Re: Overwatch, the next chapter...

On Tue, 02 January 2001, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> Personally, I think 1 action isn't enough. I see what you're doing,
but with
> what you have later you run the risk of having a lot of fire pouring
down
> for what's essentially a single action. 
> 
> [Tomb] It really is one fire action, especially if you don't allow
support
> weapons extra shots. Therefore penalizing a unit doubly is overharsh
IMO. 

I've been thinking about this for a bit. 

I see one potential problem with the way I handle it (by the way, in my
first cut on Overwatch rules, I did the same thing as you and made it
one action but it had to be the last action).

Technically you should be able to allow troops on a vehicle to go into
Overwatch. But, if they are travelling through an area of hidden
counters, they can't actually do a spot action! Hmmm...

Okay, so I got to thinking some more. If you make it one action, it's a
little too easy with my rules to allow them to fire automatically.

The end result is that you've swung me over. I'm changing my rules to
require a Reaction Test, but only one action.

> [Tomb] My own preference for combat movement, that applies in all
> situations: Combat moving troops (as opposed to normal "patrol"
movement)
> are fired at as if 1 RB further away. This makes combat moving a must
while
> engaged. Although I think your suggestion has merit here also.

I think I'll add a TL+1 to mine for targets doing combat movement.

> [Tomb] I suppose the answer is do you play the rules or the game? Do
you
> allow squads to split fire? I don't...usually. It isn't illegal, but
my own
> knowledge tells me this is a rare case. The SAW might be assigned a
> different overwatch zone conceivably, but not all that often. 

Well, I allow squads to split fire because it is specifically allowed in
the rules. I don't have them with me, but there is a point where Jon
says that a squad may fire part of the squad with one fire action and
part with another.

So, personally, I think your rules should address this, even if it's
just a "don't let squads split fire in Overwatch" rule. 

> [Tomb] Probably. Rarely do I bring that much FP to the table.
Obviously if
> you do this, you get suppressions through lots of support weapons. I
get
> mine through efficacy of fewer weapons. Combined, the effects could be
> pronounced. 

Of course, it might not be THAT bad since I'm also moving more towards
fireteams than full "squads". So instead of 8 guys with 2 SAWs amongst
them, there would be two fireteams of 4 guys and one SAW. 

> [Tomb] Guess it depends on force compositions. I've used it in a
number of
> games fairly successfully. It changes the balance and does make
support
> weapons more fearsome, perhaps unjustly so. But then, I also tend to
think
> the SAW (as I think of it) as overrated with D10 FP. D6 seems more
> appropriate. GPMGs/LMGs probably merit D10. Totally IMO, mind you.
Though
> others have tried SAWs with lower FP and had good results. 

I wonder if it's a case where the higher FP takes into account things
like covering fire over a long period of time. Maybe you need to drop
the FP of the SAWs but only during Overwatch, to account for the fact
that they can fire multiple times while on Overwatch.

> [Tomb] It is an option. Some people like enforcing unit facing. Some
people
> like to know where the unit is supposed to be watching. I don't use it
> myself. 

I use it for my ACW rules, but don't during modern games.

> [Tomb] I'm thinking this will come up in the "prematurely sprung
ambush". 

Which reminds me, how long does an Overwatch counter last? Until the
next activation of the unit? Are they all removed at the end of a turn?
 
> [Tomb] This is the primary place I'd expect it used. The other being
where a
> green unit is being attacked by unit A, but wants to shoot at
unactivated
> unit B when it activates. A is in their face and shooting at them. It
may
> take a good effort to not have them return fire at unit A and to hold
fire
> to shoot at unit B. 

Technically, that's against the target priority rules in the rulebook,
depending of course on the range to the two units. The target priority
rules would have the unit fire at unit A anyway.

> [Tomb] I find TL0 to easy for a sudden engagement. But, this is a
matter of
> degree you are arguing... ;) 

And, as mentioned WAY up above, I've changed my mind. *L*
 
> [Tomb] It was a good idea, so I shall probably steal it. ;) 

Why not, I'm stealing from you!

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com