Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Probably more of a fluff question
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31846
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Heavens To Betsy [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Probably more of a fluff question

Does anyone know the reasoning why bunkers (i.e. the ones available to buy in the Baran Siegemasters, Death Korps of Krieg and Imperial Fists army lists) are impassable to war engines, but merely dangerous terrain to vehicles? Surely being the other way around or of equal status to both makes more sense. I thought they are generally described as being primarily underground so why they are able to be crossed by vehicles but not war engines escapes me. Is it to preserve game balance, maybe to stop war engines barging units out of the bunkers?

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Probably more of a fluff question

DKoK and IF lists follow the precedent set by the BSM list, which was produced by GW, unlike the others. My personal belief is that it was written that way exactly for the reasons you noted: WE barging. Perhaps someone involved in some of that early testing might know the definitive "i-was-there" answer.

Author:  Kyrt [ Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Probably more of a fluff question

Potentially, though it does then beg the question: why allow vehicles to?

Author:  carlisimo109 [ Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Probably more of a fluff question

You could argue that a bunker can support a tank on its roof but not a titan, so it'd be a tripping hazard to the latter.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Probably more of a fluff question

"bunkers" also represent firing pits and other defensive structures as well.

Author:  Legion 4 [ Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Probably more of a fluff question

Well as JZ pointed out, in Epic the term "bunker" represents a number of different structures and defensive positions. Having actually constructed two man fighting positions to being in a number of different designed types of bunkers. As well as being run over by an M60 MBT while in concrete reinforced "foxhole" for training purposes.

IMO, with all the options of what Epic considers "Bunkers" ... probably for simplicity ... making them Impassable was a good compromise. As WEs are generally very heavy. And if the "bunker" they were on collapsed. The WE could be damage of get stuck. Even barbed wire & concertina could snag a tracked or wheeled vehicle's in the various suspension system designs. And could do enough damage to make them immobile.

For a say ... a real world example. And I've been told about this incident a few times. At an SF base camp somewhere in Vietnam. During an NVA attack, a Russian made PT- 76 Light Amph Tank. Parked on top of a well built and designed bunker. Most of it being underground.

And of course the SF and others in the bunker were calling back to Higher HQ to inform them of what was going, etc., a SITREP. Not to go into the conversation too much. But the Intel Officer in the HQ, said, "There is not any enemy armor in the area, based on intel estimates, etc. The SF NCO replied, "Well if you wait a minute. I'll let you talk to the PT 76's driver". :o

The point being, IMO, had that not been a PT-76, but a larger heavier AFV, like a T-54, the bunker might have collapsed. Not only killing or wounding the occupants inside. But there would be a good chance the T-54 would have become immobile/stuck/ throw a track, etc. ...

So I think the Impassible rating for WEs may have some validity. Imagine you are walking along and a hole is covered by deadfall. Or purposely put there as booby trap, etc., ... So you don't see it. And step on the hole. You could sprain an ankle, etc., ... Been there ... done that ... ^-^

Attachments:
PT-76 .jpg
PT-76 .jpg [ 111.15 KiB | Viewed 2284 times ]
T-54 .jpg
T-54 .jpg [ 99.41 KiB | Viewed 2285 times ]

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/