[SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

6 posts ยท Jul 16 2002 to Jul 17 2002

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:51:09 -0400

Subject: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

Let's briefly think about what weapons there are, and how effective they would
be against infantry and point targets.

We have the HEL. Now, how does it gain its effect? One big powerful blast?
Good for armour penetration, not so good for getting hits on infantry.
Accuracy would go up with more shots, but it is a speed of light weapon, so
you aren't gonna miss often with that one shot. (Note that HEL in DS are
phenomenally more accurate than other weapons at any significant range....).
Can the weapon be
switched to a low-power-per-pulse, rapid-pulse
mode for engagement of infantry? Or is this just
a distinction between the HEL/1 and HEL/2-5?

Then we have HVC. You've got everything from the 57mm AT gun, the 76mm LPG, to
the 130 mm Smoothbore, etc. covered here. Some of these have good HE rounds.
Some have (gasp)
Cannister. Cannister from a HVC/4 ought to be
a real bad day (or Flechette) for infantry. As might various submunition
carrying rounds or something like a huge ass Dragonsbreath round.

Then we have the HKP. Don't see much of an
anti-infantry option for this weapon. Seems to
be a dedicated armour killer. If you get a contact hit on an infantry walker
or PA (or god forbid, a poor soldier doggie) then they're
gonna be goo. But it isn't a good anti-infantry
weapon.

Then we have the RFAC. This covers the slower
firing anti-armour chain guns, the faster firing
multi barrel gatling cannons, etc. So we have
some that are anti-armour weapons (slower
RoF) and some that are anti-air or anti-infantry
weapons or even PDS weapons (I remember seeing a PIVAD firing on infantry and
vehicle cutouts in training.... and I recall thinking "Note to self, never
attack an ADA unit"). But even the slower firing versions probably have
fragmenting rounds. And the ROF on the gatlings is gonna be enough that they
don't even need fragmentation. They're gonna kill what they get solid hits on,
soldierwise.

We have the SLAM, but that is best considered as artillery.

We have the MDC. Small version are like big gauss SAWs. (Traveller VRF Gauss
Gun). Very very very bad for infantry, I'd think. Probably
the best anti-infantry weapon out there. Larger
versions can be viewed as firing large projectiles slower or more smaller ones
faster. But I'm betting you could load them with some type of explosive or
cannister round if they were big enough. So they strike me as deadly to
infantry in any size.

Then we have the DFFG. The "sun gun". Assuming that when this thing hits,
there is a fusion reaction, probably that means that it vaporizes stuff. Land
one in the middle of an infantry squad and its crispy critter city. The
small DFFG/1 would be deployed (as on the
NAC Phalanx) in a tribarrell rapid-fire version
and would make up for smaller radius effects by rapid fire. Again, a very
deadly weapon against infantry.

GMS? People always want to use these against infantry and I don't see why it
isn't possible. Just give the infantry D4 ECM. And treat the
weapon as having D12 impact (for GMS/P). Not
terribly effective, but it might kill someone and it will probably place a
suppression. Waste of missiles if armour shows up later, though.

APSW and HMG - not quite an RFAC. RFAC one
is supposed to be 20-30mm. These are 10-
20mm weapons (if HMG) or 30-40mm GLs.
They can execute autofire and have a variety of ammunition available,
including possibly AP, HE, incendiary, and in the case of the GLs, HEDP,
cannister, and lots of other loads. These aren't going to make infantry very
happy.

I think what we can see here is that most vehicle weapons should have an
effective anti infantry attack mode. I think the least effectual would be the
HKP and the GMS. The question then becomes how to make these weapons
appropriately potent. And in doing so, what would the implications be? What
balance would need to exist for the vehicles to not dominate the board?

(I can supply some guesses: Appropriately
strong anti-vehicle weapons, spotting (infantry
often live by being below the radar of more obnoxious unit types), and a bias
to be more concerned about other vehicular threats).

I think this is an interesting discussion. I'm not suggesting "official"
changes to things, I'm just trying to create an IMU solution that will make a
vehicle feel a little more like a threat to the "insects" (infantry).;)

From: Richard Kirke <richardkirke@h...>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:48:01 +0000

Subject: Re: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

> Let's briefly think about what weapons there

I am sure that (but am too lazy to go and check) DSII refers to switching the
HEL to a rapid fire low power birst mode for enaging infantry.

