Stabilization, was Tank ROF

I think ROF would help, but let's take into consideration something else
I 
wanted to comment on today, and which you've brought up:

It seems to me that when it comes to quality of firecon, there is a Big 
Three, a Holy Trinity if you will:  Accuracy, Rate of Fire, and 
Stabilization.	Now, the original rules cover accuracy. We've been
hashing 
out RoF. What about Stabilization.  I have for some been under the 
impression, given to me by countless pundits on the topic, that one of
the 
many, in fact an important one of the many reasons that tanks like the
M1, 
Challenger, and Leo have over their predecessors is their ability to
fire on 
the fly, instead of having to stop to fire.  There are times in DS II
when 
it seems some house rule addressing this would come in handy. Let me
give 
you an example:

Team Lotech moves it's tank platoon. Team Hitek's activation: Team
Hitek's 
platoon is at point A, and they know that given the current tactical 
situation, they really want to be at point B.  However, the best place
to 
fire on the Lotek platoon is at point C.  Under current rules, Team
Hitek's 
platoon must choose between point B and Point C.  But in real combat, a
tank 
platoon might just zip on to point B, firing as it went. So in addition
to 
any increased Rate of Fire, I propose the following rule (for turreted 
vehicles only.	If anyone likes these, let me know, I have variants for 
fixed arc guns):

Basic FireCon: May fire then move, or move up to half movement then
fire.

Enhanced FireCon: May Fire then move, or move then fire.

Superior FireCon:  May Fire then move, move then fire, or partial move, 
fire, then finish movement.

Brian Bilderback

>From: "The Sutherlands" <nma@kda.attmil.ne.jp>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: RE: Tank ROF, was Re: DS2 Balance
>Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:33:02 +0900
>
>
>. Still important but more of a
>determining factor is the acquire, track and kill cycle.  With basic FC

>this
>will take quite a bit longer than the superior FC which is doing a good
>chunk of the work for you.  Consider that the WWII tanks had to stop to
get
>any kind of chance to hit their target while the Abrams can motor along
at
>70mph taking pot shots at over a mile away with a decent to fair chance
of 
>a
>hit is a big difference.  Increasing the rate of fire seems more than
>reasonable and balances out the high vs low tech quite nicely.  YMMV.
>
>							That Chuk Guy
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com