A
> a) I've got an APC with 2 turrets, each with an RFAC/1. I've got a
If the driver moves to the other turret, does he fire the weapon with the same
skill level as the gunner? I realize that a large amount of crosstraining
occurs, but I was always under the impression that people slated into certain
positions would be a little better in their primary occupation then those who
are not. Should the driver have a penalty (slight) for firing the vehical
weapon. Is this too nity grity detail for the game? Can anyone pick up any
weapon and fire it as well as every other guy?
> b) Same APC, but the driver is busy driving (MOVEing) both ACTIONS.
Can
> the
Can I ask anyone why this vehical has two turrets yet only one gunner? If each
had to be seperatly manned, it seems strange that an extra gunner would not
exist. If there is only one gunner, perhaps he sits at a control board that
allows him (through camera optics) to operate both turrets. However, I can't
see the logic of having the gunner move about the vehical to operate two
seperate turrets. I can't think of a moderen example off hand. Are there any?
I'm unsure as to how weapons work on SG2 vehicles. Here are my questions:
a) I've got an APC with 2 turrets, each with an RFAC/1. I've got a
driver
and a gunner/commander. On ACTION 1 of TURN 1 can I fire both weapons?
If I fire both weapons, then I assume the vehicle cannot MOVE (because the
driver is firing one of the weapons) - is this correct?
b) Same APC, but the driver is busy driving (MOVEing) both ACTIONS. Can the
gunner FIRE both actions, but with a different turret/weapon each
action? Can he attack seperate targets since he has 2 turrets?
c) I've got a WOMBAT APC with a turreted GAC/1 and a pintel mount
RFAC/1.
Can
I use 1 FIRE action to have the gunner fire the GAC/1 at a target and
the SAME
FIRE ACTION to have a trooper fire the RFAC/1 at a different target? the
same target?
[quoted original message omitted]
A good point to remember about the Dirtside and Stargrunt games is that they
are good models of platoon and squad level combat. So, do what you think real
soldiers would do with real vehicles.
> a) I've got an APC with 2 turrets, each with an RFAC/1. I've got a
If
> I fire both weapons, then I assume the vehicle cannot MOVE (because the
Yes, the gunner/commander is in one turret, the driver has moved to the
other turret.
> b) Same APC, but the driver is busy driving (MOVEing) both ACTIONS.
Can the
> gunner FIRE both actions, but with a different turret/weapon each
Can
> he attack separate targets since he has 2 turrets?
No, the gunner/commander has to switch turrets while the vehicle is
moving. Which is a bit tricky, if you think about it. Your APC really requires
more crew to be fully effective.
> c) I've got a WOMBAT APC with a turreted GAC/1 and a pintle mount
the same
> target?
You actually mean a pintle mounted SAW or APSW, but we get the idea. Yes,
provided you have the crew to do it.
Remember that the trooper firing the SAW/APSW will be exposed to enemy
counter fire. The vehicle armour can't protect him! Hope this helps.
Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Yes, when I read your reply mentioning remote fired weapons, I realised the
questioner could have been talking about a system like the 20mm cannons on the
Marder and the French MICV. These can fired remotely by someone in the hull of
the vehicle, not necessarily in the turret. I regard Fire Control as an aid to
the crew in putting the rounds on the target. For example, automatic lead
compensation, wind correction, barrel bend correction and so on. The more of
this you have, the higher quality fire control your vehicle has. But it still
requires a crewperson to designate the target either directly looking along
the barrel or looking through a remote viewing monitor, then pulling the
trigger or pressing the fire button.
Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin
> No, the gunner/commander has to switch turrets while the vehicle is
> b) Same APC, but the driver is busy driving (MOVEing) both ACTIONS.
Can
> the
If
> each had to be separately manned, it seems strange that an extra gunner
However, I
> can't see the logic of having the gunner move about the vehicle to
The model has, I believe, two turrets, one on the left side of the vehicle,
the other on the right side, with a crew compartment in between. It does seem
illogical and there isn't a modern example of this. The closest would
be the Russian pre-WWII tank, I can't remember what it was called, which
had multiple independent turrets on it. This tank had crew for all the
weapons, but then again their technology didn't allow them remote control
systems. Naturally, you could put remote viewing systems in all the turrets
and let the commander in the hull combine the fire of both turrets onto one
target. This could then enable the vehicle to hide behind a tree while still
firing its weapons! Recent issues of a German military magazine described how
the successors to the American M1 and the M109 PS howitzer could have all
their crew sitting in the hull, with remote viewing all around. This would
have the advantage of lowering hull height dramatically, so increasing
survivability of the vehicle. Also in those same issues, they discussed the
possibility of three and two man crews for MBTs. Even going to the extent of
including a bed, so one member of the team could sleep! This is to get 24 hour
a day operation. So
as you can see, cross-training will be quite normal for future tankers.
These future tank designs were designed so that any crew member could drive,
any could shoot any weapon and all could communicate.
Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin
[quoted original message omitted]
> a) I've got an APC with 2 turrets, each with an RFAC/1. I've got a
Okay, I can buy the vehicle either MOVEing or FIREing if it has a crew
of two - driver and commander/gunner. The driver is busy driving and
the commander is busy telling him where to go. What if the vehicle had a
dedicated gunner in addition to the other two? I just have a hard time with a
vehicle having to stop (not move) to fire. Maybe I've just seen too many Army
recruiting commercials with M1's flying over dunes with cannons blazing...
> c) I've got a WOMBAT APC with a turreted GAC/1 and a pintel mount
Guys, I'm basing that example off of the vehicle stats at the back of
the rulebook for the AGCI-5B APC (Wombat is local OU version).
"...additional RFAC/1 pintle-mounted either on turret top or rear
hull." Based this description I envisioned this as either commander operated
(turret top) or trooper standing up out of troop hatch to operate (rear hull)
ala M113 cavalry variant often seen in Vietnam. With this example I'm really
wondering if I need need two actions to fire at seperate targets (like firing
infantry support weapons at another target). I think I'd have to say, "Yes."
Al.Bri spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Also in those same issues, they discussed the possibility of three
Saw a thing the other day on TLC about modern tanks. The new prototype US MBT
that I saw had a lot of computer control, was very very fast, had a HUGE gun
on it (like it was longer than the tank!) and had two crew members and a lot
of computer optics. Remains to be seen if this is a practical design.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 11:23 PM 1/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Can I ask anyone why this vehical has two turrets yet only one gunner?
If
> each had to be seperatly manned, it seems strange that an extra gunner
However, I
> can't see the logic of having the gunner move about the vehical to
Yes, there is an Italian recon vehicle with two independent turrets. I don't
remember the name, but there is a picture of it on the Jane's website. It
definitely has at least three crew members, since the pic had a driver and
crew in each turret. Not only that, but it's a pretty cool looking beast.
/**********************************
> > Can I ask anyone why this vehical has two turrets yet only one
However, I
> >can't see the logic of having the gunner move about the vehical to
Are there
> >any?
The closest I can think of is the B-29 Superfortress. There are several
gunners inremote positions with the ability to fire several sets of guns. If
the turrets are remotely controlled, then it might be possible for any crew
member to take over a turret and
fire it, i.e. the commander could take one and the gunner the other - or
if the vehicle is stationary, perhaps the driver.
I believe this design to be along the same lines as vehicles with driving
positions
both front and rear, with only a single driver - you use whoever happens
to be available to take the necessary position.
--Binhan
Tony spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> At 11:23 PM 1/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
However, I
> >can't see the logic of having the gunner move about the vehical to
Are there
> >any?
I think you mean 'No' there isn't an example (or at least yours doesn't sound
like one) of a vehicle with TWO turrets independent of one another with ONE
gunner. It seems with two turrets you'd have a
gunner, a commander/gunner, and a driver. Which bears out the match
to three crew. But I don't see a gunner hopping from turret to turret during
combat movement of a vehicle either (or even when it is parked). Since the
commander might want to move the vehicle at any time, then being unstrapped
and knocking about seems like a bad idea.
But, not to take away from your other point, a two turreted vehicle could be
handy.... with TWO gunners so both guns could fire. Even if as Gary suggests
you could bring both controls (firecon!) into one board, you can still only
target and attack one target at a time (since your eyes can only be one spot
at a time). (Assumption: The weapons don't target and fire themselves, else
why have a gunner even?)
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
[quoted original message omitted]
To see a picture of a two crew tank, see this picture at janes:
http://www.janes.com/defence/resources/gallery/defres_970618.html
> Hmm, all the references in SG to the weapons fits are "remote turret
> Owen G
There is little doubt that the turrets on the vehicle are probably remotes (I
believe the vehicle in question is the APC featured on the back cover of the
rules book, & the dimentions look too small for a crew to occupy). I find it
interesting, that the commander is designated as a gunner along with his
responsibilies of commanding the vehical. If I recall, one of the draw backs
of Soviet, French, and British early WWII tanks was that the commander was
preoccupied with loading, aiming, and firing the main armanment of the tank.
This affected his ability to command the vehical and select new targets. I
know SGII is far in the future, but I don't see how these disadvantages would
be overcome. Presently, almost all Western built tanks still use a 4 man crew,
while Russian and other eastern built tanks
operate with three (I realize this is due to an auto-loader in these
vehicles). I can only assume that the Western nations do this for a reason. I
believe their vehicles are concidered more technologically advanced, so it's
not because of lack of tech. Any suggestions? I don't think that the compexity
of vehicles should be set aside just because SGII is an "Infantry game". I
think that vehicles are a very important part of the game. Most other rule
systems usually combine both infantry and armoured rules since the two are
usually always present in ground combat. I would think that most formations on
the offensive would be pleased to have armoured support. I can't see how
adjusting the ruels to incorporate detailed vehicle data and rules would hurt.
> Gary Kett wrote:
Yes, vehicles are important, but they can also be overwhelming. In a squad
level game like Stargrunt II, having more than 2 or 3 vehicles per side is
overkill. Stargrunt II is for handling those interesting squad on squad level
actions where vehicles can't go and so aren't present. For example, assaulting
positions in woods or cities, and similar
vehicle-hostile areas.
Dirtside II is the better system for massed vehicles. Actually, in my humble
opinion, Dirtside II and the rest of the GZG rule systems are the best in the
world.
I am having some problem with the SGII being labled as an purely an "Infantry"
game, and therefore its ok to make other elements of the battle less
effective. That's like playing a WWII navel wargame and making aircraft less
effective, as they will take away from the navel fighting. (If you don't want
tanks, then don't put them in your senario. They are a very important part of
that land combat and should not be pushed aside. From much of the writing
about snipers and so on I had the idea people wanted to make the game more
realistic and detailed. Yet now I read statments saying that by making
armoured vehicle preform correctly, the game would become unblanced or
something. I think any problem that would arise from the use of vehicles in a
game would rather come from a poorly planned senario, than the fact that a
vehicle is present. It is also difficult to use the argument, that SGII occurs
in terrain where vehicles would have difficulty. For tracked and wheeled sure,
but I think grav would have few problems. As to those who will say that they
should stay out of built up areas, I agree. To a point. Assault guns and tanks
can be very effectivly used in urban areas. To do so requires a strong degree
of infantry support however. Here's a good SGII battle. Few tanks lots of
infantry. I like the idea that SGII deals with small unit combat (all arms),
while Dirt Side is much larger ground fighting. One can shift between the two
sytems for camaigns, and use the FT at an even higher level.
> [quoted text omitted]
Just to add my two cents worth...
> Ted Arlauskas wrote:
I just have a
> hard time with a vehicle having to stop (not move) to fire.
its stationary on the playing surface firing, then in the next action it
moves 12". This doesn't necessarily mean over the whole period you simulate
move, stopped and fired then move again. Because the game is an
abstract simulation of combat it really means that the vehicle actually was
moving a bit slower than normal(24") over a period of simulated time
so it could get a shot off rather than moving flat chat at 36" over that
same time frame.
Regards
> Obviously some simplification was necessary for game balance.
It
> does come close to "reality" (whatever that is) as vehicles in a combat
Of course. However, it should be "threat" that dictates the movement not a
rule limitation. If some one wishes to zoom his vehicle across the battle
field he places it in risk of been hit by any anti tank weapon that spots him.
I am not advocating that people start throwing tanks all over the game table.
Tanks don't normally drive around by themselves, they are in units. Unless you
wish to fight tank units then they will not be there. However, tanks are not
the only vehicle in existence, and it is these I am talking about. Support
Vehicles, etc.
> In our regular game, two of our players have military experience
> Gee Gary I don't think anyone has tried to make vehicles LESS
Owen, I am not trying to place more emphasis on vehicles because I want them
racing all over the battle field. As Tom has indicated, I am guilty of keeping
aircraft out of our WWII battles since I find them disruptive to the fighting.
However, I will agree with his crit and would like to incorporate aircraft in
the furure. I realize that it is wrong to keep them out all the time. As I
mentioned earlier, I am advocating tank battalions racing about the board. I
should think that future infantry would
have equipment, that would make the lives of tank/APC etc crews very
difficult. I played some Modern Micro armour battles and found that "spotted"
usually means dead. As to your question to if I have fought a battle with
vehicles...the answer is no. In fact, I have not even played SGII at all yet.
I have bought that rules and looked them over. I will join Tom during some
period that we both get free and play it out. You mention that vehicles on a
board would be at close range all the time, then how do Infantry in the future
fight? Do they all agree to leave the vehicles behind? Do they ever get into
effective infantry weapon range, if vehicles are always destroying the their
APC's? Players make the senario's up and it is their carelessness that will
unbalance the game.
> It may pay to note that most of the discussion seems to be centring
Ok, your point? I agree, there are alot of other weapon systems. Lots of
anti-armour even. What is it you are saying? That we should avoid using
tanks in the game and rely on other weapon systems? Ok, its your universe to
run as you wish. I was just hoping I may get some insight into the kind of
universe I wish to play in (and no there are not tanks zooming everywhere
blowing things up). Although I love playing fictional and fantasy games, I
just cannot get away from trying to make them as realistic as possible. I am
sure Tom Barclay could bore you quickly to death with tales about this habit
of mine.
> The other point is that Trevor Dow started this thread with a query
Sorry Owen, Again I fail to see what you are using this point for. I have seen
this vehicle (Tom ran out a bought a few) and I saw the movie. However, this
vehicle's abilites are not the main point of this line of discussion
(Actually, I had thought Trevor was talking about the vehicle on the back of
the SGII cover, since it has two independant turrets).
OOOOPPS this is not what I meant. "As I mentioned earlier, I am advocating
tank
> battalions racing about the board." I left out the word "NOT" before
> Tony Christney wrote:
It's a Centauro reconnaissance vehicle and, while I agree that it's a pretty
cool recon vehicle, it doesn't have two turrets, it only has one turret with
two pintle mounted 7.62mm MGs, and a large calibre gun. It's picture is here:
http://www.janes.com/defence/resources/gallery/defres_980211.html
There's three crew visible in the picture, one at the front, left and right of
the picture. The guy at the front is the driver. The two guys on top are the
commander and the gunner. The one on the left (right side of the vehicle), is
probably the gunner. He's holding onto a pintle mounted 7.62mm MG, and the
main gun sight is just in front of him. The other guy on the right (left side
of the vehicle), is probably the commander as he's wearing goggles and
adjusting his microphone. In front of him is another 7.62mm MG. Both MGs have
gun shields and are pintle mounted, they are not turrets nor are they remote
weapon station like the one below.
A picture of a 40mm CTWS + 7.62mm MG Remote Weapon Station is here:
http://www.janes.com/defence/resources/gallery/defres_971217.html
A concept only, but is shows what's possible for remote weapon systems for
future MICVs.
Janes gallery, where these pictures come from, is here:
http://www.janes.com/defence/resources/defres_gal.html
Trevor spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > In the abstract context of the game, don't think of the vehicle
Whereas I note fire is resolved not from the midpoint of the last move, but
from where you ended the move (if you MOVE, then FIRE). That suggests what
we're talking about isn't exactly the case you mentioned. Basically, it boils
down to the fact that (intentionally) vehicles have been 'penned in' for SG2
and can't do what they can in real life (take a look at the movement rates!).
That's because this is an infantry game. If you want more detailed vehicle
rules (that let your vehicle move as fast as it could, your gunner fire on the
move, taking into account stabilization, remote linked turrets, etc), then
you'll have to write them. Jon wrote an infantry game with vehicle rules
detailed enough to let them enter the field without taking the focus off the
infantry. That's what you get. You want
more, get your typewritter/wordprocessor/quill out and start
writing.... (and if they're good, post them somewhere the list can see 'em).
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 09:51 PM 7/23/98 +1200, you wrote:
I stand corrected! I guess time and lack of sleep got the better of me!
**********************************
> At 05:15 PM 7/23/98 +1100, you wrote:
> was moving a bit slower than normal(24") over a period of simulated
Also, remeber that vehicles are moving much slower than their max speed in
SGII. 240m every 5 minutes in SGII, whereas a tracked vehicle moves 1200m in
15 minutes in DSII. So vehicles in SGII move at roughly half speed compared to
DSII. I doubt that the speeds vehicles move at in SGII would even have an
effect on their firing at all.
> Regards
**********************************
> At 07:48 AM 7/24/98 +0100, you wrote:
The
> Russian auto loaders had a nasty habit of every so often picking a crew
ouch.
> At 21:39 22/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
One word... Maintenance.
With a crew of four maintaining the vehicle is 33% easier than with 3 people.
Yes, you have technical crew, but field and daily maintenance are always
performed by the crew, unless it involves something big like removing the
engine.
Another reason is redundancy - if an auto-loader break down, how do you
load the gun? If a loader becomes incapacitated, you push him out of the
way and can still fire the main gun. Auto-loaders tend to be cranky and
unless maintained well, have a habit of acting up. Once again you get more
maintenance with less crew... A factory fresh tank might perform to specs but
what is it going to be like after a few months in the field with less than
optimal maintenance?
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 21:39 22/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
Gary, your'e right about the early tanks but more so the French than the
British. It was one great advantage the Germans had over the French in 1940.
As for auto loaders the main resaon I believe that Western nations on
the whole don't use them (the Swedish S-tank being an exception) is
because crews object to getting shoved into the breech rather than the round.
The Russian auto loaders had a nasty habit of every so often picking a crew
member and loading them. I think they now have most of the problems ironed out
but you still get the occasional "RED" feed.
Howdy!
> On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Obviously some simplification was necessary for game balance. It does come
close to "reality" (whatever that is) as vehicles in a combat zone do not go
anywhere NEAR their published speeds, as terrain, enemy fire, and tactics
dictate a more sober approach.
In our regular game, two of our players have military experience (Toronto
Scottish, back when they were Recon, and PPCLI). In our
irregular group (we only get together 3-5 times a year), there is a US
SF
Captain and an ex-Canadian armour Lt. They all love SGII, and if NONE
of them bat an eyelash at the vehicle system, it must be OK <g>. The only
thing they would like is a better 'overwatch' system.
Ken
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> "perform correctly??" as far as I'm concerned they already pretty much
I agree with your comment on vehicle on vehicle and ranges on the board. I
have to disagree with this one though. The mere idea that my combat vehicle
(any class, don't matter), can only cover 480m (and that only if NOT firing)
in 5 minutes is ridiculous, when the infantry can cover 240m. Now, the
argument advanced is something like "the driver is looking around, picking
routes, etc. etc. " which makes me wonder why have a crew of 3 or 4? Isn't the
looking around etc mostly the commanders task (hence why he shouldn't be
gunning). And assume my tank wants to sprint from behind one copse of trees to
another 500m away full tilt because I'm worried about enemy fire... This could
easily take me 5 minutes or 10 minutes at the time scales we're talking about.
I'm thinking since some armour can exceed 50 kph, that sprint should take me
about 1 minute (call it two if accelerating) AND I can probably fire on the
move. And if I kept the pedal on the mat, I could probably be 4000m downrange,
rather than a max of 480m. I don't THINK it is really fair to say vehicles are
treated 'correctly' if one is looking for the simulation side. They are
treated in a way which keeps them balanced, and retains an infantry focus. If
I posit grav tanks capable of sprints up to 250kph for example, that d12x2"
(average 13", or 260m in a double combat move) looks kind of silly in a 5
minute period, especially since if my other copse of woods is 500m away, I'm
left hanging in the open. (Which probably wouldn't happen to a grav tank that
can sprint to even 50kph let alone 250....). So it isn't quite fair to say
vehicles are treated in such a way to reflect real performance.
But (OTOH), I do agree DS2 is the place for vehicle to vehicle armour combat.
Vehicles are indeed mostly a force multiplier or fire support on a SG2 board
(unless you have hills and other impassible and
LOS-blocking terrain to make the weapon ranges not a big factor.
> We use vehicles in quiet a few scenarios (at our club Open Day in May
But it obviously doesn't bug you that a vehicle can't move and shoot using
stabilized weapons or that the vehicle movement rates are so handicapped? You
can't even sprint! Assault gun tactics (to go to a WW2 model) just won't
work... you can't fire and then get away in a five minute turn!
> The other point is that Trevor Dow started this thread with a query
It is a heavily armed APC, but I don't see it as out of this world. I did my
version of the design and considered it to have twin linked
SAWs and either a DFFG/2 or twin DFFG/1s. That's tough. But it isn't
out of comparison with a bradley (GMS/L or GMS/H) and an RFAC/1. And
the phalanx has twin turrets with HELs(?). So I don't think its out of the
ballpark for SG2 vehicles. Nor, when I reference the bradley, is it out of
line with modern IFVs. Note I said IFV not APC. Modern APCs are truly IFVs and
have a lot of firepower that they can deliver. I'm not sure about
stabilization of the main arms on APCs (I know tanks have two and three axis
stabilization), but it seems to me they have (in the real world) high speed
and the ability to fire the main gun (if not missiles) while moving. These
characteristics do not (to me) seem to come across in the battles I've seen
vehicles in. (Perhaps I need more experience). I'm not saying I want
microarmour.... I'd rather play infantry games....but I'd also rather not
claim vehicles are 'accurately represented'.
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
Gary spake thusly upon matters weighty: I played some Modern Micro armour
battles and found that
> "spotted" usually means dead.
In SG2, if ATGMs (GMS/P and GMS/L) are on the board, the same is
true. IAVRs to a lesser extent. Armour does have a problem with
infantry anti-armour weapons.
You mention that vehicles on a board would be
> at close range all the time, then how do Infantry in the future fight?
I think I'll take a stab at answering this. I assume DS2 is the more correct
place to fight such a battle with lots of vehicles, because I think infantry
would have to debark at a reasonable range because the IFVs might well get
clobbered as ranges close. Now mind you, my Colonel used to say that the ideal
battle from an infanteers point of view was to drive up (on top of) an
objective, and debark amongst dead and dying enemy killed by Arty, TacAir, and
Ranged Fire. So I assume some part of modern IFV doctrine must include how to
close range to effective range for infantry given the threat environment of
ATGMS to the IFVs.
Do they ever get into effective infantry weapon range, if vehicles are always
destroying the their APC's?
I do wonder a bit how this works in modern warfare. Anyone with knowledge of
how this panned out in the gulf, or bosnia, or anywhere, please feel free to
contribute.
> Players make the senario's up and it is their carelessness that will
True. I think part of the point Owen might be making is that HW have such long
ranges and are relatively deadly so that two sides bringing in tanks would not
expect them to survive to 700m which is about the edges of a 6' board, unless
environment allowed. But the first time they saw each other, they'd splatter
each other at close range. So its not like Microarmour in that its not long
ranged armour duel material. And I think Owen is sort of saying that the
balance between the capability of tanks and infantry is somewhat akin to
acceptable. The time scale is arbitrary. The unit placements are approximate.
The only thing that matters (in a way) is that if infantry moves X, then
armour moves 2X or something like that. The balance is sort of preserved by
that. (sort of). The proporations of firepower and manoevre allow good
infantry battles to be fought. My only issue is that I think (and its only an
opinion, not gospel...) that the balance has been struck by slighting the
modern vehicle. I'm not proposing turning the game into microarmour, or DS2,
but I would llike to see a bit more capability on the (admittedly few)
vehicles I may see on my boards.
Although I love playing fictional and fantasy games, I just cannot get away
from trying to make them as realistic as possible. I am sure Tom Barclay could
bore you quickly to death with tales about this habit of mine.
Um Yeah. But we don't hold it against you forever..... most of us.:)
> (Actually, I had thought Trevor was talking about the vehicle on the
I'm thinking I'm not sure (the origins are lost to list archives now). But I
think Owens point was the Aliens APC is heavily armed. I didn't think so for a
modern IFV, but I took that up in another post.
But I guess unless we have sat down and thought about it, and written some
*extra optional use at own risk* rules for vehicles to let them do a few more
things (move and shoot, fire more stuff, sprint, etc), to limit them if they
have a shortened crew (if you leave the commander out, the gunner might find
himself too busy to command), and to reflect what we think they may or may not
be able to do, we haven't got much more to say.
Some folks will like the simple rules as they are. Others will need to take a
hack at them and come up with some house rules. In either case, its whatever a
given gaming group wants to do that should be what they do.:)
Owen, BTW, Have you finished those cavalry rules?
Tom.
> Gary
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> The comments about the 500m dash are possible; two combat rolls will
I chatted last week with a fellow currently a light infantryman (VaARNG) and
former tanker (WVARNG) who claimed he preferred the former as he has yet to
break any bones during a ruckmarch, while when hanging out the loader's hatch
when the driver hit the brakes, he cracked a pair of ribs.
> On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> his chin >or forehead scar. Anyway, if you have a table with 48 inches
> I chatted last week with a fellow currently a light infantryman
Sorry, but what do the acronyms mean?
> You wrote:
> I chatted last week with a fellow currently a light infantryman
> Sorry, but what do the acronyms mean?
Virginia (Va differentiates from, for instance Vermont) Army National Guard
and West Virginia Army National Guard. The R is to differentiate from Air
National Guard.
> (No offence to anyone, but like alot of specialists, military types
And given I speak the degenerate trans-Atlantic form of English to
start with. . . :) It's not my fault--I grew up a Brat. On a
subconcious level I expect everyone to know this stuff.:)
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I guess this sort of discussion can go on for ages with all parties
Heh. Nothing new there though is there?
> The only time it has fallen down is when we did have a large number of
Note the comments made about LOS in Europe in another post by a list member.
If 90% of all LOS are 300m or less, then you WOULD be engaging at that range.
And yes, that is really deadly.
> The comments about the 500m dash are possible; two combat rolls will
I'm not saying one prefers to do this. Lets just say Paul was going somewhere
in his vehicle, and discovered he was engaged by enemies (or about to be) but
there was cover or support or whatever a half klick away? Would he gun the
motor and hope to not hit a tree stump? I'm sure he would. I was just making
the point that this is hard to do. And in some backgrounds (lets say I'm using
a grav vehicle and am hovering 7 feet up, over most low obstructions, and my
grav tank
can accelerate to 250kph - or more - a la Traveller or the like), you
may want to let vehicles move quickly. If I have the capability for
my grav tank (esp if he's coming on-board as reinforcements) to reach
the sharp end in 1 move or in an average of 4, I'll tell you which I might opt
for. (grin). Anyway, I think it depends on your setting. I noticed in the
large campaign you are involved in, there are some special movement rules for
ground forces...:)
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 10:28 PM 7/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
I saw a guy do the same thing on a bicycle going about 30km/h.
It was one of the most horrible things I have ever seen happen to
somebody. His body was _black_ from knee to knee... The moral
of the story is: never pass in knee high grass.
**********************************
Tony spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I saw a guy do the same thing on a bicycle going about 30km/h.
Knee to Knee? Does that mean the nasty path I think it does? Ouch. That sounds
like it might affect fatherhood options....
(Ewww.)
Tom.
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:59:19 -0500 Thomas Barclay
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> writes:
Personally, I think the largest number of tanks should be four--three on
one side and one on the other. But then, I'm becoming obsesses with
gaming "Kelly's Heroes" in 25mm. :-)
> I'm not saying one prefers to do this. Lets just say Paul was going
Well, how about this, then. If we're assuming a StarGrunt game is just part of
a bigger battle, if a tank actually has to go to faster speed to get out of
harm's way, it's probably going to run off the board pretty quickly. If that
does happen, it will probably get involved in another part of the battle.
Maybe have it in the victory conditions where if the tank does this (basically
"disengages" from the tabletop battle), it will cost its owner some victory
points, but not as many as if it were destroyed. So the controlling player can
decide when to risk keeping it on the table, and when to run away.
Just a humble suggestion, which is mostly for rationalizing the problem
away. :-)
Howdy!
> On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Gary Kett wrote:
> Of course. However, it should be "threat" that dictates the movement
However,
> tanks are not the only vehicle in existence, and it is these I am
True! I think SGII emphasizes vehicles IN SUPPORT of infantry.
We've played a few games with a number (4+) of vehicles per side, but
always with a large number of troops.
> >Please do not try to justify things just because someone has military
Sure. Although, I didn't know I was proselytizing...:)
If people with military and combat (Desert Storm and Panama) enjoy SGII a
GREAT deal, then that points to a good ruleset. Not a *perfect* ruleset, but a
very good one. I mentioned the experiences of some of our group to illustrate
that the vehicle system was adequate in their view, which I found interesting.
True, most of them are infantry, but one was in armoured (light) recon and one
drove a Leopard <g>. Obviously, they have little experience concerning warfare
in 2185, but they do have a good deal of experience in the 'meat and potatoes'
of SGII, i.e. organization, command, morale, logistics, intel, etc.
Actually, I enjoy running SGII at conventions (GenCon, DragonCon, Pandemonium,
Toronto Trek, etc.) because you get to run into gamers who have had military
experience. It is interesting to hear their comments and observations, and it
is also a GREAT way to get scenario ideas...
Ken