Hi Peter,
Why not make it even more simple. A vehicle on Charge orders gets its
full CAF. A vehicle on First Fire or Advance gets half its CAF,
(rounded down).
Since vehicles cannot enter woods or rubble on Charge orders, this
becomes a non-issue.
To tell you the truth, however, I was one of the "Diehards" who voted
against changing the Close Combat system. But I could live with it if
instead of rounding down, we instead round up. I like the idea of
overruns; used it in a lot of "other" games. But I hate to see vehicles
with a low CAF of +1 get nothing more than a Rhino would, should it get
attacked.
Hail to the "Old Guard"!
Warprat ;)
Peter Ramos wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The first issue to resolve is how vehicles engage in close combat.
>
> Having heard all the previous debate I have devised the simplest means
> of showing the vehicles "difference" without too many rules.
>
> Simply put, when a vehicle charges it uses the printed CAF listed in
> the rules (overrun attack). When the vehicle itself is charged use the
> half the printed CAF's value (round down).
>
> Example:
>
> A landraider CAF +3 charges a IG stand and gains it's +3 bonus as
> listed. The same Land raider gets bushwacked by a IG bike later in the
> game thus he gets a +1 (half of +3 rounded down).
>
> Note that once the vehicle "charges" it gets its full CAF regardless
> who countercharges it, the important thing is that the vehicle came
> full tilt and charge.
>
> Also terrain types like woods, rubble and cities the CAF could be
> halved by default due to the difficulty of these terrain features.
>
> Its not "classy" but to the point and gives a reasonable difference
> between infantry and vehicles.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Peter
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Win Big Prizes NOW at IGN.com!]
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Received on Wed Feb 16 2000 - 03:10:43 UTC