Okay Adrian, I'm calling you out.
On the one hand, you cite 480 m + 60 m as a
distance that a vehicle + infantry could easily
due in the notional 5 min period. Then you turn around to say that the idea of
moving 120m is ridiculous. You can't really (on the one hand) argue about
"reasonable distances" and on the other hand argue about the game being
abstract and limiting vehicles. Either you consider the real distances and
times involved (hard to do, given the time as an abstract quantity.... and
then again you could explain to me why RAW alows you (in theory) to close
assault and follow through right across the board while the APC can only move
480m) or you don't and only consider relative effects.
<caps below is for emphasis, not me yelling and frothing>
I'm considering relative effects when I say my APC, having used ALL OF THE
TURN IT COULD TO MOVE has moved X (whatever X is). Similarly, your APC moves
the same X, then infantry moves AS FAR AS IT COULD IN A FULL TURN. Something
seems odd there. Actual distance is utterly irrelevant. The point is I've
moved _AS FAR AS THE RULES LET THE UNIT
MOVE_. Does it not strike you that two APCs,
both advancing, one that stops to let out troops and the other that continues
the advance, should end up with the one that stopped further behind (and
probably with the troops also behind the continually moving APC as their
movement shouldn't match the APCs)? Instead we get the APCs parked at the same
place and the infantry RUSHING OUT AHEAD.
This just boils down to two schools of thought. You like to consider "real
numbers" in your arguments. I'm only examining relative performance which is
utterly without reference to time units or distance units. We've presented
both sides, and all listeners will make up their own minds.
I suppose that means we can let this particular subthread die. I agree that in
games you referee, I can live with your ruling as it makes sense from a
certain perspective. I think you should similarly concede in games I referee,
the other perspective having some merit is acceptable. Thus, as usual, it
comes down to "It's your game (as the ref), run it as you think right." I
support that PoV wholeheartedly.
TomB said:
> Okay Adrian, I'm calling you out.
But instead of a duel, mano-a-mano, steel cage grudge match...we get:
> We've presented
<sigh> Damn Canadians, being reasonable again. Good thing we're not
Tom Challenged:
> Okay Adrian, I'm calling you out.
Very well. My second will contact your second.
Waffles, at dawn.
> On the one hand, you cite 480 m + 60 m as a
Hang on. You're cutting out all the rest of my discussion here...
You can't really (on the one hand)
> argue about "reasonable distances" and on the
Sure I can. I did;)
> board while the APC can only move 480m) or
My first point (the racetrack view) was in response to one of Laserlight's. If
we look at how far one of those Grav APC's is capable of moving, in perfect
conditions (ie around a race track, with no cover to worry about and no
hostile fire), then the limitations of the turn sequence are glaring. My point
there was that the movement rules are limited for
several reasons (as I outlined) - to prevent vehicles from being too
powerful, and because they aren't modeling maximum theoretical movement in
perfect conditions, but abstracted bits of movement in the battle setting,
within the nature of the turn sequence mechanic of the game.
My second point, the "vehicles being limited to moving 120m, unloading troops
and that's it... which is silly" comment, was in response to the idea that
*vehicles* should have to spend an action to have troops
disembark. It is one of the several reasons I don't like that idea -
while I see the need to limit movement (for the reasons outlined above), I
think the "vehicle has to spend the action" ruling is *too* limiting.
My own view falls in between the two - that disembarking actions should
come from the troops and not the vehicle... hence vehicles can move a bit
further if they choose to, or do some moving and some shooting, or whatever,
while the infantry can disembark and do something else also.
I don't think my two points were mutually exclusive, at all.
Of course. ;-) :-P
> This just boils down to two schools of thought.
Two attitudes toward what, exactly, the turn sequence represents.
I like Allan's comments, that we should really be looking at the game turn in
terms of what happens across the complete turn (or the complete game) rather
than in individual actions...
> You like to consider "real numbers" in your
Well, yes and no.
I look at the relative performace issues, also.
I'm only examining relative
> performance which is utterly without reference
Yes.
We've presented
> both sides, and all listeners will make up their
No. They'll see that I am RIGHT. ALWAYS. AHAHAHAHAHAHA......
Did somebody say something about Canadians???
Hey! You tawkin' ta me?
I said, are you tawkin' ta me?
(ok, never mind... it's late...)
> I suppose that means we can let this particular
sounds good;)
And Laserlight drolled on:
> But instead of a duel, mano-a-mano, steel cage grudge match...we get:
You tawkin' ta me???
***************************************
Laserlight schrieb:
> <sigh> Damn Canadians, being reasonable again. Good
Now, wouldn't that be nice? (Even if gaming it might be a bit boring)
Greetings
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:35:59 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> My own view falls in between the two - that disembarking actions should
And, a vehicle should be able to move, stop, disembark troops, and move to a
slightly better position. This can't happen because the rules don't have a way
of stopping one unit's activation to allow the activation of another unit.
Chris mentioned the problem of a vehicle moving 24" and then the squad racing
forward another 12" (I don't think he put these numbers to it, but that's the
maximum: two move actions for the vehicle, 6" free disembark range for the
troops, 1 troop move action of 6"). Let's take another situation. The vehicle
wants to move up 12", disgorge the infantry, and then move another 12" into a
safe location. You can do this with the current system. You move the vehicle
24" forward, then disgorge the infantry backwards 6" and then have them move
another 6". In this case it's silly to think that the infantry would have to
race all the way back, but at the end of the activation of both units you have
what appears to be a reasonable thing: vehicle moved 120m, dropped troops,
then went on another 120m.
I got thinking about Chris' idea of letting either the vehicle or the troops
pay for dismounting. I found a reason why the troops _must_ pay for
disembarking from the vehicle.
Currently the vehicle can move 12" and fire, or move 24". On the troops' turn,
they can spend the action to disembark. They get to disembark 6" from the
vehicle for free. They can then spend an action moving or firing, but they
only have one action left over. Now, most folks don't have a problem with the
12" and firing for the vehicle, then the troops disembarking. They can see the
vehicle giving covering fire while the troops move. Chris doesn't like the 24"
movement for the vehicle and then the troops disembarking. Adrian and I have
been arguing that we can live with it, since realistically the vehicle
shouldn't have a problem moving even 24" in reality.
Here, though, is what happens during the game. The vehicle moves. At the end
of the movement, the troops are _still in the vehicle_. They are still
vulnerable to a single shot against both them and the vehicle.
If you let the vehicle pay the cost of disembarking the troops, the vehicle
moves and then they jump out 6". They are now _out of the vehicle_. They
are no longer vulnerable. Unless you use overwatch rules (and not everyone
does), you won't have that moment of vulnerability.
But that's only a part of it. Because the vehicle paid the disembarking
penalty, the troops now have two full actions left. Chris doesn't like the
idea of the vehicle not being penalized for the troops disembarking, but in
effect the troops are not penalized for disembarking. It's the same issue,
reversed.
The vehicle vulnerability issue is a big one. Say you want to keep your troops
out of harms way every other turn. You can rush them forward, disembark from
the vehicle, and fire. Next turn they fire, rush into the vehicle, and run
away. In the current rules they could operate in a 30" range. Vehicle moves
twice (24"), troops disembark for 6", then fire. Next turn they fire, jump
into the vehicle, and then escape 24". With Chris' idea, they get only a 24"
range. Vehicle moves 12" and troops disembark (6"). Troops activate and move
6" then fire).
The difference is that the vehicle is now operating 12" away from the troops,
not 6". The vehicle can be much less vulnerable than it currently is. Vehicles
have trouble moving through dense terrain. They may not be able to go through
woods, for instance. By putting the disembarking burden on the vehicle, you
give more mobility to troops in dense terrain. A vehicle can move up to the
back of some woods and disgorge the troops. In the current system, those
troops can only move 3" (the disembarking range of 6") and then fire their
weapons. In Chris' system, since the troops still have two actions left, they
can move 6" through woods (3" free disembarking, 3" on their activation) and
fire. This gives troops in vehicles a lot more mobility in terrain where they
should be more penalized. In a heavily forested board, as an example, with GEV
carriers Chris' system allows for "shoot and scoot" tactics that you can't
normally do with the existing rules.
(Note: this assumes that you make the reasonable assumption that the 6"
embarking/disembarking range should be modified due to terrain. The
rules
don't actually _say_ this. They say that troops only have to be 6" from
a vehicle, which I don't agree with. If you have troops on the edge of a woods
in a GEV APC and troops standing outside it, the troops in the GEV APC can
magically move further into the woods than the troops that weren't mounted,
even though the GEV can't go in the woods? Uh, no, makes no sense. However, if
you use the letter of the law and not the spirit, the above example would be
12" of heavy woods for Chris' idea and 9" through the woods as per the rules
as written.)
Chris also suggested letting either the vehicle or the troops pay the cost. I
can see munchkinism at play here. You could move troops and then disgorge them
(paid by the vehicle). You could fire the troops on their activation and then
load them into the vehicle. Or, the other way around, you keep the troops
outside of the vehicle. You activate the vehicle, load the troops, then move
the vehicle. On the very next activation you disembark the troops and have
them do something. The only time you'd have troops in the vehicle would be for
that short time between activations. This is sort of wasteful, but you only
have a short window of opportunity to target the vehicle full of infantry.
> I suppose that means we can let this particular
Oops... *L* Well, after I get my big, long message in anyway...
From: Allan Goodall agoodall@att.net
> vehicle giving covering fire while the troops move. Chris doesn't like
No. What I don't like is that a vehicle which stops and unloads troops can
move every bit as far as one which spends the whole turn driving as fast as
it can. If the vehicle has to slow/stop to let the troops out, then it
shouldn't move as far as one which doesn't.
> If you let the vehicle pay the cost of disembarking the troops, the
Stand in front of a SAW and say that again.<g>
> The difference is that the vehicle is now operating 12" away from the
On the other hand, the troops can't get back and load up in one activation
(unless they luck out on combat move)
> then fire their weapons. In Chris' system, since the troops still have
on their activation) and fire. This gives troops in vehicles a lot more
mobility in terrain where they should be more penalized.
An extra 30 meters in 5 minutes. Not what I'd think of as a major problem.
(Yes, I've been in thick brambles on steep slopes where it would be a
problem--but that really ought to be worse than x 1/2 movement rate,
more
like 1/10).
> Chris also suggested letting either the vehicle or the troops pay the
Catch'em while they're out of the vehicle. This plan goes to pieces once you
start suppressing the squaddies. (The better solution, of course, is to leap
up, seize a handy blunt object, and beat your opponent about the head if he
tries this sort of
thing--but
you've just moved from Canada so probably are too inhibited to do this).
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:36:46 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> No. What I don't like is that a vehicle which stops and unloads troops
And Adrian and I believe that since the vehicles are moving _so_ much
slower than they could realistically, the extra movement could easily be made
up in the five minute game turn.
> Stand in front of a SAW and say that again.<g>
Okay, I meant they weren't vulnerable to the single shot that can fire at the
vehicle. It's actually easier to kill lots of squaddies when they are in an
AFV than by firing at them outside of the AFV.
> The difference is that the vehicle is now operating 12" away from the
Sure they can. They only have to be within 6" of the transport. In fact, they
can fire at the enemy and move back 6". They can then be loaded into the
transport on the transport's turn. The squad gets an extra 6" movement for
free.
This is my main beef with having the vehicle pay. You feel that a vehicle
shouldn't be able to move as far as normal on turns when it loads or unloads
infantry. But by having the vehicle pay for the loading, you actually give the
infantry a _bonus_ to movement.
Either the vehicle is going to get a 50% extra or the infantry are going to
get it. For a number of reasons, I prefer the vehicle to get it rather than
the infantry. The vehicle gets that extra 50% movement if it spends an action.
Your method essentially lets the infantry get an extra 6" movement for free by
letting the vehicle spend the action.
> An extra 30 meters in 5 minutes. Not what I'd think of as a major
An extra 3" of woods movement, equivalent to one move action, through terrain
that the transport can't go through. I find that most of my woods tend not to
be too wide. That extra woods movement can mean the difference between taking
one whole activation to get to the woods edge, or getting there in one action
and firing at an opponent with the second action.
I mostly have a hard time rationalizing mounted troops disembarking and
managing to move further in woods in one turn than dismounted troops that
didn't have to bother getting out of a vehicle. I can rationalize the
transport's extra movement much more easily.
Or, to flip it another way, the rules currently allow vehicles to move an
extra 120 metres in five minutes; not what I'd think of as a major problem.
> Catch'em while they're out of the vehicle. This plan goes to pieces
You're right. I'm in the Deep South now. I'd have to shoot him!
> Subject: Re: [SG] The Tuffley 500
> And, a vehicle should be able to move, stop, disembark troops, and move
A vehicle *can* do this, just not all in the same activation.
Using your "look at the overall game view..." or the "overall turn view" idea,
while it might take a couple of activations to do this, it can happen and not
in an unrealistic way.
> No. What I don't like is that a vehicle which stops and unloads
yep. that's how I see it.
any way we look at it, this mechanic is going to feel somewhat "artificial",
and I like it better with the infantry paying the cost of disembarking. It
feels better.
there certainly isn't a "right" answer for this one - good points on
both sides.
> On the other hand, the troops can't get back and load up in one
that's what bugs me about the vehicle paying the cost.
Having said all that, this discussion was in response to Tom's original
question about who pays the action, the vehicle, the squad, or both. I like
least the "both pay, and both get activated at the same time" approach. I
could live with the "vehicle pays" over that, but I think it makes most sense
having the troops pay.
Oh well. YMMV.
***************************************
--- Adrian Johnson <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> Tom Challenged:
I have a friend who's willing to serve as a judge. He almost qualifies as an
interested party, him being Canukian and all.