Thread: Question Vehicle facing
View Single Post
  #20  
Old March 9th, 2016, 10:48 AM

ru_disa ru_disa is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
ru_disa is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Vehicle facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ru_disa View Post
Infantry should not expend movement points to change facing, because at this scale an infantry unit shouldn't have a facing. Different guys in a unit of 8, 9 or 10 soldiers could be covering different arcs, etc.
This would make perfect sense with a squad of 8 or so, but what about a 2-man scout team? Tho one could argue in the course of a turn that could look around easily enough.
And how about ambush type situations?
Infantry having 360 vision/facing is sort of a six-a-one half-dozen-of-the-other situation.
You make a very good point, and I see how maybe having an explicit facing would make sense for emplaced infantry (like an MMG for example); but I still believe that mobile infantry should have 360 vision. The way I see it, the ambush situation you mention would make sense only if it happened within the same hex, with a squad being jumped pretty much on their backs by the enemy. If the enemy is one hex away, though, we are already talking 50 meters away. I think in this case an inf unit or a scout unit (which by definition should have good vision and mobility, even though they have lower numbers) should have 360 vision.

I can see how a case can be made for giving all inf units explicit facing, but wouldn't we be getting to almost uncomfortable levels of granularity at that point?
Reply With Quote