Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

Allan made some good points (as always). Though I do feel I have
documentation to support
my patent application for the process of giving an infantry unit 1 RB
defensive die shift
while combat moving. I think I have 'prior art' since I wrote this
theory up sometime
around 4 years ago... ;) 

Points to consider:

How do I simulate a Merkava? If I don't mistake it, there can be 4 MGs
on a Merkava. They
can all fire at once in the real world, or three of them could possibly
fire while the
vehicle is on the move. 

Also, the real issue is sprint speeds: If my tank has to go from A to B
(two bits of cover
separate by say 300m), how long will that take in the game, and how long
in real time? In
the game, let us say it will take at least 2 turns (3 moves of 12").
That's something like
(for the sake of argument) 3 to 10 minutes, depending how you want to
score it. I'm
guessing that in the real world, this journey should take something on
the order of 60
seconds or less under hard acceleration. And this is with today's MBT.
If the vehicle was
an FAV (heaven forfend), it should probably make the trip in about 30
seconds. That makes
a difference especially when your tank is caught in the open over a turn
boundary. 

The real point, as Allan says, is that what limits a lot of movement
(infantry and
otherwise) in the non-game world is lack of God's Eye view. You spend a
lot of time
*spotting*. You *can* move quickly when you move, but you spend a lot of
time trying to
figure out where the enemy is or might be and how to minimize your
exposure to him. 

I also agree with Allan that an overwatch/reaction fire capability is a
must. I've seen
how critical it is in games with PA, who are possibly worse offenders
than vehicles. This
kind of system also prevents 'blink monster' attacks - You know an enemy
is in the woods
6" away outside of LoS. You know he's faster than you. But you are
armed. You want to
cream him as he comes out. But he's light infantry or even normal
infantry who can get to
you with 1 6" move thus not even allowing you the reaction fire rule in
SG which lets you
fire at targets moving twice in front of you. Even though you know the
enemy is there and
could 'realistically' watch that sector and start to nail the enemy as
soon as they hit
LoS, the game's movement/activation mechanics preclude that due to a
lack of an overwatch
and reaction fire system. 

I wrote up rules for tank riders long ago as well. I see they are not up
on stargrunt.ca
in the house rules area. Clearly this should be remedied (I should also
post the
range-band shifted combat movement rule too). And my implementations for
missing DS
systems into SG2. They're all written - just reformat and maybe take a
latter day editing
pass. Hmmm. I'll see what can be done this weekend. 

Giving vehicles combat moves with minimum values for acceleration isn't
a bad idea. This
might be terrain dependent a bit (your sportscar might have a minimum
roll of 15 on 2d12
on pavement, but only 5 on off-road terrain, for instance). Or weather
dependent (ice!
snow! traction!??). Still, it makes for an interesting starting point
for discussion.

Allan's 'speed based on powerplant' isn't a bad idea either, though he
should realize it
isn't speed based on powerplant so much as speed based on
power-to-weight ratio. I put a
1500 hp diesel on my scooter, I'm gonna have plenty of power. I put the
same in a 40 ton
MBT, I don't have so much get up and go. There are also 'gearing'
issues. A semi has lots
of power to weight, but still has limited acceleration due to gearing
(relative to say a
Mustang or Ferrari).

It would also be nice to be able to carom a civilian car at high speeds
through SG2 urban
terrain and have some mechanism for resolving whether the driver
crashes, fishtails or
makes it look like its just running on rails. 

I think the Turret issue is interesting. I usually make my players
indicate where the
turret is pointed. My reaction fire rules apply a modifier for something
more than 45 or
60 degree off your centreline, so there is a reason why facing matters.
At the same time,
you can freely change it, but only in your turn or only in reaction to
an enemy action. So
if you turn to fire at enemy unit A, expose your side armour to enemy
unit B, you can only
really turn back after B (unactivated) has at least one chance to take a
shot. 

Fire on the move is a tough one. How well you can do this (both the
technical aspect of
how steady your guns are and the spotting aspect of how well you can ID
a target on the
move) should depend a lot on troop quality and technology. 3-axis modern
stabilization
plus a crack crew (Hammers Slammers) and you ought to be able to 'roll
along merrily'
spraying lead effectively around. Poor troops or poor tech ought to make
that a waste of
effort and just draw attention to you which generally means enemy fire
too. 

Another vehicle issue: How to represent an AIFV like the Cav Scout
vehicles or other types
of vehicles where you are meant to fight your infantry section from
under-armour. Do you
allow the vehicle to move, then allow the infantry to activate and
conduct fire actions
from inside the vehicle? Do you apply a penalty? How much? Do you
require specialized
firing ports or extra weapons? (The Bradley's port firing weapon comes
to mind, IIRC it
was a modified M4 or M16 or something like that)

Another distinction that makes for an interesting change is representing
sustained fire
capability (the weapon + ammo supply). If you have a tank with lots of
ammo or an emplaced
MG with a loader and lots of ammo, you may allow something like that to
overwatch but not
come off overwatch (something that commonly is done with OW
implementations) when the OW
unit makes an attack. This means a set defensive MG can fire and fire -
thus making
attacks on such positions without suppressing the gunners (and that can
be hard under
armour) very tough. They can just pile the bodies up in front of the
position. This then
necessitates either placing fire on the position for suppression or
artillery. 

As to vehicle actions:
Maybe each crewman on a vehicle effectively gets two actions (how FMAS
of me...). The
gunner can fire the main gun (probably not do much else, unless he has a
coax too). The
driver can drive twice. The loader can either fire the coax or load or
fire a roof MG. The
commander can fire his MG. The gunner or driver may also attempt to spot
and the commander
can communicate. The most a weapon could fire is once (though I've seen
people toy with
lifting this restriction too - it makes for a *much* more static game),
so the most you'd
get is everyone taking a shot if there were enough weapons (many
APSWs/MGs) aboard a
vehicle. And that's only if the driver only 'moved' once. But this would
let the driver
move twice and all the gunners and commanders pop off shots with MGs if
it made sense. 

Lots of grist for the mill anyway. 

Tomb