Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: Rick on August 18, 2025, 01:47:11 PM
-
Rather than derailing zrunelords post any further with a discussion of rules ideas to use with GZG's excellent 'Moongrunt' rules, I thought I'd start this thread to discuss ideas.
As far as technology goes, the figures look to be somewhere slightly more advanced than now but nowhere near as advanced as the Stargrunt ranges. The figures are all in reinforced spacesuits which are probably kevlar (or equivalent) reinforced, but no powered armour or hardsuit armour, no jet packs or plasma cannon either!
The rules will have to take into account the vastly reduced gravity, near vacuum and the smaller size of the Moon, which will affect most of the standard rules we normally take for granted in a wargame.
Movement will be less about maximum distance covered and more about control - those big jumps and bunny hops of the Apollo missions looked good until you realise that you need as much power and control to stop as you did to start, or the momentum will have you smack into the ground, also that those big jumps leave you hanging in mid-air for long periods, in plain sight of every enemy figure with a gun. Tactical movement is likely to be brief, controlled and designed to make maximum use of cover and concealment.
Weapon ranges would be long - a weapon that can fire about 1,000 metres on Earth would fire over 8,000 metres on the Moon (or thereabouts) which is fine until you realise the Moon is much smaller and the horizon is only about 800 or 900 metres away. So, weapon fire would be dependant on accuracy and cover, not maximum ranges - also you'd have to keep that level of power in order to be able to penetrate a spacesuit at distance. Fragmentation grenades would be a problem - a 20 metre burst radius suddenly expands to fill over half the battlefield with flying shrapnel, which is not desirable if your own figures are there as well. Concussion grenades (from a grenade launcher) might be a better option - no shrapnel effect so just the blast area from the explosive - although with no air to push the blast wave outwards, it would be a small radius explosion but enough to crack a visor of a suit seal. Rocket launchers might be another option but the propellant in the rocket would be used to stop it, not keep it going, where it could explode a shaped charge downwards (limiting the shrapnel spread) similar to a modern top-attack missile.
Of course any explosion is likely to kick up a cloud of dust which would stay up longer than a smoke cloud on earth (and with similar effects).
Thermal, IR and UV sights are likely to be ineffective during a Lunar day when the unfiltered sun is heating everything up to a fairly uniform degree but drones (wheeled, tracked or, possibly, walkers) would be very useful.
Any thoughts?
-
You could try Lunar. Great little game.
-
At skirmish ranges, lethal range for shrapnel is line of sight, it is more reducing the chance of being hit as the distance from the burst point increases.
-
You could try Lunar. Great little game.
I know and I did consider it at one point - but it did seem like an awful lot of money for a rehash of 'Lunar Surface Warfare 1960' by Dr Chris Flaherty.
Plus I wanted something set in the near future, not back in a hypothetical cold war.
-
Bunny-hopping on the moon was reportedly less strenuous than trying to walk. So more controlled movement would induce more fatigue than faster (and more exposed) bounding. A nice twist on more terrestrial movement rules.
Hmm, may pick up a copy of 'Lunar Surface Warfare 1960' for the rules reference library!
-
What you say Rick is not dissimilar to the Miniature Wargames article, which suggests using BA. I'm inclined to give it ago or use Tomorrow's War, having about a dozen a side painted. I haven't completed my drones yet though. This range seems criminally under used and I'm as guilty as anyone. Lunar has neither the scale nor ease of availability in the UK to appeal to me, notwithstanding that I have seen some nice work on LAF.
-
I saw that very blog post, which prompted me to order the back issues with that article and jon tuffley's rules that were used for the 'dark side of the moon' exhibition game a few years ago. There were also a couple of posts on the proposed historical war concept that the US and Soviets were looking at by Dr Chris Flaherty which also interested me greatly - as I mentioned above, he wrote a book with wargame rules and scenarios in; "Lunar Surface Warfare 1960" which does seem to have influenced the Lunar rules (I wonder if he's credited in the book).
I'd be interested in moving it further forward than the 1960's and including drones, which are today's 'weapon system de jour', albeit of a fairly basic wheeled or tracked design, which could be interesting.
-
There were also a couple of posts on the proposed historical war concept that the US and Soviets were looking at by Dr Chris Flaherty which also interested me greatly - as I mentioned above, he wrote a book with wargame rules and scenarios in; "Lunar Surface Warfare 1960" which does seem to have influenced the Lunar rules (I wonder if he's credited in the book).
Lunar does not have a 'Designer's Notes' section where credits for inspiration are likely to land. Brief intro mentions they began work on it in 2018. Copyright date 2020. So, unlikely to have been strongly influenced by Lunar Surface Warfare 1960 (2021). Independent creations looks likely.
