I think ROF would help, but let's take into consideration something else I
wanted to comment on today, and which you've brought up:
It seems to me that when it comes to quality of firecon, there is a Big Three,
a Holy Trinity if you will: Accuracy, Rate of Fire, and Stabilization. Now,
the original rules cover accuracy. We've been hashing out RoF. What about
Stabilization. I have for some been under the impression, given to me by
countless pundits on the topic, that one of the many, in fact an important one
of the many reasons that tanks like the M1, Challenger, and Leo have over
their predecessors is their ability to fire on the fly, instead of having to
stop to fire. There are times in DS II when it seems some house rule
addressing this would come in handy. Let me give you an example:
Team Lotech moves it's tank platoon. Team Hitek's activation: Team Hitek's
platoon is at point A, and they know that given the current tactical
situation, they really want to be at point B. However, the best place to fire
on the Lotek platoon is at point C. Under current rules, Team Hitek's platoon
must choose between point B and Point C. But in real combat, a tank platoon
might just zip on to point B, firing as it went. So in addition to any
increased Rate of Fire, I propose the following rule (for turreted vehicles
only. If anyone likes these, let me know, I have variants for fixed arc guns):
Basic FireCon: May fire then move, or move up to half movement then fire.
Enhanced FireCon: May Fire then move, or move then fire.
Superior FireCon: May Fire then move, move then fire, or partial move, fire,
then finish movement.
Brian Bilderback
> From: "The Sutherlands" <nma@kda.attmil.ne.jp>
> this
Brian B said:
> It seems to me that when it comes to quality of firecon, there
That's a Big Two. Stabilization is part of accuracy. (John Atkinson would
insert a joke here about Byzantine hairsplitting on the nature of the Trinity)
Snip rules for Running and Gunning. While I haven't been following this thread
with great attention, I'd say the distinction you're trying to draw is for a
greater difference of tech levels than is warranted. It's not "What would
fusion-powered anti-grav panzers with DFFG's do against
Shermans," it's more like "how would the latest mark of Russian tanks do
against M1's?" I'd say we can safely take it that all 2180 era tanks will be
able to fire on the move.
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> That's a Big Two. Stabilization is part of accuracy.
I'll look forward to being amuzed by it when he posts it. But I still say the
distinction still exists. Stabilization is part of fire control. You can have
a system that is extremely accurate, when fired at a standstill. You could
have another system that is only moderately accurate, but is stabilized to
where movement does not detract from it. There is a difference. Yes,
stabilization ENHANCES accuracy, but they are not the same thing.
> Snip rules for Running and Gunning. While I haven't been
Maybe, maybe not. In terms of "What does the future hold for armored
vehicles?" That is a topic that could (And I'm sure does) take up a discussion
board all it's own. Our main concern is how to apply such topics
to GZG's games, and the point has been well-made that superior systems
do not seem to provide enough advantages to warrant their use in
large-scale
play. Thus the suggestions by all that are being proposed are intended to
truly make the operational differences between Basic, Enhanced, and Superior
systems warrant the difference in their construction costs. Basic systems
should be just that - basic, almost rudimentary, the recourse of
militaries with low budgets and research staffs, but willing to throw a lot
your way.
Superior should be just that - markedly better than anything else on the
field except another Superior system, with a greater ability to keep moving,
hit it's target, and avoid being hit than anything on the field. Superior
stabilization should be a function of superior FireCon.
> I'd say we can safely take it that all
If THIS is the case (which I've argued above it shouldn't be), then the rule
should be amended to let ANY unit fire in the middle of it's movement, and the
cost differential for FireCons should be reduced.