(FT,SG) News Break

If you missed our kits at Origins, then you'll have another chance at GenCon.
Save the shipping and buy it there!

Look for Booth #2105. Even though it says "Technicraft", they'll have a wide
variety of our products on hand. Limited, but on hand. They're nice enough to
be our Reps for Origins and GenCon this year.

Thanx.

What about Historicon?

Please note that I still think that you ought to produce Star Grunt as Grunt
WWII and Grunt Modern.

Damn! I failed to hit the booth at Origins, and I even had a printout of
your June sale to try and wrangle those prices. ;->=

To the list, I'll be bringing a laptop to the GenCon, and with any luck, will
be posting some comments. Any AAR's that folks want to write up, I'll
pass on in my ham-fisted way.

The_Beast

I know! You could do another sale, just for the con!

Come up and say 'I am The_Beast', and receive a 20% discount!

No, huh? Ok, nevermind... *sigh*

The_Beast

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:56:56 -0400, "Mike Hillsgrove"
<mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> What about Historicon?

One of the funny things about Stargrunt is that it doesn't do a hugely great
job at representing modern weaponry. Modern artillery is far more accurate
than is modelled in SG2. There aren't a lot of traditionally "sci-fi"
things in SG2 (no combat drugs, no chameleon cammo, no power shields, etc.).
If you go by strictly SG2 design constraints, there isn't any reactive armour
or PDS for vehicles, either.

I've been thinking for a while that SG2 could be used to play Vietnam War
scenarios with virtually no conversion necessary. All the elements are there.
If you want to do modern conflicts, you have a bunch of stuff to add or
change. Artillery accuracy is a biggie. For World War II, it's mostly handling
era weaponry, though you also need to take into consideration lower levels of
communication ability.

Ironically, what is _really_ needed is an "Ultra Tech Stargrunt" more
than a Grunt Modern.

***
There aren't a lot of traditionally "sci-fi" things
in SG2 (no combat drugs, no chameleon cammo, no power shields, etc.)
***

*VACC-HEAD ALERT!*

Not sure about the other two, but isn't combat drugs more an issue appropriate
to FMAS? The others seem a little iffy; easy to argue both
sides, though cham-cammo would be something I'd only expect to be that
effective against lower tech, otherwise something both have, and likely could
be considered factored in. Power shields have almost as often been something
ineffective on planet, whether negated by atmo, grav, or whathaveyou.

However, for completeness, you're probably correct.

The_Beast

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:22:19 -0500 Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
writes:
> ***

**** Tread head alert ****

Couldn't resist...

Yes on the first point IMO.

The others seem a little iffy; easy to argue both
> sides, though cham-cammo would be something I'd only expect to be that

Depends on the setting (everyone, most, some, rare) frequency (FGU Space
Marines had it for many but not all) and detail (Again there were Class "A",
"B" and "C" for almost everything...

Power shields have almost as often
> been

Starguard required PA (Well ITM had "heavy armor" that seemed to work) to be
shielded from nasty side effects IIRC.

> However, for completeness, you're probably correct.
Depends on the amount of detail/adds-minuses/dice changes you want in
the game.

Gracias,

> **** Tread head alert ****

Well, as the tread is normally in the mud, then...

> Couldn't resist...

Neither could I. ;->=

> Depends on the setting (everyone, most, some, rare) frequency(...)

Right; if it's very rare/expensive, then it would be only select units,
but, using the model of the Ghillie suit, of which I'm familiar only very
limitedly, my assumption is that it's not THAT expensive if created in large
numbers, but the reason why all units are not so issued is because it's
difficult to use in many instances, and without extensive training.
Cham-cammo might be similar; defects/limitations might well be
appropriate.

Overall, though, it seems to be out of keeping with the granularity of SGII as
I understand it.

> However, for completeness, you're probably correct.

But, if they can be put in as optional rules, with limited complexity,
they'd be part of the adaptable/generic nature of the system.

Well, I leave it for true GROPOS to chat this further.

The_Beast

> I've been thinking for a while that SG2 could be used to play Vietnam

Well, see, I don't know if that would neccesarily be a *good* thing....

