RFACs - the bruhaha continues

Adrian said:

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.

** Strange Adrian, I recall it was your FSE troops that punched the living
daylights out of a bunch of OU APCs with your ARs....:)

** I agree that there is a distinction between small arms rolls and
large arms rolls. I don't think RFAC/1s were meant to tackle heavy
armour - soft skinned vehicles and armour 1 vehicles are their likely
targets + PBI and PA. Therefore, to loosely paraphrase a point Oerjan (I
think) made about more arcs not being linearly more effective, I'd say the
fact that the RFAC rolls d10 against its intended targets isn't that much more
lethal than the d10 or d12 that a SAW could be rolling against the same
targets if they are armour 1 or armour 0. Given you have the opportunity to
effect a higher armour value, but with d10 vs at least d12x2, you're reaching.
The RFAC is a bit better, just not a lot better. And the SAW is definitely
better vs. Infantry.

** Your point about technology I have to take (minor) issue with. The kitchen
knife of today is not unreckognizable from the one many years ago, but it may
well not be the same knife. It may have a blade that never dulls, never
tarnishes, and cost a tenth as much to produce and is razor sharp and has an
edge that cuts far better than one of decades or
centuries before. But that's a minor point - I guess even if we assume a
basic level of technology (I don't believe that necessarily.... colonies
are going to be a tech-intensive venture period even with garden worlds
and you don't send one to fail unless you're trying to breed another
Oz...*wink*), your argument about the quality of the guidance is taken. If
BASIC really is, then okay a d6 is fair. But then a d10 for advanced should
imply something at least as good as today and almost every military vehicle
should have that level of guidance (for line militaries). If we put them in
our vehicles today, I sure hope we can do as well tomorrow and a lot cheaper.
And even so, it is still max d10 vs. the SAW FP of up to d12 I believe.

** I liked your suggestion of giving RFAC/1, 2 and GAC/1,2 (MDCs for DS2
crowd) have d12 FP (at least...) and impact of d10 (x size) for RFACs and d12
x class for MDCs. Only for the small rapid fire variants, but that would
nicely make them capable vs. infantry.

** I guess my other thought to your tech argument is if you are right and
basic is basic (ie WW2 equivalent FC), are three grades enough? Is d10 enough
of an advantage over d6 for the difference between sighting through an optical
sight on an unstabilized platform (a la WW2) vs some ridiculously advanced
(relative to today) top of the line tech? I assumed all three levels were
relative to 2183 because otherwise the range didn't seem wide enough. A WW2
tank's fire stabilization and sighting system, even if mated to a modern gun,
would probably lose almost always to a modern vehicle (call it an ehanced FC
by your definition) and you'd think always to a superior d10 FC and yet the
distinction in the game really isn't that large (max roll +2/+4, mean
shifts by +1/+2). This goes doubly in anything other than a static sit
and shoot situation.

** I don't have a solution, I just always assumed that even basic 2183 tech
embodied a certain level of tech that we'd call advanced today. You have the
other theory, which is equally viable and does diffuse my argument somewhat,
thought it does raise the spectre of the small range across which FC is then
distributed given it covers everything from earliest gun mountings to those
200 years hence.

** I guess the answer, as always, is pick something that flavours your battles
the way you want. If you want to fight battle 200 years hence with WW2
technology because you think that is what the settlers will have, I'm no one
to argue... (much)....!:)

Tom

This would also get my vote. However, I would probabily limit the FP vs.
Infantry to d12

Another option for RFAC & GAC (MDC) would be to give them both a FP of d12 and
the die for the fire control system (for all sizes) when used against
infantry. This way there is still some advantage to having a better FCS. As
critics will have already noted, there would not be any advantage for larger
guns (class 2, 3,...). My thinking would be that larger guns would be heavier
and less agile in thier firing mount than a gun of a smaller size
(class 1). This also explains why, while better than a SAW/APSW, they
are not grossly better. Also, if this rule is used, then I would suggest that
the vehicle NOT get the "free" APSW if they have a RFAC or GAC (MDC) of class
1 or 2.

Anyway, just an idea.