In DS2, a unit with an UNDER FIRE marker has to roll if it wants to move.
While this is great for infantry units who want to do nothing but find a
deeper hole when they're getting shot at it, it is dead wrong for tankers.
When vehicles are fired on they MOVE...FAST! Depending on the situation (type
of opposing enemy, terrain, current orders, etc.) a unit under fire would
either backup, advance FAST, or seek nearby concealment. So, how about have
DS2 vehicles with an UNDER FIRE marker REQUIRED to move? If they fail their
Reaction test they must backup, otherwise they must move at top speed.
Comments?
Thanks,
> In DS2, a unit with an UNDER FIRE marker has to roll if it wants to
Sound like a reasonable idea to me - could give some interesting results
:)
Looking forward to others' opinions on this....
> Sound like a reasonable idea to me - could give some interesting
I'm not sure it really works; the PBI would /like/ to move fast out of
there if their officers could get them to obey orders, its that reluctance to
move that is modeled with the rules as stands. When morale falters, they don't
do the intelligent thing (which would be to hightail it out of there).
If you /really/ want armour to move as a first resort, it should
probably be worded as `armour UNDER FIRE move at top speed towards the nearest
cover, there to dig in and not move until the UNDER FIRE marker is removed.'
Frankly, I'm not keen on that rule changing; I see armour under fire going
into `in place' positions (behind hillocks, in a fold of the ground) that
doesn't rate showing on the board when they 'freeze.'
> At 04:24 PM 5/15/97 -0700, Paul J. Calvi Jr. wrote:
There should be a disadvantage to the tankers. I think that a Tank unit, under
fire that fails a leadership roll must move away from the enemy at full speed,
therefore not able to return fire. They then can reorganize and then engage
the enemy. Patton used this psychology to defeat Germans who had better tanks
than his own.
> On Fri, 16 May 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >In DS2, a unit with an UNDER FIRE marker has to roll if it wants to
We've always ignored the "under fire markers" rule for vehicles (sorry, Jon)
because it didn't make sense to us, either.
But as far as the game is concerned, it also doesn't make sense to me that a
vehicle would leave its cover just because it's being shot at. While it may be
much harder for a tank to hit a moving target in real life, the only vehicles
that get a "moving target" benefit are grav and fast GEV vehicles who go 30"
(flat out full speed) in a single turn (they get the extra d6 defense die for
moving evasively, but they can't shoot).
So, if you have to move because you're under fire, and if being a moving
target doesn't help your survivability (in the game, not in real life), then
why force the unit to move when it's under fire?
> At 10:58 AM 5/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
Nope. Standard SOP for a tank platoon is to MOVE. As I said in a previous
post, imagine the tank next to YOU just went up in flames, maybe YOU'RE next!
Are you gonna sit there or MOVE?! SOP is the same for artillery attacks. If a
tank platoon is moving along and artillery starts to fall around it SOP says
button up and MOVE...FAST! The unknown is always assumed to be better than the
known, which in this case is sitting in the middle of an artillery barrage.
Please see below...
> If you /really/ want armour to move as a first resort, it should
This is perfectly reasonable. The unit decides it better seek a bit of cover
but in DS2 the units don't do that, they can't move, they are sitting ducks
for more fire. So, your initial idea of having them move to cover is fine. My
only complaint is that the spirit of armor is movement and most tankers
wouldn't go hide, they just want to move out of fire and try to see
who/what is shooting at them so they can shoot back. Now this could be a
great addition to the quality rules. Green units just sit there, Regular seek
cover, and Veteran move fast at player's direction. How about that??
> At 11:58 AM 5/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
Good point there. So how about a moving target benefit...(just kidding). I'd
say it is still good because you have the option where to move, if there's
cover nearby go for it, or (in the case with fire coming from the side) move
the other way and maybe increase the range band.
> At 04:24 PM 5/15/97 -0700, Paul J. Calvi Jr. wrote:
There should be a disadvantage to the tankers. I think that a Tank unit, under
fire that fails a leadership roll must move away from the enemy at full speed,
therefore not able to return fire. They then can reorganize and then engage
the enemy. Patton used this psychology to defeat Germans who had better tanks
than his own.
