_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
n Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should represent
things like the Buffalo, Nyala, Gelandenwagen and various other sorts of
uparmoured, IED and small arms resistant vehicles in SG2 and DS2.
John mentioned armour level 2. That should let you shrug IAVRs and small arms
as well as reasonable IEDs (at least insofar as you may get an
M-kill,
but not a crew or passenger kill). Most IEDs would then constitute a
non-penetrating hit.
I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour. Hits are
probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire connection). Bigger ones
could be used. I'll assume the one used in the Palestinian area to pulverize a
Merkava was a lot larger (even through the weaker bottom armour).
If the IED does not penetrate, it should have a higher than standard chance
to score non-penetrating suspension hits (aka M-kills). I'm not sure
what a
fair % might be - John, Oerjan, anyone? I'm also not sure how often
you'd get Firer Systems Down or other firecontrol effects from an IED.
Here is one place where Grav vehicles with generators inside the hull armour
look much better....
TomB
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4967_1216067367_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4967_1216067367_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOne
of the problems I have found in games that use static armor ratings or numbers
is that they often fail to simulate special design features in vehicles that
do not entirely take in to account armor as a whole. These specialized
vehicles often excel in one area, benefitting from a higher
than normal survivability under certain conditions/circumstances but not
neccesarily against all threats.
In SG2/DS2 you could up armor the vehicles to keep within the rules. Or,
you could design (for use in friendly games) a "Mine Resistent" characteristic
that could be added to vehicle designs. Left general enough, this could be
applied to any sort of vehicle. One of the
supposed benefits of air-cushioned GEVs is mine-resistence due to
reduced ground pressure and less direct contact with the impact allowing the
energy of the explosion to disperse in the space within the plenum. The same
might be said for Grav vehicles.
Of course your individual PSB could do away with any of this. If you GEV
are not air-cushioned but used vectored thrust or your grav are actually
contra-grav or repulsor tech instead of true anti-grav, then you could
also argue that they exert comparable pressue on the ground that is enough to
detonate mines and IEDs.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@gmail.com>
John Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should represent
things like the Buffalo, Nyala, Gelandenwagen and various other sorts of
uparmoured, IED and small arms resistant vehicles in SG2 and DS2.
John mentioned armour level 2. That should let you shrug IAVRs and small arms
as well as reasonable IEDs (at least insofar as you may get an
M-kill, but not a crew or passenger kill). Most IEDs would then
constitute a non-penetrating hit.
I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour. Hits are
probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire connection). Bigger ones
could be used. I'll assume the one used in the Palestinian area to pulverize a
Merkava was a lot larger (even through the weaker bottom armour).
If the IED does not penetrate, it should have a higher than standard
chance to score non-penetrating suspension hits (aka M-kills). I'm not
sure what a fair % might be - John, Oerjan, anyone? I'm also not sure
how often you'd get Firer Systems Down or other firecontrol effects from an
IED.
Here is one place where Grav vehicles with generators inside the hull armour
look much better....
TomB
In DS3 HEAT rounds are a D10 vs Armor. I would think that an IED would be a
bit less efficient. Maybe a D8. As to the issue of "bigger", that's simply a
matter of assigning a class for the device. Eg, and
IED/4 (in DS terms) might do a D8 * 4 for it's armor penetration.
ANY armor is sufficient to deflect small arms (DS3 light weapons).
Another argument for the IED would be to simply make it HE. That can do some
real damage against soft targets, but it's armor impact die is only a D6. I
guess it kind of depends on whether IEDs are *directed* blasts.
Still, a good thing to consider for games.:)
J
> John Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should
> probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire connection).
Bigger
> ones could be used. I'll assume the one used in the Palestinian area
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I guess it kind of depends on whether IEDs are *directed* blasts.
100 lbs of explosives going off under your track is not going to do anything
to raise morale -- directed or not. Against lightly armored vehicles (2
or
less) I would say you'd pretty much instantly have a mobility-kill
situation on your hands.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt
isn't just the detonating of mines through ground pressure - modern
mines have initiators that include sonic (trust me, a GEV will set one off)
and electromagnetic sensors of various sorts (could be grav sensors in the
future). If you can put a grav sensor on a single chip as a sealed unit for
cheap, you can easily make anti-grav mines.
I'm not sure if mines use any sort of self-forging penetrator, but if
they do, GEV fans are at risk. If they use an EMP pulse as a payload, GEVs and
Grav vehicles may be at risk. Some sort of anti-grav field mine may also
be feasible (lord knows, in ST the warp drive was always overloading or
feeding back or something).
This doesn't even touch on off-route mines that attack like IAVRs or
GMS/Ps.
That's a whole separate discussion. Or bio-organic mines that folks the
the Savasku might use.
Back to vehicle design:
Mine resistance to a straightforward pile of HE in your typical current IED
(even allowing for shaped charges from some more advanced sources) is still
just an explosive threat (I believe... someone in the know can shoot this
down). If you start having other sorts of threats, your V-hull and
floating seats won't help you much.
Up-armouring will help against IEDs and RPGs. Of course, then you run
into the question of whether a HMMWV or Gelandenwagen is size 2 and if not,
how you can fit class 2 armour on it.
The thing about a Grav Tank (inference from the SG2 rules on
non-penetrating
hits) is that hull armour, which is all over equal thickness armour in
canonical SG/DS, protects the suspension parts. That's a pretty good
deal,
even against self-forging penetrators. Might not help vs. EMP but maybe
backup systems would. In this respect, among others, Grav would be the
technology of choice when you could get it to the battlefield.
If you were using what I'll call advanced grav (a la Traveller) that can fly,
then your grav vehicle and VTOL merge and become a whoppingly armoured,
armed flying wrecking machine. They can self-deploy to and from orbit in
many cases and have a lot of armour protecting key systems. Of course, this is
not GZG style grav, which is more like Luke's Landspeeder. But even that gives
you all the mobility advantages of AC without perhaps the issues on hills (not
sure, but I figure not) and a lot safer vs. various
bottom-attacking mines.
> TomB wrote:
> John Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should
Vehicles with high Signature ratings, probably Armour/2 or thereabouts
on
front, sides and rear, and Armour/4+ on the bottom. (No, that's not
legal
in vanilla SG2/DS2. It is perfectly legal in DS3 :-) )
Oh, and the models have to be ugly as hell, too :-P
> I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour.
That's one of the smaller road-side IEDs. Buried mines would generally
be more powerful (not least because they're closer to the target when they go
off).
> Hits are probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire
Nope. There are plenty of examples where command-detonated mines were
triggered a fraction of a second too early (or too late) and thus failed to
damage the target.
> Bigger ones could be used. I'll assume the one used in the Palestinian
IIRC those were estimated to have been somewhere around ~100 kg of explosives.
> If the IED does not penetrate, it should have a higher than standard
Only if they're buried under the road. Road-side ones would use the same
damage table as normal weapons.
> I'm not sure what a fair % might be - John, Oerjan, anyone?
The easiest would be to replace all Systems Down results with Damaged if
the vehicle has 4 or fewer wheels, and ignore Systems Down entirely if it
has 6+ wheels. Many mine-resistant vehicles are surprisingly good at
moving even after losing a wheel or two.
> I'm also not sure how often you'd get Firer Systems Down or other
Quite often if it is triggered by mobile phones or similar and the
would-be
victims have the proper ECM gear, or it is triggered by wires the
would-be
victims can detect... :-/
Regards,
> At 5:11 PM -0400 7/14/08, Tom B wrote:
There are off route mines that'll fire an EFP projectile at a specific sensor
format. Thus you can have mine that'll shoot ONLY Warsaw pact tanks based on a
defined set of audio characteristics. CERTAINLY within the scope of the GZG
verse, you can have off route mines and mines themselves that'll ignore
friendly or neutral vehicles and attack enemy
forces. Though, one might have to play with Stealth, GMS AND/OR ECM type
rules.
> I'm not sure if mines use any sort of self-forging penetrator, but if
The IRanians are supplying Insurgents on both sides of the Shia/Sunno
line with EFP projectiles for their IEDs using all sorts of initiators that
are line of sight (IR beams), command detonated, and other sorts of trigger
mechanisms. The 1st world Offroute mines are a combination of Missiles,
launched top attack EFPs and the like. One could certainly expect to see a
mine that's a DFFG that's a single use weapon for off route or on route mine
functionality.
> The thing about a Grav Tank (inference from the SG2 rules on
That's a pretty good deal, even against self-forging penetrators. Might
not help vs. EMP but maybe backup systems would. In this respect, among
others, Grav would be the technology of choice when you could get it to the
battlefield.
Imagine a mine tailored for GEVs. It fires a line of VERY tough monofilament
into the air near GEVs. That goes into the air intakes and fods the engines or
fans. Though that might just need a VERY good screen system. Hmmm....
> One of the problems I have found in games that use static armor
In just the same way as we have (say) armour 2A (class 2 armour with Ablative
coating) or 2R (class 2 with Reactive armour), there is no reason why we
couldn't have a 2M (class 2 with Mine Defence), with a bonus ONLY against
mines and IEDs.
Jon (GZG)
> In SG2/DS2 you could up armor the vehicles to keep within the rules.
> TomB wrote:
> I'm not sure if mines use any sort of self-forging penetrator,
There are plenty of such mines available in the more advanced armies,
though fortunately they don't seem to have spread to the third-world
hellholes. Yet.
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWha
t would the chances of suspension damage on a non-penetrating belly hit
be for a buried IED?
Can you knock out (systems down) on an IED target?
Also, since you can miss (I concede timing might be off), then how do you
determine a hit? Range might or might not matter (I tend to think not much).
So some sort a QD roll vs?
OA suggests ignoring mobility hits on 6+ wheeled vehicles. From what I
can see with the Canadian LAVs, anytime they get hit, they tend to stop. Crew
tend to be rattled enough not to be immediately mobile and often times the
LAV will tip or flip. That's a non-penetrating kill.
How do you simulate that reasonably?
> At 9:34 PM -0400 7/14/08, Tom B wrote:
The suspensions on Mine resistant vehicles is designed to shear away. That
prevents some of the energy from affecting the AFV as much. You WANT to loose
the suspension to a point.
> Can you knock out (systems down) on an IED target?
Sure. Usually figure a mobilityt kill instead though. Or you can have no
useful effect.
> OA suggests ignoring mobility hits on 6+ wheeled vehicles. From what I
Crew tend to be rattled enough not to be immediately mobile and often
times the LAV will tip or flip. That's a non-penetrating kill.
It's enough to get out of the dedicated kill zone. If it's a mine
field...well....Good luck.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm
not sure if the (Bison or Coyote/LAV) is designed to lose wheels more or
less easily. I do know that after a roadside bomb, they are disabled a lot of
the time. And you can say they're mobile enough to leave the scene, but that
tends to prove not true judging by the number of flipovers (onto the top) or
tipovers (onto the side) I've seen in the news. Also, there tend to
be two-phase bombings and consequently that suggests they were not able
to drive away.
So, the questions are:
1a) How do you make a fair attack role in DS/SG with an IED that is
command detonated? 1b) Alternately, sensor detonated?
2) How would this translate into SG2s major/minor impact? Or would it?
3) When such an attack hits and it is a buried mine underneath, what should
be the odds of suspension damage on a non-penetrating hit?
4) Should M-kill chances vary with suspension type (more wheels, less
chance to hit, tracks harder to hit, etc)?
I'm looking for some fair ways to represent these aspects in game.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
have seen pictures of Strikers that have made it back to base with shattered
wheels, something that a tracked vehicle that suffers track damage can't do. I
think that is where the "ignore mobility kills on multi wheeled
vehicles" comes from. A Striker or LAV can proably lose 2-3 wheels
before becomming immobilised on the spot whereas a broken track link could
immobilise a Bradley or M113 type APC.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAn
excellent point.
All the more reason for vehicles in colonial service to be wheeled.
-Eli
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of John
Tailby
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:32 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
I have seen pictures of Strikers that have made it back to base with shattered
wheels, something that a tracked vehicle that suffers track damage can't do.
I think that is where the "ignore mobility kills on multi wheeled
vehicles" comes from. A Striker or LAV can proably lose 2-3 wheels
before becomming immobilised on the spot whereas a broken track link could
immobilise a Bradley or M113 type APC.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if mines use any sort of self-forging penetrator, but if
> On 7/14/08, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour. Hits are
No, they aren't. I wouldn't be alive today if they were.
> to score non-penetrating suspension hits (aka M-kills). I'm not sure
Detailed information about IED effects on US vehicles is generally
S/REL AUS, GB. Anyone who knows, can't talk about it. Anyone who
talks about it, knows anecdotal data or nothing at all but what he's seen on
the news (ie, anecdotal data).
> TomB wrote:
> What would the chances of suspension damage on a non-penetrating belly
Quite high... as long as you make a difference between "suspension damage"
that merely reduces the vehicle's maximum speed and "M-kill" that stops
it dead until it has been extensively repaired.
> Can you knock out (systems down) on an IED target?
With a buried IED? It could probably happen - electronics aren't *that*
fond of being shaken around violently - but I haven't heard of any IED
attack where the electronics were the *only* thing that was damaged by an IED
hit as would be the case in a Systems Down hit. The DS "Damaged" result
(movement halved, fire shifted down one die type) would be more appropriate,
but SG2 doesn't have that result.
(Road-side IEDs can knock out systems in the same way any fire from the
side could, ie. by damaging gun sights, stripping away antennae etc.)
> Also, since you can miss (I concede timing might be off), then how do
I'd represent it by rolling attacker's QD vs target's QD, representing the
target noticing something that doesn't look right and changing
speed/swerving away at the last moment. I've heard
> OA suggests ignoring mobility hits on 6+ wheeled vehicles.
No, I suggested ignoring SYSTEMS DOWN hits entirely on 6+ wheeled
vehicles hit by buried IEDs INSTEAD OF TURNING THEM INTO MOBILITY HITS (which
I had suggested for *other* types of vehicles hit by buried IEDs) in order to
represent both the buried IED's higher probability to damage the suspension
rather than the gunsights etc and the 6+ wheeled vehicle's
higher-than-average ability to take suspension damage and still keep
moving.
At least to me, that's something quite different from "ignoring mobility
hits on 6+ wheeled vehicles"...
> From what I can see with the Canadian LAVs, anytime they get hit, they
> tend to stop. Crew tend to be rattled enough not to be immediately
That the crew is rattled is not a "kill" at all either in game or
real-world terms, but a severe case of suppression. As long as the LAV
doesn't flip over or catches fire, it can often (but not always) move away
once the crew pulls itself together again - if they have time to do so
that
is, ie. they haven't been taken out by follow-up attacks in the
meantime.
If the vehicle flips or tips it can't fire its weapons, so it is clearly
not just an M-kill; and even though the hit didn't "penetrate the
armour" there's a good chance that some of the troops and crew inside the
vehicle will get hurt (break arms or legs, bash their heads etc.) when the
vehicle rolls over. The only SG2 vehicle damage result that matches
"immobilized+can't fire+potential for crew/passenger casualties" is the
"disabled" one, which in *formal SG2 game terms* makes the hit "penetrating"
(ie. Impact die beats the Armour score).
You might want to allow this "disabled" result to be repaired at least up
to DS "damaged" level by tipping the vehicle back right-side up though
(either by an ARV or by the vehicle's own winch if it has one), since flipped
LAVs (and their Stryker cousins) are often able to move away under
their own power once they've been tipped back right-side up.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
Oh good, something I can talk about, knowing nothing apart from the basic
theory. No NTK.
In the SimTerror05 exercise, one of the things I came up with was to
give all mobile phones in a cell a 3-ring call. Either on command, or
randomly. It would add a certain element of risk to the use of some of
the less sophisticated, cheaply and easily made devices. A cell-phone
jammer would also be useful, as would ELINT about where calls are coming
from. FLIR imaging and some of the higher frequency radars would help spot
things too. Not all, but it reduces the odds. Something to induce currents in
nearby wires might also be useful. Things to give spurious
signals to garage-door openers ditto.
Continuous surveillance of roadworks might help. A buried 152mm shell can ruin
your whole day, especially if used as an initiator for something larger.
HUMINT remains one of the more effective weapons in most scenarios. Careful
observation ditto. The real trick is not to cause a premature
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> The scary thing about a grav-pulse mine that damages/destroys the
My instinct is to say that superweapons are not fun in a game unless you give
them equally uber downsides.
For example, a grav disruptor that is both powerful and indefensible will be
useful if you're actively trying to discourage grav vehicles in your setting.
However, if you're not specifically trying to do that, you'll want to probably
think up some PSB defenses. The easiest
option is to say that, with the grav disruptor well-known by both
sides, modern armor includes waveguides, dead spaces, active defenses or other
PSB that fall under the general category of armor. Therefore, you'd treat a
grav disruptor minefield as a normal minefield (maybe that only works on grav
vehicles, but see below). Or you could call it a special mine that ignores
armor and attacks ECM, with Basic = Effective "armor" 2, Enhanced = effective
"armor" 3, and Superior = effective "armor" 4.
Creating new rule categories tends to create new edge cases. Anytime you
create a new rule, you're creating new loopholes, but in a game like Dirtside,
you also don't want to spoil its elegant simplicity.
You also want to make sure that the battle is won or lost at the table, not on
a spreadsheet optimizing points values the week before. Vehicle design should
create new tactics and strategies, but NOT
significant combat advantages over another equal-cost force. A weapon
or defense that works extremely well on one particular force type but is
useless against another makes games less fun. (PDS, AD and CBR work this way,
it's true, but artillery and air support are by design peripheral to the main
game, and missiles are common to most forces.)
Personally, I'd do the same for IED's. To me, they're another type of
command-detonated minefield, but if you want, you can make them a
one-shot, 4-chit MAK attack that otherwise follows the minefield rules
(ie that vehicles damaged are instead immobilized). I think it's important to,
as much as possible, roll new stuff into existing rules classifications.
At 12:17 PM +0300 7/15/08, John Atkin
> Detailed information about IED effects on US vehicles is generally
Yep, what we'll have to do is wait something liek 20 years for Jentz to
conduct a survey of military operations and IED effects in
Iraq/Afganistan and for it to be come
'de-classified'.
Until then we get to pretty much wait around and extrapolate best guesses
while people who do know
whistle Dixie. :-)
> At 7:53 PM +1000 7/15/08, Zoe Brain wrote:
Yep. Sniper teams, UAVs, fast patrols that can sneak around, and of course
locals that are tired of their own cars getting snatched and all the potholes
so they point the knuckleheads out in crowds. etc. You won't believe the
number of times they've nailed IED planters with shovels with some kind of
weapon. John here was running around in an IED digging machine that Force
Protection made positively ruining some poor Hajii's day on a regular basis
because he had a feel for when they were planting their bombs and Johns crew
could roll up, poke around at at with their long command operated robot rake
and Poor Mr mad bomber couldn't do diddly squat. I'm sure he (John) was
cackling with glee the whole time.
> On 7/15/08, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 100 lbs of explosives going off under your track is not going to do
Tell you what I can do. I can suggest a practical experiment.
Go find 100lbs of fertilizer. Dig a hole in your (hopefully paved) driveway
big enough to fit all of it, and figure out how to camoflage it well enough
that it is not easily seen from a distance. Then imagine trying to do that on
a route patrolled by people who will kill you for digging in the road.
You will discover why most IEDs are considerably smaller, and on the side of
the road rather than buried in the center of the road.
For the record, a 155mm artillery shell has 15lbs Net Explosive Weight.
Not arguing that point. But to look at it in game terms, I'd have to
guesstimate that 100 lbs of explosive is likely to be something like an
HE/8 or HE/10. Even using a D6 impact for the HE, that's a LOT of
damage potential. I doubt that anything but a very heavily armored vehicle
would survive.
J
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu>
> wrote:
This makes the assumption that max armor will remain linked to vehicle
size as it is in SG/DS II. DS3 removes this linkage. I regularly field
size 3 vehicles with 6 frontal armor, 5 on the sides, and 2-3 on the
other facings. Assuming that Jon carries the concept over to SG:AC, you'll see
more realistically armored vehicles than what you get in the current rules.
J
> Up-armouring will help against IEDs and RPGs. Of course, then you run
> At 12:17 PM +0300 7/15/08, John Atkin
So are Those Who Know allowed to smile and nod if we just happen (purely by
luck) to get it anywhere near "right" while designing the
game...?
;-)
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 9:30 AM, John Lerchey wrote:
> Not arguing that point. But to look at it in game terms, I'd have
From my readings of Vietnam actions, command detonated mines from aircraft
bombs buried under the road tended to destroy tanks.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> So are Those Who Know allowed to smile and nod if we just happen
Not if they want to avoid charges and keep their clearance.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l"I
have seen pictures of Strikers that have made it back to base with shattered
wheels, something that a tracked vehicle that suffers track damage can't do."
Never meant to suggest this was not possible. But 1) made it back to base does
not mean it didn't sit very still and immobile for a time after the detonation
or that it was driven back necessarily by original crew and 2) if vehicles are
actually disabled some of the time, then it should be possible in the game to
affect 8x8s (HiMob Wheeled). So what sort of odds of an
M-kill are reasonable? Should it be linked to a notion of 'weapon class'
for
the IED charge? Or should it be a flat number (roll Dx where 1-n
produces
suspension damage/M-kill)? SG2 has a non-penetrating hits mechanism -
all
I'm trying to comprehend a reasonable allocation of M-kills for
non-penetrating hits is and what factors would vary the numbers.
TomB
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:11 AM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> You will discover why most IEDs are considerably smaller, and on the
Point taken -- and one that should be remembered by scenario designers.
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l1)
Thanks for the input, gentlemen.
2) OA: Sorry for misreading/quoting you on the ignoring hits on 6+
wheels bit. I didn't read what you'd written (thought I had, but had not). Mea
culpa.
3) It makes perfect sense (now that John mentions it) that the results of
these efforts are considered a secured piece of information. I had just
suspected that Jane's or somebody (what's that site Oerjan loves to poke holes
in that is full of military data that is at least somewhat dodgy? FAS?) would
have some sort of ballpark figures that could give reasonable
in-game approximations.
4) John: I had heard that (at least in Afghanistan) the use of culverts is
an issue - you can't block them off (they serve a drainage purpose), you
can put up a barrier but the Taliboneheads can cut through it or remove it,
and they can be packed with a fairly sizable amount of explosives. Digging the
big hole in the middle of the hardpan and trying to camouflage it -
that's not going to be very workable as you point out. This explains most of
the 'roadside' or smaller bombs. But a culvert, if you can get it loaded up,
can be a goodly sized boom. BTW, I'm glad the command detonated mines aren't
supremely accurate - want to see you keep coming home in one piece! :0)
5) Thanks again, one and all. I've got a lot of the grist to write something
up now.
TomB
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIIR
C the picture I saw is in the Osprey book on Strikers it describes a vehicle
flipped over by an explosion that was righted by the original crew and driven
back to base. The Vehicle was not OK and certainly looked like it needed time
in the shop to be mission ready again.
In spite of rolling 1-2 times the crew suffered nothing more than bumps
and bruises. I think that kind of resiliance surprised everyone especially the
detractors of a wheeled AFV. I would say that an 8*8 wheeled vehicle has
something like half the chance of being immobilised in game terms compared to
a tracked vehicle. Something similar might apply to other forms of vehicle
drive train as well. Hovercraft and antigrav vehicles with multiple lift units
could sustain damage to some of them and keep mobile. So maybe it's that
tracked vehicles are more vulnerable to mines than other forms of transport
because they have no redundancy in their drive systems. One damaging hit to
the tracks and the vehicle can't go anywhere.
----- Original Message ----
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 16 July, 2008 2:29:03 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
"I have seen pictures of Strikers that have made it back to base with
shattered wheels, something that a tracked vehicle that suffers track damage
can't do."
Never meant to suggest this was not possible. But 1) made it back to base does
not mean it didn't sit very still and immobile for a time after the detonation
or that it was driven back necessarily by original crew and 2) if vehicles are
actually disabled some of the time, then it should be possible in the game to
affect 8x8s (HiMob Wheeled). So what
sort of odds of an M-kill are reasonable? Should it be linked to a
notion of 'weapon class' for the IED charge? Or should it be a flat
number (roll Dx where 1-n produces suspension damage/M-kill)? SG2 has a
non-penetrating hits mechanism - all I'm trying to comprehend a
reasonable allocation of M-kills for non-penetrating hits is and what
factors would vary the numbers.
TomB
> John Atkinson wrote:
My only knowledge of explosives is second and third hand (tv and history
books) but isn't it supposed to be possible to DIY you own "shaped charge"
with these type of thing.
Stick them in a steel tube or other "solid " hole so as to direct the blast?
I don't know it that actually makes it more effective but I suppose it depends
if your aiming for a mobility kill or a total kill. One would be perfect for
and ambush while the other would be useful if you lacked the men to form an
ambush.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com>
You missed the point. Anything that deflects/dampens/blocks the grav
pulse
also deflects/dampens/blocks the grav drive. That the drive is open
to the pulse is as unavoidable a condition as the wheels must be in contact
with the ground. The defence against these things is that they will not be
cheap(not necessarily expensive, just not as cheap as cheap as chemical
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> My only knowledge of explosives is second and third hand (tv and
Short version: It's not as easy as it sounds. EFPs are easier than shaped
charges. And even EFPs aren't truly easy. That's one reason that in places
where neither AQI nor Quds Force operate, there aren't
any damn EFPs. Al-Anbar Province, to name one. Those things come in
from out of country, just like a lot of the mortar rounds and a lot of
the rockets and piles of cash--and no, I can't document that on the
internet or from the news media, but I have seen pieces of ordnance
manufactured in Iran and located in Iraq less than two months after the date
stamped on the side.
> I don't know it that actually makes it more effective but I suppose it
It also has to do with what your political objective is.
Here's what most people in this conversation aren't tracking. As much as you
want to put together scenarios that approach or incorporate
elements of real-world situations, they make shitty games. Sorry.
Your average IED incident lasts moments, and rarely incoporates anything more
than a device and possibly a few secondary devices. If small arms fire is
encountered as part of the attack, you're talking a handful of jackasses
blazing away with unaimed fire from a building far enough away that it can't
be positively identified. It's over in less than a minute, because if they
stick around, they end up very, very dead. We've been killing lots of
insurgents for five years, and most of the ones who want to die for Allah
already have. The rest are linking up with cells capable of putting them
behind the wheel of a car loaded with explosives to drive into an Iraqi Police
Station or a market full of women and kids.
Even that isn't successful often enough to be a winning tactic, which is why
the majority of IED attacks these days are targeted against public places
(markets, etc), local Iraqi Police who lack the training, discipline, and
equipment to defeat IEDs, and political figures such as local sheiks.
The object of insurgents is not and cannot be to achieve a tactical success as
you all might be thinking from watching Red Dawn one too many times. The
objective is destabilize a country enough to prevent effective civil
governance, and to get on the evening news enough times that they can sell
their narrative to the ignorant jackasses who comprise the majority of West's
voting populace.
You want an IED scenario?
Quality die to hide it, downshifted by one if hasty emplacement. Each vehicle
that rolls up gets to roll quality die to see it. Once at distance, once when
you're right up on it. If it isn't seen, Hajji gets to roll QD to find out
whether or not it works and then gets to make his attack if it works. Then,
you set up a cordon around the
suspected device and wait (d20+5 x d20 minutes) for EOD to show up,
disarm the damn thing, and take the pieces back to a lab. Lather,
Rinse, Repeat for 8-12 hours.
I was up early today and the AC in the office was out.
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4) John: I had heard that (at least in Afghanistan) the use of
There are ways to address it. And there are ways around our countermeasures.
And there are new countermeasures being created all the time.
That's not a military secret, and it pretty much applies to any specific
scenario you care to imagine.
I think you're missing my point. Not having a working grav technology at all,
neither of us has any clue how a "real" grav mine would work, what its
limitations would be, or whether countermeasures (if possible at all) would
require a specialized vehicle or not. This is because grav is still totally
speculative. It might be fun and engaging speculation, worth including in a
game, but at the moment if we really want to be realistic we wouldn't have
grav in the first place.
What I'm getting at is that, unless your particular setting has a
particular reason to embrace/reject grav mines, then your primary
goals as a designer will be game-related. That is, to keep the game
fun, interesting, flexible, tactically rich, and to make sure victory or
defeat hinges on tactics at the table rather than optimized vehicle designs.
To achieve those ends, you need to consider the gameplay elements I described.
> On 7/16/08, Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> You missed the point. Anything that deflects/dampens/blocks the grav
John, what's your view of an IED-like device designed for use by a
professional army? Would it be any better/different from a
conventional anti-vehicle mine? By "army" I don't necessarily mean
technologically advanced, but definitely organized and equipped for a
conventional war. From your description, it doesn't sound like it has any
value unless you're a guerilla with lots of imported explosives, and even then
is pretty counterable.
> On 7/16/08, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's what most people in this conversation aren't tracking. As much
It seems to me, that using grav tech in a mine is an overly complex and
expensive way to do a job that other tech could do just as easily. What would
a gravitic mine due other than give you a mobility kill against a grav
vehicle.
It would be just as easy and likely cheaper, to use skeet mines with engine
noise-seeking, hyper-penetrating projectiles or something else.
Using skeet mine as an example, they could be used against all forms of
vehicle with nearly consistent results. Tracks, wheels, GEV, or Grav, almost
all vehicles are going to have some sort of recognizable engine signature that
you can home in on.
Vehicle goes by, mine picks up engine noise, chucks a "skeet" into the air,
homes in on engine noise and fired a hyper-penetrating dart straight
into the engine through the top deck of the vehicle where it is weakest.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
This question is an odd one. Isn't an IED, by its very nature, improvised. If
you are designing a device to do the job of an IED, it's not an IED, it's
pretty much a mine or some other form of ED.
IEDs can be effective, but they are the sort of thing used by militaries that
either don't have access to or a ready supply of more conventional devices
that do the same job. If you are a professional army with mines, you are
unlikely to need or use IEDs.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 1:14 PM -0400 7/16/08, Robert Mayberry wrote:
It's eother a mine, an ATGM with a crew behind it or an Off route mine.
IEDs are improvised. AS such, they're NOT a formal weapon system.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Robert Mayberry
> <robert.mayberry@gmail.com> wrote:
> John, what's your view of an IED-like device designed for use by a
Armies generally don't use IEDs.
IED is a technical term.
"A device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating
destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and
designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract. It may incorporate
military stores, but is normally devised from nonmilitary components."
Most armies take artillery shells and shoot them out of artillery pieces,
while using antitank mines to disable enemy vehicles and channel maneuver.
An off-route anti-tank mine is not an IED, though it operates on the
same basic principles as an EFP IED.
An anti-tank land mine is not an IED, although it works in the same
way as (though a hell of a lot BETTER than) burying a pair of artillery shells
and making a pressure switch from hacksaw blades.
Armies don't use IEDs, because they get issued factory-made equipment
which works better and serves an actual tactical function. An army
which had to resort to cheap-shit terrorist tricks is rapidly going to
not be an army anymore--it will be indistinguishable from a band of
brigands.
Yeah I realize it sounds strange. What I'm getting at is, is there a
fundamental physical difference between a mine and an IED? I mean other than
the fact that you only have a couple IEDs in a spot at any given time vs a
minefield. I wouldn't have thought that there was, but from the discussion on
the list and the proposed mechanics, it sounds like there is a huge
difference. Otherwise you could just say that an
IED is a one-shot minefield.
> On 7/16/08, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
I have to agree here. An IED isn't much of a game-worthy item in itself.
However, it can make for a good element of a larger scenario. If you are
playing a scenario with various routes that can be taken, you could have IEDs
be a hazard on such routes. Also, the IED could be the opening for a scenario.
Example - IED goes off, stranding team. Team is attacked by enemies and
must fight its way to safety or fend off attackers until it can be relieved.
-Eli
> On 7/16/08, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's what most people in this conversation aren't tracking. As much
> At 1:33 PM -0400 7/16/08, Robert Mayberry wrote:
Yes. A Mine is factory made. An IED could be some amonium nitrate, some
Artillery shells or some other explosives dumped in a hole with an improvised
switch or some guy left behind with a detonator to set it off at the right
time.
