_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHey
everyone, just going pointed towards Stargrunt and GZG models a few days ago,
and I think the hook is well and truly set! Now for some questions that I hope
you good people can help me with, as no one around here is into
15mm stuff - yet! I'm going to use Stargrunt II and (primarily) GZG
minis to try and emulate and expand on the background provided in the great
old
TSR mini-wargame "Revolt on Antares." This leads me to my two questions
for the list; questions which I've also begun to ask on some Yahoo lists;
hopefully no one here is reading these for the third time! If so, my
apologies....
1) One of the little background quirks of "Revolt" was the presence of the
native inhabitants of Antares 9, who may or may not be the regressed
descendants of the ultra-tech species that once ruled the planet. If
you're not familiar with the game or the game counters, they're depicted as
vaguely
simian humanoids, basically equipped with stone-tipped spears and
loincloths. I'm not looking for an exact match (that would be too wonderful),
but can any of you that are more familiar with 15mm minis in
general suggest something for a stone-age humanoid (but clearly inhuman)
force?
2) One of the other thing in RoA that made such an impact on me back in the
day (I was around 7 or 8 if memory serves!) were the jump troops. This is
something I'd like to emulate in my SGII/RoA mashup, but I can't find
any
lift/jump/grav infantry troop movement rules mentioned in the SG rules I
downloaded. Have any of you worked out any house rules of your own? Here's
my first draft, I'd certainly appreciate comments/criticism of them as
I'm worried I've made the jump troops too maneuverable. On the other hand,
that
can be balanced by 'in-universe' notions of how lightly they should be
armed, but I'd like for the rules to be universally applicable, even for
more heavily armed grav infantry (like high-TL Traveller forces, for
example).
-----------
LIFT/GRAV/JUMP INFANTRY
Movement Rate: 10" or 12" (for 'low' or 'high' grav tech) [this is to mirror
the nice divide between the low and high tech grav vehicles from GZG, as well
as similar divisions in stuff like Traveller, etc]
TERRAIN EFFECTS ON MOBILITY
CLEAR = Open, Light Scrub, Slopes, Roads, Rivers/Streams (crossing
only), Cultivated, Swamp, Open Water* POOR = Rough, all Woods DIFFICULT =
IMPASSABLE = Open Water*
*=While lift infantry can indeed cross small stretches of open water, they
cannot end their movement on it.
Your lift troop rules look like a fine start. Try them on the table to prove
them, I'd say.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:44, Kenneth Coble <kmcoble@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----------
Having
> said that, I have actually considered making Open Water just flatly
How about treating "Lift" infantry as in High mode like grav vehicles when
"stopped" over water?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM, McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <
> Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
> Your lift troop rules look like a fine start. Try them on the table
Sounds like a plan! I'm hoping to get my 15mm stuff in here in a while, and
maybe get some games by Feb. I'll report back here as soon as I get
real-world (or real-table) results.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> How about treating "Lift" infantry as in High mode like grav vehicles
Hmm... this is a decent idea as well. One reason for my initial 'cross but not
land' notion was to reflect the way the Revolt on Antares rules were written,
but I'm certainly not married to the idea. Maybe the ability to
'loiter' over water at High could be a capability of the high-tech lift
infantry, as distinct from the more 'jump-then-land' version of the
lower-tech ones? I'll give it some thought!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
At the point where infantry don't need to touch the ground and can hover all
game you have created flight packs rather than jump packs or boosted infantry.
You then end up with infantry more like Iron Man or the Rocketeer.
If you want infantry that use "jump packs" then I'd use the rules for
motorbikes or similar infantry with the additional capability of being able to
jump over intervening terrain.
Jump infantry should also move slower than normal infantry, encumbered by
their jump packs and possibly less able to make use of cover.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
encumbrance of the jump packs is variable, based on your tech levels and
background. Lower tech = bulkier equipment. You would not only have more
weight and bulk to drag around, but also much shorter jump duration. OTOH,
if you have a significantly higher tech base, maybe using anti-grav
packs to boost natural jump capability and ease landings, it might be no worse
than carrying a canteen. <shrug>
I fully agree though that if you can stay airborne, it's not jumping. It's
flight.:)
J
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> At the point where infantry don't need to touch the ground and can
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> At the point where infantry don't need to touch the ground and can
Well, the terminology is variable across the various sources I've been
considering - if memory serves, Traveller grav belts do allow basically
unlimited loiter times, which as you both point out is in fact actually flying
infantry. The source that's my primary reference for my current project is
Revolt on Antares though, and while it's such an abstracted out little wargame
that the actual mechanics of their 'Jump Troops' are obscured, they explicitly
(in that ruleset) aren't allowed to end their movement turns over water, so I
tried to imply that in my house rule. I like your idea of treating them like
motorcycles, but I can't find rules for
that (or cavalry) in the SGII download - are they in there somewhere,
and I'm just missing them?
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:06 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com> wrote:
> The encumbrance of the jump packs is variable, based on your tech
This is sort of what I was trying to roll into the 'low-tech/high-tech'
distinction; obviously depending on what fictional/game/whatever setting
you're trying to emulate these propulsion systems could range from
big-ass
turbofans to Rocketeer-style jetpacks to Traveller's unobtrusive grav
belts. From the art on the Jump Troop chits in Revolt, their jump/lift
units look pretty light and streamlined, not projecting terribly far beyond
the shoulders of the trooper, who is himself fairly slender (at least when
compared to the counterpart "Power Infantry" artwork). For this particular
setting at least, I don't feel like the jump units would be much harder to
find cover in than their PA brethren. I do figure that their weapons load and
armor would be pretty light when compared to the PA guys, and probably lighter
than normal footsloggers as well, but again this is sort of
setting-dependent. I'd like to develop a decent set of semi-generic
house
rules for the broad category of grav/lift/jump infantry however, as
they're a recurring concept in lots of the stuff that I'd like to emulate with
SGII!
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM, John Tailby
Nice start with the houserules, look forward to seeing how the
develop......
Just on a (rather UNimportant) question of terminology, I'd always considered
that "LIFT Infantry" in TRAVELLER terms referred to the fact that they were
regular infantry mounted in Grav vehicles, rather
than being individually grav-equipped troopers (a bit like present
day "motorised infantry" don't actually have a lawnmower engine strapped to
their backs.... <grin>).
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
your jump pack weighs as much as an infantry backpack it's additional weight
that the troopers have to carry around. Like scuba gear. Most infantry carry a
lot of gear and adding 25 kilos or 50 pounds of weight will reduce their
mobility considerably compared to leg infantry unless jumping.
If the jump pack is a rocket pack or jet turbine unit, then unless it runs all
the time, it will weight the troopers down. If you are jumping around at say
50 miles an hour it's pretty difficult to risk landing in any kind of terrain
like trees, without the risk of serious impact trauma. Parachutists don't
drop into trees if they can avoid it.
I would suggest that for any kind of near future tech jump pack that, you
count all terrain as dangerous and risk casualties if you start or end your
movement in terrain... So you jump from open ground to open ground.
The infantry should also be encumbered on the ground so move at a reduced rate
and or have a lot less equipment, so no heavy weapons maybe only an SMG
equivalent and grenades.
You might also consider that infantry use their jump packs like dragoons of
old, jumping to get into position and then dumping their packs to fight on
foot.
Infantry that jump in nice easy hops will do a very passable impression of a
clay target for any kind of overwatching enemy unit. If you bounce above tree
height you become very visible and will draw fire from all over the place.
Enemy units should be able to interrupt your jump action with some kind of
reaction fire or overwatch fire if they can draw LOS to any part of the jump
move.Â
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Nice start with the houserules, look forward to seeing how the
Thanks! Once I can finally decide on which faction's minis I want to represent
the Imperial Terrans, and which faction for one of the Houses, I'll be
ordering my stuff! Hopefully once that happens I can get some
table-time in with the new ruleset and report back here on how they
fare.
Meanwhile, for future purchases some be-jetpacked infantry would be a
nice option (hint hint, hehe)...
> Just on a (rather UNimportant) question of terminology, I'd always
Ahh, good point! It has been a long time since I looked over any of my Trav
stuff, and I do think you're remembering the terminology correctly and I've
got it scrambled. But am I remembering correctly that in at least one
iteration of Trav (possibly GURPS Trav?) there were mentions made of
high-tech Imperial forces utilizing grav belts with really, really long
loiter times? If not, that might change my setup for the 'hightech' grav
rules, as that was my main 'data point' for that section of the rules.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> If your jump pack weighs as much as an infantry backpack it's
Parachutists
> don't drop into trees if they can avoid it.
for
the fight proper. Both of these could be dealt with semi-easily I
guess, by giving jump troops two Terrain Charts to work from, to represent
whether they're slogging it or jumping, and tying their speed for that turn to
what mode they selected. The Jump chart would be more restrictive; the Leg
chart would basically replicate the normal Infantry chart.
I also like your idea for interrupting jump moves (at least the low-tech
ones, which will presumably be more of a ballistic trajectory and less of a
nice nap-of-the-earth hover than the high-tech ones) with reaction fire.
This, plus the open-to-open restriction, would force Jump commanders to
utilize their mobility only on the approach, and then hunker down for the
real fighting - which is again reminiscent of a mounted-infantry
paradigm.
Some of the others points I still feel are more dependent on the particular
setting you're trying to emulate - Traveller Imperial Marines with their
grav belts are still carrying FGMPs; on the other end of the spectrum, W40K
style 'assault marines' are using pistols and swords. The Revolt on Antares
guys are depicted as carrying skinny little carbine-looking things and
have a fairly low Combat rating, so they would indeed be lightly armed, but
probably not any slower than regular infantry (but having said that, still not
as fast as normal SG lightly armed 'scout' troops).
Thanks again to you and everyone else for the feedback, I'll try and get a
v1.0 of the rules up later tonight, incorporating some of these ideas while
still trying not to be overly complex.
Ken
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Kenneth Coble <kmcoble@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahh, good point! It has been a long time since I looked over any of
grav
> rules, as that was my main 'data point' for that section of the rules.
Drop Troops like Imperial Marines had grav belts capable of keeping them aloft
indefinitely until the batteries wore out.
Here are the catches:
1) No human being can accurately fire small arms while moving at 100kph, the
top speed of a Classic Traveller Grav Belt.
2) Running into trees and hills at 100kph is more or less fatal, hence the
practical requirement to move higher if you are moving faster.
3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a technological base
capable of providing grav belts can hit a target moving at 100kph with ease.
So you are limited by practicality to considerably lower speeds, in 'hops'
whose length is determined by user's assessment of the threat of being shot
like a clay pigeon and the speed of which is governed by a burning desire NOT
to slam into the ground moving fast enough to break your legs.
The weight of the system is more or less nullified by leaving it on at a low
enough setting to cancel out its own weight.
> On Saturday 10 January 2009 20:02:03 John Atkinson wrote:
With some thoughts on how possibly to get around them with sufficiently
advanced technology if you really wanted to.
> 1) No human being can accurately fire small arms while moving at
Computer assisted targetting and/or smart munitions might remove
human limitations from the equation.
> 2) Running into trees and hills at 100kph is more or less fatal, hence
Again, computer assist might help, though it's going to be tricky...
> 3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a technological
According to GURPS Star Mercs, battledress had stealth as well, which may help
against forces who don't have the latest tech.
> So you are limited by practicality to considerably lower speeds, in
The Galactic Patrol could probably solve this problem, what with having
Bergenholms installed in their armour. Traveller reactionless drives don't
work in the same way however.
> At 12:10 AM +0000 1/11/09, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Computer assisted targetting and/or smart munitions might remove
Then you're talking about power armor with grav/jump belt capability...
If you have the capability to accurately target FROM such a jump, your enemies
might have the capability to accurately target SUCH a jumping target.
> 3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a
You're going to handle being silhouetted from the sky how? You're going to
have a signature. You're not in the weeds, at some point you're going to make
a VERY nice, crisp target to the mk1 eyeball. With sufficient processing and
good optical sensors, you're going to be nice and crisp as a target...
It's kind of like choppers in combat. If you're up against a similar opponent,
you're going to have to be VERY careful about how you use the tools. Great for
approach march, not so great for the final run into the target. If they're
lower tech, you're good. If they're NOT lower tech, then you're going to have
a SERIOUS problem.
Likely armor PDS AND ADS systems could be adapted to handle shooting down the
jumping crunchies. I wouldn't want to go jumping up on any armor or high tech
forces.
> On Sunday 11 January 2009 02:30:25 Ryan Gill wrote:
Since we're referencing Traveller, this is what the standard armour of the
Imperial Marines is (at least according to Ground Forces (GURPS supplement
describing Imperial Marines and Army), other Traveller iterations may vary).
> >> 3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a
Radical stealth, radical emissions cloaking and instant chameleon features are
built in as standard in Marines battlearmour.
