Thanks, Oerjan
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:02:44 +0100
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Yeah, I pretty much understand why it was done in game terms. I was
We had, yes. There are reasons why no-one else wanted it though, and
why we don't have it any longer :-/
> and the Germans and Soviets have traditionally used Assault Gun
Assault guns are mainly intended to support infantry against enemy infantry,
at a lower cost than you'd pay for real tanks. I think they work fairly well
for this in DSII... smaller (and therefore cheaper) than a turreted tank with
the same main gun, and enemy infantry can't
move very fast so they have a chance to shoot at something :-/
The S-tank OTOH was a tank destroyer, specifically built for
reverse-slope defences. Performed adequatly but not brilliantly in that
role, but not very good at all for offensive operations.
> In game terms, I also prefer your idea of allowing them to move THEN
It takes more engine power to turn the entire tank than to rotate the turret,
but it doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy when firing at a
stand-still.
What it does affect, or rather prohibit, is the ability to fire on the
move - the S-tank can't do that, no matter how fancy targetting devices
you equip it with. It has to stop, or move very slowly, to be able to aim. The
"only move half" house rule would probably work well to reflect this.
Regards,