Newbie equipment Questions
#1
Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:56 PM
#2
Posted 28 March 2007 - 07:55 AM
That is a very good point and I should have thought of this before. I honestly don't remember seeing this capability during my research so my only excuse is the volume of data I had gone through made me blank this out, and I am sticking to it. :) Since I am hot and heavy working on the WW1 Data Book, please let me know which armored cars have this capability and I will start up a list for the next 'red-line' pages and the follow-up replacement pages. Off the top of my head the only armored car I can think of with this capability is a French armored car fielded after WW2."A lot of countries fielded armored cars that had dual driving positions and balanced forward/reverse gearboxes, so that they could be driven in reverse at full speed. Shouldn't these vehicles be able to reverse w/o paying the double cost? I was expecting a 'note' to that effect on the charts."
This argument could be used for a lot of vehicles that had many uses. PzKpfw I and II could be considered Recon and some point in their use too. I grouped Armored Cars specifically into their own group as they did perform in more functions than recon. I tried to use the RECON designation for vehicles that were specifically designed only for or used predominantly for recon use by the mounting of better/more radios and manned by specially trained recon crews. If you are playing using BPVs you can add 3 points to the cost of the vehicle if it is not designated as RECON in the notes column and you want to give it recon capability. If you are not using BPVs, then you can indicate on the play sheet RECON in the notes section."Similarly, why aren't more AC listed as 'Recon' units? I had expected that that would be the default, as that was usually their design mission."
Hmmm. The halving of the HEAT round penetration, I thought anyways, was removed from the rules for the latest revision. The halving of the HEAT round penetration is superfluous. Use the full penetration vs. the y value of the armor, with the x/y format, as you noted."Note (1) for the German AFV charts states: 'Equipped with side skirts (Schuerzen) to protect against hollow charge rounds. Any side hits from HEAT rounds ha[l]ve its HEAT value halved.'All of these vehicles (I think) also have dual side armor values in format x/y, where the first value is used for normal attacks, and the second value is used against HEAT attacks. Do you use the second armor value, *and* halve the HEAT value, or is one of these rules superfluous?"
That would be a typo. The DR rating should have been 2."The Soviet OT-35 is currently listed as a DR3 vehicle - I presume this is a typo? If not, what is the difference between it and the T-35 that gives it an extra hit?"
I believe that Jon did this due to playability issues. However you are more than welcome to House rule this if you like."I'm surprised that vehicles with ST mounting for their machine guns cannot fire the MGs and the main armament at the same time. I figured that the general rule was because the MG operators generally had other jobs (gunner, driver, etc.), but didn't seperate turret type mounts have their own dedicated gunners? I always thought that was the case, especially for things like the Soviet T-28 / T-35 types."
I actually have messed this up. It must have been a carry over from the original Mein Panzer dated 1996 and I or anyone else must have missed it. This should have been listed just like the US Lee/Grant with two line entries. The first would be the turret mounted MGs and the second would be the hull mounted 37mm. Another candidate for the errata file.Thanks for all of your questions! :)"On a related matter, shouldn't the Italian M- 11/39 have it's MGs in an ST mount? I thought it had twin 8mm Bredas in the turret, and the 37mm in the hull. I also thought early UK Crusaders had a MG in a small turret mount on the nose."
#3
Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:58 PM
To the best of my knowledge, yes. I just ordered them direct from your web-store last week. The Data Book says 'published in 2007', and the Core Rules is 'copyright 1998-2007'.Hey Kle.You have some very good questions here. So let me take them in order. Also, do you have the newest revision of the Core Rules/WW2 Data Book?
SdKfz 231 and derivatives, both 6-rad and 8-rad, SdKfz-234 and derivatives. Italian AB-4x series (these had two driving positions, but 6 forward and only four reverse gears, but still). I've heard the AB-611 could do this too, but no great data. Panhard 178/AMD 35.I thought the AEC (British) could do this, but now I can't find any info. I bet there are more, that I don't know about - I'll look around.The '70s-era West german Luchs recce vehicle was like this, too.
That is a very good point and I should have thought of this before. I honestly don't remember seeing this capability during my research so my only excuse is the volume of data I had gone through made me blank this out, and I am sticking to it. :) Since I am hot and heavy working on the WW1 Data Book, please let me know which armored cars have this capability and I will start up a list for the next 'red-line' pages and the follow-up replacement pages. Off the top of my head the only armored car I can think of with this capability is a French armored car fielded after WW2."A lot of countries fielded armored cars that had dual driving positions and balanced forward/reverse gearboxes, so that they could be driven in reverse at full speed. Shouldn't these vehicles be able to reverse w/o paying the double cost? I was expecting a 'note' to that effect on the charts."
