[SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry

3 posts ยท Nov 7 2000 to Nov 8 2000

From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:51:43 -0500

Subject: [SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry

Oerjan responded to Brian? perhaps:

> 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.

--------------------------
I take it then, as makes sense, that there is a maximum amount of energy you
can usefully impart to a projectile. I know the point of some penetrators is
to get a good length/cross section so they can pack a lot of mass behind
one
small impact area - thus giving a good whack to the target. But as you
said, you run into issues of structural integrity for the round and the
problem of shattering. I'd also think, at some point, you run into the issue
of the round sublimating to molten metal or gas because it hits so hard...
hence it can't liberate any more KE into the target (though hot gas or metal
might be uncool for the target...). Is this what happens?

Relatedly, you mentioned that D8 might be a bit low for beehive rounds. I'd
guess so....

I think that all vehicle weapons may have some anti-infantry mode. Let's
review how these might work briefly:

RFAC - small ones are like the Vulcan - anyone who has seen one deployed
vs. infantry will know exactly how nightmarish that is. Large ones undoubtedly
can fire proximity fused rounds with laser range finders thus making life bad
for the infantry.

HVC - Well, I wouldn't want to get hit by one of these as an infantry
guy. It'd kill you I'd think. But it would only affect one man in the squad if
that. Hard to hit with. But maybe there are HVC rounds that actually are
anti-infantry in design that can fragment with some sort of fusing
(sensor
triggered or pre-set distance). They'd make a pretty effective beehive
if I'm not mistaken. Some of the rounds might actually have explosive
contianed within.

HKP - I think these rounds could work the same as HVC rounds.

DFFG - DFFGs like the ones on the Phalanx APC are obviously rapid fire
multi barrell versions of the Infantry Plasma Gun. Not pleasant! And the
larger ones probably have larger explosive effects which can hurt infantry. In
fact, they may even be able to adjust the size/intensity of the burst.

HEL - Instead of taking one super high intensity pulse or a long
tracking beam to kill a tank, turn onto short, medium intensity pulses that
will cook infantry like a laser machine gun. Not something I'd want to see. In
fact a Laser SAW, if they ever perfect it, will be easy to aim, have little or
no recoil, and will leave nasty burns as it causes water in the tissues to
sublimate blowing big chunks out of the squishy human. Also note, set on very
wide aperature, no doubt mass blindings or surface skin burnings could be
administered.

GMS - Expensive, but feasible. Cannister heads, gas warheads, other
kinds of scatterable chemical or biological agents. Just plain big ass HE.
Flechettes fired by a charge. Napalm.

MDC/GAC - For the large MDC, perhaps there are splintering projectiles
or explosive ones. Or perhaps they can fire shorter ones at a higher ROF to
engage infantry. For the small MDCs, they seem ideally suited to
anti-infantry.

With these technologies, plus anti-infantry charges, SAWs, etc, infantry
attacking armour in 2183 might have a hell of a rough time (esp with
reactive armour and PDS to reduce the threat of GMS). However - and this
is
the clincher - Jon wanted SG2 to be an *infantry* game. This is probably
why these large weapons are rated so weakly. So, you can feel free to upgun
the dice used (use FP dice rep volume of fire rather than a fire control dice,
for example) including the impact roll to more correctly model the lethality
of vehicular weaponry.

But then you change the infantry focus of SG2 (in which case, why aren't you
playing DS2 eh?). Vehicles are fairly deadly, but modelling them even more
accurately would lead one to question the achilles heel armour (roll a 1 on a
d12 for an armour check and you die even with level 4 or 5 armour usually) or
the fact a vehicle can't drive and shoot all its guns (SAWs, main guns) in one
turn too easily. This is because of the focus of the game being on
footsloggers getting in there and shooting each other with rifles....

So, do what makes you and your group happy. But realize the game rules are as
they are not because of a mistake, but because of a flavour....

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 20:18:12 -0500

Subject: Re: [SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry

> At 2000-11-07 -0500 17:51, you wrote:

[snip]
> But then you change the infantry focus of SG2 (in which case, why

Tom, When you write of rolling a 1 on a d12, you are talking about hits from
IVARs, GMS, and other Anti-Armor weapons, are you not?

If you are talking about infantry weapons (MG, SAW, etc.) SG p.37 states in
the Firing Small Arms at Point Targets: "...if the target is of armour class 2
or better, ther can be NO EFFECT other than the suppression..." Pages 37 (last
section) to page 39 (all but last section) deal with Heavy Weapons against
point targets.

---

From: shogakusha <shogakusha@g...>

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:16:28 -0600

Subject: Re: [SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry

> But then you change the infantry focus of SG2 (in which case, why

Don't like it. Hate the scale, and can't stand the idea of drawing chits for
damage. 15mm is as small as I care to go, and chits are for record keeping.