I've been going over my stash of unpainted lead and I came across some T80s,
M1A1s, Bradleys, and BTRs that I'd purchased aeons ago for a modern armour
game that never materialized. I went through some of my modern armour rules,
and realized that none of them are as fast paced as DS2.
You've probably guessed the purpose of this thread. I've been thinking of Mark
Siefert's future history and I got thinking about current and near future
weapons. For instance, I thought of giving the T80s a size 3 (maybe
four) fast-tracked vehicle with armour 3 and a class 3 HVC with a
chemically fueled engine. M1A1s would be size 4, fast tracked, armour 4 and a
class 4 HVC, with a CFE.
Does anyone have any comments on this? Has anyone used DS2 for conventional
armour games, such as the old Warsaw Pact versus NATO style of game (perhaps
in a Twilight 2000 style alternate history)? How about near-future
games? I think DS2 loses some of the detailed differences between weapon
systems, but that in turn makes it faster paced than similar systems. I'm not
sure there's enough detail in DS2 to use it for WWII (I don't think you'd see
enough of a difference between, say, a T-34, a Panther, and a Sherman),
but I think it would work for modern games.
If no one has done this before, is anyone out there interested in the results?
I have a Russia versus Ukraine scenario in mind (with an observing NATO unit
thrown into the mix). I'd rather do it in DS2 than learn another game system,
like GDW's Combined Arms.
Date sent: 19-NOV-1996 09:06:08
> I've been going over my stash of unpainted lead and I came across some
> You've probably guessed the purpose of this thread. I've been thinking
> Does anyone have any comments on this?
Was it Mike E. that wrote the WW2 conversion for DS2? In it was a few new
types of mobility that may be useful to you. These included Wheeled,
(Half way between a road vehicle and a HM-Wheeled, to be used for Jeeps,
half tracks etc). And Very Slow Tracked. Almost all WW2 armour became slow
tracked (I think it was base move 8", but I couldn't be sure.) I think they
behaved as road wheelers on road and HM off road. Could be used for Land
Rovers etc.
I would then class the above MBTs as slow tracked, and make slower vehicles
Very Slow Tracked.
Just a thought.
A while ago there was a discussion here on the subject of contemporary
vehicles for DS2. Charles Thumann did most of the work, with modifications by
several others. You can find the results on Andy Cowell's web site:
http://www.cd.utk.edu/~cowell/min/ds2/contemporary.html
I wrote an article for Ragnarok (the journal of the SFSFW) on DS2 for WWII. If
folks are interested I'll dig it up and post it (it's not too long). Yes, DS2
works pretty well for both contemporary and WWII. Some of my playtesting was
done with a NATO/Warsaw Pact setup and I have tried the WWII rules in a
game and I was quite pleased with the results.
The reason it works as well as it does is that DS2 is designed to be
"generic". If you think about it, SF forces don't have to be "high tech" with
grav vehicles or better. They could really be any tech level you like
(remember Traveller's tech levels). Have you noticed that there is a cavalry
troop type in DS2? Anybody tried it? If you've read it you might remember the
use of horse drawn transport in Jerry Pornelle's "Falkenberg's Legion". (If
you haven't, then read
it!)
Personally, I don't think DS2 would work for troops of a tech level earlier
than say Earth 19th C. but maybe someone can prove me wrong...
Mike Elliott, GZG
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Conventional DS2?
Author: SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk/ at INTERNET
Date: 19/11/96 11:03
I've been going over my stash of unpainted lead and I came across some T80s,
M1A1s, Bradleys, and BTRs that I'd purchased aeons ago for a modern armour
game that never materialized. I went through some of my modern armour rules,
and realized that none of them are as fast paced as DS2.
You've probably guessed the purpose of this thread. I've been thinking of Mark
Siefert's future history and I got thinking about current and near future
weapons. For instance, I thought of giving the T80s a size 3 (maybe
four) fast-tracked vehicle with armour 3 and a class 3 HVC with a
chemically fueled engine. M1A1s would be size 4, fast tracked, armour 4 and a
class 4 HVC, with a CFE.
