I don't see much discussion of DSII on the list, but I'll venture a few
questions and observations, in any case.
1) The strength of artillery in our (admittedly few) games seems pretty
overwhelming. Granted, we haven't got all the intricate relationships between
ground forces, air forces, CBR, and artillery all worked out yet, but it does
seem pretty tough. And while modern AFVs are designed specifically to help
protect troops from artillery, it seems pretty damnged effective. (I realize
that most modern vehicle don't offer much protection against cluster bomblets
[MAK rounds], but these don't seem to cost enough by comparison to HEF.
2) Do SLAMs seem not to function as they are discribed (that is, rocket pods
shooting clusters of unguided rockets)? It would seem reasonable to run tem
like artillery, with varing areas and strength of effect. It should be able to
be used against both infantry and vehicles (as they have historically and are
currently used).
3) Why are there no provisions for artillery direct fire? Modern Soviet
doctrin still calls for the use of direct artillery HE fire on suspected enemy
positions. This cannot be done under the rules currently. Indeed, should an
artillery unit spot enemy forces (and no other observers can see the enemy),
they cannot act in their own defense. Have others dealt with this, and if so,
how?
4) Innovative "Chartless" combat system? Ha! Only because they provided no
quick reference charts is it a chartless game. What a pain to constantly be
looking up how many chits to draw and which types affect. Sure, if all you do
is fight vehicle vs. vehicle direct fire weapons, then it's easy, but throw in
artillery, infantry, aircraft, etc. and it becomes a great morass of searching
for pertinant rules. For example, with artillery, you must refer to two
separate places on p. 39 for the roll necessary to successfully call artillery
and then to see how many chits are drawn per weapon, and then refer to p. 29
for the colors of effective chits.
Just a few thoughts. Any other perspectives out there?
Regards,
> Rob wrote:
Good, 'cause I like this game.:)
> 1) The strength of artillery in our (admittedly few) games seems
Amen. It's like that for a reason. Artillery is the "real killer" of modern
warfare; infantry and armour just don't compare. The principle limitations for
arty are their ammo capacity (generally three effective strikes) and the
unreliable nature of calling down fire.
> 2) Do SLAMs seem not to function as they are discribed (that is,
Hmmm. I suppose you could do it that way, but the limited area-effect
rules seem to work for me.
> 3) Why are there no provisions for artillery direct fire?
Everyone I know allows arty to direct fire automatically with no spotter. We
assume that if the enemy gets that close, the crew is going to stop listening
to the C.O.'s support requests and start blasting those guys coming over the
hill!
> 4) Innovative "Chartless" combat system? Ha! Only because they
Not going to argue that one. I think someone posted a well-organized
system of using colored dice? Anyone care to back me up on that one?
> Just a few thoughts. Any other perspectives out there?
Keep on fightin', Rob!
Christopher
"No, I said arty on oh-one-one-oh, not oh-oh-one-oh! Uh oh."
Date sent: 18-JUL-1996 08:44:11
> Not going to argue that one. I think someone posted a well-organized
All I said was that as the quality dice is dependant upon the unit quality (or
system quality) and as the unit chit is a certain colour to indicate quality,
why not buy dice types by colour so that the die colour matches the chit
colour? Then it is clear which die you start with before you start shifting up
and down (for which you might make up a colour bar for easy reference. Crayons
anybody?).
I was talking about Stargrunts II, but I suppose any FMA game could benefit.
(Do the quality dice and chit colours match in DS2 and SG2?)
And no, they were coloured dice not colored dice (dice with an english
accent 8-) ).
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 23:47:53 -0700
How do you, or can you handle having the arty commander spot his own group's
indirect fire? The way we played last weekend (my only time so far), the act
of spotting and calling in is an activation. That unit's activation being
spent, the arty cannot hit on the next activation, unless, there is a specific
exception to the activation rules.
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 08:46:11 PST
...
> Here's my reasoning behind all of this. The time delay for calling
calling
> in a grid reference, what the target is, and what mission you would
called
> fire/indirect fire is BLIND fire, while direct fire is LOS (line of
Sure, but if all other command stands can call in indirect fire, why
can the arty's own commander not do it? It's a game-procedural problem,
which disallows something which can and does happen in the real world.
> >> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 23:47:53 -0700
> far), the act of spotting and calling in is an activation. That unit's
> activation being spent, the arty cannot hit on the next activation,
[rules lawyer mode on]
p. 39, under artillery: "Any UNIT COMMAND element or a Specialised Observer
Team...Requesting the fire counts as the COMBAT ACTION for that
ELEMENT, although other elements of the unit may perform other actions."