Such tech most probably breaks the laws of physics, but compared to grav belts
it's pretty tame.
> You're
I did put the tech qualifier in for a reason, since equivalent forces are
going to have 'radical' sensors to spot you. The MkI eyeball however isn't
going to do you much good.
It is stated that the flight option is heavily discouraged during battle,
because you make a nice target.
I am in full agreement with you that it's going to depend on what the
opposition has available. Even a TL9 guerilla
army may well have a couple of TL12 anti-battlesuit PDS
they bought from somewhere.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:02, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:
> 1) No human being can accurately fire small arms while moving at
Really depends on the weapon and associated gear. From the shoulder I can see
your point, from a stabilized mount ala Aliens not such an issue. This is
really technical issue, not a hard and fast rule....
2) Running into trees and hills at 100kph is more or less fatal, hence
> the practical requirement to move higher if you are moving faster.
Yes and no, you obviously have never ridden a motor bike through the woods.
100kph is not really that fast. Speed really should controlled by troop
quality instead of fiat. Though I would generally give lift equipped infantry
scout movement.
> 3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a technological
Well, yes, but this goes for all infantry, why you are making it special case
is beyond me.
So you are limited by practicality to considerably lower speeds, in
> 'hops' whose length is determined by user's assessment of the threat
Yep, where's the problem?
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> 1) No human being can accurately fire small arms while moving at
This
> is really technical issue, not a hard and fast rule....
At which point you are basically treating them from a rules standpoint
as teeny-tiny vehicles rather than infantry. Which I have no problem
with, but that wasn't the question originally asked.
> 2) Running into trees and hills at 100kph is more or less fatal,
I'm fairly certain your motor bike doesn't do 62 mph cross country while
dodging trees. It may feel faster than it really is, but I'm calling bullshit.
> 3) Any fire control system on a military vehicle from a technological
Grav infantry is flying, which means they aren't using terrain to conceal
themselves. Which is how infantry stays alive. I don't know
how to make it any more Barney-style.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSo
I didn't get around to working out v1.0 of these rules yet, but I thought I'd
solicit a bit more feedback. In an attempt to remain somewhat
streamlined and yet cover two semi-opposing design criteria ('A' being
to
replicate the concept of flying/jumping/hopping infantry as put forth in
several scifi settings, and 'B' being the notion that floating gently at
100' like a hot-air balloon is a real good way to get shot), here's my
first revision idea:
Keep something similar to my initial 'jump troop' terrain list, but include a
provision that using it opens the unit to reaction fire, even if it's only
using one of its actions for move that turn (as opposed to 2 movements per the
official rules). Alternately, the unit can use the regular infantry movement
chart and be treated as infantry in all respects. Stuff like speed
and loadouts can be fine-tuned based on setting. This would allow for a
jump unit to cross the board quickly if out of enemy range, but still penalize
them for not going to ground when at actual fire distances. It
sort of abstracts in the TL difference/spoofing/etc issues as well, as
presumably your High Tech jump unit will be at least comparatively
well-armored when compared to a lower-tech adversary; and if they're of
equivalent TLs then things should even out.
I was thinking of trying to include some kind of deal where a flying unit
could quickly go to ground, taking a quality test similar to the 'dropping
from hovering craft' rules (treating all terrain as dangerous for this
purpose), and therefore avoid the reaction fire issue. But without any
tabletop experience with this ruleset as of yet, I'm not certain if that would
make grav troops too powerful or not. I'll have to think about it
-
which of course means that I hope you guys will think about it and give me
feedback!
Thanks again for all the good and though-provoking responses to this
topic. Keep it coming!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:53, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> 2) Running into trees and hills at 100kph is more or less fatal,
I have one answer to that.... Suburban cager...... A fair number of dirt bikes
have speedos.
And I did clarify that probable no where near operational speed. But when need
drives.....
> Grav infantry is flying, which means they aren't using terrain to
Obviously you haven't spent much time in terrain. There are lots of places
when moving through the boonies where having the ability fly would open up
vast tracks that are closed to men just on foot. Infantry will still be
infantry, personal grav just improves the accessibility of the patrol radius
really doesn't do much to improve it.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> I'm fairly certain your motor bike doesn't do 62 mph cross country
Again. I'm calling bullshit. Show me some evidence other mild personal insult.
Besides which, this introduces a fun level of complexity where we get to argue
about exactly how dense which particular forest is. I've been in plenty of
pieces of terrain you can't get a dirt bike into.
