Vehicles in AK

[martin goddard]

Some thinking.

Recoilless on Technicals.  Recoilless factors, save as technical. No move and shoot in same turn?
Big gun on light armour. Tank gun factors. Light armour saves.
That should cover all the options.
The Settlers army gets a +1 to AP which makes them more likely to get the two shots.
No need for better tanks I think. Heavy armour is powerful enough.

martin

[Sean Clark]

Agreed.

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Given the video footage on the web almost all technical mounted RRs are static when fired, quite apart from the obvious practicalities of setting up, aiming and firing on the move...

Neil

[martin goddard]

Agreed Neil. The RCL in Africa is almost as lethal to the crew as to the enemy

martin

[KevinS]

I agree with Martin, most weapons mounted on impressed vehicles were more dangerous to those on and in the vehicle.🤓

[Sean Clark]

We'll  try them out in our next game Kev.

[Moggy]

Looks like a good solution and can then add some more variety to the lists.

However,

Not sure how it would work in terms of the points cost. Would that be 4 points for a pair of technicals with RCL fitted or would it only count as the technicals 2 points?

Does the RCL technicals count as the allowance for only a pair of RCLs in the army? In which case can the army have a free pair of MGs that the RCLs replaced?

Not trying to be picky here guys. Just trying to get questions and responses clarified before the event.

Derek

[Sean Clark]

All good questions Derek.

Like armoured car with tank guns, I don't think it replaces a tank gun allowance. There isn't really an allowance. You get to pick each item from additions once. So I'm guessing you could have trucks with RCLs and atill have foot RCLs as they are separate entries on the list.

[martin goddard]

Good question Derek.
Sean has it right.

Players can choose each menu item once.
This would allow a player to choose the TECHNICALS item and declare "I am using the RCL option".
If a second pair of technicals were allowed then the player can declare"I WILL BUY A SECOND SET OF TECHNICALS AND THEY WILL BE RCL TOO".
RCL technicals cost the same as MG technicals.

Added to this, a player might  declare "I AM BUYING A PAIR OF RCL FOOT BASES"

This would give a player 6 RCL in total.
I see no great threat from them.
I would also rather face 6 RCLs than 6 MGs.

Playtesting is afoot.


martin

[Sean Clark]

Yes RCLs aren't much danger to foot troops, which I think this game is more focussed on than perhaps previous editions.

They are great for anti tank so if I'm facing heavy and light armour they are a valuable asset.

[Moggy]

Nice clear answer Martin Ta muchly.

BTW,  Didnt spot you on the news last night. Your Balaclava dried out nicely?

Derek

[Dex13]

Mortars mounted on vehicles is often a cheap and mobile support option. Would they be the same, cost wise, as any other armed technical?

[martin goddard]

If you want a mortar mounted on a vehicle just use them as normal foot mortars (ie as a foot bases in a foot unit) but depicted by a different model. That will look good and not create another new  vehicle category.

martin

[Sean Clark]

Whilst agreeing with Martin, I thinkt this sort of thing could be house ruled, counting them the same as RCLs on trucks i.e. they can't move and fire, and follow the same rules as mortars with regard to range and dice.

The desire is to keep things simple to allow a game to flow. Nothing is set in stone as yet so anything is subject to change.

In fact house rules are a great article for The Mill. But maybe not until the rules are published 🤗