AndyH
Posts: 8
Joined: 3/25/2010 Status: offline
|
Thanks Vic and Lunaticus for your explanations (albeit - from my perspective - disappointing ones!) Vic: I appreciate that any system of wargame rules is going to involve some degree of simplification and abstraction and I also realize that the turn-based system is going to impose some artificiality on the model, but I did have a couple of questions and thoughts on this: 1. What's the logic for treating land-based and sea-based artillery differently when they are both firing at a ship? If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a ship at sea has a lot more freedom of movement than a land based unit, and so can escape an artillery barrage more easily. But if that's so, wouldn't it apply equally well to a ship under attack from shore-based artillery? I can't see why a shore-based artillery unit would be more able to engage a ship at sea than another ship would. 2. More generally, I can't quite follow the rationale for these rules. I think your argument is that ships can disengage from a naval attack relatively easily (this is broadly true, provided the ship under attack is faster). However, I don't think the current rules support this model. Let's say I have a cruiser that encounters an enemy destroyer at sea. The current rules do not permit the (faster) destroyer to escape, they simply force me to close to a 1 hex range in order to attack. The result is a close range engagement and the probable loss of the destroyer . This is the exact opposite of what probably would have happened in real life: a brief long-range engagement with the destroyer either being sunk by the cruiser's first shells, or - more likely - disengaging and escaping. If you want to model that type of engagement, isn't the answer to give the destroyer a higher chance of retreating when attacked? Obviously warfare creates many different scenarios, but in general it seems unrealistic to allow a larger, slower ship to close with a smaller faster one. Furthermore, even if the destroyer allowed my cruiser to close (let's say it's protecting some cargo ships and can't just run away), it would still be in my interest to engage the destroyer at range, because there's always the risk (albeit remote) that a lucky torpedo shot would sink me, it's always going to be in my interest to engage the enemy from outside his range if that's feasible. ...anyway, I'm getting a bit naval warfare geeky here, but perhaps this provides a little food for thought. This issue aside, I'm very impressed by AT and I particularly love its flexibility. Andrew
|