Re: [SG] More questions from the weekend - Stargrunt rules questions.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:00:50 -0400, Adrian Johnson
<adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>That makes sense.  I have to admit that this situation never occurred
to
>me.  We *never* play vehicles as part of the squad they're carrying - I
>always have them as separate units.

Me neither. When I first played I didn't want to be bothered with the
clunky
detached element rules, so I decided to make the vehicles independent. I
just
kept them that way. I suspect, though, that Jon went the other way and
mostly
had vehicles as part of the squad. The rules sort of seem to imply this
as
standard.

>>Well, if you're talking about a modern style tank gun firing HE
ammunition,
>>then I'd go to the "On Table Artillery Fire" rules on page 47, giving
that
>>tank essentially unlimited range on the table to hit the infantry.
>
>That's a great idea.

Thanks! One change: artillery firing over "open sights" takes up two
actions.
Change this to one action for these vehicle weapons as they are
essentially
direct fire weapons.

>certainly that would make the ranges of the heavy autocannon weapons
more
>"realistic" vs. infantry.  Would this apply to RFACs, HELs and GACs, or
to
>all heavy weapons?  And would it apply when shooting at infantry, or at
all
>targets?
>
>If against all targets, then a size 3 weapon shooting at a size 4
target
>would have 84" range bands, which seems a bit much...

Yeah, it probably is a bit much. 

The simplest solution is 24" range bands. There are other permutations
that
would make it more "realistic" but cause more math: 12" + (target class
x
weapon class) for instance.

How about 12" x (greatest of target class and weapon class)? An RFAC/1
would
still have 12" range bands, but an RFAC/2 against infantry would have
24"
range bands. An HVC/5 would have 60.

Hmm... I'm really beginning to like _this_ idea!

>>RFAC/1 and RFAC/2, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode need to be
modified
>>somewhat. They need support weapon stats (instead of the D8 impact
versus
>>dispersed targets) as well as more realistic range band sizes. Leave
HVCs,
>>HKPs, and MDCs as they are
>
>do you mean "leave the impact effects as they are", or "leave all the
>effects as they are"?	If we increase the range effectiveness of RFAC/1
but
>not HKP, that would lead to oddness...

Sorry, "leave the impact effects as they are" but change the range
bands.
Definitely any range band change has to propogate to the other vehicle
weapons, too.

>>when firing HE-style projectiles at infantry. DFFGs should probably
have a
>>burst radius for an anti-infantry mode using the on table artillery
rules.
>
>yeah.	and/or maybe a morale effect too.  

Oh, it's a terror weapon all right! Yes, good catch! And we don't even
need a
new rule for it!

>It doesn't make sense that an infantry carried SAW would be more
effective
>vs. infantry than a vehicle mounted .50 cal...

No, it doesn't.

>normally I shy away from adding something to the rules as big as a
whole
>new set of stats for most of the heavy weapons, but in this case, it
makes
>sense.

Me too, on both counts. I think it's necessary, though, to give vehicles
their
proper due in the game. 

>I always give the RFAC at least a d10 impact vs. PA, but when we played
it
>with "full effectiveness", we said that a minor hit was a suppression,
and
>a major hit was d10x2 impact.	It seemed to work ok.

That doesn't sound bad...

>Lots of fun.
>
>And nice to be able to play on a table big enough that we could
actually
>have three platoons per side running about and not get in each others'
way
>all the time.

What was the table size?

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: