Senior MacCarthy said this:
I can't fault Thomas's interpretation of the rules, but I must say that
w=
hen GMS fires at infantry (particularly those with low to medium armour)
casualties rack up.
** Thanks:)
For example, if you need to move across an open field in SG2, you're usua= lly
safe if you are outside 50 inches. Only elites can target you, and you
g=
et a good defensive die. But if a regular with a GMS fires at you, it's not
unusual for him to roll 8, 9, 10, or even 11 for his attack dice and you
=
to roll D6 in defence (generously provided by Thomas), and so take 1 or 2
impacts (D8 vs D6, perhaps) and suppression. =20
** The supression wouldn't concern me as much as the impacts. Hmmm. The
warhead is a point fire thing. How about 1 die hits, suppression, 2 dice hit,
1 impact?
I know it's uncommon and most people will hold their GMS rather than fire= at
infantry, but given the effectiveness I'd rather play that infantry in regular
armour (and inert terrain pieces) have too low a signature to be picked up by
GMS.
** Well, if we want to go that way, I'd agree for infantry units, but not
terrain. You need to be able to engage bunkers and such.
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:06:50 -0500=20
From: "Tom.McCarthy" <Tom.McCarthy@sofkin.ca>
Subject: Re: GMS at Infantry
I'd probably prefer that GMS/P vs. infantry reverts to Unguided Missile
System ie. IAVR and larger GMS can't target infantry.
** If I'm not mistaken, it specifically says IAVRs *can* be fired in addition
to normal infantry fire.
** Here's another suggestion: All GMS fired at infantry (since it is not their
standard target) are fired on manual override with basic guidance and
quality (D4 + quality). You can score suppression and up to 1 impact.
This should tone them back, plus anyone who did this without desperate cause
might have their ass busted - I've heard of a Canadian being cashiered
for firing a TOW wastefully....
Tom.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I hate to confuse the issue even more; however, in REAL
LIFE guided missiles (everything from as small as a Milan to as large as the
Imp.TOW) are EXCEPTIONALLY effective at engaging infantry. There are well
documented examples from the invasion of Lebanon in '82(ISDF), Falkland's
'82(UK), Beruit '83(USMC), Grenada '83(USMC), Gulf'91(just about everyone),
Somalia'93(USMC) and probably a heck of alot more that I'm not aware of.
I
will personally testify for their effectiveness in the last two above. Granted
the overall effectiveness was not as impressive when we shot at infantry in
the open or dug in(still effective, read= deadly), but for buildings and
bunkers it was absolutely AWESOME. As far as being able to track the infantry
with a guided missile, no sweat. Unless perhaps you are
trying to perform a chest shot on a sprinting/dodging horribly
frightened
'bad-guy', then it's alittle more of a challenge.
Cheers,
You refute your own argument in the same paragraph. The GMS's you mention are
exceptionally effective against bunkers and buildings. Those are point targets
as opposed to say an infantry squad which is an area target. I don't think
anyone is arguing that GMS in SG2 or elsewhere are not effective against
bunkers or other point targets. The question is firing against infantry per
se. You don't fire a TOW at infantry say in a woodline which is a staggeringly
ineffective way to use an $8000 dollar round (the're probably twice that
nowadays), of which you usually are only carrying a few of. (and if you waste
them all on foolsigh tagrets then you're don't have them when you need them
against the stuff your supposed to kill, thanks. Though sure against a bunker
it's a perfectly good target.
Los
> Scott Uecker wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
however, in REAL LIFE guided
> missiles (everything from as small as a Milan to as large as the
Los, Dear fella, you missed my entire point. We ("I") have fired guided
missiles at infantry in ALL situations, in all cases effective. When people
are trying to kill you, you use everything at your disposal. If I was fearing
potential tank attack before resupply I may not have had my Marines fire a
precious TOW round. But if not, the cost of that same "precious" TOW round
pales in comparison to the cost of one of my Marines. Let me ask you a series
of questions: 1) Have you personally ever used anything more explosive than a
firecracker or bottle rocket? 2) Have you ever fired any weapon more powerful
than a shotgun? 3) Have you ever been shot at? 4) Have you ever shot at
anyone? 5) Have you ever personally watched a man die? 6) Have you ever caused
a man to die? Unless you can answer yes to each of these questions, I would
ask that you refrain from arguing semantics with me to defend a point that is
based upon books and not reality.
Cheers, Scott Major(Had'm pinned on just yesterday) USMC
> -----Original Message-----
This is funny....
> Scott Uecker wrote:
> Los,
Sorry to make a fool out of you but.... 1. Yes 2.Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5.Yes 6.
Yes
Now that that silly horeshit is over....
> Unless you can answer yes to each of these questions, I would
My point is this, (arguably I didn't get into this detail in my last post)
most all AT weapons are Shaped charges. (Now granted this level of detail does
not extend into the GMS descriptions we have in SG) Their explosive force is
designed to focus the blast into a narrow jet to punch through a very narrow
gap in order to penetrate something such as armor or as you mentioned before,
bunkers and whatnot. They do not use the explosives available to them in the
most efficient manner to cause a wide area fragmentation such as a regular HE
round. Now if you really have ever seen TOWs fired then you have witness if
someone misses with a TOW round and it hits the ground, often you'll still
find part of the round itself, namely the motor end intact as the force blows
out in one direction. SO if you are going to sue a GMS whatever against troops
in the open, (that's pretty much what we're talking about now point targets
like troops in a bunker), then you have to make some amends to the
effectiveness of the round in affecting an open formation of troops. Either
drop effecitivess, treat as an IAVR or any number of solutions.
Sure you going to use any means at all to kill enemy troops. But guess what,
in any of those situations you mention, the was no credible armor threat. Had
their been a credible armor threat, then your judgment of wasting valuable AT
rounds on infantry might be called into question. Of course all is scenario
dependent. There you are in central Europe, 1970s facing the eastern horde,
and you decide to snipe some OPs with a TOWs, what the hell is your AT section
going to use when the enemy armor show up? Particularly in SG2 which tracks
individual GMS rounds. SO anyway, I think some amends to effectiveness have to
be made when fire a GMS outside of it's designer parameters
unless your particular scfi-fi background states the GMS as a
multipurpose round. (i.e It's HEAT and VT, etc etc)
Los, Point made, and taken. I guess will agree, to disagree. I will differ on
recommendation of effectiveness for gameplay purposes(having only 4 games
under the belt currently).
Cheers,
Scott, Los
Let's not get our dander up, you know what happened to Heth's boys. In GAME
terms, I would allow a GMS to be fired at infantry. Just treat it like a HE
round from a light mortar. Let the player use up his limited supply of ammo.
Or deduct victory points based on not following ROE.
On the technical side, a 105mm HEAT round (smaller than most GMS) by doctrine
is fired at troops.
My apologies to all... I'm sorry it took a negative tone. However, your point
about the field expedient use of various weapons systems remains well taken.
In the Grey Day scenario we just ran, the Human's had several occasions to use
GMS in an anti infantry role, but we hadn't adequately addressed the rule
ahead of time and stuck with rules as written. There certainly should be some
amends made. And the issue breaks down to two things, Guidance and firepower.
It seems to me that providing you can see them, you can just as easily hit the
center mass of an infantry squad as you could a vehicle or bunker. (You could
even snipe with the things as has occurred in some of our various actions
which you allude to.) So probably there shouldn't be any hit penalties though
I would
recommend rolling a range die+ any terrain/in position shifts instead of
a sensor role.
Now as far as firepower goes, if the GMS being gamed is A-T specific,
say like a shaped charge HEAT round etc, then you do need to make some amends.
Sure as Mike says a 105mm HEAT round can be fired at troops, and certainly
will ruin anyone's day if it hits them, BUT what is the AP effect difference
between a 105 HE round and a 105 HEAT round? (Not quite an exact match
admittedly.) In SG2 terms you get a
GMS/L or
something with does for example 2 or 3D12 damage against a vehicle. I'd argue
that it wouldn't do the same against a squad or platoon, though certainly it
would mush anybody hit directly with it. Perhaps a single D12 since that
focused transference of explosive energy at one point, while making quite a
blast, with all it's over pressure and whatnot, would not spread fragmentation
in a uniform or as effective a pattern as a purpose built HE round.
SO in SG2 you have two solutions. Since it's Sci-Fi the GM can decide
ahead of time,
depending on the sci-fi background being used, to say the warhead is
such that it does
equal damage in AT/AP role. But keep in mind with some of these weapons,
something with a 2d12 or 3d12 against a tank, you might have a terrible
unbalanced weapon for the scenario. Or you can provide two sets of stats for a
GMS with an AT firepower and an AP firepower. The flexibility of the rules
allows all this great monkeying.
Cheers...
Los
> Scott Uecker wrote:
> Los,
In a message dated 3/4/00 12:11:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:
> Or you can provide two sets of stats for a GMS with an AT firepower
Don't the rules already cover point targets vs dispersed for other weapons?
Just use the same rules for the GMS/P...in other words, d8 impact
(IIRC).
Not quite the effect you'd expect with a decent monroe effect vs an
individual, but should cover the frag effect well. Or, you could say that if
both attack dice higher, then one target gets the full point effect while the
rest of the squad checks for shrapnel? Never mind, that's starting to get
annoyingly complicated.
Rob
Goofy Armchair General Thought of the Day:
Assumptions: a. It is the future b. Weapon development will continue c. Some
weapons systems can and will get more complex d. Explosives do not necessarily
have to be solid masses, they can be
liquid in an inverted-cone-shaped plastic container.
e. The geometry of said container can be altered by widening the "cone" on the
fly.
Idea: So, to rationalize the use of a GMS against Infantry, Heavy Weapons
firing a big(ie Not Small Arms) warhead can have "Dial-a-Welt" power
settings. You flick a switch and HEAT GMS rounds can act as HEAP, though much
less effective than a round designed for AP use. (Beehive, Flechette,
Scattergun:))
Like I said, just a goofy idea. Maybe I can go sell it to Rayhteon and make a
mint....
-=Kr'rt
> Kr'rt wrote:
> Goofy Armchair General Thought of the Day:
And we're also making the assumption that a GMS is HE based. Weber's version
of GMS in the Starfire series of books (i.e. Insurrection) comes to mind. They
are ultra hyper velocity penetrators. (almost like they make micro warp jumps
IIRC)
> Idea:
Good idea, but probably resource intensive and expensive, even rated on a
sliding scale of a future economy.
> Kr'rt wrote:
> You flick a switch and HEAT GMS rounds can act as HEAP,
Too late. The HEDP round for the CG recoilless already does this - load
it one way up and it's a (not too effective) shaped charge, turn it
upside-down (the round, not the rifle!) and works as HE... initiate the
detonation of an SC charge in different places and you get very different
effects.
OK, it doesn't have a switch <g>
Later,
> Los wrote:
> And we're also making the assumption that a GMS is HE based. >Weber's
comes to mind. They are ultra hyper velocity >penetrators. (almost like they
make micro warp jumps IIRC)
The HVMs used in the Starfire novels aren't guided, but they move at
0.1c - if you can see your target it's dead... more like a
shoulder-launched HKP/10 :-/
Though don't ask me why they don't kill anyone nearby, including the
shooter with the shock wave :-/
The various SAMs used in the Honor Harrington universe are guided (or
self-guiding), but although they accellerate very fast they don't reach
quite as high velocities as the Starfire ones; they tend to kill with their
drive wedges rather than their own kinetic energy.
Later,
As I remember, the area of effect is more cone shaped (with the apex along the
gun target line) for a HEAT round. The old DRAGON (GMS/L) hada warhead
@ 4 kilos where a 105 was @ 2. For a 105 the cone was @ 2x5 meters.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
(Snip: Scott asking Los about his qualifications to talk about combat)
> This is funny....
It was, indeed.
Scott, on this list, you generally have to start by assuming people who are
doing the talking probably know quite a bit about
what they're talking about. We recognize this is unusual--and I
say that in all seriousness. We have at least one military programmer, a
weapons designer, several professional soldiers, a one naval officer
(temporarily off list at the moment), a number of astronomers and people in
related fields, a pathologist (I
think--still here?), a biologist or two, plus--since we're doing
introductions--St^3 Jon (Tuffley), Aaron "Teske Field" Teske,
whose dice always roll high; Indy "Inverse Teske Field" Kochte,
whose dice--at least for p-torps--have five 1's and a 2; and
myself, who am not especially expert at anything but I'm always willing to
chime in anyway.....
Welcome to the list!
I, personally, value Los' opinions highly.
And don't forget Full Metal Atkinson, the combat engineer. I don't think
he'd like being lumped in as a soldier. :-)
Andrew Martin Who's just a programmer... ICQ: 26227169
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
-><-
[quoted original message omitted]
> And don't forget Full Metal Atkinson, the combat engineer. I
He's not infantry. He's also not on the list, except in spirit. But I
forwarded your reply off to him, so in a couple of weeks we'll know what he
thinks.
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 22:50:01 -0500
From: Los <los@cris.com>
Subject: Re: GMS vs. Infantry
> Henrix wrote:
> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
Am I
> reading you correctly here? Do you really propose a D8 impact hit on
It makes the GMS as powerful as the ortillery we were using the other day.
