Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

	This is answer a few questions Tom had and to show what I had in
mind and
why.

	Firstly I have a nasty streak so effects should hurt. I like
being a bastard.
	Second I have done no science since High School so forgive me if
some
ideas are based on incorrect assumptions.

1) Planets without magnetic fields.
	Ok maybe a little hard but should have an affect in longer term
for
campaigns. Also if your on the dark side of a planet then the planet
should
be shielding you from the worst of the radiation so night shouldn't be
so
bad. Didn't consider all the electronics going haywire, perhaps count
all
firecons one level down or all system downs chits affect both firer and
target. With the DFFG that's my misunderstanding of how they worked.

2) Planets without Atmosphere. 
	You could have rocket hover type craft but then the would really
be
spacecraft, no?

3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
	I assumed that a fan or prop in a thick atmosphere would be
moving a
greater amount of air for a give amount of power (roughly) than in a
thiner
atmosphere. GEVs and VTOLs would thus gain in power but lose some
performance to drag. Anyone know the maths for this?

4) Planets with low gravity.
	Artillery is ballistic and with little or no gravity its going
to be a
long way off (increased range) if it doesn't make escape velocity which
is
more likely once you get below half a G (maths anyone?). Didn't think of
making them anti-shipping weapons. Perhaps they do damage as per
railguns
with light artillery rated as class 1's, medium class 2, heavy class 3.

6) Ice worlds.
	Ooops! Callisto not Io (must have Arthur C Clarke on my mind).
Similar to
Europa with a liquid ocean (very salty according to theory coming out of
UCLA) under lots of ice. Like your ideas Tom. I still think that ice
chucks
that get thrown up should do infantry some harm (I've just reread
"Forever
War" which is pretty grim about enviroments) but I don't play either
DSII
or SGII much so an under fire marker might be enough.

	Other things that might be considered are ho the weather on
these planets
might operate and how various weather conditions affect the battlefield.
Also how do you go about maintaining equipment in some of these
enviroments. In a campaign setting the destruction of enemy maintainence
depots would become more important.
	Anyway I'll give this all more thought but I hope you all find
some of it
useful.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au
 
At 13:31 30/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
>>	So what sort of planets are we likely to fight over and how will
the
>> enviroment affect the game.
>> 
>> 1) Planets without magnetic field.
>>	Treat as normal for night combat. Should light from nearby sun
fall on the
>> planet then draw chits for all units on the table as if in outer zone
of
>> nuclear attack.
>
>a little extreme, don't you think? not even on mercury is radiation at
>nuke levels; there are no hard gammas nor neutrons, for a start.
>
>> All colours valid in full daylight drop one colour if
>> twilight/dawn or under native vegetation. (eg unit in open full light
takes
>> hits on all chits, in the open at dawn takes damage only on red and
yellow,
>> if dawn and under native forest takes red only, if also dug in is not
>> effected until full light when reds are valid).
>
>care to explain this? how does it being night without a magnetic field
>affect damage effects?
>
>> DFFGs gain 6" range per
>> range band.
>
>i think the main limit on dffg range is due to atmosphere, not magnetic
>field.
>
>> Troops have to do a confidence test to move out of cover.
>
>cool. how about looking at the effect of particle flux on electronics?
>fire control, missile guidance, ecm, stealth, pds, ads, lad, all drop
one
>level.
>
>> 2) Planets without atmosphere.
>>	VTOLS and GEVs cannot operate (dur),
>
>fair enough, but you should allow alternatives. i guess most airless
>worlds are also low-gravity, so i am thinking of rocket-powered
hoverers
>like the Apollo lunar module, or the Eagles from space:1999; i think
nasa
>even did a study of a lunar jet rover at one point. maybe if you seal
up
>the intakes in a VTOL and pipe in a supply of reaction mass, they can
>still operate?
>
>> No CFE powered vehicles
>
>and no open vehicles - try driving a jeep in a space suit. oh, hang on,
>that's been done: it's a lunar rover. still, not exactly a
combat-capable
>vehicle. reduced movement if an open vehicle?
>
>> 3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
>>	VTOLS gain 5" base movement.
>
>the speed of sound is lower in a thin atmosphere, and if your craft is
>designed for subsonic flight, you have to keep below the sound barrier.
>thus, vtols should have their movement limited to some value, probably
>slower than usual speed. i remember plans to build low-speed prop
planes
>for mars exploration as something like a cessna would break the sound
>barrier ...
>
>> 4) Planets with low gravity. (I'm thinking moon here)
>> All artillery is
>> out.
>
>on the contrary, artillery is even more useful as it now has a longer
>range. in fact, size 6 artillery may now be used to engage targets in
low
>orbit ...
>
>> 5) Planets with high gravity (say twice Earth).
>> For SGII perhaps reduce mission motivation by one level as
>> everything the troops do tires them out so much more and all they
care
>> about is sleep.
>
>good rule. perhaps PA are immune as they can just jack up the suit
>strength to compensate?
>
>> 6) Ice worlds (like Europa and now Io).
>
>whaddaya mean, 'now io'? should i do some catching up on my planetary
>geology reading?
>
>speaking of ice worlds (or rather, ice-over-ocean worlds, or even just
>ocean worlds in general), what about underwater combat? if humans have
>colonised the continental shelves on some planets (the inner ones,
where
>we can use the ocean circulation for cooling and shielding from  
>radiation, and the outer ones, where it is insulation and a source of
>heat convected up from the mantle, not to mention a resource - a
>hydrocarbon sea is easy to mine ...), then we need to be able to fight
>engagements there. laser weapons are out; DFFGs would have shorter
ranges
>but possibly greater effects, large-calibre weapons (HVC, RFAC) won't
>work, and small-calibre hypervelocity stuff (HKP, MDC) will have
reduced
>range. rockets will still be ok. no CFE. no troopers without enviro or
>power suits. no open vehicles. cut-down sensor ranges. a new weapon for
>riverine craft - 'depth charge'. gevs are out. infantry movement is cut
>down, but infantry can be equipped with Personal Aquatic Mobility Units
-
>little pods with propellers. they work the same as cavalry.
>
>>	Any artillery or air strike using DFO has a 1 in 6 chance of
producing a
>> "spurter" or geshyer (my spelling is shocking but one of those things
thats
>> spurts up hot water from undergound).
>
>geyser? gusher? geisha?
>
>> If a "spurter" results then it lasts
>> d8 turns and all units within a 3" radius must draw 3 chits each
turn.
>> Valid chits are red for armoured vehicles, red and yellow for PA and
soft
>> vehicles and all chits for normal infantry. Ice may shatter but it
hurts if
>> moving fast enough.
>
>it hurts; it doesn't kill tanks! how about saying it puts an under-fire
>marker on infantry but doesn't actually hurt anyone. otoh, if you are
>around when it stops and the liquid freezes, you are immobilised.
>
>> Also all vehicles, unless Grav or GEV, test each turn
>> to see if they crash through, say 1 in 10 chance plus half size round
down.
>> If within 6" of an air or artillery strike +2 chance of going under,
-1 if
>> low gravity planet, +half size round down if high gravity. 
>
>good rule! apply the same to powered infantry, rating them as size 1
>vehicles (they have little mass but is concentrated on - literally -
two
>square feet). another reason to hang onto those light forces ...
>
>all in all, some very good ideas in there. well done!
>
>Tom
>
>
>