Ok, the group has come up with an idea and since I'm the most vocal with new
weapons I get to post it.
Laser "painting" of targets.
Laser takes 1 action to set up Squad can make comm roll to unit with GMS, that
unit can fire "over the top" of terrain.
Laser can be mounted in turret or mast of vehicle Takes 1 action to aquire
target with it Mast counts as single infantry size when being fired at; armour
D6 For infantry walkers, mast make walker 1 size larger for targeting
Laser shifts guidance die up one band.
Oh, goody. Something that says "shoot me" in even bigger neon letters...
;-)
2 changes just looking at it; 1. Require a fire action to "lock" the target
(requires a minor success). 2. Make the comms roll both Ld added (ie: Red 2
calling Green 3 => roll
6+ on d12).
You don't want to be doing this while in the open, as your opponent would get
an action to negate the problem (as you couldn't fire the GMS until your next
activation, same as 0 inbound artillery). Also, the laser designator would
probably need to replace one of the regular squaddies weapons (or IAVR).
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
Yup:) Forgot to add that you could fire a GMS back along the beam to the
targeter.
> 2 changes just looking at it;
That would mean now it requires 3 actions to use it. Could you put that as
part of the setup you have to have a fire action to lock? Still requires an
action to take down.
> 2. Make the comms roll both Ld added (ie: Red 2 calling Green 3
Well since that's only done when trying to boost moral of a unit I'd stay away
from that mechanic. Perhaps rolling as artillery fire.
> You don't want to be doing this while in the open, as your opponent
I'd say you'd have to have a designated laser carrier. He could have a rifle
and the laser but that's it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Ok, the group has come up with an idea and since I'm the most vocal
Mmm. I've been thinking of somethign similar to this; stand-off missile
launcher racks. I _think_ something similar was mentioned in the rules.
I'd want a laser designator with my inf, comms attempt to get a missile ready
to fire. Then, do normal direct fire against vehicle. Resolve
minor/major hits with regular GMS damage.
Just a thought I been playing with, nothing I really worked out.
Did I understand from your post that you'd ONLY have the laser on
vehicles? Modern day laser designators are already man-portable, and
can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't be even more so in the
future.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Oh, goody. Something that says "shoot me" in even bigger neon
How so? Laser beams aren;t the star-wars big neon beams that nicely
trail all the way back to the designator?
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
Errr. You'd have to know exactly where he was coming from, first? And the big
difference here is that the laser is only illuminating, say, a spot on the
rear half of your hull. THAT spot will be very visible, since light gets
diffracted in all directions from it. Assuming the laser is well lined out and
properly focussed, it will be rather hard to detect from anywhere outside that
angle. So your missile would first need to get within that beam. Whcih would
probably fry it's optics anyway;)
Cheers,
Derk
> > 2. Make the comms roll both Ld added (ie: Red 2 calling Green 3
Especially since it should be pretty easy to automate. Adding the values makes
it a very difficult thing indeed, where it already is every day practice with
apache and kiowa( I think) scout helicopter?
> > You don't want to be doing this while in the open, as your opponent
Yup.
Cheers,
> Brendan wrote:
> Also, the laser designator would probably need to replace one of the
Why? The illustration in the front of Book 4 of Traveller 'Striker' (I think,
I departed with 90% of my Traveller stuff years ago) portrayed a soldier
equipped with a TL8 or 9 laser carbine which also doubled as a laser
designator.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:
> Brendan wrote:
> think, I departed with 90% of my Traveller stuff years ago) portrayed
> laser designator.
Well, if your regular weapons are gauss rifles, or slug-throwing assault
rifles, you'd have to use something else to designate;)
I don't see a big problem with laser rifles used to designate, but they wuld
still have to be purpose built for the jib, as they would have to modulate
their beam for the missile's sensor head to pick it up. (Or do you REALLY want
the missile to go after any random laserdot;))
So I'd still suggest yu have a dedicated figure, even if your entire unit uses
laser rifles.
Cheers,
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
> > I'd say you'd have to have a designated laser
Traveller concept warning:
How about a laser rifle that's tunable? Setting 1: designate for AT missles.
Setting 2: Designate for artillery. Setting 3: Shoot that lunatic!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
Doesn't strike me as a problem, technically. However, since it'll probably
be more expensive, AND involve more knobs to mis-adjust, I'd imagine
it'd still be in the hands of a squad's specialist rather than all the grunts
;)
I mean, they're _grunts_. Give things to them and they have a tendency
to break.;)
Of course, this does not in any way reflect on the excellent qualities of
infantrymen. It reflects on the incapability of industry to produce
unbreakable stuff. NEARLY unbreakable doesn't cut it, unfortunately.
Cheers,
> On 30-Mar-01 at 09:25, Derk Groeneveld (derk@cistron.nl) wrote:
Have you read Los's Rot Hafen story? Look at the equipment issued and realize
Los is in the business to know. We are already talking
rifles with grenade launchers that you laser-rangefind the distance
to set it off, HUD's, multi-frequency commo gear for everyone, IR
and light enhancement with map projections working with GPS systems.
Giving them a setting so that laser-rangerfinder can paint a target
would be a trivial addition. You could even modulate the beam
so each has a unique binary pattern. When Joe Smith (SN333-44-5555)
calls for artillery the incoming is set to look for his particular code.
Vac-head alert:
***
> Doesn't strike me as a problem, technically. However, since it'll
Have you read Los's Rot Hafen story? Look at the equipment issued and realize
Los is in the business to know. We are already talking
rifles with grenade launchers that you laser-rangefind the distance
to set it off, HUD's, multi-frequency commo gear for everyone, IR
and light enhancement with map projections working with GPS systems.
Giving them a setting so that laser-rangerfinder can paint a target
would be a trivial addition. You could even modulate the beam
so each has a unique binary pattern. When Joe Smith (SN333-44-5555)
calls for artillery the incoming is set to look for his particular code.
***
Doesn't this sort of result in the same thing? Artillery command will decide
by who is calling in the fire, and only 'trust' the specialist?
> In message <3AC435CB.D32B2B1A@spikyfishthing.com>, Jaime Tiampo writes:
I'd treat this just like an arty call. If he's not a designated FO, degrade
the roll. I'd also make penalties for jumping commands; i.e., guy in squad 1
calling for GMS strike from squad 3. Better chances if either is attached to
the PL.
> On 30-Mar-01 at 10:21, devans@uneb.edu (devans@uneb.edu) wrote:
> Doesn't this sort of result in the same thing? Artillery command will
Depends, If I were Canadian I'd have my least valued team member paint the
target.:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> Have you read Los's Rot Hafen story? Look at the equipment issued
Makes sense :) So, how would we then handle indirect fire, laser-guided
GMS?
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> In message <3AC435CB.D32B2B1A@spikyfishthing.com>, Jaime Tiampo
Mmm. I was more thinking of an organisation where the launcher is integral
part of the unit, is set up in cover, while the squad itself deploys further
forward. Or even have some GMS crew on table, but have their missile guided by
a another grunt.
Cheers,
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
They come pretty damn close, I'm afraid.
Today's laser warners, ie the ones included in the ECM suites of many of
today's modern MBTs, are pretty good at detecting both that you're being lazed
and the general direction the beam comes from. Accurate enough to lay a smoke
screen to cut the beam before the missile arrives unless the missile is almost
at the target when the beam is switched on; maybe also accurate enough to send
a couple of HE grenades towards the beam source.
I very much doubt that future laser warners are going to be less efficient.
So yes, someone painting a tank *is* pretty much saying "shoot me" in
neon letters :-/
Regards,
> Why? The illustration in the front of Book 4 of Traveller 'Striker' (I
> think, I departed with 90% of my Traveller stuff years ago)
<GASP> Heretic!
