Hypothetical Senario: Glitter Boy vs. Three SAMAS

[Danger]

I'm not sure where Kevin has verified this, but by RAW, this is a melee combat option only. Where is this official ruling you are referring to?

Greetings and Salutations. While not in a book, Kevin did address the topic itself. It can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=88950&start=265

He actually double posted, so I just linked to the second one for simplicity. Granted, there were 8 pages of debate, Kevin answered on page 6, then it continued to rage on because that wasn't good enough. Go figure.

All right, that's all for now. I basically only posted to show the post where Kevin addressed Ranged Simultaneous Attacks.

Thanks for the link. My apologies for my delayed response. I can see why the debate ranged on afterwards, as the way Kevin answered the question had a more casual tone, rather than one providing an official ruling.

Gamer X: "Hey Kevin, can you use Simultaneous Strike during Ranged Combat?"
Kevin: "I guess so. It's kinda up to the GM though."

Keving waffles a little on his answer, providing no solid "Yes" or "No" and defaults to the standard Palladium answer of "It's up to the GM." He does provide a nice example where this maneuver could be used. i.e. The Gunslinger High-Noon Showdown.

The main point is that even from Kevin's answer, it's clear that Simultaneous Strike wasn't intended to be used in Ranged Combat.

That said, even from Kevin's example, the only time this could be used is during a Target Acquisition move. For example:

GM (To the Glitterboy Player): "It's your action, what do you do?"
Glitterboy: "I shoot Samas 1."
GM (To Samas 1 Player): "You see the Glitterboy turn and level his boomgun in your direction. It looks like he's about to fire. What do you do?"
Samas 1: "I swing around, point my railgun at him, and fire!"

Once the players have targeted one another, i.e. are pointing their guns at one another or are no longer 'drawing' on one another, Simultaneous Strike can no longer be used. There is no way to know when either combatant is going to pull the trigger again. Now, if the Glitterboy swings around to shoot Samas 2, then that Samas can respond with Simultaneous Strike.

Lastly, and most importantly: Please. Please allow for unlimited ranged Simultaneous Strikes. Use this rule. I'm begging you. No, really. I really, really want this rule in place during this scenario. It would be my mantra, my battlecry during the combat. I would dance around the table singing Simultaneous Strike songs.

For some strangely surprising reason or another, you seem to think this gives some kind of advantage to the Samas? You are sorely mistaken. It is quite the opposite. You see, this rule eliminates any advantage the Samas' superior numbers and maneuverability might have once had over the Glitterboy. Moreover, it almost guarantees the Glitterboy victory. Or have you forgotten that Simultaneous Strike negates the use of Dodge by both combatants? Buh-bye +5 to dodge for the Samas. Hello, Death by Boomgun. Hell, that'll be my character name. I'll even give up my 8 attacks per round, and settle for 7 just to make it even sweeter.

GM to Glitterboy Player: "What's your character's name?"
Glitterboy: "Major DeathByBoomgun, of the Free Quebec Military. Reporting for duty."

Now it's down to straight dice roll vs dice roll, and damage vs damage. I think we know who wins that contest.

[Shark_Force]

This assumes alot of metagaming on the Samas part.

In reality, the Samas would not know the Glitterboy was about to make a called shot on its head.

I'm not saying the Samas wouldn't take advantage of cover, and maneuver around a lot, but your description above is clearly rules manipulation.

metagaming? i'm not sure how that's metagaming. the SAMAS pilot *sees* (or his 2 buddies see and warn him) that the glitterboy has been lining up a shot on him for a second or two (based on the fact that the glitterboy has been standing there with the gun pointed in his direction, tracking his movements). now, due to not being dumber than a rock, the SAMAS pilot knows that he does not want to get hit by the glitterboy at all. i would argue that just standing there and letting the glitterboy shoot you is much worse metagaming, because what kind of person in real life would say "oh, it's only a boom gun" and not take every precaution possible to avoid getting hit. that's the entire game plan. when the glitterboy turns to face you, you hide, and your other two buddies pop out and shoot him in the back. the fact that the glitterboy is now giving you time to hide before shooting you just means that intead of getting one shot off before you go into cover, the glitterboy doesn't get *any* shots off before you go into cover. it doesn't even sound unrealistic; the glitterboy is waiting for that perfect shot, being picky, and doesn't want to settle for just squeezing off a shot when he can. as a result, the SAMAS pilots simply deny him a clean shot.

[popscythe]

You are sorely mistaken.

Instead of posting twice, you should consider reading twice. The only SAMs trying to shoot the GB while the GB is firing are the ones behind/flanking the GB and not being targeted by the GB. They are doing so specifically to avoid being shot back at. This has been made abundantly clear so far.

As for a SAM knowing that he is going to be shot in the head specifically, that's an unnecessary stretch. I never even worried about that, because at the negatives to hit a flying, juking SAM, a headshot is a wasted attack. I do agree that any two or three action attack is very foolish on the part of the GB. No flying SAM is going to be our of cover that long.

That reminds me, I heard someone mention that the cover is mostly SDC and could be shot through. I agree. At -10 plus other negatives. However, as the battle progresses, SAM and GB size cover will probably be eliminated fairly quickly. That is something to consider, though the term "abundant" cover is used in the description.

We're also forgetting that one SAM has damaged engines, etc. That SAM clearly can't be the bait SAM, which skews the odds further if one flight-capable SAM is damaged or destroyed.

[Shark_Force]

We're also forgetting that one SAM has damaged engines, etc. That SAM clearly can't be the bait SAM, which skews the odds further if one flight-capable SAM is damaged or destroyed.

the SAMAS bonus to dodge is while leaping or flying. while the penalty for 60 mph is nowhere near the bonus for the flying SAMAS, the SAMAS on the ground is a lot more likely to have full cover, and it still isn't a good chance to hit. plus, as soon as the SAMAS is targeted, he can quickly head for cover, it just can't be quite as far away from cover as the two flying ones. (and the dodge bonus is likely to be give quite good odds for avoiding the one shot of the glitterboy before it gets into cover)

in any case, the scenario is pretty near the same; the third SAMAS can still pop out to shoot, and the glitterboy is either going to target that ground-based SAMAS (who simply won't go into the open at all), and get shot by the other two, or one of the other two (and the ground-based one just doesn't go quite as far from cover)

[popscythe]

in any case, the scenario is pretty near the same

I agree, just mentioning it to be "fair".

[Khanibal]

I have two questions.
1) Where are the rest of the SAMAS or Skycycles in the patrol, while this fight is going on?
2) Why is this GB on his own?

[Shark_Force]

I have two questions.
1) Where are the rest of the SAMAS or Skycycles in the patrol, while this fight is going on?
2) Why is this GB on his own?

both sides are being described as having equal access to reinforcements, but we are asked to write them out of the scenario for the sake of argument.

[Prysus]

I have two questions.
1) Where are the rest of the SAMAS or Skycycles in the patrol, while this fight is going on?
2) Why is this GB on his own?

Greetings and Salutations. Well, the real answer is it's a hypothetical situation. But, if you really want an answer to help you figure out the problem ...

1) The rest of the team/patrol had fought in a previous skirmish. The three SAMAS are the only survivors, and also the way the one who can't fly got damaged. They were on the way back to get repaired and get new patrol members when they saw the Glitterboy and figured they could take him alone.

2) All the other party members got sick of the Glitterboy talking about the size of his "boom gun" and how much bigger it was than everyone else's guns. Fed up with the bad jokes, they ditched him and aren't answering his radio calls. The Glitterboy sees only three SAMAS and figures he doesn't need help anyways.

Is that better? Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[popscythe]

2) All the other party members got sick of the Glitterboy talking about the size of his "boom gun" and how much bigger it was than everyone else's guns. Fed up with the bad jokes, they ditched him and aren't answering his radio calls.Is that better? Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That's amazing, I laughed.

[Danger]

The only SAMs trying to shoot the GB while the GB is firing are the ones behind/flanking the GB and not being targeted by the GB. They are doing so specifically to avoid being shot back at.

This has nothing to do with simultaneous strike, which is the portion of the discussion I was commenting on.

Also, as an FYI, I posted twice because I was responding to two different comments made by two different board members. Sorry if that offends you in some way, but it helps me keep my responses organized and coherent, without getting sidetracked on some possibly unrelated question/comment/response/etc. I'm not trying to rack up my post count. In general it just makes things less confusing for me to respond to one person at a time.

That's how I roll.

[Danger]

2) All the other party members got sick of the Glitterboy talking about the size of his "boom gun" and how much bigger it was than everyone else's guns. Fed up with the bad jokes, they ditched him and aren't answering his radio calls.Is that better? Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That's amazing, I laughed.

Boomgun envy is quite common. I've heard the Devastator cries itself to sleep every night.

[popscythe]

That's how I roll.

Sweet.

[Jefffar]

Waitaminute - so you're saying that GB pilots don't understand tactics?

[Danger]

No, I'm saying there is no guarantee that a GB pilot would have gone through the same extensive military training that any newbie CS SAMAS pilot would be required to have completed before being issued a suit.

Unless of course you consider two factors:

A. The Glitterboy is part of a military force, such as Free Quebec.
B. As posed by the O.P., these are both experienced characters, roughly of 5th or 6th level. Anyone who is of that experience level is no longer a "Noob." They've had plenty of combat experience, and have been part of many a firefight, especially a combat O.C.C. such as the Glitterboy.

I think it's safe to say that neither party is an imbecile when it comes to tactics.

[Danger]

I wasn't saying that though, how convenient.

I was saying a GB pilot is probably not going to be as experienced in SAMAS tactics as a SAMAS trained pilot is, would you expect an Abram's commander to be as adept in personnel based squad maneuvers as a ground pounder?


If you're assuming they all know exactly what the other is thinking, you're rping badly, if you're assuming they're all exactly equally trained, then the situation is poorly written. Even FQ training would differ significantly from CS training, ever watched drills for US armed forces compared to british, french, chinese, and so forth?

As I've already criticized someone for metagaming (or using player knowledge) in an earlier post, I'm well aware of those pitfalls in role-playing.

However, I find it to be unfair to assume any advantage to the Samas aside from the obvious, that being their superior maneuverability and numbers. Which is exactly what your original post seemed to imply.

A Glitter Boy is not a gun emplacement, they are a mobile power armor. They are also not a tank, they are a mobile power armor. To make any comparisons to the contrary is a mistake. If you look at the running speeds of the Glitter Boy and the Samas, you will find them to be equal: 60 MPH. The only advantage the Samas have is in flight and as the scenario states, one of the three Samas is no longer capable of this.

In experience, the Glitter Boy and the Samas pilots are both equal. It is you, who are assuming or attempting to bestow some additional advantage to the Samas pilots when there is none. In fact, when looking back at the Coalition Samas Pilot O.C.C. not only the description states that they are "specially trained pilots and experts in the use of power armor and robot combat vehicles." Aside from being trained to pilot, that's all that is said. That just means they're good pilots. There is no special statement of any superior tactical training, even with Samas. Furthermore, I see no particular skill in their O.C.C. skills (or other) that suggests any tactics, or additional military warfare skills. Unless you're suggesting that Military Etiquette bestows this bonus

Strangely enough, after looking at the skills section, there is no generic 'Tactics' skill. The closest would be Naval Tactics, but seeing as we aren't on the water I don't think that would apply either. Odd that they didn't include that as a selection. I suppose the Espionage skill Intelligence is the closest equivalent in the game. Among other things it states that one would be familiar with 'enemy practices', includes practical assessment of sights and sounds, can accurately estimate ranges, number of enemies, direction purpose, etc. Unfortunately, this is not available to the Samas Pilot. It is available to the Glitter Boy Pilot. As to whether or not 'enemy practices' includes enemy tactics, that's another debate, eh?

Certainly, as you say, the Samas pilots would be more familiar with piloting Samas. Similarly, the Glitter Boy pilot is obviously more familiar with piloting a Glitter Boy. However, by the rules as written, this bestows no innate tactical combat bonus or penalty to either side.

[popscythe]

Are we really so far afield here that someone would try to claim that the SAMAS aren't familiar with group tactics when every single official usage of CS forces in the Rifts books involves the heavy use of group tactics by the CS (who's entire fighting force is clearly designed to be used in overwhelming group assaults) and that using those tactics would be metagaming?

I don't think the GB would just stand around getting plinked by the SAMs, as I said, he would eventually attempt to make it appear he had taken the bait, then whip around and try to nail a SAM popping up "behind" him, or at least destroy some of the cover for a SAM to his flanks. That being said, he's got two more SAMs that he can't shoot at any time he shoots at one SAM. If we assume the GB is taking two potential RG bursts each time he fires one shot (and probably misses the one shot), that covers the core strategy at work here.

This sophistry about who does or does not know tactics is meaningless.

[Mack]

This battle largely relies on tactics and the GM's discretion. In a stand-up slug-fest, the GB will win with just a bit of his armor remaining.

To have a chance of winning, the SAMs have to close to hand-to-hand range and nullify the Boom Gun. Being able to do that will depend on the GM.

[Danger]

Are we really so far afield here that someone would try to claim that the SAMAS aren't familiar with group tactics when every single official usage of CS forces in the Rifts books involves the heavy use of group tactics by the CS (who's entire fighting force is clearly designed to be used in overwhelming group assaults) and that using those tactics would be metagaming?

The Samas Pilot might be the best pilot in the universe, but that doesn't mean he's a great tactician. Hell, he might even be a great team player, and work flawlessly with his two buddies. They may all three be able to execute a plan and follow orders to the T. Again, this does not mean any of them are tacticians. It's the commanders that are the great tacticians, not the grunts.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that these guys have never been in combat. We've already stated these are combat veterans. So sure, it's even possible they've been in a situation that mirrors this one. Could they dredge up a plan from previous experience? Absolutely. However, the same goes for the Glitter Boy. But soldiers are not usually big picture thinkers, and if their plan goes awry, then what?

The fallacy of your statement is suggesting that Samas Pilots are some sort of encyclopedia of group tactics, which clearly they are not. Familiar with group tactics I might give you, but that does not mean they're tactical wizards.

This sophistry about who does or does not know tactics is meaningless.

Funny, I thought that was the whole foundation of your argument.

[popscythe]

To have a chance of winning, the SAMs have to close to hand-to-hand range and nullify the Boom Gun.

That's nonsense.

The fallacy of your statement is suggesting that Samas Pilots are some sort of encyclopedia of group tactics

Actually, the statement here quoted is what is blatantly fallacious. Using "hit and run" against one target is hardly an encyclopedia. Even if you consider "one man run, two man hit" a different tactic, that's two. Two tactics that would take about 3 seconds to explain to anyone, let alone fighter plane pilot-grade military officers.

Funny, I thought that was the whole foundation of your argument.

That's an interesting misconception. Perhaps you'd like to reread the thread?

[Jefffar]

I find it hard to even consider based on what I know about modern military training, that RPA pilots wouldn't have at LEAST similar sorts of fallback routines for situations like this.

If you throw three marines at a tank in a city, they're going to hide, hit, and run, ideally in coordinated strikes to cycle the tank targets off their teammates.

What's different about three SAMAS and a GB in mixed terrain?

and the tank crew, if trained properly (like the GB pilot should be) will employ tactics to make that as hard as possible for them to do successfully.

[popscythe]

With three of them cycling around like this, no matter which way he turns, he's got to keep adjusting, keeping him off balance, which is their ONLY hope.

I agree. Which is why flying around him at high speeds to draw his fire while the other two shoot him is exactly what anyone in that situation would do, let alone fighter pilots.

[Jefffar]

and the GB's easiest counter - especially in the same sort of terrain that would allow the SAMAS to have that cover would be to take up a fighting position that limited the avenues of approach for the SAMAS - thus forcing the decoy to be in the line of fire no matter how fast he moved.

Without sound tactics, the SAMs probably won't beat the Glitterboy - but every sound tactic does have a counter and if the GB can employ the right counter tactic, he should still win.

Basically the battle is going to come down to which side is smarter and forces the other side into the fight that it wants to fight - which is the way all battles typically go.

[Zer0 Kay]

SAMAS = Humvee

Nawuh SAMAS = one of those old Vietnam Era helicopters with the bubble canopy and the guns/rockets that look like their tied to the landing rails

could three armed Humvee's take out an Abram's?

Yes when it has the Hellfire missile turret and fire at the tank from behind a hill or at max range of the missile

Using the speed advantages they possess, proper tactics to encircle the Abrams, and knowing that they should focus all their firepower on the radiator, it is possible.

I guess you do say "possible" so ok.

In a flat open field battle face to face? No chance in hell.

not if the hellfire's range is longer than the cannons

If you were in a tank fighting three jeeps, you'd just be waiting to take a good shot at em as they buzzed around, if you were in the jeeps you'd be doing your best to not give the tank a good shot.

Um... yup. But remember they aren't jeeps or Humvees they're the helicopter. So if the helicopter sees the tank before the tank sees it by staying nap of the earth on approach (as if tanks have radar). Their first attack should be coming from the rear and firing a full burst from behind (no chance for simultanious attack, no chance to dodge). Then you break off in different directions trying to stay NOE and out of view, jinking just to be safe. Then you turn and fire your mini-missiles when at max range. You should be able to see where he is looking now and hopefully that means he only noticed you. You radio your wingmen and they come back in to get him from his blind side. So that is 8 attacks so far 3 railgun shots, 3 mini missile volleys and 2 railgun attacks. All of them undodgeable.

[Zer0 Kay]

I imagine that SAMAS pilots are trained to deal with GB's like A-10s are trained to deal with tanks. You come in from three directions give it a burst and then come in from a different direction. It would be foolish to think that a military unit wouldn't be trained in team tactics... if they weren't they'd be a rag tag team not a military. It is also foolish to think that just because they are 5th level that the GB HAD TO HAVE had the experience of fighting multiple SAMAS. So Danger you are also metagaming by assuming that the GB had previously encountered more than one SAMAS or any other opponent at any time. Heck it could be argued that at 5th level, traveling with a group he's never had to worry about taking on a trio of SAMAS at the same time and not just concentrate on one of them.

[Khanibal]

So the entire purpose of this question should be, "How many SAMAS should I use to engage my pc's GB?" The answer is 2 if you want to give him a fairly tough fight that he'll win. Three if you want to leave it to chance. Four or more if you definitely want to kill the GB suit.

Yes?

[popscythe]

Put a GB in a tunnel with SAMAS that have to come into boomgun fire to reach him

And the north pole will rain candy canes upon the land for 1000 years.

Why would the SAMs engage a GB in that situation? It would be far easier to collapse the tunnel and/or wait for the GB to come out while you call reinforcements. If the GB is going to play "You can't get me" then the SAMs can play "You can't beat us."

As far as from a strictly technical, no setting involved standpoint, you're right. The GB would win if he's bowling for SAMAS. SAMAS should not engage in that situation.

[Jefffar]

I imagine that SAMAS pilots are trained to deal with GB's like A-10s are trained to deal with tanks. You come in from three directions give it a burst and then come in from a different direction. It would be foolish to think that a military unit wouldn't be trained in team tactics... if they weren't they'd be a rag tag team not a military. It is also foolish to think that just because they are 5th level that the GB HAD TO HAVE had the experience of fighting multiple SAMAS. So Danger you are also metagaming by assuming that the GB had previously encountered more than one SAMAS or any other opponent at any time. Heck it could be argued that at 5th level, traveling with a group he's never had to worry about taking on a trio of SAMAS at the same time and not just concentrate on one of them.

I would imagine that the GB pilot was also trained with counter tactics to deal with this situation as the GB pilot is a trained man of arms class just like the SAMAS. Yes his training probably came about as an apprenticeship to another GB pilot rather than in a formal military setting, but that's the way knights were trained in the middle ages and they were generally skilled warriors as well.

Arguing that the GB pilot doesn't know how to come up with a counter-tactic to a situation is like arguing that a knight didn't know how to deal with an opponent who used used a bow rather than a sword. They are both trained warriors who learned how to deal with a variety of situations during their initial training. It's up to them to put that training to use and find a way to dictate the conditions of said battle.

As mentioned before, the SAMAS shouldn't engage the GB in a situation that favours the GB, well the GB shouldn't engage the SAMAS in a situation that favours the SAMAS. It's the skill of the warriors involved that determines which is going to happen for the most part.

I will say that in deciding where and when to engage, the deciding vote is typically going to be the SAMs with their higher mobility . . . but just because your more mobile it doesn't garuntee you getting to fight on advantageous terms. For example, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains the highly mobile forces of Attila the Hun ended up engaging a Roman/Barbarian force in a pitched battle when he could have instead used his mobility to avoid. In the latter stages of the battle the Huns - used to a highly mobile form of warfare - had to take refuge in an improvised fortification.

Mobility, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Firepower, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Armour, if used right, is a decisive advantage.

All forces involved in the fight between the GB and the SAMs are well trained, so it is going to come down to who uses that training and the resources at their command best.

[Shark_Force]

I imagine that SAMAS pilots are trained to deal with GB's like A-10s are trained to deal with tanks. You come in from three directions give it a burst and then come in from a different direction. It would be foolish to think that a military unit wouldn't be trained in team tactics... if they weren't they'd be a rag tag team not a military. It is also foolish to think that just because they are 5th level that the GB HAD TO HAVE had the experience of fighting multiple SAMAS. So Danger you are also metagaming by assuming that the GB had previously encountered more than one SAMAS or any other opponent at any time. Heck it could be argued that at 5th level, traveling with a group he's never had to worry about taking on a trio of SAMAS at the same time and not just concentrate on one of them.

I would imagine that the GB pilot was also trained with counter tactics to deal with this situation as the GB pilot is a trained man of arms class just like the SAMAS. Yes his training probably came about as an apprenticeship to another GB pilot rather than in a formal military setting, but that's the way knights were trained in the middle ages and they were generally skilled warriors as well.

Arguing that the GB pilot doesn't know how to come up with a counter-tactic to a situation is like arguing that a knight didn't know how to deal with an opponent who used used a bow rather than a sword. They are both trained warriors who learned how to deal with a variety of situations during their initial training. It's up to them to put that training to use and find a way to dictate the conditions of said battle.

As mentioned before, the SAMAS shouldn't engage the GB in a situation that favours the GB, well the GB shouldn't engage the SAMAS in a situation that favours the SAMAS. It's the skill of the warriors involved that determines which is going to happen for the most part.

I will say that in deciding where and when to engage, the deciding vote is typically going to be the SAMs with their higher mobility . . . but just because your more mobile it doesn't garuntee you getting to fight on advantageous terms. For example, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains the highly mobile forces of Attila the Hun ended up engaging a Roman/Barbarian force in a pitched battle when he could have instead used his mobility to avoid. In the latter stages of the battle the Huns - used to a highly mobile form of warfare - had to take refuge in an improvised fortification.

Mobility, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Firepower, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Armour, if used right, is a decisive advantage.

All forces involved in the fight between the GB and the SAMs are well trained, so it is going to come down to who uses that training and the resources at their command best.

possibly, but the situation that favors the glitterboy is a tunnel that extends about 2 miles or more with no turns whatsoever, whereas the situation that favors 3 (undamaged) SAMAS is almost anywhere else. (the situation that favors 2 undamaged SAMAS plus one that can't fly is anywhere with reasonable amounts of cover or other things that penalize the glitterboy's attack rolls.

in this case, the SAMAS and the glitterboy have advantages that can be decisive, but the SAMAS have an advantage that is decisive much more often than the glitterboy's advantage.

[Jefffar]

possibly, but the situation that favors the glitterboy is a tunnel that extends about 2 miles or more with no turns whatsoever, whereas the situation that favors 3 (undamaged) SAMAS is almost anywhere else. (the situation that favors 2 undamaged SAMAS plus one that can't fly is anywhere with reasonable amounts of cover or other things that penalize the glitterboy's attack rolls.

in this case, the SAMAS and the glitterboy have advantages that can be decisive, but the SAMAS have an advantage that is decisive much more often than the glitterboy's advantage.

The tunnel doesn't have to be a physical one - all it has to be is a reason that the SAMs will need to fly in a way that the GB can pick them off easily.

Combat isn't just two opposing sides showing up at the same place at the same time and deciding to try to kill each other. There are always other objectives and conditions out there that can force one side into a situation that gives the other and advantage.

For starters, the SAms are no ore mobile on the ground than the GB is. So what happens if we get a situation that makes it hard or impossible for them to fly - like say inside a building or a forest? In either case, if the SAM tries to fly there's a high likelihood of bouncing itself off a solid object, loosing control and leaving himself flat on his back while the GB puts a couple of cannister shells into him. Alternatively thick fog might reduce visibility to the point that NOE flight is virtually impossible or a sandstorm may clog the jets grounding the SAMs.

Outside of physical constraints, there may be objective constraints - what if the SAMs are "leashed" as it were to an objective they have to protect and the GB is the aggressor? If the SAMs are unable to travel a certain distance away from a specific point for fear that what's there may get destroyed/captured - the SAMs mobility may be constrained that way as well.

Also, the constraints may just be enough to limit the avenue of approach. For example if the combat takes place in the city and the GB's allies have enough air defence units set up that if the SAMs fly above the height of the buildings, they are liable to be shot down, forcing the SAMs to fly along the streets - reducing the different directions the GB has to cover (and if he's wise, he'll find a spot that limits those approaches even more).

Heck, even standing with his back to a large structure the GB can improve his odds considerably as he no longer has to cover a 180 degree by 360 degree bubble, but instead has only a 90 degree by 180 degree arc to worry about.

Other tactical situations may arise, such as the GB having detected the SAMs and getting a free shot at them first - a first shot hit on the flight systems should ground one of the SAMs, a hit on the helmet should take one out of the fight for good - and if the GB has the time to set up that first shot undetected we can lay good money on 1 less SAM flying around right at the start.

My point is that each fight develops individually with it's own specific circumstances. There is no one thing that will guarantee victory in every fight, only advantages and disadvantages. The side that best applies their own advantages, mitigates their own disadvantages, negates the enemy's advantages and exploits the enemy's disadvantages wins.

So in our 3 SAM vs 1 GB, the winner is whichever side out thinks the other.

[Khanibal]

Which is why we adventure in groups. So we can watch each others' backs.

[Shark_Force]

in no cover, the SAMAS simply fly full speed and become insanely hard to hit (and by reducing the glitterboy's strike roll, any dodge roll they do have to make becomes largely trivial).

in full or partial cover, the SAMAS use the cover. probably more effectively than the glitterboy, since they're shorter, lighter, and not as shiny (and therefore harder to see). and as was shown above with the 3v1 tactics suggested, with lots of cover, the glitterboy does not hold the advantage

if the SAMAS can do fly-by shootings, the glitterboy is not likely to win, even if he does narrow down the area he has to watch.

[popscythe]

So in our 3 SAM vs 1 GB, the winner is whichever side out thinks the other.

I'm willing to accept that.

[Danger]

The fallacy of your statement is suggesting that Samas Pilots are some sort of encyclopedia of group tactics

Actually, the statement here quoted is what is blatantly fallacious. Using "hit and run" against one target is hardly an encyclopedia. Even if you consider "one man run, two man hit" a different tactic, that's two. Two tactics that would take about 3 seconds to explain to anyone, let alone fighter plane pilot-grade military officers.

I already said that I had no problem with them knowing a few standard tactics, but to suggest that they know any and all tactics that could possibly relate to this scenario is being unrealistic. Likewise, the Glitter Boy will be equally versed in fighting multiple opponents, and flying ones too, I'm sure. So the Samas aren't really at 'an advantage' by any means.

Funny, I thought that was the whole foundation of your argument.

That's an interesting misconception. Perhaps you'd like to reread the thread?

You seem to support Max's original comment, which heavily implied that the Samas would have some sort of innate combat bonus from group tactics. There's no such thing that I'm aware of.

[Danger]

in no cover, the SAMAS simply fly full speed and become insanely hard to hit (and by reducing the glitterboy's strike roll, any dodge roll they do have to make becomes largely trivial).

Likewise, it reduces the Samas chance to hit by an insane amount. Really, it's pretty much an equal trade-off.

in full or partial cover, the SAMAS use the cover. probably more effectively than the glitterboy, since they're shorter, lighter, and not as shiny (and therefore harder to see). and as was shown above with the 3v1 tactics suggested, with lots of cover, the glitterboy does not hold the advantage

A foot shorter. C'mon, it's not that much. It's not like they're a 50 foot mech or something. That's like saying if a guy is a foot taller than his wife, you'd be able to spot him instantly in a crowded mall, but she'd vanish like a ninja.

The cover works just as well for the Glitter Boy as it does for the Samas. Again, it equals out.

if the SAMAS can do fly-by shootings, the glitterboy is not likely to win, even if he does narrow down the area he has to watch.

As stated in an earlier post, time is not on the Samas' side. The Samas can try to plink away at the Glitter Boy, but the Glitter Boy is going to hit them, dodging or not, performing fly-bys or not. They cannot avoid being hit, and one hit from the Glitter Boy is worth 4 or 5 from the Samas, easy. All the Glitter Boy needs to do is drop one Samas in order to radically change the tide of this fight.

You (and many other posters) also seem to be assuming that the Samas are hitting the Glitter Boy with every shot.

It's simply not true. They still have to roll at least a 10 or higher to hit the Glitter Boy, and that's not including any penalties from their fancy flying. More likely they'll need something in the neighborhood of 16 or better to hit the Glitter Boy. Plus, every time they do their fly by, they're running the risk of get popped by the Boom Gun.

[popscythe]

They still have to roll at least a 10 or higher to hit the Glitter Boy, and that's not including any penalties from their fancy flying. More likely they'll need something in the neighborhood of 16 or better to hit the Glitter Boy. Plus, every time they do their fly by, they're running the risk of get popped by the Boom Gun.

You haven't read the strategy very carefully have you? Just go back, actually read the posts, and then edit the post I quoted to be about what we're talking about and you'll be fine.

[Danger]

They still have to roll at least a 10 or higher to hit the Glitter Boy, and that's not including any penalties from their fancy flying. More likely they'll need something in the neighborhood of 16 or better to hit the Glitter Boy. Plus, every time they do their fly by, they're running the risk of get popped by the Boom Gun.

You haven't read the strategy very carefully have you? Just go back, actually read the posts, and then edit the post I quoted to be about what we're talking about and you'll be fine.

Actually, I have. The current discussion is about the Samas using their "superior group tactics" and having one (although in some posts it seems to be referring to more than one, or all*) Samas draw the Glitter Boy's fire while the other two shoot at him.

*Example:

in no cover, the SAMAS simply fly full speed and become insanely hard to hit (and by reducing the glitterboy's strike roll, any dodge roll they do have to make becomes largely trivial).

Here, as I read it, Shark seems to be saying that if the Samas are without cover, they will all fly and fight at full speed to get their dodge bonuses. As I said, this brings heavy penalties to the Samas for hitting the Glitter Boy.

The tactic heavily weighs on the Glitter Boy being distracted by the shiny flying Samas, and not doing anything about the other two that are shooting at him.

The tactic relies upon all three Samas not only knowing exactly where the Glitter Boy is, but having managed to get line of sight on the Glitter Boy without him responding to them. Somehow, the Glitter Boy is completely clueless or unaware of their presence.

It also seems to not take into account the Glitter Boy being mobile, and seeking a more advantageous position himself.

