Jump to content


Photo

Beaten Zone and movement


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 11 December 2005 - 11:26 PM

Recent game, and a new situation:Tank under an artillery barrage attempts to move out from under the barrage - under which it could spend a lot of the rest of the game if the barrage is not lifted. In the process it takes another attack as per the Beaten Zone rules, and is Suppressed. It started to move before it was attacked, however. So, where does the tank end up? Suppressed in the same place as it started? Suppressed one action away?Gregory

Post edited by: gregoryk, at: 2005/12/12 11:10

#2 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 12 December 2005 - 08:54 AM

As GM I would say suppressed where it started. The new attack per beaten zone rules occurs first and resolved with immediate results. If the attack fails or has no effect then the vehicle moves out of the zone.My two cents...

#3 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 13 December 2005 - 08:31 AM

Since the chance for attack occurs when the tank initailly tries to move, and the rules state that the check occurs before the action is actually started. then I would say that it should remain in its current location, as Kenny stated. (Ouch, twice, this is giving me a headache! :laugh: )

#4 Sacha

Sacha

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 724 posts
  • LocationJakarta, Indonesia

Posted 13 December 2005 - 01:48 PM

Yeah ...but its till seems wrong. I have never felt comfortable with this. I know I have heard alot of things on both sides of the fence. But in perspective to game mechanics, in my "intention" to move, I take an attack and the result is a suppression which means I just sit put. Didn't even move an inch. It's just that a stand is being penalized for the act of attempt and without the benefit of action.Maybe someone needs to explain this to me again, with a bigger hammer.

#5 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 13 December 2005 - 06:39 PM

Sacha wrote:

Yeah ...but its till seems wrong. I have never felt comfortable with this. I know I have heard alot of things on both sides of the fence. But in perspective to game mechanics, in my "intention" to move, I take an attack and the result is a suppression which means I just sit put. Didn't even move an inch. It's just that a stand is being penalized for the act of attempt and without the benefit of action.Maybe someone needs to explain this to me again, with a bigger hammer.

I'll give it a whack.... <grin>Don't think of it as "I intend to move"... Think of it as I've started to move and because there are still HE shells exploding around the "possibility" of a hit exist. The AFV is moveing but imagine it moving one meter (~3 feet) before the "possibility" of a hit occurs. In MPC 1 inch - 7.32 meters.Now my question to you... How are you going to move your 6mm AFV 1 meter in scale?? <grin> Now from a playability perspective I totaly understand your frusteration, and I think you've got a fair point. I would support a rule modification stating that an vehicle can move 1 inch before resolving an artillery barrage attack. After all, 1 inch (7.32m) seems reasonable and approximately low percentage of the total movment of a for a vehicle... (Maus and KV's NOT imcluded!!! j/k) However what do we do about infantry??? 1 inch is half their movement and too much to give (IMHO). And Infantry would NOT go running about during an artillery barrage!! Leave them behind?Since the above seems not to be able to apply to all types of stands maybe leaving things the way they are is best for the RAW.... But you can always add in your own rule!/rambling OFF...

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/12/13 16:41

#6 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 14 December 2005 - 06:23 AM

Okay Sacha, here is my hammer. As Gregory has pointed out in the past, a turn is a representation of constant time put into a neat little box we call a turn. An artillery barrage is landing constantly in real life until it is lifted. The game is trying to compartmentalize this constant action into neat little boxes called turns. Since the barrage occurs constantly from one turn to the next, there is always a possibility that your tank will be hit. MP takes this chance and simply puts it into the turn by requiring the vehicle to check for this damage in the "Beaten Zone" prior to moving. Now I am sure we could offer valid points for when the "Beaten Zone" check is made at what points. My point on this is that the artillery is considerd falling constantly even before you would want to move. So the check is basically for when you are starting to move out of your position or you may be continuing to move from a previous move, to see if you took damage before you continue your move. Clear as mud, right?! :)

#7 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 03:14 PM

The problem arose due to one player's contention that his undamaged, unsuppressed tanks would be able to move out from under a barrage, and that, if they moved, why did they not go anywhere. Also, the argument was about the ongoing effectiveness of a Beaten Zone in a six minute turn. The contention was that there should be less effectiveness after the beginning of the barrage (I am researching this, and it appears it did not drop off signinficantly).Understand, I am not saying the rules are not adequate; this is a question about how the process works and whether it should be adjusted.Gregory

#8 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 08:28 PM

IMHO the effectivness of a barrage is NOT changable from start to end. A battery begins and ends it's attack in unison. This is basic military discipline. There were not stray single shots arriving after the main salvo. I think Jon shouls weigh in here. He can explain better the MPC concept of a continous beaten zone and moving within. (As he has done with me so... so many times!!! <grin>)

#9 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 09:53 PM

Kenny, on what data or publications are you basing your opinion?Gregory

#10 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 14 December 2005 - 10:04 PM

Serveral books I've read in the past researching Arab/Israeli conflicts, however the one I'm reading now is Osprey's M109 155mm SPH 1960-2005.Also I do have a little military experiance in the Army... <grin>'Sides it's only an opinion....

#11 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 15 December 2005 - 08:09 AM

Just as a side note here, the "Beaten Zone" is only a 4" diameter circle centered around the barrage marker, unless you use the optional rule of irregular "Beaten Zones". The area effected is not that large, unless you group your tanks too close together. As to the effectiveness of a barrage, as far as I know, the barrage lasetd as long as the ammo held out and as long as requested/approved by the HQ. There would be little if any letup.Again, this sounds like our rationalization of taking a real-time event and trying to package it into neat little blocks of time (Turns). Sometimes you have to take the game play approach and that can lead to some minor differences in perceived reality. What works the best may sacrifice a bit of realism, but it may be the best way to deal with the situation.As to:

...one player's contention that his undamaged, unsuppressed tanks would be able to move out from under a barrage, and that, if they moved, why did they not go anywhere.

I would say that this is not necessarily true giving that a full core artillery barrage is coming down all around the tanks, churning up smoke, debris, dust and dirt and the fact that it is perfectly concievable that one of the shells could land on the tank at anytime taking it out. I would also say that there is only a 50% chance of this happening and that checking this out at the beginning of the stands movement is a game mechanics decision.That's my take on it.

#12 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 15 December 2005 - 12:29 PM

The intensity of a barrage "could" peter out from one turn to the next but that was not the norm. Ammunition supply was the biggest factor. If you are 20 minutes into a barrage and ammunition was running low the barrage would become less effective. Whether or not this would actually happen would depend on a lot of things. As far as the game is concerned, we're assuming the intensity remains fairly constant.As for the original question, I can see the frustration.However, did we not already come up with a solution to another issue that would work here? If I remember correctly, we were leaning heavily toward adding a Vehicle Pinned rule and stating everything under the barrage was pinned ... infantry AND vehicles ... and resolve the pin as usual. I'll need to remember to go looking for that post but I do remember a couple games where we used that and it worked VERY well.

#13 Sacha

Sacha

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 724 posts
  • LocationJakarta, Indonesia

Posted 16 December 2005 - 12:43 PM

per someone's comments above, the issue only came up pertaining to armored vehicles. If it was infantry it is areeable that if they acted to move, took the attack and got supressed, then they would have gotten no where.The equivalent of popping up their head to move then heard the screech of incomming and ducked back down again. The issue brought up by this one is is not that being in an armored vehicle made one feel invincible to HE attacks, just that he argued if you were in a tank and under a barrage, instinct would tell you to get out from under it. Once you got out you would be shaken or stirred or suppressed.Currently one does have the option of self breaking and doing a full retreat to get out, but he also felt one should be able to go forward as well.I don't have an answer to all this yet either, but maybe allowing the armored stand to move up one inch then giving it a suppressed condition at that point might be a solution. Then one feels they made an effort, got suppressed and thats that.

#14 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 16 December 2005 - 04:45 PM

jcoulter wrote:

However, did we not already come up with a solution to another issue that would work here? If I remember correctly, we were leaning heavily toward adding a Vehicle Pinned rule and stating everything under the barrage was pinned ... infantry AND vehicles ... and resolve the pin as usual. I'll need to remember to go looking for that post but I do remember a couple games where we used that and it worked VERY well.

That would not have changed this situation, unfortunately. The attack would have occured from moving through the Beaten Zone, and the tank still would have been Suppressed.Gregory

#15 Don Carter

Don Carter

    ODGW Staff

  • ODGW Staff
  • 51 posts

Posted 08 April 2006 - 07:13 PM

:evil: any time you have an arty barrage going on each shell is going to land in a slightly different place.There are no weapons that I know off that would hit same spot again and again.The difference is Gun moves as it is shot, barrel is dirty, round has a slight different podwer amount init.Arty like lighting, never hit same spot twice.This means he is landing a new zone each time.IMHODon




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users