Prev: Re: GMS vs. Infantry Next: Full Thrust ship designer

Re: GMS vs. Infantry

From: Los <los@c...>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 22:50:01 -0500
Subject: Re: GMS vs. Infantry

Henrix wrote:

> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
> > 3. Fire at infantry: Infantry defends on D4 in the open, give cover
and IP
> > shifts to the dice. Instead of using unlimited range (targetting
> > though not terribly hard, is probably as easy as targetting infantry
with a
> > rifle), use standard range bands to determine base defense die
(shifted as
> > required for cover). This is the "effective ECM die" of the infantry
> > fired at. A hit which is a minor impact scores a suppression and a
D8 attack
> > against squad members (defend with armour, cover, IP shifts(I think
> > shifts armour checks but I can't recall for certain, I know cover
does)). On
> > a major impact, apply a suppression, pick one figure and apply a
contact hit
> > (d12 for GMS, 2d12 for GMS/L, 4d12 for GMS/H) and then apply D8 to
> > others in the squad (again adjusted for armour and IP)
> These rules look good to me, except the damage allocation to infantry.
Am I
> reading you correctly here? Do you really propose a D8 impact hit on
> squad member on a minor hit? In the open, on a squad with D6 armour,
that means
> 31% wounds and 25% kills! The argument does indeed tend toward GMS
being useful
> against infantry, but...

It makes the GMS as powerful as the ortillery we were using the other
day. Powerful
stuff. Maybe I'll make every guy hump one. <grin>.

> I could go for a D12 penetration, like an IAVR, but calculating
casualties as
> for normal small arms/support weapon firing, rolling for fire-effect
with the
> dice proposed above.

That's what I'm thinking.


Prev: Re: GMS vs. Infantry Next: Full Thrust ship designer