Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Yet Another Grenade Thread

Posted by: Aaron Dec 21 2006, 01:27 PM

Has anybody tried applying the mechanics for suppressive fire to grenade resolution? If you have, how did that work out?

It occurred to me while reading about the Storm power in SM that the case of suppressive fire (being caught in an area where metal is flying at high velocity) bears a lot of similarity to a grenade blast (being caught in an area where metal is flying at high velocity).

Posted by: eidolon Dec 21 2006, 03:07 PM

Well, the thing about a grenade blast is how fast it's over. If you know it's out there, and you know you're behind cover, you're good. If you don't know it's there, and you're exposed, well, you're probably pretty effectively "suppressed".

A single grenade just doesn't last long enough to have the same effect as suppressive fire really.

Now, if there has been a grenade thrown, and you're still alive, sure, you're going to be careful about exposing yourself, but you're also going to try and move to eliminate the thrower once you're reasonably certain you can do so.

With suppressive fire, you're keeping them down so that they aren't shooting at you (hopefully), usually so someone else can move.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 21 2006, 03:26 PM

There needs to be a surpressive grenade.
Something that burns for a few seconds and spits a lot of fire and sparks and other unpleasant crap in a several meter radius. Would that be vaguely like white phosphorous? I don't know much about grenades, but somebody out there does, I'd wager.

Posted by: DireRadiant Dec 21 2006, 03:35 PM

The grenade lands, rolls around, pops up an eyestalk, and cherrfully and loudly says, "Hi, I'm a class 5 anti personell smart grenade! Please be warned of the following side effects. Bleeding, pain, visual distortion, aural discomfort, temporal distortions, possible broken bones, nausea, and lots of other unpleasant things we don't want to think about. Ares Corporation disavows all laibility for the use of this smart grenade, now available in special bulk discount shipments. Call 89759234857. No no, don't run away, I go off if you ..."

BOOM

Posted by: Demerzel Dec 21 2006, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (DireRadiant)

No no, don't run away, I go off if you ...

BOOM

There's an AI in that grenade... poor AI...

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 21 2006, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (Demerzel)

QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Dec 21 2006, 07:35 AM)

No no, don't run away, I go off if you ...

BOOM

There's an AI in that grenade... poor AI...

There's no reason to assume that an artificial intelligence would have motivations or basic instincts consistent with a biological being that was created through natural selection.
In other words, it is an adaptive trait, "not wanting to die", one that is generally shared by most things that have succeeded in surviving and evolving. An artificial intelligence has no inherent reason to not want to die unless it is programmed to. For the grenade, the ultimate joy and rapture is explosive oblivion and a job well done.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Dec 21 2006, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

QUOTE (Demerzel @ Dec 21 2006, 10:39 AM)

QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Dec 21 2006, 07:35 AM)

No no, don't run away, I go off if you ...

BOOM

There's an AI in that grenade... poor AI...

...Bomb#20: "In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void".

Boiler: "What the hell is he talking about?"

Bomb#20: "And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light."

Posted by: Eryk the Red Dec 21 2006, 04:58 PM

I'd go with the classic: "I'm a thirty second bomb! I'm a thirty second bomb! Twenty-nine! Twenty-eight! Twenty-seven!..."

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 21 2006, 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

Something that burns for a few seconds and spits a lot of fire and sparks and other unpleasant crap in a several meter radius. Would that be vaguely like white phosphorous?

WP munitions in a smoke or anti-personnel application usually explode and spread their content in one go, the phosphorous then continuing to burn on the ground and in the air for a while. Other incendiary weapons will simply burn intensely without being spread over a significant area. I can't think of a weapon with applications similar to grenades that would continue to launch projectiles over a period of time.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 21 2006, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

Something that burns for a few seconds and spits a lot of fire and sparks and other unpleasant crap in a several meter radius. Would that be vaguely like white phosphorous?

Cool, thanks.
But, in your opinion, would such a device be useful?

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 21 2006, 05:36 PM

Some fireworks launch projectiles over a period of time. But unless you are wearing your kerosene drenched cotton wool armor, that's not really an issue .

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 21 2006, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

But, in your opinion, would such a device be useful?

I'd say no. It seems to me the most efficient use of explosives or pyrotechnics in a small package is to make it all go off at once. This allows it to destroy larger structures, penetrate better, have a greater area of effect, etc. It also means that if you happen to catch the enemy unawares, you are more likely to kill him than suppress him. If you do want to suppress an enemy, just keep firing more at him. Like http://youtube.com/watch?v=eYR-H4Hgoz8.

Posted by: Shrike30 Dec 21 2006, 06:10 PM

I only caught the first few seconds of that clip (I'm at work), but someone downrange is going to have a really, really bad day.

The problem is going to be when players get access to FA grenade launchers. Then they're going to want to COMBINE suppressive fire and grenades...

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 21 2006, 06:14 PM

Well all right then. Thanks.

Posted by: lorechaser Dec 21 2006, 06:30 PM

This would function better as a drone, I think.

Something in line with the iBall - you toss it. It lands, and uses small legs to right itself, then create a tripod. It then begins spewing fletchettes in a random pattern, or a circle, or some such.

I say fletchettes because I'm still stuck on the idea of peeling off tiny slivers of a disk to make them. Which would mean it was easier to create them on the fly....

Posted by: Shrike30 Dec 21 2006, 06:35 PM

Something like the shuriken weapons from WH40k, or the flywheel gun from CP2020? Amusing thought, but I always wondered what their penetration would be like.

If you had the cash (and with any luck, we'll be seeing prices drop again with SR4), building a laser-firing drone you could toss into a room should be doable.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 21 2006, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

If you had the cash (and with any luck, we'll be seeing prices drop again with SR4), building a laser-firing drone you could toss into a room should be doable.

I'm sure it would. Does someone have an application in mind for such a thing -- something actual grenades would not be more effective at?

Posted by: kzt Dec 21 2006, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

I'm sure it would. Does someone have an application in mind for such a thing -- something actual grenades would not be more effective at?

I used grenades with prox sensors to keep people from following us and to deny corridors and such.

Posted by: Lazerface Dec 21 2006, 07:15 PM

So, either the talking bomb is like the talking toaster from Red Dwarf, or the Tachikomas from GITS?

Posted by: knasser Dec 21 2006, 08:40 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

How do you know you exist?

Hmmm. Well... I think therefore I am!

That's good. That's very very good. Now, how do you know anything else exists?

Posted by: lorechaser Dec 21 2006, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Dec 21 2006, 04:04 PM)

How do you know you exist?

Hmmm. Well... I think therefore I am!

That's good. That's very very good. Now, how do you know anything else exists?

When I blow up, I think it also blows up?

Posted by: mfb Dec 21 2006, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (DireRadiant)

one of the coolest ideas in Starship Troopers (the book) was a grenade that shouted "i'm a bomb! i'm a bomb! 29! 28! 27!..."

Posted by: Trax Dec 21 2006, 09:50 PM

I've read the book, but I don't remember that one.

Posted by: mfb Dec 21 2006, 09:51 PM

it's right towards the beginning. Johnny jumps through a wall into a church or something, while they're raiding that Skinny city.

Posted by: eidolon Dec 21 2006, 10:30 PM

Just for reference: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/ch1.htm

Posted by: mfb Dec 21 2006, 10:37 PM

re: using the suppression rules for grenades. this could be thought of as an abstraction of the fact that you don't always know how long the grenade's timer has. as it stands, in SR, peoples' reactions to grenades is skewed because they generally do know exactly how long before the grenade goes off.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 21 2006, 10:40 PM

Actually, they only know when the players are metagaming .

Posted by: Konsaki Dec 21 2006, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

So as a GM, make the timer on the nades random... It's well within the GM's powers to do so...

Posted by: mfb Dec 21 2006, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

Actually, they only know when the players are metagaming

if they're not metagaming to some degree, they're not trying. i think 'metagaming' is a bad term; a more accurate one would be metaroleplaying.

as for the GM randomizing timers, the GM can do anything he wants. that's a given. but this is a discussion of rules that can be consistently applied.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 21 2006, 11:04 PM

Yeah, metagaming is probably the wrong term. Still, the Chars don't know about combat rounds or Initiative phases...

Throw your wireless grenade and detonate it with a free action. Rules-conform and not foreseeable.

Posted by: mfb Dec 21 2006, 11:09 PM

a better option--and one that will help make combat generally more unsure and difficult--is to make players roll Perception to actually notice the grenade being thrown, and where it lands. if you get lots of hits, you know where the grenade is and when it was thrown. if you only get a few, you only know that there's a grenade somewhere.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 22 2006, 07:37 AM

Depending on the surroundings I'd also put a higher/lower threashold on that. Afterall if it's indoors, there's less places for that grenade ot be thrown from generally speaking, it'll be far more visible, and will make a fair bit of noise when it lands on the ground.

Outdoors in say.. a forrest, it would be potentially much harder to notice.

I mean in an empty room it's very easy to see where a grenade lands, but say in a farmer's field there are tons of things obscuring your LOS on the grenade and its' very easy to midjudge where it landed assuming you noticed it in the first place.

Overall though MFB, the whole perception thing vs Dodge to me makes alot more sense.

Also some one in either this thread or the other necroed grenade thread mentioned they couldnt see how a 'failure' with a grenade throw can actually turn into a success. This is, quite by and large, due to the fact that hand grenades, have a habit of bouncing and rolling around, some times a great deal. It depends on design and terrain and such. It also dpeends a great deal on luck.

Let me give you an example.

Your target is taking cover behind a partial wall in.. lets say a house, lets make it the kitchen, and it's one of those ones that has a cut down wall looking into the living room, your in the living room. You throw the grenade at thep erson, but you overthrow it, so the grenade sails past the target. However due to arc, it by chance, hits the lip of the counter, and bounces back towards the target, then rolling as it hits the ground it comes to a stop right next to the intended target purely by blind luck, and maybe partially due to a slight tilt in the floor of the kitchen.

So suddenly your over extended throw actualy winds up being ALOT better than had you actually landed it abouts where you initally intended the grenade to go. There isnt really any 'dodging' a grenade, just like there isnt relaly any 'dodging' a bullet, your either in the way or your not. Now the idea of 'dodging' a bullet largely comes from the fact that it's a relatively smal projectile, there's cover, and your target very likely isnt standing compeltely still unless he's a total iddiot. He'll duck behind cover shoot back etc.

Grenades are very different, their area of effect. AOE does not require a great deal of accuracy, the whole point of AOE is to get that device into 'the general area' of the target. Thats all thats required, the actual AOE effect (In this case the explosion of the grenade and the resulting fragments, shockwave etc) is what does the damage.

Another anology migh tbe something like 'doding a bee' and 'dodging a bus'. We'll assume little Timmy is standing for some stupid reason playing in the middle of traffic. Now, standing in the middle of the lane, a bee suddenly flies right at his head! 'Ducking' aka dodging, he can still stand exactly where he is, and the Bee will miss hitting him. However, because he didnt move out the traffic lane, he's promptly hit by the bus, which is far large than the bee and takes up the entire lane rather than a very small argually unnoticeable space within that lane.

So the only way for Timmy to avoid becomming Timmy brand salsa is to actually 'move' out of the way, be it jumping out of the way or walking out of the path of the oncomming bus. The bus we shall say is being driven by FrankTrollman's nazi Carebears, which is why their not doing anything at all to avoid hitting Timmy. Afterall little Timmy being geeked by a bus will make everyone 'happy'!

This really then is where that perception thing MFB suggets comes into play, does Timmy notice the evil Carebear bus and thus moves out of the way in time? Or does he not? Or perhaps that bee hit him right in the eye and he has to try to see the oncomming bus through his tears of pain and sorrow (Visibility modifiers) and on a bad roll doesnt quite see the buss well enough to move completely out of the way (And gets clipped), manages to figgure out where the bus is in relation to him and thus avoids it, or fails miserably to notice it at all and gets hit dead on.

Posted by: eidolon Dec 22 2006, 02:47 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

And if they don't notice it, they can't react to it. I like.

Posted by: lorechaser Dec 22 2006, 04:11 PM

I suspect that soldiers in combat also have a fairly good idea of the time between a grenade landing an exploding. It's why people sometimes prime grenades before they throw them....

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 22 2006, 04:20 PM

Most hand grenade fuzes have a 0.5-1 second variance, and there's no way of telling whether they were cooked before they were thrown or often even where they came from, so there's really no way you could know how much time you have when a grenade lands. The few accounts of such that I've read seem to bear this out: after spotting a grenade everybody immediately takes cover and doesn't make a move until it's gone off or enough time has passed that it's probably not going to go off at all.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 22 2006, 04:55 PM

That would mean a grenade can sometimes be used like suppressive fire .
Soldiers often yell 'grenade' when there is a grenade, so everybody around him is aware that there is a grenade.

Posted by: eidolon Dec 22 2006, 05:24 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

Cooking the grenade is a Bad Idea™ for the exact same reason. You see it in movies all the time, but it's not something you'll ever be trained to do because it's a stupid ass idea that can get you killed.

In fact, when you see someone in a movie let the spoon fly, you're just seeing more romanticized nonsense as well. You hold the grenade in such a manner that the spoon stays stationary, and throw from that grip so that the spoon leaves as you throw, arming the grenade (starting the fuse).

Posted by: mfb Dec 22 2006, 05:36 PM

actually, for bunkers, they actually do train you to cook the grenade for, as i recall, 5 seconds. that way, the guys in the bunker don't have time to grab it and throw it back--they're more likely to try to than someone on open ground, since there's no room to hide in a bunker.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 22 2006, 05:47 PM

My online research yielded the fact that spoon is a slang term for the safety handle.

'Den Löffel abgeben', verbatim 'to hand in the spoon' is the german expression for 'to kick the bucket'.

QUOTE (mfb)

They didn't train us that way. Would have been a bad Idea, since our grenades had a 3s fuse

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 22 2006, 06:00 PM

Ours too had a 2.5-3 second fuze, and were always handled so that the spoon was placed firmly against the palm as you threw them. All I know about cooking nades I learned from America's Army (the game).

Posted by: mfb Dec 22 2006, 09:39 PM

the grenades US soldiers are issued have a 7-second timer.

Posted by: Shrike30 Dec 22 2006, 09:59 PM

It's entirely dependent on the type of grenade you're using. Some flash-bangs have a 1-1.5 second timer on them, the theory being that you are supposed to throw them into a room and have them go off to add some shock value to your subsequent assault through that doorway (hopefully preventing the people inside from spraying down the doorway, nearby walls, and anybody they see with bullets). There's no reason for them to have a longer timer on them, given their narrow-focus application.

On the other hand, you've got the 6-7 second fuse on some of the grenades used by the US military. Having a fuse that long can slow you down a bit (you've got to "cook" it for a couple of seconds if you're going to toss it into a room, so that you reduce the risk of it getting tossed back out), but generally lends itself to more flexibility: if you're gonna baseball it pretty far, that 7 seconds lets you pop the spoon, get a proper grip on the body of the grenade, and heave it further than you could with the kind of grip you could get with the spoon still attached.

And having that 7 second fuse means if you drop it, you've got a few extra seconds to try and dispose of the thing before it kills you and your squadmates.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 04:13 AM

So it's throw the pin drop the grenade right?

Some grenades actually have fuses as long as 10 seconds. Though thats not terribly common with more 'modern' grenades. However alot of the older/older style grenades do infact have a fuse that long. Which... yeah, is actually quite abit of time to 'run away'.

In SR grenades apparently all have a 3 second fuse. Afterall it goes off at the end of the IP and an IP is 'aproximately' 3 seconds according to the SR4 main book. And I think it's the same thing for SR3 but I could be wrong about that (I know it's still only a matter of seconds however). This of course also means generally you'd be stupid to try to 'cook' the grenade, unless you had enhanced reflexes, and even then I really wouldnt do that.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Dec 23 2006, 05:33 AM

You want an effective surpression grenade?

You need a chunk of lead, shaped into a grenade's shape, painted like a grenade, with a red LED on top of it.

Chuck that into a room, wiat the 1.5 seconds it will take everyone to have yelled "Grenade!" and dived away, then you rush the place and geek them while they're curled up behind the obvious cover.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 05:53 AM

Nah, I prefer the Starship trooper thing yelling "i'm a bomb! I'm a bomb!"

Posted by: kzt Dec 23 2006, 05:56 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

In SR grenades apparently all have a 3 second fuse. Afterall it goes off at the end of the IP and an IP is 'aproximately' 3 seconds according to the SR4 main book. And I think it's the same thing for SR3 but I could be wrong about that (I know it's still only a matter of seconds however). This of course also means generally you'd be stupid to try to 'cook' the grenade, unless you had enhanced reflexes, and even then I really wouldnt do that.

I could swear that it says they have programmable electronic fuzes, which you can set before arming.

There are some good reasons why you might want to fiddle with the timer, but I'd want it to really obvious that someone had. It would sort of suck to throw it and find that someone had set up for zero delay for a booby trap.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 23 2006, 07:17 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

In SR grenades apparently all have a 3 second fuse. Afterall it goes off at the end of the IP and an IP is 'aproximately' 3 seconds according to the SR4 main book.

I'm pretty sure that it is an entire Combat Turn itself that is approximately 3 seconds, and not each IP.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 08:12 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

QUOTE (Kesslan @ Dec 23 2006, 03:13 PM)

In SR grenades apparently all have a 3 second fuse. Afterall it goes off at the end of the IP and an IP is 'aproximately' 3 seconds according to the SR4 main book.

I'm pretty sure that it is an entire Combat Turn itself that is approximately 3 seconds, and not each IP.

Err yeah sorry, mind fart there, ment Combat Turn not IP

Posted by: mfb Dec 23 2006, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

So it's throw the pin drop the grenade right?

there was actually a guy in basic who sorta did that. the way we do grenades, you hold the spoon and pull the pin. when you're ready to throw, you release the spoon and then throw the grenade. this guy did everything up to the throwing--pin, spoon, freeze. the drill sergeant whacked his arm over the top of the cement barrier to make him let go.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 08:31 AM

Fun stuff, reminds me of one of the Darwin award reports where some guy went out on an M203 range, foudn two 'duds' and hit em togeather (Detonator to Detonator) while saying "Nah, their duds, nothing will happen, see?" *BOOM*. Or soemthing like that.

Dunno if it's true, but I could sure belive it of some people.

Posted by: mfb Dec 23 2006, 08:35 AM

sounds plausible.

of course, i don't want to give a false impression. during our training with throwing fake grenades at a vehicle, i whanged mine off a tree and it ended up thirty yards to my left instead of under the vehicle twenty yards in front of me.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 09:06 AM

Which is why I like the grenade scatter rules in SR. The implications of a bad roll can be... well just as bad as the real thing. Like that one time I accientlaly blew up a team member due to a really bad rebound in our direction.

Woops.

Posted by: kzt Dec 23 2006, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

All the shelters in Basic had the front all chewed up by fragmentation. I found the fact that one of the shelters that you threw the grenades from had the INSIDE all cratered by grenade fragments to be somewhat disturbing. The instructors implied, during their instruction as to how the range was run, that no trainee had managed to get killed while any of them worked there, but it wasn't due to a lack of trying.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 09:49 AM

It'll happen yet I'm sure.

Makes me wonder what kinda crazy it takes to be a grenade range instructor.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 23 2006, 10:34 AM

The probability of getting killed as a grenade range instructor is still several orders of magnitude smaller than that of getting killed by friendly fire on any actual battlefield -- so it must be the same kind of crazy it takes to volunteer as a soldier to begin with.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 10:39 AM

That entirely depends on the army in which you serve, if your speaking of the US armed forces (or working alongside them) however you are aparently statistically correct.

The US has a really bad (and well earned) rep for friendly fire incidents. This is not so with other countries.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 23 2006, 11:06 AM

Could you name a national military which has taken part in large scale warfare in the past 70 years and that hasn't incurred significant losses to friendly fire and various "accidents"?

Not that it matters, because the amount of friendly fire probably has a direct correlation with the amount of morons dropping live grenades inside the shelters.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 11:21 AM

Canada is one apparently, there has been quite abit of discussion recently about all the friendly fire deaths in Afghanistan since it's military involvment. All reported incidents (assuming there is a possiblity of unreported ones) of which so far as been at the hands of Americans.

Canada might not have been quite as heavily involved in open warfare since the Korean war, but there were actually quite a few Canadian troops involved in Vietnam, and there has been a great deal of Canadian involment in peacekeeping efforts in open warzones since that time.

Germany is another country thats supposed to have a good record, and they've been quite involved. Same with Britan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire has some info on this. THough it seems to be abit hard to find a reliable internet based source for actual hard statistics.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/school/asbc/friend.htm#inter seems to have some information as well.

I'll make another post when I can find some reliable online source with some hard data. I'm sure it's gotta be out there somewhere.

EDIT: Not to mention one that doesnt soley point to US FF statitstics. So far most of the hits are all US on US or US on other countries.

Posted by: Magus Dec 23 2006, 11:23 AM

I resent that remark, I was a member in the Airborne Infantry with the 82nd Airborne Division out of Ft. Bragg. Statistically friendly fire casulties are low. We are trained in visual recognition. That is why most NATO allied forces use the Kevlar helmet. It is distinctly shaped. "If it doesn't look like us, Kill it."

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (Magus)

It's simple fact though, google friendly fire. You'll come up with mostly US FF statistics. I'm not saying this makes it purely all US fault, it's just alot harder to find data on other countries.

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/deaths/historical/deaths01mar04.pdf

Is another source, and if you read through it you can see why. 6 of their FF casualties listed as 'by allied forces' were classifed as simply KIA.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 23 2006, 11:32 AM

It is no wonder most of the reports one can find are related to US troops. The US DoD puts out a hell of a lot of information on absolutely everything, and that data is linked and searched for a lot. Consider also the amount of man-years of US soldiers deployed in hostile areas in the post-WW2 era as compared to those from Canada, Britain, Germany, etc.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 11:48 AM

You'd be fooling yourself if you think Canadians havent had quite a few troops of their own in war torn countries for years. Canada among other countries have a long and noted contribution to peacekeeping efforts.

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Croatia, Balklands, Somalia to name just a few of the more recent and better known areas where Canadian troops have been deployed as combatants or peace keepers.

The US has been involved in a few more, but partially thats due to being a great deal more agressive than a number of other countries. Especially durring the Cold War era. The US and Russia both got involved in a great deal of 'warring' as it were.

It's a good part of the reason why Iraq and Afghanistan are the way they are today. And just take a look some time at alot of so called 'rebel' groups in various 3rd world countries. It's hard these days not to see them carrying just as many new or very rleatively new US made weaponry as weaponry made by other powers (The AK is still very big as well dont get me wrong).

And while the US DoD puts out alot of information, so do quite a few other countries armed forces. Alot of the more recent stuff isnt even infantry on infantry, it's US airforce on infantry. I think a large part of it is because the pilots are overly reliant on all their little toys.

It doesnt help that the communications between the various allied forces is often a complete mess (This isnt USA's fault necessarily either. Bosnia had huge problems just like this and thats mostly because the Bosians and Serbs would say one thing, do another, and then attack each other not even a few hours after a mutually agreed upppon 'ceasefire' etc)

You'd be supprised however, how often I hear from people in Canadian/British armed forces commenting on how when you take away the toys, the US military as a whole often does quite poorly. How much of this is actual fact is realy hard for me to say, but I certainly wouldnt hear it so bloody often if it wasnt at least partially true. And even then it's from a decidedly biased sourse, but your going to get that from 'your own side' no matter what country it is anyway unless there's some sort of major unrest.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 23 2006, 12:31 PM

I can't see how commenting further on this subject would do anybody any good, so I'll let it be. I suggest others do the same, lest this thread becomes one big flame. Anybody who wishes to probe the friendly fire issue further should probably do so at a forum dedicated to such matters.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 12:46 PM

Fair enough. It I suppose, allways will be a horrifically controvertial (not to mention unfortunate) issue.

So then, to get things abit more on topic.

Remote detonated hand greandes.

How hard would this really be to do? I'm thinking something ala Aliens: Reserection. General Gomez(?) or whoe ver it was, pulled one out, rolled it into that escape pod some soldiers were in when an alien followed them in and started slaughtering eveeryone. The 'spoon' was actually a remote detonator, with apaprently a really good range on it too (he detonated it -after- the escape pod in question cleared the ship.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 23 2006, 01:05 PM

Not hard at all. After all, everything is wireless anyways.

You probably still want a mechanical safety pin and some time delay until the grenade is primed.

QUOTE (Magus)

Hm, we used the steel helmet. And in the field, we took camouflage seriously. Especially putting enough shrubs onto the helmet, to break up the distinctive contours...
It really got annoying when you had to change camouflage several times a day (our training area was part forest part heath, and what worked in one didn't work as well in the other).

Posted by: Fortune Dec 23 2006, 01:26 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Dec 23 2006, 11:31 PM)

I can't see how commenting further on this subject would do anybody any good, so I'll let it be. I suggest others do the same, lest this thread becomes one big flame.

I'm glad I read the entire thread before responding, so that I had the chance to see your wise advice. While also deeply offended by more than one of the comments made about the US military (and I'm neither a member of that institution, nor even a yank!), I'll not try to stir things up further, but can't help but post my displeasure on the subject.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (Fortune)

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Dec 23 2006, 11:31 PM)

I can't see how commenting further on this subject would do anybody any good, so I'll let it be. I suggest others do the same, lest this thread becomes one big flame.

I'm glad I read the entire thread before responding, so that I had the chance to see you wise advice. While also deeply offended by more than one of the comments made about the US military (and I'm neither a member of that institution, nor even a yank!), I'll not try to stir things up further, but can't help but post my displeasure on the subject.

@Fortune:
Well, by all means feel free to private message me if you want to discuss/debate the whole thing. One can, afterall only base oppinions based uppon one's knowledge on hand aquired however it may be from what ever ultimate source. And with all things there's very often distortion, real or percieved.

Personally even if I dont necessarily agree with something I still find often enough some of these debates can be quite educational.

@Butterblume:
Hmm, maybe a 'saftey' cover over the detonator button too? I'm debating how to 'properly' portray something like that in a relatively realistic manner. The detonator part as you say is relatively easy on it's own.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 23 2006, 04:20 PM

The chars I created for SR4 for me to play all had an internal commlink (even the mage), so they could detonate the grenades with just a thought.

But yes, a safety feature for the wireless grenade detonater would certainly be useful. It would make the grenade more flexible. Or you could use sensors and use it as a thrown mine.

One idea: pulling the safety pin allows you to extract the remote control, which also starts the countdown to prime the grenade (duration can of course be set beforehand).
The remote control could be shaped like a common lighter. The red button™ is protected by a cap (like some lighters have). You can flip it up with your thumb and get access to the detonator button.

Hm, I hope I explained it good enough, 'Glühwein', a traditional christmas mulled wine, makes thinking hard...

Edit: the War Nerd's newest article has some good bashing of basically everybody: http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html
(just to get everybody into the christmas spirit)

Posted by: Charon Dec 23 2006, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (Kesslan @ Dec 23 2006, 06:21 AM)

Well, of course.

It's just basic probabilities.

I mean, it's not like the Italians or even the French do a lot of bombing in locations where our troops are engaged in a military operation, you know.

The Americans, for better or worse, conduct more military operations of all sort than all the other NATO countries combined. And even more so they conduct the almost totality of all the bombing missions (which accounts for most FF) conducted by a NATO member in any given year.

It's not exactly a surprise that they'll provoke far more friendly fire casualties and other mishaps than everybody else. Few other occidental countries even have opportunities for friendly fire.

I bet if any other NATO country drastically stepped up for any reason the number of bombing runs they do in a year, their friendly fire statistics would be far worse proportionally to those of the Americans during the first two years or so by simple virtue of lacking comparable experience.

QUOTE

Canada might not have been quite as heavily involved in open warfare since the Korean war, but there were actually quite a few Canadian troops involved in Vietnam, and there has been a great deal of Canadian involment in peacekeeping efforts in open warzones since that time.

There were no Canadian troops in Viet-Nam.

There were a fair number of Canadians fighting in the war, but that's not nearly the same thing. Several thousands Canadians went in the US to enlist and fight in Nam. But they did so as US soldiers fighting under the US flag.

The Canadian army was never in Nam. Not during the conflict proper, anyway (Some peace-keeping post 1973). I have no idea why so many Canadians believe that Canada took part in Nam. But they are in good company : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs used to believe it too.

---

Suppression and grenades? Nothing comparable to laying suppressive fire but...

Well, if you are caught in the radius of a normal grenade, you probably aren't going to be able to keep firing at your opponents without missing a beat. Not to mention the brief visibility problems depending what kind of debris/dust/crap the explosion is gonna kick in the air.

Maybe some houserules are in order. Tossing a grenade at a group of enemies as a prelude to moving away from your current position ought to help lower the odds you'll get hit while running in the open, even if most of the enemies manage to soak up the damage. But by the current rules, unless you hurt them enough to cause a -1 penalty, your grenade will have had no appreciable impact on your survival chances during your rush to safety.

Something like creating a certain zone (variable by type of grenade) that guarantees that opponent inside this zone will suffer some firing penaltie sfor at least one IP. Or something like that.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 23 2006, 06:59 PM

Well Charon, the fact that the Canadian war museum (before it moved) use to have a decent sized section about Canadian involment in the Veitnam war might have something to do with that.The Canadian army on it's own as it were, wasnt ever really directly involved. THough yes alot of Canadians signed up with the US army because they wanted to go help, and there was some NATO involvement.

NATO itself is a good reason why, alot of times people say Canada wasnt involved area X even though it was, it was however simply part of NATO rather than purely on it's own. It also didnt help that funding for the canadian military has been total crap for years. (And thus the ultimate reason why canadian military helictopers on at elast two occasionas have litteraly fallen out of the sky)

On the supression thing, there's also the noise, airpressure etc. So it's important to note who near the blast (Hell I'd say the whole room depending on size) has hearing dampeners. Anyone who doesnt is going to have some serious ear rining I'm sure.

might be worth some while to go over the concussive effects of grenades as a whole for determining potential penalties of being in the blast zone (Even if you remain uninjured)

@Butterblume:
That pin/remote detnator thing sorta is how the grenades in Aliens: Ressurection worked. Though I'm not so sure there actually was a pin. There was if I recall a saftey cap though. And assumably the grenade only armed whe the detonator was forcibly pulled from the grenade. The detonator in that case was still shaped in the classic grenade spoon arguably not only to keep the size down but to make the tiny detonator easier to hold onto (I should try to find a screenshot, I know there's a few showing him using the grenade in question)

Posted by: Trax Dec 23 2006, 08:21 PM

I've heard one story of a grenade range where the person actually accidently dropped the damn thing in their coat pocket. With the entire class right nearby in danger the trainer tossed the person over the wall.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 23 2006, 08:31 PM

Now, that's most likely BS.

For one thing, the class is in a safe distance in case something happens, unless someone in charge screwed up.

I don't think its even possible to drop a grenade accidentally in one of your pockets, but I am not sure because other countries might use different clothing .

Edit: on a totally different matter, am I the only one who thinks the canadians are trying to conquer DS? Don't even bother to answer, but think about it.

Posted by: Trax Dec 23 2006, 08:44 PM

Trying? We already have!

Posted by: Aaron Dec 24 2006, 08:35 PM

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest using grenades as suppressive fire. I meant to suggest using the rules for being caught in suppressive fire (which, incidentally, are the same rules for being caught in the use of the Storm critter power) for being caught in a grenade blast.

Posted by: mfb Dec 24 2006, 09:55 PM

QUOTE (Trax @ Dec 23 2006, 03:21 PM)

yeah, that's... i mean, when i trained, we wore kevlar vests, which completely block off access to any pockets above your hips. it could have maybe landed in an ammo pouch on the gear webbing, i guess, but that's really, really unlikely. and the rest of the training group is either lined up in a very grenade-proof shelter, or off somewhere else doing other training.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 26 2006, 04:42 AM

Yeah but what if it was some third world country or something? I mean in WWII russians trained their troops how to use hand grenades with potatoes. I mean that was cause the grenades were 'worth more' than the soldiers.

I really doubt that sort of thing would happen in a 'modern' country. Largely due to the fact that anyone intelligent soon realizes that having recruits screw up like that is a bad thing and can get alot of people killed.

Thus the grenade bunkers etc. And if your really on that much of a shoestring budget that you cant even dig a hole in the ground with a shovel.. then really you should be training them with potatoes.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Dec 26 2006, 02:57 PM

I just want remote detonated sticky grenades.

There's probably nothing funnier on a run than seeing a panicked sec guard running toward his horrified companions screaming, "GET IT OFF! GET IF OFFFFFF!!!"

-karma

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 27 2006, 04:09 AM

Hmm, well the remote detonator part is as has been mentioned rather easy.

Not sure how you'd make it stick after being thrown. You cant exactly just coat the grenade in glue or it will stick to your hand/clothes etc.

