Re: [SG] The Tuffley 500

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:36:46 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

>No.  What I don't like is that a vehicle which stops and unloads troops
can
>move every bit as far as one which spends the whole turn driving as
fast as
>it can.  If the vehicle has to slow/stop to let the troops out, then it
>shouldn't move as far as one which doesn't.  

And Adrian and I believe that since the vehicles are moving _so_ much
slower
than they could realistically, the extra movement could easily be made
up in
the five minute game turn. 

>Stand in front of a SAW and say that again.<g>

Okay, I meant they weren't vulnerable to the single shot that can fire
at the
vehicle. It's actually easier to kill lots of squaddies when they are in
an
AFV than by firing at them outside of the AFV.

>>The difference is that the vehicle is now operating 12" away from the
>troops, not 6". The vehicle can be much less vulnerable than it
currently
>is. 
>
>On the other hand, the troops can't get back and load up in one
activation
>(unless they luck out on combat move)

Sure they can. They only have to be within 6" of the transport. In fact,
they
can fire at the enemy and move back 6". They can then be loaded into the
transport on the transport's turn. The squad gets an extra 6" movement
for
free.

This is my main beef with having the vehicle pay. You feel that a
vehicle
shouldn't be able to move as far as normal on turns when it loads or
unloads
infantry. But by having the vehicle pay for the loading, you actually
give the
infantry a _bonus_ to movement.

Either the vehicle is going to get a 50% extra or the infantry are going
to
get it. For a number of reasons, I prefer the vehicle to get it rather
than
the infantry. The vehicle gets that extra 50% movement if it spends an
action.
Your method essentially lets the infantry get an extra 6" movement for
free by
letting the vehicle spend the action.

>An extra 30 meters in 5 minutes.  Not what I'd think of as a major
problem.

An extra 3" of woods movement, equivalent to one move action, through
terrain
that the transport can't go through. I find that most of my woods tend
not to
be too wide. That extra woods movement can mean the difference between
taking
one whole activation to get to the woods edge, or getting there in one
action
and firing at an opponent with the second action.

I mostly have a hard time rationalizing mounted troops disembarking and
managing to move further in woods in one turn than dismounted troops
that
didn't have to bother getting out of a vehicle. I can rationalize the
transport's extra movement much more easily. 

Or, to flip it another way, the rules currently allow vehicles to move
an
extra 120 metres in five minutes; not what I'd think of as a major
problem.

>Catch'em while they're out of the vehicle.  This plan goes to pieces
once
>you start suppressing the squaddies.
>(The better solution, of course, is to leap up, seize a handy blunt
object,
>and beat your opponent about the head if he tries this sort of
thing--but
>you've just moved from Canada so probably are too inhibited to do
this).

You're right. I'm in the Deep South now. I'd have to shoot him!

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: