Re: [FT] Vectorized K-guns
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:03:09 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] Vectorized K-guns
Barclay, Tom wrote:
>It occured to me in the discussion of vector-added SMs that maybe
K->guns should see some vectorish effects. So I thought about it.
>
>Assuming a 15 minute turn, and a 1000km distance mu.
>We know that the K-gun can hit range 30.
>Assuming the projectiles took the entire round to arrive,
...it would have nil chance of hitting whatsoever, unless the shooter
can look into the future to determine where to aim his weapon (and I
mean *really* look into the future, not merely extrapolate from the
target's previous maneuvers). 15 minutes is *lots* of time to generate
a miss - eg., I can walk a mile in that time, and I don't accellerate
nearly as fast as a starship <g>
>But, we all know one of those assumptions is bogus.
<whew>
>Let us say that anytime the ship moves more than 25% of the max >range
of the shot in the same time period, ship velocity should >probably
have significance to the impact of the shot.
Sounds reasonable. The energy is proportional to the square of the
velocity, so with 25% more velocity you have just over 50% more kinetic
energy - enough to be significant even for a K1 (ie., its damage "would
be" increased by over 0.5, rounds up to 1). If you look at a K5
instead, 5-10% extra velocity "would be" sufficient to increase the
damage by 1 point, etc.
>Probably not to the range because I assume the limit on range is not
>the 30" limit, but rather that is the limit of targetting (effective
range).
Strongly indicated by the K-gun damage, too (doesn't degrade with
range; only the hit probability does).
[calculations snipped]
>If railguns are firing rounds at 0.1 c (30,000 kps I think?), then
certainly >the ship would have to be moving at least 75,000 kps (or a
damn sight >farther than any ship probably could, even given Oerjan's
penchant for >cms and large floors!).
<G> 75'000 kps is only speed 33,750 with the time/distance scale I
normally use... but how did you get 25% of 30,000 to be 75,000? ;-)
(Don't worry - the fastest I've ever flown was a tad over 200...)
>So, the end result is, assuming the railguns accelerate masses to
>even 0.01c-fractional speeds (which they might),
Which they pretty much need to in order to have a chance to hit
anything at long range. It's probably quite safe to say that the K-gun
rounds are so much faster than the ships that the velocity of the
firing vessel doesn't matter :-/
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:53 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19916;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:08:17 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBI7l224949;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 10:07:46 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBI7jq24927
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:nJp+Vi4rptMKwiUanmW5Q5AIiOdubhsM@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBI7hP24922
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:07:43
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.quixnet.net (psmtp2.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.52] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBI7gf15527
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:07:43 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
by smtp2.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA17910
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:07:41 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <001701c0639d$48423e10$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D104@host-253.bitheads.com>
<3A3514C5.6EEBD6AC@warpfish.com>
Subject: Re: Attachment levels [DS2]
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:07:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000083a
Jerry quoth
> Also remember that technology for support services may reach such a
> high level that attachment is no longer required.
snippage
> However, what this does indicate is that a self-sustaining force has
to
> be of a minimum size; below that size, capability is going to be
> sacrificed, and you can't get around that. A battalion task force
> will not be able to deploy for sustained independent operation
> without a lot of attachments, and it's uneconomical to make these
> attachments a permanent part of battalion TO&E. (I think I'm
> agreeing with Tom here. (8-) )
Perhaps you'd have Core units (heavy assets are attached at Brigade and
higher) and Colonial units (independent battalions with less support but
organic).
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA25833;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:31:52 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBIUUj25300;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 10:30:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBIUPb25252
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:WOMMWrvydP46J01JbyznGbLOC1uP1g78@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBIUNP25247
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:30:23
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBIUMf18479
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:30:23 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17088
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:30:28 -0500
Message-Id: <200012111830.NAA17088@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:30:28 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000083b
My earlier request for an SG2 campaign system went unanswered-- I just
wanted to double-check before I devoted the time to try and make my
own (never having used one before). Any ideas?
