Re: Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

Allan Goodall wrote:

> I don't think they are even close to infantry speeds, either. Infantry

> can make combat moves which, if you roll well, will equal a vehicle's 
> top speed in a single game turn. If rolling a 6 represents the upper 
> level of movement for a human in a combat environment, a vehicle
should 
> at least have the capability of moving faster than that in combat 
> situations. It's possible for an infantry unit to fire at a vehicle
and 
> run back in a combat move without that vehicle being able to fire back

> _and_ decrease the the range band. This is due to a "gamey"
restriction 
> on vehicles.

I'm gonna have to go back to the real world on this, in rough and varied

terrain sometimes feet are better than vehicles. Hence the Combat move 
of 2x2d12 per move action. And from looking though I have only played 
with a little the Vehicle commander / crew modification would go a long 
way to overcome what little speed differential problems there is.

> One of the reasons for my change in vehicle rules is to allow 
> vehicle-on-vehicle games in SG2 using 1/144, 1/285 or 1/300 scale 
> vehicles. That would necessitate faster vehicle movement, as not all 
> vehicle-on-vehicle engagements are going to involve a lot of infantry.

That game exists it's called Dirtside, Stargrunt 2 is about the PBI. If 
I want to play armor I'll use a game that is centered on armor, not try 
to fit a infantry based game to it.

> My ultimate goal is to allow vehicles to move at realistic speeds in a

> game turn, with the limitation to that speed coming from a realistic 
> combat environment. A vehicle should be able to move more than 120 
> metres in a 3 to 5 minute turn and fire it's main weapon. Whether or
not 
> it's a good idea should depend on the terrain, the opposition, and 
> things like opportunity fire rules.

Ah, I see now. Your hung up on the the time scale. Ok I see the basis of

some of your arguments then. Still we are talking about combat, to time 
is fuzzy.

> It may be too drastic to have 
> them roll 2D12 for combat movement. I'm still thinking about this. I 
> think playtesting will shake out what might work best.

You mean like Page 23?

> While I'm on the topic, one house rule I've never posted to my site
but 
> which works well is to give a squad a die shift down if they conduct a

> combat move. Right now combat moves are mostly cheesy affairs. I most 
> often see them when a player wants to move a squad about 8 inches. He 
> will declare a combat move first. If he succeeds at rolling an 8 or 
> more, he made it in a single game turn and has an action left. If he 
> fails to roll an 8 or more, he simply uses his second action to move
to 
> his target. I rarely see players rolling combat moves for shorter 
> distances. By giving a squad a die shift down on the range band, you 
> give them an incentive to use a combat move the way the rule manual 
> implies the rule was intended. This brings up the question of whether
or 
> not a vehicle should get a similar shift down if vehicular combat
moves 
> are allowed.

Hum, I think that the people we play with and the style of play may be 
part of the problem here.
> 
> Finally, one thing Oerjan really would like to see modeled isn't so
much 
> a vehicle's top speed but it's acceleration. 

Now that is a good idea. Kinda. How much detail do we really need in a 
infantry game. It's like getting all the available Rhinemetal data to 
model how all the weapons act in the lab and using those ideal 
conditions to model the real field action of the weapons systems.

> Oh, and to round this out, another idea I had was giving vehicles
speeds 
> based on power plant values. The power plant values would be anywhere 
> from a D4 to a D12, in increments of 2. A normal move would be the 
> movement die type x 2. Combat movement would be calculated by rolling 
> two dice equal to the movement rate, and multiplying the result by 2 
> (with a minimum value based on acceleration). So, a slow vehicle may
be 
> D4, giving it an 8" movement and 2D8 x 2 combat movement. A fast
vehicle 
> may be D10 giving it 20" movement or 2D10 x 2 combat move. This still 
> keeps them below realistic speeds, but it seems to be more palatable
for 
> most gamers.

Now that could work. Maybe beyond Bugs don't Surf, Jon might want to do 
a vehicle options book.
> 
>> having spent some time on the ground with close vehicle support in 
>> areas of close terrain the speeds portrayed in the game are in line 
>> with my experience. Though patrol and road movement might be a little

>> stilted.
> 
> 
> If you don't mind my asking, when was this? As I mentioned, Oerjan 
> quoted stats for combat vehicle speeds in both Gulf conflicts at about

> 15mph.

