Observation Test

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

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...

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.

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

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

LOL! +1 to dead1---I play with some of those guys, too!

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?

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".

I wonder how many of these people have ever lived fired a weapon? Even small arms have a recoil which varies from the mild pushback of the M1 carbine to the positively brutal kick of the Moisin Nagant, Garand or Mauser series - and that's on single shot. You definitely need to reacquire your sight picture. Bigger guns have a recoil that throws the gun back a couple of feet and the gunner needs to realign his sights once the gun runs back into battery - if he can even see the target at all:

"With an antitank gun you always need to have someone observing out front because with each round fired, the barrel blast sent dust and everything flying up. In such Instances you are unable to see if you hit the target, or the ground In front, to the side or In the back of a tank. My job was to correct the fire and give new coordinates using arm and hand signals. I ran over to the berm, clambered up to the edge and from there began directing fire towards the T-34s.
Whenever we were uncertain of the distance we fired three shots. The first shot was to the estimated range, for example 600 meters, and discovering that It was 50 meters too short you would add another 50 meters. If you were lucky you got a hit, If not, and you struck behind the tank, you could correct your aim for a third time which generally placed you on target.

PANZERJAGER, Tank Hunter by William Folkestad