Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Valor & Victory» Forums » Rules

Subject: Vehicular Advance? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Barry Doyle
United States
Lynchburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know this has been brought up before, and I've considered it, but I wanted to put it out there for your opinions. It's crossed my mind again lately, as I'm working on larger scenarios with more vehicles.

If I allow vehicles to advance, during the Advance and Assault Phase, it will provide the opportunity to get closer to enemy tanks/Guns without suffering through two shots -- one Op Fire, one regular Fire -- before being able to return (Defensive) fire.

I like things as they are, but I can also see the benefits in this small change.

Thoughts?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Kundlak
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It might make the Advance phase consistent - allow it to all battling elements... And allow for slightly faster close-up of the enemy sides.

I am not aware of any drawbacks to allowing it, if infantry can do it...

Either way, if you wish to keep a vehicle hidden or obscured for some reason, you will not move it anyway during Advance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Piero
Italy
Florence
flag msg tools
Life and death come and go like marionettes dancing on a table. Once their strings are cut, they easily crumble.
badge
What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnglePark wrote:
I know this has been brought up before, and I've considered it, but I wanted to put it out there for your opinions. It's crossed my mind again lately, as I'm working on larger scenarios with more vehicles.

If I allow vehicles to advance, during the Advance and Assault Phase, it will provide the opportunity to get closer to enemy tanks/Guns without suffering through two shots -- one Op Fire, one regular Fire -- before being able to return (Defensive) fire.

I like things as they are, but I can also see the benefits in this small change.

Thoughts?


This could simulate the "hull down" manoeuvre, where the tank approaches a ridge and then fires just to retreat immediately thereafter.
It doesn't give any defensive bonuses, but prevents defence fire. I like it. But as long as vehicles can't enter adjacent to enemy units.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
F H
United Kingdom
UK
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure I like the idea. I can't justify that, it's a feeling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Kundlak
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FNH1 wrote:
I'm not sure I like the idea. I can't justify that, it's a feeling.

Same feeling, opposite side cool

That is so cool about it!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Norman Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The double fire can sometimes feel harsh, though the situation effects both players, though perhaps moreso the attacker. So a tweak might be in order - it just needs to be the right tweak.

the issues that I see with the proposal are;

1) how far would the vehicle be able to advance

2) if over anything more than 1 hex, it could regularly be used by the moving player as a way to avoid receiving opportunity fire over ground in which it should normally be at risk.

3) Can the movement produce overrun effects or should it.

4) would the movement include pivoting

5) this type of movement might frequently be in places that should be able to invite handheld anti tank weapons (i.e opportunity fire to adjacent hexes - particularly important if an overrun is allowed).

6) the vehicle in this period did not have fire stablisation (gyro stabilisation), so allowing any sort of movement in the same turn as a vehicle gun has fired is problematic - so if vehicle advancing is allowed, perhaps it should only be available to vehicles that have not fired.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Kundlak
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say:

1 - one hex
2 - see above
3 - I would say no, for simplicity's sake
4 - no, same heading
5 - as Piero suggested, vehicles could be limited to not to enter a hex adjacent to an enemy unit
6 - good suggestion!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Vee
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
badge
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No thanks.
Maybe it's just me - my infantry already have enough problems with tanks as it is. gulp
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Kundlak
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Foo Dog wrote:
No thanks.
Maybe it's just me - my infantry already have enough problems with tanks as it is. gulp

And in the end, that is so nice about it - IF Barry makes it official, you can rule it out and play as before...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Doyle
United States
Lynchburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the input, everyone -- the question didn't seem to pick up much traction, so I'm putting it on the back burner. I'll assume most everyone is OK with the rule as-is, but even the responses here are slightly mixed.

I'll introduce it as an optional or variant rule in a mag or web article, and if it gains any momentum after that I may reconsider it.

Now it's full speed ahead on other V&V projects!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.