The good Mr.Atkison's post induced me to sit down and make concrete some ideas
I've had for a while. They stem from several list threads: the one I started
as a lark concerning the Soviet KPV; the thread concerning the need
to improve RFAC/light MDC performance vs. infantry; and the idea I had
for a SAVR. I tried to synthesize them in some ideas for some more expanded
weapons for DS II. Here's what I came up with:
I have expanded APSW's into several classes: APSW/L; APSW/M; APSW/H; and
DP
APSW/H. Let me define each one:
APSW/L (Light): This would encompass SAW's and other similar light
machine guns. Per standard rules, they are already figured in to the firepower
of a rifle element, so I do not give them any extra abilities for infantry.
However, I came up with a rule for their use by vehicles:
Space and costing: A vehicle may replace an APSW/M (see below) with two
APSW/L's. An APSW/L Costs 2 points for costing.
Range and Damage: APSW/L's have a range of 6" and draw 1 damage chit,
validities are as for infantry weapons.
APSW/M (Medium): This encompasses most standard medium machine guns,
like modern 7.62 mm stuff. This is the category that follows standard DSII
rules for APSW's.
APSW/H (Heavy): This category encompasses weapons like the .50 cal HMG,
14.5 mm KPV, as well as grenade launchers like the Mk. 19. They are even
deadlier
vs. infantry, and have limited anti-vehicle capabilities.
Space and costing: an APSW/H takes up 2 spaces and is full traverse. In
addition, it must be purchased with FireCon like larger weapons. An HPSW costs
5 points.
Range and damage: APSW/H's have a range of 15". Against infantry they
draw 4 chits, infantry weapon validities. Against vehicles they draw 1 chit.
Range bands and validities are: Close: 5", red chits only; Medium: 10", yellow
chits only; Long: 15", yellow chits only, at half value (round down). All
special chits except system down (firer) are disregarded vs armor class 4 or
heavier.
DP (Dual Purpose) APSW/H: This is an APSW/H that has been equipped for
use as an air defense weapon as well as ground capabilities.
Space and cost: A DP APSW/H takes up 3 spaces and costs 80 points.
Game use: A DP APSW/H can be used as both an APSW/H AND a LADS.
New rules for RFAC/light MDC use vs. infantry:
Increase the cost of RFAC's to 7 x weapons class, and MDC 1's and 2's to 11 x
weapons class.
Following are the new dmages for RFAC's and MDC 's 1&2 vs. infantry:
Long range: 1 chit for class 1 RFAC's & MDC's, 2 chits for class 2 -
Yellow Chits only Medium range: 2 Chits for class 1, 3 chits for class 2, red
chits only Short range: 3 chits for class 1, 4 chits for class 2, red and
yellow chits only Close combat: These weapons may now be used in close combat
along with the vehicle's APSW's. Draw 4 chits for class 1, 5 chits for class
2, all colors valid.
Much nastier now.... thus more expensive
Powered Armor troops may now be equipped with RFAC 1'S
SAVR's: Hopefully these will be the final stats: Cost: 4 points Range: 6" Draw
3 chits, use the same validities as IAVR's. In addition, IAVR and SAVR attacks
vs units with PDS' is the same as against those with APFC's. I read an article
once that claimed that the Afghans used RPG's to some
effectiveness as anti-personnel weapons, and Oerjan mentioned the
beehive
round, so I also suggest SAVR's may fire on infantry like APSW/M's with
a range of 6".
That's it for now....
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Range bands and validities are: Close: 5", red chits only; Medium:
10",
> yellow chits only; Long: 15", yellow chits only, at half value (round
Ah... Chit validity is already fixed for firefights. If you want to fiddle
with it, you need to account for cover. That's the primary
factor in whether or not fire vs. infantry is effective--it doesn't take
much to render a human combat ineffective, and most weapons don't
significantly loose effectiveness before gravity pulls them to the ground.
> SAVR's:
What's that?
If you'll go back and look again, you'll notice I stated that chit
validities vs infantry remained the same - the validities you are
quoting
are vs. VEHICLES, not infantry. APSW/H's draw 4 chits vs. infantry and
use regular infantry firefight validities, and draw 1 chit vs. vehicles and
use the special validities I proposed.
SAVR's are Support Anti-Vehicle Rockets, a heavier version of IAVR's I
proposed a while back and everyone else helped me perfect (hopefully).
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:44:10 -0400
Ah... Chit validity is already fixed for firefights. If you want to fiddle
with it, you need to account for cover. That's the primary
factor in whether or not fire vs. infantry is effective--it doesn't take
much to render a human combat ineffective, and most weapons don't
significantly loose effectiveness before gravity pulls them to the ground.
> SAVR's:
What's that?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> SAVR's are Support Anti-Vehicle Rockets, a heavier version of IAVR's I
Eh? Could you send me a copy of the rules?
You should find them at the bottom of my long post, but here goes again,
with a few more refinements:
SAVR's Cost 4 points. They must be carried by special support elements who
only carry small arms besides them. They have a range of 6". They draw 3 chits
vs. Vehicles, and validities are the same as for IAVR's. At range, they may
also fire special AP rounds (similar to the Beehive round), and
draw 3 chits vs. infantry, infantry firefight validities. This is only at
range, during close combat the draw chits like a GMS or Artillery Spotter
element. As an optional rule, you might want to consider allowing Powered
Armor troops to carry SAVR's as backup instead of IAVR's (But only for
Anti-armor, the anti-personnel capability is already factored into the
PA element). This would be attributable to the increased weight and space
capacity of PA's.
In addition, they should be mountable on vehicles for 1 space. I also
determined (with advice from Oerjan) that PDS' should affect IAVR's and
SAVR's, so any vehicle with a PDS is treated the same as a vehicle with APFC's
for determining damage validities from IAVR and SAVR hits.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:21:39 -0400
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> SAVR's are Support Anti-Vehicle Rockets, a heavier version of IAVR's
Eh? Could you send me a copy of the rules?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Ah... I thought you meant they existed in a SGII format. Out of
curiosity, what does that equate to in modern/historical terms? I mean,
IAVRs are LAW/AT-4 type weapons, and GMS/Ps are the same thing with a
guidance system. I'm having difficulty imagining what the larger one
is--an unguided Dragon?
I tried to answer that question once before, and in doing so betrayed my
utter ignorance of the subtle nuances of anti-tank weaponry. I seem to
recall that it was commented that my only good example was the Karl Gustav.
The basic idea behind the SAVR is any unguided weapon that is A: reloadable
and B: Large enough to be crew serviced, as opposed to the one-man,
one-shot
nature of IAVR's.
I've also been listening to SGII players talk about the GMS/P, and
wondering how to apply it to DSII. There's no need for it as a support
element, since
the GMS/L takes that place. I suppose what you could do is come up with
ranges and damage and cost for it, and allow a rifle element to be equipped
with GMS/P's as anti-tank backup instead of with IAVR's for an increased
cost for the element. Anyone who plays both games, care to comment on that?
Brian Bilderback.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:22:57 -0400
Ah... I thought you meant they existed in a SGII format. Out of
curiosity, what does that equate to in modern/historical terms? I mean,
IAVRs are LAW/AT-4 type weapons, and GMS/Ps are the same thing with a
guidance system. I'm having difficulty imagining what the larger one
is--an unguided Dragon?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> The basic idea behind the SAVR is any unguided weapon that is A:
reloadable
> and B: Large enough to be crew serviced, as opposed to the one-man,
Hrm... given a universe with fairly small, cheap, smart electronics, I'm not
sure where it would fit since you can put a guidance system on
it and call it a GMS/L. But for improvised weapons,
primitive/underindustrialized colony world, etc., it might have a role.
The other example off the top of my head is a Bazooka or a light recoilless
rifle. (name doesn't fit, but the role does. Think a 57mm type).
> I've also been listening to SGII players talk about the GMS/P, and
I could see doing that. Say calling GMS/Ps 2 chits, validity as per
IAVRs, affected by APFCs, 12" range, can be jammed like other GMSs. +10
or 20 points??
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Hrm. . . given a universe with fairly small, cheap, smart electronics,
<snort>
If it was only a question of guidance electronics, we would've built guided
munitions for the Carl Gustav RR five years ago!
Electronics already are small enough, and smart enough (though maybe not cheap
enough for use in a CG round). The problem is that you need
some sort of maneuvering device as well - movable fins, gas generators,
whatever - and they tend to be both bulky and heavy :-(
Later,
The cheap, easy, lo-tech availability is one advantage to them, the
other is the limited AP role, as well a s the fact that if you have someone
with enough balls to carry one within range, they are not spoofed by ECM or
vulnerable to ADS fire, though they are still affected by APFC's (and in my
house rules by PDS).
As for the GMS/P, sounds like you know enough about both games to do the
translation (I don't play SG), but remember with cost that it needs to vary
according to their FireCon quality.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:52:45 -0400
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> The basic idea behind the SAVR is any unguided weapon that is A:
reloadable
> and B: Large enough to be crew serviced, as opposed to the one-man,
Hrm... given a universe with fairly small, cheap, smart electronics, I'm not
sure where it would fit since you can put a guidance system on
it and call it a GMS/L. But for improvised weapons,
primitive/underindustrialized colony world, etc., it might have a role.
The other example off the top of my head is a Bazooka or a light recoilless
rifle. (name doesn't fit, but the role does. Think a 57mm type).
> I've also been listening to SGII players talk about the GMS/P, and
I could see doing that. Say calling GMS/Ps 2 chits, validity as per
IAVRs, affected by APFCs, 12" range, can be jammed like other GMSs. +10
or 20 points??
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> As for the GMS/P, sounds like you know enough about both games to do
OK, +10/+15/+20
I'm still sticking to my free IAVRs and more capable GMS/L teams.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:52:45 -0400, "John M. Atkinson"
> <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
> Hrm. . . given a universe with fairly small, cheap, smart electronics,
In _Living Steel_, the Leading Edge Games sci-fi universe, they had a
weapon called the "lardenfaust". It was a one shot, unguided missile, but it
was big. It was given to the Larden, an alien race (looked like the Gorn from
Star Trek) with a fairly low technology level. In that case, it did sort of
make some kind of sense. Other than that, I concur: throw a guidance pack on
it and
use a GMS/L.
> In _Living Steel_, the Leading Edge Games sci-fi universe, they
I'm visualizing a weapon which shoots blobs of congealed fat...that's almost
as bad as the dreaded "slugthrower".
Again, there ARE several advantages to using SAVR's as WELL as GMS/L's
(Definitely not INSTEAD of, but alongside, or in particular situations): 1)
They're cheap, so you can field more of them. This is especially useful
if you're running a low-budget force.
2) They can't be spoofed by ECM, and their flight distance/time is too
short to be a target for ADS'. Granted, I did suggest a house rule to make
PDS' somewhat effective vs. IAVR's and SAVR's. But it's still a definite help.
3) They are quite useful in urban settings or anywhere where the enemy is
using his armor and infantry in very close proximity to one another. This
means his APFC's will be shut down. So while his ECM is still doing it's
best to stop your GMS/L's, your SAVR's will actually enjoy an increase
in effectiveness.
4) They do enjoy some limited usefulness vs. Infantry, as opposed to
GMS/L's.
5) It's plausible to allow (for a minor increase in points, sy 5 or so)
Powered Armor rifle elements to carry them instead of just IAVR's.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:34:36 -0400
Other than that, I concur: throw a guidance pack on it and
use a GMS/L.
I was thinking more along the lines of 5/10/15... and that's the beauty
of
adding them to the mix - you can go with either/any combo you choose.
Gives you more freedom to tailor your force to your own tactical philosophy.
Brian Bilderback
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:58:21 -0400
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> As for the GMS/P, sounds like you know enough about both games to do
OK, +10/+15/+20
I'm still sticking to my free IAVRs and more capable GMS/L teams.
Or the Battletech "Flamer," which conjurs up images of mechs emerging from the
closet to do battle....
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Was Support Weapons in SGII now DSII
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:55:37 -0400
> In _Living Steel_, the Leading Edge Games sci-fi universe, they
I'm visualizing a weapon which shoots blobs of congealed fat...that's almost
as bad as the dreaded "slugthrower".