Adrian say: For the bigger guns, if you're trying to aim your 30mm cannon,
using a
basic fc, it probably isn't very "nimble" in it's mountings - and
shooting
at dodging/weaving infantry would be difficult.
I reply: Except basic FC for 2183 should be like super advanced for now, and
I've seen a PIVAD (Product Improved Vulcan Air Defence) system traverse across
a line of infantry (plywood) and vehicles (real) and rip them to shreds. It
didn't take a lot of aim with that much lead downrange. The gun literally
sounds like a ripsaw... no way to tell individual bullet firings from one
another just one long buzz. And anything in the area it points is history. It
is a profligate user of ammo.... but even with absolutely crappy FC, it's
still be a hell of a lot deadlier than one human fired SAW.... and it
isn't.... in the rules as the stand.
> A nameless critic wrote:
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:31:31 -0500 (EST)
From: sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
Subject: Re: Weapons interface conundra - SG2
You're trying to make the superadvanced weapons of Stargrunt even MORE
like their primitive [i.e. modern] counterparts?
** I am? I thought it was just the opposite.:(
To what end? Are you going to next take some vietnam game and try to make all
their weapons work more like flintlocks and blunderbusses?
** Hardly. Obviously I wasn't expressing myself clearly.
If it really bothers you, I'd suggest the solution to your problem is to
change the names of the weapons around until their relative stats are more to
your liking instead of changing the whole system around the weapons.
** Sure, that's one approach. Though changing the names to attach different
stats is a lot like changing the system... and I'm not suggesting a
revolutionary departure (well, I briefly toyed with it, but even I realize
that is a gross solution given we have a tested set of rules). Merely allowing
rapid fire ACs and MDCs to engage infantry effectively. And I tossed out the
suggestion that maybe all weapons might have such a mode... as a reflection in
what I've seen in the arms community today. If you read JDW and other such
sources, you quickly come to appreciate that people have developed a type of
ammo for almost
every situation for almost every weapon system - and if you were
spec'ing a weapon system for deployment light-years away with
potentially fast changing uses, you might well want it to be capable to
operate effectively in multiple modes. If you like the idea of specialization
in weapons systems (this one a tank killer, this one an infantry killer, this
one not so useful for either...), then you can
largely ignore the current day trends to provide multi-mission
capability to most weapons systems. Stick with the rules as they are if you
like them. Me, I just like things that make sense... and a
vehicular big-brother of a smaller personal weapon system should not
(IMO) be less effectual.
** What bothers me is the fact that a type of weapon system (rapid fire
projectile weapons of 15-30mm range) are so palsied by the system as to
make a common light calibre SAW a more dangerous weapon. This has *nothing* to
do with the period it is set in... it doesn't matter what
description you use, when a squad support weapon (LMG/GPMG/SAW
equivalent of whatever era) packs more firepower and accuracy and equal or
less penetration than a larger, ostensibly more potent, vehicular mount
autocannon or GAC (MDC for the DS2ers), then one would have to question the
system.
** Simply put, if my SAW rolls d10 or d12 for FP and has an impact of d10 (and
this is ostensibly an AR bullet or bulletsas the Adv AR does the same impact),
whereas my rapid fire autocannon with rounds easily 4x as heavy or more and
firing at least as fast rolls fire control die (a max of d10, and d6 if one
considers the guidance basic for 2183 standards) in place of said d10 or d12
FP for the SAW and its impact is treated as a d8, then you have to think that
the representation of said autocannon was a little awry.
** In fact, under that system, it'd be far more pragmatic to have a manually
fired SAW (given you get to roll the FP die of d10 or d12) than
a weapon fired by a basic firecontrol (d6). I'm arguing the basic
firecontrol must be relative to the time - 2183 basic would of course be
considered ultra advanced by today's standards. So we have a firecontrol which
is very sophisticated, stabilized in three axes, and incorporating
better-than-current software, firmware, and hardware.... and it can't
hit anywhere near as effectively as a good old eyeballed shot from the gunner.
And this ignores the fact the vehicle mounted cannon may spit out rounds two
or three times faster (cyclic) than the basic SAW *and* it has better
sustained fire.
** And impact.... I buy the argument not all 30mm shells have the same oomph
when they hit. HOWEVER, I would bet there isn't one 30mm shell that'll hit and
do as little damage as a 5.5mm AR round. Just the sheer mass of the bullet
itself would be enough to gaurantee nasty things happen to the target, not to
mention the total kinetic energy of the round. Giving this a d8 while the SAW
gets a D10 is kind of nuts. Impact in the game is a composite of penetration
and damage.... and the 30mm would probably beat the 5.5mm in both areas. Even
if a lot of its KE can't be shared with the target due to overpenetration, its
still going to leave one awesome hole in whatever it hits. And I'll bet do
more damage than an AR round.....
