I recently got some "Sci-Fi Egyptians" from GZG, and have been working
on SG2 stats.
... BASIC ASSUMPTIONS... Immediately appearant were two questions: 1) how
faithful to the show are the size of forces and 2) how faithful to the show
are the choice of human weapons
For the first, replication of the show will result in very small forces
(4-man SG teams, 8-12 figures). This is not suitable for SG2, but
rather FMA-Skirmish. Wanting larger (SG2) games, we decided that the
force size on the show is for a variety of cinematic reasons (extras,
props and costuming, Red-Shirt Syndrome, etc.). It makes a lot more
sense to send much larger forces through the Gate, on the order of a SF Alpha
team (12), SEALs (16), or army or marine rifle squad (9 or 13)
for close recon, and a rifle platoon (35-41 or 43) for more thorough
investigations.
The second is important for how the statistics work out. This is because the
Jaffa and SG teams are always mutually within or out of range, even outdors.
I.e. the staff weapons have the same range as the human weapons. Therefore, if
you go by the show, with SG teams using
MP-5s or P-90s, both of which are SMGs, then the staff weapon is also
limited to the first range band. If instead, you equip the SG teams as
US infantry and/or SF/SEALs, then the staff weapons use the normal
small arms ranges rather than the pistol/SMG ranges.
We are going to use M-16/M-4/M-203 and M-249, but I will include
MP-5/MP-10 and P-90 for those who are interested.
Finally, we are assuming that there is no PA in this setting, therefore
the entire d4-d12 range is available for non-PA armor values.
... WEAPON STATS... Based upon the modern weapon conversion we use (which I am
not going to repeat here)
Weapons that have appeared in the show indicated by *: Pistols
.45 M-1911 FP:2 I:d8 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +1 DT in CQB
9mm M-9 or M-11 * FP:2 I:d6 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +1 DT in CQB
SMGs
5.7mm P-90 * FP:4 I:d8 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +2 DT in CQB
9mm MP-5 * FP:3 I:d8 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +2 DT in CQB
.40/10mm MP-10 FP:3 I:d10 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +2 DT in CQB
Assault Rifles
5.56mm M-4 * FP:3 I:d8 RB:Qx1 2xRB shifts, +1 DT in CQB
5.56mm M-16 family * FP:3 I:d8 RB:Qx1
5.56mm M-16 drum fed * FP:4 I:d8 RB:Qx1
Squad Support Weapons
5.56mm M-249 AR mode * FP:4 I:d8 RB:Qx2 +1 DT in CQB
5.56mm M-249 LMG mode FP:d8 I:d8 RB:Qx2 1-crew SW, +1 DT in CQB
40mm M-79 GL *
- 2 modes of fire, 4 ammo markers per grenadier, 1st RB only, +1 DT
1st round of CQB
- single shot FP:2 I:d8 RB:Qx1 no ammo used
- rapid fire FP:d8 I:d8 RB:Qx1 uses 1 ammo marker
40mm M-203 attached to M-16 or M-4*
- 3 modes of fire, 3 GL ammo markers per grenadier, +1 DT 1st round of
CQB
- as M-16 or M-4
- rifle +single grnade: as rifle, but FP:2+2, 1st RB only, no ammo used
- GL rapid fire (as M79) FP:d8 I:d8 RB:Qx1 uses 1 ammo marker
Heavy Support Weapons
7.62mm M-60 bipod LMG * FP:d8 I:d12 RB:Qx4 2-crew SW
7.62mm M-240B bipod LMG FP:d8 I:d12 RB:Qx4 2-crew SW
7.62mm M-240B tripod MMG FP:d10 I:d12 RB:Qx4 3-crew SW
7.62mm M-240 pintle/ring FP:d10 I:d12 RB:48 mounted SW w/o FCS
7.62mm M-240 coaxial FP:d10 I:d12 RB:80 mounted SW w/ FCS
.50 M-2HB tripod BHMG FP:d10 I:d12* RB:Qx5 4-crew SW
.50 M-2HB pintle/ring * FP:d10 I:d12* RB:60 mounted SW w/o FCS
.50 M-2HB coaxial FP:d10 I:d12* RB:100 mounted SW w/ FCS
Jaffa weapons:
Generally shown as firing at a rate equal to bolt-action (FP:1) or
semi-auto (FP:2), however, there are some instances where they are
fired very rapidly (by Breetak and the amazon Jaffa) which pushes towards
FP:3. Further, the blast effect of the staff might give a boost into a die
type, d6 or d8. If you play with MP5 and P90, then all fire will be in the 1st
RB and die type FP staff weapons will shred
the SG player very quickly (4-8 jaffa per squad).
Unless the target is a main character or is needed for the plot, the blast is
usually fatal, indicating a high Impact, d10 or d12. Plus effectivenes vs.
structures and cover might indicate a *.
Zat: always effective, but never fatal on single hit?
RB:Qx1, limits as predominant SG weapon: 1st RB only if MP5/P90, no
limit otherwise
so . . .
Jaffa Staff Weapon
if vs. MP5/P90 FP:2 or 3, 1st RB only
if vs. M16/M4, etc FP:d6 ?
in either case I:d10* or d12* and RB:Qx1
Staff Cannon, manual FP:d10 or d12 I:d12* RB:Q x(3 or 4)
Staff Cannon, groundmout w/o FCS FP:as above I:d12* RB:12 x(3 or 4)
Staff Cannon, w/ FCS FP:as above I:d12* RB:20 x(3 or 4)
... PERSONAL ARMOR... The show has discussed that modern ballistic body armor
offers no protection against staff weapons, and from observation Jaffa armor
offers no protection against anything:)
This indicates that armor has 2 ratings, one vs ballistic and another vs
energy. For game purposes, we are going to give Jaffa armor a good resistance
to staff weapons. There seem to be several layers to Jaffa armor: a
mesh cloth/chainmail, scuplted outer plates, and in the pilot Teal'c
has a large inner chestplate that he removes at the time of the prison break.
Unarmored, untrained A: 1 /1
Unarmored, trained A:d2 /d2
Minimal armor (helmet & PASGT vest), untrained A:d2 /d2
Minimal armor (helmet & vest), trained A:d4 /d4
light armor (+reinforcements), untrained A:d4 /d2
light armor (+reinforcements), trained A:d6 /d4
heavy reinforced armor (Interceptor), trained A:d10/d4
bareheaded Jaffa A:d4 /d8
helmeted Jaffa A:d6 /d10
Additionally, I am leaning toward giving helmeted Jaffa some sort of bonus for
advanced sensors and FCS. Either in the form of adding an extra die to small
arms fire in the form of a d8 or d10 FC die, or give bonus die shifts on range
die when firing?
Similar additions for SG forces with sighting aids (scoped rifles, thermal
sights, etc.).
J
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:09:54AM -0700, J L Hilal wrote:
> Zat: always effective, but never fatal on single hit?
In battles this size, the only difference between "knocked out" and "dead"
lies in who holds the field.
R
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
I dunno...
After a barrage of staff blasts, half the team is dead and the rest run for
the Gate.
vs.
After a barrage of Zat fire, half the team is unconcious and the rest of the
team must carry their lazy butts back to the Gate or abandon them to the
enemy.
Maybe also some random recovery e.g. roll for untreated casualty each turn, on
a 6 they recover? or roll d#, recover on a 1?
J
> At 07:09 AM 2004-07-14 -0700, you wrote:
That sounds good. My wife love the show and say she may want to try playing
one miniature game IF it's Stargate related. I will need to get those
Sci-Fi Egyptians one day!
You may want to check the Stargate_Gamers yahoo groups if you need other
idea. There is a free set of rules there and some mission idea related to the
show. You need to join the group to get the rule.
> At 7:09 AM -0700 7/14/04, J L Hilal wrote:
Actually, I'd argue that the P90s fall into a middle band for
effectiveness with the M-16s and that the Staff weapons and Zats are
short range weapons. The episode where SG-1 and specifically Captain
Carter (at the time) show up a bunch of the free Jaffa exactly how effective
their weapons are....Carter saws a swinging log in half with the P90 and then
cuts the remaining bit down.
The lack of sights on the Staff Weapons limits their effective range as far as
accuracy. They make up for it in quantity however when the SG teams are in
battle at range. Even so, their accurate fire gives more than they get.
There's more there than troop quality.
> Weapons that have appeared in the show indicated by *:
P90's are effective to 200 yards so they need to go further and they have a
better AP performance (that's 200 yards and able to penetrate multiple layers
of kevlar). The P90's 50 round magazine should have an impact on it's game
performance too.
5.7mm P-90 * FP:4 I:d8 RB:Qx1 2xRB shifts, +2 DT in CQB
> 9mm MP-5 * FP:3 I:d8 RB:Qx1 1st RB only, +2 DT in CQB
Don't forget the Russians!
> Squad Support Weapons
Make these RB:Qx3. The longer barrel does have an effect on it's range.
> 40mm M-79 GL *
Thats the thing. The SG teams tend to take down Jaffa rather quick with their
accurate fire whereas the JAffa are more used to moving to close range and
defeating their opponents. Note, Jaffa tend to survive Staff blasts whereas
the SG weapons tend to shred the Jaffa and the symbiote with a full on torso
shot. Especially with the P90s and other higher FB auto weapons.
As Jack said, Staff weapons are instruments of terror. A P-90 is an
instrument of war. The sights alone restrict the accuracy of the things.
> Unless the target is a main character or is needed for the plot, the
I'd say low FP for the staff weapons, but high impact. D10. They're not very
good as far as AP quality.
> Zat: always effective, but never fatal on single hit?
THis should be permissive of the user's intention. Fire several times in a row
and you can kill your opponent. But, it's also close ranged (ie no sights).
> RB:Qx1, limits as predominant SG weapon: 1st RB only if MP5/P90, no
I don't like the sliding scale thing. FP 2-3 is good. Keep the range
band short. Quality times 1 or.5? Fire a.22 rifle with out the sights either
over your shoulder looking down the barrel or from the hip and tell me what
you hit. Braitak and Tealc are good because they're well, good. But most of
the Jaffa just aren't on their level.
> Staff Cannon, manual FP:d10 or d12 I:d12* RB:Q x(3 or 4)
Still, crappy sights. Lower the FP, FP 8.
> . . . PERSONAL ARMOR . . .
Actually, I think it does provide some protection, but when the SG teams
shifted to the P90's it was out the window. 9mm isn't so hot against basic
armor, but an FN5.7 is very much designed to defeat hard armor at range.
> This indicates that armor has 2 ratings, one vs ballistic and another
Jaffa seem to die when struck at close range right square on the chest.
Shoulder shots don't tend to kill them.
> Unarmored, untrained A: 1 /1
Remeber, the SG teams should eat up their equivalent number of Jaffa. The
Jaffa have to pile on and get close.
Don't forget the claymore mines, ManPadSAMs, AT-4s (seen them on the
show once I think) and the other weapons. Oh, there's also the issue of a
Gould on the battle field.
Oh, and then there's the issue of a Asgard Ship showing up, the associated
fleeing of the Gould and the Jaffa standing around in stark terror as they are
beamed to where ever the Asgard beam them
too....
> At 7:44 AM -0700 7/14/04, J L Hilal wrote:
Well zat guns don't appear to ignore cover and they're short ranged.
> Maybe also some random recovery e.g. roll for untreated casualty each
Sounds good.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'd argue that the P90s fall into a middle
??? P90 is not an assault rifle. It's a submachine gun. It's effectiveness is
exaggerated in the show because (as near as I can tell) they have a contract
with FN to endorse the damn things. But they are
nothing like an M-16. The round is half the weight,
moving at something like 2/3 the muzzle velocity, with
a tiny barrel. It is a close-range-band-only weapon.
> The lack of sights on the Staff Weapons limits their
And the firing stance even disallows aiming down the shaft of the weapon.
> >Squad Support Weapons
I'm a little shaky on this--are you suggesting that to
get a dice, you have to bring the tripod and set it up? Not my experience with
a SAW.
> --- Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com> wrote:
"GZG under licence from Eureka":
http://www.gtns.co.uk/store1/commerce.cgi?product=SFE&exact_match=on&car
t_id=7750290.17882
They have 3 poses each of helmeted Serpent Guard, Horus Guard, and Anubis
Guard, and 3 poses of bareheaded. They are larger than gzg's other 25s, more
in scale with GW's 28s
Speakng of which, I am now looking for ultramodern US 25mm for the SGC
instead of the stand-in GW IG, specifically with M16s, M203s, M249s,
AT-4s, and Stinger, Javelin, and M240 teams. I have a lot of GHQ
individual microarmor infantry, but that would look ridiculous. Any
suggestions?
J
> At 6:26 PM -0700 7/14/04, John Atkinson wrote:
First off it's a PDW, Not a SMG. SMG's fire pistol ammo. PDW's fire a hybrid
of Short rifle rounds and pistol rounds.
What's close range band in RL terms? 50 feet? the P90's effective range is 200
meters vs 100 meters. Same way, FN5.7mm is faster than 9mm out of a 8.85"
barrel (2,346 fps vs 1,100 fps). Even
more the M16/A2 has a Muzzle Velocity of 3,100
fps. Point target effective range is 550 meters.
Shorter than an M16, longer than a 9mm sub gun. Looks like an increment down
from an assault rifle, but longer than a
Sure looks like a half way point between an MP-5
and an M16. Exactly what FN and HK have been looking at with the PDW setup.
It's the same target of more optimum performance that spawned
the current infantry weapons like M-16s vs the
previous generation of weapons like the M14.
> The lack of sights on the Staff Weapons limits their
Yep. As I said, not a great weapon for hitting a point target at 200 plus
yards.
Great for terrorizing Pre industrial societies, but not so hot for taking down
industrialized troops. Of course the big problem is when the bigger stuff gets
brought into the mix and the Gould themselves start putting beams down from
orbit and making Carrier Groups go boom.
> > >Squad Support Weapons
No, the longer barrel gives the round more range due to higher muzzle
velocity. Just like a carbine has better effective range (more muzzle energy
over a pistol). It's an area weapon, but it's bigger and steadier so from what
I've learned, LMGs do better than the rifles of the rounds they shoot. Unles
that's not what you're saying John.
David Drake uses this sort of thing in Hammer's Slammers and it shows up
specifically in some of the stories. All the vehicle crew carry 1cm SMG
powerguns (for close defence), and the infantry carry 2cm carbines for
takedown and long-range shooting. In ??? (can't remember, the religious
rebellion based on a roman insurrection), the Slammer's Lt specifically
assigns vehicle crew to protect the UBD Lt breaking the Calliope out of
storage, as rate of fire was more important in the close quarters they
expected to encounter.
As SG-1 is armed for self-defence (not assault), it seems reasonable
that they would be assigned appropriate weapons.
Still doesn't help with the Close Only vs Rifle question; however if only
Stargate related forces are involved, they can use the same scale for weapons.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
> At 1:49 PM +1000 7/15/04, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
If you watch the program they are. The thing about PDWs (Personal Defense
Weapons) is that they have quite a bit more penetration than smgs. 9mm or even
.45 have abysmal penetration when it comes to body armor and kevlar helmets.
.223 is much better at that. Just as 7.62 was scaled down a hair from the
larger 30.06 and.303 rounds, 5.56 was scaled down from 7.62. Thus you have
5.7mm in a longer cartridge than 9mm or 45 with twice the velocity and thus
better armor penetration.
The idea behind PDW's was better effectiveness for truck drivers and vehicle
crews but not as
large as an M16 or even an M-16 carbine. SMGs
didn't work for this as well due to the bad AP performance, that's where FN
started driving at
with the P-90. FN does seem to have a few good
ideas as far as weapons development comes...
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Carter (at the time) show up a bunch of the free Jaffa exactly how
I laughed through the entire scene.
> >SMGs
1) the P90s 50-round mag is the reason it rates FP:4 rather than FP:3
like the H&Ks
2) the ability to penetrate reinforced PASGT is at under 100m
3) I would rate other .22-.25 cal. ammo pistols/SMGs as d4/d6. The
long (for a pistol round) 5.7 FN at x28mm is already higher rated at
d6/d8, which is equal to the 9mm Parabellum rating
M16 & M4 use 5.56x45mm NATO
P90 & FN 5-7 uses 5.7x28mm FN
MP5, M9/M11 uses 9x19mm Parabellum
M16 has 508mm barrel M4 has 370mm barrel P90 has 263mm barrel MP5 has 225mm
barrel
M16A2 = effective range ~550m M4A1 = effective range ~350m P90 = effective
range ~200m I couldn't find effective range numbers for the MP5
from this, we wanted to make the M4 carbine shorter ranged than full assault
rifles. That is why we came up with having carbines suffer 2 die shifts per
range band rather than the normal 1. I very firmly believe that the P90 should
NOT be in the same category as the M4. It should have less range.
Additionally, I have never seen or heard of anyone other than SG-1
refer to or use the P90 as anything other than a SMG.
The P90 may be "a weapon of war", but only as a weapon of last resort for
vehicle crew (its original purpose), not as a primary line infantry weapon.
Finally, every force that regularly uses SMGs like the MP-5 in CQB uses
M-16 or a national equivalent for open terrain operations.
> >Squad Support Weapons
At Qx2, range is already double that of other 5.56mm NATO small arms,
like the M-16, and you can only do so much with a bipod weapon, even
with long, heavy barrels like these, but...
5.56mm M-249 tripod LMG FP:d8 I:d8 RB:Qx3 2-crew SW
> >
That is, IMO, more an effect of "Good Guy Success Syndrome". I always thought
that staff weapons should be much more effective than regularly portayed in
the show. My benchmark is the teaser of the episode with the amazon Jaffa (the
one with Jolene Blalock) where a rapid fire, close range barrage from 5
jaffettes blasts to cinders the entire Jaffa force, as well as all of the
foliage concealment and the trees used as cover in what would equal 1
stargrunt fire action.
If the bad guy jaffa did this instead of just charging the guns like the light
brigade, the SGC would need replacements at a rate to make Zhukov blanche.
> Note, Jaffa tend to survive Staff blasts
I always got the feel that Jaffa hit by staff weapons were usually combat
ineffective, even if not killed.
> whereas the SG weapons tend to shred the Jaffa
again: "Good Guy Success Syndrome"
> The lack of sights on the Staff Weapons limits their effective range
Depends. One could postulate that the helmet+staff work like the US
Land Warrior IHAS, with the target reticle projected on the inside of the
helmet. This also explains how they can walk around the woods without bumbing
into and tripping over things with the face plate up: 300 degree display in
the helmet
They may look like frog-mouth jousting helmets, but even if you dip
your head, there is no vision slit.:)
> >Unless the target is a main character or is needed for the plot, the
Bad guy Jaffa have pour AP, Teal'c and Bretak are quite good at it.
Hmmm. . . "Good Guy Success/Bad Guy Incompetence Syndrome" again?
same as:
"The White Star flies at the speed of Plot" -JMS
> >Zat: always effective, but never fatal on single hit?
can't guarantee that the target is intentionally hit multiple times. Taken
care of by random target selection to determine if you got him twice (or more)
Zat' = FP:2 (=semi-auto), RB:Qx1, 1st RB only, +1DT in CQB (as pistol)
> >
I didn't mean it as a sliding scale. I meant it as "if your group uses
SG teams with MP5/P90 as seen on TV, then..." and "if your group uses
SG teams equipped with real ranged weapons, then...".
Essentially, we are going on the assumption that an SG team is between a large
squad and platoon in strength (the extra bodies dropped from the show for
cinematic concerns) and equipped as normal US forces with M16s, M203s, and
M249s (shown as MP5s & P90s for cinematic effect).
> FP 2-3 is good. Keep the range
I can hit another player with a smoothbore paintball marker, without sights,
firing spherical projectiles, at 100 yards. That's a LOT less accurate than a
.22 rimfire, and I don't get staff weapon blast effects from near misses.
And I can fire semi-auto fast enough to chop pellets in the feeder with
the bolt, which, according to the manufacturer, is seven shots per second with
the gravity feed. Thats also better than a staff weapon as shown.
Teal'c, on the other hand, can hit a flying symbiote, behind him, firing over
his shoulder, from port arms position. I don't remember whether he bothered to
look first. I think that's better than every trick shooter Buffalo Bill Cody
ever put in his Wild West show:)
> >Staff Cannon, manual FP:d10 or d12 I:d12* RB:Q x(3 or
I credited the FP for blast effect + "Bad Guy Incompetence/Good Guy
Luck".
> > . . . PERSONAL ARMOR . . .
Other than the pilot, I don't remember any jaffa being hit by a burst of MP5
or M9 fire and NOT going down.
> 9mm isn't so hot against basic armor, but an FN5.7 is very much
Designed to defeat SOFT armor at range. If you call 50-100m "at
range".
> >This indicates that armor has 2 ratings, one vs ballistic and
> >time of the prison break.
But it puts 'em down for game purposes, even if they are healed by the next
battle.
> Remeber, the SG teams should eat up their equivalent number of Jaffa.
In the show, an SG team can defeat 5-10x their own number using MP5s
and P90s (4-member SG-1 can usually take 20-40 jaffa in groups of
6-12). That's going to be a very crowded table with 400+ jaffa to
overrun a rifle platoon.
Did you skip the beginning of my post? The part where I said that we
wanted games with larger forces than 4-12 SG figs and normal weapons
rather then SMGs? A US light infantry platoon could singlehandedly defeat all
the ground forces of any system lord if the jaffa are limited to SMG ranges
and CQB.
> Don't forget the claymore mines, ManPadSAMs, AT-4s (seen them on the
And in the pilot movie we see that the gliders are vulnerable to shoulder
fired Stingers, so just put an Avenger through the Gate and you can hold it
indefinately. While your at it, the Brits have a line of light tracks that are
less than 8' wide (the ones with "S" names). Just put a couple of those
through and see how the jaffa (whom you limited to 1st RB and no "*" weapons)
deal with a couple of 30mm chain guns and 90mm HVCs behind vehicular armor.
> Oh, there's also the issue of a Gould on the battle field.
That is actually a good point. Either give him "wounds" or a larger
casualty die. e.g. roll a d8 or d10 instead of d6 and scores of 6+ are
returned to play. Which is better?
> Oh, and then there's the issue of a Asgard Ship showing up, the
They go to the same place Post-Dated Check Loan beams his prisoners:
into the raw materials bin for the fabricator:)
J
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am suggesting that to get a die, the gunner collects the SAW ammo carried by
the rest of the fireteam and sets up for sustained fire with the bipod, ammo,
and barrels, using either a REORGANIZE, FORM DETACHMENT, or READY WEAPON
action (or starts the game that way).
Adding the tripod would either encumber the gunner or be rated as a
2-crew SW and increase RB to Qx3. Maybe also increase FP to d10, but
I'm not sure on that.
J
> --- "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Actually there are more than 2 options. 1) regular small arms rules 2) ranged
fire in 1st range band only 3) Close Quarters Battle only (CQB)
and in the initial post I added carbines (M4) 4) as regular small arms but
increase range die by 2 die types instead of 1 per range band
> however if only Stargate related forces are involved, they can use
The problem is that I said we are going to use regular weapons types instead
of SMGs for our games, while Mr Gill is saying that jaffa
should be restricted to 1st RB like SMGs based on on-screed depictions.
J
> On Wednesday 14 July 2004 9:26 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
*Shrug* As someone else has already mentioned, the P90 round sits between
pistol and rifle in it's characteristics. Besides, you're brining up real
life. The P-90 in SG-1 is a Hollywood weapon, so if one wants to
capture the feel of the series, one must imitate the creative license that's
taken with reality.
Basically, don't confuse me/him/them/us with the facts... after all, we
have a TV show for reference materials!
> At 11:48 PM -0700 7/14/04, J L Hilal wrote:
You sure about that? The SS-190 punches through
48 layers of kevlar at 200 meters according to FN data. The Subsonic SB193
does 24 layers of kevlar at 50 meters.
> 3) I would rate other .22-.25 cal. ammo pistols/SMGs as d4/d6. The
Makes sense.
> M16A2 = effective range ~550m
~100meters
http://www.hk94.com/hecklerkoch-mp5.html
Given that it's half the velocity, it works out
> from this, we wanted to make the M4 carbine shorter ranged than full
The lead man that went into the Japanese Embassy had one. So did the french
team that boarded that bus full of hostages several years ago. Special ops
uses them. Its in the mix.
> The P90 may be "a weapon of war", but only as a weapon of last resort
> Finally, every force that regularly uses SMGs like the MP-5 in CQB uses
Yep, but sg teams tend to plan their engagements pretty well and if they're
going up against a known foe in a certain environment they carry the right
weapons for the job if at all possible.
SPAS-12s and P90s for Replicators.
Zats, P90s, and perhaps an M16 with the Beta C Magazine for Jaffa Add in a FN
Minimi for work against Jaffa in a big area and against known numbers or one
of those Gould invisible assassin guys.
> >Squad Support Weapons
Plot device I think. Why don't normal Jaffa do so? Its more of an area weapon
and that seems to how they did it.
> If the bad guy jaffa did this instead of just charging the guns like
They'd just get out of the beaten zone first I think.
> Note, Jaffa tend to survive Staff blasts
Oh, yes, that is true. I was just pointing out that the Jaffa weaponry seems
to be setup so that it doesn't entirely kill the opposing force Jaffa.
Afterall the Gould rules say that when you kill a Gould, his forces become
your forces. If you've killed all of his forces, then it's hard to take them
over. If you leave a whole bunch of them combat ineffective for a time and
then they recover (as well as your casualties who were also injured) then you
tend to suffer less for the wars.
> whereas the SG weapons tend to shred the Jaffa
I put it more down to weapon of war with sights vs terror weapon. And the guys
with the weapons of war shoot at smaller targets at longer range when they
practice vs a big log at 100 meters.
> Depends. One could postulate that the helmet+staff work like the US
then I'd expect those guys to be better than they are. The Jaffa have three
weapons. Short Range energy weapons (staff guns and zats), the larger staff
weapon thingy on a tripod and their death gliders. Oh, then there's that
screaming grenade thing that incapacitates you.
2 of their 5 weapons are designed to make a big show or capture the opposing
force. The only reason the SG teams dont' eat them for lunch every time is
that they can call on larger space craft like the Hataks for air support.
Remove that mode and give the SG teams more than 4 men and the Jaffa start to
have a really hard time. No mortars, no armored fighting vehicles and nothing
big enough to bust another big ship, that's under control of the Gould. One
wouldn't want the Jaffa getting uppity would you?
> They may look like frog-mouth jousting helmets, but even if you dip
Little beady eyes....and a big screen, no problem with that...They still never
seem to be very
accurate, and I'll point out that when SG-1 goes
into the great out doors where its wide and open, Tealc tends to leave his
staff weapon behind and carries an M249.
> Bad guy Jaffa have pour AP, Teal'c and Bretak are quite good at it.
