Re: [GZG] DSIII q

[John K Lerchey <lerchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

Comments below.

> > 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.

Hey, I've been known to make mistakes before! :D  Looks like this time 
too.  Grants heavy had CLEAR LoS/LoF to the Order command vehicle, but it 
was not involved in the firefight.  I tend to forget that you can't, as 
the attacker, bring in new defense targets just because you have clear 
LoS.  Definitely my bad.

>   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.

The infantry should have taken cover if they were not able to fire back. 
I mean, if I was there and being shot at and I couldn't effectively fire 
back, I'd take cover...

I didn't force the issue in the game, mostly due to lack of sleep.  Yeah, 
that's it. :)

>   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.

Sadly, my group is fairly small.  We generally have either 2 or 3 players, 
with no known prospects to add more.  When I go visit Indy we tend to have 
more.  I would think that if you have a larger group, and larger forces, 
if the command elements activate a simultaneous assault on multiple fronts 
(e.g., at least 1 unit per player, likely more), then each group could be 
resolving their firefights simultaneously.

So,

    Player A    ------->  Enemy A
    Player B    ------->  Enemy B
    Player C    ------->  Enemy C

(which never works out that cleanly, but you get the idea)

As long as there is little crossover between the firefights (player A has 
no contact with enemy B, for example), each firefight can be concluded 
beofre there is another activation.  Things could get trickier if Players 
A and B ganged up on Enemy A, and left Enemy B out of it, that kind of 
thing would happen in DSII as well.

<shrug>

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