mortars shooting down airplanes

[dredlox]

Am I correct in assuming a mortar can shoot at a plane? Do any of you think that should be included in the latest round of plane errata? Granted with no shrapnel and two -1 bonuses, it's a virtual impossibility to hit - but the heavy mortar with a commisar is an almost possible hit... heh, that is pretty far out, hitting a stuka at 8 squares with a heavy mortar. And there are always future mortars...

Just something to think about - not hating on anything, I love this game. If anyone from Avalon HIll wants my opinion though, I personally would have liked to see only AA units able to attack air - would have prevented a lot of errata. Errata tends to be a pain.

[Joisey]

In answer to your questions, Yes & Yes.

My understanding is that the Russian 82mm mortar can shoot at planes up to 16 hexes away and, with a Commissar sacrificing a couple of cheapy chinese units, roll at PLUS one.

And may I personally extend a warm welcome to you on behalf of the Flak Only Club United: Avalon Hill Games, or F.O.C.U.: AHG, for short. I think I'm the founder of the movement, and I am confident that once people atually start playing with Set III units, we will get more adherents faster than Christian converts following the Sermon on the Mount. :)

[Canuck_Captain]

I agree, only unit with the anti-air ability should be able to hit planes...

I definately want to be a member of the Flak only club too :)

[Arontje]

I dont agree.

Normally mortars need a 6 to hit a plane. And with a commisar it gets 5 or 6. I dont think it will give problems.

[MektonZero]

I dont agree.

Normally mortars need a 6 to hit a plane. And with a commisar it gets 5 or 6. I dont think it will give problems.

2 mortars with Bravery Enforcement have a 20% chance of killing a Stuka making an attack nearly a mile away and a 25% chance of inflicting one of the two hits required to shoot down the aircraft.

That is a problem.

[dredlox]

My thinking exactly. 2 stacked heavy mortars with a commisar and some kmt flunkies (which is pretty darn good against a lot of things!), actually has a chance of busting up a stuka. That's pretty silly

Again - i'm not complaining overly, I like goofy play. I come from a ccg and magic background where anything goes ;-) Just wondering what you gentleman thought, kind of throwing it out if maybe all artillery units should get some errata? That would fix it.

[NEVjr]

as i posted in a different thread

inaccurate, so to beat the odds of the bofors on a 4/4 plane, you need the mortar, 11 points, the commisar, 5 points, and 3 infantry at minimum 2 points each, as there is the -1 for aircraft, the -1 for inaccurate, and it needs to roll 3+ to beat the bofors at 10 hexes, giving you 22 points for one shot, which could get you 2 bofors and an M1 rifle

still seem worth it?

[MektonZero]

as i posted in a different thread

inaccurate, so to beat the odds of the bofors on a 4/4 plane, you need the mortar, 11 points, the commisar, 5 points, and 3 infantry at minimum 2 points each, as there is the -1 for aircraft, the -1 for inaccurate, and it needs to roll 3+ to beat the bofors at 10 hexes, giving you 22 points for one shot, which could get you 2 bofors and an M1 rifle

still seem worth it?

It depends on the situation.

At 11 hexes, what does a single 82mm mortar without a commisar need to roll to beat two dozen Bofors and a dozen M1 Rifles?

A 6. :D


This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a 82mm mortar is less effective than a Bofors at 1,000 yards or less. It has everything to do with the fact that the mortar is effective at all, especialy at ranges exceeding 1,000 yards.

[Mr_G]

2 mortars with Bravery Enforcement have a 20% chance of killing a Stuka making an attack nearly a mile away and a 25% chance of inflicting one of the two hits required to shoot down the aircraft.

That is a problem.

So you mobilize like, 2 mortars (11 pts each), a commissar (5 pts) plus a few infantry to sacrifice (lets say 3 infantry at cost 2, the lowest)... that means that 21 pt plane has just mobilized 3 or 4 units and 33 points just to shoot at it? That's just plain poor tactics.

[Mr_G]

Leave the air killing to other units... there are much better uses for this mortar... :D

[RaidingParty]

Has there ever been a case where a mortar shot down a plane during World War II? If so, then I'll grant that mortars can take potshots at low-flying planes. The odds are slim enough, especially during a 7-10 turn game. If not, I have to side with Joisey and the naysayers.

[dredlox]

The point I am making is not whether the heavy mortars are the BEST aa pieces... clearly they are not. I wouldnt argue this for a second. What I am saying is that it is pretty ridiculous for a mortar to have any chance of shooting down a plan anywhere, let alone at 100s of meters. I dont need to see the probablity stats to know a bofors is a better anti aircraft piece, I suspect if it were not, there would be a lot more outrage than I could ever muster.

[Grantham]

The Bofors are nice but not nearly as multi function as the infantry commy mortar combo. So why buy an AA unit when your units designed to murder his infantry and soft skins do the job for you? It is a mater of certain units being more multi purpose than others. The more uses a single piece has the better it is the more specilized it is the less usefull it is ecept in certain circumstances. Thats why the german armor is weaker than allied, mortars commisars etc are more multi function than a bofors gun and that is just nameing two examples.

[MektonZero]

So you mobilize like, 2 mortars (11 pts each), a commissar (5 pts) plus a few infantry to sacrifice (lets say 3 infantry at cost 2, the lowest)... that means that 21 pt plane has just mobilized 3 or 4 units and 33 points just to shoot at it? That's just plain poor tactics.


They can fire from nearly a mile away and are no slouches at shooting at any infantry that they get a LoS on. It's not like those points are wasted if they don't get any planes to shoot at.

[hornet69]

mortars hitting airplanes come addit to the errata with the words no

[Mr_G]

They can fire from nearly a mile away and are no slouches at shooting at any infantry that they get a LoS on. It's not like those points are wasted if they don't get any planes to shoot at.

I know, but to think that they can easily shoot down planes with the commissar is a big mistake and/or a big waste of points. My point was, better to shoot infantry than to shoot planes with them, I didn't say they were useless... they are uber strong, quite to the contrary. :eek:

[Tico303]

Has there ever been a case where a mortar shot down a plane during World War II?


I don't know about WW II, but it has happened to a douglas AC-47 gunship. Of course it was a non-intentional hit.

Read the story here (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-25.htm)

Still: I go for the NO-MORTAR-ANTIAIR-erratum.

[Mcduncan]

The only thing I have heard about mortars against aircraft during ww2 is: The Germans mounting mortars on some of their fighters to break up bomber formations. It was hard to use and was abandoned.

[Lotus]

Leave the air killing to other units... there are much better uses for this mortar... :D

The man is right. Just because it can be done doesn't make it wise to do it. Trust me, planes will do their dirty work and get shot down. You don't need mortar to do that. Been there.

[NEVjr]

Has there ever been a case where a mortar shot down a plane during World War II? If so, then I'll grant that mortars can take potshots at low-flying planes. The odds are slim enough, especially during a 7-10 turn game. If not, I have to side with Joisey and the naysayers.
i doubt it happened more then once, but its so rediculously hard to do, or point wasting that it wont happen much, if ever.

as for the range, when you have 2 bofors, you can cover more hexes then 1 mortar can, and make more then one AA shot

[Arontje]

2 mortars with Bravery Enforcement have a 20% chance of killing a Stuka making an attack nearly a mile away and a 25% chance of inflicting one of the two hits required to shoot down the aircraft.

That is a problem.

Nope it aint. Cause the plane will move on the field cause you stack all that together in one area. The plane already does its job without coming into play. And still you also need to entertain the other units from the enemy. You are just focusing on some situation that can happen but not often.

I wont see a problem with it shooting at aircraft. It is a good unit however, I dont disagree with that.

[VandyFry]

Something else to consider is that this is not just one mortar. Accroding to the base rules, infantry unless otherwise stated are a squad of men. Isn't it possible that they might get one hit amongst 12 mortars shooting at a low flying plane?

[Joisey]

Something else to consider is that this is not just one mortar. Accroding to the base rules, infantry unless otherwise stated are a squad of men. Isn't it possible that they might get one hit amongst 12 mortars shooting at a low flying plane?
Go ahead. Show me documentation where a squad of riflemen took down an airplane.

[Zhukov]

Mortars shooting down planes!?! Ooorah sounds like a whole lotta whoop ass.

[NEVjr]

Go ahead. Show me documentation where a squad of riflemen took down an airplane.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm

posted in a different thread by someone else, remember, is a unit is a squad of guys, you should have a SMG and a LMG included, and 10 bolt action rifles is compairable to the amount of fire from a bren or vickers, and M1 rifles even better

a mortar squad is one mortar and the 5 or 6 guys to go with it, not 12 mortars

[MektonZero]

Nope it aint. Cause the plane will move on the field cause you stack all that together in one area. The plane already does its job without coming into play. And still you also need to entertain the other units from the enemy. You are just focusing on some situation that can happen but not often.

I wont see a problem with it shooting at aircraft. It is a good unit however, I dont disagree with that.

It's not a focus, it's a side effect. Given the low defense of a spotter, I can easily see having several artillery pieces on the board to get the most of each one before it gets destroyed.

If I'm going to have a several mortars onboard anyway, why shouldn't I use them to shoot down Stukas on turns when they don't have a spotter and are shredding infantry units?

[Arontje]

It's not a focus, it's a side effect. Given the low defense of a spotter, I can easily see having several artillery pieces on the board to get the most of each one before it gets destroyed.

If I'm going to have a several mortars onboard anyway, why shouldn't I use them to shoot down Stukas on turns when they don't have a spotter and are shredding infantry units?

Of course. If you have a good oppertunity then go ahead. I am only saying that it wont happen that much. First of all the enemy must have a plane, then you must have a commissar next to the mortar. There are many things in order to happen as some people will fear it will be used.

[VandyFry]

Logistics:
Comissar - 11 pts
Chinese infantry - 2 pts
Russian Mortar - 11 pts

Positioning 24 points to shoot down a unit worth 21 points seems rather difficult to me. This also assumes that you would only need to fire once. Since the IL-10 has a defense of 4, and since the mortar must hit on a 5-6, the expected number of successful hits on any given roll is (1/3)*(8) = 2.7. In addition this would assume nothing would kill this combo, or that this combo can somehow manage to get into an appropriate position in order to fire. With range 16, that's not a bad assumption, but I would be more comfortable with anti-air units at cheaper cost.

Another way to look at this or to perhaps justify it is that the unit killed and the commissar may also be considered as shooting at the aircraft. Since three units were used to set this up, might it be argued then that the fire power represents not 12 guys but 36?

[capchris]

Mortars shooting down planes!?! Ooorah sounds like a whole lotta whoop ass.

The WW1 French ace, Georges Guynemer (spelling?), was hit by an artillery shell while flying his SPAD 13. The shell lodged in the (now dead) engine, but did not explode. The pilot glided to a safe landing.

So, yeah, it's possible. But given that mortars suffer -2 to the dice, I'd think any attacking plane would want it to waste its shot by shooting at him!

[capchris]

My understanding is that the Russian 82mm mortar can shoot at planes up to 16 hexes away and, with a Commissar sacrificing a couple of cheapy chinese units, roll at PLUS one.

Read the rules again, and the Q&A's here about combining commander bonuses (double Banzais and the like).

A single type of commander bonus can only be applied/used once. Even if you can and do destroy three units with your Commissar, any friendly unit only gets to use the +1 bonus only once.

[hornet69]

yes while the mortar team is planing there attack on my plane i put my plane inthe same hex as yours and say hello mince meat mortar in a straffing run

[MektonZero]

Of course. If you have a good oppertunity then go ahead. I am only saying that it wont happen that much. First of all the enemy must have a plane, then you must have a commissar next to the mortar. There are many things in order to happen as some people will fear it will be used.

If the enemy doesn't have a plane you just smack the crap out of his infantry and light vehicles. Using the mortars against aircraft isn't the plan, it's a bonus. Otherwise you can use Bravery Enforcement to get your mortars to hit on a 4+ against ground units, with a 86% chance to kill any soldier in the game not making a cover save and a 19% chance of damaging a defense 3 vehicle for each mortar firing at ranges up to 16 hexes.

[Zhukov]

The WW1 French ace, Georges Guynemer (spelling?), was hit by an artillery shell while flying his SPAD 13. The shell lodged in the (now dead) engine, but did not explode. The pilot glided to a safe landing.

So, yeah, it's possible. But given that mortars suffer -2 to the dice, I'd think any attacking plane would want it to waste its shot by shooting at him!
I like my quote and your line so much I think I might set it in my sig for later! You know I just said stuff R. Lee Ermey from Mail Call would say but I do think it is pretty sweet and worthy of the title whoop ass because Im guessing they will fix it and if they dont im ok with that!

[MektonZero]

yes while the mortar team is planing there attack on my plane i put my plane inthe same hex as yours and say hello mince meat mortar in a straffing run

I've got 2 Mosin-Nagant Riflemen as sacrificial lambs, a Commisar and two mortars next to each other. You drop your Stuka right on top of my mortar and are shocked to find that this just isn't your day.

A Stuka has a 13% chance of killing a mortar in its hex if the mortar has cover.

In return I sacrifice one of the riflemen and the remaining Rifleman, a Mortar at 2 hex range and Commisar have a 52% chance of shooting you down and a 26% chance of disrupting you and driving you off for a turn. Thanks!

Or I could just save my rifleman for later and have everyone shoot at you, giving me at 22% chance of shooting you down and a 27% chance of disrupting you. Either way the odds are vastly in my favor.

[hornet69]

bring it on ask Lotus about the same thing dice roll man ,it will not work all the time

[Stojakovic]

Well if that was the situation he would not put the stuka in that area he would focus on somethin else. Now in the same hex at 3 dice and now with a -1 pen. for the mortar to each die you don't have much of a chance of hitting a stuka. remember the 2 for 1 hit only works on soldiers. And I doubt you want to pack all your little men in one hex because my brummbar will raise hell.

[Lotus]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm

posted in a different thread by someone else, remember, is a unit is a squad of guys, you should have a SMG and a LMG included, and 10 bolt action rifles is compairable to the amount of fire from a bren or vickers, and M1 rifles even better

a mortar squad is one mortar and the 5 or 6 guys to go with it, not 12 mortars

Nice post, NEVjr. That fed my head.

[MektonZero]

Well if that was the situation he would not put the stuka in that area he would focus on somethin else. Now in the same hex at 3 dice and now with a -1 pen. for the mortar to each die you don't have much of a chance of hitting a stuka. remember the 2 for 1 hit only works on soldiers. And I doubt you want to pack all your little men in one hex because my brummbar will raise hell.

He is the one that said he'd put a stuka in the hex. As for the hit chances, I'm not talking about firing with the mortar in the stuka's hex, just everything else. As for your Brumbar, all 5 of those units are in their own separate hexes.

[Wayfarer]

I think we all seem to agree that while it is possible for a mortar to shoot down an aircraft, it is highly unlikely to do so, succeeding maybe 0.01% of the time if ever, however, with the AAM rules as they currently stand, that chance seems to have risen to totally unrealistic levels. While small arms fire from the mortar support team can deploy a "curtain of lead", can they do so at 16 hexes/1600 yards or even 8 hexes/800yards? Maybe an errata or house rule saying that a mortar unit can only shoot at aircraft 0-1 hex away could solve the problem? Or maybe a mortar can only attempt to shoot at an aircraft that is directly attacking them, hence flying close to or over them and thus their "curtain of lead"?

[Arontje]

If the enemy doesn't have a plane you just smack the crap out of his infantry and light vehicles. Using the mortars against aircraft isn't the plan, it's a bonus. Otherwise you can use Bravery Enforcement to get your mortars to hit on a 4+ against ground units, with a 86% chance to kill any soldier in the game not making a cover save and a 19% chance of damaging a defense 3 vehicle for each mortar firing at ranges up to 16 hexes.

Yes indeed. Its a bonus but wont happen often. And yes its gonna kill infantry I never disagreed with that.

[MektonZero]

Yes indeed. Its a bonus but wont happen often.

Maybe not in your games, but many people in my circle will take any advantage they can get and having a commisar to boost AT guns through BE is very common around here and after testing with proxy mortars it's going to be standard practice to use BE with mortars once set 3 comes out. At least until the Germans get a unit with an ability similar to the Rocket Salvo from the Katyusha that will discourage grouping units in adjacent hexes.

[MektonZero]

I think we all seem to agree that while it is possible for a mortar to shoot down an aircraft, it is highly unlikely to do so, succeeding maybe 0.01% of the time if ever, however, with the AAM rules as they currently stand, that chance seems to have risen to totally unrealistic levels. While small arms fire from the mortar support team can deploy a "curtain of lead", can they do so at 16 hexes/1600 yards or even 8 hexes/800yards? Maybe an errata or house rule saying that a mortar unit can only shoot at aircraft 0-1 hex away could solve the problem? Or maybe a mortar can only attempt to shoot at an aircraft that is directly attacking them, hence flying close to or over them and thus their "curtain of lead"?

At 0-1 hex the 82mm mortar only gets 3 dice against defense 4 aircraft, at least the ones seen so far are defense 4. The easiest way to resolve this entire situation is to add "This unit cannot attack aircraft." to the Indirect SA. Just like they did with the Bombardment SA.

[Aries]

The easiest way to resolve this entire situation is to add "This unit cannot attack aircraft." to the Indirect SA. Just like they did with the Bombardment SA.

It is already there, Indirect SA says target must be a soldier. The problem is that LOS to aircraft is not blocked, ever. So the enhanced range allows the 82mm Mortar to fire at aircraft without the FO. Add a Commisar and fodder and the Russians have their AA & long range artillery battery.

[NEVjr]

It is already there, Indirect SA says target must be a soldier. The problem is that LOS to aircraft is not blocked, ever. So the enhanced range allows the 82mm Mortar to fire at aircraft without the FO. Add a Commisar and fodder and the Russians have their AA & long range artillery battery.
bravery enforcement only works once in a turn, so at 8 dice, with -1, they only have 26% to disrupt a 4/4 aircraft, thats really not to bad, i think its the commisar that really needs fixing, perhaps limit bravery enforcement to attacking infantry

[MektonZero]

It is already there, Indirect SA says target must be a soldier. The problem is that LOS to aircraft is not blocked, ever. So the enhanced range allows the 82mm Mortar to fire at aircraft without the FO. Add a Commisar and fodder and the Russians have their AA & long range artillery battery.

I'm not talking about modifying the current special ability.

Adding an entirely seperate sentece "This unit cannot fire at aircraft." modifies any attack that the unit makes under any circumstances. This is exactly the same thing they did with the Blast SA to prohibit them from firing at aircraft.

[Aries]

Understood. I think this was mentioned before but perhaps WOTC can send us a free sticker sheet with the following precut stickers.
Non-AA Unit: This unit cannot fire at aircraft.

[MektonZero]

bravery enforcement only works once in a turn, so at 8 dice, with -1, they only have 26% to disrupt a 4/4 aircraft, thats really not to bad, i think its the commisar that really needs fixing, perhaps limit bravery enforcement to attacking infantry

Bravery Enforcement doesn't only work once per turn. It works for every shot made by every adjacent soldier.

“Bravery Enforcement - At the beginning of your assault phase, you can destroy a friendly Soldier adjacent to this unit. If you do, other friendly Soldiers adjacent to this unit get +1 on each attack die this phase.”

You really want to see some carnage, set up a Commissar stacked with a Mosin-Nagant adjacent to 6 Vickers machineguns in his front arc, shoot the infantry in the head and fire at a Chinese human wave attack from at 6 hexes away. :)

[polish_horsy]

for about half of the special abilities in this game somthing stupid results. Hence the "kiddie rules" comments by FOW and players of other games which we see in other posts.

[MektonZero]

Understood. I think this was mentioned before but perhaps WOTC can send us a free sticker sheet with the following precut stickers.
Non-AA Unit: This unit cannot fire at aircraft.

No need for stickers. Just change the Aircraft SA to

"Aircraft are placed during the Flight phase and attack during the airstrike phase. Units with the Aircraft or Antiair special ability can attack an Aircraft using their anti-soldier values and get -1 on each attack die; other units may not fire at aircraft."

This will still let planes and AA guns shoot at each other with the current rules and is a lot easier than adding a SA to dozens of existing ground units.

[Aries]

My thinking was more the in-between solution, not all or nothing.

I like the idea of giving some regular land units the ability to fire at aircraft (Half-tracks, tanks with .50 hvy AA mg, etc...) Perhaps the sticker should read:
Limited AA: Fires at -1 against aircraft
and the rules state only units with AA ability may fire.

The reason I do not like "Only AA may fire" is that it forces a player to always having some AA or aircraft units attached to your company. Also, if you purchase AA and it is taken out your army is now open to free attacks to all aircraft.

For instance, in large points games especially, purchase a couple of flights of aircraft and then have your fast land units take out the AA assets. As soon as this is done the aircraft will chew up your forces.

There should be at least a chance of hitting a plane, just with historically realistic weapon systems.

[Arontje]

Maybe not in your games, but many people in my circle will take any advantage they can get and having a commisar to boost AT guns through BE is very common around here and after testing with proxy mortars it's going to be standard practice to use BE with mortars once set 3 comes out. At least until the Germans get a unit with an ability similar to the Rocket Salvo from the Katyusha that will discourage grouping units in adjacent hexes.

Of course. But if you have more then 1 mortar and a commissar and at least 3 cheap infantry at the back, and you also have a spotter. A good mobile german army can easily kill all of that. I have to wait and see. Its just that I dont think its gonna be that of a problem against planes. Sure its a real good unit and yes it CAN shoot at planes. But I still think the plane doesnt need to worry that its get disrupted or worse from it.

[WotC Bob]

My father was a Marine helicopter pilot in Korea & Viet Nam. His helicopter was once hit by a mortar round, shrapnel doing quite a bit of damage to his face.

Surely not a common occurence, but it did happen. Hitting a plane? Assuredly much harder.

[DocD]

Yeah, much, much harder, unless.....I guess the plane was on the runway taxing or doing a very, very, very low bomb run, or the plane made a straight dive for the mortar, or....

[Stojakovic]

As As for your Brumbar, all 5 of those units are in their own separate hexes.

That makes it more fun for my sniper. http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3673/snipersmilie4lu.gif

[NEVjr]

Bravery Enforcement doesn't only work once per turn. It works for every shot made by every adjacent soldier.

“Bravery Enforcement - At the beginning of your assault phase, you can destroy a friendly Soldier adjacent to this unit. If you do, other friendly Soldiers adjacent to this unit get +1 on each attack die this phase.”

You really want to see some carnage, set up a Commissar stacked with a Mosin-Nagant adjacent to 6 Vickers machineguns in his front arc, shoot the infantry in the head and fire at a Chinese human wave attack from at 6 hexes away. :)

it works once per turn in the sense that you can only kill 1 inf to get a +1

[XAos]

No need for stickers. Just change the Aircraft SA to

"Aircraft are placed during the Flight phase and attack during the airstrike phase. Units with the Aircraft or Antiair special ability can attack an Aircraft using their anti-soldier values and get -1 on each attack die; other units may not fire at aircraft."

This will still let planes and AA guns shoot at each other with the current rules and is a lot easier than adding a SA to dozens of existing ground units.
That solution gets my vote;
It deals very nicely with all the crazy units. With far less errata to remember than the current set. And fixes the insane sherman105 AA-tank. :rolleyes: Which the current errata doesn't.
Oh yea, it also fixes the wehrmacht sniper (see my "signature" - below)

[dredlox]

So being the starter who posted this, I have read carefully everyone's excellent input, and just wanted to wrap up my current thoughts on this. If you don't mind hear me out, this is a little lengthy, but very heartfelt.

Seems to me that AH and wotc want a good semblance of realism in this game, based upon the first round of errata (no flamethrowing or banzai charging airplanes). I think both are very good companies in general, probably the 2 best companies in gaming.

I think they are gonna step up on this one - it is ridiculous for a mortar to hit a plane at that range. It would be like that harrison ford movie where he shoots the defunct cannon and blasts the plane, it's just something comical at best, annoying at the worst. And yet several of us have showed it is not that unlikely to do so based upon the game rules.

I think and hope the game makers are just making sure they dont piecemeal too much more errata, but release any more remaining needed fixes in one last errata.

For what it matters, and I buy a lot of A&A and play a lot of A&A, here is what I vote

1) Go with the anti air rule stated above - only aircraft and AA units can fire on air pieces. This the most realistic and I feel is inline with good game play/development.

The AA units in this set are strong. I have tested them, they are very strong against air and yet quite versatile for the most part due to their very high anti infantry stats. They also are fairly inexpensive. This obliviates the game need for having very general pieces like humbers have a chance to kill dangerous planes without support. It will not be very hard to include AA pieces, and they are absolute murder on the aircraft. The aircraft from my testing are quite easy to shoot down with the AA pieces. This creates an a,b,c in game meta, but that is in keeping with A&A already anyways.

2) If nothing else, carefully check the current figures. Guys from here could help. Things like mortars, artillery, mounted guns like stugs, and the sherman gun must be taken out of the picture. Remember: the guys that like the wacky stuff (r2 towing mace windu anyone?) will play no matter what. I sometimes fall into that category myself.

These players do not care, they will play axis vs axis or allies vs allies, hell, you could say you can mix all the nationalities and they wouldnt care. Or you could make more restrictions and they will play anyways, you could say "only one nationality per team" ala D&D minis and the alignments.

But their ARE people who care about realism... look at heroclix and how poorly that was run. How many scenario homebrewed campaigns popped up (http://www.decktech.net/heroclix/themes/ for instance), because people got sick of teams like Hooker Bombs with 4 Con Artist and someone like the Flash or Nightcrawler or Ulik or something? And how many other people quit, including yours truly, because it was just so ridiculous? I was a clix regional champ even.

Probably the majority of buyers casually play and collect because they are fans of the genre, and things like mortars shooting planes does irritate them, often enough to buy something else.

Well, for what it is worth that is my opinion. I love this game and want it to thrive, I think I am going to even add it to DeckTech I love it so much.

Thank you for reading, both players and ah/wotc staff.

[Joisey]

So being the starter who posted this, I have read carefully everyone's excellent input, and just wanted to wrap up my current thoughts on this. If you don't mind hear me out, this is a little lengthy, but very heartfelt.

Seems to me that AH and wotc want a good semblance of realism in this game, based upon the first round of errata (no flamethrowing or banzai charging airplanes). I think both are very good companies in general, probably the 2 best companies in gaming.

I think they are gonna step up on this one - it is ridiculous for a mortar to hit a plane at that range. It would be like that harrison ford movie where he shoots the defunct cannon and blasts the plane, it's just something comical at best, annoying at the worst. And yet several of us have showed it is not that unlikely to do so based upon the game rules.

I think and hope the game makers are just making sure they dont piecemeal too much more errata, but release any more remaining needed fixes in one last errata.

For what it matters, and I buy a lot of A&A and play a lot of A&A, here is what I vote

1) Go with the anti air rule stated above - only aircraft and AA units can fire on air pieces. This the most realistic and I feel is inline with good game play/development.

The AA units in this set are strong. I have tested them, they are very strong against air and yet quite versatile for the most part due to their very high anti infantry stats. They also are fairly inexpensive. This obliviates the game need for having very general pieces like humbers have a chance to kill dangerous planes without support. It will not be very hard to include AA pieces, and they are absolute murder on the aircraft. The aircraft from my testing are quite easy to shoot down with the AA pieces. This creates an a,b,c in game meta, but that is in keeping with A&A already anyways.

2) If nothing else, carefully check the current figures. Guys from here could help. Things like mortars, artillery, mounted guns like stugs, and the sherman gun must be taken out of the picture. Remember: the guys that like the wacky stuff (r2 towing mace windu anyone?) will play no matter what. I sometimes fall into that category myself.

These players do not care, they will play axis vs axis or allies vs allies, hell, you could say you can mix all the nationalities and they wouldnt care. Or you could make more restrictions and they will play anyways, you could say "only one nationality per team" ala D&D minis and the alignments.

But their ARE people who care about realism... look at heroclix and how poorly that was run. How many scenario homebrewed campaigns popped up (http://www.decktech.net/heroclix/themes/ for instance), because people got sick of teams like Hooker Bombs with 4 Con Artist and someone like the Flash or Nightcrawler or Ulik or something? And how many other people quit, including yours truly, because it was just so ridiculous? I was a clix regional champ even.

Probably the majority of buyers casually play and collect because they are fans of the genre, and things like mortars shooting planes does irritate them, often enough to buy something else.

Well, for what it is worth that is my opinion. I love this game and want it to thrive, I think I am going to even add it to DeckTech I love it so much.

Thank you for reading, both players and ah/wotc staff.
Amen Brother!

[MektonZero]

My thinking was more the in-between solution, not all or nothing.

There should be at least a chance of hitting a plane, just with historically realistic weapon systems.

If you want an in-between solution, where non-aa units have a low, but non-zero, chance of shooting down a plane change the rule to:

"Aircraft are placed during the Flight phase and attack during the airstrike phase. Units attack aircraft using their anti-Soldier value. Units with the Aircraft or Antiair special abilities fire at -1 per die, other units fire at -2 per die."

Yes, this would eliminate mortars without Bravery Enforcement from ever hitting an aircraft (which most people won't have any problem with) and reduce the chances of other units down to almost nothing unless they are point blank range.

Example:
A group of 4 M1-Garands with a Red Devil Captain fire on a Stuka 400 yards away.

Under the current rules they would have a 28% chance of shooting it down and a 30% chance of disrupting it.

With a -2 modifier they would have about a 1% chance of shooting it down and a 6.5% chance of disrupting it.

At 100 yards, with the -2 modifier, the chances of a shootdown are 5% for 4 Garands and a Red Devil Captain, with a 15% chance of disruption.

4 Mosin Nagants and a Commisar use Bravery Enforcement (killing one of the Mosins) and fire at the same two ranges, 400 and 100 yards. At 400 yards the remaining 3 Nagants would have a 7% chance of shooting down the Stuka and a 20% chance of a disruption instead of the 41% kill and 30% disruption that they currently have. At 100 yards, under the modified rule, they would have a 32.5% chance of a kill, 29.5% chance of disrupt instead of the current chance of 86% kill and 10% disrupt.

[Mr_G]

I disagree with the AA only shooting airplanes solution. I don't want planes to be too dominant; while I like this new addition, this is (and must remain) a primarily ground based game. If in every skirmish game, airplanes or anti airplanes are key to victory, then I would quickly lose interest as each game would be too much rock paper scissors for y taste.

Besides, just because mortars and the like didn't hit planes in history, that doesn't mean it can't happen ou could've happened. I don't know all the details on ballistics and weapons but didn't happen doesn't mean can't happen.

Whatever solution you come up with, there will always be someone who will try to milk it to get the advantage. This isn't a question of history-accurate or playability. It's just a question of how far one wants to go to win and make a complete jerk of himself in the process. I can talk personnaly of the many FP shooter games I've played where opponents were really cheasy and used every cheap trick to win, gloat about it and make the game really un-cool and un-fun. This is one of the reason I quit playing magic; most of the players I knew were more concerned of winning in a total and complete victory than playing a game with friends... this is a game, about war yes, but still a game, and poor sportmanship will be around no matter what rules you can make...

There's civility and house rules. That leaves tournament play out of the equation you say? Not really. See, in official rules, each army has a limit of 15 units (mostly ignored in casual games)... mobilizing a third of your army to shoot at one unit...well that's no good. Who cares if it can be done, it's not the most brillant move out there.

[Mr_G]

Mostly, mortars hitting airplanes don't put me off as en eventuality because I know it won't happen that often to make them unbalanced; those units will be far more useful shooting something else and will mostly stick to their primary use.

[fifleche]

There's civility and house rules. That leaves tournament play out of the equation you say? Not really. See, in official rules, each army has a limit of 15 units (mostly ignored in casual games)... mobilizing a third of your army to shoot at one unit...well that's no good. Who cares if it can be done, it's not the most brillant move out there.It's not a matter of it's brilliance (or lack thereof), but more that the mortar is currently the BEST AA piece the russians have :eek: It can fire at aircrafts at 16 hexes, the longest-ranged attack at aircraft possible currently in AAM, which already places it #1 in it's own peculiar subcategory.

Also, you must consider the fact that while your spotters are further off than 4 hexes, or once they are all dead, airplanes may be your only target available! I know it doesn't have the best odds in the world, but it will happen nevertheless. Let me illustrate my point: an M8 Greyhound, armed with a M6 37mm canon, took out a Tiger from the back. It was a lucky shot, a once in a million. Now, we do know that the M6 canon has 9/7/5 AT rating (the same gun found on the M3 Stuart). So, in AAM, what are the chances of a 9/7/5 AT destroying a 7/5 SA2 tank? None. 0%. Zilch. Nada. But it happened IRL!!! While mortars NEVER shot down any aircraft, in no recorded instances that I know of. Yet it is quite possible in AAM.

This is quite like the "Horses & Halftracks" or the "Flamethrowers & Airplanes" debates. Both were doable. Not necessarly good game-wise, but doable, yet totally out-of-reality because highly improbable (or at least sufficiently remote that it never happened for real...).

I mean, how much fantasy can you accept in your game? To me, firing a mortar round that takes 2-3 seconds to cross 1600 yards in a curved trajectory and take potshots at passing airplanes is... Ack! :mad:

Besides, if a tactic is not brilliant, game-wise, and that is enough to see to the fact that you will never have to face it, or that you are happy when an opponent misuses his ressources to engage in such a foolish fashion, why does it bother you to see ppl pushing for it's removal as a possibility?

[Uncle_Joe]

I think that non-AA units have to have some realistic chance of at least driving off aircraft or else the game can become very hit or miss...As in, "Oh, you dont have any AA guns? Oh well, you're dead...I have my Super Doom Attack Plane from Hell!". The same applies if someone loses their AA capability.

From a realism standpoint, many vehicles could engage aircraft with MG fire and indeed, when massed could be very effective. Also, planes are being given advantages here that they did not possess in real life, so the ground units have to have similar increases in capability or else aircraft will simply dominate competitive play.

From a playability standpoint, I believe the bottom line is that ground units have to be able to shoot at aircraft. Its already bad enough that certain vehicles cant really be hurt by many other units (no AFV should be immune to Close Assaults IMO, but in the game there are a few that are darned close!). Adding in another whole class of units that has immunity to many ground combatants will only make the game far worse.

In the end, its a game of WW2 combat, not a simulation. So playability has to take precendence over realism if the two cannot co-exist. Mind you, I'm not advocating adding all kinds of nonsensical unit interactions, but its already stretching things to have aircraft participating in games at this scale without grossly dominating play. To prevent that, ground units must be granted the ability to deal with aircraft even if in ahistorical ways.

Perhaps a stop-gap solution would be to assign all units without the AA capability one uniform AA attack of maybe 5 or 6 dice or so to range 4. It can be interpretted as any form of ground fire, not necessarily firing the Mortar or the 105 at a plane. This would give ground units a chance to take out a plane without making certain (unrealistic) units better at it.

[Mr_G]

It's not a matter of it's brilliance (or lack thereof), but more that the mortar is currently the BEST AA piece the russians have :eek:

yeah... well I thought about the katyusha... only it has bombardment so it can't fire on airplanes. Sure if you play pure russian armies, you're screwed to use that. unless they come out with some AA guns for russians in set 4.

if purists are unwilling to use bofors because they are british, then we may see those mortars firing on planes, yes. :o
Still, there's only 5 planes on this set and they're all rare. They won't make those attacks that often. And, as the player controlling that plane, you also have the choice to place it right next to that mortar so you can fire at it and it can't fire at you.. gotta watch out for those other units though...

[MektonZero]

I disagree with the AA only shooting airplanes solution. I don't want planes to be too dominant; while I like this new addition, this is (and must remain) a primarily ground based game. If in every skirmish game, airplanes or anti airplanes are key to victory, then I would quickly lose interest as each game would be too much rock paper scissors for y taste.

Besides, just because mortars and the like didn't hit planes in history, that doesn't mean it can't happen ou could've happened. I don't know all the details on ballistics and weapons but didn't happen doesn't mean can't happen.

If you could examine the exact details of every tank destroyed in WW2 I'm willing to bet good money that you could find at least one instance of a main battle tank that was destroyed by a rifle bullet that went down the muzzle while the gun was being loaded and detonating the ammunition. Should 3-4 infantry minis with rifles have a 20% chance to destroy a Tiger at 400 yards by shooting bullets at it just because it there is a one in a million chance that could happen? :)

Could Happen. That covers a lot of ground, a freak storm could hit every guy on your side with lightning, a tornado could destroy all your tanks, your tanks could have simultaenous electrical fires and spontaneously combust; lots of things "could happen". Doesn't mean that there should be any meaningful chance of these freak occurances happening in a game without magic users throwing around spells to violate the laws of physics and/or probability. :D

[MektonZero]

yeah... well I thought about the katyusha... only it has bombardment so it can't fire on airplanes. Sure if you play pure russian armies, you're screwed to use that. unless they come out with some AA guns for russians in set 4.


I think you meant Blast. Units with Bombardment can fire on planes. The Sherman 105 is a pretty awesome AA unit. 29% chance of a kill to 400 yards, 14.5% chance of a kill from 500 to 800 yards.

if purists are unwilling to use bofors because they are british, then we may see those mortars firing on planes, yes. :o
Still, there's only 5 planes on this set and they're all rare. They won't make those attacks that often. And, as the player controlling that plane, you also have the choice to place it right next to that mortar so you can fire at it and it can't fire at you.. gotta watch out for those other units though...

The other units are going to be the killer, especially if there is a Commisar next to the Mortar to improve it's hit chances. The Stuka isn't exactly an anti-personnel unit, you would be better off just nuking a vehicle from the same hex and letting the mortars shoot at you.

[fifleche]

From a playability standpoint, I believe the bottom line is that ground units have to be able to shoot at aircraft. Its already bad enough that certain vehicles cant really be hurt by many other units (no AFV should be immune to Close Assaults IMO, but in the game there are a few that are darned close!). Adding in another whole class of units that has immunity to many ground combatants will only make the game far worse.I agree fully with the spirit of your post, as a whole, but I want to draw your attention to this part precisely. Yes, ground units should be able to fire at planes. You say it's from a playability standpoint, I say it's from a historic perspective. The hatch MG's on tanks were installed there to act as AA. As was the MG on the jeep. If it was installed there, during wartime, I must assume it must have had a measurable effect, either in driving off/shooting down planes, or in troop morale at least!

That doesn't mean that because ground units should be able to defend themselves from air units, that EVERY unit should be able to! Yes, MG on AA mounts *did* shoot at enemy planes, but mortars :confused:

We should remove AA capability from units with "innacurate" as were removed units with "blast" SA. As I said before, the russian mortar is currently the AA unit that can shoot at planes the furthest, and that is completely whacky :(

[Mr_G]

If you could examine the exact details of every tank destroyed in WW2 I'm willing to bet good money that you could find at least one instance of a main battle tank that was destroyed by a rifle bullet that went down the muzzle while the gun was being loaded and detonating the ammunition. Should 3-4 infantry minis with rifles have a 20% chance to destroy a Tiger at 400 yards by shooting bullets at it just because it there is a one in a million chance that could happen?

Could Happen. That covers a lot of ground, a freak storm could hit every guy on your side with lightning, a tornado could destroy all your tanks, your tanks could have simultaenous electrical fires and spontaneously combust; lots of things "could happen". Doesn't mean that there should be any meaningful chance of these freak occurances happening in a game without magic users throwing around spells to violate the laws of physics and/or probability.

Well that's twisting my point a little too far off. I wasn't talking about freak occurances.
My point was that this is a skirmish game, and I wouldn't want this game to evolve into the rock paper scissors game it could if only units with the antiair SA could fire on planes.
How about making SA on planes that makes it possible for them to friendly fire? Hey, it DID happen in war, why not make it?? Hey, tank tracks on (early) panthers were unreliable and it's engine was flawed, why not make it present in the game? Hey, shermans would catch fire when hit, why not make it into the game??
See where I'm going here? There are far too many possibilities about realism of weapons to accurately represent everything in a light skirmish game. This includes mortars.

I think you meant Blast. Units with Bombardment can fire on planes. The Sherman 105 is a pretty awesome AA unit. 29% chance of a kill to 400 yards, 14.5% chance of a kill from 500 to 800 yards.

Yeah, I meant Blast... ;)

The other units are going to be the killer, especially if there is a Commisar next to the Mortar to improve it's hit chances. The Stuka isn't exactly an anti-personnel unit, you would be better off just nuking a vehicle from the same hex and letting the mortars shoot at you.

Not the stuka, but messerschmitt 109 could be a more AP plane. But you don't have to fire on said infantry if you place your plane next to it just to protect it from the mortar.

[Joisey]

I agree fully with the spirit of your post, as a whole, but I want to draw your attention to this part precisely. Yes, ground units should be able to fire at planes. You say it's from a playability standpoint, I say it's from a historic perspective. The hatch MG's on tanks were installed there to act as AA. As was the MG on the jeep. If it was installed there, during wartime, I must assume it must have had a measurable effect, either in driving off/shooting down planes, or in troop morale at least!

That doesn't mean that because ground units should be able to defend themselves from air units, that EVERY unit should be able to! Yes, MG on AA mounts *did* shoot at enemy planes, but mortars :confused:

We should remove AA capability from units with "innacurate" as were removed units with "blast" SA. As I said before, the russian mortar is currently the AA unit that can shoot at planes the furthest, and that is completely whacky :(
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there are some facts that seem to not fit:

The pintle mounted MG's on the tops of tank turrets are predominantly to be found on Allied tanks, especially American tanks. But by the time America had established a second front in Europe, it also had Air Supremacy, and were the nation in least need of ground based air defense.

The Germans, on the other hand, were on the other end of that stick and were the most in need of a ground based AA defense, since the Luftwaffe had long been decimated by it's fight with the Eighth Air Force. And yet....and yet the German AFV's are the least likely to have pintle mounted MG's on the tops of their tanks. They aren't modelled that way and of the thousands of pics of Tigers, KT's, and Panthers I've seen, you don't often see, if ever, any top turret MG mounts.

So how do these facts fit into your hypothesis?

[Uncle_Joe]

We should remove AA capability from units with "innacurate" as were removed units with "blast" SA. As I said before, the russian mortar is currently the AA unit that can shoot at planes the furthest, and that is completely whacky

Absolutely. I would have no problem with that whatsoever except in the cases where units with those abilities also had AAMGs (if any occur...the Sherman 105 has an AAMG, but no Blast IIRC).

The pintle mounted MG's on the tops of tank turrets are predominantly to be found on Allied tanks, especially American tanks. But by the time America had established a second front in Europe, it also had Air Supremacy, and were the nation in least need of ground based air defense.

The Germans, on the other hand, were on the other end of that stick and were the most in need of a ground based AA defense, since the Luftwaffe had long been decimated by it's fight with the Eighth Air Force. And yet....and yet the German AFV's are the least likely to have pintle mounted MG's on the tops of their tanks. They aren't modelled that way and of the thousands of pics of Tigers, KT's, and Panthers I've seen, you don't often see, if ever, any top turret MG mounts.

