Re: [GZG] [SG2] A few house rule questions.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFollow up:

Morale check, perhaps not. Any special rules regarding suppression?

---

That's an interesting point. These sorts of weapons should cause
additional
suppression. Perhaps any rapid firing weapon (HEL 1 or 2, MDC 1 or 2,
DFFG 1
or 2, RFAC 1 or 2, HMG, AGL, etc) that can throw out that kind of storm
of
projectiles or beams ought to have a different efficacy of suppression.
You
only really get 'one suppression' or 'one suppression plus a chance of
wounds/kills' and that will usually not generate more than one more
suppression. That seems a bit inadequate.

Maybe with these sorts of weapons, your results should be 'suppresion'
(one
success), 'two suppressions plus wounds' (two successes) and 'three
suppressions plus wounds' (three or more successes. That would actually
make
any fireteam subjected to an effective pounding from one of these pin in
place. (Note, I would exempt PA from enhanced suppression effects and
might
exempt full body hard shell armoured infantry).

Of course, making them powerful like this means two things:
1) The enemy you can engage with it will regret it
2) because of 1 above, they will become very high priority targets for
infantry anti-armour weapons (compared to enemy vehicles with HVCs or
larger
MDCs or DFFGs which are primarily anti-armour role weapons)

I was also thinking about it more from the morale PoV as well. Maybe
attacking any form of gun-based ADA ought to require a Reaction test -
you
might draw their attention and that's a bad idea. Maybe they should also
inspire Terror in green or yellow troops. I know when I watched them
traverse a PIVAD along a line of trucks and plywood infantry standups,
it
just cut everything in half... fast. I knew I never wanted to hear that
'ripping' noise (buzzsaw). You'd probably be dead before you figured out
what was going on.... cut in half.

You'd need to try some variants, observe the outcomes, and iterate this
a
few times to get the right feel. It's kind of like the discussions we
had
years ago about squad articulation and detched units - how easily should
squads be able to break into fire teams and is that a function of
training
and how does that reflect the clunk detached element rules in the game
that
make it not very interesting or likely someone will bother.

Whatever you use on your table, just make sure it is something you and
your
players agree with collectively. I've found people can play under most
'models of reality' but they like to know what shape the model takes so
they
can plan effectively around that.

Of course, beyond that, you need to note that the increase in power
might
change your assessment of what constitutes an even scenario if one side
has
these and the other does not.

I'm reading Horse Soldiers detailing US SF fighting with the Afghans vs.
the
Taliban in the first push to Mazar-i-Sharif in the early days of the US
invasion. The afghans charged 600 horses over hilly terrain at a Taliban
force and two ZSU-s and tanks plus Taliban infantry almost broke them.
Eventually the US air got one of the ZSUs, and true to the Afghan
commander's gut feeling, pushing hard broke the will of the Taliban and
they
fled. But the cost was about 300 casualties out of the 600. A lot of
that
was from the two ZSU 23-4s.

Tom
-- 
The price of a fine dog is a broken heart at the end.
-- Rudyard Kipling

Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus (from the book Agricola, attributed to a
speech
from Calgacus)