I haven't posted in a long time, but I thought I'd throw this out and see what
people think.
The SG2 system works well for small arms infantry combat with iron sights, but
has nothing that addresses any enhancement devices that various forces might
have. These fall into two categories: 1) Sights on the weapon to allow the
soldier to be more accurate.
Modern examples include the standard scopes on the British SA-80 and on
the Steyr AUG, as well as the camera-monocle system of the US Land
Warrior System. 2) A fire control system on power armor, especially for light
or heavy support weapons. This might include a stabilization system.
Game effects: 1) Weapon sights If all of the weapons hiring have sights, then
they provide the benefit of causing the Target's Range Die to closed shift
DOWN:
No Sights/Aimed along barrel/Fired from hip = Shift Range Die UP 1 Die
Type (for poorly trained troops/insurgents/rabble)
Open/Iron Sights = No modifier
Basic Sight System = Shift RD DOWN 1 Die Type Standard Sight System = Shift RD
DOWN 2 Die Types Enhanced Sight System = Shift RD DOWN 3 Die Types Superior
Sight System = Shift RD DOWN 4 Die Types
(Add 2 die types below D4: D2 and D1)
2) Power Armor FCS Add a FCS die to the PA's shooting based on System Quality
and whether the weapons are Stabilized or not. Basic FCS = D6 Standard FCS =
D8 Enhanced FCS = D10 Superior FCS = D12 Weapons that are not stabilized shift
one Die Type DOWN
What do people think about this? Any better ways to model it?
J
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI always
assumed that suff like this was already included in the troop quality die.
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 15:56, J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I haven't posted in a long time, but I thought I'd throw this out and
Modern
> examples include the standard scopes on the British SA-80 and on the
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWeapon Sights
I'm inclined to question the 'no sights' characterization. Shooting
performance has everything to do with the overall weapon quality (not just the
sights) and moreso yet to do with the shooter.
I have quite a few friends who can hit man sized targets very accurately out
to 500m with the 5.56N C-7 with iron sights. These are reservists, not
SF or anything. Sure, that is 'range' performance, but my point is that iron
sights are quite adequate for accurate shooting at range if you have good
eyesight, a steady hand, and a gun with a reasonable MOA rating.
Also, sights are a mixed bag. Zeroed incorrectly (surprisingly more common
than you would think), they are actually a penalty to accurate fire. They
also can have (such as the original sights on the SA-80) extremely dodgy
performance in mixed sun/cloud conditions (as one example). Beyond that,
they rob you of situaitonal awareness which can be quite dangerous.
IF you have good sights, and they are attached by to an accurate firearm, and
they are zeroed by someone (and not knocked off zero afterwards), and the
lighting conditions are right, then you can get better performance at long
range. (I'm talking particularly about optical sights, rather than peep sights
or ACOGs or other close combat stuff).
Sights nowadays also differentiate into ones designed for shooting at range
and ones designed for CQ situations. The red-dot sights, for instance,
don't provide a lot of reticle lines for aiming at range nor do they tend to
provide much magnification. What they do tend to offer is a larger view area
(more situational awareness) and supposedly you can shift from one of these
to iron sights or point-n-shoot much faster than you can shifting off of
a
conventional higher magnification/more restricted viewing area optic.
Thermal is another interesting technology - helps you see what to shoot.
Usually doesn't help you tell good guys from bad guys.
Sights are also harder to use for the long distance shots if you have to move
much in a short period of time. You might be able to come on and off
the 1.5-3x CQ sight during a movement (or in the brief pauses therein).
But the longer shot through a higher powered optic is going to require more
time to steady down your breathing, to get the quiver out of your aim, etc.
The quality die already integrates the idea of who zeroes their sights and who
does not. So all you are left with is basic weapon quality and sight quality,
which aren't worth more than 1 die shift either way at most in my mind.
Cheap zipguns, crappy mass produced arms with low quality control, etc.
:
range die + 1 SHIFT (Open shift)
Normal quality modern military arms: no shifts Top quality, highly accurized
arms with very good quality sights and low MOA
ratings: range die - 1 SHIFT (Open Shift)
Powered Armour FCS:
If you want to treat them as vehicles, give them only FCS, no quality die.
Otherwise you'll end up with an odd case where a VETERAN pa guy with superior
FCS on his Gauss SAW will end up rolling D12 (FP), D12 (Superior
FCS in your model) + D10 (QD).