** And just to illustrate that this argument isn't tied to preconceived
notions: I don't care if the rifle of tomorrow is a 10mm caseless round or a
5mm binary propellant round or a 3mm explosive tipped needle, not do I care
that the RFAC is 20mm with API, APDS, APKE or any other kind
of weapon. The point is the niche this weapon fills - that of a weapon
effective against light armour and effective against infantry - will
still exist and whatever version of the weapon existent in 2183 would be more
effective <comparatively> than the 2183 SAW **** OR ELSE WHY WOULD THEY HAVE
IT ****? It has marginal performance against armour (d10 penetration vs d12
for even level 1 armour) and crappy performance against infantry (d8 impact,
d6 to d10 fire control). Heck, I'd almost rather take the FSE AR vs. light
armour. Or a decent SAW.... the impact
is about the same due to the particulars of level-1 armour... and the FP
yields a much better chance of a hit vs. infantry targets. **** and this is
the crux of it! The performance is just not good enough to justify
its existence as a weapons system - it would have been done away with in
favour of the SAW or some other system... ****
** Of course, YMMV. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But after
seeing a Vulcan rip apart 3/8" plywood targets, and punch holes through
trees, and having seen it carve trucks in half like it was a hot knife through
foam, I have no doubt it is FAR deadlier than a single SAW to infantry than
the game represents. And correspondingly, the 2183 version
of same should be appropriately proportioned to the SAW of that period -
*regardless of what those systems are actually taken to be*.
** As someone pointed out, multiple.50 cal mounts, 20mm autocannons, and other
weapons used for AA in WW2 were deployed against infantry very successfully.
This was repeated in many wars in SE asia, in Afghanistan with the Russians,
and in plenty of US army training excercises in more modern days. And I'd
guess that there will always be a need for more and
more modern rapid fire guns - be they gauss, CPR, laser, particle....
and said guns will probably continue to be obnoxious when used against
infantry. Presuming we still use infantry, and warfare looks anything like the
game suggests (which I accept as an underlying "suspension of disbelief"),
then we should also presume that the relationship between infantry carried
weapons and their vehicular brethren remain somewhat proportional. If not,
we've got SST with everyone luggng nukes and hopping over city blocks.... and
that is a whole other kettle of soup.
Tom
I have to agree with good Mr.Barclay on this one. Making RFAC's and small
MDC's more effective vs PBI's while retaining their usefulness vs. vehicles
seems like a step forward, not a step back.
Just a small note, not sure exactly how relevant it is, but I thought I'd
mention it. I have a coworker who's a former member of a U.S. Marine Corps
Mechanized Recon unit. I mentioned ZSU's to him, and he told me that standard
doctrine dictated that ZSU's were the highest priority target on the
battlefield. If his platoon had ever encountered one in real combat, they
would have been willing to expend every single ATM and Autocannon round in the
platoon's possession to destroy it, because as long as the beast remains in
operation, they can forget about air support, and also because of it's
deadliness against small vehicles and infantry. The tactic was to exit their
LAV's, and deploy in skirmish to hunt it.
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay <kaladorn@home.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: GZG List <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RFACS
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:15:30 -0500
> A nameless critic wrote:
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:31:31 -0500 (EST)
From: sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
Subject: Re: Weapons interface conundra - SG2
You're trying to make the superadvanced weapons of Stargrunt even MORE
like their primitive [i.e. modern] counterparts?
** I am? I thought it was just the opposite.:(
To what end? Are you going to next take some vietnam game and try to make all
their weapons work more like flintlocks and blunderbusses?
** Hardly. Obviously I wasn't expressing myself clearly.
If it really bothers you, I'd suggest the solution to your problem is to
change the names of the weapons around until their relative stats are more to
your liking instead of changing the whole system around the weapons.
** Sure, that's one approach. Though changing the names to attach different
stats is a lot like changing the system... and I'm not suggesting a
revolutionary departure (well, I briefly toyed with it, but even I realize
that is a gross solution given we have a tested set of rules). Merely allowing
rapid fire ACs and MDCs to engage infantry effectively. And I tossed out the
suggestion that maybe all weapons might have such a mode... as a reflection in
what I've seen in the arms community today. If you read JDW and other such
sources, you quickly come to appreciate that people have developed a type of
ammo for almost
every situation for almost every weapon system - and if you were
spec'ing a weapon system for deployment light-years away with
potentially fast changing uses, you might well want it to be capable to
operate effectively in multiple modes. If you like the idea of specialization
in weapons systems (this one a tank killer, this one an infantry killer, this
one not so useful for either...), then you can
largely ignore the current day trends to provide multi-mission
capability to most weapons systems. Stick with the rules as they are if you
like them. Me, I just like things that make sense... and a
vehicular big-brother of a smaller personal weapon system should not
(IMO) be less effectual.
** What bothers me is the fact that a type of weapon system (rapid fire
projectile weapons of 15-30mm range) are so palsied by the system as to
make a common light calibre SAW a more dangerous weapon. This has *nothing* to
do with the period it is set in... it doesn't matter what
description you use, when a squad support weapon (LMG/GPMG/SAW
equivalent of whatever era) packs more firepower and accuracy and equal or
less penetration than a larger, ostensibly more potent, vehicular mount
autocannon or GAC (MDC for the DS2ers), then one would have to question the
system.
** Simply put, if my SAW rolls d10 or d12 for FP and has an impact of d10 (and
this is ostensibly an AR bullet or bulletsas the Adv AR does the same impact),
whereas my rapid fire autocannon with rounds easily 4x as heavy or more and
firing at least as fast rolls fire control die (a max of d10, and d6 if one
considers the guidance basic for 2183 standards) in place of said d10 or d12
FP for the SAW and its impact is treated as a d8, then you have to think that
the representation of said autocannon was a little awry.
** In fact, under that system, it'd be far more pragmatic to have a manually
fired SAW (given you get to roll the FP die of d10 or d12) than
a weapon fired by a basic firecontrol (d6). I'm arguing the basic
firecontrol must be relative to the time - 2183 basic would of course be
considered ultra advanced by today's standards. So we have a firecontrol which
is very sophisticated, stabilized in three axes, and incorporating
better-than-current software, firmware, and hardware.... and it can't
hit anywhere near as effectively as a good old eyeballed shot from the gunner.
And this ignores the fact the vehicle mounted cannon may spit out rounds two
or three times faster (cyclic) than the basic SAW *and* it has better
sustained fire.
** And impact.... I buy the argument not all 30mm shells have the same oomph
when they hit. HOWEVER, I would bet there isn't one 30mm shell that'll hit and
do as little damage as a 5.5mm AR round. Just the sheer mass of the bullet
itself would be enough to gaurantee nasty things happen to the target, not to
mention the total kinetic energy of the round. Giving this a d8 while the SAW
gets a D10 is kind of nuts. Impact in the game is a composite of penetration
and damage.... and the 30mm would probably beat the 5.5mm in both areas. Even
if a lot of its KE can't be shared with the target due to overpenetration, its
still going to leave one awesome hole in whatever it hits. And I'll bet do
more damage than an AR round.....
** And just to illustrate that this argument isn't tied to preconceived
notions: I don't care if the rifle of tomorrow is a 10mm caseless round or a
5mm binary propellant round or a 3mm explosive tipped needle, not do I care
that the RFAC is 20mm with API, APDS, APKE or any other kind
of weapon. The point is the niche this weapon fills - that of a weapon
effective against light armour and effective against infantry - will
still exist and whatever version of the weapon existent in 2183 would be more
effective <comparatively> than the 2183 SAW **** OR ELSE WHY WOULD THEY HAVE
IT ****? It has marginal performance against armour (d10 penetration vs d12
for even level 1 armour) and crappy performance against infantry (d8 impact,
d6 to d10 fire control). Heck, I'd almost rather take the FSE AR vs. light
armour. Or a decent SAW.... the impact
is about the same due to the particulars of level-1 armour... and the FP
yields a much better chance of a hit vs. infantry targets. **** and this is
the crux of it! The performance is just not good enough to justify
its existence as a weapons system - it would have been done away with in
favour of the SAW or some other system... ****
** Of course, YMMV. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But after
seeing a Vulcan rip apart 3/8" plywood targets, and punch holes through
trees, and having seen it carve trucks in half like it was a hot knife through
foam, I have no doubt it is FAR deadlier than a single SAW to infantry than
the game represents. And correspondingly, the 2183 version
of same should be appropriately proportioned to the SAW of that period -
*regardless of what those systems are actually taken to be*.
** As someone pointed out, multiple.50 cal mounts, 20mm autocannons, and other
weapons used for AA in WW2 were deployed against infantry very successfully.
This was repeated in many wars in SE asia, in Afghanistan with the Russians,
and in plenty of US army training excercises in more modern days. And I'd
guess that there will always be a need for more and
more modern rapid fire guns - be they gauss, CPR, laser, particle....
and said guns will probably continue to be obnoxious when used against
infantry. Presuming we still use infantry, and warfare looks anything like the
game suggests (which I accept as an underlying "suspension of disbelief"),
then we should also presume that the relationship between infantry carried
weapons and their vehicular brethren remain somewhat proportional. If not,
we've got SST with everyone luggng nukes and hopping over city blocks.... and
that is a whole other kettle of soup.
Tom
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
vehicles
> seems like a step forward, not a step back.
Agreed. In fact, I was recently flipping through my SGII rulebook, when I came
across an interesting note. In the sample ESU force given in the rulebook (p.
69), it mentions the "VK20 Assault Cannon (20mm)" as an
"RFAC/1 for PA suits." The VK20 is given a FIREPOWER of D10 and Impact
of D12. The use of FP instead of Firecontrol implies that it might be
usable as an anti-infantry weapon, and FPD10/Impact D12 is certainly
more than the "standard" values which have been quoted so far. Of course, it
may be just a typo (not that there are any typos in GZG
rulebooks...) but it also might mean that the RFAC/1 (and similar) are
more effective against infantry than implied in the Heavy Weapons section of
the rulebook.
I would certainly be willing to just go with that example and give the
RFAC/1 D10/D12 vs. infantry- at least if it seems reasonable to everyone
else....
As I've said before, I agree wholeheartedly with what Tom is saying about
certain of the HWs in SG as used vs. infantry.
However, a couple of comments re Tom's last post:
> ** In fact, under that system, it'd be far more pragmatic to have a
than
> a weapon fired by a basic firecontrol (d6). I'm arguing the basic
This is more of a "philosophical" comment about our assumptions about the
GZGverse.
Tom is advocating one of technological development in the GZG universe -
that being most if not all technology (particularly the military stuff we're
interested in) will by necessity advance far beyond what we have today, given
the present rate of technological development, and how far we've come in, say,
the past 100 years. Therefore, a "basic" FC system in the GZGverse will make
our advanced stuff look like bubble gum and rubber bands, and their "superior"
FC systems would look like magic to us.
I'm not so sure about this. Maybe the weapon producers of the GZGverse,
particularly those of the further-flung areas of human space (ie out on
distant or small colonies) will use tried and true systems that do not
require a heavy industrial infrastructure - or perhaps I should say a
really high tech infrastructure... Who's to say that they don't use weapon
systems that are remarkably similar to what is around today, simply 'cause
they know it works and it is easy to make and maintain in the field. We could
go on arguing ad nauseum about the possible directions that industrial
production might take, but the fact of the matter is, the GZG books themselves
suggest that though there is technology of a sophistication that we can only
dream about (FTL, Gravitic tech, etc), in most cases they're still using
rifles that use explosives to propel a slug at the enemy, and still using
wheeled or tracked armoured vehicles with big guns, carting PBIs around the
battlefield to take and hold the important spots. It just isn't THAT different
from today, and I believe that was by intention on the part of the designers.
The game system is designed to be generic, and to enable fun play of squad and
platoon level infantry combat. The GZG Canon universe is not that different
from ours today, with some
advances in technology to give it sci-fi flavour and enable it to be set
out among the stars. But it isn't so far gone from today as to be completely
unrecognizable and pure fantasy... Like I said, it still comes down to a PBI
with a rifle taking a hill away from another PBI with a rifle sitting on the
hill...
The same might be said for the technology. Sure there is some stuff that's
"far future wonderous" relative to us. But is ALL of it that way? Why should
it be? Is it necessary to humanity that we give up on stuff that works well
simply because we MUST advance beyond what we have right now? Of course not.
There are many examples of technology that we use today that has not
fundamentally changed in centuries, just because it works well. Will we
replace a steel kitchen knife with a "electro vibro sonic wave motion
monomolecular matter destabilizer device"? Why would we? Steel knives have
worked perfectly well for centuries, are cheap to produce with very limited
technology and do not require mass industrial infrastructure. And in that kind
of case, we're lazy. We don't need to replace the knife, 'cause whether it is
1750, 1950, or 2250, a steel knife is still going to cut a steak or carve a
turkey (if we're still eating that kind of food in
2250 and not ingesting pills a-la the Jetsons cartoon...). There's no
indication that we will abandon all of our technology of today in the
GZGverse. Infact, I would suggest that a critical reading of their
histories and their weapon/vehicle designs/descriptions suggests that
much of what they have then is similar to what we have now. Yes there are all
kinds of examples of stuff that is WAY more advanced than today.
But what I'm boiling down to at the end here, is that (to put it prosiacally)
an armoured vehicle build on a fringe colony world, using Petrochem or some
other relatively simple power system, riding on tires made from locally grown
rubber or some kind of synthetic, and mounting a
25mm auto cannon - might have a mounting system that is not much more
complicated than a series of hydraulic or electric servos to move it around,
some simple sighting systems, and a guy behind it not trained too differently
from my friends who serve in the Canadian reserves today... It
is a "basic" fire control system in the GZGverse/Stargrunt sense... and
it may indeed be quite basic. Because that is all they need, and can
economically produce and maintain, in that kind of environment...
If we assume that their "basic" firecontrol systems are all fully stabilized
with radar motion trackers, inertial guidance and having full spectrum
scanners with UV, IR, etc etc capability, how does the game system then
accound for the colony world that has a converted agricultural transport
mounting a simple mechanism for it's heavy autocannon, and carring a squad of
troops in the back.
I suggest that a Stargrunt Basic fire control system is exactly that. Basic.
> ** And just to illustrate that this argument isn't tied to preconceived
Hang on a second. Remember that under the current rules, there is a
significant difference between an RFAC/1 with it's impact of d10 hitting
an armoured vehicle than a infantry rifle with impact d10 hitting the same
vehicle. Infantry small arms can not penetrate anything other than armour
class 1, and only ever have a SMALL chance of doing serious damage. They are
treated completely differently by the rules than the RFAC, even though they
have the same impact. I draw your attention to the different sections on pages
37 and 38 of the rulebook which explain the differences between small arms vs.
point targets and heavy weapons vs. point targets.
Clearly if you want to take on a vehicle, having an RFAC/1 with impact
d10
is far better than having a SAW with impact d10 - it is far superior in
potential effect.
This doesn't take away from the fact, however, that a 20mm vulcan cannon would
shred an infantry formation, and the rules don't support this...
Just some food for thought, on this cold, blustery and snowy Sunday evening.
And curses to all you Ozzies who are sitting around in your nice warm summer.
I just scraped 5 or 6 cm of snow off my car... <g>
If you check the description of that weapon, it actually says it's a point
fire weapon, it just missed having the "*" added to the impact rating.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
Here's another thought concerning the high fire rates of RFAC's and small
MDC's, and Idea I proposed while chatting with Andrew Martin. He had some
valid (though not necessarily concrete) objections to it, but I'll still
throw it out to the wolves...
Currently, air attacks include missile attacks, DFO runs, and direct fire
versus a single target. Why not allow fighters to use RFAC's and light MDC's
to make strafing runs? Here's how I suggest it be done:
Each strafing run has a beaten zone shaped like a single line, 1 inch long per
class of weapon. Everything on that line gets hit, but because of the
dispersal of the fire over such a long line, only green chits are valid.
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: Brian Quirt <baqrt@mta.ca>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: RFACS
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:22:21 -0400
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
small
> MDC's more effective vs PBI's while retaining their usefulness vs.
vehicles
> seems like a step forward, not a step back.
Agreed. In fact, I was recently flipping through my SGII rulebook, when I came
across an interesting note. In the sample ESU force given in the rulebook (p.
69), it mentions the "VK20 Assault Cannon (20mm)" as an
"RFAC/1 for PA suits." The VK20 is given a FIREPOWER of D10 and Impact
of D12. The use of FP instead of Firecontrol implies that it might be
usable as an anti-infantry weapon, and FPD10/Impact D12 is certainly
more than the "standard" values which have been quoted so far. Of course, it
may be just a typo (not that there are any typos in GZG
rulebooks...) but it also might mean that the RFAC/1 (and similar) are
more effective against infantry than implied in the Heavy Weapons section of
the rulebook.
I would certainly be willing to just go with that example and give the
RFAC/1 D10/D12 vs. infantry- at least if it seems reasonable to everyone
else....
Perhaps a better option is to say that vehicles or infantry elements that are
specified as being adjacent to each other (examples: convoy of vehicles,
infantry marching, infantry using their APC or a building as cover, and so
on), can be attacked by "strafing" from a vehicle or aerospace vehicle. Each
element draws chits according to the weapon shooting at them. Very much like
artillery.
Because the forces are closer together than the physical position on the table
suggests, a strafing run can more easily affect all targets.
Note this also applies to vehicles armed with RFACs and similar.
Optionally, for a less lethal situation, reduce damage chits by one or reduce
validity by one step, eg from RED and YELLOW to just RED, from RED to YELLOW
only, and so on.
Morale: Keep dispersed!
This also has it's merits. The only problem is, getting your opponent to admit
how close his units are together....
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: RFACS
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:24:36 +1300
Perhaps a better option is to say that vehicles or infantry elements that are
specified as being adjacent to each other (examples: convoy of vehicles,
infantry marching, infantry using their APC or a building as cover, and so
on), can be attacked by "strafing" from a vehicle or aerospace vehicle. Each
element draws chits according to the weapon shooting at them. Very much like
artillery.
Because the forces are closer together than the physical position on the table
suggests, a strafing run can more easily affect all targets.
Note this also applies to vehicles armed with RFACs and similar.
Optionally, for a less lethal situation, reduce damage chits by one or reduce
validity by one step, eg from RED and YELLOW to just RED, from RED to YELLOW
only, and so on.
Morale: Keep dispersed!
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
:-)
The strafing rule could also apply to shooting along a column. Each element in
column draws chits according to weapon class.
> Andrew wrote:
Note that the shooting vehicle, VTOL or aerospace element/s have to be
in line with the column. For example, along the same road, if a German tank
ace.
In a message dated 2/13/00 7:22:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
baqrt@mta.ca writes:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
are
> more effective against infantry than implied in the Heavy Weapons
Actually, I propose another approach to this problem--
All rapid-fire heavy weapons (RFAC-1 and possibly -2, DFFG-1, GAC/MDC-1
and
-2) get to do the following vs Dispersed targest:
Roll FC die and Unit Quality and d10.
If one success, suppression. If two success, d8 Impact vs (two highest rolls
added divided by target defensive die type). If three success, normal weapon
point target impact vs one figure and d8
impact vs remainder (number of hits same as usual except you add the three
dice together instead of two dice).
This would make the weapons nasty--yet not quite THAT nasty (you still
get
your armor throw after all--however pitiful that may be).
Ideas, comments?
Rob
ps--I haven't really been following this thread too closely, so if I'm
just bringin up stuff that's already seen the light of day and been shot all
to hell, please disregard.
Why along the same line? The Guidebook for Marines (No, I never was one, but
it's a good read) defines enfilade fire as "Fire delivered on a target so that
the beaten zone of the fire coincides with the long axis of the target (fire
in the direction of the length of a line or column)." Sounds like
your definition, until you further read that the beaten zone is defined as
"The space on the ground or target on which the shots forming the cone of
dispersion strike." This is why in DS II an artillery beaten zone can be
either along or perpendicular to the flight of the salvo. In the same way, if
a turreted vehicle were some distance off from a column of infantry, and
perpendicular to the line of advance/axis of the column, and walked it's
fire from one end of the column to the other, the entire column would be
within it's beaten zone, and would be taking enfilade fire.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: RFACS
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:49:26 +1300
> Andrew wrote:
Note that the shooting vehicle, VTOL or aerospace element/s have to be
in line with the column. For example, along the same road, if a German tank
ace.
Hmm, this is too deceptively simple!!
The idea of the extra die to reflect a REALLY MAJOR hit I find quite
appealing to, say, Size 1 and 2 RFAC/GAC/MDC weapons. And it really is a
simple resolution!
I'm also tending to think that a vehicle weapon should pretty much suppress an
infantry squad simply by firing in its general direction! Not forgetting that
an Action of firing the weapon is likely not just a single burst of fire but
30 seconds to two or three minutes of fire! Now that IS a lot of
lead....Cyclic Rate Of Fire of 600 to 800 RPM? Bursts of 5 to 20
rounds....
hmm, not looking healthy.
I'd like to playtest this a bit.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Hi Brian,
Artillery fire is different to small arms fire. As the good manual states,
Enfilade fire is laying the axis of fire on the long axis of a target. Why
enfilade? Because the passage of rounds will likely strike a subsequent body
if it misses (sometimes even if it hits!) a previous body. Actually quite
different to "walking" artillery/mortar fire along a target.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Ahhh.... Now I see... thanks for the correction.
Brian Bilderback
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: RFACS
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:04:59 +1000
Hi Brian,
Artillery fire is different to small arms fire. As the good manual states,
Enfilade fire is laying the axis of fire on the long axis of a target. Why
enfilade? Because the passage of rounds will likely strike a subsequent body
if it misses (sometimes even if it hits!) a previous body. Actually quite
different to "walking" artillery/mortar fire along a target.
Cheers,
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Each
> element in column draws chits according to weapon class.
> Rob wrote:
Actually, I propose another approach to this problem--
All rapid-fire heavy weapons (RFAC-1 and possibly -2, DFFG-1, GAC/MDC-1
and
- -2) get to do the following vs Dispersed targest:
Roll FC die and Unit Quality and d10.
If one success, suppression. If two success, d8 Impact vs (two highest rolls
added divided by target defensive die type). If three success, normal weapon
point target impact vs one figure and d8
impact vs remainder (number of hits same as usual except you add the three
dice together instead of two dice).
This would make the weapons nasty--yet not quite THAT nasty (you still
get
your armor throw after all--however pitiful that may be).
Ideas, comments?
** Why the second part? Why not just D8 vs Armour? That'd be a dispersed hit.
Otherwise, I think the idea is great. Except I might say make GACs roll d12.
sorry this is so long. i was waiting for the laundry to finish.
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> However, a couple of comments re Tom's last post:
i'm more on Tom B's side (why is it i always end up siding with Barclay? maybe
he slipped some sort of subliminal message into an email somewhere...), but
with some reservations.
> Maybe the weapon producers of the GZGverse, particularly those of the
who's to say that more advanced kit will require heavy infrastructure? i see
most of the key improvements being in the intelligence of the equipment; the
sensors, software and automatic control of the gun. now,
today this is high-tech, and there's not that much robotic kit in use in
general technology (cars, washing machines, etc), but i suspect that by 2150,
everyday things will have a lot of roboticism, making it easy to
build a swish FC - processing power is Too Cheap To Meter (tm), you can
pull an imager out of the digital camera you take holiday snaps with, and take
some actuators from the car, washing machine, etc. these bits of tech
aren't hard-to-come-by military-specific items, they're general-purpose
consumer components cranked out in their millions by Panasonic, Phillips,
General Electric, etc.
> Who's to say that they don't use weapon systems
why on earth would 2150-era people consider 2000-era kit to be 'tried
and
true', something 'they know works'? why wouldn't they use 2100-era kit?
you're suggesting that they would see *one-hundred and fifty*-year-old
kit as acceptable battlefield equipment! this strikes me as rather daft.
> We
and you know, i suspect we will. maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but
soon, and for the rest of the list:).
> but the fact of the matter is, the GZG books themselves suggest that
it's interesting you should say that. since we're talking about ground
combat, we're talking DS/SG. now, i don't have SG, but DS2, whilst it
*has* rules for HVCs (which are still supposed to me lots more advanced than
our modern cannons), says nothing about whether Tuffleyverse forces
use them. is the HVC a front-line weapon? something only used by lesser
powers? something only used on seriously primitive colony worlds? something
only found in obsolete vehicles? we have no idea. the same goes for tracked vs
GEV vs grav (sort of).
> carting PBIs around the battlefield to take and hold the important
i don't see that the existence of infantry implies primitive technology; the
existence of discernible infantry, cavalry, artillery (and engineer, pace the
spirit of John A:)) branches in armies has been, afaik, pretty constant over
history.
> It just isn't THAT different from today, and I believe that was by
the organisation of forces (apart from the chain of command in DS2, ie there
isn't one) is the same, the details of the tech aren't.
> The game system is designed to be
i don't think we really know enough about the Tuffleyverse to say that; we
have no idea what everyday domestic life is like - we only see the
battlefield.
> But it isn't so far gone from today as to be
but if those PBI have immersive data-management suites linked to
pervasive
battlefield imaging systems, and their rifles fire 4 mm hyper-kinetic
diamond needles, and have virtual-image holographic target resolution, a
laser rangefinder, a thermal imager and integrated electrict toothbrush
(on guns: see The Gun in 'the star fraction', Ken McLeod - start with a
Kalashnikov (one of the 2025 ones with a microprocessor) and keep adding
electronics until it's self-aware 8) ), is their situation really 'not
that different from ours today'?
> The same might be said for the technology. Sure there is some stuff
Why
> should it be? Is it necessary to humanity that we give up on stuff
of course it is.