<g>
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Basically that's it, though the laser would give you a die shift up for
targeting since you have something to follow.
> Did I understand from your post that you'd ONLY have the laser on
No, it's man portable. I was descibing two versions. 1 for infantry and 1 for
masts on vehicles like VTOLS so that they don't have to expose themselves
completely, just like some modern helos have.
I'll try and summerise better incorporating what people have said in the
thread:
Man Portable Laser Designator:
* Designate which infantryman carries it; * Takes one action to setup and
target; * Takes one action to take down; * Shifts targeting die up one for
normal fire resolution
Vehicle Mounted:
* Can be mounted in "mast" or hard point in hull;
- if in mast, mast has armour D6 (2 mass allocation)
- if in hull, counts as sensor (1 mass allocation)
* Takes one action to aquire target; * Shifts targeting die up one for normal
fire resolution
Units with laser designator can:
* Can do comm call to other unit to have them fire "overhead" a GMS;
- machanic same as artilery call except:
~ Vehicles attached to smame platoon as calling squad is same level
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Today's laser warners, ie the ones included in the ECM suites of many
Ok then, how would you model this in game terms? It sounds pretty much as I
thought a laser designator would have in the way of draw backs.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
I think it is already being modelled by the ECM systems, which can be assumed
to comprise all types of passive defenses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Man Portable Laser Designator:
Why? doesn't take an action to brace a rifle, and this is hardly going to be
bigger than a rifle or harder to aim?
> * Shifts targeting die up one for normal fire resolution
> Vehicle Mounted:
Mm. Could even have a vehicle shoot one every turn, and if noone's
designating, you waste one round. Only something for final defence sort of
situations;)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> Today's laser warners, ie the ones included in the ECM suites of many
So, you'll have a rough direction you're being lazed from. I'd suggest it
would make spotting easier, but it's still nowhere near as obvious as, say,
the signature of a missile launch. (Which would also show on any IR
surveillance gear)
I do agree that a smokescreen would be an appropriate response, as well as
suppressive fire (recon by fire?).
> So yes, someone painting a tank *is* pretty much saying "shoot me" in
More of a _THREAT IN AREA_ sign, IMO ;)
Cheers,
I believe that quite a bit of the Rot Hafen story deals with a team of special
forces. They would have been given equipment that is not issued to the average
soldier.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> "Mike J." wrote:
> I think it is already being modelled by the ECM
Well that's easy then;)
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> > * Takes one action to setup and target;
Well I'd say you'd have to use one action to "paint" the target just as you
would for firing. Though getting rid of the take down wouldn't matter.
Or are you saying that you should just be able to say, "painting target" and
call in a GMS shot?
> Mm. Could even have a vehicle shoot one every turn, and if noone's
Wouldn't you have to "aim" it in a general direction with a general terminal
point, plus you might as well wait till the end of the turn to fire it since
then you're likely to have a unit designating. Though I don't know of any unit
that would just waste shots like that;) I'd say you'd have to call it.
G'day guys,
> So I'd still suggest yu have a dedicated
Should be pretty easy for the Panzer Grenadiers at least they've got a figure
with a laser designator.
Take a look at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/derekfulton/Gallery/GalleryFrame.htm
"Neu Swabian League - Dirtside & Stargrunt" link
3rd picture down
Trooper on far left of front row.
Cheers
Hi,
I've been watching this discussion and my take on it is that the system is
already abstracted enough that the only true benefit to having laser
designators is having a remote targeting system.
Everything else is abstracted by the guidance and ECM rules.
Also, the most modern lasers (research only mind you) are on the order of
micrometers in size. So I don't think that, 182 years down the line, lasers
are going to be huge systems that need to to be set up.
So, my suggestion is that laser designators simply allow a guided weapon to be
fired without direct line of sight between weapon and target, so long as at
least one unit with a laser designator has been declared to be painting the
target. That should probably use up the unit's entire activation.
GMS systems should also require at least a line of flight reasonably free of
obstacles, i.e. no firing from the middle of a forest...
Anyway, that's my $0.02.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
I was mainly inquiring about the take down action. But yeah, I'm leaning
toward the GMS shot option.
> > Mm. Could even have a vehicle shoot one every turn, and if noone's
Depends. Maybe fire in parabolic arc, engine kicks in upon acquisition?
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:
> G'day guys,
> figure with a laser designator.
So do the NACs:)
Cheers,
> Tony Christney wrote:
> So, my suggestion is that laser designators simply allow a
I think that's where the thing is heading, plus hte comm roll to call in the
GMS shot if it's not the unit that's painting the target firing if it's "over
the horrizon". Though I'm still wondering if you should get a die shift for
having a "painted" target.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Tony Christney wrote:
> Also, the most modern lasers (research only mind you) are on
Well, to get any sort of range & accuracy (small spot), your optics need
certain minimum dimensions. But still, nothing excessively bulky.
> So, my suggestion is that laser designators simply allow a
I disagree with the last bit, but I would count the painting _figure_ as
having fired, therefore no other firing actions by this figure.
> GMS systems should also require at least a line of flight
Indeed! OVER a forest would be possible, though, I'd think.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Tony Christney wrote:
Actually, no... I assume that's actly what a GMS operator would normally do,
himself?
Cheers,
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> Actually, no... I assume that's actly what a GMS operator would
I always figured the GMS was guided in other ways, though that does make some
sense.
I sent this earlier, but it got lost in E-mail Limbo.
I would make the designator a dedicated figure. You could argue that the laser
rifle could be set up as the designator. But it would need to have a secondary
power setting (one for damage, one for designating). It would also need to be
able to send a coded binary signal (binary or spectrum shift). This code would
be matched by a specific GMS Squad, Vehicle, or site (if defending). The code
would be sent automatically when the designator locks on to the target. So I
would make this a firing action, but subject to normal EW communication rules.
If the comm roll is successful (GMS station may be busy firing at something
else), the missile is launched (and lands) next turn.
After much of this discussion, I agree with the comment that normal ECM would
counter any designating advantage (so no shift in guidance). But it would
allow for GMS to be fired without LOS from a clear area (no woods).
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
Well I think we've talked this one into the ground. Here's the summery:
Laer Designator Generic Information:
* smoke blocks * Make comm roll to GMS unit to have it fire "over the
horrizon" * GMS is next activation * takes entire activation of firing unit to
fire "over the horrizon"
Infantry Laser Designator:
* must designate figure "painting"
Vehicle Mounted Laser Designator:
* Hull mounted (1 mass, treated as system) * Mast Mounted (2 mass, treated as
exposed weapon, D8 armour, on 3 of non penatrating D6 roll, for walkers counts
as normal exposed weapon rollô)
ô House rule for walkers with exposed weapons (hand held or external mounted)
- instead of mobility hit exposed weapons are hit on 1-2 on D6 on non
penatrating hits; weapons count as armour D8; weapon hit is randomly chosen
I think that's it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> Well I think we've talked this one into the ground. Here's the
I agree with _almost_ everything, except:
> * takes entire activation of firing unit to fire "over the horrizon"
Why? It's _easier_ than regular firing? It already takes 2 actions (one
from firer, one from painter). Isn't that enough?
Cheers,
> --- Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net> wrote:
However, when you are talking about:
> rifles with grenade launchers that you >
laser-rangefind the distance > to set it off, HUD's,
multi-frequency commo gear for > everyone, IR
> and light enhancement with map projections working
That's stuff that will be regular issue. For crying out loud, all this stuff
is going to be issue in real armies by 2030, never mind 2183. And that's
assuming we miss the fielding dates for some of these items by
2 decades. Third-world nations will still be stuck
with one radio per platoon. But third-world nations
won't be taking to the stars, either.
