Help support TMP


"Another East of Suez Rules Question" Topic


4 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

MEA Infantry Squad [BEvo]

The Editor snaps some photos of the pre-painted Middle Eastern infantry from Mongoose's new game, Battlefield Evolution.


Featured Profile Article

First Look: GF9's 15mm Dresden House

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian examines another house in this series.


Featured Book Review


564 hits since 16 Jul 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Mako1116 Jul 2016 10:51 a.m. PST

Have a question on the East of Suez rules by LKM/QRF.

Looking to give these a go for combat in NW Europe during the Cold War, just for grins, since I have them handy.

Generally, the rules seem to be pretty straight-forward, and not overly long, or onerous. I did run across an issue on tank-to-tank combat though, that has me a bit perplexed. I've re-read the paragraph above the chart several times, but still can't make heads or tails really, of the values, and/or why they're even included in one case. This one instance isn't covered by the game-play example.

The issue is regarding non-moving vehicles firing on non-moving vehicles.

The STATIC/MOVE CHART at the top of page 11 is the one that has me stumped.

In these rules, there are different numbers you have to roll for the Type of Weapon (size) being fired at the target, to provide based To-Hit numbers on a D10. You need to roll >= the number to hit the target. Pretty straight-forward, with values differing by weapon type and range to the target.

Personally, I'd think these base numbers would be used to hit non-moving targets, when firing from a non-moving vehicle.

In referencing the STATIC/MOVE CHART though, it appears that may not be the case, unless I'm misinterpreting it. The rules state, just above the "Firer Static" modifier line, "Use first number (presumably the one to the left of the slash) if target is static, second number (one to the right of the slash) if target is moving".

I have no problems with the Firer being static and the Target moving modifier. That seems fine.

My issue is with the Firer and Target both being static.

Unmodified, the following To-Hit Base Percentages are given for the following weapon types:

800m – 1,000m range (on tank gun chart) –
75mm – 90mm gun 4+ to hit on 1D10 (70% to hit)
100mm – 115mm gun 3+ to hit on 1D10 (80% to hit)
120mm+ gun 2+ to hit on 1D10 (90% to hit)

1,500m range –
75mm – 90mm 5+ (6+ at 1,501 – 2,000m) [60% and 50% chances to hit, respectively]
100mm – 115mm 5+ (6+ 15 1,501 – 2,000m) [60% and 50% chances to hit, respectively]
120mm+ 3+ (3+ at 1,501 – 2,000m) [80% chance to hit at both ranges]

When adding in the number to the left of the Firer Static Chart (non-moving firer and target, presumably), the following numbers apply:

501m – 1,000m (note the difference from the Tank Gunnery Chart – 801m – 1,000m range) = +3 to the To-Hit D10 die roll, making a hit less likely to occur.

1,001 – 1,500m = +4 to the To-Hit die roll.
1,501 – 2,000m = +5 to the To-Hit die roll.

Using the values to the left of the slash on the Static/Move Chart – Firer Static, as mentioned above, results in the following, for the ranges listed above:

800m – 1,000m range (on tank gun chart) = +3 on To-Hit Die Roll, added to base To-Hit number:
75mm – 90mm gun 4+ to hit +3 mod. = 7+ To-Hit (40% chance)
100mm – 115mm gun 3+ to hit +3 mod. = 6+ To-Hit (50% chance)
120mm+ gun 2+ to hit +3 mod. = 5+ To-Hit (60% chance)

1,001 – 1,501m range – (on tank gun chart) = +4 on To-Hit Die Roll:
75mm – 90mm 5+ with +4 mod. = 9+ To-Hit (20% chance)
100mm – 115mm 5+ with +4 mod. = 9+ To-Hit (20% chance)
120mm+ 3+ with +4 mod. = 7+ To-Hit (40% chance)

1,501m – 2,000m range (on tank gun chart) – (on tank gun chart) = +5 on To-Hit Die Roll:
75mm – 90mm gun 6+ with +5 mod. = no chance to hit
100mm – 115mm gun 6+ with +5 mod. = no chance to hit
120mm+ gun 3+ with +5 mod. = 8+ To-Hit (30% chance)

Granted, Soviet guns are poor over 1,500m range, until the introduction of the 125mm cannon, and more advanced fire controls and laser range finding, but they're not that bad.

The 105mm L7 gun of the NATO nations should surely be able to hit non-moving targets at range, when not moving themselves, even above 2,000m. Everything I've read seems to indicate these can hit about 50% of the time at 1,500m range.

As you can see from the above, it appears to me that adding in the Firer/Static mods., to the left of the slash, for the firer being "static", or unmoving, are rather severe for "modern" Cold War era guns, many of which typically have an effective range of 1,500m – 2,000m, supposedly.

If you agree with that, and if true, then I'm wondering what the values to the left of the slash could be for.

Thoughts?

All the other modifiers are covered in the rules game play examples, but not the Fixed Firer vs. Fixed, non-moving Target.

Given the above, very low chances to hit, if adding in the Fixed Firer mods., I'm going to ignore them, but am wondering if the mods (to the left of the slash, for "Firer Static") should be used for some other situation not explicitly clear to me in the rules, or that were somehow left out, accidentally.

Anyone else come across this issue?

There are no other appropriate mods to make the chance to hit better, since the stabilization bonus should only apply if the firing tank is moving.

Mako1116 Jul 2016 10:52 a.m. PST

Sorry, hit enter accidentally. More to come in the original posting, soon.

Okay, updated.

GeoffQRF16 Jul 2016 1:21 p.m. PST

Sorry, can't respond to PM anymore

I'll have to find my rules and see :-)

Mako1116 Jul 2016 1:42 p.m. PST

No worries Geoff.

Sorry to hear that.

Thank you. I look forward to your thoughts.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.