I'm not the original poster of those thoughts, yet I can take a stab at it. The American were paranoid about airpower going into the war. An awful lot of AAA units were formed by the US and shipped to Europe for Overlord and once there they were often disbanded and the troops formed into Rifle units or deployed as replacements. As you said, the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist as a fighting force on the Western Front so those AAA units were unnecessary.

I imagine the preponderance of AAMGs on US AFVs is another manifestation of that US planning. The fact that those added MGs were extremely useful vs troops probably led to them continuing to be standard on US tanks even until today.

IIRC many Panthers did mount an AAMG although it was smaller caliber than the US 'Ma Deuce'.

[fifleche]

The pintle mounted MG's on the tops of tank turrets are predominantly to be found on Allied tanks, especially American tanks. But by the time America had established a second front in Europe, it also had Air Supremacy, and were the nation in least need of ground based air defense.

So how do these facts fit into your hypothesis?Yes, I seriously doubt the AA power of a pintle-mounted MG on a single vehicle, but the USA, with all its manufacturing power, could afford to give this to ground AFV, esp if it gave them better morale. And by the end of the war, most M18 TD crew had moved their rear-facing MG (originally for AA) to deal with infantry by welding it in a front arc...

[MektonZero]

Well that's twisting my point a little too far off. I wasn't talking about freak occurances.


Deliberately shooting down a plane with a mortar would be an extremely freak occurance right up there with killing a Tiger from 800 yards with a Garand. The problem is that in the game the odds of shooting down an attacking plane a mile away with a mortar under Bravery Enforcement are about 1 in 11.


See where I'm going here? There are far too many possibilities about realism of weapons to accurately represent everything in a light skirmish game. This includes mortars.

There are levels of accuracy, no one is asking for 100% realism, but a one in a million event happeing nearly 100,000 times more often that it really did stretches the willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point.

Not the stuka, but messerschmitt 109 could be a more AP plane. But you don't have to fire on said infantry if you place your plane next to it just to protect it from the mortar.

That's an extremely bad idea, the minimum force that I'd be willing to risk a spotter for would be two mortars, a commisar and a couple of riflemen spread out to avoid extra damge from blast attacks. Putting a plane adjacent to any of them is going to give a 30-50% chance of your plane being shot down by the rest of the units, depending on exact placement. Given the max 4 hex range for plane attacks, about the only thing on the board that you're going to be within attack range of will be infantry. And I would be more than happy to trade a 20 point enemy plane for one of their infantry units costing 1/4 to 1/2 that much and if I make a cover save I trade a disruption for 20+ points of your units.

I've been playing with proxies for a while now. Planes are definately fire and forget units, if you get another attack it's just a bonus; you can't ever count on surviving so if you make an air attack you either hit something extremely isolated from 4 hexes out and risk missing so you have a decent chance at another attack (which is a rare occurance on 2x2 maps) or you just bore in and kill something in the same hex to reduce enemy cover saves and get maximum chances for maximum damage with your one shot.

[Mr_G]

I've been playing with proxies for a while now. Planes are definately fire and forget units, ...

That I know of and have no problem with, and, frankly, I like it that way. This will make planes come in low numbers in builds.
You do realise that mortars (having -2 to each die to fire on planes) are really bad AA units right? Even with a commissar to bolster one, they have to roll a 5 on each die to get 4 successes... I don't know what these odds are, but I know enough not to count on that.

Besides, if I know a given unit is AA or can act as such, then I just won't bring in my plane yet until I can at least disrupt it.

[Mr_G]

... I'll see for myself soon enough anyway... :D

[Allies_UTD]

it sounds weird but still plausible..
anything is possible. right?

[MektonZero]

You do realise that mortars (having -2 to each die to fire on planes) are really bad AA units right? Even with a commissar to bolster one, they have to roll a 5 on each die to get 4 successes... I don't know what these odds are, but I know enough not to count on that.

If you don't know the odds, how do you know if they are bad AA units or not? :)

Two mortars with Bravery Enforcement has a 20% chance to kill a Stuka at a range of a nearly a mile. Does that sound like bad odds? Before you answer, consider that every other unit in the game has a 0% chance of shooting down an aircraft at 16 hex range, no matter how many there are. :D

[Mr_G]

If you don't know the odds, how do you know if they are bad AA units or not? :)

Two mortars with Bravery Enforcement has a 20% chance to kill a Stuka at a range of a nearly a mile. Does that sound like bad odds? Before you answer, consider that every other unit in the game has a 0% chance of shooting down an aircraft at 16 hex range, no matter how many there are. :D

meant to say "don't know exactly whant these odds are". Figured it would be near 25-30%... I do agree with you that it's weird that this mortar could fire up to a mile at a plane...and place a hit.

I still think that, unless you play on a huge setup of maps, the 16 hex range of this mortar is negligible since you could place 1 or 2 bofors at about 3-4 hex from your side and get better results than same # of mortars + commissar + some sacrificial infantry... only to fire with 8 dice with still a -1 penalty. 20% chance? I don't bite into those odds if I can get a clearer shot at other units. In a 100 pts game, that's like using nearly half of your army to fire at one unit... :confused:
Even at long range with the Bofors, you get 9 dice, no penalty versus aircraft. I think that's much better. I don't care about bringing a Bofors in russian armies, I'm not that much of a purist... expecially for a gun that was used by pretty much every army at the time.

I'll have to see for myself if they are as good as you say versus planes. I agree that many units can be used as anti air, as you pointed out (because the planes are easily destroyed) but I still disagree to the fact that this mortar it's a good AA unit in this game. :)

[Arontje]

Well now that we know the me-109 is 14 points and a decent infantry killer I do 2 in a army and put them right next to the mortars, kill them and go on with the game :P

[MektonZero]

Well now that we know the me-109 is 14 points and a decent infantry killer I do 2 in a army and put them right next to the mortars, kill them and go on with the game :P

Same problem with the Stuka, you're thowing a 14 point plane at a 11 point infantry unit in cover. You've got a 25% chance to get a kill and if there is any kind of decent defense around the mortar your plane is toast (you won't be getting a cover save). How many times do you get to trade an expected 14-28 points worth of your units for an expected return of 6 points before you get so far behind that you lose the game?

[Arontje]

Same problem with the Stuka, you're thowing a 14 point plane at a 11 point infantry unit in cover. You've got a 25% chance to get a kill and if there is any kind of decent defense around the mortar your plane is toast (you won't be getting a cover save). How many times do you get to trade an expected 14-28 points worth of your units for an expected return of 6 points before you get so far behind that you lose the game?

Ehh. many people said the following:

2 mortars a commissar and some bantha fodder for using commissar special ability...... that is way more points they use. And you can effectively counter that with the german fighter. I say this cause many people are screaming that the mortar of the ruskies are so uber.

And 8 dice versus 3 defense is way more chance for kill.

[Mr_G]

And 8 dice versus 3 defense is way more chance for kill.

Yes, that should be more than 50%...

[shanethecrane]

Keep in mind here that we are referring to units here. Even mortor men have rifles and probably some friends too.

[MektonZero]

Keep in mind here that we are referring to units here. Even mortor men have rifles and probably some friends too.

