|
|
Post by madmorgan on Apr 14, 2016 10:48:32 GMT
In the process of working on the Living Rulebook, loyalist has come across a blatant problem with the AQ universe. I've been so 'dug in' on rules lately that I missed what he saw and its obivious this should be thrown out to the general forum to see what we all think. There's been a lot of good changes and options explored here - perhaps its time to really move on to a more logical set of rules.
As loyalist pointed out, the fire from a MkIIMA is strange - the howitzer is listed as a 6" but the stat on the howitzer are those of a standard FA 3"/75mm gun ei: Rng 60" +3 Pow Bar 1. Thus far this has shown to be unfair and illogical. Except for the ideas of ADs gameplay, the logical range/power/barrage should be as for the HFG, 6" model ei: Rng 150" +4 Pow Bar3 Spec: Bombardment. It could be argued that the FA battery should have bombardment also as the standard table arrangement (4x6' long edge) puts the 60" range offtable on a 48" playing field. Though I play 'narrow' tables as well (6'x4' narrow edge), it makes sense that anything with range over 48" should have bombardment.
A quick survey of the various weapons and notes are in order to facilitate the discussion.
All the Tank guns have 30" range - supposed due to sight limitations. This is acceptable given the nature of optics and the tanks of the period.
3" has a +1 Power;
4" has a +2 Power;
5" has a +3 Power.
At the 7" we get the first range increase of 40" with a +4 Power.
Note in the summery page 51, the 8" has 60" range and a +5 Power.
The FA battery of 3" show a Range of 60" +3Power Barrage 1.
The HFG battery of "typically five or six inch calibre" guns have a Range 150" +4Power Barrage 3 Special: Bombardment. The later due to going off table thus allowing a special pregame shot. No reason is given for the FA not having this same ability. I do note that the Bombardment rule specifics 'any single unit in reserve' off table. Just more nitpicking but it definately says ' in reserve', not any or reinforcements, etc. Perhaps just a poor choice of words.
Finally, there is the 3.5" AT gun with its Range 30" +3/+4Power Barrage 1 Special: AT shell. As it suffers the same towing restrictions as the HFG, it seem apparent to me that the AT gun is a more stopgap measure - but, cost wise a waste as its more expensive than the same number of HFGs ei. (3) ATgun cost 240pts vs (3) independent firing HFG at 160pts.
The mobile battery becomes more confusing as follows:
The Holt MA has a 'light howitzer' with Range 60" +2Power Barrage 1. (again no bombardment)
The MkIIMA has a 6" howitzer with Range 60" +3Power Barrage1. (again no bombardment)
The Heavy Artillery claims the guns are off ships and larger calibre with a Range 150" +4Power Barrage 3 Special: Bombardment. Of particular note is the wording of the Bombardment rules for both this and the HFG is "if sufficent to reach the table edge" - in other words, I suppose that there were tables envisioned to be wider (or longer?) than 12.5 feet for the game.
I've left the Tesla out for obivious reasons.
All of the above leads to some serious questions regarding the various guns and howitzer making up the artillery and mobile artillery units. At first glance it appears that all the artillery are upranged tank guns. More of a game rule vs any real study of the power of the artillery. The 3" artillery FA guns have the double the range and same power and barrage as the 5" tank gun. The HFB has two and a half better range, only one better power, and three times the barrage of the FA guns with the added bombardment special. The Holt seems to be an upranged version of a 4" gun. The 6" MkIIMA seems to be exactly like the 3" FA gun. Perhaps for our Living Rulebook we should realign the artillery to be more 'realistic' within the gameplay and in effect the humans come out much better for this. When working on a system for my Ships thread I came up with a very simplistic chart of ranges for all calibre of shipborne guns up to the huge 18". This was not a particularly logical progression as I basically added 10" to each range for calibre, based on the 6" having a 150" range from the rulebook. A more valid system might of been to have it based on inch x 3 = range, thus the 5" gun would have the 150" mentioned and a 6" gun would have a 180" range, etc. So, do we maintain the tank range at 30" (seems fair) and extend the range for the artillery arm??
Does this warrent a change from the rulebook values??? What about the inverse - the FA/3" should be a +1Power as is the 3" tank gun??I submit it does and should be considered seriously as a major change to our Living Rulebook. Comments and discussion is required so we can come to a consistent version of the gameplay ranges and values. I'll put my two cents in as the discussions comes about.
|
|
|
|
Post by billf on Apr 14, 2016 14:16:22 GMT
Ernie once said the mobile artillery stats are the way they are because they are not as powerful as the HFG which is a bigger gun physically.
