This weekend, we also played an SG2 battle, and the following questions arose.
1) Debark/embark:
Does this take 1 action from the infantry and one from the vehicle, or merely
one from the infantry and none from the vehicle? Adrian argues that it takes
only one from the infantry, and I the opposite. He takes his from a particular
reading of the text passage in the rules, I take mine from my reading of the
same passage and from DS2 which does inflict a penalty on both (and from the
fact it seems odd your vehicle could move a full move then so could your
troops).
2) Does it seem sensible to anyone that an infantry squad in hard cover can
only be
targeted at 360m by a DFFG/4 or 5? That it
would be impossible for the tank to even suppress the infantry at that range?
(Same question for the cupola HMG!) HMGs will reach out to over 2km and tank
guns to at least double that. In firing at infantry with such weapons, would
it make sense to ignore the range band shifts but still give the infantry the
armour shift benefits? Or just to up the size of vehicle range bands? (Note: I
am aware vehicles are intentionally palsied... we just found it odd that
infantry could hit a tank who had NO chance to effect them in reverse.....).
3) When a heavy weapon is fired at a squad
(said DFFG), the way it was resolved was FC +
QD vs. Range die, and casualties were determined as infantry fire. OTOH, I
maintain it
should have been resolved as FC + QD vs.
Range die, and if a hit was scored, all squad members should take a D8 attack
(heavy weapons versus dispersed targets). Are either of these right? Or are
neither? If not, what is?
4) An HMG (RFAC/1) hit a PA squad. The RFAC
only does D10* impact. So it was D10 vs. D12. The HAMR does 2d12 impact.
Anyone think
there is something awry here? RFAC/1 is 20-
30mm. So how big exactly is the HAMR round? If it isn't bigger, why aren't we
issuing the RFAC gunners with that variety of ammo? Or is the HAMR just well
over the top? (Note: An AAR does D10 impact. The RFAC D10. Hmmmm....)
Thoughts?
Interesting facts: The Queen's Own Rifles NAC infantry won the
day against the Gurkhas in the soccer match 1-
0. Later, the Gurkha forces managed a massive (16 man, from three squads,
including the two man medic squad) close assault in repelling the FSE and ESU
interlopers, so all was well. One FSE Squad actually lost three squad leaders
in two turns. And the Gurkhas got some ears.
A fun game, ran by Adrian. I think he should have some pix of the basecamp
attack (with the Ghurkhas deployed playing soccer with the new Anglians since
we didn't know the reds and the froggies were coming). The FSE did a competent
job of trying to extricate themselves from a tough situation (given they
attacked without knowing they were facing anywhere near as much force and
given they lost a number of
GEVs to non-penetrating mobility kills).
> penalty on both (and from the fact it seems
Makes sense to me.
> 2) Does it seem sensible to anyone that an
So we shoot the cover. DFFG will penetrate tank armor, should do a number on a
cinderblock wall, rock, tree, etc. And on whoever is
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:27:50 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> 1) Debark/embark:
I agree with Adrian that it's the moving unit that pays the cost. The wording
is ambiguous, though. This is another area of the rules that really needs
clearing up.
It appears that most of the playtesting had vehicles as integral to the squad,
thus the whole "vehicle is parked" comment in the second paragraph (dealing
with the vehicle as a detached part of the squad).
I can see TomB's point, as there is a line that says, "Getting troops into or
out of a vehicle takes one MOVE action per squad/unit, during which
neither the troops or the vehicle may do anything else." This is very vague.
If you read it as covering both vehicles as separate entities and vehicles as
attached to the squad, it seems to imply that the vehicle may not do
_anything_ that turn while the squad loads. That doesn't seem fair. It
doesn't say how many actions the transport eats up. Then there's the next
sentence that says, in part, "...[after they leave the vehicle with a move
action, the troops] are then free to use their other action to move away, fire
or whatever."
I'm of the opinion that Jon mostly used attached vehicles when playtesting
SG2. As such, most of this section implies that the vehicle is part of the
squad. Hence the part about neither the vehicle nor the squad doing anything
else during loading (otherwise how could a vehicle do anything else in the
middle of another unit's activation?).
Considering the structure of SG2 (one unit activates at a time) and the
difficulty of keeping track of which vehicle has already spent an action
loading or whatever, I have ruled that it costs the troops embarking and
disembarking an action to do so. The vehicle, if an independent unit, remains
unactivated and still has its two actions.
This, of course, means that there is _no_ reason for vehicles to be an
integral part of a squad. It's actually a major disadvantage to make them part
of the squad. I don't know if Jon's idea was to most always make them part of
the squad, with the exception being things like VTOL transports and such. I
don't know what his "default" squad structure is with regard to vehicles.
Without any guidelines, no one will make them part of the squad because of
this disadvantage.
So, my interpretation matches Adrian's. However, it's now got me thinking
about vehicles in a new way. I suspect that Jon's original plan was for
mechanized units to have the vehicle part of the squad. The rules work best
this way, with regard to loading and unloading.
As a house rule, you could require the vehicle to eat up an action in this
loading process, too, but that becomes a headache from a bookkeeping stance. I
wouldn't sweat it and just let the vehicle keep its two actions while a squad
loads. That's how I've always played it.
> 2) Does it seem sensible to anyone that an
And wouldn't that be down to 240m if they were in Improved Positions? Yeah,
this seems a bit weird. The problem is the upper limit of a D12 range die in
the firing rules. If the range die is greater than D12, combat is not allowed.
I've been somewhat miffed by that rule for a while, but never had a scenario
where this gap (being able to fire at a vehicle while totally safe from it)
has shown itself.
> In firing at infantry with such
I'm not a big fan of special rules for special weapons in SG2. How about you
just make the shift open? If the die shift would be beyond D12, shift the
firepower die down. That way if you have a D12 firepower HMG on a vehicle, it
has a maximum range against troops in hard cover of 840m. Still lower than
"realistic", but much closer (and would fit most wargame tables). You could
even extend this rule to all combat, including infantry firing at infantry.
> 3) When a heavy weapon is fired at a squad
The rules are clear on this one. Page 40. You roll FC + QD for the DFFG
vs. Range Die for the infantry. Casualties are determined as per small arms
fire. The impact die, though, is D8 versus the infantry's armour.
> 4) An HMG (RFAC/1) hit a PA squad. The RFAC
No, it's worse than that. The RFAC/1 is considered a "heavy weapon", so
it's impact versus a dispersed target is D8.
> The HAMR does 2d12 impact. Anyone think
Yeah, there is a weirdness here. But the HAMR is used in the sniper rules. I
assumed that the impact was higher because of limitations imposed on it that
are abstracted into the sniper rules. If used against PA, it can only fire at
one armoured trooper. That RFAC/1, though, can affect every PA trooper
in a squad.
Just leave it as is and assume that the reason it has such a high impact is
because it's only used as a sniper weapon, with lots of good optics, specially
trained soldiers, and the team has the chance to aim at vulnerable parts of
the target. If you want to use a HAMR in a non-sniping role (as a
support weapon, for instance), come up with new stats for it, such as FP of D6
(down from D8 as the firepower would be reduced due to not having as much time
to aim), and an impact of D12*.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> As a house rule, you could require the vehicle to eat up an action in
Alternatively, you could just require that the APC remains stationary
rather than losing a complete action - so it could spend an action
firing (or communicating or whatever) and still embark / disembark
troops, which is a slight penalty but not as severe as losing an action.
IMHO the book-keeping overhead isn't a burden - after all, how many APCs
are there likely to be in one game, and how many of these are going to
be disembarking / embarking ar a time ? This is the sort of info' you
could keep in your head.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:15:49 +0100, Tony Francis
<tony@brigademodels.co.uk> wrote:
> IMHO the book-keeping overhead isn't a burden - after all, how many
My NSL Panzergrenadiers usually have 4 vehicles per platoon: one per squad,
plus one for the command squad (in general, of course). This may not be a big
deal, but there will be situations where there are two APCs with infantry, one
loaded this turn and one that didn't, and there could be difficulty
remembering which is which.
Hi Folks,
Allan said:
> Thanks! One change: artillery firing over "open sights" takes up two
Yeah, that makes sense.
> How about 12" x (greatest of target class and weapon class)? An RFAC/1
Though when it comes right down to it, 12" for an RFAC (20mm cannon, say)
might be a bit short, too.
24" range bands for heavy weapons is looking a bit better, though this means
that bigger targets will be in the first couple of rangebands almost always.
This might work for the "heavy-weapons vs. infantry" problem, but would
make armoured targets *even weaker* than they already are...
> Sorry, "leave the impact effects as they are" but change the range
I thought that was what you meant.
> I always give the RFAC at least a d10 impact vs. PA, but when we
I like TomB's suggestion re PA for GMS - that you allow PA to be
targeted like a point target, but shift up one for the guidance die, and only
take the hit on a single PA trooper. How about doing the same for other heavy
weapons: targeted as normal for infantry (whatever rangebands we end up with,
currently 12"), modify for cover etc., but when hits are worked out, one
attack die beating the defense die just gives a suppression. Two or more die
beating the defense die gives a suppression to the squad and damages ONE PA
trooper, who gets the FULL effect of the weapon. So, a PA
squad targeted by a RFAC/2 suffering a damaging hit (FC + QD both beat
defense die), then ONE PA trooper would suffer the d10x4 penetration
roll...
This would be different from regular infantry who can suffer more hits, but
will only ever get a d8 impact from those hits.
(except if we make HW's like RFACs more effective, of course...:)
> And nice to be able to play on a table big enough that we could
way
> all the time.
I think TomB might have mentioned, but it was 6x10 or 6x12. Plywood board
surface over top of a pool table, with green groundcloth.
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:05:42 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Though when it comes right down to it, 12" for an RFAC (20mm cannon,
I thought of another way of doing it. See what you think about it.
Squads in SG2 use quality to define the size of a range band. Why not go this
route with vehicles, as well?
Take the Quality Die type in inches, and then double it. This would be the
base range band size for vehicular weapons. A Green crew would have 12" range
bands. A Regular crew, though, would have 16" range bands. A Veteran crew
would get to extend it to 20", etc.
This falls between the 12" that are present now, and the 24" that may be a bit
much. It also makes more use out of the crew's quality.
Now the RFAC/1 has a bit longer range than a squad support weapon. The
maximum range a machine gun with a squad could fire is 12" per range band if
it was
elite. A regular crew on an RFAC/1 would have a 4" per range band edge
over them.
This still doesn't fix the problem of a squad in hard cover being able to take
out a vehicle without the vehicle being able to suppress them with an
RFAC/1.
It does extend the range at which the RFAC can do this, though.
I'm also thinking more about my suggestion of making range band shifts for
cover open rather than a closed shift. You could shift the QD down one for the
attacker for each range band over 5. This allows a potential suppression
result anywhere on the board. I would suggest that this be allowed
_only_ for
vehicle mounted weapons. It's too easy to unbalance the game if you allow it
for squads (which typically roll three or more dice anyway). This suggestion
could be used with extended range bands or on its own.
> This might work for the "heavy-weapons vs. infantry" problem, but would
Only against other vehicles, which is perhaps not that big a problem.
> I like TomB's suggestion re PA for GMS - that you allow PA to be
You know, I kind of like this. But only for single shot weapons. An
RFAC/2, it
seems to me, should be able to do damage to more than one PA trooper. Also,
since a turn is like 5 minutes, I would think that even an HVC could fire more
than one round at the PA guys. Perhaps the firer should have the option of
aiming at one PA guy or at the squad in general (the way it would fire at
regular infantry).
Ok, this thread isn't quite done yet:)
> Subject: Re: [SG] More questions from the weekend
<snip>
> This falls between the 12" that are present now, and the 24" that may
I like this idea a lot. It makes the vehicle mounted weapons better, but not
outrageously so, and it ties *how* better to the crew quality, which makes
sense.
Also, it is *simple*. Not quite as simple as "all vehicle weapons have X
rangebands", but still very simple. No charts, tables, or whatever.
> I'm also thinking more about my suggestion of making range band shifts
Yes, it would have to be - it makes sense for vehicles to be more
capable
of effective long-range fire than dismounted troops. And it would break
the system a lot of you let infantry do this too.
> This might work for the "heavy-weapons vs. infantry" problem, but
Well, that and infantry firing groundmounted heavy weapons, like the ESU
tripod mounted weapons (RFAC/1 and AGL, I believe).
> one attack die beating the defense die just gives a suppression. Two
Also,
> since a turn is like 5 minutes, I would think that even an HVC could
Maybe having the option would work, but with limits on the damage if you go
for the whole squad - if you target a single PA then you potentially get
max damage. If you target the squad, then you only ever get a single d8
impact, the same as with non-PA infantry. More likely to cause
suppressions than anything else, which makes sense.
This is really just like saying that PA suits can optionally be considered a
size 1 target on their own...
***************************************
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:46:32 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I like this idea a lot. It makes the vehicle mounted weapons better,
Thank you! That was what I was aiming for.
> Also, it is *simple*. Not quite as simple as "all vehicle weapons have
I found that working out range bands is a bit of a pain unless you play a
simple trick with it. Yellows, Greens, Oranges, and Reds are fairly easy
(range bands are multiples of 8, 12, 20, and 24, respectively. It's the Blues
that cause trouble as most people never memorized their 16 times tables. The
trick is to multiply the size class of the target by the quality die, then
double it (instead of multiplying the size class by 16). Once you do that,
it's pretty easy. Not as easy as infantry, or a fixed range band, but
certainly not horrible.
> Yes, it would have to be - it makes sense for vehicles to be more
Do you think it would work to combine both? Open shifts plus the QD x vehicle
size class x 2 for range bands?
I'm also thinking about World War II games. I'd probably have the range bands
at QD x vehicle size class x 1 but with open shifts. Otherwise, you'd have
Veteran Shermans engaging Tigers at 600m for close range, and 3 km for maximum
range.
> Well, that and infantry firing groundmounted heavy weapons, like the
Good point. They should use the vehicle rules, too.
> Maybe having the option would work, but with limits on the damage if
This is what I was thinking.
> This is really just like saying that PA suits can optionally be
Good way of putting it.