The eighties and nineties Navel Special Forces at Subic in the 
Philippines and police patrol work in cities. The funny thing is dealing

with a drunken Admiral is a lot like dealing white trash at closing 
time.... Funny how life hands you things.
> 
>> Ok, I can see that when you have multiple vehicle gunners. Maybe the 
>> vehicle commander needs to be treated as a infantry commander and be 
>> able to pass on activations as such so each vehicle would have 
>> potently up to 4 actions in a turn. That might go forth to solve some

>> of you speed complaints.
> 
> 
> That's something I thought about, allowing the driver to have two 
> actions and the gun team (gunner/loader) to have two actions. It would

> essentially split a tank into two fire teams: a "movement" fire team 
> that would get up to two actions, and a "gun" fire team that would get

> up to two actions.
> 
> The main complaint stems from vehicles, like some modern tanks and
APCs, 
> that have main guns and missile systems. You can't fire both of these 
> weapon systems in SG2. You can't even take two move actions and fire 
> _either_ weapon system. Your idea could solve the problem and make the

> vehicles more mobile.

Gonna have to play that one, but it looks like a keeper.
> 
>>> 6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to
be 
>>> added.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Or when fighting at basically visible ranges stealth doesn't do 
>> that much.
> 
> 
> Why? Because DS2 has stealth signatures for vehicles, and SG2 does
not.

Ok, that is a point. Esspecially when talking about the interface 
between the 2 games, Gonna have to pull out DS and brush up.

> Besides, its a sci-fi game. Jon doesn't go into detail as to what 
> "stealth" entails. It could mean electronic camouflage, like the 
> chameleon surfaces in _Traveller_, which would be useful at visible
ranges.

Humm..... A sensor vs Stealth kit opposed roll thingy.... Might not be 
all that bad an idea.

> My vehicle rule ideas probably wouldn't be implemented by those who
are 
> happy with the rules as they are, anyway.

The hard part is to figure out what needs a real change or just a tweak.

> They don't. You could say that if a vehicle is completely hidden, it's

> turret down. That means you can't fire at it, with the rules as
written 
> (RAW). However, if you were to know the tank was there, you could fire

> at it with top-attack missiles. 

That is one of those things and it reall comes down to how smart your 
missles are.

> In the RAW, a vehicle can point in any direction after movement. I
can't 
> remember if turrets are listed in the RAW. I don't think they are, I 
> think the rules basically say that a turreted gun can fire in any 
> direction. If you allow proper hull down rules, you have a turret that

> is sticking out of cover. What happens if that turret engages a target

> 90 degrees to the right using opportunity fire? Well, the turret would

> turn that direction and engage the target. What happens then if
another 
> target attacks that tank from straight ahead, with regard to the
tank's 
> hull? The turret is now pointing 90 degrees to the right, so thinner 
> side turret armour is now facing the second enemy unit.

Roll a die, 1 or 2 turret side, 3 to 6 vehicle front. But a ruling might

be nice on that.

> Some of this stuff is pretty simple, but it's all stuff that should be

> listed so that players don't have to guess at it.

Yes, a faq might be nice....

>> Um? Realistic amounts of cover? Gonna need a better explanation / 
>> description.
> 
> 
> I've seen a lot of games where combat takes place on what's
essentially 
> a salt flat with a few bushes and houses.

Then why are the infantry there fighting?
> 
>> Ok, I gotta look at that. Thou most of what are referred to as Heavy 
>> Machine Guns in reality are light autocannons whose cycle rate are 
>> fairly low until you either put multiple weapons on a mount (twin 50s

>> rock) or go to a multibarrel (gattling guns also rock)
> 
> 
> And I wouldn't have a problem treating an HMG as an RFAC, really, but 
> something has to be done about the impact of RFACs against dispersed 
> targets.

Yes, reread that section Small rapid fire cannow should get their impact

die not the general die.

> The idea isn't to replace the SG2 vehicle rules, but to include a
bunch 
> of ideas that players can pick and choose from, in case their scenario

> requires it.

Is cool I understand that.

> To that end, I like your idea (or my interpretation of your idea?) of 
> giving a vehicle two move actions and two fire actions, though
probably 
> restricting the weapon to firing each weapon system only once. That, 
> too, has issues. A main battle tank can certainly engage more than one

> target in 3 minutes! I'm not sure if this can be handled realistically

> without it wrecking the feel of the game completely.

Someone mentioned 3 action, but as I said both ideas need play
test......

-- 
Evyn

"Scientia Est Potentia"

http://ceecom.net