For All Mankind started airing in Nov 2019. Production announcements had begun rolling out by Dec 2017. Casting announcements Aug 2018. This sort of thing may well have launched game design thoughts.
-
The horizon on the moon for someone around the two metre mark (give or take) is actually around 2.6 km or roughly half of what it is on earth (circa 5 km). The distance of the horizon is just a mathematical formula after all and the Moon isn't quite that small.
-
Thank you Rick for starting this thread.
Drones will need a compressed air supply as I do not think fans will work in vacuum... but doable since there's no resistance.
Unfortunately all the rules I have ( Laser burn, Azhanti high lightning, Battle Born, Space Marines etc... ) do not tackle skirmishes in space or in vacuum...
but as I said they can be created.
To continue on what I wrote before
I honestly was thinking about using Squad hammer and adding the following " In Vacuum " house rules.
Though I still need to sit down & think them through . More to come... just writing things down...
a) Weapons & distances remain the same ( one assumes that they are designed for use in hard vacuum )
b) Jump/ hop movement & / or Jetpack assisted.
c) Mag boots for when doing ship outer skin assaults.
d) On Fumbles model flies out into space.
e) Suit damage ( Auto seal ? ) & or push back ( random direction or direction of shot )
f) Communication should not be a problem unless there is a large ( spaceship ? ) mass in between.
g) Solar glare reduces LOS or visibility.
Z
-
If you go back through what I've written, zrunelord, you'll likely see that at no point do I mention aerial drones! lol
The problem, as you point out, is they'd need a propellant to keep them up and while they are up, they're visible to everyone - no handy trees to hide behind. Which is the reason I only mentioned tracked, wheeled and (possibly) walking drones - much more like the US Army Battlefield Robot concept than the UAV's that are the prevalent form of drones on this planet.
-
I saw that very blog post, which prompted me to order the back issues with that article and jon tuffley's rules that were used for the 'dark side of the moon' exhibition game a few years ago.
<snip>
Just to clarify, although DSotM used mostly my Moongrunt figures, the rules used (in the show game and the follow-up articles) were NOT mine - they were by John Treadaway and the rest of the chaps (from the Warlords) who were running the show participation game with him. :)
Jon (GZG)
-
Jon, any chance GZG will eventually roll out a Moon game to go with the lovely figures? Or at least a Moonie addendum to Stargrunt?
Please.
Cat
=^,^=
-
Whups, my bad. Thanks for the clarification Jon.
And I wish to second Cat's request, along with a request for more Moongrunt factions! lol
-
If you go back through what I've written, zrunelord, you'll likely see that at no point do I mention aerial drones! lol
Rick, I read drone & went off on a tangent lol lol lol .... though in my defence, compressed air powered aerial drones are also a possibility
Imagine a compressed air canister as small as an airsoft one.
They could also be solar powered & so can recon & send pics. I think it is possible.
Paint them black & they will be almost impossible to detect against the sky ( night sky ? )
& definitely more Moongrunts factions would be nice.
Z
-
Right. So you'd need a compressed air/CO2 canister with enough gas to keep it above the ground, keep it stable with small attitude thrusters, and then to move it from place to place - painting it black with the sun above the horizon and puffs of visible gas coming out of it may well be noticeable, do you think?
Personally, I still think that drones based on the 'Battlefield Robot' concept would be more likely; the US has already developed tracked versions and is working on walker versions, so to take that idea to the moon seems more probable to me in the near future. Also, I think that's where the heavy weapons are likely to be - mounted on drones rather than carried by troops - better firing platform, less likely to hole a suit if the recoil sends them back into terrain for example.
I've started jotting down a few ideas already - a couple of pages in, a bit of danger and jeopardy, and not a single mention of weapons so far! lol
If I ever get as far as a playtest set it might be quite interesting.
-
Back to the drawing board then .... ;) No air farting drones ... lol lol lol
But do not discount them , just keep in mind that drones are small & as would be their little puffs of air.
You can also adapt a Boston Robotics Dog to that role , though it may get stuck in deep dust.
So wide tracks or balloon tyres might be better.
z
-
Honestly, zrunelord, I'm not going to rule them out at all, it's just that I think surface drones are more likely. If you come up with an absolutely essential mission task that only an aerial drone can perform, then you'll find I'm listening.
-
With the inherent difficulties of tactical movement on the surface, it seems like trenches would be a standard thing with base defenses. Aerial drones are good for getting over trenches to see what's going on in them and to wreak what mayhem they will.
