Hmmm, wet dreams about infantry carried AT weaponry... Yikes.
Ok, I see your point. That is an tough analysis. However, even so, even if
it doesn't make perfectly logical sense - tanks without infantry cover
die like bugs if they get too close to infantry. This has been well proven
during and since WWII. I am not saying the system doesn't need to be looked at
(your analysis leads me to believe it does) but everything is in motion and
the battlefield is not a billiards table. Just because you are firing from the
front arc on the gaming table doesn't mean that at some point the vehicle
moved and gave you an alternative and softer point to hit. (I am speaking
about an abstraction here that Jon may or may not have intended.)
Upon reflection, 10% does seem a bit high.
Anyway, about your wet dreams... I have a psychiatrist I could recommend. She
does wonders.
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> Hmmm, wet dreams about infantry carried AT weaponry... Yikes.
When you design LAWs for a living, your perspective sometimes gets a
bit odd :-/
> Ok, I see your point. That is an tough analysis. However, even so,
Sure. But the reason they die to infantry up close is almost invariably that
they get shot in the sides or rear, not the front. (That is, when they don't
die because the enemy infantry climbs up on them and throws
hand grenades down the hatches :-/)
FWIW, yes I think the side armour of SGII/DSII vehicles is too strong -
or, rather, I think that there's not enough of a penalty (in cost etc.)
to put meter-thick armour on the sides of SGII/DSII vehicles :-/
> I am not saying the system doesn't need to be looked at (your analysis
If everything (particularly the target) is in motion, the high hit
numbers seem even less likely for poor-quality troops... stationary
targets are *much* easier to hit :-/
> and the battlefield is not a billiards table. Just because you are
In DSII I agree with you; the ground scale (1:4000) is so much smaller than
the model scale (1:300), and the turns so long (~15 minutes) that it is
impossible to accurately follow all minor twists and turns a vehicle makes.
OTOH DSII has the "Opportunity Fire" rule which tries to handle this
explicitly.
The SGII ground scale (1:400) is smaller than the model scale (which is
in the 1:100-120 range in my case, 1:60-72-ish for those who use 25mm
models), but is the difference really large enough to "abstract away"
turns of 20-30 degrees over the shorter SGII game turns?
> P.S. and yes I know from first hand experience.
Tanker, infantry or weapon designer experience? All three are valid,
but tend to be somewhat different :-/
Later,
> >Hmmm, wet dreams about infantry carried AT weaponry... Yikes.
Actually, Oerjan, you said something to the effect of "even if I and my
colleagues work 48 hours a day for the next 100 years, which won't happen even
in my wettest dreams"... most sane people complain about that kind of schedule
instead of dreaming about it.
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
I should have been more clear - when I was suggesting a psychiatrist I
was suggesting one from frist hand experience! I have no experience in
military field work, just in the procurement of weapons for the U.S. Defense
Logistics Agency (I was on the 1986-1987 team that procured the
Patriot.) I am pretty sure my time at the DLA did not contribute to my later
need for mental health care.
back on topic... So, let's rethink this problem through. What is it that makes
this system not work? We know the sympton is bad odds. We know that small arms
fire is explicitly excluded. Is the IVAR just simply too powerful in it's
impact die? D12 (doubled for major hits...) This would seem to be about as
generous as one could want. Perhaps the IVAR should come in flavors the
differentiate the Impact die. Start at D6 for something as old as a
Panzerfaust and go up to D10 for something as modern as an Armbrust. Reserve
D12 and D12* for things with extra punch like plasma spikes or very,
very small atomic weapons... :-)
Just a thought, would need to try it out.
> Laserlight wrote:
> Hmmm, wet dreams about infantry carried AT weaponry... Yikes.
You missed the first part of that sentence, which said "Not unless the armour
developers stop working last year and don't lift a finger for the next century
or two,..."
Having your opponents/competitors lay down all their research for a
couple centuries is surely a wet dream in any research-intensive
industry, don't you think? <G>
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> P.S. and yes I know from first hand experience.
Oh, *that* <g> I've already had ulcers caused (mainly) by stress; I
know myself well enough to avoid them in the future :-/
> So, let's rethink this problem through. What is it that makes this
I can see three options:
1) the IAVR's impact die is too big (too easy to penetrate, esp. for major
hits)
2) the probability to get a major hit is too high - Regular soldiers
will get Major hits at the tank with more than half the shots, and even Greens
manage it almost half the time.
3) the performance of the armour is much too erratic.
So what to do about them?
1) is easy to modify, of course - just reduce the IAVR's impact die.
Might make it too weak against infantry - though IAVRs aren't really
designed to shoot infantry in the open :-/ If they hide in a bunker the
IAVR works fine, but the bunker counts as a "vehicle".
2) can be modified by reducing the IAVR's *firepower* die, but that
won't help very much. Besides the *total* hit rates (major + minor
hits) are OK against *stationary* targets, and reducing the firepower die
would hurt that.
3) Tom Barclay suggested a solution here: let level-X armour roll XD12
instead of 1D12*X.
