Someone said that a GMS/P and IAVR are not the same system with/without
a guidance system due to differences in range and warhead. That is one
interpretation.
Here's another: IAVR range limitation is a limitation to effective range of
aiming over open sights.
GMS/P attached a guidance unit to the warhead and a sighting/tracking
system to the launcher.
The warheads are the same (same damage in SG2 - no reason except taste
to differentiate one warhead from the other).
Either theory will work.
> From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com>
> IAVR range limitation is a limitation to effective range of aiming over
> open
This is a given. But if you think about it, this already starts to lead to a
larger IAVR warhead. Since the designers know it'll only be useful out to a
certain range, they only design it to attain that range (or a little extra),
using the rest of the space to up the warhead.
> GMS/P attached a guidance unit to the warhead and a sighting/tracking
According to the DS II Rulebook (and it makes sense), "...virtually all of
them are the 'fire and forget' type - operator guidance (either by wire
or
by radio/optical link) is no longer necessary. Advanced
semi-intelligent
seeker heads have given the missiles their own target identification and
discrimination capabilities...." This means that ALL of the targeting and
guidance hardware/software is right in the GMS. Furthermore, since they
DO
have a greater range, they WILL have more propellant, plus avionics -
the IAVR is a fuse, a warhead, a motor, and stabilization fins. The GMS will
also need either steering thrusters or movable fins (along with their motors)
or both on top of that.
> The warheads are the same (same damage in SG2 - no reason except taste
One does not necessarily follow the other. Is a round from a HKP 5 identical
to a round from a HVC 5 or a MDC 5 or a DFFG 5 or a SLAM 5? No
-
they're all very different (some more so than others). Do they draw the same
number of chits? Yes (Although admittedly some with more validities than
others). Each achieves it's damage in a different way. The same could be
said of the GMS/P and the IAVR. One fires a larger, more powerful
warhead which has some dual purpose usefulness against a wide range of
targets, while the other uses a smaller head which, while not as powerful, is
equally deadly against armor because it is designed with that dedicated
purpose in
mind, and surrenders it's all-purpose usefulness in order to more
effectively kill vehicles.
> Either theory will work.
Perhaps. But I think the above explains why the GMS/P should not give a
DSII
rifle element added anti-INFANTRY capability. And that is what the crux
of the whole thread was.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> IAVR range limitation is a limitation to effective range of aiming
What "rest of the space"?
Oh - you mean those four pounds of mass with which you have already
exceeded the specs your buyer set up for the weapon you're working on, and
which you have to remove if you want to sell a single sample of the weapon?
The *only* given thing in LAW design is that anything you design, no matter
how small and handy, is too large, too clumsy and too heavy for the grunts'
tastes.
As long as the performance doesn't go down against the *main* intended
target (ie tanks and other AFVs in the case of IAVR and GMS/P - any
ability to engage infantry with those weapons are pure sideshows), the
manufacturer who builds the smallest weapon will usually be the one who sells
anything. The only things which can really stop him are political
considerations among the purchasing officer's superiors...
> GMS/P attached a guidance unit to the warhead and a
This equipment - all electronics - isn't very large even today, though;
we could fit *that* into a CG round if we wanted to, but...
> Furthermore, since they DO have a greater range, they WILL have >more
...extra propellant and maneuvering surfaces/thrusters (I thought those
were part of the avionics?) *is* large (or if they aren't they're extremely
expensive instead), and we can't fit them into a CG round yet. Not at any
affordable cost, anyway.
> The warheads are the same (same damage in SG2 - no reason >>except
All three of these fire rod penetrators (yes I know the HKP description says
"slugs", but slugs lose kinetic energy a lot faster than rods due to higher
drag coefficients), so by the time they reach their target they are about as
identical as two 5.56 calibre rifle bullets from
different manufacturers are when removed from their casings :-/
> or a DFFG 5 or a SLAM 5? No - they're all very different (some more so
And here is your difference. The varying chit validities means that they don't
do the same amount of damage, whereas the SGII IAVR has
*exactly* the same damage as the GMS/P. In DSII terms, they both draw
the same number of chits *and* have the same validities (SGII doesn't use
damage chits, but they have identical mechanics against vehicles).
Regards,
Given the topic, I'm surprised it took you this long to comment, Oerjan.
Your critique of my arguement is duly noted. But my question to you is
this: Do you think that a house rule for adding GMS/P to DS II should
allow for increased damage vs. infantry?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Given the topic, I'm surprised it took you this long to comment,
Busy at work and not at home during the holidays adds up to a huge backlog
<shrug>
> Your critique of my arguement is duly noted. But my question to you
No more than the IAVRs allow for increased damage vs infantry in DSII -
ie, "no".
Hm... since I'm not an active SGII player I have probably missed
something, but I can't find anything saying that a GMS/P can't be fired
against infantry? It can't be fired in support, but it seems to be OK to fire
it in its own action?
Also... does it really have longer range bands than the IAVR, or does it have
the *same* range bands (which "Heavy Weapons Range Bands", SGII p.37, seems to
indicate)?
Later,
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Well, it's good to have you back.
> >Your critique of my arguement is duly noted. But my question to you
Here we agree.
> Hm... since I'm not an active SGII player I have probably missed
I'm not a SGII player PERIOD, so I can't comment.
> Also... does it really have longer range bands than the IAVR, or does
Again, I'm no SGII player, but when I talked to someone about converting the
GMS/P to DSII, we seemed to agree it should have a slightly GREATER
range than the IAVR. Your opinion, please?
While I play very little (read once a year) of SG2, I know that GMS (even
GMS/P) have unlimited range in SG2 (if its on the table, it is in
range).
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Bell wrote:
> While I play very little (read once a year) of SG2, I know that GMS
Ah, yes! That's true, GMSs don't have any range bands at all. Thanks!
Rob, I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold (even in the absence of the
above) - only vehicle- or ground-mounted Heavy Weapons (ie, not
man-carried) have the 12 x target size range bands.
GMS/P are not only neither vehicle- or ground-mounted, but they are
also not Heavy Weapons (they're Infantry Support Weapons, which normally use
the Small Arms range bands).
Later,
> Rob, I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold (even in the absence of the
My interpretation was that those Infantry Support Weapons which counted as
Heavy Weapons when fired vs vehicles (ie those with an asterix next to the
Impact in their stats) used the 12" range bands when vehicle or ground
mounted. But the rules aren't very clear. Is this right?
Yes, true enough. I got Guidance die confused with Fire Control. Well, I'll
just have to do pennance by playing a game sometime soon!
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Also... does it really have longer range bands than the IAVR, or does
Realistically it the GMS/P should have longer range, certainly. I just
couldn't find the rule in SGII which said that it actually *had* longer range
in that game <g>
Later,
> Steve Pugh wrote:
> Rob, I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold (even in the absence of
I don't think so. The rules seem quite clear on what is a Heavy Weapon
(defined on p.29) and what is an Infantry Support Weapon, and although the
starred ISWs use the same *damage mechanics* as HWs against point targets the
rule describing that mechanic for the IWSs doesn't refer to the HW rules.
As far as I can see they also aren't explicitly described as "counting as
Heavy Weapons" anywhere, so I don't think they can claim to use a
rule which very emphatically "ONLY" applies to vehicle- or
ground-mounted HWs. (The capital "ONLY" is quoted from the Heavy
Weapons Range Bands rule on p.37 <g>).
Jon or Mike, what do you say? You wrote this, after all...
Later,
> Also... does it really have longer range bands than the IAVR, or does
I hope I'm not responding to something already answered here, but the
GMS/P
in SG doesn't have rangebands at all. Certainly it has much greater range
in game terms than the IAVR - the IAVR is constrained by regular
infantry
ranges (as per the squad quality). The GMS/P has effectively unlimited
range, and rolls it's guidance die versus the target's ECM - which is
unaffected by range. So while there is no specific rule that says "the
GMS/P has longer range than the IAVR", that is the effect of their very
different game mechanics.
> From: adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
What is the groundscale in SGII, and what is the average size playing area?
This might be useful in ascetaining a good effective range for a GMS/P
when converting it to DSII play.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> What is the groundscale in SGII, and what is the average size playing
1" represents 10 meters; the suggested playing area is ~ 4'*6' (480m*720m, or
roughly 5"*7" on a DSII table).
Regards,
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> 1" represents 10 meters; the suggested playing area is ~ 4'*6'
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> 1" represents 10 meters; the suggested playing area is ~ 4'*6'
That'd be a minimum range, at least.
Direct translations of weapon ranges between DSII and SGII are a bit
tricky, though - for example, in SGII an MDC/5 is completely unable to
hit a Size-1 vehicle in the open at ranges over 60" (equivalent to 6"
in DSII) due to the way the range bands are calculated :-/
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Page 37 Individual Fire of Support Weapons Para 2 "The RANGE BAND is the same
as for small arms fire if the support weapon is being used by infantry, but
can be higher (depending on target size) if the weapon is on a groundmount or
vehicle"
This clearly implies that support weapons can use the 12" x target size range
bands
Para 3 "Support weapons that are marked with an ASTERIX on the weapons table
may be fire like HEAVY WEAPONS when firing at point targets"
Note that it says 'fire like' not just 'resolve damage like' as
you implied, (so do, for example, IAVRs role Quality + Firepower or
Quality + Fire Control?).
Heavy Weapon Range Bands
Para 3 "Note that any MAN-CARRIED and manually-fired weapons such as
Small Arms and Infantry Support Weapons simply use their basic Range Bands
against ANY size target; the multiplication of Range Bands described above is
ONLY used for Heavy Weapons fitted to vehicles or groundmounts"
This is the rule you referred to yesterday, with the emphasised ONLY. However,
it not only contradicts a preceeding passage on the same
page but also emphasises MAN-CARRIED. So what about infantry support
weapons which aren't man-carried?
So you see the confusion?
> Steve Pugh wrote:
> Page 37
Ah, good!
> Note that it says 'fire like' not just 'resolve damage like' as
IAVRs have a section of their very own (p.40), which says that they
roll Quality + Firepower - but note that their anti-vehicle firepower
is given as D8 in this section, while their anti-infantry firepower in
the table on p.36 is D10...
> Heavy Weapon Range Bands
> However, it not only contradicts a preceeding passage on the same
> So you see the confusion?
Not only that - I was quite confused myself :-/
Later,