 |
Subject:
|
brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:40:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
WUBWUB@WILDLINKnospam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1051 times
|
| |
|
|
...We (WAMALUG) had our first test brikwars game saturday and I must say it was fun
(specially when the big mecha pilot got enraged and swore death at his attackers :-)
_BUT_
(there's always a but in these things)...
...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember what the
weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring out the to-hits
and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could remember exactly
what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were weird and all
over the place...
...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
...Eventually, we just treated all pistol things as gyro pistols and all rifle like things
as impact rifles and just about everything had a UR of 3.
...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some variability from
the game, but replaces it with simplicity to make the games go a bit faster so you can
concentrate on mass killing the opponent!
I propose for SpaceMen they be given 3 just choices of weapon load outs:
1) pistol and close combat weapon - Pistol has range 10", UR 3, dam 1d6. CCW can only be
used in close combat, UR 3, dam 1d6. In close combat, the fig can use both for 2 attacks!
woohoo! cost: 3
2) rifle - 2 handed weapon, range 15" UR 3, dam 1d10. If the fig didn't move, the range
is 20". cost: 5
3) Big Gun - 2 handed weapon, range 20" UR 3, dam 3d6 non-explosive OR 1d10 explosive
(selectable at fire time (changing weapon clips)), move -1", cannot be fired if the fig
moved. cost: 8 Troop ratio: 10 non big guns / big gun
...How the gun actually works isn't as important.
...Not sure exactly how to integrate this idea with the idea of TLs :-/ Working on that
one :-)
...For vehicles, I propose simplifying the weapons there too. Rather than list different
weapons, have larger weapons just be increments of a basic weapon. A MKIII laser is just
3x a MKI laser.
...To represent them on the vehicle, a thin antenna piece is a laser barrel, a 1x1
cylinder or cone is a ballistic, and a 2x2 cylinder is a mass driver. The overall weapon
has to have the brick size appropriate for its rating, but at the barrel, just stick as
many barrels as is appropriate for its class. A MK III laser would have 3 thin antenna
like pieces sticking out. A MKII ballistic would have 2 1x1 cylinders at the end of the
barrel. this shouldnt change the aesthetics much, and will make it infinitely easier to
remember...
(for mass drivers and ancient-tech: the catapult bucket should have an area enuf to hold
the equivalent area of 2x2 cylinders (a MKIV trebuchet must have a bucket at least 4x4).
...lastly, squads:
...We had a couple times where we all ganged up to take down things. This isn't such a bad
thing, but doesn't seem right. So how bout squads be identified either by the colour of
the plate they stand on, or a group of the same type figs, etc... Only members of the same
squad can gang up to fire on a single target. Multiple squads can all fire at the same
target, but they cant combine together.
...As a 'penalty' for this advantage, squads have to stay within 10" of each other, no
member of the squad can be more than 10" the farthest squad member from him, if they end
up like that, the fig and the squad must move closer. I would limit squads to no more than
10 figs just to keep this from getting too out of hand.
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...We (WAMALUG) had our first test brikwars game saturday and I must say it
> was fun
> (specially when the big mecha pilot got enraged and swore death at his
> attackers :-)
Heh. In our first game a pilot got that, and tried to ram my mech with his
speeder bike. It didn't work. :D
> _BUT_
>
> (there's always a but in these things)...
>
> ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember
> what the
> weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring out
> the to-hits
> and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could
> remember exactly
> what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were weird
> and all
> over the place...
>
> ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
This can be avoided by writing down all the stats and weapons (and stats of the
weapons) when you make your army- then you have it all right in front of you,
and all you'll have to look up is little nitpicky rules.
Shaun Sullivan made some *excellent* templates for the 1998 rules set (1998 is
the version currently available in HTML) but I'll let him say more about that.
> ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some
> variability from
> the game,
Ah, but variety is the spice of life.
Anyway, as a long-time gamer I can tell you that in any game, the "rules" are
just suggestions, and you should feel free to make any house rules your group
feels make the game more fun for you.
eric
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:56:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlinkSPAMCAKE.com
|
Viewed:
|
1000 times
|
| |
|
|
> ...To represent them on the vehicle, a thin antenna piece is a laser barrel, a 1x1
> cylinder or cone is a ballistic, and a 2x2 cylinder is a mass driver. The overall weapon
> has to have the brick size appropriate for its rating, but at the barrel, just stick as
> many barrels as is appropriate for its class. A MK III laser would have 3 thin antenna
> like pieces sticking out. A MKII ballistic would have 2 1x1 cylinders at the end of the
> barrel. this shouldnt change the aesthetics much, and will make it infinitely easier to
> remember...
...BTW: I mean all side by side, not stuck on top of each other... so a MK3 balastik would
have 3 1x1 cylinders at the very end side by side (or in whatever configuration the
designer wanted).
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:09:26 GMT, "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net>
wrote:
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> > ...We (WAMALUG) had our first test brikwars game saturday and I must say it
> > was fun
> > (specially when the big mecha pilot got enraged and swore death at his
> > attackers :-)
>
> Heh. In our first game a pilot got that, and tried to ram my mech with his
> speeder bike. It didn't work. :D
>
> > _BUT_
> >
> > (there's always a but in these things)...
> >
> > ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember
> > what the
> > weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring out
> > the to-hits
> > and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could
> > remember exactly
> > what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were weird
> > and all
> > over the place...
At the recent Ohio BrikWars I myself didn't follow the #of elements
per weapon rules, although my SpaceMarines only used Gyro weapons. The
one piece "megaphone" was a Gyro Pistol, while the "camera" piece was
a Gyro Rifle.
> > ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
>
> This can be avoided by writing down all the stats and weapons (and stats of the
> weapons) when you make your army- then you have it all right in front of you,
> and all you'll have to look up is little nitpicky rules.
This is exactly what I did, In addition to my SpaceMarines, the only
other weapons I used were my MkII Lasers on my HoverSpeeders. I had
all the stats for weapons and my vehicles on a small sheet of paper.
> Shaun Sullivan made some *excellent* templates for the 1998 rules set (1998 is
> the version currently available in HTML) but I'll let him say more about that.
>
> > ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some
> > variability from
> > the game,
>
> Ah, but variety is the spice of life.
>
> Anyway, as a long-time gamer I can tell you that in any game, the "rules" are
> just suggestions, and you should feel free to make any house rules your group
> feels make the game more fun for you.
>
> eric
I think at the next Ohio BrikWars we will most likely be leaving out
some of the rules that slowed down game play. We didn't use fire in
the first game, but hopefully we will for the second game, even though
it can involve quite a few dice rolls.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> At the recent Ohio BrikWars I myself didn't follow the #of elements
> per weapon rules, although my SpaceMarines only used Gyro weapons. The
> one piece "megaphone" was a Gyro Pistol, while the "camera" piece was
> a Gyro Rifle.
I play a little loose with these rules as well. My standard SpaceMen are
equipped with... I think it's Gyro Rifles. Anyway, it's the 4-piece rifle.
Well, mine does have 4 peices, but two of those are 1x1 round plates
I think the style of the troops and the points you pay are more important than
following the rules for the number of elements in a paricular weapon.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> > ...We (WAMALUG) had our first test brikwars game saturday and I must say it
> > was fun (specially when the big mecha pilot got enraged and swore death at
> > his attackers :-)
>
> Heh. In our first game a pilot got that, and tried to ram my mech with his
> speeder bike. It didn't work. :D
You'll hear more about it in the field reports (one for each side :) ) when we
finish them, but it was hilarious! Stephen's side damaged my mech twice, the
first time halving my movement (from 11 to five), and the second time was when
they (six troopers) enraged my pilot. They were all clustered around a truck.
It took me two rounds, but I was able to make a *very* big Boom! >:)
Jeff
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:00:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(wubwub@)ihatespam(wildlink.com)
|
Viewed:
|
1179 times
|
| |
|
|
> >
> > ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
>
> This can be avoided by writing down all the stats and weapons (and stats of the
> weapons) when you make your army- then you have it all right in front of you,
> and all you'll have to look up is little nitpicky rules.
...I had the rules tables on hand, but short of tacking little cards with each squad, it
was still hard to remember who went where. It wasn't too bad looking up weapons on the
weapons table, but all those little checks added up quickly :-/
> Shaun Sullivan made some *excellent* templates for the 1998 rules set (1998 is
> the version currently available in HTML) but I'll let him say more about that.
>
> > ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some
> > variability from
> > the game,
>
> Ah, but variety is the spice of life.
...Agreed, but the weaps really arent all that differentiated anyway. does 1d6+3 UR4
really kill all that more often than a 1d6 UR3? it kinda smoothes out over the long haul
anyway (which is kinda the point of points costs and all anyway), but in the meantime, its
lots of checks to make sure u have it rite.
> Anyway, as a long-time gamer I can tell you that in any game, the "rules" are
> just suggestions, and you should feel free to make any house rules your group
> feels make the game more fun for you.
...:-) that's kind of what I was proposing here. If I can't fix the official rules, I'll
break em :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...I had the rules tables on hand, but short of tacking little cards with each
> squad, it
> was still hard to remember who went where. It wasn't too bad looking up
> weapons on the
> weapons table, but all those little checks added up quickly :-/
I just had a stack of 'em made up for all my different troops and vehicles.
Some checking was needed, but not all that much.
> ...Agreed, but the weaps really arent all that differentiated anyway. does
> 1d6+3 UR4
> really kill all that more often than a 1d6 UR3?
<gamer geek>
Absolutely. Let's assume a SpaceMan is firing at another SpaceMan with
penalties and bonuses that completely cancel each other out.
A UR4 will hit a full 50% of the time (SpaceMan skill is 1d6). A UR3 will hit
66.66667% of the time, 16% more often.
Assuming a hit, a 1d6+3 will kill a SpaceMan 66.6667% of the time (SpaceMan
armor is 5, which you have to exceed to kill him, therefore you need to roll a
3 or higher to kill him). A 1d6 will kill a SpaceMan 16.66667% of the time.
So, you'll hit 16.66667% more often, but you'll kill 50% less often. That is a
significant difference.
In case you're wondering about combined fire and vehicles, the +3s go a long
way towards adding up to penetrating vehicle armor.
I didn't have to look any of these numbers up.
</gamer geek>
And I'm not proud of that.
eric
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:45:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
WUBWUB@nomorespamWILDLINK.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1311 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote:
> <gamer geek>
>
> Absolutely. Let's assume a SpaceMan is firing at another SpaceMan with
> penalties and bonuses that completely cancel each other out.
>
> A UR4 will hit a full 50% of the time (SpaceMan skill is 1d6). A UR3 will hit
> 66.66667% of the time, 16% more often.
>
> Assuming a hit, a 1d6+3 will kill a SpaceMan 66.6667% of the time (SpaceMan
> armor is 5, which you have to exceed to kill him, therefore you need to roll a
> 3 or higher to kill him). A 1d6 will kill a SpaceMan 16.66667% of the time.
>
> So, you'll hit 16.66667% more often, but you'll kill 50% less often. That is a
> significant difference.
>
> In case you're wondering about combined fire and vehicles, the +3s go a long
> way towards adding up to penetrating vehicle armor.
>
> I didn't have to look any of these numbers up.
>
> </gamer geek>
>
> And I'm not proud of that.
...lol.... very scary indeed :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
> ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember • what the
> weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring
Well, the whole 'pieces' thing is just a suggestion, if you have some other
way to keep track of which pistol (or any other type of weapon) is which then
of course feel free to use it.
out the to-hits
> and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could • remember exactly
> what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were • weird and all
> over the place...
>
> ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
Yeah, that can be a problem the first few games. What you'll want to do is
draw up a 'spec sheet' for each of your big vehicles, so you have all their
weapon stats handy along with their Move and Armor ratings. As for regular
troops, if you aren't used to all the different weapons yet, each player
should try to equip his troops in a fairly similar fashion to limit the number
of different weapon types to keep track of.
> ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some • variability from
> the game, but replaces it with simplicity to make the games go a bit faster • so you can
> concentrate on mass killing the opponent!
To some extent I feel the same way, but I would get so many complaint letters,
I'll never do it. Even now people are always mailing me wanting me to make
more and more specific stats some random and esoteric weapon or another.
There's nothing stopping you from just refraining from fielding a lot of
different kinds of weapons though, if you want to simplify your life.
> ...For vehicles, I propose simplifying the weapons there too. Rather than • list different
> weapons, have larger weapons just be increments of a basic weapon. A MKIII • laser is just
> 3x a MKI laser.
Nothing stopping you from buying three MKI Lasers and firing them all at the
same time, either.
I agree with your sentiment that the game is way too complicated in some
regards, but all these extra stats and equipment and rules and everything
else, they're just provided as options, nobody has to use them if they don't
want, and a simple, straightforward standardized army is not really at any
significant disadvantage to a super-customized and specialized army. It just
depends on each player's comfort level with how much complexity he's willing
to put up with.
> ...lastly, squads:
>
> ...We had a couple times where we all ganged up to take down things.
> This isn't such a bad thing, but doesn't seem right. So how bout squads
> be identified either by the colour of the plate they stand on, or a
> group of the same type figs, etc... Only members of the same squad can
> gang up to fire on a single target. Multiple squads can all fire at the
> same target, but they cant combine together.
The boys over at NELUG used a similar rule and I wrote it into the next
revision as soon as I heard about it. I'll quote it here for you so you don't
have to wait for the html revision (which would probably be about a month or
two unless something goes wrong). It's an optional rule under 3.3.1:
Cumulative Damage / Combined Fire.
<begin quote>
Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
- he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
combined attack;
- he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
- he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
<end quote>
Are there going to be any battle report pages?
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> I think at the next Ohio BrikWars we will most likely be leaving out
> some of the rules that slowed down game play. We didn't use fire in
> the first game, but hopefully we will for the second game, even though
> it can involve quite a few dice rolls.
Which rules did you have problems with? I remember somebody was complaining
about having to do the NearMiss calculations for every shot - that's one of
the rules that we were specifically thinking of when we were writing the
introduction and said "we heartily encourage you to ignore ninety-nine percent
of the rules ninety-nine percent of the time... fudge everything your
opponents will let you get away with." I hope you weren't doing NearMisses
for every shot - only when there was another important target close by. On
the other hand, considering how crowded that battlefield was, I guess it was
pretty much guaranteed that there would always be another potential target
within NearMiss range.
What else slowed you down? Not that I have any objection to leaving out large
sections of the rules, in fact I think it's a good idea. But, if you have any
problems I'd like to bring them up when the editing staff reconvenes next week
for the bw2000 html rulebook.
Speaking of the NearMiss rules, they're going back under review in next week's
meeting, so there might be some changes in that area although I couldn't
really predict what kind just yet. The reason being, we removed the Skill
Penalties for firing at a target that was especially small or was behind
partial cover, because those penalties messed up the nearmiss calculations.
The nearmiss rules were supposed to just naturally make it harder to hit small
targets. However, we ended up making the nearmiss distances large enough that
it's no easier to hit a minifig out in the open than a minifig behind 90%
cover. We're going to have to think of a way to reintroduce the Skill Penalty
without screwing up the NearMiss rules or making them too complicated, and I
don't know how we're going to do it yet.
- Mike Rayhawk
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
I use two "megaphone" pistol pieces for most of my rifles, you need to stick
a 1x1x1 round piece between them so they can fit in both a minifig's hands
comfortably though. They look better when the characters are holding them
too.
Steve
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:27:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@SAYNOTOSPAMwildlink.com
|
Viewed:
|
1254 times
|
| |
|
|
"Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > ...I found the weapons a mess to deal with. We were always trying to remember • what the
> > weapons were (2 pieces is impact pistol or gyro pistol?) and then figuring
>
> Well, the whole 'pieces' thing is just a suggestion, if you have some other
> way to keep track of which pistol (or any other type of weapon) is which then
> of course feel free to use it.
...The pieces thing is a great idea, conceptually, it makes it easy to tell weapons apart
without making them all the exact same... It just didn't work rite in practice...
> out the to-hits
> > and ranges and damages for assorted different weapons. And we never could • remember exactly
> > what major guns were on our mecha... and what ranges things shot at were • weird and all
> > over the place...
> >
> > ...The net result is we spent valuable play time looking up things :-/
>
> Yeah, that can be a problem the first few games. What you'll want to do is
> draw up a 'spec sheet' for each of your big vehicles, so you have all their
> weapon stats handy along with their Move and Armor ratings. As for regular
> troops, if you aren't used to all the different weapons yet, each player
> should try to equip his troops in a fairly similar fashion to limit the number
> of different weapon types to keep track of.
...I wanted to avoid paper as much as possible, mostly in the spirit of the game. BW is
about figs and dice and blowing things up, not paper. When I played WH40K, all the little
index cards with stats used to drive me crazy! (crazy to the point that I stopped playing
cuz too many little variations in basic weapons and fig stats that it was impossible to
keep up...
...Another reason I proposed the streamlining thing was to make it lots easier to throw
together a quick battle. Sure if you prepare before hand you can have stats cards ready,
but if u just are sitting around a table with some figs and some dice there should be some
easy way to play a battle without much trouble. imho at least.
> > ...So anyway, I propose a streamlining of the weapons. It does take some • variability from
> > the game, but replaces it with simplicity to make the games go a bit faster • so you can
> > concentrate on mass killing the opponent!
>
> To some extent I feel the same way, but I would get so many complaint letters,
> I'll never do it. Even now people are always mailing me wanting me to make
> more and more specific stats some random and esoteric weapon or another.
> There's nothing stopping you from just refraining from fielding a lot of
> different kinds of weapons though, if you want to simplify your life.
...This borrowed also from my old GURPS supers days. In GURPS, the rules didn't define how
the powers worked, just some broad concept on basic stats (to hit/damage/etc). Perhaps
define 3 basic weapon classes, then optionally lots of mods to those basic ones so people
could tune the basic weapon to reach the end concept they wanted? If they want flame
throwers, buy the 'flamethrower' option to the basic rifle.
...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons specific to their
army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path with close combat siege weapons.
Take that concept to a compleation and use it in the other weapons categories. Define
basic stats for certain classes, then mods and etc for 'special effects' and whatever...
...oooh... now I'm percolating :-)
> > ...For vehicles, I propose simplifying the weapons there too. Rather than • list different
> > weapons, have larger weapons just be increments of a basic weapon. A MKIII • laser is just
> > 3x a MKI laser.
>
> Nothing stopping you from buying three MKI Lasers and firing them all at the
> same time, either.
...well, true :-)
> I agree with your sentiment that the game is way too complicated in some
> regards, but all these extra stats and equipment and rules and everything
> else, they're just provided as options, nobody has to use them if they don't
> want, and a simple, straightforward standardized army is not really at any
> significant disadvantage to a super-customized and specialized army. It just
> depends on each player's comfort level with how much complexity he's willing
> to put up with.
>
> > ...lastly, squads:
> >
> > ...We had a couple times where we all ganged up to take down things.
> > This isn't such a bad thing, but doesn't seem right. So how bout squads
> > be identified either by the colour of the plate they stand on, or a
> > group of the same type figs, etc... Only members of the same squad can
> > gang up to fire on a single target. Multiple squads can all fire at the
> > same target, but they cant combine together.
>
> The boys over at NELUG used a similar rule and I wrote it into the next
> revision as soon as I heard about it. I'll quote it here for you so you don't
> have to wait for the html revision (which would probably be about a month or
> two unless something goes wrong). It's an optional rule under 3.3.1:
> Cumulative Damage / Combined Fire.
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
> You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
> organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
> case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
>
> - he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
> member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
> combined attack;
> - he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
> vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
> - he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
> he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
> combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
> equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
>
> <end quote>
...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
> Are there going to be any battle report pages?
...Eventually :-) I'm slow :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:27:46 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
<wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
> "Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > <begin quote>
> >
> > Optional Rule: Organized Attacks
> > You may decide that soldiers can only do Cumulative Damage if someone
> > organizes the operation - combined assaults cannot happen at random. In this
> > case, a minifig may only order a combined attack if:
> >
> > - he is a Squad's communications officer (he has a radio), in which case any
> > member of the squad within shouting distance (8") may take part in the
> > combined attack;
> > - he is piloting a vehicle with radio communication, in which case any other
> > vehicle with radio communication may join him in a combined attack;
> > - he is a Hero, a Champion, or an authority figure in general, in which case
> > he can order any subordinate units within communication range to join in a
> > combined attack. Communication range will vary depending on the communication
> > equipment used (2.4.2: Equipment).
> >
> > <end quote>
>
> ...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
> and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
> small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
> This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
organize a combined attack.
From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
soldier to have a radio built in.
In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:05:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
regult@{ihatespam}aol.com
|
Viewed:
|
1396 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 07:26:12 GMT, "Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu>
wrote:
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
>
> > I think at the next Ohio BrikWars we will most likely be leaving out
> > some of the rules that slowed down game play. We didn't use fire in
> > the first game, but hopefully we will for the second game, even though
> > it can involve quite a few dice rolls.
>
> Which rules did you have problems with? I remember somebody was complaining
> about having to do the NearMiss calculations for every shot - that's one of
> the rules that we were specifically thinking of when we were writing the
> introduction and said "we heartily encourage you to ignore ninety-nine percent
> of the rules ninety-nine percent of the time... fudge everything your
> opponents will let you get away with." I hope you weren't doing NearMisses
> for every shot - only when there was another important target close by. On
> the other hand, considering how crowded that battlefield was, I guess it was
> pretty much guaranteed that there would always be another potential target
> within NearMiss range.
>
> What else slowed you down? Not that I have any objection to leaving out large
> sections of the rules, in fact I think it's a good idea. But, if you have any
> problems I'd like to bring them up when the editing staff reconvenes next week
> for the bw2000 html rulebook.
>
> Speaking of the NearMiss rules, they're going back under review in next week's
> meeting, so there might be some changes in that area although I couldn't
> really predict what kind just yet. The reason being, we removed the Skill
> Penalties for firing at a target that was especially small or was behind
> partial cover, because those penalties messed up the nearmiss calculations.
> The nearmiss rules were supposed to just naturally make it harder to hit small
> targets. However, we ended up making the nearmiss distances large enough that
> it's no easier to hit a minifig out in the open than a minifig behind 90%
> cover. We're going to have to think of a way to reintroduce the Skill Penalty
> without screwing up the NearMiss rules or making them too complicated, and I
> don't know how we're going to do it yet.
>
> - Mike Rayhawk
I think the NearMiss rules slowed us down, as we just about calculated
where every near miss went. We also didn't play this rule correctly
for the first part of the game. In most wargames I've played I'm used
to a miss is a miss. Granted if you throw a weapon its a good idea to
know where it landed so you can pick it up later. I'd much rather have
the skill penalties for cover and concealment instead of the NearMiss
rule. If anything put some rules in for cover and concealment, and
tell players, either play with skill modifiers, or NearMiss, or
neither, but not with both as the modifiers will change the play of
the game when used in conjunction with the NearMiss rules.
Opportunity fire slowed things down a bit too, and as before, we
misread this rule and played it incorrectly in the first part of the
game. Its a good idea, although with some of the games I've played in
the past there was opportunity fire in the movement and firing phases.
Keeping track of who fired in the previous phase to see if they are
available for opportunity fire is something that might take some work,
especially in larger battles.
There were a few things in regards to vehicles, i.e. turn rates,
acceleration and such, that we might leave out. It seemed, to me
anyway, like too much to keep track of. Charts would have been nice
with all the modifiers and such on a page or two.
I'd like to see initiative rolled for the start of each turn. Also, we
played using the optional rule Phases and had some tough times
figuring out charging attacks, like a knight on a horse charging
someone with his lance. From what we read this takes place during the
firing phase, but the target, if it isn't his turn to move yet, just
has to move out of the way of the charge during his turn. When the
firing phase comes around to the charging player again to resolve his
attack, his target is gone, and is most likely in a position to attack
the charger. Perhaps next time we play we'll move and fire for one
player, then go to the next and so on...
In addition, before we play next time, we should go over the rules and
determine which ones we aren't using and write them down. This way
there won't be any rules lawyering to slow things down.
With nearly all the wargames I've played in the past, I'm used to
attack v. defence odds to determine the outcome of battles. While
BrikWars uses a system similar to what an RPG would use, yet its not
really an RPG either. Its sort of a hybrid, which it has to be to use
LEGO while playing it. No two armies or units will be alike, and thats
where the magic of the game is, to me anyway.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...The pieces thing is a great idea, conceptually, it makes it easy to
> tell weapons apart without making them all the exact same... It just
> didn't work rite in practice...
It's something that takes some getting used to. The important thing is to
have a way to tell them apart when you need to, the method isn't really that
important.
> > > what ranges things shot at were weird and all over the place...
Did you really think so? I'll make a note to put siege weapon ranges up for
review next week.
> ...Another reason I proposed the streamlining thing was to make it lots
> easier to throw together a quick battle. Sure if you prepare before hand
> you can have stats cards ready, but if u just are sitting around a table
> with some figs and some dice there should be some easy way to play a
> battle without much trouble. imho at least.
Maybe you're right. I'll see if I can't put in an optional 'generic weapons'
rule for quick battles.
> ...This borrowed also from my old GURPS supers days. In GURPS, the
> rules didn't define how the powers worked, just some broad concept on
> basic stats (to hit/damage/etc).
Yeah, but they've got nothing on my Supernatural Powers rules as far as broad
concepts go.
> ...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons
> specific to their army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path
> with close combat siege weapons.
Actually, it seems to me that the cc siege weapons rules take a lot more work
to keep track of during the battle, and more pre-game design as well. But
I'll think of something.
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
> but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
> organize a combined attack.
Well, that's why it's an Optional Rule.
> From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
> would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
> break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
> would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
> this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
> soldier to have a radio built in.
Nah, no extra CP's. All communications equipment comes for free. There's no
real reason to use Radios if you don't want, I just think it's more fun that
way.
> In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
> anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
> transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
> where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
> orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
> specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
> obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
Well, that's why the communications and battlefield organization rules are
also optional! :)
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> Opportunity fire slowed things down a bit too, and as before, we
> misread this rule and played it incorrectly in the first part of the
> game. Its a good idea, although with some of the games I've played in
> the past there was opportunity fire in the movement and firing phases.
> Keeping track of who fired in the previous phase to see if they are
> available for opportunity fire is something that might take some work,
> especially in larger battles.
When we have too many guys on the field to keep track of, we're careful to
make sure they always hold their weapons in such a way to indicate whether
they are ready to attack, or whether they have just attacked. After firing a
ranged weapon, for instance, we move it to point stright up in the air, as if
recoil had knocked it back. CC weapons are held out to the side, as if at the
end of an attack swing.
> There were a few things in regards to vehicles, i.e. turn rates,
> acceleration and such, that we might leave out. It seemed, to me
> anyway, like too much to keep track of. Charts would have been nice
> with all the modifiers and such on a page or two.
Yeah, I usually ignore those too, except for Fliers. Charts are on the way,
but we'r making so many changes that we're waiting for all the rules and
numbers to stabilize before we draw up the charts.
> I'd like to see initiative rolled for the start of each turn.
Do you really think so? You were playing with Phases, right? I don't see how
it would apply otherwise. I'll add a note to review the Phases rules.
> played using the optional rule Phases and had some tough times
> figuring out charging attacks, like a knight on a horse charging
> someone with his lance.
Oh yeah, I guess you did. A lance attack is treated as a Collision, which is
handled during the Movement Phase. I'll try to clarify that in the revision.
> In addition, before we play next time, we should go over the rules and
> determine which ones we aren't using and write them down. This way
> there won't be any rules lawyering to slow things down.
That's a good idea, but keep it simple. The NELUG guys did that before their
April Fool's Day game, you can check out their rulesheet at
http://www.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=130
- Mike Rayhawk.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:06:05 GMT, "Mike Rayhawk" <mjr22@cornell.edu>
wrote:
> In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> > I'd like to see initiative rolled for the start of each turn.
>
> Do you really think so? You were playing with Phases, right? I don't see how
> it would apply otherwise. I'll add a note to review the Phases rules.
Even if I were only playing a game with one opponent, I think that I'd
like to have some variable to see who moves and attacks first at the
start of every game turn.
With the most recent group we had of 4 people, two of my allies went,
then our opponent, then myself. Being last, all I did was hold up my
allies that wanted to move in behind me. Also, I knew that I could
wait until our opponent went, then I could move in and attack after he
had already moved and/or fired. We played this way the whole game.
Even had we not played phases, just regular turns, I would have always
ended up going last being that we didn't roll initiative on each turn.
Rolling initiative at the start of each game turn takes little or no
time and it signifies a good time to take a break from the game if one
is needed. Also, your tactics would tend to change if you didn't know
the order in which you were going to move and attack. You would have
to plan things out on a moments notice, keeping with the spirit of
most tactical level wargames. If anything, initiative for each and
every game turn should be an optional rule.
The other thing that I had questions about was Armor Value and
cumulative damage.
In the 2000 rules - 1.3 The Trooper - it states that the armor stat
tells how much damage a unit can take in one turn. Since it mentions
turns, does this mean that all attacks against a Trooper are in effect
cumulative for each turn? Or should it read something like for each
attack directed at him/her?
If a player decides not to, or does not announce cumulative damage,
does that mean you'd get an armor roll for each and every attack
directed at you?
I think I may have played cumulative damage wrong in regards to
several attacks on my HoverSpeeders during our first BrikWars.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> Rolling initiative at the start of each game turn takes little or no
> time and it signifies a good time to take a break from the game if one
> is needed. Also, your tactics would tend to change if you didn't know
> the order in which you were going to move and attack. You would have
> to plan things out on a moments notice, keeping with the spirit of
> most tactical level wargames. If anything, initiative for each and
> every game turn should be an optional rule.
I see what you mean.
> In the 2000 rules - 1.3 The Trooper - it states that the armor stat
> tells how much damage a unit can take in one turn. Since it mentions
> turns, does this mean that all attacks against a Trooper are in effect
> cumulative for each turn? Or should it read something like for each
> attack directed at him/her?
Shoot, I really did make that kind of unclear. The text in 1.3 is a holdover
from the 1996 rules, when all attacks were cumulative not just for each turn,
but for whole rounds. We found that was really hard to keep track of though,
so we changed it so that cumulative damage had to be announced, I guess I just
forgot to change the text in 1.3.
> If a player decides not to, or does not announce cumulative damage,
> does that mean you'd get an armor roll for each and every attack
> directed at you?
That's correct. In essence, when an attacker does not announce cumulative
damage, all his units attack different parts of the target, causing many
smaller and less-lethal wounds than if they all focused their attacks on a
single part of the target, making one big more-lethal wound.