> Then we have HVC. You've got everything from

Some HE round rules do seem to be in order.

> Then we have the HKP. Don't see much of an

Yes, but the chances of hitting a spread out infantry squad with one of those
is so slim that it is probably not worth modeling

> Then we have the RFAC. This covers the slower

These in particular I feel are underpowered with impact D8.

> We have the SLAM, but that is best considered

Probably depending on class, give it a different sized template, and consider
it as self designating artillery.

> We have the MDC. Small version are like big

hmm, not sure, to get a round that is magnetically accelerated like that I am
not conviced that HE or any other type of round would be a good
idea...
but I may be wrong.

> Then we have the DFFG. The "sun gun".

Again I feel these puppies should do more than impact D8 to the PBI on the
recieving end.

THe continual problem to consider is that you have to hit the d***
b*****
who aren't going to be standing still waiting for you to shoot them, they are
moving, hiding and generally trying not to be shot at (except the dead ones...
but shooting them is a pretty futile exercise).

> GMS? People always want to use these against

IMHO no-one in their right mind in a theatre with armour arround is
going to waste GMS on anything but infantry, that's what small arms, APSW etc
are

for!

Just my thoughts, but yes I feel that they are way underpowered

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:53:19 -0500

Subject: Re: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:51:09 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:

> We have the HEL. Now, how does it gain its

According to the rulebook, yes, for point targets.

> Can the weapon be

According to the rulebook, yes it can switch to a rapid pulse mode for
engaging infantry. No, it's not a distinction between HEL classes.

> Then we have HVC. You've got everything from

For cannister rules in _Hardtack_, I had it treated as regular infantry
fire:
QD + a couple of support weapon dice representing the shrapnel. The same
thing could apply here, with perhaps the class indicating the type of die. For
instance, cannister for class 1 would be QD + D4 + D4. Cannister for an
HVC/5
would be QD + D12 + D12.

> Then we have the DFFG. The "sun gun".

Or is a DFFG closer to the powerguns of Slammer fame, where they lose energy
as they zip through foliage and the like (the Slammers powerguns seemed to me
to be a particularly bad idea as powergun shots could get "used up" hitting
leaves; seemed like a great counter to them was some sort of chaffe projector
like you see sending up confetti at concerts).

> GMS? People always want to use these against

D12 impact seems a bit harsh. It would, to me, depend on the warhead. Probably
kill the one guy it hit, but what about the rest in the squad? I'd keep it at
D8 as per the usual "heavy weapon firing at dispersed target" rules.

> (I can supply some guesses: Appropriately

Vehicles only have two actions, same as a squad. It would seem to me that a
vehicle all by its lonesome is still going to be in trouble, even with
realistic defensive weapons. I suspect that Jon was more worried about
vehicles dominating the game than he really needed to be.

> I think this is an interesting discussion. I'm not

Agree, though I'm also thinking in terms of a vehicle-only game. As it
stands, vehicles (particularly tanks) are really wimpy.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:34:07 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

> On 17-Jul-02 at 08:55, Allan Goodall (agoodall@att.net) wrote:

> Or is a DFFG closer to the powerguns of Slammer fame, where they lose

I was just reading the new Slammer novel where it is mentioned that water
spray would block powergun shots. How about a tank of water and a spray
system? You have an AI turn it on when you are about to become vulnerable and
off when that goes away.

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:05:26 -0400

Subject: Re: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

> At 9:48 AM +0000 7/17/02, Richard Kirke wrote:

> IMHO no-one in their right mind in a theatre with armour arround is

It's been a pretty consistent thing. Milan used against a.50 MG position in
the Falklands, Piats against snipers in buildings, etc. Give troops a hard
target and not an easy way to deal with it and they'll use an AT weapon with a
significant HE effect to sort out the position.

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: [SG] Another pass through heavy weapons

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >IMHO no-one in their right mind in a theatre with

It also helps that the Argentinians didn't have a single armored vehicle on
the Falklands.