Re: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:02:44 +0100
Subject: Re: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....
Brian Bilderback wrote:
>Yeah, I pretty much understand why it was done in game terms. I was
>just wondering if the restriction on action order actually jived with
>Any input? I know the Swedes had the S-Tank,
We had, yes. There are reasons why no-one else wanted it though, and
why we don't have it any longer :-/
>and the Germans and Soviets have traditionally used Assault Gun
>designs a lot more than other nations.
Assault guns are mainly intended to support infantry against enemy
infantry, at a lower cost than you'd pay for real tanks. I think they
work fairly well for this in DSII... smaller (and therefore cheaper)
than a turreted tank with the same main gun, and enemy infantry can't
move very fast so they have a chance to shoot at something :-/
The S-tank OTOH was a tank destroyer, specifically built for
reverse-slope defences. Performed adequatly but not brilliantly in that
role, but not very good at all for offensive operations.
>In game terms, I also prefer your idea of allowing them to move THEN
>fire ONLY if they only half-move. In addition, however, I would also
>penalize them one die code of accuracy (it HAS to be harder to slew a
>whole tank around to track a moving target than it is to just rotate
It takes more engine power to turn the entire tank than to rotate the
turret, but it doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy when firing at a
What it does affect, or rather prohibit, is the ability to fire on the
move - the S-tank can't do that, no matter how fancy targetting devices
you equip it with. It has to stop, or move very slowly, to be able to
aim. The "only move half" house rule would probably work well to
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."