Built in as class-1 weapons: 2 APSW = 5 capacity. Fired as linked
weapons. Ignores suppression as vehicle (due to being enclosed turret).
Using your LVT example:
FP: d10, I:d10 mg + FP:d12, I:d8 grenade launcher
Resolve with Q + d10 + d12, Impact of the LOWER = d8.
You could theoretically spend 2 separate fire actions to fire them
individually, but personally I think it starts getting a strong chedder
flavour.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
I'm
> talking
Just wanted to do a quick survey and see how the folks on the list are
treating turreted infantry weapons on their vehicles in SG2 (and DS2 for that
matter). I'm talking vehicles like the British Ferret with it's turreted.30
cal machine gun and the US Marine LVT amphibious APC with it's turreted.50 cal
machine gun and 40mm MK19 automatic grenade launcher.
Hi Ted,
> Just wanted to do a quick survey and see how the folks on the list are
--> Well, the .30 would be a turreted SAW (so, you would use the
vehicle's
FC and not the weapons' firepower rating). The .50 would be an RFAC/1,
and
follow the standard heavy weapon rules, and as for the 40mmGL - I'd
probably play that as a turreted Automatic Grenade Launcher (as per the rules
for that from the chart in the book). Alternatively, you could use the Vehicle
Mounted Grenade Launcher rules that Tom Barclay and I made up,
see http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/Gaming/TechToolbox.htm for the time
being.
<snip>
> Using your LVT example:
FP: d10, I:d10 mg + FP:d12, I:d8 grenade launcher
Resolve with Q + d10 + d12, Impact of the LOWER = d8.
You could theoretically spend 2 separate fire actions to fire them
individually, but personally I think it starts getting a strong chedder
flavour.
-->Except that if the weapons are vehicle mounted, you would use the
vehicle FC die type, not the weapon's FP die type...
-->So, in the case of a turret with linked SAW and GL and a vehicle with
Enhanced FC, you would be rolling Q + d8 + d8. Impact would be d8 (or
d10, depending on your weapons). Range bands would be as per standard vehicle
weapons (12", and 12"xsize if firing the GL in anti-armour role against
a point target with a size class, using the GL's d8* armour penetration
rating).
Not /sure/ what you are asking but...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:21:44 -0700 "Ted Arlauskas" <ted@naxera.com>
writes:
> Just wanted to do a quick survey and see how the folks on the list are
Okay, I'm a DS2 freak...
> I'm talking=20
I assume it's a turreted APSW (3 cap points) 2 unused cap points for a class 1
size AFV. There are various optional house rules about those unused cap
points...
> and the US Marine
Two APSW's - one 3 cap the other 2 cap - in the turret. House rules (If
I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to have AT type ammo
that acted as a HVC (range as class-3, since there is nothing smaller
for HVC's, SR only; 1 (one) chit ( *really* optionally 2 (two) chits versus
class one armor.) Also alternatively, the APSW's (plural) would have two
chances of shredding softskin vehicles...
Is that what you are asking?
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Just wanted to do a quick survey and see how the folks on the list
APSWs only seem to cost 1 capacity point even when capable of all-arc
fire, though.
> House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to
"HVC less than class/3" = "small-caliber shell-firing cannon" = RFAC
Regards,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:03:53 +0200 "Oerjan Ohlson"
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> I assume it's a turreted APSW (3 cap points) 2 unused cap points for
But those in DS2 are not turreted as his example was referring to but per
page 11 of DS2 - "This is assumed to be a Machinegun...on an external
remote mounting." I assume this is different from being a main or secondary
system in a 'proper' turret. Seems overly restrictive for smaller vehicles and
I may have read that wrong but that's what I see upon a quick review...
> House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to
Actually RFAC and HVC seem similar but I don't see the DS2 'logic' equating
them exactly...
But while that is superficially true, I was thinking that a 40mm GL (his LAV
example) was not exactly a RFAC but an APSW. Putting the AP round makes it a
kind of second hand very light AT weapon and the 16" range while *overly
generous* was an attempt to give the AT round some
practical use since APSW range is 12" (DFFG-1 LR). But it was just a
untested spur of the moment suggestion. YMMV.
> Regards,
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> I assume it's a turreted APSW (3 cap points) 2 unused cap points for
That same "external remote mounting" reference you quote explicitly
says that the weapon is capable of all-arc fire.
The capacity requirements table on p.16 specifies that all additional
APSW cost 1 capacity point each - they don't seem to be included in the
"All direct fire weapons" category, since they have their own line in that
table.
So, as I understand the rules each extra all-arc APSW beyond the first
one costs 1 capacity point, not 3. But if you absolutely *want* to make
the APSWs three times as big as you have to, don't let me stop you ;-)
> House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to
They have virtually identical PSB descriptions ("conventional" except for the
use of more efficient propellants), and completely identical chit validities.
Sounds like a pretty strong case for equating them, no?
The main differences are the size classes available (no overlap between
the two types) and that RFACs are supposed to be mostly shell-firing
while the HVCs mostly fire APFSDS (though the HVCs are able to fire
shell as well, since they have a reasonable anti-infantry
capability)... that's an even better reason for calling a light grenade
launcher "RFAC", since grenades are shells and APFSDS aren't :-)
> But while that is superficially true, I was thinking that a 40mm GL
A 40mm GL is a small, fairly short-ranged rapid-fire shell-firing
weapon with decent effect against infantry but poor effect against all but the
lightest armour.
According to the DSII weapon description an RFAC is a small, fairly
short-randed rapid-fire shell-firing weapon. The rules gives it a
reasonable effect against infantry (though *all* DSII weapons are IMO too weak
against infantry) but poor against all but the lightest armour
- particularly the RFAC/1.
The DSII weapon description claims that RFAC/2s correspond "very
roughly" to today's 30-40mm cannon. However, since a GL is both smaller
and shorter-ranged than a 30-40mm cannon (shorter barrel gives lower
muzzle velocity gives lower recoil, which gives a light weapon) and
effectively unable to use high-velocity AP rounds so they have to use
HEAT or equivalent instead (which together with the small caliber gives
a rather unimpressive armour penetration), I'd call the GL an RFAC/1
instead of RFAC/2.
Regards,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:13:22 +0200 "Oerjan Ohlson"
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> But those in DS2 are not turreted as his example was referring to but
Not thjat I want to but the referance was, was it not, to a weapon in a
turret - like a co-ax MG in today's turrets. Yes, three or even two
seems a bit steep but if it is in a turret as a primary or secondary system,
as I read the rules (and it's just IMO and somewhat
over-weighted
also IMO) it's a 3 cap primary or a 2 cap secondary if it's in a main
turret as opposed to a pintle or remote mini-turret (lik the commander's
weapon in either an early M60 or possibly the Sheridan) mount. I like your
read better.
> House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL to
Then why not call them HVC1 through HVC-5? But yes, the explanation
does
break down (or RFAC-3 is really KEC-3...) in that way.
> The main differences are the size classes available (no overlap
I can accept that. But the rules specifically call the GL's APSW.
> But while that is superficially true, I was thinking that a 40mm GL
Well, i expect you can only do so much with 20mm!
> The DSII weapon description claims that RFAC/2s correspond "very
I could play under those rules.
> Regards,
Gracias,
> Not thjat I want to but the referance was, was it not, to a weapon in
That is what I was trying to get to. How much space should a (fully) turreted
APSW take up? An extra APSW takes up 1 space and that's either stated or
assumed to be pintle mounted. My opinion is that a turreted APSW (ala my
example of the Ferret or the LVTP or your example of a commander's cupola
mount) should take up no more than 2 spaces, and I could argue that it would
only be 1. An extra APSW on top of that would be one additional space.
For the example of the 40mm GL and the.50 HMG in the LVTP, I'd treat the HMG
per the many examples folks have ginned up here on the List. For the The GL
I'd use the stats listed in the rule book for the often overlooked and
neglected infantry support Auto GL (FP:D12, IV:d8*). I'd rule that both can't
be fired together. They're completely different weapon systems with different
ballistics. The
gunner could only shoot them one at a time/activation.
> Ted Arlauskas wrote:
> That is what I was trying to get to. How much space should a (fully)
No. It is stated to be an external remote mount, which is effectively a
remote-controlled unmanned turret. Or at least *today's* external
remote MG mounts are remote-controlled turrets :-/
> For the example of the 40mm GL and the .50 HMG in the LVTP, I'd
They're
> completely different weapon systems with different ballistics. The
Sounds good to me :-)
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> That same "external remote mounting" reference you quote explicitly
A co-ax MG isn't an "external remote mount". Think "MG at the
commander's hatch" instead, but give it a remote control so the
commander doesn't risk having his head blown off when he uses it :-/
The full quote is:
"All military vehicles are fitted with one "free" APSW, capable of
all-round fire; this weapon does not count towards any weapons fit
limitations, or take up any capacity. [This is assumed to be a Machinegun or
equivalent, on an external remote mounting. Additional APSWs may be fitted if
desired, but any such extras each occupy ONE capacity point and DO count
towards total weapons fit limitations.]" (Jon's emphasis)
Says nothing at all about the fields of fire of those "extra" APSWs, but is is
very specific that their capacity cost is 1 point. (And 1 shall be the number,
not 0 or 2. 3 is right out... <g>)
Just noticed another thing: the APSWs aren't included in the list of
"direct fire weapons" on p.8 :-/
> >>>>House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL
Forgot that the RFACs follow the same "range increases by X inches"
progression as the HVCs :-/
> Then why not call them HVC1 through HVC-5?
No idea. Ask Jon or Mike; they're the ones who wrote the rules :-/
> But yes, the explanation does break down (or RFAC-3 is really
No, KEC is weaker still. Different range bands, IIRC different chit
validities, and only capable of combining with Basic FCS :-/
> The main differences are the size classes available (no overlap
Yep. At least DSII does - in SGII an AGL is quite different from a
heavy SAW. But that classification gives you no anti-armour ability at
all; using the RFAC/1 version gives a reasonable match to the desired
stats without adding a single extra rule...
> According to the DSII weapon description an RFAC is a small, fairly
Particularly if you restrict it to shell... though there's no real reason to
do that; saboted KE rounds can be quite nasty, though of course they are still
no match for serious armour.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Actually, a co-axial MG is mounted in the main turret,
right beside the main gun. It won't be remotely controlled as it points in the
same direction as the main gun (hence the name.) If you look at an M1 head on,
it is the little gun poking out a few inches to the right and up from the main
gun.
I've always thought of the free APSW as being mounted outside the vehicle.
This is normally considered an AA weapon on modern tanks. Similarly, I
consider a second or third MG to be either coaxial or bow mounted. It nicely
explained the extra capacity required, at least to me. YMMV.
> Regards,
> Tony Christney wrote:
That would actually depend on wether you are playing SG or DS. DS explicitly
states that the APSW is mounted externally but is
remote-controlled.
SG, on the other hand, explicitly states (p.32) that the free SAW is manually
controlled, so that a suppressed vehicle cannot fire it. SG also states that
"additional weapons of this type" use one capacity
point, while if you "want a remote-control SAW you can operate from
inside the vehicle you have to pay the capacity for it!".
I am not certain what, exactly, is meant by "weapons of this type" and "pay
the capacity for it" is really intended to mean, but I assume that extra
manually controlled SAWs cost one point and the others pay two or three (if
primary weapon in turret).
There are small, but sometimes annoying, little differences between
constructing vehicles in DS and SG. I seem to remember having seen one or two
others, but cannot remember what it was (and I have not really played DS, just
tested it a couple of times some years ago).
---
Tony Christney wrote in reply to me and Glenn:
> Not thjat I want to but the referance was, was it not, to a weapon
Duh. My bad; I know full well what a co-ax is.
What I *meant* to write above was 'The rules reference isn't to a co-ax
MG; it is to an "external remote mount",...', which is just what I describe
above
:-/
Regards,