| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
No problem, Sharpe, all suggestions welcome. I think I have a solution to the conundrum. It has finally occurred to me, after mixed results from internet searches, to make use of charts in two rules sets I already own: Command Decision (1st edition) and Look Sarge No Charts (yes, there are in fact charts in these rules, but they don't get in the way of play). Command Decision breaks out vehicle MG and gun HE values separately. Look Sarge appears to combine the MG and HE values to get a composite anti-infantry value, but also gives separate anti-personnel values for a "machine gun platoon," specific anti-tank weapons, and infantry guns.
I have already started a chart for MG and HE values at the standard and extended AAM ranges. The chart incorporates elements from your suggested values and rankings, Neural Dream's suggested values (in the vehicle guidelines thread), Sutton's rankings and ranges, and AAM anti-infantry values and ranges for related weapons (e.g., tripod mounted MGs, 37mm anti-tank guns, and 75mm infantry gun). Now I will incorporate Command Decision and Look Sarge and attempt, from all this, to interpolate appropriate FA values for vehicle HE and MGs against personnel.
As for the values themselves, this is how it is looking:
1. Value of vehicle MGs v. infantry operated MGs (tripod mount). One poster earlier suggested that a vehicle mounted MG was on a much mores table firing platform than an infantry-operated MG. I suppose that could make sense, at least when the vehicle is stationary. However, I note that Sharpedia gives a tripod-mounted MG 34 an AI value of 9/8/6, whereas Sharpe has suggested a lower value, 8/6/4, for a PzIII-mounted MG 34. Is there consensus that the number of dice to be thrown in an MG attack against personnel should be higher when the MG is fired from a tripod mount rather than from a vehicle mounting?
2. Range of vehicle MGs v. infantry-operated MGs. Some posters have suggested maximum vehicle MG range of 800 yards/meters, whereas effective range of infantry-operated MGs is much longer. This seems contrary to the "stable firing platform" idea, but is consistent with the information in both the Command Decision and Look Sarge data tables. For example, CD gives generic German infantry-operated MGs ranges from 750 yards (medium MG) to 1000 yards (heavy MG). Look Sarge gives a German infantry machine gun platoon a maximum effective range of 600 yards. As for the vehicle MG, Command Decision gives a generic German vehicle MG a range of 500 yards. Thus is there consensus that vehicle MG ranges are shorter than the ranges of the same MG when operated from a tripod mount by infantry?
3. Value of HE. AAM gives infantry-operated anti-tank weapons a range up to 800 yards (8 hexes), even though the small arms operated by the crew of such weapons are rated elsewhere as having a maximum range of 400 yards. (e.g., PAK 38 gets 3/3/3 against infantry, whereas Kar 98 gets an 8/6/0, with the "6" applying up to 400 yards). FA also limits the Kar 98 to 400 yards effective range. The point of all this is that AAM must have based the last "3" attack value for the PAK 38, and similar weapons, on the weapon's HE ability, not the small arms fire of the crew. The PAK 38, like the PAK 36, fired not only armor-piercing ammunition but HE as well (2.25 kg for PAK 38, 6.25 kg for PAK 36). Thus an AAM scale HE stat for comparison purposes is 3 dice at 500 to 800 yards. Command Decision gives the HE round of both the 37mm/L98 and the 50mm/L42 the equivalent of "small arms fire" out to a specific radius. "Small arms fire" in AAM is given a higher value, such as the 8 or 6 attack dice given the Kar 98. So the HE round from a PAK 38 at 800 yards should be somewhere between 6 and 3. Am I missing something here?
4. Range of HE. AAM gives the PAK 38 a max (HE) range of only 800 yards, but other sources say the effective range for HE shells fired from this weapon was up to 2000 yards. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/50mm/index.html Thus FA stats for vehicle-fired HE against infantry should include significantly extended range.
Suggestions and reliable sources (especially) are welcome.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
 Sun May 03, 2009 6:18 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Notes & Comments
1. The Panzer III is 8/6/0 for the MG added to 6/5/4 for the main gun. I took the best number at each range.
2. Visibility from inside the tank vs a small group of men trying desperately not to be seen is the prime factor limiting vehicle MG range, IMHO.
3. Makes sense. Remember that weight of round does not equal weight of explosive and is not necessarily proportional.
4. Visibility again. 1000m should be limit for unobserved HE fire. Observed fire should only be for units that were trained for this. Longer fire against known static targets is an exception, but this should only occur in assault situations not meeting engagements.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun May 03, 2009 11:45 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback.
1. MG values. Thanks for the explanation on the parts of the composite Pz III rating. Lower value for vehicle mounted MG seems reasonable to me. I assume this value is not enhanced by virtue of the number of MGs (1 on turret, 1 hull-mounted), consistent with your view that the hull-mounted MG should only count as a close in defensive fire weapon. Is this correct?
2. MG range. Sounds reasonable to me, and seems to be what other rules sets do in practice.
3. HE values. Sharpedia and AAM give the PAK 36, which was the same gun as was used on the Pz III, a value of 3/3/3. I like your 6/5/4 value better, but why does the gun get 6/5/4 when mounted on the tank? Is the answer that the 3/3/3 rating, contrary to my inference above, is actually not based purely on HE ammunition, but assumes either the use of armor-piercing shells, or some sort of weighted average based on ratio of armor-piercing to HE ammunition?
4. HE range. Not sure about limiting direct HE fire from vehicles to 10 hexes. Why wouldn't this same visibility problem apply to anti-vehicle fire? I generally think of spotters as being connected with indirect fire. However, assuming there is a good answer for limiting this problem to tank HE fire rather than all direct tank fire, I can see that perhaps the effective unspotted range should be limited. 1650 meters is about a mile. Maybe 16 hexes max for unspotted direct HE fire?
After working on an MG/HE chart for a number of hours today, I think I have some reasonable vehicle MG and HE values which generally come out pretty close to numbers that have been previously suggested. However, I am coming to the conclusion that a combined MG/HE value, taking the highest number of dice, leaves out the significant use of HE against infantry in pillboxes and other fortified positions.
If we simply incorporate the higher of the MG or HE values at each range into the attack matrix, then we end up eliminating the ability to use HE against fortified targets at short and medium range. It would be an ahistorical result for a PzIII, for example, not to be able to use its HE against a fortified target within 500 yards (medium range, 2-4 hexes) because at that range the MG value is higher and is therefore the only option on the matrix. At ranges above 400 yards, the Pz III would be able to use HE, because the vehicle MG drops out of the matrix. Thus instead of taking advantage of a close range HE shot, the PzIII has to back up and fire from further away!
This is a problem if one believes, as originally suggested by AOD and Zeus, that an important element of HE is the extent to which it reduces the target's cover modifier. Following those suggestions, a target of an HE round gets a negative modifier to its cover roll. I think the player should be able, if facing a fortified position within close or medium range, to choose the lower attack number associated with HE for the purpose of getting the -1 or -2 applied to the result of the target's cover roll.
To facilitate that choice, without unduly complicating things, I think the thing to do is to include in the attack matrix both MG and HE values that apply at that range. If one chooses the MG value, one gets the benefit of the higher number of dice. If one chooses the HE value, one gets fewer dice, but can use the following SA: | Quote: | | High explosive. When choosing the HE attack value, apply -2 to the cover roll of soldiers and unarmored vehicles. The cover roll of armored vehicles is unaffected. |
What do you think?
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Mon May 04, 2009 12:44 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
1. Yes
3. Many Sharpedia units go by AAM values and conventions to fit in with that game. Not all of them have relevance here.
4. Vehicles are bigger and harder to conceal. I'm trying to factor in smoke, higher levels of concern about one's immediate surroundings, etc. I'm not saying such a shot is impossible against soldiers, rather that it's a statistical improbability and would be regarded as a waste of ammo.
I think the last part is sound thinking, but I don't know that it doesn't cross the line of too much complexity. Remember that an attack that exceeds the minimum defense gets a negative cover modifier. So, more dice create the potential for the same result.
_________________
|
|
| Mon May 04, 2009 4:49 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the reminder about the -1 to the cover roll when the attacker has more successes than the target's defense:
| Quote: | When a unit in a hex that offers cover is attacked, the defending unit must make a Cover Roll. Succeeding at the Cover Roll will diminish or negate the effects of the attack.
1. Attacks against units that result in a Miss do not require Cover Rolls. Attacks against units without any face-down counters that result in only one hit do not require Cover Rolls.
2. In all other cases, find the unit’s Cover number. Roll one die. If the roll is higher than 1, modify the die roll by the modifications listed below and on the Terrain Effects Chart. If this number is equal to or higher than the Cover number, the unit passes the Cover Roll. A natural die roll of 1 is an automatic failure. There is no automatic pass.
3. If the unit succeeds at the Cover Roll, the results of any attack are limited to a Pinned result. If the unit already has a face-down counter, the attack has no effect.
4. Situational Modifiers to Cover Rolls. (Note: All modifiers to Cover Rolls are cumulative.)
Target in the same hex as attacker: -1
Crushing Attack: -1 (Number of successes rolled exceeds unit’s Defense or Armor.)
Devastating Attack: -1 (Number of successes rolled equals or exceeds unit’s Disintegration or Vital Armor value.)
“Hit the Dirt!” counter: +1 |
The question is whether the added complexity of distinguishing MG and HE attacks is worth the difference in the results at game scale. Let's take the Pz III E-F as an example.
MG values. The tank had two MG 34s, one in the hull and one coaxial in the turret. Disregarding the hull MG for now, the value of the coaxial MG is assumed to be lower than that of a tripod-operated MG-34, which is rated in Sharpedia as 9/8/6, and in AAM rev. as 10/8/7. Based on these figures, as well as comparative ratings for vehicle MGs in other rules systems, I came to the following values:
(0-1) (2-4) (5-8)
8 6 --
HE values. The 37mm KwK36/L45 (or L46.5) gun was low velocity at 550m/s, and could fire HE rounds. I used Sharpe's suggested 6/5/4, which seems to fit in with comparative ratings of main guns in other rules systems. I have added values for long range HE shots. The decrease in the attack numbers as the range increases does not reflect any decrease in explosive power on impact, which would stay constant. The decrease instead reflects a decreasing probability of a hit.
(0-1) (2-4) (5-8)(9-16)(17-24)
6 5 4 2? 1?
If MG and HE are treated separately, then the Pz III firing at 4-defense infantry at short range would have the choice of:
(A) a roll of 8 dice, with the guarantee of obtaining -1 to cover if there are 5 or more successes (under the crushing or devastating attack rules above), or
(B) a roll of 6 dice, with the guarantee of a -2 to cover if there are 5 or more successes.
At medium range the choice is between:
(A) a roll of six dice, with the guarantee of -1 to cover if there are 5 or more successes, or
(B) a roll of five dice, with a guarantee of -2 to cover if there are 5 or more successes.
I suspect the -2 to cover would be significant on infantry in prepared positions. However, I would be interested in the views of the mathematically inclined on the magnitude of the difference in probable result.
For comparison, combined MG/HE AI values, using the higher of the two values at each range, would be:
(0-1)(2-4)(5-8)(9-16)(17-24)
8 6 4 2 1
If the dual approach is viewed as violating the KISS principle, then is there a way to incorporate the HE effect in a combined approach? This would require perhaps an averaging of MG and HE values at close and medium range, rather than choosing the higher value, and a lessening of the cover effect from -2 to -1. Thus the Pz III E-F might have:
(0-1)(2-4)(5-8)(9-16)(17-24)
7 5 4 2 1
I may be suffering from brain fatigue this evening, but it seems to me that if the target is not in cover, then the weapon of choice would be the MG, and the -1 to cover would rightly not matter. If the target is in cover, then the additional -1 would rightly reflect that the shooter chose HE. There would be a slight diminution of the value of a pure vehicle mounted MG attack against infantry in the open at close range, but perhaps the change would be worth it.
One last caveat: I have not examined the consequences of the different schemes for vehicles which are further at the extremes than the Pz III. I could give some examples later, but right now I have to shut down for awhile. I hope this is helpful.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Tue May 05, 2009 3:21 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Proposed Guidelines for FA Vehicle Anti-Infantry stats—Part ONE
(6th rev., 10 August 2009)
Principles
FA vehicle unit data cards should reflect all of the vehicle's anti-infantry weapons. At the same time, the cards and their use must be kept relatively simple and consistent with established conventions. Thus vehicles are generally not allowed to attack soldiers with both machine guns and high explosives simultaneously.
1. Main gun. The rules will state that the AI (Anti-Infantry) values in the attack matrix will reflect the main gun's values, regardless of whether the vehicle's main gun is a large caliber gun, an autocannon, or a machine gun.
If the main gun is capable of firing high explosive ammunition, an appropriate icon or notation ("HE" or an image of an explosion?) will appear next to the infantry icon on the left side of the attack matrix. The rules will state all vehicles which have a "High Explosive" icon (or notation) next to the infantry icon in the attack matrix will have the "High Explosive" SA, as follows: "When this vehicle attacks enemy soldiers with its main gun, the the target gets -2 to its cover roll." Only the icon or notation will appear on the card. Certain large guns with HE ability will also receive the "Blast" SA as follows:
SA: "Blast — When this unit attacks, make a separate attack
roll against each unit in the target hex. (This includes friendly
units.)"
This language will appear on the cards of the affected vehicles.
2. Additional vehicle guns. In addition to the main gun, vehicles may have additional AI capability, usually in the form of machine guns. The most common vehicle machine guns found in addition to a the main gun are hull machine guns (HMG), coaxial machine guns (CoAX), or pintle-mounted turret (TMG) or "anti-aircraft" (AAMG) machine guns. CoAX MGs are positioned next to the main gun. Pintle-mounted and anti-aircraft machine guns are generally fixed on the top of the vehicle's turret. The presence of any of these common MGs will be indicated by appropriate icons appearing to the left of the attack matrix. The attack values of each such MG will appear superimposed over the icon. The values will be expressed in the form "W/X/Y/Z," with each letter standing for an attack value, and each position corresponding to a standard range. The corresponding ranges for all such MGs will be as follows:
W close (same hex) (100 yds max) all MGs
(HMG, CoAX, TMG, AAMG)
X short (1-2 hexes) (200 yds max) all MGs
Y medium (3-5 hexes) (500 yds max) CoAX, TMG,
AAMG
Z long (6-8 hex) (800 yds max) TMG, AAMG
These ranges are based on other miniatures rules and sources discussed in this thread. HMGs are limited to 200 yards due to their closer proximity to the ground and the limited vision afforded by the gunner's firing slit or periscope. CoAXs go to 500 yards because they are higher from the ground but vision is still limited, with the gunner looking out from inside the turret. TMGs and AAMGs go to 800 yards because they are higher still and because the gunner's upper body extended from a hatch on the turret, thus giving superior visibility (and exposing the gunner to enemy fire).
3. Simultaneous firing.
a. general rules.
Main Gun + Hull MG OK.
Vehicles may fire the main gun and a hull mounted machine gun simultaneously during the same phase.
Main Gun + other MG not OK.
Vehicles may not fire both the main gun and any other MG during the same phase unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.
CoAX + Hull MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with the vehicle's (front) hull MG unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.
CoAX + AAMG or Cupola MG or Pintle mounted MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with its AAMG, cupola MG, or Pintle mounted MG.
b. Other combinations
Whether vehicles may fire main gun simultaneously with rear turret MG or rear hull MG, or these MGs simultaneously with other MGs will be handled by SA.
.
4. Double shot SA. Double shot SA will be allowed for all vehicle MGs and autocannon, but only when the vehicle did not move in the last phase. (per Zeus and AOD). The lack of movement provides a stable firing platform. Indicate stationary vehicles by placing next to the vehicle another cardboard marker (like "disrupt" and "damage"), a piece of colored glass or plastic, or a green pipe-cleaner. See question below about whether to limit double shot to MGs with a rate of fire at or above a certain minimum.
5. Defensive fire (DF). Vehicles can always defensive fire against other vehicles. However, when a vehicle is in terrain that blocks L/O/S (=cover?), they cannot engage in defensive fire against infantry. As pointed out by Zeus, this mimics the historical instances of infantry sneaking up and close assaulting tanks that were sent into action without supporting infantry.
The rules will not limit any MG to DF only. The limited range of these weapons, the comparatively lower attack values, and the fact that one can only fire the CoAX if one doesn't fire the main gun, should prevent vehicle MGs from being over-powerful.
6. Hull Machine gun (HMG). The rules will state that front mounted hull machine guns may only fire at targets directly in front of the vehicle (define this in terms of hexes and vehicle facing). The hull MG attack values will be lower than for comparable turret-mounted MGs due to further reduced visibility for hull MGs.
7. Turret-top and anti-aircraft MGs (TTMG, AAMG). To fire these MGs the commander/gunner must be exposed (unbuttoned). If there is an enemy unit within two hexes of this unit when this unit attacks with its ________(TTMG or AAMG), the unit gets -1 to each attack die. In addition, any disruption counter placed on this unit as a result of an enemy attack in the next phase will last through the end of the next turn ("headshot"). This can be stated in the rules or placed in an "unbuttoned" SA on each affected vehicle card.
8. Rear turret MGs: Vehicles with a rear turret MG will have the following SA:
Rear turret MG: This vehicle may attack soldiers with attack
values of W/X/Y/Z. The rear turret MG may not fire in the
same phase in which the vehicle's CoAX or TMG fires.
9. Rear hull MG: Vehicles with a rear hull MG will have the following SA:
Rear hull MG: This vehicle may attack soldiers directly to the
rear of the vehicle with attack values of W/X/Y/Z.
Question:
Should Double Shot go for all vehicle MGs when vehicle is stationary, or be limited to MGs which have a minimum rate of fire (say 800 rpm)?
Next steps:
The remaining Parts, which are still in draft form, will be as follows:
Part TWO: a chart of proposed vehicle MG values
and ranges.
Part THREE: a chart of proposed vehicle AI HE values and
ranges.
Part FOUR: a chart showing the representation of both MG
and HE AI capabilities in selected vehicles. [/u]
_________________
HHRgamer
Last edited by HHRgamer on Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:28 am; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Sun May 10, 2009 7:55 pm |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Been absent for a while. But here's my take on the queries :
| Quote: | | Should the Hull MG SA only apply when the unit is not disrupted? |
Hull MG SA should apply when unit is disrupted, at a -1 as normal. Actually, I think all units should be able to defensive fire, even when disrupted. At a -1.
| Quote: | | Should high explosive attack values be used against unarmored vehicles also? |
High Explosive attacks should only be used against vehicles in general if they have a better value then the armor piercing attacks. Which would generally only be applicable in case of guns that dont use armor piercing shells. So, only when relevant. Vehicle cover saves are planned to be determined by their size / silhouette. Also, more devestating hits are planned to be less easy to save. So it will all even out. If those plans still apply.
| Quote: | | Sindor uses the "Destruction" SA to show the effect of high explosive in reducing the target's cover roll. Is this preferable to "High Explosive Ammunition?" Is there yet a third term which would better convey the meaning? |
Frag(mentation) ? Devastation ? Collateral ? Explosive ? Anything really. Destruction sounds good. It's short, at least. I'd prefer frag though. It's even shorter. But who cares as long as it -has- a name.
