Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would change the WW2 Artillery rules to match the Vietnam version, it's bloody silly to have artillery pieces on such a comparatively small playing space. All artillery should be off-table aside from regular mortars.

 DeadestDai wrote:
I would change the WW2 Artillery rules to match the Vietnam version, it's bloody silly to have artillery pieces on such a comparatively small playing space. All artillery should be off-table aside from regular mortars.

i understand what you are saying.But ww2 artillery did not have the range as the later counterparts.But i do know your pain because i have played on 4x4 board and that sucked.It seems to me that recon based armies would rule on small board. I know that alot of tourneys are played on a table that size.So no wonder TDS with recon heavy elements are king.Are regular table that we play on is 15x5 and we play length wise.So almost no matter what you have to bring up your arty into range.the table also makes a more realistic game.but if you look at the Infantry aces rules you may have your co call in off board arty.
i know are group has found a few rules we did not agree with,So all we do is hold a meeting and come up with one we can agree on.like the TDs rules they suk. So what we did was made them count as recon for a etra move or allowed them to be set up in ambush.But they also get to keep their scouts.

Well the US used the same guns even in vietnam....

You are kinda right,Same caliber but different model number.THe ranges on the ww2 guns was a little less but that is because of the Ammo.

Some units need to be able to reuse flamethrower attacks. The Churchill crocodile ought to be able to make flamethrower attacks all game.

So not like a real one then?

One thing you have to realise about the old Croc is the fuel pressurisation system.

The pressure could not be maintained for very long, and crews would pressurise the system as close to use as possible as it would soon drop off.

So although it had enough fuel for 80 one second bursts, pressure could not be maintained, so it shouldnt run around flaming all the time.

Artillery range for divisional Howitzers is about 11-12 km for Allies and Germans, 6-7 km for Soviets. The Army guns were bigger, and had a longer range, about 15km. But I agree, that for company sized actions, having any artillery available is problematic. But then, FOW artillery is not really that effective. And in tournaments, you don't have the time to use it properly.

I would count rolling two 6's as a 7, and thus make some untouchable situations at least possible. (Vet, Concealed, Gone to Ground, and Long Range)

I've been thinking about this thread and finally came up with something.

Combined Assaults
If a tank platoon is within 8" of an assaulting infantry platoon, the tank platoon takes a skill check. If it fails, the tank platoon does not join the assault. If it passes, the tank platoon joins the assault and the two platoons are treated as a single platoon for the rest of the assault phase.

The defensive fire is a bit tricky and would need playtesting, i.e. do you need both 5 hits and 2 effective hits, or does one cause the relevent platoon to 'bounce'

Also no rule is complete without a special exception...'Assault guns' vehicle with the assault gun special rule automatically pass the skill check.

What do you think?

I would allow -1 to hit roll when shooting gone to ground / concealed units with smoke (small templates only). Mez

Sniper Rifle range.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
Sniper Rifle range.

This.

I've always though Snipers were way way too weak. And it was almost always due to their range. 16", Seriously???

At least they need 24".


With their current range, its far too easy to simply send a stand over and sit on them to make them go away. And even if they do start shooting they don't cause enough damage IMO.

A sniper should be something that can paralyze an entire platoon such that they need outside help to remove it before they can continue.

Maybe increase their point cost and make them 24" range. And make platoons pinned by their shots have a penalty to unpin next turn.

Snipers have 16" range if I'm reading the Sniper rules properly.

Blah, can't remember anything straight. Right, standard rifle range of 16".

Still far too short. Should be longer.

24 would be great.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
VEHICLE AND TANK DAMAGE,i would like to see if i dare say this... A 40k or Bolt action style damage chart.trracks blown off,weapon destroyed etc.

Ummm...no thanks to that one. My irish guards armoured company has close to 20 tanks in it. I have NO desire to track different damage conditions on every tank in that force. Ack...

Those systems work for 40k and Bolt Action because they have few if any armored vehicles on the table in most games. If you have a single cromwell in the battle it isn't hard to track its damage. If you have 15 that is going to be a nightmare.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


This.

I've always though Snipers were way way too weak. And it was almost always due to their range. 16", Seriously???

At least they need 24".

If you look at the sniper weapons used the in war they were all pretty much standard rifle versions just with better sights to pick out specific targets. Why should a sniper with a scoped mauser be able to hit targets further way than a unit full of mausers? The mauser still has the same range. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It isn't until the much more modern era where sniper rifles are more of an entity of their own. There were no snipers firing .50bmg rounds at targets back in Stalingrad. Snipers caused problems for units because they didn't know where the shots were coming from, and were pinned in place until they figured out where the shooter was so they could deal with it. Once they determined where the shooter was hiding it was a simple task to deal with them at that point and didn't require any extra resources outside of the unit itself. This already is effectively shown in the rules when units are hit with snipers.

I think if snipers need an improvement it should be hidden set up, where the player with the sniper has to write down their location before the game starts and then some kind of a skill check would be needed by a unit under fire from the sniper would need to be passed to actually *know* where the sniper is before they can move in on his position. Right now people can see the sniper stand and just move troops up to him to remove the model.

Skriker

I haven't played FOW, but from what I see making to hit rolls more central to the firer's [not the defender's] skill seems about right.

 sing your life wrote:
I haven't played FOW, but from what I see making to hit rolls more central to the firer's [not the defender's] skill seems about right.

Well the FOW book explains that your personal skill with a firearm isn't as important as the targets ability to avoid you.

A complete newb with a machine gun isn't appreciably less accurate than a veteran. But a newb and a veteran taking cover will be different.

Yes it's a neat mechanic - seems counter-intuitive at first, but then the more you think about it the more it makes sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
I haven't played FOW, but from what I see making to hit rolls more central to the firer's [not the defender's] skill seems about right.

Well the FOW book explains that your personal skill with a firearm isn't as important as the targets ability to avoid you.

A complete newb with a machine gun isn't appreciably less accurate than a veteran. But a newb and a veteran taking cover will be different.

Don't know about you, but I don't think eeven a serious veteran can manover a tank so much they can avoid shots...

Haha, no, of course not! Obviously at this kind of scale you have a level of abstraction.. in this case it would represent the veteran tank driver positioning his tank so it's less likely to get shot, understanding the firing pattern (range, rate of fire, turret rotation, the limits etc.) of whatever is shooting at him and handling the tank accordingly.

Note that when firing artillery, the skill test is based on the firer - obviously, with an artillery shell, it comes down to luck whether the barrage of shells land on your head or not most of the time.

A skilled tank driver will use the small dips and rises in the natural terrain to partially conceal his movements. As well as not moving in a straight line.

Even a small amount of side to side movement from the perspective of the firer is enough to throw off your aim. So there is going to be a big difference in veteran vs green recruits driving a tank.

For tanks, it is about the driver and commander directing the placement of the tank and take advantage of local cover. Dips in the fields, small rock outcroppings. Observing when the opponent shot, so they can advance during the reload. It wasn't about jinking about to avoid a shot. Remember, these tanks had to stop to shoot.

I would allow for suppressive fires, at least by artillery weapons.

"Hey boss, there's Panthers in those woods!"
"Have you seen them?"
"Well, yes, they fired a couple of times."
"Can you see them now?"
"Well, no, but we could use some of our 155s to nail the woods or something, maybe get them to come out?"
"Nope. Can't see them, they don't exist."
"But... can I get one barrage? I'll settle for the 105s...please?"