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Apr 14, 2016 14:32:10 GMT
I suggested something similar in that the Mobile Artillery guns had shorter range because of their much shorter barrels, but should have had +4 power. It would have made more sense from a modeling viewpoint to put the medium field guns, which have identical gun stats, on the mobile steamers.
The smaller gun would have fit better. The tubby 6" howitzer looks rather silly on the mobile artillery steamers; the gun compartment is so small there isn't even enough room to open its breech.
That's why I'm going to install spare FoW 75mm field guns in the steamers, which will keep the stats in the rule book, and transfer the 6" guns and shields to 28mm carriages from the Ironclad Miniatures Faraday Electric Gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Apr 14, 2016 17:16:04 GMT
Excellent analysis, Madmorgan. Here are some thoughts. I'll probably have more as the discussion progresses. 
1. From the beginning I questioned naming the field guns as howitzers. My understanding is the defining characteristic of a howitzer is its ability to use high angle fire. I don't recall that being a characteristic of the French 75s or field guns based on the 75. I think the field gun weapon should be "field gun" or "cannon", thus taking it out of the howitzer controversy, which means no bombardment for the field gun.
2. As you point out, the book clearly says the 3" tank gun was a modification of the field gun. Therefore they should have the same power. I agree it should be +1. I can accept the tank gun range being shorter than the field gun as it was presumably shortened to fit in the tank. (You suggest the artillery is upgraded tank guns. I'm suggesting it is the other way, tank guns are modified artillery. In large part that is an argument based on the existence of the artillery before tanks were built.)
3. For howitzers that leaves the light howitzer on the Holt Mobile Artillery (60" +2), the howitzer on the Mk II Mobile Artillery Steamer (60" +3), and the heavy howitzers for the heavy field gun and heavy artillery (150" +4). For this the power progression seems reasonable. As for ranges, I need to think about that a little more. I do wonder how much granularity in ranges is needed by the time you get to 150", although I suppose it could make a difference if one had a really large table.
4. I think all the howitzers should have bombardment, but not the 3" field gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Apr 14, 2016 17:44:08 GMT
I agree Terrance. The way the field guns are modeled they would be incapable of high enough elevation for bombardment. They look like direct fire artillery. Also agree that the guns in the tanks were derived from the field guns.
Disagree about the power of the 6" gun on the mobile artillery. I think it should be +4 like the longer-barreled 5" or 6" guns used for the heavy field guns. Alternatively, stick with the present stats, call the gun a 3" howitzer (to differentiate it from the 3" field gun that can no longer fire a barrage) and keep the +3.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Apr 14, 2016 17:51:14 GMT
I can see the +4 instead of +3 for the mobile howitzer. If they are just a shorter version (accounting for the range difference) but firing the same shell it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Apr 14, 2016 23:21:40 GMT
What we are up against with artillery rules is the fact that “scale” must be compromised to the reality game requirements. But, we wish to retain the effect of heavy weapon fire support and bombardment capability. The fact is that it is utterly infeasible to have artillery ranges that even begin to approach scale. A naval gun with at 10 mile range, at the 1/100th scale has a range of 0.1 miles (520 feet or 6,240 inches), so unless your game room is the size of a 2 city blocks, scale range is out of the question.
That said, what to do? Look at the ranges and their functions. Field artillery should outrange small arms in a direct fire mode. Heavy artillery and big naval guns should outrange field artillery. Really big guns should have “unlimited range” in game terms. They could be permitted to fire at any range, but with a severe penalty for unobserved fire. With observers, they should still be restricted to the “inaccurate” class.
Where this may lead is to trimming back the ranges to attain correct function of the various classes of weapons to help make them used more properly.
My $0.02 worth
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Apr 14, 2016 23:25:38 GMT
What we are up against with artillery rules is the fact that “scale” must be compromised to the reality game requirements. But, we wish to retain the effect of heavy weapon fire support and bombardment capability. The fact is that it is utterly infeasible to have artillery ranges that even begin to approach scale. A naval gun with at 10 mile range, at the 1/100th scale has a range of 0.1 miles (520 feet or 6,240 inches), so unless your game room is the size of a 2 city blocks, scale range is out of the question. That said, what to do? Look at the ranges and their functions. Field artillery should outrange small arms in a direct fire mode. Heavy artillery and big naval guns should outrange field artillery. Really big guns should have “unlimited range” in game terms. They could be permitted to fire at any range, but with a severe penalty for unobserved fire. With observers, they should still be restricted to the “inaccurate” class. Where this may lead is to trimming back the ranges to attain correct function of the various classes of weapons to help make them used more properly. My $0.02 worth Good points! |
|
|
|
Post by mikedski on Apr 15, 2016 1:28:00 GMT
my thoughts on artillery.