> Grav infantry is flying, which means they aren't using terrain to
<sarcasm> Nope. I've never walked anywhere for any reason further than five
feet from a road.
</sarcasm>
Idiot. I went and checked the list archives. You've been posting erratically
for nearly four years on this list, which means you are just so stupid you
forget who the fuck you're babbling at.
> There are lots of places
Few 'tracts' of land are truly inaccessible to someone who is on foot. If you
want to get there, you can. The point of Grav belts is to get there faster and
with less fatigue than walking.
> Infantry will still be
If you're flying you aren't taking cover and using terrain to your advantage.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you've never been shot at much. Or
done much shooting. If you are flying you are impersonating a clay pigeon.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 15:30, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:
> Idiot. I went and checked the list archives. You've been posting
I extend my apology for any offense you have taken. I retract all my points.
Sarcastic and otherwise.
Mr.Atkinson if you will tender your full name, address, Social security number
or equivalent, along with your branch of service and MOS, and any academic
transcripts, I shall do my best to under stand who I am "Babbling" at. Until
that point please refrain from attacking, as this is a public list that is
support of Ground Zero Games products, as such the response and choice of
language reflects badly on said company.
To the rest of the general list I apologies also, for any offense whether real
or implied. I sometimes forget that what would be amusing, albeit caustic
banter in a face to face conversation is offensive in this inflectionless
medium.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
think there are some simple amendments to movement restrictions and movment
orders that could be given to jump troops.
Jump troops could primarily move like infantry and use their jump gear to
navigate any linear obstacles like rivers. They could then react to enemy fire
like normal infantry but would not be slowed down by the terrain feature.
Jump infantry could make an elevated march move " a bounce" leaping over
terrain features to get to a location at speed at the expense of increased
vulnerability. Any waiting enemy can draw LOS to a point of the move and fire
as a reaction. Would be similar to an infantry unit running between two bits
of cover, any faster speed of movement could be offset against the predictable
balistic path of the jump move.
Jump infantry can also deploy from airbourne APCs either with the APC hovering
like a helecopter or using the grav belt like a parachute with or without
wings to assist in gliding.
Jump infantry might also be able to embark on an airbourne APC.
I don't like the idea of jump troops being able to fly around like Superman. I
think they should be a choice over leg infantry with advantages and
disadvantages.
Tech levels seem to even out with weapons and armour developing in competition
and if everyone is wearing battle dress powered armour then weapons are high
energy or micro missiles that defeat the armour with a direct hit.
________________________________
From: Kenneth Coble <kmcoble@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Monday, 12 January, 2009 11:16:38 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] New to the list, and 2 questions: lift/jump infantry
rules, and 15mm alien 'natives'
So I didn't get around to working out v1.0 of these rules yet, but I thought
I'd solicit a bit more feedback. In an attempt to remain
somewhat streamlined and yet cover two semi-opposing design criteria
('A' being to replicate the concept of flying/jumping/hopping infantry
as put forth in several scifi settings, and 'B' being the notion that
floating gently at 100' like a hot-air balloon is a real good way to
get shot), here's my first revision idea:Â
Keep something similar to my initial 'jump troop' terrain list, but include a
provision that using it opens the unit to reaction fire, even if it's only
using one of its actions for move that turn (as opposed to 2 movements per the
official rules). Alternately, the unit can use the regular infantry movement
chart and be treated as infantry in all
respects. Stuff like speed and loadouts can be fine-tuned based on
setting. This would allow for a jump unit to cross the board quickly if out
of enemy range, but still penalize them for not going to ground when at actual
fire distances. It sort of abstracts in the TL
difference/spoofing/etc issues as well, as presumably your High Tech
jump unit will be at least comparatively well-armored when compared to a
lower-tech adversary; and if they're of equivalent TLs then things
should even out.Â
I was thinking of trying to include some kind of deal where a flying unit
could quickly go to ground, taking a quality test similar to the 'dropping
from hovering craft' rules (treating all terrain as dangerous for this
purpose), and therefore avoid the reaction fire issue. But without any
tabletop experience with this ruleset as of yet, I'm not certain if that would
make grav troops too powerful or not. I'll have
to think about it - which of course means that I hope you guys will
think about it and give me feedback!
Thanks again for all the good and though-provoking responses to this
topic. Keep it coming!
