> From Mr. Johnson:
Just as we have 25mm bushmaster type weapons and 25mm vulcan type weapons now,
which would have different firepower ratings, you could use different type
weapons in SG.
** Yes, that makes some sense.
The "fast" weapons would have firepower of d12 versus infantry, and the "slow"
weapons would have their regular die.
** Which is their guidance die... in this case I do sort of believe sniping at
infantry would be dependent on your guidance. Although I'm
sure a bushmaster with optical-IR composite sights makes a nasty sniper
tool from a stationary APC at a stationary target.:)
This is
basically what Tom suggested, but I would then add that certainly a hit from
these weapons should do more damage than a hit from a SAW.
** I'd say!
So if
infantry get hit by one of these big weapons, their armour is reduced by
one die type. OR, they get no armour save at all.
** No armour save? If I had Oerjan here, I'm sure he could tell me how many
points that would be worth <chuckle!>.
** Seriously, it'd be kind of unprecedented, but it might be a good mechanic.
Any hit from a heavy weapon ought to be bad news. How about
just double the impact dice? That'd make an RFAC/1 roll 2d10. You'd
still have a chance to live if you wore PA or something d10 or d12 ish for
armour, but odds are it'd kill anyone with d8 or crappier armour.
You just do the opposed range vs. firepower rolls, and if damage is suffered
by the target unit,
they don't have any chance of saving it with their armour.
** Potent. What weapons would we apply this to? My suggestion would be
GAC/1, RFAC/1 (the GAC also of course being a small MDC). I can't think
of any others? Maybe DFFG because I notice in the rules that the Phalanx
APC has two tri-barrel rapid fire DFFGs.
If your weapons are limited by the low FC numbers, it means that while there
won't be that many hits, the ones that do hit will ALWAYS kill. I don't think
this will be too overpowering, as the vehicle weapons that are designated as
"fast" (and use the d12 firepower die instead of the FC die) are still only
going to be using two die for their attack, and still limited by the quality
of the firer.
** d12 + quality with an always kill.... ouch. That would be punchy. d12
plus one downshift in armour isn't bad (d4 downshifts to auto hit I suppose?).
d12 plus two downshifts or normal armour roll and impact doubled might be
about the middle ground.
** ALTHOUGH: We're assuming the other larger weapons are loaded with AT style
ammo or are optimized for tank killing... so they tend to be crappy versus
infantry. But I question that. Many modern weapons have ammo for each type of
situation. Let's try some types out:
CPR gun (normal tank gun): Flechette anyone? Cannister? Larger calibre GAC:
Fragmenting munitions? Larger rounds that contain clusters of smaller needles?
DFFG: Turn from a hi-power mode to a rapid fire mode. Less juice per
shot (not enough to kill tanks, but way enough to shake n bake a whole squad
of grunts) but a bunch more shots. Or just a shot that explodes more
effectively... (adjust how the bottle on the shot deteriorates or how the flow
of fusing plasma is directed? I dunno).
GMS: AP warheads - big ass cannister, incendiary, or flechette?
HEL: Go to rapid pulse mode... instead of juicing up for 1 big shot, fire 1000
small ones.
In short, can't we argue for almost any weapon (if so equipped... maybe this
should be a buyable type of option if we had points...) to have a viable AP
mode? Can't we argue for a mode that gives any of these weapons a high
effective FP against infantry and an impact still (even so) greater than an
Adv AR round? Or am I raving?
I'm just suggesting since some of this seems possible today, it seems a kinda
weak point to say in the future weapons have only 1 role and no ammo to offer
the crew and commander the options all the
"must-see-it-wi-me-own-orbs" crowd were arguing so vigorously for?
I know the concern is that SG2 is an infantry game. But I don't want a good
simulation to be avoided because we fear making tanks infantry
killers. I wouldn't worry about that - well armed infantry nicely defuse
that threat. But I'd like to at least briefly consider whether larger weapons
should be more viable against infantry than the standard rules.
Brian commented about fires.... I thought it was avoided because no one had a
Phd in fire (though with Psyops, Radar techs, AWACs dudes, pilots, infanteers,
Spec Ops, etc. on the list, it would not surprise me to find a fireman
somewhere either or some academic with a Phd in the dynamics of fire starting
from high energy weapons....). Whether a fire starts probably involves:
Atmosphere, Humidity, Plant Life, Weapon energy release pattern, and some
random factors (oh and the weather).
This is an issue in another front me and adrian have been worrying on
and off - vehicle and infantry FTs. I have some ideas here (some will
see test at Lancaster - the infantry FTs) but I'm trying to put all this
fire-starting stuff together into a coherent system for all types of
weapons. Something like what car wars did in its later fire rules might
make sense - give each weapon a chance to start a fire, and roll away.
Cumulative hits have some accumulated effects. And of course, then fire
suppresion systems on vehicles better be good or there goes your
neighbourhood - a Toyota with a GMS in the back won't like getting hosed
with a heavy flamer.
Anyway... more ravings.... apologies to those I've stunned insensate with my
blather....
Tom B
Oh, I'm sorry, I kinda stepped into a SG conversation, when I was thinking
about DS rules.... hope I didn't intrude too much....
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 - Adrian's Idea
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:04:14 -0500
> From Mr. Johnson:
Just as we have 25mm bushmaster type weapons and 25mm vulcan type weapons now,
which would have different firepower ratings, you could use different type
weapons in SG.
** Yes, that makes some sense.
The "fast" weapons would have firepower of d12 versus infantry, and the "slow"
weapons would have their regular die.
** Which is their guidance die... in this case I do sort of believe sniping at
infantry would be dependent on your guidance. Although I'm
sure a bushmaster with optical-IR composite sights makes a nasty sniper
tool from a stationary APC at a stationary target.:)
This is
basically what Tom suggested, but I would then add that certainly a hit from
these weapons should do more damage than a hit from a SAW.
** I'd say!
So if
infantry get hit by one of these big weapons, their armour is reduced by
one die type. OR, they get no armour save at all.
** No armour save? If I had Oerjan here, I'm sure he could tell me how many
points that would be worth <chuckle!>.
** Seriously, it'd be kind of unprecedented, but it might be a good mechanic.
Any hit from a heavy weapon ought to be bad news. How about
just double the impact dice? That'd make an RFAC/1 roll 2d10. You'd
still have a chance to live if you wore PA or something d10 or d12 ish for
armour, but odds are it'd kill anyone with d8 or crappier armour.
You just do the opposed range vs. firepower rolls, and if damage is suffered
by the target unit,
they don't have any chance of saving it with their armour.
** Potent. What weapons would we apply this to? My suggestion would be
GAC/1, RFAC/1 (the GAC also of course being a small MDC). I can't think
of any others? Maybe DFFG because I notice in the rules that the Phalanx
APC has two tri-barrel rapid fire DFFGs.
If your weapons are limited by the low FC numbers, it means that while there
won't be that many hits, the ones that do hit will ALWAYS kill. I don't think
this will be too overpowering, as the vehicle weapons that are designated as
"fast" (and use the d12 firepower die instead of the FC die) are still only
going to be using two die for their attack, and still limited by the quality
of the firer.
** d12 + quality with an always kill.... ouch. That would be punchy. d12
plus one downshift in armour isn't bad (d4 downshifts to auto hit I suppose?).
d12 plus two downshifts or normal armour roll and impact doubled might be
about the middle ground.
** ALTHOUGH: We're assuming the other larger weapons are loaded with AT style
ammo or are optimized for tank killing... so they tend to be crappy versus
infantry. But I question that. Many modern weapons have ammo for each type of
situation. Let's try some types out:
CPR gun (normal tank gun): Flechette anyone? Cannister? Larger calibre GAC:
Fragmenting munitions? Larger rounds that contain clusters of smaller needles?
DFFG: Turn from a hi-power mode to a rapid fire mode. Less juice per
shot (not enough to kill tanks, but way enough to shake n bake a whole squad
of grunts) but a bunch more shots. Or just a shot that explodes more
effectively... (adjust how the bottle on the shot deteriorates or how the flow
of fusing plasma is directed? I dunno).
GMS: AP warheads - big ass cannister, incendiary, or flechette?
HEL: Go to rapid pulse mode... instead of juicing up for 1 big shot, fire 1000
small ones.
In short, can't we argue for almost any weapon (if so equipped... maybe this
should be a buyable type of option if we had points...) to have a viable AP
mode? Can't we argue for a mode that gives any of these weapons a high
effective FP against infantry and an impact still (even so) greater than an
Adv AR round? Or am I raving?
I'm just suggesting since some of this seems possible today, it seems a kinda
weak point to say in the future weapons have only 1 role and no ammo to offer
the crew and commander the options all the
"must-see-it-wi-me-own-orbs" crowd were arguing so vigorously for?
I know the concern is that SG2 is an infantry game. But I don't want a good
simulation to be avoided because we fear making tanks infantry
killers. I wouldn't worry about that - well armed infantry nicely defuse
that threat. But I'd like to at least briefly consider whether larger weapons
should be more viable against infantry than the standard rules.
Brian commented about fires.... I thought it was avoided because no one had a
Phd in fire (though with Psyops, Radar techs, AWACs dudes, pilots, infanteers,
Spec Ops, etc. on the list, it would not surprise me to find a fireman
somewhere either or some academic with a Phd in the dynamics of fire starting
from high energy weapons....). Whether a fire starts probably involves:
Atmosphere, Humidity, Plant Life, Weapon energy release pattern, and some
random factors (oh and the weather).
This is an issue in another front me and adrian have been worrying on
and off - vehicle and infantry FTs. I have some ideas here (some will
see test at Lancaster - the infantry FTs) but I'm trying to put all this
fire-starting stuff together into a coherent system for all types of
weapons. Something like what car wars did in its later fire rules might
make sense - give each weapon a chance to start a fire, and roll away.
Cumulative hits have some accumulated effects. And of course, then fire
suppresion systems on vehicles better be good or there goes your
neighbourhood - a Toyota with a GMS in the back won't like getting hosed
with a heavy flamer.
Anyway... more ravings.... apologies to those I've stunned insensate with my
blather....
Tom B
> Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> So if infantry get hit by one of these big weapons, their armour is