We had a situation come up in tonight's Stargrunt game that requires some
clarification - I thought I throw it out to the list.
The scenario was an encounter battle between a four-squad regular
infantry
platoon (wih a light tank along) and a two-squad PA platoon. In the
event, the PA got massacred, but here's the question: The regular infantry had
an artillery battery they could call on for massive fire support. The PA had
an Electronics Warfare specialist, partly to balance the massive artillery
available by jamming and thus making it unavailable.
We quickly discovered, however, that there are _no_ rules for EW jamming
of fire-support calls. Calling fire support uses a different game
mechanism from regular communication rolls, such as those used by command
squads attempting to pass activations to squads.
It makes sense that fire-support calls should be jammable. After all, if
you can cut your opponent off from the support he was counting on and which
multiplied his force, then you've got a large edge. Perhaps require
_two_ rolls, one a standard Communication roll (therefor jammable) to
contact the fire-support element, then an Artillery roll to convince the
battery CO to use up his precious rounds after you've got him on the line?
Opinions, comments, ideas anyone?
(The 'massive fire support' in our game was a pair of light rocket
artillery launchers, firing light mortar-sized GPE rounds, usually three
at a time. If you make your artillery roll, and want to, you can also
volley up to _twelve_ rounds at the same target at once. Nasty, and the
reason for the EW involvement.) (and yes, this light rocket arty system is
a sort of light-Katyuska system - inspired by, anyway)
[quoted original message omitted]
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> It makes sense that fire-support calls should be jammable. After all,
Is there not a way this can be done in one roll?
Checks his recollection: Comms is quality vs higher of leadership. Arty call
is.....um...guesses at quality to exceed my leadership as the calling unit?
Why not just treat the call as jammable under standard rules?
(it really is a communications roll - to get in touch with the arty
and explain what you need). Actually, I always thought the transfer actions
option (being a comms roll) was jammable too. I don't see why an extra roll
should be required. (I'm being dense here, but maybe someone will have a more
cognizant exposition of why this can or cannot be done in one roll).
/************************************************
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
"Transfer actions" is jammable by ew. So is calling for support, and firing
guided weapons like GMS. EW has four possible types of actions in
SG2 - I looked it up over the weekend but forget the exact details.
Like Owen said - the artillery roll is a form of "communication" roll.
For EW jamming of this, the EW roll has to beat the roll calling for support.
It doesn't matter if the support roll is successful vs. its own target -
if the EW roll is higher, the support request doesn't get through.
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Like Owen said - the artillery roll is a form of "communication" roll.
For
> EW jamming of this, the EW roll has to beat the roll calling for
You two have said what I was trying to say. Thanks.
/************************************************
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:
> From: Brian Burger
the only problem here is that calling fire uses smaller die, usually, than
regular communication rolls. Calling fire uses a d8 as standard, or a d6 if
you're skipping a level of command (eg squad leader calling for
company-level mortars. A plt leader calling for the same mortars would
get the d8.)
An EW unit, on the other hand, rolls based on systems quality (d6/8/10
for
BAS/ENH/SUP) and can often spare a chit (especially in small games)to
give a boost to the die rolled. A SUP EW committing two chits to a jamming
attempt rolls a d12 - vs at most a d8, usually. Artillery callers can
commit 'Support Request' chits for a similar boost, but once you use an SR
chit, it's gone for the game, whereas the EW system gets three EW chits every
turn....
OTOH, artillery calls represent more that just the radio call - they
represent that, giving the battery accurate co-ordinates, and getting
the
battery to devote it's attention to those co-ordinates. If the EW sys
garbles even part of that communication, then the fire isn't coming down.
"sir, the fire co-ordinates 2 Plt just passed on are for a spot in the
middle of the lake!""Jamming again, wait until you get clear
co-ordinates...or that fool Lt can't read his PCC's map worth a damn..."
(PCC - Personal Combat Computer - coming sooner than you think to a US
Army near you...)
So I find myself arguing both sides of the EW-vs-fire support issue...it
should be jammable, however.
And to answer another posts question, yes reactivation/ transferring
actions is jammable. It's just a straight comms roll, from leader squad to
subordinate squad(s).
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> the only problem here is that calling fire uses smaller die, usually,
Well, maybe (if you want to keep it to one dice) you shift down the enemy dice
by the same amount.... just to preserve the relative advantage. Or maybe such
complex comms is easily jammable.
> An EW unit, on the other hand, rolls based on systems quality (d6/8/10
Of course, you could have your own EW.... which is what you should have. And
hopefully not all the guys you face will be them with superior gear, you with
nada.
> OTOH, artillery calls represent more that just the radio call - they
Actually, I don't imagine it will be long till automated marking will transfer
from map to arty to avoid user transcription or recitation errors. You can
still have map read errors, but the avoidable errors are gone.
> So I find myself arguing both sides of the EW-vs-fire support
I like the idea of having support requests jammable. If you don't have your
own EW, you should suffer consistently (a lesson, bring EW if you expect to
face it and you should always expect to face it!). I'd say the way around this
is have multiple command elements on the table make support requests (ie your
platoon commander and your various squad leaders). The EW jammer can't jam all
those requests with three chits. It costs in actions, but it equates to
everyone
trying to call for arty - not all that unprecedented. You obviously
have to overwhelm his jamming capability.
There must be a way to bring the quality of your comms gear (with its
internal crypto and communications session re-establishment
protocols) into play here for such rolls. As it stands, you can have great
comms and have no advantage over someone with a crappy
radio-shack walkie talkie.
I don't have an answer now.... but you've got me thinking....always a
bad thing.....
/************************************************
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
I'd say so. It's not just a simple radio call & short orders, but passing
some fairly detailed information back and forth - coords, fire mission
type, priority, etc.
> > An EW unit, on the other hand, rolls based on systems quality
Granted. The scenario that prompted this question happend to be set up that
way, however.
> <<snip>>
then you have to jam the datastream from the field computer to the arty
comp...or just introduce single-bit errors to render the coords
gibberish.
> > So I find myself arguing both sides of the EW-vs-fire support
Just flood the airwaves, and hope that your frequency-agile comms gear -
lots of sets - can find more frequencies than his similarly-agile but
outnumbered EW elements. Sensible.
One of the ideas I'm kicking around (only for very large SG2 games) is
large EW systems - vehicle or bunker mounted multiple-operator systems
than have more power & more activations than the regular tactical EW sets.
I'm not sure they're a good idea, though - they'd have massive power.
Scenarios only, for sure.
> There must be a way to bring the quality of your comms gear (with its
Two ways of doing this: one, either have EW elements around all the time
-
they can effectively (by running ECCM) act as signal booster to cut through
enemy jamming.
Or, if a squad has SUP or BAS sensors, give a die shift up or down
respectively to all comms & fire support rolls. (assuming that the Sensor
rating of a squad is more than just IR/lolight/fancy scopes but includes
comms as well - resonable, I'd think).
Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/ --DS2/SG2/games
webpages--
> I don't have an answer now.... but you've got me thinking....always a
[quoted original message omitted]
Two points:
1. Allow EW units to jam other EW units. If I'm trying to call for artillery,
my first action is to get my EW team attached to my command squad to target
the enemy EW team that's causing all the trouble. I think
this is actually covered in the rules - if you check the EW section (I
think it's around page 52 in the book, but I'm going from memory), EW units
can do about 4 different types of things - and I think one of them is
targeting other EW units.
2. How 'bout this - use the EW vs. comms roll with the dice imbalance
as it is. The comms. roll must be successful to get support at all. If the EW
roll beats the comms. roll by less than double, the deviation distance for the
support fire is DOUBLED. If the EW roll beats the comms. roll by double or
more, the support fire is LOST. This represents the EW attack being partially
or fully successful. And it still only requires one dice
roll - to keep it simple.
Adrian
> From: Brian Burger
> 1. Allow EW units to jam other EW units. If I'm trying to call for
It's in the rules, page 52.
> 2. How 'bout this - use the EW vs. comms roll with the dice imbalance
I'd think just normal die rolls would be sufficient.
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Or, if a squad has SUP or BAS sensors, give a die shift up or down
What I had in mind.
/************************************************