Ryan's comments were based on DS2 vehicle design. I believe your design is SG2
legal, though I could be mistaken. There is no difference (save terrain
effects) for mobility types in SG2. In DS2, vehicles move differing distances
based on the mobility type (as well as having different terrain effects by mob
type).
And as for the "too many weapons" comment, that is a legal comment from DS2
but that particular rule is a blatant crock (IMO). Try building a jeep with a
quad.50 mount. This can be done in real life, but is waaaay illegal under DS2
rules. 4 APSWs on a size one vehicle? Not possible, apparently. So this rule
is frequently ignored.
Is this a vehicle you plan to produce in 25mm?
:)
Tomb.
> At 3:15 PM -0400 7/7/01, Thomas Barclay wrote:
The DS2 system is a more complex form of what is in SG right? SG omits vehicle
movement rules since one isn't able to move faster than 12" per turn with a
vehicle.
> And as for the "too many weapons" comment,
If folks are willing to toss that out then I am as well.
> building a jeep with a quad .50 mount. This can
Perhaps you mean something larger like a M2 Half Track with the Quad 50 mount?
A jeep with for M2HBs would be pretty heavy.
Though the Ontos with 6 105mm RRs would also violate the rule I guess. I
sometimes break it with some vehicles anyhow I think. Mostly in augmentations
of additional SAWs and MMGs like on the Merkava: a 120mm main gun, a 60mm
mortar, a Coax MG in 7.62, an external Coax.50 MG, a TC's 7.62MG and a
Loader's 7.62MG, 6 weapons on an ostensibly size 3 or size 4 tank.
I'm somewhat
> Ryan wrote:
I sometimes break it with some vehicles anyhow I think. Mostly in
augmentations of additional SAWs and MMGs like on the Merkava: a 120mm main
gun, a 60mm mortar, a Coax MG in 7.62, an external Coax.50 MG, a TC's 7.62MG
and a Loader's 7.62MG, 6 weapons on an ostensibly size 3 or size 4 tank.
In my designs, I assume that modern battle tanks are around size six or seven.
That's because I have M113 at Size 2, Bradley at Size 3 and M60 at around size
5. For the 120mm gun, I assume it's around size 6. 105 = Size 5, 90 = size 4,
75 = size 3. For the 140mm gun, I assume it's around size
7.
YMMV.
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> In my designs, I assume that modern battle tanks are around size six or
...with quite heavy stealth on the MBTs, then? After all, it's usually easier
to hide an M1 than it is to hide a Bradley.
Later,
Whoohooo!!!
So I can get a Size 3 vehicle with 5 MDC/2s (14cap) and 2 APSWs (1cap)?
Allright!
I think that the weapon number limited to vehicle size is a good rule. Perhaps
APSWs and Fragmentation Belts should not count toward the max weapons numbers
(but still cost capacity points)? Still, it would be
annoying to see a size-3 IFV with 16 APSWs.
Unfortunatly, I think that Jon will have to do a complete revamp on DS2
vehicle design for DS3 or BDS as it clearly has multiple problems (Power
Plants do not take different capacities, Different mobility options are not
balanced [some take more advanced power plants, but this fails to balance the
mobility types], Armor takes no capacity, so there if VERY little reason to
take less than max armor, Open Top has NO advantages (not even cost), GMS
takes too little capacity for the damage they inflict, etc.). Also there needs
to be consolidation on construction between DS and SG (drones, SLAM,
etc.).
-----
Brian Bell
Yes I do. But this is just my opinion.
I would imagine in the error of HELLs, DFFGs, and MDCs, something as slow as a
missile would decline in value. Built in PDS should be able to handle most
missiles unless the missiles have a lot of stealth/ECM in them. Adding
such should take up space that would have been used for payload. Also
increases in armor technology should lessen the effect of the payload (either
decreasing damage or increasing the missile size). But all of this is just my
view, your vision may be closer to today's vision.
But when talking about balancing factors, they should be equalized. Balancing
factors in DS2 design are capacity points and cost. Cost differences would
have to be greatly exagerated to provide the correct balance.
Lets take a closer look.
Advantages of GMS Dosen't need a turret
Base capacity (non-turret) is much lower than direct fire weapon with
the same damage potential. Attacks Top armor (I could be wrong on this)
Uneffected by Stealth Uneffected by target size
Disadvantages ECM can spoof PDS can spoof Reactive armor
To me a GMS has quite a number more advantages than disadvantages (both in
effect and quanity).
Not needing a turret and having a reduced capacity cost combine to make it
VERY far off. System Capacity Fixed Capacity Turret
GMS/L - 2
Direct Fire/3 6 9
GMS/H - 3
Direct Fire/5 10 15
So now you have to ask if having to defeat PDS/ECM is enough of a
disadvantage to provide only having to pay 0.2 capacity and ignore Stealth and
Target size?
To me defeating either ECM or PDS is equivilent to the effect of stealth or
small vehicle size. So the GMS still has an 5x advanage in
damage-to-capacity points.
Sorry one additional comment. I was also considering that the fact that the
GMS may have to face reactive armor offsetting the fact that it rolls the same
to hit dice over its entire range equivilent to the fact that a HEL may have
to face ablative armor offsetting the fact that it rolles the same to hit dice
over its entire range.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:07:25 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
Wait a minute,
Running totals -
Turret: #1, 6 (3x2); #2 10, (6+(2x2)); #3 14 (10+(2x2); plus 2 APSW's
(1)
- 5 MDC/2's in a single turret on a size 3 vehicle costs 22 capacity.
Fixed: #1 (4 (2x2); #2 8 (4 + 2x2); #3 12 (8 + 2x2); #4 16 (12 + (2 x 2)
...
> Allright!
Obviously a house rule is at work here.
> I think that the weapon number limited to vehicle size is a good rule.
I can accept that easily. But then it pushes the multiple APSW design forward
as an acceptable alternative.
Still, it would be
> annoying to see a size-3 IFV with 16 APSWs.
A dedicated Infantry support Tank? A future 'retro' vision of WW1
appropriate for specialized use. Easily (?) stopped by infantry GMS/L
team(s) combined with Size 2 or maybe even size 1 tankettes with 'real'
guns.<grin>
> Unfortunately, I think that Jon will have to do a complete revamp on
Would like 'advanced' engines to take less or more capacity? I can see
arguments for both based on the dreaded 'multiple tech' rules in games like
Traveller...
Different mobility options
> are not
How so? I would like to hear specific examples or thoughts, please. What do
you mean by "...balance the mobility types..."?
Armor takes no capacity, so there if VERY little
> reason
Well, based on how you view armor, this first is true, perhaps, and perhaps,
in game terms there should be a benefit to open tops, but what 'real world'
advantage is there to open top vehicles? Why are there apparently so few of
them? But then why do real troops prefer frequently to ride on top of the APC?
I would like to see some cost or (maybe) speed advantage for taking less then
max armor myself but how to express it in game terms?
GMS
> takes too little capacity for the damage they inflict, etc.).
Sorry, I don't think so, in fact I think they are less effective. But that is
as it should be perhaps, for game balance?
Also
> there
Well, I guess if it was your intent to play a linked game between SG2, DS2,
and FT components then in that particular case, sure it would help (maybe) to
have consistently matching pieces. But how many people play all three in a
linked format?
'As a 'statistic of 1', I prefer DS2 for my SF games, with FT lagging in third
place (behind Starguard) and SG2 is not in my rules drawer at all.
I don't count OOP rules that never really reached mainstream (like Stellar
Conflicts and Uprisings) or are "Goldy, Oldy, Moldies" (Ratner's
Space Marines - the ultimate detail driven SF skirmish rules perhaps) in
this listing. Just what I can get others to play.
But does the granularity of the three games lend itself to linkage?
Consistency is a great goal but linkage takes that goal another step (and a
power of complication) farther.
But then if I had a decent set of rules for Fantasy, SF would be just edging
out Fantasy in second place behind Historicals as a genre. I get the most
response to my games at the local historicals group and the local hobby shop
with Matchlocks on the Warpath! Go figure.
Besides, I am converting most stuff from 25mm to 6mm ("God's Own Scale" as one
person put it) for battle games (25mm still is "King of the Skirmish Game" to
me) so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
> -----
> Andy Cowell wrote:
> > GMS takes too little capacity for the damage they inflict
Guided missiles today get *one* shot in a relatively small package, but any
reloads eat up internal volume pretty fast.
DS2 GMSs get an *unlimited* number of shots in a small package.
Regards,
Size 3 vehicle: 15 capacity points 1st weapon in turret size x 3 additional
weaons in turret size x 2 APSWs take 1 capacity point <total as they are
pentile mounted and remote controlled>.
Turreted: #1, 6 (2x3), each additional is 4 (2x2). So 6+4+4 = 14. My
mistake
3 MDC/2s in a size 3 vehicle + 2 APSWs.
Or
7 size-1 weapon in a size-3 vehicle.
Turreted: #1, 3 (1x3), each additional is 2 (1x2). So 3+2+2+2+2+2+2 +
free APSW
Mobility Types: Some of the given mobility types do not provide enough of a
cost savings to make them worth taking. IMHO, the cost difference between slow
and fast tracked or fast tracked and wheeled, is not enough to have me take
either slow tracked or wheeled. If fast tracked took more space (in and of
itself or through having to use a better power plant that took extra space), I
might have to reconsider. Or if the cost difference was greater. At the curret
values, there is very little incentive not to take fast tracked over wheeled
or slow tracked.
I agree about top armor, except that there should be a point cost reduction to
reflect the lowered game value.
Since armor cost is linear, there is no reason not to take max armor. Right
now VSP cost about 1/10-1/20 (eyball estimate) the cost of the vehicle.
Armor cost 20% of that per level, so is a VERY small fraction of the vehicle
cost. If it had a greater cost per level (such as VSP * armor level -or-
VSP * armor level * vehicle size [not proposals, just an example]) it would
provide a reason to have less than max armor.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> Different mobility options
[snip]
> Gracias,
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 15:15:09 -0400
From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca>
Subject: David's vehicle design
Ryan's comments were based on DS2 vehicle design. I believe your design is SG2
legal, though I could be mistaken. There is no difference (save terrain
effects) for mobility types in SG2. In DS2, vehicles move differing distances
based on the mobility type (as well as having different terrain effects by mob
type).
And as for the "too many weapons" comment, that is a legal comment from DS2
but that particular rule is a blatant crock (IMO). Try building a jeep with a
quad.50 mount. This can be done in real life, but is waaaay illegal under DS2
rules. 4 APSWs on a size one vehicle? Not possible, apparently. So this rule
is frequently ignored.
Tomb.
Thank you Mr.Tom. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't make allowance for the
"free APSW" because I didn't put it on the vehicle. Hence 3 weapons. (snip) Is
this a vehicle you plan to produce in 25mm?:)
"Oh yes Mr.Barclay. That and so much more! If only you could see into
my head. Such wondrous vehicles with ............" sorry. no coffee
yet. D'OH!
> At 12:15 PM +1200 7/8/01, Andrew Martin wrote:
Wow, that's a bit large I think. I've always looked at the MBTs as size 3 and
4.
If a 120mm gun is a size 6 how do you scale larger artillery like Heavy
artillery that is size 6 and 203mm or Med artillery that is Size 4 and 155mm?
Given that a 2.5 ton truck or even a HEMTT is just as large as an MBT
(dimension wise..) I think your scales are a bit off.
Overall volume wise a Bradly isn't that much different than an Abrams. The
Abrams is longer and lower but the Bradley is pretty damn tall.
Abrams 26' long 7' 9" tall. [size 3] Bradley 21' long 9' 9" tall [size 3] M60
22' long 10' tall [Size 3, HKP4, 2 MGs, that's 13 capacity points]
And a Bradly is a 1 shorter than an M60 in length and height.
Other numbers for comparison.
M113 16' x 8'[size 2 given it has a HMG + 11 passenger spots, 8
capacity points]
LAV (8x8) 21' 8' 10" [size 3-4]
8x8 HEMTT 33' Long [size 3-4]
US M35/44 2.5 Ton (the Deuce and a Half) 22' long [size 2-3]
US AAV7 25.5' long 10.5' tall [size 4, 3crew + 25 men, plus a HMG/GL
cupola]
All of these are in the size 3-4 class imo (except the M113 which is
stubby).
