Jump to content


Photo

AA fire


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 26 February 2006 - 05:11 PM

One question: does the moving modifer count for aircraft in addition to their (usually) negative DM when airborne? Also, when would the -5 evasive mod come into play, if ever?Thanks!Gregory

#2 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 26 February 2006 - 05:27 PM

Two more:[ul][li]Though AA fire has ROF=1, if there is a Bonus roll, can it be "free-shifted" onto a different target as with small arms fire?[/li][li]For AA OW, it seems overly restrictive for these guns to have a narrow acquisition arc. Is it reasonable for these fast-traverse guns to be able to cover more than a 30° slice of the sky?[/li][/ul]Thanks!Gregory

Post edited by: gregoryk, at: 2006/02/26 17:32

#3 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

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

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:04 AM

One question: does the moving modifer count for aircraft in addition to their (usually) negative DM when airborne?

No, the moving speed is built into the DM. Probably needs to be clarified in the rules though.

Also, when would the -5 evasive mod come into play, if ever?

No, Aircraft use their own Evasive Modifier (EM) from the Aircraft Table Chapter 16, page 16.2, second column, Evasive Movement section.

Though AA fire has ROF=1, if there is a Bonus roll, can it be "free-shifted" onto a different target as with small arms fire?

I don't see why not.

For AA OW, it seems overly restrictive for these guns to have a narrow acquisition arc. Is it reasonable for these fast-traverse guns to be able to cover more than a 30° slice of the sky?

IMHO the acquisition arc should be increased to 120 degrees.

#4 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 09:15 AM

Though AA fire has ROF=1, if there is a Bonus roll, can it be "free-shifted" onto a different target as with small arms fire?

I would say yes if the AA weapon is "small arms", otherwise no.

For AA OW, it seems overly restrictive for these guns to have a narrow acquisition arc. Is it reasonable for these fast-traverse guns to be able to cover more than a 30° slice of the sky?

I need to double check and see what is actually written, but it has always been intended that AA weapons not have any arc restrictions, even on overwatch. These guns could rotate very rapidly and I see no reason for a restriction. I will make it clear in the revision.

#5 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

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

Posted 02 March 2006 - 08:05 AM

My direct quote from the AA OW thread:

Well let me put this one in the DUH column for myself. There is no arc that I can find in the AA Overwatch rules. Non-Dedicated AA Fire (basically all tank mounted AA MGs or any gun that can be used as multi-purpose and not specifically for AA only defense, must make a TQ check to be able to fire at an aircraft, no matter where it is. Dedicated AA Fire may shoot at an aircraft no matter where it is without the TQ check. Sorry I totally missed this earlier and should have pointed it out.

There is no restriction on AA OW as to its covered arc. It is essentially 360 degrees. AA OW is only limited for Non-Dedicated AA Fire since any Non-Dedicated AA Fire must make a TQ Check to shoot, but it is also a 360 degree coverage. Which leads me to say we need to remove the arrow from the existing AA OW counters (yes we have them, Jon. :evil:) to eliminate any confusion as to a covered arc for AA Fire.The "no covered arc for AA fire" is in the rules, since I just read it twice and it made some sense both times. The example of the M15 is not good though since it can be dual purpose air-to-air and air-to-ground, and was. This leads me to a change in the definition of Non-Dedicated and Dedicated AA Fire. I believe should be revised since any gun mounted (MG and/or Cannon) can be dual purpose (air-to-air and air-to-ground) then you might want to consider the following:Dedicated AA OW should be any AA capable weapon placed on AA OW and Non-Dedicated AA would be any AA capable weapon NOT on AA OW.Thoughts? :whistle:

#6 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

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

Posted 03 March 2006 - 07:47 AM

The "no covered arc for AA fire" is in the rules, since I just read it twice and it made some sense both times.

Well, I gaffed this one. Thanks to Gregory for pointing me straight to it. It is in the rules on page 16.9 Second Column under "Direct AA Fire and Overwatch" Section. The rule reads:"Place an AA OVERWATCH marker next to the stand with the arrow pointing in the direction the gun is monitoring."This need to be changed too, then. :)

#7 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 26 March 2006 - 10:15 AM

More questions about AA fire:[ol][li]from Chapter 16

Direct AA fire is resolved per Direct Fire rules, including all applicable modifiers.

What exactly are the “applicable” modifiers? Earlier clarification indicated target (aircraft) speed is not a factor. Altitude is not a factor. Horizontal distances, DM, firer OM are all factors. Is that it?[/li][li]Is a MG on a vehicle listed as “AA” a dedicated AA weapon?[/li][li]Question arose about why an AA gun on ground OW cannot also be on AA OW. If they have an AA gun mount, which is purpose-designed for fast traverse, sighting, etc, would it take them a full activation to shift their sights to aircraft in clear view, especially since they are already on OW, which presupposes heightened spotting? Would it not be simpler to just say they are on OW for whatever their weapon can shoot at?[/li][/ol]Here's a gift for those with audio inclinations: [file name=divebomb.wav.zip size=33395]https://www.odgw.com/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/files/divebomb.wav.zip[/file] Thanks!Gregory

#8 Trotsky

Trotsky

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 26 March 2006 - 11:08 AM

1. I have only been using the modifiers you stated, would be interested if any more are applicable - can't recall any relevant ones.2. Page 16.9 - Direct AA fire - Second paragraph, states that pivot mounted AFV MG's are not dedicated weapons. I can see the confusion though as the purpose of these is to engage aircraft. 3. This seems a very good point - why not make 'dedicated' AA guns able to undertake both Overwatches simultaneously?

#9 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 26 March 2006 - 01:25 PM

1. "Horizontal distances, DM, and firer OM" would all be "applicable" modifiers.2. AA MGs on AFVs are not "dedicated" as there is not a crewman manning them at all times for the purpose of defending against aircraft. The crewman has other job functinos to perform. 3. I do not think it as simple as it would appear to be on ground overwatch and suddenly whip around and start shooting at aircraft coming from the rear. I would, however, agree to allow a dedicate AA weapon on ground overwatch to fire upon an aircraft entering into their OV arc ... or be on AA overwatch and react to aircraft from any direction.

#10 Don Carter

Don Carter

    ODGW Staff

  • ODGW Staff
  • 51 posts

Posted 03 April 2006 - 07:12 PM

:evil: I agree with Jon either you are looking for aircraft, or you are looking for ground targets.As an Airdefemnce artyman from the 70's we were trained to watch for aircraft. as this was are job. entire team would be serching the skys for hostile. If you give players chance , Ithink you will add much cheese to rules.IMHODon

#11 Sacha

Sacha

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 724 posts
  • LocationJakarta, Indonesia

Posted 03 April 2006 - 07:49 PM

Jon's explanation for #3 seems to be fair and playable. But it would be good to know why a dedicated AA weapon couldn't do both or at least point out the problems/issues for attempting both ground and air OW.

#12 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

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

Posted 04 April 2006 - 07:00 AM

I would say Sacha, that splitting time trying to watch for aircraft AND ground troops would be twice as difficult as trying to do one or the other. Although you may be ABLE to do both, but you would do so ineffectively. Trying to watch for moving ground units in terrain is difficult at best and adding trying to watch for aircraft from the entire sky would be very difficult, not even including the fact that the equipment and aircraft are painted to prevent visual identification. THe other consideration is tht AA OW gives 360 degree coverage and that standard OW gives 90 degrees coverage. I can't see giving Dedicated AA the advantage of 360 degree coverage of both ari and ground targets. To me this just isn't practical considering the jobs are really seperate by nature. A dedicated AA gun on AA OW would have all crew looking at the sky for any air intruder, not worrying about ground targets. The ground targets are the grunts job. The times when the US Army brought in the M16 MGMC (quad .50 cal) for ground work the gunners were not worried about air targets, it wasn't there job. I do suppose that they could snap shot at aircraft that may have wandered over but I would think that it would have to have been over their visual area where they were scanning for ground targets to engage.I would offer an untested opinion that Dedicated AA should be able to engage any target (ground or air) in its standard OW within its gound OW arc (90 degrees), but if on AA OW it cannot engage any ground targets since the entire crew is scanning the skies for bogies. :whistle:

#13 Trotsky

Trotsky

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 04 April 2006 - 09:00 AM

I am not expert on AA guns and their use – but the comments in the thread seem strongly to suggest that we should keep the overwatches separate. Any additional rules just complicate an elegant system – there is a reason why I play Mein Panzer far more often than Advanced Squad Leader!

#14 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

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

Posted 05 April 2006 - 05:49 AM

I agree with Trotsky on this. The suggestion I had can be used as an optional/house rule for the grognards, but we need to keep the base system simple as we have been trying hard to do. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users