Re: SG2: Vehicles with turreted infantry weapons

Glenn M Wilson wrote:

>>That same "external remote mounting" reference you quote explicitly
>>says that the weapon is capable of all-arc fire.
>>
>>The capacity requirements table on p.16 specifies that all
>>additional APSW cost 1 capacity point each - they don't seem to be
>>included in the "All direct fire weapons" category, since they have
their >>own line in that table.
> >
> >So, as I understand the rules each extra all-arc APSW beyond the
first
> >one costs 1 capacity point, not 3. But if you absolutely *want* to 
> >make
> >the APSWs three times as big as you have to, don't let me stop you
;-)
> >
> 
> Not thjat I want to but the referance was, was it not, to a weapon in
a
> turret - like a co-ax MG in today's turrets.

A co-ax MG isn't an "external remote mount". Think "MG at the
commander's hatch" instead, but give it a remote control so the
commander doesn't risk having his head blown off when he uses it :-/

The full quote is:

"All military vehicles are fitted with one "free" APSW, capable of
all-round fire; this weapon does not count towards any weapons fit
limitations, or take up any capacity. [This is assumed to be a
Machinegun or equivalent, on an external remote mounting. Additional
APSWs may be fitted if desired, but any such extras each occupy ONE
capacity point and DO count towards total weapons fit limitations.]"
(Jon's emphasis)

Says nothing at all about the fields of fire of those "extra" APSWs,
but is is very specific that their capacity cost is 1 point. (And 1
shall be the number, not 0 or 2. 3 is right out... <g>)

Just noticed another thing: the APSWs aren't included in the list of
"direct fire weapons" on p.8 :-/

> >>>>House rules (If I ran that arrangement) would be to allow the GL
to
> >>>>have AT type ammo that acted as a HVC (range as class-3, since 
> >there
> >>>>is nothing smaller for HVC's
> >>>
> >>>"HVC less than class/3" = "small-caliber shell-firing cannon" =
RFAC
> >>
> >>Actually RFAC and HVC seem similar but I don't see the DS2 'logic'
> >>equating them exactly...
> >
>>They have virtually identical PSB descriptions ("conventional" except
>>for the use of more efficient propellants), and completely identical
>>chit validities. Sounds like a pretty strong case for equating them,
>>no?

Forgot that the RFACs follow the same "range increases by X inches"
progression as the HVCs :-/

>Then why not call them HVC1 through HVC-5?

No idea. Ask Jon or Mike; they're the ones who wrote the rules :-/

>But yes, the explanation does break down (or RFAC-3 is really
>KEC-3...) in that way.

No, KEC is weaker still. Different range bands, IIRC different chit
validities, and only capable of combining with Basic FCS :-/
 
>>The main differences are the size classes available (no overlap 
>>between the two types) and that RFACs are supposed to be mostly
>>shell-firing while the HVCs mostly fire APFSDS (though the HVCs are
>>able to fire shell as well, since they have a reasonable
anti-infantry
>>capability)... that's an even better reason for calling a light 
>>grenade launcher "RFAC", since grenades are shells and APFSDS
>>aren't :-)
> 
>I can accept that.  But the rules specifically call the GL's APSW.

Yep. At least DSII does - in SGII an AGL is quite different from a
heavy SAW. But that classification gives you no anti-armour ability at
all; using the RFAC/1 version gives a reasonable match to the desired
stats without adding a single extra rule...
 
>>According to the DSII weapon description an RFAC is a small, fairly
>>short-randed rapid-fire shell-firing weapon. The rules gives it a
>>reasonable effect against infantry (though *all* DSII weapons are
>>IMO too weak against infantry) but poor against all but the lightest 
>>armour - particularly the RFAC/1.
> 
>Well, i expect you can only do so much with 20mm!

Particularly if you restrict it to shell... though there's no real
reason to do that; saboted KE rounds can be quite nasty, though of
course they are still no match for serious armour.
 
Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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