Re: Battle at Camelot Comics and Games--After Action Report

On Nov 22, 10:03pm, RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: Battle at Camelot Comics and Games--After Action Report
> In a message dated 11/22/99 9:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> fhelvey@pop.wilmington.net writes:
> 
> Actually, the force costs were not that far apart--the attackers did
> get more  points, but it was more in the nature of 1.5-to-1. Then
> again, I really  didn't point-cost the scenario, as there were a lot
> of "useless" systems	included on some of the vehicles and the point
> values for the area defense  systems were exaggerated (they are also
> supposed to be able to shoot down  aircraft, but since we weren't
> using any airpower, they could only be used to  destroy guided
> missiles).
> 

Hmm.  The patrol boats were rather expensive I guess?  Some of Wayne's 
tanks were pretty good too.

>  We did this part completely wrong--the area of effect is either a
> single 2"  radius (we were using diameter) circle for concentrated
> fire or a sort of  rectangle with rounded ends and 4" wide but 4 x
> number of tubes firing in  inches long for an open sheaf. This
> rectangle could be placed either  parallel to or perpendicular to own
> sides starting edge.
> 

Better!

I'd thought that being able to plot the center point then provide some 
info on angle and shape of the planned barrage would be good.  Probably 
something like the center line of the barrage is specified by a number 
of degrees from North, with the length given by the rules, and the 
center point is where it pivots.


> >  Marching an artillery  barrage up the map (say, to lay smoke, or
> >  hit someone in column) didn't  seem to be an option.
> 
> It was definitely an option--you lay fire on turn one, then adjust on
> turn	two and so on--just like they did it in WW1--the only problem is
> that you  (neither side, actually) didn't really have the ammunition
> to pull this off.
> 

That also took two turns and wouldn't have been as effective either.  A 
unit had to do a spot action to call in the artillery, so a unit 
wouldn't also had to have sat out the combat for two turns.  Didn't seem

to be an option for Wayne and I.

> >  
> >  Question to Rob:  can infantry be organized as a separate unit but 
> > ...
>
> And yes, infantry can be organized as a separate unit than their
> carriers--the rules state that this is up to the owning player and
> occurs if  the transports/infantry are seperated by more than 10".
>

Or it could be done with a reorganize action, but nothing else would 
happen that round for that unit as I recall.  Still, being able to set 
them up that way right off would be better I think.

> I consider this a victory--yet another miniatures game that Frank is
> willing  to play...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (evil-souding laugh) Soon I shall
> turn you  completely to the Dark Side...
> 

Not hardly.  I'll never paint anything.  (If you saw how I paint you'd 
understand why).  The minatures were a bit of a pain - they kept wanting

to slide down the hills.  Now, a nice FLAT map would have worked nicely.

With nice FLAT COUNTERs to go on it.  :)

-- Frank

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
C. Frank Helvey 		     email: fhelvey@wilmington.net
President			     phone: 910-350-0650
Montvale Software Services, P.C.     loc:   Wilmington, NC USA
Blue Ridge, VA 24064