Powerful stuff. Maybe I'll make every guy hump one. <grin>.
===> Moreso. The Ortillery wasn't all that deadly.... Kr'rt couldn't
scatter on-target to save his Tentacles.
> I could go for a D12 penetration, like an IAVR, but calculating
That's what I'm thinking.
=======> Actually, if you were paying close attention I was suggesting a
major hit causing d12 impact (not d12*) on one figure. And then D8 vs
the rest of the squad as per heavy-weapons vs. point targets.
=======> As to the counter proposal: 1) Penetration? What's that? We
have Firepower, Guidance and Impact. If we roll a normal Guidance die as if it
was a FP die, roll a quality die, then give the defender range
plus cover + IP, I think the normal situation will be like a SAW firing
on its own - D8 or D10 Guidance + D8 quality (many cases). If we then
calculate hits as normal, that's okay. But what impact do we use? The D8
of a heavy weapon vs. point target or the D12 (or worse, 4D12 for GMS/H)
of the weapon itself? Here's my problem with this: If we use the weapon
penetration, most hits will be kills. If hits are D8, it is useless for
sniping PA which should be a use for it.
=======> Try again:
Fire as a normal squad attack using range bands equal to unit quality (same as
rifles or SAWs). Roll Dx for firepower (where Dx is the guidance die). Roll
quality. Defender rolls RB die plus cover plus IP. If both FP and Q dice beat
defending dice, we have a hit. 1 figure is
attacked at normal penetration (loses the * - means D12 for GMS/P, 2D12
(D12x2) for GMS/L, 4D12 (D12x4) for GMS/H). Other hits are dished out as
D8. If the target is normal infantry, give them one negative shift in
FP/Guidance (infantry themselves are tough targets). PA, bunkers, etc.
are easier to hit.
So, we have a regular GMS/P team firing GMS at infantry in RB2 (15"
away). The GMS (enhanced) would roll D8 + D8 vs this infantry group, but
we downshift it 1 level because there is no PA or high signature
targets. D6 + D8 vs. infantry in the open in RB 2 who therefore roll D6.
If one die beats the defence die, grant a suppression. If two beat, grant a
suppression, normal number of hits calculated, and the first hit is D12
penetration, the others D8 vs. infantry armour.
That better?
Tom
BTW - I feel quite lucky to know most of the people on this list. They
are a varied lot, but bring to bear a lot of experience. It is surprising the
range of fields covered (nods to Ms.Fulton, the temporarily in absentia
Atkinson and Murray, Mr.Lourenco (Los), Mr.Glover, Mr.Izenberg, Mr.Ohlson, and
Mr.Kochte... and countless others). We have computer programmers (like me),
regular force soldiers, airmen and sailors (and some of them other support
types), scientists, weapon designers, web publishers, mountain climbers, you
name it. If there is an area of knowledge someone on this list hasn't had some
experience with, I'd be surprised. So when someone speaks up on a topic, it is
best to think carefully about what they've said, or ask what they meant by
that if there is doubt. They may well be coming at the issue with far greater
experience than one might at first think or than might at first appear in
their message. My own time in the military and in my professional career have
taught me a great respect for all the things I don't know, and for all the
people who can teach me.
Scott,
BZ for being a stand up guy!
Bob Makowsky (Loscon Air Element Leader)
[quoted original message omitted]
> Like I said, just a goofy idea. Maybe I can go sell it to Rayhteon
Inexpert speaking here - I saw a TV documentary(?) last year which had
technology using multi-modal missiles. These would alter configuration
(?)
in flight depending on target.
My 2p Metric, 2d Imperial
Thomas Barclay, who seems to share my delight in grinding rules together,
wrote:
> =======> Actually, if you were paying close attention I was suggesting
I am sorry, I did misunderstand you. I was reading your proposal as dishing
out a D8 impact vs every squad member with a minor hit.
> =======> As to the counter proposal: 1) Penetration?
That should of course be Impact, sorry for the confusion.
> What's that? We
I proposed a D12, just like an IAVR, figuring the GMS is using
anti-personnel, not anti-tank, missiles. A D12 Impact vs D12 Armour
(worst case, as impact vs armour is a closed shift roll) gives a 21% chance of
a Kill result. This could well symbolize that the poor bastard was hit
directly by the missile, reducing the amount of different dice used in the
same attack. The drawback of this is of course that a GMS would have the same
effect as an IAVR, provided it has superior guidance, except that it needs a
separate action to use, but that is fine with me, as it gives a slight penalty
for firing a weapon at targets it, presumably, is not meant to be fired at.
