Re: Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

The GZG Digest wrote on 4/1/2005 1:00 AM:

> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:52:56 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>

> 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... ;) 

Hey, I never said I invented it! *L* In truth, I can't remember if I 
came to it on my own, or if I got the idea from Chris (Laserlight), or 
if I got the idea in a conversation with Chris. I'm thinking it was more

likely the second one. At any rate, I was willing to credit Chris with 
it just to be safe, but maybe he stole it from you? *L*

I think I've heard of other people doing this. It might be one of those 
spontaneous things, where it seems so obvious that several people invent

it simultaneously.

> 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. 

This extends to squads, too. There's no reason that a squad with two 
support weapons and regular small arms couldn't engage in three or more 
targets, splitting up their firepower as necessary. The RAW strictly 
forbid this. It's one fire action per target.

An example of this would be a Red Team squad on a hill spur defending 
against three Blue Team squads approaching it from three different 
directions. Red squad could fire at only two Blue squads. The third can 
not be fired upon. This runs up against another issue, the requirement 
that missile weapons in a squad fire with their own action.

I would be in favour of allowing a squad to split its fire among as many

targets as it wants, but using up both actions to do so. However, this 
rule doesn't help with vehicles, and I'd prefer to use the same general 
rule for vehicles as I would for infantry.

Would it be good enough to allow units, all units, to split fire among 
multiple targets with a single Fire Action, but at a drop in Quality 
Level? For my rationale, let's go back to Red Squad on the hill spur. 
They could spend a single action firing in every direction, but their 
Quality Die would drop a level due to the Squad Leader being so busy 
that he can't direct fire adequately against any one target.

Three other options: 1) drop the Quality Die one level per target after 
the first target (Quality Die down 1 for 2 targets, down 2 for three 
targets, down 3 for four targets, etc.), or 2) the Squad Leader can 
associate himself with one attack, which would be resolved at the normal

Quality Die, but all other attacks are shifted down 1, 3) a combination 
of 1 and 2. Regardless of the option used, the player can always fire at

one target with a single action at no penalty. And one infantry weapon 
could only fire at a single target per activation.

This brings up yet _another_ point. The above rules still limit a single

weapon (like a support weapon) to a single target. A great many weapons 
can engage more than one target in 3 to 5 minutes. I touched on this 
previously with regard to turret traverse rules. A modern MBT could 
engage quite a few targets in 3 minutes, yet in SG2 it's allowed to fire

only once per activation. How do we handle that?

How do we handle weapons like HMGs that suppress areas and not 
individual squads? Right now all fire is aimed at an enemy squad, when 
in reality an HMG has a specific area it deals with. What happens if the

HMG wants to defend an area that is covered by two squads? Why can't the

HMG engage both squads? I came across this same problem in _Hardtack_ 
(SG2 rules for the American Civil War). Canister fire from a cannon 
would rip into a line of men. It very rarely only hit one squad. It's 
easy enough to apply these sorts of weapons to multiple squads, but then

you get the player's God's Eye View interfering again. They will 
deliberately fire so that the weapon hits more than one squad in an 
effort to gains suppression and Confidence Tests on as many squads as 
possible, instead of firing for the most damaging effect. I haven't 
playtested this enough to know how big an issue this is.

As you can see, once you start down the path to fixing some of these 
things, you very soon begin to think, "Gee, maybe I should just write a 
whole new set of rules."

> 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?

Yes, you're right. Oerjan and I were discussing acceleration, but 
"sprint speed" may be more accurate, because it takes into account 
acceleration and top speed.

  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.

The M1A1 Abrams takes 7 seconds to get to 20 mph. That works out to a 
speed of about 536 metres per minute. That's in the ballpark of 40 
seconds to travel 300 metres _once it gets to 20 mph_ (it would take 
33.55 seconds to travel 300 metres at that speed, and 7 seconds to get 
up to that speed, but I'm not taking into account the distance the 
Abrams already traveled in those 7 seconds). That assumes that the 
Abrams stops accelerating when it hits 20 mph, which is less than half 
it's top speed. Under hard acceleration I think you'd be fair to say 
that the Abrams could dash those 300 metres in half a minute. If you 
want the Abrams to _stop_ once it traveled 300 metres, you'd be better 
off using the 40 second number.

> 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. 

You e-mailed some of this to me already, but I'd be very happy to see 
them on Stargrunt.ca.

> 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.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. Perhaps the easiest rule 
would be to half the minimum speed on slippery ground.

Ice and snow, though, should probably be in a rule all by themselves. 
For instance, how do you handle a tracked vehicle laterally across an 
ice-covered slope? (The _Phoenix Command Mechanized System_ does a 
reasonably good job of modeling vehicle movement.)

> 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.

Yes, I realize that.

I will probably make power plant costs dependent on the vehicle's size 
class. I probably would _not_ go the more realistic route and have the 
power plant's capacity point cost increase based on what you put on the 
vehicle. That's what real vehicle designers have to worry about, and -- 
if I'm remembering correctly -- _Striker_ did this, too. As someone else

pointed out, SG2's vehicle design system is pretty simple, and they like

it that way.

> 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.

That's an interesting idea.

> 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.

That's essentially what I wrote up about turret facing.

> 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)

The rules already sort of handle that. Remember that you can have a 
vehicle as a detached element or have it operate as an independent unit.

Most people make it independent because of the messed up nature of the 
detached element rules. However, if you have the vehicle as a detached 
element, you can activate it and the squad simultaneously.

My preference would be for a group activation rule. You can already 
activate multiple units in the game for the purposes of close assault. I

would like a rule that allowed a vehicle and its passengers to activate 
simultaneously.

> 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. 

That's something I was alluding to, above. I wonder if that would make 
overwatch units overly powerful. I suspect not, because they are giving 
up mobility in order to attack all units that show themselves. It does 
illustrate the need for some sort of indirect fire capability for taking

out a MG nest. That means organic mortars, or similar. Those players who

"don't play with the artillery rules" aren't going to like this 
overwatch implementation, but there's a reason that mortars and the like

are assigned to company level (and lower) units.

I like this idea, Tom, as you can probably guess from my comments. A few

things:

1. For it to work properly, the rule needs to incorporate spotting. How 
do you incorporate a spotting rule that doesn't bog down the game? I 
certainly wouldn't want to roll a die each activation for each unit for 
each potential target. Obviously anything within LOS is fair game, but 
what about enemy targets under cover?

2. A tank, with enough ammunition, can engage a lot of targets in the 
time period of an SG2 turn. This is represented by a tank in Overwatch 
being able to engage anything that rolls along. What about a tank that 
fires in direct fire mode? Surely that tank can fire at a bunch of 
targets too, can't it? Just allowing OW units to fire at lots of targets

unfairly hampers tanks not on OW. So, I see every tank, or APC in the 
game going on OW, especially if we divorce the movement actions from the

fire actions. Is there anything wrong with this approach? And, have we 
made the Fire Action (as opposed to the Overwatch Action) obsolete?

(As an aside: Advanced Squad Leader is a ugo-igo system, but with 
interactive turns. Most of a unit's effective firing occurs during the 
_other_ player's turn.)

3. I don't want to keep track of ammunition, unless there's a scenario 
specific reason, or a vehicle has limited loads (i.e. missiles). Should 
there be some sort of limiter to this activity, based on ammunition? ASL

did it by having a breakdown number that represented ammunition issues, 
jams, etc. Would something similar be worthwhile?

4. If this approach is extended to all weapons, how do you prevent an 
HMG on a hill top engaging all targets in a 360 degree arc? 
Realistically a HMG can be moved around in 3 to 5 minutes in order to 
engage all targets, but realistically HMGs are set up to suppress a 
given area within a cone of fire. I suppose you could require HMGs and 
other heavy weapons in fixed (i.e. non-turret) mounts to use up an 
action to change facing, but allow them to engage anything within a 90 
degree cone. Then the question becomes, "Do we extend this capability to

infantry, or still leave them at firing at one target per action, and 
one fire action per weapon per activation?"

5. This opportunity fire has to go hand-in-hand with the concept of 
sprinting. Let's say I have a tank on a hill, and you have an APC 
crossing a road, moving from behind one house, then out in the open, and

then behind another house. If I'm pointed down the same road as you are 
crossing, I should be able to fire at you. If my turret is pointing 180 
degrees away from you, I probably shouldn't have enough time to slew the

turret toward you and fire at you. What's the limiter?

I'm thinking that a gun should be able to engage anything up to 45 
degrees from the direction it's pointing (or 30 degrees, or whatever) 
the moment the target comes within LOS. Any other target can be engaged,

but only after the tank rotates the turret, which happens after the 
target completes its turn. This results in two more issues.

a. If the target is sprinting across a narrow street, there should be a 
negative modifier for firing at the target even if the tank is pointing 
at it. How do you decide this modifier? Shift the Range Die Up x shifts 
for y inches moved? Realistically, the shift should be based on how far 
the target moved with respect to how far it could move. Up 2 for moving 
1/4 the target's maximum movement rate traveled or less, up 1 for half 
distance or less, etc. Would that work?

b. If your APC was moving down the road instead of across it, I should 
be able to turn the turret and engage you while you were still moving. 
It would be unfair for you to dash onto a road, move 11" and dash behind

a building without me having a chance of slewing the turret around to 
engage. How would you handle that? Off the top of my head, allow a 
turret to turn 90 degrees for every 1/4 of the target's maximum movement

traveled. Would you allow the turret to fire as soon as it completed the

turn, or after another 1/4 move was made?

As I mentioned before, the deeper you go, the more work you have to do. 
And the further away you're getting from "Stargrunt II".

> 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. 

I'd personally like to stay away from actually defining crew positions, 
because that is very FMAS. You will have players micromanaging vehicle 
crews. "Okay, the loader will fire the main gun once, and the coax once,

that's his two actions. The gunner will fire the main gun... hold on, he

has another action. If I use the commander to spot, and fire the top 
machine gun, I can use the gunner's other action to spot. Ah, but if the

commander already spots, the gunner can operate the radio... uh, what 
did I say the loader was doing?" See what I'm saying?

Since SG2 is about squads, not individuals, I would split vehicles into 
mobility and attack groups and give each two actions. What I'm not sure 
is how to handle the transfer of actions from the commander. If the 
commander gets two actions, can he really only get the vehicle to move 
_or_ fire while he spends some time spotting? How about: the commander 
gets two actions. He can transfer an action, which gives the vehicle two

actions of their own. One could be for weapons fire and one can be for 
movement, or two can be for movement, or two can be for fire. If he 
transfers both his actions, he could give out four actions total, but 
each "segment" of the vehicle (move and fire) can only do a maximum of 
two actions.

Did that rambling sentence make sense? Or would people prefer to go the 
"activate each crew member" route?

Allan

-- 

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