|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 31, 2016 11:11:08 GMT
One rule I was advocating before AD went belly-up was to allow artillery to fire directly at targets as well as fire barrages. The rules are unclear as to whether this is possible, although the Anti-Tripod Gun sort of has this ability. Basically, my version would allow artillery to fire barrages from range 15" out to it's stated maximum range. But at ranges of 30" or less (and mandatory under 15") the guns of the battery could fire directly at a target. In this case each gun just rolls to hit and damage as normal and the barrage template is not used.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 31, 2016 11:22:39 GMT
Makes absolute sense to me. I'm sure the same would apply to mortars btw. We trained in Nam to do 'direct' fire by removing all of the powder bags from and round and dropping it basically straight up (slight angle) - the round was propelled by only the 12 gauge shotgun shell inside (which would normally set of the powderbags for range) and could literally be seen going up & coming down. Of coarse, we stayed behind trench as the round would explode right in front of us, hitting any advancing infantry like an oversized grenade. It was an errie thing to hear the shards of metal flying over our heads. It wasn't hard to imagine what being on the recieving end a barrage of mortar shells was like. Even when you'd been through a few already, it was a very vivid and longterm memory.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Mar 31, 2016 12:00:00 GMT
I would absolutely concur with the direct fire option. It has been part of the repertoire for artillerists since the beginning of gunpowder weaponry. In fact, it was the first fire tactic used. Roundshot, grapeshot, and canister were all direct fire projectiles.
It should be officially recognized and authorized.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 31, 2016 12:11:41 GMT
here, here! "as it is written, so be it done".
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Mar 31, 2016 13:03:03 GMT
Makes complete sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 31, 2016 14:37:18 GMT
The only thing that I worry about with this change is the point values for the guns since this does make them more powerful.
|
|
|
Post by David N.Tanner 07011959 on Mar 31, 2016 15:14:34 GMT
The only thing that I worry about with this change is the point values for the guns since this does make them more powerful. I don't agree Scott. I think limiting the direct fire range to 15" keeps them effective but fragile. I don't think gunners like shooting over open sites, they just do it when they have to.
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on Mar 31, 2016 15:40:55 GMT
I dunno. I like the concept but field gun battery is pretty cheap with this ability compared to 3 mark II tanks.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 31, 2016 16:31:29 GMT
The only thing that I worry about with this change is the point values for the guns since this does make them more powerful. I don't agree Scott. I think limiting the direct fire range to 15" keeps them effective but fragile. I don't think gunners like shooting over open sites, they just do it when they have to. Actually, I advocated allowing it at 30" and requiring at under 15".
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Mar 31, 2016 17:22:48 GMT
I dunno. I like the concept but field gun battery is pretty cheap with this ability compared to 3 mark II tanks. Yes, but the battery is kind of a "staked goat" compared with the inherent mobility and flexibility of the tanks. Short range fire, over open sights, is a more or less desperation measure for most artillerymen -- unless it is the opening round from ambush as anti-tank guns are wont to do. But even then, it had better be really effective, else the survivors will be quite irate about the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Apr 1, 2016 10:22:59 GMT
Hmmm, well I see the point about the 'points', but I lean towards the arguement that its a desperate measure rather than a planned one. It really makes sense and makes the artillery a more effective thing, especially as a oneshot antitripod weapon. At 30" everything comes down to good rolls and the tripod thats not messed up will 'eat' the open artillery and even most tanks units. The flexiablity of tanks is movement and armor vs the static nature of artillery. This also points to the turreted artillery being the most effective use of the guns with its Armor 10 stat. I'm not sure, after just rereading the Barrage rules, that we need do anything about this. The effects of a barrage even at close range (ei under 30") isn't diminished by the reduced range in the least and the effect of the shot is the same across any range of the battlefield. The ATg just has a more effective non-barrage round - but, it doesn't get the nice 'splash' effect. So, I declaring this a non-issue (sorry Scott) as a gun/howitzer used at close range, doesn't change anything in regards to its effectiveness and though we can visualize the harried crew firing over open sights, the gun/howitzer is just as effective or not in these cases. This makes the use of gun turrets, with armor 10, the most effective placement of artillery as it gives them the best protection and arc of fire flexiability. Whilst I have your attention, I want it noted that both the clamper and tesla tanks have a hull HMG turret! I've made corrections to the appropriate vehicles in the LRB.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Apr 1, 2016 11:39:13 GMT
Morgan, the thing that makes the artillery potentially more effective firing individually is that a battery of three guns will get three separate hit rolls and three separate damage rolls. A battery firing a barrage will get a template which, if the Martian player is careful, will only get one or perhaps two tripods under it. A single hit/damage roll is made for each target. The multiple shots of direct fire will have a higher chance of doing damage.
Well, or maybe not
I forgot about the combining strength ratings with a barrage. So I don't know. This needs some study by a statistician
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on Apr 1, 2016 12:19:10 GMT
Morgan, the thing that makes the artillery potentially more effective firing individually is that a battery of three guns will get three separate hit rolls and three separate damage rolls. A battery firing a barrage will get a template which, if the Martian player is careful, will only get one or perhaps two tripods under it. A single hit/damage roll is made for each target. The multiple shots of direct fire will have a higher chance of doing damage. The artillery rules need an overhaul. I would prefer the FOW method of a standard template and ability to hit modified by number of guns firing.
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on Apr 1, 2016 12:21:32 GMT
I dunno. I like the concept but field gun battery is pretty cheap with this ability compared to 3 mark II tanks. Yes, but the battery is kind of a "staked goat" compared with the inherent mobility and flexibility of the tanks. Short range fire, over open sights, is a more or less desperation measure for most artillerymen -- unless it is the opening round from ambush as anti-tank guns are wont to do. But even then, it had better be really effective, else the survivors will be quite irate about the whole thing. Long range is a mobility all its own. But I agree with your underlying premise.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Apr 1, 2016 13:05:19 GMT
Yes, but the battery is kind of a "staked goat" compared with the inherent mobility and flexibility of the tanks. Short range fire, over open sights, is a more or less desperation measure for most artillerymen -- unless it is the opening round from ambush as anti-tank guns are wont to do. But even then, it had better be really effective, else the survivors will be quite irate about the whole thing. Long range is a mobility all its own. But I agree with your underlying premise. You are absolutely correct: the long reach of artillery does confer a "virtual mobility" to concentrate its attack on the battlefield...as long there is no terrain or structure blocking the line of sight. Comprehensive spotter coverage can negate that problem, if the technology level permits remote spotting (scenario dependent). Once an opponent identifies the location of batteries, he can ascertain dead ground or cover and change his line of advance or area of attack appropriately. Tanks or mobile artillery may be able to react to this better than fixed batteries and might be better able to cover losses due to combat. Note all the "mays," "mights," and "coulds." Many uncertainties surround the "right choice."
|
|