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA30369;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:51:46 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBIo9l25575;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 10:50:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBIo6T25554
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:GKWstWIBDQ0jUmd8c+JCpvrllXu/DAoV@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBIo5P25549
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from bluekeeper.corning.com (corning.com [149.42.1.2])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBIo3f20936
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:03 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from ParrottCP@corning.com)
Received: by bluekeeper.corning.com; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA08718;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:50:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uranium.corning.com (URANIUM.CORNING.COM [149.42.112.52])
by corning.com (PMDF V5.2-31 #42870)
with ESMTP id <01JXKWFAPLQG004C4S@corning.com> for
gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:50:02 EST
Received: by URANIUM.CORNING.COM with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2650.21)
id <YWQWNK1G>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:50:02 -0500
Content-return: allowed
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:55 -0500
From: "Parrott, Charles P" <ParrottCP@corning.com>
Subject: RE: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Message-id:
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-type: text/plain
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000083c
I overlooked the original post, were you looking for specific SG2
campaigns
systems or other games that can be used for SG2?
As for ideas, I've always been fond of the merc approach where you start
with limited funds and buy your forces and take contracts to earn more
money
to upgrade and/or buy your forces. Our gaming group is thinking about a
similar project combining FT and DS2.
FASA's Mechwarrior supplement had a quick and dirty roll your own merc
campaign that was good for generating battles. The RPG side of it
wasn't
half bad either.
> ----------
> From: Andy Cowell[SMTP:andy@cowell.org]
> Reply To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Sent: 12/11/2000 1:30 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
>
>
> My earlier request for an SG2 campaign system went unanswered-- I just
> wanted to double-check before I devoted the time to try and make my
> own (never having used one before). Any ideas?
>
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:58 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20919;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:28:20 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBKS1926498;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 12:27:59 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBKRwK26477
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:p5kgdcZ+Zr6GLxFs/2010z3Ay74KFnZD@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBKRuP26472
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:27:56
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBKRtf34848
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:27:56 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24616
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:28:02 -0500
Message-Id: <200012112028.PAA24616@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: SG2 and Modern US squad with two fireteams
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:28:01 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000083f
The '90's US army TO&E at
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaron/MODORG/us90.html
lists a squad as having two "fireteams"
NCO (M16A2)
2 Fireteams: 2 M16A2
1 M203 [I assume M16A2 w/ M203 gren.
launcher]
1 M249 [SAW]
(up to 4 M72A3 LAW/AT-4)
In SG2, this would be a 9 man squad with two SAWs and eight IAVRs.
That's a little more powerful in game terms than I'm used to playing
with. What does everyone else think? How are "fireteams" used by
the US Army, and do they jive with SG2 as written?
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:59 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28742;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:59:02 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBKnl526643;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 12:49:46 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBKnju26622
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:feT5LZDo1WUvLBH2PH1FOnhJHJeiTRxe@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBKnhP26617
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:43
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBKngf37993
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:49:43 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26100
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:49:49 -0500
Message-Id: <200012112049.PAA26100@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:55 EST."
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:49:49 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000841
In message
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>, "
Parrott, Charles P" writes:
> I overlooked the original post, were you looking for specific SG2
campaigns
> systems or other games that can be used for SG2?
Either-- I've never heard of an SG2-specific campaign system, so I'm
expecting the later.
> As for ideas, I've always been fond of the merc approach where you
> start with limited funds and buy your forces and take contracts to
> earn more money to upgrade and/or buy your forces. Our gaming group
I'm introducing my current gaming group to SG2, and thought a campaign
system would be fun. Here are the obvious:
1) "Choose your own adventure." I'm GMing the games so far, rather
than participating, so this might be a good way to start out. It
would require no formal system of rules, either.
2) "Playing Quartermaster." Actually working out reinforcements and
engagements due to a formal set of rules. This appeals to me the
most, and would also mean I could possibly participate equally.
3) "Mercenary." Like you mentioned, a system of earning and spending
resources through conflicts. Reminds me of Necromunda, one of the few
GW games I've really enjoyed. Lets players really get involved with
their troops. Hmmm....that's interesting...
Any others?
