Prev: Re: [GZG] GEVs Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS

From: emu2020@c...
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:29:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l mailing list
of the problems I have found in games that use static armor ratings or
numbers is that they often fail to simulate special design features in
vehicles that do not entirely take in to account armor as a whole. These
specialized vehicles often excel in one area, benefitting from a higher
than normal survivability under certain conditions/circumstances but not
neccesarily against all threats.

In SG2/DS2 you could up armor the vehicles to keep within the rules. Or,
you could design (for use in friendly games) a "Mine Resistent"
characteristic that could be added to vehicle designs. Left general
enough, this could be applied to any sort of vehicle. One of the
supposed benefits of air-cushioned GEVs is mine-resistence due to
reduced ground pressure and less direct contact with the impact allowing
the energy of the explosion to disperse in the space within the plenum.
The same might be said for Grav vehicles. 

Of course your individual PSB could do away with any of this. If you GEV
are not air-cushioned but used vectored thrust or your grav are actually
contra-grav or repulsor tech instead of true anti-grav, then you  could
also argue that they exert comparable pressue on the ground that is
enough to detonate mines and IEDs.

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Tom B" <> 
John Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should
represent things like the Buffalo, Nyala, Gelandenwagen and various
other sorts of uparmoured, IED and small arms resistant vehicles in SG2
and DS2. 

John mentioned armour level 2. That should let you shrug IAVRs and small
arms as well as reasonable IEDs (at least insofar as you may get an
M-kill, but not a crew or passenger kill). Most IEDs would then
constitute a non-penetrating hit. 

I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour. Hits are
probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire connection). Bigger
ones could be used. I'll assume the one used in the Palestinian area to
pulverize a Merkava was a lot larger (even through the weaker bottom

If the IED does not penetrate, it should have a higher than standard
chance to score non-penetrating suspension hits (aka M-kills). I'm not
sure what a fair % might be - John, Oerjan, anyone? I'm also not sure
how often you'd get Firer Systems Down or other firecontrol effects from
an IED. 

Here is one place where Grav vehicles with generators inside the hull
armour look much better....

"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine 

Prev: Re: [GZG] GEVs Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?