[DS] APSW's

4 posts ยท Dec 9 2003 to Dec 10 2003

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:10:25 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [DS] APSW's

Found this interesting website:

Now, I've never played 2300 (just T2K), but this section caught my interest:

"APSW (Anti-Personnel Support Weapon): I decided to
divide this category into two subcategories, APSW/L
(light) which includes small caliber MGs and APSW/H
(Heavy) which covers HMGs, light plasma guns, AGLs,
etc. APSW/L uses DS II APSW firing data, while APSW/H
fires like a RFAC/1 except that it draws no chits
against armored vehicles at Long and Medium ranges,
and Yellow chits at Close range. APSW/H takes up 2
capacity points and may not be installed as a "free"
APSW. APSW/H costs 6 points."

This reflects my sentiments on APSW's, just wonderingwhat others thought?

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:19:23 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [DS] APSW's

> --- Brian B <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oops:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1966/ds2300.htm

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:48:59 +0100

Subject: Re: [DS] APSW's

> 3B^2 wrote:

> ...while APSW/H

This makes it less effective as an anti-infantry weapon than an APSW/L
in most situations (2 chits at Red validity out to 12", vs. 3 chits at varying
validities out to the same range) - the APSW/H has a very slight edge
against dug-in troops, but the /L is better against troops in soft cover
as well as in the open.

Another option is to simply allow Size Class 0.5 weapons - size, cost
and
shooting as if they were Size/1 weapons of the same type, but divide any

numerical chits drawn against vehicle targets (not against infantry!) in

half. While this won't help HMGs against infantry (they're still stuck at 2
chits, unless the entire RFAC category is improved), it lets us
differentiate between eg. PIGs and AGLs :-/

Later,

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:55:47 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [DS] APSW's

> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> This makes it less effective as an anti-infantry

Yeah, I picked up on that too late to retract my comments. Still, it gives me
a starting point of reference....