"What if you can't miss?" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the SF Discussion Message Board Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Action Log
12 Jul 2014 11:12 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "What if you cant miss?" to "What if you can't miss?"
Areas of InterestModern Science Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Allen57 | 12 Jul 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
link I suppose that if such tech becomes commonplace a countermeasure would be designed but this has interesting implications for our games. |
zircher | 12 Jul 2014 8:00 a.m. PST |
The question becomes, what can you survive? |
Winston Smith | 12 Jul 2014 9:20 a.m. PST |
As the Swiss General told Kaiser Bill, "Each of our soldiers will have to fire twice." |
War Monkey | 12 Jul 2014 9:32 a.m. PST |
Wars cost money, so just how much would one of those rounds cost and would that coat be effective to the war? There's the problem, there's a sight system out there right now, that con make the average person with little shooting experience, darn near a sniper at 800 meters, do our soldier have them? NO! The system is called Tracking Point |
Stealth1000 | 12 Jul 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
By the time its on the front line someone will have a counter to it. |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 12 Jul 2014 11:54 a.m. PST |
I am largely of the opinion that in sci-fi gaming, ranges and accuracy should be unlimited. ECM, terrain, and combined-arms operations, even at a skkrmish level, become the way to handle things. Backpack launched drones, either as decoys or hunters, are the front line between forces. As an aside, imagine one of these self-guided bullets packing explosives, that could also use shortlived anti-equipment nanites… pop one guy, everyone has their gear dissolve over the next few minutes… |
Ron W DuBray | 12 Jul 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
anti-equipment nanites everyone has their gear dissolve over the next few minutes Why anti-equipment and gear? Why not the just dissolve the troops? We (the US) have a 25mm smart air bust GLs in the field that makes the whole taking cover idea a bad joke :) |
Mako11 | 12 Jul 2014 2:04 p.m. PST |
Ammo, and logistics become even more important, as do decoys and body-armor, etc…… |
Unlucky General | 12 Jul 2014 2:17 p.m. PST |
I suppose it comes down to what factors are theoretically taken into account when you dice 'to hit'. I suggest that 'hitting' is an effective hit – where the weapon meets the target with a chance of damage. You can hit targets without that of course. Beware or technical hype though – I recall a Senate hearing into the 'effectiveness' of the US Patriot missile system after the first gulf war – the US military had a very 'generous' definition of what 'hit' meant then. Certainly in Rapid Fire rules you can always miss – it just becomes horribly unlikely at times. In a split second between the round leaving the weapon and finding it's target all sorts of things could happen to obstruct I imagine. |
Norman D Landings | 12 Jul 2014 4:18 p.m. PST |
I'm with punkrabbit. Even in very near-future sci-fi, you have to factor in networked sensors, enhanced optics, 'smart' TASs, BLAMs, personal IFF systems, drones, remote or autonomous weapon systems, etc. IMHO, it's the breaking point of most sci-fi systems: too many rely on the basic mechanics of "WWII with lasers" and are reluctant to leave that comfort zone. My idea of a sci-fi skirmish system would be based around the core mechanic of 'Acquiring Target Lock vs. Evading Target Lock'. (We used to use this mechanic for a 'Not-Slammers' type game) At the end of every round, you'd make an opposed roll for each figure or squad depending on what actions they'd performed that round: movement, firing, using sensors, smart weapons etc. all raise your sensor signature. Your opponent's roll depends on what sensor systems he's using. He rolls higher, you show up as a blip on his TAS network. Maybe an auto-turret's defensive subroutine metalstorms your gridsquare… maybe your opponent has chosen to lower his sensor profile by powering down his autoturrets. It's about choices, and a degree of bluff: the Mk.I human eyeball may not get you a missile lock, but it won't set off anybody's passive alerts. Are you being locked-onto right now? Should you start broad-spectrum jamming? It may break any target locks, but if the enemy wasn't aware of you, you just gave away your presence. 'Roll X dice to hit at Y range' just doesn't simulate the sort of tactical choices I associate with near-future games. |
Dan 055 | 12 Jul 2014 6:57 p.m. PST |
Very interesting ideas Norman. |
Cardinal Hawkwood | 12 Jul 2014 10:40 p.m. PST |
I imagine they rattled on like this then when somebody came up with the crossbow |
Milites | 13 Jul 2014 2:17 a.m. PST |
Bit like Traveller, with the various evade programmes versus the missiles ECM/ECCM routines. If humans are involved in the targeting routine then the limiting factor will be their reaction speeds (unless we bio-engineer faster neural OODA routines). You could have fully autonomous targeting programmes (like a modern day CIWS) but what role does the human play? I think just beyond the horizon gaming is niche that has so far not been fully exploited. Just what will the face of warfare be in 10-15 years? What unique challenges will it pose, or will it be as predicted? For one thing, the smart rounds being trialled are probably as a counter to the latest body armours being developed, which threaten most small arms. |
Angel Barracks | 13 Jul 2014 2:48 a.m. PST |
My idea of a sci-fi skirmish system would be based around the core mechanic of 'Acquiring Target Lock vs. Evading Target Lock'. So like rolling to hit and rolling to save? It could be just that simple. The whole process of getting from seeing the target to acquiring a lock that can't miss will need to be simulated and most likely through dice rolls. So if there are 10 stages to that process and all need to be successful to get a hit, why not just have a single roll that factors in these 10 stages, rather than 10 rolls? In my rules, the to hit roll factors in everything needed to hit. In my rules the save is not just armour saves, it is ecm, evasion, shields, being a small target etc. I recently tried to work out why my games did not feel sci-fi enough. I reached a conclusion that made me quite pleased: link Michael.
|
Extra Crispy | 13 Jul 2014 10:13 a.m. PST |
I agree with Norman: what is missing are the new tech and the choices they force on you. I agree if you turn everything on (ECM etc) all the time you just need a single hit or miss roll. But it's when you have to choose – do I use a given tech that offers an advantage of A but has a downside of B (i.e. A prevents lasers locking on, but it also makes me visible to certain sensors, maybe heat or UV). |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Jul 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
Impressive, they miniaturized SACLOS guidance equipment to the point that it can be squeezed into a .50cal round! Wonder what they're using for the target designator? My money is on a laser, and I've seen a test of a laser-guided bullet ( link ). Problem was, the laser-guided bullet required a smoothbore barrel and had to be very long (~4") because of the flight control system. So you could basically shoot one from a break-open 12ga! Not good for rapid-fire. I wonder how long the shooter needs to stay exposed with the SACLOS guided bullet? Presumably all the way until impact, though that's only a couple seconds, even at .50cal long ranges. Beats the heck out of 30 seconds exposed like a TOW missile. However, one critical problem with the SACLOS bullet is that the guidance signals can either be detected and jammed, or triangulated and stonked with artillery. Wars cost money, so just how much would one of those rounds cost and would that cost be effective to the war? Excellent question. Probably over $100 USD a shot if you can make them on an assembly line, but the guidance module is probably an off-the-shelf item with custom firmware, and would be replacing the (expensive) spotter's scope in a sniper team. If you kept the use of those SACLOS bullets to snipers, the system cost would not be too extreme. It's probably far too expensive to use as a general issue item, but I could see including the guidance system on a remote weapons station mounting and issuing one box of 'silver bullets' for anti-sniper work. That would be VERY expensive, since you're basically giving the system to every vehicle that has a .50cal mounted. There's the problem, there's a sight system out there right now, that con make the average person with little shooting experience, darn near a sniper at 800 meters, do our soldier have them? NO!The system is called Tracking Point Yes, and it costs upwards of $20,000. USD But to be honest, it's basically the fire-control system from an Abrams. Laser rangefinder, stabilized optics, and a 'stable vertical' rig so that the shooter pulls the trigger and holds it until the crosshairs are back on the laser spot. When that happens, the gun goes BANG. But here's the real catch to Tracking Point: the shooter has to be exposed for the entire shot process, and if the fire control system takes a hit (any damage at all, really), the entire rifle is dead weight. The military DOES NOT LIKE single-point-of-failure systems. |