Contrast this with a VETERAN tanker firing his vehicle's SAW from under
armour:
FCS (D10 Superior FCS or D12 in your Model) + D10 (QD)
Much better to have the PA! Too much better.
Also note that typically in FT/SG as pertains to FCS: Basic is D6.
Enhanced is D8. Superior is D10.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Sorry, brain is not functioning, so this may be way out of line, but did you
compare your idea with these?:
http://nift.firedrake.org/misc/WDA-FireCon.htm
Scary part is, I'm also nonfunctional at work currently, and they're paying
me. Teach them to put me at master console day before I start a week and a
half of holiday.
Doug
Eric Foley wrote on 11/17/2010 03:33:24 PM:
> Vacchead intrusion, apologies. Is there an actual system anybody's
I think this is getting way too fiddly. SG2 is a game where the infantry squad
is the basic unit, so I don't think SG2 needs to get down to the level of what
sort of sight is mounted. At the level of squad shooting,
in the field rather than on the range, I think the troop-quality factor
is plenty. A key part of the SG2 philosophy is, after all, that a lot of
shooting isn't really aimed at individual targets anyway, but employed to
suppress the opposing force.
The rules don't say anything about assuming iron sights, or any other
specifics of infantry weapons, and looking at the wide adoption of optical
sights today, I doubt if iron sights would be the standard in two hundred
years (though a prudent military might well continue to have them on the rifle
just in case). Presumably the rules simply assume the "standard kit" with
which a soldier of the period is likely to be equipped, and reduced
effectiveness for improvised or obsolete
lower-level firearms is already included.
Finally, when it comes to weapon/sight/shooter combinations that really
are a "step up" from the standard infantry, there are already the sniper
rules.
> On 17/11/2010, at 10:56 , J L Hilal wrote:
> The SG2 system works well for small arms infantry combat with iron
> --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 3:33 PM
> Vacchead intrusion, apologies. Is there an actual system
I posted an integrated system of Stealth Hull, ECM, and FCS in Sept 2005
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200509/msg00077.html
and the thread that follows knocks around some other ideas too.
Each system has 6 levels from 0-5, with the FB ship construction
standard at Level 3, allowing both higher tech and lower (or older) tech, as
well as degradation with thresholds.
If you have comments on the old thread, I'd like to hear them.
J
> --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 2:54 PM
> Weapon Sights
Â
> I have quite a few friends who can hit man sized targets very
"No sights" means *No Sights*. John A. has several times mentioned insurgents
et al. who *cut the factory foresight off their weapon* because it interferes
with sighting along the barrel.
The very next line in my post is "Open/Iron Sights = No modifier"
Â
> Sights nowadays also differentiate into ones designed for
My post only dealt with shooting as per the SG2 "Fire Combat" rules. As far as
I am concerned CQB (Close Quarters Battle) is covered under SG2's "Infantry
Close Assault" (everything at under 20m range). Â Â
> Powered Armour FCS:
Â
> If you want to treat them as vehicles, give them only FCS, no
I feel that the SG2 vehicle RAW do not give vehicle weapons their due, so I
would go in the other direction: Vehicle weapons with a FCS get
(Crew Quality + FCS + FP), while vehicle weapons without FCS, such as a
pintle mount, get (QD + FP) only.
> Contrast this with a VETERAN tanker firing his vehicle's SAW from
I would add a D10 Crew Quality Die for the veteran status.
Â
> Also note that typically in FT/SG as pertains to FCS: Basic is
 An internal inconsistency in the SG2 rules: Pg 6 Dice Types and Conventions
(Cont. from pg 5), 2nd Para.
"In very general terms, any factor (...) that is of BELOW AVERAGE status will
use a D6 as its normal die type; those that rank AVERAGE will use a D8, and
those ABOVE AVERAGE a D10; the real extremes of worst and best will use a D4
or D12 respectively." (Caps from original text)
Then later in the rules the basic-enhanced-superior classifications that
you mentioned are given. I have always felt that "Enhanced" was above average
and "Superior" was very above average. <shrug>
J
> --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 3:33 PM
> Vacchead intrusion, apologies. Is there an actual system
I posted an integrated system of Stealth Hull, ECM, and FCS in Sept 2005
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200509/msg00077.html
and the thread that follows knocks around some other ideas too.
