Prev: Re: model Macross ships Next: Re: Sa'vasku

SV: Low Tech forces in DSII/SGII

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@n...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:00:56 +0100
Subject: SV: Low Tech forces in DSII/SGII

Status: RO

>      I have interesting subject that I would like to bring up here on 
> the list.  Since DSII/SGII deal much
> with hi-tech forces, I would like to focus the attention to low-tech 
> forces a bit.  Science Fiction is full
> of stories of were hi-tech forces attempt to conquer a planet that 
> has low-tech forces or an interstellar
> society that once had a very high tech base and regressed to low-tech.
>   With some high-tech  items
> still around bit, but used sparingly.
>     The example that I am going to use is the Fading Suns RPG, it has 
> a very good selection of low-tech items to high tech and a 
> interesting setting to fit DSII/SGII for miniatures battles.	The 
> rules
> allow for high-tech and some low-tech forces, but how about doing 
> forces with mediviel tech.  For
> example in DSII you can create units for close-assault to simulate 
> that they are armed with swords, spears etc. by using the high-tech 
> examples to show what type of hand weapons and armor they are 
> equipped with. They could be militia, regular soldiers, or knights.	
> If they are using missiles such as crossbows, bows, or single-shot 
> muskets.  Just figure out the range accordingly and designate their 
> troop quality.

I don't have SGII yet, so these comments all refer to DSII:

If the medieval guys are used to fight each other, they'll most likely
or march in very dense formations. A few machineguns would wreak havoc -
kill or wound a lot of people before the poor guys could even see their
attackers. For a picture of the casualty rates the primitives would
think WWI and multiply by a factor lots. If, OTOH, they are used to
fighting high-tech forces, they know that they need to disperse a LOT
use guerilla tactics - ambushes in close terrain and similar; in this
the action is too small to fight out in DSII.

According to most sources I've seen, the maximum effective range of
crossbows etc was less than 300 meters - ie, 3" in DSII - and I don't
many casualties were scored beyond 100 meters. Since this is about
close-assault range (2"), I'd include their effect in close assaults

>      And how about items like catapult, ballista, etc. these are the 
> items that should give you people on the list some food for thought.	

Not really. Indirect firing ancient artillery - single-arm catapults,
trebuchets etc - are slow to aim, have short ranges (some ancient
boast ranges of 500 yards, but no reconstructions I've heard about have
achieved this; most seem to have fired at ranges of 300 meters or less),
fire at best one shot every five minutes, are large targets... not good
you're facing someone with a long-range weapon or you want to hit a
fast-moving vehicle. You have to be extremely lucky to hit, and probably
won't cause much damage if you do - like, "draw two chits. If BOTH are
"BOOM" chits, the vehicle is damaged. Further primitive weapon hits have

Ballistae, especially the smaller varieties, are easier to aim with; but
again the penetrating abilities are less than satisfying. Against
targets... well, historically they were effective against massed troops.
Modern troops aren't massed, and a combat rifle has a range comparable
or exceeding that of a bolt-shooting ballista.

>  Should close-assaults be handled differentely when dealing with low-
> tech forces with melee weapons.

Most likely, yes. The high-tech forces should always shoot first, for
instance - they're automatically in range, but the swordsmen have a lot
ground to cover before they can do anything. Also, I think the
should never draw more than at most one chit in close assault.


Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

Prev: Re: model Macross ships Next: Re: Sa'vasku