Okay,
Oerjan makes good points. I agree with his comment about things like GMS, HMG,
and similar systems taking up "real" space and their ammo taking up
real space. In that sense, maybe it is SG2 construction that is flawed -
one could argue from ground mount rules that such weapons take a space and I
could argue from construction rules that GMS/L takes two spaces. But
GMS/P
in SG2 terms is a personal weapon. And ammo for vehicle or personal weapons
is never even touched on (I consider it a nit-pickers shortcoming).
I'd kind of enjoy a 3G style vehicle construction system (and yes, BTRC has
one - we just don't have any SG2/DS2 stat conversions). Something which
accounted for these details.
I question Oerjan's comment about heavy weapon crews. Will they get smaller?
Maybe. I know people in some sectors want them to. But if ammo is the big
space problem, how can two guys carry enough? And if the weight of the system
is a problem, how do you fix that? Lighter metals... maybe. I believe people
have tried this with some KE weapons and have found that if you make
the basing too light, the kick just throws them about - the mass is
there to address recoil issues that don't vanish even with high tech. Will an
HMG get much lighter? Perhaps. But maybe not until portable grav units help
anchor
it. Any thoughts on how the recoil and ammo size/weight issues will be
addressed?
I guess although Oerjan has it right that DS2 is better because it assumes
some systems have space requirements (LADs, GMS/L, APSW/HMG/AGL), where
I find the system interface with SG2 is weak is that all rifle squads (3 man
or 5 man) take up the same space. For DS2 this is fine... but those extra guys
matter in SG2 terms.
And maybe vehicle ammo for GMS, HKP and other ammo using systems (or fuel
weight for those running other systems) should be an issue.
> Barclay, Tom wrote:
> Oerjan makes good points. I agree with his comment about things like
> But GMS/P in SG2 terms is a personal weapon.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear here. Quoting the previous posts:
> [Tom] A GMS/P? Doubtful...
What I meant with "Again yes" was "yes, I agree again", not "yes, it'll take
up extra space too". If I had meant "yes, it'll take up extra space" I would
have protested against the line
> [Tom] GMS/P gunner 1
later in the post :-/
> And ammo for vehicle or personal weapons is never even touched on (I
Ammo for vehicle weapons is already included in the capacity requirement for
the weapon; same for the
> I question Oerjan's comment about heavy weapon crews. Will they get
There's a pressure on the industry to design the heavy weapons for smaller
crews, with the implied threat "if you don't do this we'll buy from someone
who will instead". It might go out of fashion, but somehow I doubt it.
> But if ammo is the big space problem, how can two guys carry >enough?
Define "enough". If you're a GMS crew, 2-3 shots is all you can expect
to get away with before someone calls in artillery on you.
> And if the weight of the system is a problem, how do you fix that?
Why "metals"? There are plenty of alternatives.
> I believe people have tried this with some KE weapons and have found
If the basing is a human shoulder or arm, a heavier weapon will be more
accurate (assuming the same weapon quality), that's true. If OTOH the basing
is a mechanical structure (bipod, tripod, whatever) standing on the ground,
the design of the basing is at least as important as its mass.
> Will an HMG get much lighter? Perhaps. But maybe not until portable
Quite a few of them. Unfortunately they're mostly classified -
particularly the ammo size/weight ones :-(
> I guess although Oerjan has it right that DS2 is better because it
Which is why your previous suggestions on space requirements for men and
equipment seems like a pretty good idea.
> And maybe vehicle ammo for GMS, HKP and other ammo using >systems (or
Only GMSs and some SLAMs use ammo where one round is a similar size as the
weapon (launcher). For other weapons size is still an issue, but
not on the same scale - eg., modern tanks tend to carry 30-50 120 or
125mm ("HVC") rounds, compared to 50-80 rounds of 105mm ammo in the
previous tank generation. The modern tanks need to resupply more often than
the older ones, but they still have enough to last them through one fight.
IOW the ammo storage for (non-GMS/SLAM) weapons will matter in a
campaign situation, but for single battles the standard size of the
(non-GMS/SLAM) weapons can safely be assumed to include "enough ammo
for the battle".
'Course, some designs - eg. the Merkavas - can remove a large part of
their main gun ammo in order to carry other cargo (eg., infantry or
casualties). If they do this they *are* likely to run dry if they get into a
serious fight.
Later,