[SG] GMS vs. Infantry

5 posts ยท Jul 18 2002 to Jul 19 2002

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:24:37 -0400

Subject: [SG] GMS vs. Infantry

Allan said: 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.

[Tomb] Well, Allan, look at it like this.
Typical D8 Guidance plus DQ vs. D4 (plus
something Adrian does that I like - he adds
cover shifts to ECM values... gives there SOME point to being hull or turret
down as a tank or being dug in as infantry). That'll generate some number of
casualties. I guess D8 is probably an appropriate impact, though I might be
tempted to roll one of them as D12. (It strikes me that if there was a contact
hit, that guy would get pasted.... I'm specifically thinking of shooting this
at PA). Another mechanism that just occured: Fire at the single PA trooper as
if he was an individual (give him
appropriate ECM - basic for PA? and
perhaps a 1 level shift for being an
individual figure - so he'd defend on D8).
Use the full impact of the weapon if it hits, but you'll only kill that one
guy. But the suppression applies to the whole squad and any morale effects do
too.

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:22:26 -0400

Subject: Re: [SG] GMS vs. Infantry

Hi!

> [Tomb] Well, Allan, look at it like this.

I'd love to say "Yes, that clever ruling of mine adds brilliance to the GMS
rules"...

But that is, in fact, what the rules say to do.

FYI: p40, the "Guided Missile Fire" section

"The RANGE to the target does not affect missile fire... if the target is in
any kind of cover, shift the ECM die up one type."

Jon's brilliance, not mine:)

***************************************

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:21:20 +0000

Subject: Re: [SG] GMS vs. Infantry

Firing GMS at non point targets.. hmm, well if soldiers do it, then I guess
there shoudl be some rules for it.

I get the feeling that they should really be fired at point targets for
example pill-boxes, machine-gun nests etc, and be considered as static
vehicles (maybe 12" range bands, a shift for cover or something) then treat
the ocupants as carried infantry (page 39, top right). If fired at infantry
sqads, I'd say limit to 1 casualty, give it a really low FP (maybe D4) and if
he is hit, then he is automatically hit (because lets face it, if a soldier is
hit by a Milan Rocket, then he is not going to survive, not
noway-no-how!

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:01:16 -0400

Subject: Re: [SG] GMS vs. Infantry

> At 4:21 PM +0000 7/19/02, Richard Kirke wrote:

Well, really what you are doing is getting an area effect against the point
target. The result of an HEAT round is that yes, you do get an armor
penetrating jet, but you also have a very significant explosive area around
the detonation. This is exactly why the 120mm smoothbore guns retain an anti
personnel ability despite not being optimized for it.

Its not as effective against a dispersed target. But against a crew manning a
MG or a sniper in a obvious position, it works wonders.

From: WJAL21@a...

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:52:22 EDT

Subject: Re: [SG] GMS vs. Infantry

Would it be possible that GMS operators carried a round designed for anti
infantry work? There is a nice example in a David Drake novel called
"Redliners". As well as anti armour rockets they also carry mini fuel air
explosive
rockets for anti-infanty work.
Direct fire with some sort of burst radius probably.