Problems with Tank guns.

[cordas]

All Tank guns say they can pick out size 3 or larger targets in the FZ, this means they can't pick technicals or Shadows out from infantry...

Is it just me or does this seem wrong, yes I undewrstand about the size thing, but surely tank gunners should be able to say I want to shoot that Shadow with my main gun, and not the infantry stood around it... Shadows aren't small enough to hide behind infantry.

 

[soulman]

Maybe the reason is that anything under size 3 is small and fast moving, hitting a tank is easy, but a fast moving, low profile one is not..

Just my take on things, without reading up on it
Alan

 

[cordas]

Maybe the reason is that anything under size 3 is small and fast moving, hitting a tank is easy, but a fast moving, low profile one is not..

Just my take on things, without reading up on it
Alan

Errr, then shouldn't the fast moving vehicles get a bonus to target and kill... like the FAV do with agile if they move over 8"...

This cropped up in a game where infantry dismounted from a shadow and advanced in front of it. (Well it actually cropped up after the game when I was reading the card and noticed, but my opponent wasn't bothered enough to refight the game.)

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

simple solution - place the centre of your fire zone so the shadow is on the edge of it

 

[Mr Evil]

simple solution - place the centre of your fire zone so the shadow is on the edge of it

exactly what i was gonna sugest.

alternitivly first action spray them with machine guns then second action move into cover or fire main gun at shadow that in theory we hope no longer has infantry around it.

 

[Paladin]

simple solution - place the centre of your fire zone so the shadow is on the edge of it

exactly what i was gonna sugest.

alternitivly first action spray them with machine guns then second action move into cover or fire main gun at shadow that in theory we hope no longer has infantry around it.

Exactly.

 

[Xorrandor]

I don't have a huge problem with the rules as written. Yeah, Shadows are bigger than soldiers, but they aren't taller than soldiers. So you're talking horizontal accuracy measured in (real, not scale) feet at the most. If you could reliably shoot that accurately, we wouldn't roll dice for attacks.

Ideally you might assign targets randomly or something, with more weight given to size 2 targets. But that starts to bog down what is now a fast system. The existing rules are simple, and wherever you put the cutoff someone is going to complain. Can you imagine the annoyance if you could screen an Abrams with Technicals?

 

[cordas]

simple solution - place the centre of your fire zone so the shadow is on the edge of it

exactly what i was gonna sugest.

alternitivly first action spray them with machine guns then second action move into cover or fire main gun at shadow that in theory we hope no longer has infantry around it.

That assumes you have enough actions to do that.... Not always the case. SOme tanks have a slight advantage as they can create seperate FZs with some MGs, I suppose they just say I am declaring firing and using different FZs, and roll the MG ones 1st. Then fire your main gun.

As for placing the FZ so it only catches the Shadow, again its nice if you can, but as models block LOS that might be very difficult, in the game we had yesterday that was impossible because the shadow was hull down behind a hill, so getting LOS behind it was impossible.

I hadn't considered what Xorrandor said about if it was size 2, using Shadows or Favs as ablative armour, but then reading the rule that wouldn't work. If the rule was just changed from saying

If a model of Size 3 or greater is within the Fire Zone, you may opt to roll this weapon’s Damage Dice against that model, rather than allocate normally.

to If a model of Size 2, or ...............
it wouldn't make that much of a difference, it would just stop infantry from being ablative shields to size 2 vehicles which I personally feel is wrong. Especaily for the USMC and EFTF which should both still have a huge fear of getting body bags delivered home, you could make a case for the MEA and possibly the PLA using this as a tactic....

 

[katadder]

i think you should be able to pick anything out that is bigger than whats around it.
so if its size 2 amongst size 1s then you can pick it out, same as a size 3 amongst size 1 or 2s.

if infantry are advancing with a vehicle behind them then someone with an RPG or a tanks main gun will shoot the vehicle, you can see it there quite easily and infantry are not going to get in the way of a shot like that or even shield the vehicle.

 

[Xorrandor]

if infantry are advancing with a vehicle behind them then someone with an RPG or a tanks main gun will shoot the vehicle, you can see it there quite easily and infantry are not going to get in the way of a shot like that or even shield the vehicle.

Try standing six guys in front of a pickup truck (or Hummer if you've got one available). How much of the truck is visible? Getting a clean shot on a small vehicle through people is non-trivial. Granted, you'll blow through the poor guy who is standing in front of your target, but my assumption is that shaped charges and such are disrupted by going off six feet early and inside a person instead of on a slab of armor.

i think you should be able to pick anything out that is bigger than whats around it.
so if its size 2 amongst size 1s then you can pick it out, same as a size 3 amongst size 1 or 2s.

Not a bad idea in general, but why confine it to tank guns then? Surely a rifleman has finer control of his weapon than a tank gunner does; why can't they choose their targets? I think the IRL answer is that weapons fire isn't that controlled unless you are dealing with a setup ambush or sniper, but I could easily be wrong on this point.

...it would just stop infantry from being ablative shields to size 2 vehicles which I personally feel is wrong.

How do patrols work IRL? Do you send a Hummer out on point, or a squad? Honest question, since I'm not at all sure of the answer, but I would guess you send the infantry out first. Not because they're meat shields, but because they can see and hear things you can't inside a vehicle. If the rules create real situations, even if it's by accident, I'm leery of changing them.

 

[The Old Soldier]

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. :lol:

 

[Mr Evil]

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. :lol:

Ditto

 

[cordas]

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. :lol:

but I think it is broke....

Given how loath both the Brits and the US is to see body bags coming back from Iraq and Afganistan, I find it rather bizarre that commanders can send their boys out to work as ablative armour for Shadows and other size 2 vehicles. Which is a valid tactic in the game, for the USMC at the moment its actually a damn good tactic to use against tanks as it protects the tank killing transport, rather than the transport protecting them which I thought was part of the idea of them, as well as the quicker movement.

Xorrander correctly states that in urban situations your guys are better off out on foot than in soft skinned transports such as Shadows. The reason why they are better off on foot I would imagine is that they can take advantage of getting out of the line of fire and into buildings and other cover IRL, in game terms it means they don't run the risk of dying when the vehicle gets blown up (also a factor IRL I am sure). Even the Russians in WW2 didn't send men out in front of the tanks or other vehicles for the direct purpose of being meat shields, even thou they sent men to die in their tens to hundreds of thousands pointlessly.

If the size mod for tank guns was shifted for 2. I would say if you nominated to shoot a shadow, it would be able to gain obscurement if there where troops between the tank and the shadow, also if you missed the shadow then the shot would be wasted the way it is now.

 

[vitalis6969]

I think Cordas has it spot on... In a real life situation, some meat shields aren't going to do much against a fin stabalized depleted uranium round smacking in or a Brit HESH round.

The main gun optics on a tank wont be fooled into not seeing a hummer/shadow either just because there is a squad in front of it. Hell, I think infantry should have to make a "Holy Crap" test if a main gun is pointed at them and go to ground if they fail, thus removing the cover anyway.

Russian tactics was to have the infantry FOLLOW the armor because it worked. If a meat shield were really viable they would have trained a bunch of gymnasts to form human pyramids in front of their tanks.. :lol:

-V

 

[The Old Soldier]

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. :lol:

but I think it is broke....

Given how loath both the Brits and the US is to see body bags coming back from Iraq and Afganistan, I find it rather bizarre that commanders can send their boys out to work as ablative armour for Shadows and other size 2 vehicles. Which is a valid tactic in the game, for the USMC at the moment its actually a damn good tactic to use against tanks as it protects the tank killing transport, rather than the transport protecting them which I thought was part of the idea of them, as well as the quicker movement.

Xorrander correctly states that in urban situations your guys are better off out on foot than in soft skinned transports such as Shadows. The reason why they are better off on foot I would imagine is that they can take advantage of getting out of the line of fire and into buildings and other cover IRL, in game terms it means they don't run the risk of dying when the vehicle gets blown up (also a factor IRL I am sure). Even the Russians in WW2 didn't send men out in front of the tanks or other vehicles for the direct purpose of being meat shields, even thou they sent men to die in their tens to hundreds of thousands pointlessly.

If the size mod for tank guns was shifted for 2. I would say if you nominated to shoot a shadow, it would be able to gain obscurement if there where troops between the tank and the shadow, also if you missed the shadow then the shot would be wasted the way it is now.

It's a game mechanic not a political statement.