mortar = +1/ 40 inches barrage
Field gun = light howitzer = +2/ range 60 inch barrage
mobile howitzer = howitzer = +4/ range 80 inches barrage
heavy artillery = heavy howitzer = +5/ range 150 inches - pregame bombardment
I would prefer a standard template for all barrages (no separate barrage rating) bit with to hit probability based on # weapons of firing. As it is now a battery has three artillery pieces but you still only one die per target. More guns should equal greater chance to hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on Apr 15, 2016 4:31:27 GMT
Ah the memories. This takes me back to my first post to the previous forum (has it been over 2 years ago already?). I questioned the Heavy Artillery stats of Range 150", +4 Power, Barrage 3, Bombardment. I was informed that means that a 3 gun battery fires a combined barrage 9, which then becomes a maximum template of 4" with the additional 5 added to the power. This then translates to a 4" template with a +9 power or the 1-2 martians under the template may get hit and if they do, the tripods will almost automatically take damage and infantry, is hit, will almost automatically be destroyed (I agree with mikedski on his point that it should be easier to hit as opposed to easier to damage with barrage weapons). However as a barrage weapon, it could only fire as a battery and not individually as direct fire. I was disappointed at this limitation, even more so with this restriction on field guns as well and it took me a while to wrap my head around that one but I have accepted it, for AQMF purposes, attributing it to the doctrine and training of the gunners and reflected by the relatively low point cost. boxholder I have long thrown out the scale rule, as with the possible exception of gladiator combat every other game has grossly exaggerated miniatures compared to ground scale. This is because we are in this hobby because we like the look of miniatures. For those who want to get closer to ground scale, Pico or 2mm is an alternative. But some of us want to be able to tell whose infantry, uniform, that is across the table, not just if it is infantry rather than a few grains of sand. As for real world artillery, we usually divide firing into direct (can see the target including mortars, referred to as direct lay) or indirect (can't see the target), the length of the gun barrel and amount of the charge for muzzle velocity and range, the weight, design and explosive used of the shell for bursting radius along with the trajectory or angle of attack, which differentiates mortars (high) from guns (low) from howitzers (in-between). Other important factors include types and availability of ammunition (incl. fuzes and propellant charges), tube wear and material (bronze, iron or steel), training of the crews, doctrine of the army, and the initiative and morale of the soldiers/gunners using them as well as the type of mount for elevation, deflection and absorption of recoil. Most field guns of the the First World War were initially designed to be fired by battery of 4-6 guns in a bombardment fashion ( terrance this is where I differ with you and think field guns of this period should have a bombardment option) but as illustrated by the famous French 75 (Canon de 75 Modèle 1897 or "Soixante-Quinze") or Krupp 7.7 cm Feldkanone 96/16 were easily adapted to be fired individual as direct fire anti-tank and even as anti-aircraft barrage weapons with time fuzes. Both of these weapons continued to serve as standard and effective field artillery, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons with several armies through the first years of the the Second World War. So my opinion is that anything reasonable is possible. The important thing is to have fun, and in a game that usually means some kind of play balance. Competitive games try to do that with a point system. So as an example, you could pay extra points to train your crews in direct anti-tripod fire so that field guns could be fired directly at individual tripods instead of just as a barrage (although I would argue that it is more intuitive and therefore easier to train crews to fire direct than indirect). The fundamental problem is that everyone has biases and opinions and it is impossible to satisfy every player all the time. In my case, I prefer umpired games which use a 'historical' basis or order of battle, a gut check for balance and options for reinforcements for both sides in order to maintain some parity and the possibility for both sides to 'win.' With an impartial umpire, when players want to do something not covered in the rules an appropriate rule can be made up, possibly with some sort of consequence for doing it. But this is because these are the types of games that I played and enjoyed when I first got into the hobby some 4 decades ago. For everyone else, they have their own personal experience and therefore their own preference. madmorgan Not sure if my opinion is of much help but I appreciate you starting up this thread. You are doing a great effort of keeping this game system alive since the demise of Alien Dungeon. |
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Apr 15, 2016 10:25:08 GMT
My limited knowledge has that a 'gun' has a elevation up to 45 degrees and a 'howitzer' has elevation starting at 45 degrees and up. And yes, the artillery was modified to fit the tanks, I was just thinking about it in reverse as I was on tanks at the start. The 'power' of various shot is a complex valuation of velocity, weight of shell, composition, etc. I think I'd side with the use of the current MkIIMA as a 'short' 6" with the stats Rng 60" +4Pow Bar 1 Special: n/a - with the later due to lack of ammo vs towed heavy guns. Note that with an ammo cart/tender you get two shots. I really like the change from bonus power points to number of die for a barrage. It makes alot more sense to get more chances to hit with the same chance to penetrate.