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:59 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28348;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:56:24 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBKtoe26753;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 12:55:40 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBKtd926731
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:bjC0NW7w1kz68EnOI5fAg/NVls0gvkE7@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBKtbP26726
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:55:37
-0800 (PST)
Received: from okura.cowell.org (IDENT:root@okura.toysmakeuspowerful.com
[12.13.79.17])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBKtbf38702
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:55:37 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from andy@cowell.org)
Received: from cowell.org (IDENT:andy@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by okura.cowell.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26495
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:55:43 -0500
Message-Id: <200012112055.PAA26495@okura.cowell.org>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: No campaign system acceptable for SG2?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:55 EST."
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:55:43 -0600
From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000840
In message
<604019546FC6D211AE310000F8BCBCEA01A8C385@SABRETOOTH.CORNING.COM>, "
Parrott, Charles P" writes:
>
> As for ideas, I've always been fond of the merc approach where you
> start with limited funds and buy your forces and take contracts to
> earn more money to upgrade and/or buy your forces.
Doesn't this inherently require a points system for SG2?
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:02 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA29020;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:26:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBNHTV28762;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 15:17:08 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBNH7S28712
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Wj9fR79oJIFPc5C61X/JjjIf5RRZiCvh@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBNH5P28707
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:17:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.177])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBNGsf61542
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:16:56 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from dar@horusinc.com)
Received: from dana (user-33qt9js.dialup.mindspring.com
[199.174.166.124])
by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id
SAA26063
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:16:43 -0500
(EST)
From: "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:36:09 -0600
Message-ID: <NEBBIIBFOLOGOPNJADCAKEFJCHAA.dar@horusinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006E7@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000849
Buy a copy of the "Handbook for Marine NCOs" (My 3rd edition is
published by
the Naval Institute Press ISBN: 0-87021-254-0) which a good friend of
mine
(former marine NCO, duh) gave me. My fiancée (former army officer) even
admits that the marine handbook is better than anything that army puts
out
for this purpose (I think that this admission actually caused blood loss
on
her part). It has exactly the chart you're looking for, all ranks, and
whole
bunch of other fun information.
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Bell, Brian K
> (Contractor)
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 11:50 AM
> To: Gzg-L (E-mail)
> Subject: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
>
>
> OK, I'm going to show my ignorance (again).
>
> Does anyone know of a good chart (preferably on the web) of Military
Rank
> comparisons from different services and different countries?
>
> For instance, the US Army rank of Colonel is equivalent to a Navy
Captain.
> If I am wrong, no flames please, I will accept gentile
> correction. This is
> also not a discussion of merit or general quality, only
> equivalency of rank.
> (No flame wars, please).
>
> I did find http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm, but it only included the
US
> Army and Navy and only the commissioned officers.
>
> -----
> Brian Bell
> bkb@beol.net
> -----
>
>
From - Wed Dec 13 16:39:00 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA08047;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:51:09 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBLns827763;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 13:49:53 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBLnqN27740
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:G0wHzGsDjBBp78kak/1O6Hdyge57BsWH@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBLnpP27735
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:51
-0800 (PST)
Received: from c008.sfo.cp.net (c008-h008.c008.sfo.cp.net
[209.228.14.197])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eBBLnof48177
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:50 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from agoodall@canada.com)
Received: (cpmta 3034 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2000 13:49:45 -0800
Date: 11 Dec 2000 13:49:44 -0800
Message-ID: <20001211214944.3033.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 11 Dec 2000 21:49:44 GMT
Received: from [192.206.151.130] by mail.canada.com with HTTP;
11 Dec 2000 13:49:44 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: agoodall@canada.com
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.8.1.2
Subject: Re: SG2 and Modern US squad with two fireteams
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000843
On Mon, 11 December 2000, Andy Cowell wrote:
> In SG2, this would be a 9 man squad with two SAWs and eight IAVRs.
> That's a little more powerful in game terms than I'm used to playing
> with. What does everyone else think? How are "fireteams" used by
> the US Army, and do they jive with SG2 as written?
I usually create squads of between 6 and 8 figures. That's just been my
prefere
nce, and it seems to fit in well with Jon's included squad designs.
