I was wondering if people play as though their troopers who carry GMS/Ps
also carry ARs. my friend was arguing that it would weigh too much together,
and that the figures didn't have them. I thought about it and it seemed rather
stupid not to go into a combat zone without a weapon that couldn't be used
against infantry or used in close assualt. I also think that the weight
wouldn't really be a problem in 2183, I think its a reasonalbe assumptions
that the stuff would be light enough that an average man
could carry and AR and a GMS/P. I was wondering what everyone else
thought about this.
Well, I think pretty much our group play the "if the figure has one then he
can use it!" approach. Let's see, the FSE, PAU do have figures equipped but
NAC and ESU don't....the argument for weight not being an issue is probably
correct; I think it will come down to a military's operational
approach/philosophy. I would expect at least a pistol to be carried or a
close defence weapon of some sort but not necessarily a standard AR.
Then again if you are playing a points system game then it will be a cost
issue.
My 2C
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Well, I think pretty much our group play the "if the figure has one
I'd have to agree. I don't think the limiting factor will be
weight, but rather cost. You could equip a grunt with both GMS/P and
AR, but I'd imagine that different armies would have different approaches.
Either way would be valid.
Personally, I'd have the GMS/P systems assigned to weapons squad
within the normal rifle platoon. Each platoon would have one GMS/P and
the rest of the weapons squad would carry additional magazines to feed
the GMS/P, just like they'd be carrying extra ammo for their machine
guns. In that case, the GMS/P operator (missileer?) would be armed only
with the GMS/P and a heavy autopistol.
-Mike
While I agree with Owen's reasoning, DS2 p. 33 states "Note that elements
which carry only close-range 'defensive' weapons such as Observer teams,
Engineers, Special-Weapons crews (eg: GMS teams) and such may NOT take
part in Infantry Firefights."
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> While I agree with Owen's reasoning, DS2 p. 33 states "Note that
GMS/P is not a crew-served weapon.
Regards,
> Chris Connor wrote:
> I was wondering if people play as though their troopers who carry
They won't be too heavy, no. At least the one real-world
first-generation GMS/Ps currently being designed that I know anything
about is specifically designed to let the soldier carry an AR as well. I can't
speak for our
competitors, though :-/
If a GMS system is too heavy to carry along with an AR, it's a GMS/L...
> and that the figures didn't have them.
Some figures do, some don't. WYSIWYG play is easy, of course <shrug>
Regards,
> While I agree with Owen's reasoning, DS2 p. 33 states "Note that
As we are talking on an individual figure basis, i thought this was an SG2
question
8)
It would be pretty easy to spin up a FP1 sidearm only effective in the first
rangeband as a solution.
There is the point that in DS the GMS is a GMS/L as opposed to the GMS/P
that we were talking about. Although a Crew Served weapon team would
probably carry the same side arms as the GMS/P gunner......anyway the DS
GMS teams just can't engage in Ranged Firefights. It also states that they
carry Personal Defence Weapons ie the Heavy pistol as Mike Sarno suggested.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> I was wondering if people play as though their troopers who carry
We play that the GMS/P gunners carry the same ranged weapon as the squad
they are with, irrespective of what the model has on it. Keeps things simple,
and I think, perfectly "realistic".
While the GMS models appear to be rather large in some cases relative to the
figure, who knows what they weigh? I believe that in the Canadian army today,
guys who carry the equiv size weapon (our Carl Gustav unguided rocket
launcher) also are expected to carry their rifles, and the Carl G is *heavy*.
The weapon is assigned to a section, not necessarily to a specific guy, and if
the troopers in the field are only carrying 3 missiles
(as is standard with several of the GMS/P systems in the SG rulebook) I
don't think they'd want to be stuck for the rest of the battle with a pistol!!
Especially if TODAY we can provide them with weapons like the FN
P90 which provides near-rifle effectiveness within 100 m or so. And is
tiny.
Now a question related to this that we should also look at (if it hasn't
been before some time), is what happens to the GMS/P when the trooper
carrying it is shot. Right now, we take the fig off the table and the weapon
is gone. That makes sense if the trooper carrying it was obliterated by some
kind of powerful weapon, but if he was just shot, why would his buddies leave
their tank killer on the ground? I know the game is an abstraction and for
playability purposes we keep it simple, but has anyone addressed this with a
house rule?
It would be easy to suggest that if a special weapon gunner (particularly
the GMS/P) is a casualty, as long as the weapon wasn't destroyed it may
be picked up by another member of the squad. Perhaps this requires a reorg
action, and a check of some kind if the gunner was hit by anything other than
smallarms.
Thoughts?
