Indirect fire - Targets

[Lopis]

The questions about the speculative fire lead me to another question:

Shouldnīt all indirect fire weapons be placed on places and not only on models ?

For FireMissions its cleared specifically, that you can aim them on places, not models.

But shouldnīt that be true for mortars or grenade-launchers/thrown grenades as well.
OK coming with reality and such by saying that you would use a "template-weapon" with a greater effect radius to maximum effect....

But itīs true for directly placed template weapons that you can place them to maximum effect as long as the priorised target is affected.... so why not for indirectly fired weapons, or at least for circumstances when theyīre fired with an FO speculatively.

So that would lead to being able to keep firing a drumming tatoo with the mortars for a spot wit a modifier of +10 on the sixth shot, but that wouldnīt be that bad, would it?

[dmcgee1]

Unless otherwise stated, models are always th target, and targeting priority is used.  Therefore, off-board missions specifically state that they fire at a coordinate - not a model (ever try to fire at a moving unit from miles away?)

[Lopis]

Yeah I know, but i wanted some other opinions if it shoudnīt be handled otherrwise.....

And i think it is as hard to hit one with a mortar on the same range as an Assault Rifle is used aswoth doing it with offboard artillery.... ;-)

[Dr. Nick]

@lopis

i totally agree..

even the +10 makes sense..


it always bothered me why grenadirs canīt throw the grenade at the most thick place.. just at the center of the closesed enemy seems odd..


if grenades get to strong then, need to be considered..

[dmcgee1]

Not everything can be hyper realistic nor so far fetched as to be unbelievable.  Rules are there for the game to not only make sense, but to play smoothly and with fun, in mind - first and last.

Game mechanics exist to make the game enjoyable.  Balance is there to make the game fair.

Games of chance (any with any element of randomness and free-form movement) will always be representative of reality - not a substitute for it.  In reality, both sides are in constant movement, constantly trying to gain an advantage on their opponent.  In a game, this is represented by alternating movement, and reaction to that movement and rollling dice to determine if things are done as the player wishes them to happen.

Chance not your thing?  There's always chess.

In reality, one might have the presence of mind to throw a grenade into the middle of an enemy who s intent on killing him in mid-throw - I doubt that I could do it.  In the game, this is represented by having to throw the grenade at the closest threat, lest the game break down into a character/specialist hunt.  Target priority represents that a soldier will react to the nearest threat.  Tac-sense represents one's ability to overcome the overriding fear, and choose a different target.

Why must a rule be broken?  Why can it not just be that the rule is in place to make the game enjoyable, even if it isn't ultra-realisti and true to life? 

[Coil]

Well said Dave!

[Dr. Nick]

Why must a rule be broken?  Why can it not just be that the rule is in place to make the game enjoyable, even if it isn't ultra-realisti and true to life? 

well, it must not be..

but to think about possible enhancements of preceding work and personal taste is natural..

if we would not discuss an evolvement of the rules, an importent basic toppic would be missing.

[dmcgee1]

Chage for the sake of change, itself, is never a good dea.  Change has farreaching and underlying effects.  To change something without conidering the consequences is foolish.  To make something more powerful simply because one feels that it would be better would be potentially destructive to the current system. 

The system is good.  Could it be better?  I think so.  But I am unwilling to change just because a vocal minority feels that it should be changed.  I am a proponent of playtesting.  I am a proponent of more playtesting.  Then, playtest it a bit more.  I guarantee to that flaws appear.

I experienced this when jjdodger and I playtested a new way of using unit cards.  Thom even made a few suggestions.  After at least twenty games of playtesting the idea, we scrapped it.  It added more complexity and realism, but removed fun and ease of play even more so.

As I grow older, I like to think that I get a bit wiser.  My experience has led me to change my view in many areas of gaming.  I no longer cry, "Broken!" the first time that a rule ruins my strategy.  I no longer cry, "Foul!" when I get beaten by better tactics and better dice rolls.  And, I no longer whine and complain to others that something should be changed without some facts and playtesting to back it up, followed by the feedback others provide to me about my suggestions.

That siad, the evolution of a game and its rules can be very positive.  I agree that this system is not perfect, and chnges can, in all likelihood, bemade.  As long as changes are made that positively enhnce the overall enjoyment of the game by the players, then the changes are good.  If the change only affects a small number of players, or the change affects more than what was in need of change, then it should be scratched.

I have only been playing this game since UWZ.  I know that there are others wo've been playing much longer and can attest or even echo my points.  Wisdom allows you to listen to and to accept their words of experience.  I have, and have grown as a player because of it.

Lastly, I apologize to Lopis for hijacking his thread.  Moderator, please feel free to do with this post what you will.

[Lopis]

Hmmm  no slight taken ;-)

Itīs OK. I think threads are there for discussing and you gave your opinion.

I didnīt want to whine that it should be edited to gain a more powerful mix for playing.

I just wanted to hear what others think of it. It never occured to me, but after Enkers question about the mortars I wondered why thereīs a bit of "incoherency" in the setting up. Since mortars are nothing more than small OBAīs I wondered if thereīs a stringent purpose in not following the same regulations.

After all in our group never were mortars fielded. I wondered why that is so.
The circumstances to field them are a bit harsh, since being support. In spite of being quite cheap they never appeared because i think they lack effectiveness.

With the adjustment perhaps they would gain the needed usability.
But I concede that we never playtested it in the proposed way. On the first look it didnīt seem to overpower them and I wanted to hear wjat other opinions are.

I have them now and that everyone can state what he thinks of it is totally business and well accepted.
Wouldnīt be fun if everyone agreed everytime.

So folks, keep swinginī

[dmcgee1]

I had the same opinion of Vulkans, oddly enough, until I tried them.  I thought they were overpriced HMG specs.  Obviously, I was wrong.  By the way, the whining comment was not directed at you, and I apologize if it cam across that way, Lopis.