Question: Vehicle facing

[geoff]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I read A.1 as a subset of A, ie costing MPs.

I have to admit, I thought that turning to face already triggered opfire, but I must not have been paying attention to what was going on. I've since tried that out in the tutorial, and found I was wrong.

What a great game. What is it, 20 years old now? And still going strong. I started with SP2, which had been out a year when I got a computer fast enough to play it.

[Oche]

Originally Posted by geoff

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I read A.1 as a subset of A, ie costing MPs.

I have to admit, I thought that turning to face already triggered opfire, but I must not have been paying attention to what was going on. I've since tried that out in the tutorial, and found I was wrong.

What a great game. What is it, 20 years old now? And still going strong. I started with SP2, which had been out a year when I got a computer fast enough to play it.

Not only is a great game and 20 years old (and still improving), it is just simply the BEST, top notch, these combat simulations (WINSPWW2 & WINSPMBT) remain unmatched in the Tactical subgenre of wargames from Brigade to single man size turn based.

You don't need fancy graphics and eye candy to have a good combat simulation do you?

[ru_disa]

Just throwing an idea out there... Couldn't this be used as a tactic to soak up all op-fire from a group of enemy unit? (For example, I can use a tank to soak up all op-fire from a group of infantry unit, after which I can advance my own infantry without risks.)

I liked to idea of expending movement points to change facing of a vehicle, on the other hand.

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.

Anyway, congratulations on an amazing game and thanks for the continued support!

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by ru_disa

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.

[ru_disa]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

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?