Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: Mad-eddy13 on January 11, 2013, 07:39:19 AM
-
I was wondering how to play with powered armour, or light mechs, in a "realistic" way.
Edited defense values, would love feedback.
(http://s3.garrysmod.org/img/cache/6/9/3/7/9/218d8d91a9620cebcc6e3f695433c0dd.jpg)
Powered armour, fallout style
Movement: same distance as average infantry
Attack:
Standard weapons: (Infantry team served Rocket/missile/grenade launchers, LMGs, HMGs, light energy weapons)
double the attacks per turn more than standard infantry, suffers movement penalties
Integrated weapons: triple attacks per turn more than standard infantry, No movement penalties, can have up to 2 weapons integrated per arm, must divide attacks between weapons (see afterward)
Defense: (all below information assumes that a hit/miss die was used)
Small arms (up to .50 cal/equivalent)
with six sided die: 1 to kill, 2,3 to disable 4,5,6 no effect
heavy arms (.50 cals, 20mm cannon, 40mm grenade or similar)
with six sided die: 1,6 to kill 2,5 to disable 3,4 to halve next movement
antitank weapons (bazooka, light artillery, etc)
1,2,5,6 to kill 3,4 to disable
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/11962/1268191-appleseed_movie_4_super.jpg)
Heavy Powered Armour, Landmate style
Movement: +50% distance as average infantry
Standard weapons: (extra heavy Rocket/missile/grenade launchers, LMGs, HMGs, light energy weapons)
double the attacks per turn more than standard infantry, +1 towards kill, suffers movement penalties
Integrated weapons: triple attacks per turn more than standard infantry, No movement penalties can have up to 3 weapons integrated per arm, must divide attacks between weapons (see afterward)
Defense: (all below information assumes that a hit/miss die was used)
Small arms (up to .50 cal/equivalent)
with six sided die: 1 to disable
heavy arms (.50 cals, 20mm cannon, 40mm grenade or similar)
with six sided die: 1 to kill, 2,3 to disable 4,5 to halve movement for next turn
antitank weapons (bazooka, light artillery, etc)
1,2,3 to kill 4,5 to disable 6 to slow
Afterword:
Integrated Weapons Attacks:
If a suit has a LMG and Shotgun in one arm and a grenade launcher and assault rifle in the other. If the suit has 4 attacks then you can fire the LMG 4 times or all the weapons once, or any combination of weapons equipped as long as its within the number of available attacks.
-
Well, they die less presumably :)
-
Well, they die less presumably :)
I somehow left out defense >:(
-
I would imagine that they fall somewhere between tanks/armoured vehicles and regular infantry.
It probably also depends on if they're bulkier, heavier suits (perhaps less able to defend themselves against lightly armoured conventional infantry), or lighter suits that effectively replace current infantry entirely (if the suits are available in enough quantity). Maybe they're strictly superior, but require expensive materials or more stringent training, so they're only granted to elite units.
Another thing to think of is if they have a particular Achilles heel or other crucial flaw (such as the inaccuracy of early guns, which meant they did not replaced bladed weapons entirely for a while), that would lend an argument to their being mixed with conventional infantry.
They may act as target elimination/spec ops/commando forces if their physical capabilities in terms of speed and agility greatly outpace regular infantry (jump multiple stories, run substantially faster then unpowered infantry, etc.).
Once you have the actual capabilities and availability sketched out, you'll have a better sense of the best operational military doctrine for them.
I do think that as long as they don't replace current-style infantry entirely, they'll be fielded with and amongst the infantry, perhaps acting as mini-tanks (offering heavy fire support and providing cover for regular dorks, etc.). I think it may actually make for a more interesting game that way. If powered armour is good enough that it automatically replaces conventional infantry (i.e. better in all respects, is easy to use, and suits are widely available), then you just have a regular modern wargame, only everyone can shoot better, move faster, jump higher, etc. Which may be kind of boring.
-
Here are the rules for the power armor we use in out Weird WWII gaming. I tried to write them in a realistic fashion so give them a once over and see what you think.
