Hello,
The other day I was watching a video describing military tactics in urban
areas (as you do) and the commentator mentioned that cars were bad cover
because the metal tends to splinter on impact.
It struck me that this idea could be used to create a third type of cover to
sit alongside good ol' soft and hard. My group has just bought a range of toy
cars to decorate our local urban death zone and so the plan is to treat them
as hard cover for purposes of range but to muck about with the armour shifts
to represent the splintering effect. Normally hard cover would shift armour up
2 levels, so we could try anything from a 1 level shift to shifting armour
down.
We could even leave armour levels alone and shift weapon impact up but I think
it feels more consistent with the idea of splintering to reduce the protective
value of the cover than to increase the penetration of the weapon.
Anyway, the complexity of another cover type seems to be balanced by the fun a
player might have knowing that it's still worth hiding behind that car but it
might porcupine him if he hangs around too long.
Thoughts? You're going to tell me somebody already came up with this in 1972
aren't you...?
Mark
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please reply to this email and then
delete it. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Future.
The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
viruses. Future accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
Future may regularly and randomly monitor outgoing and incoming emails and
other telecommunications on its email and telecommunications systems. By
replying to this email you give your consent to such monitoring.
Nah, in 1972 cars were made of quarter-inch steel plate.
> Thoughts? You're going to tell me somebody already came up with this
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:01:24AM +0100, Mark Donald wrote:
> The other day I was watching a video describing military tactics in
Well, this is one reason why hiding under trees when you're under artillery
attack can actually make things worse for you.
R
This can get REAL complicated; prone is usually considered good as reduced
cross-section for being targeted. On the other hand, I remember an old
episode of SWAT where they explained it was bad on concrete, because their
studies indicated that bounced bullets tended to hug the ground.
If I recall right, British shipwrights tended to use teak because it was
thought least likely to cause infections from splinters.
A car still tends to reduce the accuracy in your being targeted, right?
Still sounds like one of those fiddly bits that drive us vacc-heads
nuts. We keep seeing neat stuff to add, and OO has to go ballistic explaining
it's in there, sort of.
Out of curiosity, will 1/4" steel reliably stop 50 cal?
The_Beast
> This can get REAL complicated; prone is usually considered good as
You can discover all kinds of such oddities.
A German tactical manual from 1903 mentions that bullets ricochet differently
off ploughed fields depending on whether the shooting is
parallel or perpendicular to the furrows. An effect no self-respecting
period wargame should be without ;-)
Greetings Karl Heinz
Hi,
It was not in 1972 but when I started playing SG2, we forgot the rule about
armor shift bonus for cover. At that time, we used low impact weapons (D8
mostly).
However, after finding about the armor shift bonus for cover, we find hard
cover almost too powerful until we start using higher impact weapons
(D10 -
D12).
Sometime, I think I will introduce different cover type. I didn't thought
about negative armor shift but this sound like good idea for some scenario. It
can gives players some hard choices to do!
Also, having lighter type of cover (+1/0), (+2/0), also help to speed
the
game. One can put a small marker for on the table those non-standard
cover type.
Yves
> It struck me that this idea could be used to create a third type of
Good topic, Mark!
> Thoughts? You're going to tell me somebody already came up with this
I don't think anyone has mentioned this, before.
First, think about this: you are in the middle of a street and someone opens
fire on you. Are you better off lying in the open in the street, or are you
better going behind a car?
You're probably better off behind a car.
Second, does the car make it harder to hit you with a projectile?
SG2 models cover in two ways: cover makes it harder to score casualties, and
protects casualties when they are scored by increasing the armour die. The
first part seems to handle the "hiding" effect of cover. If you're behind
cover, it's harder to see your precise outline (aided by camouflage clothing).
It's, therefore, harder to aim at you, as opposed to the cover area in
general. The second seems to handle the protective ability of the cover and
the "harder to aim at you" part. If you are behind trees, the tree will absorb
energy from bullets, plasma fire, etc. Even if the shots hit you, their armour
is decreased. Also, because the person couldn't aim at your outline very well,
it's harder for the attacker to hit your vital centre of mass area (thorax and
abdomen), and instead the shots are more random.
Taking these into consideration, I'd be tempted _not_ to downgrade the
armour the target may already have. Splintering may result in more
fragments, which is nasty for unprotected troops, but -- especially in
the case of a car -- it's tempered by the lowered energy in the round
itself. Bear in mind that SG2 squads are science fiction: how would this
splintering phenomenon affect plasma shots, or Phalon pulsers, or laser
sniping rifles?
I'd be tempted to make a car soft or hard cover for the purposes of
adjusting the range band, and give them _no_ effect on the armour roll.
I'd be tempted to call a car "soft cover" because bullets can go through it,
but hard may be better because of the protective ability of the engine block.
You could call part of it hard, part soft, but that's getting beyond the scale
of SG2.
This brings up ideas for other armour. Say there's a store front with a large
window made of bullet proof glass. I would give it no cover die shift for the
range band, but treat it as soft or hard cover (depending on the glass) for
the purposes of the armour die.
> Yves wrote:
> Also, having lighter type of cover (+1/0), (+2/0), also help to speed
You beat me to it! Also, with my comment about bullet proof glass, you
could have (0/+1) and (0/+2).
This can get complicated, with a pretty involved chart needed to tell the
players which cover is what, but it does allow some scope for players that
want the extra flexibility. As an example, thick jungle
ferns may be +2/+1 (very hard to see through because of the big leaves,
but not as much cover as an actual tree).
I probably won't use this except for specialized terrain, but it does offer a
lot of flexibility.
> Doug Evans wrote:
> Out of curiosity, will 1/4" steel reliably stop 50 cal?
Reliably? No. Glancing hits maybe, but I wouldn't want to bet even on that.
http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50calt1.rm
> On Friday 19 March 2004 12:54 pm, B Lin wrote:
***
> Out of curiosity, will 1/4" steel reliably stop 50 cal?
Reliably? No. Glancing hits maybe, but I wouldn't want to bet even on that.
***
That's what I thought; I assumed the 'quarter inch steel' comment on old
cars was doubly tongue-in-cheek. Now, maybe two pieces with
energy-absorbing material between...
Not that I want to be ANYWHERE on the wrong side of an hmg.
The_Beast
> This brings up ideas for other armour. Say there's a store front with a
I'd be surprised to see anything other than maybe a drive-up teller of
bullet-resistant glass/plastic. 6mm polycarbonate (Lexan) is more than
enough to keep vandals/thieves from breaking in (unless they hit it with
a truck), but it won't do much to stop a.38 cal pistol round.
There is some good footage from the US Army Sniper school showing what a
.50 Sabot AP (SLAP?) round will do, they shoot through 5-6 cinder
blocks, a small safe (one side, large dent on the back), bullet proof glass, 2
inch thick mild steel plate etc. I'll see if I can find the URL.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Chris wrote:
> I'd be surprised to see anything other than maybe a drive-up teller of
I was thinking areas where crime was sufficiently high that you might want to
put up bullet proof glass. Or the protected balcony of a local potentate. Or,
even, a Popemobile, or its equivalent.
I thought of a Kennedy assassination-based scenario where the politician
was in a convertible with a protective dome, and the security detail was in
cars following and leading that were similarly set up for clear lines of
sight. The other side in the scenario would be a small, elite force sent to
kill off the politician. The politician's car, and the cars of
the security detail, would offer 0/+2 cover due to their glass domes.
The only problem: I haven't found any models to use for the cars. The
best one I can think of is a 1/64 or 1/48 scale (depending on the
manufacturer) Lady Penelope Rolls Royce from the old Thunderbirds show. This
is problematic in, 1) I'm not sure they made the car in the right scale, 2) if
they did, they'd be freaking expensive on eBay in all liklihood, if I could
even find enough cars, and 3) I'd have to repaint the car as it was originally
pink.
> You beat me to it! Also, with my comment about bullet proof glass, you
Smoke would be better as +1/0 or +2/0 instead of the "can't see, can't
shoot" version. And you might not know how much cover the smoke will provide
until after you throw it (due to wind, poor placement etc)
> Chris wrote:
Or, even, a Popemobile, or its equivalent.
That would have to be *quite* crime-ridden.
We sometimes had someone ask for.236" polycarb for a "glass" door, usually
after the store had been broken into a few times. Even versus a
big, enthusiastic thug with a sledgehammer, the polycarb will win every
time -- it'll get scratched but it won't break.
Bullet-resistant (not "-proof") "glass" is normally a sandwich of two to
four layers of laminated polycarbonate and/or acrylic ("Plexiglas").
AFAIK it comes in.750" and 1.25" thick, rated to stop a.38 cal and a.44
magnum, respectively. OTOH I've seen a 1.25" sheet with a slug from
a 9mm "Hi Power" pistol, which penetrated three of the four layers, ie.
through 1.125 inches.
The thicker version might stand up to 5.56 rounds for a while; I wouldn't bet
that it would stop a 7.62, and I'd be surprised if it *did*
keep out a.50 cal, although it would probably change the angle and make
it hard to place your shot.
One thing that might be fun would be in a refereed game to not let the
participants know the exact value of the cover until they are fired upon in
it.
So they might think these large trees provide good hard cover. However their
tactical brief forgot to mention that the trees synthesize benzine out of the
soil and are prone to explode when hit. Of course after the first encounter
the tactical manual will be updated <G>
Magic
> --- agoodall@att.net wrote:
G'day,
> It was not in 1972 but when I started playing SG2, we forgot the rule
So did we originally. So our solution has been to use the kind of
RANGE/ARMOUR rating for cover that has been suggested for glass and
stuff in this thread. It has turned out to be not very complicated, at the
start of the game we just say, for example, "Hedge, heavy cover for LOS, no
cover for armour"... And so on round the terrain features. Its worked so well
for so long I had completely forgotten its not what everyone does until this
thread came up!
Cheers
Hello folks this is my first post to this group and this thread has caught my
interest so here's my tuppence worth.
Has anyone thought of allowing infantry point attack weapons (Plasma
guns/
IAVR etc.) to engage cover such as cars or walls as though they were an
armoured vehicle? With troops sheltering behind them taking damage as
passengers.
G'day,
> Has anyone thought of allowing infantry point attack weapons
We've never done it that way, except when the people are inside the house or
car, but that's not what you meant right?
Cheers
G'day,
> I look forward to reading your responces to my thoughts.
Oh and by the way welcome to the list Alan!
<mutter, now I have to keep track of Alan's as well as Mark's as well as Jons!
;) mutter>
> Alan Wadey wrote:
> Hello folks this is my first post to this group and this thread has
Hi AlanW, welcome to the List
> Has anyone thought of allowing infantry point attack weapons (Plasma
I'd started thinking about it along the lines of the "buildings" rules on
StarGrunt pg 56, except those seem to assume that the building is the
main target, and any troops who happen to be inside are just an added bonus.
It's not obvious (to me, at any rate) how you'd handle trying to
shoot through a wall to get at the troops inside. Just call it Hard Cover, or
is a UP2 dieshift not enough penalty? I don't want to call it "Hard Cover plus
In Position" because the troops inside aren't necessarily in position (eg down
behind sandbags) and being IP would affect their movement. The situations I'm
thinking of are a) enemy troops who've run behind a masonry garden wall, and
b) enemy troops who you've just seen run into a building In either case, you
know more or less where they are, so you're not firing totally blind.
The last game that I saw this occur in, wiped out the squad in the building
from one IAVR shot.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects. 2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
> You beat me to it! Also, with my comment about bullet proof glass, you
This could also be used for degrading certain types of cover. Cover
starts off blocking sight and impact at (+2/+2) but downgrades over
successive turns of firing as chunks are blown out the wall or whatever it is.
Obviously this is a bit complicated but it could work in a specific scenario.
And how about upgrading cover?
Some kind of alien plant that only gently interferes with sight (+1/O)
but once the shooting starts it can exotically rearrange its leaves and
realign its internal cell structure to withstand damage until it
eventually becomes (+2/+2) after a few turns. And if it's an alien
rubber plant perhaps it can start bouncing those bullets back at the firer.
And while I'm at it, we could apply the same idea to some kind of
adaptive Borg-style armour. Armour starts relatively low but increases
every time the unit is shot at until the firers remodulate their weapons
(takes an action) or switch to a different weapon type.
Book-keeping might not even be too hard if you just put a counter next
to the unit every time it's been shot at to indicate the armour level has
increased one from the base. Just ditch the counters when the firers
remodulate.
Mark
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please reply to this email and then
delete it. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Future.
The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
viruses. Future accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
Future may regularly and randomly monitor outgoing and incoming emails and
other telecommunications on its email and telecommunications systems. By
replying to this email you give your consent to such monitoring.
That's right, Beth. I mean engaging the cover to suppress or damage the
target. For a historical reference look to The Falklands War in which ritish
forces made extensive use of 66's and Milans to engage machine gun nests and
troops within buildings. I'd imagine that a shot from a plasma gun would
affect the target in much the same way as a shaped charge round.
(ZAPP!BOOOMM!) But I also daresay that some of the scientificaly minded on
this list can clarify this. Personally if I were carrying a gun designed to
take out an AFV I'd be as likely to shoot someones cover as them, also
accepted practice
with the GPMG if some of my ex-army friends are to be believed.
Thanks for your responces everyone, it's nice to feel involved. Cheers, Alan.
[quoted original message omitted]
There is a Hammer's Slammers story (David Drake) where some people planning an
ambush realize that the powerguns will chew the native
houses apart, so they "reinforce" the insides with ceramic/metal armor
plates. If people are constantly doing recon by fire, would it be common
practice to reinforce positions in such a manner? (probably similar in concept
to Every Grunt adding sandbags to protect his position if he were there for
more than a few days). Is there a PSB for cheap, light, ablative type armor
plate?
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> B Lin wrote:
> Is there a PSB for cheap, light, ablative type armor plate?
Some form of ceramic? Could be carried Roman Legionary style, as part of
marching kit. Instant light fortifications (or even jury-rigged armour
repairs to AFVs).
Good point but I was thinking more of knowing that someone is in a position
already and blowing it apart around them. Cheers, Alan.
[quoted original message omitted]
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
Sounds about right.
Can we say "Antiarmor weapons make short work of drywall?"
I knew we could.
Keep in mind, light antiarmor weapons are not intended to kill tanks
(excepting rear shots or flank shots on crap tanks) but light armor. And
that's a reasonable description of most buildings. Packaging your infantry in
a box for easy and convenient killing is a bad idea[1] whether that box is on
treads or a foundation.