Re: [SG] The Tuffley 500

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:35:59 -0400, Adrian Johnson
<adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>My own view falls in between the two - that disembarking actions should
>come from the troops and not the vehicle... hence vehicles can move a
bit
>further if they choose to, or do some moving and some shooting, or
>whatever, while the infantry can disembark and do something else also.

And, a vehicle should be able to move, stop, disembark troops, and move
to a
slightly better position. This can't happen because the rules don't have
a way
of stopping one unit's activation to allow the activation of another
unit.

Chris mentioned the problem of a vehicle moving 24" and then the squad
racing
forward another 12" (I don't think he put these numbers to it, but
that's the
maximum: two move actions for the vehicle, 6" free disembark range for
the
troops, 1 troop move action of 6"). Let's take another situation. The
vehicle
wants to move up 12", disgorge the infantry, and then move another 12"
into a
safe location. You can do this with the current system. You move the
vehicle
24" forward, then disgorge the infantry backwards 6" and then have them
move
another 6". In this case it's silly to think that the infantry would
have to
race all the way back, but at the end of the activation of both units
you have
what appears to be a reasonable thing: vehicle moved 120m, dropped
troops,
then went on another 120m.

I got thinking about Chris' idea of letting either the vehicle or the
troops
pay for dismounting. I found a reason why the troops _must_ pay for
disembarking from the vehicle.

Currently the vehicle can move 12" and fire, or move 24". On the troops'
turn,
they can spend the action to disembark. They get to disembark 6" from
the
vehicle for free. They can then spend an action moving or firing, but
they
only have one action left over. Now, most folks don't have a problem
with the
12" and firing for the vehicle, then the troops disembarking. They can
see the
vehicle giving covering fire while the troops move. Chris doesn't like
the 24"
movement for the vehicle and then the troops disembarking. Adrian and I
have
been arguing that we can live with it, since realistically the vehicle
shouldn't have a problem moving even 24" in reality.

Here, though, is what happens during the game. The vehicle moves. At the
end
of the movement, the troops are _still in the vehicle_. They are still
vulnerable to a single shot against both them and the vehicle.

If you let the vehicle pay the cost of disembarking the troops, the
vehicle
moves and then they jump out 6". They are now _out of the vehicle_. They
are
no longer vulnerable. Unless you use overwatch rules (and not everyone
does),
you won't have that moment of vulnerability. 

But that's only a part of it. Because the vehicle paid the disembarking
penalty, the troops now have two full actions left. Chris doesn't like
the
idea of the vehicle not being penalized for the troops disembarking, but
in
effect the troops are not penalized for disembarking. It's the same
issue,
reversed.

The vehicle vulnerability issue is a big one. Say you want to keep your
troops
out of harms way every other turn. You can rush them forward, disembark
from
the vehicle, and fire. Next turn they fire, rush into the vehicle, and
run
away. In the current rules they could operate in a 30" range. Vehicle
moves
twice (24"), troops disembark for 6", then fire. Next turn they fire,
jump
into the vehicle, and then escape 24". With Chris' idea, they get only a
24"
range. Vehicle moves 12" and troops disembark (6"). Troops activate and
move
6" then fire). 

The difference is that the vehicle is now operating 12" away from the
troops,
not 6". The vehicle can be much less vulnerable than it currently is.
Vehicles
have trouble moving through dense terrain. They may not be able to go
through
woods, for instance. By putting the disembarking burden on the vehicle,
you
give more mobility to troops in dense terrain. A vehicle can move up to
the
back of some woods and disgorge the troops. In the current system, those
troops can only move 3" (the disembarking range of 6") and then fire
their
weapons. In Chris' system, since the troops still have two actions left,
they
can move 6" through woods (3" free disembarking, 3" on their activation)
and
fire. This gives troops in vehicles a lot more mobility in terrain where
they
should be more penalized. In a heavily forested board, as an example,
with GEV
carriers Chris' system allows for "shoot and scoot" tactics that you
can't
normally do with the existing rules.

(Note: this assumes that you make the reasonable assumption that the 6"
embarking/disembarking range should be modified due to terrain. The
rules
don't actually _say_ this. They say that troops only have to be 6" from
a
vehicle, which I don't agree with. If you have troops on the edge of a
woods
in a GEV APC and troops standing outside it, the troops in the GEV APC
can
magically move further into the woods than the troops that weren't
mounted,
even though the GEV can't go in the woods? Uh, no, makes no sense.
However, if
you use the letter of the law and not the spirit, the above example
would be
12" of heavy woods for Chris' idea and 9" through the woods as per the
rules
as written.)

Chris also suggested letting either the vehicle or the troops pay the
cost. I
can see munchkinism at play here. You could move troops and then
disgorge them
(paid by the vehicle). You could fire the troops on their activation and
then
load them into the vehicle. Or, the other way around, you keep the
troops
outside of the vehicle. You activate the vehicle, load the troops, then
move
the vehicle. On the very next activation you disembark the troops and
have
them do something. The only time you'd have troops in the vehicle would
be for
that short time between activations. This is sort of wasteful, but you
only
have a short window of opportunity to target the vehicle full of
infantry.

>>I suppose that means we can let this particular 
>>subthread die.
>
>sounds good ;)

Oops... *L* Well, after I get my big, long message in anyway...

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: