Re: [GZG] DSIII q

["Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  >Then at the end of the game the defender
>  >activated a unit that had LOS on the stopped Tank unit. The resulting
>  >firefight gave Grant all the excuse he needed to roll into the base and
>  >wipe out the defenders command unit.
> 
> Hm. If the defenders started this firefight, Grant's units could only have 
> fired at the defenders' Command Unit if the Command Unit had first fired at 
> them - ie., either it was the Command Unit that started this final 
> FireFight or it voluntarily joined the FireFight in the second or later 
> TCR. The only way for Grant to engage the defenders' Command Unit against 
> the defenders' will is if *he* started a FireFight against *it*, but that 
> doesn't seem to have been the case here.
> 

   Hmm, I wondered about that in the game and asked John about it, and he said
 it was ok.  I suspected we might be doing it wrong and that appears to be the
 case.  That changes things a bit.


> What all this means is that the "fudge" solution is actually at least as 
> realistic as the "track all MPs" one (but of course neither is *perfectly* 
> realistic!), and that the "maximum" movement rates in DS3 aren't nearly as 
> absolute as they might seem at first glance. IOW, unless Grant's tanks used 
> Travel Mode movement (highly unlikely under the circumstances) the movement 
> you described as "ALL of their major move" was in fact only about half as 
> far as they *could* have moved in a game single turn in that terrain - and 
> even if they had made their entire Major Move in Travel Mode they would 
> *still* have had enough of a margin to make several Combat Moves before 
> their total movement during the game turn started approaching really 
> unbelievable levels.
>

   I had K'hiff grav tanks that could move 72" in one mode and 3" (I think) in 
 combat moves.  The defenders didn't have LOS to much of the board, so I moved 
 about 30 - 35" before they began firing on me.  After I slipped out of the 
 firefight with two damaged tanks (1/2 move) I could move another 15" with my 
 activation (accounting for the 1/2 move) and I did.  Later on they fired on me
 again and that started the rolling firefight.  My two damaged tanks crawled 
 forward, but the undamaged tank could reach an elevated postion without losing
 unit integrity that allowed it to see down into the infantry position that had
 fired into me and subsequently gone to ground.  At that point, I could keep 
 firing at them doing no damage (it was very unlikely), but maintaining the 
 firefight while the damaged tanks crawled forward overrunning my opponent.
   We had something similiar with infantry and tanks fighting on the flank, and
 it also lasted quite a while (with similiar results).  It may be that infantry
 versus tanks can result in long firefights with few results, and this is where
 the length of the firefight should be restricted to keep a con game moving.
 I'm thinking that a firefight where one side is firing and the other is not
 may not be all *that* hard to create, and the length of that kind of firefight
 should be held down.


   I should also say that our local group almost always plays with more than 
 one player per side.  It's very very rare for us to play a head to head game.
 The social aspect of it is a big deal to most people of my acquaintance.  I  
 would not like to see DSIII end up being optimized for head to head play even
 accidentally.  I'm thinking that a cap on firefight length and rules for 
 cross turn "continuing" firefights would be a good option for people who do
 more gaming in groups.  I think the current system would be fine for smaller
 groups and head to head gaming.



  grant



_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l