Re: [SG] Discussion about weekend questions

> It's a matter of where the time slices end. Think of it this way:
you stop the
> car. Your wife jumps out and runs towards the store. You move the
car forward
> into a parking spot 20 feet ahead of her (not because you're a
sadist, but
> because that spot just opened up. *grin*). For a brief instant, your
wife was
> ahead of you even though you were in the faster vehicle. That could
be the end
> of the turn. The next turn, you're in the parking space and she
hasn't caught
> up with you.
>
> That's how I suspend my disbelief on it, anyway.
>
> >All the guns in AD 2190 are stabilized, so you should be able to
drive and
> >shoot simultaneously, right?  But vehicles have to burn an action
to fire a
> >weapon.  It would be just as logical to say they have to burn an
action to
> >"fire" their passengers.
>
> Technically they should lose something off their final movement.
This is true
> in most wargames I've played. It costs so many "action points" to
debuss the
> passengers. Or, the amount of movement allowed in a turn when you
load/unload
> is restricted. Since the distances moved by these vehicles is such a
small
> part of their movement potential, I don't have much of a problem not
> penalizing them. Besides, it makes the game simpler to play.
>
> >I agree that I'd rather not have the squad and the vehicle activate
> >simultaneously.
> >
> >What you might do is say *either* the vehicle *or* the squad has to
pay the
> >action.
>
> What needs to be done, really, is a split activation. Both the
vehicle and the
> squad get two actions. What I'd like to see is a split action
situation: you
> can activate two units (in this case, a vehicle and a squad) and
have them
> each take one action. Then, you could easily have the vehicle fire
with action
> 1 while the troops move out. I'm not sure how the bookkeeping would
work with
> this, and it sounds like a difficult rule to "legislate". It also
sounds like
> a rule that could easily lead to munchkinism if extended to other
situations
> (i.e. "I'll activate these two squads and have them each do a fire
action.") I
> think it also makes things difficult to administer. "Did that squad
with one
> action left already fire???"
>
> As for vehicles not being able to move and fire, that's a pet peeve
of mine.
> I'm trying to come up with a "fix" for an all vehicle game.
>
> I thought of a variation on the detached element rules. Say you have
a tank
> with four crew (Tank Commander, driver, loader, gunner). You could
consider
> the driver a detached element. The TC transfers an action to the
driver
> (allowing him two move actions), while still having one action left
over to
> fire. You may even want to require a communication roll. Sure,
they're in the
> same vehicle, but they are looking at different displays and
separated by
> bulkheads and the like. This gives a tank (or any vehicle, by
extension) three
> actions if two of them are move actions, or two actions otherwise.
Not really
> much of a break in the game system. This would be a stabilized
weapon platform
> that could do this, of course. Otherwise, like most WW2 tanks, you
just play
> as is.
>
> An even simpler answer, though, might be to give vehicles with
stabilized guns
> a 24" range instead of 12", but they can only spend one action at
most moving
> (much like any given weapon in a squad may only fire once at the
most).
>
> Now, another question: should a vehicle be able to fire all the
weapons on the
> vehicle with one action? That is, if a vehicle has a hull mounted MG
and a
> main gun, should it be allowed to fire both with one action? Or if
it has a
> main gun and a missile launcher, should it be allowed to engage an
enemy
> vehicle with both for one action? If so, should it be restricted to
firing at
> the same target with all weapons, like in a squad? A gun-stabilized
tank
> should be able to fire its main gun and machine gun, and still move,
all at
> once. I'm willing to let this go, though, for the sake of
simplicity.
>
>
> Allan Goodall 		 agoodall@hyperbear.com
> http://www.hyperbear.com
>
> "At long last, the earthy soil of the typical,
> unimaginable mortician was revealed!"
>  - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator:
> http://www.darkicon.com/Library/randsent.htm