This vehicle might look impressive, & survive lots of things thrown at it, but
it still dies to the first *boom* chit drawn it's way. Check out the V2 below
it which I have modified; I've downsized it 1 class, & discarded some of the
unneccessary bells & whistles. The ablative is still not necessary, but only
cost an extra 7 points overall, so I left it in. This more than halves the
cost of your ubervehicle, yet retains the offensive firepower of the original.
Due to the balancing nature of the boom, I have found that numbers are more
important than survivability, and stealth/ecm more important than
armour.
*****
Original version
Equipment Item VSP : BVP Spaces Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 5 25: 0 25 25 Armor class 5, Ablative 25: 53 25 53 Fusion
Generation Plant 25: 53 25 85
Fast tracked 25 : 53 25 106
Amphibious 25 : 53 25 117
1 class 5 MDC in Full traverse turret 25 : 53 10 167
with Superior fire control 25 : 53 10 197
1 class 2 DFFG in Full traverse turret 25 : 53 6 227
2 APSW's 25 : 53 5 231
Superior ECM 25 : 53 5 276
Level 4 stealth 25 : 53 5 676
Superior PDS 25 : 53 1 736
APFC belt 25 : 53 0 761
Backup systems 25 : 53 0 904
Version 2
Equipment Item VSP : BVP Spaces Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle, class 4 20: 0 20 20 Armor class 4, Ablative 20: 38 20 38 Fusion
Generation Plant 20: 38 20 61 Fast tracked 20: 38 20 76 Amphibious 20: 38 20
84
1 class 5 MDC in Full traverse turret 20 : 38 5 134
with Superior fire control 20 : 38 5 164
1 class 2 DFFG in Full traverse turret 20 : 38 1 194
2 APSW's 20 : 38 0 198
Superior ECM 20 : 38 0 243
Level 2 stealth 20 : 38 0 403
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
G'day Brendan,
> discarded some of the unneccessary bells & whistles. The ablative is
Guess it does come a bit down to taste though and what your opponents bring
on, I wouldn't dare come on without backup systems and PDS on my larger
vehciles, get my myself whooped worse than ever if I did. Though I do agree
numbers help, and taking yourself down to size class 1 stealth may be fun (for
the look you get off the other guy when your size 7 walker has signature 1),
but it is a bit extravagant;)
Beth
> *****
Just a quick mention (not all that important really <G>) - the cost
should be around 926 I believe. Not sure where the error occurred as the
program I'm using automatically applies some of the requirements
(ex. power plant w/ size and mobility).
> Version 2
This one should be 416. Ah... there may be the problem - at the armor
- Ablative and Reactive cost an addition 10% per level of the armor so
your BVP on line two should be 44 (+120%). Same sort of thing with
the first example - BVP on line two should be 62.5 (+150%)
They look like they'd be fun to run in long range duels with the enemy,
excelling at hitting at range. In short range duels possibly involving denser
terrain they're likely to be overwhelmed by superior numbers due to their high
cost.
Taking off some or most of the stealth would bring both down
significantly in cost - dropping the stealth down to 1 on the first
version cuts the cost by around 380 points and dropping the stealth all
together on version 2 drops the cost by 160 or so. This allows
one to purchase 2/5 more of them. This is just my thinking on the
subject so ignore it or use it at your whim.
These were done using Andy Cowell's DSII generation page. I think the error
might be in your program, as the first BPV uses 110%
armour cost (5 x 20 + 10) & the second uses 90% armour cost (4 x 20 +
10).
I'm not sure where you got 150% & 120% from.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> These were done using Andy Cowell's DSII generation page.
Hmmm... the 120% was from 4 x 20% (base armor) + 4 x 10% (ablative
additional cost) for 120% and the 150% was 5 x 20% (base armor) + 5 x
10% (ablative additional cost). The section in the building rules on
this can be easily misread - "ABLATIVE or REACTIVE armour each cost
and ADDITIONAL 10% of the VSP per level of the Armour; eg: Armour 2R cost 60%
of VSP in total".
I sure hope it's not a problem in my application. I don't have any time to go
back and review it at the moment <G>. Oh well... it could be. Even a month of
outside beta testing doesn't catch everything. The application was originally
going to be sold as a utility for DS2 unfortunately it didn't end up being
feasible to master CDs and sell. Oh well...
Later,
Ok, I read the critiques, and took them into consideration, and while they may
have some effect on my design, I'm not sure how much. Let me give you the
rationale:
As someone has postulated, the culture, economy, and politics of the power
using the vehicle will have as much to do with the strategy and tactics behind
it as the need to "Just Win, Baby." So let me propose for you the
power owning this vehicle I designed:
In my game world, the country I represent is Cascadia (for sentimental
reasons). Cascadia is made up of most of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon,
and Northern California. While the terrain is in most parts of this "Nation"
made up of mountains and forests, it's borders are another story, especiall
it's hostile ones. To the south, it faces the Bear Republic across the
Northern stretches of the San Joaquin valley, as well as in the Sierras and
the coastal ranges. To the east, it faces Deseret across a high desert
terrain, sometimes flat, sometimes mountainous. So in terms of the type of
capabilities it's vehicles must display, the range is quite varied.
The economy of Cascadia is built on hi-tech (Microsoft and Intel, and
other spinoffs), as well as the transportation industry (think Boeing,
Kenworth, etc., also excellent sources of future aircraft, spacecraft, and
AFV's), and
international banking/business (Vancouver/Victoria have in this world
become the new Hong Kong). So the nation is rich in industry, natural
resources, and agriculture, but low on one important thing: People
Therefore, Cascadia has no choice but to rely on a high-tech, low-mass
military.
Combining these two main driving forces behind Cascadian Defense Strategy,
they've come up with small numbers of several different types of units:
(Please remember, the titles of the units are borrowed from modern
terminology, their definitions will vary some)
Cascadian Armed Forces:
Armor: Units designated as "Armor" units lean towards heavy and main battle
tanks,
mostly fast tracked. The Boeing M-191G Mass Driver Cannon (read: MDC 5)
is the favored weapon, because of it's versatility (greater damage curve than
a comparable laser, greater range than a DFFG). The CAF can replace tanks more
easily than crews, so survivability and defensive systems are highly valued.
Most Battalion Combat Teams are anchored by 1-2 HBT Platoons, and 2-3
MBT Platoons.
Mechanized Infantry:
Mech. Inf. form the backbone of the CAF's Infantry corps. CAF APC's are
well-armed, but their armament is not designed to take on MBT's, since
they seldom operate without the presence of Armor units. The DFFG 2 is the
main
weapon, because it can provide devastating anti-infatry fire at range,
and
because it is an effective close-in anti-armor weapon if needed for
defense. (Read: Class 3, 2 infantry elements, 1 DFFG 2)
Armored Cavalry:
The AC is the elite ground element of the CAF. Using Anti-Grav vehicles,
it is used for Recon, fast attack, harrassment, flanking manouvers, and rapid
response when nothing else can get their fast. CAF AC units are even trained
in blue water tactics (In the War for Northern California, CAF AC units
actually left Coos Bay, Oregon, and travelled oversea to hit the Bear
Republic's forces from the rear near Eureka, California). Because they often
operate as smaller units on their own, AC units are more integrated that the
Armor or Mech. Inf. The basic unit is the lance (Forgive me), consisting of
4-6 vehicles. These can be tanks, support, or MICV's. several lances
form a squadron, and several squadrons form a troop. because they rely on
hit-and
run tactics, AC tanks tend to be smaller and less robust than the treaded
Armor units, but still pack tremendous firepower. CAF AC grav MICV's are,
surprisingly, bigger and more well-armed than those of the mech inf. In
addition, the infantry units they carry, all organic to the AC, are powered
armor troopers, as opposed to the line troops of the Mech inf.
Artillery:
The CAF leans towards a twofold strategy - Heavy artillery offboard,
medium onboard. They use almost no light artillery, feeling that two or three
big batteries are more effective.
Air cav:
The CAF uses the term Air Cav to refer to it's attack choppers.
Airmobile Infantry.
Due to it's mountainous terrain, the CAF maintains a considerable (for it's
size)AI force, and even it's Mech Inf troops are given rudimentary
helicopter-borne training as part of basic infantry school.
There's also a well trained intel coprs, combat engineer/sapper coprs,
etc, but these give you some idea of the philosophy I'm developing. I may
change my main design, or I may keep the monster as is and use fewer of it
backed by a few more slightly smaller units.