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> I agree with _almost_ everything, except:
Fine by me.:)
* GMS fire is resolvved normaly by firer
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:10:36 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson <snip>
> That's stuff that will be regular issue. For crying
Um, the PAU? And parts of the ESU, and the Indonesian guys?
As a 'third world' Regional Analyst in (so called) real life, I think these
are third world. no?? <grin> They won't have *all* the toys but they are (in
our game world) out among the stars.
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> Today's laser warners, ie the ones included in the ECM suites of many
I know that some of today's laser warning systems can determine the direction
they're being lazed from to "within a couple of degrees". What I don't know
for certain (or aren't allowed to say, which gives pretty much the same
effect) is:
1) how much *better* than a couple of degrees they come
2) how big those systems are (ie., do they fit on an MBT yet), and
3) whether or not they have been deployed in service yet.
Knowing the direction to the source to within a few degrees makes it very easy
indeed to spot... and that is with *today's* technology.
Regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Mmm. And I just thought of a few ways these could be made that I hadn;t
thought of before. Pretty advanced stuff, wasn't aware this was around yet.
Cheers,
> On 30-Mar-01 at 19:51, Brian Bell (bkb@beol.net) wrote:
I will point out that most of the stuff I listed is almost current or in
development. Yes, I've seen a picture and article on the rifle, it does
everything discussed and if it looks good will
eventually be issued to your average soldier. The multi-freq
commo gear I think of as BS, I expect spread spectrum to accomplish the same t
hing, but that is beyond list scope. The only part that is not in the works
AFAIK is the HUD, and I can't see that as taking long. Every one of these
things makes your average soldier "smarter" and more affective. It will all be
issued to troops of nations that can afford such things.
Roger
> ---
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Um, the PAU? And parts of the ESU, and the
And their first-line troops are going to be properly
equipped. Remember the Indonesians pioneered the use
of CG-equipped vehicles. I have a feeling that
technology and manufacturing capabilities are a lot 'flatter' on Terra and in
the Inner systems than they are today. IE, there isn't a militarily
significant amount of difference in the systems produced in the coastal
Emirates for the IF, in Kenya for the PAU, in Hangchow for the ESU, or in
Manchester for the NAC.
One possible explanation would be that this comes from the 21st century, the
era of the "MNCs" and "Transnational Corporations" (which presumably are now
under at least a certain amount of control by the
nation-states, at least on the mother-world) who
located manufacturing facilities in a wide variety of places, favoring the 3rd
world because they could more or less purchase the entire country.
The differences in technology come with units equipped by colonial worlds, who
vary in technological level from the NI planets (which I see as overall on a
par with Terra) to some undercapitalized jerkwater dump full of zippers who
can manage 1940s automatic weaponry and that's about it.
> At 08:25 1/04/01 -0700, you wrote:
> The differences in technology come with units equipped
I don't think money is going to be a problem, there's a lot of resources
laying around a star system. I don't think it with be like star trek where
money is a outmoded concept in the Federation, but it will definitely be a
case of 'there's gold in dem dar hills' and lots of it too.
Basically anyone could afford to buy the required tech base, they just have to
find a seller and then it's a case of being prepared maintain what you
purchase. After all it can't be that hard look at the NRE, got their hands on
a few star systems and next thing you they're legends in their own minds:)
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I don't think money is going to be a problem,
Sure. There just aren't a lot of good systems of extracting it except in cases
(extremely rare) where it's actually worth exporting it back to the Inner
Systems. Keep in mind that with easy access to the asteroid belt and the other
planets in the Sol system, we've got a couple millenia's worth of practically
any raw material. What's to justify the enormous capital investment?
> Basically anyone could afford to buy the required
Which, given simillar situations in the past 50 years, is not a given.
> purchase. After all it can't be that hard look at
Keep in mind that several of those systems were
settled by the EC and had been propped up for 20+
years before revolting. And managed to revolt in the middle of a civil war so
they didn't have to worry about reconquest attempts.