Hi, Gang.
Okay, over the holidays I ran my Traveller scenario a few more times. I've got
a scenario that I like, now, that seems balanced and interesting. However, I
still have a couple of questions with regards to vehicles.
1) I need a clarification on the bailout rules. The rules state that when a
vehicle is immobilized any occupants must make a TL3 Reaction Test, or bail
out immediately. However, there is no such requirement for a vehicle that is
disabled or destroyed. In the game, I required a TL3 reaction roll for
disabled and destroyed vehicles as well. Does this seem to make sense, or am I
missing something? Also, if the TL3 roll is made for passengers in a destroyed
vehicle, I did not force them to bail out immediately, but did require that
they exit the vehicle on their first activation. Does this make sense? Or can
they stay in the vehicle?
2) Where do figures go when they bail out? When spending an action to leave a
vehicle, the figures are allowed to move 6" away from the vehicle. What about
when they are forced to bail out? Do they get a free move action? Or are they
moved to just outside of the vehicle? I did the latter, basically leaving them
out in the open (until they did a move action to get around behind a vehicle.
3) How big is a vehicle in Line of Sight terms? Does the entire vehicle block
LOS even when it is stationary? This is the easiest way to do it, but then the
vehicle becomes a BIG LOS block compared to its "real life" size. Any
suggestions?
Those were the questions. Now I need some opinions.
My Power Armour guys were armed with Traveller PGMP-14s. These I had as
D6 Firepower, D12 Impact. The rules in SG2 include situations where a squad
fires small arms at a vehicle, and includes rules for squads firing support
weapons capable of penetrating a vehicle. However, this is a special case.
You see, my squads of 4 PA guys consist--essentially--of 4 guys carrying
support weapons. Each guy is capable of firing upon, and penetrating, a
vehicle. The problem is that the SG2 rules don't actually handle multiple
support weapons against vehicles. (Imagine a WW2 scenario with three or four
guys firing panzerfausts at a single tank, and you have similar problems.)
So, how should I resolve these weapons firing on a vehicle? I came up with 4
options. I'd like your choice of option (or another option, if you have a
better idea, or if I've missed something in the rules).
1) Fire the weapons like a small arms unit. The four guys would roll a quality
die plus 4D6 against the vehicle. On a major hit, the dice are divided by the
range die to get the number of weapons that hit. These are then rolled for
penetration. (I tried this, but the weapons seemed unduly bloody, with almost
every vehicle brewing up...)
2) Fire the weapons like a small arms unit, as in #1, but only roll ONE die
for penetration versus armour. This allows for a lot of easy hits, but
penetration becomes a crap shoot.
3) Allow all four guys to roll as individuals. That is, they each roll a
quality die plus a D6, and roll for penetration individually.
4) Allow the guys to fire in teams of two. Each team rolls a quality die plus
2D6, but makes only one penetration roll. I tried this and it seems to work
well, but I have a hard time justifying it.
Any comments would be appreciated.
> Okay, over the holidays I ran my Traveller scenario a few more times.
I've got
> a scenario that I like, now, that seems balanced and interesting.
However, I
> Those were the questions. Now I need some opinions.
[...]
> So, how should I resolve these weapons firing on a vehicle? I came up
[...]
> 3) Allow all four guys to roll as individuals. That is, they each roll
Mind ye, I have only played SGII a few times, nowhere near enough to pretend
to have a clue or be an expert, so take my thoughts with a large grain of salt
(or what have you;) but if I were making a choice, I'd go with #3 here.
Mk
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:32:52 -1000, "Jared E Noble"
<JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:
> How about a modified #2 - Fire like a small arms unit (lots of easy
Hmmm, I like that... It does have a nice mix of methodologies. A +1 for
every firer in the unit, over the first one, would be applied to the die roll,
and then the die roll would be multiplied by 2 for a major hit to a point
target. That should work well...
<Snip questions I can't comment on..>
Those were the questions. Now I need some opinions.
> My Power Armour guys were armed with Traveller PGMP-14s. These I had as
Lots of easy, very deadly hits - It sounds withering-just as you say.
> 2) Fire the weapons like a small arms unit, as in #1, but only roll ONE
This seems to leave out the deadly effect that concentrations of
high-power
weaponry has. If you concentrate that much destructive force in a small area,
things should go pop easier that if it is just 1 weapon is attacking. So I
agree that this is not a good idea.
> 3) Allow all four guys to roll as individuals. That is, they each roll
By itself this seems to be the best option, but then squads can easily not be
squads again, and it slows play to some degree (and from what I have heard,
SG2 can be slow enough at times)
> 4) Allow the guys to fire in teams of two. Each team rolls a quality
Interesting idea - and it sounds like it gives results closer to what
you
want -
How about a modified #2 - Fire like a small arms unit (lots of easy
hits), and then roll a single penetration, but with modifiers for each
additional
hit (+1 or whatever). It seems like it is partway between 2 & 4, and
the mechanism is extensible to any number of guys (even odd numbers) in a
non-arbitrary way. It is partway crap-shoot, but better odds the more
guys are firing. Justification seems easier than #4. Never having played SG, I
don't know how the modifier would skew the result, but it is a thought...
> Any comments would be appreciated.
Easy to say when you haven't read the comments yet ;->
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:31:35 +1000 , "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> Hmm, not having my rule book handy; I think we apply the bail out to
Makes sense.
> We use the 6" radius positioning. It is an involountary action and
Sounds good.
> IIRC the rules state that vehicles don not block LOS at all. In some
I allow figures to use a vehicle as a hard, protected target like a wall or a
building. Because it is tall enough, I allow the figures to hide behind the
dead vehicle for cover. On the other hand, they can't fire over it either.
I'll ignore them as LOS blockers for all other cases.
> IMO you would roll one Qual die and one d6 for each weapon firing.
Consider
> an ordinary NAC squad with SAW and PPG. When firing the full squad you
Alrighty... No consensus yet, I see...
[quoted original message omitted]
Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >You see, my squads of 4 PA guys consist--essentially--of 4 guys
They don't handle mass SW well, but they handle it as far as I can see. What
if you were to fire ten IAVRs from a squad? That is covered by the rules.
(Maybe not pleasantly).
> >1) Fire the weapons like a small arms unit. The four guys would roll
OTOH, They ARE plasma guns. Part of your problem here is you are using
Traveller force mixes with SG2 combat rules. In traveller, the PGMPs would
threaten few if any APCs given they'd have armour ratings between 30 and 75
and the PGMPs or FGMPs would have penetrations in
the 18-21 range... but in SG2 the plasma gun is relatively deadly to
vehicles. Plus the tendency to roll a single dice for vehicle armour means
EVERY vehicle has an achilles heel. Try instead of multiplying vehicle armour
dice, try rolling all of them. (ie armour 3 is roll 3d 12s). This helps make
heavy armour far better at averaging out and stopping shots from smaller
weapons. You only get a 5 on a roll for a
5 armour vehicle now with a (1/12)^5 probability. Instead of a 1/12
probability. This helps vehicles armour act more like armour and less like a
"one minute its concrete, the next its glass" shield.
> >3) Allow all four guys to roll as individuals. That is, they each
Well, with this much support FP on the board, I'd expect it to be a bit slow,
although rolling a handful of dice can be done as fast as rolling one.
> How about a modified #2 - Fire like a small arms unit (lots of easy
It seems reasonable, but isn't applies in small arms combat against a single
figure.... so it would be a 'unique' resolution to handle the fact Brian has a
support heavy unit.
/************************************************
> Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com> wrote:
Perhaps you might consider my simpler system from my web site and adapt it to
SGII?
Casulties to Mounted Infantry
-----------------------------
Instead of the rule on page 36, try this simpler and easier to remember
system. If the vehicle is immobilised or systems down, all infantry are
unharmed. Infantry can dismount as usual. If the vehicle receives a DAMAGED
result, roll each infantry element's quality die. On a result of "1", the
element is lost. On any other result, the element survives and may either
dismount or remain in the vehicle. If the vehicle receives a DISABLED (ie
knocked out) result, roll each infantry element's quality die. Try to exceed
the infantry unit's
leadership, plus the vehicle's armour level (this represents mis-placed
over confidence in the vehicle!), minus the number of chits drawn by the
attacking weapon system (this represents prescient fear!). Failure means that
the element is lost. Success means that the element survives and is now
outside the vehicle hulk. If the vehicle takes a BOOM result, all elements on
board are automatically lost.
> 2) Where do figures go when they bail out? When spending an action to
I would have the infantry just outside the vehicle and touching it. Those
infatry touching the vehicle and not in line of sight get a cover bonus.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
<JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com>
> wrote:
Allan,
I disgree with the concept! Very soon the multi-gun turret
vehicle will arrive and the number of plusses to peneration will be
impressive. (Far too impressive to be interesting or believeable.)
A mixture of methods to resolve similar problems can only cause
problems with the players. The thing that needs to be resolved in
this case is: What is PA?
If PA is infantry, treat it as infantry. If PA is a vehicle/s,
treat it as a vehicle/s.
Bye for now, Waiting for heated replies.
On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:39:40 -0800, John Leary
<john_t_leary@pronetusa.net>
wrote:
> The thing that needs to be resolved in
Well, it's Powered Armour... it's infantry in big suits.
The problem, as Tom pointed out, is that the system doesn't handle multiple
Support Weapons well... This is definitely a failing of the system.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
To restate the case, or use a different point of view:
If PA is infantry, then it should use an infantry TOE and will not
have multiple support weapons in the unit. Problem solved!
