Re: [SG2] Vehicles and Heavy Weapons

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:17:06 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:

>If anyone has seen modern weapons 
>stabilization (let alone that of 2183), I can't 
>imagine why you'd penalize a fire on the move. 

I can. 

Even with the gun stabilized, while moving you're going to go through
undulations and past pieces of terrain not modelled at the ground scale
found
in the game. The engagement time while moving is going to be less than
if you
are not moving.

Plus, from a purely game-y sense, I kind of like the idea of it costing
a
vehicle more to move and fire.

>Being spotted (easier), having a 
>harder time spotting (very bad),

That, right there, is another reason for costing more. Even for a unit
that
isn't hidden, spotting it while moving is harder than if you're still.

Take the case of a tank rolling around a corner and firing on an enemy
tank
before the moving tank ducks behind a building. The engagement time for
that
moving tank is a lot shorter than if the tank spent the entire turn
sitting in
a hull down position on a ridge overlooking the opponent's tank. 

For this reason, I'm in favour of it costing a range band. This is the
same
reason (though in reverse) for it costing a range band for a stationary
unit
on overwatch to fire at an opposing unit.

>3) Adrian has an interesting idea. Let's try out 
>another form: I fire my RFAC at PA. I get the 
>following two results: Suppression or hits. If I 
>get hits, roll the first one as 2d10 (assume 
>RFAC/1) and the others as D8. That grants one 
>contact hit and fragmentation effects. That 
>might give a reasonable compromise. Pretty 
>good chance of killing one soldier and maybe 
>wounding some others. 

I could live with that. It _is_ a 5 minute (sorta) long turn, anyway.

>3) Another interesting bone to pick: 
>PA not getting cover benefits to armour. 

Funny enough, that is _not_ in the rules. It was a clarification made on
the
list, either by Mike or by Jon (and the intention seemed to be to limit
armour
effects for PA).

There's a question as to whether or not armour is an open shift. The
implication is that it is. Page 6 says that Opens Shifts are clearly
stated as
such, and says something like "See Impact versus armour on page 38".
Page 38
doesn't say anything about it being an open shift! Assuming page 6 is
right
and one of the few open shifts is armour (which I think was part of the
clarification), then I don't see a problem with PA getting the open
shift as
well. 

I think that was the "clarification", that PA wasn't to get the open
shift,
but rather it should be a closed shift. There is nothing in the rule
book, per
se, that says PA should not shift armour die up for cover.

They 
>have D12 armour, sure, but if I'm PA behind a 
>brick wall, I'm arguably better off than PA in the 
>open. If we allow an open shift on armour to 
>2d6 and 2d8 or d16 and d20 or something 
>(details fuzzy in my head now), then PA could 
>still benefit from cover. 

That is _not_ how an open shift works. The Impact Die would go down. So,
if
you have D10 Impact Die versus a D12 PA behind a brick wall, the Impact
Die
would be shifted down to a D6. If you had light PA behind a brick wall
(Armour
Die of D10) versus D10 Impact, the open die shift would result in a D8
versus
D12 (armour goes up to maximum, which is a D12, and then impact drops
for the
other shift).

>4) Allan has an interesting idea. Another 
>approach might be to say that range bands are 
>12" for no FC, 16" for basic, 20" for enhanced, 
>and 24" for superior. 

It could work. Either way would work. Trying to remember range bands for
FC is
harder than trying to figure them out based on die type. The dice, after
all,
are sitting right in front of you on the table.

>Don't get me wrong, I like unit quality to 
>matter, but I get the impression that DS2 
>weapons ranges were more determined by 
>technology (at a certain point, your FC probably 
>matters moreso than your skills in determining 
>when a weapon can hit). 

I've only played DS2 twice, and that was a long time ago.

> It strikes me 
>we should take the other tack: Anyone NOT 
>engaging in a combat move is fired at as if 1 
>range band closer. This makes effective infantry 
>range a bit LONGER instead of shorter, and 
>makes the default move a combat move. Try it 
>out... it makes for a more exciting game. 

Hmm... I think I like this better! After all, the rules suggest that
combat
moves _should_ be the default movement.

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: