Re: Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

The GZG Digest wrote on 3/29/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:40:26 +0100
> From: Infojunky <infojunky@ceecom.net>
> 
> What changes do you think are needed?

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I only read the digest of this
list.

Here is a list of stuff I've been thinking about for vehicles in SG2, 
some of which I've done some work on.

1. The main problem with vehicles is that they are too slow. This is a 
big bone of contention among some players, who are still stuck in the 
World War II mode of combat where vehicles moved fairly slowly. Oerjan, 
our resident weapons expert, posted the following to the playtest list 
(I'm not divulging anything, and I hope Oerjan doesn't mind me posting 
this, as it is real world information):

"IIRC the average combat speed of US tracked vehicles in Iraq (both in 
1991 and last year) in terrains ranging from open desert to built-up 
areas, was around 15 mph - including various stops for fuel resupply and

similar, so the actual speed while moving was usually higher."

Switching to metric and using 15 mph as the benchmark -- though Oerjan 
points out that actual combat speed was faster -- that	works out to 
approximately 24,000 metres in an hour, or 400 metres per minute. At an 
SG2 ground scale of 10 metres = 1 inch, that's 40 inches per minute. An 
SG2 game turn is nebulous in terms of how long it represents, but it's 
usually quoted as somewhere between 3 to 5 minutes. If we take 3 minutes

as an average, that's 120 inches per game turn. The maximum a vehicle, 
any vehicle, can move in SG2 is 24 inches in regular movement. (A 
vehicle can move 48 inches in a turn using road movement, but a real 
life AFV can travel at least 45 mph on road, and usually closer to 60, 
so the difference between game and reality is even more obvious with 
road movement.)

2. To allow vehicles to move at rates typically used _today_ (and not 
what might be possible in the future), you need to have an opportunity 
fire system. I've used that kind of house rule for quite sometime now. 
It's critical, though, to model vehicles at anything close to reality.

The main reason you don't go bounding along the countryside at top speed

all the time in modern combat isn't so much because of gun inaccuracy, 
but because it makes it hard to spot the enemy. Adding spotting 
modifiers, or somehow limiting a vehicle's ability to react based on its

speed, could also help reduce vehicles to realistic combat speeds... 
which are still 2.5 times the speed in SG2.

3. You can only fire one weapon per vehicle per action. This is far too 
restrictive, given a game turn of 3 to 5 minutes. What's more, you can't

move at anywhere near realistic combat speeds _and_ fire, since a move 
action eats up a potential fire action. A modern vehicle can move 15mph 
in a combat environment and still engage targets. In SG2, a vehicle can 
only move 12" and still fire. That translates to a speed of 2.4 kph, or 
roughly 2 mph. As a point of comparison, Oerjan pointed out in the 
playtest list that the Renault FT-17 light tank from World War One had a

maximum road movement rate of 4.8 mph.

4. While DS2 mentions PDS-style defensive systems for vehicles, there is

no mention of them in SG2. There is no anti-personnel capability, except

for vehicle mounted MGs, etc., either.

5. DS2 has ablative and reactive armour. This needs added to SG2.

6. There are no stealth options for vehicles in SG2. These need to be
added.

7. The vehicle design rules only allow you to define armour for the 
front and sides of the vehicle, with every side being the same. I came 
up with a system that allowed you to design armour thickness for all 
four sides, the top, and the bottom, and it could also accommodate 
mobility options (fast and slow). This is important for point 4 in the 
heavy weapons section, below.

8. I've got a list of other things I'd want to add, such as hull down, 
turret down, turret traverse, gun depression, open-topped vehicle rules.

and rules for infantry riding on top of tanks.

Those are the changes just to vehicles. Heavy weapons need to be altered

as well, and would go hand-in-hand with vehicles:

1. Heavy weapon range bands are too short. Yes, this is to stop vehicles

from dominating the game, but that shouldn't be a problem if players set

up games with realistic amounts of cover.

2. Heavy machine guns aren't modeled in the game. If you read the rules 
carefully you'll see something stating that they should be modeled as a 
heavy weapon. Unfortunately the smallest heavy weapon listed is an RFAC,

which uses the "heavy weapons versus dispersed targets" rule of a D8 
impact. HMGs and RFACs are much deadlier to an infantry squad than a 
tank's main gun, and should be treated accordingly.

3. Oerjan designs missile systems, so it's not surprising that a couple 
of years ago we had an extensive discussion with regard to modern 
missile systems and their implementation in SG2. In short, IAVRs, GMS/P,

GMS/L, and GMS/H in SG2 need an overhaul. We had a very good discussion,

which resulted in the bare bones of a system for handling different 
missile tech versus different armour tech.

4. There are modern missiles that can attack the top of an AFV instead 
of impacting on the side. It stands to reason that in the future weapons

will be better at this, including (possibly) the ability to hit _any_ 
aspect of a vehicle. This isn't covered in SG2. If weapons can hit 
different aspects, vehicle armour design flexibility becomes more 
important, so this is tied into point 7, above, with regard to vehicles.

Those are the main points. I'm sure there are others. I've worked on all

of them to a certain extent, but I haven't written them up and not all 
of them have been playtested.

I also have a similar list of things that need to be changed for 
artillery, but I'm not as far along with those.

Allan

-- 

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