Edit: This tactic also appears to be assuming, and in fact relying upon, all three Samas will surviving until the end of the combat. This is unlikely, and that's an understatement.

If this is not what you are referring to, you need to be a little more specific than 'read the strategy'.

[popscythe]

you need to be a little more specific than 'read the strategy'.

Okay, how about "read the thread" (reminder three?). You don't seem to understand how the SAMs will be engaging the GB despite it being described in detail multiple times and have based your objections on that misunderstanding despite several detailed reminders to review the thread before commenting if you want to be on the same page as everyone else.

[Danger]

you need to be a little more specific than 'read the strategy'.

Okay, how about "read the thread" (reminder three?). You don't seem to understand how the SAMs will be engaging the GB despite it being described in detail multiple times and have based your objections on that misunderstanding despite several detailed reminders to review the thread before commenting if you want to be on the same page as everyone else.

Actually, I have. The current discussion is about the Samas using their "superior group tactics" and having one (although in some posts it seems to be referring to more than one, or all*) Samas draw the Glitter Boy's fire while the other two shoot at him.

Reposting this here, in case it is you who are not reading all the responses.

I'm assuming this is the 'strategy' you keep referencing. It is the one I had in mind when I posted my rebuttal, and again, appears to be the current flavor of choice. If this however, is not the strategy in question, kindly repost it. I really don't have the time to comb over the entire last few pages of this 11 page thread to find the minute detail you appear to be referring to.

Thanks.

[popscythe]

I really don't have the time

If I have post for you and for myself, I'm having both sides of the conversation, and I'm more enjoyable to talk to without you interjecting.

So I'll just take my self-conversation off the internet and save electrons.

[Danger]

I really don't have the time

If I have post for you and for myself, I'm having both sides of the conversation, and I'm more enjoyable to talk to without you interjecting.

So I'll just take my self-conversation off the internet and save electrons.

So, apparently one of two things are happening:

A. I'm correct about the what this mysterious 'strategy' you keep referring to is.

or

B. Even you have lost track of it.

[Zer0 Kay]

I imagine that SAMAS pilots are trained to deal with GB's like A-10s are trained to deal with tanks. You come in from three directions give it a burst and then come in from a different direction. It would be foolish to think that a military unit wouldn't be trained in team tactics... if they weren't they'd be a rag tag team not a military. It is also foolish to think that just because they are 5th level that the GB HAD TO HAVE had the experience of fighting multiple SAMAS. So Danger you are also metagaming by assuming that the GB had previously encountered more than one SAMAS or any other opponent at any time. Heck it could be argued that at 5th level, traveling with a group he's never had to worry about taking on a trio of SAMAS at the same time and not just concentrate on one of them.

I would imagine that the GB pilot was also trained with counter tactics to deal with this situation as the GB pilot is a trained man of arms class just like the SAMAS. Yes his training probably came about as an apprenticeship to another GB pilot rather than in a formal military setting, but that's the way knights were trained in the middle ages and they were generally skilled warriors as well.

Arguing that the GB pilot doesn't know how to come up with a counter-tactic to a situation is like arguing that a knight didn't know how to deal with an opponent who used used a bow rather than a sword. They are both trained warriors who learned how to deal with a variety of situations during their initial training. It's up to them to put that training to use and find a way to dictate the conditions of said battle.

As mentioned before, the SAMAS shouldn't engage the GB in a situation that favours the GB, well the GB shouldn't engage the SAMAS in a situation that favours the SAMAS. It's the skill of the warriors involved that determines which is going to happen for the most part.

I will say that in deciding where and when to engage, the deciding vote is typically going to be the SAMs with their higher mobility . . . but just because your more mobile it doesn't garuntee you getting to fight on advantageous terms. For example, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains the highly mobile forces of Attila the Hun ended up engaging a Roman/Barbarian force in a pitched battle when he could have instead used his mobility to avoid. In the latter stages of the battle the Huns - used to a highly mobile form of warfare - had to take refuge in an improvised fortification.

Mobility, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Firepower, if used right, is a decisive advantage.
Armour, if used right, is a decisive advantage.

All forces involved in the fight between the GB and the SAMs are well trained, so it is going to come down to who uses that training and the resources at their command best.

As I recall the original GB pilot class is some guy who found the thing or had it left to him in his pappies will. Not someone who is trained in military strategy or tactics. Now if it is a GB pilot class or rather an Elite PA pilot or whatever they call it for FQ and the NGR... yeah I think that it would take 3 SAMAS but would likely have 5 or more tasked per GB. Yup the knights did figure out what to do the first time long bows came on the scene and then again with their upgraded armor when firearms came on the scene... die and now look at the knights. Yup their actors and other honored professions. Sir Anthony Hopkins, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Alec Guinness. You forgot about the greatest advantage of all. LAND SHARK... no I mean Suprise. It is more likely that three black SAMAS flying just above tree top level would notice a shiney (yeah so much for intelligent, well trained, military minds) PA trodding through the forrest before the GB saw them.

[Zer0 Kay]

I didn't say they would have a bonus or anything, I simply said they SHOULD be assumed to be relying on training in group formations when against a high threat target.

Lots of the scenario playthroughs posted have ignored that they wouldn't simply stand around or pop up one at a time and pick their noses.