At the moment I prefer 3). It still gives the IAVR a chance to knock the
vehicle out completely, but it is *very* small; the number of System and
Suspension hits would go up a bit (since the number of
non-penetrating hits goes up) - which is IMO as it should be, since
those bitz are where a real IAVR gunner would aim at anyway! Haven't
tested it yet though, so I don't know if there are any hidden snags :-/
I'd also like to increase the range die of a moving vehicle by one or two
steps if the firing weapon lacks an FCS or Guidance. (You can
assume that the IAVR has a low-grade FCS to help it hit moving targets
if you like, but it's not as good as the FCS on a vehicle or a real GMS
guidance system!). I'll let Allan figure out the exact formulation <g>
> Perhaps the IVAR should come in flavors the differentiate the Impact
Um - OK, if you mean the WW2 Panzerfaust, but I'd probably rate that as
a D2 or D1 impact against armour :-/ IIRC Armbrust's warhead is fairly
small; today's Panzerfaust III family is a fair bit more potent... Yes,
different IAVR types should realistically have different impact dice just like
different assault rifles do. But I'd try Tom's idea first.
Later,
[big snip]
> I can see three options:
If I can jump in here (having watched the discussion with interest....
<grin>), this is something that I'm seriously considering using for FMA, with
a possible retrofit to SG if it works; now, the main reason it wasn't used in
SG in the first place is that I didn't like the idea of having to
roll 5 dice (or 1 die 5 times) for an armour-5 target. What does
everyone else think about this? It's certainly a better probability system,
but is it too much die rolling or not...?
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:06:04 +0000 Ground Zero Games <jon@gag.com>
writes: <bigger snip>
> 3) Tom Barclay suggested a solution here: let level-X arm our roll
Jon, I am just a DS2 player currently (maybe FT or even SGII someday) but
as a preferred - one die, one time, one result - old gamer (since 1959)
I can tell you honestly that is about the maximum dice I would want to roll at
a time. Fortunately I have a lot of 'retired' D12 from my old D&D game master
days.
I am not familiar with SGII but the mechanic mentioned above is do-able
(now if you had TEN classes of armor.... no.)
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> When you design LAWs for a living, your perspective sometimes gets a
Yours is the firm that makes the Karl Gustav 84mm, known in Oz as the "Charlie
Swede" or "Gutsache", right? If not, it doesn't matter.
We accidentally found the best Anti-personnel round for the Swede one
day at the range. It's ILLUM.
Picture this: the gunner gets the tap on his shoulder from the loader
signifying the backblast area is "all clear", round is loaded and breech
locked, and pulls the trigger on an Illumination shot.
At that very moment, the BullAnts that have been crawling up his legs start to
sting him "midpoint between the big toes".
Bull Ants, AKA "Bulldog Ants" or "Bulljoes" are the most primitive form of
formicidae in the world, essentially millions of years old. They're also the
largest, big ones being 5cm long. Their main weapon is the envenomed sting
they have in their tail, it's
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:48:46 +0100, "Oerjan Ohlson"
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> FWIW, yes I think the side armour of SGII/DSII vehicles is too strong -
I haven't bothered to do a statistical analysis, but I never really minded the
armour in SG2. Yes, side and rear is too strong. Front isn't strong enough. I
sort of felt (rather than determined by math) that it evened out in the end.
The player gets to orient his vehicle whichever way he wants. There is no
penalty for hitting a moving vehicle. The game turn is, what, 3 minutes long?
All this rolled in, I'm prepared to live with vehicle combat being a little
abstracted.
> The SGII ground scale (1:400) is smaller than the model scale (which is
Oops. Okay, so you have thought of the abstraction... Any suggestions to make
it more realistic while keeping it simple?
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:06:04 +0000, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
> now, the main reason it wasn't
No, not really too much dice rolling.
If you get 5 potential hits on a squad, you roll 5 times. I now have, I think,
12 of each type of dice for SG2 just to make dice rolling easier. Rolling 5 of
one type isn't much more time consuming than rolling 3 or 4. If the
probabilities come out better, then I'd say go for it.
I have 2 dozen D12's so I can easily roll 5 of them. I am also pretty good at
addition, maybe even better at it than multiplication! So I think this is a
great idea. I think I will write a perl script to test of the probabilities of
the two systems.
--Peter
[quoted original message omitted]
> Alan Brain wrote:
> When you design LAWs for a living, your perspective sometimes >>gets
Carl is spelled with a C, but otherwise correct <g>
> We accidentally found the best Anti-personnel round for the Swede one
Only if you fight in a place where you don't mind starting fires. Using
the illumination rounds for anti-personnel work is *not* a good idea in
forests (unless you do it during a rain- or snowstorm), when you're
clearing a house you want to use yourself afterwards, etc.
IIRC it's also considered an "inhumane weapon", whatever *that* is :-/
Later,
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:28:01 +0100 "Oerjan Ohlson"
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> We accidentally found the best Anti-personnel round for the Swede one
Definition of 'inhumane' - something the other guy thoought of that
works
TOO D___ well, is used on your side by their side, and something a
politiican a million miles away from combat is afraid is 'horrorific
appearing' (like a gunshot wound isn't?) so you can't use it back. Or at least
shouldn't get caught doing so.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:40:26 +1100 "Alan and Caramel Brain"
> <abrading@dynamite.com.au> writes:
<snip>
> We accidentally found the best Anti-personnel round for the Swede one
Yeeeoooow, I hate to say this but guess what nasty little surprise my "NPC"
run Engineers will be using next time I run an 'attack the position'
scenario... Almost as much fun as demo's in buildings and mines.
> If I can jump in here (having watched the discussion with interest....
Jumping in here myself (since work's keeping me so bloody busy I can't spend a
lot of time writing), my immediate
response/feel is that's fine, I've got die to roll. :-)
Of course, how many come up *6*'s is another story...
;-)
Mk
"Not very sporting." Like the horrendous "Uncouth-boats" of WWI and
WWII. Another that comes to mind is Richard Simmons.
> >