Prev: Re: GMS vs. Infantry Next: RE: My First Mini!

GMS vs Infantry

From: Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay <kaladorn@h...>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 03:06:31 -0500
Subject: GMS vs Infantry

Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 22:50:01 -0500
From: Los <>
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>.

===> Moreso. The Ortillery wasn't all that deadly.... Kr'rt couldn't
scatter on-target to save his Tentacles.

> 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.

=======> Actually, if you were paying close attention I was suggesting a
major hit causing d12 impact (not d12*) on one figure. And then D8 vs
the rest of the squad as per heavy-weapons vs. point targets.

=======> As to the counter proposal: 1) Penetration? What's that? We
have Firepower, Guidance and Impact. If we roll a normal Guidance die as
if it was a FP die, roll a quality die, then give the defender range
plus cover + IP, I think the normal situation will be like a SAW firing
on its own - D8 or D10 Guidance + D8 quality (many cases). If we then
calculate hits as normal, that's okay. But what impact do we use? The D8
of a heavy weapon vs. point target or the D12 (or worse, 4D12 for GMS/H)
of the weapon itself? Here's my problem with this: If we use the weapon
penetration, most hits will be kills. If hits are D8, it is useless for
sniping PA which should be a use for it.

=======> Try again:
Fire as a normal squad attack using range bands equal to unit quality
(same as rifles or SAWs). Roll Dx for firepower (where Dx is the
guidance die). Roll quality. Defender rolls RB die plus cover plus IP.
If both FP and Q dice beat defending dice, we have a hit. 1 figure is
attacked at normal penetration (loses the * - means D12 for GMS/P, 2D12
(D12x2) for GMS/L, 4D12 (D12x4) for GMS/H). Other hits are dished out as
D8. If the target is normal infantry, give them one negative shift in
FP/Guidance (infantry themselves are tough targets). PA, bunkers, etc.
are easier to hit.

So, we have a regular GMS/P team firing GMS at infantry in RB2 (15"
away). The GMS (enhanced) would roll D8 + D8 vs this infantry group, but
we downshift it 1 level because there is no PA or high signature
targets. D6 + D8 vs. infantry in the open in RB 2 who therefore roll D6.
If one die beats the defence die, grant a suppression. If two beat,
grant a suppression, normal number of hits calculated, and the first hit
is D12 penetration, the others D8 vs. infantry armour.

That better?


BTW - I feel quite lucky to know most of the people on this list. They
are a varied lot, but bring to bear a lot of experience. It is
surprising the range of fields covered (nods to Ms. Fulton, the
temporarily in absentia Atkinson and Murray, Mr. Lourenco (Los), Mr.
Glover, Mr. Izenberg, Mr. Ohlson, and Mr. Kochte... and countless
others). We have computer programmers (like me), regular force soldiers,
airmen and sailors (and some of them other support types), scientists,
weapon designers, web publishers, mountain climbers, you name it. If
there is an area of knowledge someone on this list hasn't had some
experience with, I'd be surprised. So when someone speaks up on a topic,
it is best to think carefully about what they've said, or ask what they
meant by that if there is doubt. They may well be coming at the issue
with far greater experience than one might at first think or than might
at first appear in their message. My own time in the military and in my
professional career have taught me a great respect for all the things I
don't know, and for all the people who can teach me.

Prev: Re: GMS vs. Infantry Next: RE: My First Mini!