The following are an expansion of the buildings & fortification rules on pgs.
56 & 57 of the SG2 rules, filling in some of the gaps in those rules
- mostly having to do with how buildings take damage differently from
vehicles. I've done a bit of testing of these, and they seem to work.
Constructive comments welcomed...
Bunker & Building Construction
These rules mostly just expand on SG2's existing building rules, on pgs.
56 & 57 of the book. Buildings are constructed like vehicles - they have
a Size class and an Armour class, use the same rules for internal space &
weapons mounting as buildings, and are targeted like buildings, with the
following differences:
-because they don't move, Armour class & building size are not
linked in any way. A massively constructed Size 2 pillbox could be Armour 5,
or a large Size 7 hanger could be Armour 1.
-the same goes for weapon mountings - if it'll fit inside the
building, it can go on it. Thus, a Size 3 bunker could mount an HKP/5,
although why you'd want to is another matter...
-Infantry takes up a bit more space in bunkers & buildings,
however - there needs to be space to move around and fire properly, not
just sit on an APC's seats. Thus, each trooper in a bunker needs 1.5 spaces (3
spcs. for every 2 troopers). A squad of 8 needs 12 spaces, etc.
Firing Slits: The firing slits of bunkers & pillboxes are, to some extent,
necessary weaknesses in the structure. If a wall has a firing slit, it's
Armour class is one less than a solid wall in the same bunker. A bunker whose
solid walls are Armour 6 has firing slitted walls of Armour 5.
A bunker usually also has a door on one of the walls - this door does
not weaken the armour of the wall, although it can be targeted separately from
the bunker itself (see pg. 56 of SG2), and most armoured doors are only Armour
2 or 3.
Blank walls (those without firing slits) obviously block the
line-of-fire
of the troops inside the bunkers. Small viewpoints can be assumed to exist,
making observation possible out that wall, but not fire.
Trade-offs
between all-around fire and stronger wall are obviously needed.
SHOOTING AT BUNKERS & BUILDINGS: (the part we've all been waiting
for...)
Bunkers & buildings are targeted exactly like vehicles, for most purposes. The
major difference is that you target each wall of a building (or the roof)
because of buildings generally larger sizes. Damage is done a bit differently,
however.
Small Arms Fire vs. Bunkers/Buildings: as w/ targeting vehicles. MAJOR
success = suppression of squad inside. MINOR success = no affect. (You can
blaze away a bunker or solidly constructed building for days with an assault
rifle and do damn little except use up ammo and occaisionally scare the
occupants...)
Other Fire: (Heavy Wpns, Inf. Plasma wpns, etc...) As w/ targeting
vehicles. DESTROYED result = Breached wall/roof. Chance of damaging
adjoining sections of building - roll attacking wpns. Impact vs. Armour
of each adjoining section. DISABLED result = Breach in target section only.
Building occupants follow the vehicle occupant rules for casualties, pg. 39,
with the above results.
If a building has more that half of it's sections (walls/roof)
destroyed,
the structure collapses - occupants get out on a 6 on d6, per trooper.
(or referee's call depending on building type and circumstances)
CLOSE ASSAULTING STRUCTURES: (a good way to use up troops...)
Against UNBREACHED walls of BUNKERS: Defenders take Confidence test at one
less than usual (+2 instead of +3, say.) Also Defenders get TWO die
shifts up, for the ENTIRE DURATION of the close assault.
Against BREACHED walls of BUNKERS, through blown doorways/windows of
BUNKERS, or against regular civilian-type buildings: Regular morale
rolls, Defenders get TWO die shifts up for FIRST round of close assault only.
(for these rules, a BUNKER is any solidly constructed building w/ firing
slits & armoured doorways; civilian buildings generally have actual windows,
and regular doors...as always, ref's call as to what's what, if it's not
obvious) (Also, it should be noted that you can't run close
assaults on solid walls of any sort of building - you either go in
through regular doors and windows, or blow yourself a hole, or at worst have
firing slits you can chuck grenades into...)
(Urban combat eats troops - Stalingrad, etc. So does attacking undamaged
bunkers, which is usually a real desperate move...)
Rubble: A structure that is destroyed leaves rubble. As terrain, rubble is
Poor going for all infantry types, Impassable for most vehicle types, and
Difficult or Impassable for Tracked and Walker vehicles. (ref's call,
depending on the type of building forming the rubble, etc.). For infantry in
rubble, it is omnidirectional Hard Cover, and blocks line of sight through it.
(You can fire out of rubble, or at a target inside the rubble, but not over
the rubble to the other side.)
