|
|
Post by hardlec on Apr 16, 2016 12:02:59 GMT
Yes, in FOW I played to the rules. I'd like to think I was using the rules to replicate tactical doctrine. Wisercj is probably closer to right than I am.
My top sergeant liked to use CS gas grenades on us if he thought we bunched up. At that time I carried the M60 and no one wanted to be near me.
In GMW, the human must balance dispersion and concentration. The Martian needs to have a care as well. Chain reaction of exploding tripods is a good way to ruin Martin's day.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on Apr 17, 2016 0:09:18 GMT
Yes, in FOW I played to the rules. I'd like to think I was using the rules to replicate tactical doctrine. Wisercj is probably closer to right than I am. My top sergeant liked to use CS gas grenades on us if he thought we bunched up. At that time I carried the M60 and no one wanted to be near me. In GMW, the human must balance dispersion and concentration. The Martian needs to have a care as well. Chain reaction of exploding tripods is a good way to ruin Martin's day. I can't blame you for playing to the rules in FoW. I just prefer games where sound period tactics will ensure a good result and experience with the rules is not required. Just finished putting on an Indo-Pakistan '65 game this afternoon using basic FoW rules, but with blinds for hidden movement and a command role permitting blunders. There were several times where units mistakenly opened fire on their own side including a Pakistani 8" gun taking out an M-48 Patton with direct fire. I love fog of war, especially when your plan is thrown off because your subordinate units don't do exactly what you want them to do, when it effects both sides. Ah yes 'The Pig.' A pain to carry and draws all kind of attention when fired, but it is much nicer than to be on the receiving end. Your last point is spot on. I remember a game when three tripods when down due to sympathetic detonations. As a human, you can afford it when you lose some infantry and the occasional tank goes with the tripod, but as a martian to lose two tripods in one shot is pretty devastating. |
|
|
|
Post by phgamer on May 5, 2016 13:33:02 GMT
When I came up with the straight line tactic, I was thinking the inside arc of the Sweep template had to line up with the disk of the base of the Martian. Once I found out that the template can pretty much take any orientation, that tactic went out the window. I think of it as a case of they thought of it one way, and wrote it another. After all, if you were to make a sweep from left to right, unless you have a tangent calculation in the movement, you are going to generate an arc. That being said, if you go from near to far, then you will generate a line.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on May 5, 2016 18:02:36 GMT
When I came up with the straight line tactic, I was thinking the inside arc of the Sweep template had to line up with the disk of the base of the Martian. Once I found out that the template can pretty much take any orientation, that tactic went out the window. I think of it as a case of they thought of it one way, and wrote it another. After all, if you were to make a sweep from left to right, unless you have a tangent calculation in the movement, you are going to generate an arc. That being said, if you go from near to far, then you will generate a line. The rules clearly state that the template has to be in an arc facing away from the shooter as shown in the diagram on page 62. Wonder what the trajectory is on a Martian Heat Ray. If it is indeed a light beam, then what will stop it besides the earth? How about a Tripod kneels on the ground and then fires it at 3' parallel to the ground. Would it keep going burning through everything in its path? Is there material that can reflect it. Mirror armor? All kinds of possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on May 5, 2016 19:58:09 GMT
Sorry to have to go "techie," but your question deserves a good answer.
Electromagnetic rays propagate in a straight line, except in the gravitational field around supermassive stars or black holes. The physics of any kind of "ray" is an "inverse square" law: the intensity decreases with increasing range. The beam expands up-down and left-right as it moves further from the source point. Inverse square means that the intensity is divided by the square of the relative range. So, doubling the range reduces the intensity to 1/4 of what it was (1 divided by 2 squared = 1/4). Increasing the range by a factor of 10 decreases intensity by a factor of 100 (1 divided by 10 squared).
What this means is, although the ray theoretically may go forever (unless stopped), the intensity eventually decreases to the point of ineffectiveness. Eventually, the intensity is reduced to the point where things can absorb the beam without damage. This holds for radar, lasers, flashlights, radio stations and even radiation from nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 6, 2016 11:15:22 GMT
TY the IRL science helps us keep our heads about this. This discussion got me thinking about how to portray battledamage on tanks, vehicles, etc. I would think that the tank hit by a glacing heatray would have a very straight line 'melt' look; certainly not the usual sheared metal of a glacing shell hit. Pocket marked building would be right out - at least not from enemy fire, maybe some for friendly fire as they try to stop a tripod/drone in town. I realize this isn't a 'big' thing for the tanks or vehicles as there aren't alot of survivors once Marvin firing at you. But, building should certainly reflect the different of the Martian heatray attacks that strike them. I like the thought of 'veteran' units in the human forces showing battle damage from fights with the Martians. Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on May 6, 2016 12:24:10 GMT
Interesting question.
I suspect that a survivable heat ray hit would be a round bottomed gash along the surface. The inside of the gash could be either gunmetal/pewter color or rusty depending on how old the hit is, how long it has been exposed to oxygen and moisture. Almost certainly there would be some dribble below the damage point where the melt ran downward. The outline of the hit would probably have a thin ring of black scorched paint. A good image might be dragging a soldering iron tip lightly along a plastic model and then trim off the rim on the upper side.
Damage from high intensity laser pulses (exceeding short) can blast a clean hole, instantly vaporizing the metal in a flash. Lower intensity lasers, probably more like the heat ray, melt their way through with attendant sparking, smoke and liquid flow.
My $0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by wisercj on May 6, 2016 12:47:41 GMT
Thanks boxholder for providing us science challenged folks a basic understanding of how the heat ray would probably work and some good ideas for modeling battle damage. |
|
|
|
Post by phgamer on May 6, 2016 14:56:12 GMT
H.G.Wells's description of the heat ray has it as invisible, and instantly set things on fire. The only contact with metal described is with the encounter with the Thunderchild, " It must have driven through the iron of the ship's side like a white-hot iron rod through paper. " Since the heat ray is invisible, it could be either an Infrared, Ultraviolet, X-Ray Laser. I am leaning towards Ultraviolet, as Infrared carries less energy of the three, and I am not sure the X-Ray laser will interact with soft tissue, mostly passing through it leaving it only lightly (pun intended) damaged.
Being invisible also makes the targeting difficult. As the shooter can only see the beam by results. Making Sweep attacks more the norm. I don't think the Martians have targeting systems like today's weapons, because of the description of the fight with the Thunderchild. The Martian missed initially, "and a bank of steam sprang from the water at its touch. ", before penetrating a target some 600 feet long.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleybourne on May 6, 2016 20:11:13 GMT
The: 'no pocket marking', wouldn't Grenadiers and Shock Drones leave 'traditional' explosive marks?
BTW - love the thoughts on battle damage. I've thought a lot about this for modelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 7, 2016 8:51:50 GMT
Thank you all for this discussion. Yes, you're right charleybourne, the shock fire would probably resemble HE or AT hits & near misses. And the description of the damage from boxholder is right to the point - exactly what I was looking for, as my initial take was a flat take, the rounded makes much better sense. Those are exactly the colors I'd envisioned for the 'scar', with the rusty ones being reserved for my AD tanks and the pewter color for the newer Ford Conqueror, S2G, Black Hat and Ironclad lines. I'm sure everyone has a color pallet they use for their various troops - but battle damage is almost universal in nature. Good stuff. TY!
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on May 10, 2016 13:25:59 GMT
If you try to see the beam of a laser pointer, they are usually invisible in air. You see where the beam hits the wall, the screen, the cat's paw, etc.
A microwave amplified by stimulated emission of radiation (MASER) might be the heat Ray.
Damage to tanks might resemble damage done by HEAT rounds (high explosive anti tank) but damage in general tends to be random.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdieckhaus on Nov 28, 2016 23:01:20 GMT
From the FAQ
Q11) Heat Ray Templates Placement (see pg 62)
How far from the "normal" can a template swing and
still meet the conditions of step 2, on page 62?
Could you put the straight edges at right angles to the
tripod, move it back a degree and have that as an arc
away from the tripod.
(A) Tracing a line from the center of the template,
perpendicular to the straight edges, back to the
tripod should be sufficient for representing the
available angles.
In your example, this line would fall well away from
the tripod and thus be an illegal placement. To put it
another way, two lines drawn straight back from the
inside corners should contain part of the tripods base.
This would make the tactic being described as valid
|
|
|
|
Post by bigwally on Oct 3, 2020 1:02:54 GMT
Interesting question. I suspect that a survivable heat ray hit would be a round bottomed gash along the surface. The inside of the gash could be either gunmetal/pewter color or rusty depending on how old the hit is, how long it has been exposed to oxygen and moisture. Almost certainly there would be some dribble below the damage point where the melt ran downward. The outline of the hit would probably have a thin ring of black scorched paint. A good image might be dragging a soldering iron tip lightly along a plastic model and then trim off the rim on the upper side. Damage from high intensity laser pulses (exceeding short) can blast a clean hole, instantly vaporizing the metal in a flash. Lower intensity lasers, probably more like the heat ray, melt their way through with attendant sparking, smoke and liquid flow. My $0.02 I started working on these tanks a couple years ago and just finished them this week. As soon as I figure out how to do the photo hosting stuff I will post pictures. The battle damage I show on my tanks is almost exactly as you described. Some of my doors have been replaced as the beam went all the way through them, as they are thinner than the side armor. I can’t wait to show them off and see what you guys think! |
|
