RE: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....

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
reality. 
Any input? I know the Swedes had the S-Tank, and the Germans and Soviets

have traditionally used Assault Gun designs a lot more than other
nations.  
What were their experiences with them?

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 the
turret...).

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: [DS2] While we're on the subject of firing arcs....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:50:44 -0500

I will take a stab in the dark at this...

I imagine that the rule was put into place to allow the movement rules
to
ignore turns.
If fixed mount vehicles could move and then fire, they could do a full
movement,
turn to bring the opponent into arc, and fire the fixed mount weapon.
This
would
make a turret less cost-effective.

It may be a good house rule to allow fixed mount weapons to fire after
movement
ONLY IF they move less than half of thier movement rating.

I would still allow opprotunity fire and overwatch fire (if you use that
house rule),
but only if the enemy wanders into the correct arc.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com