An Abrams would work out to be a size 4 I think. Size 5 is getting into the
MAUS size of tank. 6 and 7 are just massive objects like those big open pit
mining trucks.
> At 8:21 AM -0500 7/9/01, Andy Cowell wrote:
I don't think it's off at all. I'd like to see an even heavier weapon used
from aircraft. Nothing on the ground should be able to withstand a Maverick
being launched. I figure that something in the Hellfire
range is a GMS/H and a Maverick is a GMS/SH (its 8' long and 12' in
diameter). Of course add to that, ATGM's are getting to the Supersonic range
pretty soo....
The big thing about Missiles is that just like mortars they can carry a pretty
good sized warhead in their larger versions (HEAT round effectiveness is tied
directly to warhead diameter). Add to that just now they are able to choose a
top attack vs a frontal impact.
> At 9:58 AM -0400 7/9/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Missiles are just about to the point that they aren't going to rely on
warheads as much as velocity. There's been a design study going on for a while
looking at an ATGM that has a hard penetrator for a body and is accellerated
to super sonic speed by a ramjet.
> should take up space that would have been used for payload. Also
What of the increase in explosives technology? Look at the technology 100
years ago vs now.
> But when talking about balancing factors, they should be equalized.
As ECM gets more sophisticated so do the Penaids and stealth levels added to
the missile warheads. As they get faster, defense
engagement times get shorter. Look at the current trend in Anti-ship
missile defense. The Close in range has gotten further out with the super
sonic missiles.
> To me a GMS has quite a number more advantages than disadvantages (both
I prefer a mix frankly. A platoon of tanks with MDC 4s and a platoon
of MICVs with GMS/Hs is a great mix. It makes the bad guy work hard
to defend against fire. The tanks tend to stay back with the MICVs.
> At 10:29 AM -0400 7/9/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Obviously the system has a hard time making something like an Ontos. But then
a 105mm RR isn't the same as a 105mm gun. Velocities are way different.
> I think that the weapon number limited to vehicle size is a good rule.
This works as well. Given the way the Israelis like to make their Armoured
vehicles bristle with MGS and other light weapons...
> Still, it would be
Yep. A nice dedicated weapon that has little utility outside it's scope.
Better to spread those APSWs around to other vehicles as well. The Gun Trucks
of vietnam are a great example.
> Would like 'advanced' engines to take less or more capacity? I can see
Hmm, same is a nice balance I think. Given how abstract the system is with
regards to sizes and weapons fits. It'd be nice to have the option for a
adding superior to boost range bands on weapons and such. But perhaps that's
too much...
> At 4:49 PM +0200 7/9/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
This is one facet that could be included. It would add additional complexity
though...
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 7:56 AM +0200 7/10/01, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
The whole idea behind the Ontos was you fired off all 6 rounds (you could
ripple fire them you know!) and then move to cover to reload. Still 6 105mm
RRs would make me keep my head down.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:05:09 -0400 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
Number crunching can be 'good' (finding a set of designs that meets the
nation you are planning the force to represent - Native People's Circle
are GMS/H happy for DS2, Imperial Japanese Corporation (yes, it's a
nation - Corporation) absolutely *loves* HELs, etc.
*or*
It can be bad (min-Maxing to win those tournaments). But that's just
my NSHO.
> Mobility Types:
Double agree - except for 'flavor' or to copy an existing design why
indeed pick either Slow tracked or slow wheeled. Assuming your power allows
(Native People's Circle use CFE almost exclusively) why bother with Slow GEV?
> I agree about top armor, except that there should be a point cost
I would love to field some open topped NPC vehicles in DS2 but if the point
cost was lower it would feel better. Of course those LLP (League of Latino
Peoples) SLAMs would have a field day then...
> Since armor cost is linear, there is no reason not to take max armor.
Either less cost, a boost to mobility/mobility type or....
> -----
<snip>
Gracias,