Sword & Fire Question 2 - optional equipment.

[jfardette]

Some equipment is listed as optional (gyros, vehicular FT) for campaign game 1. The gyros are easy enough to roll for, but CG8 and note f for US reinforcement groups seems to blur things a bit. Is the FT talked about in the note a maximum number of FT for the group or do you roll once for each tank and then note one as secret until it fires?

There’s also an exception for CG 1, which is the one we are playing, so does that note mean that there are no vehicular FT allowed at all in CG 1, or just that the US player doesn’t keep one of them secret?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Don't think SSR CG8 allows for rolls to get Gyros. It only refers to H1.41. The FT per U.S. MAVN F is not rolled for per H1.41, but determined per the Note, and as you say it is NA for CG I.

 

[jfardette]

Any thoughts on why rolling for gyros would not be covered? Maybe the equipment itself was always present and it was more a factor of crew training and familiarity? It’s hard to imagine that no gyros would be used, just as it’s hard to imagine all of them in use. Clear as mud, at least to me. Maybe one of the developers can help me out if they see this thread.

 

[Wayne]

12. 11.1 GYROSTABILIZER: The Gyrostabilizer was a revolutionary feature found only in certain AFV of U.S. manufacture, commencing with the M3A1 light tank. This device allowed the Gun to maintain its aim in elevation regardless of the terrain traversed. Other tanks of the period required much longer to re-acquire a target after movement, thus presenting an easier target for return fire. However, many tank commanders disconnected their Stabilizers, preferring to halt before aiming the MA; this was due both to the danger the unpredictably moving breech presented to the turret crew, and to the difficulty in reloading the Gun when both it and the tank were moving. For this reason, players who feel Gyrostabilizers pose too strong an advantage may wish to consider lowering by one the Multiple ROF of all guns so equipped. Allowing every AFV equipped with a Gyrostabilizer the full benefit of a Gyrostabilizer is therefore arguably unrealistic as many crews were not proficient in its use and found it overly complicated and time consuming.

 

[ParaMarine]

My reading of the army in those days was that the lack of gyrostabilizers was typical of the problem of no common doctrine.

Or rather I think it’s more accurate to say a disparity in standards. The units trained properly loved the stabilizer. They knew exactly how good it was. The units not trained in its use thought it was just another hindrance to operating their tenk.

 

[jfardette]

All true, but it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of whether they should be available in my OB and how that should be determined. I simply don’t know what to do.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

All true, but it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of whether they should be available in my OB and how that should be determined. I simply don’t know what to do.

G11.1:
"Gyrostabilizers are considered in use only if specified by SSR or DYO purchases (H1.42)."

I see nothing in Chapter SF calling for the use/roll-for Gyrostabilizers. As to why, the designer would need to answer.

 

[ParaMarine]

Holy schnit I’ve been playing Americans wrong the whole time

 

[ParaMarine]

To be fair, I think the people who introduced me to this game also are out there giving themselves free stabilizers as well.

 

[jfardette]

Well as I poked around the rulebook looking for an answer, I found the sleaze tactic of all sleaze tactics. D1.84 “… in official scenarios only the armament configuration illustrated in the scenario OB is available unless the number of such vehicles required exceeds the number provided in the game, in which case the excess can be composed of vehicles with optional armament (of the owners choice) provided that armament is available within that time frame.”

Holy cow could that section get abused.

“Sorry chum, I only have a few M4’s but by golly I’m entitled to 12 in the OB for this scenario and I just happen to have some spare FT models to make up the difference.”

 

[Paul John]

the number provided in the game

Nice sleaze, but I suspect this gives your opponent some salvation.

 

[Wayne]

Sorry, no FT sleaze.

If the FT is not OB-given, you don't get it.

H1.12 OPTIONAL VEHICULAR ARMAMENT: Optional vehicular armament may not be purchased in greater quantity, nor in any different arrangement (in the case of a vehicle with more than one optional weapon) than is provided in the countermix of one game—unless both players agree otherwise. If a player purchases all the vehicles of a particular type (as per that vehicle’s “#” column—or alternatively, whole multiples of that #), all optional armament carried by them is automatically included although the BPV cost of these weapons must still be paid as per 1.41. [EXC: If the scenario predates the armament’s initial date of availability as given in a pertinent Vehicle Note, the vehicle is purchased without that optional armament; use the appropriate “Disabled” counter to show the armament’s non-functioning status. The optional U.S. Sherman-mounted FT is also an exception since it is never indicated on the counter; i.e., it is never automatically present regardless of how many Shermans are purchased.]

Re D1.84, that applies to counters printed w/optional armament. No official U.S. Sherman counter exists w/the optional FT printed thereon.

 

[jfardette]

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story gentlemen. Not every opponent is a shark on GameSquad.

 

[Paul John]

Its nice to dream!