[SGII] Fire of AT Missiles at disperesed tagets

Hi,

Just a quick question from Sunday's game. My opponent had a very small but
heavily armed SF section that wished to fire his GMS/P at an infantry
section in hard cover. I allowed it, giving the thing FP D10 and Impact D8
(the same as a heavy weapon fired at a dispersed target). What do you think?

> Richard Kirke wrote:

> Just a quick question from Sunday's game. My opponent had a very small

If it was an anti-vehicle GMS/P only, it'd be OK if the hard cover in
question was a bunker or some similar very restricted space. If the target
were in some other type of hard cover that allowed more dispersion, the
Impact might be OK but the FP is way too high - in real-world terms if
there's a soldier directly in front of the warhead when it goes off he would
(probably) buy it, but that's about it.

If OTOH it was some kind of dual-purpose GMS/P which could be set to
detonate at a given range, eg. a meter or two over the heads of the
in-cover targets, then your ratings would make sense.

Regards,

> At 6:24 PM +0100 1/24/05, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Milan's seemed to be a great way to take care of Argie.50 cal Crew Served
weapons on Wireless Ridge...

Certainly not against a whole squad. What about making it an area effect blast
like a single mortar round impact?

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> If OTOH it was some kind of dual-purpose GMS/P which could be set to

According to the Falkland War histories I've read, those.50 cal crew served
weapons were dug in. Firing pits are one of the types of "similar

very restricted spaces" I mentioned in the part of my previous post which you
snipped when you wrote your reply:

> If it was an anti-vehicle GMS/P only, it'd be OK if the hard cover in

> Certainly not against a whole squad. What about making it an area

Other than directly ahead of the ATGM, even a small mortar round has a
considerably greater lethal effect.

Regards,

> At 8:17 PM +0100 1/24/05, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Granted, though even if they weren't dug in, they're more of a point target
than a squad dispersed over a 50' front.

> Other than directly ahead of the ATGM, even a small mortar round has

I had always thought the HE was focused towards the shaped charge, but that
there was a secondary annular blast that was still not to be shrugged at. To
modern Shaped charges have any kind of restricting material around the HE
component to optimize the blast towards the cone? Granted there generally
isn't any fragmentation component on them but even something like IPDSM is
nasty to be near as they have an area frag effect and a shaped charge piercing
effect. Could a man portable ATGM with enough diameter to it's shaped charge
have a secondary Frag effect in it's blast radius?

Gosh, thinking about the general cone shaped effect of old WWII style
artillery (HE rounds) is there a similar effect with lower velocity ATGMs?

> From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>

Decrease the fire-power to a D8? I am assuming against a bunker etc,
then
you should treat the bunker as a non-moving vehicle and resolve
casualties as per an APC etc.

Thanks for the replies, do keep them coming

Hi Richard,

Just throwing a little something extra in; the GMS/P is guided therefore
you would be resolving the Guidance vs ECM, something like d8 or d10 vs d4
rather than a Firepower roll n'est pas?

Regards, Owen

> -----Original Message-----

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:03:46 +1100, Owen Glover <oglover@bigpond.com>
wrote:
> Hi Richard,

But you're not resolving whether it hits a large target and if so, how solidly
it hits. You're resolving wether the blast tears up some bushes, or puts
shrapnel into some soldiers near where it hit. The guidance system won't track
on individuals unless they change things drastically. And since it would never
be doctrine to shoot them at individuals, it won't change. Might set up to
track PA suits and you could resolve that with guidance vs ECM, but then it
would be a direct hit on one person and the rest of the squad would be in
little danger if they are properly dispersed.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, John.

So, don't forget that this is a sci-fi setting.  If you've read John
Ringo's Posleen series, the Posleen would get hit by a sniper with a.50

cal, and then every one of them in range with both gauss rifles and guided
missiles would cut loose and tear into the target area. Less that they
were targeting/tracking an individual, but they certainly were using
anti-vehicle GSMs to shoot at infantry with good effect.

> From there, it's not that much of a leap to consider smart homing

shape patterns. Heck, even things like heartbeats (Star Trek sensors were
able to locate one human on a Romulan ship! - ok, it's Truly Bad
Science, but still...) or electromagnetic signatures.

I'm not saying that it will be done, but it *could* be.:)

J

--On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:34 AM +0100 John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:03:46 +1100, Owen Glover <oglover@bigpond.com>

G'day,

> At 4:34 AM +0100 1/25/05, John Atkinson wrote:

So where those TOW missiles I saw being fired down streets in Fallujah being
fired at
individuals or masses? ;-)

John, any word from ForceCom if they're going to
re-activate the 4th for round two after the 3rd
ID comes back?

Wasteful. You've got to keep something that can shoot at tanks handy, can't
cut loose against a single guy. Military weapons and doctrine are more about
wounding than killing.

Mike

[quoted original message omitted]

John,

Harken back to the games rules basics. GMS use a Guidance system; control
mechanism is not specified. Shooting GMS uses Guidance (and Quality of course)
vs ECM. IAVRs will use Firepower and Quality vs Range. And by the way we are
talking over 180 years in the future; yes I think things WILL change
drastically. Remember 60 years ago there weren't solid state elctronics and
complex guidance at all???

In any case after Major/Minor results are determined then go to
Impact... There we cary on the thread that Oerjan was following about Anti
Armor warheads and blast effect....

Cheers, OG

> -----Original Message-----

> At 8:42 PM -0800 1/24/05, Katrina Brown wrote:

The footage I see from Fallujah and it's environs seems to be about destroying
the ability of the enemy to fight. In fact theres an E5 Marine in Tikrit
that's wanting something more effective than a 40mm grenade launcher when
dealing with walls and such where Haji's are shooting from behind. Usually
it's what weapons you have at hand against the other side that you'll use when
you need them.

> The footage I see from Fallujah and its environs

So "I'm not shooting a missile at a guy -- I'm shooting a missile at
hard cover which has at least one guy behind it."

> At 12:17 AM -0500 1/25/05, Laserlight wrote:

That's because you don't have to hit the guy with the missile. By virtue of my
position at CNN, I also saw some footage of a Palestinian that was taking pot
shots at an Isreali M60. After a few shots from the same place the M60 TC
wearied of the pot shots. So they put an HE round (HEAT?)
around 5-10 feet in front of the soldier at his
feet. The footage frame by frame showing the tracer element screech across the
screen, impact, bloom and then obscure the very daft gunman in a screen of
smoke and debris.

Overall, you're putting the round on a point, not on a trooper (more or less).
In that case, I'd
expect the GMS/P guidance system to have a second
mode for engaging a given point of ground as
opposed to a heat source/contrasting object.

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> That's because you don't have to hit the guy with the missile. By

> that was taking pot shots at an Isreali M60. After a few shots from

That footage is on strategypage.com somewhere, and it's probably a HEAT round.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:13:32 -0500, John K. Lerchey
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> So, don't forget that this is a sci-fi setting. If you've read John

If you read the Posleen series, the weapons the Normals were carrying were
unguided hyperkinetic missles. Accuracy is something the Posleen were
engineered for. None of their weapons had sights, excepting the
God-King vehicles.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:18:24 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> > And since it would never be doctrine to shoot them at

GMSs, IAVRs, etc are heavy and limited in quantity. If you encourage your
troops to use them to shoot at individuals when they are issued perfectly good
rifles to do so, then they will not have them when they
really need them for bunker-busting or nailing light armor.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:31:32 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> So where those TOW missiles I saw being fired

Hard targets, like positions in buildings.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:17:41 -0500, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> > The footage I see from Fallujah and its environs

Nonsense. 40mm is an AP weapon, you use it as such. But not (generally) on
individual targets you can hit perfectly well with a rifle. You forget,
because Stargrunt scenarios are short due to time limits of the players, but
if you run out of those grenades before the firefight is over, you aren't
getting any more until there is a break in the fighting.

Hi folks,

Owen said:
> Harken back to the games rules basics. GMS use a Guidance system;

I'm with Owen on this one.  When we play, I allow GMS/P vs. infantry
squads, but the roll is guidance vs. ECM (usually d6 - sure, they're not
carrying much in the way of ECM gear which would suggest the minimum d4, but
they're a difficult target as they're dispersed). Impact is d8. No
chance for major/minor hits since it isn't a point target.  Also
remember,
somewhere in the book it says that a squad is a size-1 target...

Exception - I also allow GMS/P to target individual PA suits.  The
target
is smaller than a typical size 1 (like a jeep), so the GMS/P shooter has
a choice. They can target the *squad* of PA, and if so, fire as above
(guidance vs. ecm, d8 impact, no chance of major/minor hits) OR they can
try to target an individual PA suit, in which case it is still guidance vs.
ecm, but the impact can be major/minor depending on results, using the
full
impact die of the weapon (d12 for GMS/P for example).  In this case,
however, the shot can ONLY damage a single suit of PA.

Most of the time, players seem to want to use GMS/P as a method of
getting
long-range suppressions, since they rarely do any real damage to a
squad. I try to discourage this, since it doesn't seem like smart tactics to
waste
anti-armour rounds (assuming they are limited in number) on getting the
other guy to duck when you can do the same thing with a machinegun,
particularly if there is any real danger of enemy armour around. Of course, if
you're up against the wall, so to speak, and there aren't a lot of options,
you do whatever it takes. Since we don't play
campaign-style,
most players seem to play as if it is the Last Battle... (no worries for ammo
expenditure, etc).

> Hi Richard,

I am assuming that, since GMS systems are unlikely to be designed to shoot at
disperesed infantry targets (givent that this would be expensive to design and
that it would be an exceedingly expensive single bullet to take out 1 man) the
GMS would be being fired without guidance it is down to the
inate ability of the rocket to be used unguided (low fire-power) and the

skill of the opperator (quality die) that I would use to resolve the fire
combat.

I can't see firing at a dispersed taget to be like firing at class one
vehicle, particularly when its a GMS myself

The point that firing a GMS may leave a section without hard target killing
ability is a good point

> particularly if there is any real danger of enemy armour around. Of

Of course, when you're setting up the battle, you can say "Blue Force has
off-table reserves" and put down a couple of IFVs or light tanks.  You
can
tell Blue privately whether he can really bring them on-table or not.

***
Of course, when you're setting up the battle, you can say "Blue Force has
off-table reserves" and put down a couple of IFVs or light tanks.  You
can
tell Blue privately whether he can really bring them on-table or not.
***

Or, if he has to wait for a later die roll to know...

The_Beast

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> Other than directly ahead of the ATGM, even a small mortar round has a

> considerably greater lethal effect.

The secondary blast is nasty enough to cause concern for the gunner at very
short firing ranges - ie., if you fire enough of them at short ranges
(eg.
in training) you run a non-negligible risk of getting hit by shrapnel
from your own weapon at some point in your life.

It isn't enough - that is to say, the "lethal radius" is too small - to
be consistently useful against dispersed targets (and you don't have enough

missiles to fire them at such targets hoping that it *might* work). Pretty
much any SGII squad not inside a vehicle or building, even if all the
figures are in base-to-base contact, is effectively a dispersed target
since each figure's base is some 5 - 10 meters across in the SGII ground
scale.

Because the users want to be able to use our products at ever shorter ranges,
and also because any energy that isn't going towards the primary

target is wasted in an anti-armour weapon, there's a *lot* of work going
on to minimize the amount of blast and shrapnel that goes anywhere else than
into the primary target.

> To modern Shaped charges have any kind of restricting material around

Yes. In HEAT rounds this casing is usually designed to form as few, as large
and as slow fragments as possible in order to maximize the amount of energy
that goes into the armoured target. In HEDP rounds it is frangible, but HEDP
rounds give up a quite significant proportion of their armour
penetration in order to play second-rate HEF - generally speaking HEDP
warheads are effective against lightly armoured targets like light APCs or
aircraft, but don't try to use them against tanks.

> Granted there generally isn't any fragmentation component on them but

I suspect that you mean "DPICM" rather than "IPDSM" - not least because
I
couldn't find the latter acronym in any of the databases I searched :-/
The
DPICM is a HEDP warhead with a lethal radius of 5-10 meters against
unarmoured infantry (depending on who you ask); but unlike an ATGM the DPICM
has neither a rocket engine nor a fin assembly (or other steering equipment,
eg. small attitude rockets) which blocks much of the outgoing

shrapnel. The DPICM also falls roughly vertically (ie., with the
shaped-charge cone pointing straight down), so it doesn't send a third
or so of its "secondary" shrapnel straight down into the ground the way
horisontally-flying ATGMs tend to do. (Dive-attack missiles like the
Javelin attack more or less vertically just like the DPICM, of course.)

All in all I'd rate the DPICM as considerably nastier to anyone not
directly in front of its shaped-charge than most ATGMs are, even though
the DPICM is far smaller.

> Could a man portable ATGM with enough diameter to it's shaped charge

You could build it that way, but then it loses a lot of its anti-armour
capability.

> Gosh, thinking about the general cone shaped effect of old WWII style

If you're thinking of the "butterfly-shaped" shrapnel distribution
patterns typical for WW2 HE rounds, there is a similar effect with ATGMs but
with a quite different shape to the pattern.

> So where those TOW missiles I saw being fired down streets in Fallujah

They were fired at buildings, not at people out in the open.

> The footage I see from Fallujah and its environs

If they're behind walls, they're not out in the open. A wall is a hard point
target.

> Overall, you're putting the round on a point, not on a trooper (more or

> less). In that case, I'd expect the GMS/P guidance system to have a

Unless you want to guide the GMS/P all the way to the target (like you
do
with Saggers or TOWs - and you don't want that, since it makes you a
nice
target for the return fire; that's why fire-and-forget missiles are so
hot
nowadays), there needs to be something for the GMS/P to lock on to...
ie.,
a contrasting object of some sort. Whether the contrast is in shape, heat,
reflected light or even magnetic properties doesn't matter that much (all of
these contrasts are used in target seekers today), but there has to be *some*
sort of contrast.

Later,

> Richard Kirke wrote:

> I am assuming that, since GMS systems are unlikely to be designed to

You pretty much have to use the guidance. Very few missiles leave the launch
tube with enough speed to fly more than a few meters before flopping into the
ground, and even fewer are stable enough to stay on course when

the trajectory engine kicks in unless the guidance is already engaged.

Later,

> At 7:15 PM +0100 1/25/05, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

So that's a design goal of at least some of the current crop of ATGMs. Not a
general factor of HEAT warheads in general.

> To modern Shaped charges have any kind of restricting material

Brain fart. The little bomblets. I was thinking Improved Dual-purpose
Scattered Munitions....

> Gosh, thinking about the general cone shaped effect of old WWII

Looks like a butterfly on the ground, but its really a 3 d cone as I
understand. Angle of incidence effects it too. Of course they also airburst
more too.

I have to side with the doctrine is for use against bunkers and light skinned
vehicles (of which PA can be considered a part of). As John A mentioned, you
will not have any more after you shoot them and so you are not going to waste
them on a dispersed target that you can hit with small arms fire.

Now you may game that the missle operator takes the shot and game the effects,
he has some free will. You also need to game the fact that his squad leader is
then going to be very unhappy with him and so next engagement he will not be
carrying the missle. Someone who knows what an armored target is will be.

This all changes if your doctrine is to supply your troops with 10s of these
in each section for use against PA. In that case using one up on dispersed
targets would not hurt your level of supply (Say 50 per platoon <G>).

Bob Makowsky
Former 11H Heavy Anti-Armor Crewman

> --- Adrian Johnson <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:

> I'm with Owen on this one. When we play, I allow

***Good ideas snipped to protect bandwidth impaired
***

> ***************************************

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Robert Makowsky wrote:

> Now you may game that the missle operator takes the

Interesting point. From a game perspective, if you assume that it is generally
poor doctrine to fire GSMs at infantry (not positions!), then perhaps
implimenting a die roll to be *allowed* to take the shot makes sense.

Private Bob might think that popping off a GSM at the sniper is clealrly

the right thing to do, but since the Sarge has told him that is not what

his missile is for, a quality check (by the player) to have Bob fire against
doctrine makes it somewhat less likely that Bob will be blowing off rounds at
the infantry.

J

Excellent point. Make some sort of die roll and then add some factor for
Private Bob when he is under fire from said sniper.

This private Bob knew that SSG Billings would have come over and kicked his
ass if he shot his TOW at a couple of troops in the open so doctrine would
have been maintained <G>

Bob Makowsky Former 11H

> --- John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Interesting point. From a game perspective, if you

G'day,

> I have to side with the doctrine is for use against

This is why I asked my dumb question. As the rule book says to use ammo
counters for rockets I'm guessing Jon's vision of the GZGverse still follows
doctrine similar in effect to today, but SG does get used in other
backgrounds. One of the backgrounds I use it in has a power where
their anti-armour is small enough that ammo is no longer a restriction
factor (I'm guessing the same would be true for Star Trek-like
background where you just dialup the phaser appropriately). In a background
like that it wouldn't be doctrine anymore so something very different could
pan out I'd expect.

That's the fun of sci-fi, each to his own background/doctrine ;)

Cheers

John K commented:

> Interesting point. From a game perspective, if you assume that it is

> perhaps implimenting a die roll to be *allowed* to take the shot makes

> off rounds at the infantry.

then Magic replied:

> Excellent point. Make some sort of die roll and then

Cool ideas! What sort of die roll?

Squad quality die vs. leadership would be simple, but that doesn't seem to
make sense (it isn't testing against the squad leader, but one of the men who
is doing something that the platoon sergeant is going to kick his ass
about....)

Maybe squad quality die vs. leadership, but with penalty/modifier
determined by something related to mission motivation.

For the guys who've been there, is it fair to say that more motivated troops
are more likely to be more disciplined?

If *yes* then you could have something like:

Roll QD, target is to roll higher than leadership. Leadership is modified by
        Low motivation +1
        Medium Motivation +2
        High Motivation +3

This representing the idea that highly motivated troops are less likely to
break doctrine.

I don't know if that makes sense from a "real life" perspective, but it offers
a simple mechanic.

Of course, as Beth pointed out, since it is a sci-fi game and you might
be issuing a hundred missiles per launcher as standard load with resupply as
easy as with normal rifle ammo, with varying doctrine will come varying
effects.

I'm just interested in a simple mechanic *assuming* it the sort of doctrine
Bob and John are talking about.

In my games, for example, I tend to use "canon" GZG-verse, and that
tends toward a much tighter doctrinal view than Beth's. I have house rules for
doing it because it seems to come up in games, but honestly never thought
about creating a rule for preventing it happening due to
training/doctrine/etc.

Good idea:)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:36 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> other backgrounds. One of the backgrounds I use it in has a power

So, if you can just dialup the phaser appropriately, then why would you ever
use it on the lower setting?

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:51:40 -0500, Adrian Johnson <adrian@stargrunt.ca>
wrote:
> Maybe squad quality die vs. leadership, but with penalty/modifier

Also confidence level. The lower the confidence level, the more likely they
are to panic and do doctrinally proscribed things.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:06:02 +0100, John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a couple reasons. Why waste that much battery power incernating a
single person, when a low setting can still guarentee a kill but give you
enough charge for another five shots. Another possibility is windup. Perhaps
it takes a few seconds for the emitter to charge to full for the heavy shots,
whereas it can cycle faster on a lower setting.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:08:21 -0800, Sylvester M. W. <xveers@gmail.com>
wrote:
> There's a couple reasons. Why waste that much battery power

OK, then how do we model that differently than the ammo carrying issue?

My point is this:  It is gamey and not taking into account real-world
factors to permit people to shoot off their anti-armor weapons at
every clump of bushes they desire with no thought to the future.

Beth,

Exactly, scaricity produces doctrine to restrict useage to the most
appropriate target. In a land of plenty use whatever you have on anything.
Course you still try to use the most effective settings of your phaser.

Bob Makowsky

> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

> G'day,

> This is why I asked my dumb question. As the rule

> Exactly, scaricity produces doctrine to restrict

If you have plenty of power, why would you screw around with changing the
setting?  Leave it on "tank-killer".

Not that I agree with this premise.  If you can make anti-armor
effective and in unlimited supply, there's no point in building armored
vehicles in the first place. I'd rather solve it by giving the players the
same reason
to conserve shots that the reall troops would have -- you never know
when you might find a tank you didn't know was there....

Adrian, trying desperately to avoid thinking about sheep, said:
> What sort of die roll?

Quality vs Leadership, must get "equal or less" to go against doctrine, rather
than the usual "exceed".

> The GZG Digest wrote:

> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:46:07 +0100 From: John Atkinson

This is a perennial problem with wargames. Most players have a reasonable idea
of what they will expect in any given scenario. They tend to use certain
weapons inappropriately just because they have them. They often cite "but it
was used in this way back in...", etc. to justify it. A good example is that
video of the Israeli tank taking out the single shooter. It was a judgment
call on the part of the tank crew that they would be better off using a tank
cannon round to take out that one
shooter. The chance that the tank would need that round for anti-tank
combat was low. Wargamers will use that precedent to shoot tanks at anything
that moves, even if the combat environment would suggest that it's a waste of
ammunition.

It's a difficult issue to overcome.

> From: Adrian Johnson <adrian@stargrunt.ca>

That's essentially what I do, though I'll have to search through my
notes to figure out exactly how I handle GMS/P versus a full squad.

> At 8:59 AM -0600 1/26/05, Allan Goodall wrote:

That's called intelligence and some idea of the OOB of the other guys. By the
same token I can probably dig up many accounts of the use of PIATs, Bazookas
and 6 pounder AT guns used to hit a steeple or high tower that was being used
by a sniper that was holding up an advance. IF you're being shot at and you
have a weapon that'lld to the job, you'll probably use it.

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, John Atkinson wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:36 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au

'cause some of the other settings would presumabley be better at hitting

disprsed infantry (wide area kill), and the "tight beam disintigrate"
(anti-tank) shot might take a lot more energy out of the power pack. :)

J

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:06:12 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> That's called intelligence and some idea of the

And again you would be missing the point.

That would be an example of a weapon being used DOCTRINALLY to hit a single
POINT hard target.

What you will be hard pressed to find would be an account of the use of a PIAT
or Bazooka being used to shoot at troops in the open to supress them.

> At 4:31 PM +0100 1/26/05, John Atkinson wrote:

Oh, I get that part. I agree too. It makes sense game wise. You chaps have
however continued arguing about the use of such a weapon against a gaggle of
troops say in open ground. All the examples I've so far cited have been point
targets and I concede that point emphatically.
:-D

> What you will be hard pressed to find would be an account of the use

Granted.

Hey John, any chance you kept a diary of your experiences in Iraq? I have a
friend that'd love to have them for material. John Donovan
over at http://www.thedonovan.com.

> So, if you can just dialup the phaser appropriately, then why would

Because "stun" offers such a consequence free environment...

Also I guess it might fall into the "sledgehammer to crack a wallnut"
catagorie. After all if you actually want to capture that building then you
don't want to vapourise it.

But nevertheless a good point

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:31:38 -0500 (EST), John K Lerchey
> <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> 'cause some of the other settings would presumabley be better at
:)

But then you gotta house rule something so that phasers are more effective on
wide area settings...

At a certain point you're not playing Stargrunt, you're playing "My house
rules sorta kinda based on Stargrunt mechanics."

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:41:40 +0000, Richard Kirke
> <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Because "stun" offers such a consequence free environment...

The sort of idiots that would put a stun setting on an infantry weapon and
expect it to be used on a regular basis are the sort of idiots that would wig
out when that 1 in 10,000 guy with a weak heart drops
over dead.  Using even non-lethal force indiscriminately is not
consequence-free.

Not saying non-lethal options aren't a good thing.  That's what
Surefire underbarrel flashlights are for--anyone who doesn't consider
that a non-lethal force option hasn't gotten blinded by one lately.
But if the added complexity causes a failure, it doesn't affect the firepower
of that primary weapon system. Unlike a complex electronic set of options to
precisely tune the output of a beam weapon system.

If you are operating in the sort of universe where there are 100% reliable
electronics that can calibrate power outputs so precisely as to "stun" 100% of
all human targets (from a 8 year old child to a 310
lb man on an adrenaline high) without causing any long-term harm to
any of them, you are no longer playing a science fiction game. You're playing
a fantasy game.

> At 7:21 PM +0100 1/26/05, John Atkinson wrote:

Non-lethal weapons do have a place in modern warfighting. But they'
need to be handled as if they're deadly. Mandating their use in place of
deadly weapons is however sheer and utter folly.

> Not saying non-lethal options aren't a good thing. That's what

They're great. Nice and bright too. I only have their inexpensive ABS plastic
model and not one of their weapon lights.

> Ryan Gill wrote:

[...]

> Because the users want to be able to use our products at ever shorter

Don't confuse "HEAT" with "shaped charge warheads" - the latter term
covers
everything from door-breaching line charges to the long-ranged EFP
warheads
used in today's MAK-equivalent artillery rounds (SADARM, BONUS etc.),
whereas the former is a quite specific type of shaped charge which
maximizes the armour penetration and behind-armour effects.

Since neither secondary blast nor shrapnel contribute to either of armour
penetration or behind-armour effects, minimizing the secondary blast and

shrapnel *is* a general characteristic of HE*AT* (High Explosive
*Anti-Tank*) warheads - simply because not doing so defeats the "AT"
purpose of the warhead.

If you have an ATGM - ie., an *Anti-Tank* guided missile - then you
almost certainly have a HE*AT* warhead (or two, depending on the exact missile
used). The main alternative for tank-busting missiles is high-velocity
KE, but that gives very little blast and shrapnel indeed.

HE*DP* (High Explosive *Dual Purpose*) warheads use frangible casings to

enhance the secondary blast and fragmentation effects, but as I wrote in

the previous post HEDPs are no good for AT work. They can deal with light
armour, but their main reason for the shaped-charge portion of a HEDP
warhead is to blast holes through bunker walls and similar - and it is
not a viable alternative if you expect to encounter heavy armour.

You can replace the missile's HEAT warhead with some other type (I hear that
thermobarics are popular these days) to get better effects against
infantry, but then you lose the AT capability - it is still a *guided
missile*, but it is no longer an actual *AT*GM.

In SGII game terms you either have to decide before the game starts what

type of warhead your missile reloads have, or (if you have one of those
super-modular missile types which can be re-built on the spot) spend
time (ie., actions) reconfiguring the warhead into whatever type you want it
to
be before you get to fire it (eg. by replacing a non-frangible casing
with
a pre-fragmented one)... though reconfiguring the warhed while in combat

should have a serious risk of having something go badly wrong; in real life
most such conversions would be done in rear areas before going into combat.
You *don't* want dust getting in between the different parts of your warhead.

> I suspect that you mean "DPICM" rather than "IPDSM"

"Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions". The "Improved" bit
refers to the scattering of submunitions, which is a significant improvement
in

comparison with WW2-style "single-piece" HEF shells. 1st-generation ICM
had HEF (or possibly HE) submunitions so were ineffective against armoured
targets, whereas the 2nd generation (DPICM) uses HEDP submunitions to give
them some capability against hard targets as well.

> Gosh, thinking about the general cone shaped effect of old WWII

That's the one, yes.

BTW, the reason John and I are going on about not using GMS against grunts *in
the open* is that that's what Richard Kirke's original question seemed
to be about. All of your would-be counter arguments have been about
*point* targets, and thus aren't relevant since that's not what we're arguing
against...

Regards,

> Because "stun" offers such a consequence free environment...

Heh. The consequence is that the other side know they can safely stick up
their head and shoot at you.

> From: "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

That really depends on what you do them after they are stunned. :-0

> > Because "stun" offers such a consequence free environment...

True, but that does fit in with the ethos of Startrek

> If you are operating in the sort of universe where there are 100%

Like I said, Startrek. I have to say I like the (almost) real world better.

Thankyou John, that made me laugh

> BTW, the reason John and I are going on about not using GMS against

Thankyou for all your input. In the scenario itself due to some very lucky
rolling on my part the situation for my opponent was sufficiently desperate,
so I am happy to have let him fire his GMSs.

But I agree a reduced FP is probably correct.

But under most circumstances I will forbid it in future.

> At 10:44 PM +0000 1/26/05, <kevinbalentine@charter.net> wrote:

There is that. Don't be taken prisoners by the posleen. Bad bad bad.

G'day,

Replying to a few emails here.

John asked:
> So, if you can just dialup the phaser appropriately, then

The flippant side of me is dying to ask.... why don't we just nuke them all
from orbit and save the hassle?;);)

More seriously, because other settings work better in those circumstances. I
was more thinking of a case where (in game turns) it
may take an action to go from optimised "anti-tank" to optimised
"anti-infantry" and you've just been shooting at tanks for ages and
suddenly an infantry group pops up and threatens your flank so you want to do
something to freak them long enough to give you the breathing space to get
properly prepared. With "conventional" weaponry it'd make most sense to put
grenades or machine guns on the infantry, but in another background where
weapons don't automatically match that split up of weapons then you might have
a different set of options to draw from.

> It is gamey and not taking into account real-world factors to

In a conventional setting I agree with you, I was thinking of other
backgrounds (which I freely admit aren't everyone's cup of tea). Its more a
case of, "you're absolutely right for background one, but if people were silly
enough to play background 2,3 or 4 what is the best way of representing what's
going on."

> At a certain point you're not playing Stargrunt, you're

And as you've bought the game, and you're playing it happily and assuming
you're not forcing anyone else to do likewise against their will, then there
shouldn't be a problem with that to my mind;)

> If you are operating in the sort of universe where there

My bets being that if the kid was 3 not 8 then they'd need more juice than the
big guy;)

> without causing any long-term harm to any of them,

You say that as if there were actually an immense difference rather than a
sliding continuum. A physics guy here at work thinks what I do as a
hobby is childish because it involves acceptance of faster-than-light
and anti-grav.

Anyways I'm the first to admit that such fantastical backgrounds as a
Star-Trek-like phaser uses one aren't for everyone, but for those who do
want to dabble in them thought has to be given about what the altered
doctrine would mean and the implications for game mechanics/game play.

> Laserlight wrote:

Still better against those that don't have unlimited supply. Not every nation
in a background will be on equal footing. You may still want to have armoured
vehicles if you're surrounded by enemy X which can't just crack you like an
egg, even if enemy Z can and there is no cheaper way of stopping X that also
stops Z (or the means of stopping Z doesn't also stop X). Thinking from the
animal world and projecting into the technological world there are very many
cases (including your own immune system) where the one force uses armoured
vehicles to stop X because that's most cost effective even though Z can get
through it, while they use shields to stop Z even though the lower tech solid
slugs of X can get through that.

> I'd rather solve it by giving the players the same reason

You can still do that in the alternate backgrounds, just in different spots
with different choices to be made.

Cheers

> The flippant side of me is dying to ask.... why don't we just nuke them

It is the only way to be sure!

> My bets being that if the kid was 3 not 8 then they'd need more juice

That sounds like it is from bitter experience...

Goodnight all as the UK says goodbye to Australia day for another year

That is a very good point. If it was simple and easy for the infantry to kill
armor then everything would be infantry.

Back to doctrine control of assets <G>

I like Adrians roll for use. That way someone can try to use against dispersed
infantry but having to roll leans the process towards keeping them for armor.

It also may impact the players mind that if one has to roll to use something
against infantry they may just want to use a weapon that will work not one
that might work.

Bob Makowsky

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> If you have plenty of power, why would you screw

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> It isn't enough - that is to say, the "lethal radius" is too small -

I think this is probably the most important pont in this thread and it got
lost in the noise of the other arguements.

Instead of (or in addition to) requiring a model to fail a reaction check in
order to fire a GMS at a infantry target, I would also suggest that any such
fire be against a single model, not a whole unit. If it hits, it will probably
kill the target, but it has no chance of getting several squad members and it
will either hit or miss, no suppressions without casualties.

The target should get a pretty big die to roll because (pick all that you
like):
a) it's small; a human-sized target is a lot maller than a size-1
vehicle (assuming S:1 = jeep or Humvee), whether it's in PA or UPA.
b) the missile has a hard time tracking a person by image/IR/whatever,
even in a SF setting. c) contemporary military is starting to protect against
IR and
low-light  detection.  Such will be more avanced in 100y, 2000y, or
whatever time.
d) lots of sci-fi settings have even unpowered high tech troops
equipped with all sorts of ECM, sensors, and stealth that is not represented
in SG2.

The GMS might get some penalties to its die roll because of small targt or
pushing the capabilities of sensor or homing software.

I vs. A should probably get some bonus for the GMS (like maybed double the I)
to reflect the high likelyhood of a kill in the unlikely possibility of a hit.

Using this, you can discourage players from firing GMS at infantry without
arbitrarily banning it.

J

PS for those tuneable phasers, you can say that the "stun" setting is rapid
fire or area effect, thus fires at dispersed target RAW; and the
"anti-armor" setting is slow firing or narrow beam, thus individual
target only.

> hits, it will probably kill the target, but it has no chance of getting

I might disagree with that--a near miss could still suppress without
damaging. I know if I stuck my head up and a RPG whizzed a few inches
overhead, it would make me rethink my plans. In a more extreme case, I knew
someone who was hit by a 88mm PAK round and only suffered a cracked rib (I
gather the round had shed a lot of energy before it got to
him....).

> --- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> >hits, it will probably kill the target, but it has no chance of

I would not classify a RPG as a SG2 GMS of any size (since GMS is Guided), and
SG2 already has rules for firing Infantry Rockets (the RPGs are reloadable
Infantry Rockets) at dispersed targets.

> In a more extreme

I'd bet at lot of money that that incident was NOT at the ranges represented
on a SG2 game table (720m on a 6' table).

J