Nope, Bretak and Teal'c think outside the box. They were first Primes the both
of them. The best of the best of the best.
Sure, the Jaffa have some modicum of the same level of training as the Star
Wars Imperial Troops, but they're not using the same weapons, their ability
with the weapons is down to their ability to point shoot, not use a piece of
precision technology. They have no equivalent to a sniper rifle because that
would probably make it too easy to kill a Gould, which the Gould don't want to
happen. they'd rather gloat over a defeated Gould, give him a chance to turn
sides and serve.
> I didn't mean it as a sliding scale. I meant it as "if your group uses
They're set up like an SAS team aren't they? (4 man teams?).
> I can hit another player with a smoothbore paintball marker, without
You can see the rounds going out and you are point shooting. Give me the same
paintball gun with better sights and better accuracy and I'll hit you at
longer ranges accurately. I think you're over estimating your range however.
My Timpman 98 carbine with a polished after market and longer barrel tends to
loose rounds to side spin at around ~100 feet. Not yards. I haven't been on
the field in a while but a man sized target at the other end of a foot ball
field?
No-way...not with a paintball gun. The FPS is too
slow.
With my FN Fal, I can hit smaller targets at longer ranges than you can with
your paintball gun. If I were more used to the weapon (ie thousands of shots
at the range and in real combat) I'd be even faster and better.
> And I can fire semi-auto fast enough to chop pellets in the feeder with
It's that whole best of the best of the best thing. Teal'c's got to have a
thing. Kind of a zen like thing that most other jaffa don't have...remember
that box they stay in...
> >Staff Cannon, manual FP:d10 or d12 I:d12* RB:Q x(3 or
Usually that's because Jack and Sam made their shots count. In those days
Daniel was crouching with his M9
> 9mm isn't so hot against basic armor, but an FN5.7 is very much
200 meters according to FN. 48 layers of kevlar.
> But it puts 'em down for game purposes, even if they are healed by the
Yep.
> Remeber, the SG teams should eat up their equivalent number of
Yep. Pin them down and flank them. The SG teams usually start to have problems
when the Jaffa do that fire and maneuver thing. Pin a force with ranged fire
and move another force to the flank to close and destroy. That's where the SG
teams start to feel their 4 man teams and hurt. Put a rifle company of Marines
or Army out there, well, unless the JAffa bring air support in the form of
Hatak, then the Jaffa are going to leaving the field with their tails between
their legs.
> Did you skip the beginning of my post? The part where I said that we
Nope, I just find it odd....There were instances where the SG teams did go to
field with a whole bunch in hand. The episode where Doc Frasier buys the farm
is one. There are others. I don't think you should have to do a platoon sized
SG team. With a big enough table and a double blind system you could have an
unmarked SG team skulking about while Jaffa go about their patrol looking for
intruders. Good use of sniper markers and some
extra work and you could run a neat set of SG-1
type games with only an SG team on the other side. It'd play out like Space
Hulk, which was fun for a GW game. In fact, you could do that with some space
hulk map chips for corrodors on a gould ship. Figure out cover bonuses well
however. SG teams tend to act like mice inside gould ships. And the Jaffa foot
wear doesn't do well for sneaking around.
> Don't forget the claymore mines, ManPadSAMs, AT-4s (seen them on the
ManPadSams.
> you can hold it indefinately. While your at it, the Brits have a line
Scorpion, scimitar, ets. I'm not sure how to get them in the gate room at
Chyanne however....I'm sure someone would wonder why you're lowering a
Scorpion light tank down a missile silo...
> Oh, there's also the issue of a Gould on the battle field.
Same armor, larger casualty die. The energy armor is the hard part....You've
got to get him where he doesn't have time to bring up his screens. Though your
paint ball guns do work there....Some kind of surprise engagement rule on
Gould?
> > Oh, and then there's the issue of a Asgard Ship showing up, the
What was it Jack said about the Asgard? "I love those guys!"
> At 12:13 AM -0700 7/15/04, J L Hilal wrote:
And the fact the weapons have crap for sights. Oh, and they use horns for
communications so their ability to activate other squads sucks too. Though on
reflection, rather than going on 1st range band make their range bands short.
Spiffy users like Bretak, Teal'c and others would be able to fire the longer
range shots, but the PBJ (Poor Bloody Jaffa) would be more restricted to the
lower range bands for effective fire. Bretak and Teal'c being Red 1s the both.
Most Jaffa
being Blues. Horus/Serpent Guard, etc being Orange 2s.
Seems to me in a SG-1 Type situation, you'd run each fig with his/her
own command marker. Most being Reds and Oranges.
> At 9:03 AM -0400 7/15/04, Flak Magnet (Tim) wrote:
Yep its a PDW, not SMG.
> life. The P-90 in SG-1 is a Hollywood weapon, so if one wants to
Well, I've been lusting for a P90 long before the SG-1 tv Show came
out so...I know a little bit more than the average civilian about the things.
Gosh, I wonder if a Semi-Auto version could be had once the Assault
weapon's ban expires....I also wouldn't mind an FN Mag for my Ferret...but I
can't afford to boy one of the only 5 transferable FN Mags on the NFA
registry....
> --- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am suggesting that to get a die, the gunner
I'm going off US doctrinal definitions of Automatic Rifle vs. Light Machine
Gun. Spent my share of time as a SAW gunner and love the weapon. In your
typical squad, you have 1 or 2 SAW gunners (depending on type
of squad) each carrying 600-800 rounds of ammunition.
The bipod is integral to the weapon and always
deployed before firing--the weapon is really too heavy
to fire without it. The spare barrel (1) is carried in a bag with the tripod
and neither is broken out unless the firefight goes on for an extremely
extended period.
In other words, the typical (and doctrinally correct
except in deliberate defense) use of the M-249 SAW
would, by your assumptions, be only marginally more
effective than an M-16A4. This has not been my
personal experience in action. Remember, the M-249
was designed and fielded as an Automatic Rifle first and foremost, and as a
machine gun secondarily.
> Adding the tripod would either encumber the gunner
That would make it as effective as an M-240 MAG and it
definitely is not. I know that for reasons of parlimentary financial
parsiminiousness our Australian brethren have been forced to adopt it in that
role
(pseudo-GPMG) but it is not designed to fill that role
nor does it do so with effectiveness.
> At 2:37 PM -0700 7/15/04, John Atkinson wrote:
I have a friend that's a little industrial lass that said the same thing about
the Saw. She's a wheeled vehicle Mech and spent some time in Iraq. When I saw
her on leave she was very fond of the M249....
> The bipod is integral to the weapon and always
A very key thing for an LMG. However I've seen photo's of other LMG's fired
from walls and such instead of the Bipod. Frankly its assumed that the user
steadies the weapon somehow. Be it on a wall, sand bags or on the bipod.
Making the team pay time to deploy on the bipod is just mean. Tripod yes but
not that much, but as John says below, tripods aren't used for SG type
missions unless you're postulating a defense of a position... say defense of
some Asgard protectees while Daniel and Sam fiddle with some Asgard
"communications thingy" to call Thor so he can "beam all these damn Jaffa" off
to where ever Thor beams them too(1).
> In other words, the typical (and doctrinally correct
Just to add to this... An LMG is the main component in establishing the base
of fire for the
rifle section/squad and allows a strong quantity of fire that is
useful for supporting the element that is moving forward to close with and
destroy the red force dudes at the objective. In defensive
operations it allows the squad/section to suppress the opponent while
the main element moves back to the next fall back point and then the saw
gunner moves back with his small section.
The use of 2 LMGs per squad allows two elements to move each with as much
firepower as the other. One of the problems with the old Enfield Bren combo
was that the Bren and two riflemen would establish the base of fire and the
other 7 would move forwards. The 7 riflemen tended to have problems putting
out the volume of fire of the single Bren that supported their move for it's
move phase. I suspect that
the US didn't have as much problems with their BAR/M1 Garand Combo
what with the greater firepower of the latter and lesser firepower of
the former (20 rnd mag/fixed barrel).
The x2 SAW arrangement in a US squad makes a hell of a lot of sense when you
sit down and think about it. And when you look at British Commando operations,
they tended to have as much Automatic weapons as possible for a big Huzzah
when they performed their snatch and grabs on the Channel Islands. Using Brens
with 100 Round Drum Mags (in pairs again) or better yet, Vickers K Guns
allowed a strong amount of firepower that didn't have have a very long
duration. Hence the Big but short Huzzah in combat.
> That would make it as effective as an M-240 MAG and it
Yep. GPMG's should put put more fire, more accurately at a longer
range. 30 Caliber MMGs/GPMGs are effective in their anti area roles
out to 1000 meters or more by virtue of the caliber ballistics and tripod
arrangements.
PS, don't the Aussies still have FN-Mags in inventory? Or are the
armor troops the only ones that really have those?
(1) Anyone ever wonder if there's an Asgard Prison planet that the
Asgard dump all the Captured Gould/Jaffa on? Afterall Thor's Hammer
didn't kill them, just dumped them in a place that would require slow death or
allow the host out with the symbiote dead.
> Well, I've been lusting for a P90 long before the SG-1 tv Show came
Unlikely. I think the 5.7x28 cartridge was classifed non-sporting by
the ATF.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK. I was going on an extrapolation from my firsthand range firing of the BAR
and experiences related to me by others of using the BAR and M60 in the field
to get a feel for the (belt fed) M249 from written descriptions and
capabilities. Perhaps you can clear up some questions to help me refine this.
Is the M249 fire from a prone position with the bipod folded, such as "up,
move, down, fire, up, move, etc."?
Is the M249 fired from the shoulder in non-prone positions, such as
standing or kneeling, either supported (eg on a wall) or free?
Is the M249 fired from the hip in assaulting a position? From the shoulder?
Neither?
If it is used in any of the above situations, how effective is it in relation
to the M16? Better? Less? Equal?
In relation to the M249 used w/ bipod from the prone position?
What modes of use would you suggest are relevent to SG2? Bipod and
tripod only, or also non-bipod, mobile (what I refered to as AR, ie
non-prone shoulder-fired or prone non-bipod)?
What FP would you recommend for each of these modes? d6, d8, or d10?
Does use of the tripod increase accuracy enough to justify a change in RBs
from Qx2 to Qx3?
Does tripod use of the M249 require an assistant gunner for the additional
equipment?
Would you consider a single SAW gunner with full tripod set-up
ENCUMBERED (in game terms)?
Are you satified with the stats I suggested for the bipod and tripod modes of
the M240?
How familiar are you with the British SA80/L86 LSW (the heavy barrel,
bipod version)? How does it compare to the M249 in various uses?
J
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Mr.Gill, you are the one who brought up Qx3 for the M249 in the first place.
If you hadn't, I never would have suggested it.
J
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And the fact the weapons have crap for sights. Oh, and they use
> would be able to fire the longer range shots, but the PBJ (Poor
Which sounds like a skirmish game. I think I already said that we did NOT want
such a game. And that we were specifically NOT trying to
duplicate the show-as-produced, but rather have a game with a good
number of figures on each side without requiring one side to have a huge
numerical advantage in order to have any chance of winning, and that our
solution was to give more reasonable capabilities to the Jaffa
and raise them from their Keystone Cop-ness.
J
> At 5:45 PM -0700 7/15/04, J L Hilal wrote:
In that case I suggest you bump up the FN-Mag as well. It's certainly
a long ranged weapon.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> 2. The use of the Laser Guided Missiles launched through the gate and
I seem to recall an episode where SGC fired guided missiles (maverick type
things, but not mavericks if you get me) through the gate which were then
guided by an aerial drone on the other side to knock out some Jaffa heavy
weapon sites which covered the gate on the destination world.
Regards,
> At 5:54 PM -0700 7/15/04, J L Hilal wrote:
I dunno, I've run such a thing in Dirtside and it was hardly a skirmish. It
was a scenario with a given set of starting and ending conditions. If the
scenario is setup properly, both sides have a great amount of fun in spite of
their asymmetrical force numbers.
Do you propose to make Jaffa and SG teams equal in numbers and quality? If so,
that'll hardly be representative of the TV series and you'll likely get some
resistance to the game. You'll probably get a sore SG team player as he'll
have had a set of preconceived notions as to how the SG team should fair and
will find that confusing once the game starts.
> duplicate the show-as-produced, but rather have a game with a good
They're not Keystone Cops. They're what amounts to Primitive troops kept such
by their Gould Overlords. There isn't a need for greater capability because
that would 1. Threaten their overlords and 2. require greater technical
competence which would tie into #1. As you may recall, not even Tealc was
aware of how to repair many systems onboard Gould ships and smaller craft.
Lesser Gould perform those kinds of tasks it would seem as high technology is
the purview of the gods. Frankly, I tend to think of the Jaffa as Zulu's with
energy spears, well motivated, sneaky and capable but not terribly technically
advanced in the ways of Modern warfare. That doesn't mean they're any less
dangerous, just somewhat predictable. Again, they don't even have frikken
radios.
I just relized two things to include. 1. Mortar teams. Imagine if another SG
team supported a first team or three that were forward with a pair of 60mm
mortars at the gate? Can you say ouch? 2. The use of the Laser Guided Missiles
launched through the gate and then designated with the UAV would be
interesting. Regular use of such missiles as hip pocket (talk about range!)
artillery for SG teams or the use of UCAV's in the same role would be hell on
the average Jaffa force. No need to get armored vehicles into to gate room and
through the gate. Just fire your support weapon through an outgoing wormhole
to the world the SG team is at and you're golden. The SG team could even
designate the target themselves if need be.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> I'm waiting on a cross gate weapon adaptation of a SideArm for use
the gate and designates >nearby ground and aerial targets for a launcher
on the other side of the gate. The computers on the SGC side handle the hard
number crunching and the Missles are >launched through the gate room at
anything that's flying or in LOS of the Malp. Kind of a through the wormhole
Aegis, but on a smaller scale. Off axis sidewinder
> missiles would make that possible, so would an AMMRAM based system,
If they still have that second gate (I'm a bit behind on the series) couldn't
they hang it horizontally from some chinooks and hover the
whole array over the forward missile cells on the USS Ticonderoga? :-P
Regards,
> At 3:16 PM +0100 7/16/04, matt tope wrote:
Yep. The Jaffa were waiting on the other side of the gate with a couple of
those tripod mounted staff cannons plus some infantry support. I loved it, it
was a pure example of Earth Knowhow and the Jaffa were basically toast once
the UAV made it through the gate and out of the immediate area.
I'm waiting on a cross gate weapon adaptation of a SideArm for use against
death gliders. Basically a Malp mounted radar that rolls through the gate and
designates nearby ground and aerial targets for a launcher on the other side
of the gate. The computers on the SGC side handle the hard number crunching
and the Missles are launched through the gate room at anything that's flying
or in LOS of the Malp. Kind of a through the wormhole Aegis, but on a smaller
scale. Off axis sidewinder missiles would make that possible, so would an
AMMRAM based system, both have been either modified or checked out for ground
launched use, on the former has been deployed however.
I have to wonder if the same could be used on a larger scale with some heavier
munitions, though I think it'd be a bit difficult and out of Airforce
Character to fire a Copperhead out of a 155mm
howitzer in the gate room...;-)
In a message dated 7/15/04 4:58:28 PM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<<Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: SG-1 in SG2
cut and pasted..
M16A2 = effective range ~550m
M4A1 = effective range ~350m
P90 = effective range ~200m
I couldn't find effective range numbers for the MP5 >>
Well I'm most likely late and someone already answered but pre The Armoury
Volume #1, 1983 by Kevin Dockery 250m for the MP5A2..
Have a Good One,
> --- J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is the M249 fire from a prone position with the
Not typically. It is taught and generally practiced that when bounding
offensively, you drop the bipod, and do your movements with the bipod
deployed. You try to take a decent firing position each time you drop.
> Is the M249 fired from the shoulder in non-prone
I've done it kneeling unsupported when playing around, target shooting. As a
22lb weapon, it is pretty awkward to do so.
> Is the M249 fired from the hip in assaulting a
Not generally. It can be fired from the shoulder, but has controllability
issues. I have done so while clearing a building and at that range I can hit
what I'm aiming at, sure.
> If it is used in any of the above situations, how
More so than the M-16 on semi-automatic just because
it is the nature of the beast.
> In relation to the M249 used w/ bipod from the prone
Much less so.
> What modes of use would you suggest are relevent to
OK, that's the distinction. I don't disassociate bipod with mobile. You keep
your bipod down, and it doesn't take long to take a correct firing stance.
I've done my share of running and gunning and you always drop the bipod.
> What FP would you recommend for each of these modes?
d6 at truly close quarters where the bipod doesn't
provide enough arc of fire to be used--although I
would argue at that range (building-clearing, etc) the
scenario is an FMA one not a SGII one. d8 normally.
> Does use of the tripod increase accuracy enough to
I'd say yes, but not a FP increase.
> Does tripod use of the M249 require an assistant
Nope.
> Would you consider a single SAW gunner with full
If the tripod were deployed, yes. It's bulky and
awkward--not too bad in the bag on his back.
> Are you satified with the stats I suggested for the
Yup.
> How familiar are you with the British SA80/L86 LSW
I've handled it once, for a couple minutes about 3 1/2
years ago. Not familliar enough for a comparison, although I would have to say
I don't recall being any more impressed with it than I was with the rifles.
For some reason the Brits insist on having really well trained riflemen with
the worst gear they can buy for them.
> On Friday 16 July 2004 12:40 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
Yeah, definitely. A Private in my PLT swore he could handle it from the
shoulder/kneeling because he did it in training regularly. He felt
pretty meek when it was pointed out that in training the ammo belts are
missing all those heavy bullet thingies that actually do the killing...
It can be done, but purely as a bullets downrange/spray and pray instead
of controlled, accurate bursts.
> > What modes of use would you suggest are relevent to
What might not be widely known to civvies and thus creating the impression
that deploying the bipod is a chore is that the M249 has a spring-loaded
bipod assembly that stows into the foregrip. Deploying the bipod is as simple
as squeezing the stowed legs together and "throwing" them downward. On a
properly maintained weapon they'll swing downward, spread out to a deployed
"stance" and lock into place. The bipod is very quick and easy to deploy.
This is in contrast to an M60, where each bipod leg must be independantly
released by pulling it towards the rear of the weapon and then rotated
downwards until it locks in place.
> At 1:10 PM -0400 7/16/04, Flak Magnet (Tim) wrote:
The Bren is the same way, just with out a handy foregrip. You're grabbing a
hold of the lower gas tube that can become hot, but there is that handy wooden
barrel handle if the lower part is hot...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:45:38 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes: <snip>
> I have to wonder if the same could be used on a larger scale with
Wings good.
Wheels and tracks bad.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
As I originally proposed, the stats were:
5.56mm M16A2 RB:Qx1 (as basic SG2 rules)
5.56mm M249 RB:Qx2
7.62mm rifle RB:Qx3 (not listed initially, but this is were it fits)
7.62mm M240 RB:Qx4
.50 cal rifle RB:Qx4 (not listed initially, but this is were it fits).50 cal
M2HB RB:Qx5
I did not explicitly state the following, but... Unmounted weapons use firer's
quality (e.g. tripod, bipod, etc.)
Unmounted weapons w/ FCS use 12 for "Q" (e.g. OCSW, etc.)
Mounted weapons w/o FCS use 12 for "Q" (e.g. pintle, ring, etc.)
Mounted weapons w/ FCS use 20 for "Q" (e.g. coax, powered turret, etc)
What, exactly, would you suggest this spectrum of RBs to be changed to?
J
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
My bad. I was thinking RBA but wrote PASGT. The FN site I looked at:
http://www.fnmfg.com/lawenf/ss190/ss190.htm
says Level IIIA PASGT is Level III, while the unreinfoced parts of RBA is
IIIA, and the reinforced parts are more than IIIA but not quite IV (5.56 and
7.62
NATO ball, but not .30-'06), though not as extensive as Interceptor.
I also looked into the Interim system. It is supposed to offer equal level of
protection to RBA and cover greater areas, but still not as good as
Interceptor.
> >
But the question is: how do these numbers compare to SG2? Taking the ~5.5mm
assault rifle (M16, SA80, G36, AK74, etc.) as the baseline to equal small arms
fire in SG2, we find that an SG2 Regular quality has 400m as the extreme edge
of what is effective on the table (presumably shorter than what is found on a
firing range). If you use a house rule to make small arms fire an Open Shift
rather than Closed, then of course this will change.
Now, if you want to either a) give the P90 triple range band die type shifts
or b) give it BOTH double die shifts like a M4 carbine AND ALSO limit it to
1st and 2nd RBs only, then I could live with either of these options.
> >Additionally, I have never seen or heard of anyone other than SG-1
Both situations calling for a SMG, not an asault rifle or carbine.
BTW, in game terms I would call both of your examples CQB using the SG2 close
assault rules.
> >Finally, every force that regularly uses SMGs like the MP-5 in CQB
My point is "no, they don't".
I can understand bringing SMGs when the MALP shows a built up area or
ship around the Gate, but they bring MP5s/P90s everywhere, even into
wilderness or desert areas.
> SPAS-12s and P90s for Replicators.
Understandable.
> Zats, P90s, and perhaps an M16 with the Beta C Magazine for Jaffa
I noticed the Beta-C only once. Every wilderness area should warrant
at least M4s, if not M16+.
> Add in a FN Minimi for work against Jaffa in a
The use of the M249 on the invisible assassin guy was hardly "plan their
engagements pretty well" or "carry the right weapons for the job". They had
P90s and the M249 was conveniently left where ONeill could grab and spray.
> >That is, IMO, more an effect of "Good Guy Success Syndrome". I
Interesting how our views differ. We always felt the ineffectiveness of the
jaffa was the plot device. Its main purpose being to allow the
4-member teams to kick their butts. If the jaffa were even mediocre,
then there would need to be a much larger team with a high turnover bunch of
"redshirts" to catch the fire and allow the main characters to survive all the
episodes.
> >If the bad guy jaffa did this instead of just charging the guns like
If the jaffa barrage fired like this regularly, the SG team wouldn't be able
to drag their cauterized stumps out of the beaten zone.
> >
So if they brought M4s, M16s, etc. into the woods/deserts instead of
MP5s and P90s, they would do even better. Which makes the handicaps on the
jaffa too excessive for what we want to do. This is the reason I put two range
categories for the staff weapon. One for those who want to equip their SG team
as seen on the show and the other for those (like the group I play with) who
want to equip them as standard US
Special Forces/SEALs/Marines/light infantry.
> >Depends. One could postulate that the helmet+staff work like the US
We do too. And in our games they will be, which allows the SG player to have a
reasonable size force without making the jaffa player feel like a redshirt.
> 2 of their 5 weapons are designed to make a big
Until the Taurri showed up, there was't a problem with uppity jaffa.
:)
> Little beady eyes....and a big screen, no problem
He has on a few rare occasions, but in the vast majority of woodsy, village,
and desert episodes he still uses the staff.
> >
"Best of the Best of the Mediocre", you mean
> Sure, the Jaffa have some modicum of the same
Another good example of "Good Guy Success/Bad Guy Incompetence
Syndrome" and "Impressive Bad Guy Armor Can't Stop A Spitball Syndrome".
> >Essentially, we are going on the assumption that an SG team is
> >US forces with M16s, M203s, and M249s (shown as MP5s & P90s for
US Army Light Infantry/Rangers/Airborne/Air Assault:
4-man command group (PL, PSgt, RTO, medic), 3 rifle squads of 9, each
with 2x4-man fireteams (2xM16, 1xM16/M203, 1xM249 each) + weapons squad
with 2-3xM240 and 2xDragon or Javelin
USMC:
4-man command group (PL, PSgt, RTO, naval corpsman), 3 rifle squads of
13, each with 3x4-man fireteams as above, MGs and AT teams assigned
from Co. Weapons Platoon.
SF Alpha team:
12 memebers; CO (Capt.), XO (Warrant), 10x NCOs, work in 6-, 4-, or
3-man teams as needed.
SEAL platoon
16 members in 2 sections/4 fireteams
I am not real familiar with the modern SAS, but the part I do know about is
the Rhodesian SAS in the 60s:
6-man team; 5xRPD (belt fed 7.62x39mm) and 1xRPG-7 & AKM. Long range
heavy support provided by units with L4 Bren and FAL heavy barrel LSW.
> You can see the rounds going out and you are
at 100': hit with every shot. At 100 yds: at least 1 good break out of a
burst.
> With my FN Fal, I can hit smaller targets at
Well, "Duh!" That was an example of inaccurate ballistics that is still better
than a jaffa.
> >Other than the pilot, I don't remember any jaffa being hit by a
So... hits from a MP5 burst will penetrate jaffa armor. My point wasn't aimed
at who was shooting or how accurate, just that they always take a dive on the
show.
> >
You're right: soft armor at 200m; hard armor not at all.
> >> The Jaffa have to pile on and get close.
Not even a company, just a light platoon. Going by the show, even a marine
squad should be able to fight a Goa'uld homeworld to a draw, only needing the
rest of the platoon to go over to the offensive for a win.
> >Did you skip the beginning of my post? The part where I said that
If you ask the question: "what would be worth it to put through the Gate to
ensure success?", the answer is going to be "large squad for close recon;
rifle platoon or more for exploration; Alpha team, SEAL platoon, or Ranger
platoon for special operation"
> With a big enough table and a double blind system
Yes, you could, but that is not what we are looking for. Your suggestion is,
however, what I would call a "skirmish game".
> Scorpion, scimitar, ets. I'm not sure how to get
Before or after they wonder why there is a missile silo at Cheyanne
Mt.?
Once you start looking at this from a "what is needed to make the operations
worthwhile?" rather than Hollywood perspective, the Gate
operations get moved from NORAD's rootcellar to the warehouse/hanger in
Nevada where the secondary gate was boxed (also shown as the site of the
Backstep Project in "7 Days"), and you can do a LOT more, like putting an
AC(L) troop through for exploring desert planets.
> >>
It always seemed to me that the screens were automatic, which means after they
appear the Goa'uld itself is immune to both staff and gunpowder weapons.
Where's an English longbowman when you need him?
> What was it Jack said about the Asgard? "I love those guys!"
"Litle Green Men?" "Actually they're grey, Roswell Grey"
:)
J
> --- matt tope <mptope@omnihybrid.com> wrote:
Blown up by Sokar
J
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
How about a remote Avenger turret on a MALP?
> I have to wonder if the same could be used on a larger scale with
If they aren't too close to the Gate, how about 120mm STAFF?
J
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
We talked it over this weekend and we are going to take your advice and use:
M249 AR/Bipod FP:d8 RB:Qx2
M249 LMG/Tripod FP:d8 RB:Qx3 1-crew SW
However, another question was raised:
Should the bipod and tripod modes of the M240 also use a single FP rating and
differ instead in the RB multiplier?
Thanks, J