BREACHING CHARGES: I'll admit that these are the sketchiest parts of these
rules. Basically, these are large limpet mines/shaped charges/satchel
charges, specifically designed to blow breaches through thick wall. They need
to be emplaced by infantryright on the surface to be blown, and tentatively
have the following stats: 1 action to emplace them, "attacks" chosen surface.
Roll QUALITY die of emplacing squad & D12x4 'Firepower' die vs. Armour rating
of surface (d12 x Armour level). Effects as per regular attacks, above.
Things I haven't covered: (ideas welcomed) - effects of fire (flames) on
buildings
-power supplies for bunker-mounted weaponry that needs it (HELs &
similar)
-internal, independent power plants (expensive but safe) or feed cables
from a central plant/local power grid (cheaper, but vulnerable...)
-the most entertaining method of breaching buildings of all: driving
large (hopefully armoured) vehicles into walls at speed...
> You wrote:
> Small Arms Fire vs. Bunkers/Buildings: as w/ targeting vehicles. MAJOR
Depends--you should permit snipers to target firing slits seperately.
> CLOSE ASSAULTING STRUCTURES: (a good way to use up troops...)
Actually, bunkers are at a severe disadvantage to flanks and rear as far as
visibility. And you're not so much trying to engage in
traditional hand-to-hand combat as to throw a grenade or satchel charge
in. A satchel charge thrown by one man will take down the bunker, and
even a single grenade will likely clear it--the confined space of the
bunker magnifies effect greatly.
> (Urban combat eats troops - Stalingrad, etc. So does attacking
It's a pretty normal battle drill in most units... Us light types don't have
the luxury of tanks and whatnot to knock out bunkers first.
> BREACHING CHARGES: I'll admit that these are the sketchiest parts of
This would be things like the shaped charges used at Eben Emael--actual
attempts to breach walls. Note that this generally has negative consequences
for the inhabitants. Actual satchel charges (not shaped)
are thrown inside doors/windows and tend to collapse the structure
unless it's big. If not, inhabitants are still dead. Add a die shift up on
quality if it's an engineer unit. I also notice you make it practically
impossible to knock down the entire building (max d12 quality, vs d12xarmor)
when on a small structure that's likely.
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
MAJOR
> >success = suppression of squad inside. MINOR success = no affect.
(You
> can >blaze away a bunker or solidly constructed building for days with
> an >assault rifle and do damn little except use up ammo and
Snipers vs. Bunkers: firing as usual, MINOR success = Suppression; MAJOR
=
random squadmember inside bunker hit.
(This is off the top of my head - but it seems workable)
> >CLOSE ASSAULTING STRUCTURES: (a good way to use up troops...)
> even a single grenade will likely clear it--the confined space of the
Any ideas on re-writing the Close Assault rules here to more accurately
reflect this? We've got to balance the fact that the Defender's are behind a
couple of feet of concrete, and the only way to kill them is to get
something through a very narrow firing slit - but if you _do_ get
something into the bunker, it's ground meat time inside...
It's difficult to model because either there's very, very few casualties
among the defenders, or else they're dog food - and the same thing can
happen to the attackers. That sort of sharp break is hard to do - it's
got me stumped...
> >(Urban combat eats troops - Stalingrad, etc. So does attacking
> emplacing squad & D12x4 'Firepower' >die vs. Armour rating of surface
> are thrown inside doors/windows and tend to collapse the structure
> up on quality if it's an engineer unit. I also notice you make it
It's actually QUALITY of unit & D12x4 for the charge itself, vs. target
surface's ARMOUR (D12xwhatever)
Perhaps after the target wall is breached in a MAJOR result, the rest of the
walls roll vs. HALF their armour value? (the charge's D12x4 vs half
armour of each connecting surface (wall/roof)) That makes it more likely
that a charge will blow the building down, esp. in lighter structures.
Anyone else have ideas?
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> Hey, I like you first suggestions well enough. I've worked with plenty
Depends on how large the bunker. A little ol' thing might well be
wiped out by a 20-lber. I'd also like to see something for ruining the
health of the folks dumb enough to be inside the bunker when the charge goes
off. Chunks of concrete and whatnot flying through the air are not conducive
in the least to continued safety and sanity.
> You wrote:
> It's difficult to model because either there's very, very few
Agreed. Problem is, that if you can find a blind spot to a bunker,
it's dogmeat. And there always is one--firing slits leave very little
visibility. The question is whether you can find it. If you've got a
covered/concealed route up to the bunker, it's like shooting fish in a
barrel. If not--if an LMG catches you moving up, you're dead. But
once you're on the bunker (sometimes quite literally--few bunkers have
ways to get people off the roof), you can throw grenades and satchel charges
at leisure.
There should also be difference between normal and civvie
buildings--the latter are fairly easy (extremely relative term here) to
clean out with grenade launchers. The M-203 is an ideal city-fighting
weapon.
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
Do it any way you like - either of my suggestions, or write your
own...and you're right, there is a difference between just putting a hole in a
wall and flattening the building...
> Depends on how large the bunker. A little ol' thing might well be
There are rules for casualties to vehicle occupants who are inside a
damaged/destroyed vehicle. I was figuring they'd work for
bunker/building
occupants as well.
> Problem is, that if you can find a blind spot to a bunker,
If you have a bunker with 'blind' sides (w/o firing slits) you can just
move up to it - no close assault roll. How you'd model what happens next
is up to you - perhaps a die shift for the attackers?
> There should also be difference between normal and civvie
to
> clean out with grenade launchers. The M-203 is an ideal city-fighting
Two ways of modelling the difference: Armour value - most civvie
buildings
are going to be Armour 1 or 2 - enough to stop small arms, but not
enough
to stop anything heavier. Very light buildings - sheds and stuff - would
be Armour 0 - all they do is block line of sight. I haven't modelled it,
but I imagine that a squad firing action would flatten an Armour 0 building
nicely...
Also, civvie buildings have windows & more doors and stuff - which can
all
be targetted seperately. (pg 56/57, SG2) Blow a few doors in, then you
can
close-assault no problem...
Someone just mentioned (in a message I erased) that they (or a friend) had an
entire urban terrain gaming table. Wow...any chance of descriptions, or even
better photos on a webpage somewhere? I've just started thinking
about buildings - most of my terrain is of the hill-and-tree variety -
and I know that's fairly typical. An entire table of buildings would be
something to see...
> You wrote:
> There are rules for casualties to vehicle occupants who are inside a
Yeah. Part of problem is that I've got surface familiarity with rules but
havn't played enough to get them down cold like I do the DS rules.
> If you have a bunker with 'blind' sides (w/o firing slits) you can
Places charges with no rolls, and after that, ka-boom! Roll as per
your setup.
> Someone just mentioned (in a message I erased) that they (or a friend)
had >an entire urban terrain gaming table. Wow...any chance of descriptions,
or >even better photos on a webpage somewhere? I've just
started thinking >about buildings - most of my terrain is of the
hill-and-tree variety - and >I know that's fairly typical. An entire
table of buildings would be >something to see...
That would be. I've got hills and felt-with-a-few-trees-on-them to
define my forests. I've also got 'rough' terrain--mottled brown felt
chopped into pieces. Buildings are way to expensive to shell out for
now--my priority is on throwing together Stargrunt forces.
(Fortunately I've found a few suckers who want some of the 40K stuff I've
accumulated over the years, and I'm getting them to finance my
mech platoon dismounts [read NSL PzG]) Next step--Islamic Feddies to
shoot at.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >Small Arms Fire vs. Bunkers/Buildings: as w/ targeting vehicles.
MAJOR
> >success = suppression of squad inside. MINOR success = no affect.
(You
> can >blaze away a bunker or solidly constructed building for days with
> an >assault rifle and do damn little except use up ammo and
How about minor success for the sniper is no effect - major success
is interpreted as a casualty?
> At 09:06 18/06/98 +1000, you wrote:
How the hell do we get to play on that table? Are all the bulidings
sratchbulids? Multi-level?......drooollll.
> On 17 Jun 98 at 20:45, John Atkinson wrote:
> Agreed. Problem is, that if you can find a blind spot to a bunker,
John, I promise I'm not stalking you, and disagreeing with everything you say
;) This is only a question anyway. Would two (or more) bunkers which can cover
each others blindspots make this almost impossible to achieve, or is just one
bunker usually contructed per strongpoint due to the cost in resource of
making them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Would two (or more) bunkers which can cover each others blindspots
You could. But that's why God invented smoke shells and smoke grenades.
> On 19 Jun 98 at 14:05, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> >contructed per strongpoint due to the cost in resource of making
And why man invented thermal imagers, and then thermal blocking
smoke, then 'radar' imagers, then radar blocking chaff/smoke, then
futuretech sensors and futuretech blocking 'stuff'. OK, I'll go for that;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember the maginot line!
Tim
> John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> You wrote:
> Remember the maginot line!
Remember the Germans didn't attack it until the mopping-up stage, when
the French had already been beaten and they knew it. The only fighting
involving the Maginot line during the initial phase of the campaign was the
Italian attack which (predictably) got hammered flat and the Germans had to
divert troops to rescue them...
Patton Considered fixed fortifications a monument to stupidity. The problem
with them is that you have to spread your forces out over a wide area whereas
you opponent can concentrate only at the point of attack.
Tim
> John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote: