I see the mention of wooly K'Kree... the Lords of Thunder would not be amused.
I have been, for some time, an intermittent participant in QLI's Citizens of
the Imperium bulletin board. It focuses on all varieties of the Traveller
game.
I note that some nice fellows over at BITS (British Islands Traveller
Something) have developed Power Projection: Fleet and Power Projection:
Escort. Apparently one or both of these are based around a modified Full
Thrust engine.
That got me to thinking. Allan Goodall and I have both written differing
conversions of Traveller equipment into Stargrunt II terms. I have actually
run convention events using Denizen Ventaurian figs as Zhodani and GZG UNSC
Hardsuits as Imperial Marines for SG2.
Striker II and FF&S are nice products, but they're not the fastest playing.
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II are both fast playing games.
Hence, it has occured to me, I wonder what it would take to
cross-license a version of
Stargrunt II or Dirtside II (or both) to do a Traveller ground combat
supplement/system in
the same vein as PP:E/PP:F/Full Thrust did?
Obviously, it would involve talking to the licensing agencies on both sides
(ie Jon Tuffely and either BITS or QLI or FFE for the Traveller side). I'm not
sure exactly what terms the Power Projection guys arranged or how much they
sank into the project, but I'm wondering if the idea is even worth
considering?
I myself find SG2 would be a good vehicle for traveller larger scale (relative
to the RPG, not the wargames) combat. DS2 could fill a slightly higher level
role. And when it eventually comes out, FMA could well be an alternative to
BITS At Close Quarters (which clearly owes at least some inspiration to
Azhanti High Lightning or Snapshot).
I have no ideas if the licensing authorities on either side would be
interested. It just seemed to me to be an idea worth at least tossing out into
the public forum for some discussion.
I am vaguely inpsired by some of the progress that Treadway & Co. have made in
translating Mr.Drake's Slammers universe into something gameable. It strikes
me that Traveller has a ground combat game, but to get much use out of it, you
have to be a real gearhead to build vehicles using the Striker construction
rules. GZG has... shall we say... a relatively simpler construction system
(lets just ballpark it at two orders of magnitude easier).
So, I've run the idea up the flagpole to see if it salutes. I don't know how
many of you
other GZG-ites (vaguely like Dead-ites from AoD...??? *grin*) are old
(or new) closet Traveller players, but I thought I'd take this straw poll.
I see the mention of wooly K'Kree... the Lords of Thunder would not be amused.
I have been, for some time, an intermittent participant in QLI's Citizens of
the Imperium bulletin board. It focuses on all varieties of the Traveller
game.
I note that some nice fellows over at BITS (British Islands Traveller
Something) have developed Power Projection: Fleet and Power Projection:
Escort. Apparently one or both of these are based around a modified Full
Thrust engine.
That got me to thinking. Allan Goodall and I have both written differing
conversions of Traveller equipment into Stargrunt II terms. I have actually
run convention events using Denizen Ventaurian figs as Zhodani and GZG UNSC
Hardsuits as Imperial Marines for SG2.
Striker II and FF&S are nice products, but they're not the fastest playing.
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II are both fast playing games.
Hence, it has occured to me, I wonder what it would take to
cross-license a version of
Stargrunt II or Dirtside II (or both) to do a Traveller ground combat
supplement/system in
the same vein as PP:E/PP:F/Full Thrust did?
Obviously, it would involve talking to the licensing agencies on both sides
(ie Jon Tuffely and either BITS or QLI or FFE for the Traveller side). I'm not
sure exactly what terms the Power Projection guys arranged or how much they
sank into the project, but I'm wondering if the idea is even worth
considering?
I myself find SG2 would be a good vehicle for traveller larger scale (relative
to the RPG, not the wargames) combat. DS2 could fill a slightly higher level
role. And when it eventually comes out, FMA could well be an alternative to
BITS At Close Quarters (which clearly owes at least some inspiration to
Azhanti High Lightning or Snapshot).
I have no ideas if the licensing authorities on either side would be
interested. It just seemed to me to be an idea worth at least tossing out into
the public forum for some discussion.
I am vaguely inpsired by some of the progress that Treadway & Co. have made in
translating Mr.Drake's Slammers universe into something gameable. It strikes
me that Traveller has a ground combat game, but to get much use out of it, you
have to be a real gearhead to build vehicles using the Striker construction
rules. GZG has... shall we say... a relatively simpler construction system
(lets just ballpark it at two orders of magnitude easier).
So, I've run the idea up the flagpole to see if it salutes. I don't know how
many of you
other GZG-ites (vaguely like Dead-ites from AoD...??? *grin*) are old
(or new) closet Traveller players, but I thought I'd take this straw poll.
> I see the mention of wooly K'Kree... the Lords of Thunder would not
Of course not. They'd be amEWEsed.
> Thomas Barclay
The less sane half? Who'd Adrian hand over his half to?
I have always seen GZG games in Traveller terms. I've used Striker OB for Ds
and SG games. My current project is to work an FMA version of DS in 15mm.
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I see the mention of wooly K'Kree... the Lords of Thunder would not be
Are they ever?
> I note that some nice fellows over at BITS (British Islands Traveller
Apparently one or both of
> these are based around a modified Full Thrust engine.
Yes, haven't gotten either yet, but I suspect they work very well.
> That got me to thinking. Allan Goodall and I have both written
Links?
> I have actually run convention events using
I wish Denizen did those in 15mm....
> Striker II and FF&S are nice products, but they're not the fastest
Yes. I concure.
> Hence, it has occured to me, I wonder what it would take to
A 1000 buck or so and a License, and the will to do it.
> FMA could well be an alternative to BITS At Close Quarters (which
I wouldn't know, haven't even seen a rough playtest draft of the FMA rules. I
want them.... (Published that is....)
> I am vaguely inpsired by some of the progress that Treadway & Co. have
Yes, the gearhead factor... as a rule I prefer GZG's simpler construction
mechanics. (I'd give that a at least 3 orders of my self.)
> So, I've run the idea up the flagpole to see if it salutes. I don't
Hum..... Yes I wonder how many Trav fans are hiding here.
> Laserlight wrote:
> I see the mention of wooly K'Kree... the Lords of Thunder would not
Ewe had to Goat there, that is very Baa..D of you.
Leading us down this path of maddness, like lambs to slaughter....
In a message dated 3/26/05 1:07:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> infojunky@ceecom.net writes:
<snip>
Hum..... Yes I wonder how many Trav fans are hiding here.
<snip>
If you mean liked the original game when it came out count me.
If you mean someone who wants to play it now, sorry, not me.
Gracias,
If you mean liked the original game when it came out count me.
If you mean someone who wants to play it now, sorry, not me.
Yeah I'm a old gearhead fossil too.......)
In a message dated 3/26/05 10:59:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dmaddox1@ho
> t.rr.com writes:
If you mean liked the original game when it came out count me.
If you mean someone who wants to play it now, sorry, not me.
Yeah I'm a old gearhead fossil too.......)
Don
Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur, it works for Barney! LOL!
Gracias,
> Don M wrote:
> If you mean liked the original game when it came out count me.
Sounds like me too. I've got a lot of the old books, ships floor plans,
and stuff published by GDW, Judge's Guild, and some of the original FASA
stuff.
I'd pop up as a Loved Trav Since I first Found the LBBs in '79, and if I could
find someone running it, would play again without hesitation. Out of them all,
the LBBs and TNE are my fave settings.
i don't really wanna run it, though, esp if TNE was played.
> --- Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
AND don't forget: Serenity releases 30 September!
Sounds like me too. I've got a lot of the old books, ships floor plans, and
stuff published by GDW, Judge's Guild, and some of the original FASA stuff.
Jon
Yeah, I got allot of the above as well as most of the original 2300 line
(loved the background but not the game mechanics), also picked up the GURPS
Traveller (like their time line better). I hang on to all this crap with the
hopes of a FMA
fix.......)
Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur, it works for Barney! LOL!
Well Glenn it's ok as long as I don't have ware a purple suit.........)
> Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
That's ok, the decade old game I'm in has survived 4 rules changes and is
still going.
That's ok, the decade old game I'm in has survived 4 rules changes and is
still going.
Evyn,
After two years it's no longer a game, it's a board line religion you got
there.......)
Since I am also a CotI member, I whole heatedly agree with Tom. I've tried
to wrap my head around Striker and I just can't get past the orders/turn
system. (Sorry, I don't want to wait 12 turns for my forces to
single-mindedly act upon their orders. I don't care how "realistic" it
seems.) That, and the vehicle creation system is an anal retentive nightmare.
(Why do I have to figure out the exact cubic volume that my tank's engine
takes up? I just want to play.)
I love the Traveller background and the technology. It's just that a lot of
the rules were written by people with a very fastidious notion of what gaming
is about. That's why I mainly play T20 these days. (I don't need to use
hexadecimal notation for my player character sheets.)
So, in conclusion, I would very much like to see a Taveller-based
DSII/SGII/FMA-S rules set ala Power Projection. Of course, Dom Mooney
at BITS isn't going to do it because he has "At Close Quarters." However, if
we can figure something out, I'd like to help anyway I could.
Later,
Likewise, large collection; always thought I'd find some use for it.
Almost tried running latest psuedo-Clix Star Wars with micro-machine
figures or figs from Hoth/Rebel Base kits on the Azhanti High Lightning
maps, and get some serious sized battles going in reasonable table space.
Never got into the game enough to give it a go.
However, I've NO stomach for the Barney paradigm; you thought the Illuminati
had mind control down!
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
Ran a 15mm FMA game a few months ago using the Azhanti High Lightning floor
plans. Worked *beautifully*.
Mk
> Sounds like me too. I've got a lot of the old books, ships floor
I've got all the rulesets for Traveller going back to the small black
books. Of all the sets I prefer the original -- it was, well, quaint.
There is a Travaler site on yahoo/groups.
> Infojunky <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
That's ok, the decade old game I'm in has survived 4 rules changes and is
still going.
A couple of comments.
Striker (1): This set really works as a Platoon Leader simulator. You need to
know how to write small unit operations orders in order to be successful. If
you don't, the system will bite you hard. This is illustrated in the piece of
fiction in Book 1. These rules were written with a focus on simulation, not
gaming. The design rules reflect this as an exercise in compromise. It is
amazing the amount of work we went through when these first came out as few
had access to a computer, let alone knew how to use one!
FF&S follows this tradition. Part of the test of the system was building
historical systems and getting an approximate result.
Striker2 is a D20 adaptation of Command Decision. You need to have a fairly
detailed TO&E and have your figures organized to play.
Even when this first came out I just assigned values in order to get a quick
game going.
GZG Traveller: I think the strength of Traveller's design systems is the
forcing of tradeoffs due to tech level. At certain levels only some of the
systems are available, at others the cost/mass/volume maybe too high.
What may be useful is a 'tech level' guideline for the DS design rules (BTW,
if someone wants a point system for SG they could just use DS).
Happy Easter!
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
Mark,
I agree that BITS, as a licensee with a similar product, wouldn't necessarily
be as interested in FMA (since ACQ exists). At the same time, BITS isn't the
only licensee. And the other point is that FMA isn't even out yet.:)
However, SG2 and DS2 are both out. Establishing a Traveller conversion for
either of these should be a workable project. And ACQ does not cover the same
territory as either of these games. Striker II is the only thing that does.
Note also that Mayday, High Gaurd, Brilliant Lances, etc. all existed
and PP:E/PP:F both
came into existence despite that.
I'm not saying it's something that would happen, but it sure seems to me there
is already a market of Traveller RPG players and a lot of folks who'd wargame
in the background even if they didn't RPG in it. And some who might do
neither, but would still buy the books for collections, to read and imagine.
Tomb kaladorn on COTI
> Katrina Brown wrote:
> (BTW, if
Now that is an idea to explore.
> Don M wrote:
> I hang on to all this crap with the hopes of a FMA
Heh.... I know that feeling.
> Don M wrote:
> After two years it's no longer a game, it's a board line
You know it feels like that some times. The youngest player just turned 19 and
the oldest is 60, with the median age being somewhere in their mid 30s. We
just add players as people drop out. My current evil plan is
to add younger players so that I can keep the median age the same while I get
older. So maybe We have turned into a weird cult.
> Charles Lee wrote:
> There is a Travaler site on yahoo/groups.
Actually if you look closer there are at least 10 traveller groups on Yahoo...
And the traveller mailing list is damn near 20 years old now.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I agree that BITS, as a licensee with a similar product, wouldn't
I think I really don't need a FMA set tailored to trav, I just want the
generic rules. As much as I love Traveller a specific game is probably not all
that necessary.
> However, SG2 and DS2 are both out. Establishing a Traveller conversion
And really doesn't need as much work as some fans would say.
> And ACQ does not cover the same territory as either of these
It probably has something to do with the inherant complexies that drifted into
traveller and blind some of the more energetic players. In that the
complexities are what they are after before the play has even started, a good
prime example of this is Star Fleet Battles.
> I'm not saying it's something that would happen, but it sure seems to
Yep that is true also.
> Don M wrote:
> I hang on to all this crap with the hopes of a FMA
I tend to resort to strongarm solutions myself.... Maybe it's my inner
Thug...
> Don M wrote:
> No your not a cult yet...unless costumes are the required mandatory
Well in that case maybe we are, half the group's members are senior SCA
members. The youngest the son of a former king.
You know it feels like that some times. The youngest player just turned 19 and
the oldest is 60, with the median age being somewhere in their mid 30s. We
just add players as people drop out. My current evil plan is
to add younger players so that I can keep the median age the same while I get
older. So maybe We have turned into a weird cult.
No your not a cult yet...unless costumes are the required mandatory attire
when gaming...You know like the Trekkie and Napoleonic crowd........Then and
only then are you a cult, right now your an average war games club. The
numbers and age range are remarkably consistent world wide lol.
> I hang on to all this crap with the hopes of a FMA
Heh.... I know that feeling.
We live in hope, and as a last resort will stoop to bribery.....)
Well in that case maybe we are, half the group's members are senior SCA
members. The youngest the son of a former king.
Also remarkably consistent world wide lol.......Duct tape is like the force,
dark on one side light on the other and binds the universe together,the SCA
creed......)
I tend to resort to strongarm solutions myself.... Maybe it's my inner
Thug...
LOL, An Earth Firster then......)
I might be interested in running a PbEM Traveller: TNE game, if there were
interest from four or five players
The GZG Digest wrote on 3/26/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:34:08 -0500 (EST)
> Striker II and FF&S are nice products, but they're not the fastest
*chortle* Sorry, Tom, but SG2 is not a particularly fast playing game. This is
one of my main beefs with the game. It's fast compared to skirmish games with
the same number of troops, but SG2's maneuver unit is the squad, not the
individual figure. I'm finding that it speeds up somewhat with some of the
house rules I've implemented, but as written it's not a particularly fast
paced game.
It is, however, faster paced than Striker...
> I myself find SG2 would be a good vehicle for traveller larger scale
And when it
> eventually comes out, FMA could well be an alternative to BITS At
The one problem I have with your suggestion has to do with the vehicle rules
in SG2. To do Traveller justice you would have to implement changes to SG2's
vehicle system. I've made some progress in this area, and it's not an easy
change.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> The one problem I have with your suggestion has to do with the vehicle
> rules in SG2. To do Traveller justice you would have to implement
> and it's not an easy change.
What changes do you think are needed?
The GZG Digest wrote on 3/29/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:40:26 +0100
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I only read the digest of this list.
Here is a list of stuff I've been thinking about for vehicles in SG2, some of
which I've done some work on.
1. The main problem with vehicles is that they are too slow. This is a big
bone of contention among some players, who are still stuck in the World War II
mode of combat where vehicles moved fairly slowly. Oerjan, our resident
weapons expert, posted the following to the playtest list (I'm not divulging
anything, and I hope Oerjan doesn't mind me posting this, as it is real world
information):
"IIRC the average combat speed of US tracked vehicles in Iraq (both in
1991 and last year) in terrains ranging from open desert to built-up
areas, was around 15 mph - including various stops for fuel resupply and
similar, so the actual speed while moving was usually higher."
Switching to metric and using 15 mph as the benchmark -- though Oerjan
points out that actual combat speed was faster -- that works out to
approximately 24,000 metres in an hour, or 400 metres per minute. At an SG2
ground scale of 10 metres = 1 inch, that's 40 inches per minute. An SG2 game
turn is nebulous in terms of how long it represents, but it's usually quoted
as somewhere between 3 to 5 minutes. If we take 3 minutes
as an average, that's 120 inches per game turn. The maximum a vehicle, any
vehicle, can move in SG2 is 24 inches in regular movement. (A vehicle can move
48 inches in a turn using road movement, but a real life AFV can travel at
least 45 mph on road, and usually closer to 60, so the difference between game
and reality is even more obvious with road movement.)
2. To allow vehicles to move at rates typically used _today_ (and not
what might be possible in the future), you need to have an opportunity fire
system. I've used that kind of house rule for quite sometime now. It's
critical, though, to model vehicles at anything close to reality.
The main reason you don't go bounding along the countryside at top speed
all the time in modern combat isn't so much because of gun inaccuracy, but
because it makes it hard to spot the enemy. Adding spotting modifiers, or
somehow limiting a vehicle's ability to react based on its
speed, could also help reduce vehicles to realistic combat speeds... which are
still 2.5 times the speed in SG2.
3. You can only fire one weapon per vehicle per action. This is far too
restrictive, given a game turn of 3 to 5 minutes. What's more, you can't
move at anywhere near realistic combat speeds _and_ fire, since a move
action eats up a potential fire action. A modern vehicle can move 15mph in a
combat environment and still engage targets. In SG2, a vehicle can only move
12" and still fire. That translates to a speed of 2.4 kph, or roughly 2 mph.
As a point of comparison, Oerjan pointed out in the
playtest list that the Renault FT-17 light tank from World War One had a
maximum road movement rate of 4.8 mph.
4. While DS2 mentions PDS-style defensive systems for vehicles, there is
no mention of them in SG2. There is no anti-personnel capability, except
for vehicle mounted MGs, etc., either.
5. DS2 has ablative and reactive armour. This needs added to SG2.
6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to be added.
7. The vehicle design rules only allow you to define armour for the front and
sides of the vehicle, with every side being the same. I came up with a system
that allowed you to design armour thickness for all four sides, the top, and
the bottom, and it could also accommodate mobility options (fast and slow).
This is important for point 4 in the heavy weapons section, below.
8. I've got a list of other things I'd want to add, such as hull down,
turret down, turret traverse, gun depression, open-topped vehicle rules.
and rules for infantry riding on top of tanks.
Those are the changes just to vehicles. Heavy weapons need to be altered
as well, and would go hand-in-hand with vehicles:
1. Heavy weapon range bands are too short. Yes, this is to stop vehicles
from dominating the game, but that shouldn't be a problem if players set
up games with realistic amounts of cover.
2. Heavy machine guns aren't modeled in the game. If you read the rules
carefully you'll see something stating that they should be modeled as a heavy
weapon. Unfortunately the smallest heavy weapon listed is an RFAC,
which uses the "heavy weapons versus dispersed targets" rule of a D8 impact.
HMGs and RFACs are much deadlier to an infantry squad than a tank's main gun,
and should be treated accordingly.
3. Oerjan designs missile systems, so it's not surprising that a couple of
years ago we had an extensive discussion with regard to modern
missile systems and their implementation in SG2. In short, IAVRs, GMS/P,
GMS/L, and GMS/H in SG2 need an overhaul. We had a very good discussion,
which resulted in the bare bones of a system for handling different missile
tech versus different armour tech.
4. There are modern missiles that can attack the top of an AFV instead of
impacting on the side. It stands to reason that in the future weapons
will be better at this, including (possibly) the ability to hit _any_
aspect of a vehicle. This isn't covered in SG2. If weapons can hit different
aspects, vehicle armour design flexibility becomes more important, so this is
tied into point 7, above, with regard to vehicles.
Those are the main points. I'm sure there are others. I've worked on all
of them to a certain extent, but I haven't written them up and not all of them
have been playtested.
I also have a similar list of things that need to be changed for artillery,
but I'm not as far along with those.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> 1. The main problem with vehicles is that they are too slow. This is a
> big bone of contention among some players, who are still stuck in the
Oerjan,
> our resident weapons expert, posted the following to the playtest list
> (I'm not divulging anything, and I hope Oerjan doesn't mind me posting
> this, as it is real world information):
<some snipage>
In sg2 I was under the impression that the vehicles where moving at the speeds
that are in line with supporting infantry no where close to vehicle vs vehicle
speeds. having spent some time on the ground with close vehicle support in
areas of close terrain the speeds portrayed in the game are in line with my
experience. Though patrol and road movement
might be a little stilted.
> 3. You can only fire one weapon per vehicle per action. This is far
Ok, I can see that when you have multiple vehicle gunners. Maybe the vehicle
commander needs to be treated as a infantry commander and be able to pass on
activations as such so each vehicle would have potently up to 4 actions in a
turn. That might go forth to solve some of you speed complaints.
> 4. While DS2 mentions PDS-style defensive systems for vehicles, there
Ok, I can see that.
> 5. DS2 has ablative and reactive armour. This needs added to SG2.
Ditto.
> 6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to be
Why? Or when fighting at basically visible ranges stealth doesn't do that
much.
> 7. The vehicle design rules only allow you to define armour for the
> up with a system that allowed you to design armour thickness for all
> heavy weapons section, below.
Ok, I can kinda see that, for some the simplified armor for AFVs is one of the
strong point in my opinion, though I wouldn't mind some more detail on the
lower end to represent hardened soft skin vehicles (i.e. the applique armor
kits for Hummvs and armored sedans)
> 8. I've got a list of other things I'd want to add, such as hull down,
> turret down, turret traverse, gun depression, open-topped vehicle
Ok, lost me here, both hull and turret down are cover postures that probably
could be covered best by the base cover rules.
In the time scale of the game Turret traverse isn't a factor.
Open topped vehicle have no effective armor on top.
And tank riders can be treated in the same way as troops in a truck.
> 1. Heavy weapon range bands are too short. Yes, this is to stop
Um? Realistic amounts of cover? Gonna need a better explanation /
description.
> 2. Heavy machine guns aren't modeled in the game. If you read the
Ok, I gotta look at that. Thou most of what are referred to as Heavy Machine
Guns in reality are light autocannons whose cycle rate are fairly low until
you either put multiple weapons on a mount (twin 50s rock) or go to a
multibarrel (gattling guns also rock)
> 3. & 4.
Ok. might have to see that, but mostly you could just say that a certain
class of guiled missile is rigged for top attack. at most missile speeds
in the combat regime you really are only gonna have 2 choices the facing
side and the top.
> Those are the main points. I'm sure there are others. I've worked on
> of them have been playtested.
You've made some good points there, but one must remember to take in the
scale the game is supposed to be in. Which is primarily an infantry game. In
the areas that infantry is best armor has many very disastrous disadvantages.
Which I think the base rules illustrate very well.
The biggest point you made about how vehicles fight and move is food for
thought, And yes some kinds of vehicles need some overhaul. Point being unlike
modern and earlier tanks vehicles with multiple independent gunners and
weapons should be able to engage multiple targets while the driver moves the
vehicle.
With regards to movement scales and other combat factors, I like to think of a
SGII battle equalling a DSII close assault resolution. The war of manoeuvrer
has been completed and its the "down and dirty" part of the fight where speed
will get you killed.
Some of the points (armour distribution & SG versions of DS systems) certainly
need to be addressed to make it easier to flip between the two systems.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
G'day,
Not sure how feasible it is, but I've always liked the idea of some how
meshing DS and SG so you got the best of both worlds, DS-like vehicles
if that's what you're interested in and SG-like infantry if you're more
at that end of the spectrum.
Cheers
The GZG Digest wrote on 3/30/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:41:44 -0600
I don't think they are even close to infantry speeds, either. Infantry can
make combat moves which, if you roll well, will equal a vehicle's top speed in
a single game turn. If rolling a 6 represents the upper level of movement for
a human in a combat environment, a vehicle should at least have the capability
of moving faster than that in combat situations. It's possible for an infantry
unit to fire at a vehicle and run back in a combat move without that vehicle
being able to fire back
_and_ decrease the the range band. This is due to a "gamey" restriction
on vehicles.
One of the reasons for my change in vehicle rules is to allow
vehicle-on-vehicle games in SG2 using 1/144, 1/285 or 1/300 scale
vehicles. That would necessitate faster vehicle movement, as not all
vehicle-on-vehicle engagements are going to involve a lot of infantry.
My ultimate goal is to allow vehicles to move at realistic speeds in a game
turn, with the limitation to that speed coming from a realistic combat
environment. A vehicle should be able to move more than 120 metres in a 3 to 5
minute turn and fire it's main weapon. Whether or not
it's a good idea should depend on the terrain, the opposition, and things like
opportunity fire rules.
Now, this may not be possible. An attacking tank will have to be wary of
hidden unit markers, but a defending tank (based on the rules as written) will
have a pretty good idea of what he is facing. That gives the player much
greater freedom of movement than a real tanker would have. The player knows he
can move his tank from one side of the board to another with impunity, but in
real life a tank driver may not know that. I originally thought of allowing
vehicles to have free movement, that is they could move anywhere on the board,
much like the aerospace vehicles can do now in the game. I'm not sure that's
acceptable. My latest idea is one that I've been thinking about for a while:
give vehicles the ability to do combat moves. It may be too drastic to have
them roll 2D12 for combat movement. I'm still thinking about this. I think
playtesting will shake out what might work best.
While I'm on the topic, one house rule I've never posted to my site but which
works well is to give a squad a die shift down if they conduct a combat move.
Right now combat moves are mostly cheesy affairs. I most often see them when a
player wants to move a squad about 8 inches. He will declare a combat move
first. If he succeeds at rolling an 8 or more, he made it in a single game
turn and has an action left. If he fails to roll an 8 or more, he simply uses
his second action to move to his target. I rarely see players rolling combat
moves for shorter distances. By giving a squad a die shift down on the range
band, you give them an incentive to use a combat move the way the rule manual
implies the rule was intended. This brings up the question of whether or
not a vehicle should get a similar shift down if vehicular combat moves are
allowed.
Finally, one thing Oerjan really would like to see modeled isn't so much
a vehicle's top speed but it's acceleration. He points out that this is
actually more important in combat situations. I may have it backwards, but I
think he said the Merkava has a lower top speed than the Abrams but the
Merkava has faster acceleration, which in some tight combat gives it a plus.
I'm still thinking about how I could implement this. One easy way is to allow
vehicles to do combat movement, but give them a
minimum roll based on acceleration. For instance, a quick accelerating vehicle
might roll 2D12 but have a minimum roll of 8 while a slowly accelerating
vehicle may have a minimum roll of 4. If either vehicle rolled 1 on each die,
the player would use the minimum roll value instead.
Oh, and to round this out, another idea I had was giving vehicles speeds
based on power plant values. The power plant values would be anywhere from a
D4 to a D12, in increments of 2. A normal move would be the movement die type
x 2. Combat movement would be calculated by rolling two dice equal to the
movement rate, and multiplying the result by 2 (with a minimum value based on
acceleration). So, a slow vehicle may be D4, giving it an 8" movement and 2D8
x 2 combat movement. A fast vehicle
may be D10 giving it 20" movement or 2D10 x 2 combat move. This still keeps
them below realistic speeds, but it seems to be more palatable for
most gamers.
> having spent some time on the ground with
If you don't mind my asking, when was this? As I mentioned, Oerjan quoted
stats for combat vehicle speeds in both Gulf conflicts at about 15mph.
> Ok, I can see that when you have multiple vehicle gunners. Maybe the
That's something I thought about, allowing the driver to have two
actions and the gun team (gunner/loader) to have two actions. It would
essentially split a tank into two fire teams: a "movement" fire team that
would get up to two actions, and a "gun" fire team that would get up to two
actions.
The main complaint stems from vehicles, like some modern tanks and APCs,
that have main guns and missile systems. You can't fire both of these weapon
systems in SG2. You can't even take two move actions and fire
_either_ weapon system. Your idea could solve the problem and make the
vehicles more mobile.
> 6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to be
Why? Because DS2 has stealth signatures for vehicles, and SG2 does not.
Besides, its a sci-fi game. Jon doesn't go into detail as to what
"stealth" entails. It could mean electronic camouflage, like the
chameleon surfaces in _Traveller_, which would be useful at visible
ranges.
> Ok, I can kinda see that, for some the simplified armor for AFVs is
> the applique armor kits for Hummvs and armored sedans)
My vehicle rule ideas probably wouldn't be implemented by those who are happy
with the rules as they are, anyway.
I've come across two camps in SG2, the "it's not realistic enough where
vehicles are concerned" camp and the "it's good enough" camp. I suspect the
latter is bigger, which is one reason I haven't touched my vehicle house rules
in a year. (I haven't touched my SG2 as a board game idea in
a year, either.)
> Ok, lost me here, both hull and turret down are cover postures that
They don't. You could say that if a vehicle is completely hidden, it's turret
down. That means you can't fire at it, with the rules as written (RAW).
However, if you were to know the tank was there, you could fire
at it with top-attack missiles. Those weapons don't exist in the RAW and
firing at a hidden vehicle isn't allowed.
Hull down can be handled with the cover rules, true, but you have to take
turret traverse into account (see below).
> In the time scale of the game Turret traverse isn't a factor.
In the RAW, a vehicle can point in any direction after movement. I can't
remember if turrets are listed in the RAW. I don't think they are, I think the
rules basically say that a turreted gun can fire in any direction. If you
allow proper hull down rules, you have a turret that is sticking out of cover.
What happens if that turret engages a target 90 degrees to the right using
opportunity fire? Well, the turret would turn that direction and engage the
target. What happens then if another target attacks that tank from straight
ahead, with regard to the tank's hull? The turret is now pointing 90 degrees
to the right, so thinner side turret armour is now facing the second enemy
unit.
So, do you allow the turret to swing back around to take the shot in the
front, or do you force the turret to stay pointed 90 degrees to the right of
the hull?
I'm still working on this. I'm leaning toward allowing a tank to turn its
turret in the direction of an enemy when conducting an opportunity fire
attack, and allowing the turret to turn in response to being fired
on. This is how the _Steel Panthers_ computer game handled it. At any
rate, turret traverse can be a factor, though not in the way you thought
I meant.
> Open topped vehicle have no effective armor on top.
Not quite true. An open topped World War II AFV usually had some armour on the
top of the hull.
If a mortar barrage hits the vehicle, is the crew considered in soft cover,
hard cover, or no cover? Can they be considered IP? Obviously if the vehicle
is attacked from the same elevation, there's not much of a
problem. If you include top-attack weapons, how do you handle open
topped vehicles without inventing detailed tables for where the weapon hit
relative to the vehicle and the crew. Do you force open topped vehicles to
have zero armour on top, or do you allow it to have some armour for protecting
the hull with only the turret crew exposed?
What situations would result in direct fire hitting the top of a vehicle
(important if you have top armour, regardless of whether or not the vehicle is
open topped).
Some of this stuff is pretty simple, but it's all stuff that should be listed
so that players don't have to guess at it.
> And tank riders can be treated in the same way as troops in a truck.
If a machine gun is fired at the front of a tank at the riders, it has no real
chance of penetrating the tank but should have a real chance of hurting the
riders, though the riders should be considered under hard cover. If the
machine gun fires at the tank from the side, the tank would mostly be unharmed
but the riders would get, what, no cover shift?
Soft cover? What if the weapon is an RFAC, with the possibility of hurting the
tank and the riders? What if a weapon is fired at the tank, hits, but does not
penetrate? That should have an effect on the riders.
I think you can use the "troops in trucks" rules as a starting point, but I
think you'd have to treat this as a special case.
> Um? Realistic amounts of cover? Gonna need a better explanation /
I've seen a lot of games where combat takes place on what's essentially a salt
flat with a few bushes and houses.
> Ok, I gotta look at that. Thou most of what are referred to as Heavy
And I wouldn't have a problem treating an HMG as an RFAC, really, but
something has to be done about the impact of RFACs against dispersed targets.
> Ok. might have to see that, but mostly you could just say that a
Today you might. In 200 years, I can see missiles being smart enough to
recognize the outline of a tank, figure out its aspect, and decide where
to hit it. I understand they are working on this issue today.
> You've made some good points there, but one must remember to take in
There were two reasons for me going in that direction. One was mentioned
above, the ability to play SG2 as a small armour engagement game using
microarmour. It would allow 10 or so tanks per side, which could be an
interesting game. The other issue is that vehicles are a big part of infantry
combat these days, even if it's just some infantry supported by
a Bradley or a Warrior. Even when I'm using these vehicles, the game seems to
treat them a little bit simplistically.
The idea isn't to replace the SG2 vehicle rules, but to include a bunch of
ideas that players can pick and choose from, in case their scenario requires
it.
> The biggest point you made about how vehicles fight and move is food
To that end, I like your idea (or my interpretation of your idea?) of giving a
vehicle two move actions and two fire actions, though probably restricting the
weapon to firing each weapon system only once. That, too, has issues. A main
battle tank can certainly engage more than one target in 3 minutes! I'm not
sure if this can be handled realistically without it wrecking the feel of the
game completely.
Some points to consider, though I agree with most of Allan's points.
1. Modern MBTs, accoring to OO the mighty, have about 10:2:1 (front, sides,
back) (or something like that if I got the side number wrong) for armour. They
are not even close to equally armoured. There is currently no way to build
such a vehicle.
2. Top attack isn't the only threat. People can build side attack missiles and
other
options as well. Probably rear-attack too if they work at it. Perhaps
depending on missile tech, the attacker should be able to pick facing to hit.
3. GMS/P and IAVR are way underrated. when I talked with Oerjan, he made
the point that the reason infantry carries these in the real world is to have
a good chance of destroying a modern MBT or at least an AFV. So if we assume
that an AFV is armour 3 (there's another
point - in the rules for vehicles in SG2, there is never any reason to
build a less than
heaviest-possible armoured APC/AIFV), then the IAVR and GMS/P better
have a good chance of penetrating that. I think when Oerjan and I talked about
it, it might have been that the impact should be 2D12* or 3D12*. At the same
time, vehicle armour is sold short by rolling and multiplying (vs rolling
NdX), so rolling NdX for attacking and defending systems makes them a bit
(slightly) more predictable in results.
4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
should have PDS and decoys should be better understood as should various
variant armour types.
5. SG2 vehicle movement is wrong also on the tactical scale. A modern MBT can
probably hit over 30 mph, maybe even faster yet. Sure, it might be that an
average speed might be 2.4 kph. But SG2 is *almost* wysiwig. If I need to
drive between two buildings or between a hill and a copse of trees, I'm *NOT*
doing it at an average speed! I'm going hell bent for leather to get back
behind an alternate set of cover. How does a vehicle average a slow tactical
speed? It does so by spending a lot of terms sitting, spotting, and shooting
or just plain waiting. But when it moves, unless it is *directly* with
infantry, it will probably be moving at least half of its maximum speed. I
watched a lot of fights in the gulf war and in Iraq involving AFVs, and a lot
of times, they moved quite snappily. Not 2.4 kph!
6. At the same time that that movement is wrong, and enemy anti-armour
equipment is too weak, also I agree with Allan that a fire action for a
vehicle needs to include more options. Perhaps you let every crew member that
has a weapon and isn't otherwise occupied fire. And firing on the move should
be feasible too. A modern MBT can sail along at maximum speed *across country*
and the main gun rarely even quivers with modern
stabilization. (This should be a result of TL/expense)
Note, many of these issues are visible only knowing what we know *today* about
AFV capabilities. To simulate the GDW Travellerverse, we're talking about
*grav vehicles that can fly* and *AFVs with more armour than starship hulls*.
We're also talking about weapon ranges in the kilometers.
I mean, in SG2, if I have a big table, there are ranges at which my
*HEL/5* can't fire at
a target. Pardon?!
Similarly, there are issues with damage. I fire my DFFG/5 against
infantry. Something tells me this should be *very bad* for the infantry.
There is also no way in the game to distinguish an RFAC/1 in its various
possible formats
- that is to say, a 25mm Bushmaster (where you can actually hear each
individual shot) or
a 20mm Vulcan ADS/PDS/CIWS weapon (where it sounds like a chainsaw).
And Allan is also right that the representation of MMGs, HMGs and various
sustained fire automatic weapons is inadequate. A squad SAW (say a minimi) is
not the same as an M2HB.50
nor is that the same as an AGS-17 nor a DShK nor even a water cooled
Vickers gun with a large ammo supply. The SAW in the game is meant to be man
portable, with associated weight and ammo limits.
Also, when I'm listing things to ponder for any sort of revamp, I'll add
powered armour. It should probably have armour value 1 rather than D12 armour.
Why? Because it should be reasonably immune to personal weapons. That's what
we see under development now by DARPA
and one of the whole points of PA - the ability to survive lighter
weapon fire without constantly having to roll to avoid dying. Sure, maybe HMGs
and IAVRs and perhaps some
other conjectural anti-PA systems, any heavy weapons, and perhaps HAMRs
should be a threat to them, but basic small arms? Probably not.
And then again there is the interesting rule that PA can't benefit from cover.
If someone is shooting at me and I'm in plate steel, I can still probably
benefit by putting 75% of my body behind 2' of concrete.
Anyway, a lot of the issues Allan brings up are more issues of "SG3" rather
than any Traveller conversion. Conversion issues revolve around how to
represent different tech levels and to handle the extra vehicle capabilities,
then things like what do Zhodani get to do with psionics, how do you represent
Aslan, Vargr, K'Kree, etc.
TomB
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
[...]
> Note, many of these issues are visible only knowing what we know
I'm sure the Alarishi R&D will be very happy to develop a HEL/7 or HEL/9
for your needs, Tomb. Get you that range you need!
:-)
Mk
> And then again there is the interesting rule that PA can't benefit from
I originally thought that PA couldn't benefit by cover, but someone asked
about it on the main list a month or two ago and now ISTR that it's really an
open shift. But I could be bewildered.
> I'm sure the Alarishi R&D will be very happy to develop a HEL/7 or
It's not clear whether Jack Old Ron's home defense setup has uses Beam 2 or
Beam 3, but his habitat is listed as an active navigation hazard out to
40,000km radius. Good enough?
How about we simply give vehicles "3 actions" per activation. They then have
the option of zipping across the board or unloading multiple
weapon systems at a target (or potentially move-fire-move).
The standard op-fire rules of "target takes a second move action" will
then kick in, allowing you to shoot back (if you lived).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
Brendan said:
> How about we simply give vehicles "3 actions" per activation.
Because a modern tank should be able to fire without losing any movement. And
it doesn't cover situations like the Slammers combat cars, which can move
while firing all three guns at separate targets.
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, at 06:16 PM, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> How about we simply give vehicles "3 actions" per activation.
> then
I like the idea of segmenting the vehicle crew into segments. One segment of
the crew represents the driver while another represents the gunners. Finally
the commander would be the 3rd segment. The driver and gunner segments would
get one action each. The vehicle commander would get two actions. The
commander actions would be used to either shoot more or move more. You could
use standard action tranfers for the commander or make them a bit easier to
accomplish.
Damo
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> 1. Modern MBTs, accoring to OO the mighty, have about 10:2:1 (front,
That's close enough to correct for a rule-of-thumb.
This is the idea that I like as well. Make the Vehicle Commander transfer his
actions to the crew. This provides more flexibility for the vehicle than the 3
actions/4 actions only rule.
Vehicle Commander could transfer or use actions to spot, report etc. That
would allow scouting vehicles to make sense as well.
Magic
> --- Damond Walker <damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
> I like the idea of segmenting the vehicle crew into
The GZG Digest wrote on 3/31/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:16:20 -0500 (EST)
> 2. Top attack isn't the only threat. People can build side attack
I may have been unclear on that. When I wrote "top attack" as an option,
I meant to include rules for any angle.
> I think when Oerjan and I talked about it, it might have been that the
I, too, talked to Oerjan about missile weapons. He pointed out that the
only real world difference between a GMS/P and a GMS/L is range, and the
ranges wouldn't show themselves in an SG2 game (unless you allowed off board
assets to fire missiles). He also said that a modern IAVR's warhead fits the
same bracket as these guys, too, so that the IAVR's only real difference is
range and the fact that it's a disposable weapon.
As per your discussion with him, I have GMS/P, GMS/L and IAVRs all
having 2D12* impact, though I can see going up to 3D12*, too. GMS/Hs
would continue to be 4D12*.
> At the same time, vehicle armour is sold short by rolling
Jon made the "roll number of D12s equal to Armour Level and add them" (as
opposed to the rule book's "roll 1D12 and multiply by Armour Level) an
"official option". I've used it ever since.
> 4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
Oerjan and I talked extensively about reactive armour. I, like most folks, had
a pretty antiquated view of reactive armour. At any rate, we came up with a
rule system that allowed for various tech levels of reactive armour. Oerjan
pointed out that there's an important interaction between missile technology
and reactive armour technology. We hashed out a system for giving die shifts
one way or the other based on whether you're using a new technology missile or
antiquated missile
technology versus state-of-the-art reactive armour or obsolete reactive
armour. It wouldn't be for everyone, but the system looked -- on paper
-- like it would work. I extended the idea to ablative armour. I think
we ended up with reactive armour working against RFACs, HVCs, MDCs and
missiles while ablative worked against HELs and DFFGs (basically one worked
against explosive warheads and one worked against energy weapons).
I didn't get far with PDS. In fact, this was one of the reasons I stopped
working on it. I'd make some progress and then I'd realize how much more work
I still needed to do. At this point I started to wonder if it was worth fixing
SG2 or if I was better off creating a new game system altogether. The result
is that I'm stuck at a point where I'm dissatisfied with SG2 but haven't fixed
it, nor am I likely to fix it.
This probably explains why I haven't played it, or any sci-fi game, in
several months.
> 5. SG2 vehicle movement is wrong also on the tactical scale. A modern
This was the same point I was getting at in my previous post, but I don't
think I explained myself clearly. In the course of a game a vehicle may end up
no further than halfway across the board. The supporting infantry with it may
end up going that distance, too. However
the vehicle may have moved only twice in the entire game while the infantry
may have been constantly on the move. The vehicle should be capable of
realistic speeds, but the rules should encourage realistic tactical speeds.
The one caveat I did mention yesterday had to do with the God's Eye View
of the gamer, particularly the guy on defense if you are using the RAW hidden
unit rules. Gamers are more likely to do gamey things because they know there
are no reinforcements just over the horizon, or because they know the game is
going to end in an hour. Limiting a vehicle's movement to some extent might be
necessary just to limit this problem.
> 6. At the same time that that movement is wrong, and enemy anti-armour
One thing that bothers me about vehicle fire is that it seems to model a
single shot while squad fire seems to model a couple of minutes of engagement.
Modern MBTs can fire quite a lot during a 3 to 5 minute period. There's no
reason why a single MBT on a hill couldn't engage a platoon of Bradleys moving
across an open field. Yet the way SG2 works, that MBT could only fire at a
single Bradley, and if it missed it would
have no chance of re-engaging the target. So heavy weapon/vehicle combat
is done at an entirely different scale from infantry combat. Yes, I know
this was deliberate in order to keep vehicles from dominating the game, but I
still find it unappetizing.
I've got a germ of an idea on how to allow vehicles to fire at a realistic
number of targets without them really dominating the game, but
I have to think about it a bit more before I released it to the list.
> I mean, in SG2, if I have a big table, there are ranges at which my
That's very true. This is where a realistic level of terrain comes in, though.
I find most players don't put down enough terrain for an
interesting game. If you want to limit the HEL/5 from sitting on a board
edge and hitting everything, put down more terrain but don't limit the HEL's
range.
> Similarly, there are issues with damage. I fire my DFFG/5 against
I don't mind the D8 impact versus dispersed targets for HVCs and the
like, but I agree that DFFGs should be nasty in the anti-infantry role.
I already mentioned that RFACs should have a different impact rating.
> Also, when I'm listing things to ponder for any sort of revamp, I'll
Because it should be
> reasonably immune to personal weapons.
My fast-play armour resolution house rule actually helps in this regard,
though I suspect you want it to go further.
> And then again there is the interesting rule that PA can't benefit
That's not an official ruling. In the errata section on my web site I have
Jon's official ruling, "Page 38: As per Jon Tuffley, Impact versus Armour
rolls are subject to open die shifts. This isn't stated on page 38, but it
should be."
A number people still play where PA doesn't get the benefit of an open die
shift, but that's not Jon's official ruling.
Allan made some good points (as always). Though I do feel I have documentation
to support my patent application for the process of giving an infantry unit 1
RB defensive die shift while combat moving. I think I have 'prior art' since I
wrote this theory up sometime around 4 years ago...;)
Points to consider:
How do I simulate a Merkava? If I don't mistake it, there can be 4 MGs on a
Merkava. They can all fire at once in the real world, or three of them could
possibly fire while the vehicle is on the move.
Also, the real issue is sprint speeds: If my tank has to go from A to B (two
bits of cover separate by say 300m), how long will that take in the game, and
how long in real time? In the game, let us say it will take at least 2 turns
(3 moves of 12"). That's something like (for the sake of argument) 3 to 10
minutes, depending how you want to score it. I'm guessing that in the real
world, this journey should take something on the order of 60 seconds or less
under hard acceleration. And this is with today's MBT. If the vehicle was an
FAV (heaven forfend), it should probably make the trip in about 30 seconds.
That makes a difference especially when your tank is caught in the open over a
turn boundary.
The real point, as Allan says, is that what limits a lot of movement (infantry
and
otherwise) in the non-game world is lack of God's Eye view. You spend a
lot of time *spotting*. You *can* move quickly when you move, but you spend a
lot of time trying to figure out where the enemy is or might be and how to
minimize your exposure to him.
I also agree with Allan that an overwatch/reaction fire capability is a
must. I've seen how critical it is in games with PA, who are possibly worse
offenders than vehicles. This
kind of system also prevents 'blink monster' attacks - You know an enemy
is in the woods 6" away outside of LoS. You know he's faster than you. But you
are armed. You want to cream him as he comes out. But he's light infantry or
even normal infantry who can get to you with 1 6" move thus not even allowing
you the reaction fire rule in SG which lets you fire at targets moving twice
in front of you. Even though you know the enemy is there and could
'realistically' watch that sector and start to nail the enemy as soon as they
hit
LoS, the game's movement/activation mechanics preclude that due to a
lack of an overwatch and reaction fire system.
I wrote up rules for tank riders long ago as well. I see they are not up on
stargrunt.ca in the house rules area. Clearly this should be remedied (I
should also post the
range-band shifted combat movement rule too). And my implementations for
missing DS
systems into SG2. They're all written - just reformat and maybe take a
latter day editing pass. Hmmm. I'll see what can be done this weekend.
Giving vehicles combat moves with minimum values for acceleration isn't a bad
idea. This might be terrain dependent a bit (your sportscar might have a
minimum roll of 15 on 2d12
on pavement, but only 5 on off-road terrain, for instance). Or weather
dependent (ice! snow! traction!??). Still, it makes for an interesting
starting point for discussion.
Allan's 'speed based on powerplant' isn't a bad idea either, though he should
realize it isn't speed based on powerplant so much as speed based on
power-to-weight ratio. I put a
1500 hp diesel on my scooter, I'm gonna have plenty of power. I put the same
in a 40 ton MBT, I don't have so much get up and go. There are also 'gearing'
issues. A semi has lots of power to weight, but still has limited acceleration
due to gearing (relative to say a Mustang or Ferrari).
It would also be nice to be able to carom a civilian car at high speeds
through SG2 urban terrain and have some mechanism for resolving whether the
driver crashes, fishtails or makes it look like its just running on rails.
I think the Turret issue is interesting. I usually make my players indicate
where the turret is pointed. My reaction fire rules apply a modifier for
something more than 45 or 60 degree off your centreline, so there is a reason
why facing matters. At the same time, you can freely change it, but only in
your turn or only in reaction to an enemy action. So if you turn to fire at
enemy unit A, expose your side armour to enemy unit B, you can only really
turn back after B (unactivated) has at least one chance to take a shot.
Fire on the move is a tough one. How well you can do this (both the technical
aspect of how steady your guns are and the spotting aspect of how well you can
ID a target on the
move) should depend a lot on troop quality and technology. 3-axis modern
stabilization plus a crack crew (Hammers Slammers) and you ought to be able to
'roll along merrily' spraying lead effectively around. Poor troops or poor
tech ought to make that a waste of effort and just draw attention to you which
generally means enemy fire too.
Another vehicle issue: How to represent an AIFV like the Cav Scout vehicles or
other types of vehicles where you are meant to fight your infantry section
from
under-armour. Do you
allow the vehicle to move, then allow the infantry to activate and conduct
fire actions from inside the vehicle? Do you apply a penalty? How much? Do you
require specialized firing ports or extra weapons? (The Bradley's port firing
weapon comes to mind, IIRC it was a modified M4 or M16 or something like that)
Another distinction that makes for an interesting change is representing
sustained fire
capability (the weapon + ammo supply). If you have a tank with lots of
ammo or an emplaced MG with a loader and lots of ammo, you may allow something
like that to overwatch but not come off overwatch (something that commonly is
done with OW implementations) when the OW
unit makes an attack. This means a set defensive MG can fire and fire -
thus making attacks on such positions without suppressing the gunners (and
that can be hard under armour) very tough. They can just pile the bodies up in
front of the position. This then necessitates either placing fire on the
position for suppression or artillery.
As to vehicle actions: Maybe each crewman on a vehicle effectively gets two
actions (how FMAS
of me...). The
gunner can fire the main gun (probably not do much else, unless he has a coax
too). The driver can drive twice. The loader can either fire the coax or load
or fire a roof MG. The commander can fire his MG. The gunner or driver may
also attempt to spot and the commander can communicate. The most a weapon
could fire is once (though I've seen people toy with
lifting this restriction too - it makes for a *much* more static game),
so the most you'd get is everyone taking a shot if there were enough weapons
(many
APSWs/MGs) aboard a
vehicle. And that's only if the driver only 'moved' once. But this would let
the driver move twice and all the gunners and commanders pop off shots with
MGs if it made sense.
Lots of grist for the mill anyway.
Tomb
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> I don't think they are even close to infantry speeds, either. Infantry
> can make combat moves which, if you roll well, will equal a vehicle's
> _and_ decrease the the range band. This is due to a "gamey"
restriction
> on vehicles.
I'm gonna have to go back to the real world on this, in rough and varied
terrain sometimes feet are better than vehicles. Hence the Combat move of
2x2d12 per move action. And from looking though I have only played
with a little the Vehicle commander / crew modification would go a long
way to overcome what little speed differential problems there is.
> One of the reasons for my change in vehicle rules is to allow
That game exists it's called Dirtside, Stargrunt 2 is about the PBI. If I want
to play armor I'll use a game that is centered on armor, not try to fit a
infantry based game to it.
> My ultimate goal is to allow vehicles to move at realistic speeds in a
> game turn, with the limitation to that speed coming from a realistic
Ah, I see now. Your hung up on the the time scale. Ok I see the basis of
some of your arguments then. Still we are talking about combat, to time is
fuzzy.
> It may be too drastic to have
You mean like Page 23?
> While I'm on the topic, one house rule I've never posted to my site
> combat move. Right now combat moves are mostly cheesy affairs. I most
Hum, I think that the people we play with and the style of play may be part of
the problem here.
> Finally, one thing Oerjan really would like to see modeled isn't so
Now that is a good idea. Kinda. How much detail do we really need in a
infantry game. It's like getting all the available Rhinemetal data to model
how all the weapons act in the lab and using those ideal conditions to model
the real field action of the weapons systems.
> Oh, and to round this out, another idea I had was giving vehicles
Now that could work. Maybe beyond Bugs don't Surf, Jon might want to do a
vehicle options book.
> having spent some time on the ground with close vehicle support in
> stilted.
> 15mph.
The eighties and nineties Navel Special Forces at Subic in the Philippines and
police patrol work in cities. The funny thing is dealing
with a drunken Admiral is a lot like dealing white trash at closing time....
Funny how life hands you things.
> Ok, I can see that when you have multiple vehicle gunners. Maybe the
> of you speed complaints.
> essentially split a tank into two fire teams: a "movement" fire team
> up to two actions.
> vehicles more mobile.
Gonna have to play that one, but it looks like a keeper.
> 6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to
Ok, that is a point. Esspecially when talking about the interface between the
2 games, Gonna have to pull out DS and brush up.
> Besides, its a sci-fi game. Jon doesn't go into detail as to what
Humm..... A sensor vs Stealth kit opposed roll thingy.... Might not be all
that bad an idea.
> My vehicle rule ideas probably wouldn't be implemented by those who
The hard part is to figure out what needs a real change or just a tweak.
> They don't. You could say that if a vehicle is completely hidden, it's
> turret down. That means you can't fire at it, with the rules as
> at it with top-attack missiles.
That is one of those things and it reall comes down to how smart your missles
are.
> In the RAW, a vehicle can point in any direction after movement. I
> is sticking out of cover. What happens if that turret engages a target
> 90 degrees to the right using opportunity fire? Well, the turret would
> turn that direction and engage the target. What happens then if
Roll a die, 1 or 2 turret side, 3 to 6 vehicle front. But a ruling might
be nice on that.
> Some of this stuff is pretty simple, but it's all stuff that should be
> listed so that players don't have to guess at it.
Yes, a faq might be nice....
> Um? Realistic amounts of cover? Gonna need a better explanation /
Then why are the infantry there fighting?
> Ok, I gotta look at that. Thou most of what are referred to as Heavy
> rock) or go to a multibarrel (gattling guns also rock)
Yes, reread that section Small rapid fire cannow should get their impact
die not the general die.
> The idea isn't to replace the SG2 vehicle rules, but to include a
> requires it.
Is cool I understand that.
> To that end, I like your idea (or my interpretation of your idea?) of
> target in 3 minutes! I'm not sure if this can be handled realistically
> without it wrecking the feel of the game completely.
Someone mentioned 3 action, but as I said both ideas need play
test......
> Laserlight wrote:
> Brendan said:
Yah what he said. Pbrs... I mean Combat Cars don't slow when they fire.
> Damond Walker wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, at 06:16 PM, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
will
> then
Option three...... Gonna add it to my list to playtest.
From: "Infojunky"
> I'm gonna have to go back to the real world on this, in rough and
Remember that if we're talking Traveller, we're talkiing grav vehicles.
<snip>
> Ah, I see now. Your hung up on the the time scale. Ok I see the
That turns out not to be the case. You've got terrain on the board, you can
have modern weapons, you've got infantry walking on roads in the rear areas,
you've got a pretty good correlation of time and distance ("how long does it
take to walk as far as the effective range of an M16 rifle?").
If a vehicle doesn't move very fast in relation to infantry, it ought to be
because the player says "I'm going to get shot up if I try this", not because
the rules say "a tank can't move faster than
6mph--not even a grav tank in a hurry".
> Allan Goodall wrote:
[...]
> > 4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
So, out of curiousity, what is our antiquated view, and what should it
be corrected to? :-)
Mk
Just a couple of comments to Allan's posts:
> Finally, one thing Oerjan really would like to see modeled isn't so
On the StarGrunt timescale, at least. In DirtSide OTOH I'd rate the speed as
more important, since the DS game turn represents a much longer period of
time.
Note that what TomB refers to as "sprint speed" is basically the same as
what I and Allan were talking about when we discussed "acceleration" -
ie.,
the time it takes to start at stand-still at point A, get up to speed,
move to a nearby point B and come to a full stop again. For short sprints the
vehicle usually won't reach its top speed before it has to slow down again,
so acceleration rate is all-important for determining how far and fast
the vehicle can sprint; but since we really don't want to track the vehicle's
current speed all the time it is easier to use a "sprint speed" rating instead
of an explicit "acceleration" rating.
> I may have it backwards,
Same accel, not higher. Depends on what mark of Merkava you're looking at,
of course - the earlier ones were a bit underpowered, giving the
Merkavas a reputation for sluggishness.
Also, the top speed depends on the terrain. The Abrams is faster than the
Merkava over *flat* terrain, but in *rough* terrain the Merkava is faster due
to its more advanced suspension... when the ride is bumpy, the main limitation
on combat vehicle speeds is how fast you can drive without
bashing the crew to bits :-/
Finally, a comment for Infojunky: There aren't that many pure infantry
military actions left nowadays, unless you look at conflicts like the Afghani
civil war prior to US involvement or the war between Eritrea and
Ethiopia. As soon as any western power gets involved, even small-scale
actions in close urban terrain tend to involve armoured (or at least
protected) vehicles - and in wartime, these vehicles are very rarely
limited to the speed of crawling grunts. Police work during (nominal)
peacetime in (supposedly) friendly areas could easily be different, of course;
since so few police forces use our products I tend to see a lot more military
AARs than police ones.
Later,
> Indy wrote:
> >>4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
For starters, the view (used eg. by DS2) that reactive armour is effective
against HEAT warheads but has no effect against KE projectiles. That *used*
to be the case 20-30 years ago; but nowadays it can just as easily be
the
other way around - some current types of RA are very effective against
KE (especially APFSDS), while tandem HEAT warheads are usually pretty good at
negating RA (some more so than others)... and of course there are new
RA-resistant KE projectiles underway, and new RAs capable of handling
the more advanced tandem HEAT warheads. No doubt there will soon be new
improved anti-KE RAs and similarly improved RA-negating HEATs. It all
depends on where in the weapon-vs-armour arms race development cycle you
happen to be at the moment :-/
Later,
Hi folks,
I'm joining this discussion very late in the game after not reading my list
traffic for a week and catching up, etc etc.
I'm not sure if this point has been addressed yet (since I've not finished all
the messages and don't want to forget about answering this one), but:
> Allan wrote:
> Now, this may not be possible. An attacking tank will have to be wary
> moves. It may be too drastic to have them roll 2D12 for combat
This is how the vehicle movement rules in SGII work already.
p23 "Vehicles have the same two movement options as infantry, that is Normal
movement to a fixed distance, or Combat movement according to a die roll."
I've always played it this way, and find that vehicles move *more than fast
enough*. Any faster and they'll be unbalancing, without adding a whole
boatload of *other* rules to compensate.
Jon addresses this point specifically later in the Vehicle Movement section on
page 23.
FWIW, this discussion puts me in Allan's "the rules are ok the way they are"
camp. I agree that using vehicles more extensively and keeping the
game "balanced" (perhaps I should say "enjoyably playable") would require
quite a bit of modification/addition to the rules, for many of the
reasons Allan (and TomB) point out (though I take issue with the whole
"they're too
slow" thing - I don't agree on this one). However, I also agree with
what
Jon says on page 31 in the introduction to the Vehicles section - mostly
they're "totally unsuited to the kind of battle we are trying to simulate in
SGII."
That isn't to say adding rules is a bad thing - just that in the end it
seems to be making a 25mm scale sort-of-Dirtside, more than anything
else...
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/1/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:52:56 -0500 (EST)
> Allan made some good points (as always). Though I do feel I have
Hey, I never said I invented it! *L* In truth, I can't remember if I came to
it on my own, or if I got the idea from Chris (Laserlight), or if I got the
idea in a conversation with Chris. I'm thinking it was more
likely the second one. At any rate, I was willing to credit Chris with it just
to be safe, but maybe he stole it from you? *L*
I think I've heard of other people doing this. It might be one of those
spontaneous things, where it seems so obvious that several people invent
it simultaneously.
> How do I simulate a Merkava? If I don't mistake it, there can be 4 MGs
This extends to squads, too. There's no reason that a squad with two support
weapons and regular small arms couldn't engage in three or more targets,
splitting up their firepower as necessary. The RAW strictly forbid this. It's
one fire action per target.
An example of this would be a Red Team squad on a hill spur defending against
three Blue Team squads approaching it from three different directions. Red
squad could fire at only two Blue squads. The third can not be fired upon.
This runs up against another issue, the requirement that missile weapons in a
squad fire with their own action.
I would be in favour of allowing a squad to split its fire among as many
targets as it wants, but using up both actions to do so. However, this rule
doesn't help with vehicles, and I'd prefer to use the same general rule for
vehicles as I would for infantry.
Would it be good enough to allow units, all units, to split fire among
multiple targets with a single Fire Action, but at a drop in Quality Level?
For my rationale, let's go back to Red Squad on the hill spur. They could
spend a single action firing in every direction, but their Quality Die would
drop a level due to the Squad Leader being so busy that he can't direct fire
adequately against any one target.
Three other options: 1) drop the Quality Die one level per target after the
first target (Quality Die down 1 for 2 targets, down 2 for three targets, down
3 for four targets, etc.), or 2) the Squad Leader can associate himself with
one attack, which would be resolved at the normal
Quality Die, but all other attacks are shifted down 1, 3) a combination of 1
and 2. Regardless of the option used, the player can always fire at
one target with a single action at no penalty. And one infantry weapon could
only fire at a single target per activation.
This brings up yet _another_ point. The above rules still limit a single
weapon (like a support weapon) to a single target. A great many weapons can
engage more than one target in 3 to 5 minutes. I touched on this previously
with regard to turret traverse rules. A modern MBT could engage quite a few
targets in 3 minutes, yet in SG2 it's allowed to fire
only once per activation. How do we handle that?
How do we handle weapons like HMGs that suppress areas and not individual
squads? Right now all fire is aimed at an enemy squad, when in reality an HMG
has a specific area it deals with. What happens if the
HMG wants to defend an area that is covered by two squads? Why can't the
HMG engage both squads? I came across this same problem in _Hardtack_
(SG2 rules for the American Civil War). Canister fire from a cannon would rip
into a line of men. It very rarely only hit one squad. It's easy enough to
apply these sorts of weapons to multiple squads, but then
you get the player's God's Eye View interfering again. They will deliberately
fire so that the weapon hits more than one squad in an effort to gains
suppression and Confidence Tests on as many squads as possible, instead of
firing for the most damaging effect. I haven't playtested this enough to know
how big an issue this is.
As you can see, once you start down the path to fixing some of these things,
you very soon begin to think, "Gee, maybe I should just write a whole new set
of rules."
> Also, the real issue is sprint speeds: If my tank has to go from A to
Yes, you're right. Oerjan and I were discussing acceleration, but "sprint
speed" may be more accurate, because it takes into account acceleration and
top speed.
In
> the game, let us say it will take at least 2 turns (3 moves of 12").
That's something like
> (for the sake of argument) 3 to 10 minutes, depending how you want to
seconds.
The M1A1 Abrams takes 7 seconds to get to 20 mph. That works out to a speed of
about 536 metres per minute. That's in the ballpark of 40
seconds to travel 300 metres _once it gets to 20 mph_ (it would take
33.55 seconds to travel 300 metres at that speed, and 7 seconds to get up to
that speed, but I'm not taking into account the distance the Abrams already
traveled in those 7 seconds). That assumes that the Abrams stops accelerating
when it hits 20 mph, which is less than half it's top speed. Under hard
acceleration I think you'd be fair to say that the Abrams could dash those 300
metres in half a minute. If you
want the Abrams to _stop_ once it traveled 300 metres, you'd be better
off using the 40 second number.
> I wrote up rules for tank riders long ago as well. I see they are not
You e-mailed some of this to me already, but I'd be very happy to see
them on Stargrunt.ca.
> Giving vehicles combat moves with minimum values for acceleration
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. Perhaps the easiest rule would be
to half the minimum speed on slippery ground.
Ice and snow, though, should probably be in a rule all by themselves. For
instance, how do you handle a tracked vehicle laterally across an
ice-covered slope? (The _Phoenix Command Mechanized System_ does a
reasonably good job of modeling vehicle movement.)
> Allan's 'speed based on powerplant' isn't a bad idea either, though he
Yes, I realize that.
I will probably make power plant costs dependent on the vehicle's size
class. I probably would _not_ go the more realistic route and have the
power plant's capacity point cost increase based on what you put on the
vehicle. That's what real vehicle designers have to worry about, and --
if I'm remembering correctly -- _Striker_ did this, too. As someone else
pointed out, SG2's vehicle design system is pretty simple, and they like
it that way.
> It would also be nice to be able to carom a civilian car at high
That's an interesting idea.
> I think the Turret issue is interesting. I usually make my players
That's essentially what I wrote up about turret facing.
> Another vehicle issue: How to represent an AIFV like the Cav Scout
The rules already sort of handle that. Remember that you can have a vehicle as
a detached element or have it operate as an independent unit.
Most people make it independent because of the messed up nature of the
detached element rules. However, if you have the vehicle as a detached
element, you can activate it and the squad simultaneously.
My preference would be for a group activation rule. You can already activate
multiple units in the game for the purposes of close assault. I
would like a rule that allowed a vehicle and its passengers to activate
simultaneously.
> Another distinction that makes for an interesting change is
That's something I was alluding to, above. I wonder if that would make
overwatch units overly powerful. I suspect not, because they are giving up
mobility in order to attack all units that show themselves. It does illustrate
the need for some sort of indirect fire capability for taking
out a MG nest. That means organic mortars, or similar. Those players who
"don't play with the artillery rules" aren't going to like this overwatch
implementation, but there's a reason that mortars and the like
are assigned to company level (and lower) units.
I like this idea, Tom, as you can probably guess from my comments. A few
things:
1. For it to work properly, the rule needs to incorporate spotting. How do you
incorporate a spotting rule that doesn't bog down the game? I certainly
wouldn't want to roll a die each activation for each unit for each potential
target. Obviously anything within LOS is fair game, but what about enemy
targets under cover?
2. A tank, with enough ammunition, can engage a lot of targets in the time
period of an SG2 turn. This is represented by a tank in Overwatch being able
to engage anything that rolls along. What about a tank that fires in direct
fire mode? Surely that tank can fire at a bunch of targets too, can't it? Just
allowing OW units to fire at lots of targets
unfairly hampers tanks not on OW. So, I see every tank, or APC in the game
going on OW, especially if we divorce the movement actions from the
fire actions. Is there anything wrong with this approach? And, have we made
the Fire Action (as opposed to the Overwatch Action) obsolete?
(As an aside: Advanced Squad Leader is a ugo-igo system, but with
interactive turns. Most of a unit's effective firing occurs during the
_other_ player's turn.)
3. I don't want to keep track of ammunition, unless there's a scenario
specific reason, or a vehicle has limited loads (i.e. missiles). Should there
be some sort of limiter to this activity, based on ammunition? ASL
did it by having a breakdown number that represented ammunition issues, jams,
etc. Would something similar be worthwhile?
4. If this approach is extended to all weapons, how do you prevent an HMG on a
hill top engaging all targets in a 360 degree arc? Realistically a HMG can be
moved around in 3 to 5 minutes in order to engage all targets, but
realistically HMGs are set up to suppress a given area within a cone of fire.
I suppose you could require HMGs and
other heavy weapons in fixed (i.e. non-turret) mounts to use up an
action to change facing, but allow them to engage anything within a 90 degree
cone. Then the question becomes, "Do we extend this capability to
infantry, or still leave them at firing at one target per action, and one fire
action per weapon per activation?"
5. This opportunity fire has to go hand-in-hand with the concept of
sprinting. Let's say I have a tank on a hill, and you have an APC crossing a
road, moving from behind one house, then out in the open, and
then behind another house. If I'm pointed down the same road as you are
crossing, I should be able to fire at you. If my turret is pointing 180
degrees away from you, I probably shouldn't have enough time to slew the
turret toward you and fire at you. What's the limiter?
I'm thinking that a gun should be able to engage anything up to 45 degrees
from the direction it's pointing (or 30 degrees, or whatever) the moment the
target comes within LOS. Any other target can be engaged,
but only after the tank rotates the turret, which happens after the target
completes its turn. This results in two more issues.
a. If the target is sprinting across a narrow street, there should be a
negative modifier for firing at the target even if the tank is pointing at it.
How do you decide this modifier? Shift the Range Die Up x shifts for y inches
moved? Realistically, the shift should be based on how far the target moved
with respect to how far it could move. Up 2 for moving
1/4 the target's maximum movement rate traveled or less, up 1 for half
distance or less, etc. Would that work?
b. If your APC was moving down the road instead of across it, I should be able
to turn the turret and engage you while you were still moving. It would be
unfair for you to dash onto a road, move 11" and dash behind
a building without me having a chance of slewing the turret around to engage.
How would you handle that? Off the top of my head, allow a
turret to turn 90 degrees for every 1/4 of the target's maximum movement
traveled. Would you allow the turret to fire as soon as it completed the
turn, or after another 1/4 move was made?
As I mentioned before, the deeper you go, the more work you have to do. And
the further away you're getting from "Stargrunt II".
> Maybe each crewman on a vehicle effectively gets two actions (how FMAS
I'd personally like to stay away from actually defining crew positions,
because that is very FMAS. You will have players micromanaging vehicle crews.
"Okay, the loader will fire the main gun once, and the coax once,
that's his two actions. The gunner will fire the main gun... hold on, he
has another action. If I use the commander to spot, and fire the top machine
gun, I can use the gunner's other action to spot. Ah, but if the
commander already spots, the gunner can operate the radio... uh, what did I
say the loader was doing?" See what I'm saying?
Since SG2 is about squads, not individuals, I would split vehicles into
mobility and attack groups and give each two actions. What I'm not sure is how
to handle the transfer of actions from the commander. If the commander gets
two actions, can he really only get the vehicle to move
_or_ fire while he spends some time spotting? How about: the commander
gets two actions. He can transfer an action, which gives the vehicle two
actions of their own. One could be for weapons fire and one can be for
movement, or two can be for movement, or two can be for fire. If he transfers
both his actions, he could give out four actions total, but each "segment" of
the vehicle (move and fire) can only do a maximum of two actions.
Did that rambling sentence make sense? Or would people prefer to go the
"activate each crew member" route?
> likely the second one. At any rate, I was willing to credit Chris
"I am never forget the day when I first met the great mathematician, Nikolai
Ivanovich Lobachevsky..."
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Finally, a comment for Infojunky: There aren't that many pure infantry
> military actions left nowadays, unless you look at conflicts like the
Yes I agree with you there, and for open field battles SG2 is not the rule
set, you can use them, but the force management and tactical issue snowball
very quickly.
> As soon as any western power gets involved, even small-scale
Yes, but neither are they moving at a constant speeds in excess of the
infantry, Though there are points where they will out run or charge ahead to
provide cover for their supporting troops. In these situations the rules are
lacking. That is the genesis of the various solutions covering movement and
fire and activations.
> Police work during (nominal)
> course; since so few police forces use our products I tend to see a
At least here in the US it was surprising how often skills learning in the
jungle where required for safe operations in urban areas. Police work actually
require far greater risks than close order fire combat, the number of times I
wished for a armored vehicle support when making a
traffic stop on a dark desert night with no backup.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> This extends to squads, too. There's no reason that a squad with two
> that missile weapons in a squad fire with their own action.
> rule doesn't help with vehicles, and I'd prefer to use the same
Instead of a new rule why not reorganise your forces? Weapons teams are often
only given gereral enguagement orders and fire on their own intative. Instead
of one "squad" why not Two oe Three sections? i.e. a main rifle team with
attached SAW, then your attached weapons team. all under the same leader.
> Would it be good enough to allow units, all units, to split fire among
> multiple targets with a single Fire Action, but at a drop in Quality
> could only fire at a single target per activation.
Food for thought, though it might still be more efficant to breack down to
mutiple teams.
> This brings up yet _another_ point. The above rules still limit a
Still working on this one, though at least for vehicle.... Naw got to go
read....
> How do we handle weapons like HMGs that suppress areas and not
> in reality an HMG has a specific area it deals with. What happens if
Beaten zone rules.... Yes, a general supression fire rule might be nice,
deignate a area that you are using automatic weapons to supress.
> As you can see, once you start down the path to fixing some of these
Yes I have run into this problem many times, one of the reasons I gave up on
40k.
> I wrote up rules for tank riders long ago as well. I see they are not
> up on stargrunt.ca
Still mulling this over....
> It would also be nice to be able to carom a civilian car at high
Find a copy of CarWars.
I'm replying to a bunch of stuff all at once here.
> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:19:24 +0100 From: Infojunky
I don't disagree, though in the far future you have to take GEV and grav
vehicles into account, too.
> One of the reasons for my change in vehicle rules is to allow
DS2 doesn't handle vehicle-on-vehicle, it handles
vehicle-platoon-on-vehicle-platoon. I wasn't clear when I replied to
you, but later on I pointed out that I wanted the ability to do something like
10 tanks versus 10 tanks. That's too small a scale for DS2.
> Ah, I see now. Your hung up on the the time scale. Ok I see the basis
You can't help but be "hung up on time scale". We know how far a unit can move
in an activation, both in combat and off road. We know the ground scale. So,
we know how far a unit can travel in an ambiguous amount of time (the turn).
Comparing this to the real world, we get a time scale, whether we want one or
not.
> It may be too drastic to have them roll 2D12 for combat movement.
Yeah, like that.
It's been a while since I read the rule book all the way through. I did it
when I first bought the game. I did it when I wrote the SG2 index, which is on
my web site. I also read most of it two years ago when I began work on a board
game implementation of SG2. I have it fixed in my head that someone told me in
GenCon that vehicles can't do combat moves, so I don't think I've played them.
The problem with being stuck mostly playing solitaire or with people you've
taught is that this kind of mistake goes unchecked.
I'll begin using combat moves for vehicles all the time... if I ever get to
play SG2 again.
By the way, please let me know if there's any interest in a board game
implementation of SG2. You'd need your own boards (ASL or Squad Leader boards
work well), but I've finished the rules. All that needs to be done is a
tweaking of counter sheets. I have counter sheets suitable for humans, and for
Phalons.
> Now that is a good idea. Kinda. How much detail do we really need in
I was hoping to keep it simple, in keeping with the rules themselves. As I
mentioned earlier, perhaps giving a vehicle a minimum for their combat move
would suffice.
> Now that could work. Maybe beyond Bugs don't Surf, Jon might want to
Jon promised BDS when SG2 came out in 1996. So far the only work to be
"published" for BDS are the Phalon beta test rules that I came up with (and
which are on my site). It's unlikely we'll see BDS before FMAS, so it's
unlikely we'll get BDS before SG2's tenth anniversary. At this rate, you can
probably start hoping for a vehicle book sometime in 2012. *grin*
> The eighties and nineties Navel Special Forces at Subic in the
It really doesn't surprise me that a drunken Admiral is the same as a drunken
anybody else. *L*
> Gonna have to play that one, but it looks like a keeper.
That seems to be the consensus, what little consensus we get in the SG2
community anyway.
> Humm..... A sensor vs Stealth kit opposed roll thingy.... Might not
Either that or incorporate stealth and sensors into the to-hit roll.
> The hard part is to figure out what needs a real change or just a
Or what should just go into your own, do-it-yourself rules... After a
while my brain starts to hurt!
> I've seen a lot of games where combat takes place on what's
That's the point. Many players tend not to enough terrain on a board.
> Yes, reread that section Small rapid fire cannow should get their
I'll have to do that, but my understanding is that _all_ heavy weapons
do D8 impact on dispersed targets. Do you know, off hand, what page to check.
I should have it in the index, but I suspect it's not there. (Time to work on
the index, again?)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
That's exactly what I'd like to accomplish.
> From: Indy <kochte@stsci.edu>
I just noticed that Oerjan replied to this. The antiquated view was that
reactive armour was only good against HEAT, and no good against KE. As he
pointed out, the truth is far more complex than that.
> From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
I should have been clearer that I was talking SG2, solely.
> Same accel, not higher. Depends on what mark of Merkava you're
Thanks for the clarification! I wish I had a good book on modern armour.
> From: Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca>
I explained my mistake on this, above, but thank you for the clarification!
> However, I also agree with what Jon says on page 31 in the
Unfortunately the type of battle that Jon is trying to simulate is very much
in the minority today, and probably in the future. It's fine for special ops
games, or pure infantry games, but I simply prefer something that could handle
a more typical combat. As I've said in the past, you could take SG2 and with
only a little bit of tweaking come out with a nifty Vietnam War game.
Also, I'd like to use the mechanics in SG2 for some tank-on-tank
battles. Granted that _these_ aren't very typical, either, but they are
just as much a staple of sci-fi as infantry-only battles.
> That isn't to say adding rules is a bad thing - just that in the end
Except that Dirtside is very much played with a group of tanks as the basic
maneuvering unit. I want something lower level than that. The ideas we had for
vehicles in FMAS on the playtest list might work, too,
but they are missing a lot of chrome and they are probably _too_
detailed for what I want.
> > I would be in favour of allowing a squad to split its fire among
IIRC, Squad Leader gives autofire weapons a Rate of Fire number. If you roll
better than that number, you can attack with that weapon again.
I'm also inclined to make fireteams, not squads, the maneuver unit for SG,
which would help a bit....but that's an old debate.
> Infojunky wrote:
> Finally, a comment for Infojunky: There aren't that many pure infantry
> military actions left nowadays, unless you look at conflicts like the
I'm not talking about "open field battles". I'm talking about your typical
ambush of a patrol or supply convoy in Baghdad, February 2005. SG2 is not the
rule set for that kind of action either, because it can't replicate the
way the real-world vehicles are reported to move - I almost daily get
new
comments from people in Iraq now of convoys and QRFs moving at 50+ mph,
or
MBTs chasing or moving to cut off withdrawing insurgents at 30+ mph.
Good luck using SG2 for that kind of actions.
> As soon as any western power gets involved, even small-scale actions
Of course they don't move at "constant speeds". They almost invariably move in
stops and starts. The point is that when they move *at all* they very
often do so at speeds far in excess of what infantry can manage. In SG2,
they're restricted to move at constant speeds roughly *similar* to what the
infantry can manage.
> Though there are points where they will out run or charge ahead to
And these situations are pretty common in today's combat. An even more
common situation is when vehicles are used to *rapidly re-deploy
infantry* to reinforce a beleagured outpost or to outflank or encircle an
enemy position; that too is impossible in SG2 simply because the vehicles
can't move anywhere near as fast as they can in the real world.
> Police work during (nominal) peacetime in (supposedly) friendly areas
Very true. However, it is also true that last year's Thunder Runs through
Baghdad (and less famously Basra) and the subsequent actions revised quite
a lot of the "conventional wisdom" about urban combat - particularly
with
respect to how vehicles can be used in built-up areas.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Very true. However, it is also true that last year's Thunder Runs
Gonna have to diggin and read some.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/3/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:00:03 +0100
> Instead of a new rule why not reorganise your forces? Weapons teams
> main rifle team with attached SAW, then your attached weapons team.
all
> under the same leader.
Chris (Laserlight) mentioned that the fire team issue is another that
pops up from time-to-time.
Chris described the benefit of using fire teams. A lot of folk on the list
have implemented them, too, usually with some simple rule that makes each fire
team an individual squad. There are a few issues with this approach:
1. Fireteams exist within a squad structure. They train to mutually support
one another. If you simply organize your units so that the fireteam is a unit
you lose the squad level of organization completely. You can have the fireteam
of one squad on one side of the board while the other fireteam of a squad is
on the opposite side of the board with no ill effect. You really need to add
rules to give players an incentive
to keep fireteams together as part of a squad.
2. SG2's morale is pretty forgiving. As written, you only have to make the
more serious Confidence Tests when a squad has lost more than half of its
troops in a single attack (I'm ignoring artillery and aerospace attacks here).
Smaller squads have an advantage in that they are usually down to a single man
by the time they get a Broken result, if even then. The smaller the squad, the
more likely it will be destroyed before it can break or rout. So, if you model
your fireteams as essentially small squads, morale effects within the game
become fairly diluted. Now, there's an obvious solution to this: use one
Confidence Marker per squad, with casualties to each fireteam in a squad
contributing to the squad's overall Confidence. However, this is a little bit
different from simply making each fireteam a unit on its own.
As such, some rules need to be spelled out. There are other folks who will
say, "Sorry, but no, each fireteam should have its own Confidence Marker."
Example: one fireteam is under artillery attack and another is not. Should the
other fireteam's morale suffer because part of the squad
is under artillery fire?
3. What purpose is served by the Squad Leader? Modern U.S. infantry squads
consist of 9 men in two fireteams of 4, plus a squad leader. What
does this squad leader do when you have fireteams as independent units? Is he
just a part of one fireteam with no benefit other than adding to the firepower
die? Or should he have some sort of benefit to the squad as a whole?
Now, these items are fairly picky. Item #1 is often ignored if players don't
really care, and in some cases there are good reasons for having fireteams
split up. Some folks believe item #3 isn't an issue, that it's
a little too detailed for SG2's scale anyway. Item #2 is the big one for
game balance.
As you probably guessed, I've been working on fireteam rules, too, which
would probably address these problems. I'll post them once I get some of
the kinks out of them (such as making sure they work for the Phalons, and some
historical units, that have more than 2 fireteams per squad).
> Beaten zone rules.... Yes, a general supression fire rule might be
That's a good idea, and one I've seen used in other games.
(from your other e-mail)
> A link please....
My main web page is http://www.hyperbear.com. The Beast gave you the URL
to the Phalon playtest rules (thanks, Beast!).
> It really doesn't surprise me that a drunken Admiral is the same as a
Quite true. Mind you, alcohol abuse is quite common in military command
circles.
> Looking at what I wrote... I reread that section. It indicates all
That's cool. That's a workable fix, too.
> 25mm.... Ick..... 15mm much better..... (I'm a scale fan.)
I prefer playing SG2 in 15mm scale, too. When I have the room, I play it
in 15mm with 25mm scale (i.e. 1" = 10 metres). It is possible to play 15mm in
metric, though (1 cm = 10 metres).
By the way, the game seems to be more "realistic" if you assume a scale of 1"
= 15 metres, instead.
Allan said:
> 1. If you simply organize your units so that the
That's why I suggested allowing the SL to pass activations, plus it allows the
SL to "motivate the men" or "direct his squad's fire", as was historically
done. This handles Allan's Point 3 also.
> 2. Now, there's an obvious solution to this: use one Confidence
<big grin> so obvious even I can come up with it...
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/6/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:55:29 -0400
> That's why I suggested allowing the SL to pass activations, plus it
As I pointed out later, in the back of my mind I was thinking about squads of
three fire teams, and how they would be less effective. I'll
write a little more about this in a later e-mail.
> 2. Now, there's an obvious solution to this: use one Confidence
Unfortunately, what I wrote isn't what I meant.
What I meant was: use one Confidence Marker per fire team, with casualties to
each fire team in a squad contributing to the squad's overall Confidence. In
other words, each fire team would have their own Confidence Marker, but what
happened to the squad as a whole would effect each fire team.
I figured that fire teams would make Confidence Tests as per the normal rules
(or, rather, the variation I have on my web site). Additionally, a
fire team would make a Confidence Test with the following Threat Levels
(for Low/Medium/High motivation troops):
- Other fire team in the squad breaks: 2/1/0
- Other fire team in the squad routs: 4/3/1
- Other fire team in the squad is eliminated (all figures are
casualties): 4/3/1
As a clarification, a fire team would still make a 4/3/1 test when half
of the squad is eliminated (this is one of my house rules). When a squad
leader becomes a casualty, all fire teams in a squad must make a 4/3/2
Confidence Test. One thing I'm not sure is if _all_ fire teams should
get a suppression marker when a squad leader is a casualty, as per the rules
on page 10. I'm leaning toward "Yes".
From: Allan Goodall
> What I meant was: use one Confidence Marker per fire team, with
I kind of concur but I'm not clear on how you see this working. Let's say you
have 3 teams of 3 men. Team A and B lose 2 each, Team C loses 1. This means
that A and B test for >50% twice (once for the team, again for the squad) and
C tests once (for the squad only). Is this what you have in mind?
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> What I meant was: use one Confidence Marker per fire team, with
> Confidence Test. One thing I'm not sure is if _all_ fire teams should
> rules on page 10. I'm leaning toward "Yes".
I would tend to agree with the Yes on the squad lead being killed check.
What you have laid out does address the interdependance of small units, and
looks playable.
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> From: Allan Goodall
I have those sorts of questions too.... But they need some board time to
figure out where the problems are.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/7/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:22:29 -0400
Not quite. The number of tests depends on the order in which the men were
lost, and I would probably forgo the "squad lost half its men" test
if a fire team lost half its men.
Here's an example without that last caveat, and using your squad of 3 teams of
3 men.
1. Team A loses 2 men during an enemy activation. The other teams have taken
no casualties. Team A makes a Confidence Test based on losing half
their team (as per my house rules this would be a TL 4/2/1 test;
according to the RAW it would only be a 2/1/NTR test since the fire team
had not lost more troopers in one attack than the squad had left).
Team B and Team C would not make a test.
2. Team B loses two men during another enemy activation. The squad would
take the same test as Team A.
3. Team C loses one man during a third enemy activation. They would make
a test for having lost a single figure. This would be a 2/1/NTR test.
Each team, Team A, Team B, and Team C would then have to test for the
_squad_ being down to half strength or less.
To simplify things, we can say that a squad only makes a single Confidence
Test as a result of a single attack that causes casualties. The test would be
the worst of all possible tests. So, if a fire team took a single casualty and
that brought the squad to half strength, the "squad at half strength" test
would apply. Here's how it would work:
1. Team A loses 2 men during an enemy activation. They make a confidence
test, as above.
2. Team B loses 2 men during an enemy activation. They make a confidence
test, as above.
3. Team C loses 1 man during an enemy activation. This puts the squad at
half strength. Since the "squad is at half strength or less" Confidence Test
is worse than the "lose a single man" Confidence Test, the fire team would
only roll once, for the squad being at half strength. Team A and Team B would
also have to make the same test.
Here's another example. All three fire teams are within the blast area of an
artillery attack. Team A loses 2 men, Team B loses 2 men, and Team
C loses 1 man. This brings the squad to half strength, so each fire team
would make a Confidence Test based on the squad being at half strength.
Here's a third example. All three fire teams are within the blast area of an
artillery attack. Team A loses 2 men, Team B loses 1 man, and Team
C loses 1 man. This does _not_ bring the squad to half strength. Using
my rules, Fire Team A would make a 4/2/1 Confidence Test (with a
+2/+1/+0 modifier for being under artillery attack). Using the RAW, Fire
Team A would make a 2/1/NTR test with the same modifier. In either case,
Fire Team B and Fire Team C would make 2/1/NTR tests.
> On Mar 28, 2005 4:28 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
> The one problem I have with your suggestion has to do with the vehicle
SG2's vehicle system is tacked on as an afterthought.
It's a light infantry game designed by a former light infantryman. Personally,
I would be loath to include any vehicles other than perhaps jeeps or simillar.
Look at the ranges. If 1" = 10m, then your average 72" playing surface is
under the effective range of a GPMG. Never mind tank guns. You want tank
duels, play DS.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> SG2's vehicle system is tacked on as an afterthought.
IIRC neither Jon nor Mike (Elliott) has any serious military experience, so
SG2 is more like a light infantry game designed by someone who has read
military novels (SF and otherwise) written by former infantrymen :-/
> Personally, I would be loath to include any vehicles other than
So very few scenarios set in Baghdad 2005, then...
> You want tank duels, play DS.
Unfortunately I can't even play "infantry ambush a tank in constricted
terrain" properly using the SG2 rules :-(
Regards,
> On Apr 10, 2005 12:47 AM, Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >Personally, I would be loath to include any vehicles other than
True, that. Unfortunately the problem with scenarios set in Baghdad 2005 is
that the disparity in force quality and equipment makes for difficult scenario
design.
A stated goal is to not have armored vehicle 'overwhelm' the game.
Fine--but a realistic portrayal of modern armor vehicles is pretty
overwhelming. So it's a choice of evils. Jon decided to downgrade armored
vehicles to keep it a light infantry game.
> On 26 Mar 2005, at 20:30, Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> So, in conclusion, I would very much like to see a Taveller-based
> at BITS isn't going to do it because he has "At Close Quarters."
<delurking late to the party having been in Oz when this started>
Actually, ACQ is not in competition with DSII as it is really a skirmish game.
A revamped ACQ is planned, in the queue after Power Projection:
Reinforcements.
As to licensing, you are correct that you'd need to either use an existing
Traveller licensee or get a license directly from Marc Miller. And you'd need
to come to an arrangement with Jon.
Cheers,
> On 27 Mar 2005, at 19:38, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Note also that Mayday, High Guard, Brilliant Lances, etc. all existed
PP:E and PP:F were a labour of love and started as something fun. In honesty,
if I'd known the effort they've taken I may have thought twice. But then I
look at them like a happy father.
There is a market for decent Traveller material, even wargame style material.
QLI and SJG aren't really addressing that area.
Cheers.
> On 26 Mar 2005, at 01:34, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I note that some nice fellows over at BITS (British Islands Traveller
British Isles Traveller Support.
Power Projection: Fleet and Power Projection: Escort are both the same engine.
Fleet has campaign rules, details for spinals and conversion rules from High
Guard designs. Escort deals with little ships, and beyond 12 extra small
escorts, is completely included in Fleet. Escort is the pick up and play 60 to
90 min a game version whereas Fleet is for more protracted engagements.
The rules were developed from FT2 pre-FB, High Guard 2nd Edition and
Mayday. The FT combat system evolved into a table with mods (as Traveller has
far more options) but the standard battery roll is visibly FT. Movement
actually came from Mayday, but ended up something very close to Fleet Book 2.
Pretty much everything else is either
homebrw from 5 years of playtests or Traveller-sourced. Jon T was a
major source of support and encouragement throughout.
Cheers,
> Dom Mooney wrote:
> Power Projection: Fleet and Power Projection: Escort are both the same
Speaking of which: Dom, would it be possible to get those 12 extra small
escorts *without* buying the entire PP:E set? Eg., by including them in the
PP:Fleet Book you've talked about elsewhere...?
Later,
> On 1 May 2005, at 11:38, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> Speaking of which: Dom, would it be possible to get those 12 extra
At the moment, that would depend on size of the new book and how Andy feels
about duplicating the material. One of the ships is on the website in the
errata for PP:Lite.
If it came to a choice between new material and reprinting then my call would
be for new material. In reality, the new book (Power Projection:
Reinforcements being the working title) should give a lot more options for
PP:E and PP:F, as it is at least 30 new ships of all sizes (including the High
Guard designs). Will probably be a lot more than that, as I want to include a
fair few merchants etc.
I'll bear in mind that what you've asked here when it gets to the final book.
I'm guessing it'll be around the same size as PP:F by the time we finish.
Cheers,