UshCha | 14 Jul 2014 11:13 a.m. PST |
So you can afford 1 man with a high teck weapon vs 100 men with decent rifles who wins The 100 rifle men. They hide for a bit and when the man has to go asleeep the 100 kill him. High teck is just that, expensive. Your PC is cheap as its universal technoligy sold in tens of millions, weapons are not, except maybe the AK47 ;-0. Si Fi suffers in many cases from a lack of integrated understanding of economics. They tend to be fantasy not Si-Fi. |
Norman D Landings | 14 Jul 2014 1:36 p.m. PST |
That example is a point well made Ush, BUT: It still clings to the idea that it's 'rifleman vs rifleman', and that the major difference hi-tech makes is in the relative quality of those riflemen. I'd say that just isn't so. We can play out that scenario with current technology. We watch 100 guys with AK's – they're the little white thermal-imaging shapes scattered across a dusty hillside. The one guy with high-tech weaponry is sitting comfortably in an air-conditioned room hundreds of miles away, piloting a hellfire-carrying drone towards them. Screen goes white – resolves into an explosion – some of the dots aren't moving any more. What happens when the one guy goes to sleep? Absolutely nothing. He's beyond effective reach of the low-tech guys. He could be anywhere on the planet. That's neither sci-fi nor fantasy – that's daily news. Rules which are basically 'Guys With Guns' versus 'Other Guys With Guns' just don't reflect the possibilities of ultra-modern or near-future wargaming. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jul 2014 1:40 p.m. PST |
Actually, even the AK is only cheap because it can be made in the millions. A milled receiver instead of stamped is much cheaper to do if you're not going to do many of them (stronger, too). A milling machine is cheaper to buy outright than a stamping machine, and has other utility with little changeover cost. But that stamping machine can only make AK47 receivers without costing a whole lot of money to make the new stamp die, and lots of hours to change from the AK receiver stamp die to whatever the new stamp die is. ============= As far as the OP goes, you can simply rename the 'to-hit' roll the 'to-detect' roll, and the 'armor save' to the 'ECM save' (which could be explained in background text that it includes the effect of armor, as I try to keep the number of rolls required down to a minimum). Doing much more than that will require a lot of markers on the table. At a bare minimum, a 'camouflaged unit' marker like Infinity. Using passive systems would give you first strike against the enemy (and flips you to a 'revealed model/Active systems state), but using active systems means your target gets to shoot back and may beat you to the target lock and therefore hit. In Infinity, you need to have a model using active sensors (, ie, a revealed model) 'Discover' a Camouflage Marker before you can shoot at it. Well, unless you're using a flamethrower or similar weapon and doing recon-by-fire. While you COULD have a separate roll for each sensor and counter-sensor, I prefer to reduce the number of intermediate die rolls between 'I want to shoot THIS model' and 'OK, he's dead' to a minimum. Besides, sensor fusion displays are better than individual-sensors that the user then needs to collate in his head. |
Milites | 14 Jul 2014 2:36 p.m. PST |
'Guys With Guns' versus 'Other Guys with Guns' is still far more frequent than drone strikes though. It really should be, 'Guys With mission-optimised Guns, Drones, Robots and Networked Communications' versus 'Other Guys with hand-me-down Guns and Mobile phones'. Predicting the obsolescence of traditional soldiering, in the face of greater remote technology, is akin to writing the epitaph of the MBT, in the face of ATGW's. Men will always have to close and kill other men, whatever the technology, in fact you could argue in the future, because of the technology. In the future, the 'Other Guys' will have most of the toys the 'Guys' had but the disparity will still remain. Now the 'Guys' have smart weapons, smart sensors, advanced body armour and fully networked comms with autonomous drones. The edge is still theirs, but yes, they will have to sleep at some point. Lion, sounds a lot like submarine combat on terra firma! |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jul 2014 2:49 p.m. PST |
Lion, sounds a lot like submarine combat on terra firma! Not too far from the truth, except that Infinity at least gives you reasonably-known positions. Real submarine warfare isn't anywhere near as nice about where a Sub might be hiding. |
Milites | 14 Jul 2014 3:50 p.m. PST |
Well the high speed screws of the torpedo might give you a clue! |
|