Does anyone have any comments on this? Has anyone used DS2 for conventional
armour games, such as the old Warsaw Pact versus NATO style of game (perhaps
in a Twilight 2000 style alternate history)? How about near-future
games? I think DS2 loses some of the detailed differences between weapon
systems, but that in turn makes it faster paced than similar systems. I'm not
sure there's enough detail in DS2 to use it for WWII (I don't think you'd see
enough of a difference between, say, a T-34, a Panther, and a Sherman),
but I think it would work for modern games.
If no one has done this before, is anyone out there interested in the results?
I have a Russia versus Ukraine scenario in mind (with an observing NATO unit
thrown into the mix). I'd rather do it in DS2 than learn another game system,
like GDW's Combined Arms.
> If no one has done this before, is anyone out there interested in the
I'm not sure your concern about the apparent lack of difference
between the WWII tanks will actually /matter/ that much in the context
of a running game. Sure, they'll have very similar stats, but the games I've
played tend to have similar force compositions in any case. DSII should have
no problem with the actual scenario you have in mind, in fact, you might find
that the morale rules in DSII, simple as they are, emulate the tactics you'd
expect to see going on better than some historical wargames.
SNIP
> I'm not sure your concern about the apparent lack of difference
So eg
Type: Sherman T34 model 1942 Panther Tiger 1E
(ie76mm) Size: 3 3 4 5
Armour: 2 3 4 5
Engine: CFE CFE CFE CFE
Mobility: Slow Trk Fast Trk FastTrk V.Slow.Trk
Weapons: HVAC/3 HVAC/3 HVAC/4 HVAC/5
(HVAC/4 in Firefly)
Firecon: Enhanced Basic Superior Superior
That actually looks pretty reasonable, I'd say...
> At 09:11 AM 11/19/96 +0100, you wrote:
When was this? I don't remember seeing it. Any idea where I can get it?
> On 18 Nov 96 at 23:11, Allan Goodall wrote:
> I've been going over my stash of unpainted lead and I came across some
My introduction to DS2 was a game run by Mike at a conference.
Current day equipment models were used, but with the technology "pushed" about
20 years (at a guess). Kit used was US and Soviet.
The extra fun element was that there was a US army Lieutenant Colonel present,
with his son. Son starts playing (using US kit). Dad comes over and starts to
"help" his son. No one thought to tell Dad that the Soviet kit was assumed to
be uprated with better stabilisation etc and was comparable with his kit.
Scratch one combined arms column.
Good game - and a good intro to the system.
> If
Yes,
> DS2
I'd be very keen to see this. It might mean that some dusty WW2 figures might
see the light of day again
Dan
> At 11:25 AM 11/19/96 +0200, you wrote:
Thanks, Mike. I checked and the URL you list is slightly wrong. It should be:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~cowell/min/ds2/contemporary.html
> I wrote an article for Ragnarok (the journal of the SFSFW) on DS2 for
I'd love to see these!
> The reason it works as well as it does is that DS2 is designed to be
Good point. The one thing I forgot, when I said it might not work for WWII, is
that for best results you have to use the full range of classes for the tech
range of your background. For instance, give an M1A2 a class 5 HVC in a
contemporary game. In a game of Martians versus contemporary UN troops, the
M1A2 might have a class 3 HVC versus Martian "hover armour." In this case, I
could see a German "88" as a class 5 HVC, a long US 76mm as class 4, a 50mm AT
as class 3, etc. I can see how this would work.
> Personally, I don't think DS2 would work for troops of a tech level
I'd have to think about this, but you're probably right.
> At 03:54 PM 11/19/96 +0000, you wrote:
I could debate the Panther and Tiger 1E stats. The Tiger had thicker armour
than the Panther, but the Panther's was better sloped and thus was EFFECTIVELY
thicker. Also (if I remember correctly), the Tiger's 88mm gun while larger in
calibre actually had a lower muzzle velocity than the Panther's long 75mm.
However, change Tiger 1E to Tiger 2 and you've probably
got it. I'd give a T34-85 the same stats as the Panther but with Basic
firecon.
And THANK YOU for the Firefly mention! The UK and Canada made good use of what
was considered the best Sherman variant. I heard that politics stopped the US
from adopting the Sherman.
