> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Wayne wrote:
> SNIP.
<<snip>>
> If you want your bikes to all have a heavy weapon then you would be
<<snip>>
> The point of the rules was to create what is in effect another
I
> wanted there to be advantages (increased speed) and disadvantages (no
Fair enough. SG2 is, after all, an infantry game. I've run IFVs with three
SAWs mounted on them, and they put out insane amounts of fire. A squad of
eight bikes (or even small squads of six or less) all with SAWs would be
devastating. Which may be the point, but it screws up game balance.
> And Brian Burger wrote in response to Thomas Barclay:
<snip>...how do we then
> >treat mounted
Go for it. What are you thinking of as an alternative to having the squad bail
off their bikes when under heavy fire?
Wayne spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I didn't want the bikes to have the option of mounting an intergral
Sure. Just that the minis I have look like a centerline SAW would be
reasonable.
> The point of the rules was to create what is in effect another
I
> wanted there to be advantages (increased speed) and disadvantages (no
I can see that makes sense. I think you probably have two classes of bike. An
armed and unarmed. In either case, they both take damage from any weapon in
the game... which helps a bit in maintaining balance.
> >From an OU organisation and mission point of veiw, I see these squads
What about Mounted Recce? They would be awesome for that. Or for couriers.
There are a lot of roles for these bikes.
/************************************************
Wayne spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> At 05:45 PM 18/11/98 -0800, Brian Burger wrote:
Of course, with any sort of an ammo capacity, you'd run out after a few turns
of fire. With basic firecontrol (the best the bike could mount), you are only
somewhat dangerous (per SAW). And if the bikes themselves increased weapon
damage (to integrate the likelihood of an explosion or being thrown off or any
number of things), then they'd still be pretty balanced. And, like I've always
said, I can balance any situation if I think about it. If I give you a fast
bike squad
with 6 SAW weapons, I'd better have a reasonable counter - maybe a
VTOL, some good arty, or chassis mounted quad-APSWs to offer some
examples. If you don't like the idea of armed bikes, I'm fine with that, but I
think it is hard to say it is technologically impossible to arm such a beast.
A saw (even with ammo hoppers) won't weigh more
than 30 pounds - limited ammo. I don't think that is too much to
assume. Maybe the RFAC is too heavy. Maybe these 'gun bikes' have slower
movement rates. Who knows? What makes one comfortable is what one should
always go with.
> I don't have any concrete ideas about alternatives its just that I
Hmmm. A lot of those movies (again a crappy source) showed them dismounting
(hobilar style of fighting) to engage the enemy when fired on. And I hardly
think the cavalry was being fired on by RFACs, SAWs and modern ARs with GLs.
That is perhaps where the analogy goes awry.
> It just seems that if you are riding your bike across some open ground
Unless I realized that the drive across the open would keep me exposed to the
aforesaid threat (like say a SAW or RFAC) for some period of time. My bike
won't move fast enough to outrun its traverse, it has a high cyclic, and I
have no armour to protect me. I'd consider bailing off and getting prone.
.... but I'm a ground pounder at heart. I don't like the idea of fighting from
inside a tin can or astride a bike. So I may just have a silly predjudice.
> Here's an idea I just had. Maybe the mounted infantry should only do
What
> do you think.
It's your dime!:)
/************************************************
Wayne spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Both valid but a courier wouldn't be a really useful role on a SG2
Well, they had radios in WW2, but they still used motorcycles to courier some
orders around. Some stuff is just so sensitive you can't
trust crypto to do the job - you need a guy to deliver it. And on low
tech worlds, this may be more common. And on some worlds, comms may not work
due to ionization... then orders must be distributed by
runners - imagine a modern force operation with runners, motorcycle
couriers, and some sealed orders.... could be interesting.....
Tom.
/************************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
Wayne spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> At 10:04 PM 18/11/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
You should (according to conversations with Jon and others) be
rolling unit quality + fire control for a vehicle mounted weapon. So
either you'd resolve it as six attacks with basic firecontrol (D6) +
unit quality (call it D8) or as one attack with 6 SAWs (D6 6 times) +
(D8 for unit quality). And yes, that would be nasty. However, If I let six
small dune buggy's zip up to me the same way, that would be equally
devastating. The problem I guess lies in the fact that in one unit activation,
you could move all six of these saws into range (BTW, while you chopped apart
a squad, another would nuke you... theose bikes are not bulletproof).
