TWO QUESTIONS CREATED FROM TODAY'S GAME

[cordas]

Based on the quoted writing of it, I would guess the same thing as TOS regarding the size of the fortification.

You pointed out nicely though how broken the description is.

Then maybe I could submit that this isn't the method intendend as it would be so broken that it should never have been able to make it past play testing. I think Max size simply means thats the largest the emplacement can be, they have a given set of stats (higher than they would be if they where structures of the same size) to simply say that these are buildings intended to be shot at and built accordingly.

 

[vitalis6969]

Ok, dimmensionally then, how big is a size two building or fortification?

-V

 

[cordas]

Ok, dimmensionally then, how big is a size two building or fortification?

-V

Its something that measures 2" or less when measured from bottom corner to the top opposite corner (on its longest edge), as outlined on page 24 of the main rule book under size.

Yes this will make a tiny foxhole (or scrape), but its really just representing a guy getting out his spade and digging for a couple of minutes. Or a small line of sand bags.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Cordas, I assume you have the rule book? If not it doesn't really state anything in the description of Emplacements. BTW: Why do you believe it had been playtested?? As a former playtest of other games, I can tell you manytimes playtesters never get to test many items. Or the playtester themselves get lazy and just wing it. Also manytimes the testers are not even using the same set of rules as the office. That has happened more often than many would think. Plus manytimes they get a package to playtest but, not enough time to finish it, or the rules have already been sent to the publisher without the results of the playtest.


V brought up a great point. IF we go by your description of a foxhole being a size two model. Then it would stand to reason you would also find the hit points being 3!!! Sorry that doesn't work with emplacements. A large bunker say Size 6. To me that means I can have 6 troops in the bunker or a Chally, and a couple of troops. They do make bunkers for Tanks you know. But like I stated this is not carved in stone. The real point of the conversation is to show how weak the rules are in certain areas.

 

[cordas]

I know the rules are weak, particularly in this area, no arguement there :evil: I know it doesn't say anything about how emplacements work, apart to refer to them as fortified structures that are placed by the owning player in their deployment area. I am just trying to read them in a way that makes sense.

Why doesn't the foxhole having 3 hit points work? Thats what it is given under emplacements. It also has a target of 8+ armour of 3+ and kill of 12+ as you already pointed out. Under structures that would make it a fortified historic building.....

As for making bunkers for vehicles really..... I never would have thought they did that when I suggested using a large bunker to hide 2 Warriors in (size 6); but you could also fit upto 16 infantry (size 16) in the same space that it takes to park 2 warriors side by side. Which is it.... You place emplacements down before ANY PLAYER places any troops, or the owning player says what they are putting in the emplacement, so you have to determine its size before its used.

The only real way I can see to have emplacements work is by measuring the max size as if they where structures.... (now I expect Matt to come along and tell me I am wrong :lol: )

 

[The Old Soldier]

You may be correct Cordas. But my big problem with Emplacements are that they have a cost value attached to them, and they do nothing more than a structure could do, which is free to the player.

 

[cordas]

You may be correct Cordas. But my big problem with Emplacements are that they have a cost value attached to them, and they do nothing more than a structure could do, which is free to the player.

They have the bonus that you get to place them where you want them, and are able to deploy into them. My last 2 battles I ended up taking 3 heavy artillery strikes to make up points, I would have been far better off taking some emplacements as the board we played on didn't have huge amounts of terrain that favoured me. A couple of emplacements and I think the battle would have been very different.

I really do think that emplacements should have armour bonuses, it would make them actually usefull rather than just a points filler. I would suggest:

Foxhole - gives infantry a 6+ save
Small bunker - gives infantry a 5+ save and vehicles a +1 save bonus
Large bunker - gives infantry a 5+ save and vehicles a +2 save bonus
Fortified Military Structure - gives infantry a +2 bonus save, or a 4+ save which ever is better, and gives vehicles a +3 save bonus

 

[The Old Soldier]

I got a better idea, KISS it. All size 1 models in a emplacement gain a 4+ save. Much easier to remember. Makes PLA and MEA equal to other troops when in a emplacement. Which would be more realistic.

Still would like Emplacements defined better. Like are emplacements only for size 1 models? OR can vehicles have emplacements?

 

[Hiromoon]

Why not? The US has a FM describing how to build an "emplacement" for vehicles....

 

[vitalis6969]

Why not? The US has a FM describing how to build an "emplacement" for vehicles....

Just like the countless pictures of dug in / emplaced Iraqi tanks....

-V

 

[BuShips]

Why not? The US has a FM describing how to build an "emplacement" for vehicles....

Just like the countless pictures of dug in / emplaced Iraqi tanks....

-V

Sometimes called a hull-down position. Also sometimes called a grave. :wink:

 

[Hiromoon]

There's numerous factors. If the Iraqis were facing a comparable power (like Iran) their fortified positions would have been fine. Heck, what we were using them for was to give a little longevity to our forces in Europe against a Soviet advance.

 

[The Old Soldier]

I think we all agree that emplacements could include vehicles. I brought the question up only because it is not defined. I still thing the size is tied to the number of size points the emplacement can contain.

I believe there is no reason to give Vehicles any bonus for being in a emplacement, because it is the same for them as COVER. Man made cover that is. Infantry on the otherhand should be given the bonus I mentioned because it seperates Emplacements from civilian structures. Also you could add that enclosed emplacements negate any elevated firing position bonus.

 

[cordas]

KISS, damn why do I forget that.... argh :!:

4+ armour save across the board for infantry sounds reasonable, althought I would still be tempted to give foxholes slightly less say a 5+, afterall it has different target, kill and saves itself.

I do think that if vehicles can use emplacements (and why shouldn't they, there is plenty of examples of this being done irl) you could just give them a +2 bonus to armour saves (they can't fit in fox holes).

I have already said my peice about how I think max size works, and how it can't be number of models, if you think it does work then just explain it in a way that makes sense with examples Grud alone knows the number times what has seemed blatently obvious to me as right has been wrong :evil:

 

[The Old Soldier]

4+ armor to size one models then!

I'd leave them all the same not only to be simplistic, but because Fox holes and open top emplacements have a drawback any way. They are subject to Elevated Firing Positions. aka. Air Power.

To KISS the idea again you could make foxholes available to vehicle of all sizes. Each foxhole fits one vehicle of your choice. The are not really foxholes, but dirt emplacements. The only benefit they give is normal cover. Since there is no special rules in the game for Hull Down vehicles.

All other emplacements are close top. They negate the Elevated Firing Position rule (stops Air Power from gaining a bonus.)

Just some ideas to bounce around.

 

[cordas]

We don't have open top and enclosed emplacements.... I would agree that foxholes are open topped, but think the rest should be counted as enclosed (the different target, kill and saves are due to the additional strengh due to having a roof.)

Sorry to bang on about the size issue, but we really need to get this pinned down 1st.

 

[The Old Soldier]

We don't have open top and enclosed emplacements.... I would agree that foxholes are open topped, but think the rest should be counted as enclosed (the different target, kill and saves are due to the additional strengh due to having a roof.)

Sorry to bang on about the size issue, but we really need to get this pinned down 1st.

I do consider all emplacement except Foxholes Closed in. As for the size thing, I don't really care per say (In other words I'll have the gang at EVO make man law and go with thier verdict.). I doubt MP will ever get off thier arse and answer the question anyhow. I think they like it vague. :wink:

 

[cordas]

I have posted in the rulesmaster forum and await with non held breath an answer regarding the issue of max size

 

[jdrew]

IF we ever get an answer to this: could someone post the reply.

thanks