[SG] WotW

Gear genades and genade launcher

Grenades: thrown; max range 12"; deviates 1D3" always; Blast radius 2"; Same
variants are artillery 1 mass per 3

Grenade Launcher: size 3 min range 6"; max range 24"; deviates 1D4" always;
launches Gear grenades has 6 ammo

Grenade launchers are already covered by the rules (FP:d12, I: d8*). Hand
thrown grenades for a 'gear are probably best covered modified IAVR rules,
with range limited to "Close Only" (FP: d10, I: d10*, close only).

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM

> -----Original Message-----

> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:

Those are infantry grenade launchers, different thing entirely. hmm.. close
only, like 12" right? Sorta like I the 12" I wrote. Hmm.. now
making it D10/D10* might not be a bad idea. Makes them a little less
powerfull and more all around. Definately would keep them from decimanting
infantry as much. Will have to try that next time.

Unless you upgrade the grenade launcher to heavy weapons (like DFFG /
MDC etc), it is perfectly permissible to mount infantry weapons. Using
templates/blast radius is too detailed for the SG scale; when it gets
down to FMAs scale, you'd start adding templates.

Check out:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/sg/walker.htm
for a couple of the designs / rules that I use.

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM

> -----Original Message-----

> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:

It is a heavy weapon. It's designed to be carried by infantry walkers as a
kind of mini artilery.

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

> Grenade launchers are already covered by the rules (FP:d12, I: d8*).

True, but what Jaime was looking for was an undersized mortar... as is, it's
too powerful; being downrange of one of those things is obscene... The
standard infantry grenade launcher is powerful enough.

> Hand thrown grenades for a 'gear are probably best covered modified

This I like - get rid of the auto-hit capability of the
template-grenades.

The last several games, nearly every casualty on the table has been caused by
Jaime's 'gears chucking or launching their giant grenades at people. Sure the
range is limited, but we're playing on a fairly small table right now, and
always with lots of terrain.

Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -

> Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/

> Brian Burger wrote:

It's not obscene... it's merely not advisable... but you're right, I was
thinking along the lines of a downgraded mortar. More like the infantry tube
mortars that we have today.

> This I like - get rid of the auto-hit capability of the

How about the D10 impact and D10* FP with a 2" template and the auto
deviation? D4" and D6"?

> The last several games, nearly every casualty on the table has been

I agree they're a little too powerful but I still think the idea is sound. And
you're only bitter cause it's always your troops getting hit by the BAGs (Big
Ass Grenades)

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:

> Brian Burger wrote:

Maybe - I'm still in favour of getting rid of the template entirely - it
makes these weapons more powerful than anything except artillery, and if you
want artillery you can add that to vehicles already, with the various
limitations involved in real artillery.

> > The last several games, nearly every casualty on the table has been

BAGs, hmm? That would make your walker pilots the 'BAGladies'?:>

You'll need to model those shopping carts, then.

> Brian Burger wrote:

What I'm trying to make is a compromise between direct fire gun and artilery.
Something that doesn't have quite the impact of artilery but is different then
just the run of the mill DFGs.

The orginator of this movement was to model some of the Heavy Gear weapons
into SGII. I've been a fan of template weapons for a long time, since I
started in Epic 40k years ago. Don't forget you get an armour shift from cover
so you're already at a base of D8 against a D10, plus a min deviation of 1".
I'd say give it a shot next game if it comes into play.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:

> Brian Burger wrote:

I have to admit I'd like to see more area effect weapons, such as grenades.
Some of the folks at my gaming club tend to field regular
firing squads, standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Best way to train that out
of them is area effect weaponry.

Cheers,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> I have to admit I'd like to see more area effect weapons, such as

Here's another one then for you:)

Flamers in SGII are terror weapons but of only close assault range. Now in
WWII the US produced a bunch of shermans that had huge flamers on them (most
of which ended up in Canadian hands which lead to the stereotype of Canadians
as pyros) so why can't SGII have a ranged flamer weapon. In 40K (I know,
sorry) they have ranged templated flamers. Now why not use something similar
to that. Terrain already has a flash point I believe (I'll have to look this
up right afterwards) so why not make flamers in heavy weapons sizes, say, like
GMS systems.

Light Flamer: Size: 4 Range: 14" Width at max range: 2" Damage: D10

Heavy Flamer: Size: 6 Range: 18" Width at max range: 3" Damage: D10

Die shifts for cover still apply to armour. Causes terror Causes suppression
For each figure roll a D6, 5-6 figure is on fire, will take damage again
next turn if fire not put out
To put out fire on figure must take reorg action and roll 4+ on a D6

This is just some thoughts that I spewed out quickly. Please throw in some
ideas for it. I'm sure this as it stands is a poor weapon design:)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Now
> in WWII the US produced a bunch of shermans that had huge flamers on

Because flamers are short range weapons? Remember, 1" = 10 metres range?
> Light Flamer:

Err. Max range 140 metres? Width at max range 20 metres? And you call this
light?

> Heavy Flamer:

180 metres? 30 wide?

I'm sorry, but these simply strike me as far too heavy. I _could_ be
wrong about the ranges of realistic flame weapons, but this strikes me as
excessive.

Now as for game terms, this is a damn heavy flamer as well. The light flamer
does over 2 range bands for green troops, the heavy 3. (or over
1,
and 1.5 for elite troops), and with NO penalty for the longer range
whatsoever. In fact, it's worse, it's an automatic hit? Or am I
misunderstanding this thing? Also, a flamer is no more area effect than a
machine gun - you have to sweep it across to hit a larger area. The only
difference is the indirect damage dealt by setting the geography on fire. I
assume your damage suggestions imply a direct hit; indirect damage is covered
under fire rules (pg. 57), and only does a D4 damage.

The effect, a D10 on all figures in the area, with potential repeat effects
the next round, is very harsh compared to regular fire (D4). Unless you're
going to ditch the area effect, I'd say don't go over a D6. You'd have to be
lucky to harm them. Also, drop the repeat effect. Either the figure is REALLY
on fire, except possibly for wounded, but not dead, figures. EITHER he really
IS on fire, or he isn't. The burning geography will already inflict an extra
D4 in later turns. (Mmm. Do suppressed units get to run out of the fire? I'd
allow it, towards the closest
non-burning
area)

I'm sorry, but I think this would be too heavy, as suggested? I'd rather be
taking heavy orbital bombardment than this;)

Cheers,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> I have to admit I'd like to see more area effect weapons, such as

But with the SGII ground scale (1" = 10 meters), putting the figures
"shoulder to shoulder" means that they are in fact standing *5-10
meters* apart. The lethal radius of today's 40mm grenades (which is what most
of today's automatic grenade launchers fire) and hand grenades fall in that
range.

Using today's realism as the measuring stick (always dangerous in an SF
game), you *might* hit two adjacent figures in base-to-base contact
with a single hand grenade :-/

Regards,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

Mmm. Isn't the range at which injuries will occur a good deal more than
the _lethal_ radius? If I understood correctly, lethal radius is where
you are very likely to kill an unarmoured man.

Also, defensive hand grenades have a far larger lethal radius, due to their
fragmentation shell.

> Using today's realism as the measuring stick (always dangerous in an

It would actually make sense to do so, as modern hand grenades have their
explosive area simply because it is counter-productive to make
(offensive) hand grenades that will have the thrower and his buddies smack in
the midst of the danger zone;) However, for defensive hand grenades the story
is altogether different (since the idea is to throw 'm and crawl back in your
foxhole, I guess)

Cheers,

I happen to agree with Derk on the 30 m wide, but the range is not out for
real flame throwers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Corey Burger wrote:

> I happen to agree with Derk on the 30 m wide, but the range is not out

Mmm. I just looked at Jane's. 50-70m max range for infantry flame
throwers. One cart-fed flamethrower had a heck of a rnage, 180m. So I
guess vehicles would manage that as well. Ouch.

Cheers,

> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:

> Flamers in SGII are terror weapons but of only close

Realistic. On a real flame thrower you're talking maybe 30m of range. Maybe.
3"

> Heavy Flamer:

I've never heard of a flamethrower with more than
100m, even the big Ruskie T-55 mounted ones.

> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:

> I have to admit I'd like to see more area effect

Assuming you're playing with 25mm troops...

1" = 10m.

Average 25mm figure base is 1".

Hence average seperation for those "shoulder to shoulder" troops is 10m.

Which is well within reason, speaking as a real world soldier.

As for grenades, at max you're talking 40-50m
effectively and that's 4-5" of ground scale.  Close
combat range, really.

At a groundscale of 1" = 10m, if you want something with a blast radius, get a
damn mortar.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, John Atkinson wrote:

> I've never heard of a flamethrower with more than

TPO-50 cart-mounted flamethrower. Range 180m, with thickened fuel.

Cheers,

> John Atkinson wrote:

Yes but that's infantry carried. We're talking vehicle mounted now. Close
combat only for infantry ones is quite reasonable.

> I've never heard of a flamethrower with more than

Check the books. They're out there. Scary thought but they have a range of
almost 200m.

> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, John Atkinson wrote:

The mind boggles.

Of course, if we're simulating this, then even a minor
hit should kill whomever is hauling it around--and
with a hellish morale penalty to all friendly
units--your wonder weapon just exploded and killed
your crew.

> John Atkinson wrote:

Well depends. If it's mounted in an armoured hull I'd give that defense first.
See other post for fuel breach.

Wonder weapon? Not really.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, John Atkinson wrote:

> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:

Sure does! Now, all the other ones in my copy of janes were 50-80 meters
range. Of course, since it's Jane's Infantry Weapons, the vehicle mounted ones
ain't there.

> Of course, if we're simulating this, then even a minor

Or count the trailer as a seperate target, a wound on the trailer (d4 armour?)
blows up the whole group? Have to admit I have NO idea how realistic this is,
though.

Cheers,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> But with the SGII ground scale (1" = 10 meters), putting the figures

The range at which you might potentially get wounds, if the targets are all
standing up and it's your lucky day, is a good deal longer than the lethal
radius, yes. Most fragments slow down pretty fast, but there are always a few
which go a long way. However, the probability of actually inflicting wounds at
longer ranges is rather too small for the FMA
opposed die-roll system to model.

As John Atkinson said, if you want a template-effect grenade - get a
mortar. OK, something like a Carl Gustaf or RPG-7 works too if you've
brought the right type of ammo - but smaller than that, the area of
effect is no bigger than a single model's base.

> Also, defensive hand grenades have a far larger lethal radius, due to

So allow them to hit *3* adjacent figures instead of 2. That pretty much
covers the difference between the types.

Regards,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

Mmm. Okay, fair enough.

> As John Atkinson said, if you want a template-effect grenade - get a

*nod* Well, the CG/RPG-7 in anti-personel mode are already there as the
IAVR.

> >Also, defensive hand grenades have a far larger lethal radius, due to

*nod*

Cheers,