Since there's so much discussion about DSII recently, I'd like to share
something I ran into a couple of days ago. Someone (a former US Army artillery
officer) from anothing mailing list had amassed a list of complaints about
Dirtside II from a while ago. (when he played it) I'd like to hear some
discussion from you guys about these problems (some of them might not be
"problems" per se since they are complaints that DSII doesn't follow the
modern pattern), and maybe inspire:) some house rules ideas. Maybe the
designers of the game can also share some info on why they chose to design
some particular features the way they did?
Sorry for the wide margins on the text version, but that was how it came
originally. Attached is a Word version, which (hopefully) isn't too big for
the list.
[quoted original message omitted]
Sorry
NO ATTACHMENTS ALLOWED - no matter how small
24Kb word files translates to a lot of ASCII MIME code.
FYI - there is a list web page to post this stuff for
download - Andrew has the details IIRC
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> Since there's so much discussion about DSII recently, I'd like to
I think that most of these complaints are caused by attempts to fit DSII to
the weapons in use today (ie, the weapons that were designed
10-20 years ago). The points they make about hit/kill probabilities,
ranges etc all fit those weapons.
However, DSII fits the weapons being designed today (and thus may come
into use in 5-10 years) pretty well. Some of those weapons - the Strix
mortar grenade, for example - are already deployed but have never been
used in combat. Of course, this means that DSII is probably as good a
simulation of 23rd century ground combat as Napoleonic rules are for
simulating modern fighting <g>
> Attached is a Word version, which (hopefully) isn't too big for the
Put it like this: 24 kB of small, empty squares are *MUCH; MUCH; MUCH* too
big. Especially if the text file says the same thing...
> Dirtside II rules eval
In reality, you mean? Of course. Weapon mass vs armour penetration doesn't
scale either, but the relationships are way too complex for me to want them as
game mechanics <shrug>
> Mean damage per draw is in excess of 1.5
If you count all colours and assign numerical values to the special chits,
yes. The mean numerical damage per draw is 1.33, split as 0.66 Red, 0.33
Green, 0.33 Yellow. Since very few weapons count all colours I don't see this
as a problem.
> B) Infantry too hard to kill? It is almost impossible to kill
Or APSWs, close assaults etc. KE rounds aren't very good at killing
dispersed infantry even now, but I suspect that even HKP- or HVC-armed
tanks would carry some sort of small-calibre frag rounds as well as
their rod penetrators for use against infantry.
> C) ATGMs too good vs armor. For example, the GMS/H is a class
ATGMs which hit *should* have a high kill probability, at least until tank
designers start putting 3' armoured roofs on their designs (but by
then we've improved our warheads further still :-/ ).
The important word here is "which hit" - in DSII, as well as on
tomorrow's tank battlefield if today's development trends hold firm, you fight
ATGMs primarily with ECM and point defence rather than with armour.
> 2) Artillery
Don't think so. Trajectory-corrected munitions coupled with good
positioning equipment for the Fire Observers means that you'll have a
pretty good chance of putting your rounds - your *first* rounds - where
you want them, and the rounds should be in the air within a minute or two
after the call arrives. 'Course, it'll take a couple extra minutes
for the rounds to cover the 40+ km from a heavy artillery battery to
the target zone, but that's covered by the single activation allowed to the
enemy IMO.
> B) Kills armor too easily
While I'm not allowed to quote solid figures, I can safely say that
target-seeking munitions like the Strix need far less than 14 rounds to
kill an AFV (including tanks) - unless of course the vehicle is
protected by ECM/camouflage or point defence. DSII allows neither to
stop incoming arty, but it should IMO.
> C) Excessively ineffective on infantry
Militia in the open takes ~26% losses when hit by open-sheaf light
artillery. That's only high casualties, not really high :-/ The moral
here is, of course: "Fire closed sheafs for effect" <g>
> D) Range Problems: Light artillery of the type that is
In 10 years, this range will have improved by at least 50%. I strongly suspect
that it'll improve further still over the next two centuries
:-/
> E) Counter Battery: CBR data goes into main data system,
Agreed. If you want to use a central database rather than a CBR attached to
the vehicle you'd need an extra communications roll, though, and the CBR
vehicle itself should always be vulnerable to enemy action (much like an ADS
vehicle). (This is the main reason why you *don't* want the CBR anywhere close
to your batteries!)
> 3) Command and control
Morale is pretty much pointless for vehicles, but not for infantry IME. Or,
rather, infantry is much more affected by low morale than vehicles
but usually takes longer to die :-/
There should be a way to scale morale effects up to the company level
at least (and maybe to the battalion/task force level as well) - with
the good communications in use in DSII everyone in the force will hear private
Jones screaming when his guts are ripped out by shrapnel, not just his closest
buddies...
> 4) ADA
Yes and yes. So should the ordnance used by aircraft, however - and the
supply of AA missiles should be limited, preferrably handled like artillery
munitions (ie, when they're fired, they're gone).
> 5) The objective markers being placed by the defender makes no
If this refers to the Attack/Defence scenarios only, I'd modify this to
"The objective markers all being placed by the defender makes no sense.";
instead I'd use the standard objective placement. The attacker doesn't know
exactly what ground is important to the defender either.
There are many examples of badly-planned attacks where the
pre-determined objectives have been gained, but where it turned out
that the objectives were worthless in the long run (and usually rather costly
in the short). Should such a hollow "victory" count as a victory at all? It
would, if the attacker places all objectives.
> C) The attackers objective may or may not be related to
Scenario victory conditions are handled in any fashion the scenario designer
likes, which makes this objection irrelevant IMO.
> Relatively minor stuff.
If he means to use one fire team or vehicle on overwatch while the rest of the
platoon advances, I agree. If he means something else, I don't understand what
it is.
> 8) You cannot effectively clear mines with arty. It just doesn't
<g> Now where's John when we need him? <g>
> On Fri, 28 May 1999, Tim Jones wrote:
> NO ATTACHMENTS ALLOWED - no matter how small
Sorry about that... BTW what kind of mail readers do people use? How do
attachments show up? Oerjan was talking about looking at a lot of little
squares?
> On Sat, 29 May 1999, Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 1999, Tim Jones wrote:
well, i can give you the worst-case secanrio. i use pine, a text-mode
mail client, running on a DEC unix machine, accessed via telnet (well, ssh). i
can save attachments to disk, but i can't read word files and i certainly
can't run win95 executables. if i really need to, i can export jpegs, gifs,
html, text and other sensible file types to my website where i can view them
via a browser, as long as they're not bigger than 17 kB, as then i'd go over
my quota.
and then, when the server's down, it's telnet oxmail 110 | tee pop.log
...
so, i'd be happiest if people use standard, plaintext email, and if you have
something chunkier you want to send along, put it on the list's website, and
post a link to it.
to make it a little easier to use the website, i've put up a readme file:
http://members.xoom.com/gzg_l/readme.html
any comments or additions would be most welcome. perhaps the site should
be mentioned in the meta-faq, or in the list signup message?
tom