Share
Go down
avatar
pzivh43
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-13
Age : 67
Location : Haymarket VA, USA

Observation Test

on Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:32 pm
So, hosted a game in prep for Historicon last weekend. Went well overall. One item I noticed was, as others have mentioned, some players have a hard time with needing to make Observation tests for aimed fire, and especially making a second test if they were successful on the first. Just seems many can't get their heads around the rationale that Warwick describes in the rules.

However, during the play, when it came up for the nth time, one player made a statement something like "OK, before I can do aimed fire, I have to acquire the target." The other players nodded , and that seemed to settle it. They were OK with having to "acquire" rather than "observe" it. Still not real comfortable with having to make that second test, though

I plan to use the Acquire term next time I run a game.

Mike
avatar
Piers
Admin
Posts : 264
Join date : 2018-02-12
http://battlegroupwargame.forumotion.com

Re: Observation Test

on Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:39 pm
If you were fired at, would you stay still for the second shot at you?


That's why you have to spot a second time...
avatar
Warwick
Posts : 91
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Derby, UK

Re: Observation Test

on Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:53 pm
One way to describe it might be that your own fire generates smoke, quite a lot of it if you are a tank. After you've blazed away for a bit, there will be a lot of smoke gathered around you. The enemy will be trying harder to conceal themselves, being under incoming, and might deploy their own smoke etc. Suddenly, nobody can see anything. Literally, the fog of war. In game terms, aimed fire is more risky that area fire... deliberately so.
avatar
pzivh43
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-13
Age : 67
Location : Haymarket VA, USA

Re: Observation Test

on Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:22 pm
Absolutely agree with both of you. Just thought it was interesting that using the term Acquire vice Observation seemed to make it more understandable for some players.

Mike
dead1
Posts : 62
Join date : 2018-02-13

Re: Observation Test

on Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:26 am
The rule represents a proactive enemy and general confusion.


I love how wargamers assume the world to be so orderly.  " I see you and now I will shoot you and you will sit there and be shot at."

Most soldiers never even see what they are shooting at.  Only something like 1 in 100,000 rounds fired actually hits something.

Yet for some reason wargamers are OK with "to wound" rolls.  "You have been hit by a 120mm cannon shell.  On a to wound roll of 1, you are OK.". :p
avatar
pzivh43
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-13
Age : 67
Location : Haymarket VA, USA

Re: Observation Test

on Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:47 pm
LOL! +1 to dead1---I play with some of those guys, too!
Fire at Will
Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Chester, UK
http://www.willwarweb.blogspot.com

Re: Observation Test

on Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:53 am
I think that peoples problem with spotting/acquisition is that of firing a second round at a STATIONARY target in the open. You can rationalise far better separate spotting tests where the target is moving or hidden. Maybe a +1 for spotting a second time at a stationary target, but then you get into all the other factors effecting spotting so where do you end?
avatar
pzivh43
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-13
Age : 67
Location : Haymarket VA, USA

Re: Observation Test

on Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:01 am
Yeah, I have done that a time or two. But you are right---where do you end it? Rules work great, you just have to work a little harder to get some people to "get it".
Sponsored content

Re: Observation Test

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum