Any thoughts on the balloon issue?

[albpilot]

As mentioned in the current ISD? Scott dove on a balloon and was shot out of the sky before he could even fire a shot. Stephen was chasing Rick and was minimum 4 turns flight away from said balloon at the time Scott was obliterated. Any reason at all why the Germans would not let the balloon continue to float instead of cranking it down?

Nothing in the rules against it. Just curious what the opinions of the DP universe are.

[AP]

From what I have read of observation balloons, typically the observer would ditch at the first sign of an attacker via parachute. This being the case, it would seem a tad silly to crank a balloon back up without its observer…

[albpilot]

cubsfan4life said:

From what I have read of observation balloons, typically the observer would ditch at the first sign of an attacker via parachute. This being the case, it would seem a tad silly to crank a balloon back up without its observer…

But not out of the realm of possibility?

[noski]

Perhaps a dice roll of one (on D6) and the observer stays in the basket indicating that this balloon is very important. Thinking along the lines of AA gunners sticking to their guns in a strafe attack....

[alien01]

Without the Indy House rule on grounded balloons, it should go down and stay down. With the House rule, it's not safe if it does go down, so it makes sense for it to hover at whatever altitude gives the defenses the best chance.

[Stephen]

cubsfan4life said:

From what I have read of observation balloons, typically the observer would ditch at the first sign of an attacker via parachute. This being the case, it would seem a tad silly to crank a balloon back up without its observer…

It took an hour or more just to sort the cabling, re-pack the parachute, re-attach it to the basket, reverse the winch and other logistical issues that are often overlooked.

Most of the time an observer did, in fact, jump at the very first sign of trouble. But occasionally they didn't... see Luke's first victory over BZ 55 and observer Willy Klemm. Klemm waited when he should have been bailing and paid for it with his life.

So I like Dan's option... 1-5 and the observer bails and the balloon comes down and stays down for the duration of the game. On a 6 they observer doesn't bail and the balloon stays up.

However, this rule would need to be used all the time, not just when it favors the defenders. On a roll of 6, the balloon stays up throughout the attack. That's my two cents.

[albpilot]

alien01 said:

Without the Indy House rule on grounded balloons, it should go down and stay down. With the House rule, it's not safe if it does go down, so it makes sense for it to hover at whatever altitude gives the defenses the best chance.

Well, in my opinion that would be about 200 feet, because that way the AA doesn't suppress. Lower than that and you take out the best defense the balloon has.

[Stephen]

albpilot said:

Well, in my opinion that would be about 200 feet, because that way the AA doesn't suppress. Lower than that and you take out the best defense the balloon has.

I think it was the head-on MG's that took out Scott (and countless others in the past), and they get far more deadly below the AA.

But there's a bigger issue. The whole idea was to replicate how the balloon crews "would have acted." Well, there's no doubt that historically they would have hauled it down as fast as possible. So now we're basing the balloon coming down on "what they would have done" and at the same time leaving it at 200 feet because that gives them an advantage under game circumstances.

I can go either way, but it seems like we ought to do one or the other. The AA fire has to do its job or it loses its opportunity. Same with Scott last week... he either got the job done or lost his chance. In his case it was the latter.

I would hate to start artificially leaving the balloon at a high altitude in order to fabricate a better opportunity to shoot it down. I would also hate to artificially rig the balloon at a certain altitude in order to give the ground fire a better chance to take out the attackers.

I say let the balloon go down on a 1-5 and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes the balloon goes down, sometimes Scott explodes.

[albpilot]

admin said:

albpilot said:

Well, in my opinion that would be about 200 feet, because that way the AA doesn't suppress. Lower than that and you take out the best defense the balloon has.

I think it was the head-on MG's that took out Scott (and countless others in the past), and they get far more deadly below the AA.

But there's a bigger issue. The whole idea was to replicate how the balloon crews "would have acted." Well, there's no doubt that historically they would have hauled it down as fast as possible. So now we're basing the balloon coming down on "what they would have done" and at the same time leaving it at 200 feet because that gives them an advantage under game circumstances.

I can go either way, but it seems like we ought to do one or the other. The AA fire has to do its job or it loses its opportunity. Same with Scott last week... he either got the job done or lost his chance. In his case it was the latter.

I would hate to start artificially leaving the balloon at a high altitude in order to fabricate a better opportunity to shoot it down. I would also hate to artificially rig the balloon at a certain altitude in order to give the ground fire a better chance to take out the attackers.

I say let the balloon go down on a 1-5 and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes the balloon goes down, sometimes Scott explodes.

Oh, heck no. I'd just say that it was an interesting experiment and default back to the 'it goes down and stays down' school of thought, easier that way and one less dice roll to make.