_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA few points I
was curious about regarding SGII...
1.) Regarding the revised quick-and-dirty fire resolution from Hyperbear
(Armor D4=AV2; D6=AV3; D8=AV4; D10=AV5; D12=AV6), what would be the best way
to apply this system to vehicles?
2.) I know that the Electronic Warfare rules are incomplete, but what would be
a good way to patch the holes?
3.) Since SG doesn't have an M2/L2 equivalent and the RFAC/1 isn't much
more effective (as written) than an advanced assault rifle, I'm thinking to
increase the damage of this weapon to 1D10 x1.5 Does this sound like a good
idea?
Are there any other house rules people use?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Thu, Mar 31,
> 2011 at 2:56 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.) Regarding the revised quick-and-dirty fire resolution from
I haven't really played around with changing armour on vehicles. The issue
with squad armour is that you have quite a few rolls to make for penetration
versus armour over the course of a game. One successful hit could result in 2,
3, 4 or more armour rolls. With vehicles, one hit results in one armour roll,
so it's not as big a deal.
> 2.) I know that the Electronic Warfare rules are incomplete, but what
I posted my house rules for EW on my web site.
> 3.) Since SG doesn't have an M2/L2 equivalent and the RFAC/1 isn't
In the vehicle rules I've been kicking around for a bit, I played around
with RFAC/1s.
The issue is that heavy weapons roll with a D8 impact die. This represents a
big gun -- like a large cannon -- firing at a squad. That works for
single shot big guns, but not something like an RFAC, which is actually pretty
good at dispersed targets.
So, what I did was change the impact die for the RFAC to D12 x the size
class. An RFAC/1 has a D12 impact, and RFAC/2 has a D12x2 impact, even
against dispersed targets.
I'm also thinking that maybe they should have to make a morale check, too.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Thu, Mar 31,
2011 at 10:56 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Seamus <fomorianwolf@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1.) Regarding the revised quick-and-dirty fire resolution from
With vehicles, one hit results in one armour roll, so it's not as big a deal.
Yeah, come to think of it, when a vehicle is actually affected by incoming
fire, it's either a.) disabled or b.) destroyed.
I suppose it doesn't bog the game down enough to worry about.
> 2.) I know that the Electronic Warfare rules are incomplete, but what
Good point; I didn't see that until after I'd started this thread.:)
I'll have to try them out.
> 3.) Since SG doesn't have an M2/L2 equivalent and the RFAC/1 isn't
That makes more sense, really. I think the trouble is they were written
really as HVC/1 and /2 without regards to their rate of fire.
Yes, I agree that these weapons should impose a morale check.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy EW rules are
generally:
- Spend an action to gain N EW chits (N is 3 typically on vehicles,
maybe 4 on a purpose built EW vehicle, typically 2 on a backpack unit).
- That's really the only mod I apply, though I'm of the opinion jamming
shoulder fired or vehicle missile systems is maybe questionable.
RFACs and even HMGs are problematic.
For an HMG (12.7 mm for instance or 14.5 mm), I use a D16* for impact (I have
them just for this purpose) and a D10 for FP. They tend to fire a little
slower than the weapons with smaller cartridges but do way more damage when
they hit. If loaded with AP ammo, I treat them as a class 1 weapon vs.
vehicles (for penetration effects). But any of these weapons, fired over open
or basic optical sights, I resolve with an FP die and a Quality die rather
than a fire control die, or they are absolutely useless.
And then we get to RFAC.
If we're talking about a 30-40mm chaingun like a big brother of a
Bushmaster, they aren't super fast firing. They might justify the existing
rules (although D10 damage is too light, I'd shift to D12 at least for class
1, and D12 x 2 for class 2. It's not perfect, but it more or less works.
But something like a fast-firing multi-barrelled Gatling (20mm PIVAD or
the like or 23mm ZSU) is going to be several kinds of horror. Infantry fear
attacking ADA with good justification (the Afghans in 2000 or 2001 who road
at Taliban positions containing multiple ZSU 23-4s are a special brand
of crazy).
I might tree a Gatling as a multi-mount and give it multiple FP dice.
And a minimum of D10 or D12 FP. Impact won't be all that high (D12 would be
fine) but FP should be horredous. OTOH, you run through ammo ridiculously
fast, so maybe any some number of ones rolled on the dice should eventually
aggregate to 'out of ammo'.
25mm Bushmaster: Fire Control (based on electronic quality, D8 or D10), Impact
D12, class 1 weapon. 20mm PIVAD: Firepower Die maybe 2 or 3 D12 or D16 if you
have them, Impact D10 or D12, class 1 weapon. 13mm HMG: Firepower Die D10
Impact Die D16 (or D12 if you only have that)
30mm GAU-8: Firepower Die maybe 3 D12, Impact 2d12.
The PIVAD and GAU-8 I might make run out of ammo after 6 rolls of 1 on a
die. They eat it far faster than any other similar weapon.
Of course, it is also possible to imagine small class MDCs that should have
similar (but better) stats (small, high rate of fire railguns) as well as
laser gatlings (ouch).
As to the Morale effects... I don't think so. You can't be that selective.
Getting shot at by a HAMR doesn't cause that. Getting attacked with an MDC or
HEL is probably terrifying (the HEL especially should easily hit) and getting
attacked with a small rapid firing DFFG does not bear consideration, nor
getting SLAMed. Why is the autocannon or HMG so scary? is it that much
more scary than AGLs or RRs or GMS/P or IAVRs? I don't think so. They
should all scare the crap out of any poor quality infantry, but that's already
built into the game. Weapon size is not generally factored into any morale
check (maybe there should be a modifier based on class of attacking weapon,
but then it would treat all systems equally).
So I'll say no to morale effects unless you are going to more generally
overhaul the system. HMGs and RFACs are scary, but so are most of the other
weapons of the near-ish future.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Thu, Mar 31,
> 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> My EW rules are generally:
And a
> minimum of D10 or D12 FP. Impact won't be all that high (D12 would be
Interesting points. I haven't seen a D16 in a long time, but I used to have
one.
> As to the Morale effects... I don't think so. You can't be that
and
> getting attacked with a small rapid firing DFFG does not bear
Morale check, perhaps not. Any special rules regarding suppression?
> So I'll say no to morale effects unless you are going to more
Yeah, after I thought about it, it would be a bit odd.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFollow up:
Morale check, perhaps not. Any special rules regarding suppression?
---
That's an interesting point. These sorts of weapons should cause additional
suppression. Perhaps any rapid firing weapon (HEL 1 or 2, MDC 1 or 2, DFFG 1
or 2, RFAC 1 or 2, HMG, AGL, etc) that can throw out that kind of storm of
projectiles or beams ought to have a different efficacy of suppression. You
only really get 'one suppression' or 'one suppression plus a chance of
wounds/kills' and that will usually not generate more than one more
suppression. That seems a bit inadequate.
Maybe with these sorts of weapons, your results should be 'suppresion' (one
success), 'two suppressions plus wounds' (two successes) and 'three
suppressions plus wounds' (three or more successes. That would actually make
any fireteam subjected to an effective pounding from one of these pin in
place. (Note, I would exempt PA from enhanced suppression effects and might
exempt full body hard shell armoured infantry).
Of course, making them powerful like this means two things: 1) The enemy you
can engage with it will regret it 2) because of 1 above, they will become very
high priority targets for
infantry anti-armour weapons (compared to enemy vehicles with HVCs or
larger
MDCs or DFFGs which are primarily anti-armour role weapons)
I was also thinking about it more from the morale PoV as well. Maybe
attacking any form of gun-based ADA ought to require a Reaction test -
you might draw their attention and that's a bad idea. Maybe they should also
inspire Terror in green or yellow troops. I know when I watched them traverse
a PIVAD along a line of trucks and plywood infantry standups, it just cut
everything in half... fast. I knew I never wanted to hear that 'ripping' noise
(buzzsaw). You'd probably be dead before you figured out what was going on....
cut in half.
You'd need to try some variants, observe the outcomes, and iterate this a few
times to get the right feel. It's kind of like the discussions we had
years ago about squad articulation and detched units - how easily should
squads be able to break into fire teams and is that a function of training and
how does that reflect the clunk detached element rules in the game that make
it not very interesting or likely someone will bother.
Whatever you use on your table, just make sure it is something you and your
players agree with collectively. I've found people can play under most 'models
of reality' but they like to know what shape the model takes so they can plan
effectively around that.
Of course, beyond that, you need to note that the increase in power might
change your assessment of what constitutes an even scenario if one side has
these and the other does not.
I'm reading Horse Soldiers detailing US SF fighting with the Afghans vs. the
Taliban in the first push to Mazar-i-Sharif in the early days of the US
invasion. The afghans charged 600 horses over hilly terrain at a Taliban
force and two ZSU-s and tanks plus Taliban infantry almost broke them.
Eventually the US air got one of the ZSUs, and true to the Afghan commander's
gut feeling, pushing hard broke the will of the Taliban and they fled. But the
cost was about 300 casualties out of the 600. A lot of that
was from the two ZSU 23-4s.