Technically
oriented
players
are
certain to
notice we
did not
include
any data
on minimum
ranges for
direct
fire
(particularly
ATGWs).
Again,
this is by
design.
MSH
assumes
that
combat is
taking
place
within a
flexible
combat
area,
where
local
commanders
are making
decisions;
this
includes
setting up
proper
engagement
zones and
knowing
the
optimum
time to
fire to
avoid
minimum
range
problems.
The
effective
range of
modern
weapons
defines
the area
of combat
in MSH.
New
Attack and
Defense
Factors
One of our
primary
challenges
was to
create
mechanics
that could
simulate
the new
weapon
systems
and
counter-measures
of modern
war,
without
unduly
modifying
the
standard
Attack vs.
Defense
factor
procedures
of the
original
SPEARHEAD.
As noted
earlier,
one of the
major new
developments
of modern
warfare
has been
the ATGW.
In the
1973 War,
the long
range and
devastating
effectiveness
of the
ATGW had
military
analysts
proclaiming
the end of
the tank
as a
viable
weapon.
Since
1973,
however,
new
developments
in defense
technology
(reactive
or
combined
armor)
have
transformed
the ATGW
into
merely a
mediocre
tank
killer.
After
several
unhappy
playtest
experiments
involving
new
modifiers,
automatic
misses,
and other
modifications
to the
SPEARHEAD
combat
resolution
method, we
hit upon
the idea
of
developing
new Attack
and
Defense
Factors,
ATGW and
CED. These
new combat
factors
allowed us
to retain
SPEARHEAD’s
simple
combat
resolution
while
still
reflecting
the
changing
effectiveness
of ATGWs
as
technology
progressed.
Stabilization
All modern
tank guns
are to
some
degree
stabilized
for firing
on the
move.
Recently,
the M1A2
tank has
been
lauded as
the
ultimate
development
in
stabilization
technology,
a tank
that can
fire
accurately
and
rapidly
while
moving up
to 60
miles per
hour.
The
original
SPEARHEAD
permitted
tanks to
fire on
the move
but
penalized
their fire
by placing
it in a
later turn
sequence.
The
question
facing us
was
therefore
whether
advances
in weapon
stabilization
meant that
moving
tanks
should be
allowed to
fire in
the
stationary
fire
phase. In
answering
this
question,
we looked
beyond the
individual
tank and
asked
whether
the rate
of fire
and
accuracy
of tanks
in the
battalion
as a whole
would
still be
adversely
affected
by
movement.
An
examination
of the
‘frictional’
factors,
including
fire
coordination,
unit
formation,
tank
commanders’
focus, and
smoke/dust,
convinced
us that
any
battalion
of tanks
would have
more
effective
firepower
when
stationary
than when
moving,
regardless
of
stabilization.
Having
determined
that
moving
vehicles
with
stabilized
weapons
would not
be allowed
to fire as
if
stationary,
the
question
then
became how
we would
represent
the
differences
in degree
of
stabilization
between
the
ultra-modern
systems
of, e.g.,
the M1A2
and
earlier
stabilization
systems.
We found
that
permitting
vehicles
to take
greater
combat
movement
was both a
playable
and
realistic
representation
of the
improvements
in
mobility
and fire
control
afforded
by their
advanced
stabilization
systems.
Infantry
Factors
and Ranges
Although
modern
weapon
effectiveness
has
increased,
engagement
ranges
have not.
It is true
that the
presence
of semi
and full
automatic
weapons
throughout
the
world’s
armies has
now
created a
common
level of
theoretical
firepower
possibly
not seen
since
Napoleonic
times.
However,
these
weapons
haven’t
provided a
corresponding
increase
in range,
and it is
now
generally
acknowledge
that the
bulk of
Infantry
combat
will occur
at ranges
of 300m or
less.
Furthermore,
the squad
or section
machine
gun and
various
support
weapons
(mortars
and
artillery)
have and
will still
inflict
the most
casualties.
Read More
>>
