Ok, thank you for those who replied to my previous questions, they helped me
to refine them to be more specific. A heavy weapon mounted on a vehicle uses a
firecon to shooting and has long range bands to show increased stability and
ability to engage the enemy over longer ranges, what about non heavy weapons
mounted on vehicles? Isn't a saw on a solid pintel mount more stable and
accurate than one carried by infantry? If I put it in a turret, does it use
the vehicle quality die to fire or a firecon? Does it get the larger range
bands? If you give it the larger range bands should the pintel mounted version
have to use a firecon of open sites(d4) and also get the larger range bands,
or should it use quality and the larger range bands, or firecon and regular
range bands, or quality and regular range bands? Assuming that a RFAC is
really rapid fire, why would it have a d8 vs dispersed, same for the GAC? Why
wouldn't a HVC load anti infantry rounds? Why would a MDC be a bad anti
infantry weapon? If the shell is of any size at all, the kinetic energy
released upon impact of the ground near an infantry squad is going to be big
enough to blow them so far in the afterlife they'd just be scratching their
asses and wondering what happened. The only weapons I can see not being
effective against infantry are 1. the HKP, not enough kinetic energy released
on impact, wussy gun compared to the MDC. 2. GMS, it's an anti armor weapon,
maybe a laser designator could allow it to be more effective against infantry,
but I can see why it wouldn't very good for it. 3. HEL, not really, because
it's mentioned in the rules as having a low intensity sweep mode for infantry,
but if they hadn't specifically mentioned this I would have decided that they
were pretty much penetrative only, I still envision military lasers as being
fire in such short bursts as to be almost imperceptible, just a loud crack as
the air rushes to fill the vacume that it leaves behind, the whole visible
beam for three second thing never mad much sense to me, but hey, whatever. The
only one I'm not too sure about is the DFFG, is it a penetrative weapon, or an
explosive weapon, or what? I kind of picture it as a glowing white core of
plasma with an aura of waste plasma around it as it burns up the atmosphere
it's moving through and the impact of being an almost liquid splat followed by
a flash as metal, plastic, what ever is converted to heat and lots of it. If
this is anything like what it is, then a hit near infantry would produce a
rather sizable incendiary type effect.
for GMS, i like rules suggested by someone's house rules (i forget the web
site). there are GMS for armor-specific (AP), infantry-specific (HE)
and
general. full FC die for the specific types, but -1 FC die type for
general.
i thought this idea was kinda cool. i have a few carry some general types for
emergency infantry work or building reduction (urban fighting.)
dave
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:13:03 -0600, "shogakusha" <shogakusha@geotec.net>
wrote:
> A heavy weapon mounted on a vehicle uses
Okay, see my reply to Peter. The term "heavy weapon" is implied to mean two
different things in the rules. A heavy weapon always means a big, main gun on
a vehicle or carriage, such as a tank gun, tank based laser, huge gauss gun,
etc., etc. However sometimes the rules imply that the rules for "heavy
weapons" also apply to squad support weapons, like a SAW, mounted on a
vehicle.
So, I will talk about a "heavy weapon" being the vehicle's main gun, defined
under "Heavy Weapons" on page 29. For SAWs and other squad support weapons, on
vehicles or not, I'll use the term "support weapon".
If firing a heavy weapon mounted on a vehicle, you roll the vehicle's quality
die, and its firecon die. If you fire a vehicle mounted support weapon that
has a fire control attached (such as an electronically controlled SAW, like
the automatic guns in "Aliens") you roll quality die and a firecon die. If you
are firing a pintel mounted support weapon that is fired manually, you roll a
quality die and a firepower die.
In all cases, the heavy weapon and the support weapon on the vehicle have
range bands of 12" x the size class of the target. This means that if you're
firing a pintel mounted support weapon at an infantry target, the range bands
are 12" long.
> Isn't a saw on a solid pintel mount more stable
Yes, which is why the range band is 12".
> If I put it in a turret, does it
You have it a little mixed up. You ALWAYS roll the vehicle's quality die. This
is mentioned on page 35. You then roll the weapon's fire control die OR its
firepower die.
Is the weapon in a turret but fired manually by a separate gunner or is it
fired by a computer? If it's manually fired, you roll the quality die and the
firepower die. If it's computer controlled you roll the quality die and the
fire control die.
> Does it get the larger
Yes.
> If you give it the larger range bands should the pintel mounted
The pintel mounted weapon would get the larger range bands (for being on a
vehicle) and roll the quality die and the firepower die of the weapon.
> Assuming that a
Because it's rapid fire compared to, say, a 120mm anti-tank vehicle. And
it has a more limited ammunition supply. A vehicle wouldn't chew through as
many rounds firing at a single enemy squad as a SAW might. It's an abstraction
but I think it makes sense. Of course, I could be wrong!
> Why wouldn't a HVC load anti infantry rounds?
And fire with a burst radius as per artillery? Good question. Because... the
rules don't mention it? You could use this as a scenario based rule, or a
house rule.
> Why would a MDC be a bad
Well, Jon hasn't exactly listed the kinetic energy of the weapons. For all we
know, the way he envisioned the weapon gave them a very tiny mass. Or, to put
it another way, "because the rules say so"?
> Okay, see my reply to Peter. The term "heavy weapon" is implied to
Now please enlighten me!!! What the h*ck is a SAW????
I have read about it several times but the closest thing I came to was some
sort of MG - please help!
SAW - Squad Automatic Weapon
Essentially light machine gun fulfilling role of M249 Mninimi, M60, Bren, MG3
that level.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Thank you,
sometimes it's the small things that helps you see the light :-))
There's enough confusion in the way the rules are structured so I didn't need
further distractions!!
I have a constant feeling that a have to read more of the rules before I
understand something, instead of being able to add to my knowlegde - bit
of a shame because it's definitely the coolest set of skirmish rules I have
seen. I actually consider throwing away my own Warzone based rules (which now
contains a lot of the stuff found in SG2) and use SG2 instead.
/claus
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
<shogakusha@geotec.net>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >Assuming that a
And
> it
[Bri] From the description in DS2, I took a RFAC to be a 20-30mm
autocannon.
> >Why wouldn't a HVC load anti infantry rounds?
Because...
> the
[Bri] HVCs are just what their name implies. A high velocity anti-tank
round that relies on kinetic energy as much as explosives to inflict damage.
It was the precursor of the HKP. It should work well against emplacements.
> >Why would a MDC be a bad
[Bri] DS2 states "All MDCs are very small calibre weapons with a very
high rate of fire, using solid slugs propelled at incredibly high velocities."
(p.8) What is "very small calibre"? You may apply whatever PSB you like. They
may throw slivers no larger than a needle, using the kinetic energy focused on
an extremely small point to penetrate armor. Or they could be 50 calibre
rounds fired at many times the speed of sound. Perhaps even larger (but then
you run into the problem of ammo storage, as it also states that they have a
"very high rate of fire"). I would imagine that the Higher class size is due
not to a larger projectile, but to increased velocity and faster
rate of fire (i.e. more powerful/quicker cycling magnetic projector).
> Allan Goodall awg@sympatico.ca
My comments above marked with [Bri]
DS2 has all weapons, except HKP (no effect) and DFFG (increased effect), as
having the same effect (chit validity) on infantry, after weapon size is
figured. This is probably due, as much as anything, to the Heavy Weapons
(Class-1 and above) not being as agile as SAWs and other
infantry-specific
weapons. I.e. the targets are scattering faster than can be targeted
(effectively) by the Heavy Weapons.
Disclaimer: As you can see from my comments, I play more DS2 than SG2. So
weight all of my comments appropriately.
Not to be pedantic, but in general terms, M249's, L3's, Brens, Stoners, RPK's,
etc. are considered SAW's while M60's, MG3's are considered GPMG's or General
Purpose Machine Guns. SAW's use assault rifle rounds (5.56 NATO, 7.62x39
WarPac), while GPMG's use heavier battle rifle rounds (7.62x52 NATO).
The term "Squad Automatic" can be confusing because M-60's can be found
in
squad sized-elements. Unfortunately, the weight of weapon and ammo
usually
means 2-3 men are needed to effectively employ one weapon system. With a
true SAW, only one man is necessary to carry weapon, ammo, extraneous gadgets
necessary. Just a minor point of clarification. In game terms, I think a SAW
and GPMG would most likely have the same support die for firepower (say a d8)
while a SAW would be greatly reduced in impact from its GPMG cousin (see M249
vs. M259, same basic weapon, scaled differently for 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO,
respectively), say, d8 for the SAW vs. d12 for the GPMG. Merely a thought.
Jay
[quoted original message omitted]
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> Why wouldn't a HVC load anti infantry rounds?
Um... isn't this exactly what the "Heavy Weapons Fire Against Infantry" rule
(SGII p.40) is saying?
"For IMPACT, trat the fire as though it was from a GPE artillery round,
... - thus a D8 is rolled against the Armour of whichever troops take
the potential hits."
Is there a restriction on which types of heavy weapons can fire at infantry
somewhere? I can't find any, but then I'm not exactly known
for being able to find rules in the SGII book :-/
'Course, you could argue that GPE is too weak an impact for a beehive round or
similar, but at least the basic mechanic is there.
> [Bri] HVCs are just what their name implies. A high velocity anti-tank
HVCs are "the final development of the conventional high-velocity tank
gun". Today's large-calibre high-pressure tank guns are quite capable
to fire anti-infantry rounds from their main guns, eg. bee-hives
(flechette rounds) for point-blank fighting and HE for longer ranges.
Not all of today's armies have developed/bought HE ammo for their
tanks, but there's no technical reason why the tanks couldn't fire such ammo
if it were available.
> Why would a MDC be a bad anti infantry weapon? If the shell is of
I don't think MDCs don't fire shell, only shot - effectively an MDC
shooting at infantry is a very large-calibre machinegun. At least I'd
be rather wary of exposing high explosives and their ignition systems to the
EM fields present inside an MDC barrel if I thought the ROF was high enough to
do without explosives <g>
In the demos I've seen, long-rod penetrators don't make much of a fuss
when they hit the ground. Nowhere near as much as a 120mm HE shell,
anyway :-/
> [Bri] DS2 states "All MDCs are very small calibre weapons with a very
Probably about 1.5" for an MDC/5, down to maybe 0.4" or so for an MDC/2
and even less for an MDC/1.
> You may apply whatever PSB you like. They may throw slivers no >larger
Unfortunately armour penetration isn't as simple as increasing the
kinetic energy :-( Slivers as small as needles simply don't have enough
material to do more than damage the outer layer of a composite armour, even if
you can give them the structural integrity they need to not burn up during the
flight or shatter on impact.
> Or they could be 50 calibre rounds fired at many times the speed of
This is far more likely, at least for smaller MDCs. "Many" in this case
may well be 20+.
> Perhaps even larger (but then you run into the problem of ammo
If the calibre is 1.5" (MDC/5), each anti-tank round is a cylinder
about 1.5" in diameter and 3-4' long (the longer the better, but you
run into problems with structural integrity sooner or later). You can
carry quite a few of those in a small space - a couple hundred or so in
the space required to carry 40 of today's 120mm tank rounds (a fairly normal
loadout for modern MBTs).
If you design your gun well it can use much shorter rounds (which take much
less space in the magazine) against infantry and other soft targets; you could
easily carry a couple thousand such shots.
> I would imagine that the Higher class size is due not to a larger
Increased velocity only gives better penetration up to a threshold (for
today's APFSDS rounds this is somewhere around 2200 m/s, but IIRC it
depends on the L/D ratio and mass of the penetrator. It's a rather
non-linear relationship even for simple armour materials like
homogenous steel :-( ). After this point you need a bigger projectile
if you want significantly increased penetration. Higher velocity always means
longer range and better accuracy though.
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
In the demos I've seen, long-rod penetrators don't make much of a fuss
when they hit the ground. Nowhere near as much as a 120mm HE shell,
anyway :-/
Ok, yes, but from what I read in the rule book, an MDC is a rail gun, yes?
Now, I've been told that it uses a high rate of fire with smaller shells,
instead of the single large anti tank shell I was picturing, so my arguments
doesn't have as much merit, but a sizable rail gun shell, impacting the earth,
should produce a rather sizable explosion. Real world rail guns (such as those
pioneered for use for SDI) depend upon a PLASTIC (Lexan) projectile
with a ferrous-metal 'skirt' - during initial tests a 5 GRAM projectile
made
a 6-7 inch wide by 4 inch deep crater in a solid block of aluminum. Now
if you assume, as I did, that an MDC fires a larger heavier metal projectile,
the release of energy upon impact with the ground should be similar to a
modern HE shell. Just my thoughts.
shogakusha
[quoted original message omitted]
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:32:20 +0100, "Oerjan Ohlson"
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Um... isn't this exactly what the "Heavy Weapons Fire Against Infantry"
Well, it was me that said it. And it's not exactly what it says. It says,
"thus a D8 is rolled against the Armour of whichever troops take the potential
hits." But before that it says to roll as per small arms fire. In other words,
you roll quality and firecon, and treat the fire like small arms fire. The
impact is D8 as per a GPE round.
What I suggested was slightly different. Instead of treating it as direct fire
against the squad, you would treat it like an artillery round with an actual
burst radius. This could have the effect of hitting figures in two or more
close squads, or only affecting one figure in the squad.
> Is there a restriction on which types of heavy weapons can fire at
It really DOES need an index...
And, no, there is no limit. Just that the impact is a D8, and quality and
firecon dice are rolled.
> Peter Mancini wrote:
> In the demos I've seen, long-rod penetrators don't make much of a
It will indeed (and if it was a DU penetrator they'll get fried as well). So
if you shoot *through* the ground and hit infantry on the other side, they
probably won't like it much <g>
The shock wave caused by the round isn't nearly as nasty in free space as
inside a penetrated tank, though.
> If high velocity rounds act like most rifled rounds then typically
No, no, no - it's the Moonmen that are subterranean. The Martians fly,
they don't burrow... <G>
> shogakusha wrote:
> Ok, yes, but from what I read in the rule book, an MDC is a rail gun,
Yes.
> Now, I've been told that it uses a high rate of fire with smaller
Shot are far more likely than shell. Lots of smaller shot against infantry and
other soft targets; against hard targets you need fewer large shot instead.
> instead of the single large anti tank shell I was picturing, so my
And if you fire it at the ground, it makes a somewhat bigger crater in the
earth or stone. It still doesn't compete with HE when it comes to causing
shrapnel.
> Now if you assume, as I did, that an MDC fires a larger heavier metal
The problem is that the much of the energy is released down into the ground
instead of being transferred to flying splinters. The difference
is similar as the one between HE ground bursts and airbursts - the
ground burst is good if you're shooting at bunkers, but against infantry in
the open the airburst is vastly more effective.
Regards,
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> Um... isn't this exactly what the "Heavy Weapons Fire Against
Which means..?
> And it's not exactly what it says. It says,
OK, I see now. I think :-/
> What I suggested was slightly different. Instead of treating it as
This was what I thought the rule says :-/ Ah well... shows how often I
play SGII, I guess.
> Is there a restriction on which types of heavy weapons can fire at
Yes <g>
Regards,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:13:21 +0100, "Oerjan Ohlson"
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Which means..?
Which means I was just accepting the blame. *S*
> This was what I thought the rule says :-/ Ah well... shows how often I
I've spent a lot of time going over the rules. Especially recently for
something I put together for GenCon and for an SG2 supplement I'm almost ready
to release...