I like the idea of gun-bikes, but I see the issue. you don't want to
run them as vehicles or every moves puts the moving vehicle out of unit
cohesion. You don't want to move them all at once if they carry SAWs.
Interesting. I'll think about it and see if I can think up a good answer.
> Ammo capacity doesn't come into SG2, except for missiles.
Not maybe in your games (ie - it is something you can track if you
want, or not... it isn't required but otherwise you really make SAWs and other
types of weapons capable of infinite fire and this should be an advantage of
static defenders with extra ammo boxes). The rules
indicate this is an extra level of bookkeeping - true. But I apply it
where I think necessary - GMS, SLAMs on vehicles, IAVRs, and in this
case I'd use it on vehicle SAWs as they don't have big ammo reserves.
> >And if the bikes
> >explosion or being thrown off or any number of things), then they'd
Okay. You have 1 squad with bikes (6 guys). I have 3 regular squads. You zip
in and clobber one of my squads with 6 SAWs. It hurts a lot. My other two
squads chew you to bits before you can do another fire action.
> SG2 is after all an infantry game.
Mostly.
> >If you don't like the idea of armed bikes, I'm fine with
Stipulated.
It was infact an attempt to write rules that created a mounted
> infantry squad type, that could be used for grav bikes and other types
Or one flavour of it anyway. But point taken.
> As for the US cavalry analogy, it wasn't meant as proof to support my
Sorry. I just wanted to point out where such an analogy may not apply.
> >Unless I realized that the drive across the open would keep me
Yep. Except I wonder if this matters against weapons like Vulcans (RFACs).
I've seen what they can do.... it makes me wonder if speed WOULD be adequate
defence. I suspect since you can't outrun the traverse, and the wall of lead
put out is vast (and given future FC), you'd probably just die (far more
easily than the D8 vs point targets in the game causes you to).
And rapid acceleration would through off
> the aim of the people shooting at you,
But will it beat the computer? Hmm. If it could, I don't think you'd ever get
hits in FT. Depends on what is attacking you. But I do take
your point - against normal infantry with non smart weapons, it
strikes me that speed is a reasonable defence. Not the only one. I'd rather be
behind a big rock or even a decent little hump in the
ground....
at least for a while, so would rapid
> evasion movements.
Fair.
/************************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Wayne wrote:
> I don't have any concrete ideas about alternatives its just that I
We've had people quoting Tom Clancy as a source recently. I think we can
survive the quoting of Hollyweird. (sorry, it's late...)
> It just seems that if you are riding your bike across some open ground
Granted. But if really heavy fire came in, and that cover started to look a
long, long way off, and the distance from there to here was filled with
bullets?
> Here's an idea I just had. Maybe the mounted infantry should only do
What
> do you think.
This seems way too generous to the mounted troopers. What's to stop them,
under this rule, from driving up to the squad shooting at them and
close-assaulting?
I'm an egocentric type, but I prefer my original idea: first activation,
movement but no fire. After that, they bail & hug dirt like normal infantry.
You can only get one suppression every time someone fires at you, so
collecting more than one indicates either several squads opening up on you or
a squad getting two turns or more uninterrupted firing at
you. God knows I'd crash-stop my bike (or my horse, to use the
regular-cav
example) and hunker down. You may have a fast bike, but bullets are
faster...to say nothing of laser beams or fusion bolts...
On the topic of SAW-armed bikes vs unarmed bikes:
Try this: one or two bikes per squad are 'heavy' cycles, and mount
integeral SAWs of some sort. The rest are basic cycles, w/o integeral
weaponry. It means mixed-vehicle squads, but if they're the same basic
chassis, with the gun-cycle slightly beefed up, there's no major
problems...This solves the 'oh-shit-six-SAWs' problem, but allows some
bikes to have weaponry, and allows bike squads to have heavy weaponry they
couldn't carry normally. There could of course be (rare) squads which have
all-heavy mounts - mounted assault squads, or recon squads that need
extra firepower.
My $0.02,
At 10:43 AM 18/11/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote in response to my post:
> Mounted infantry shooting.
SNIP.
I didn't want the bikes to have the option of mounting an intergral weapon so
it was left out on purpose. I wrote these rules after reading Owen Glovers
light horse TO&E and thinking that giving all jet bikes an intergral heavy
weapon made them too powerful and that treating them all like a size 1 vehicle
distracted from the whole point of StarGrunt being an infantry game.
If you want your bikes to all have a heavy weapon then you would be better off
using the bike stats that Owen wrote in his light horse TO&E and treating them
like individual vehicles and using the existing rules with the addition of
some sort of unit integrity rule for them (I remember Owen posting something
along these lines recently)
The point of the rules was to create what is in effect another infantry squad
type. The rules are really just modifications of the existing ones to take
into account the fact that the infantry are mounted on bikes. I wanted there
to be advantages (increased speed) and disadvantages (no heavy weapons and
shorter ranged when mounted) so that game balance could be maintained.
> From an OU organisation and mission point of veiw, I see these squads
And Brian Burger wrote in response to Thomas Barclay:
SNIP stuff about suppressions effecting mounted infantry.
> If I was on a grav bike
> Given the above rules for regular vehicles, how do we then treat
I like your ideas mind if I steal them, maybe change them a little (I'm not
sure if I like the crash dismount thing), and include them in my rules??
SeeYa
> At 05:45 PM 18/11/98 -0800, Brian Burger wrote:
> The point of the rules was to create what is in effect another
I
> wanted there to be advantages (increased speed) and disadvantages (no
> Fair enough. SG2 is, after all, an infantry game. I've run IFVs with
I've never seen or used vehicles in SG2 but it nice to know that someone else
agrees with my thoughts about a lot of SAWs unbalancing the game.
> > SNIP
> Go for it. What are you thinking of as an alternative to having the
I don't have any concrete ideas about alternatives its just that I don't like
the idea of everyone jumping of their bike cause someone shot at them. Though
movies aren't a good factual source I keep thinking of all the Westerns where
the response of the US calvary to getting shot at by the indians is not to
instantly jump off their horses, and use them for cover, but to gallop out of
range, regroup and then to think about dingo something about the indians.
It just seems that if you are riding your bike across some open ground with
your squad mates and start to get shot at, you wouldn't all instantly jump off
but would instead gun the engine and drive as fast as you could out of there,
and probably toward some near by cover to hide behind. Then dismount and
return fire in a more organised and coordinated fashion.
Here's an idea I just had. Maybe the mounted infantry should only do a crash
dismount if they actually take casualties from the fire, otherwise they can
continue to move no matter how many suppressions they have. What do you think.
> At 09:57 PM 18/11/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Sure. Just that the minis I have look like a centerline SAW would be
and
> I can see that makes sense. I think you probably have two classes of
I have some of the OU minis that look like they have a centerline weapon as
well but if they all have a SAW it would have an unbalancing effect on the
game, it gets worse if you give them a heavy weapon. Another post containing a
discussion with Brian sent explains this point better.
> >From an OU organisation and mission point of veiw, I see these
Both valid but a courier wouldn't be a really useful role on a SG2
battlefield. Unless it was a special senario game of course.
> At 10:04 PM 18/11/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Of course, with any sort of an ammo capacity, you'd run out after a
I would call six bikes shooting six SAW's at my squad more than somewhat
dangerous. That is like, with basic Firecon and depending how you handled
their shooting (individually or as a unit) from one to six D4 and from one to
six extra D8's. If you use a gattling type SAW that becomes D10's. Since I
move faster than you I should be able to get to within one or two range bands
which means you would probably be rolling D4's or D6 defence dice. This will
mean my bike squad is going to hurt you a lot.
Ammo capacity doesn't come into SG2, except for missiles.
> And if the bikes
All these reasonable counters use vehicles, how about an infantry response.
SG2 is after all an infantry game.
> If you don't like the idea of armed bikes, I'm fine with
I can see armed bikes existing but that wasn't the point I was trying to get
across. It was infact an attempt to write rules that created a mounted
infantry squad type, that could be used for grav bikes and other types of
bikes (even cavalry if you are insane enough to try), and that maintained game
balance.
As for the US cavalry analogy, it wasn't meant as proof to support my
reasoning but just as a way of highlighting the context that the rules where
writen in.(Though after rereading what I wrote I can see how you thought it
was)
> Unless I realized that the drive across the open would keep me
Speed makes you harder to hit. And rapid acceleration would through off the
aim of the people shooting at you, at least for a while, so would rapid
evasion movements.
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Wayne wrote:
i have heard dune buggies quoted as other size 1 vehicles; surely bikes are a
lot smaller than buggies and so should be 'size 0.5' or something. if they dod
not qualify as proper vehicles, then the free saw problem goes
away - the bike is a bit of the soldier's kit, not a vehicle.
you could then have bigger, size 1 vehicle, gun bikes (trikes?) which mount a
weapon, perhaps fired by another rider sitting behind the
driver/pilot.
Tom
> At 02:59 PM 19/11/98 +1000, Owen wrote:
> I have some of the OU minis that look like they have a centerline
Snip a whole chain of reasoning that was necessary because of my over
enthusiastic addition of the words "heavy weapon".
> The Grav Bikes as employed in the OU Orbat are a Strike/Recon force and
> The Grav/Jet bike vehicles should not really be discussed in the same
I agree with all the things you stated and the rules exist to use bikes as
size 1 vehicles but what if you want to include a generic set of rules for
using mounted infantry squads (ie. not infantry riding individual size 1
vehicles), then you need to consider both styles of bikes and the fact that if
all the bikes had a SAW on them you would end up needing a bucket to roll all
the dice when they fired as a squad. (eg. 9 man Regular OU squad mounted on
gravbikes with SAW's. 2 guys fire their ACR giving a D4, 7 guys fire their
bike mounted SAWs giving 7 D8s plus an additional D8 for quality. This is alot
of fire power no matter how you look at it and if they where rotary type SAW's
with D10 fire power I think even power armour would melt before this hail of
fire.)
> At 10:53 PM 18/11/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Both valid but a courier wouldn't be a really useful role on a SG2
That is all very well and good and would be a funny situation, but in a SG2
game, not the background, the scale of it would make a courier just an
intersting senario element.
> I would call six bikes shooting six SAW's at my squad more than
I played a gmae once just after a friend bought a load of old GW Eldar
jetbikes, he just sat at the back and made pop-up attacks and shot the
heck out of my regular pltn. Without any really cool toys it was impossible
for me to counter his tactic in the game so I came up witha couple of
things....
> All these reasonable counters use vehicles, how about an infantry
Calymores/directional mines. Great little toys, just point them up
instead of out!
'bouncing-betty' anti-personel mines delivered by arty.
SNIPERS! detatched SAWS VERY extended order (bit of a double edged sword, this
can be great if the bikes are concentrated, or a BIG mistake if dispersed)
Grenade volleys, even if you don't hit it should force them into evasive
maneouvers.
That's just some of the stuff I did in offensive games.
If I was in defence and had the advantage of terrain I made up stuff like
monofilament wire meshes in valleys, monofilament claymore dispersers,
'hot' chaff bombs, laser trip-wires etc.
Of course after all this stuff Andy became less keen on his jetbikes so they
only crept up occasionally so they became less of a problem for game balance.
Just some ideas....
> Both valid but a courier wouldn't be a really useful role on a SG2
Heck, the Iraqi army used motorcycle dispatch riders during the Gulf War to
send orders to the dispursed and hidden scud missile launchers. It was
supposed to have worked pretty well. I remember one interview with an HQ
officer type who said they were having problems interdicting the
communications between scuds and their HQ's, 'cause they weren't transmitting
them (so they couldn't be jammed).
If a high-tech force in SG were to be fighting a lower-tech force, you'd
assume the high-tech one would have electronic warfare supremacy and
therefore the low-tech one would be jammed. I can see several
possibilities for scenarios making use of dispatch riders on motorbikes.
As to actually arming a motorcycle itself - speaking as someone who owns
and rides one myself, I think the idea doesn't have a lot of merit -
particularly for wheeled bikes. At best, you would have a small weapon
firing straight ahead - so you'd have to aim the bike at your target.
Putting aiming equipment (servos, hydraulics, etc) over the front wheel would
be unbalancing, etc. With grav bikes, of course, its a whole
different story - I see no reason why a skimmer couldn't have a SAW or
even slightly heavier weapon. I know the SAS uses bikes for recce work (they
did in the Gulf, anyway) as outriders for their Land Rover patrols. The
Canadian forces was playing around with the idea of motorbike equipped
recce troops a few years back - I don't know if they ever adopted it,
but I had a friend who at the time was in a recce regiment who was pretty keen
on
the idea. We were going to get specially adapted off-road bikes with an
automatic clutch, so the rider could fire a weapon with his left hand and
change gears at the same time (the clutch being on the left handlebar
normally). The weapon would be a standard SMG (Sterlings in the CF at the
time), and carried in a sheath over the handlebars or in a mount clipped to
the handlebars. There was never any question of arming the bikes themselves,
and to my knowledge, the only time that's been done was using sidecars (al la
the WWII German army). Trying to fire a weapon accurately
while moving cross country would be nearly impossible - at best, firing
on
full-auto to try and supress the other guy. This would be only at close
range. For a SAW on a bike to hit anything other than sky and the dirt in
front of the bike, you'd need to stop. This is not taking into account the
effect of recoil if you were firing and turning, while going cross country.
I'd be very reluctant to allow SAWs or any other weapons to be mounted on
wheeled bikes - and at best they could fire straight ahead with little
chance of hitting (unless the bike was stopped). Riders on the move should
only be able to shoot in the first rangeband. Grav-bikes are a totally
different story, though for balance reasons I don't like the idea of a squad
of bikes with SAWs. On the other hand, if you had armed bikes, you wouldn't be
using them in big squads, they'd probably be used in pairs as
recce / light attack VEHICLES. If you are using the bikes to transport
troops, then they would be treated like a horse (not separate from the rider)
and just give a movement bonus. The troops would fight on foot, and squads
would be ok. Squads of heavily armed bikes is just WAY too 40k.
> At 04:10 PM 19/11/98 +1000, Owen wrote:
> SNIPPITY SNIP
SNIP
> If you are looking to play Mounted Infantry, then don't arm the MCs. I
oops, I've done it again and missread a post and hence missed its whole point.
I now understand what you meant and see that we are really in agreement.
I
think I should rename the rules to "Using Mounted Infantry in StarGrunt
II".
As for the size 1 vehicle getting a free SAW comment I agree and always
intended the mounted infantry to have unarmed vehicles.
Wayne spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> An alternative is to allow some squad members to carry their support
That
> way the squad would have improved fire power when dismounted. I still
Try this: 1. Count a bike squad as 2 or 3 normal infantry squads for balance.
2. In a campaign perpective, grav bikes use micro sized grav generators that
are just brutal for maintenance. Also they have delicate and expensive
controls. Ergo their maintenance cost could be multiplied by 2 to 5 thus
making them less desireable from a logistics point of view than foot infantry.
Plus they could have a high monetary cost, and require veteran or regular
troops minimum (because green or untrained are too risky on the bikes). 3. I
think you'll find that if you have a smart defender, your mobility is useful,
but especially on an SG2 board in any kind of close terrain, it isn't as great
as all that. You die just as easy as any other infantry brought under fire.
Tom.
/************************************************
> As for the size 1 vehicle getting a free SAW comment I agree and
My $0.02...
Trikes are a bad thing for cross country work - ATV trikes were banned
in North America, and replaced by the little 4 wheel versions. Not to beat a
dead horse, but I really think the only mounted weapons on bikes should be
if the bike has a side-car (ah la WWII German army). Dune buggies are a
whole different ballgame - the Chenworth Fast Attack Vehicle used by the
US
is a neat little machine - with three crew (all inside the roll cage)
and a raised rear gunners' seat. They get armed with all kinds of stuff,
commonly a.50 cal MG and a couple of.30 cal MG's, though they can be armed
with missile launchers, automatic grenade launchers, etc. It would
be great to see something like this in Stargrunt - crew of two or three,
with a heavy machinegun or light autocannon and one or two SAWs. Not really
much different from one of the existing jeeps, but cool visually...
Anybody got suggestions for a model to use?
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Stuart Murray wrote:
> I played a gmae once just after a friend bought a load of old GW Eldar
Ouch. I'd forgotten that in SG2, grav vehicles can do a lot of VTOL-like
movements, including pop-up attacks. Makes grav/jet bikes even more
dangerous than I'd thought.
> >All these reasonable counters use vehicles, how about an infantry
Command Detonated Mines (CMDs). These seem fairly nasty.
> 'bouncing-betty' anti-personel mines delivered by arty.
Snipers rule. They're exceedingly dangerous...one game, I had a reinforced
mechanized platoon's advance totally stalled by two snipers, a
crew-served
RFAC/1 and a bit of mortar fire...I never even got close to the snipers.
> detatched SAWS
Nifty toys. Got rules you could share on these things? (after reading the
intro blurb to DS2 - the thing about why taking armour alone into urban
zones is dumb, with the monofilament beheader-of-tank-captains, I've
wondered when someone would write rules for monofilament in DS2/SG2)
> Of course after all this stuff Andy became less keen on his jetbikes
Interesting ideas, and you reinforced the point I made earlier about the
unbalancing effect of bucketloads of SAWs...counterable by interesting toys,
but unbalancing in vanilla SG2.
> In a message dated 11/19/98 1:05:29 PM EST, ajohnson@idirect.com writes:
<< Anybody got suggestions for a model to use?
> [quoted text omitted]
One of the Hot Wheels-Matchbox toys is a "FAV". At Wallie-World
(Wal-Mart)
they can be had for about.96 American. It requires a few embellishments, but
comes with two little fixed side-mounted weapons which should do well on
a pintle or ring mount on top of the vehicle. I have three of these little
gems
in my kit-bashing box at the moment
<snip lots>
> Nifty toys. Got rules you could share on these things? (after reading
Yes! I'd like to see interesting rules for this too. Good ideas.
> Interesting ideas, and you reinforced the point I made earlier about
Yes, if you really want "balance" you can counter lots of guns with more
guns... but the game ends up being about who has the most/biggest guns,
instead of about strategy, tactics and cleverness - which, I think, was
the point in the firstplace. For lots of big guns, I could refer us to a game
by a certain other (vast evil empire) game company... but I won't. :-)
Use this in SG2? Aren't Matchbox-type vehicles a wee bit on the small
side, or am I thinking of something else??
> << Anybody got suggestions for a model to use?
Howdy!
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
> We've had people quoting Tom Clancy as a source recently. I think we
:)
> I'm an egocentric type, but I prefer my original idea: first
This is a pretty good rule. Someone else suggested that mounted squads make a
test role each time they receive a suppresion; if they pass, no suppression,
if they fail, they get a suppression and must dismount.
We've started using mounted infantry and grav bike troops over the last few
months, but not enough to really get a feel for these proposed rules. We'll
try both. In the past, either a squad is smart enough to NOT be shot at while
mounted, or they get hit while mounted and hosed down to a man... (My poor
Boer irregulars...)
Laterish!
Ken
Howdy!
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
> Snipers rule. They're exceedingly dangerous...one game, I had a
Yeah, they are nasty... I have been told by some
ground-pounders
(US and Canadian) that a dug-in sniper is really a platoon objective. I
did *not* understand this until playing a game or two. It makes sense.
> > If I was in defence and had the advantage of terrain I made up stuff
Now THAT is a defense!
> Nifty toys. Got rules you could share on these things? (after reading
Treat it as a booby trap; 1d8 (or d10) versus the quality of the
crew/commander.
Laterish!
Ken
Matchbox is 1/76th, Hot Wheels are 1/67th. This FAV looks just fine next
to the GZG figures.
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/98 1:05:29 PM EST, ajohnson@idirect.com
Is this for 15mm SG2, or are they the larger Matchbox line? The regular line
seems a bit small for 25mm SG2...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Kenneth Winland wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
The reaction test for suppression is interesting - adds a bit of chance
over the set reactions of the other method. Combine the two: If a squad
blows it's rolls and gets a first suppression, (testing at Threat +1 for
the first time) they can move but not shoot. Next suppression, test at
+2,
and they hit dirt if they fail. After that, treat them as normal infantry.
> We've started using mounted infantry and grav bike troops over
Lots of ground horseflesh? Call in the French, they _still_ eat horse...
:)
Glad to know that I'm not the only one to consider using Boer figs as
mounted militia/irregular troops. (Do you do SG2 in 25mm or 15mm?)
Haven't ordered any yet,but the idea occured to me...
Later,
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> Matchbox is 1/76th, Hot Wheels are 1/67th. This FAV looks just fine
GZG's 25mm figs, I gather? (they do make 15mm figs, and very nice ones -
see the Figures section of my webpage for a review)
I just finished a 1/76th MBT (Japanese Type 90) as a _15mm_ vehicle - a
very very large MBT. I run 1/87 Marders as my 15mm (big) IFVs.
1/72;1/76;etc
are just roughly in between 15mm & 25mm, and some vehicles are usable in both.
(I once figured 15mm scale to be 1/100; I'm not entirely sure of the
numbers, but they seem right. 25mm is about 1/64, I think...)
> On 19th Nov 1998 Brian wrote:
Things snipped through out.
> It just seems that if you are riding your bike across some open
> Here's an idea I just had. Maybe the mounted infantry should only do
What
> do you think.
In the rules, as they now stand, when suppressed mounted infantry can only do
movement and leader ship actions. Close assaulting someone doesn't qualify as
either of these actions.
> I'm an egocentric type, but I prefer my original idea: first
You win, I'm a convert. After reading the above reasoning I'm going to steal
you idea and add it to the rules with the addition that if you take casualties
from incoming fire you have to do a 'bail & hug dirt' dismount as well.
> On the topic of SAW-armed bikes vs unarmed bikes:
An alternative is to allow some squad members to carry their support weapons
on their bikes but not shoot them unless they are dismounted. That way the
squad would have improved fire power when dismounted. I still think not being
able to carry heavy weapons is a necessary trade off that is needed to balance
the advantages of increased movement and such that bikes give infantry.
Great! I'll have to go take a look. Thanks for the tip!
> At 02:46 PM 19/11/98 EST, you wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Wayne wrote:
> On 19/11/98, Brian wrote:
Sounds good. Now all I need to do is find some 15mm grav/jet bikes. I
think Tabletop Miniatures makes some...
> (With out a roll I could see people exposing mounted infantry knowing
Brian's 1st Law of House Rules: Always make them power-gamer resistant.
Even normally nice people can show power-gamerish tendencies in the heat
of the game. Get people to play the game, not the rules.
(Actually, this should be the 1st Law of All Rules, not just house rules)
> I based the threat level on the going into position roll, it seem to
Sounds right - tougher but similar to IP rolls.
thanks for sending me the rules, BTW. I'll get those HTMLed tonight and posted
tomorrow or Saturday. (for everyone's information, Wayne's Mounted
Troops in SG2 rules will be published on my website - I'll post a short
announcment when they're up...)
Greetings!
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
> The reaction test for suppression is interesting - adds a bit of
It sounds worth a try.:)
> Glad to know that I'm not the only one to consider using Boer figs as
Haven't
> ordered any yet,but the idea occured to me...
I converted a squad of mounted Boers, as well as a squad of dismounted ones
(including one trooper holding the horses of the others). I used the 25mm Boer
War figs from Ral Partha. I added some bits to make one of them carry an MG42,
another carries an IAVR, and a few have
night-vision goggles. I also added some magazines and scopes to their
rifles to "tech" them up a bit. I painted them if different schemes (some
have desert-pattern camo pants, etc.) to make them look like irregular
forces. The only problem is that the RP Boers are a bit small, somewhere
around 22mm. They look fine on their own, but next to the mounted Militia or
Jaegers, they are a little small. But still usable!:)
The mounted Militia and Jaeger figs are GREAT. With just a little conversion
(turn a few heads, add some bits, convert a SAW, etc.), they will turn out
*wonderful*. Right now, there is only one mounted Militia, but there are two
mounted Jaegers.
Laterish!
Ken
Greetings!
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Wayne wrote:
> I'm begining to think you've been sending me telepathic suggestions.
Doh! The secret is out...:)
> I was thinking a reaction test with a threat level of +2 for the first
<snip>
This makes sense. It is a severe enough test, w/o being
deterministic.
Ken
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> 2. In a campaign perpective, grav bikes use micro sized grav
Let's also keep in mind the roles played by these troops.
I can't speak to OUDF usage of them, they seem to be in brigade-sized
formations attached to each division. So between 1/3 to 1/5 of OUDF
maneuver elements are Light Horse?
But I'm planning to stick them into the Tagmatic order of battle in recon
formations. Recon is not something that should be getting into
stand-up fights. A cav scout who goes looking for fights is a
gloryhound who's forgotten his primary mission. He's heavily armed because
scouts can get into some sticky situations, but he's a lot more valuable alive
than dead.
Note that German OBs on paper called for more and more motorcycle units in
recon batallions, but actual usage showed fewer and fewer motorcycle troops.
That's because they are very, very fragile. And a
not-easily-renewable resource. Good scouts take a lot of training--as
was mentioned during the discussion of infantry scouts, you don't stick a
green private fresh from training into your batallion recon platoon. Get them
all blow away getting into pissing matches with infantrymen, and you run out
in short order. Ooops.
I've got some Stargrunt Grav Bikes. However, I've only got eight of
them. This would be elements of a recon platoon--(tenative
organization, 6x4-man sections, to be used in maneuver batallion vis
6xGrav Jeeps w/ dismounts). If I were to actually use them in a game,
it would be a case of cav scouts attempting to get past an enemy screen, or
screening against enemy recon, or simillar traditional cavalry missions which
require a lot of firepower packed into a small unit. Not
flying around using their SAWs-O-Doom to shoot up line troops.
> Brian Burger wrote:
> Nifty toys. Got rules you could share on these things? (after reading
I think we had a looooong discussion on the topic. Probably after I posted my
comprehensive obstacle houserules (you can find them at
http://www.angelfire.com/va/basileus/dirtside.html I think, doing URL
from memory) with no monofilament in sight. Basically boiled down to
monofilament requiring some serious PSB to be able to string it (the idea of
engineers loosing major body parts because some jacka-- dropped the
spool was brought up by myself, recalling certain clumsy jacka--es who
have dropped rolls of concertina wire on my foot, ruining a pair of boots
which have become my 'concertina boots'), keep it in place, and prevent it
from severing whatever it's attached to. If you want to try it yourself, go
ahead.
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> posted my comprehensive obstacle houserules (you can find them at
Correction, /basileus/dsii.html
> On 19/11/98, Brian wrote:
SNIP
> The reaction test for suppression is interesting - adds a bit of chance
I'm begining to think you've been sending me telepathic suggestions.
I was looking at the SG2 rule book last night and when I got to the the
reaction test section and read the following line "Reaction test is taken
whenever a unit is ordered to do something that its troops may or mat not have
the nerve to carry out..." it hit me that mounted infantry should make a
reaction test when ever they receive a suppression and if they fail they would
do a 'crash dismount'.
I was thinking a reaction test with a threat level of +2 for the first
suppression. If they pass they can continue to do move and leader actions but
nothing else. If they fail they do a 'crash dismount' and the suppression
effects them like normal infantry. On the getting a second
suppression the threat level would be +4 and on the third an automatic
crash dismount with no roll. This would add an element of uncertainty to it.
(With out a roll I could see people exposing mounted infantry knowing they
weren't going to be forced to stop moving until they get a second suppression)
I based the threat level on the going into position roll, it seem to be a
similar situation to a crash dismount (sort of)
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Can't say myself.
> But I'm planning to stick them into the Tagmatic order of battle in
Star Wars Biker Scouts....
> Note that German OBs on paper called for more and more motorcycle
> Get them all blow away getting into pissing matches with infantrymen,
And correspondingly your mechanized recce has to be a bit tough (witness the
Scout variant of the Bradley).
> I've got some Stargrunt Grav Bikes. However, I've only got eight of
Not
> flying around using their SAWs-O-Doom to shoot up line troops.
Of course, if you want to go way back, skirmish riders have been used since
cavalry has been invented. A dispersed formation that engages the enemy as a
screening force could be of some value. But again, doctrine should be what
limits the deployment of the troops and their uses, and economics and
logistics should prohibit gamerishness.
/************************************************