RE: [SG2] EW & Artillery
From: Brian Burger <burger00@c...>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: [SG2] EW & Artillery
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> <<snip>>
> 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.
>
I'd say so. It's not just a simple radio call & short orders, but
passing
some fairly detailed information back and forth - coords, fire mission
type, priority, etc.
> > An EW unit, on the other hand, rolls based on systems quality
(d6/8/10 for
> > BAS/ENH/SUP) and can often spare a chit (especially in small
games)to give
> > 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
chits
> > 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.
Granted. The scenario that prompted this question happend to be set up
that way, however.
> <<snip>>
> > (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.
then you have to jam the datastream from the field computer to the arty
comp...or just introduce single-bit errors to render the coords
gibberish.
>
> > So I find myself arguing both sides of the EW-vs-fire support
issue...it
> > 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.
>
Just flood the airwaves, and hope that your frequency-agile comms gear -
lots of sets - can find more frequencies than his similarly-agile but
outnumbered EW elements. Sensible.
One of the ideas I'm kicking around (only for very large SG2 games) is
large EW systems - vehicle or bunker mounted multiple-operator systems
than have more power & more activations than the regular tactical EW
sets.
I'm not sure they're a good idea, though - they'd have massive power.
Scenarios only, for sure.
> 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.
>
Two ways of doing this: one, either have EW elements around all the time
-
they can effectively (by running ECCM) act as signal booster to cut
through enemy jamming.
Or, if a squad has SUP or BAS sensors, give a die shift up or down
respectively to all comms & fire support rolls. (assuming that the
Sensor
rating of a squad is more than just IR/lolight/fancy scopes but includes
comms as well - resonable, I'd think).
Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/ --DS2/SG2/games
webpages--
> 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
> **************************************************/
>