In a message dated 97-05-16 16:08:55 EDT, you write:
<< In DS2, a unit with an UNDER FIRE marker has to roll if it wants to move.
> While this is great for infantry units who want to do nothing but find
Speaking from my experience as a tanker, I would say that a vehicle unit that
gets an "under fire" marker moves directly to the nearest cover and goes into
a hide position, and cannot move until the marker is removed.
-- John
> At 09:51 AM 5/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
I like this idea, actually. It gives the quality of a unit more "to do." It
seems to fit in with what I've read of historical battles, too. If an infantry
unit is advancing, firing at them usually makes them hit the dirt. However, an
advancing armour column is a very difficult thing to stop. Yeah, I like this
idea. I particularly like the idea of artillery fire on a combined unit
stopping the infantry from moving while the armour presses on unsupported. We
might find that these rules make armour MORE vulnerable (in a combined arms
battle) than having them behave like infantry...
> I'm not sure it really works; the PBI would /like/ to move fast out of
On the contrary - battle drill for dismounted infantry under artillery
fire is to go to ground for the initial round, then the squad/platoon
leader will give a clock direction/distance to rally at ("Five o'clock,
400 meters!"). Individuals then sprint to the designated rally point to
regroup and resume the mission. Troops are only too happy to leave the
impact area - the officers/NCOs problem is get them to STOP running.
Paul is correct for the vehicle battle drill - SOP is to move out
swiftly, with the platoon leader designating the rally point to regroup at.
In game terms, this would translate as:
At the intitial spotting round (the placement of the one/two markers
face down on the table), the targeted unit can opt to attempt to move out of
the impact area. This is done a la the method described in another post using
a clock direction template, rolling for direction,
then moving a distance of 1.5 times their base movement - this is an
all-out sprint, without regard to using the terrain in a tactical
manner. If already activated for the turn, this uses the next turn's
activation, which must be spent performing a "regroup" action. If not already
activated, this uses the activation for the unit as a "regroup" action at the
point of final movement. For a unit that already has an "Under Fire" marker on
it from a previous direct fire, a reaction test must first be passed before it
can exercise the option to move from the beaten zone (no one is going to leap
up and run in the open when fire is
raking their position - at least not without some thought or threats
directed at them).
I know it seems that instinct would prevail over training (staying in cover,
rather than running), but consider the words of this Marine Corps Vietnam
veteran: "At basic training, they taught us that the reaction to an ambush was
to turn towards the firing and assault. I thought they were out of their mind,
but it was basic training and you didn't question what you were told, if you
were smart. I told myself I would dive for cover if an ambush ever occurred
and take it from there. We practiced battle drills constantly and, sure
enough, during my first ambush, right after I had jumped out of my skin at the
surprise of being fired on so closely, I didn't even hestitate when I turned
into the incoming fire and charged, firing and yelling as I went. I was pretty
shaken afterwards, thinking what I had done, but the training took hold of
me." (From "Firefights in Vietnam").
Sean
The idea of having armoured troops test to see how they react under fire
according to experience is good. However I very much doubt that Green troops
are just going to sit there and cop it. British experience in North Africa and
American experience in Italy during WWII was usually that inexperienced
armoured troops haring and and doing unsucessful
re-enactments
of the Charge of the Light Brigade. How about when they fail, Green tankies
test again, 1-2 sit there, 3-6 max move towards nearest or last observed
enemy. If the tankies happen to leave their infantry support behind so much
the better.
Tony.
> At 09:51 AM 16-05-97 -0700, you wrote:
Actually, in North Africa, I read stories of British tankers abandoning their
vehilces if an 88 shell hit near by, they said the second shot rarely missed.
Of course, I don't belive that this should happen, it was just a little piece
of trivia..you know..waste of bandwidth...
> At 09:57 PM 5/18/97 +1000, you wrote: