Re: Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

Allan Goodall wrote:

> 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):
<some snipage>

In sg2 I was under the impression that the vehicles where moving at the 
speeds that are in line with supporting infantry no where close to 
vehicle vs vehicle speeds. having spent some time on the ground with 
close vehicle support in areas of close terrain the speeds portrayed in 
the game are in line with my experience. Though patrol and road movement

might be a little stilted.

  > 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. 

Ok, I can see that when you have multiple vehicle gunners. Maybe the 
vehicle commander needs to be treated as a infantry commander and be 
able to pass on activations as such so each vehicle would have potently 
up to 4 actions in a turn. That might go forth to solve some of you 
speed complaints.

> 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.

Ok, I can see that.
> 
> 5. DS2 has ablative and reactive armour. This needs added to SG2.

Ditto.

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

Why? Or when fighting at basically visible ranges stealth doesn't do 
that much.

> 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.

Ok, I can kinda see that, for some the simplified armor for AFVs is one 
of the strong point in my opinion, though I wouldn't mind some more 
detail on the lower end to represent hardened soft skin vehicles (i.e. 
the applique armor kits for Hummvs and armored sedans)
> 
> 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.

Ok, lost me here, both hull and turret down are cover postures that 
probably could be covered best by the base cover rules.

In the time scale of the game Turret traverse isn't a factor.

Open topped vehicle have no effective armor on top.

And tank riders can be treated in the same way as troops in a truck.

> 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.

Um? Realistic amounts of cover? Gonna need a better explanation / 
description.

> 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.

Ok, I gotta look at that. Thou most of what are referred to as Heavy 
Machine Guns in reality are light autocannons whose cycle rate are 
fairly low until you either put multiple weapons on a mount (twin 50s 
rock) or go to a multibarrel (gattling guns also rock)

> 3. & 4.

Ok. might have to see that, but mostly you could just say that a certain

class of guiled missile is rigged for top attack. at most missile speeds

in the combat regime you really are only gonna have 2 choices the facing

side and the top.

> 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.

You've made some good points there, but one must remember to take in the

scale the game is supposed to be in. Which is primarily an infantry 
game. In the areas that infantry is best armor has many very disastrous 
disadvantages. Which I think the base rules illustrate very well.

The biggest point you made about how vehicles fight and move is food for

thought, And yes some kinds of vehicles need some overhaul. Point being 
unlike modern and earlier tanks vehicles with multiple independent 
gunners and weapons should be able to engage multiple targets while the 
driver moves the vehicle.

-- 
Evyn

"Scientia Est Potentia"

http://ceecom.net