If you still want to fire an anti-tank round at troops in power armour
(sniping at them), I think the proposal below is good, but I for one would
skip the "other hits" part, allowing only one figure to be hit. I don't think
that the parts of powered armoured trooper flying around after merits a D8
impact.
> =======> Try again:
Which means that it is worse than a IAVR, even when scoring the same number of
potential hits (such as when firing superior guidance missiles at power
armour), as the IAVR would roll D12 for all of them.
A GMS/L would give one hit at D12x2 penetr...Impact ;-) which gives us a
75% chance (vs D12 armour) of a casualty (wound or kill), and the other hits
(D8 vs D12) a 29% chance of a casualty, compared to the IAVRs chance of 46%
chance for every hit. (A GMS/H would increase the chance for the first
figure to become a casualty to 90%.) This gives us the following effect: If we
score two potential hits, the IAVR
has a 71% chance of inflicting at least one casualty, the GMS/P only
62%,
the GMS/L 82% and the GMS/H 93%. Moreover, if we score more than two
hits
the IAVR will gain on the GMS/L and /P, making it deadlier against power
armour at close range than this sniping with GMSs.
Why not just stick to a D12 for all GMSs, thus letting it fire the same sort
of rounds as an IAVR? It is also simpler in game terms.
> BTW - I feel quite lucky to know most of the people on this list. They
I must say that in the short time I've been lurking around I have been duly
impressed with this list, both for the range of knowledge and experience
represented, and for the generally quite relaxed and amiable atmosphere on it.
Thomas Barclay, who seems to share my delight in grinding rules together,
wrote:
> =======> Actually, if you were paying close attention I was suggesting
I am sorry, I did misunderstand you. I was reading your proposal as dishing
out a D8 impact vs every squad member with a minor hit.
> =======> As to the counter proposal: 1) Penetration?
That should of course be Impact, sorry for the confusion.
> What's that? We
I proposed a D12, just like an IAVR, figuring the GMS is using
anti-personnel, not anti-tank, missiles. A D12 Impact vs D12 Armour
(worst case, as impact vs armour is a closed shift roll) gives a 21% chance of
a Kill result. This could well symbolize that the poor bastard was hit
directly by the missile, reducing the amount of different dice used in the
same attack. The drawback of this is of course that a GMS would have the same
effect as an IAVR, provided it has superior guidance, except that it needs a
separate action to use, but that is fine with me, as it gives a slight penalty
for firing a weapon at targets it, presumably, is not meant to be fired at.
If you still want to fire an anti-tank round at troops in power armour
(sniping at them), I think the proposal below is good, but I for one would
skip the "other hits" part, allowing only one figure to be hit. I don't think
that the parts of powered armoured trooper flying around after merits a D8
impact.
> =======> Try again:
Which means that it is worse than a IAVR, even when scoring the same number of
potential hits (such as when firing superior guidance missiles at power
armour), as the IAVR would roll D12 for all of them.
A GMS/L would give one hit at D12x2 penetr...Impact ;-) which gives us a
75% chance (vs D12 armour) of a casualty (wound or kill), and the other hits
(D8 vs D12) a 29% chance of a casualty, compared to the IAVRs chance of 46%
chance for every hit. (A GMS/H would increase the chance for the first
figure to become a casualty to 90%.) This gives us the following effect: If we
score two potential hits, the IAVR
has a 71% chance of inflicting at least one casualty, the GMS/P only
62%,
the GMS/L 82% and the GMS/H 93%. Moreover, if we score more than two
hits
the IAVR will gain on the GMS/L and /P, making it deadlier against power
armour at close range than this sniping with GMSs.
Why not just stick to a D12 for all GMSs, thus letting it fire the same sort
of rounds as an IAVR? It is also simpler in game terms.
> BTW - I feel quite lucky to know most of the people on this list. They
I must say that in the short time I've been lurking around I have been duly
impressed with this list, both for the range of knowledge and experience
represented, and for the generally quite relaxed and amiable atmosphere on it.
> At 05:48 PM 3/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
No offense to Scott, but yeah, it was....
> Scott, on this list, you generally have to start by assuming
Wow. I rate an introduction? Or is that just 'cause of the Teske Field? (Which
I seem to lend out at inopportune moments....)