Comments on Harmonization DS2/SG2 in reply to Tom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Tom,

1) I made the statement about DS2 being more deadly than SG2 mainly from my
experience. In DS2 vs vehicles, you usually get one of 3 results (Destroyed,
Damaged, or Uneffected). Against Infantry, you get one of 2 results (Dead or
Under Fire). In SG2, suppression (not killing) from range seems the rule. Then
as the enemy is suppressed, you advance units into killing range. Stargrunt is
just as bloody, but it takes longer to accomplish the killing. Thus the
statement. On the other hand, vehicles die much more quickly in SG2 than in
DS2.

2) I will accept Oerjan's wisdom on this. I was trying to find the
correct niche for GMS/P. I was trying to find that center location of
justification. There needs to be reasons to:
 1 - Field a team with IVARs.
 2 - Field a team with GMS/Ps.
 3 - Field a team with a GMS/L.
In DS2 IVARs have a niche because they are uneffected by ECM/PDS.
So now it would be down to GMS/P and GMS/L. Is the range difference
sufficient to make it a toss-up in value of taking a special weapons
team of GMS/L instead of just an element with a GMS/P? This was where
I was trying to find that middle ground. In most of the suggestions
that I have seen, it is much more effecient to take a team with GMS/P
than a heavy weapons team with GMS/L. They need to be balanced.
After looking at it again, I would agree to a range of 24" and a draw of 2
chits. But would make it use missile counters as in SG2 (cost would be per
missile counter).
A GMS/L team only has close range (close assault) weapons for
fighting infantry. A GMS/P team would have normal weapons, but
limited firing agianst vehicles. GMS/P would do the same damage as an
IVAR, have longer range, but would be subject to ECM/PDS, and have
limited shots vs vehicles.

3) I had forgotten about that use. With that effect, I would suggest
that they be somewhat expensive and/or have limited range. Remember a
SG2 board is only about 6"x10" on a DS2 table. Otherwise every unit on your
side has a limited use ECM (worth quite a lot of points). Perhaps it should be
like ADS and have a range of 12"? I would also
suggest that the EW team/vehcile would have to have LOS to both the
protected vehicle and the launching vehicle/team (otherwise there
would not be time to use the EW on the missile -- if you only see the
missle 10' from the target, it is too late to start fiddleing with the EW
equipment).

Thank you for your well reasoned response.

- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust
Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Thomas
Barclay
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:06 PM
To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Comments on Harmonization DS2/SG2 in reply to Brian

Brian,

You make some points I agree with, others I'd have to question.

1) You indicated DS2 is much more deadly than SG2. How so? I have seen plenty
of SG2 squads smashed by enemy fire and vehicles in SG2 seem to be fire
magnets. Is this reflective of some aspect of the rules you believe makes
DS2 more lethal or personal on-table experience
(which may have something to do with how one plays the game in question moreso
than the rules themselves)?

2) You mentioned GMS/P isn't as strong as
GMS/L. I tried that on Oerjan recently and he
tells me the warheads (in our world) are identical, the differences lie in
propulsion and sighting. To me, this argues for a stronger
impact (ie the same as GMS/L) but poorer range
and perhaps poorer guidance dice (D4/D6/D8
instead?). This isn't what the game says now I realize, but Oerjan is an SME
in this area (at least insofar as near future tech goes). I was going to
suggest perhaps 12" range and draw 2
chits for GMS/P. That's still better than an IAVR
but less than GMS/L.

3) You mentioned that without command activation, the only purpose for EW
would be to block artillery calls. In the games of SG I've played, the MOST
frequent single use of EW
(not counting counter-EW warfare) has been to
block GMS shots against vehicles. In one game where EW was present fairly
heavily, there were
a total of 27 GMS/P launches, of which 3 hit
(some just missed, but many were jammed by EW). This is a rather key use. I'm
looking at porting the SG2 rules and will post a version once I do so.

When you combine EW, ECM, PDS, and Armour, many vehicles will be fairly
resistant to GMS attacks. But that's fine, given that you pay the point costs
for EW, ECM, PDS and armour. The only trouble comes in that in SG2, an
infantry EW soldier can use his EW to jam GMS shots at a nearby vehicle. In
DS2, this translates to a low point cost unit protecting (quite effectively
perhaps) a higher point cost unit. Talk about combined arms....

On a related note, the vulnerability of vehicles in SG2 due to lack of PDS and
ADS can make them rather short lived. I think something you spend a few
million NAC pounds on would be something you'd want to be quite resilient to
enemy fire.... so I've got rules for vehiclular self defence charges. PDS and
ADS I should probably add.

Thanks for the input guys.:)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOvmtLdOVrCdNYgyBEQIfGgCfVVXD8xDdIUIWNHKr4yfWy51rOaEAoKfD
c67pgILE5tyPoB3bAZyaJcHp =1x28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----