Scheduled Releases?

[Sundog]

I would appreciate a better set of emplacement rules, unless I missed them somewhere. With the countermeasures systems available, fortress type structures become possible again, not to mention being the basis for all those anti-missile systems that keep being talked about.

Of course, that also makes them A-1 Targets :twisted:

Gun Fondler? Can't say I've ever heard the term...

 

[Lane Shutt]

It's called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOTA) and common as dirt. I'd rather know what I'd be facing as a troop in-country and not what the cops may think of an AFV out of a the blue. Any force serving in a country will already have agreements worked out or know to tell the local law to 'pound sand'. Utterly useless. Next question...

A SOTA is common now. In 2089 most military forces do not have government support to clear this sort of thing ahead of time, nor do they have another 50,000 troops ready to deploy if they do run into overzealous locals. Look at what happened in WWII to ships in neutral ports and the B-29s that landed in Russia. Even now our forces have to follow local regulations and operate within certain guidelines. You also have to look at the present/ history of many nations. Many have had problems with guerrillas or revolutionaries and often supported by mercenaries or their own national troops.

This would be a good S&P article following the Contract Negotiations.
Do your employers secure a SOTA? How much would you expect to pay for a license to operate in the host country. What is the DC to get a SOTA, modifiers for past behavior in country, support of unfriendly groups, reputation?

You do have a good idea for new product here. Perhaps a Jane's style guide to AFVs. The game could use more, and more realistic, stock AFV designs. Not all GMs want to spend hours designing enemy tanks. Part of the guide would be sample force composition doctrines; US, Russian, EF, revolutionary, etc. and what doctrines a nation uses. Also some sample mercenary forces ranging from small, strictly infantry, to large combined arms forces.

And stated before, if you're gonna have a game that has a core focused on war, then Bloody well get it right. ... One should, and certainly the the author at least, should be able to find a basic primer of armor tactics online.

As August stated - they worked fine in playtest. While I agree with you on them being dangerous if used in real life they work in the Game. Probably because the rules are an imperfect simulation, it fails to account for missed direct fire and players are assumed to know where each other are.

Ever play paintball? I've seen tactics that would get people killed in real life win games.

C'mon Lane. How different is this from my wanting to get the tactics and doctrine right? They are just a rationale and grounded in reality as what you are asking for

Well I'm tactically impaired but can crunch numbers and compare to real life situations. I also believe that rules have a greater effect on a game than suggestions on tactics.

 

[Lane Shutt]

I would appreciate a better set of emplacement rules, unless I missed them somewhere.

AFAIK the rules for structures are limited to a few paragraphs.

There are a lot of things I would like to see expanded.

My brother and I are working on rules for Chemical and Nuclear Weapons but they have been on hold for a while, limited contact with him in Iraq. Then again realistic WMD rules should only be used on players that earn it.

"Why does my Mek have nerve agent on it? I entered the camp ten rounds after we gassed it and that was hours ago."

I'm also working on rules for airborne operations and air transports.

not to mention being the basis for all those anti-missile systems that keep being talked about.

IIRC the anti balistic missile shield is space based.

Gun Fondler? Can't say I've ever heard the term...

I have, generally used by people whose only exposure to firearms is from movies. They totally misunderstand why a weapon needs to be lubricated or why someone would sleep with their weapon.