Brian
German Luther Class Armor
http://www.weirdwwii.com/2012/06/battleground-weird-wwii-luther-armored.html
US M55 Gorilla Armor
http://www.weirdwwii.com/2012/04/battleground-weird-wwii-m55-gorilla.html
-
The way I see powered armour is three fold:
They are load carrying (issued to all troops in a campaign setting)
They carry the heavy weapons (one or two in a unit of standard troops
They are heavily armed/armoured and used for shock-assaults
Larger suits (land-mates/mecha) would be more tied into the vehicle role so would be in small units/armoured sections and operate like tanks/armoured vehicles.
-
In terms of the most 'realistic' depiction, it would probably be unmanned ground vehicles. It wouldn't be a great leap to go from the real ones that are currently in development to silly bipedial ones.
Failing that, Landmates are cool.
-
"Realistic' is the debatable term here, right?
I think the future of tactical infantry support belongs to remote control drones, like the Big Dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ) or TUGV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_Tactical_Unmanned_Ground_Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_Tactical_Unmanned_Ground_Vehicle) These things provide a 'force multipliers' or a logistical support edge with a human operator.
Powered exosuits like the HULC (http://www.army-technology.com/features/featuremilitary-exoskeletons-uncovered-ironman-suits-a-concrete-possibility) are essentially body-armor on steroids, enhancing an individual soldier's movement, defense, or firepower. Within limits. Beyond those limits, I agree they should be classed as vehicles.
I think cost/value equation along entrenched modes of thinking prevails. It's easier and cheaper to buy more Reapers/Predators/Gladiators or upgrade a fleet of MRAP Grizzly APCs than develop a viable big stompy robot.
Game-wise: I'd buff stats on individual infantry with ex-assisted armor, but subject Landmates to vehicle rules.
-
thanks for the input, I'll get some specific info on the designs.
And who thinks that Appleseed's landmates got a lot less cool when they started flying? I mean its just ridiculously unfair - those things kick ass as it is.
Here's the scenes that sold me on landmates (there is violence and some gore in the film, just a heads up)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFKbtx1vnBw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFKbtx1vnBw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btfOWs98r3E&playnext=1&list=PL92FF32EE52DFD394&feature=results_video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btfOWs98r3E&playnext=1&list=PL92FF32EE52DFD394&feature=results_video)
And an example of what happens when a small suit comes under fire from a HMG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-r4HXHcCk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-r4HXHcCk)
-
In terms of "realism" I read some stuff about the US military offering big grants to anyone who can design and supply powered armour for the same cost as a motor bike per unit.
The basic premise is that modern assault rifles will simply penetrate the amour. THey are not given to the grunt for personal protection, but instead as a psychological boost. The soldier wearing the armour feels more protected, even though, effectively, they arent. A soldier who feels safer will take more risks, so will be a more effective shock assault trooper (theoretically).
So maybe armour that gives better save verses low power weapons (close combat and small pistols), and a psychology boost, but doesnt effect savs verses assault weapons and higher?
-
In terms of "realism" I read some stuff about the US military offering big grants to anyone who can design and supply powered armour for the same cost as a motor bike per unit.
The basic premise is that modern assault rifles will simply penetrate the amour. THey are not given to the grunt for personal protection, but instead as a psychological boost. The soldier wearing the armour feels more protected, even though, effectively, they arent. A soldier who feels safer will take more risks, so will be a more effective shock assault trooper (theoretically).
So maybe armour that gives better save verses low power weapons (close combat and small pistols), and a psychology boost, but doesnt effect savs verses assault weapons and higher?
Well in my mind, to be a true physiological benefit a suit should be able to soak up a few hundred assault rifle rounds, so long as they don't hit any joints, fuel tanks, etc. Most modern American AR rounds are designed to maim, rather than kill. though a good concentrated burst could slow down a small suit, however nothing under 20mm will even tickle a landmate (unless you got a few rounds on the external control arms) but you're right powered armor should give some kind of moral bonus, and a similar loss of moral when (if) the suit goes down.
-
No offense, but I can't say the Iron Man clip accurately portrays the effects of a LMG or HMG on armor. Even standard Bradley IFV armor gets chewed up by DShk 12.7 mm. At least with current technology, I agree a morale boost and additional defense/save against regular infantry small arms is a given.