But, I do understand your meaning. You wish you could direct tank fire at at units of size 2 without penality due to FZ rules. I'm sure there is a reason MP decided on size 3 being the magic number. Maybe you should ask them directly with a PM on their reasons. It would be nice if they did have a designer Q&A for such questions. Like the reason why the MG on the tech can't be fired while loaded, but 4 men riding in the back can! I'm sure it is game mechanic reasoning, but like you, I have no idea what it is!?!

That said, I refuse to play tourney style game. They have no creativity to them IMO. You could go ahead and lower the number. I know if you and I were playing a game, I would allow you to, if you wished.

 

[Mr Evil]

thing is its done on break point not points so killing a troop for definate compared to possably killing a tank will make a diferance between winning a game.

its a game first and a simulation 795th

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Using your troops as "meat shields" for your vehicles isn't really a good idea in most cases, due to the Shattered rule used in most games. Losing three or four infantry models hurts you a lot more than a single transport in terms of reaching the Shatter point. now, MAYBE there is a situation where you would find it to be useful. (ie your opponent is using all tanks and you need the Shadow's CKEM to have any chance of Shattering your opponent, but in general that is not the case.

As for having trouble targeting a technical, see the Land Rover vs. Challenger Top Gear video.

 

[Xorrandor]

In a real life situation, some meat shields aren't going to do much against a fin stabalized depleted uranium round smacking in or a Brit HESH round.

As I say, I'm not sure this is true. No, a soldier isn't going to survive the attack, and some of the blast will probably get through to the target. But, the balance of forces that goes into a shaped charge will also be disrupted, and that's what's necessary to get through decent armor. I'd have to see data to be sure either way.

Russian tactics was to have the infantry FOLLOW the armor because it worked.

Oh, I don't have a problem with infantry following armor. I agree, that works (in many situations). We're talking about infantry following jeeps here. I'm guessing that this is a little less common. Although if anyone has contrary data, I'd be glad to hear it.

Convoy defense seems like a good place to keep everyone mounted up, for instance, but even there I'd imagine a blockade in the road results in soldiers piling out and moving out ahead of their transport. Not to heroically throw themselves in the way of any enemy RPGs, but because they can see, hear, move and react better than the transports. And lo, that's what happens in the game too.

Given how loath both the Brits and the US is to see body bags coming back from Iraq and Afganistan, I find it rather bizarre that commanders can send their boys out to work as ablative armour for Shadows and other size 2 vehicles.

That's 85 (?) points of ablative armor for a 70 point Shadow. I'd say the costs are not as disparate as you think. I think more pertinent problems to address would be a) get the Marines some AT missiles already, and b) get out of the "kill the tank and win" mode. I have a real problem with b, especially, but if someone has sunk half their points into a tank, you might be better off just bypassing the thing and going for the shatter limit.

 

[DM]

But, the balance of forces that goes into a shaped charge will also be disrupted,

Unlikely (in my experience)

 

[vitalis6969]

As I say, I'm not sure this is true. No, a soldier isn't going to survive the attack, and some of the blast will probably get through to the target. But, the balance of forces that goes into a shaped charge will also be disrupted, and that's what's necessary to get through decent armor. I'd have to see data to be sure either way.

Im not even sure a human body would set off a hesh round. And a sabot would wizz right through with enough energy to pulverise a light armored vehicle like a shadow/hummer.

Oh, I don't have a problem with infantry following armor. I agree, that works (in many situations). We're talking about infantry following jeeps here. I'm guessing that this is a little less common. Although if anyone has contrary data, I'd be glad to hear it.

Check out the deployment doctrine of the strykers. They are urban support vehicles. They support the detachment of troops that they carry. Unless moving at speed the troops are dismounted for a combat op and that still doesn't prevent the strykers from getting RPGd into kingdom come. And if a tank is what is shooting at the vehicle, inside said vehicle is the LAST place the infantry are going to want to be.

Convoy defense seems like a good place to keep everyone mounted up, for instance, but even there I'd imagine a blockade in the road results in soldiers piling out and moving out ahead of their transport. Not to heroically throw themselves in the way of any enemy RPGs, but because they can see, hear, move and react better than the transports. And lo, that's what happens in the game too.

Yes, the soldiers in doctrine move around the vehicle, they are better eyes and ears. BUT, they absolutely do not block LOS to a vehicle or prevent something like the main gun on a tank from reducing it to cinders.

-V