Conversions (Stargrunt)

12 posts ยท Jun 13 1997 to Jun 18 1997

From: Alfredo Lorente <alfredo@b...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 05:41:51 -0400

Subject: Conversions (Stargrunt)

Hello again!

As I was saying earlier, I started working on converting the Huge Robots (tm)
into Stargrunt Vehicles and immediately found a problem. Here's the situation:

The Excalibur has two huge cannons for arms, two sets of 22 or 24 missiles
each on its torso, a weapon pod underneath each missile rack (SAW, Grenade
Launcher and flamer), and a six missile rack on its
right shoulder.  I figured the robot would therefore have two GMS/L
(4), one GMS/H (4), six Infantry Support Weapons (5 points, since the
first one is free), and two DFFG (15 each, since they can move around as is in
a turret). That adds up to 43 points, which is 18 points over the maximum. If
I assume the DFFG are fixed mounts and it is the ARMS that move, the rating
goes down to 33. To make the numbers match I have to reduce the DFFG's to 3
and assume they are in a fixed mount. Some people might think the torso is a
turret, tho', and I kinda guess you'd plop the biggest gun available on such a
monster, not some middle of the road affair...

Am I obsessing?  If I showed up at your place with my set-up, would
you accept it as valid, even though the math is totally screwed up? Any home
rules on how to deal with Combat Walkers?

(To keep the message short, the same problems arise with the Raidar X
- two Laser Cannons on each arm, plus two missile packs on the
shoulders - the math doesn't match the model...)

From: Alfredo Lorente <alfredo@b...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:22:31 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

After much snippage (mostly of my schizophrenic ramblings) we get to Alexander
Williams insightful comments:

> You're overkilling. Check the DSII construction rules for walker

Here we go!  I don't own Dirtside - I ordered a copy, as well as MT,
but DS got misplaced after arriving at the shop, and MT is out of
stock/print...

More snipping...

> Given this layout (and Andy's handy online design system), we end up

Other than the shoddy formating (which is my mail program's fault), THANKS!! I
should've looked for some online package, as you did....

> Given similar design specs, try this:

(More snipping here)

The values given for cost - nonesuch are available in Stargrunt.  Not
to open _that_ can of worms again but isn't that akin to a point
system? Admitedly, I have no experience with DS II (see above), but what else
could that value represent?

From: Alex Williams <thantos@d...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:54:35 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Alfredo Lorente wrote:

You're overkilling. Check the DSII construction rules for walker vehicles;
they take Fixed Forward weapon space cost and get partial rotate (front 180o)
for free. That said, you're interpreting the design
/too/ literally to construct it properly.

The Excalibur, taken as a SIZE 5 vehicle, has 25 spaces (and a signature of a
SIZE 6). I'd give it ARMOUR of 3, since Destroids blow up so
crunchy-like.  The cannons don't really qualify as DFFGs, I'd give it
gang-mounted HKP/4s (in the arms) with ENHANCED FC.  The rate of missile
fire it lays down doesn't really qualify it for multiple missile launchers
(since a single GMS shot could very well represent an entire volly from either
of the missile racks (indistinguishable because
DSII/SGII doesn't have individually targetable weapon systems for
damage), so would just give it a single GMS/H instead.  The multiple
pods are probably worth 2x APSW mounts, reasonably cheap.

Given this layout (and Andy's handy online design system), we end up with:

Excalibur

Equipment Item				   VSP : BVP	 Spaces   Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 5			    25 :  0	     25     25
Armor class 3				    25 : 40	     25     40
Fusion Generation Plant 		    25 : 40	     25     64
Combat Walker				    25 : 40	     25    104
2 class 4 HKP's in Fixed mount		    25 : 40	      9    184
   with Enhanced fire control		    25 : 40	      9    200
1 GMS/H with Basic guidance                 25 : 40           5    230
2 APSW's				    25 : 40	      4    234

... which would seem to mirror things a bit more /and/ fit inside the
rules without so much stretching.

> Am I obsessing? If I showed up at your place with my set-up, would

Don't need them, see above.

> (To keep the message short, the same problems arise with the Raidar X

Given similar design specs, try this:

Raidar-X

Equipment Item				   VSP : BVP	 Spaces   Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 5			    25 :  0	     25     25
Armor class 3				    25 : 40	     25     40
Fusion Generation Plant 		    25 : 40	     25     64
Combat Walker				    25 : 40	     25    104
2 class 4 HEL's in Fixed mount		    25 : 40	      9    200
   with Enhanced fire control		    25 : 40	      9    216
2 GMS/L's with Basic guidance               25 : 40           5    256
Local air defence			    25 : 40	      3    331

I gave it LAD to represent its air-defence capabilities and twin-GMS's
to represent the somewhat greater reliance on missile attacks that the
Raidar-X has as a backup weapon; if you use house rules on missiles
engaging airborne targets, its a frightening powerhouse for air-defense
and is a danger at long-range to any vehicular targets it can spot.  Its
horribly huge signature is a nasty drawback, though.  It has /no/ APSW,
notice; you'll want to deploy it with organic infantry or anti-infy
support.

From: Alfredo Lorente <alfredo@b...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:17:38 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Quite alright; one day I'll get around to writing my Python

Errr, pardon my ignorance, but what would your "Python constructor" be? I have
this horrible fear of seeing some infantry chucking holy hand grenades at the
rushing armored columns...

> > The values given for cost - nonesuch are available in Stargrunt.
Not
> > to open _that_ can of worms again but isn't that akin to a point

Ahhh... Time for me to follow suit...

> > P.S. - Have you done conversions for the other Battloids? The

Well, if you insist...

The Spartan has some 20 or so missiles on two pods (no arms, just the two
pods). Other than that, there is a reference to a mini missile cluster, but I
usually just ignore that.

You might think I'm taking advantage of you now, but since I don't have DS,
I'm going to ask you if you have or could develop the Aliens Drop Ship. It has
two sets of twelve rockets each on the unfolding wings, plus two pods of
missiles on its body, and a pulse cannon on its nose. All are fixed forward
mounts. If I remember correctly, it
can plop the APC, so that would probably be a/the wrench for this
model... Aren't most aircraft size 3. That's according to SG...

Thanks a lot, again.

From: Andy Cowell <andy@c...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:12:26 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

In message <199706132018.PAA11473@bitstream.net>, "Alfredo Lorente" writes:
> > Given this layout (and Andy's handy online design system), we end up

From: Alex Williams <thantos@d...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 18:19:18 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Alfredo Lorente wrote:

Quite alright; one day I'll get around to writing my Python constructor, but
until then Andy's online version lets me do whatever I need to, though it no
longer does oversized units.

> The values given for cost - nonesuch are available in Stargrunt. Not

It /is/ a point system, in fact.  Personally, I ignore it, mostly.

> P.S. - Have you done conversions for the other Battloids? The

Remind me of what the Spartan has on it and I can put it together in the 5min
or so it takes to fill out Andy's page, just like the two I just
did.  :)

From: Alex Williams <thantos@d...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 18:20:19 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Andy Cowell wrote:

Use it all the time, actually, but wish I could build oversized units
with it again and that there were provisions for cybertanks/modular
units.:)

From: Alex Williams <thantos@d...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:13:03 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Alfredo Lorente wrote:

It would be a DirtSide II vehicle constructor written in Python (which was, in
fact, named after the comedy troupe).

> The Spartan has some 20 or so missiles on two pods (no arms, just the

Ah, I remember that... One sec.

Spartan:

Equipment Item				   VSP : BVP	 Spaces   Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 5			    25 :  0	     25     25
Armor class 3, Reactive 		    25 : 43	     25     43
Fusion Generation Plant 		    25 : 43	     25     69
Combat Walker				    25 : 43	     25    112
4 GMS/H's with Superior guidance            25 : 43           9    352
1 APSW					    25 : 43	      9    352
Enhanced ECM				    25 : 43	      9    382
Local air defence			    25 : 43	      7    457

I gave it extremely heavy hitting missile power; you hit a target with those
bad boys and its hosed. Dropped it an APSW to represent an
anti-personel short-range system of missiles and LAD, as in the
Raidar-X, to represent the anti-aircraft role.  If you wanted to focus
on the arty-nature of the design, it could be re-designed that way, too.