Time to place an Anti-Tank mine safely and properly is less than that
which it takes to set an IED.
IEDs will be poor quality mines or other weapons.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Robert Mayberry
> <robert.mayberry@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah. Mines are gnerally a hell of a lot better designed. And they work every
time, if they are armed correctly.
> other than the fact that you only have a couple IEDs in a spot at any
You will notice that the only person on the list who has ever been attacked
with an IED, or whose job ever involved looking for IEDs, or whose current job
involves teaching classes about IEDs, IED
components, IED tactics, and counter-IED tactics, is very carefully
keeping my big mouth shut on the subject, and restricting my commentary to
information that could be located on open sources if people cared to do some
research before engaging in wild speculation.
How effective were the Viet Congs booby traps - specifically those that
used a captured 50 cal bullet buried in the ground while sitting on a nail. I
can only imagine that you could carpet an area in these very quickly.
Would one of these cause sufficient damage to a vehicle to stop it.
Presumably, its possible to do the same with large rounds like the 25mm HE
rounds.
> Eli Arndt wrote:
16/07/2008 06:43
> [quoted text omitted]
Robert,
In IED is an improvised weapon, made from some other weapon or materials to
produce the same or similar effect as a mine. IEDs are weapons of opportunity
and ambush and are not used in the same way as minefields. IEDs are not as
reliable as manufactured mines.
That being said, mines are not always used in fields, either. You can place
mines in the same way as IEDs and for the same reasons.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Probably not 'quickly'.
> Would one of these cause sufficient damage to a vehicle to stop it.
Definitely not..50 cal won't penetrate AFV armor if fired out of a weapon
unless it is quite lightly armored.
> Presumably, its possible to do the same with large rounds like the
The primers aren't as easy to set off, and the round is much
larger--the round would tend to fall over rather than go straight
down, especially in sand or moist soil.
One of the problems I'd see with these is that, once again, they are
improvised from weapons designed in a very specific way. Take a bullet out of
a gun and you really don't get much bang from it. So much of a bullets
effectiveness comes from it being projected down a tightly enclosed barrel.
I suppose you could seed the area with buried zip gun rigs. This would give
the bullets some sort of barrel to shoot out of and preserve some of the force
provided by their powder charge.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGin
gerbeer John said:
Here's what most people in this conversation aren't tracking. As much as you
want to put together scenarios that approach or incorporate elements of
real-world situations, they make shitty games. Sorry.Your average IED
incident lasts moments, and rarely incoporates anything more than a device and
possibly a few secondary devices. If small arms fire is encountered as part of
the attack, you're talking a handful of jackasses blazing away with unaimed
fire from a building far enough away that it can't be positively identified.
It's over in less than a minute, because if they stick around, they end up
very, very dead.
-------
[Tomb] I particularly asked about how to represent their effects in the
game. I made no specification about my intended use. I don't recall wanting to
capture the details of the current situation nor do I suspect that all
uses of IEDs, in either the real world or sci-fi, will take on the
character of today's uses. Ultimately, an IED can make an effective way of
stopping a convoy for an ambush. It can make an effective way of stopping or
slowing a rapid reaction force responding to another situation. There are any
number
of places where one can and will make sense in the real-world and in
sci-fi.
If you've got foreign occupiers on your outrim colony world, maybe you don't
have fancy weapons and have to resort to some know how an an IED in setting up
an ambush or fixing action. Ultimately, your forces may not always have the
same levels of support US or even NATO forces enjoy. If a UN mission is hit by
an IED in the modern day and it is composed of (for instance) South African
troops, an ambush or fixing action may be fairly successful as they may have
trouble bringing to bear the firepower the US can. Similar sorts of situations
are perfectly within the realm of the GZGverse.
So, don't go assuming what I have in mind. I just want to capture a reasonable
set of game numbers for how likely these things are to score a hit and how
likely that is to score damage versus various sorts of vehicles. Beyond that,
I leave to the people setting up games to decide where and how they are
appropriate to use.
---------
John further said:
The object of [current day ME -- TomB] insurgents is not and cannot be
to achieve a tactical success as you all might be thinking from watching Red
Dawn one too many times [Not possible. Wolverines! -- TomB]. The
[current
ME -- TomB] objective is destabilize a country enough to prevent
effective civil governance, and to get on the evening news enough times that
they can sell their narrative to the ignorant jackasses who comprise the
majority of West's voting populace.
--------
We've seen insurgents use IEDs in other places in the world (Vietnam,
Chechnya, etc) and I'm fairly certain that they had (at times) planned
tactical victories in the actions involving IEDs. There are a number of
scenarios, dependent on the resources and training of both sides, in which an
IED could simply be a precursor to other forms of combat.
The fact that this (IED attacks followed by small arms engagement proves
disasterous to those involved if the attack is against the US or a major
Western power in Iraq/Afghanistan today may or may not impede it as a
good game. If you define a game as 'column must get off far side of board,
insurgents must slow down using IEDs, RPGs, small arms, etc', then you could
have a fun enough game. If the column forces aren't terribly top notch, you
may actually have a real knock-down, drag-out fight. If you are playing
a campaign of some sort, slowing down an enemy column may be worth some
insurgents sacrificed if you get to carry out another attack without
interference.
So, even though I haven't decided exactly what I want to use the information
for, I can see plenty of cases where there are valid in-game
applications.
And thank you for the information, the parts you could provide.
TomB
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
If you're an insurgent operating in an area you don't control, you don't have
time to put all these rigs out.
If you're a real military, you're better off dispensing submunitions
that expel tripwires--many nations today make cluster bombs and
artillery shells that carry both AP and AT mines that can make an area
impassible until the self-destruct goes off to clear them. Takes 2
minutes, maybe.
The only utility is an insurgent force that does not have sufficient support
to use real mines, but does have enough control of a 'safe haven' that they
can put this much effort into making it expensive to take away.
I would agree with you here. I was more looking at the technical aspects of
the question as opposed to the strategic/tactical.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think you're missing my point. Not having a working grav technology
It comes from the principle of reciprocity. If the hull does not block the
gravitic emanations on the way out, it will not be too much of a hindrance for
gravitic emanations on the way in. The frustrating part of hardening
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> It seems to me, that using grav tech in a mine is an overly complex
What
> would a gravitic mine due other than give you a mobility kill against
This depends on the setting. In Honorverse, grav drives and their requisite
acceleration compensators allow you to dump waste heat directly into
hyperspace. Either that, or their fusion energy conversion efficiencies exceed
99.99%. Whichever is the case, there is no requirement for an especially
vulnerable spot on the hull to allow for cooling.
Sometimes, a mobility kill on a grav vehicle isn't just a mobility kill.
Killing the grav drive of a landing starship 10 metres above the field may
prevent it ever lifting off, again. Getting a grav vehicle to hit the ground,
at speed, will do more damage than many kinds of penetrating hit. I have been
told that even the mighty M1 Abrams will have its front stove in
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWhe
re possible, even irregular forces (insurgents, freedom fighters, partisans,
or resistance fighters... whatever) will use standard munitions. I mean, if
they can get and deploy real mines, no need to make an IED. That makes perfect
sense. The IED is the domain of those who have limited options.
That said:
If I take a big old-school (say 20 years out of date) anti-tank mine and
graft on a new triggering mechanism (say vibrations sensor vs. pressure
plate), does that make it an IED, even though it really was once a
manufactured mine?
And I keep hearing about more effective bombs (or components of, or expertise
to make same) being smuggled into the hot zones from places outside (Iran is
mentioned a lot). The implication of the reporting is that these are
sophisticated devices that are not the province of backyard chemists. Are
these considered actual mines? Or are they still an IED, just using better
shaped charges and so forth?
T.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFir
st off, equating the energy/heat exchange system of a vessel vs that of
a compact vehicles seem a little less than applicable here.
Also, I imagine that grav tanks don't spend all that much time in the air.
This would make them unnecesarily visible and vulnerable to more
direct attack. I imagine they would make good use of pop-up attacks and
similar attacks as modern day attack helicopters.
I am not saying that grav mines don't have a place in some universes, they
just seem overly complicated for something that could be done without all the
wizzbang tech.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
have always imagined the emitters of a grav vehicle being built as a part of
the hull. Basically you have the generators under the armor, but the emitters
and their many redundancies are either built into the hull through a grid or
in many, many smaller emmiters points.
[quoted original message omitted]
Watching it once, while drunk, after renting it from the $1 for a week bin at
the video shop, was once too often...
> At 6:43 PM +0100 7/16/08, Adrian1 wrote:
No.
> At 4:09 PM -0400 7/16/08, Tom B wrote:
Except, real mines, used wantonly are VERY poor weapons if not covered by a
force to engage the people hitting the minefield.
Militarily, they're a nuisance. AP mines won't do much good against mine
protected vehicles and AT mines will likely just moderately damage them.
Want to lay mines in a minefield? Want to expend that sort of resource, Cover
it with a blocking force. otherwise it's a short term obstacle that takes VERY
little time for an experienced or well trained military force to completely
bypass.
> That said:
Is your new trigger worked up in a garage? How do you keep from blowing your
self up if you're doing it in a garage? If so, then it is an IED. If it's done
in a factory, its a Mk II or a MOD B or some other designation of product
improved
weaponry/ordnance.
There have been a number of IED makers that have blown themselves up. Sadly,
we were STOPPED from seeding parts of Iraq with faulty detonators that would
go off when tested or otherwise assembled. Certain Fools in the government
thought that was unfair.
> And I keep hearing about more effective bombs
There are. In some cases, they're not really IEDs. But if it's just a warhead
and the triggers are home made, then it is technically an IED.
> On 7/16/08, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I take a big old-school (say 20 years out of date) anti-tank mine
pressure
> plate), does that make it an IED, even though it really was once a
Yes, if you do it in an improvised manner--although that's a somewhat
misleading question. US mines, for instance, all date from the 1960s or
earlier. Some things just don't go out of date.:)
> And I keep hearing about more effective bombs (or components of, or
IED, because they use improvised initiators and EFP warheads originally
designed for the mining industry.
> On 7/16/08, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Tomb] I particularly asked about how to represent their effects in
Depending on TTPs, possibly. Of course, an anti-tank mine will do the
same thing in a more effective manner if you have one.
> If you've got foreign occupiers on your outrim colony world, maybe you
South
> African troops, an ambush or fixing action may be fairly successful as
South Africans? THey invented half the vehicles we are using for the
C-IED fight. Bad example. Ugandans or Malaysians would be a better
example.:)
If you're speculating in general terms, there are a few general things I can
say.
The larger a device, the harder it is to camoflage. An improvised
device is going to be larger than a purpose-built one that is more
effective. The most effective IED methods require specialized knowledge and
precision machining methods.
IEDs provide deniability in a way that conventional mines shipped in by a
foreign supporters do not.
Because devices are "improvised" they vary in size from hundreds of pounds
emplaced by a faux 'road construction crew' to a soda can. The can be filled
with anything from a variety of home made concoctions that may or may not
work, to brand new military plastic explosives. They may or may not
incorporate military ordnance or military explosives. They can be initiated in
any one of a dozen ways (or
more) falling into three categories--victim operated, command
detonated, or timed. Generalizing about them is about as fruitless a pursuit
as can be imagined, especially if limited to unclassified sources or the
media's description of devices.
The game has perfectly good rules for mines. It doesn't matter for game
purposes whether the mines are built in a factory in runs of 100,000, or
assembled by a religious loon in his goat shed. You can
treat anti-armor devices as MAK, other devices as HEF, and small shit
as boobytraps from Stargrunt.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
n:
Except, real mines, used wantonly are VERY poor weapons if not covered by a
force to engage the people hitting the minefield.
---------
[Tomb] I'm not sure how that is 'except' since I never mentioned utility
or deployment in the passage of mine you had quoted?
But I concur with you. Mines deployed without supervision are an impediment or
threat to civilians or underequipped militaries (maybe not even that). Any
worthwhile force will sweep them away or blow a passage through them.
Similarly, a field that isn't of the right type won't be a big threat.
--------
Ryan: Is your new trigger worked up in a garage? How do you keep from blowing
your self up if you're doing it in a garage? If so, then it is an IED. If it's
done in a factory, its a Mk II or a MOD B or some other designation of product
improved
weaponry/ordnance.
-------
[TomB] The examples I'm thinking of would be done in a 'factory' but of
the improvised sort and are thus an IED. But the charge they are driving may
well not be (although it could be a generation or two behind modern AT mines).
What keeps it from blowing up during installation? One presumes skill, caution
and luck. If some of them blow up in the factories, that certainly won't
factor into the SG game..... (unless the GM has it set in a campaign)
-------------
Ryan:
There are (reference to imported higher-tech IEDs -- TomB). In some
cases, they're not really IEDs. But if it's just a warhead and the triggers
are home made, then it is technically an IED.