-
With the inherent difficulties of tactical movement on the surface, it seems like trenches would be a standard thing with base defenses. Aerial drones are good for getting over trenches to see what's going on in them and to wreak what mayhem they will.
I agree that, movement-wise, they do make sense. However, they'd be an absolute fire-magnet with little or no cover - they'd never even reach the trench lines, let alone cross them.
-
You see, my thinking was that the drones, much like the modern day battlefield robot concept, would go forward, amed, and take the fire that would otherwise be directed at human troops, which would follow them. Better to risk a machine in that kind of situation than more fragile humans, especially in the kind of hostile environment of the moon. I'm still not entirely convinced that aerial drones would work as well under those circumstances.
-
Rather than drones, what about a cheap sensor pod launched (relatively) low pressure ballistic system? Essentially a mortar round that carries a camera and transmitter over the enemy position and provides imagery during it (slow compared to Earth) descent. It wouldn’t be able to loiter like a drone can, but if it’s a tiny fraction of the price and the drone will get shot down anyway, it may be an option for getting useful tactical data. Heck, you could even give it a small explosive payload so that when it hits the ground in the enemy’s perimeter it causes some mischief. Or make the explosive package command detonated, so that if it reaches the ground intact it still keeps providing visual data out to its sight horizon- until it becomes tactically useful to pop it (enemy trooper or ‘bot wanders by, or you need a distraction).
-
That's not a bad idea actually, from the point of view of intelligence gathering - not sure what kind of setup there might be for a moon war though; whether that sort of intelligence gathering is required or not. I need to answer some basic questions about the nature of such a conflict - low intensity skirmishes to hang onto mineral-rich areas or full on widespread carnage? After all, it would all be happening right above us - put a decent telescope in Earth orbit and you've got a satellite's eye view of everything and no clouds to get in the way! lol
-
Small drones can stay low and use whatever cover is to be had flying nape of the moon.
-
Small drones can stay low and use whatever cover is to be had flying nape of the moon.
Oh. I thought we WERE talking about flying nap-of-the-moon already!
-
I presume mineral-rich areas are the rockier and cratered sorts of areas with better access to said minerals.
Also more interesting game table than fighting in the Sea of Billiards.
-
I presume mineral-rich areas are the rockier and cratered sorts of areas with better access to said minerals.
Also more interesting game table than fighting in the Sea of Billiards.
You got me there - I really have little or no idea where or what form the mineral-rich areas might take but I don't think we'll ever fight over the sea of billiards! lol
Damn - just looked it up; if we want titanium we may yet have to fight in the sea of billiards 'cos that's where it is.
-
But that does, actually, raise a good point and the beginnings of an idea. So some of the major countries on Earth are in a resources scramble on the moon, establishing titanium mining settlements in the seas with subsidiary mines around the shoreline and further away for other resources. All of which, suddenly, have to be protected from the other major countries trying to take over parts of your territories. Not an all-out war but probably enough scope for section and platoon level conflict.
-
Lava tubes are the gamers friend! located between the seas and the highlands. Provide good potential for habitation and ready made access to underground minerals.
-
For All Mankind set the conflict (like a great many on Earth) over water rights and the competing bases and opening skirmishes are at Shackleton Crater.
-
Water and Oxygen are both locked into the subsurface moon rock as far as I'm aware so both would be valuable resources to recover. As far as I'm aware NASA are still trying to work out what other deposits and resources are on (in?) the moon but, as it's composed mainly of Earth 'overspill', chances are a lot of what's here is also there.
-
I remember being told that Regolith(dirt) was the most important thing on the moon as it can be turned in oxygen and rocket fuel ? I could be wrong on this statement lol
-
it's about 40% oxygen according to wikipedia (take your measure of salt to taste), it's water/hydrogen that's going to be the issue.
-
It's still up in the air whether or not there's ice in Shackleton, which would be a tremendous lode of water. It's still on the shortlist for a US moonbase site if we ever fricking get around to it.
Whatever is being fought over is really just fluff text for gaming though.
I don't recall that they ever specified what minerals the prospectors were looking for up in the hills in Moon Zero Two, other than hoping to find something better than moon-quartz, and they could get rich if they struck a good lode of somethingobtanium. But those hills are great skirmish terrain and fat-tired moonbuggy obligate!
-
Rick, ( posted here from other thread )
Re what you asked.
Just out of curiosity, zrunelord, what sort of heavy weapons did you envisage?
I thought about the usual SAW, HMG, Autocannon sort of thing and considered the recoil would be tremendous - you'd go flying rearwards in no time. I also thought about MDC's or railgun's and you'd likely need a power pack the size of a fridge-freezer for even a few shots.
So if you've got some ideas it would be great to hear them.
