I'm glad I was finally able to spark off some DSII discussion. I've almost
unsubscribed from the list because of the overwhelming FT stuff (which I don't
play), & the distinct lack of DSII messages. I've seen a lot of good ideas for
TDs. How about this for an extention of one of them. Since TDs are mostly a
defensive vehicle, they get a 1 point upgrade to their frontal armor, but a 1
point downgrade to their rear armor. I don't know if this would accurately
reflect historical TD design. From the little I know about US & German WWII
TDs, it probably wouldn't, but it would certainly encourage the player to use
them only in defence & not run them like light tanks.
I don't think that anyone's posted Adam Delafield's rules from Ragnarok yet (I
know someone was going to). His TDs worked as follows:
* TDs must be wheeled or tracked (GEV and Grav float above the ground and thus
don't have a low enough profile.) * The main gun of the TD takes the space of
a turreted gun despite being fixed mount. * No secondary guns may be mounted
in turrets. * No infantry may be carried * The TD gets a free level of stealth
to represent the low profile.
This is fine for the classic design of German TD (or the Swedish S-
Tank). Obviously other things exist that are tank destroyers (missile jeeps,
VTOLs, etc.) but which aren't covered by these rules.
> You wrote:
> I don't think that anyone's posted Adam Delafield's rules from
Hrm... these is the first proposal I've seen that doesn't smack of giving
someone free bennies for 'looking cool'. Methinks I'll add these to my house
rules page, with appropriate credit of course.
In message <E0zEbgz-0003Dx-00@gate.netbenefit.co.uk> "Steve Pugh"
writes:
> I don't think that anyone's posted Adam Delafield's rules from
Thanks, Steve, you saved me the effort.
--
David Brewer
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Hrm. . . these is the first proposal I've seen that doesn't smack of
I don't see how giving an extra level of (effective) stealth for a lower
profile via a turretless design is a "freebie", but I guess you must have
missed that posting.
David Brewer qrote:
> Steve Pugh writes:
> You wrote:
Must have. Of course, I don't have any TDs except for some SU-57s,
which have a turret, it just doesn't rotate. So I'd need to dig up some SFal
TDs to fiddle with it. So I've been kinda skimming these posts. I saw Mr.
Delafield's name and read further 'coz even though I wasn't around back when
he was I've heard a lot about him. I've got
some GEV TDs (Fortress Figs--20 for $10 US. Best deal on decent figs
I've ever found. All they make is GEV APCs and GEV TDs, but if that's what
you're looking for...) but I don't see giving them an initial
level of steath--flying around on a curtain of air doesn't seem too
subtle to me.
> At 08:37 03/09/98 -0700, you wrote:
Nils, I think that rule would reflect German, Soviet and British designs
rather well (although the British would have to have open top as well, the
Germans might be). American TDs IIRC were virtually tanks but were open topped
and mounted a silghtly better gun but it didn't make much of a difference in
combat. (This is from memory so no flames please). The British also used
American TDs and found that it was easier to upgrade the TDs rather than Tanks
to the 17pdr AT gun. Anyway I think your idea reflects most TD designs from
WWII.
> Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
So to create a TD from a MBT based on the German WWII method by using the
combined version is: 1: Design MBT using standard DSII rules. Restrictions:
Wheeled or Tracked only; No secondary turreted weapons, except APSW. No
carried infantry. 2: Hull mounting main gun and increasing main gun size by
one. 3: Increase front armour by one only. 4: Decrease rear armour by one
only. 5: Free one level of stealth or one Signature die type increase.
Notes by step number: 1: The design system is used only for step 1.
2:
3: Better shot deflection, and improved armour plating. 4: Rear armour moved
to front. 5: Low profile design caused by hull mounting gun and TD coolness
factor.
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> what you're looking for. . . ) but I don't see giving them an initial
DSII doesn't give a stealth penalty to GEV/grav *anything* compared to
an
otherwise identical tracked/wheeled vehicle.
But no matter what the justification, the bottom line is that turretless
combat vehicles need something extra to be viable choices. Unless ofcourse you
*want* them to be obsolete crap and have everyone just use turreted vehicles
only.
> You wrote:
> But no matter what the justification, the bottom line is that
Unless ofcourse >you *want* them to be obsolete crap and have everyone just
use turreted >vehicles only.
Remember the only reason they existed was in order to stuff guns that could
kill any tank on the battlefield at long range into an affordable
hull. (ie not as big as a Tiger or JSII) Once 90/100mm guns became
managable enough to stuff into a tank turret, then it became a
non-issue. I can stuff an MDC/4 into a size 3 turreted chassis at an
affordable cost, so why do I need a tank destroyer?
In a message dated 9/7/1998 9:36:56 AM Central Daylight Time,
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com writes:
<<
Remember the only reason they existed was in order to stuff guns that could
kill any tank on the battlefield at long range into an affordable
hull. (ie not as big as a Tiger or JSII) Once 90/100mm guns became
managable enough to stuff into a tank turret, then it became a
non-issue. I can stuff an MDC/4 into a size 3 turreted chassis at an
affordable cost, so why do I need a tank destroyer?