I never said the GB would stand there picking his nose either, but Armored Core is a good stand in for this type of scenario, and I can personally say that my least favorite situations in that game involve me in a big heavy tank mech, multiple highly mobile opponents, and mixed cover for them to weave around in.


Know how I handle that situation?


I do something the GB can't, I boost up and rain death on the light mechs any time they land, a heavy tank can still fire in midair, a GB can't.

Incorrect. Yes a GB can. It will just be flung backwards flipping head over heals and rotating clockwise as viewed from over head. Dissorienting the pilot and causing some sort of damage.

[popscythe]

Incorrect.

Incorrect indeed. It says in the book that the boom gun can't fire if the pylons are not deployed.

[Zer0 Kay]

Incorrect.

Incorrect indeed. It says in the book that the boom gun can't fire if the pylons are not deployed.

Yup shure does... but it doesn't state that they have to be deployed into the ground as in it won't fire unless the pylons are activated NOT unless they register positive anchoring, otherwise you'd have to roll everytime to see if the anchor was successful, especially if you happen to be walking on an MD highway. So you can still jump up fire the gun in the air which will deploy the pylon and claws and then get thrown back 30 feet + whatever extra distance because your falling from 80 feet up.

[Danger]

Incorrect.

Incorrect indeed. It says in the book that the boom gun can't fire if the pylons are not deployed.

Yup shure does... but it doesn't state that they have to be deployed into the ground as in it won't fire unless the pylons are activated NOT unless they register positive anchoring, otherwise you'd have to roll everytime to see if the anchor was successful, especially if you happen to be walking on an MD highway. So you can still jump up fire the gun in the air which will deploy the pylon and claws and then get thrown back 30 feet + whatever extra distance because your falling from 80 feet up.

I believe Popscythe is correct in this case. When the book states that the pylons must be employed, I'm sure the intent is that they are anchored in the ground (or whatever solid material happens to be under the Glitter Boy's feet).

I doubt that they meant they could be anchored in mid-air or a liquid surface; not that the Glitter Boy can walk on water or anything. Not even they are that Jesus.

The firing system can probably tell the difference as a safety precaution. "Are the pylons anchored in a solid surface? If yes, Fire! If no, do not fire."

[Zer0 Kay]

Incorrect.

Incorrect indeed. It says in the book that the boom gun can't fire if the pylons are not deployed.

Yup shure does... but it doesn't state that they have to be deployed into the ground as in it won't fire unless the pylons are activated NOT unless they register positive anchoring, otherwise you'd have to roll everytime to see if the anchor was successful, especially if you happen to be walking on an MD highway. So you can still jump up fire the gun in the air which will deploy the pylon and claws and then get thrown back 30 feet + whatever extra distance because your falling from 80 feet up.

I believe Popscythe is correct in this case. When the book states that the pylons must be employed, I'm sure the intent is that they are anchored in the ground (or whatever solid material happens to be under the Glitter Boy's feet).

I doubt that they meant they could be anchored in mid-air or a liquid surface; not that the Glitter Boy can walk on water or anything. Not even they are that Jesus.

The firing system can probably tell the difference as a safety precaution. "Are the pylons anchored in a solid surface? If yes, Fire! If no, do not fire."

Yeah, so that is why they have the little blurb that it would knock you back 30 feet without them... how would anyone in Rifts know they had never had a prototype at the time.

So new disabling technique for Earth Elementals... break off the drill or remove all earth just from around the drill and claws so it doesn't detect an anchor.

It wouldn't anchor in mid air that is why they'd be flung back spinning. All it says is that the anchor system is deployed before firing and the gun will not fire unless the anchor is deployed NOT the gun will not fire unless anchored. DEPLOY does not mean engaged.

So then that sensor is able to tell when it is in soft earth that isn't going to do anything like desert sand or pack snow or swamp or the roof of a car or the roof of a building (all SDC of course). and as I said before if your anchors are broken the wonderful safety device become a death sentence? DEPLOY NOT engage

[Jefffar]

The GB also triggers a thruster unit on it's back as part of the recoil suppression unit. If the unit is smart enough to adjust for the firing angle of the boom gun (which it does in the illustrations accompanying the GB) perhaps it also is able to keep excessive rotation from occurring during an airborne firing.

[popscythe]

I think that the spirit of the game was that the pylons had to be anchored or the system wouldn't fire. It says that without the pylons ,the GB WOULD be thrown back 30 feet. Like, as a thought experiment in GB physics, not as an example to be used in a novel by hack writers who take too much literary freedom.

[Zer0 Kay]

The GB also triggers a thruster unit on it's back as part of the recoil suppression unit. If the unit is smart enough to adjust for the firing angle of the boom gun (which it does in the illustrations accompanying the GB) perhaps it also is able to keep excessive rotation from occurring during an airborne firing.

Possibly but at the same time you just taxed the same thrusters to their "max" by jumping to their max height. I dunno maybe, maybe not.

[Zer0 Kay]

I think that the spirit of the game was that the pylons had to be anchored or the system wouldn't fire. It says that without the pylons ,the GB WOULD be thrown back 30 feet. Like, as a thought experiment in GB physics, not as an example to be used in a novel by hack writers who take too much literary freedom.

So then the spirit of your game makes it so that if the GB can't anchor in a solid material or looses its anchors its screwed. Meh. If your in a space adventure you can't possibly then fire if you are thrown off of a hull.

In my game it is unless you want to loose initiative and 1d4 actions you'll make sure you fire from a secured possition.