However, I
am starting to move away from that. We recently had an interesting
discussion a
bout designing forces with small squads, say half the size of an SG2
squad, or
essentially the same as the fireteam you mention.
The argument always goes as to whether fireteams should be represented
with det
ached elements or if they should be represented with small squads, or if
the fi
reteam should just be abstracted out of the squad entirely.
Which is more realistic? Do smaller squads have an adverse effect on
play balan
ce or in the use of the mechanics?
I just found an interesting reference on the web:
http://web.qx.net/warcat/MilSF/Tactics.htm
It has some good things to say about fireteams, squads, and the like. It
appear
s that in some cases the squad leader leads a fireteam, and in other
cases he d
oesn't. It also explains that in some militaries (the former Soviet
military, f
or one) squads are NOT broken into fireteams. He doesn't give standard
distance
s between fireteams, but he does give some interesting commentary.
>From reading this, I have come to two conclusions:
- some forces should allow fireteams. Not all forces, particularly those
with c
onscripts, but some forces.
- fireteams should act like small squads, but should probably have some
limits
imposed on them. Perhaps there should be a limit as to the separation
distance
between fireteams in a squad. Sort of like squad integrity, but for two
firetea
ms. This may be unnecessary, and it would have to be included as a house
rule.
The web page I listed is by a former US Marine who put the page together
to hel
p writers of military SF, so this is a good SG2 reference! He mentions
that fir
eteam based armies tend to be more flexible, tactically speaking. This
is what
some of us have discovered when using small squads.
So, I would suggest you build one 5 man squad and one 4 man squad. They
would s
hare the same APC, they would set up near each other, but they would
behave as
individual squads.
Another option, if you're up to it, is to build two 4 man squads and
make the s
quad leader an individual. The individual is a "leader" but can not
transfer ac
tions. He can move with a squad, or independently (the rules cover
either case)
. This would let you use the individual to rally squads (otherwise,
squads can'
t self rally). Hmmm... I like this idea. It's written on page 26. Jon
leaves th
ings pretty flexible by stating how they are used in the scenario rules,
so I'd
give them leader capabilities for the purposes of rallying, but not for
transf
erring actions.
So, there's my suggestion: create two 4-man squads and one independent
leader f
igure, but limit what the leader can do.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:59 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA07126;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:47:48 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBLkIM27638;
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 13:46:16 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBLkFg27617
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:aJaqEcM+ncaqNip5wZIck+5ILC2w6b8F@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBLkDP27612
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:46:14
-0800 (PST)
Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net
[207.217.121.85])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBLkDf47829
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:46:13 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from nezach@earthlink.net)
Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust213.tnt1.monterey.ca.da.uu.net
[63.59.135.213])
by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id
NAA26426
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:46:11 -0800
(PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211134956.00894b80@earthlink.net>
X-Sender: nezach@earthlink.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:56 -0800
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: Ndege Diamond <nezach@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
In-Reply-To: <9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006E7@exchange01.dscc.d
la.mil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000842
At 12:49 PM 12/11/00 -0500, you wrote:
>OK, I'm going to show my ignorance (again).
>
>Does anyone know of a good chart (preferably on the web) of Military
Rank
>comparisons from different services and different countries?
>
>For instance, the US Army rank of Colonel is equivalent to a Navy
Captain.
>If I am wrong, no flames please, I will accept gentile correction. This
is
>also not a discussion of merit or general quality, only equivalency of
rank.
>(No flame wars, please).
>
>I did find http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm, but it only included the
US
>Army and Navy and only the commissioned officers.
After a quick Google search for "military ranks" I found
http://www.instruct.langara.bc.ca/~unx6018/dave7cnv/military/military.ht
ml
It has a funky navigation setup and a funky layout but it covers
Officer,
NCO, and enlisted ranks for quite a few countries. It seems reasonabily
up
to date (my only qualification for this is that it doesn't show the USAF
having "Buck" Sergeants).
Ndege Diamond
----------------------------------------------------
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary,
the number of entities required to explain anything.