John M. Atkinson >>
Indeed, with the way DS2 rules are written, it doesn't make sense to bother
with casemate guns. However, if one were to remove the "recommendation" to
limit weapon size to vehicle size+1, you could squeeze a hull-mounted
MDC/4
into a size 2 vehicle, thus restoring the viability of non-turreted tank
destroyer concept. In my view, that's the simplest way of doing it. The only
question is whether the weapon size limitation should still apply to
turret-
mounted guns.
> Mike Jasinski <Pmj6@aol.com> wrote:
The
> only question is whether the weapon size limitation should still apply
For the right genre, the ability of maximum Vehicle Size Class +2
for hull mounted main gun size would be appropriate. And, if you design hulls
separately, then install weapons and equipment, much like real life vehicle
manufacturers do, being able to install a VSC+2 weapon as a hull mount
would be an attractive option. So we could have for an appropriate genre, the
limitation that hull
mount weapons have a limit of VSC+2 for main gun size, while turret
mount
weapons have a limit of VSC+1 for main gun size.
This would also lead to the ability of having/allowing size 6 and
size 7 main guns if appropriate for some genres. This would be particularly
appropriate for vehicles have level 6, 7 or 8 armour.
Leading to the following modifications: So to create a TD from a MBT based on
the German WWII method by using the combined version is: 1: Design MBT using
standard DSII rules. Restrictions: Wheeled or Tracked only; No secondary
turreted weapons, except APSW. No carried infantry. 2: Hull mounting main gun
and increasing main gun size by one. 3: Increase front armour by one only. 4:
Decrease rear armour by one only. 5: Free one level of stealth or one
Signature die type increase.
Notes by step number: 1: The design system is used only for step 1. 2: Keep
the same range bands for the main gun. 3: Better shot deflection, and improved
armour plating. 4: Rear armour moved to front. 5: Low profile design caused by
hull mounting gun and TD coolness factor.
Notes: No other detail is altered. Main gun range bands stay the same. If the
main gun size goes over size 5 to size 6, just draw six chits for damage.
Option: Extend main gun range as per next size on main gun chart. If main gun
size exceeds size 5, extend ranges bands linearly.
> On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> Remember the only reason they existed was in order to stuff guns that
Though I could argue for the merits of of turretless TD, the real point is
that IMHO you don't *need* to need a TD. All I ask for is to be able to take
one, *without* getting severely penalized, if I *want* one.
I thought the whole point of DSII was to be able to play with *my* miniatures
in *my* world.
I may be asking too much, but I think "being able to play" includes "being
able to play *at roughly equal footing*", i.e. it excludes "the stuff they put
in to be able to say it's there but no one should really use".
E.g. let's say I want to play out the battles in Hammer's Slammers novel
"The Warrior". The opposing forces include a top-notch merc TD unit. Am
I to believe that those mercs simply made an outmoded, obsolete, useless and
stupid design choice and the high regard given by the Slammers is completely
unfounded?
Let's say I want to build a generic unit based on this fictional example.
In other words: How would it hurt your turreted force that I might field
viable turretless designs?
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
That's why you and your opponents have to agree on a common genre. Which
includes genre specific limitations and genre specific extensions. For
example, DSII GMS as written have no place in a Hammer's Slammers genre. One
Hammer's Slammers genre limitation is: "No GMS". The missiles used in Hammer's
Slammers are instead wireguided, operator controlled units which are easily
destroyed by any tank crew. Powerguns have no place in GZG's Future History
genre either. They are an extension of DSII mechanics to better suit the
Hammer's Slammers genre. One Hammer's Slammers genre extension is: "Powerguns
allowed".
> I may be asking too much, but I think "being able to play" includes
Once the above limitations and extensions are in, I don't think that this will
apply.
> E.g. let's say I want to play out the battles in Hammer's Slammers
The merc's TD unit is not outmoded, not obsolete, not useless and definitely
not a stupid design choice. It is one of the best choices for a defensive
engagement as written by David Drake. Therefore we need to find out the
reasons why it was so and include these reasons in the genre extensions and
limitations. Perhaps the biggest one is that no GMS are allowed. That means
the emphasis falls back on the AT gun to destroy tanks at range. The guns need
to be self propelled to maintain mobility, to avoid being over run and to
protect the crew from artillery bursts. Therefore a hull mounted main gun
seems appropriate. Using an existing MBT hull for commonality of parts sounds
like a good idea. Saves on maintenance costs! Now remove the turret and
install a larger AT power gun. Standard Powerguns used in turreted GEV tanks
only range from size 1 to size 5. So a AT Powergun would probably be larger
and have further range. So there would be AT Powerguns ranging from size 2 to
size 6 (or even 7 perhaps). So we install a next size up power gun in the main
hull. The turret removal lowered the hull silhouette, so now the TD's
signature goes down. Because this is a defensive vehicle, we can move some of
the hull's rear armour and place it on the front. Together with the better
sloping and removal of the turret, the armour level at the front arc goes up
one level.
> In other words: How would it hurt your turreted force that I might
So now we have a TD variant that's harder to hit, harder to kill, and does
more damage when it hits. Does this variant seem like an outmoded,
obsolete, useless, or stupid design choice for a top-notch mercenary
unit?