My suggestions are based on possible projectile weapons ( whether gyrobolt, darts or flechettes )
First question would need to be . What Era are we talking about ? Because then the science or technology would be easy to invent.
Your arguments about armour penetration are not taking into consideration, the most vulnerable of these type of suits. i.e. the face plate. A huge target of a helmet. All you need is a small crack, which can lose air.
For sure one of the most important pieces of equipment will be some form of rapid sealant.
Apart from the fact that suits are cumbersome by nature , so trying to seal one's leaking air tank will be a life or death situation., if nigh impossible
Corpsmen will have to deal with internal injuries AND leaking air.
Again , I would strongly suggest reading this superb trilogy by Ian Douglas
https://www.goodreads.com/series/41537-heritage-trilogy
Z
-
Another thought comes to mind .... what if ..
Apart from natural resources there could be also technological ones.
e.g. Lost Alien technology situated on the dark side of the Moon would make be a great incentive for Mega corporations .
Z
-
Funny you should mention that. I was just recently thinking of the 'Giants' series of books by James P Hogan - in the first one 'Inherit the Stars' a science team on the moon discover a long dead human in a space suit. A very, very long dead human in a completely unknown type of spacesuit with some advanced technology in it.
-
The truth is out there ;)
There is a ton of material available.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/124711.Moon_based_Adult_Science_Fiction (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/124711.Moon_based_Adult_Science_Fiction)
'Inherit the Stars'
Now that sounds very interesting. Another book added to the long to do list...
Z
-
I watched 'For all mankind' and wasn't sure about M16s on the moon
So I found this article, some really interesting points especially considering temperatures and moon dust
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35982314/could-astronauts-carry-m16s-on-the-moon-for-all-mankind-apple/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35982314/could-astronauts-carry-m16s-on-the-moon-for-all-mankind-apple/)
-
Yep. All interesting points - also how do you deal with ejected cartridges flying off at right angles in low gravity? lol
I saw an article a long while ago that suggested caseless rounds ignited/combusted by electrical ignition (electro-chemical?) and using graphite or graphene as a lubricant in space guns!
-
I don't recall that they ever specified what minerals the prospectors were looking for up in the hills in Moon Zero
Nickel, although the asteroid that is forced down is full of ceramic (?) sapphire
-
Ah, nickel. It's been a couple of years since last watching the movie and reading the book.
For shell casings, an attached hopper could catch them. Or bring back Italian WW2 technology: Breda 37 HMG used 20 round clips and carefully reïnserted the spent casings back into the strip as it fed through to keep the gun emplacements tidy.
Finally began reading Hot Moon (Alan Smale, 2022) — Russia gets there first backstory completely ripped from For All Mankind, action begins with the start of the shooting war in 1979. First shots are fired by a cosmonaut in the hatch of his craft in lunar orbit. As our heroine is being fired on, she muses about the use of an AK-47 in space (just in case the reader was wondering), concludes that the rounds do contain their own oxidiser so will function, and hopes that the heat build up will lead to the gun jamming.
-
There does appear to be a big difference between the older (upland or highland) terrain and the newer sea (maria?) terrain, in that the seas seem to have most of the metal deposits whilst the older (more heahily cratered) upland terrain has other deposits (and, of course, most of the surviving craters). The uplands are definitely where the really interesting stuff is likely to be found, whether deposits or alien impact craters! lol
-
Guns...
Anvil 28mm with Gyrojet rifles
(https://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/images/thumbs/0025058_female-regiments-astronauts-with-gyrojet-rifles-6-miniatures.jpeg)
With HK G11 rifles.
(https://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/images/thumbs/0025056_female-regiments-astronauts-with-hk-g11-6-miniatures.jpeg)
-
Interesting stuff, but the bit that got me was Nap of the Moon or NOM :D lol
It is of course made of cheese ;D
-
Interesting stuff, but the bit that got me was Nap of the Moon or NOM :D lol
It is of course made of cheese ;D
Yes but what sort of cheese is it? lol
It's a very important question.
-
Yes but what sort of cheese is it? lol
It's a very important question.
Wenslydale of course! (Or was it cheddar in "A Grand Day Out?" )
-
It's a cheese worth fighting for!
-
I'm keeping a very interested eye on this thread, for ideas and inspiration.... ;)
Jon (GZG)
-
Won’t surface launched aerial drones be less useful to the satellites and spacecraft already in the sky? Air support might well be a bit higher but I imagine unmanned pinnaces, some as small as suitcases, will be readily available making an infantry type drone somewhat unnecessary. No atmosphere means high altitude observation by space craft is even easier. Nuke’m from orbit as it’s the only was to be sure!
As for dealing with recoil, every infantry soldier’s weapon will have a swinging anchor tail that digs into the surface behind the soldier or vehicle. Think artillery tails on a smaller level. Most of these weapons will be drones as well. Manned equipment in vacuum will be KIAs where a robotic or Remotely controlled weapons platform doesn’t have that sort of overhead to protect. I doubt that any manned combat ever occurs on a moon or even in space. Cold War what ifs maybe but there is no versimilitude about future manned combat in space or on the moon
-
I'm still unsure about aerial drones at all - it all seems like a lot of faff for very small gains - same with putting a tail on an infantryman; why go to all that bother when it would be far, far easier to do it with a tracked drone instead?
Also, as far as I'm aware, a pinnace is a crewed ships boat so trying to fit even one crewman into a suitcase sized one would be a problem, let alone engines, fuel, etc.
As to spy/observation satellites why would you need them when you could sit in Earth orbit with a decent telescope and see as much?
There will be manned combat on the moon for 2 very good reasons - first, it's in our nature to go places even if conflict breaks out afterwards and those drones will need maintenance and supervision. The second reason is that Jon has already got the figures made and it'd be a criminal waste not to use them.
-
I’ll readily agree with the second reason.
-
One reason for using sensors orbiting the moon to support surface operations, rather than parking telescopes in Earth orbit, is that only one side of the moon ever faces Earth (the moon doesn’t spin relative to the Earth). There’s also the issue that a telescope in Earth orbit only provides a directly overhead view of objects that are in the regions facing toward Earth - as the object gets farther around the curve, the angle of vision from Earth gets closer to the horizon, so things behind hills or in low ground or trenches become hidden (geostationary satellites orbiting Earth’s equator face the same problem keeping line of sight to objects on the ground in northern or southern latitudes- hills start blocking signal…).
Depending on the scale of the conflict, on a strategic scale belligerents may be able to destroy each other’s orbiting sensors (in Earth orbit and/or moon orbit). If that capacity is part of the background, it would be useful if ground troops have equipment to give them tactical recon through drones or launched sensors when satellite views are unavailable.
As far as ‘bots completely replacing human combatants on the moon (or filling that role before human combatants ever get there), I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the practical benefit of not having to provide a livable environment are pretty high. On the other hand, remotely piloted platforms can potentially have their control lines jammed, physically cut (if wire or fibreoptic), or (not very likely) hacked. And the remote pilot still has to be somewhere close enough that signal lag doesn’t handicap the ‘bot in combat. You won’t be sitting at the Pentagon and piloting a combat bot on the moon… Alternatively, the ‘bot is fully autonomous, which brings its own (admittedly hypothetical) openings for nightmare scenarios. Humans are fragile but we can still keep going (at least for a while), when all the digital tech goes haywire. I mean, picture remote piloting a ‘bot in a firefight and Microsoft or Apple, or whoever the tech supplier is gives you a “mandatory update” pop-up ;)
-
Valid points.
Though commands can be given from human manned orbital stations . Again these are very prone to attack & damage even if they are self sustaining ( i.e. having autonomous air & water generators ).
But shipping bots ( as in for e.g. The Murderbot series ) to space is way cheaper as they are cargo, so bots are a better choice. Plus they can be built in almost any size & form and may also be easily replacing ( 3d printed? ).
So the countries or corporations who have the best supply systems will have an edge.
Again this depends on the technological level.
I would think that burrowing machines in lunar regolith are also possible, which opens other possibilities as they won't be visible.
Z
-
Very good points, very difficult to contradict. The main reason I originally mentioned the 'telescope in Earth orbit' idea was because, if a conflict occurs on the moon (however limited), it's going to be fairly visible to anyone who wants to look, military or civilian.
-
Unless the area of operations is on the far side, of course ;) You could set off a nuclear bomb on the far side of the moon and a telescope in Earth orbit won’t detect it, except maybe as a flash reflected off Mars or another planetary body that has line of sight to both the explosion site and the telescope…
I agree overall with zunelord’ point about the relative advantages of ‘bots over people for space operations. ‘Bots have downsides, but probably not as many.
In real life, the versatility of non-humanoid robots leaves me scratching my head about why anyone would invest in developing humanoid ones, except maybe as a novelty. Human locomotion is pretty inefficient compared to quadrupeds or tracks or wheels in most situations. And even then, why limit the two-legged design to anything shaped like a person - design the damned thing for its function… If you need a human, hire a human, there are a lot of us - the price is usually pretty low.