Based on the above, the stat for the weapon on the MkIIMA would be Rng 60" +4Pow Bar 1 Special: n/a and a 3 element barrage would have 3 dice to hit with a +4 Power in a 3" AoE. The ammo cart/munitions tender would add another die to the barrage, for 4 dice. Moving to the HFG/heavy howitzers a battery (3 elements) would have Range 150" +4Power Barrage 3 Special: Bombardment. It would have 9 dice to hit with +4 Power in a 3" AoE. With ammo cart/munitions tender it would have an additional die for a total of 10 dice in a 3" AoE. Simple and devastating as we'd hope. This would be easy to impliment as its all stats and you could readily see the difference between the size of the towed howitzer vs the mobile one. We can expand this as the basis for all the weapons in the LRBook. What do you think??
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Apr 15, 2016 11:31:02 GMT
Any gun can be used to fire indirectly if you have the system set up to direct the fire. In WWII, the US M-10 tank destroyers were often pressed into service as bombardment weapons. They built ramps to allow the guns to get sufficient elevation.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on Apr 15, 2016 17:21:05 GMT
Any gun can be used to fire indirectly if you have the system set up to direct the fire. In WWII, the US M-10 tank destroyers were often pressed into service as bombardment weapons. They built ramps to allow the guns to get sufficient elevation. ... as well as M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing Tanks extensively during the Korean War. Wholeheartedly agree, with some training and initiative. We had gunnery tables for our 105mm equipped M1 tanks and although I never had the opportunity to actually try it, by using them I would have been able to calculate the drop of the round and approximate impact location, even if I could not see the target. This procedure was also used during training to find the location of an errant round that landed outside of the impact area. That said there are much more important things for tanks to be doing and only when there is limited use for tanks as in rugged mountainous areas with a primarily infantry enemy, such as the Italian campaign or the Korean conflict does it actually make sense to use them as expedient field artillery. |
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Apr 15, 2016 17:23:06 GMT
I like the idea of the barrage making it easier to hit but do not affect the ability to damage. Feels more like the real life effect. So does that mean the AoE for all guns becomes 3 inches? And is it 1 inch per gun so it goes down as guns are lost? I am wondering if it would work to keep the barrage AoE rule intact: topping out at 4 inches but drop the extra power for barrage size over 4 inches and using the barrage to define the number of dice like you suggest. So everything like you suggest except allowing the AoE to go up to 4 inches if enough guns are firing. Just a thought.
I like the idea of seeing if this can be applied to all other weapon systems in AQ. I'm wondering, though, if we really want to reduce the black dust and green gas AoE size since it is the large AoE that makes these weapons scary. Don't have the book with me right now so cannot check that out.
Wisercj, thanks for the info on artillery doctrine in WWI. Given that I have no problem giving the field guns bombardment.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Apr 16, 2016 9:38:03 GMT
I definately don't want to reduce the Martian gas/dust weapons. I think they're fine as is, particularly as there isn't the 'barrage' situation for them as with the humans. I don't think there are any 'Barrage 2' weapons in AQ at the present. The only reason its 3" AoE is the number of guns in the battery of an FA - so loss of 1 gun would get you a Barrage 2/2"AoE. Makes sense. Note the loss of an element (ei gun/howitzer) in any unit that passes the required Morale Test from the loss will reduce the Barrage effect the next time the unit fires. This system allows a much easier and, in my opinion, a more accurate display of how artillery should work in AQ. Hmmm I suppose there is a 'barrage effect' with a unit of Shock Drone firing - but, this system handles that as well I believe. If you have a larger black dust AoE, the same system applies, just add dice for anything over the 4" template. And if you go with the optional idea of a 6" template, it still works, with everything over the 6" AoE being added dice at +1 die per 1" overage. Within the concept is the implied idea that all weapons with any kind of 'burst' effect could/should use this concept. Mortars come to mind as well as a few others. The dividing line is RoF vs Barrage - weapons with RoF shouldn't use anykind of Barrage system as it really overbalances the human firepower in the game. I'm also not sure we should even consider tanks using their guns for barrage purposes. Tanks (as noted) have better things to do and WW2 tactics and beyond aren't within the scope of our game I'd think. This could be argued, but, I favor keeping tanks 'different' from the artillery thats in them. Besides, the Kitchener shows what a RoF tank gun can be. More of those types of guns for other tanks would be an interesting concept (Conquerer?S2g?). Cheers! |
|