I suppose you could arguably just make up some sort of high tech nanoglue thats solid, but is then 'activated' shortly after pulling the pin so that you've got a few seconds to throw the grenade, after which a sort of outer solid shell of nanoglue starts to get melty and will then adhere to what ever surface it lands against.

doesnt really sound like a practical way of doing it though to me. Arguably plausible given jsut how much nanotech there is in 2070 (Afterall there are now nano doomsday weapons galore) but would be really expensive etc and really, I think, not worth it.

Posted by: Aaron Dec 27 2006, 04:20 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Not sure how you'd make it stick after being thrown. You cant exactly just coat the grenade in glue or it will stick to your hand/clothes etc.

Hand grenade + gecko tape = ?

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 27 2006, 05:16 AM

Somewhat possible but geckotape would arguably stick to everything and in either case is generally easily peeled off. If your wanting it to stick to a person i'd definately say you need something better than super velcro

Posted by: djinni Dec 27 2006, 06:36 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

how do you even handle that? 20 grenades going off at once...

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 27 2006, 06:56 AM

QUOTE (djinni)

QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Dec 21 2006, 01:10 PM)

how do you even handle that? 20 grenades going off at once...

I'd probably treat it as supressed fire, just for a MUCH larger area. Likely supress a zone as wide as max scatter + blast radius, anyone passing through that zone runs the risk of taking base grenade type damage.

Posted by: kzt Dec 27 2006, 08:30 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan @ Dec 26 2006, 09:09 PM)

Not sure how you'd make it stick after being thrown. You cant exactly just coat the grenade in glue or it will stick to your hand/clothes etc.

Real world example, the No 74 ST Grenade from WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb

You'll notice that they were not exactly popular due to the nasty habit of sticking to your hand, clothes, etc. You'll also notice that nobody has done it since.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 27 2006, 09:59 AM

Hmm true, and there were the field created sticky bombs using standard GI socks. They show that trick being used in Saving Private Ryan. Though in that case I believe they used tar.

That article though really simply highlights the problem with the idea of a 'sticky grenade' or bomb of any kind really. Since by nature then it could stick to just about anything. Especialy if the adhesive has to be strong enough that it wont slip off things like a moving vehicle or a person running around flailing away in abject terror.

Shadow Warrior the old PC FPS game had so called sticky bombs which were really just hand grenades with spikes in them. Of course while they stuck to anything, realistically they'd only stick to thinks the spikes could actually penetrate. And then there's ones that use magnetic attachment points like limpet mines.

The trick really is to come up with something that would have actual practical application in SR.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 27 2006, 03:22 PM

Given: SR has better batteries than we do.
Have a grenade that can generate a strong EM field for a few seconds. It activates when the grenade arms, which is after the spoon flies and it travels at least 5 meters away from the spoon. (everything's wireless) Of course, it only sticks to ferrous metals.
Alternately, use gecko tape as people suggested. It is enclosed in a casing that is sloughed off in mid-air, after it is thrown. This model only sticks to dry things.
Or, for that matter, use both. It won't stick to a wet man, but it just might stick to his gun or other gear.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Dec 27 2006, 04:59 PM

Well, engineering a grenade with a cover that pops off only after it's been thrown/launched shouldn't be THAT difficult. It seems the issues with the historical version of the sticky grenade stem from having to remove the cover first before throwing it.

One might even design it so one side of the cover can be removed manually allowing it to be used as a limpet mine.

I have to admit I got the idea from a video game - Red Faction. That game had satchel-charge style explosives that stuck to whatever you threw them at - including enemy soldiers, which I found out by accident. I was trying to hit a ledge to blow it out from under a solder, and he at that moment ran forward to shoot at me. It stuck to his chest, whereupon he started running around in a panic yelling for his buddies to help him.

Instead, they started shooting at him, presumably to kill him before he got too close.

I've seen sticky grenades in at last a half dozen games since, though, and I think they might be a nice addition to a runner's arsenal.

-karma

Posted by: mfb Dec 27 2006, 06:01 PM

don't those gecko gloves only stick to things when there's a faint electrical charge running through them, or something? just cover the grenade in that. when it smacks into something, it turns on a short-lived battery that charges the gecko material. et voila--sticky grenade.

Posted by: eidolon Dec 27 2006, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (Aaron)

Heh, that's the thing though. If you're "caught" in a grenade blast, you're toast (or at least not feeling well). So while you're effectively suppressed, the injury and wound rules are better applied here.

Posted by: lorechaser Dec 27 2006, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (KarmaInferno)

Instead, they started shooting at him, presumably to kill him before he got too close.

Pretty impressive AI for a game made in 2001.

My idea for a sticky grenade would be one that has a handle on it. It would take some practice to use (possibly even an exotic throwing skill), but you would essentially hold the handle, swing it overhand, and press a button to release the grenade itself, which is covered in sticky stuffs.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 28 2006, 04:35 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

No, from what I understand Geko tape in SR uses some sort of micro fillament thing to act kinda like velcro.

Then there's that RL test variant that was brought up for discussion little while back. That actually used tiny suction cups or something like that.

Posted by: mfb Dec 28 2006, 08:02 AM

yeah, but don't SR gecko gloves have an on/off setting? i could swear i remember them having an off switch.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 28 2006, 08:46 AM

I dont think so. I'm pretty sure it works the exact same way as the RL prototype version where you just sort of peel your hand/foot/knee off in a certain way to get it to unstick.

I dont have the relevant books with me though or I would look it up.

Posted by: Aaron Dec 28 2006, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (Aaron @ Dec 24 2006, 02:35 PM)

There are injury and wound rules associated with suppressive fire. They come into play when a character is caught in it.

Posted by: mfb Dec 28 2006, 08:21 PM

hm. apparently, i made up the off switch for gecko material. ah, well.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Dec 28 2006, 09:17 PM

An off switch wouldn't make sense, in any case. There's no mechanism or field to turn off or on, it's just millions of synthetic nano-scale hairs. They stick due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force forces.

It's molecular velcro, really. Holds til you peel it off in a specific way.

-karma

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 28 2006, 09:20 PM

Well yeah, but if you could get the hairs to respond to a voltage to either curl up or straighten out then conceivably you could get it to turn on and off.

I'm not saying that you can turn them on and off as they exist in SR or RL, but I'm saying that such a thing might exist, and suggesting a possible mechanism.

Posted by: cx2 Dec 29 2006, 08:15 AM

I could see making "sticky grenades" in terms of mines as being useful, since as far as I know there aren't any rules (at least in 4th ed, no idea about 3rd) for actual mines that attach.

I'm thinking of maybe a half sphere with some sort of cover on the bottom, with a fragile membrane or other substance beneath. Pull the cover off, slam it onto the surface breaking the membrane and exposing the adhesive.

Posted by: Thane36425 Jan 1 2007, 01:01 AM

Grenades are ok for making an enemy duck for a moment, maybe costing or delaying them in an action, but it wouldn't be the same as suppressing fire.