Even according to the rules as written, therefore, one can make a case for
artillery units spotting for themselves. The Command element of an artillery
battery uses his action to "spot", and then the rest of the elements can
immediately lay down the artillery fire.
If the command element fails to call in the artillery due to poor leadership,
well, maybe the artillery unit didn't lower the guns for direct fire fast
enough or something.
I agree that it may make more sense for artillery to be able to direct fire
their weapons more easily, but in the same breath everyone's talking about how
powerful artillery is, and there should be some satisfaction involved in a
commander managing to get his tanks close enough to take out that pesky
artillery directly.
Here's another thing I suggest for dealing with artillery: Aircraft.
Particularly, VTOLs. A VTOL armed with an HEL or GMS/H can sit in
"high"
mode outside of 36" of defending Area Defense Systems and pick-off
on-board artillery all day long. Maybe it's cheesey, but then your
opponent starts arming himself with anti-VTOL VTOL's, which are a lot
less expensive (because it takes a smaller gun to take out a poorly
armored VTOL), and then you start arming yourself with anti-anti-VTOL
VTOL's and you get this big aircraft battle in the middle of the ground action
where everyone's trying to establish air superiority and the artillery's
trying to get rid of all its ordnance before one side or the
other wins air superiority and it's pretty cool.
Off-board artillery is an entirely different matter, however.
> On Thu, 18 Jul 96 7:54:23 CDT jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) writes:
> How do you, or can you handle having the arty commander spot his own
Here's my reasoning behind all of this. The time delay for calling artillery
fire is just that. You act as an FO (Forward Observer) calling in a grid
reference, what the target is, and what mission you would like fired. The
artillerc COM (command) designates the fire, orders the fire, and eventually
it is inbound with a spotter round fired for correction to the plot, rthen the
firing for effect. The difference is artillery firing DIRECT can see their
target, make their own descisions, and correct their own fire, no different
than can a tank crew. Remember it this way: called
fire/indirect fire is BLIND fire, while direct fire is LOS (line of
sight) firing.
Does that make sense to anyone besides me?
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:05:02 PST
...
> On Thu, 18 Jul 96 10:41:55 CDT jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
writes:
> >Sure, but if all other command stands can call in indirect fire,
I guess I wasn't clear enough as to why this was an issue.
1. The mortars were behind obscuring woods, so they couldn't use direct fire.
2. Their commander was at the woods edge and could see the target.
3. The arty falls in the activation following the observation.
4. The act of observation counts as the activation for that unit, hence they
do not have another activation to spend on delivering the munitions.
Ways of handling this problem:
1. Make observation not an action, so the chit can be placed in another unit's
activation. (Feels odd, but may be workable)
2. Bring IF artillery called in by the unit's commander down immediately,
rather than on the next activation. (Makes arty pretty butch)
> On Thu, 18 Jul 96 10:41:55 CDT jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) writes:
The point is, he doesn't have to call indrect fire unless he is seperated from
the unit. If a line of sight is traceable froim the arty unit to the target,
it is direct fire and therefore doesn't need to be called it.
Or am I missing the question?
On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) thumann@netcom.com (Charles
> Thumann) writes:
> Here's another thing I suggest for dealing with artillery: Aircraft.
Now it sounds like the modern military ... ;)
> On Thu, 18 Jul 96 14:35:30 CDT jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) writes:
I guess knowing modern military, it has just never been an issue for me. The
lag also is attributed to unit orginization. If artillery is in support, it
takes longer or maybe won't come at all. If it's attached, you get it when
your in priority. But if it's INTEGRAL, it's on the way ASAFP.
I can see your delimna though... but I think I would still allow it.
Date sent: 19-JUL-1996 08:42:32
> Here's another thing I suggest for dealing with artillery: Aircraft.
> action where everyone's trying to establish air superiority and the
May I suggest you pick up SG-II. It has a pretty damn good system for
establishing air superiority and tracking incoming off board artilary.
I think it would work well in DS-II. Perhaps 'High' mode could count as
the loiter box and would make VTOLs at high mode subject to attack by off
table AA assets (Air superiority fighters, Long range missiles etc)?
> Off-board artillery is an entirely different matter, however.
Why not send your VTOLs down the opponents off table track to attack his
off table units? 8-)