-
I rather envisaged tunnelling bots being used mainly for mining work, rather than combat, unless things go very badly wrong of course! Wheels, tracks or multiple legs on a drone make little difference in most conditions but each has it's own advantages in specific terrain types. And, as I've mentioned, I can't see them completely replacing human combatants (and I rather take the view that a single human life is worth more than any number of drones, thank you very much! lol) because, fragile as we are, we still haven't been able to produce a drone as versatile or adaptable as a human in a wide variety of situations.
-
I would think if we could justify a technical capacity to be on the moon in numbers that require infantry combat with humans at all, the tech on drone and RV control will be just as advanced. Semi autonomous AI for non-anthropomorphic weapons platforms will be in place to control when remote operators from orbital, terrestrial or lunar command posts are not in direct control. That’s pretty much a given. The overhead of extremely fragile humans in vacuum will be a logistical nightmare as well as making the equipment they use and fight in, tactically inefficient and bulkier and much more expensive to get to the moon in the first place . Manned equipment is turning into liabilities even in terrestrial fights today. Tanks and manned planes are pretty much obsolete imho. Economic efficiency is how wars are fought nowadays, build the cheapest, least expensive to lose, weapons with means to get through in the greatest numbers possible and flood counter measures. Humans will just be controllers from afar and targets.
That is, if there can be any justification that can be devised for surface lunar combat in the first place. I think any strategic reasons to fight on the moon probably can better addressed by interdiction of the spacecraft needd to get there or back. If you have supremacy in the surrounding space, surface troops/civilians are at your mercy. They either starve, asphyxiate, or are unable to export whatever reason you are there for in the first place. At worst you bomb them from orbit. Tossing a asteroid will be fairly cheap.
-
Awf - these are strategically interesting points for general sci-fi conversations, I feel; however they are, with respect, completely and utterly irrelevant for the purposes of this topic.
This topic was set up as an off-shoot of the discussion of the GZG Moongrunt figures and, as such, has a couple of built-in biases which, although I may not have explicitly stated them, are very much at the core of this topic. The first is that GZG has a range of Moongrunt figures and, although there aren't any specific rules to use them, many of the posters would like to use them with a set of rules. The second is that we are discussing ideas for the very purpose of soldiers battling across the surface of the moon, discussions of why they are doing that are largely irrelevant to the subject at hand, viz - getting 18mm figures onto a wargames table with good scenery and terrain.
So, although these are very good ideas, better ones would assume people in space suits, wargame rules and drones are going to be present. Cheese is optional.
-
Sure, but the conversation got severely in the weeds when recoil and real physics entered into it. Build a sci-fi foundation on sand and it takes a lot of rationalization to get any verisimilitude. I would still happily play the game and admire the figures, much as I do just about any sci-fi game nowadays, which are not really “hard” sci-fi at all but fantasy in sci-fi garb. This one too.
-
All true but most skirmish games, even sci-fi ones, are very much variations of earth type games. I was hoping for one that was built from the ground up to be different - where the central premise was a group of highly trained guys in spacesuits, in low gravity and no air, and how that would completely change the dynamics of the skirmish games we would normally play. So there has to be some discussion of the technical aspects, extrapolating from what we have now to what we might have in 30 or 40 years from now - sci fi but near(ish) future sci-fi.
-
All true but most skirmish games, even sci-fi ones, are very much variations of earth type games. I was hoping for one that was built from the ground up to be different - where the central premise was a group of highly trained guys in spacesuits, in low gravity and no air, and how that would completely change the dynamics of the skirmish games we would normally play. So there has to be some discussion of the technical aspects, extrapolating from what we have now to what we might have in 30 or 40 years from now - sci fi but near(ish) future sci-fi.
Okay, all hits become KIA or “out of combat.”no wounding ever occurs since even kevlar types of armoured suits are going to have many weak points that result in much worse effects when defeated than terrestrial, armoured infantry. Range of all weapons is the whole table unless your ground scale is more than 2k from end to end. leap movement rates are 8 times as on earth as are areas of effect of shrapnel producing HE. no aerial support drones but individual leaps by scouts up can give heightened ability to spot over some terrain but exposes the leaper to being spotted as well..it’s probably a wash. lots of dust to kick up to obscure vision from even automatic fire small arms. movement kicks up dust as well, which is more persistent than on earth which makes approaches easy to detect. manipular tasks are always hard or very hard to succeed at due to gloved hands and bulky suits. no flame throwers or weapons/vehicles needing oxygen they don’t have on board. all recoil effects and physics problems can be handwaved away, by tech “designed to compensate”, even if firing while moving with unanchored weapons, otherwise a recoiling weapon must be fired while prone or braced.