Each system has 6 levels from 0-5, with the FB ship construction
standard at Level 3, allowing both higher tech and lower (or older) tech, as
well as degradation with thresholds.
If you have comments on the old thread, I'd like to hear them.
J
> --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 2:54 PM
> Weapon Sights
> I'm inclined to question the 'no sights' characterization.
> I have quite a few friends who can hit man sized targets very
"No sights" means *No Sights*. John A. has several times mentioned insurgents
et al. who "cut the factory foresight off their weapon because it interferes
with sighting along the barrel".
The very next line in my post is "Open/Iron Sights = No modifier"
> Sights nowadays also differentiate into ones designed for
My post only dealt with shooting as per the SG2 "Fire Combat" rules. As far as
I am concerned CQB (Close Quarters Battle) is covered under SG2's "Infantry
Close Assault" (everything at under 20m range).
> Powered Armour FCS:
> If you want to treat them as vehicles, give them only FCS, no
I feel that the SG2 vehicle RAW do not give vehicle weapons their due, so I
would go in the other direction: Vehicle weapons with a FCS get
(Crew Quality + FCS + FP), while vehicle weapons without FCS (infantry
carried weapons without FCS), such as a pintle mount, get (QD + FP)
only.
> Contrast this with a VETERAN tanker firing his vehicle's SAW from
I would add a D10 Crew Quality Die for the veteran status.
> Also note that typically in FT/SG as pertains to FCS: Basic is
An internal inconsistency in the SG2 rules: Pg 6 Dice Types and Conventions
(Cont. from pg 5), 2nd Para.
"In very general terms, any factor (...) that is of BELOW AVERAGE status will
use a D6 as its normal die type; those that rank AVERAGE will use a D8, and
those ABOVE AVERAGE a D10; the real extremes of worst and best will use a D4
or D12 respectively." (Caps from original text)
Then later in the rules the basic-enhanced-superior classifications that
you mentioned are given. I have always felt that "Enhanced" was above average
and "Superior" was very above average. <shrug>
J
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHave to
disagree with you, Robert.
The sniper rules are almost like a whole other game - they are a
mechanic
vastly dis-similar to the rest of normal play. Even the marksmen rules
we
posted on http://www.stargrunt.ca under the rules section, which are
less alien and potent than the sniper rules are still meant to address the one
or two man sniper team, not squads with higher technology weapons with better
performance at range.
One thing SG-2 assumes is that everyone more or less has the same tech
base and deployment strategy. It makes little allowance for better or worse
technology, except insofar as you could argue some weapon types are better and
thus justify a higher FP rating (but that's a pretty minor benefit). It also
posits combat ranges which are short, which may be borne out in some cases in
the modern world, but there are a lot of gunfights going on these days at
longer ranges as well. I'm not sure I see that going away in the period
referenced by SG, and yet the rules really do limit ranges.
I think there is some argument that there is room for a greater breadth of
technology level in SG-2. Doubly so if you are using SG-2 mechanics for
a
non-GZG setting in which there is more variance than that in the
traditional GZG setting.
The thing about adding these sort of flavours is *you don't have to use them
if you don't like them*. I wouldn't be worried about an overly complicated
new SG-3 coming out anytime soon. This is just simply people saying
that, for their purposes, they'd like a bit more variance in technology
levels.
I don't think sights/optics alone justify 2-4 die shifts. I just don't
think they have that much impact. Do I think they have no impact? No. I think
1 die shift either way is enough. One die shift to range also opens up an
additional range band, translating to an extra 80m of range for REGs and 100m
for vets. Technology might just justify doing that.
I'm happy to see discussion like this on the list. Even though I perfer small
perturbations of existing mechanics to large ones, I still think having
options and discussing them is a good activity. Otherwise the game gets old
and dies.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt seems this
type of granularity is better suited to FMA level combat. At squad level the
quality die should take into account all the variables that go into hitting a
target, sort of what Tomb is saying. I'd imagine that the various quality
types take into account the basic sighting system of the day, so in the case
of today, a regular unit would be mostly mounting some sort of optical sight
other than iron sights. However is one wanted to replicate some sort of
"tactical innovation" in the sighting system that no one else has yet, (lets
you see through walls?) then a shift up would be more than sufficient.
Los