Re: Under Fire DS2

I haven't played a game with my idea yet so I can't say for sure, but I
do
know the same situation you describe can happen now with the current
rules.
Example: A tank platoon loses a tank (or just one damaged), gets an
UNDER
FIRE marker, fails its roll, and because it has to sit there gets
another
couple tanks waxed whereas if it was able to move it would have been
safe.
The point here is that particular piece of ground is under enemy
observation AND fire. A tanker ISN'T going to keep sitting there. Would
you
rather sit where you know you just lost a tank or opt for moving to a
place
where you MIGHT be safe?

Note, I wasn't saying the units would have to charge straight ahead. I
just
said they would need to move at top speed. Of course depending on the
terrain, enemy dispositions, etc. this COULD be the suicide charge you
mention. Again, having not played with it, I think the number of times
this
would happen would be no more than the number of times it doesn't and my
rule change adds a nice bit of flavor. Of course its all IMHO and the
whole
idea could just me silly <g>.

Paul

At 05:09 PM 5/16/97 +1000, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Paul
>
>
>I don't have my rules with me so bear with me if this is complete crap.
>
>
>> about have DS2 vehicles with an UNDER FIRE marker REQUIRED to move?
If
>they
>> fail their Reaction test they must backup, otherwise they must move
at
>top
>> speed.
>
>Couldn't this be abused by a player with plenty of crap infantry
>inducing enemy tanks into headlong charges into pre prepared anti tank
>defenses? If there are enough units with opportunity fire available
then
>you could turn a failed reaction test into wholesale slaughter....
>
>Its been a while so I don't know whether there is something inherent in
>the rules that would stop this
>
>just a thought
>
>Dan
>
>
>

-----
Paul J. Calvi Jr.
tanker@rahul.net

"Objective, Offense, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command,
Security, Surprise, Simplicity"

15SEP16