Sure, more accurate artillery would be more "realistic" (although it's easy
enough to PSB accuracy away in an SF game), but devastatingly accurate
artillery strikes in SGII scale can just...suck.. Makes for a very quick, and
generally quite boring, game when Death From Above wipes out one side on turn
two.

I generally avoid the use of artillery in my games, for much that reason. It's
just not as much fun as a pitched firefight. If it's going to be used, I'd
*prefer* for it to be relatively inaccurate, and as risky for the attacker as
it is for the defender. Increases the tension level, makes the game better.
For me, at least.

All that said, Ultra-Grunt would be the bee's knees.

> Sure, more accurate artillery would be more "realistic" (although

Death from Above landing on your *own* side can suck too, if you blow
that deviation roll bad enough--been there, done that, bled all over
the tee shirt. But the way to fix it is not to say "arty is inherently
inaccurate", it's to give defenses against it. One defense is body armor that
tends to stop the fragments but you could also allow spoofing of smart rounds,
or point defense systems that can track and shoot down some of the inbound
shells.

I was musing to a friend of mine (and a bit of a WWII guru) about how to

modify the artillery rules from a game intended for 15mm skirmish down to
squad-level (for infantry, vehicles would have been 1:1) for use with
6mm miniatures for playtesting and just because my 6mm collection is more than
my 15mm expansive and actually painted. Enough about that.

My point (aside from the one on the top of my head) was that my friend
basically suggested that is wasn't that big of a deal. Artillery is, in his
view, something that ought not to show up too much in games where you have
relatively small forces per side. It makes sense too. If an attempt is made to
model arty with anything resembling realism then in FMA (or just about any
skirmish) games your poor ground-pounders are pretty much toast.  He
then went on to educate me as to which artillery assets were available at
which
organizational levels for different WWII-era forces.

I can certainly see where he was coming from there. Realistic arty, in
small-unit actions can dominate a game.  I think arty is one of the
biggest things that betrays wargames for what they are for a lot of people: An
opportunity to play with cool models/toys.  The desire to bring all of
the big toys to the table is what drives the relatively inaccurate and
less-lethal artillery rules present in most games.  If it was modeled
realistically, the amount of arty on the average wargaming table would
crushing for both/either side.

I know _I_ LIKE to drop artillery all over a table (hopefully on the
other side's troops). I also know that I'd like it a lot less if it was so
accurate and lethal that "he who drops arty first wins". So I don't mind
fudging for the game's sake, but I do prefer PSB over kludges anyday.

--Tim

> On Monday 21 July 2003 2:51 pm, John C wrote:
+++slight snippage for brevity+++

> Sure, more accurate artillery would be more "realistic" (although it's

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:22:19 -0500, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:

> Not sure about the other two, but isn't combat drugs more an issue

You may be right on the combat drugs, although _Living Steel_ had some
really cool (and deadly) tactical combat drugs. One in particular, used on low
quality troops, let them totally ignore any wounds (other than it was hard to
move around when your legs were shot off, etc.) but it eventually (and
relatively quickly) killed the user. Stuff like that.

Or, you could see combat drugs that would totally negate the requirement for
Confidence Tests. That would see effects at the SG2 level.

> The others seem a little iffy; easy to argue both

Except that it doesn't appear to be factored in. The rules don't mention
anything, and the spotting rules suggest it's far too easy to see a unit in
SG2 to assume things like chameleon suits are taken into account.

Interestingly, various companies and nations are looking into this. Someone
has produced a prototype of a suit with a laptop in front, and a projector
behind. The view behind the person is transmitted to the laptop in front,
making it look as though you are seeing through a ghost. It's very clunky, not
practical at all, only works in certain lighting conditions, and only works
from one direction, however the concept is there. In 200 years, with tiny
projectors and receivers built into a suit, who knows? Perhaps the chameleon
suit used by the Predator is possible. Or perhaps grav technology will allow
the bending of light rays. None of these are seen in SG2.

> Power shields have almost as often been

True, though usually due to plot reasons. I like the personal shields of Dune,
and the shield/lasgun interaction. *L*

The point is that there are a lot of staples in sci-fi combat that don't
appear in SG2. There are a lot of staples of modern combat that don't appear
in SG2! SG2 reminds me a lot of Hammer's Slammers: 1980s sci-fi written
by someone with a 1970s experience of combat.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:42:27 -0500, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:

> Well, I leave it for true GROPOS to chat this further.

Hey, don't knock yourself! Even if it's not your area of expertise, asking
questions and requiring others to answer is the only way things get verified.
It's sort of the gaming equivalent of a peer review process. *S*

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:51:52 +0000, "John C" <john1x@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sure, more accurate artillery would be more "realistic" (although it's

I've talked to Oerjan about this, as I was contemplating making some changes
to vehicles and artillery for SG2. Yes, you're right, if you have a
one-sided
combat (i.e. Afghanistan 2001/2002) it's going to be boring gaming the
one side. However, there are compensatory factors.

The thing that gets me about artillery in SG2 is that the second and third
tubes of a three tube fire mission deviate too much. Oerjan suggests that they
shouldn't deviate more than the blast radius of a single tube. That makes
artillery a lot more devastating. However, the flip side with modern artillery
is that if you are fighting against an equal force you have a major problem
with counter battery fire. You may get your one fire mission, but a second or
third may be out of the question (or you could force the issue and possibly
lose your artillery assets).

Then there are the other assets around that would take out rounds in bound to
a battle area. This is more futuristic stuff, though I understand work is
being done in this area. Rounds would be taken out by anti-artillery
assets behind your lines. This could be anything from artillery and missiles
designed to take out artillery shells, to some sort of "sandcaster" idea, to
brigade and divisional level EW assets designed to spoof enemy artillery.

The idea I came up with, but never finished, was the equivalent of an air
defence environment. I was going to call it ArtDE. You called artillery as in
the standard rules, but there was a possibility that the artillery rounds
would be blocked inbound. Even if they made it, there would be units in your
force on the table that could, possibly, stop the rounds from hitting. If they
hit, though, they would be far more accurate than currently allowed in the
rules.

Note that the ArtDE would also give a rationale for not allowing a unit to
have artillery when, in modern combat, they would. "The ArtDE is so intense,
you don't have any artillery assets available. So, yes, we would normally just
bombard the bunker from orbit (it's the only way to be sure!), but instead you
have to take out the aliens the hard way."

> Increases the tension level, makes the

I fully understand that. I even agree with it a certain amount. The problem I
have is one of suspension of disbelief. It really _bothers_ me that SG2
artillery is so inaccurate when modern day artillery is more accurate.

On the other hand, as I said originally in this thread, you could play Vietnam
scenarios almost without modification by simply ignoring the EW rules, Power
Armour, and the other obviously sci-fi components of SG2.

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:09:24PM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:

> Hey, don't knock yourself! Even if it's not your area of expertise,

Specifically, questions asked by someone who _doesn't_ know the details
can be terribly useful. Steve Jackson gave an example (which I may
misremember): if you're writing an American Civil War game and you playtest
only with people who know the ACW pretty well, you'll never find the loophole
in your rules which lets an uphill cavalry charge
against a fortified position successfully overrun it - because they
won't try it.

> Roger Burton West wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:09:24PM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:

From the Ogre Book. "Playtest the dumb strategies" is the short version.

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> >Sure, more accurate artillery would be more "realistic" (although

What? You mean you don't find the rolls to see if you flunked the call for
arty/PG bombs (thus dropping them on your own location instead of on the

target) exciting? <VBG>

> The thing that gets me about artillery in SG2 is that the second and

Shoot-and-scoot tactics would be prudent... but it means that your
artillery can't shoot again until they've finished scooting. And it doesn't
always save you, either :-/

Even if you're not fighting against an equal force, there's almost always a
time lag involved between calling for support and getting it - the
bigger a hammer you want to use, the longer it is likely to take before it
arrives (the larger guns tend to be further behind the front, so the rounds
have

longer to travel). If your target manages to move away before your fire
mission arrives, well... tough :-/ Make sure you pin the enemy better
next time! Your platoon mortars have a very short time lag, but are they
powerful enough to hurt the enemy? (Eg., today's 60mm mortars aren't terribly
effective against modern body armour.)

> Then there are the other assets around that would take out rounds in

Yep. Both the US and the ex-USSR have/had EW systems designed to
detonate incoming HE shells prematurely by fooling them into believing that
they were closer to the ground than they actually were. PGMs can be spoofed by
various means, not least of which is providing false targets (as demonstrated
eg. in NATO bombardment of Kosovo and Serbia). The THEL (IIRC
Tactical High-Energy Laser) system has demonstrated the ability to shoot

down multiple simultaneously incoming Katyusha rockets, but hasn't reached
field status yet. And so on :-/

> The idea I came up with, but never finished, was the equivalent of an

This would probably be the easiest way to handle it, yes.

Later,

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>

> The idea I came up with, but never finished, was the equivalent of an

> your
If
> they

What would that be, though?  For DSII you can have a Slammers-like air
defense network, but for Stargrunt? I can't quite picture an
air-defense
unit that would be both effective *and* man portable.

Honest question, by the way, not a criticism. I rather like the idea, but have
no idea how I could represent something like this on the tabletop in SGII
scale.

> John Crimmins wrote:

> What would that be, though? For DSII you can have a Slammers-like air

The SG2 "air defence environment" includes things like long-range air
defences, interceptor fighters etc. which are located way off the table.

You never see them on the table; all you know is that the enemy bombers were
driven off or shot down before they could hit the troops in the area
represented by your gaming table.

The "artillery defence environment" would work in exactly the same way.

Regards,

> From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

> were driven off or shot down before they could hit the troops in the

The off-board stuff is how I would imagine SGII level artillery normally

gets handled...but Allan had mentioned the idea of "units in your force on the
table" that could contribute to air defense, and I was curious as to

what he had in mind there.

AA vehicles are an obvious choice, but they tend to be equally obvious
targets. Something smaller would make for more interesting gaming, I think.
Maybe some kind of portable jamming system, to deflect "smart" artillery
rounds. Wouldn't help with the dumb stuff, though.

It's an appealing idea for some reason -- I like modelling this kind of
thing.

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:22:02 +0000, "John C" <john1x@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What would that be, though? For DSII you can have a Slammers-like air

First, it doesn't have to be man portable. It could be a vehicle. In this case
it could be an APC with some sort of chain gun designed to deflect artillery
rounds or have them detonate too high. Or it could be some sort of artillery
piece mounted on a vehicle that sets up a detonation above and down the
projected ballistic arc of the artillery rounds. If it's a nasty enough
detonation (perhaps a fuel-air explosive? though I'd hate to be below
it, so positioning your forces would be a bear) it could prematurely detonate
the rounds. Then there's the Hammer's Slammers approach, where tanks can fire
their powerguns at incoming artillery. This could be possible in a smaller
vehicle, too, if you wanted it.

Second, in 200 years it could be possible to pack an anti-artillery
package into a missile.

Third, Oerjan mentioned the work on EW units that force artillery rounds to
detonate prematurely. Something like that could be man portable and in the
battlefield area.

> Honest question, by the way, not a criticism. I rather like the idea,

Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. As I said originally, this
was just a concept I was working on, one that I never finished (and, honestly,
at this point probably won't finish).

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:56:42 +0000, "John C" <john1x@hotmail.com> wrote:

> AA vehicles are an obvious choice, but they tend to be equally obvious

This sets up some interesting scenario ideas, though. A unit could have to
infiltrate an enemy position to take out their Anti-Artillery vehicle
before the artillery fire missions can be called in, particularly if the
vehicle is defending a building or a bunker.

> Something smaller would make for more interesting gaming, I think.
artillery
> rounds. Wouldn't help with the dumb stuff, though.

Check out an earlier Oerjan post where EW is being used to trick dumb
artillery rounds into thinking they are lower than they are.