Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

FJCestero · 03-07-2018, 08:33 PM

Anything with a enough rate of fire to score an 2*(AP) attack is spitting out enough low-caliber bullets to be modeled as two individual 1*(AP) attacks that can engage multiple targets.

So there is no such thing as a 2*(AP), or 3*(AP), or 4*(AP), etc attack, which still can't damage real armor. There is however such things as 2x1*(AP), 3x1*(AP), and 4x1*(AP), etc which we already have the means for as simply saying "X number of standard AP guns".

Plus, it's just easier on the brain cells.

I can see AP weapons with more than 1 hex range, some sort of mortar or exploding shell spraying small fragments and such. You might define an AP round fired, say, from a HWZ/MHWZ that is 6*(AP) with the added benefit that it ignores infantry terrain defense bonuses... 6*(AP,NoCover).

On a meta-philosophical note, I'm resistant to specialized infantry past a certain point. I take the view that our vanilla 1/1 D1 M2 infantry is a highly rationalized/optimized configuration already. I.e.: the balanced configuration of weapons, armor & mobility that through experience and hard-won lessons has shown itself to be the most effective on the battlefield. Yes, specialization is possible, but is it worth it??? Every specialized infantry requires an equally specialized logistical tail including equipment and (more importantly) training. Plus there's the upfront R&D costs plus the added costs of small production runs. Why have one squad of specialized infantry when you can have 3 or 4 extra Vanillas? On the battlefields of the Last War with auto-factories churning stuff out 24/7, quantity has a quality all its own...

Still, yes, it can be fun to experiment. Or just goof around.

03-07-2018, 08:33 PM	#18
FJCestero Join Date: Jun 2008	Re: Alternative infantry Units Anything with a enough rate of fire to score an 2(AP) attack is spitting out enough low-caliber bullets to be modeled as two individual 1(AP) attacks that can engage multiple targets. So there is no such thing as a 2(AP), or 3(AP), or 4(AP), etc attack, which still can't damage real armor. There is however such things as 2x1(AP), 3x1(AP), and 4x1(AP), etc which we already have the means for as simply saying "X number of standard AP guns". Plus, it's just easier on the brain cells. I can see AP weapons with more than 1 hex range, some sort of mortar or exploding shell spraying small fragments and such. You might define an AP round fired, say, from a HWZ/MHWZ that is 6(AP) with the added benefit that it ignores infantry terrain defense bonuses... 6(AP,NoCover). On a meta-philosophical note, I'm resistant to specialized infantry past a certain point. I take the view that our vanilla 1/1 D1 M2 infantry is a highly rationalized/optimized configuration already. I.e.: the balanced configuration of weapons, armor & mobility that through experience and hard-won lessons has shown itself to be the most effective on the battlefield. Yes, specialization is possible, but is it worth it??? Every specialized infantry requires an equally specialized logistical tail including equipment and (more importantly) training. Plus there's the upfront R&D costs plus the added costs of small production runs. Why have one squad of specialized infantry when you can have 3 or 4 extra Vanillas? On the battlefields of the Last War with auto-factories churning stuff out 24/7, quantity has a quality all its own... Still, yes, it can be fun to experiment. Or just goof around.