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> Mr. Atkinson if you will tender your full name, address, Social
Been there, done most of that. Check the list archives.
> at. Until that point please refrain from attacking, as this is a
Nonsense--No one mistakes me for an official GZG spokesman.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:30 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net>
wrote:
> There are lots of places
Not so obscure real-life example: In the Falklands War, there was an
argentine postion that had its flank guarded by a swamp that was
impassible on foot-- the ground would not support a man, it was that
soggy. That flank got rolled up in a spectacular way, because the argentines
had not realised that the ground pressure of a scorpion reconnaissance tank
was less than half that of an infantryman, so they had no issues with bogging
in the swamp. The french also used
low-ground pressure, amphibious vehicles to good effect in the early
stages of the Viet Nam War, as well, so there are places where the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not so obscure real-life example: In the Falklands War, there was an
There are lots of examples in history.
I'm writing a roleplaying campaign book for Arc Dream Publishing's Godlike
roleplaying game featuring the First Special Service Force, and so I've done
quite a lot of research on the Force. When the Force took Monte la Difensa
(Dec. 2 to 6, 1943) the dominating point on the Camino hill complex, they did
it by climbing the northeast face of the mountain, which was a 70 degree grade
for much of it and vertical in places. They got to the summit without the
German forces seeing them because the Germans didn't think that approach was
scalable. There were no patrols, other than the odd sentry. They then took the
summit
in 2 hours of intense close-quarters fighting.
Like the Argentines, there was an intelligence breakdown. The Germans
didn't know that a fresh American-Canadian elite unit with
considerable mountain combat training was in the area. If they had, they would
have undoubtedly patrolled that face. They were aided by a fierce artillery
bombardment that did little damage to the defenders but masked the sounds of
the Force's climb. Also, the Force's assault was part of an integrated attack
on three sections of the hill mass, so the Germans couldn't counterattack
against a single point.
My point is that there are cases where unusual movement ability has won
battles. They are notable, though, because they are rare. Usually they work
because the defenders are caught off guard. If grav belts are common, troops
will take them into account when making attack and defence plans.
I'll add my agreement to John, Richard and Tom. Grav belts (assuming the
technology was even possible) would make a nifty insertion tool, and perhaps
an emergency tool once the combat starts (the Forcemen had problems getting
supplies up the mountain, and it took 6 to 8 hours to get a casualty down the
mountain), but they're unlikely to be used in a firefight for all the reasons
already mentioned.
G'day,
> Few 'tracts' of land are truly inaccessible to someone who is on foot.
I would've loved having a grav belt while deer stalking the peat bogs in
Scotland, bloody deer always seemed to get to spots none of us could walk to
without ending up armpit deep at some point. Only time I have spent more time
chest deep in squish was when I was swamp walking in southwest Tassie. I've
recently been reading the diaries of guys in Bouganville in WWII, they fought
for months in those kind of swamp conditions, no wonder they sloughed the
soles of their feet on a regular basis.
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Richard Bell wrote:
> That flank got rolled up in a spectacular way, because the
Back in my arty days we used to catch flak from city leadership types
for our howitzers "ripping up the roads." M-109s are BIG and HEAVY
so driving them on the road MUST rip up the asphalt right? Wrong.
Turns out that your average non-combat loaded M-109 had lower ground
pressure than your average VW Beatle and once we had an engineer speak to them
about it, complete with the basic math behind it, the argument was settled.
Damo
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Richard Bell wrote:
Does it make any difference whether the treads are bare steel or rubber
cleated, or is it entirely down to the ground pressure issue (re the road
damage question, not the swamp flotation!)? I seem to recall that British
Chieftains had rubber pads on each track link
(from the Tamiya 1/25 model, mainly, because you had to glue the
sodding things on individually...!), which I always assumed was to
reduce road damage on exercise driving - though I guess it may well
reduce track wear as well.
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:54:43PM +0000, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Does it make any difference whether the treads are bare steel or
Ground pressure is influenced by cleating - a surface that can conform
to the road will have a larger contact area than a rigid surface, so the
overall ground pressure is lower.
R
> On Jan 12, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Does it make any difference whether the treads are bare steel or
Pads on the tracks increase the surface area so yes they would help
tremendously with ground pressure, track wear, and damage to pavement. Running
bare links would divot the road and probably tear
it up when turning -- depending on how the vehicle in question turned
on its tracks -- as well as wear the tracks links down.
Damo