Must be some kicking rifles to have more anti air range than a 40mm cannon mount designed to shoot at aircraft. :D

[XAos]

Yes, that should be more than 50%...
The 25% calculation was including the cover roll, you wern't expecting a range 16 mortar to ever bother moving to a non-cover hex were you. :rolleyes:
And the exact probability would be 31.831%

...I say this cause many people are screaming that the mortar of the ruskies are so uber.

It's not just the 82mm mortar.
The sherman-105 has higher :eek: odds than the mortar+commisar to hit an aircraft.
A mortar might by outrageous luck (say 1 round in a million) hit an aircraft.
I'm sure some did in WW-1 trench warfare when they fired multiple-millions of shells in a concentrated area. But I don't see how a 105mm gun that can't elevate above 15 degrees is supposed to hit an aircraft even with outrageous luck.

[Joisey]

The 25% calculation was including the cover roll, you wern't expecting a range 16 mortar to ever bother moving to a non-cover hex were you. :rolleyes:
And the exact probability would be 31.831%


It's not just the 82mm mortar.
The sherman-105 has higher :eek: odds than the mortar+commisar to hit an aircraft.
A mortar might by outrageous luck (say 1 round in a million) hit an aircraft.
I'm sure some did in WW-1 trench warfare when they fired multiple-millions of shells in a concentrated area. But I don't see how a 105mm gun that can't elevate above 15 degrees is supposed to hit an aircraft even with outrageous luck.
Agreed. The "pro-mortar&rifle as AA Crowd" are trying to defend the logically indefensible and should just give it up. Stop being apologists for WotC and stop clinging to the "well it COULD have happened" rationale. The rules should be accounting for what NORMALLY happened, not the one in a million lucky shot.

[Colonel_Panic]

We havent seen the official erratas yet, only the preliminary erratas.
Hopefully someone adds mortars to he list of non AA capable units.
Maybe that's why Bob is so busy ;-)

[Arontje]

It's not just the 82mm mortar.
The sherman-105 has higher :eek: odds than the mortar+commisar to hit an aircraft.



This thread was about the russian uber mortar killing planes. My point on that is that it wont be such a problem.

[VandyFry]

Agreed. The "pro-mortar&rifle as AA Crowd" are trying to defend the logically indefensible and should just give it up. Stop being apologists for WotC and stop clinging to the "well it COULD have happened" rationale. The rules should be accounting for what NORMALLY happened, not the one in a million lucky shot.

You stop crying. Nobody's apologizing.

[CdtWeasel]

I think I'll gladly let a mortar shoot at my airplane, if it keeps him from shelling my troops.

[Vulturedoodle]

You stop crying. Nobody's apologizing.
You may already know this, but others probably don't: an apologist is one who defends a concept, group or person, rather than apologizes for them.

Providing an important service at home and abroad....

Regards,
Steve F.

[fifleche]

I think I'll gladly let a mortar shoot at my airplane, if it keeps him from shelling my troops.Hmmm... Okay, if it pleases you to see mortars taking out your 12-21 pts airplane instead of a 2-9 pts infantry unit, then I'd be happy to oblige! :D

[dredlox]

Well, I guess the point is moot for now, it doesnt look like further errata is coming. It bugs me - i never once claimed that it was EASY to shoot a plane with a mortar, but it annoys me that it can happen at all (and isnt THAT hard under appropriate circumstances). It used to irritate the heck out of me when people would "fallen portal" my guys in an ATAT in swccg. It just was too out there.

[Arontje]

Well, I guess the point is moot for now, it doesnt look like further errata is coming. It bugs me - i never once claimed that it was EASY to shoot a plane with a mortar, but it annoys me that it can happen at all (and isnt THAT hard under appropriate circumstances). It used to irritate the heck out of me when people would "fallen portal" my guys in an ATAT in swccg. It just was too out there.

But in real combat a mortar can also shoot at a plane, and it isnt easy to shoot it out of the sky. So we are all happy.

[MektonZero]

But in real combat a mortar can also shoot at a plane, and it isnt easy to shoot it out of the sky. So we are all happy.

And in real combat a bullet could go down the barrel of an Tiger while it was loading at a range of 1600 yards, ignite the shell and destroy the tank. Do you think that this should have an 9% chance of happening every time an infantry unit under Bravery Enforcement fires on a Tiger at 16 hexes? Does it sound reasonable for Infantry to have an anti-vehicle rating of 14 dice at a range of 16 hexes if under the influence of a commisar? Would that make you happy?

[Arontje]

And in real combat a bullet could go down the barrel of an Tiger while it was loading at a range of 1600 yards, ignite the shell and destroy the tank. Do you think that this should have an 9% chance of happening every time an infantry unit under Bravery Enforcement fires on a Tiger at 16 hexes? Does it sound reasonable for Infantry to have an anti-vehicle rating of 14 dice at a range of 16 hexes if under the influence of a commisar? Would that make you happy?

I was just replying to the person who felt angry cause it can target planes in game. I dont mind the mortar and i dont think its a big problem and you can counter it with the german fighter.

Please read where I am replying to before you post.

And an infantry cant shoot at 16 hexes, so no. Or they must make a new infantry with extended range :p

[NEVjr]

And in real combat a bullet could go down the barrel of an Tiger while it was loading at a range of 1600 yards, ignite the shell and destroy the tank. Do you think that this should have an 9% chance of happening every time an infantry unit under Bravery Enforcement fires on a Tiger at 16 hexes? Does it sound reasonable for Infantry to have an anti-vehicle rating of 14 dice at a range of 16 hexes if under the influence of a commisar? Would that make you happy?

couldnt happen, at 1600 yard the bullet would drop further then half the bore of the gun over the length of the barrel, and miss the fuse, so it wouldnt set off the round

[Arontje]

I was just replying to the person who felt angry cause it can target planes in game. I dont mind the mortar and i dont think its a big problem and you can counter it with the german fighter.

Please read where I am replying to before you post.

And an infantry cant shoot at 16 hexes, so no. Or they must make a new infantry with extended range :p


Qouting myself.....


The infantry with extended range, IF it comes, it will probably be an American :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Stuart]

Does anyone have any opinions on AA and Paratroops?
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=10352

[MektonZero]

And an infantry cant shoot at 16 hexes, so no. Or they must make a new infantry with extended range :p

Bullets can travel 1600 yards, that is simple physics. If "because there is a one in a million shot of hitting a plane with a mortar" it can happen 9% of the time in a game, what about shooting people at 1600 yards? It's certainly a lot more probable than one in a million, why can't that happen 9% of the time?

[MektonZero]

couldnt happen, at 1600 yard the bullet would drop further then half the bore of the gun over the length of the barrel, and miss the fuse, so it wouldnt set off the round

A) The barrel could be elevated
B) The round doesn't have to be in the barrel to be hit, maybe the loader is holding it and getting it ready to shove into the breech.
C) Just because the bullet hits the bottom of the barrel doesn't mean it can't richochet back up and hit a fuse.

Makes perfect sense to give infantry a bunch of AV dice to 16 hexes, it's as likely as hitting a plane with a mortar on purpose so it should have the same ingame chance of happening.

[MektonZero]

I was just replying to the person who felt angry cause it can target planes in game. I dont mind the mortar and i dont think its a big problem and you can counter it with the german fighter.

Actually, no you can't. Putting another plane that close to a commisar and a couple of riflemen (who are being used to supply a couple of mortars with bravery enforcement) is going to get your plane shot down far more often than you can kill the mortar. You are just throwing points away and wasting your fighters, that's not exactly a "counter".