> Of course not.
look, it's like this: i have an integrated-electric-toothbrush gun, and
a helmet display which is so advanced i can get channel 5 *without snow*, and
you have an SA80 and a pair of sunglasses. there are ten of each of
us, and we're equally competent and well-led. we fight. who wins? the
guys who can see and kill the enemy in any conditions, at range. it's like
pitting the SA80/sunglasses guy against a Napoleonic rifleman (not
Sharpe
:) ).
thus, if one side has uber-tech, then any side which does not have at
least comparable tech will lose hard. i'm not saying everyone has to have
the electric toothbrush attachment - some forces may only have a
dental-floss dispenser, and just the thermal imager, laser designator,
etc; maybe a rule-based expert system rather than a neural net in the
squad computer; maybe sensor fusion from radar and IR, but not optical or
magnetic-pulse. these guys have basic tech - waay ahead of ours, but
still behind the guys with the electric toothbrushes.
> There are many examples of technology that we use today
Steel
> knives have worked perfectly well for centuries,
we used to use worked steel. the industrial revolution brought us
mechanically-forged high-quality mild steel. advances in metallurgy
brought stainless steel to the kitchen, and now we don't have to dry knives
straight after we wash them, plus they need sharpening far less often (we
still have a couple of steel knives at home, and they're fairly nastily
blackened and pitted). i got a new kitchen knife for valentine's
day - it's stainless steel, but has a tungsten carbide edge which it
claims will never need sharpening.
> are cheap to produce with
today's knives cut better and are easier to take care of, thanks to the march
of progress.
> There's no
there are waaaay more advanced things out there (ftl, grav, massdrivers),
but it's not in common use - i agree entirely. however, i do not agree
that the common stuff is the same as today - it's more advanced, but way
more rather than waaaay more.
> But what I'm boiling down to at the end here, is that (to put it
burning it quitely and efficiently in a fuel cell, rather than inefficiently
in a turbine or reciprocating engine. personally, i'd back
alcohol as a fuel source - you can make it from surplus biomass with
some real simple biotech:).
> riding on tires
probably some advanced polymer - take rubber, mash in water, add bugs,
wait for poly(isomethylterpenoic amide) to precipitate.
> and mounting a
i suspect the servoes will be controlled by a computer, which will in turn
be controlled by the Canadian-trained gentleman. probably a digital
imager
and image-processor in there too; all these things are as commonplace as
pencil and paper in the future.
> It
and it
> may indeed be quite basic. Because that is all they need, and can
i should imagine that by 2150, anywhere that cannot maintain basic electronics
(based on highly modular, encapsulated and reliable components) would have a
tiny number of colonists, and would certainly not be able to sustain an armed
force. i would imagine an electronics workshop would be a higher priority than
a steel mill to a colony.
> If we assume that their "basic" firecontrol systems are all fully
by explaining how even the simplest colony world will have access to
electronics that today look like magic, but in 2150 will look like part of the
background.
> I suggest that a Stargrunt Basic fire control system is exactly that.
Basic.
i agree. i just think that 'basic' will shift over the next 150 years.
> Just some food for thought, on this cold, blustery and snowy Sunday
it's getting close to spring here - a mild snap, plus i saw some flowers
poking their way out of the ground this morning. of course, UK spring is
still cold enough to liquefy carbon dioxide :-/.
tom
technology will certainly improve over time, i mean look whats happened in the
last 150 years. there doesn't be much slowing done in the amount of "progress"
made. while FC will certainly much more sophisticated in 150 years, so will
the
countermeasures. personal body armor will block IR/UV, it will dampen
heat signatures, it will have changing camouflage so as to have a chameleon
effect, who knows. the point i am really trying to get at is that the balance
between offense and defense will be more or less maintained, it appears that
the defense has a slight edge in the 22nd century as personal armor is
certainly more effective than now days, but even so things will still be
balanced.
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> A nameless critic wrote:
Actually it's nothing like changing the system. The system is a bunch of
weapons with a die associated with them. You're the one associateing bullet
size and rate of fire with the weapons and getting irked that they don't
match. You even go through some leaps of logic that would be appropriate to
Star Trek. My personal favourite is the one where you talk about how much
better targetting systems would be in the future so should get better than d6.
Fine, whatevever, but it's just as valid to say they get d6 unless your
crystal ball is that much better than mine. Mine personally says that things
as large as a human won't play much part on the battlefield in the future, but
hey... it's a fun game. I take it by your long reply you're all set for
Lancaster?:D