| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
 Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 2:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
The ImpSB includes what it calls Heavy Weapons Repulsorlift Squads, which feature a pair of repulsorlift vehicles equipped with heavier, dismountable weaponry, including heavy repeating blasters, grenade launchers and light laser cannon. The description of this squad doesn't really mesh well with their intended use, as their inclusion further up in the OB doesn't always include the gunners and dismounted troops needed to operate them. Personally, I'd rather have that unit be mounted on a pair of light speeders, analogous to HMMWVs, to give the weapons mobility with the option of being dismounted for fixed emplacement, or transportation into restricted areas where the vehicle can. |
This is along the lines of how I run things: I do what makes sense for the task at hand, provided that it makes sense the the unit would have access to the relevant equipment.
For example, in real world, the standard infantry load out is an M16 with 210 rounds. 2 soldiers carry this. A third guy will have a light machine gun or a medium machine gun. The 4th guy will have an under-slung grenade launcher.
But given the nature of warfare today, most units will change out their M16s for M4s.
For military police, the standard load out is an M4 with 210 rounds, plus an M9 pistol with 45 rounds. One guy carries this. The team leader adds the the under-slung grenade launcher, and a third guy carries a light or medium machine gun instead of the M4. While infantry use 4-man fire teams, military police use 3-man fire teams, but have more teams in a squad (resulting in more firepower, due to more machine guns and grenade launchers).
Infantry have access to all kinds of interesting gear and weapons like mortars, javelins and all kinds of other stuff I'm sure I've never heard of.
On the other hand, because military police specialize in close protection and target apprehension, they have access to certain specialized weapons, as well: such as MP5s. Our "sniper" rifles are also different. The typical/standard infantry sniper rifle is the M14, while for MPs it would be Remington 700 police tactical rifle (infantry have access to more types of sniper rifles than MPs). MPs are also more likely to have shotguns on hand (though the infantry also have access to these). Its all a matter of what the commander feels is appropriate for his troops to carry on what particular mission. Being an "infantryman" does not restrict a soldier to only using his M16.
I imagine that in SW, the commander would have similar amounts of latitude with how he equips the soldiers under his command, based on what his mission was. Being an infantryman, a soldier will be proficient with, and likely have experience with all manner of weapons from a basic rifle to tank-destroying, man-portable ordinance. In fact, just to graduate OSUT (basic training), every soldier has to know how to service every weapon from rifle to Mk19. Combat arms soldiers can be expected to properly operate any of these weapons at anytime.
| crmcneill wrote: | | The recurring problem is trying to reconcile the differences between the real world military and what WEG came up with. There are a lot of cool ideas in the ImpSB that WEG never elaborated on. Something that escaped my notice for quite some time is that Imperial Army Assault Platoons, while being composed of 2 Line Squads and 2 Assault Squads, the Line Squads are not like other Line Squads, as all the troopers are equipped with light repeating blasters. Imagine two entire squads equipped with M249s, backed up by six M2s. Indeed, because of the difference in doctrine, it is possible for an Imperial Army Line Company to be equipped solely with blaster rifles, and no supporting weaponry of any kind, apart from grenades. |
I tend to agree. Though after serving in the military, I prefer to run military units with some tactical proficiency in order to give the PCs a greater feeling of dread than when they come up on a thug in an alley or a group of gangsters/mafioso types. That's why I don't really use the formations/unit compositions that the published literature puts out.
| crmcneill wrote: | | My thinking (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) is making heavier weapons more common at the squad level, much like in the RW. A standard Imperial Army Line Squad, for instance, might be equipped with 1-2 light repeaters and 1-2 underbarrel grenade launchers, or perhaps some sort of under barrel energy cannon for breaching or light anti-armor. |
I agree, this is appropriate in my opinion.
| crmcneill wrote: | | My thinking is that, in the SWU, energy weapons have supplanted projectile weaponry wherever possible. The primary usage of projectile weapons would be for special payload delivery (gases and the like) or for indirect fire support. I picture something like a shoulder-fired RPG with a variety of different ammo types for specific effects (such as my list of bolt types) at the same organizational level as a medium repeating blaster, and a tripod mounted repeating grenade launcher, combining the abilities of a Mk. 19 and a light mortar into a single weapon, assigned at the light artillery level, along with the E-Web. It could even be operated by a remote control panel with an automated mount (I hear the Mk. 19 is a real bear to fire from the tripod). |
With regard to the technology, that is more or less irrelevant to me. I only offered the real world comparisons for the sake of understanding what type of weapon would be considered and in what quantities, etc. For example, is it an anti-personnel weapon? Anti-materiel? Bunker buster? Anti-aircraft? Etc. What does the mission require? You can be sure that the infantry will be the most flexible in terms of what weapons, vehicles and gear they can bring to the fight. Almost nothing should be off limits to them, and they should be allowed to configure their units (within certain doctrinal limits, such as squad sizes, but not necessarily force sizes) as the commander sees fit.
For spec ops units, there really aren't any rules. You can send just one or two guys (Tier-1), or 10-20 (Special Forces, Navy SEALs) or a whole company or Battalion of Rangers... or just a squad of Rangers... or whatever.
I like the notion of a Mk19/Mortar weapon. Seems perfectly reasonable for Star Wars tech.
The Mk19 is no problem to fire from a tripod. But it is heavy.
| crmcneill wrote: | | All of the various LOS rockets you mentioned would be replaced with light laser cannon, either shoulder fired or tripod mounted. The tripod mounted weapons could all have the option of being carried by a light vehicle, same as the E-Web. |
I agree with you. This seems appropriate for Star Wars, though I don't see a shoulder-fired weapon (unless it is a one-off deal) being useful in the same way as an AT-4. That is, if the laser is powerful enough to punch through a tank or a bunker and it can be shoulder fired, AND it can fire a whole bunch of shots without being hooked up to a power source, then it makes almost all other weapons irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RyanDarkstar wrote: | | Wouldn't the MobileMortar-3 be a good fit for the Heavy Weapons Repulsorlift Squads? |
That is indeed an excellent in-universe example.
Although, for what it's worth, heavy weapons on "mobile platforms"--in my opinion--would not be firing on the move (though they are certainly easier and faster to redeploy and then "buckle down" for use). For example, a .50 cal has enough recoil to shake an up-armored HMMWV back and forth. The up-armored HMMWVs weigh in at around 13,000 pounds.
Of course Star Wars tech is different... but I tend to like enforcing a trade-off between firepower and flexibility when it comes to designing equipment... I like choices to actually mean something, if that makes any sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wss just thinking about this, andI think the discrepency between SW armies and real life armies is a result of a lack of knowledge/expertise on the part of the writers. That is, there seems to be an assumption that an "army" is composed like its playing a game of 40k. In reality, an operational unit is likely to be scatteered across a large area and not even interact with higjer headquarters for long periods of time. A squad or platoon might have a mission or AO that exposes them to tanks, foot soldiers, air craft, booby traps and whatever else the enemy can come up with.
Forces dont "meet up" in a field and exchange gunfire like they did 300 years ago. There's no schedule or agreed upon terms, etc. So individual units do not have the benefit of the commander watching the fight in real time with the cavalry waiting in the flank for the right moment.
In modern warfare, there are strategic tactics, but the idea is to take ground and not give it back. This applies to all levels of combat from CQB to all out land warfare with tanks and helicopters, etc.
In SW, there seems to be an assumption that a "complete" force is available and fights as a giant unit in one giant battle that equals the entire war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ning Leihrec
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a breakdown of static ranges based on scale. Highly tweakable, and no doubt will need bugs worked out, but I think this could work. I know crmcneill is leaning toward terrain based ranges but this system just seems so practical to me. So please fire away with all suggestions, and critical thoughts.
Character Scale
Point Blank: 1-10m
Short: 10-50m
Medium: 50-100m
Long: 100-300m
Extreme: 300-1000m
Speeder Scale
Point Blank: 10-50m
Short: 50-100m
Medium: 100-300m
Long: 300-1000m
Extreme: 1-3km
Walker Scale
Point Blank: 50-100m
Short: 100-300m
Medium: 300-1000m
Long: 1-3km
Extreme: 3-5km
Starfighter Scale
Point Blank: 100-300m
Short: 300-1000m
Medium: 1-3km
Long: 3-5km
Extreme: 5-10km
Capital Scale
Point Blank: 300-1000m
Short: 1-3km
Medium: 3-5km
Long: 5-10km
Extreme: 10-150km
Death Star Scale
Point Blank: 1-3km
Short: 3-5km
Medium: 5-10km
Long: 10-150km
Extreme: 150-500km |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | I wss just thinking about this, andI think the discrepency between SW armies and real life armies is a result of a lack of knowledge/expertise on the part of the writers. That is, there seems to be an assumption that an "army" is composed like its playing a game of 40k. In reality, an operational unit is likely to be scatteered across a large area and not even interact with higjer headquarters for long periods of time. A squad or platoon might have a mission or AO that exposes them to tanks, foot soldiers, air craft, booby traps and whatever else the enemy can come up with.
Forces dont "meet up" in a field and exchange gunfire like they did 300 years ago. There's no schedule or agreed upon terms, etc. So individual units do not have the benefit of the commander watching the fight in real time with the cavalry waiting in the flank for the right moment.
In modern warfare, there are strategic tactics, but the idea is to take ground and not give it back. This applies to all levels of combat from CQB to all out land warfare with tanks and helicopters, etc.
In SW, there seems to be an assumption that a "complete" force is available and fights as a giant unit in one giant battle that equals the entire war. |
I'd like to continue this discussion, but it is getting off topic. I propose we move here, a topic where I proposed some changes to the Imp OB, as well as soliciting for others.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ning Leihrec wrote: | | Here's a breakdown of static ranges based on scale. Highly tweakable, and no doubt will need bugs worked out, but I think this could work. I know crmcneill is leaning toward terrain based ranges but this system just seems so practical to me. So please fire away with all suggestions, and critical thoughts. |
Part of the reason I want to move to static ranges is to get away from actual ranges in meters. The idea is (IMO) to have the range dictated by the setting, including the terrain.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ning Leihrec
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
When you say range would be dictated by the setting, including terrain what do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I'm comprehending your idea fully. It sounds like it could be really simple but it's still so abstract to me. How would the ranges break down in setting/terrain terms if not in general units of measure?
For me, even though these static ranges have loose corresponding meter representations they're still serving their purpose because they're set. Long range is the same long range for all weapons across that scale, and even up the scales the brackets remain compatible, though telescoping. This should allow for accurate move rating (or speed code) interplay between higher and lower scale vehicles.
I'm eager to grasp your concept. Doing away with units of measure even for basic reference sounds interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ning Leihrec wrote: | | I'm eager to grasp your concept. Doing away with units of measure even for basic reference sounds interesting. |
Actually, I'm willing to retain units of measure up to a point, but more as part of the setting than of a specific measurement of distance.
For instance, your Point Blank for character scale is 1-10 meters. My version of Point Blank would be more like "in the same room, within a few meters". Long would read something like "Outside, in an open field, or in-doors inside a massive room, a hundred or more meters away." Long for Walker would read "several kilometers away, visible only using enhanced optics."
And so on and so forth...
In summary, the idea is to have the ranges be dictated by (and their definitions part of) the setting itself.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm rather averse to such a level of abstraction, so I'd never go for such a rule myself.
Doesn't stop me from thinking it's quite a fascinating concept and mechanic.
I'll be interested in seeing how you'll develope it.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ning Leihrec
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My metric ranges are a very loose guideline as well, Crmc. From what you just described your brackets sound pretty much in line with the ranges in my set. I'm interested in any further work you do on this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Ning Leihrec wrote: | | I'm eager to grasp your concept. Doing away with units of measure even for basic reference sounds interesting. |
Actually, I'm willing to retain units of measure up to a point, but more as part of the setting than of a specific measurement of distance.
For instance, your Point Blank for character scale is 1-10 meters. My version of Point Blank would be more like "in the same room, within a few meters". Long would read something like "Outside, in an open field, or in-doors inside a massive room, a hundred or more meters away." Long for Walker would read "several kilometers away, visible only using enhanced optics."
And so on and so forth...
In summary, the idea is to have the ranges be dictated by (and their definitions part of) the setting itself. |
This is similar to how I think of it, too. But I laid out a character scale range set described in meters, mostly because my understanding of weapons and engagements are always described in meters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