If PA is armor, then each PA trooper is 'driving' a one man armored vehicle,
and has a main weapon on the vehicle that can be fired at
any selected target. Each trooper/vehicle can fire on any available
target in range, and each attack is a seperate attack from a different
vehicle in the unit. Problem solved!
I fully realize the heritical nature of the concept: PA is a vehicle. If the
PA fits, drive it.
:-)
Bye for now,
[quoted original message omitted]
On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 16:47:00 -0800, John Leary
<john_t_leary@pronetusa.net>
wrote:
> If PA is infantry, then it should use an infantry TOE and will not
I'm not crazy about disallowing multiple support weapons in a unit simply
because the system can't handle it. There are plenty of historical situations
where this was the case (multiple panzerfausts in a German squad and 2 BARs in
American squads are just two WW2 examples).
I think that the four guys firing as four separate attacks seems to be the
closest thing we have to a consensus on the list. I think the total is three
people suggesting it, more than any other option.
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:39:03 +1000 , "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> IMHO your conversion for a Traveller to SG is the problem. If every
Not
> my ideal and it would probably raise as many extra problems as it
Actually, as I mention elsewhere, there are plenty of historical analogs for
multiple support weapons in a squad, from multiple automatic weapons to
multiple anti-tank weapons. There are also a number of science fiction
universes where this is the case, too. True, SG2 may not be able to handle
this... it is a generic system, though. If it forces you to restrict the
number of vehicle killing weapons given within a squad, it can not handle
historical games and it can not handle certain SF backgrounds. It is married
to a background where one squad = one support weapon. That may not be a
failing of a game based on Jon's fictional universe, but it is a failing if
the system is trying to be truly generic.
That having been said, I'm sure with some thought we can come up with a way of
handling it.
> On reflection, I actually would prefer the four troopers each rolling a
Actually, it may not be that bad an idea after all.
> No...Problem definately _not_ solved. This is not a generalized
Handwaving
> and arbtrarily stating that infantry TOE could not have multiple
Let's look at the modern US light infantry platoon. (From memory, please
correct if I left something out)
Three Squads, each of 9 men. Two of those men carry SAWs. HQ: PL, PSG, RTO
Weapons Squad:2xLMG teams each of two men.
I know I organize my NRE along the same lines. 2 SAWs in a squad, plus
a weapons team, plus an anti-armor team with several GMS/Ps. It makes
sense. Plus I hand out buzz-bombs on a 2 per team basis. So
potentially, I could have a squad firing 4 IVARs, plus 2 SAWs. Realistically,
I'd not want to waste them all on one target, but it's possible.
If that means you roll a handful of dice, so be it. I'd let each weapon fire
seperately.
As long as it's a vehicle being fired at multiple times. I've had infantry
squads suppressed with no hope of recovery from multiple fire actions in the
one activation. Not a pretty sight...
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 22:52:39 -0500, "John M. Atkinson"
> <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
> If that means you roll a handful of dice, so be it. I'd let each
That seems to be the growing consensus...
> Allan Goodall wrote:
No...Problem definately _not_ solved. This is not a generalized
solution.
To say that an infantry TOE _cannot_ have multiple support weapons is
silly. To say that an infantry TOE modeled after a particular 'source' (be
it modern infantry structure, or one in a book you read) _does not_ have
multiple support weapons is fine. Is the distiction clear? Now if people can
explain an effective, rational system that provides a generalized solution,
great. If you can give a good explanation of how the existing structure
handles this case effectively and generally, great. Handwaving and arbtrarily
stating that infantry TOE could not have multiple support weapons is not.
> If PA is armor, then each PA trooper is 'driving' a one man armored
This is potentially a reasonable solution - perhaps moreso for some
backgrounds than others, but I still think an effective system for resolving
multiple support weapons is best.
> I fully realize the heritical nature of the concept: PA is a vehicle.
Good one <g>
:-)
Bye for now, John L.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> That having been said, I'm sure with some thought we can come up with
Well, how about the platoon leader running 4 fire teams instead of 2 squads.
Just a thought,
[quoted original message omitted]
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Well, it's Powered Armour... it's infantry in big suits.
I'll have to disagree. The game is designed to simulate squad level combat
within a certain tech framework which is does pretty well. The fact that we
are attempting to use a different tech framework and expect the same level of
robustness is the problem. You wouldn't ask a banana to be a kiwi so lets not
say it is a failing of the system. It is a characteristic. It represents well
what it was intended to, and not so well things it was not.
Tom.
/************************************************
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:07:09 +1100, "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> As long as it's a vehicle being fired at multiple times. I've had
Agreed, Brendan. The system actually handles multiple support weapons firing
at a squad rather well. The issue is when firing occurs against a vehicle.