US Spaa RoF and other questions

Need a little help, a friend and I are having a little disagreement about US Spaa. The issua is on the RoF, twin linked and a few others issues.

M-13, what is it's rate of fire?
Turret mounted mmgs are RoF 3, so 2 would be 6. But, with them being twin-linked mount the rule says it would be RoF 10. But that doesn't make sense because point cost it is cheaper than the M-16 which is a quad mount.

The other question is the M-15 spaa. It's armed with 2 mgs and a 37(?)mm ac. Are the MGs on it suppose to be linked?
Everything I have found shows (pictures) or states the .50cal MGs are mounted together.

This all goes with the question on point costs as well.
If the M-13 and M-16 are the same vehicle in stats and playablity then why a different point cost?

M-13 is RoF 10 (Multiple MG)
M-15 is RoF 10 (Multiple MG) or you use the 37mm (can't use both at the same time). The MG's are linked, yes.
M-16 is RoF 10 (Multiple MG)

Let me help you with your mindset: the same vehicle, in a different book, can be a different cost. Vehicles aren't pointbased on pure effectiveness, but also on availability in that period and sector of the war and other reasons, like changing the points as Warwick or Piers or both felt like it. This is not a competition game so don't think in the points as such.

Turret mounted MMg's RoF 3 refers to bow and coaxial guns on tanks....extremely limited traverse. These have nothing to do with this. As you can see all these halftracks are armed with .50 cal, and a single .50 cal has RoF 6. Double MG becomes 10 and more MG's stay 10 as they are linked and all fire in order, not at the same time. It's not perse more lead at the same time, but more lead over a longer time.

Hope that helps.

Well it didn't help.

1) all three vehicles cost that I am looking at car from one book.

2) all three vehicles are listed as having medium machine guns not heavy machine guns. Medium machine guns rate of fire is 5.

3) from what I can see only the pintle mount machine gun as a rate of fire of five for vehicles, all other vehicle mount have rate of fire 3.

4) it is a competitive game. One side is the winner the other side is the loser and you strive to be the winner. I am assuming what you mean by it being a non-competitive game is that the game is played for fun and not for a reward. That when you make a army list for a one-off game, not A campaign or historical mission, you picked your units on the parameters of the mission, points, and limitations for the Army in general.

It is the last one is where I had my predicament. I was making a list and I knew my opponent would most likely take two time airstrikes and place them on the same turn. This is why I took 2 spaa in hope that both spaa would be on the table before the two air strikes. This is when I picked an m-13 and an m-18. Thinking M18 who is a more effective vehicle. When my opponent told me he did not have an air strike I used the two vehicles to engage is infantry and bunkers. This is when I realized because my opponent pointed it out that both vehicles for the same I was very annoyed because I could have taken a second m-13 instead of the M-18 saving some points that I could have used for another unit.

"Vehicles aren't pointbased on pure effectiveness, but also on availability in that period and sector of the war and other reasons, like changing the points as Warwick or Piers or both felt like it."

This is the most relevant bit from Gunbird and I could not have stated it better.

I would never be bothered about points disparities in Battlegroup because Battlegroup is, well... Battlegroup. Sometimes something you perceive as worse will cost more points. You pay it because you want to play THAT model, or more importantly, because it was there historically. If you missed out on another unit (geez, how much more did that vehicle COST?) I am sure it didn't make any huge difference to the results of the game, as one single unit rarely if ever does.

Nino Kano wrote:Well it didn't help.

1) all three vehicles cost that I am looking at car from one book.

....and all 3 are in various stages of their useful life. The M13 was in use but felt to be underarmed, so being phased out. The M15 was a bit of a mixed breed, and the M16 was just arriving in theatre in very limited numbers. Don't stare so blindly at the numbers and read up on the vehicles and see when and how they were used.

Nino Kano wrote:
2) all three vehicles are listed as having medium machine guns not heavy machine guns. Medium machine guns rate of fire is 5.

...you do realise the .50 cal is a HMG in real life? Also, yes, the MMG RoF is 5. They are all listed as multiple MMG's, and RoF caps out at 10. And 2x 5 is....10, so it doesn't really matter, does it? 10 is your max.

Nino Kano wrote:3) from what I can see only the pintle mount machine gun as a rate of fire of five for vehicles, all other vehicle mount have rate of fire 3.

...A pintle mount is basically a man operated swivel gun, with (in theory, by and far not always) all round fire capability.  As I said in my previous reply, your standard tank MG has a RoF of 3 due to a very limited traverse and the extremely limited visibility. Comparing that gun with a turreted gun is like comparing Apples and Wales.
Not even in the same dimension capability wise.

Nino Kano wrote:
4) it is a competitive game. One side is the winner the other side is the loser and you strive to be the winner.  I am assuming what you mean by it being a non-competitive game is that the game is played for fun and not for a reward. That when you make a army list for a one-off game, not  A campaign or historical mission, you picked your units on the parameters of the mission, points, and limitations for the Army in general.

It is the last one is where I had my predicament. I was making a list and I knew my opponent would most likely take two time airstrikes and place them on the same turn. This is why I took 2 spaa in  hope that both spaa would be on the table before the two air strikes. This is when I picked an m-13 and an m-18. Thinking M18 who is a more effective vehicle. When my opponent told me he did not have an air strike I used the two vehicles to engage is infantry and bunkers. This is when I realized because my opponent pointed it out that both vehicles for the same I was very annoyed because I could have taken a second m-13 instead of the M-18 saving some points that I could have used for another unit.

So....what game did you play before this? A competive game is one with points for all the units, easily played in a tournament setting, and imho boring as fuck as the cheese seems to grow out of peoples ears (40K, FoW, BA etc). Battlegroup has points that you can use, if you are so inlcined, to make *balanced* lists (and there is no such thing in war). Here we do play the occasional tournament, but with restrictions on points etc. If you are solely trying to pick stuff that gives you "the most bang for your buck" you are just handicapping yourself.

Also, the difference is 12 points. Not a whole lot you can do with 12 points (though I would just spend that on a sniper to add to my Recce for that coveted chit for out Recceing the enemy)

And don't be annoyed. Games are supposed to be fun, and if you learn something new to use next time, all the better. If you are annoyed it just puts you off things.


And thx Nazrat

On a technical note, the M16 did not fire all 4 .50s simultaneously.  Normal use was to fire 2 barrels while the other 2 were reloaded and allowed to cool down.  It could fire all 4 at once, but then was useless for 5-10 minutes.