Jump to content

OPERATION VARIABLE 4


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes that's right.

The things placed there have to make it of their own accord (not on a ferry or some such).

Pretty sure Tacbat's comment is just a warning that Brun doesn't put more LAVs in the water for mission 4, only to see them sink if in the meantime a patch comes out which better reflects the NZLAVs improved protection came at the cost of its amphib capability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is that only the LAVs and grunts that swim can start in the new enclave as they are the only things that can cross? Or am I wrong?

Just so it's clear to everyone, this is right out of the rules:

Reinforcements and surviving units may be positioned anywhere within the boundaries of a side’s controlled territory. If an impassable water obstacle exists, then vehicles cannot be deployed into that area unless they are physically able to drive there through friendly territory.

So, Red could put all their infanty, including their missile teams, into their "beach head." However, vehicles (other than the one that was in there at mission end) cannot deploy there. They have to make it over there themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure Tacbat's comment is just a warning that Brun doesn't put more LAVs in the water for mission 4, only to see them sink if in the meantime a patch comes out which better reflects the NZLAVs improved protection came at the cost of its amphib capability.

Correct. This is just a case of prevention so there's no surprise if the NZ LAV's start drowning after the patch comes out. It's just one less headache for me to deal with. Remember, knowing is half the battle. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any implementation of a patch that would cause such dramatic changes to any vehicle for any side is a change that just could not happen in real life.

Exactly. IRL you wouldn't have amphib capability to begin with, so making any comparisons to the real world don't apply here.

Anyway, I would bet that we don't have to worry about the patch for mission 4. As and when the patch is released will determine how the campaign will be influenced. My feelings are that if it is released within 2-3 days of a mission, then we will continue with the current version. I don't want to take a risk of the scenario breaking until I know with a resonable amount of certainty that there aren't any major issues with the patch.

Edited by Tacbat
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not aware that a Floating NZLAV was a Bug, or that such a thing was overlooked in the creation of the vehicle in SB.

Yes not sure if eSim just applied the same floatation model as the ASLAV but the NZ / Can beastie is a bunch heavier (and I think IIRC has the props removed or disconnected).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the patch is more than say 5 weeks away the point is mute since we would finish the campaign under the 3.002 construct. ;)

The issue arises if 3.0?? comes out "tomorrow" (my outlandish simplification, not meant to be interpreted as an accurate assessment of the time line :)) and Brun has purchased equipment based on the assumption he can use it a la 3.002and swim across to reinforce the bridgehead.

If the deployment area boundary is the high water mark on the shore (as opposed to an invisible line on the surface of the water) then the vehicles wont sink (because they start on the land) they just can't use the maritime route to get to where they are meant to go and have to "drive around".

By rights, the spirit of the rules should also apply to the Infantry who burdened with pack, webbing, rifle, ammo, rations, Javelin post, etc. still appear to be able to swim X Km to make the crossing too, as opposed to the actual modelling which doesn't limit these enduro swims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I say if it is amphibious now then use it as such until it is fixed. I think Tacbat thought it was amphibious in the first place when he was deciding how many points it was worth in the beginning of the campaign, but I could be wrong (that is his call) -- but if he assumed it was at the start, then it doesn't hurt that it is now, point value and capability wise I mean (ie. campaign play balance). Conversely, if it wasn't factored in, then raise/increase the price value of the NZLAV by +10 or so while it is amphibious to compensate for that added ability.

Of course once the patch is released it isn't a question of what to do with it any longer. ;)

Edited by Volcano
Link to post
Share on other sites
The territory that would be driven through would be international waters..

Can a tank drive through water? No. So how could they magically appear on the other side of the water? This is exactly why that sentence was added into the rules, to prevent vehicles from magically being deployed across a water obstacle without physically crossing it first. I don't care who owns the water, unless you have Moses on your side.

I had no problems with the NZ LAV's crossing the water. I saw them in the water in mission 2, and said nothing. I had no idea that they were amphibious, but I was willing to let it go for continuity sake and everything would have stayed as it was. Then you made your post about "realism", and well, here we are.

You mention nothing in the rule about the friendly territory being (owned) by an Ally or the party in question.

Re-read the first few pages in the rules. It is most certainly mentioned.

The fact that this is not mentioned in the rule is an oversight on Your part and cause for Ambiguity.

OK, I conceed that ambiguity existed on your part as you had assumed that you would have been able to deploy your vehicles in your "beach head". However, I refer you to post # 27 of this thread:

If the CO's are thinking of doing something that isn't covered by the rules, then I would suggest asking about it before a mission. Otherwise you run the chance of things not turning out as you had envisioned.

There's no ambiguity there. You didn't ask beforehand so that's an oversight on your part. There's no way I can foresee every eventuality in this campaign, so you had a shared resposability to ensure that what you were planning to do was acceptable. I'm not a mind reader, and I need your (and the other CO's help) to ensure things run as smoothly as they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NZLAVs Float so I floated them. If I benefited from any bug it is because of a lack of rule concerning the NZLAV and it's Amphibious capability.

Yes, and I had no problem with that.

Then You turn around and tell Me "My reputation is on the line" for doing so. Not a good idea. You forced My hand.

I did not force your hand. Everything was fine until you made your "realism" post, so my point was that is you were so concerned with realism then you wouldn't put a vehicle in the water that cannot float in the real world.

I resign as Canadian Co.

I sincerely thank you for your efforts up till now. Being a CO is't an easy task.

To avoid any possible future campaign disruptions, your particiaption in further Op Variable campaigns is not required. I spend too much time and effort putting them together to risk them falling apart halfway through.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so via PM. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By rights, the spirit of the rules should also apply to the Infantry who burdened with pack, webbing, rifle, ammo, rations, Javelin post, etc. still appear to be able to swim X Km to make the crossing too, as opposed to the actual modelling which doesn't limit these enduro swims.

Well, that's a good point to bring up at the end of the campaign for "lessons learned". I don't have a problem with the infantry being deployed across the water because it's "abstract". They can cross water without the need of specialized equipment if required. Not a pleasant undertaking, but it can be done.

Perhaps this will make it onto the bug list, where infantry might "drown" if they are in the water for "x" amount of time. Who knows?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To the members of the Canadian team, please decide who will be the new CO for the last two missions. I will need to know this by Sunday so I can send out the points. If no one steps up, then I will have to fold the team. Thanks.

Understood.

The four remaining candidates are discussing it (ducking for cover) now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it just seems that a big part of Canadian strategy at this point revolves around some amphibious landing to bypass the middle. We could all say how that is not fair, because US, UK, and DK are all confined to land. Just go through the minefields in the center like everyone else -- it's fun! ;)

All anyone has to do is bring up some engineers and clear the entire central area of mines in one scenario, but apparently no one wants to do that. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, without wishing to become embroiled in this, it could be pointed out that the UK tried a dismounted amphib operation in Mission 1 so its not quite correct to say that everyone else is "confined to land". :)

I guess we will just have to wait and see (no pun intended) if its "a big part of the Canadian strategy". ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
To the members of the Canadian team, please decide who will be the new CO for the last two missions. I will need to know this by Sunday so I can send out the points. If no one steps up, then I will have to fold the team. Thanks.

I will step up, you have my email and attention:wink2:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, without wishing to become embroiled in this, it could be pointed out that the UK tried a dismounted amphib operation in Mission 1 so its not quite correct to say that everyone else is "confined to land". :)

I guess we will just have to wait and see (no pun intended) if its "a big part of the Canadian strategy". ;)

Two sections of three man squads.

Gibsonm is hardly an amphibious assault. LoL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...