Protection from radio jamming and offensive communications EW become essential since voice comm is impossible without radio. Laser digital communication if in LOS remains an alternative. Artillery fire from orbital or lunar sources is going to have very long ranges. Endless daylight or no daylight at all.
i don’t see what else you might want, if this is to depict combat since 1969 to maybe 2039. 30 years from now it will only be AI/RPVs.
ya might want to look the old GDW rules Striker ( for Traveller)
-
That's not bad actually. Rather than all hits resulting in a kill, I was planning on using 'suit integrity' so even if you don't take a figure out immediately, there could be a damage effect to others in the unit being fired at. Also fatigue - controlled movements and actions in a cumbersome spacesuit are likely to be more difficult, so likely to build up fatigue points, which need to be dealt with. Dust clouds, ranges extending to the horizon (or whatever they hit first), long leaps raising the mover above cover where they'll be shot at - all these are things I've been thinking about so far.
-
Dust clouds are immaterial, except for briefly increasing chances of being spotted. Without an atmosphere to suspend it, dust particles settle right back down.
Theory confirmed from lunar landings, LEMs kick up quite a dust cloud which immediately drops away.
-
yeah, persistent wasn’t the right word. prevalent dust, maybe.
-
On the recoil argument front, just assume that this has been taken into account for the weapons being used and have been designed for use in zero or low G combat.
After all if you are going to send your troops to fight in that environment the last thing you would want is for them to be flying off in uncontrolled directions once they have fired their weapons.
As for any explosions just increase the explosive radius of effect and leave it at that and/or reduce armour saves by -1 to account for the danger of suit breaches etc.
Oh and the moon is most definitely Wensleydale. ;) lol
-
Dust clouds are immaterial, except for briefly increasing chances of being spotted. Without an atmosphere to suspend it, dust particles settle right back down.
Theory confirmed from lunar landings, LEMs kick up quite a dust cloud which immediately drops away.
That's interesting and does make a lot of sense; no dust clouds to obscure lines of sight then, check! lol
As to weapons, I was just going to work with what GZG has as the weapons for the Moongrunt figures and work out what they might do in a game.
-
I just thought that at this point, a little background on my thinking behind the Moongrunt range might be useful... anyway, it's worth exactly what you paid for it! ;)
My concept, when I first decided to do the Moongrunt stuff, was that they could be used for pretty much any timeline from "Alternative late 20th Century" ("For All Mankind" style), up to Near-Future scenarios (2050s?); I chose to call the two main factions the US and the Chinese, but you can use them as whatever you want, eg: Alt-Cold-War Russkies...?
The "British" force was a later addition by special request, and are quite deliberately very retro-60s Gerry Anderson style!
Feel free to ignore the names and descriptions I've used for them, particularly with regard to the weapons and equipment; I may have described some things as "lasers", but they can be anything you like from conventional guns, through gyrojets, railguns, energy weapons or whatever fits your preference and timeline. The USLF and Chinese infantry "rifles" are all visibly combination weapons, with a point-fire barrel plus a grenade-launcher type thingy - I envision those as probably low-velocity gas-powered launchers of some sort.
I can't promise anything about more factions at the moment, but I CAN say that Support Weapons for the exisiting factions are on the way soon! There will be the usual assortment of various types of tripod-mount direct-fire weapons plus some low-v mortars, heavier rocket launchers etc. The weapons and crews are all done, I'm just waiting for Real Life(tm) to leave me alone long enough for me to get them into moulds. There will also be some pintle-mount versions of the support weapons to go in the back of the Rovers and Buggies - Moon Technicals! :)
Anyway, I'm loving all the ideas and discussions being posted here, it's all very inspirational!
Jon (GZG)
-
Plus, of course, the Moongrunt figures all work just as well for Mars (or anywhere else you like)... ;)
Jon.
-
Any space walk poses and kit in zero-g for scenarios such as attempts to board a derelict vessel or satellite?
-
Any space walk poses and kit in zero-g for scenarios such as attempts to board a derelict vessel or satellite?
The spacesuited figures in my Civilians/misc range (mentioned earlier in this thread, heavy and light suits, not specifically part of the Moongrunt range) do have a pack of "floating" microgravity figures - a mixed pack of four figs in light suits, two in heavy, all with separate stand bases to take a thin wire support for the figure.
The Moongrunt range itself doesn't have any poses like that, but it would be a fairly simple job to snip/file the base away from a few of the standing figures, maybe gently bend some legs, and mount them in a similar way...?
Jon.
-
Nice shots on this vid.
At 09:10, the landing starts kicking up dust on the approach, and it all drops away pretty instantly after surface contact.
At 15:00, they put the rover through a road test, and you can see how quickly the dust settles as it bounces along. If it was driving behind a ridgeline or crater rim, the dust might barely pop up high enough to be visible beyond on some of the higher bounces.
https://plus.nasa.gov/video/apollo-16-nothing-so-hidden-2/
-
I did see that - it looks like the heavier particles drop rapidly whilst the very fine particles dissipate and you can't actually see how long it takes for that to drop - either way, not much to block lines of sight. Good call Cat.
-
This may be of some interest:
The Meanderings Of A Weapon Oriented Mind When Applied In A Vacuum Such As On The Moon
by US Army Weapons Command
Published in 1965 it discusses some of the issues of firing weapons on the moon.
https://archive.org/details/the-meanderings-of-a-weapon-oriented-mind-when (https://archive.org/details/the-meanderings-of-a-weapon-oriented-mind-when)
It is a fun read.
-
the dust was a bugger for clinging to the suits as well, bringing it into the lunar module where, sans helmet, it could be breathed in. That bit isn't very gameable though, but it does remind me of that bit in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly with union troops grey from dust.
-
The dust could be a big factor in painting figures. But like WW2 desert gaming, I expect that most gamers will sidestep painting everything heavily weathered in the same colour dust and opt for somewhat cleaner painting with distinctive colours so it's easier to tell which side is which.
-
Totally. It wouldn’t be workable as a mechanic. Just reminded me with all the dust talk.
-
with regards weapons, couldnt just thrown or slingshotted sharp objects be just as useful/dangerous? I have a vision of people in astronaut suits, using a form of slingshot and picking up moon rocks to 'fire'. ;D
-
Rick's aiming for higher tech levels, but yeah a good old fashioned wrist rocket could do impact damage and maybe break vulnerable parts of suits/visors.
Bending over in current technology suits isn't easy beyond ~30º. An ammo pouch would be quite helpful.
-
Yeah I'm assuming that the near (ish) future spacesuits designed for combat will be different from the 1960's spacesuits designed for exploration - toughened visors, more protection and minimising vulnerable points on the suit. Impact damage is likely to be minimal at low velocities (as I mentioned before, Alan Shepherd was only able to hit a golfball about 40 yards) so throwing and using slingshots probably will do very little (even if you were able to hold/use a slingshot in a bulky, awkward spacesuit).
-
yes probably not. I wonder though if something like the eldar shuriken catapult might be something devised for low g / moon warfare - something that doesnt need oxygen to work, and can fire projectiles at dangerous speeds.
-
Weapons that don't penetrate nor explode will still have good value for fighting in or near habitats/infrastructure/ships what you don't want punctured.
Even kevlar won't prevent crushed lungs/ribs/concussions and muscular damage. Maces were really good weapons for conking knights in armour and great helms.
Rapid fire impacts in a tight cluster will have an even stronger affect on the inhabitant of the suit.
-
Now Cat, I do believe you may be talking about high velocity impact damage there, whereas I thought we were still talking about low velocity impact damage!
As a matter of fact I think high velocity impact, in the right place, might be as dangerous as piercing damage but I'm not convinced that a person in a bulky spacesuit can swing a mace/blunt instrument hard enough to be effective - something along the lines of a military pick or sharpened rock hammer (both characterised by a heavy head, producing momentum, and a sharp spike, for the armour piercing properties) might be superior.
Aliensurfer - several pages ago I suggested a rocket projectile (like a gyrojet round) that could fire a shaped charge downwards, much like a modern top-attack missile, propelling shrapnel/flechettes into a small area, unlike a grenade that, on the moon, would have a massive area of effect, far wider than it could be propelled. I consider that more feasible in the nearish future than being able to miniaturise a mass driver gun down into a hand-held gun (Arnold Shwarzenegger notwithstanding). In 40 or 50 years we may get them developed for Battleships or Cruisers, 20 or 30 years beyond that we may get them down to vehicle mounted weapons, but what you're talking about would take a century or two.
A better alternative would be something like a compressed gas powered flechette-firing shotgun - that is something we could do today or tomorrow! lol
-
The mace comparison was largely as historic example of not requiring penetration power to incapacitate. But the trusty geology hammer should do the trick too. How many smacks to bruise through kevlar or weaken and crack a faceplate?
How much velocity is required to damage on the other side of kevlar is an interesting question. Shotgun firing a solid slug should be able to cause a pain that will linger.
-
Go for the weak joints. Knees, elbows, neck, underarms. Kevlar isnt even mail.
-
I only used Kevlar as an example - for all I know the Duchy of Grand Fenwick may have returned to the moon, in which case their armour will be reinforced with chain mail. Fear the Mouse! lol