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
| Mon May 11, 2009 12:34 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Been digesting the one post. Truly appreciate the clarification.
Agree with AoD about hull MG SA.
Extended Range SA not necessary due to larger number of range boxes.
Can live with Turret MG SA, but still not sure it adds anything.
Don't think Destruction SA is necessary. Effects should be covered by extra dice.
Soft vehicles should flame up so easily that from either Attack Value that it shouldn't be a concern.
Thank you very much for all the work. I have been following it closely. I don't think we'll ever agree on the HE/MG thing, but I trust your instincts. I think playtesting will be the only way to resolve it.
I think you're right about it, but I'm not so sure that it will make a big difference in the game.
_________________
|
|
| Thu May 14, 2009 3:41 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to have Part TWO up soon.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Fri May 15, 2009 12:38 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi, back after a busy period  . Good to see how much work you got done in the mean time!
| Quote: | Turret mounted machine guns (coaxial or pintel-mounted) will be reflected either in the AI attack values matrix located in the upper left portion of the card, or in an SA, depending on whether the vehicle also has the capacity to fire high explosive charges from its main gun at soldiers. If the vehicle does not have a high explosive capacity against soldiers, the turret-mounted machine gun value will be reflected in the AI value in the unit's attack matrix located in the upper left portion of the card.
If a vehicle is capable of firing high explosives at soldiers, the high explosive attack values will be listed in the AI line of the attack matrix. The effect of the high explosive on the target's cover roll will be represented in an SA, High Explosive Ammunition. The ability to fire long range shots with high explosive will be shown by SA: Extended Range.
If a vehicle capable of firing high explosives at soldiers also has turret-mounted machine guns, the vehicle will have the option of using machine guns instead of high explosive by invoking the SA, Turret Machine Gun. That SA will set forth attack values and ranges which the unit may use instead of the AI figure on the attack matrix. The Turret Machine Gun SA will also make clear that when that SA is used, the High Explosive Ammunition and Extended Range SAs cannot be used.
|
I think this is a bit confusing, especially the AI stat line reflecting different things for different tanks. Wouldn't it be clearer if the AI stat line always reflects the main turret gun, with the High Explosive Ammunition ability reading something like: "When this unit attacks a Soldier with its main gun, the target gets -2 to cover rolls"? The "main gun" should be explained in the rules to be the gun reflected by the basic stat lines. If the unit doesn't have HE capability, it just gets -/-/- for its AI stats.
Turret MG's would be reflected by a "Turret MG" ability: "Instead of attacking normally, this unit can make an attack at 8/6/4 against a Soldier". (The 8/6/4 is an example, but I think it's not necessary to differentiate between different types of MG's used in tanks, except maybe when there's a different number of them).
This way, you clearly separate the MG's from the main gun. This also makes it unnecessary to mention that HEA and ER abilities don't apply (you should try as much as possible to prevent dependencies on other abilities, because sooner or later an additional ability needs to be added meaning you have to reprint many of your cards). The HEA and ER (and probably many other) abilities should just mention they only apply to attacks with the main gun, and then it's clear they don't apply to any substituting or additional attacks granted by SA's.
Note BTW that you don't need to mention that the Hull MG ability can't be used when the unit is disrupted - a unit already can't make def fire attacks at all when disrupted.
How will you handle rear turret MG's, which Soviet and Japanese tanks usually have? |
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 7:03 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Please let me know some examples of specific Soviet and Japanese tanks that have rear turret MGs. I need to better understand these.
Thanks for the comments. Simplification is good.
I have had to devote extra time to my job lately, which has caused a delay in posting Part TWO. However, the delay has fortuitously given rise to Zeus's helpful comments, which I will try to deal with when the demands of the job ease up a bit. Meanwhile, further comments and suggestions are welcome.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I think Zeus is onto something. Unless the tank has no main gun, put all the MG ability into another form, such as an SA.
We can sort out the Disrupted thing later. Remember the levels of damage are different here.
Sheer genius. My compliments.
_________________
|
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 4:15 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Please let me know some examples of specific Soviet and Japanese tanks that have rear turret MGs. I need to better understand these. |
The following AFV's had MG's in the turret rear (although in the case of the Japanese ones, they're more in a 5 o'clock position when viewed from above with the main gun at 12 o'clock ). Note that this list is not exhaustive, but only contains the vehicles I researched! Other AFV's, and different models of the AFV's mentioned, might have them too.
Type 97 Chi-Ha
Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-Ha
T-26 Model 1933
BT-7 Model 1937
T-35 Model 1935 (main turret)
KV-1 Model 1939/1940/1941/1942
KV-2 Model 1941
KV-85
IS-3 Model 1945
While I don't think there was ever a dedicated gunner for the rear turret MG, it still should have some (small) effect when attacking, or def firing against, Soldiers.
Maybe relevant as well is that some vehicles, mainly the more old-fashioned armored cars, had rear hull MG's. I only know the Autoblinda 41 for certain, but that one will probably be included in FA at one point, so it's better to handle the possibility right away.
FYI: in my rules I handle MG's differently, so this is probably not very useful to you  , but I allow turret MG's to make def fire attacks (when the vehicle is in a clear hex). One turret MG (no matter whether it's coaxial or rear turret) 7 dice, two coaxials 8 dice, and 1 or 2 coaxials AND a rear turret MG 7 or 8 dice respectively, with +1 on each attack die. |
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 7:31 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the additional comments. I have edited the Part ONE post above. Still plan to post Part TWO soon, assuming job demands let up. Meanwhile, please keep the comments and suggestions coming. Thanks.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Thu May 21, 2009 2:07 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I think this is close. Instead of an SA, should we use icons and put it in the vehicle card explanation?
_________________
|
|
| Thu May 21, 2009 3:40 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Some choices are: blanket statement in the rules (as in AI values reflect main gun), an SA (as in Turret MG SA), a special icon, or a separate line in the attack matrix.
A blanket statement in the rules would be the place to make clear that MG attack values only apply to soldier targets, and that a vehicle cannot make an MG and main gun attack simultaneously. However, that is not the place to convey vehicle-specific information like MG attack values. SAs would work but perhaps with a common attribute like turret MG it results in unnecessary clutter on the card. If you want to avoid SA clutter, I think an icon showing a turret MG should go on a separate line of the attack matrix with the turret MG values. There is room for a third line in the matrix. This is intuitive, fits with the already-established scheme, and would make it easy for new or casual players to pick right up.
Rear Turret and Rear Hull are rare enough that they are worth an SA. (Front) Hull MG is fairly common, but wouldn't it complicate things too much to add a "Hull MG" line to the attack matrix? It is a relatively short SA which incorporates a well-established concept of defensive fire, so why not an SA for Hull MG also?
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Thu May 21, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
An additional MG icon sounds very reasonable.
It's a standard feature of most tanks so why not. Great idea.
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
| Thu May 21, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
it all seems too easy.
_________________
 |
|
| Thu May 21, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
MG icon on a line in the attack matrix? Since I intend to recommend different MG values depending on the historical MG (or MGs), I am having trouble seeing how a standard MG icon on the card, without specific attack numbers at specific ranges, would work.
Sharpe, AOD, can you clarify your suggestions?
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Fri May 22, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Put the icon(s) [a turret and/or a hull with a prominent MG]in the blank area left of the matrix.
Superimpose the attack values (8/6, 7/4. etc) over the icon oir place them underneath. We can put an explanation in the rules where it explains the card.
_________________
|
|
| Fri May 22, 2009 4:01 am |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