Good luck. And thanks, this is an interesting discussion.
-
No offense, but I can't say the Iron Man clip accurately portrays the effects of a LMG or HMG on armor. Even standard Bradley IFV armor gets chewed up by DShk 12.7 mm. At least with current technology, I agree a morale boost and additional defense/save against regular infantry small arms is a given.
Good luck. And thanks, this is an interesting discussion.
Indeed it is, I would personally class the DShk 12.7mm as an AA cannon that also worked as a jack of all trades. But I digress, maybe near impenetrable to pistols, SMGs and assault rifles, while guns that fire full sized rounds (8mm Mauser, .303, .308, 30.06, etc. fired by sniper rifles, LMGs and battle rifles)would do decent damage, HMGs would do a fair bit of damage very fast, literally hammering a suit into the ground, even if the armor holds. Finally the AA cannons, that can chew up pretty well anything with less then ten inches of steel armor, for powered armor their best chance wold be to scare off the AA cannon crews, before they can attack.
-
Well, there's the idea that powered armour is more effective against underpowered enemies - essentially offering a boost to the "imperial" side in asymmettrical warfare. It scares the guerillas and offers a slight defensive boost against less-well-armed foes, but it's way less useful in warfare between two nations fighting on equal terms, where the suits can be destroyed with the application of slightly more expensive ammo and some proper training/doctrine in countermeasures.
The problem is that in a real war or any kind of situation where they are no longer a novelty, the bonus is effectively eliminated once people have any familiarity with the suits.
I think scurv makes a reasonable point to do what's cool, but I would slightly change that to "do what will make for a fun game".
Echoing my earlier comment, I think that if you just make power armour a straight replacement for infantry then you just have... more expensive infantry figures. What makes it fun is to have them be a bit unique. Maybe they have somewhat better armour (especially for landmates, rather than body suits), but where they'll really shine is in between vehicles and infantry. I would set it up like this:
- Quality of armour grades should go: Infantry, Power suits, Landmates, Light Vehicles (Light vehicles and Landmates MAY have equal armour), Heavy combat vehicles (tanks)
- The defining game characteristics should be the enhancements to the the wearer/pilot's physical capabilities: increased speed, jump height (possible bursts of very short-term flight?), able to carry more gear and heavier weapons than infantry.
- Heavy (and probably even light) vehicles should still have some advantages over landmates just to offer the players different units with different abilities. Maybe light armoured vehicles have better guns and move faster on level road, but landmates will go slightly faster in irregular terrain and do the little jumps/mini-flights. Heavy vehicles should trump everything for sheer power (except in speed).
- Operational doctrine is to treat them as elite infantry used as shock/assault troops or infantry support, depending on the mission requirements nad maybe even player preference.
That way everything has a place and a role. Regular infantry is the mass of cheaper guys; landmates/powered armour are rarer and serve as little swiss-army-knife men used to "boost" infantry, get to hard-to-reach points, and do spot removal; light vehicles and heavy vehicles can serve in conventional roles as heavier fire support and full unit protection/transport, but are of limited effectiveness in cramped spaces.
-
The squad configuration I was thinking of consists of:
1. lieutenant in heavy (landmate) powered armor
2. 2x sergeants in light powered armor
3. 5-20 regular infantry
4. 3-6 ammo bearers/loaders
They would be sent against enemy infantry, but tank hunting teams in the same configuration might work pretty good.
Unit configuration would consist of powered armor taking the center while infantry hold the flanks.
In urban combat the armor would stick to the streets while the infantry would fight house to house to disable anti-tank weapons.
Another feature that would be handy if a suit had high powered cannons or guided missiles would be a target designator carried by an infantryman, so the suit could engage targets out of its line of sight.
-
The squad configuration I was thinking of consists of:
1. lieutenant in heavy (landmate) powered armor
2. 2x sergeants in light powered armor
3. 5-20 regular infantry
4. 3-6 ammo bearers/loaders
They would be sent against enemy infantry, but tank hunting teams in the same configuration might work pretty good.
Unit configuration would consist of powered armor taking the center while infantry hold the flanks.
In urban combat the armor would stick to the streets while the infantry would fight house to house to disable anti-tank weapons.