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:06:26 -0500
...
> >So eg
Agreed. 'cept the speed of the Panther ought to be somewhere in between
the T-34 and the Tiger.
SNIP
> I could debate the Panther and Tiger 1E stats. The Tiger had thicker
I agree with your comments re the Tiger and Panther.
Re the Firefly: My late Uncle Donald was a tankie in WW2, in the Lothian and
Border Horse. The Matchbox Firefly includes transfers for that Regt.
All this talk of WW2 DS2 has whetted my appetite! I'm going to have a look at
my Guards Armoured Div. when i get home (supported by Typhoon 1B Aerospace
fighters...)
On a more conventional FT List note, Scotia Micromodels have been advertising
a large range of SF armour lately, along with several types of infantry. Most
vehicles appear to come in 3 flavours, tracked, hover and grav. Scotia at
their best are damn good, so I reckon I'll be ordering some soon.
Cheers, Rob
Date sent: 21-NOV-1996 08:47:42
> On a more conventional FT List note, Scotia Micromodels have been
I was generaly disappointed with most of Scotia's range. I prefer more
futuristic looking tanks (The scotia range that you mention is a set based on
conventional hulls with either an air cushion added round the hull, or flat
plates instead of tracks. They do have new turrets). Scotia also do another
range of SF vehicles labeled 'Imperial' or some such. These are more
futuristic looking grav tanks, and a tracked mobile fortress. Worth a look.
If anyone wants some very futuristic looking grav tanks, try the Dark Star
range. These are microarmour based on Denizens Federation and Phug. The
later model Federation (The Grav ones, not DSF-1, 2 or 3 which are quite
poor) are IMHO quite excellent. The Phug would make excellent 'Alien' Tanks,
wether that be Kra'Vak, Phug, Eldar, little green men or whatever. They are in
scale with Space Marine stile figures, being someewhat larger than standard
microarmour (Or the Future Wars range anyway). Well worth a look.
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Adam Delafield wrote:
I was too. The quality of the figures I've seen ranges from mediocre at best
to downright bad at worst.
> If anyone wants some very futuristic looking grav tanks, try the Dark
I've seen these, but in the states you get 2 Denizen grav tanks per pack, and
they're the same price as the CMD grav tank pack which have 5 grav tanks per
pack, so I didn't pick them up.
> And THANK YOU for the Firefly mention! The UK and Canada made good use
The Firefly didn't have a HE round and was thus limited severely in its use
against soft targets and infantry. Perhaps that was one of the reasons the
Americans didn't want it.
Dan
> On 21 Nov 96 at 9:44, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> > And THANK YOU for the Firefly mention! The UK and Canada made good
Don't forget that the British had long used a close support variant in the
Squadron HQ (105mm howitzer IIRC) to provide the HE support. Also, at 1
Firefly in 4 tanks ost of the time the other 3 could look after the infantry
while the Firefly looked after the enemy tanks.
It all appears to come down to a matter of choice - specialisation or
generalisation, but I suspect that another reason may have been the spuuly of
17dr guns and munitions. To introduce these into US production would have been
a major change, whereas the long 75 & 76mm guns were a much smaller change.
> Nick Meredith wrote:
> It all appears to come down to a matter of choice - specialisation or
I'll have to check on monday, but I'm pretty sure the artillery part of
my EOD training featured a 17pdr HE-T round. The T(racer) shows that it
is designed to be used with guns who have a line of sight to the target,
they're no use in artillery weapons. I'm not sure about 17pdr weapon platforms
in use at the time, but it seems a HE round did exist.
> Ludo Toen wrote:
I have a _vague_ memory of reading that on the Sherman Firefly,
ammunition stowage was short (they removed the hull machine gunner and
moved the radio to a welded-on turret bustle) so they loaded pretty much
all armour piercing given they were 1 Firefly to 3 Regular Shermans in a
Troop. The others did the HE jobs, the Firefly punctured Panthers and Tigers.
> > production would have been a major change, whereas the long 75 &
The 77mmL60 (17pdr) did have a HE round, IIRC the firefly didn't carry it.
Dan