Prev: Re: Last Post Next: Re: GZG History

RE: [SG2] EW & Artillery

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:43:14 -0500
Subject: RE: [SG2] EW & Artillery

Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> the only problem here is that calling fire uses smaller die, usually,
> regular communication rolls. Calling fire uses a d8 as standard, or a
> if you're skipping a level of command (eg squad leader calling for
> company-level mortars. A plt leader calling for the same mortars would
> the d8.)

Well, maybe (if you want to keep it to one dice) you shift down the 
enemy dice by the same amount.... just to preserve the relative 
advantage. Or maybe such complex comms is easily jammable. 
> An EW unit, on the other hand, rolls based on systems quality (d6/8/10
> BAS/ENH/SUP) and can often spare a chit (especially in small games)to
> a boost to the die rolled. A SUP EW committing two chits to a jamming
> attempt rolls a d12 - vs at most a d8, usually. Artillery callers can
> commit 'Support Request' chits for a similar boost, but once you use
an SR
> chit, it's gone for the game, whereas the EW system gets three EW
> every turn....

Of course, you could have your own EW.... which is what you should 
have. And hopefully not all the guys you face will be them with 
superior gear, you with nada. 
> OTOH, artillery calls represent more that just the radio call - they
> represent that, giving the battery accurate co-ordinates, and getting
> battery to devote it's attention to those co-ordinates. If the EW sys
> garbles even part of that communication, then the fire isn't coming
> "sir, the fire co-ordinates 2 Plt just passed on are for a spot in the
> middle of the lake!""Jamming again, wait until you get clear
> co-ordinates...or that fool Lt can't read his PCC's map worth a
> (PCC - Personal Combat Computer - coming sooner than you think to a US
> Army near you...)

Actually, I don't imagine it will be long till automated marking will 
transfer from map to arty to avoid user transcription or recitation 
errors. You can still have map read errors, but the avoidable errors 
are gone.  

> So I find myself arguing both sides of the EW-vs-fire support
> should be jammable, however.

I like the idea of having support requests jammable.  If you don't 
have your own EW, you should suffer consistently (a lesson, bring EW 
if you expect to face it and you should always expect to face it!).  
I'd say the way around this is have multiple command elements on the 
table make support requests (ie your platoon commander and your 
various squad leaders). The EW jammer can't jam all those requests 
with three chits. It costs in actions, but it equates to everyone 
trying to call for arty - not all that unprecedented. You obviously 
have to overwhelm his jamming capability. 

There must be a way to bring the quality of your comms gear (with its 
internal crypto and communications session re-establishment 
protocols) into play here for such rolls. As it stands, you can have 
great comms and have no advantage over someone with a crappy 
radio-shack walkie talkie. 

I don't have an answer now.... but you've got me thinking....always a 
bad thing.....
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup

Prev: Re: Last Post Next: Re: GZG History