[House Rules] Are vehicles really diging in?

[plloyd1010]

As our pal Wayne claims, in another thread APCs are probably not digging in. Since the US Army armored platoon/company field manual says that a full crew will require 4-6 hours to create an improved position for a [armored] vehicle, I would agree. My gaming group has discussed issue before.

We decided that vehicles digging in are not so much digging, but looking around very carefully. Looking for perturbations in the terrain.

So how about this for an idea: When a vehicle is digging in, roll a die. On a 5 or 6, the vehicle is dug in. Vehicles with armor efficiency may add 1 to the die roll.

This will give vehicles with good crews a 75% chance of finding cover in 2 turns. Normal crews have a 56% chance.

To make things a little weird, how about requiring the vehicle to move to another hex if they fail? That may be a little much though.

[Shad]

I think needing to move if they fail is a bit harsh, but you might consider digging-in to be a one-time-per-hex attempt such that if you fail your roll you have exhausted the digging-in possibilities for that hex area for this platoon.

To be honest I don't see myself ever using this HR, but I do appreciate the observation that they aren't truly digging-in.

[larry marak]

Only if they fall into a deep impact crater from carpet bombing. This could be a random event in Beyond Normandy, with both sides subject to this due to the poor eyesight of American carpet bombers.

[plloyd1010]

Yeah Drew, that's how I meant the move to another hex idea.

[vince hughes]

JPeter,

ust one other point on the HR.

I'm not sure about letting effecient vehicles getting the +1. The only reason I say this is that they already have a +75% combat advantage when firing overall (+100% if they take no loss), and would worry that also allowing themselves to defend better heightens that advantage curve even further ?

I think that would be something worth considering for any person taking up the HR.

What do you think ?

[campsawyer]

We decided that vehicles digging in are not so much digging, but looking around very carefully. Looking for perturbations in the terrain.

I would agree with this and the fact that the vehicles can dig in, but the issue I believe you pointing out is how fast they can dig in. Even though it might be reasonable/unreasonable for them to do this, PG is about simplicity and the digging I believe this is reasonable. Other factors will come into play for them to dig in during the course of the game and especially if they are in the midst of battle they may not be able to finish in the two turns. FoW and other priorities may force them to take many turns or even give up because they need to move or fire.

[plloyd1010]

Vince, I get your point ok. With us it isn't settled, and functionally not even tested. Our general process is to discuss the simulation issue, play with it a lot, then try it 2 or 3 times. We are in the middle phase. Allowing the better crews +1 may be too much of a step. We will be discussing, and pushing counters on Sunday.

Alan, your issue is another matter. I understand wargames were a balance between play and simulation. I don't see how this rule would damage the system or operate beyond it. If you don't agree with house rules, or with the situation, you don't need to use them. So, I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make.

Beyond all that: The original idea for the rule is from the AH Tobruch game's optional rules. Their game was on a much smaller scale, with 30 second turns. Another point is, vehicular digging in (either version) is directional in nature. We've largely decided to ignor the last issue because it is too much work for simulation in this game.

The reason I think moving to try "digging in" again may be too harsh is because it would force you wait a turn in between attempts. resolving that issue may messing with the system than we are willing to do. (Alan may have a simplicity point there.)

[campsawyer]

Alan, your issue is another matter. I understand wargames were a balance between play and simulation. I don't see how this rule would damage the system or operate beyond it. If you don't agree with house rules, or with the situation, you don't need to use them. So, I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make

Peter, This was not my point. I was trying to show that the game has other mechanics that need to be factored in. Simply looking at just digging and how hard or easy it is seems like is too narrow of focus for testing a house rule.

[plloyd1010]

Well Alan, we go slowly with our modifications. Mostly be we don't like to create "Harris Clocks". We have a desire to simulate without damaging the system, regardless of which game it is. Since one of our group, he doesn't play PG, is into doing things like that, I often have pause with any rule suggested. Of course any rule will change texture of the game. Improving that game by creating something needing to be fixed later is something we strive to avoid.

For to narrow, it isn't any more narrow than the mech/motor difference or the artillery collateral hits differences. It seems to improve the simulation aspect, doesn't damage the system, reduces bookkeeping and stack height, and potentially shortens the process.

[Brett Nicholson]

Prime movers: Can they dig-in? I understand that they are counted as collateral losses, like a wagon or truck, when an X result is generated on the direct or indirect tables but they do have a direct-fire value as a combat unit. I realize they are not APCs but also, while here, want to know if they are soley treated as transport if they are eliminated, as step losses, in the case of scenarios where normal transports, such as trucks and wagons, are not. In the present scenario they don't count towards the reduction of initiative but for victory purposes they are not mentioned at all, along with trucks. Because they have a direct fire value I am prone to believe they count as VC step losses. But first and foremost, again, are they allowed to dig-in?