From: Christopher Downes-Ward <Christopher_Downes-Ward@a...>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:15:17 -0000
Subject: [DSII]Aerospace firing
This one came up over the weekend. (After Action report to follow) If an Aerospace unit is attacking a ground unit with a direct fire weapon (e.g. SLAM, RFAC) does it suffer the adverse die shift for moving more that half move? For plays sake we said yes. Can an aerospace unit target vehicles inside and Urban area. For plays sake we said yes.
From: Germ <germ@g...>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:37:24 -0000
Subject: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing
> This one came up over the weekend. (After Action report to follow) I'd say no to this one. Areospace movement is very different. It will always arrive and leave the battlefield in the same movement turn so effectively your always going to be shifting down a die. I prefer to have it that areospace weapons are designed to operate at speed, so wouldn't shift the dice for movement. If we are talking VTOL then yes I would shift down a die for more than half move. > Can an aerospace unit target vehicles inside and Urban area. I don't have a problem with this one. If your worried about line of sight i.e. how would the aerospace unit know they were there? Then just apply a little house rule like an areospace target must be visible to a friendly ground based unit in order for it to be attacked. You could go another step and treat areospace units in the same way as artillery. Needing spotters etc... Jeremey
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing
> --- Germ <germ@germy.co.uk> wrote: > I'd say no to this one. Areospace movement is very I agree fully. The downshift is not mentioned in the aerospace rules so I wouldn't require it. > If we are talking VTOL then yes I would shift down a Without a doubt. > I don't have a problem with this one. I'd have a problem with that approach. Spotters are needed for precision guided munitions, but UAVs (abstracted off the DSII table) and other means of recon are used to target air strikes. To include sending aircraft to patrol a certain area and shoot up anything he sees. And while the spotter may be screaming at the pilot about the tank on the hill, if he can see 20 tanks bunched up on the other side of the hill, I know which target I'd go after if I were him.
From: Germ <germ@g...>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:51:09 -0000
Subject: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing
> > You could go another step and treat areospace units The reason I voiced this approach is because there is nothing in DSII to represent the air war going on above the battlefield. Without that I prefer the idea of an aerospace unit taking off, getting on target and bugging out quickly. If you have it as missions where the aerospace units are looking for targets of opportunity, then it feels like the DSII sky is full of planes from both sides flying around each other until attacking a ground target. I don't like the feel of that. Maybe if we had some air superiority rules it might work better. Jeremey
From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:28:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing
> From: "Germy & Fizl" <germ@fizzle.f9.co.uk> > Maybe if we had some air superiority rules it might work better. Working on it..... 2B^2 _________________________________________________________________
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing
> --- Germy & Fizl <germ@fizzle.f9.co.uk> wrote: > The reason I voiced this approach is because there That's a good thing--the batallion commander you're representing can't control that. > If you have it as missions where the aerospace units Which is why the rule as it currently exists is a good compromise between the above and treating them like artillery.