> You might think I'm taking advantage of you now, but since I don't

Let me see...

Alien's Dropship

Equipment Item				   VSP : BVP	 Spaces   Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 4			    20 :  0	     20     20
Armor class 2, Reactive 		    20 : 30	     20     30
Fusion Generation Plant 		    20 : 30	     20     48
Aerospace vehicle			    20 : 30	     20    348
2 class 2 SLAM's in Fixed mount 	    20 : 30	     12    396
   with Enhanced fire control		    20 : 30	     12    404
1 GMS/L with Basic guidance                 20 : 30          10    424
1 class 1 RFAC in Fixed mount		    20 : 30	      8    429
Superior ECM				    20 : 30	      8    474
Level 1 stealth 			    20 : 30	      8    554

The big things to note are the Superior ECM and Reactive armour, making it
great at avoiding missile damage, and the 1 Stealth, because it looks nicely
sloped. Depending on how you decide if something's large enough to carry
another vehicle, the 8 space might be enough left.

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 07:17:40 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Alfredo Lorente wrote:

> right shoulder. I figured the robot would therefore have two GMS/L

I'd use SLAM packs, they're more robotechy/Macross in flavor.

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 15:58:45 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Alexander Williams wrote:

> Alien's Dropship

I thought Slams were in size 3-5 only. [flip flip flip] Yep, page 9 of
the weapon descriptions, "SLAM packages are available in size classes 3 to
5,..."

Going on the premis of the Drop Ship was designed to insert the troop carrier,
I thought I'd design that first.

Colonial Space Marine Wheeled APC

Size 2 High Mobility Wheeled HMT Power Plant Armour 2 Reactive One Line Squad
Basic ECM Enhanced Fire Con 1 APSW 1 DFFG class 2 Trt

Cost 80 Points

Colonial Marines Drop Ship

Size 5 Aero Space FGP Powered 3 Armour 1 Size 2 Vehicle 1 Level of Stealth Sup
ECM Enh Fire Con SLAM 3
GMS/L Sup
APSW x2

Cost 701 points

Now the Drop Ship from Aliens looked to have some pretty heavy weaponry, but
we can't add any more weapons with out making it an oversize 6. Remember that
carrying a vehicle is the size class x 8. So getting a size 3 vehicle would
take 24 VSP. The largest thing we can possible carry is a size 4 and thats
with a size 7 Aerospace. Basically a flying Box Car with 3 vsp for defensive
systems. Larger vehicles require special landers that don't go near combat
zones.

I've been toying with the Idea of a group of VTOLS that can carry up to size 3
or 4 vehicles. This would really amount to sling loads, much like
the MI-6. By moderating the size of the cargo I could concievably use it
for long range fire support. I just tend to think one would be hobbling
oneself by using aerospace craft as transport.

The modeling side of this could be rather nice though...Find a good sized VTOL
craft and make it look more futuristic, then angle the base pin so it wasn't
directly under the VTOL. Build a little platform off of the pin that would
support your "sling loads" and presto. You can show and
air-mobile unit in transist. On a big table this would make a great way
to get behind ones opponent. What to use for the Aerospace craft
though....?
Small scale C-141's??

Getting near a ADA unit would get really expensive though. SEAD Aerospace
craft would be very necessary. Hmm, Maybe I need to build rules for Beam rider
missiles (ie Anti Radiation). Make him turn off his ADA sensors.

Of course if one wanted to interface land your armour, just use the interface
landing rules. Its cheaper...that way.

From: Phillip E. Pournelle <pepourne@n...>

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:14:23 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

> Andy Cowell wrote:

I like to use it as well. However, I too would like to use oversized vehicles.
I would also like to print the nice format vehicle sheets for the vehicles
that are archived... Phil P.

From: Andy Cowell <andy@c...>

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:19:39 -0400

Subject: Re: Conversions (Stargrunt)

In message
<Pine.GSO.3.95.970614151755.21758A-100000@larry.cc.emory.edu>, Ryan
> Montieth Gill writes:

Doh! Well, that's fixed now on the web page now, thanks.