RE: SG2: rule book example vehicle armor

I have to agree with Adrian here. This is the feel I get from the SG
rules;
Jon has given it a 'feel' rather than optimised the vehicles in every
case.

A size 3 APC is that size so it can carry 10 or so troops and a decent
weapons fit to give it a fighting chance against other light vehicles or
provide fire support to the infantry inside. Sure it could carry Level 3
armour but it wouldn't fit in with the 'feel' of an APC (RL equivs like
Warrior or such do have good armour but these are in the MICV class
rather
than simple battle taxi style). APCs are still vulnerable to infantry
weapons; maybe not necessarily front on but from side or rear small arms
continue to be a threat. 

Rob Deakin designed and sculpted a BMP-60 which has Level 3 Armour on
front
but only Level 1 on the side! Front towards enemy etc!? Encourages the
crew
commanders to head TOWARDS the enemy eh ;-)

If everybody starts playing APCs with level 3 Armour all round then we
get
an on table arms race as platoons start carrying GMS/Ls instead of Ps
etc
etc etc.....

But you play with whatever the crowd you game with wants. Strenghts and
weaknesses built into a game design give these vehicles flavour that
adds to
the game play. Oh, by the way Robs BMP-60 only mounts two pintle SAWs
.....
doesn't like bumping into other Armoured vehicles much, but it does
encourage the infantry with GMS or IAVR to get out and kill teh enemy
AFV
when they do!

Cheers,

owen G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Johnson [mailto:ajohnson@idirect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2000 5:42
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Re: SG2: rule book example vehicle armor
> 
> 
> >Anyone have a good idea as to why the example vehicles
> >in the rule aren't fully armored?  Most all of them
> >are Size 3 but have Armor 2.  According to the rules
> >they could have Armor 3.
> >
> 
> 
> Maybe, as in the FT books, they are not "rules optimized" 
> designs.  They
> *could* be enormously better - with Superior FC systems, EW, Decoys on
> every one, etc.  But that would be boring.  And besides, if 
> you look at RL
> armoured vehicles, say the LAV for example, it *could* have a lot more
> armour, but the designers chose not to for a bunch of 
> reasons...  It has
> enough for the mission it was designed for, at the time it 
> was designed,
> within the budget limits of the customers buying it.	
> 
> The Rulebook examples include the NAC Phalanx which is big, 
> but wheeled.
> Look at a modern "big but wheeled" armoured vehicle, like the Italian
> Centauro B1 (which is a "Tank Destroyer" that carries a 105mm 
> tank gun on
> an 8 wheel chassis).	It has a weight in the 24,000kg class - 
> half that of
> the tanks carrying the same gun - but you can carry it in much smaller
> aircraft.  Maybe the wheeled NAC designs follow a similar 
> design philosophy
> - they do have to be lugged around rather large areas of 
> space, afterall...
>  The NSL and FSE vehicles are GEVs, so you can imagine the 
> designers not
> producing them with maxed out armour (and weight).
> 
> Anyway, my $0.02
> 
> 
> Adrian Johnson
> ajohnson@idirect.com
> 
>