Erik Rutins wrote:
>
> The second group of vehicles seems to be all assault guns and tank
> destroyers. The part I find strange (though I understand based on your
> formulae where it's coming from) is the extremely low assault value/FP
> of some of these guns. In particular the StuG's with guns & MGs
> intended to destroy infantry. 0 Assault is given mostly to things like
> artillery in E40k and as a result you would never see assault guns
> chosen to help assaults using your current stats. ANY Pzkw would be
> better than an assault gun, whereas my understanding is that in reality
> the assault guns were pretty good at what they did. Even the Brummbar,
> while impressive with 3FP has 0 assault. Anyway, that's my main gripe.
> If I were to come at it from a formula point of view, I'm not sure the
> turretless modifier should exist. Vehicles don't have fire arcs in E40k
> so direction and turret should be assumed irrelevant as the vehicle has
> time to move during a phase (it's not really an instant but a series of
> instants).
>
I can see your point, but it was my attempt to show the disadvantages of
non-turreted AFV's when it comes to close in fighting (a prejudice that
comes from ASL). An "Assault" in EPIC is very close range where not
being able to track infantry is a huge disadvantage (note the Elephant
in Kursk). My though was that assault guns would stay behind infantry
cover and would shoot and provide support to a firefight, not charge
ahead and try to run people over (as fun as that sounds). Without a
field of fire run, I couldn't think of anyway other way to show the
turret/non-turret difference. I still think I'm right ... my way
REQUIRES assault guns to have infantry support (which they, by doctrine,
had) while giving tanks the ability to roam around killing things
without the burden (something they also could do).
-- Aaron Day
Received on Fri Feb 20 1998 - 23:15:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:22 UTC