Problems with Tank guns.

[PilGrim]

Or maybe some of us honestly don't think it's a problem that needs fixing?

possibly, and this is going to sound a bit snide, please believe I don't intend it to be, but do you think the idea of an infantryman somehow stopping a main gun round from a 120 or 125, or preventing the tank seeing a vehicle behind an infantryman is actually in any way reasonable?

The MV of some of these rounds is astronomical, and any resemblence to a human being after a hit is purely coincidental, as would be any deviation in the path of the round. In Gulf 2 a 120 DU APFSDS went through one T72 and killed a second behind it, and similarly the M1s had no problems shooting through 5 foot earthen berms to get kills on tanks behind them. Saddam should have put a screen of infantry out front, and we would still be there today :wink:

Yes, there is usually no problem moving the fire zone to achieve the desired aim, but I am a bit put off by the idea that to hit a target I should concentrate my fire somewhere else. It seems contra intuative. Am I alone in this? :?:

 

[Templar]

Honestly, you can use cheese to counter cheese.

Ie, you get to designate the firezone, provided you have LOS. So, pick a point about 5.5 inches behind the shadow and slightly left or right (so you can see to the point). When designating the first dice (ie, the main gun) it woudl then go to the front of the firezone, hitting that shadow that just so happens to be at the very front of the zone of precious fire.

I am sure that lone infantry man would be suprised by the impending explosion behind him to never try that tactic again.

 

[PilGrim]

Honestly, you can use cheese to counter cheese./quote]

Yes you can, but aren't we back with Cordas and his point, why not actually fix the problem (assuming you think there is one) rather than try and work around it?

 

[Templar]

Honestly, you can use cheese to counter cheese./quote]

Yes you can, but aren't we back with Cordas and his point, why not actually fix the problem (assuming you think there is one) rather than try and work around it?

I agree, but we also don't have the advance rules yet. For all intensive purposes, perhaps you can separate out the way shots are allocated with the machine guns prior to the main gun, etc. I mean, what we currently have right now are a grand total of 13 or so released cards, and a 2 paged double sided rules sheet. I think we can speculate all day long, but until we all have pretty books, and have all read them, we don't know what we can do in the end.

 

[PilGrim]

Fair point

 

[cordas]

There are enough people who post on these forums (some indeed have posted multipul times on this thread) who own copies of the rule book that if this was addressed in the rules then it would have been cleared up already by someone telling us what the main rule book said.

Designating FZs elsewhere to make sure that the size 2 vehicle is at the front is all very well in theory, but it often doesn't work on the battle field when terrain is being used. Also you might credit the player who is going to use this tactic with enough common sense to try and position his S2V and infantry in such a way that it will be impossible to designate the FZ in a place where the closest model is the S2V. As you can premeasure at anytime in the game this is possible.....

Again I am brought back to what my gran used to say, soonest mended least said. All these suggestions about cheesy placing of infantry to screening to shield S2Vs, and cheesy placing of FZs and all the arguements and bitter feelings this could cause (without creating a simple house rule which is what 1 of the gamers I game with has already agreed to) are just pointless.

Can anyone give me a valid reason why a RPG should be able to target a S2V and why a tank gunner can't? Apart from what it says on the rules cards. Joe Pesci knows there have been rules in most games that I (or someone I game with) has disagreed with, but usualy once the "why" the rule has been made has been figured out it becomes a lot easier to live with, the only "why" I can think of at the moment is that its a mistake from the playtest that didn't get corrected.

 

[Mr Evil]

a song comes to ming

"lets go round again"

or

"dizzy my head is spinning, like a wirl pool it never ends"

 

[Mr Evil]

pssstttt

guy with a rpg can traverse his body 180 degrees faster than a tank can turn its turret the battle feild is a moving organic creature.

 

[cordas]

pssstttt

guy with a rpg can traverse his body 180 degrees faster than a tank can turn its turret the battle feild is a moving organic creature.

So how does that affect anything... where is the rule about how far a turrent can traverse to shoot? How can a turret traverse fast enough to target a size 3 vehicle but not a size 2?

I know the feeling of repeating myself, it seems people insist on repeating the same rubbish arguements, maybe thinking the big lie works...

 

[Mr Evil]

you were asking for why in real world you may be able to but not in game so i gave a real world example why that maynot be possable.

then you ask how doese that effect game when their are no referance to how far you can turn a game tank turret......

reason in game terms is the rules say so, the reason in real world is tank turrets traverse to slowly.

 

[Xorrandor]

Can anyone give me a valid reason why a RPG should be able to target a S2V and why a tank gunner can't? Apart from what it says on the rules cards. Joe Pesci knows there have been rules in most games that I (or someone I game with) has disagreed with, but usualy once the "why" the rule has been made has been figured out it becomes a lot easier to live with, the only "why" I can think of at the moment is that its a mistake from the playtest that didn't get corrected.

Well, if Hiromoon's cards are correct, RPGs can't target a Shadow: only Kornets and PF-89s can . But I actually understand the question you're asking, so put the pointy object down.

Given that the 3 appears in more places than the 2, if I were going to call typographer error, I would say the 3 is correct and the 2 is wrong. But, we also see that all vehicles use the size 3 limit and all infantry use the size 2 limit, so that might have something to do with it. Perhaps Mr Evil is correct, and it's a traverse speed argument: size 2 vehicles are moving too fast for a tank gun to track, but a person can compensate better. It wouldn't hold at long range, but at the knife-fight ranges we use in this game it might be true. And again, size 2 vehicles tend to be longer than size 1 infantry, but no taller: we don't allow tank guns to fire through multiple infantry models (in a line; I'll treat the blast damage as separate here), so why are we so keen to allow them to fire through infantry models at other things?

So, no great reasons here, but I also don't see any great reasons to change it either. Since I believe playtesters can't comment (although I have heard occasional "You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment"'s around, which would be helpful. Hint, hint.), someone at Mongoose could confirm that no typos were produced in the printing of these cards...

 

[emperorpenguin]

someone at Mongoose could confirm that no typos were produced in the printing of these cards...

well given that the armour says CHOBAM instead of CHOBHAM we know there's one typo!

 

[PilGrim]

The traversing argument is b*llocks Evil (pardon my English) as no one said the target is even moving, and, just look at how fast a modern MBT can traverse 360 while staying on target, then stand in your living room, hold a cardboard tube to your eye and turn 360 while trying to hold the tube steady on target.

Now pick yourself up from the floor and THINK before posting some inane **********.

OK - sorry for that.

I'm the one criticising Evil for inane posts but I'm suggesting he holds a cardboard tube and pirouettes :lol:

Cordas has a point I think, so unless there is a big secret out there, and we will all know next week if the website is correct, this is just a typo or a cock up. It's hardly a crime.

 

[Mr Evil]

The traversing argument is b*llocks Evil (pardon my English) as no one said the target is even moving, and, just look at how fast a modern MBT can traverse 360 while staying on target, then stand in your living room, hold a cardboard tube to your eye and turn 360 while trying to hold the tube steady on target.

Now pick yourself up from the floor and THINK before posting some inane **********.

OK - sorry for that.

I'm the one criticising Evil for inane posts but I'm suggesting he holds a cardboard tube and pirouettes :lol:

Cordas has a point I think, so unless there is a big secret out there, and we will all know next week if the website is correct, this is just a typo or a cock up. It's hardly a crime.

i only thought of the answer after watching a rerun of the clarson thing when they said the mobility of the 4x4 made it hard to get a lock on and a hit with the main tank gun, due to speed of traverse, so was thinking of a real world example.



also as a matter of fact bradleys are used to take out mobile vehicles such as technicals whilst the main gun on a M1A2 will be for removing infantry from buildings if no heavy targets are vailable.

a man in the open can track a moving vehicle alot better than a man in a turret with all hatches down as well.

again real world stuff.

but no matter what like ive said this situation hasnt apeared in a single game we have played yet seems to be more theory than a common practicle problem some one is exsperiancing.

 

[cordas]

If they wanted it to be because it was hard / harder to track a S2V when the S2V was moving fast, why have it as a blanket rule that applies to vehicle at all times.... even when its standing still. Why not use I dunno a rule like agile?

Agile: If the Fast Attack Vehicle moves more than 8” in a turn, it will gain a
+1 bonus to its Target and Kill scores until the start of its next turn.

That quite clearly says this is a nippy little vehicle and has a better chance of being able to avoid a tank gun (or Anti Tank infantry) fire... It makes sense and only applies when the vehicle is moving fast.

In the excellent Top Gear video you have to bear in mind that the vehicle being used was one of the best off roaders going, also there was no way that had Clarckson had a CKEM strapped to the roof that he could have got a target lock on the tank with it and been able to shoot back at the tank.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Just a little FYI for you guys that have not used man portable rocket launcher such as a RPG or a LAW.

It is extremely difficult to hit a moving target with such a weapon, that is why when infantry fire on say a tank, they fire in teams. Each man calling out his sightings so the next guy can make a correction if the 1st one missed. I have seen 3 and 4 men having to work over a tank, to get a disable shot in, then follow it up with the kill shot.

That is why many use such weapons at fairly close distances. The game doesn't take in account these short distances.

Has anyone asked MP directly why they choose to use the limit of size 3 for the main gun on a tank? I'm betting it was done to keep the tank from dominating the battlefield anymore than it does. As for the infantry blocking LOS, it does sound silly, but with the breakpoint system the way it is, would anyone want to keep sacrificing thier troops? I think it is most likely just a game mechanic.

 

[cordas]

I have asked Msprange.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Or maybe some of us honestly don't think it's a problem that needs fixing?

possibly, and this is going to sound a bit snide, please believe I don't intend it to be, but do you think the idea of an infantryman somehow stopping a main gun round from a 120 or 125, or preventing the tank seeing a vehicle behind an infantryman is actually in any way reasonable?

-snip-

Yes, there is usually no problem moving the fire zone to achieve the desired aim, but I am a bit put off by the idea that to hit a target I should concentrate my fire somewhere else. It seems contra intuative. Am I alone in this? :?:

I think it's a holdover from the way direct fire works in most other wargames - in games like 40K or whatever you fire specifically at models. In the EVO system you're saturating an area with fire, but you're concentrating your fire at the leading edge of the fire zone, not the centre. If you setup a FZ with a squad at the front and a light vehicle further back then the target you're concentrating your fire at is the infantry.

To put it another way, if a tank was firing at a light vehicle, would it also have the time to sweep the coax machine gun over a squad of troops nearer to it?

 

[MongooseMatt]

someone at Mongoose could confirm that no typos were produced in the printing of these cards...

There are no typos on this rule.

 

[cordas]

I think it's a holdover from the way direct fire works in most other wargames - in games like 40K or whatever you fire specifically at models. In the EVO system you're saturating an area with fire, but you're concentrating your fire at the leading edge of the fire zone, not the centre. If you setup a FZ with a squad at the front and a light vehicle further back then the target you're concentrating your fire at is the infantry.

To put it another way, if a tank was firing at a light vehicle, would it also have the time to sweep the coax machine gun over a squad of troops nearer to it?

I understand the difference in fire systems, going from direct fire to saturation fire. I just don't understand why a tank can't pick out a S2V for direct fire...

As for the coax MG raking fire, if it wasn't meant to have raking fire when firing with the main gun MGP should have given it a condensed FZ when being shot along with the main gun.