[TomB] My point in raising this was somebody mentioned how crappy these
are. If they are getting imported IEDs with high(er) tech warheads and perhaps
detonators, even if final assembly is local, then it is still an IED but may
perform very similarly to a modern AT mine.
Separate point:
Someone asked why not represent them as an AT mine? Fine for DS2, don't recall
if SG2 covers AT mines very well or not. Wanted a better picture of how these
things should be simulated. They seem often to have dodgy operation and
sometimes (depends on circumstance) can be quite large in charge size although
most are not. Some are roadside, others buried. I wanted to get a good picture
of the range of capability and performance before putting pen to paper.
> At 11:15 AM -0400 7/17/08, Tom B wrote:
The same thing goes for IEDs. the majority of them are useless once the guys
have a bit of a hint on the tactics to get around them. IT takes less than 5
minutes for a Bison to roll up and defeat an IED. Mines are in the exact same
class.
IEDs as used aren't an effective military weapon. They don't do didly squat to
the military forces in a military sense. Accidents and disease are pretty darn
close to the same area.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
n:
<snip all the stuff I concur about> The game has perfectly good rules for
mines. It doesn't matter for game purposes whether the mines are built in a
factory in runs of 100,000, or assembled by a religious loon in his goat shed.
You can treat
anti-armor devices as MAK, other devices as HEF, and small shit as
boobytraps from Stargrunt.
--------
[Tomb] I have to re-read the SG2 rules for mines. I've used CDMs and AP
mines but I don't recall the rules for AT mines. I didn't really think they
had the same flavour as a command-detonated roadside or under-road
explosive that your driver could dodge or spot. I'll see if what you say makes
sense for SG. I think it does for DS likely enough.
BTW, victim-operated is a really odd description. Makes it sound like
something you'd do intentionally. <ick!>
I'll likely use something pretty close to what you suggested for the spotting
of mines and maybe for the initiating, though I'll probably assume the lengthy
aftermath is not germaine to the sorts of scenarios that would be interesting
as a game. Due credit will be attributed.:0)
T.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
biggest difference that I think you would see, in game terms, is a matter of
reliability. I am pretty sure that the fail rate on IEDs is incredibly high
compared to that of manufactured mines. I am also going to assume that IEDs
don't hold up to the elements as well as mines which adds to this failure
rate.
I'm not expert here, just trying to common sense it here.
-Eli
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Tom B
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:40 PM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
John: <snip all the stuff I concur about> The game has perfectly good rules
for mines. It doesn't matter for game purposes whether the mines are built in
a factory in runs of 100,000, or assembled by a religious loon in his goat
shed. You can treat
anti-armor devices as MAK, other devices as HEF, and small shit as
boobytraps from Stargrunt.
--------
[Tomb] I have to re-read the SG2 rules for mines. I've used CDMs and AP
mines but I don't recall the rules for AT mines. I didn't really think they
had the same flavour as a command-detonated roadside or under-road
explosive that your driver could dodge or spot. I'll see if what you say makes
sense for SG. I think it does for DS likely enough.
BTW, victim-operated is a really odd description. Makes it sound like
something you'd do intentionally. <ick!>
I'll likely use something pretty close to what you suggested for the spotting
of mines and maybe for the initiating, though I'll probably assume the lengthy
aftermath is not germaine to the sorts of scenarios that would be interesting
as a game. Due credit will be attributed.:0)
T.
> On 7/17/08, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, victim-operated is a really odd description. Makes it sound like
Term of art. It refers to a device which operates as a result of the action of
the victim. A tripwire, for instance,is victim operated because the person who
laid it does not detonate it, you do when you
trip over it. So is a pressure plate, whether a factory-made one on
top of a land mine or a pair of hacksaw blades hooked to a battery and a
blasting cap.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
n wrote on 18/07/2008 06:46:15:
> On 7/17/08, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah! I assumed it was simply a tongue-in-cheek reference to suicide
bombers.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGin
gerbeer John said:
Term of art. It refers to a device which operates as a result of the action of
the victim. A tripwire, for instance,is victim operated because the person who
laid it does not detonate it, you do when you trip over it. So
is a pressure plate, whether a factory-made one on top of a land mine or
a pair of hacksaw blades hooked to a battery and a blasting cap.
[TomB] I understood that as soon as I heard it (in that sense, I guess
the
term is well chosen). It was a very literal, engineer-like description.
I
suppose other options might have been 'victim-triggered',
'victim-initiated'
or 'victim-activated'. I suppose you literally 'operate' the triggers on
these systems, but it does seem a rather antiseptic term for what is a pretty
unfortunate process (for the 'operator').
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFro
m: "Eli Arndt" <emu2020@comcast.net>
"Also, I imagine that grav tanks don't spend all that much time in the air.
This would make them unnecesarily visible and vulnerable to more direct
attack. I imagine they would make good use of pop-up attacks and similar
attacks as modern day attack helicopters."
[TomB] Depends. If you can transit around like a troopship (because
remember, we'll also be talking about AIFVs) and a gunship, you may just
choose altitude. If you can get real altitude, you may well be able to
outrange any smaller AA defenses. If you were fighting an insurgency, like
they are in some places in the modern day, you might be happy enough to be
above the ground by a fair piece. And of course, I'm presuming a fair level of
stealth with grav is also possible which is a PSB choice to be sure. Once a
fight is joined in earnest or if moving to contact with ground forces or to
attack an objective, you are probably correct in describing how
high-mode-capable grav would be used. But there are plenty of transit
cases where I can see just getting up and staying up, way up.
"I am not saying that grav mines don't have a place in some universes, they
just seem overly complicated for something that could be done without all the
wizzbang tech."
[TomB] Funnily enough, there are plenty of cases in this world
(especially when it comes to electronics) where we end up choosing whizbang
tech *because it has become cheap*. If making a grav mine costs some very
small amount (and it may) and said mine ignores the armour of the vehicle,
then it may well be better than alternatives that do not ignore the armour.
Even if you have to penetrate what is effectively ECM (that is various
electronic countermeasures) or beat some concept of signature (stealth, tricky
grav field manipulations, etc), you may still have a better weapon than
something that has to breach the hull. A lot depends on the relative
difficulty of
getting through the armour vs. getting through the electronic/gravitic
defenses.
[TomB] I don't suggest it is the only tool you would have in your
toolbox, but it would be one of them, if your PSB makes such a thing possible.
And I
like it because it adds a bit of sci-fi to the game that fits with
existing
sci-fi bolt ons (grav tech itself) in a way that we understand
militarily without having to tread off too far into 'how would it work' and
'what are the implications'.