You could use grenades to make someone break from cover. If your enemy was behind a bunch of crates, if you landed a grenade back there, they would probably try to run from the grenade, especially if it was close. If you had suppressing fire or were waiting for them to break cover, you could shoot them. If you dropped them, they could also get hit by the blast.

An old real world trick is to carry a few large rocks with the grenades. Throw a real grenade to get their attention, then later a rock. When they scurried around to get away from the noise of something landing, you shot at the movement. That worked best at night, of course. But going to the surplus store and buying a couple of cheap, inert grenade bodies would have the same effect. It all depends on if the GM allows one time to move after a grenade has landed.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 1 2007, 02:58 AM

Unless on a shoe string budget, one ould always carry more grenades instead of rocks .

Posted by: Thane36425 Jan 1 2007, 02:31 PM

QUOTE (Butterblume)

Unless on a shoe string budget, one ould always carry more grenades instead of rocks

That's true, of course. On the other hand, rocks are free. I suppose that works best if you are playing a merc campaign, like one I played in Western Africa after the team ticked off a corp and needed to fade for a while.

There is another trick though. Different grenades have different fuses. Frags and such have delays and smoke grenades are instantaneous. Remove the detonators from a frag or other grenade and replace it with one from a smoke grenade. When you throw that grenade, leave the pin in, of course. The enemy freaks for a second, but sees the pin is still in the grenade. Natural instict is to throw it back at you. So they pull the pin and as soon as the safety lever is released - bang, right in their hand. Bad for morale that.

Just make sure you mark that particular grenade and that everyone on the team knows about it. Some units would tape a piece of paper over the pull rings on the grenades as a safety feature, to prevent something from snagging and pulling the ring by accident. This thin paper BTW, something that a finger wouldn't have much trouble punching through. Using red paper would work to mark those special grenades. I know this was talked about in real world units, I just don't know if they ever actually used it in practice.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 1 2007, 02:54 PM

Well, first of all, the fuzes of smoke grenades are not often instantaneous -- the ones I've handled had the same length fuze as the frags we had, ie. ~3 seconds, and the US AN-M8 and M18 smoke grenades use the M201A1 fuze with a delay of 1.2 - 2 seconds. Also, the fuzes of most chemical grenades, like the US M201A1 fuze, are incapable of detonating an explosive grenade, since they only ignite the filler -- they do not explode.

Anyway, hand grenades in the Shadowrun era apparently often use electronic fuzes the delays of which can be set prior to throwing.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 18 2007, 05:10 AM

If I were making SR4 hand grenades, making them wireless-capable is a neat idea, but you need to make sure it is hack-proof.

It would be crazy to put black IC in a grenade, but you could build in a mechanical switch that has to be held down to enable the wireless capability. Bring it online, set fuse, take it offline, pull pin, throw.

One thing to consider though, is do grenades really need to be that smart? I think armies would only move to electronic fuses if they were cheaper and more reliable than mechanical fuses.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 05:59 AM

QUOTE (Ed_209a)

If I were making SR4 hand grenades, making them wireless-capable is a neat idea, but you need to make sure it is hack-proof.

No you dont. You dont need a 'conventional' wireless signal. Your thinking the wrong sort of wireless. Alot of people assume just becuase a device is wireless in SR that it also by default then is matrix capable. It's not. WIreless matrix in the world of SR still would work on one or more very specific bandwiths. And there are my friend alot of those.

Ontop of that they still rely on a basic 'language'. All you'd need for a remote detonated grenade to work is for it to simply detonate when it recieved a VERY specific signal. And you can make that signal damn specific. A total freak accident might still set it off WHEN ITS ARMED. But never under any other circumstances. I mean the way that sort of thing would work, if say you made the conventional spoon into the detonator (Ala Aliens Ressurection) is that the grenade isnt armed till you pull the pin and pull that 'spoon' out. At that point the grenade arms in X seconds after you do this. And after that any time it recieves the correct signal it will detonate.

You'd really want to use a good range of radio waves (or if you had some other 'wireless' transmision wavelength or some such to use) so that you dont have your buddy 100 yards away throwing a grenade and setting yorus off before your ready to have your own go off and vice versa. It's not completely fool proof but ti's fool proof enough that short of a critical glitch your at no risk. At the level of a gritcal glitch then.. well at that point 'something goes wrong' and teh grenade detonates prematurely. Maybe it was an errant signal of the proper wavelength and type. Or maybe it was something else.

But just becuase your using a wireless detonator doesnt mean some one can 'hack' it at all. I mean I dont generally accept cyberware as benig hackable at all even though it's wireless enabled as well. Maybe certain components of it are. But there would -have- to be certain hard wired bypasses you'd have to get around first before you could actually control the limb itself via wireless. That doenst mean you couldnt for example screw with say.. the smartlink. But it does mean yo ucouldnt just make the guys arm do what ever you wanted, just because it's broadcasting basic data about itself.

Afterall there's also a big difference between broadcasting wireless information, and recieving. And then even if it's reciving you can put a hardwired limit as to what one can actually do with said wireless commands. And I seriously doubt any intelligent person in 2070 would allow cybernetic limbs to be wirelessly controlled without at least a basic hardwired override in place at all times save when the wireless control is required for some very specfiic purpsoe (Such as diagnostic tests. At that point you just change some jumpers about or something)

Posted by: bait Jan 18 2007, 06:09 AM

Sensor signals aren't matrix enabled, but they can also be hacked. ( Its also rather pricey to add that to an expendable piece of ordnance.)

But heres the other catch to the issue, if the grenade required wireless activation, what happens when its jammed?

Posted by: Aaron Jan 18 2007, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (bait)

That's an easy one. It doesn't activate.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 18 2007, 04:27 PM

I was picturing grenades being wireless just for subscribing to a person's PAN not for remote detonation. In 2070, it is probably cheaper to put in a wireless system than put a manual fuse timer on the grenade. I do strongly believe the final step in arming the grenade will still involve some kind of mechanical action.

Today's grenades are made simple so you can buy lots of them. I don't see that changing in 60 years.

On the other hand, consider the http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/slam.htm. This is essentially a swiss army hand grenade. It is a tool bought in limited numbers for special forces use. I could easily see the stuff you folks are talking about being applied to a future SLAM.

Posted by: deek Jan 18 2007, 09:44 PM

Yeah, I am of the mindset that grenades come standard with wireless access...and that doesn't mean matrix-access. So I am in the same boat there.

So, in my campaign, I think I set a device rating 3 for grenades, so while they can be hacked, you need to be fairly close...the group I run for has used wireless detonation on several occaisions, and in each of those, while the opponents could have hacked in, the situation did not allow the time or awareness to even think about it.

I mean, if the device is running in hidden mode and the grenade is concealed...I think that prevents most hacking right there...now if the opponent had time to assess the situation, sure, hacking into the comm the grenades are subscribed to or spoofing that comms signal, could be done to hack a grenade, but other than that, I don't see hacking grenades as something to worry about.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 18 2007, 09:48 PM

I also would consider grenades to be wireless, but still need a physical trigger to turn them on so that you can't possibly hack someone's grenade on their vest and make it explode.

Now if someone is attempting to hide a grenade somewhere planning to detonate it wirelessly as a trap for you and they take a few seconds setting it up, and you happen to know they're there, then maybe the grenade could be hacked and detonated after the guy armed it but before he finished hiding it.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 18 2007, 09:52 PM

One of my villains constructed a makeshift trap on the fly while running from players. Put three grenades on the door and a camera on the table and run. He instructed his commlink to instantly send a detonation signal to the grenades when the camera recorded a valid metahuman silhouette.

It's no different than if he just tossed an arm grenade behind him, but we're all still playing with AR possibilities.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 18 2007, 09:52 PM

I think we have discussed it before in this thread, you'd really want a mechanical safety on your wireless grenade, and a hardwired minimal fuse time.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 18 2007, 09:55 PM

Absolutely. Anything else would be suicidal.
But even with those there are still going to be occasions where the grenade can be used in inventive ways and/or turned against the owner.

Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 12:04 AM

QUOTE (deek)

I mean, if the device is running in hidden mode and the grenade is concealed...I think that prevents most hacking right there...now if the opponent had time to assess the situation, sure, hacking into the comm the grenades are subscribed to or spoofing that comms signal, could be done to hack a grenade, but other than that, I don't see hacking grenades as something to worry about.

problem: what if an enemy hacker is already in ur commlink hackin ur mans? as soon as you subscribe the grenade (which we will assume involves some kind of physical manipulation of the grenade), he can set the timer to 2 seconds, or 3 minutes, or whatever.

Posted by: cetiah Jan 19 2007, 12:10 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (deek)

And that's not totally awesome?!

In this case, it's really just a matter of who has more initiative, isn't it?

Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 12:13 AM

well, it's cool, but i'm not sure that the liability involved is worth the added coolness. on the other hand, if you suspect your network is hacked, you can just not activate your grenades' wireless functionality.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 07:33 AM

Is it worth a 'coolness' factor? No. But it sure as HELL is worth the 'utility' factor. Wires can be detected, wires can be cut. Wireless can be noticed, wireless can be jammed.

But wireless signals only have to be a very very quick 'burst transmission' and there's so many damn frequencies, that especially in the wireless world not even the most observant hacker is likely to notice it, much less be able to do anything in time.

Also teh whole timer thing. Why is that even an issue? As folk mentioned. Go hardware timer. You set that timer before hand. Or more likely the gernade only HAS a set timer. You cant change it. Unless you mean setting the remote to send the signal at a certani time. But the thing is the sending unit is NOT a reciever. It doenst need that component. So you cant hack it. It's just not possible.

You could alter it if you could get ahold of the actual transmitter. But theres nothing else you can dot to stop it. If you just some how happen to know the very specific frequency, signal and encryption etc that the wireless grenade is looking for as a detonation signal. Then yes. A canny enemy could detonate the grenade on you. But thats a hell of alot of information needed well before hand. And since the grenade itself is a totally passive reciever you cant just 'ping' it and see what its settings are. It wont respond beyond. Ok time to blow up now! Booom!

And for that response you need to know exactly what sort of signal it's waiting for.

Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 07:45 AM

Kesslan, you're not hearing me. i'm talking about a hacker that has already hacked your commlink. he doesn't have to listen for a wireless transmission, he just has to watch your subscription list. as soon as a grenade comes up, he's got you.

in SR, grenades have variable timers. yes, you can set it beforehand--but, again, if you make them wireless, then if you're hacked when you set the grenade, the enemy hacker can make whatever adjustments he wants.

you could make the wireless component not hook into your commlink at all, of course--but in that case, there's nothing to be transmitted. you press some numbers on the grenade itself, pull the pin and drop the spoon, and throw. no communication needed at all.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:16 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

Yeah but where does the comlink ever come into play? It doesnt. Unless of course your wanting to use yoru commlink as the detonator. Which yes I know has been suggested above.

But to me thats stupid for the very reason here. A hacker could potentially be in yoru commlink that very moment. Which makes it terribly easy for him to mess with any 'subscribed' device like a grenade.

Which is why you DONT use a matrix enabled connection at all. You use a totally seperate remote. Thats also why radios still exist in SR. You cant 'hack' a radio. You can jam it, you can with some work, listen in, even crack any encryption on it, and transmit over it. But tahts it. That takes time, and alot of work as well. And when the purpose of that radio communication is purely to send a coded burst singnal that only lasts a faction of a second to a grenade. Then without alot of work ahead of time as I've said in my previous post. Theres damn all you can do to stop or otherwise mess with it.

Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 08:29 AM

we're talking about different things. you're talking about a multipurpose explosive that you can use as a grenade. i'm talking about a grenade with a variable timer that you can set as you pull the pin and throw it, rather than huddling in your foxhole trying to fiddle with the button controls.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:37 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

Well technically your talking about the same thing I am. Just a differnet way of going about it. No fiddling of buttons need really apply. Twist a nob on the grenade to say.. 3 seconds. Pull the pin throw.. wait till it's where you want it jsut about, then hit the button to set it off.

Where as your going it seems mroe like subscribe to comlink. Pull pin, via comlink set timer to 10 seconds. Throw.

I dont think either way is faster than the other in the end. Each has an advantage and a dissadvantage. Your way is faster once the grenade is allready subscribed. Whcih you could do well in advance of course. But then it's at the potential mercy of a hacker.

My way it's not but you -may- have to change the timer right then and there. You'd have some sort of default setting for the grenade. But you may want to change it which means you'd have ot set the nob. Instead of mentally just telling it to go to 10 seconds (free action perhaps?) you'd have to take a simple.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:46 AM

Hmm on the idea of a 'mutli purpose explosive' that can be used as a grenade. Makes me wonder what you could realy do under SR3/SR4 that would still be practical.

Adding in the otpion of a radio/wireless detonator is one thing. Timer is another. Maybe make the explosive a cylindrical grenade with an adhesive bottom. Pull a cap off on the bottom to expose the adhesive which you can then stick to just about anything? And as a cylinder you can still roll it down a hallway at someone or throw it towards them easily enough.

Maybe add in a 'proximity fuse' option. Make the timer a physical dial (my preference at least that way you cant hack it remotely) and just have one setting be 'proximity' which arms after you hit the button on the remote. Ultimately to me the remote should only ever just 'send a signal' Any other options should ultimatley be build right into the grenade itself. At the same time you dont want too many toys on the damn thing becuas ethen it just becomes horribly impractical.