Another feature that would be handy if a suit had high powered cannons or guided missiles would be a target designator carried by an infantryman, so the suit could engage targets out of its line of sight.
This seems like a good set up.
I like that it allows you to "escalate" things for particularly hairy missions (tank hunting mission, taking out a hardened target, extraction requiring maximum survivability for the spearhead troops), without making regular infantry completely obsolete.
I.E. you could instead have 2-3 landmates, 6-8 power armour, 8-10 infantry (for small spaces/specialized tasks/rangefinder guys/ammo bearer bodyguards), and maybe 6-10 ammo bearers. But in those cases you can make it clear that that's not standard operational doctrine for "regular" combat.
EDIT: another cool thing is that your power armour guys don't get a movement bonus. So even though your landmates have superior movement and senses, you would still use regular troops for most scout functions, because it's very bad doctrine to have the heaviest unit act as the scout as well.
-
This seems like a good set up.
I like that it allows you to "escalate" things for particularly hairy missions (tank hunting mission, taking out a hardened target, extraction requiring maximum survivability for the spearhead troops), without making regular infantry completely obsolete.
I.E. you could instead have 2-3 landmates, 6-8 power armour, 8-10 infantry (for small spaces/specialized tasks/rangefinder guys/ammo bearer bodyguards), and maybe 6-10 ammo bearers. But in those cases you can make it clear that that's not standard operational doctrine for "regular" combat.
EDIT: another cool thing is that your power armour guys don't get a movement bonus. So even though your landmates have superior movement and senses, you would still use regular troops for most scout functions, because it's very bad doctrine to have the heaviest unit act as the scout as well.
This way a team can have a very wide range of firepower, and a decent mobility along with heavy weapons.
The loaders carry extra ammo for the powered armor and grant extra attacks to the suits if they're close enough.
-
Yeah, I think it offers a lot of opportunities.
Some asymmetrical scenarios would be cool too, like an instance where one side is just three landmates or something (like the stolen landmate scenario in the comics). In that case, the landmates would be free to use full mobility and power without having to wait for regular infantry, but be very vulnerable to massed fire and have very limited ammo and fuel (due to the absence of loaders/support).
-
Yeah, I think it offers a lot of opportunities.
Some asymmetrical scenarios would be cool too, like an instance where one side is just three landmates or something (like the stolen landmate scenario in the comics). In that case, the landmates would be free to use full mobility and power without having to wait for regular infantry, but be very vulnerable to massed fire and have very limited ammo and fuel (due to the absence of loaders/support).
The ammo limitations are the Achilles heel of powered armor, I found that in paintball its easy to burn through 1100 rounds in a 20 minute game. And I can reload my own weapons, something impossible with integrated weapons you would most likely find on powered armor.
The scenario I had in mind when messing with these rules was a horde of Soviet based infantry and medically enhanced soldiers Vs powered armor teams.
-
Yeah, there's basically no room for stowage on powered suits or even landmates. I think that's a very good balancing factor there.
There's probably going to be loads of scenarios you can run. Depends on how much you and your chums want to play!
-
Yeah, there's basically no room for stowage on powered suits or even landmates. I think that's a very good balancing factor there.
There's probably going to be loads of scenarios you can run. Depends on how much you and your chums want to play!
I'm also floating an idea for an unarmored suit, same defense as tougher infantry, twice the movement per turn and a pair of experimental electrical cannons.
-
Would spreading out your powered armor really be a good idea? It reminds me of the how the Allies spread their armor out and the German's had dedicated armor units. I know it's a little different, but I could see squads/squadrons of them assaulting and regular infantry following up to hold the ground.
-
Would spreading out your powered armor really be a good idea? It reminds me of the how the Allies spread their armor out and the German's had dedicated armor units. I know it's a little different, but I could see squads/squadrons of them assaulting and regular infantry following up to hold the ground.
The problem is that powered armor has limited ammunition, so there for needs frequent reloads, these can be provided by supporting infantry, the only thing that can keep up with the highly mobile suits. Also in my scenario the suits have just entered production so they aren't deployed en-mass yet, but rather as force multipliers for infantry battalions.