I was just sort of wondering about the reasoning - now I know. I doubt I'll ever play a 'points' game, so that's not a problem.
This argument could be used for a lot of vehicles that had many uses. PzKpfw I and II could be considered Recon and some point in their use too. I grouped Armored Cars specifically into their own group as they did perform in more functions than recon. I tried to use the RECON designation for vehicles that were specifically designed only for or used predominantly for recon use by the mounting of better/more radios and manned by specially trained recon crews. If you are playing using BPVs you can add 3 points to the cost of the vehicle if it is not designated as RECON in the notes column and you want to give it recon capability. If you are not using BPVs, then you can indicate on the play sheet RECON in the notes section."Similarly, why aren't more AC listed as 'Recon' units? I had expected that that would be the default, as that was usually their design mission."
Nope. It's in the file on the website, too. I don't find it anywhere in the rules, just in the 'equipment notes' of the German section in the Data Book. thanks for the clarification."Note (1) for the German AFV charts states: 'Equipped with side skirts (Schuerzen) to protect against hollow charge rounds. Any side hits from HEAT rounds ha[l]ve its HEAT value halved.'
Hmmm. The halving of the HEAT round penetration, I thought anyways, was removed from the rules for the latest revision. The halving of the HEAT round penetration is superfluous. Use the full penetration vs. the y value of the armor, with the x/y format, as you noted.
Gotcha, thanks."The Soviet OT-35 is currently listed as a DR3 vehicle - I presume this is a typo? If not, what is the difference between it and the T-35 that gives it an extra hit?"That would be a typo. The DR rating should have been 2.
No problem. Since it's appreciated, I'll make a list of anything I find, poring over the rules, and post later.-Kle.Thanks for all of your questions! :)
#4
Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:58 PM
#5
Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:35 AM
That's great! I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page as you. Transitioning to a new version can cause some minor inconveniances with getting errata updated. :)"To the best of my knowledge, yes. I just ordered them direct from your web-store last week. The Data Book says 'published in 2007', and the Core Rules is 'copyright 1998-2007'."
I'll start with these."SdKfz 231 and derivatives, both 6-rad and 8-rad, SdKfz-234 and derivatives. Italian AB-4x series (these had two driving positions, but 6 forward and only four reverse gears, but still). I've heard the AB-611 could do this too, but no great data. Panhard 178/AMD 35."
The AEC is not. I did a quick check just a bit ago and nothing is mentioned like the other A/Cs you noted.Drop me a line if you find any more. Thanks! ;)Here is a good website with some excellent data if you don't have it already:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp"I thought the AEC (British) could do this, but now I can't find any info. I bet there are more, that I don't know about - I'll look around."
I guess I better update the Data Book too then. :whistle:"Nope. It's in the file on the website, too. I don't find it anywhere in the rules, just in the 'equipment notes' of the German section in the Data Book. thanks for the clarification."
Thanks again! It is definately appreciated! :)"No problem. Since it's appreciated, I'll make a list of anything I find, poring over the rules, and post later."
#6
Posted 29 March 2007 - 09:50 AM
#7
Posted 29 March 2007 - 02:07 PM
#8
Posted 30 March 2007 - 05:33 AM
No problem. I have been using this site as one of my many references since I started doing the data books. It has a ton of very useful data... if you take the time to read it all. :blush:"I already know WWiivehicles.com - that's who I was using to check my memories, yesterday. Thanks, though."
It sures reads that way, doesn't it. I am going to add them to the list.Thanks again! :)"Don't know if that's the way they all worked, but it's certainly odd."
#9
Posted 30 March 2007 - 10:05 AM
#10
Posted 30 March 2007 - 02:50 PM
#11
Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:13 PM
#12
Posted 02 April 2007 - 02:10 PM
#13
Posted 02 April 2007 - 03:22 PM
#14
Posted 02 April 2007 - 10:53 PM
#15
Posted 03 April 2007 - 01:56 PM
#16
Posted 04 April 2007 - 01:39 PM
#17
Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:41 AM
#18
Posted 05 April 2007 - 01:38 PM
No problem, I almost can't help it - I'm afraid I'm a nitpicker by nature... I'm just happy that people are finding it helpful. Some people find it really annoying, and then I have to restrain my proofread-y impulses.Besides, you're no slouch yourself. All those nice AARs of yours helped convince me to buy the game, and they look to me as though they took _way_ more effort than this stuff I'm posting. -Kle.Gosh Klebert! You are really going to keep Bob busy! I am not a member of the ODGW staff but still appreciate all your input.
#19
Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:32 PM
#20
Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:27 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users