> I think I may have played cumulative damage wrong in regards to
> several attacks on my HoverSpeeders during our first BrikWars.
As long as everybody was doing it the same way, it wasn't 'wrong' - the only
difference between a 'right' rule and a 'wrong' rule in BrikWars is whether
it's played consistently. Hey, that's a great line, I'm putting it in the
foreword.
- Mike Rayhawk
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
WUBWUB@WILDLINK.COMantispam
|
Viewed:
|
1428 times
|
| |
|
|
> > ...Sounds good to me! With the Comm officer, I'd say that if he gets shot, his radio falls
> > and the next nearest guy in his squad automatically picks it up (perhaps they all have
> > small transceivers and the next guy in line automatically gets promoted to comm officer).
> > This would prevent the comm officer from being too much a target :-)
>
> The organized attack rules might be good for lower Tech Level games,
> but at higher levels I would think nearly anybody would be able to
> organize a combined attack.
>
> From the upper end of TL4 and higher I'd say that nearly every soldier
> would have a radio built into his/her helmet. This makes it easier to
> break the hard and fast squad rules of the original L-Wars game. This
> would enable any soldier to operate as the comm officer. Perhaps if
> this were the case, you'd have to spend extra CP's if you wanted every
> soldier to have a radio built in.
>
> In the future, there might not even be a need for the comm officer
> anyway, with everyone having a radio, and a personal data and location
> transmitter or something like that, generals would be able to know
> where everyone is on the battlefield, and would be able to transmit
> orders enmasse to every soldier on the battlefield, or just to a
> specific squad or platoon. Enemy locations would also be fairly
> obvious with advances in passive and active detection systems.
...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
discussed like that.
...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
each other and act as 'one fig').
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:59:27 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlink.SAYNOTOSPAMcom
|
Viewed:
|
1318 times
|
| |
|
|
> > ...IMHO, this would leave the players able to come up with weapons
> > specific to their army/race/whatever. To an extent, you start that path
> > with close combat siege weapons.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the cc siege weapons rules take a lot more work
> to keep track of during the battle, and more pre-game design as well. But
> I'll think of something.
...They are more complex both beforehand and during, but if the player came up with a
'claw arm' during design, he could equip all his vehicles with them so it wouldn't be as
complex during the game. that's the kind of idea I was thinkin of. Spend a bit of time
design wise to come up with a 'standard weapon' for your team. Then once its fielded, you
would know what your guys do without much looking up. And what your figs did would be a
reflection of your idea of fielding them, which would be different than other ppls... so
could be a much more dynamic and interesting game possibly :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> ....All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> discussed like that.
usually the field guys will be on their squad freq, while the squad commander is on both
squad freq and command freq... but no one in their right mind will turn off his radio in
a battle. Not unless you're looking for a warm place in a body bag. :)
> ....So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> each other and act as 'one fig').
to get multiple squads to attack the same point, you have to pre-coordinate it (even if it's just 20 minutes before) - the high command decides where to attack, notifies the squad commanders, and they tell their troops...
heheh - at least that's the way I've seen it done :)
Dan
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:52:44 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
wubwub@wildlink.com{Spamcake}
|
Viewed:
|
1629 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@giccs.georgetown.edu> wrote:
> Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
>
> > ....All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> > and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> > coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> > He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> > his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> > shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> > death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> > discussed like that.
>
> usually the field guys will be on their squad freq, while the squad commander is on both
> squad freq and command freq... but no one in their right mind will turn off his radio in
> a battle. Not unless you're looking for a warm place in a body bag. :)
...:-) I didn't mean theyd turn off their comm, just they'd turn off the command
frequency... leave the command frequency to the higher paygrades and all.
> > ....So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> > anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> > guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> > to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> > each other and act as 'one fig').
>
> to get multiple squads to attack the same point, you have to pre-coordinate it (even if it's just 20 minutes before) - the high command decides where to attack, notifies the squad commanders, and they tell their troops...
>
> heheh - at least that's the way I've seen it done :)
...This is more like 'shoot that tank there!!' where all the members of a squad can
coordinate on the spot to cause cumulative damage... but even if another squad got that
same 'shoot that tank there!!' order, they wouldn't be able to coordinate well enough with
the first squad to cause more cumulative damage. Each squad could be grouped together, but
it would in effect be 2 separate attacks.
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
|
|
| |
Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> ....:-) I didn't mean theyd turn off their comm, just they'd turn off the command
> frequency... leave the command frequency to the higher paygrades and all.
'sides, usually command traffic is encrypted, which the average trooper won't have the eq to decode...
> ....This is more like 'shoot that tank there!!' where all the members of a squad can
> coordinate on the spot to cause cumulative damage... but even if another squad got that
> same 'shoot that tank there!!' order, they wouldn't be able to coordinate well enough with
> the first squad to cause more cumulative damage. Each squad could be grouped together, but
> it would in effect be 2 separate attacks.
I'm not sure it should count as two attacks... I've seen batteries 20 miles apart shoot at the same target, at the very same second... And I must admit, it was VERY impressive :)
Dan
|
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: brikwars...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:42:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
regult@aol.+Spamless+com
|
Viewed:
|
1699 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
<wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
> ...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain of command
> and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with the assorted
> coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would turn it off.
> He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in turn, would get
> his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field guys would be
> shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send squads into certain
> death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear their fate being
> discussed like that.
>
> ...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to coordinate well with
> anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same thing, but only
> guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place on that target
> to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained together, so know
> each other and act as 'one fig').
I suppose it depends on exactly how the comm system is set up. I
picture individual talk groups for each squad with the capability of
squads or larger groups to switch to a common talk group if initiated
by a higher authority. That is, one person sends out a code, and the
radios all switch to that common talk group automatically.
The commanders would be able to talk to the squads, but not on the
command channel, the squad would have a talk group number and the
commander would punch that up and talk. The members, or squad leader,
could either verbally OK it, or more likely, if they say a verbal
command into the microphone, using voice recognition, a data burst is
sent to the commanders computer that says the squad got the message.
Likewise other verbal commands could be set up so that they squad
leader, or any member, could call for air support, reinforcements, or
medevac without ever really talking to anyone. I'm sure the commanders
would have their own talk groups that the average troops couldn't use,
or even know about.
Depending on how far into the future conventional radio technology
goes, these would probably be some type of digital system, using
frequency hopping to avoid ECM. Mobile antenna sites, or other relay
vehicles, might be linked by laser instead of microwaves to extend
radio coverage on the battlefield. Medical information and location
might also automatically be relayed by the trooper's radio units.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
| |
Have you read "Starship Troopers"? Not the craptacular Paul Verhoeven movie,
but the Heinlein novel? RAH goes into quite a bit of detail on how his cap
troops are in communication with each other; basically the grunts have radios
with one channel (it's a 'party-line' type setup, where they all talk
together, and over each other), whereas the command suits have 2 (3?)
channels, where they can talk to the grunts, or talk amongst the command staff
without the grunts listening in. I don't remember all the details off the top
of me noggin, but I'd recommend reading the book, if only for the armored-suit
info contained therein.
-Cheese
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Jeff Christner writes:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:55:42 GMT, Stephen F Roberts
> <wubwub@wildlink.com> wrote:
>
> > ...All the troopers would have a helmet comm, but you would still have chain • of command
> > and distraction. The average field guy does not want to be distracted with • the assorted
> > coordination chatter that would go on at 'command' frequencies, so would • turn it off.
> > He'll be told where to move and where to shoot by his comm-officer who, in • turn, would get
> > his guidance from someone 'upstream'. It is also likely that standard field • guys would be
> > shut out of command frequencies, since at times, generals have to send • squads into certain
> > death situations and its not good for morale to have the field guys hear • their fate being
> > discussed like that.
> >
> > ...So the end effect would be the average fig would not be able to • coordinate well with
> > anyone outside of his squad. Multiple squads could all fire at the same • thing, but only
> > guys close to you or on your frequency would be able to hit the same place • on that target
> > to be able to add up and hurt it. (not to mention the squad has trained • together, so know
> > each other and act as 'one fig').
>
> I suppose it depends on exactly how the comm system is set up. I
> picture individual talk groups for each squad with the capability of
> squads or larger groups to switch to a common talk group if initiated
> by a higher authority. That is, one person sends out a code, and the
> radios all switch to that common talk group automatically.
>
> The commanders would be able to talk to the squads, but not on the
> command channel, the squad would have a talk group number and the
> commander would punch that up and talk. The members, or squad leader,
> could either verbally OK it, or more likely, if they say a verbal
> command into the microphone, using voice recognition, a data burst is
> sent to the commanders computer that says the squad got the message.
> Likewise other verbal commands could be set up so that they squad
> leader, or any member, could call for air support, reinforcements, or
> medevac without ever really talking to anyone. I'm sure the commanders
> would have their own talk groups that the average troops couldn't use,
> or even know about.
>
> Depending on how far into the future conventional radio technology
> goes, these would probably be some type of digital system, using
> frequency hopping to avoid ECM. Mobile antenna sites, or other relay
> vehicles, might be linked by laser instead of microwaves to extend
> radio coverage on the battlefield. Medical information and location
> might also automatically be relayed by the trooper's radio units.
>
> Jeff Christner
>
> Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
>
> Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
> Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
| |
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:53:36 GMT, "Matthew Wilkins"
<mwilkins@nospam.nai.com> wrote:
> Have you read "Starship Troopers"? Not the craptacular Paul Verhoeven movie,
> but the Heinlein novel? RAH goes into quite a bit of detail on how his cap
> troops are in communication with each other; basically the grunts have radios
> with one channel (it's a 'party-line' type setup, where they all talk
> together, and over each other), whereas the command suits have 2 (3?)
> channels, where they can talk to the grunts, or talk amongst the command staff
> without the grunts listening in. I don't remember all the details off the top
> of me noggin, but I'd recommend reading the book, if only for the armored-suit
> info contained therein.
>
> -Cheese
I read it, but it was many, many years ago. About all I remember is
how the power armor worked, movement wise, and the dropships. I think
I still have a copy somewhere, but its probably still packed up after
moving two years ago.
Jeff Christner
Visit Sixby Fire Tech at - http://members.aol.com/regult/
Help support my LEGO habit. Ship by rail.
Visit http://www.nscorp.com/ to find out how.
|
|
|