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Now a question related to this that we should also look at (if it
The way we play it, if the trooper is KIA, anything he's carrying is toast.
Otherwise, his equipment survives. It's quick and dirty, but it works well
enough.
-Mike
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >I was wondering if people play as though their troopers who carry
I
> don't think they'd want to be stuck for the rest of the battle with a
Thinking back to pictures I saw of the Falklands, I can distinctly remember a
Marine carrying a Blowpipe missile in its bag strapped to his back. Now
Blowpipes aren't small, this one basically ran from the nape of his neck down
to the top of his boots. As well as this he had full pack and his SLR.
> Now a question related to this that we should also look at (if it
When playing 20mm WW2 (not SG2) we play that if a special weapons trooper
(MMG, mortar, PzFaust etc) is killed then his equipment is lost on a d6 roll
of 1-3.
Otherwise someone else in his section can pick it up. Except for
flamethrowers,
that is - they're always lost.
> Now a question related to this that we should also look at (if it
the house rule that I have played with is that after a reorg action if the
troop quality is regular or better then a normal guy can pick up the special
weapon that was dropped. I think that if the victim had his armor die beaten
by more than three times then the weapon should be destroyed, but I haven't
played with that yet.
> At 08:34 23/02/00 +0000, you wrote:
> It would be easy to suggest that if a special weapon gunner
You could include support weapon recovery a part of a reorganise action. As
long as the squad stays in the same spot (or drags the wounded gunner along)
they can assign the weapon to another gunner. You might let the new gunner
fire at a quality less than normal, to account for the fact that he is less
used to fighting with it.
> Ludo Toen wrote:
> You could include support weapon recovery a part of a reorganise
I'd have to argue rather heavily against the reorganize action here.
Soldiers
are presently trained to drop their own rifles and pick up the support weapon
if the guy carrying it goes down. I don't that's going to change in the
future. In a turn that last around 5 minutes, the enemy is not even going to
notice that the gunner went down, unless they actually put the weapon out of
commission.
-Mike
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Glover, Owen wrote:
> Exchanging kit especially if you have to grab extra ammo or specialist
We don't know if the weapon is self-cleaning and it expects to be able
to be switched over to a new user quickly, or if the user has a smartlink
bioware in their body that is required to use it so the weaponisn't even
transferable anyway. I think any arguments that should be made should be kept
strictly at the game balance level. Although it's fun to bash around our
assumptions like this, we all know it isn't going to get anywhere.:)
> The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon
Which is why we should leave the philosophising up to him.:)
I think the question should be, should a support weapon be transferable, and
if so, how hard should it be to transfer so it doesn't make the support weapon
so useful to have that a squad 'must' have one or two. Hehe, maybe I'm just
lazy but I don't want to have to do the math to figure out the optimum number
of squad members to have with support weapons to maximize firepower vs
longevity should support weapons be trivially transferable.:D
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Consider that the majority of SAW figures in the GZG range are
My Stormtrooper figures don't have articulated harnesses, so are they exempt?
<g> Seriously, a generic set of rules can't make those kinds of assumptions.
> it is not unreasonable to consider the time it will take for someone
Which is a HUGE clue to that fact.
> move to him
We don't know that he doesn't have an assistant gunner at his side.
> (The squad will have been suppressed from effective fire so the troops
The squad might not actually go to ground, just because they get a suppression
marker. If the target squad's next action removes the suppression, you can
argue that, in reality, they took the hits, it slowed them a bit, but they
never went to ground. The suppression caused by the effective fire may already
take into account adjusting to the new "chain of command."
> distribute any of their own specialist kit, remove the Gunners'
Again, this might be the case, but in reality, how long with this take? Even
if this procedure fits your background, will the whole squad really need to
halt while one guy straps on the SAW?
> I actually like the idea of the Re-Org action; puts the platoon
Again, the squad already took some time with the remove suppression action, I
don't think they need to blow a whole activation (Which could be 5 minutes!)
on getting the assistant gunner to pick up the SAW.
-Mike
Oh, I think Ludo has a good point and there are some good arguments in favour
of it.
Consider that the majority of SAW figures in the GZG range are equipped with
an articualted harness of some sort; it is not unreasonable to consider the
time it will take for someone to realise the Gunner is down (except for the
distinct lack of noise his Gatt isn't making...) move to him (The squad will
have been suppressed from effective fire so the troops will have dispersed
hitting the deck) distribute any of their own specialist kit, remove the
Gunners' harness and any special sighting/firecontrol etc check weapon
for damage (quick electronic diag set?) and then finally get it into action.
I actually like the idea of the Re-Org action; puts the platoon
commander under a little more pressure; 2 Section has taken casualties...why
hasn't
his SAW opened up to support 3 Section.... :-)
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group: Info, resources, and links for
RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972
"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who
merely happen to be walking about."
-G.K. Chesterton
> > Consider that the majority of SAW figures in the GZG range are
Granted, but then again in a generic rules set we can't assume too far the
OTHER way either....
> > move to him
We don't know that he DOES, either. I suppose that the reorganize action is
only necessary if you don't have an assistant gunner (who can either
be an assistant gunner OR contribute to the squad firepower- that seems
a reasonable restriction).
> > (The squad will have been suppressed from effective fire so the
That's an issue that can be debated forever without resolution- EXACTLY
what do suppressions mean actually happened. Come up with a ruling for your
group, use it, and figure out the consequences.
> > distribute any of their own specialist kit, remove the Gunners'
Maybe. Maybe not. Probably depends on your background, and on how specialized
the SAW is (eg. an IPG might take more time to get back up
than an LMG or equivalent- you probably want to check CAREFULLY for a
malfunction before using a plasma gun).
> > I actually like the idea of the Re-Org action; puts the platoon
:-)
> Again, the squad already took some time with the remove
I think this one can be argued either way, so should probably be left as a
house rule.
Just my opinions,
Hi Mike,
You and I msut be the only ones awake at this hour?! Well it is 8:25AM here
:-( yeah, work gets in teh way all the time....
Well, I guess this is going to be another one of the agree to disagree
situations.
You don't hold my arguments valid and I don't agree with yours :-)
Like:
I believe that when Suppressed the squad DOES go to ground....that's what
suppression is all about, quineg?
Exchanging kit especially if you have to grab extra ammo or specialist
equipment can actually take a considerable amount of time....if an Activation
is approx 5 minutes then an Action is reasonably argued to be 2 and a half
minutes...that isn't really very long at all..ever tried clearing a double
feed on a machine gun? It can take a minute of two in itself...getting kit off
a body that has been blasted can be a very messy thing, clearing the weapon,
checking ammo feeds etc WILL take time....
> "We don't know that he doesn't have an assistant gunner at his side."
and we don't know that he does; as weapons get smaller lighter etc the need
for an assistant may no longer be valid...sighting systems mean that they no
longer need to spot etc.....thsi can be a WHOLE thread in itself
....and the last one may have been a typo on your part but a Re-org is
one Action only and as I said earlier it will be approx 2 and a half minutes.
The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon states in
his rules that he doesn't like to put a fixed time limit on a game turn and
mentions 1 minute and a few minutes. Then we say it can take up to 5 minutes
and then we all start quoting 5 minutes. I really think Jon T didn't really
want to get pigeon holed with a SET 5 minutes turn yet now we all argue it is
a gospel fixed time span.....
There you go,
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group: Info, resources, and links for
RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972
"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who
merely happen to be walking about."
-G.K. Chesterton
> Brian Quirt wrote:
> > > Consider that the majority of SAW figures in the GZG range are
I think giving a guy 2.5 minutes to grab a fallen comrade's weapon is already
going too far the other way. But since that's the smallest imcrement of time
we can actually measure (it's the approximate length of time that action
takes) I have no choice. Causing a whole squad to spend another action, and
therefore spend a total of 5 minutes, is far into the extreme.
> > > move to him
No, we're pretty sure that he does. The figures in SGII are never exactly
where the men are located. They serve only as a marker of the nexus of
activity for each individual. Even if there isn't a man who is designated as
assistant gunner, there is someone near him who has the job of picking up the
gun should the gunner fall in combat.
> I suppose that the reorganize action
Again, that's not how I see it happening. Even without a designated assistant,
soldiers today are trained to grab the support weapon. I just don't see how we
need to have a specialized action for this routine situation.
> > > (The squad will have been suppressed from effective fire so the
I agree that we could talk in circles about what exactly any of the game
mechanics represents. Which is exactly why I argue for allowing the switch for
no cost. It's just assumed to occur within the normal game procedures. The
threshold for me is that the soldier doesn't have to be ordered to do it.
That's why I think it doesn't have to occur as part of a seperate action.
> > > distribute any of their own specialist kit, remove the Gunners'
The procedure may or may not take a great deal of time, but no matter what you
decide, it doesn't take the whole squad. That's why a reorganize isn't
appropriate. You might want to say that the support weapon can't come back
on-line for a specified number of actions, but limiting the squad's
actions seems unrealistic.
> > > I actually like the idea of the Re-Org action; puts the platoon
:-)
> >
Well, of course we're talking about a house rule. But why does the
conversation have to end there? Why aren't you willing to look at the
situation closer? Why even bother discussing anything on the list? <g>
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Well, I guess this is going to be another one of the agree to disagree
I think it's a bit too early to call it a game. We're just getting started. I
want to hear more of what you have say and I want to hold my arguments up to
closer scrutiny. In the split fire argument, I started somewhere in the
middle, but moved to one extreme after some thought. In the M113 discussion, I
moved from leaning one way, to leaning a bit more another. <g>
> I believe that when Suppressed the squad DOES go to ground....that's
I think that suppression is a number of things, only one of which is actually
going to ground. It could simply be staying in place and in cover. The fact
that a squad can reorganize while suppressed is a strong argument for the fact
that they've not simply gone to ground. They can move about freely within unit
integrity, which is not, by definition, going to ground.
> Exchanging kit especially if you have to grab extra ammo or specialist
That's why you still roll the dice the next time the weapon fires. A low roll
could indicate a slight weapons malfunction, such as a jam. My point is, SGII
is far too granular to REQUIRE such a long time to pick up a weapon from a
fallen comrade and fire it.
> >"We don't know that he doesn't have an assistant gunner at his side."
Assistant gunner or not, someone nearby is going to grab a useful weapon. And
you can't have it both ways, you can't argue for a heavy weapon that takes
time and effort to ready and then turn around with the lighter weapon
argument. <g> If the weapon is heavy, he's gonna have an assistant gunner. If
the weapon is light, it's not going to require the great deal of time that
you're arguing. Either way, the assistant's only job isn't to spot or replay
orders, he also is going to keep the pig fed.
> ....and the last one may have been a typo on your part but a Re-org is
No, I'm counting the average time to use BOTH the remove suppression
and re-org actions.
> The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon
Yes, it is gospel, according to St.Jon, chapter 2. <g> Seriously, it's in the
book as the average. Now, I don't think that every action takes 2.5 minutes.
It's simply the average. But we've got to start somewhere. We're trying to
create a game that simulates the combat we've seen in films, on TV, in
literature, or some other imagined universe. The rules didn't dodge the issue
and tell us that each turn is 8 centons or 42 microns. <g> They offer the
average, and each action must reasonably fit into that average. Sometimes the
action will realistically take a great deal longer, and sometimes it will take
a great deal shorter. But the average remains.
This is another reason why I argue against the extra re-org action.
No one is talking about the procedure of picking up and using a weapon lasting
over 5 minutes. However, we can all imagine a guy dropping a conventional SAW
and having his buddy pick it up and start firing within a few seconds. If the
average is some kind of arithmetic mean or median, that little scene I
described would cancel out dozens of time when it would take 5 minutes to get
the support weapon going, and would create an average closer to 2.5 minutes.
Thus, the remove suppression action would be more than enough to cover the
average. Let crappy die rolls simulate the times when it takes longer. Heck,
the sergeant blowing his remove suppression roll could indicate that the squad
refuses to move until PFC Gonzalez gets the IPG back on-line. <g>
-Mike
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Glover, Owen wrote:
I can't gree here. Game balance is a secondary consideration. If both sides
have to abide by the same rules, game balance becomes a matter that is belt
addressed on the level of scenario design. Besides, the only way to hash out
any rules change or house rule is to perform a reality check. Besides, it
doesn't really matter how complicated they're going to make a weapons system
in the future. If it's designed for grunts, a support weapon is always going
to be able to be picked up quickly (Just how quickly is the point of this
discussion. <g>) by a comrade should the operator fall in battle. That's the
way it is know, and that's the way it is in the vast majority of
sci-fi combat
we've seen.
> > The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon
Hey, I paid my money, the rules are mine, now. <g>
> I think the question should be, should a support weapon be
Again, I don't think this is a primary concern. It's not like we're creating a
whole new weapon or even a who new game mechanic. We're just talking about how
to handle casualties. But even if you value game balance more than I do in
this decision, it favors a more simplistic system where troopers can pick up a
fallen comrade's weapon. If you already have a balanced system, inserting a
totally random loss of an important weapon when even wound casualties occur
just plays havoc with the previously established balance.
-Mike
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:31:35 -0500, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> We play that the GMS/P gunners carry the same ranged weapon as the
We play that the GMS/P guy is not carrying a ranged weapon other than
the
GMS/P. He's too busy looking for targets of opportunity to switch
weapons back and forth.
> Now a question related to this that we should also look at (if it
In my house rule, that I THINK I submitted for inclusion in the scenario book,
we allow a reorg action to allow another squad member to pick up that weapon.
However, this is only allowed in armies with cross-training. Untrained
(and optionally Green) squads can't do this.
I think I also toyed with a roll on the weapon during a reorg action. A roll
of a 1 indicated the weapon was useless.
Wading into the mess I've created...
> Exchanging kit especially if you have to grab extra ammo or
But right now the weapon is just OUT. There isn't *any* mechanism for
recovering lost special weapons. Owen (who I tend to agree with here)
isn't arguing that it takes lots of time, just one reorg action - which
isn't that much time, really. Sure it's easy to say "but the guy next to him
just grabs the saw and starts rockin' and rollin', but if the weapon is a
hopper fed gauss machinegun with a battery pack, or a plasma projector
with a battery pack, or ..... etc. Nowadays, it is easy enough to grab
the fallen weapon - if the strap isn't hooked on the other guy's gear...
But if you have to start fidding around rolling your buddy's body of the now
rather gooey mg, and unhook it from his harness, clear the jam from the barrel
nosediving into the mud when he fell over, clear off the goo from him being
cooked by the plasma shot, plug it into your firing HUD system and reset the
system for the new weapon, figure out what you forgot 'cause it doesn't work
the first time, reset it, and start again....
Maybe one reorg action isn't unreasonable.
> ....and the last one may have been a typo on your part but a Re-org
But the issue of getting the weapon going is unrelated to the supression. You
can reorg while supressed, and besides, there may not be *time* right NOW to
grab the weapon 'cause we gotta bug outta here... mabye they carry their buddy
with them and get it later. In any event, what Owen is arguing for is the
expenditure of one action, for a reorg, which does allow you to do all the
other stuff a reorg allows anyway... it isn't like the ONLY thing the squad is
going to do is grab the SAW...
> Yes, it is gospel, according to St. Jon, chapter 2. <g> Seriously,
This is one of those "well sort of kinda maybe" situations. What Jon actually
says is that for games where measuring time is actually important, like in a
campaign scenario where the arrival of reinforcements is a timed
event, then take the turns to work out to be appx 5 minutes. But he
starts that paragraph off by saying "In Stargrunt II, the timescale is fairly
loose, and in most cases pretty irrelevant to normal
play......the
full turn may safely be assumed to occupy one or even several minutes of
elapsed time." etc. It's quite clear that the five minute turn length is given
for that specific sort of situation, ie in a timed scenario situation where
timing is important, and that for other games it should be treated loosely.
But that isn't really the point. Even if it is a five minute turn, clearing up
the weapon and getting it back into action is ONE of your two actions. That
may be 30 seconds of the turn. It may be 4 min and 30 sec of the turn. It
isn't divided up into *exact* amounts, with *this* type of action taking x
amount of time, and *that* type of action taking y amount of time... Maybe the
other action in your turn is spent in movement, running like hell from the
guys that shot your SAW gunner. Or maybe you're returning fire before checking
the wounded. Or maybe you took three casualties and the squad needs to catch
their breath before going on. Or whatever.
A reorg action isn't a "long" period of time necessarily.
Here's another way of looking at it. Right now, as the rules stand, if your
SAW gunner goes down as an unknown casualty, the only way to find out what
happens to him is to use a reorg action to check your wounded. He may be dead,
he may be stabilized. But just 'cause the SAW goes out of action, doesn't
necessarily mean that the gunner is toast and it's time go get someone else on
the job. The squad leader doesn't know right away. Maybe the gunner is
stunned. Maybe dead. Mabye tripped and fell. Maybe the weapon is jammed. But
the rules takes this unknown situation into account with the "unknown
casualty" result, and the necessity of finding out what actually happened by
using a reorg action.
How about this:
If a special weapon gunner goes down and is killed outright, then the weapon
is assumed to be either destroyed, or damaged beyond reuse in the current
fight and maybe returnable to service after maintance (after the battle). The
hit on the gunner packed a real punch...
If the gunner is an "unknown" casualty, then the weapon may be recoverable.
The squad undertakes a reorg action (as it would to check any of it's
wounded). If the gunner turns out to be a "stabilized" wounded, then
another model may take up the weapon. If he's dead, then on a 1 - 3 the
weapon is recoverable and on 4 - 6 it isn't. This takes into account
the varying amount of damage a trooper may suffer. A shot that kills him
outright is one that obviously packed a punch, but one that gets him slowly or
that isn't so obvious (his buddies had to actually check to see, rather than
saying "ok that's one of his legs, I guess he's had it...") gives the weapon a
better chance of staying in action.
This keeps things simple, and takes into account the fact that weapons may
indeed be damaged beyond use, but gives quite a good chance to the survivors
to get it back into action.
> This is another reason why I argue against the extra re-org action.
But the supression and the reorg actions represent completely different
things, and, more importantly, this doesn't account for the fact that the
weapon may in fact be damaged beyond use. With this system, a squad is going
to be able to keep the special weapon going down to the last guy standing as
long as they can unsupress and stay calm... irrespective of what the gunner
got hit with...
And there's my $0.02
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
Game balance is the primary concern. If the game doesn't work, it isn't fun
and there isn't any point playing it. To take this to an extreme, imagine a
weapon that kills everything on the enemy force when triggered. Okay, roll to
see who goes first... trigger weapon... win. Did you have fun? The 5 second
game. Reality check? The only check is against game balance. You might think
support weapons in the future will jump out of the dead persons grasp and into
the arms of someone else, it's just as viable to say that a weapon self
destructs when it detects the user dies so the enemy can't use it! You can't
make a 'reality check' against something that isn't real. Make up whatever you
want it to be, but the point of doing it in the first place is to make the
game more fun, and that means you have to keep the game playable.:)
> Besides, it doesn't really matter how complicated they're going to
Certainly using comrades, or enemy's, weapons is a nice little dramatic flair
we see in movies. I wouldn't say it occurs in the vast majority though, and
it's usually the hero that does it. The G.I. Plain Janes doen't get enough
camera time to waste watching them spend 5 seconds swapping weapons. Hmmm, I'm
suddenly having Star Wars flashbacks... Are there rules for
hi-jacking enemy AT-STs, speeder-bikes etc.? :)
> > > The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon
Heh. Just wait for SG3 when GZG figures out how to use Microsoftian
legalities... "You have purchased the right to use, but not alter in
any way..."
Hmmm. I want my hologram authentic SG edition!
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> But if you have to start fidding around rolling your buddy's body of
Especially since the weapon might petulantly refuse to recognise your
thumbprint or retina pattern as an authorised user, and won't fire at all.
I can easily imagine many otherwise low-tech weapons in low-intensity
conflicts that have some sort of personal IFF embedded in them. Reason being
that the main source of weapons for guerillas is often the other side, either
captured or bought from unscrupulous supply sergeants. This
would cause some disadvantage, as personal weapons are just that -
personal. But the advantages could outweigh the costs.
> On 23-Feb-00 at 18:43, Michael Sarno (msarno@ptdprolog.net) wrote:
> I think giving a guy 2.5 minutes to grab a fallen comrade's weapon
But it isn't 2.5 minutes. It's some variable amount of time that could be as
much as 2.5 minutes or as little as 30 seconds. In this case I personally will
go with the rules as written.
Hmmm, since I'm setting up "house rules" for our local group I think I'll do
it like this.
When the SAW gunner is injured make an extra attack roll on his weapon versus
his AC. If it fails the weapon is destroyed. If not the weapon may be
recovered IF the squad remains in place for 1 action AND 1 member
does not fire. The non-firing member is assumed to be the new gunner.
> Especially since the weapon might petulantly refuse to recognise your
I don't think that would be an issue, a military weapon that would only fire
for one guy would be pretty useless in military terms. I'm sure there would be
some sort of "group ID" or user access list genned up for the squad platoon
whatever, else it would be more a hinderance than an assett.
> I can easily imagine many otherwise low-tech weapons in low-intensity
This
> would cause some disadvantage, as personal weapons are just that -
I guess the Gs would need to hack the access code, or or have some capability
to disarm it. The whole idea of personal IFF to slave a weapon to any one
individual sounds nice for civilian use but has somehwat limited use in
military operations where the key watchword has always been and will always
remain "contingency." I'd more concerned with making sure my force stay viable
than I am worrying about G's grabbing our weapons, and there are probably
other work arounds for that such as some sort of god signal to self destruct
weapons left behind ala sportytspam's idea. (though that leads to all kinds of
other interesting "hacker" possibbilities.
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> But right now the weapon is just OUT. There isn't *any* mechanism for
But again, that's what the dice are there to do. You have to roll to remove
the suppression. What exactly does that represent? I argue it's getting the
squad back into fighting condition.
> Maybe one reorg action isn't unreasonable.
But the support weapon still cannot fire until the leader successfully removes
a suppression. So now you're talking about a whole activation. It now becomes
completely impossible to have any support weapon immediately back
on-line without the intervention of the PL. This just is not the way
the
present military works and doesn't seem to be the way any sci-fi fiction
represents the action.
> >> ....and the last one may have been a typo on your part but a Re-org
I disagree. Removing the suppression could take several actions. This is
exactly what is represented by the remove suppression action.
> You can reorg while supressed,
You can only re-org while suppressed if you are in cover.
> and besides, there may not be *time* right
Wait a minute, didn't you just argue that the weapon is strapped to their
buddy and will take some time to remove from him?
> In any event, what Owen is arguing
But you're forcing the squad to take that re-org when all the player
might want to do is get the SAW back up and running. Picking up a SAW when the
gunner goes down is something that grunts are trained to do. It wouldn't
require another action.
> > Yes, it is gospel, according to St. Jon, chapter 2. <g>
Seriously,
> >it's in the book as the average. Now, I don't think that every
Right, which is as good a place as any to start reality checking.
> Here's another way of looking at it. Right now, as the rules stand,
What is an "unknown" casualty? The hit either causes a wound or a kill. Now
the trooper may die from the wound, but it still isn't "unknown."
> He may
Maybe
> the gunner is stunned. Maybe dead. Mabye tripped and fell. Maybe
Right, but the SL doesn't need to know, just the guy next to the gunner needs
to know. If the gunner goes down and you're the closest guy to the SAW, pick
it up and use it. That's standard training.
> But the rules takes this unknown situation into account
There isn't an "unknown" casualty result. The re-org simply allows
the grunt to be medically treated. As I stated in a previous post, I'd argue
that a good house rule is the weapon is toast on a hit with a kill result.
Thnis doesn't require anybody treating the casualty to operate the SAW.
Treating the casualty while you're in the middle of a firefight is something
that soldiers are taught no to do. They're trained to keep fighting and leave
the wounded to the medics. A rifleman has his job and a medic has a completely
different job. Now, if there's a lull in the fighting and you're not actually
in a firefight, sure grunts are trained to treat the wounded.
> How about this:
This is what I recommended previously. I still think it's a good rule.
> If the gunner is an "unknown" casualty, then the weapon may be
I still don't know what an "unknown" casualty is.
> The squad undertakes a reorg action (as it would to check any of it's
But a medic gets a better chance to stabilize than does a grunt. And
specialized medical units have an even better chance. Why would better medical
attention result in better weapons salvage?
> > This is another reason why I argue against the extra re-org
No, if the gunner is killed outright, the weapon is toast.
-Mike
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
If both sides
> > have to abide by the same rules, game balance becomes a matter that
Again, this is a scenario design issue. Using your argument, it would seem
logical that tactical nukes don't exist. However, they do exist, we just don't
see them often because they would make for a lousy game.
> Reality check? The only check is against game balance. You might
Now you're just being silly. No one mentioned anything along the lines of
smartmetal guns running to catch up with the squad.
> You can't make a 'reality check' against something that isn't real.
Yes you can, you simply compare the situation to your source material.
> > Besides, it doesn't really matter how complicated they're going
Picking up a SAW isn't just something for films and TV. It's a fact of modern
combat and will most likely to continue to be a fact.
-Mike
> Roger Books wrote:
> On 23-Feb-00 at 18:43, Michael Sarno (msarno@ptdprolog.net) wrote:
A single action could conceivably take much more than 2.5 minutes. That is
simply the average. Since it is an average, it's a good place to start reality
checking.
-Mike
> Los wrote:
> > Especially since the weapon might petulantly refuse to recognise
At least, this will be the case. More likely though, military weapons won't
have any of these authorization features. In combat, there are just too many
things that could go wrong with the system and then you're left with a very
heavy, expensive club. <g> Checking for thumbprints and retina patterns would
get in the way of
grunts wearing gloves or even sunglasses/goggles. It might apply to
some backgrounds, sure, but that's more a matter of whether or not it's
possible to
interchange weapons, and not the time/actions argument.
> > I can easily imagine many otherwise low-tech weapons in
Reason
> > being that the main source of weapons for guerillas is often the
This
> > would cause some disadvantage, as personal weapons are just that -
I'd have to agree. It would seem that the best security against unauthorized
usage would be to make sure that possession of the weapon is simply denied to
unauthorized users.
> I'd more concerned with making sure my force stay viable than I am
Indeed, the destruct codes would then be the ultimate power in the galaxy. <g>
-Mike
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
Sure, they don't fit the scale of the game. You do see them in Starcraft.
Playing 'spot the dot' to try and kill the enemy ghost before the nuke locks
onto target isn't a lot of fun though, hehe, but on the flip side, watching an
entire enemy strike force vapourize to a well placed nuke is.:)
> > Certainly using comrades, or enemy's, weapons is a nice little
Actually, I've been arguing that humans on the battlefield at all won't
continue to be a fact, let alone swappable guns.:)
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
The US military's current idea seems to be to have perfect knowledge of
the battlefield. Personally, I'm surprised they haven't already
started implanting chips into their soldiers... Regardless of IFF, it's easy
enough to say that whatever horrible fate befell the weapon's carrier also
befell the weapon itself, or it's ammo. I'd only really be interested in
worrying about fixed emplacement weapons and vehicles.
I always figured that the gun was picked in the re-org because that when
you would treat the wounded guy whose weapon you were picking up. If your
buddy is lying there dying what are you going to do first? help save his life
or grab the gun and leave him to die? untreated casaulties are nasty things in
SGII, thats why I think that people would treat mr.SAW gunner and then grab
his weapon. just MHO.
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
I have to agree with you. But if we're going to have human grunts, they're
going to be able to swap weapons.
-Mike
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> Regardless of IFF, it's easy enough to say that whatever horrible
That's a quick and dirty option with a great deal of merit. How would you
interpret the fate of the weapon of the man who was wounded, but was able to
return to battle after being treated? The quick and dirty option I prefer is
that the weapon is operational if the man carrying it was not killed outright.
But that's hardly the only plausible answer and it probably isn't the best.
> I'd only really be interested in worrying about fixed emplacement
OK, how would you handle these?
-Mike
> Chris Connor wrote:
> I always figured that the gun was picked in the re-org because that
You're going to grab his weapon and start returning fire. That's what soldiers
are taught today. I don't see any reason why that will change in the future.
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Just adressing one point here....someone made a suggestion about
I'd agree, a test for greens is not unreasonable. It's probably just a bit
more detail than I'd like, but I wouldn't think it was a bad house rule.
-Mike
Jee, sleep for 6 hours and miss all the fun!
Just adressing one point here....someone made a suggestion about whether
Greens may not carry on with the SAW but Regs and above could is very valid.
The TRAINING to pick up the Support weapon/Section MG whatever is there
but the reality is much different. For one thing the fact that the Section Gun
has attracted a WHOLE lot of attention to get hit will dissuade many
inexperienced or less courageous young soldiers from taking the initiative and
getting the weapon back in action......
So a test or some such for Greens is not unreasonable. Yes I know that Green
is an Average of teh troops making up the squad! The Regs in a Green squad are
probably the SL and Gunner....who just got it!
Hmm, back to the time thing. Quoting Jon T from the rules again, FOR CAMPAIGN
PURPOSES if you really need to measure time assume a game turn is 5
minutes....so a squad activated TWICE is doing 4 Actions in the CAMPAIGN 5
minutes.....
I think this is really important to remember when we are talking about how
long things take and whether things can happen automatically or need an Action
to resolve?
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group: Info, resources, and links for
RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972
"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who
merely happen to be walking about."
-G.K. Chesterton
> Especially since the weapon might petulantly refuse to recognise your
And the LawGiver (?) from Judge Dredd is Fatal if your DNA doesn't match
;1
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> We play that the GMS/P guy is not carrying a ranged weapon other than
I'm not allowed to say anything specific on this subject, but with turns as
long as 2.5 minutes this weapon switching will not be a problem for trained
troopers (anything better than yellow) with
first-generation GMS/Ps. I doubt if more advanced versions will be
clumsier than the first-generation stuff.
Regards,
In a message dated 2/25/00 3:26:15 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
I'm not allowed to say anything specific on this subject, but with turns as
long as 2.5 minutes this weapon switching will not be a problem for trained
troopers (anything better than yellow) with
first-generation GMS/Ps. I doubt if more advanced versions will be
clumsier than the first-generation stuff.
> [quoted text omitted]
Today the guy with the M47PIP Dragon carries an M16 too. Why not these
troopers?
I don't think anyone has siad that they can't.
The original question was asked how people treat the figures depicted and
plenty of people gave their slant on how they play it. The GMS/Ps of the
GZG 2180s do seem considerably larger than a Dragon but as someone else
mentioned advances in material's design will result in weight saving.
Besides most of the GMS/Ps are 3 or 4 round weapons and the mini is
depicted that way.
I think everyone is comfortable with the way they play.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:20:10 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> Chris Connor wrote:
Technically, taking the rules as given, there's nothing stating that you can
pick up a weapon used by a guy who was wounded or killed. In fact, during a
convention game one side was ecstatic that a missile launcher guy was killed
and we got into a discussion based on what the rules said.
However, I agree fully with you, which is why grabbing a lost weapon was the
first house rule I ever developed. Some scenarios are almost unwinnable due to
flukey casualties, so I state this is a scenario specific rule quite often
Gee, something else we agree with! *L*.
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:23:40 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> I'm sure there would be some
The only problem I see with this is that things fail. They break. If you have
it "fail hard" the weapon is useless if the chip is fried, or if dirt clogs
the works, or the thumb scanner/retina scanner is marred due to laser
scoring, or whatever. If you "fail soft", the enemy just wrecks the chip and
uses the weapon.
I'm not saying they won't try this, or do this, I'm just saying I'm glad I'm
not using the equipment during the "break in" period. *S*