Re: Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

The GZG Digest wrote on 3/31/2005 1:00 AM:

> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:16:20 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>

> 2. Top attack isn't the only threat. People can build side attack
missiles and other
> options as well. Probably rear-attack too if they work at it. Perhaps
depending on missile
> tech, the attacker should be able to pick facing to hit. 

I may have been unclear on that. When I wrote "top attack" as an option,

I meant to include rules for any angle.

> I think when Oerjan and I talked about it, it might have been that the
> impact should be 2D12* or 3D12*. 

I, too, talked to Oerjan about missile weapons. He pointed out that the 
only real world difference between a GMS/P and a GMS/L is range, and the

ranges wouldn't show themselves in an SG2 game (unless you allowed off 
board assets to fire missiles). He also said that a modern IAVR's 
warhead fits the same bracket as these guys, too, so that the IAVR's 
only real difference is range and the fact that it's a disposable
weapon.

As per your discussion with him, I have GMS/P, GMS/L and IAVRs all 
having 2D12* impact, though I can see going up to 3D12*, too. GMS/Hs 
would continue to be 4D12*.

> At the same time, vehicle armour is sold short by rolling
> and multiplying (vs rolling NdX), so rolling NdX for attacking and
defending systems makes
> them a bit (slightly) more predictable in results. 

Jon made the "roll number of D12s equal to Armour Level and add them" 
(as opposed to the rule book's "roll 1D12 and multiply by Armour Level) 
an "official option". I've used it ever since.

> 4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
should have PDS and
> decoys should be better understood as should various variant armour
types.

Oerjan and I talked extensively about reactive armour. I, like most 
folks, had a pretty antiquated view of reactive armour. At any rate, we 
came up with a rule system that allowed for various tech levels of 
reactive armour. Oerjan pointed out that there's an important 
interaction between missile technology and reactive armour technology. 
We hashed out a system for giving die shifts one way or the other based 
on whether you're using a new technology missile or antiquated missile 
technology versus state-of-the-art reactive armour or obsolete reactive 
armour. It wouldn't be for everyone, but the system looked -- on paper 
-- like it would work. I extended the idea to ablative armour.	I think 
we ended up with reactive armour working against RFACs, HVCs, MDCs and 
missiles while ablative worked against HELs and DFFGs (basically one 
worked against explosive warheads and one worked against energy
weapons).

I didn't get far with PDS. In fact, this was one of the reasons I 
stopped working on it. I'd make some progress and then I'd realize how 
much more work I still needed to do. At this point I started to wonder 
if it was worth fixing SG2 or if I was better off creating a new game 
system altogether. The result is that I'm stuck at a point where I'm 
dissatisfied with SG2 but haven't fixed it, nor am I likely to fix it. 
This probably explains why I haven't played it, or any sci-fi game, in 
several months.

> 5. SG2 vehicle movement is wrong also on the tactical scale. A modern
MBT can probably hit
> over 30 mph, maybe even faster yet. Sure, it might be that an average
speed might be 2.4
> kph. But SG2 is *almost* wysiwig. If I need to drive between two
buildings or between a
> hill and a copse of trees, I'm *NOT* doing it at an average speed! I'm
going hell bent for
> leather to get back behind an alternate set of cover. 

This was the same point I was getting at in my previous post, but I 
don't think I explained myself clearly. In the course of a game a 
vehicle may end up no further than halfway across the board. The 
supporting infantry with it may end up going that distance, too. However

the vehicle may have moved only twice in the entire game while the 
infantry may have been constantly on the move. The vehicle should be 
capable of realistic speeds, but the rules should encourage realistic 
tactical speeds.

The one caveat I did mention yesterday had to do with the God's Eye View

of the gamer, particularly the guy on defense if you are using the RAW 
hidden unit rules. Gamers are more likely to do gamey things because 
they know there are no reinforcements just over the horizon, or because 
they know the game is going to end in an hour. Limiting a vehicle's 
movement to some extent might be necessary just to limit this problem.

> 6. At the same time that that movement is wrong, and enemy anti-armour
equipment is too
> weak, also I agree with Allan that a fire action for a vehicle needs
to include more
> options. Perhaps you let every crew member that has a weapon and isn't
otherwise occupied
> fire.

One thing that bothers me about vehicle fire is that it seems to model a

single shot while squad fire seems to model a couple of minutes of 
engagement. Modern MBTs can fire quite a lot during a 3 to 5 minute 
period. There's no reason why a single MBT on a hill couldn't engage a 
platoon of Bradleys moving across an open field. Yet the way SG2 works, 
that MBT could only fire at a single Bradley, and if it missed it would 
have no chance of re-engaging the target. So heavy weapon/vehicle combat

is done at an entirely different scale from infantry combat. Yes, I know

this was deliberate in order to keep vehicles from dominating the game, 
but I still find it unappetizing.

I've got a germ of an idea on how to allow vehicles to fire at a 
realistic number of targets without them really dominating the game, but

I have to think about it a bit more before I released it to the list.

> I mean, in SG2, if I have a big table, there are ranges at which my
*HEL/5* can't fire at
> a target. Pardon?!

That's very true. This is where a realistic level of terrain comes in, 
though. I find most players don't put down enough terrain for an 
interesting game. If you want to limit the HEL/5 from sitting on a board

edge and hitting everything, put down more terrain but don't limit the 
HEL's range.

> Similarly, there are issues with damage. I fire my DFFG/5 against
infantry. Something
> tells me this should be *very bad* for the infantry. 

I don't mind the D8 impact versus dispersed targets for HVCs and the 
like, but I agree that DFFGs should be nasty in the anti-infantry role. 
I already mentioned that RFACs should have a different impact rating.

> Also, when I'm listing things to ponder for any sort of revamp, I'll
add powered armour.
> It should probably have armour value 1 rather than D12 armour. Why?
Because it should be
> reasonably immune to personal weapons. 

My fast-play armour resolution house rule actually helps in this regard,

though I suspect you want it to go further.

> And then again there is the interesting rule that PA can't benefit
from cover. If someone
> is shooting at me and I'm in plate steel, I can still probably benefit
by putting 75% of
> my body behind 2' of concrete. 

That's not an official ruling. In the errata section on my web site I 
have Jon's official ruling, "Page 38: As per Jon Tuffley, Impact versus 
Armour rolls are subject to open die shifts. This isn't stated on page 
38, but it should be."

A number people still play where PA doesn't get the benefit of an open 
die shift, but that's not Jon's official ruling.

> Anyway, a lot of the issues Allan brings up are more issues of "SG3"
rather than any
> Traveller conversion.

That's true, though I will point out that Traveller tends to be more 
vehicle heavy than SG2, and so I think some of SG2s simplifications with

regard to vehicles will more readily show themselves.

-- 

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