>
>Ah! Sounds reasonable.
Hopefully. The diea being that I refuse to believe that infantry moving
forward will be able to fire at full efficiency.
You can argue that this is reflected by delaying shots to the advance
segment, but the problem is that the volume of fire, representing the actual
amount of ammunition being fired accurately, is the same.
Troops wont be able to aim their fire as accurately when advancing or
redeploying.
>This sounds a lot more reasonable, By the way how would machine guns and
>such affect tanks? some have relatively high save modifiers.
They are too high. The MHG would have -1 and the rest of the small arms
should propably not have mod's.
The reasoning is that machineguns (especially .50 ones) can destroy tracks
and destroy similar exposed stuff, which can immobilize the tank.
Immobilized vehicles are likely to be abandoned by the crew and would
effectively count the vehicle as destroyed.
Alternatively, we could divide units into light and heavy.
A jeep might have a 7+ light save while a Panzer IV could get a 3+ H
All weapons have their save mod listed as light or heavy.
Light weapons are only subtracted from light armoured units, while heavy
weapons have their modifier applied to all targets.
How does this sound??????
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 09:45:37 UTC